| PUBLICATION: | National Post |
| DATE: | 2003.06.27 |
| EDITION: | National |
| SECTION: | Financial Post: News |
| PAGE: | FP4 |
| BYLINE: | Ian Jack |
| SOURCE: | Financial Post |
| DATELINE: | OTTAWAParliamentary bills; Politics; Laws and regulations; Canada |
| NOTE: | ijack@nationalpost.com |
OTTAWA - A backbench Liberal MP thinks the government should adopt a variation of the old pizza delivery slogan -- 30 minutes or it's free -- when it comes to the amount of time it takes to evaluate new products coming to market.
Roy Cullen's private member's bill aims to force the federal government to be more accountable for the estimated $2-billion in user fees it collects from businesses each year.
He's managed to convince a surprising number of fellow MPs he's right. The bill has been approved by the House of Commons finance committee and is scheduled for a final vote in the House this autumn, which is further than most private member's bills get. If passed into law, bureaucrats would have to justify increased fees, give companies a venue for complaints other than the department that set up the fee in the first place, and reduce their charges if they fail to meet deadlines.
"The fees are priced by monopolies with very little accountability or scrutiny," he said in an interview. "My bill is out of frustration. The process isn't working."
The government began in the mid-Nineties to charge fees that can run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars for approvals of drugs and other federally regulated products from pacemakers to pesticides. The move, part of the attempt to eliminate the deficit, was supposed to be accompanied by service guarantees.
But the government simultaneously laid off thousands of civil servants, handing business the double whammy of increased cost and decreased service. It now takes twice as long to approve a new drug in Canada as it does in the European Union or the United States, and 1,100 days to evaluate a new "priority" pesticide, for which the government charges $180,000. For these pesticides the waiting time has increased 171% between 1998 and 2001, and is twice as long as in the United States.
In another case, the government charges $200,000 to evaluate new substances destined for the chemicals business, but as soon as a new substance is approved anyone can market it, according to Don Moors, spokesman for the coalition of businesses pushing for changes. This charge acts as a penalty for being first to market, he said.
The business groups say they don't mind paying for service -- in fact, they'd be willing to pay more if they were guaranteed reasonable turnaround by government and there were penalties for non-compliance.
"They're not prepared to pay more when it's a bottomless pit and there's no assurance of results. They're prepared to pay more if they are guaranteed performance," Mr. Cullen said.
It's not as though businesses can take their products elsewhere to get approval, Mr. Moors said.
"We're a captive client base for them," he said.
Mr. Cullen's bill would require departments that want to charge a new fee, or raise an existing one, to benchmark it against the country's major trading partners. As well, if a department overshoots its timeline to complete the work by more than 10%, it would start to lose its fee on a sliding scale.
"In countries that have done that, like Australia and to some extent Britain and the United States, the performance standard is met," Mr. Cullen said.
"I want there to be more accountability and more involvement by Parliamentarians," who under the bill could review fees.
Right now departments set performance standards but rarely meet them and face no penalty for missing. The Treasury Board Secretariat, which sets these rules, says it is working on its own changes and does not support the bill.
"The substantial changes it would make to the existing approval process ... appear to have a number of unforeseen consequences," said spokesman Mario Baril.
Consequences could include conflicts between cabinet committees, which approves fees, and backbenchers who might want to review them, he said.
====
| PUBLICATION: | Toronto Star |
| DATE: | 2003.06.25 |
| SECTION: | NEWS |
| PAGE: | A07 |
| SOURCE: | Toronto Star |
| BYLINE: | Valerie Lawton |
| DATELINE: | OTTAWA |
MPs of all political stripes say officials in the Prime Minister's Office must explain why George Radwanski was appointed privacy commissioner shortly after he struck a deal to avoid paying more than $500,000 in taxes.
"It smacks of a bit of a screwup, frankly," said Roy Cullen, a Liberal member of the committee that investigated Radwanski.
"I'd like them to explain whether they knew about this tax liability ... and whether there was an opportunity to reopen that deal given the fact he was going to be earning $210,000 a year."
Radwanski resigned from his post on Monday in the face of revelations about expensive meals and international trips and allegations he'd misled the committee about his expenses and an altered document.
The committee is meeting today to put the finishing touches on a report detailing those accusations. That report could be released as early as tomorrow.
