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.

[Rob Walsh]

I don't recall that there was one.

Frankly, the idea of a perjury prosecution or a holding for contempt in the House is like hanging a dead person, if you'll pardon the expression or the metaphor. By that point, with the damage done to the individual from the scrutiny given to his or her testimony, comments by the committee, a report to the House, and the House perhaps concurring in the report, what's left to be done with regard to that person?

In formal terms, yes, the House could well undertake a motion of contempt and go through the step of, in theory, imprisoning the person for some period of time, until the end of the session, but I think we'd all acknowledge that's getting a little far fetched. I really think committees ought to show themselves to be ready to respond in terms of calling upon witnesses to explain themselves when there are discrepancies in testimony.

Mr. Chair, in view of the recent passing of Bill C-2, I think many members would agree that we now have a regime where there's greater accountability on the part of public government officials to Parliament.

It may well be that in keeping with that, a report by this committee to the House could say here's an example where there was not sufficient accounting, with specific reference to testimony that might be incomplete or evasive in some cases. It may be that a useful role the committee can play now is to give a sample of bad accounting, if you like, to a parliamentary committee, by reference to a particular piece of evidence, without looking to nail anyone to a cross in particular.

It could be an example where we studied the testimony and, in our view, the committee was not spoken to truthfully or as truthfully as it should have been. In the future, the committee would expect the witnesses would govern themselves accordingly.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Thank you very much, Madame Chair.

Minister, I appreciate the fact that you want to ensure that there be accountability and transparency. And if ever there was contempt of Parliament, it's the fact that you would appoint all these Governor in Council appointments prior to bringing in this new commission. It just seems to me that the law was passed. In fact, Bill C-2 was passed on December 12. A substantial amount of time has passed since that time, and we did have an opportunity to put in place some of these programs. So it seems to me that there is a contempt of Parliament that is out there.

I would also like to come back to the Court Challenges Program.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you.

Let me remind you, though, that there was Bill C-11, and there were three of us here who were at this table when it was passed. As far as I know, it has not even received royal assent yet. Or has it? But that was setting up the independent office for whistle-blowing, and I haven't seen any movement on that one either. I understand that Bill C-2 came after the fact, but I think there could have been considerable work done on that.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much, Mr. Minister, for being here along with some of the department people.

We've heard the word “accountability” quite a few times in your statements. And I know we've been hearing a lot lately that the Senate was responsible for holding back Bill C-2. It seems to me that a lot of the dispositions have apparently not been put into place--apparently 15 of them. I understand it does take time to put things in place, but it would seem to me that some thought would have been put into that and that some of these dispositions could have been actually implemented a lot sooner. Can you tell me why--I mean, Bill C-2 did receive royal assent on December 12, almost a couple of months ago--we are not moving ahead with some of these dispositions?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I have to say that I am saddened by Mr. Brown's comments. I think he should be careful before saying such things. As I see it, the Bloc members have always made an exemplary contribution, both in the House and in committee.

First of all, we supported BillC-2. I don't see how Mr. Petit can say that we opposed this initiative when we supported it. We wanted to hear from as many witnesses as possible, given the importance of this legislative measure.

Secondly, I have nothing to be ashamed about in terms of my contribution as a member of this committee. Nor does my colleague Mr. Marceau. We backed 60% of the previous government's bills. We supported a number of bills and our goal has never been to prevent Parliament from doing its job. Quebeckers are taxpayers and they elected us to represent them in this forum. I trust this is the last time I have to listen to the kind of rubbish that Mr. Brown spouted, namely that we don't want Parliament to work. That is a baseless charge. This is not our philosophy and we are not negative individuals acting for no good reason.

Thirdly, Mr. Chairman, contrary to what Mr. Petit said, Quebec is not the province with the highest number of murders. According to the statistics compiled by the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, that dubious honour goes to Toronto.

I also think we need to be careful about ascribing motives to people. Let me repeat, to you as well as to the Parliamentary Secretary: we have been presented with some serious scientific studies. Admittedly, emotional variables are important to a researcher. We're not claiming that these mustn't be factored into the decision-making process. What I'm saying to the government is that this bill is illogical.

It's illogical because when Allan Rock tabled the bill to set up the gun registry, he included provisions for minimum mandatory penalties. If, as Mr. Petit, Mr. Brown and Mr. Thompson claim, minimum mandatory penalties were the key to protecting Canadians, we would not be revisiting the subject, since they have already been in place for a decade. This has nothing to do with it, as we well know. Minimum mandatory penalty provisions won't stop people from committing crimes.

