Bill C-2 (Historical)

Federal Accountability Act

An Act providing for conflict of interest rules, restrictions on election financing and measures respecting administrative transparency, oversight and accountability

Part 1 enacts the Conflict of Interest Act and makes consequential amendments in furtherance of that Act. That Act sets out substantive prohibitions governing public office holders. Compliance with the Act is a deemed term and condition of a public office holder’s appointment or employment. The Act also sets out a detailed regime of compliance measures to ensure conformity with the substantive prohibitions, certain of which apply to all public office holders and others of which apply to reporting public office holders. The Act also provides for a regime of detailed post-employment rules. Finally, the Act establishes a complaints regime, sets out the powers of investigation of the Commissioner and provides for public reporting as well as a regime of administrative monetary penalties.
Amongst other matters, the consequential amendments to the Parliament of Canada Act provide for the appointment and office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner along with his or her tenure, expenses, duties and other administrative matters.
Part 1 also amends the Canada Elections Act to
(a) reduce to $1,000 the amount that an individual may contribute annually to a registered party, and create a distinct $1,000 annual limit on contributions to the registered associations, the nomination contestants and the candidates of a registered party;
(b) reduce to $1,000 the amount that an individual may contribute to an independent candidate or to a leadership contestant;
(c) reduce to $1,000 the amount that a nomination contestant, a candidate or a leadership contestant may contribute to his or her own campaign in addition to the $1,000 limit on individual contributions;
(d) totally ban contributions by corporations, trade unions and associations by repealing the exception that allows them to make an annual contribution of $1,000 to the registered associations, the candidates and the nomination contestants of a registered party and a contribution of $1,000 to an independent candidate during an election period;
(e) ban cash donations of more than $20, and reduce to $20 the amount that may be contributed before a receipt must be issued or, in the case of anonymous contributions following a general solicitation at a meeting, before certain record-keeping requirements must be met; and
(f) increase to 5 years after the day on which the Commissioner of Canada Elections became aware of the facts giving rise to a prosecution, and to 10 years following the commission of an offence, the period within which a prosecution may be instituted.
Other amendments to the Canada Elections Act prohibit candidates from accepting gifts that could reasonably be seen to have been given to influence the candidate in the performance of his or her duties and functions as a member, if elected. The wilful contravention of this prohibition is considered to be a corrupt practice. A new disclosure requirement is introduced to require candidates to report to the Chief Electoral Officer any gifts received with a total value exceeding $500. Exceptions are provided for gifts received from relatives, as well as gifts of courtesy or of protocol. The amendments also prohibit registered parties and registered associations from transferring money to candidates directly from a trust fund.
The amendments to the Lobbyists Registration Act rename the Act and provide for the appointment by the Governor in Council of a Commissioner of Lobbying after approval by resolution of both Houses of Parliament. They broaden the scope for investigations by the Commissioner, extend to 10 years the period in respect of which contraventions may be investigated and prosecuted, and increase the penalties for an offence under the Act. In addition, they empower the Commissioner to prohibit someone who has committed an offence from lobbying for a period of up to two years, prohibit the acceptance and payment of contingency fees and prohibit certain public office holders from lobbying for a period of five years after leaving office. They require lobbyists to report their lobbying activities involving certain public office holders and permit the Commissioner to request those office holders to confirm or correct the information reported by lobbyists.
Amendments to the Parliament of Canada Act prohibit members of the House of Commons from accepting benefits or income from certain trusts and require them to disclose all trusts to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. The amendments also authorize the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to issue orders requiring members to terminate most trusts and prohibiting them from using the proceeds from their termination for political purposes. In cases where the trusts are not required to be terminated, the amendments authorize the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to make orders prohibiting members from using the trusts for political purposes. An offence is created for members who do not comply with such orders. The amendments also provide that, in the event of a prosecution, a committee of the House of Commons may issue an opinion that is to be provided to the judge before whom the proceedings are held.
Finally, Part 1 amends the Public Service Employment Act to remove the right of employees in ministers’ offices to be appointed without competition to positions in the public service for which the Public Service Commission considers them qualified.
Part 2 harmonizes the appointment and removal provisions relating to certain officers.
Amendments to the Parliament of Canada Act establish within the Library of Parliament a position to be known as the Parliamentary Budget Officer, whose mandate is to provide objective analysis to the Senate and House of Commons about the estimates of the government, the state of the nation’s finances and trends in the national economy, to undertake research into those things when requested to do so by certain Parliamentary committees, and to provide estimates of the costs of proposals contained in Bills introduced by members of Parliament other than in their capacity as ministers of the Crown. The amendments also provide the Parliamentary Budget Officer with a right of access to data that are necessary for the performance of his or her mandate.
Part 3 enacts the Director of Public Prosecutions Act which provides for the appointment of the Director of Public Prosecutions and one or more Deputy Directors. That Act gives the Director the authority to initiate and conduct criminal prosecutions on behalf of the Crown that are under the jurisdiction of the Attorney General of Canada. That Act also provides that the Director has the power to make binding and final decisions as to whether to prosecute, unless the Attorney General of Canada directs otherwise, and that such directives must be in writing and published in the Canada Gazette. The Director holds office for a non-renewable term of seven years during good behaviour and is the Deputy Attorney General of Canada for the purposes of carrying out the work of the office. The Director is given responsibility, in place of the Commissioner of Canada Elections, for prosecutions of offences under the Canada Elections Act.
Part 3 also amends the Access to Information Act to ensure that all parent Crown corporations, and their wholly-owned subsidiaries, within the meaning of section 83 of the Financial Administration Act are encompassed by the definition “government institution” in section 3 of the Access to Information Act and to add five officers, five foundations and the Canadian Wheat Board to Schedule I of that Act. It adjusts some of the exemption provisions accordingly and includes new exemptions or exclusions relating to the added officers and the Crown corporations. It empowers the Governor in Council to prescribe criteria for adding a body or an office to Schedule I and requires Ministers to publish annual reports of all expenses incurred by their offices and paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. It adds any of those same officers and foundations that are not already included in the schedule to the Privacy Act to that schedule, ensures that all of those parent Crown corporations and subsidiaries are encompassed by the definition “government institution” in section 3 of that Act, and makes other consequential amendments to that Act. It amends the Export Development Act to include a provision for the confidentiality of information. It revises certain procedures relating to the processing of requests and handling of complaints and allows for increases to the number of investigators the Information Commissioner may designate to examine records related to defence and national security.
Amendments to the Library and Archives of Canada Act provide for an obligation to send final reports on government public opinion research to the Library and Archives of Canada.
Finally, Part 3 amends the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act to
(a) establish the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal and empower it to make remedial orders in favour of victims of reprisal and to order disciplinary action against the person or persons who took the reprisal;
(b) provide for the protection of all Canadians, not only public servants, who report government wrongdoings to the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner;
(c) remove the Governor in Council’s ability to delete the name of Crown corporations and other public bodies from the schedule to the Act;
(d) require the prompt public reporting by chief executives and the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of cases of wrongdoing; and
(e) permit the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner to provide access to legal advice relating to the Act.
Part 4 amends the Financial Administration Act to create a new schedule that identifies and designates certain officials as accounting officers and, within the framework of their appropriate minister’s responsibilities and accountability to Parliament, sets out the matters for which they are accountable before the appropriate committees of Parliament. A regime for the resolution of issues related to the interpretation or application of a policy, directive or standard issued by the Treasury Board is established along with a requirement that the Treasury Board provide a copy of its decision to the Auditor General of Canada.
Part 4 also amends the Financial Administration Act and the Criminal Code to create indictable offences for fraud with respect to public money or money of a Crown corporation, and makes persons convicted of those offences ineligible to be employed by the Crown or the corporation or to otherwise contract with the Crown.
Other amendments to the Financial Administration Act clarify the authority of the Treasury Board to act on behalf of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada on matters related to internal audit in the federal public administration. They also set out the deputy head’s responsibility for ensuring that there is an internal audit capacity appropriate to the needs of the department and requires them, subject to directives of the Treasury Board, to establish an audit committee. The Financial Administration Act, the Farm Credit Canada Act and the Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act are amended to require Crown corporations to establish audit committees composed of members who are not officers or employees of the corporation. Other amendments to the Financial Administration Act require, subject to directions of the Treasury Board, that all grant and contribution programs be reviewed at least every five years to ensure their relevance and effectiveness.
Amendments made to the Financial Administration Act and to the constituent legislation of a number of Crown corporations provide for appointments of directors for up to four years from a current maximum of three years.
Part 4 also amends the Canadian Dairy Commission Act, the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation Act and the National Capital Act to require different individuals to perform the duties of chair of the Board of Directors and chief executive officer of the corporation.
Part 5 amends the Auditor General Act by expanding the class of recipients of grants, contributions and loans into which the Auditor General of Canada may inquire as to the use of funds, whether received from Her Majesty in right of Canada or a Crown corporation. Other amendments provide certain immunities to the Auditor General.
Amendments to the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act provide for the appointment and mandate of a Procurement Auditor.
Part 5 also amends the Financial Administration Act to provide for a government commitment to fairness, openness and transparency in government contract bidding, and a regulation-making power to deem certain clauses to be set out in government contracts in relation to prohibiting the payment of contingency fees and respecting corruption and collusion in the bidding process for procurement contracts, declarations by bidders in respect of specific criminal offences, and the provision of information to the Auditor General of Canada by recipients under funding agreements.

Federal Accountability Act

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday marked the first anniversary of the release of the Gomery report. The report was an unequivocal condemnation of the Liberal Party and its practices. The Gomery report turned out to be a lifting of the cloak of secrecy off the Liberal Party, revealing a culture of entitlement, corruption and gross mismanagement of taxpayers' money.

Thankfully Canada's new government introduced the federal accountability act as its first order of business. Regretfully, a full year after the release of the Gomery report, Bill C-2 has still not been enacted into law.

Despite the unanimous consent of the House, the Liberal controlled Senate has stalled, delayed, refused, undermined and attempted to dismantle legislation that is designed to restore the faith of Canadians in their political system.