But Cullen said yesterday the committee's work shouldn't stop there, calling for a more thorough investigation of the circumstances under which Radwanski was appointed to the job.
"We could ask in the fall for the Prime Minister's Office and the (Privy Council Office) to come and explain," he said.
He'd also like a review, perhaps by the federal auditor-general, of Radwanski's bankruptcy deal with Canada's tax agency forgiving some $540,000 in unpaid taxes. Radwanski paid a small portion of what he owed just a day before he became privacy commissioner in 2000.
Officials in Jean Chretien's office have said they had no knowledge of Radwanski's tax troubles despite pre-employment screening that included checks with the RCMP, CSIS and Revenue Canada. The tax agency didn't flag any information because Radwanski's file didn't involve criminal tax evasion or fraud charges, they said.
But opposition critics are skeptical that something so serious never came to light.
"I don't believe that for a moment," said Tory Leader Peter MacKay. "I know they have to do some very, very intense background check ... somebody has to come clean on this. Somebody in the PMO had to know, and if they didn't know, they're completely incompetent.
"There's no reason whatsoever why people in the PMO should not be asked the very blunt questions of: When did you know of Mr. Radwanski's financial dilemma, and did that factor into the appointment and the timing of the appointment, and how could you let that happen?"
New Democrat MP Pat Martin said he plans to urge the government operations committee to ask officials for those explanations. "If they did know then we have a political patronage problem. If they didn't know, then there's a real negligence problem," he said.
One official, a Liberal, who has been through the same screening process as Radwanski said he was asked an open-ended question about whether there was anything about him that could become a public issue- something he said should have elicited details about the ex-commissioner's tax debt.
Others who have faced similar job screening tell stories of CSIS officers so thorough they interviewed the doorman at the apartment building where one candidate's parents lived. In another case, CSIS quizzed a woman's friends about whether she was a lesbian after learning she had a female roommate.
It's unclear whether Radwanski, who has repeatedly refused interview requests, knew he was going to be named privacy commissioner when he finalized the deal with Revenue Canada that allowed him to avoid declaring personal bankruptcy.
A spokesperson at the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy said that if Radwanski had that information at that time, he would have been required to report the upcoming job. Jack Steinman, associate manager in the office's Toronto division, said Radwanski's file is on his desk, but downplayed the possibility of reopening the case to investigate wrongdoing.
"If we feel there is something that was something untoward, the RCMP does the investigations on our behalf. Right now obviously it's a very, very hot potato. Not to say that we won't (reopen the case)," Steinman said.
"It's something that will be looked at, and if there is something there other than the press clippings where they call him a deadbeat, then we would look at it."
A spokesperson in the Prime Minister's Office, which was closed for a Quebec holiday yesterday, couldn't say exactly when Radwanski was told he'd be privacy commissioner.
MacKay, the former Tory House leader, said Radwanski's name was floated to opposition parties as a possible privacy commissioner in February, 2000, when Radwanski was still working on the terms of his settlement with Revenue Canada.
Radwanski was Chretien's pick. The two men went back years- Radwanski wrote speeches for the Prime Minister at one time and worked on his 1990 leadership bid. Radwanski had another key friend in Chretien's chief adviser, Eddie Goldenberg.
The House of Commons approved Radwanski's appointment, but many MPs argue that candidates for such senior positions should face tougher and more public scrutiny.
With files from Tonda MacCharles
====
| PUBLICATION | GLOBE AND MAIL |
| DATE: | WED JUN.25,2003 |
| PAGE: | A5 (ILLUS) |
| BYLINE: | JANE TABER |
| CLASS: | National News |
| EDITION: | Metro DATELINE: Ottawa ON |
OTTAWA A dozen telephones across the country dropped as MPs, members of the all-party government operations committee, were stunned to hear that privacy commissioner George Radwanski had resigned.
Hooked up by conference call on Monday afternoon, the politicians were discussing yet another draft of the report they hoped to table this week, an unprecedented and dramatic report saying they had lost confidence in him. Toronto Liberal Roy Cullen was in the midst of making a point when his Canadian Alliance colleague Paul Forseth, the vice-chairman of the committee, tried to interrupt.
"Roy, Roy, hang on a minute, hang on a minute," said a persistent Mr. Forseth, whose assistant had passed him a note, informing him of the news on the television.
