Wayne Easter

[Privilege, March 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, although the question of privilege I am about to raise happened at committee, I raise it with you because I believe the actions of government members have severely affected my ability to do my job as a member of Parliament in this place by, in effect, limiting who may be willing, and I emphasize the word “willing”, to come forward to committees as witnesses. I will explain why the emphasis is on the word “willing”.

As a member of this place for almost 20 years, I saw what occurred yesterday at the Standing Committee on International Trade as a shameful display of a direct attempt to smear, through implication and innuendo, a witness asked to testify at that committee.

During the course of the meeting, five witnesses testified. As his opening line of questioning, the member for Kelowna—Lake Country, who is a privy councillor, asked only one witness, Professor Gus Van Harten, who is affiliated with the Osgoode Hall Law School, to name his political affiliations and donations to political parties.

I specifically note that the suggestion to the committee that it hear from this witness in relation to its study of a Canada–India trade agreement was submitted to the committee, according to the clerk of the committee, by me as Liberal international trade critic and also by the member for Vancouver Kingsway. In other words, this witness was suggested by members of opposition parties.

I raise this matter in the House for the simple reason that the conduct of government members yesterday could well impede my ability as a member of Parliament in having witnesses I propose willing to appear before any committee of this place. After reading the proceedings of yesterday's Conservative inquisition, prospective witnesses I or any other member of any opposition party propose to any committee could well reconsider appearing before a committee because they may be subject to such a disgraceful interrogation on issues that have nothing whatsoever to do with the issue before any committee. This, I would submit, is nothing more than an effort at intimidation of prospective witnesses.

Do we now need to warn witnesses whom opposition members invite to committee and who expect to testify on specific issues that they could be subject to an inquisition by Conservative members related to their personal lives, related to their political affiliations or related to their religious beliefs? That is most certainly what happened yesterday and where we may be going. It was apparent in the line of questioning by the member for Kelowna—Lake Country that a substantial amount of research on Mr. Van Harten had been done by the government in preparation for the meeting yesterday.

This is from the blues of that meeting. The member for Kelowna—Lake Country said:

Now I just have a list of about eleven times in the last couple of years you've donated to the NDP.

Someone went to a lot of trouble to research Mr. Van Harten. Whether it was the member for Kelowna—Lake Country is irrelevant. It certainly was a government investigation. I note as well that neither the member for Kelowna—Lake Country nor any other Conservative member of the committee asked any other witnesses appearing before the committee that same kind of question.

I now draw the Speaker's attention to the following reference found on page 1,068 of O'Brien and Bosc, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, 2009. It states:

There are no specific rules governing the nature of questions which may be put to witnesses appearing before committees, beyond the general requirement of relevance to the issue before the committee.

The issue before the committee was that of examining a comprehensive economic partnership agreement, or CEPA, with India. Mr. Van Harten was asked to appear on this issue in relation to the ongoing matter of a foreign investment agreement that is currently under negotiation with India.

The question posed by the member for Kelowna—Lake Country had nothing whatsoever to do with the issue before the committee. It was done for the purpose of attempting to discredit the testimony of the witness, to impugn the testimony of the witness, to place on the record an innuendo that somehow the political affiliation of the witness taints the testimony he provides. The nature of the question, which remains on the permanent public record, was done with the purpose of maligning the witness.

Mr. Speaker, I would hope you will at the very least consider my point of privilege and give some thought to how you could use your good offices to ensure the kind of disgraceful and maligning interrogation of a witness invited to present before a committee of this House never occurs again.

Simply put, what happened at committee smacks of McCarthyism. If I am to ask witnesses to come, do I have to tell them that their lives, their political affiliations and their families are going to be investigated by the Conservative research department and they may be attacked by the Conservative attack machine at committee?

That is where this goes. I raised the question myself with another witness, and said I raised it in jest: who did they contribute to?

Mr. Speaker, I raise this point with you today because I think if you look at the records of the committee yesterday, you are going to see a terrible deterioration in terms of how committees operate and in terms of how questions are asked of witnesses. I think that kind of research into their lives and that interrogation will even jeopardize some witnesses from coming before committees.

If it is at the ethics committee and it is related to a political situation, fine, but this happened at a committee in which we were discussing Canada-India trade. I think it is wrong and I just ask you, Mr. Speaker, to use your good offices to look at this and come up with at least some suggestions so that this does not happen again. I think it is unfair, and it jeopardizes the availability of certain witnesses we may want to invite before committee. It is plainly wrong.

[Points of Order, March 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development gave serious misinformation to this House twice during question period.

She was ordered by the judge to pay out the—

[Employment Insurance, March 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, in 2011, Natalya Rougas, a mother on parental leave battling cancer, won her appeal against the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development for access to sickness benefits. The judge made it clear that the law already provided for this benefit. Now we find the minister ignored the ruling and continued to deny sick women benefits to which they were legally entitled.

Why did the minister not respect the 2011 ruling? How many sick parents has she cheated out of their benefits since?

[The Budget, March 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with a lot of the remarks the member made. In fact, I see this particular budget as quite a work of fiction, which gives us nothing to deal with, really, in terms of numbers in the House of Commons. We cannot compare department to department or anything at all.

My NDP colleagues talked about economic development and prospects, and I quote from the document. It says:

Indeed, lower prices for Canadian crude oil, as well as for natural gas, relative to global benchmarks are reducing gross domestic product (GDP) by about $28 billion per year, translating into over $4 billion annually in potential federal government revenues.

I agree. We have probably become too dependent on energy and have not looked after the manufacturing sector enough. However, what worries me in this particular statement is that we really do not have an outlet for bitumen from the oil sands, and it is impacting our economy to the tune of $4 billion in revenues for the government and $28 billion per year in GDP. That is serious.