Bill C-2 has been carefully considered, debated sufficiently and is supported by the people of Canada, including the constituents in the riding of Peterborough. Let us get on with passing Bill C-2 and stop the shenanigans in the unelected Senate.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, on October 23, I put a question to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services. I noticed that he was not in the House. Since the election on January 23, the minister, Michael Fortier, has been like a ghost. He has been missing. It is funny that I should be asking my question this evening, because it is Hallowe'en. He must be hiding somewhere.

Hon. members will remember that when the Conservative Party was in opposition, it said it had principles. One of those principles was that the Senate should be elected. Another principle is that no one should represent the government, especially in a department, without being elected.

Right after the January 2006 election, to Canadians' astonishment, the new Conservative government decided to appoint Michael Fortier as Minister of Public Works and, in addition, as a senator. Just like that, two principles were swept away in the Ottawa River. They were lost.

In response to my question for the government, I was told that Mr. Fortier is doing a good job and that he is representing the government and Montrealers well. But how can the government judge whether Mr. Fortier is representing the people of Montreal well? We mentioned the election in Repentigny. This is the perfect opportunity for him to run. But it seems he is afraid of losing. If he is afraid of losing, or if the government is afraid of losing him, perhaps he is not doing such a great job of representing the people of Montreal.

The worst part is seeing a governing party that believed strongly in democracy when it was in opposition. A person must be elected to represent Canadians. Now, in Quebec, there is no need to be elected.

I remember when the Liberal government appointed Pierre Pettigrew to cabinet. A Liberal member resigned and there was an election. The government did not wait for an election: somebody resigned—or died, as is the case in Repentigny—and then an election was held.

That is also what happened to the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville. He was appointed to cabinet at the same time, so one of the Liberal members resigned. An election followed.

Today's Conservative Party, which was in opposition at the time, opposed the Liberal appointments. Now it is talking about Bill C-2, the accountability act.

Can the Conservatives explain to Canadians and to parliamentarians why the Minister of Public Works is not answering questions in the House of Commons? He is hiding in the Senate to avoid answering Canadians. It is shameful.

I would like an answer from the government. I am hoping they do not just tell me he is doing a good job, as they did on October 23. It is not up to the government to decide that. It is up to the citizens. I await the parliamentary secretary's answer.

Budget Implementation Act, 2006, No. 2

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, It is an honour to stand in the House and speak to this important issue. One could suggest that there is no more important issue that a government brings to the House than the budget.

When I talk to constituents about the proposals that have been put forward by the government they see this budget as an opportunity missed. Quite frankly, it is an opportunity missed because when we look at the fiscal accounting presently, we see that most recently there was a surplus of $13 billion of Canadians' money that we all contributed to in the general pot.

When the government was in opposition it was very clear on its concern, which we agreed with, that before the money that is in the surplus side of the equation goes to deal with the accumulated debt, we should have a debate and Canadians should have an opportunity to suggest where those moneys would go.

We saw most recently that the government, instead of taking its own advice when it was in opposition, and instead of having a debate and talking about where the $13 billion of surplus should go, it decided, with the stroke of a pen, to make the decision for Canadians on where the money should go.

Strangely enough, the government also decided to cut a billion dollars worth of programs, programs that affect everyday people. For example, the billion dollars in cuts affected people who are working in communities, be it here in Ottawa or across the country, who volunteer their time and sweat to help out local museums. This is one of the strangest cuts I have seen in a long time.

The government cut summer employment programs. The rationale was that these were subsidies for the private sector. I am not sure if it looked at the list that most of us look at each year to look at the summer employment opportunities, but I know in my riding none of them were subsidies to private sector ventures. In fact, all of them were helping out community based, not for profit enterprises.

For example, the Vietnamese Community Association cobbled together moneys for a summer employment program and, with the help of a meagre amount of money from the federal government, it put together a summer work employment program that gave an opportunity for youth to help it with the work that it does, helping people every day.

These kinds of opportunities for students in summer employment programs not only help these community based groups, but they also give opportunities for youth to be apprentices in certain areas, to gain very valuable experience in administration and be able to contribute to their community.

At the same time as the government had the $13 billion surplus, other cuts had to do with people who are working in areas to help people who are most disadvantaged and people who are working in the area of literacy. We have heard a lot about that. Giving people an opportunity to climb out of the darkness of illiteracy is something I believe is not only something government should do, it is something the government must do.

To see people who recently were in the news who were well into their eighties speaking publicly about coming out of the darkness of illiteracy and being able to finally contribute and be a full-fledged citizen is something that not only tugs one's heart strings but, more important, it allows us to understand the importance of these programs.

We had the government with this proposition in opposition, which said that when we have a surplus of Canadians' money, not the Liberal Party's money, not the Conservative Party's money, not the Bloc's money and not the NDP's money, we should be able to debate this. The Conservatives were very vigorous in opposition on this and we agreed with that.

One of the reasons we support and we propose to have someone oversee the budget spending, which we see in Bill C-2, is for this very reason. We do not just have the money holus-bolus written off because the Liberal Party, or the Conservative Party in this case, decides it should go wherever it likes. It should be opened up and there should be evaluation. We are hoping to see that when Bill C-2 comes into effect.

It did not happen with the Conservatives because it was just $13 billion and away it went with no debate. They went against what they said in opposition.

We need to look at how the process works. The billion dollar cuts, to which I referred, and the $13 billion surplus were outside of the budgetary framework and did not allow us as parliamentarians to debate it. We are bringing it up with regard to the billion dollars and will have motions brought to the House.

One with which I am sure the government will have a problem is the rebate to tourists. It obviously did not do its homework on that. It suggested only 3% of tourists take advantage of it but the government forgot that when people are in countries of origin that is when they take advantage of the GST rebate. Obviously it forgot to ask people how the program works and did not get the right statistics on it. We will probably see the government flip-flop on that. With that program the government showed the haste with which it made the cuts and it did not build it into the budget. It was in-between the budget of last year and the budget that will be coming up in the spring.

What is happening here is that the government is changing the mechanisms of how we debate as parliamentarians with regard to how citizens' money should be spent or, in this case, how their money is taken away. That is of concern because every citizen expects us to represent them and they expect that we will follow the rules and procedures of the House. To have a billion dollars worth of cuts without allowing us to have a debate on it is very problematic. Proposed cuts should come before the House for debate to ensure that everyone is fully aware of how it will affect our communities and the bottom line of the government.

This process and procedure of fiscal management should be done within the budgetary process and not the surprises that we have seen from the government, both on the surplus and the billion dollar cuts.

The final thing I will say about the billion dollar cuts is that they were clearly ideological cuts. We know the previous government booked more than the government cut when the previous prime minister came into power. In fact, he was going to cut five times as much. We know that was booked and that the government had to exact those savings. We see that now with the $2.5 billion it will try to get out of procurement.

I will take a minute to focus on procurement. The previous government went to Chicago and hired a consulting group. It was supposed to cost $1.5 million for the Chicago consulting group, A.T. Kearney, to come up with a plan on how the government could save money through reverse bid auctioning, which has been thrown out at this point. However, the price of the contract escalated all the way to $24 million.

My constituents became aware of this contract and when I became aware of it I mentioned it in the House. We had a contract, to be clear, that started off at $1.5 million and ballooned to $24 million. The icing on the cake was that the information the government got from A.T. Kearney was useless. That was what everyone in this town told the government before, that it was on the wrong track. We had to get the attention of the government to tell the government it was on the wrong track. Finally, it canned the project after we had sent $24 million to the consulting company out of Chicago. In my opinion, that is fiscal mismanagement. We thought we were done with that kind of mismanagement with the previous government.

I could go on about all the other programs that were affected and the missed opportunities here for young people, for post-secondary education, the no help for seniors and the child care plan that is a child care scam, but I will save that for another day. For reasons aforementioned, I cannot support the budget.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Yes, it is accountability. Every day the same minister gets up in the House and pounds on the Liberals about Bill C-2, which is being stalled in the unelected other House. At the same time, the Conservatives have a minister sitting in the other House who is not elected, is not accountable and does not answer to Canadians. This is wrong. Conservative members should be in the House, accountable to Canadians, accountable to the House of Commons, the people who have been elected by Canadians. This is completely anti-democratic.

Canada is supposedly the best country in the world, yet we have 1.4 million children going hungry. There are more homeless on the streets of Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver, than we have ever had. How could the Liberals be happy or proud about that? They said they had to pay down the debt, but they did on the backs of Canadians.

This is entirely unacceptable. The Liberals have absolutely nothing to be proud of from their 13 years in power. They made cuts to health care in 1994 and now more cuts are being made today. Our grandparents and our children are in hallways in hospitals across the country: in Montreal, Moncton, Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver. It is unacceptable to take money to pay down the debt at the expense of people who are sick. The Conservatives are doing no more than the Liberals did.

Procedure and House Affairs

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for allowing me to speak today to this extremely important issue.

For those who are watching this, it may seem a rather arcane issue dealing with the provisional Standing Orders but these are the rules upon which we can function and serve our constituents and our country in the House. These are the rules that have been put together to enable us to serve our country and our communities.

None of this is new. These provisional Standing Orders were put forth and supported strongly by the Conservatives when they were in opposition and by us in an effort to open up this place and make it more democratic.

How extreme are the provisional Standing Orders? What are these rules that we are actually talking about? Why do we want them to continue and why does the government wish that they not continue?

One of the Standing Orders would allow individuals in this House to question the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition for 10 minutes after they make a speech on a government motion. What is so flawed and so bad about enabling members for the first time to ask questions of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in response to words they have uttered in this House?

This is the type of questioning that is the pillar of our Westminster system. It allows members to represent their constituents and ask the person who holds the highest office in the land the questions that their constituents are concerned about. This was never allowed before under the provisional Standing Orders.

It is logical that the Conservative Party would have supported this in opposition and why my party supported these particular changes. It was a very important move to open this House up and become more democratic.

These rules also allow members to split their time with other members. One of the frustrations I think we all have, because there are limited times and limited slots in which to speak, is that we all wish to have an opportunity to speak to particular motions that occur.

Historically, a member only had 10 minutes to speak and therefore only a few members of Parliament had the opportunity to articulate their views and those of their constituents in this House on a motion. The changes we are talking about today allow members to split their time. It allows more members to voice their views in this hallowed chamber. Is that so bad? Is that so undemocratic? Is that such a violation that the government cannot live with this?