Annoyed by the interruptions, Mr. Cullen raised his voice, "Look, just let me make my point."
"Roy, turn on your TV, he is resigning," Mr. Forseth said.
"You could hear phones dropping collectively across the country as people dashed for their television sets," said Manitoba New Democrat MP Pat Martin. "That was the end of our conference call."
But it is just the beginning of many questions the committee members still have about the Radwanski affair.
What the committee did not know was that just several days earlier, on Friday, Mr. Radwanski, through Toronto lawyer Morris Manning, had initiated a call to the Privy Council Office, a senior Liberal source said.
It concerned an exit strategy.
With Privy Council Clerk Alex Himelfarb monitoring the progress, Mr. Manning and Mr. Himelfarb's officials, including his associate clerk, Rob Wright, spent the weekend discussing the terms of the commissioner's departure.
Mr. Manning accompanied Mr. Radwanski to the private committee hearings where the commissioner was questioned intensely about his expense accounts and hiring practices.
Mr. Radwanski's departure was a delicate affair, given that the commissioner is one of only five officers of Parliament. As such, he has a certain independence that makes it difficult for him to be fired.
And so the discussions continued during the weekend until the details were settled.
Prime Minister Jean Chretien, who was in his Shawinigan riding over the weekend, was informed on Monday afternoon about the Radwanski situation.
That afternoon, the Prime Minister agreed to an order-in-council document at his Shawinigan office setting out the terms of Mr. Radwanski's departure, including a $79,000 parachute. Four cabinet ministers and Governor-General Adrienne Clarkson signed it.
"He's an officer of the Parliament. It's up to the Parliament to decide his future, but obviously I think it's fair to say the government and Mr. Radwanski himself, both parties, were concerned about the integrity of the institution and the integrity of the office," the senior Liberal said.
Last Friday, Mr. Radwanski's staff protested outside their Ottawa office. Many had signed a letter asking that he step aside until the controversy subsided.
The demonstration was the culmination of nearly two weeks of intense probing and scrutiny by the Commons committee.
The committee meets again today to continue drafting its report, which it hopes to release later this week.
Mr. Martin and Mr. Cullen are concerned about personal-service contracts let by the commissioner and want those concerns reflected in the final report. Committee members say they heard testimony that Mr. Manning was hired on a $500-a-day retainer, initially to advise on the issue of surveillance cameras in Kelowna, B.C.
Mr. Manning and Mr. Radwanski worked together in the late 1980s, both members of the Canadian Coalition of the Constitution that opposed the Meech Lake accord.
Mr. Cullen said he heard that Mr. Manning had earned $250,000 in one year from the commission. Mr. Manning did not return phone calls yesterday.
Mr. Cullen wants the report to ask the Auditor-General to investigate whether the contract to Mr. Manning, and another to a woman who was hired as a legislative monitor to track privacy issues in the House of Commons, although she lived in Toronto, represented value for taxpayers. He said testimony revealed the legislative-tracking contract was worth between $50,000 and $60,000.
scandals scandals
====
| PUBLICATION: | The Kingston Whig-Standard |
| DATE: | 2003.06.25 |
| EDITION: | Final |
| SECTION: | Editorial |
| PAGE: | 8 |
| BYLINE: | Paul Schliesmann |
| SOURCE: | The Edmonton Journal |
Federal Privacy Commissioner George Radwanski fought to protect the privacy rights of Canadians, and he did so effectively for nearly three years.
But he couldn't protect himself against the onslaught of an irate Commons committee. Today, two days after defiantly resigning his post, Radwanski probably feels like a mastiff's badly mauled bone.
The former commissioner took a $79,100 severance package, a pittance compared to the $210,000-a-year salary and rich expense budget he controlled.
It was those expenses that got him into trouble with the standing committee on operations and estimates, whose members grew annoyed at discrepancies in reporting and what they said were attempts to hide details and stonewall them.
Said Liberal MP Roy Cullen: "I think Parliament and our committee has made the case he deserves to be fired. The bottom line is I don't think he's entitled to a severance package."
Talk about kicking a guy in the rear as he sails out the door. Note, too, that Cullen is a Liberal and it was Prime Minister Jean Chretien who hired Radwanski to be privacy commissioner in July 2000.