Are we saying that people shouldn't be incarcerated? Of course not. At times, as a society, we have no choice but to lock people up. However, let's stop acting like demagogues and splitting people into two camps, with those who want to protect Canadians on one side, and those who do not on the other.

I want to protect Montrealers, the residents of Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, Quebeckers, Calgarians and the people of British Columbia. However, I want to see some probative, conclusive data. We heard from representatives of the Association of Chiefs of Police and while I have a tremendous amount of respect for them, besides which I have a brother who is a police officer, if they could suspend the Charter, I think in some instances they would do just that.

The difference between parliamentarians and those who do not serve in this forum is a belief in the principle of balance. This principle is not on the table and it is our responsibility as parliamentarians to ask questions.

Mr. Chairman, of all the witnesses who appeared before us, with the exception of law enforcement officials and representatives of conservative research institutes from Western Canada—and these people are not card-carrying members of the Parti québécois, the Liberal Party or the NDP—, none was a criminologist. There are people who have the specific job of doing research. Their work is publicly funded. Not one single researcher, and that includes individuals under contract to the Justice Department, told us that minimum mandatory penalties would help us achieve the objective sought.

I'm not saying that researchers are always right. As parliamentarians, we have a responsibility. We're saying that the Criminal Code makes provision for minimum mandatory penalties—

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you.

I want to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice for joining us today for the clause-by-clause study of the bill.

I'd also like to thank Mr. Comartin from the NDP.

Like your colleague Mr.Martin in the case of Bill C-2, you have done an excellent job. You have a small team, but you have done a fine job. As a new MP, I appreciate your work and I congratulate you.

As for whether or not we have heard from enough witnesses, let me relate a few facts to you. I'm from Quebec and three Quebec representatives are seated here at this table. Our provinces has been the scene of the most serious offences committed with firearms. There have been three cases of mass murder.

I don't need to hear from a psychologist or a sociologist to gain a better understanding of the problem. Here are the facts: there are 34 active street gangs in my colleagues' ridings. We've been told by people that eleven-, twelve- and thirteen-year olds are carrying handguns. These are the facts. I don't need a sociologist to tell me more. I need to know how my constituents will be protected. We have a problem in Montreal and, in my case, in Quebec City. If we don't resolve it now, I don't want to have on my conscience a failed arrest because we didn't do our job here. It's our problem.

That's why I'm thanking Mr.Comartin. His party did an equally fine job on Bill C-2.

The other parties are always against us. The Bloc Québécois and the Liberals always join forces. Only the NDP seems to take a logical approach and to get results. Were it not for the NDP, BillC-2 would not have been adopted. We have the NDP to thank for that .

Today, we have some facts. It's time to be logical and to stop our partisan bickering. Let's ensure that no one is killed tomorrow morning because we failed to fix the problem.

[Sheila Fraser]

To be honest, Mr. Chair, I'm not sure the Federal Accountability Act is going to change—We have been given an additional mandate to be able to audit recipients of grants and contributions, but we expect to use that very rarely, because we think it's really the responsibility of government departments to put in place the systems and practices to make sure the funds are being used appropriately.

There are, of course, many other changes being introduced in there. The whole accounting officer issue, I think, depending on how it is implemented, could have an impact, obviously, with the relationship here with the committee and the departments. So I think that part of it could change. There are other more minor changes. For example, we've now become subject to access to information, which we weren't before.

So those are things that we have to manage. But I think the biggest impact could be the introduction of the accounting officer.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

I want to touch on the Federal Accountability Act, and you touched on it a little bit in your opening statement. Could you tell us how this will impact your work? Particularly, I'm interested in knowing what you're looking forward to the most, or what you will be able to use the most in the Federal Accountability Act.

[Alain Jolicoeur]

Mr. Chair, I'm here as an accounting officer, as per the new legislation, Bill C-2. Basically, my responsibility is to account before a parliamentary committee for the way I'm implementing the government's decisions. Basically we are faithfully doing it, there's no question about it.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Indeed, we do have to restore the balance regarding the presentations. As we saw a bit earlier, there was only one union representative. There was an imbalance with regard to the testimony. It's good to have people who want to look at the overall situation and present different points of view among the group of witnesses. Moreover, the same is true for everyone: we have many other activities. We'd like to do them in the time that you allocated, Mr. Chairman. I know that the committee has to consider many other bills and has a lot of work to do. That is why Ms. Davies' proposal is a good one. You could find time where we could add an hour or two in order to have a better balance of witnesses on the one hand, and on the other hand add an hour or two in order for us to hear everyone. It's important for us to hear all arguments.