These provisional Standing Orders also allow us to debate concurrence motions. Another frustration I think we all have is that all of us have passed motions in committees. A lot of good work occurs in committee and, in many ways, a lot of the more constructive work on issues actually occurs in committees. The environment in committee tends to be a little more collegial and a little less confrontational than what we have in the House. It is perhaps because we are less than two sword lengths away from each other.

However, the reality is that motions passed in committee are oftentimes constructive motions, policy driven motions and motions in the public interest. Those motions, historically, have disappeared into the aether because we never had a mechanism upon which those motions could come to the House for a more fulsome debate and where the public could be made aware of those issues through the substantive debate that would take place on those issues.

In the foreign affairs committee, for example, we in the Liberal Party passed substantive motions and supported motions dealing with Afghanistan, HIV-AIDS, Zimbabwe, Darfur, the Congo and a number of other crises occurring in the world, and we passed those motions. Sometimes, with the use of these Standing Order changes, those motions and motions like them have been allowed to come to the House so the public can listen to the debates and hear the constructive solutions being offered by members from all sides.

Why on earth would government members not want these orders, which allow members from all sides, including their own, to represent their constituents and articulate their solutions, to continue?

Why on earth would the government desire to quell, quash and stop these democratic interventions that allow a more fulsome and constructive debate and a more solution oriented, policy and factually driven debate where we ultimately get action on the issues Canadians care about?

The Conservatives would block it because we have a government that is unlike any other that we have seen before. We have a government not by the people and for the people. We have a government by one person, for one party. The new Prime Minister is not one who is necessarily cut from the cloth of others. His viewpoint is one that is rooted in ideology, where ideology trumps science, fact and everything but the pursuit of power.

It stems from a type of thinking that comes from an obscure professor in the U.S. named Professor Strauss. This is the Straussian view of the world that is held by a few but important individuals. The intellectual bedmates of the Prime Minister are people like Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and Mr. Rumsfeld. They are all acolytes of this professor who lived earlier on in the 20th century.

Professor Strauss' view of the world was not one rooted in democracy. He believed that effective government came from the top, from a small number of people driven by ideology, who would force their will through a government structure and implement those solutions for a country. However, the inherent danger in that is that it violates the very roots of democracy and of this institution. That is what we have now. We have a Prime Minister driven by ideology, not driven by science and not driven by facts.

I will give some examples, the most egregious example of which is the issue of drug policy. That was manifested this summer in the almost willingness of the government to not allow the safe injection sites to continue in Vancouver. The government maintained that it needed more studies. These studies were done by some of the top researchers in the world and they were published in The Lancet. The studies showed very clearly that the safe injection site in Vancouver saved lives, saved money and was humane. These studies, which were done by independent assessors, some of the top scientific minds and researchers in Canada, showed that the safe injection site in Vancouver worked.

When I spoke to the Minister of Health he said that more studies were needed and he only extended this safe injection site for one year, not the three and a half years that were required. Why? It is because the government thinks it can hold an election and get a majority and, I believe, stop that safe injection site. The Conservatives will also not allow any other similar sites to occur in any other part of the country. Why? It is because ideologically they believe that safe injection sites are immoral and not in the interests of the public, but that completely ignores the facts.

We have, it is sad to say, a government run by one Prime Minister who believes that he is an omnibus cabinet minister. That is why we are seeing cabinet ministers, some of whom are very bright people and have very good ideas, being asked to shut up and to not offer any constructive solutions on how they can build public policy. All public policy comes from one person, the Prime Minister and a small number of people around him. The cabinet members are simply asked to trot out these solutions that the Prime Minister offers. That is not democracy.

The public who voted for the Conservative Party, particularly those people who are rooted in the Reform angle and who strongly believe in democracy and democratizing this House, would find it anathema to them that their government would not support these Standing Orders that allow members from all sides, including their own, to offer solutions in a constructive way.

It is sad to say that when the Prime Minister calls on his cabinet ministers, it is really to ask them to play the fall person to deal with mistakes that he has made.

The most recent example is the so-called environment bill, which has nothing to do with environmental protection. It has nothing to do with greenhouse gas emissions, the reason being that the Prime Minister at heart has chosen to ignore the signs, to ignore the facts and to believe that global warming is not really occurring. He is trusting his ideological belief over the actual scientific evidence, which demonstrates very clearly that global warming is occurring and is due to greenhouse gas emissions and that we have to act to make the changes necessary to ensure that we will be able to reverse this trend. It is very important for us, given our location in the world and the implications for the heating of our glaciers and our arctic areas, which is having a profound impact not only upon our country, but upon the world.

The other area is the so-called accountability bill. The accountability bill has nothing to do with accountability. It is but another example of many of the Prime Minister couching something in a certain way to lead people to believe that it is something it is not. The accountability bill is going to destroy the ability of the public service to innovate and to do the job it has done so honourably for so many decades. It also is going to prevent good people from joining the public service. We are having now and will have in the future a major problem with respect to attrition taking place in the public service and our need to attract to the public service the smart, dynamic, hard-working individuals we have always had.

Why should people join the public service if Bill C-2, the accountability bill, comes to pass, when they will have to be continually watching over their backs and continually having a hammer over their heads, and when their ability to influence and innovate is dramatically affected in a negative way? There are already checks and balances over the behaviour of the public servants, like there are over the behaviour of the House. We do not need any more of those.

Furthermore, the accountability bill has nothing to do with accountability, because accountability is the obligation of us as elected officials and of senior government officials to tell the public what we are doing before we do it and to respond to what has been done in the public interest. That is not what the accountability bill is about at all. In fact, when asked in the House to define simple public accountability, not one of those members could do that.

Furthermore, there is not even a definition of accountability in the bill. I hope the public recognizes that it is not what it seems and that the government is engaging in a number of behaviours and interventions that are diametrically opposed to the public good.

Not supporting these Standing Orders, not making these Standing Orders a matter of the rules on which the House continues, will be a complete violation of what the Conservatives have always supported and what we have commonly come to know as our basic democratic rights as members of Parliament.

We can also see that the government has been engaging in another pattern of behaviour, one that I have not seen in 13 years. It is quelling and quashing the ability of the public service to deal with members of Parliament, particularly those in opposition. It is very difficult for us to get information about what is occurring in the public service and to have meetings with public servants, who have always been very forthcoming in providing us with briefings in areas of our responsibility.

Since the new government has come along, I think the message has come down from on high, from the Prime Minister's Office, that members of the public service and the bureaucracy are not allowed to speak to members of the opposition. Roadblocks have been put in place to prevent us from being able to attend meetings and from dealing with and addressing members of the public service in a forthright and transparent fashion. That is a complete violation of our ability to do our jobs as members of Parliament in the service of the public.

The government also clearly is engaging in the behaviour of putting forth policies and using issues in a way that can harm Canadians. I will give but one example.

In the extension of the mission to Afghanistan, the Prime Minister framed the argument as being that if we do not support the extension of the mission then we do not support our troops. What an absolute pile of nonsense. That is an absolute use of our troops for the Prime Minister's own political gain. All of us, I think, at least those of us in the opposition, were extremely angry that the Prime Minister would have used our troops, who are giving their lives abroad for us, in such a naked political way.

We asked the Prime Minister's government to have the briefings and the information so we could respond and vote on this particular issue in a way that is responsible. There is no other duty that we have in this House, no other issue that is more difficult and no other issue that deserves more attention than when we put the lives of our troops on the line for the interests of our country.

Yet the government and Prime Minister gave the people of our House, members of Parliament, a mere 48 hours in order to respond. There was not enough time to get the information on issues such as the following. What is the government going to do in terms of the development framework in Afghanistan? What are the government's plans for training the Afghan security forces? What are the government's plans for dealing with the insurgency coming from outside Afghanistan? What is the government's plan to deal with the poppy crop? As Hamid Karzai, president of Afghanistan, said very clearly, “If we do not destroy poppies in Afghanistan, then poppies will destroy us”.

Why, in those four areas, could we not simply get the answers that would enable us to ensure that the conditions for the success of the mission were going to be there? The reason the Prime Minister did not allow it is that the Prime Minister knew his government was not putting out the interest, the attention and the resources to deal with those four issues that are conditional to the success of the mission in Afghanistan. He would rather use the issue as a political ploy to try to divide the opposition and to be able to erroneously show the public that those who do not support an extension at this time are somehow against our troops, which is absolute rubbish.

Behind that is a more evil intention. That evil intention is the desire on the part of the Prime Minister to use our troops for political gain. They should never be used for political gain. I hope the public sees that. I hope public understands that what we are trying to do is make sure that the conditions for the success of our mission in Afghanistan are there.

We also have been very clear in trying to articulate and demonstrate to the public that the policies the government has pursued in some areas are not what they seem. The government has trotted out policies on taxes. What it has done is raise the taxes on the poor. How on earth could any government in good conscience raise taxes on those who are the most vulnerable in our society? That is what the government has done.

The government talks about a child care program. Is the child care program a child care program? No, it is not. It is $1,200 before taxes for Canadians for their children under the age of six. That amounts to less than the cost of the cup of latte a day. That is not child care.

I hope the public understands that what we are trying to do here in this House with respect to these particular Standing Orders is enable and codify these orders in the House, which would enable us to have debates the public can see, give all members the ability to put forth solutions that would enable us to be constructive in the interests of our constituents, and enable us to work in the interests of the public.

We do not have enough opportunities to do that. These Standing Orders will enable us to do that. I think it is quite remarkable that the Conservative government that is now in power is now trying to block the very tools that will enable all MPs to be able to do their job.

I particularly ask members of Parliament who are in the backbenches of the Conservative Party to reflect on why their Prime Minister has muzzled them, has tried to muzzle the press and has muzzled his cabinet. The Prime Minister believes that he is the omnibus prime minister and that he is the font of all good ideas, but there is a dramatic danger there, in that no one person can be the government. It requires the best efforts of all people.

I hope the Canadian public understands that. I hope the government comes to its senses and supports these Standing Orders becoming permanent.

Criminal Code

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am acquainted with the hon. member. We worked very hard and diligently on Bill C-2, the accountability act. I am very familiar with his absolute ability to have a drive-by political bombast, as we just witnessed.

If there was a question there, the question should have been on Bill C-23, but I will underline that this party is about keeping communities safe. This party, on this side, does care about victims' rights, which is precisely why, and it is so evident in the member's question and comment, we like to take a fact-based approach.