If anybody in Ottawa doesn't believe that Radwanski is taking a hit as part of a backlash by grassroots MPs against Chretien, Liberals included, then they may as well climb onto the first turnip truck heading out of town.
Liberals on the committee, including chairman Reg Alcock, led the attack. They scoffed at Radwanski's defiance, as though he were an effigy of Chretien himself. The fact is, most Liberals don't even want the PM to stick around after the fall leadership convention, let alone until his long, drawn-out retirement in February.
The committee promises to reveal its case against Radwanski this week. So far, only sporadically leaked details have been available.
For example, was $444.49 too much for Radwanski to spend on dinner in Ottawa for himself and an aide? Absolutely. And there will probably be revelations of other such outings.
Such expenditures are not just an indication of one civil servant's lack of discretion, but that of the entire federal civil service. It's probably a safe bet that Radwanski is not unique; he just got caught.
Radwanski had long ties to the Liberal government. He wrote speeches for Chretien and worked on his leadership campaign in 1992. His appointment as privacy commissioner was made by Chretien.
What should upset taxpayers most is that three years ago Radwanski owed more than $550,000 to Revenue Canada in back taxes. Prior to signing on as privacy commissioner, he was allowed to pay a lump sum of just more than $62,000 to have that tax debt forgiven.
Ten years in political power is sure to breed cronyism and high-rolling civil servants. And no privacy commissioner can hide that fact.
====
| PUBLICATION: | Toronto Star |
| DATE: | 2003.06.24 |
| SECTION: | NEWS |
| PAGE: | A01 |
| SOURCE: | Toronto Star |
| BYLINE: | Tonda MacCharles and Mary Gordon |
| DATELINE: | OTTAWA |
MPs question severance payout
George Radwanski quit as federal privacy commissioner yesterday, accepting a four-month severance package worth about $79,000 but crying foul all the way to the bank.
"I have been left with no other choice," Radwanski said in a five-page resignation statement that included his complaint that he had been unfairly treated by a parliamentary committee examining his lavish spending practices.
"I have been forced out."
Radwanski, 56, refused all interviews, saying in the prepared statement that he was "gagged" by order of the Commons committee.
But he insisted he "never intentionally misled Parliament or any of its committees, nor have I committed any other improprieties."
The agreement to accept his immediate resignation was reached after Radwanski and his legal counsel Morris Manning held "discussions" late last week and over the weekend with Privy Council Clerk Alex Himelfarb, who acts as Prime Minister Jean Chretien's deputy minister.
Jim Munson, Chretien's communications director, said Radwanski and his lawyer initiated the talks over the "possible terms of his departure," and denied any pressure or influence was exerted on Radwanski, an independent officer of Parliament who was just three years into a seven-year term.
"This was all done in the interests of preserving the integrity of the office and safeguarding the work environment of the public servants in that office," Munson said.
An order-in-council accepting Radwanski's resignation from his $210,000-a-year job and confirming the severance package was signed by Governor-General Adrienne Clarkson late yesterday.
The severance package was based on the amount of time it was estimated that Parliament would have taken to act on the pending recommendation from the standing committee on operations and estimates to fire Radwanski if the Commons and Senate did not re-convene until September as scheduled.
It equals four months' salary- $70,000 plus benefits, pegged at 13 per cent of the four months' salary, for a total of $79,100.
Already, the decision to award any compensation to the controversial former privacy commissioner is being questioned.
"Severance is supposed to be for wrongful dismissal," said Liberal MP Roy Cullen, a member of the committee. "I think Parliament and our committee has made the case he deserves to be fired. The bottom line is I don't think he's entitled to a severance package."
"It's outrageous that there should be any kind of golden handshake for this man," said New Democrat committee member Pat Martin.
Martin cited Radwanski's attempts to "mislead" the committee and "falsify" documents, as well as revelations last week that Radwanski had owed Revenue Canada more than $557,436 in unpaid taxes. Shortly before he was appointed to the office of privacy commissioner on July 27, 2000, Radwanski settled personal and business bankruptcy proceedings with a lump-sum payment of $62,726.
Officials in the Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council Office say Radwanski did not disclose his tax arrears during the background screening process, nor did the criminal checks with the RCMP, CSIS and Revenue Canada turn up his financial picture, because no criminal tax evasion or fraud charges were ever pursued.