In the case of this bill in particular, it's important that we be there to hear people who want to make their views known. I think that this is an excellent initiative. Certain persons perhaps did not appear because the rules of the game are such that national organizations are invited. The representatives of unions, who understand and normally apply the rules very well, probably did not want to present the requests of their affiliated unions. If that the case, these people were asked not to come and not to stand candidates.

Some will say this is all going too fast, that we'll never have time and that we're holding these debates too hastily. Let me remind you that in the case of Bill C-2, John Baird who was then president of the Treasury Board, had bragged in the House that he'd made the committee on Bill C-2 work hard and that he had pushed his bill through very quickly. He was very proud to say that he had done this in 72 days. With regard to our bill, three months have passed since the vote on second reading. He also said that he made the committee work over 90 hours in six weeks. We know that not all weeks are created equal. But that is still an average of 15 hours. I know full well because I sat on that committee that certain weeks, there were 40 hours of witness testimony. We know that that could be done. Where there's a will there's a way. Moreover, if we act quickly, the committee will have more time to examine other files.

In addition, the meeting with the officials is extremely important, especially since the wording of the bill contains a translation problem in clause 94(2.4). That has to be fixed as soon as possible and we must advise the other witnesses. I don't know exactly what could be done about this. Perhaps our clerk can answer that later on. The fact remains that we have to solve this matter of the faulty translation of that paragraph which says something we don't want it to say.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to respond to some comments made by Mr. McGuinty.

He used the example of Bill C-2. I think he said that it was months dealing with that, and in actuality it was six weeks. That legislation was ten times the size and complexity of what we are dealing with in Bill C-30. Bill C-30 is a small piece of legislation, and I encourage him to read it. Hopefully he already has. This is an issue that each of us around the table has been dealing with for years. I think each of us knows the issue. Yes, we need to hear from witnesses, but for us to go on for months and months--which is what I'm interpreting is being suggested by Mr. McGuinty and Mr. Godfrey, that we go a long protracted process--is not serving our country well and could be interpreted as stalling. In fact, we need to move forward.

What Mr. Cullen is suggesting here I think is good. We are willing to work as hard and as long as necessary, and if necessary right into our break in March, to move forward. So if we need to spend time--and the timelines being proposed here by Mr. Cullen I think are realistic and good--then we can achieve this. If we need more time, then I'd suggest we go right into and use our break week in March and stay here in Ottawa. What's being proposed is meeting Mondays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays, and it's laid out here, beginning with the process and witness list, which could be done by steering committee in a very effective way, and then the department officials and the minister or vice versa, which could be switched.

We could be very effective this week, but right now we're experiencing lengthy discussion. Maybe after all those who want to have an opportunity to speak do so, we would also want to consider the length of speaking time, because it appears we're starting to bog down, and that's further evidence to support the need for a steering committee. I'm hoping Mr. Cullen pretty soon will make a motion, if he hasn't yet.

Thank you.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Yes, let's hope.

I just remind the Conservatives that the intention Mr. Wilson just raised was argued against in terms of the discretion and flexibility of the chair.

All I would point out is that while it might be true on the transportation committee, it's interesting to me that we're going to take the example of one committee and not the other nineteen in terms of the way they function, or what was used for Bill C-2 in the only other legislative committee that we've done already. It worked well with the rounds of questioning they had.

It's a curious choice for us today. If people want to design it this way, then they've certainly made an obvious statement to us.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you, chair.

Just as an observation from someone who's sat on Bill C-2--and this is perhaps unsolicited input--what happened with Bill C-2 is that there was a steering committee, and we know the breadth and the scope and the intensity of Bill C-2. There was a fairly grand scale of input from everyone, certainly numerous people in terms of witnesses, etc.

One of the things it benefited from was a steering committee, simply put, to put the administrative framework in place, as opposed to what some might see as hearing from Canadians in camera. It was simply to address the administrative concerns. Not that this is the same scope as Bill C-2, but certainly in terms of importance, in terms of the legislation, it is similar, as are the concerns that people have of getting things done and getting results. So just as a model, Bill C-2 benefited from that experience.

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary (for the Canadian Wheat Board) to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out something that may not be obvious to people and I would like to ask the hon. members a question. Are hon. members a little bit interested in why the member for Malpeque did not even talk about his motion this morning? The motion was brought forward at committee. I want to talk about it a little bit later, but members will notice that throughout his entire speech he did not talk about it, and that is probably because he is embarrassed by it.