I wonder where the member stands on that, relative to attempting to get the Keystone pipeline opened up so that we can, in fact, move more product out.

[The Budget, March 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary talked about some of the messages being received with respect to this. Our leader said that this is not about the economy but rather about politics and propaganda. That is the message that sums this particular budget up at its best. It is basically utter nonsense. The building Canada plan really does not kick in until practically the next decade. The skills development is a long time down the road when we need it now.

My colleague talked about the employment insurance tax on workers and businesses going up three times over the next three years in this budget. That is against the background of the government having cancelled the five-week pilot project. The five-week pilot project in my province alone will take about $7 million out of the pockets of people that they would have used for food, groceries, electricity and all the other things they have to do.

What is with the government in terms of its attack on seasonal industries while still taxing workers and businesses more under this budget? Could the member answer that?

[National Defence, March 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is not unusual to see mud as a diversion from that member. However, we could get into the parliamentary secretary's robocall company, 3D Contact Inc., that violated CRTC rules, if he wants to go down that path.

Let us get to the administration and the management of government. That is what the question is about.

Let us remember the promise of 650 troops for Goose Bay, the promise for a rapid reaction battalion and the UAV squadron promise. They never came through. The Prime Minister never delivered, nor did Mr. Penashue.

Why did the—

[Ethics, March 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will go to any length to blame others and cover for the disgraced former minister, Peter Penashue. The Conservatives threw Reg Bowers, his former campaign manager and official agent, under the bus, even though they appointed him as a highly qualified member to the offshore petroleum board.

That has not stopped the controversy over Penashue's law-breaking deeds. Is that why the Prime Minister has spent thousands of taxpayers' dollars to pay back Penashue's illegal donations, and now uses the PMO to promote him?

[Georgina Palmer, March 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I stand to pay tribute to Georgina Palmer of Rocanville, Saskatchewan, who recently passed away in her 99th year. Georgina showed in so many ways the character of rural people who lived through the difficult years of the dirty thirties. Her home was open to all, night and day, and I was fortunate as a young 23-year-old farm activist to stay and learn from her the rural life of Saskatchewan prairie farmers.

An active member of the National Farmers Union and the Prosperity Women's Institute, she worked hard for her community. She loved to relate the stories of growing up in the Bear Creek area, which adjoins the Qu'Appelle Valley. Not at all ready to slow down after retiring from the farm, she worked her garden and did beadwork, quilting, crocheting and more. All of her work was for the benefit of others. She even started a thrift shop in her basement later in life, from which she made large donations to the community.

A beautiful life that came to an end, she died as she lived: as everyone's friend.

[Canada Revenue Agency, March 20th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I just had to shake my head. Wow. Is that not great? All this technology. The government would be happy if it could just get rid of people because that is what it is basically doing. It is getting rid of the people who are doing the jobs and who are receiving reasonable incomes. The Conservatives are, regardless of what the parliamentary secretary says, risking sensitive information. Has the member never seen the information that goes on Canada pension disability applications? That is very sensitive medical information in many cases.

The answer is quite simple. The government has not answered my question to date. Why is the minister from P.E.I. moving jobs off Prince Edward Island and trying to move government paid workers to lower minimum wage jobs? It just makes no sense in terms of our economy on the island and it makes no sense to Canadian taxpayers who deserve decent services and decent wages for the taxes they pay the government.

[Canada Revenue Agency, March 20th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, on November 22, I asked the Minister of National Revenue, Prince Edward Island's representative at the cabinet table, to explain the reasons her department decided that it is in the best interests of Canadians to have the document centre located in Borden-Carleton privatized.

The concern I raised is that privatizing the record centre, ending the relationship with the Government of Canada, which has direct control over these critical, important and private documents, could, in fact, create a problem in terms of security.

The termination of the Borden-Carleton centre with the Government of Canada is part of the government's attack on front-line services that are critical to Canadians, an attack that has most severely targeted Atlantic Canada as a region, and an attack by the government that is felt in every province and in a growing number of Atlantic communities.

What the minister from P.E.I. has done is ensure that more than 70 positions will be eliminated or replaced somewhere with minimum wage jobs by workers with no affiliation with the Government of Canada.

The submissions made to CRA by Canadians often consist of documents of a highly sensitive and personal nature. Most importantly, they could be medical records. When I asked the minister to explain her actions, which will risk sensitive documents, including medical records, the minister declared that “we do not keep medical records”.

Actually, Canadians must submit documents on a regular basis for tax and benefits purposes. CRA files, in fact, do contain medical records. The minister was wrong. The minister confirmed that the purpose of the privatization of the Borden-Carleton facility was to do records management at a lower cost.

How low will the Conservative government go? Is it willing to privatize to a facility paying minimum wage? Is the minister from P.E.I. willing to allow the private sector to move records off Prince Edward Island, away from the island, with the loss of those jobs as well? Does the minister not realize that paying decent wages and benefits lessens the risk to the security of the system? Citizens' records are important. To put records at risk is just not sensible.

On February 2, 2013, in response to a letter I sent to the Minister of National Revenue, the minister stated that her officials had consulted the Privacy Commissioner and Justice Canada with respect to the control of these sensitive documents.

What is interesting is that the Office of the Privacy Commissioner has acknowledged that on December 12 it would be making a decision. However, according to the Union of Taxation Employees, which had called for an investigation by the Privacy Commissioner, that investigation, as of today, has not been concluded.

The question remains: Why has the government taken this action to privatize or close this facility? Why did the minister not give us the proper information on what the Privacy Commissioner is really doing and where that investigation is at?