Now, said Martin, the involvement of the Prime Minister's Office raises even more questions.
"Radwanski's supposed to be completely arms-length, completely neutral, completely objective," Martin added. "How is it that he's negotiating some kind of a severance deal with God-knows-who, the PMO or the PCO? It helps to illustrate that there was something fundamentally wrong with this appointment to begin with."
Yesterday, events unfolded rapidly.
Radwanski was closeted in his office most of the morning with his legal staff, said one employee. At noon, an e-mail circulated announcing that the privacy commissioner had "delegated all of his powers under the Privacy Act to Gerald Neary"- a director-general of investigations in his office- the first real indication something was up.
Then, around 3: 30 p.m., staffers were directed to his resignation statement that was posted on the Internet.
"I think most people were just relieved because it's been very stressful on everyone," said Linda Charron, an employee in the privacy office. "Everyone just wanted it to be done so we could get on with our work."
The news hit the 24-hour television newscasts just as the Commons committee pondering Radwanski's fate was meeting by teleconference to review its draft report recommendation that Parliament fire him. "Someone said, 'Go to a TV, he's resigning.' And you could hear the telephones drop across the country," Martin said. "People scrambled to their TV. It was quite dramatic."
Martin said the committee still plans to release its report on Thursday.
He said Radwanski's characterization of the committee's work as a partisan witch hunt is ridiculous and when Canadians see what's in the final report "they'll understand why Parliament has lost confidence in Mr. Radwanski. He showed more judgment in resigning than he did when he was in office."
The committee will meet in Ottawa tomorrow morning to review the final draft, which had not been completed in time for yesterday's call as planned.
Reg Alcock, head of the committee, said: "I can understand he (Radwanski) wants to appear a victim but his wounds are entirely self-inflicted."
Liberal MP Judy Sgro, another committee member, said she did not buy Radwanski's defence that the restaurants in which he dined were often chosen by his guests. "If I'm inviting you to lunch and I'm paying the bill, you go to the restaurant that I can afford."
She also said the defiant tone in Radwanski's resignation letter seems to show that he is not accepting responsibility for either the altered document or his expenses.
| PUBLICATION: | The Toronto Sun |
| DATE: | 2003.06.11 |
| EDITION: | Final |
| SECTION: | News |
| PAGE: | 24 |
| BYLINE: | STEPHANIE RUBEC, OTTAWA BUREAU |
| DATELINE: | OTTAWA |
| COLUMN: | Parliament Hill |
The Liberal government shut down a Commons debate yesterday in an attempt to ram through a bill that forces taxpayers to fund federal parties.
The party financing bill is expected to sail through a final vote in the Commons late today and head to the Senate for debate and royal assent -- feeding a rumour MPs could adjourn for the summer as early as Friday.
The Liberals voted early yesterday to put an end to a parliamentary discussion on Bill C-24 and modified key parts of the bill to appease backbenchers who feared they'd be shortchanged by the legislation.
The bill all but bans corporate and union donations, in favour of funding federal political parties and elections from public coffers.
Government House Leader Don Boudria amended the bill to boost the amount each party will receive per vote to $1.75 from $1.50, ensuring that popularity will determine party funding and not fundraising.
Boudria also agreed to increase the size of election expenses reimbursements to 60% for candidates who received more than 10% of the vote.
Another amendment will see parties get 60% back for expenses in the next federal election, and 50% on subsequent elections -- that's up from 22.85%.
The changes are expected to cost taxpayers about $160 million over four years. Liberal MP Roy Cullen voted against the government bill. The NDP and Bloc Quebecois support it.
Canadian Alliance MP Ted White predicted the Liberal government will continue amending the bill to dig further into public coffers.
National Citizens Coalition V-P Gerry Nicholls accused the Liberals of shutting down debate to hide the bill's true cost. "We think Bill C-24 is wasteful, it's undemocratic and it's an attack on basic fundamental freedoms," Nicholls said. "No one should be forced to support a political party against their will."
Tory Leader Peter MacKay said his party will oppose a move to adjourn because there are issues like SARS to deal with.
====
| PUBLICATION: | The Ottawa Sun |
| DATE: | 2003.06.11 |
| EDITION: | Final |
| SECTION: | News |
| PAGE: | 21 |
| BYLINE: | STEPHANIE RUBEC, PARLIAMENTARY BUREAU |
The Liberal government shut down a Commons debate yesterday, in an attempt to ram through a bill that forces taxpayers to fund federal parties.