We would have appreciated the Minister of Justice and the parliamentary secretary coming to the justice committee with some studies or some facts to back up their storefront democracy version of events. This suggests that these laws that they are proposing, mostly written on the backs of napkins and usually three pages in length, are the panacea, and that they do not give people out there a false sense of security.

We believe in keeping communities safe and spending some of that $13.2 billion in surplus on resources in the community. I would love to discuss this with the hon. member and have him say that we are not giving enough to the police forces in our communities, that we have cut $4.6 million from a trial project administered by the RCMP, who they so steadfastly support and so do we, for drug-impaired reactions.

I know it is very difficult for members opposite to focus on what is before them, but this bill is the fruit of the good work of people at the Law Commission, and people in the Department of Justice. It is a good bill, having nothing to do with the Minister of Justice and his parliamentary secretary and the members opposite.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, let me first say I find it incredibly amusing that the Liberal member for Mississauga South would stand and try to give this government a lecture on ethics and fundraising when all Canadians know that the Liberal Party of Canada perpetrated the largest money fraud and money laundering scheme in the history of the Canadian Parliament.

The sponsorship scandal is what I am referring to, in which millions of dollars were illegally diverted back to the Liberal Party of Canada, and because of it, we have the genesis of the accountability act. It was the result of the sponsorship scandal. That is why we now have the toughest anti-corruption law in Canada being considered before the Senate. It is to put an end to those practices that the Liberal Party purported to put onto Canadian citizens and taxpayers for many years.

For that member to stand and suggest that our Prime Minister was going to a fundraising event that really flew in the face of fundraising laws of this country is absolutely incorrect. I find it passing strange that any member of the Liberal Party could actually suggest that.

Let me also say that I find it particularly peculiar that the member for Mississauga South, who I thought would have more than a passing knowledge of electoral law in Canada and in the various provinces, would make such a ludicrous statement. I am sure the member understands that there are different election financing laws in Canada and in various provinces. In fact, in Ontario, the law states that contribution limits are $8,400 for corporations or individuals or unions. Plus, another $8,400 can be contributed during an election campaign.

Even more fundamental than that, if the member for Mississauga South were actually doing his homework or chose to investigate, he would understand, because he would have found out, that the recipient of the fundraising event that the Prime Minister attended was the PC Party of Ontario, not the Conservative Party of Canada. There is a huge difference. One is a provincial party and one is a federal party.

The Prime Minister did not receive any financial benefits, nor did the Conservative Party of Canada, yet the member has the audacity to stand in the House and try to accuse this government of breaking some sort of fundraising law when nothing of the sort occurred. In fact, when Bill C-2 is finally passed, and I desperately hope that happens within the next few weeks, it will be the one piece of legislation that I think will define this government, because it is the strongest anti-corruption law that this Parliament has ever considered.

The problem right now is that the Liberal Senate does not want to pass this law. The Liberals are purposely slow-walking this legislation in the Senate. Why? Not for due diligence, but to try to thwart our government for bringing in this law prior to the Liberal leadership convention.

This is unconscionable. It is shameful that unelected Liberal senators, for their own political benefit, would try to slow-walk the most important piece of anti-corruption legislation this country has ever seen. That is exactly what is happening. It is shameful. It is unconscionable. The member should be ashamed of himself. In fact, on behalf of his Liberal senators, he should apologize.

Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development

[Gary Merasty, Liberal, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I move that the first report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, presented on Friday, May 12, 2006, be concurred in.

I rise to speak on this motion with the hope that this government will acknowledge and understand the ramifications of its choice to kill the Kelowna accord. I believe it does not understand how gravely it has hurt first nations, Inuit and Métis communities, directly and indirectly.

Over the spring and summer, we have seen the Conservatives' attitude toward Kelowna regress, from saying that they supported the accord, to “putting the wheels on” the accord, to finally denying that it ever existed.

Not only did the government mislead Canadians, it also misled the aboriginal people of Canada. Premiers across Canada were shocked by the government's betrayal. For example, the Premier of Saskatchewan and the leader of the official opposition voted unanimously in support of a motion urging the federal government to implement the agreement.

First nation, Inuit and Métis leaders were stunned by the complete lack of consultation before the government chose not to honour the agreement. No one could believe the Conservative government would simply cut and run from its commitments.

Perhaps the Conservatives like to tell themselves that the new consensus struck at Kelowna was nothing significant. To do so, however, ignores this landmark agreement and reinforces over 100 years of distrust and shame.

Kelowna is a high-water mark, one achieved through collaboration and good faith, aimed at reconciling the wrongs of the past.

My elders tell me that in order to move forward, we must truly understand the past and the present to properly envision the future. We must understand the three phases of modern aboriginal-state relations. Every member in this House must be able to grasp these words before we are to truly understand what will be lost if the members of this House continue to vote against the Kelowna accord.

The first phase was an ad hoc/crisis phase. During this period of time from the 1950s until 1969, the federal government's approach to working with aboriginal people was with ad hoc responses to crises occurring in the communities. It was not until a crisis occurred that the government would respond. No medium, short or long term goals were ever taken. No constructive plans were ever enacted. This was simply and purely crisis management.

The second phase was an adversarial phase. The introduction of the 1969 white paper sparked aboriginal Canadians to respond strongly to its recommendations. Aboriginal people were tired of being swept under the rug and ignored until the last possible minute as they suffered misguided, imposed directives often disguised to assimilate the people and their lands.

From the 1970s until the mid-1990s, aboriginal Canadians found their voice and explored many avenues to speak out and affirm their rights. We demanded that our rights be recognized, respected and protected. We succeeded.

In the courts, we attained victories in Calder, Guerin, Baker Lake, Sparrow, Delgamuukw, Marshall, Powley, Haida, Mikisew and many others. First nations, Inuit and Métis rights were recognized and affirmed in section 35 of the Constitution. The United Nations also gave support to aboriginal Canadians, particularly in the case of Ms. Sandra Lovelace, who asserted her rights on the international stage and prevailed.

However, this was also a time of conflict, marked with protests, such as those at Oka, Ipperwash and others. Relationships were strained with increasing distrust and hostility. That had to end. We needed to move on and we did.

The relationship began to change in the mid-1990s. Canadian courts demanded that governments use political fora to address and deal with first nations, Inuit and Métis issues.

Self-government negotiations sprang up across the country, with an acceleration of programs being devolved to aboriginal control. Round tables were set up to deal with socio-economic issues. Real improvements in the lives of aboriginal people began to be made.

These were the three phases of aboriginal-state relations leading up to the Kelowna accord.

I also want to briefly make mention of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples.

In 1996, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, RCAP, was concluded. RCAP emerged from the Oka crisis in 1990, with the then Progressive Conservative government realizing it could no longer ignore aboriginal people, something this government should take note of.

RCAP was incredibly ambitious in its vision and all-encompassing in its scope. Based on 177 days of hearings and 3,500 witnesses, a six volume, 5,000 page report could be boiled down to one key statement: that Canada can no longer allow aboriginal people to remain dependent upon the nation.

It laid out the history of how aboriginal people became dependent, of how their world became one of poverty and social upheaval. RCAP identified three characteristics of government action that led to this upheaval: first, the systematic denial of aboriginal peoples' nation status; second, the violation of most agreements made with aboriginal peoples; and third, the suppression of culture and institutions.

RCAP also made recommendations to overcome the incredibly challenging realities of dependency and poverty. In particular, it argued that substantial key investments be made with multi-year commitments. In time, those investments would pay for themselves, realizing net savings over the long term for the government. For example, RCAP recommended an immediate $3 billion investment in housing that would result in Canada recovering more than twice that amount over the next number of years.

Poverty has become the reason for expense, but empowerment of the people and communities will be the way out. If the Kelowna accord is not honoured, this situation of empowerment and moving beyond dependency will not be reversed. Moreover, it is incredibly unsettling that the three key factors of oppression identified in RCAP, which I went through, namely, the denial of nation status, abandonment of agreements, and suppression of culture and institutions, are once again the government's agenda.

This minority government has a negative trend of undoing much of the progress made over the last 10 years. This relationship building stage is giving way to an adversarial stage once again. Yes, we are moving backwards with the Conservative government.

First, it has denied the nation status of aboriginal people. The UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples has been strongly opposed by the Conservatives, mostly on the basis that it would “revive 'extinguished' rights”, as if section 35 of the Constitution and many Supreme Court decisions did not exist.

Second, it has violated agreements. Most important, of course, it trashed the Kelowna accord over the objections of the first nations, Métis and Inuit peoples of this country.

Third, it has suppressed culture and institutions. This is what it is doing with the cuts to literacy and skills training, scrapping the first nations SchoolNet program and the court challenges program, and cutting off funding for band elections.

I am not sure who the Conservative government purported to represent when it chose to kill the Kelowna accord. Everybody, and I mean everybody, wants the accord honoured.

The background or context of our choice is this. Let us look at some of the facts.

First, Canada is going through its most significant demographic shift in more than 50 years. Baby boomers are retiring while the aboriginal population is poised to enter the workforce in unprecedented numbers. The time to invest in education and post-secondary is now. At no other time has it been more important to support first nations, Inuit and Métis education.

Second, because of the baby boom occurring in the aboriginal community, we are experiencing overcrowded housing. It is not uncommon to see three families and up to 16 or so people living in one house. The Saskatoon StarPhoenix described in detail the results of this overcrowding on health, on education and on self-worth.

Black mould is killing the people of Black Lake in my riding and many other communities across Canada. An elder passed away literally having black mould growing in her lungs.

Tuberculosis is rampant in my riding. I urge members to read the article in the StarPhoenix of September 26 and see a woman, a wife, a mother, lying in a coma from the complications of tuberculosis. Her husband and family are devastated. My daughter, Taylor, had to live with TB medication for a year. The government has ignored the TB outbreak in Black Lake like it has ignored the TB outbreak in Garden Hill. How can kids study or do homework in these conditions?

The StarPhoenix editorial board called this a “public health horror”. The Regina Leader-Post editorial board called it “a national disgrace”. And the government is going to tell me that it is not going to vote in favour of solving these issues. I hope government members can sleep at night.