I have been disappointed in him in a number of ways in the last couple of months. He has had two opportunities to bring forward concurrence motions this fall and unfortunately he has done both of them during scheduled committee hearings.

Earlier on we had a hearing and we were going to sit down and talk with the trade representatives from the U.S. embassy. The member for Malpeque decided that he would bring a concurrence motion forward that day. He did that. Those of us who wanted to hear about the important issue of trade with the United States at committee were not able to do so because he wanted to be in the House standing on his soap box.

Again, today we have an issue that is of importance at committee. We are talking about the EU's import system. It is very important in western Canada. I was out in Ontario last week meeting with farmers because this is really important. We finally got these folks to committee. What does the member for Malpeque do? He brings the motion to the House today, so those of us who are actively involved with the agricultural committee cannot be at the meeting for the full scope of the hearing.

The obsession he has with this issue has grown to the point where he is beginning to lose credibility. The committee has done some good work and I will admit that. Just last week we released a report on the Canadian Grain Commission. It was a review of the Canadian Grains Act and the Canadian Grain Commission. We made a number of recommendations that were very important.

We were able to bring that report forward unanimously from the committee. We thought we would be able to get some traction and some interest in that report because it has a number of very important recommendations for western Canada.

I have never heard the member for Malpeque mention it once. He never mentioned it this morning. He supported the report. He thought it was a good report, but instead of saying that these are the positive things that the government is doing on which the opposition has been able to work with the government and that these are some of the things we are putting forward, he once more bashes the government and gets on his soap box on the one thing that has become an obsession for him, which is the Canadian Wheat Board.

As the member for Prince Albert pointed out, it is interesting that he does not live anywhere near the region in which the Canadian Wheat Board operates. He may have been in western Canada 17 years ago. That is a long time ago. He has obviously not been there lately and does not particularly understand the situation there.

The committee report last week made a couple of recommendations that are very important for western grain farmers. I want to talk about them because they are the kinds of things that will make the system in western Canada work. I will come to the motion a little bit later.

One of the things that was important, and we made sure with the help of the chair, the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster, was that producer cars in western Canada be protected for our producers. Over the last few years, more and more producers have turned to producer cars to move their grain. They load their own car. They ship it out to the coast and they are responsible for the grain that is in it. It has become a very important component of shipping grain off the prairies.

During the last election campaign when I was asked about it and about our commitment to it, I said that I am committed to these producer cars. I have used them for years on my own farm. They have been important to us. In fact, we were using them for years before the Canadian Wheat Board even supported them. The last couple of years the Wheat Board has got on board and said that it wanted to manage these cars and make sure that producers maintain access to them.

Some of us were using them for quite a while before the board even got interested. Actually, it only got interested after the number of producers who were using them became great enough that the board thought it was worth its while to be bothered with them. The report last week called for the support for producer cars and the enhancement of the option of using them.

Another thing we brought forward which we felt was important was that there be an office of grain farmer advocacy in western Canada. We brought that forward as one of the recommendations from the committee. Farmers would have an office associated with the Canadian Grain Commission that would stand up for their rights. There was a suggestion to have half a dozen commissioners who would be deployed regionally across western Canada, so if farmers had problems with grain handling, grain transportation or grain grading, they would be able to go to the office of grain farmer advocacy and have their problems dealt with. We think that is a really good recommendation.

We also made a recommendation with regard to changing the grading system in western Canada. For many years we have had in place in western Canada what is called the KVD system, kernel visual distinguishability. That was removed by producers in Ontario 17 years ago. Because of the removal of that requirement in Ontario, they have been able to grow their industry. They have been able to bring a whole host of new products to market in terms of grains and cereals.

We felt it was about time that western Canadian farmers began to experience some of the benefits of that as well. Actually, opposition members from the Liberals, the Bloc and the NDP all supported those recommendations. I thought it was a very good report and I would have liked to have seen it get some attention.

Unfortunately, the opposition, particularly the member for Malpeque, has decided that it apparently is not important. He has something else that he is fixated on. The government would like to ensure that western Canadian farmers have the opportunity to know that report is out there and that it is going to be moving ahead.

Another important thing happened last Friday for western Canadian farmers. Bill C-2, the federal accountability act, was finally passed by the House of Commons for the final time and will receive royal assent shortly. This is going to give farmers access to information that for decades they have been asking for. They want to know what is going on at the Canadian Wheat Board. They want to know how their money is being spent on communication, political lobbying and those kinds of things. They are finally going to have access to that information.

