House of Commons photoWon her last election, in 2021, with 54% of the vote.
Business of Supply May 4th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, I am as baffled as my colleague is about this lack of will to implement this electoral promise and the Conservatives' total refusal of accountability in this instance.
Parliamentary secretaries are part of the governmental institutions and should be included in this act. I totally agree with her. There is no reason why they should not be part of the accountability act.
Business of Supply May 4th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, I said it earlier in French and I will repeat it in English. The government is free to bring forth any bill it wants to address that question.
Business of Supply May 4th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, I do think that this loophole was left on purpose in the act, so that other friends and sympathizers could approach well placed government officials, in this case cabinet members, to do their lobbying without necessarily being registered. I agree that it was probably an intentional loophole.
Business of Supply May 4th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, even in French, my answer will be the same as my colleague's. The government has the opportunity to introduce these kinds of bills. If it wants to do so, it should introduce one in the House and we will take a look.
Business of Supply May 4th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleague from St. John's South—Mount Pearl to close what seems to be a serious loophole in the Federal Accountability Act. Over the past four years, we have seen that the Conservatives are great at talking but are completely ineffective when it comes to implementing real solutions.
Whether it is on the issue of transparency—where we have the example of departments constantly refusing to agree to access to information requests—or their fiscal abilities—the fact that, for six months, they denied that a recession was imminent and the evidence that it posed a threat to the Canadian economy—or their shameless partisanship in infrastructure funding and advertising contracts to announce a government plan, and we are not talking about a partisan plan, but a government plan that did not need to be announced, this government continues to prove to Canadians that its definition of accountability is completely void of meaning. It has proven, once again, that it is easy enough to talk, but it is much harder to handle the responsibility and transparency that comes with being the government.
The government took advantage of this loophole in the Lobbyist Registration Act as a way around the rules in the act. This is proof that they, most likely, knowingly left this gaping loophole so that parliamentary secretaries could continue this pattern with lobbyists.
At the moment, parliamentary secretaries to ministers are not considered public office holders under the act. This loophole means that lobbyists can meet with parliamentary secretaries, and as we all know, parliamentary secretaries are, to an extent, the ministers' eyes and ears. The fact that these unregistered lobbyists have access to parliamentary secretaries means that nobody knows what goes on in those meetings and there is no paper trail.
That is why we are asking the government to close the loophole, to fix the problem by including parliamentary secretaries in the act's definition of designated public office holder. We hope that this will prevent future secret meetings between lobbyists and Conservatives.
The recent scandal involving Mr. Jaffer and the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities is proof positive that we have to close this loophole right away. If he had followed the rules and registered as a lobbyist, Mr. Jaffer would have been required to report his meeting with the minister. Moreover, if parliamentary secretaries were included in the definition, Mr. Jaffer would have been required to disclose the fact that he met with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. Everyone agrees that what we are talking about here is a billion-dollar green infrastructure fund.
This situation shows that ministers delegate certain powers, but not the responsibilities that go with those powers. We absolutely have to ensure that when powers are delegated, the responsibility and accountability requirements that go along with those powers are too.
The Conservatives only started making promises about accountability after they got caught in the act. However, it seems clear that if they cared about responsibility and accountability at all, they would have kept their 2006 election promise to make ministers responsible for reporting their meetings with lobbyists. Why has it taken four years?
The Conservatives promised that ministers and senior public office holders would be required to report all contact with lobbyists. Today we are asking the government to finally honour that promise, which should also apply to parliamentary secretaries. This rule should cover all parliamentary secretaries so that the Conservatives can no longer use them to avoid accountability, as they do now.
In fact, whether or not grants were given in the case that triggered this whole controversy has very little to do with the essence of the legal loophole we are addressing today.
The letter of the law is absolutely meaningless if its spirit is not respected. Ministerial accountability does not apply only when public funds are being granted. It is crucial in any situation that could eventually lead to that outcome.
On one hand, we have Mr. Jaffer and Mr. Glémaud who claim that they did not register as lobbyists because they were only putting out feelers. On the other hand, ministers have said they did not need to report anything because no funds were granted.
In reality, that has nothing to do with the core of the issue. It is the approach and the attempts that are of concern here. We must not allow lobbyists to approach any government entities, whether ministers or parliamentary secretaries, unless they are duly registered and the outcome of those meetings can be made public in a completely transparent manner.
This is what we are addressing and what we are trying to fix with this motion. I hope all of my colleagues in the House will agree to co-operate with us and plug this loophole once and for all.
Regional Development May 4th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, in all regions of Quebec, the local decision-makers, like Mayor Meilleur in Mirabel, are telling us how important the regional development agencies are. That is as true in Quebec as it is in the Maritimes.
But according to the Prime Minister, these agencies provide social assistance. So, when the time comes to slash the budget in order to pay down their deficit, the Conservatives are taking it out on regional agencies.
When their own incompetence catches up to them, they send the bill to the regions. When will the Prime Minister understand the needs of the regions?
Ethics April 29th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, listen to this.
“Hello Sébastien, thanks again! I just spoke to [the minister] and we are going to try to get together for a beer next week”.
That is my translation of an email from Rahim Jaffer to Sébastien Togneri, who was the minister's director of parliamentary affairs at the time. The message was about funding for solar panels.
We now know what the meetings between Rahim Jaffer and his former buddies were about.
Do the Conservatives have the nerve to continue denying that Mr. Jaffer not only had privileged access, but received privileged treatment as well?
Ethics April 29th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, we have been told for a month that Rahim Jaffer did not have any privileged access to cabinet. And yet, one minister after another is coming forward.
A new series of documents clearly shows that the office of the former minister of public works pushed to have Mr. Jaffer's files given priority. I repeat: priority.
Staff were strongly encouraged to fast-track Mr. Jaffer's files.
I want the Minister of Natural Resources to tell us why.
Ethics April 28th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, we had the courage to call for an inquiry, which the Conservatives refuse.
It is a simple question, so I ask it again. On the documents the minister submitted to the committee, who wrote the note, “From Rahim, submit to department”?
Ethics April 28th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, one of the documents submitted by the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities has a handwritten note that says “From Rahim, submit to department”.
My question is simple. Who wrote that note on the top of the page of one of the proposals submitted by Rahim Jaffer?