A key reason why the Kelowna accord is so crucially important is that it provides the means to empower aboriginal communities to respond to the facts I have just laid out for members. If the Conservatives do nothing, not only will opportunity be lost but another generation will be lost to dependency and poverty. This must not and cannot happen.

The Kelowna accord represents, in the context of this speech, two things: first, the progress of the aboriginal people, the progress that they have made to improve the lives of their people, to have government recognize their rights, and to ultimately take their rightful place in Canadian society. Of course, these struggles are best described in the three phases I spoke of earlier.

Second, we need to begin to see the recommendations made in RCAP in 1996 implemented. This report was widely supported by aboriginal leaders across the country as a report which began to finally recognize our struggles, but also provided solutions for consideration.

Therefore, the Kelowna accord represents hope for first nations, Métis and Inuit people, and prosperity for Canada. It is a high watermark in aboriginal state relations, clearly leading toward implementing the nation to nation relationship necessary to resolve longstanding conflicts related to the numerous issues that could only be addressed through an improved legislated relationship recognizing the jurisdictions of each party.

It represents a new consensus in which all parties at the table agreed to jointly work toward resolving, issues such as housing, health, economic development and more. For the first time, Métis, Inuit and first nations people would be allowed at the table to set the agenda, the objectives, and the action plans to address social justice issues which have for too long been rampant in our communities. Finally, the cost of doing nothing was clearly understood, or so we thought.

Enter the Conservative minority government. How things have changed for the worse. Aboriginal people were betrayed as the Kelowna accord was killed without a second thought. Let us look at this novice Conservative government performance over the last eight months.

Of course, the Kelowna accord was not honoured. The government barely respected the residential school agreement, as I am sure there were some detailed discussions against this in cabinet. It refused to sign onto the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. The government was able to convince one country to side with it after unsuccessfully trying to convince others with horrendous human rights violations against indigenous peoples in their countries.

The government dragged its feet on responding to the Caledonia land dispute. It undermined the Dehcho nations negotiations on the Mackenzie pipeline and I know there is more to come.

Why do I say this? Let us look at some of the trends emerging on the government side. Let us list them.

Trend no. 1, there is no consultation with aboriginal people. There was no consultation on a decision to kill the Kelowna accord, no consultation on Bill C-2, no consultation on the UN declaration, and no consultation on the water or limited consultation on the water quality panel it set up.

There was no consultation on land claim issues, no consultation and no role for aboriginal people on the ministerial advisory committee on child care spaces initiative, and no consultation on the post-secondary review process which, coincidentally, the AUCC does not feel is fair consultation anyway.

There was no consultation on cutting the aboriginal procurement strategy, no consultation on cuts to education capital, and no consultation on cutting funding to Ontario first nations elections. And of course, there was no consultation on the federal budget of 2006-07.

Overall, this Conservative government just does not care enough to consult with aboriginal people. Aboriginal people are getting the message that the government does not want to talk to them.

Trend no. 2, there is a diminishing of aboriginal rights. One of the principles of the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples is the recognition of collective rights. In fact, the Minister of Indian Affairs stated in the Globe and Mail that “the text (in the declaration) could be used to revive rights that were lawfully extinguished or ceded by treaty.”

What rights were extinguished lawfully? This is the basis upon which aboriginal people have battled the government for decades. Aboriginal people were swindled and prevented from defending themselves. In fact, many first nations people could not even hire a lawyer to act on their behalf.

This tells the aboriginal people that the minister is not open to discussing aboriginal rights in a fair and reasonable manner, especially it seems, collective rights. I think there is a reason to why collective rights are being targeted.

The Minister of Indian Affairs was quoted as saying in a Saskatchewan newspaper that fee simple land ownership is the only solution to dealing with aboriginal poverty. This is an entirely American policy. In the United States the Dawes act of 1887 stole Indian land from the Indian people on the premise of eliminating poverty.

In the book, Reconciliation: First Nations Treaty Making in British Columbia, Mr. Penikett, who is a well-respected authority on aboriginal rights, writes a passage that states:

Theodore Roosevelt praised the Dawes Act as “a mighty pulverizing engine to break up the tribal mass”. Through foreclosures and state tax collections, settlers soon grabbed all the best land. In less than a lifetime, Indians had lost half of their remaining lands in the United States.

Will this future Conservative government on reserve private land ownership legislation be known as the member for Calgary Centre-North act?

The minister's comments tell the first nations of Canada that the goal of the government is clearly not to respect their collective rights but to open up reserve lands for speculators. But, it does not end there.

The next issue the government is dressed in sheep's clothing on is matrimonial real property. Clearly, first nations women are not fairly or legally protected when it comes to the Indian Act. It is a very discriminatory piece of legislation that must be eliminated. In June 1992, Ms. Nellie Carlson of the group Indian Rights for Indian Women said:

Historically the Indian Act has thoroughly brainwashed us. Since 1869 Indian women already were legislated as to who she should be. Six times the Indian Act changed on Indian women. But each time she lost a little bit of her rights as an Indian.

To resolve this issue requires a very complex set of negotiations to take place. The respect and recognition of the first nations dispute resolution processes is necessary. The membership rules of the Indian Act, and specifically the Bill C-31 amendments must be changed to further protect the rights of first nations women.

Socio-economic conditions must be addressed. Recognition of women's rights within the communal land ownership context must be addressed effectively. If it is the plan of the Conservative government to establish fee simple land ownership in order to divide up matrimonial property upon dissolution of marriage, it will not work. If this is the plan, first nations women may end up losing more of their rights as Ms. Nellie Carlson described.

The move of the Conservative government is clearly to establish fee simple land ownership through any means possible, recognizing of course what the Prime Minister did recently when he stood proud to denounce the rights of the aboriginal people of this country as race-based.

Aboriginal people have fought hard to have their rights recognized through the avenues available to them in this democratic country. It is an embarrassment for us as Canadians to see the path upon which the Conservative government wants to take us.

I want to cite Mr. Penikett's book one more time. He talks extensively about the fears of aboriginal people when it comes to the Conservative government. He writes:

Judging from previous statements by Conservative MPs, the possibilities include Aboriginal leaders' worst nightmares:

Deeply cutting financial transfers for education, health and housing programs;

Using the constitution's notwithstanding clause to limit Canada's obligations to Aboriginal peoples;

Ending the separate Aboriginal fishery;

Adopting Harper mentor Tom Flanagan's proposal to legislate “extinguishment”;

Initiating Dawes Act-style privatizing tribal lands; and

Offering individual cash buyouts for Aboriginal rights and title--

Well, Mr. Penikett called it.

The Kelowna accord best represents the hopes and dreams of the aboriginal people of this country to be recognized as equals in their own country and as significant contributors to the building of this great country that today we are all so proud of. They want to be proud of Canada, too, but this government is making it very difficult.

The Conservative government knew that it was never a matter of enough money. The rich treasury that we have seen in the last few days clearly points to the fact that the Conservative government chose not to honour the Kelowna accord and to make cuts right where it hurts.

Ethics Commissioner Report in Relation to Member for Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to exercise my right to speak, pursuant to subsection 28(9) of the appendix to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons.

On June 21 of this year a report by Ethics Commissioner Bernard Shapiro on an inquiry precipitated by the member for Ottawa—Vanier was presented to the House. This report offends all manner of natural justice and fairness, and out of respect for the House and our democratic institution I am obligated to respond.

If anything demonstrates the need for swift passage of Bill C-2, the federal accountability act, it has to be the decision of the current Ethics Commissioner to willingly get involved in partisan political activity in the aftermath of a federal election campaign.

The inquiry was a blatant waste of taxpayers' dollars, the cost of which should be borne by the Liberal Party as an election expense.

In order to understand the proper sequence of events, it is important to correct the version presented by Mr. Shapiro.

The member for Ottawa—Vanier made his partisan allegations in a letter to the Ethics Commissioner dated January 11, 2006 during the last federal election. The February 9 letter referred to by Mr. Shapiro was the second request after the initial turndown, the reasons for which Mr. Shapiro has refused to disclose, even though he is obligated to report his reasons as per subsections 27(6) and 28(1) of the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons.

It was brought to my attention by a member of the media that on January 12, 2006, the day after the member for Ottawa—Vanier wrote to Mr. Shapiro, a member of the Liberal Party, Stephen Heckbert, issued a partisan press release disclosing the actions of the member for Ottawa—Vanier and his partisan allegations.

As I would be unaware of a letter being written and it would not be expected that the Ethics Commissioner would release the contents of private correspondence, it would appear that the information came directly from the individual making the allegation to be used in a partisan political manner during the last federal election.

This public disclosure is in direct violation of subsection 27(5) of the members' code. The code expressly states:

--Members should respect the process established by this Code and permit it to take place without commenting further on the matter.

Furthermore, subsection 27(6) states the following:

If the Ethics Commissioner is of the opinion that a request for an inquiry is frivolous or vexatious or was not made in good faith, or that there are no or insufficient grounds to warrant an inquiry or the continuation of an inquiry, the Ethics Commissioner shall so state in dismissing the request. The Ethics Commissioner shall report the dismissal in accordance with section 28 and may recommend that further action be considered against the Member who made the request.

Subsection 28(1) states:

Forthwith following an inquiry, the Ethics Commissioner shall report to the Speaker, who shall present the report to the House when it next sits.

This is an apparent failure of the Ethics Commissioner to respect subsection 27(6) and subsection 28(1) of the members' code. As of today's date no report, as required by the members' code, has been presented to the House.

Upon investigation, I have been informed that it has been indicated to the Table Clerks of the House by the Ethics Commissioner that Mr. Shapiro is of the opinion that if a request for an inquiry falls outside the commissioner's mandate, he is not required to report the dismissal for such a request to the House even though the code clearly directs Mr. Shapiro to issue a report in that circumstance.

This action then begs the question: If the January 11 request was outside the mandate of the Ethics Commissioner, what changed between January 11 and February 9, other than the government, to cause Mr. Shapiro to pursue this frivolous request?

My next concerns are as follows. It is important for all members of Parliament to know what we can and cannot do under the members' code. If the Ethics Commissioner has decided that he is not going to respond to a request and then decides he is not going to inform anyone, how are members supposed to know what our obligations are under the members' code?