The party financing bill is expected to sail through a final vote in the Commons late today and head to the Senate for debate and royal assent -- feeding a rumour that MPs could adjourn for the summer as early as Friday.
The Liberals voted early yesterday to put an end to a parliamentary discussion on Bill C-24 and modified key parts of the bill to appease backbenchers who feared they'd be shortchanged by the legislation.
The bill all but bans corporate and union donations, in favour of funding federal political parties and elections from public coffers.
AMENDMENTS
Government House Leader Don Boudria amended the bill to boost the amount each party will receive per vote to $1.75 from $1.50.
Boudria also agreed to increase the size of election-expense reimbursements to 60% for candidates who get more than 10% of the vote.
Another amendment will see parties get 60% back for expenses in the next federal election, and 50% on subsequent elections -- that's up from 22.85%.
The changes are expected to cost taxpayers about $160 million over four years. Liberal MP Roy Cullen voted against the government bill. The NDP and Bloc Quebecois support it.
Alliance MP Ted White said the Liberals will amend the bill further into the public confers.
National Citizens Coalition VP Gerry Nicholls accused the Liberals of shutting down debate to hide the bill's true cost to taxpayers.
====
| PUBLICATION: | The Edmonton Sun |
| DATE: | 2003.06.11 |
| EDITION: | Final |
| SECTION: | News |
| PAGE: | 29 |
| BYLINE: | STEPHANIE RUBEC, SUN OTTAWA BUREAU |
| DATELINE: | OTTAWA |
The Liberal government shut down a Commons debate yesterday in an attempt to ram through a bill that forces taxpayers to fund federal parties.
The party financing bill is expected to sail through a final vote in the Commons late today and head to the Senate for debate and royal assent - feeding a rumour that MPs could adjourn for the summer as early as Friday.
The Liberals voted early yesterday to put an end to a parliamentary discussion on Bill C-24 and modified key parts of the bill to appease backbenchers who feared they'd be shortchanged by the legislation.
The bill all but bans corporate and union donations in favour of funding federal political parties and elections from public coffers.
Government House leader Don Boudria amended the bill to boost the amount each party will receive per vote to $1.75 from $1.50, ensuring that popularity will determine party funding and not fund-raising.
Boudria also agreed to increase the size of election expenses reimbursements to 60% for candidates who received more than 10% of the vote.
Another amendment will see parties get 60% back for expenses in the next federal election, and 50% on subsequent elections - that's up from 22.85%.
The changes are expected to cost taxpayers about $160 million over four years. Liberal MP Roy Cullen voted against the government bill.
The NDP and Bloc Quebecois support it.
Canadian Alliance MP Ted White predicted the Liberal government will continue amending the bill to dig further into public coffers.
"I think we're in for a big surprise on how much this is going to cost us," White said.
====
| PUBLICATION: | The Calgary Sun |
| DATE: | 2003.06.11 |
| EDITION: | Final |
| SECTION: | News |
| PAGE: | 13 |
| ILLUSTRATION: | photo of DON BOUDRIA |
| BYLINE: | STEPHANIE RUBEC, OTTAWA BUREAU |
| DATELINE: | OTTAWA |
The Liberal government shut down a Commons debate yesterday in an attempt to ram through a bill that forces taxpayers to fund federal parties.
The party financing bill is expected to sail through a final vote in the Commons late today and head to the Senate for debate and royal assent -- feeding a rumour that MPs could adjourn for the summer as early as Friday.
The Liberals voted early yesterday to put an end to a parliamentary discussion on Bill C-24 and modified key parts of the bill to appease backbenchers who feared they'd be shortchanged by the legislation.
The bill all but bans corporate and union donations, in favour of funding federal political parties and elections from public coffers.
Government House Leader Don Boudria amended the bill to boost the amount each party will receive per vote to $1.75 from $1.50, ensuring that popularity will determine party funding and not fundraising.
MORE REIMBURSEMENTS
Boudria also agreed to increase the size of election expenses reimbursements to 60% for candidates who received more than 10% of the vote.
Another amendment will see parties get 60% back for expenses in the next federal election, and 50% on subsequent elections -- that's up from 22.85%.
