Siobhan Coady

[Ethics, May 31st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, today, Justice Oliphant found countless ethical violations involving Brian Mulroney.

Mr. Mulroney received a $2.1 million settlement from Canadians after he claimed, under oath, that he had no business relationship with Karlheinz Schreiber.

Justice Oliphant called Mr. Mulroney's excuses “patently absurd”.

In light of today's report, will the government immediately launch legal proceedings to recover the $2.1 million and launch a broader inquiry to finally get to the bottom of the Airbus affair?

[St. John's International Airport, May 31st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the St. John's International Airport is a gateway to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. On occasion, however, adverse weather conditions hamper and delay air traffic. Not having the right airport landing equipment can cause diversions and delays, which are holding the airport back from reaching its full potential as an economic enabler.

For example, decisions regarding plant and office locations, the booking of large conferences and entertainment events are influenced by this frustrating problem. The airport authority seeks to enhance the landing equipment and infrastructure by the installation of a category 3 instrument landing system and related airfield infrastructure. This would increase availability to 98.91% and would place St. John's International Airport in the same usability range as other major Canadian airports.

In the first year of implementation, 700 arriving and departing flights would potentially be spared disruption due to adverse weather conditions. Clearly, these improvements at the airport would be a priority. I encourage the federal government to act quickly to enhance this vital transportation link.

[May 11th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I am actually disappointed with the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour for not given responding to my question.

My question was about political interference. We now have a committee of the House looking into political interference. The Information Commissioner is looking into political interference. In the member's response, he certainly did not indicate that they were concerned about this issue and about the fact that there might have been some political interference.

The media made a simple request to get information about how much money was spent during the Olympics for a particular program. Surely the department, with all of its skill, was looking at how much money it would spend, where it would spend it and how it would spend it. I am sure the member would agree that this kind of planning and involvement by the department is essential.

I will again ask my question. Is he or is he not concerned with political interference in these requests?

[May 11th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, a few short weeks ago I asked the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development about her office's obstruction of an information request about a $5 million advertising campaign during the Olympics. As I said at the time, the media had a simple question, department officials had the answer and the minister's office intervened and hid the truth. The minister, in her response, stated:

We will be taking a look at this example and taking it into consideration to see how we can improve our processes in the future.

However, what has she done to improve that process? Based on her statements since, it seems that political control of information is even more rigid than we could have imagined. While appearing at the ethics committee this week, the minister stated that her office vetted everything government departments told reporters. So much for open and transparent government.

How far does this extend? If a reporter asks the department a simple question such as where Tim Hortons is, does it have to go to her political staff to get the answer?

The government has many trained communications staff to deal with media requests, whether complex or simple. The ministers in the government need to let them do their job without interference. In fact, the Privy Council Office was before the operations committee yesterday. It told us that it had hired an additional 20 communications experts under the economic action plan.

The minister's entire approach is not in principle with an open and transparent government. It seems as though on access to information requests and requests for information from journalists, the government's first instinct is to release as little information as possible, as late as possible and as incomplete as possible.

The Information Commissioner recently reported that access to information has reached a “red alert” level in some departments and Human Resources and Skills Development Canada received a “C” rating. In addition, the Information Commissioner is undertaking a systemic investigation to examine whether political interference in the processing of access requests is a cause of delay or unduly restricts disclosure under the act.

As we saw even today at the ethics committee, a political employee in the office of the Minister of Natural Resources, for example, could not even recall if he interfered with access to information requests more than once.

His colleague in the office of the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development is set to appear in front of the same committee on Thursday to address the exact issues I raised in my question. I hope he can explain not only to our colleagues on the committee but to all Canadians why they should not have been told that the government was spending nearly $5 million on self-promotion around the time of the Olympics.

Since the minister seems to embrace the notion that all requests need to be vetted before information is given to journalists, I am not terribly confident there will be an admission that political interference is a problem that needs to be addressed.

Again, what new measures will the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and the Prime Minister implement to ensure information is given to the media, that access to information is given to all Canadians, members of Parliament and everyone? So far we have only heard the minister's endorsement of political interference.

[Ethics, May 5th, 2010]

I am not quite sure what those members are afraid of, Mr. Speaker.

The Conflict of Interest Act prohibits public office holders from using their positions to further the private interest of a friend, regardless of whether public money changed hands. The Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and others gave special attention to funding applications for their friend, Rahim Jaffer. The minister's parliamentary secretary is now dodging committee this afternoon.

Will the minister explain, since compliance is a precondition to employment, what consequences will face those who violate the Conflict of Interest Act?

[Business of Supply, May 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, we all know that the Conservatives have been challenged of late with accountability and transparency. We can look to access to information and the recent comments of the Information Commissioner. We can look to the recent comments of the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

However, I have a question for my hon. colleague, who gave an outstanding speech. Why are the Conservatives so concerned about implementing a 2006 promise they made to Canadians in their platform? I will read from their platform, which said:

Require ministers and senior government officials to record their contacts with lobbyists.

All day long we have heard resistance from our Conservative colleagues on this matter. Why does my hon. colleague think that is?

[Business of Supply, May 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the Bloc will be supporting this important motion to close a gaping loophole in the Lobbying Act.

The member mentioned that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities has access to the $1 billion green fund. I am quite concerned about other parliamentary secretaries. We have not heard, for example, from the parliamentary secretaries or the Minister of Natural Resources.

Does the member share the concern that while we may be closing this loophole, it may be a little late, and that the government should be very forthcoming on what it already may know?

[Business of Supply, May 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are staring to remind me of an old expression in Newfoundland and Labrador that says, “Who knows the mind of a squid”. It is starting to become a reality here today.

My hon. colleague gave a very passionate and informed speech. He talked about parliamentary secretaries and their not being covered under the Lobbyist Act. Does he think it is an inadvertent omission or an intentional omission? With all the kind of subterfuge going on here today, I am starting to wonder myself.

[Business of Supply, May 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, first, I heard the hon. member talk about being open and transparent. The government is challenged in all kinds of ways about being open and transparent. There are all kinds of access to information items about which we could talk. We could talk about the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

The member is a parliamentary secretary and therefore knows that under the current Lobbying Act, whether it was deliberate not, we do not know, parliamentary secretaries are not designated public office holders. Why should he not be, if he is responsible for running the administrative dealings for his minister? We know of at least one parliamentary secretary who was delegated to be in charge of a $1 billion fund. Why would he not, if his goal is be open and transparent, allow parliamentary secretaries to be designated public office holders?

The second point I want to raise is he said his top priority was to implement the Conservatives' pledge to Canadians. In the 2006 platform, his government talked about requiring ministers and senior government officials to record their contacts with lobbyists. Why is the member not supportive of this amendment?

[Business of Supply, May 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, in their 2006 platform, the Conservatives said they would require ministers and senior government officials to record their contacts with lobbyists. We know that the government has been challenged with both accountability and transparency. We could talk about access to information, the Parliamentary Budget Officer and government appointments, any of those things.

When one of our colleagues was up this morning, the President of the Treasury Board used a pretty frail defence. He said it would be administratively awkward. I guess that is really what he was saying this morning. Would my hon. colleague like to comment on that? They have made this promise that they would ensure and require ministers and senior government officials to record their contacts with lobbyists, and now we hear from the minister responsible for the Treasury Board saying that it might be administratively awkward.