Another very serious concern is the way the Ethics Commissioner has decided when to report to the House. In the case of the inquiry regarding the cabinet selection, Mr. Shapiro states that there was no contravention of the members' code and then proceeded to issue a report on the crossing of the floor that was clearly outside his mandate. The Ethics Commissioner cannot have it both ways.

In my case, by refusing to report on a non-meritorious request as per subsection 27(6) of the members' code, I am being denied the right for further action to be taken against the member for Ottawa—Vanier for breaching the members' code.

From the outset it was clear that the office of the Ethics Commissioner was being used for partisan political reasons, which further demonstrates the lack of consistency that was used to pursue this frivolous request.

After Mr. Shapiro wrote to my office informing me of his decision to participate in partisan harassment arising from an election campaign, my office responded with the following letter:

This letter is in response to your letter of March 27th, 2006, in which you advise of your intention to carry out an investigation into certain alleged violations by the member for Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke of the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons.

I note that the “incidents” allegedly giving rise to the complaint occurred when the Parliament was dissolved.

I draw to your attention the following quote from your report regarding the Inquiry involving the Prime Minister.

“Upon dissolution of the 38th Parliament, the House as an Assembly ceased to exist...In addition, members of the House cease to exist constitutionally...It logically follows from this that the member making the request must have the capacity to do so”.

As one must be a member of the House of Commons for the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons to apply, by your own finding, the members' Code has no effect on persons when they are not Members (i.e., between the date of dissolution and the return of the election writs).

The allegations made by the Member for Ottawa--Vanier against the Member for Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke were made at a time when neither individual was subject to the members' Code.

If someone is not able to bring forward a complaint during this period, by the same logic, one cannot be a target of a complaint during the same period, for the same reason.

For the reasons stated, you are without jurisdiction to conduct your inquiry.

I would request that you immediately cease all further inquiry into these allegations.

In a letter January 23, 2006, in response to the member for Calgary Southeast, Mr. Shapiro had this to say, and I quote directly from Mr. Shapiro's own words to the member for Calgary Southeast:

Aside from the consideration above, your request raises another issue related to my authority to initiate an inquiry at the request of a member of the House of Commons after Parliament has been dissolved.

After dissolution of Parliament there are no longer any members of the House of Commons.

While this does not appear to be clearly stated in the Parliament of Canada Act, I note that section 69 indicates:

“For the purposes of the allowances payable under sections 55 and 63, a person who, immediately before a dissolution of the House of Commons, was a member thereof shall be deemed to continue to be a member of the House until the date of the next following general election”.

Between the dissolution of the 38th Parliament and the commencement of the 39th Parliament, members of the House of Commons constitutionally cease to be members.

As well, with the dissolution of Parliament, the House of Commons as an Assembly, as well as its activities, cease.

As a consequence, the Standing Orders of the House of Commons have no effect.

As the members' code is Appendix I to the Standing Orders, it too has no effect during dissolution.

As a result, I am therefore not in a position to consider a request by a member for an inquiry against another member on the basis of the members' Code.

Incredibly, Mr. Shapiro totally flip-flopped from the position he took when he responded to the member for Calgary Southeast when he made the decision to pursue partisan attacks on who a prime minister could appoint to his cabinet.

Of far greater consequence to the privileges of all members of this House was the assertion by Mr. Shapiro that the “deemed” concurrence of the report issued to the House by his office on April 4, 2006 was somehow parliamentary approval for the absolute inconsistency that has been the hallmark of decisions made by Mr. Shapiro.

I draw attention of members to subsection 28(10) of the members' code:

A motion to concur in a report referred to in subsection (4) or (5) may be moved during Routine Proceedings. If no such motion has been moved and disposed of within 10 sitting days after the day on which the report was tabled, a motion to concur in the report shall be deemed to have been moved and adopted at the expiry of that time.

This I submit to all members is the same type of negative option that some telecoms use to get subscribers to sign onto services they do not really want.

This stealth method of changing the Standing Orders of the House of Commons by an employee of this chamber is absolutely unacceptable.

Any changes to the way this House governs its affairs should only be done with open debate and a vote by all members. Changes to the Standing Orders should never be “deemed to be adopted” as a default option.

I now read into the record my letter to Mr. Shapiro of May 1 after he stated he would issue a report with or without my cooperation:

Further to your letter of April 18th, 2006, please be assured that as a Member of Parliament I accept the obligations and demands as required of MPs by the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons (the members' code).

I welcome the opportunity to co-operate with any officer of the House of Commons in the performance of their responsibilities.

At the same time, it must be noted that in order to request information from a member relating to her functions and the way in which she carries out those functions, the person or officer must have the jurisdiction to make the request.

In order to understand the basis upon which I am being requested to co-operate with your office, it is both necessary and appropriate to ask before responding to such a request for a clear understanding of exactly what I am being required to respond to in the context of the members' code.

In the letter of February 9, 2006, the Member for Ottawa—Vanier alleges that sections 8 and 10(1) of the Members' Code may have been breached.

In both of these provisions, a conflict only occurs when a Member's “private interest” is involved.

Please identify the private interest, as defined in these two sections of the Members' Code, that it is alleged I have furthered in the performance of my public duties.

It was with particular interest I note that you cite the Board of Internal Economy and their bylaws as an authoritative source, where you “find that the alleged conduct does relate to the carrying out of duties and functions of a Member”.

I draw to your attention the relevant section of the Parliament of Canada Act whereby the Board of Internal Economy derives its statutory authority:

Sections 52.6 and 52.8 of the Parliament of Canada Act read:

“52.6(1)The Board has the exclusive authority to determine whether any previous, current or proposed use by a member of the House of Commons of any funds, goods, services or premises made available to that member for the carrying out of parliamentary functions is or was proper, given the discharge of the parliamentary functions of members of the House of Commons, including whether any such use is or was proper having regard to the intent and purpose of the by-laws made under subsection 52.5(1)”.

The same authority of the Board is specifically referenced in section 6 of the Members' Code, which provides:

“6. Nothing in this Code affects the jurisdiction of the Board of Internal Economy of the House of Commons to determine the propriety of the use of any funds, goods, services or premises made available to Members for carrying out their parliamentary duties and functions”.

As I understand the allegation put forth by the member for Ottawa—Vanier, he is questioning the manner in which I may or may not have used resources in my constituency and Ottawa offices, resources that are provided to me and all Members as part of our Members' Operation Budget.

These budgets, their purpose and use, are within the exclusive domain of the Board of Internal Economy.

This, in and of itself, is grounds for dismissing the request for an inquiry by the member for Ottawa—Vanier.

He refers to section 2(a) and (b) of the Members' Code as possible grounds to proceed.

In the principles enunciated in section 2 of the Members' Code, I categorically and absolutely reject any and all allegations contained in the correspondence, including attachments sent by the member for Ottawa—Vanier behind this partisan political attack.

I remind the Ethics Commissioner that this allegation was made during the January 23, 2006 election campaign.

What purpose can possibly be served by resurrecting a partisan slur campaign?

The campaign is over.

In spite of efforts by the member for Ottawa—Vanier and the Liberal Party, the voters of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, in their wisdom, saw right through this partisan attack, increasing my plurality.

Democracy has spoken.

The fact that the Liberal Party continues to use the office of the Ethics Commissioner for partisan political purposes should in and of itself be subject to an inquiry by your office based on this same section.

What is also clear from this exchange and by your own admission, is the contradictory position you took in the inquiry involving the cabinet selection after the Valeri decision.

There is a need to establish, in clear terms, exactly what authority the office of the Ethics Commissioner possesses to enforce the Members' Code during dissolution of Parliament. This is an issue that is most appropriately the purview of Parliament in the context of legislation now before the House.

While I am prepared to respond to all requests that are made within the scope of the jurisdiction given to you by members of the House of Commons, I am unable to respond to the present inquiry without the information and responses requested in this letter.

Like anyone asked to respond to a person in authority on an allegation as serious as breach of ethics, I am entitled to know the jurisdiction of the person requesting a response, as well as the case I have to meet.

As a result, I request a response from you prior to issuing any report to Parliament, should you insist on proceeding with this frivolous pursuit.

Pursuant to section 52.5 of the Parliament of Canada Act, Bylaw 102, I consider the final paragraph of your April 18, 2006 letter to me to be a breach of section 2(d) of that bylaw and will respond appropriately.

Incredibly, even after receiving this correspondence, Mr. Shapiro continued his misguided attack. His final comments in the subsequent report he tabled represent a partisan double standard when compared to his introduction to the inquiry into the actions of the hon. member for York West, when he had this to say:

Regardless of public perception, the mandate or authority of the Ethics Commissioner does not extend to all areas; the Ethics Commissioner cannot be considered a general ombudsperson with the authority to respond to citizens who are dissatisfied with their particular experience with a parliamentarian, minister or public office holder.

Rather than consistently applying the same standard that was applied to the member for York West, Mr. Shapiro proceeded to act in a manner which he had previously acknowledged was outside his mandate.

My closing remarks I now direct to the other place as it considers Bill C-2, the federal accountability act.

During testimony from Mr. Shapiro, it was pointed out that he had a preference for a non-legislated code of conduct, and the need for someone with a background in the law, either as a current or former member of the bench of a tribunal, was questioned as being unnecessary.

The case I put forth in front of Parliament today clearly demonstrates the absolute requirement for a legislated code of conduct and for the Ethics Commissioner to have a background in the law.

It has been recognized that Mr. Shapiro has been reading into the code things that are not there. His actions clearly demonstrate that the proposals set forth by the government in the federal accountability act are absolutely necessary to restore the credibility to the position of Ethics Commissioner.

One of the columnists for the Globe and Mail made this observation on a decision by Mr. Shapiro:

--the Ethics Commissioner, like a judge on a court or a commissioner at an inquiry, should be bound by the strict letter of his or her mandate...It was simply his job to decide whether the MPs' code of conduct had been violated. It hadn't. Case closed.

It was a lapse in judgment, another in a long list....

For the office of the Ethics Commissioner to function with any credibility, it must do so in an unbiased, non-partisan fashion. The federal accountability act seeks to make those changes.

A senator from British Columbia during hearings in the other place on Bill C-2 asked how an individual whose appointment was voted in favour could be protected from falling into disfavour amid partisan allegations. Members vote for the office. It is then up to the individual appointee to conduct his or herself in such a fashion as to bring credibility to that position.