The changes are expected to cost taxpayers about $160 million over four years.
Liberal MP Roy Cullen voted against the government bill. The NDP and Bloc Quebecois support it.
Canadian Alliance MP Ted White predicted the Liberal government will continue amending the bill to dig further into public coffers.
"I think we're in for a big surprise on how much this is going to cost us," White said.
Tory Leader Peter MacKay said his party will oppose a move to adjourn because there are issues like the SARS and mad-cow crisis to deal with.
| PUBLICATION: | National Post |
| DATE: | 2003.04.30 |
| EDITION: | All but Toronto |
| SECTION: | News |
| PAGE: | A4 |
| COLUMN: | SARS: Liberal Acrimony: Special Cabinet Meeting in Toronto |
| BYLINE: | Bill Curry and Paul Wells, with files from Tom Blackwell |
| SOURCE: | National Post |
| DATELINE: | OTTAWAPolitics; Ontario; End |
| CORPORATION: | World Health Organization; Liberal Party, Canada |
| ILLUSTRATION: | Black & White Photo: Glen Lowson, National Post / A visitorarriving from Europe wears a mask at Toronto's Pearson International Airport yesterday, the same day the WHO lifted its travel advisory. |
| NOTE: | bcurry@nationalpost.com |
OTTAWA - Sheila Copps, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and a candidate for the Liberal leadership, risks losing her Cabinet post if she continues to snipe at ministerial colleagues on sensitive issues, a senior government insider said yesterday.
The source, who was familiar with conversations at yesterday's special Cabinet meeting in Toronto, said Jean Chretien, the Prime Minister, made it "very clear" that Ms. Copps' criticism of Anne McLellan, the Minister of Health, over the government's low-profile handling of the SARS outbreak was an unacceptable breach of Cabinet solidarity.
Asked whether the Prime Minister's criticism of Ms. Copps amounted to a warning, the source said, "Yes, it did."
A final warning? "Well, let's cross that bridge when we get to it.... Let's hope it's not necessary [to warn her again.]"
Persistent feuding between Ms. Copps and Ms. McLellan over the federal response to SARS came to a head on Monday, when Ms. Copps lashed out at Ms. McLellan on CBC Newsworld.
"I think certainly the Minister of Health has some answering to do for the way that she has been absent from the file and that's a legitimate complaint," Ms. Copps said. "Nobody saw her and in the time when people were expecting to hear the strong voice of the government of Canada through the Health Minister, she was absent."
On her way in to yesterday's Cabinet meeting, Ms. Copps said she stood by her earlier statements, but would not answer questions from reporters following the meeting. The two ministers emerged together and smiled for the cameras and Ms. McLellan laughed off the incident later in the afternoon.
"Look, politics, sometimes it's an emotional game, I guess, and Sheila talked to me today after Cabinet and as far as I'm concerned, the matter is over. It's closed. I have always known what my job was. I'm focused on my job and I'm going to stay focused on my job," she said.
Following the Cabinet meeting, Mr. Chretien told reporters he reminded his ministers of the importance of speaking with one voice.
"We debated that this morning in Cabinet and Cabinet solidarity was there. Mistakes are made once in a while and they have been corrected," he said. "Cabinet solidarity will be there and will remain there."
However, criticism of Mr. McLellan's handling of the SARS issue continued yesterday after she mused that heightened SARS screening at airports may be short-lived.
While the Health Minister insisted Ottawa will follow through within days on its pledge to introduce infrared machines at airports in Toronto and Vancouver to check the temperatures of passengers -- and to interview passengers with high temperatures -- the Minister stressed the heightened measures are a pilot project.
"If the various technologies that we test prove to be ineffective in terms of catching any suspect or probable cases of SARS, you then seriously have to ask the question, in terms of cost-benefit analysis, in terms of possible disruption, intrusion of passengers coming and going," she said.
Ms. McLellan made a similar comment a day earlier when she announced the heightened screening measures.
"This technological tool is not going to solve the problem because, in fact, it will pick up many people who will have an increased temperature but will not have SARS," she said on Monday.
Stephen Harper, the Canadian Alliance leader, said Ms. McLellan has mishandled the SARS file and called for her resignation in the House of Commons yesterday.