It is my feeling that Bill C-2, the federal accountability act, will clean up the current shortcomings that now exist in the Ethics Commissioner's office. I urge the other place to pass this legislation now.

Had the federal accountability act been in place, Mr. Shapiro would have been compelled to fulfill the requirements of the position of Ethics Commissioner as intended by this House, and the frivolous, vexatious, partisan request by the controversial member for Ottawa—Vanier would have been properly dismissed, as it eventually was, without the waste of taxpayers' dollars, which was the final result.

Canada Transportation Act

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak at second reading of Bill C-11. This bill is about 60 pages long and is one of those bills that we cannot read in isolation. We have to have the existing legislation there so we can follow the amendments. Unless the House is prepared to give me an extension of about two hours, I am not going to address the whole bill. I will address certain aspects of it.

We are talking about the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act. There are certainly many provisions of interest in this bill and they have been debated and discussed by hon. members through this debate, but I would like to look at a couple in particular.

Bill C-11 proposes that the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities be allowed to regulate the advertised pricing of airfare. This is an issue which is of great interest to Canadians, considering the recent history and volatility within the airline industry. It remains to be heard from the minister what his specific intentions are with regard to future airfare advertising regulations.

The whole question of regulations is kind of interesting to note for all hon. members. When we debate bills and vote at the various stages, we do so without the regulations, which do not come until after the legislation is passed, has gone through the Senate, received royal assent and is proclaimed. Then we get the regulations. There always has been this issue about whether or not there is this creeping problem where we have executive-made law, where the cabinet is enhancing what the insinuation of the legislation is through the regulations. It is the reason why we have the scrutiny of regulations committee, a joint Commons-Senate committee, to look at those regulations as they come through and to ensure that the regulations are authorized by the legislation.

I thought I would put that in because it is a very important aspect as it relates to this bill and it is incumbent upon the committee to do this. I am sure we will see this bill go to committee for review. We have to ensure that we get an indication from the government, from the minister, about the intent. What is the intent here? How can we, from an informed point of view, make decisions with regard to appropriate amendments to the legislation, if necessary?

The bill itself provides hints but no guarantees, and that is the issue. That is the problem with the regulations. Subsection 86.1(1) states:

The Agency may, on the recommendation of the Minister, make regulations respecting advertising in all media, including on the Internet, of prices for air services within, or originating in, Canada.

Subsection 86.1(2) of the same clause suggests that the minister may require that prices should include all costs to the carrier and all charges, but it does so without limiting the generality of the minister's power to regulate under subsection 86.1(1). Again it is this uncertainty, as a consequence of having the details, and the devil always is in the details with regard to regulations.

Members may recall that the issue of airfare pricing attracted a great deal of attention a few years ago when airport improvement fees and security charges became prevalent throughout the airline industry. At that time, the Liberal government recognized that protecting consumers was of utmost importance. Much of the materials we find in Bill C-11 are the provisions of the amendments to the Canada Transportation Act, which have been presented in bills in prior Parliaments, but which did not proceed through the full legislative process due to the call of an election.

The provisions that are in question today were inherited from the previous legislation. There are too many situations right now, quite frankly, and what we are trying to address is that every day Canadians are faced with misleading and simply false information. That is the reality that we are faced with when we are trying to decide, as consumers, how to spend our hard-earned dollars.

The wide range of fees and taxes on airfare can be particularly confounding as well. Charges vary depending on which airport one is in, the airport of origin and the destination, then based on whether it is domestic or international. Even then, in some cases when a flight connects through certain particular airports rather than others, there are other complications, so the comparabilities from airline to airline are in some difficulty too.

Then, of course, we cannot forget the taxes. When all the charges, fees and taxes are summed up, the actual price of an airline ticket can be substantially above the base price, which is usually the advertised price. Let me repeat that. The base price, without all those add-ons, is the one that usually appears in the advertising. The consumers really get a surprise when they see the add-ons.

The right to set regulations could simplify these charges into a single tax-inclusive number, which when advertised by one airline would lend itself to comparison with other advertisements by other airlines. It is possible to take for granted the importance of advertising in our society. Market economies depend on competition. The competition itself depends on the ability of purchasers, in this case the Canadian consumers buying airline tickets, to distinguish between prices in a meaningful way.

I would go so far as to say that the efficiency cannot be properly encouraged in a market without clear pricing. That is the issue. We do not really have clear pricing, at least in the eyes of the consumer.

We must see prices clearly in order to choose based on price. Only when we choose based on price do we encourage businesses to offer a better deal. This is competition. That is the purpose of healthy competition. It is to ensure that there is fair pricing. Competitive pricing means that there is a win-win.

Clearly we are supportive of the principle of price advertising clarity. However, we do not know precisely what kind of price advertising regulations the minister intends to undertake. This is a problem and it is something that I encourage the committee to address exhaustively when it looks at this legislation.

Specific types of regulation can certainly have some unintended effects as well. Forcing airlines to disclose a certain amount of information in their advertising may in fact interfere with the message in unproductive ways or confuse the consumer. If we go a little too far we may find that people do not focus in on exactly the key elements of the pricing mechanism.

We have all seen the commercials for automobiles, which contain a great deal of detail. That is an example of listing all these little things. In fact, many Canadians would argue that they contain too much detail to be of much use. Calling on the airlines to display a similar level of detail may in fact not be where we want to go. I think this is another issue that the committee should address very carefully.

As we know, industries are thoroughly interconnected. I am not just talking about the airline industry. When we think about it, even the advertising industry is obviously affected. Depending on what our requirements are, certain modes of advertising are more desirable, more productive or effective than others, so that depending on what we do in this legislation may have some consequential impacts on other industries. We have to ask ourselves whether or not new regulations will cause one type of media to take a greater share of advertising dollars than another type. It could have any number of effects, all of which we can only speculate about.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities began his remarks by outlining some details. We will be required to do our jobs, but full disclosure in any event is certainly essential. We do not know what regulations the minister will be eventually bringing forward. It is going to be difficult for us to assess some of these finer points in terms of the impacts on the industry and related industries or linked industries.

This brings me to another important point. As parliamentarians, we obviously have a duty to consider legislation very carefully, but the government is understandably anxious to more forward with certain priorities. This is one that we cannot rush. This is one that we have to be very careful of. We know it has taken some time to get to this point yet again. When we start the House every day we say prayers and one of our pleas is that we make “good laws and wise decisions”. That is always the case. Certainly we want to make sure that Bill C-11 ultimately makes the necessary amendments to make the Canada Transportation Act a better law.

Whether the bill is the size of Bill C-2, the accountability bill, which is five times the size of a normal piece of legislation, or whether it is like Bill C-3 on international tunnels and bridges, a very few pages, we cannot forget that when we give a bill our approval it eventually becomes law, with consequential effects for Canadians, whether we have had the foresight to see them.

This bill in particular has some potential pitfalls that are going to call on those responsible for scrutinizing the bill at committee to do their very best, to engage the best possible witnesses, to try to foresee, to try to identify some of those pitfalls and to absolutely ensure that the legislation does not have unintended consequences.

In terms of Bill C-11, we are asking the government and the minister in particular to take the time to properly address the many questions that flow from the amendments it proposes. The Minister of Transport spoke about another provision in Bill C-11 that is of interest. He indicated that he intends to amend the Canada Transportation Act to create a mediation process for disputes concerning federal transportation matters that fall within the jurisdiction of the Canadian Transportation Agency.

This is very interesting. It is an evolution that was previously found in Bill C-44 in a prior Parliament. Proposed subsection 36.1(1) would require a unanimous agreement of the parties in order to proceed, but in those circumstances it would seem to be a very useful process.

Any time that we can provide for alternatives to litigation in the area of transport, we do a favour to the parties who are looking for win-win solutions. We would like to explore that as fully as possible as well. The process suggests a quicker timeline and would inevitably be cheaper than lawsuits. That usually is the case. Many of our legal friends in the chamber certainly remind us of that from time to time, although for the life of me it really makes me think of the softwood deal and some of the dynamics that have occurred there.

To go back to this bill, in February 2004 CTA chairwoman Marian Robson wrote that 95% of matters that had been referred to mediation by the agency were resolved to mutual satisfaction. We can see that the history is very good in this regard.

Entities that fall under the domain of the Canadian Transportation Agency are more than likely parties that have ongoing contractual relationships. By its very nature transportation infrastructure is not particularly fluid and there may not be many possible alternative commercial relationships. Quick, amicable resolutions free up resources and ultimately lead to better prices and better services for Canadians.

My colleagues and I are supportive of these measures and commend the minister for bringing back these elements of amendments from previous Liberal bills.

Finally, I would like to dwell very briefly on the issue of corporate governance. It is a subject matter that has attracted quite a bit of attention these days and the CTA is a very important agency. The agency is responsible for balancing divergent interests in a fair and open manner. It licenses air and rail carriers and resolves complaints between shippers and railways regarding rates and service. It approves proposed construction of railway lines. It even participates in international bilateral negotiations and administers bilateral agreements.

Eyebrows were raised in the House when the minister asserted that changes to the makeup of the Canadian Transportation Agency will provide for cost savings. I think people's eyebrows usually go up when governments say they are going to save--it is almost like “show me”--but these are initiatives through which, if they are sound in terms of their operational impact, that is possible, and we certainly would like to see that.

It appears that the current board made up of seven part time members will be replaced by a board of five members in the full time employ of the CTA. These five members would be located here in the national capital region. The minister talks about efficiency of centralization, noting that more than one member must sign off on decisions the agency takes, and I would like to hear from the minister about how the agency will do its job better.

As we know, the bill is the third attempt to bring forward legislation on these particular matters. Let me say that Bill C-11 is made up of many, many amendments, some 60 pages of them. It was very difficult. I compliment all hon. members who took the opportunity to do the necessary work, the due diligence, to review the legislation so they could bring an informed debate to the House at second reading and so we could move the bill on through the legislative process with our eyes wide open with regard to the key elements that are of concern to parliamentarians and to consumers and the service providers as well.

An important part of our review was the statutory review of the Canada Transportation Act. I was very interested to hear the Minister of Transport, standing in his place earlier, mention that he would be tabling further amendments addressing the subject of rail shipping disputes. Certainly we have had a great deal of discussion on that. I know that the committee is going to be very cognizant of the concerns raised by all hon. members.

He talked further of consultations that are now complete and new conclusions that the Conservative minority government has drawn. I should note that Bill C-11 requires another statutory review of the Canada Transportation Act, something that makes a lot of sense given its primacy in an area, namely transportation, that is of broad importance to Canada and certainly to all Canadians.

As my hon. colleague from Ottawa South, the opposition critic for transport, has stated, we are looking forward to seeing the bill examined and revised as necessary at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the official opposition critic for transport it is enlightening to hear an evolving NDP position on the bill.

I would like to go back to a theme the member raised and put a couple of questions to him. He did raise the question of transparency and accountability and then really took it quite hard to the government in terms of its accountability and appointments process. I have a hard time reconciling those comments with the activities over the past six months of his colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre, who has been in large part the stalking horse and the apologist for this government on its Bill C-2, the federal accountability act.

I would like to remind the member about some of the wonderful appointments taken on by the previous government in the past, including the appointment, for example, of Stephen Lewis, for whom we fought tooth and nail to get appointed as Under-Secretary-General to the United Nations. There was the appointment of Ed Broadbent for seven years as the President and CEO of Rights and Democracy in Montreal and, of course, my very good friend Mike Harcourt, the former NDP premier of B.C. who was appointed on three separate occasions by the Liberal government to take on some very important public policy work.

My question for the member, now that he has raised a number of issues which I am looking to discern through to find out how we can improve the bill, is the environmental question. There is no greenhouse gas reference in this bill whatsoever. This is at a time when the government purportedly is in the process of devising some sort of new environmental plan or strategy. I guess it will go along with the theme of a new government, a new environmental policy. I am not sure where it is. It has been seven months, to correct the record. How does the member take the fact that under Bill C-11 there are no environmental measures, no greenhouse gas references and, clearly, no effort to deal with the environmental and climate change challenge?

Lobbyists

[John Baird, Conservative, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, what I can say and what the Ethics Commissioner stated very clearly is that these two individuals worked for Parliament, but not for government. That is very important. It is very clearly stated that if you have access to the trust of cabinet ministers, if you have access to government information, if you have contacts with the government while working in a minister's office, you cannot be employed as a lobbyist for five years. This is one of the reasons for implementing Bill C-2 before looking for a better bill to—

Political Financing

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard all kinds of sanctimonious bluster from the President of the Treasury Board over this already.

The fact is it was the NDP that filed the complaint with the elections commission on June 29. Three months later, the commission cannot get the Conservatives to cooperate and show their books, to open their political contribution books. I was shocked to learn the elections commissioner does not even have the authority to audit a political party's books.

The Conservatives turned down every amendment we put forward on election financing in Bill C-2. How can they stand here and say they are committed to openness and transparency if they will not cooperate with the elections commissioner?

Canada Elections Act

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to Bill C-16.

I chose to run for political office, as many here did, to make a difference. I believe we were sent here by our constituents to improve the state of the nation.

One of the areas where our nation definitely needs improvement is the structure and the function of our democracy. Before the last election, our party put forward a seven point plan to clean up and improve the state of our democracy. A friend of mine and a colleague of many who are here, Mr. Broadbent, proposed the seven point plan to clean up and put in the hands of Canadians some ideas that we could then bring to this place to improve the state of our nation and, indeed, the state and health of our democracy.

I want to go over those points. We know that with the accountability act the government quite smartly and rightly took some of our ideas and brought them forward. We certainly contributed to the committee on Bill C-2 in which the member for Winnipeg Centre and I proposed, as opposed to just opposing, ideas. We proposed some of the ideas that we had put forward in our plan, which was available to Canadians not only during the election but before the election.

To summarize the seven point plan, the first was to have democratic accountability in the House. We proposed that no member of Parliament could ignore his or her voters and wheel and deal for personal gain. No member of Parliament should be permitted to ignore the wishes of their voters and change parties. This was before the interesting musical chairs by the member for Vancouver Kingsway. We wanted to ensure that the wishes of voters were honoured. To cross the floor and become a member of another party, without first resigning his or her seat and running in a byelection, was not on.

Democracy is something that is evolving. It is an experiment of sorts and it is something where we know that when voters are not honoured, they do one of two things. Fist, they just walk away from the process, and no one wants to see that happen. Sadly, we have seen that happen over time. Second, they propose to change things.

The first thing we wanted to do in our seven point ethics packages was to ban floor-crossing. We saw that it dishonoured the wishes of voters.

The second point of our seven point plan was that election dates should be fixed, which is the spirit in the proposition the government has put before the House in Bill C-16. There are many reasons for that, which I will explain in a minute.

Point three, which we proposed before the last election, was to set spending limits in leadership contests. We saw in the previous Liberal Party leadership contest the contestant, who then became the prime minister, had over $12 million in the bank. Obviously, there was not much competition in the end, but he had lots of money. We had concerns at the time about the amount of money in leadership contests, and it was not just with the Liberal Party. Parties are largely financed by the public and the same principles pertinent to the public good should play to the internal affairs of parties as they do to electoral competition between parties.

Point four was electoral reform. This has been a demand, a suggestion, a proposition that was made probably before I was born. An organization of Canadians from coast to coast has been brought together from all parties. It has decided to focus on electoral reform, which obviously needs fixing.

Many people have suggested we look to the other healthy democracies that have proportional representation, that the will and the spirit of the voters is represented in legislative bodies. This clearly has not happened in the last number of elections. We need a process and we need to ensure that we get on with that process.

Fair Vote Canada, the organization to which I referred, has been tireless in advocating for fair elections so voters are not cheated, which has happened. It is not about parties. We know we have had majority governments that are false majorities, governments that are based on 38% and 39% of the vote. That is clearly wrong, it is undemocratic and it should be changed.

Point five was that unregulated lobbying and political cronyism must end. We have started on that path with some amendments we made on Bill C-2. We have to change government appointments so they are not patronage appointments. We have made some changes, but there is work to be done.

Point seven was access to information. Clearly, that is the window on democracy. It is a bit clouded now. We are working on that and there is more to come.

Now let me turn to the bill before us. The reason why we put forward fixed election dates long before others were talking about it in this place was because we saw the concerns that people had with the executive power, which has been concentrated over time, in the hands of the Prime Minister's Office. Some put it back to just after Pearson. We saw this lead to the deepening of cynicism among the voters of Canada. We had a previous government call a snap election when it was clear that the opposition at the time was not coalesced or organized. Why? Because it could win the election.

As was mentioned, governments sometimes go on too long. We remember the previous Conservative government, which waited until 1993 to finally let Canadians have their say. We could see a government call a snap election to get power or a government that hangs on to long. We see the benefit of having fixed election dates, but there are many other reasons, if we look to the people who have studied it.

I refer to Henry Milner, who is an author, visiting scholar and professor of political science at Laval University. He has studied this, and I consider this an objective opinion. He is one of the people we tapped into taking a look at fixed election dates. He showed that Canada is only 1 out of 12 of 40 comparable democracies that does not use some form of fixed election dates. Clearly, when we look at the juxtaposition between our democracy and others, it is worth examining, and he did that. He also said that these numbers contradicted the widely held misperception that flexible election dates were incompatible with parliamentary systems, as some have suggested.

I will turn to concerns with the fact that there have not been constitutional changes proposed in the bill. In effect, a prime minister can walk down the street and still call for an election. My colleague has made a proposal. In committee we will look at proposing ways to ensure that there are criteria on what is a confidence vote.

Most parliamentary democracies in Scandinavia and continental Europe, including several Westminster style systems, have what is called a flexible fix. In other words people would have concerns if there were a loss of confidence and the government should fall and set criteria accordingly. That is really what we are talking about: not fixed election dates, but nuance. It is a flexible fix so if there is a minority Parliament and the government loses the confidence of the House, there is an opportunity to go to the people, and that will not change. Therefore, we have fixed election dates when it is opportune.

Like many others, I am concerned that the present government is simply trying to engineer, between policy and brokerage politics, the fall of the House so it can then gain a majority. I actually think that with this debate and this bill in front of us people will become wise to that kind of backroom politicking. Not only with fixed election dates would we avoid the cynical use of power within the Prime Minister's Office, as we saw with previous governments, but the public would be aware of a fixed election date in October and would then question the government if it were orchestrating the fall of the House. The government would need to make that political argument. Is it playing brokerage politics simply to have the House fall so that it could gain a majority government? I see that as an important debate to have.

By adopting a precise date, preferably early in the fall as has been suggested, it would allow a campaign to take place at the end of the traditional vacation period in Canada. We also must take rural Canada into account. If we were to have an election too early in the fall it would affect farmers. Farmers, goodness knows, have had enough challenges and they do not need another one in front of them.

Although many of us had a terrific time going door to door in the last election and found it very invigorating ploughing through the snow, many of us, and probably most Canadians, would rather that be a footnote in history and not a practice to embrace.

If we were to build in provisions for holding early elections when necessary and in such an event stipulate that the following election would occur on the designated date four calendar years later, I believe Canadians would embrace that and it would help fix democracy.

I want to conclude by emphasizing the fact that this is something the NDP proposed before the election and it is something we embrace. We have some concerns but they can be dealt with in committee. We fully support fixed election dates.

I would like to leave the House and Canadians with the fact that this is not the end of electoral reform and democratic reform. Canadians are demanding that we fix our democracy, that we embrace the idea of democratic reform and that we embrace the idea of proportional representation. Canadians would then have genuine confidence in democracy. This is the beginning, definitely not the end. I look forward to engaging in debate with my colleagues.

Access to Information

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government's access to information plan will not strengthen accountability. It will clearly weaken it.

Bill C-2 will actually reduce the amount of information available to the public and increase the government's ability to cover up wrongdoings.

The government's approach to the access to information reforms came as a surprising disappointment to many, including the Information Commissioner.

According to the commissioner's recent report:

No previous government...has put forward a more retrograde and dangerous set of proposals to change the Access to Information Act.

The Prime Minister just makes it up as he goes along, falsely accusing the Information Commissioner of intent to interfere with journalistic freedom instead of acknowledging the shortcomings of his own accountability act.

It is a step backwards and will actually work against openness and transparency. That is certainly not what I call accountability.