"It's amazing she's speculating whether something may not be effective when what they've already done has already proven to be ineffective," Mr. Harper said in an interview.
"It's breathtaking, but it's really an example of someone who just will not admit they made a mistake and as a consequence has just compounded this error for the country."
Mr. Harper also criticized the timing of Ms. McLellan's comments.
"Press reports are mixed whether [the lifting of the travel ban] was conditional or not, but I have no doubt, for all intents and purposes, the WHO did this on the understanding Canada would implement real screening," he said. "This is just typical of the problem with the government and with the Health Minister."
Mr. Chretien also sparked criticism among some of his Toronto backbench MPs, who took issue with his announcement yesterday that Ottawa would not be giving direct financial aid to Toronto businesses affected by SARS.
Toronto Liberal MPs Jim Karygiannis, Derek Lee and Alan Tonks called on Cabinet to come up with financial aid for business, yet others, such as John McKay and Roy Cullen, agreed with the Prime Minister that determining which businesses qualify for money would be too difficult.
"What I'd like to see is more money -- now that the WHO has taken off the advisory -- to mount an aggressive marketing campaign to resell Toronto," Mr. Cullen said. "We've put on the table $10-million but I think we should put in more."
| PUBLICATION: | The Ottawa Citizen |
| DATE: | 2003.04.10 |
| EDITION: | Final |
| SECTION: | News |
| PAGE: | A11 |
| BYLINE: | Kathryn May |
| SOURCE: | The Ottawa Citizen |
A Liberal-dominated parliamentary committee sidelined a federal bill to reform the public service in an unexpected rift over the government's refusal to release a cabinet report.
Liberal backbenchers flexed their muscles in a seven-to-three vote to shut down the government operations committee's clause-by-clause review of Bill C-25 after the government refused to release material written by political scientist Donald Savoie about the bill's proposals because of cabinet confidentiality.
Mr. Savoie, a professor at the University of Moncton, wrote Governing from the Centre, the controversial book about the growing concentration of power within the Prime Minister's Office and Privy Council Office.
Liberal MP Carolyn Bennett, an outspoken champion for parliamentary reform, said the government's refusal to release Mr. Savoie's opinions is taking the notion of cabinet secrecy too far and the only way to send that message is to suspend the bill's review.
"We're not here to rubber stamp everything without getting all the information we need to assess the bill," said Ms. Bennett. "So we will wait until we get the information and hopefully we'll put Parliament back on the radar and be relevant again."
But Canadian Alliance MP Paul Forseth, who also voted to suspend the bill's review, questioned whether the real issue that divided the committee1s Liberal members was leadership politics. He said the vote pitted supporters of Prime Minister Jean Chretien against those of leadership rival Paul Martin.
"You have to ask if there was a larger game of the Chretien camp versus the Martin camp, or are we to take it at face value that this was a fight over the concentration of power in the centre?" asked Mr. Forseth.
The massive bill, which was widely expected to sail through committee with few major changes, came after a two-year study by a task force appointed by former Privy Council Clerk Mel Cappe. The task force asked Mr. Savoie for his opinion on the various reform proposals being studied to modernize the public service. The bill is the first major bill to overhaul the public service in 40 years.
Ms. Bennett said the Privy Council Office's refusal to release Mr. Savoie's reports "except perhaps in bits and pieces" smack of the "lack of respect" for the work of MPs and committees. She said committees are too often handed bills to review like they are "baked cakes" not to be touched.
Liberal MP Reg Alcock, who chairs the committee, said the government can't sit on "everything that's done" in preparing a bill and invoke cabinet confidence. He said the refusal revealed "a rigidity at PCO that has taken over the place."
"How can the executive be accountable to the House of Commons if you cast the net so broadly that you can't get the information needed to judge their actions? How can the committee function if we don't sort this out?"
"We're grownups so don't deal with us this way," added Ms. Bennett. "Why not give us the report and explain why you did what you did?"
The motion to suspend the bill's review was proposed by Liberal MP Paul Szabo and was supported by Ms. Bennett and fellow Liberals Roy Cullen, Tony Valeri and Judy Sgro, the Alliance's Mr. Forseth and Bloc MP Robert Lanctot. It was opposed by Liberals Tony Tirabassi, parliamentary secretary to Treasury Board President Lucienne Robillard, Steve Mahoney and Raymonde Folco.