In spite of the misleading information that was put out by the opposition, this is not going to force the Canadian Wheat Board to reveal all of its sales information to its competitors and those kinds of things. It would simply give farmers a tool to understand what is being done with their own money because it is their money that goes toward the running of the Canadian Wheat Board.

It has been disappointing to see the member for Malpeque ignoring the issues that are important not only to people in western Canada but also to his own riding. As I said, two committee meetings have basically been disrupted by his insistence on bringing these concurrence reports forward at this time. Both of those issues dealt with his constituency and his constituents in Prince Edward Island: the important issue of U.S. trade and what we wanted to discuss today in committee with regard to the EU's imports.

I am pleased to speak to this motion today. As we know, grain farmers in western Canada have chosen their directors for the next four years. That is going to be important. I was interested to hear the member for Malpeque this morning talk about the fact that he apparently does not want appointed directors to be farmers. He thinks they should come from outside the industry, but the minister has been good about that. He has appointed a couple of farmers to the board who would bring a perspective of experience in the business. I think there is going to be a good balance there.

The newly elected and appointed directors are going to have a number of important issues to deal with, including the fact that this government is moving in the direction of marketing choice. The government looks forward to working with the board as it moves ahead and remains committed to providing marketing choice to western Canadian farmers while continuing to preserve the board as one of those options.

Speaking directly to the matter of this concurrence debate, I appreciate some of the other work that has been done by the committee, but there needs to be a couple of points made particularly regarding this motion.

Perhaps one of the reasons the member for Malpeque did not want to talk about the motion is that it was ruled out of order twice by the chair of the committee. It was ruled out of order on the first occasion because it clearly, in the chair's opinion, walked into the area of the minister's responsibility. I will talk about that a little later.

The member for Malpeque withdrew the motion. He understood that at the time, but decided that maybe political points were more important than actually dealing with the issue, so he reintroduced it again and the motion was ruled out of order a second time.

The second time it was ruled out of order was because when a motion is reintroduced, it is supposed to be substantially different than it was the first time and it was precisely the same motion. It was ruled out of order twice. The opposition on the committee obviously outnumbers the government at this point, so opposition members made the decision that they were going to bring this forward anyway. That is why we see it here today and I assume one of the reasons why the member for Malpeque really did not want to talk about the motion itself.

Another problem with the motion is that it is unbalanced. It does not deal with the real issues. There are a number of choices that will be available to western Canadian farmers. We understand that one of them will be that farmers would be able to market their grain and have the option of going through the Canadian Wheat Board as well. That is not included as one of the options. The member has again taken the extremist position that he has held in the past and has a motion that really does not have anything to do with the options that farmers want.

He is trying to come up with another extreme position. He wants to bring it before the House so he can get his three hours of debate, but in this case, ideology has once again trumped reality. It is a bit embarrassing for us to have to bring this motion forward when it was ruled out of order twice, as I said.

The member talked a little about intimidation. I think we need to spend some time talking about some of the tactics that have been used by the opposition in this debate. One example is the motion that has been brought forward today.

Last week on Thursday a very interesting thing happened at committee. We had invited a number of witnesses to speak on the Canadian Wheat Board issue. Mr. Jim Chatenay, an elected director of the Canadian Wheat Board, was one of the witnesses we had called. We brought him here to speak on Tuesday, but the meeting on Tuesday was cancelled because the board had decided it was going to launch a legal action against the government. The chair had to check to make sure that we could hold the meeting, so we decided to hold it on Thursday.

While we were waiting for that meeting to be held, the steering committee for the agriculture committee had a meeting and decided that it was going to exclude Mr. Chatenay as a witness. He had been brought here. The committee had asked him to come and he was already here, but the steering committee behind closed doors decided that the witness list was going to be changed. We came on Thursday and the witness list was set. I want to make a couple of points.

Mr. Chatenay is a veteran of the board of directors. I told the committee that. He has been a strong voice for farmers and he had been at the committee all week. In any event I think there were reasons that the opposition had made a decision. Actually I brought forward a motion at the committee that Mr. Chatenay be allowed to sit at the table and the opposition voted against it and would not allow him to come to the table. I was wondering why that would happen, but I think there are some reasons.

In the early 1990s we had a crop in western Canada that froze in the fields. The farmers needed to get it to market in order to get their money out of it. As we looked for places to market it, the board basically said to us that it did not really think it could market that grain. It was not good grain and it was not sure it would be able to market it.

The farmers in our area, which is southwestern Saskatchewan, started looking around for another market. They went across the border. They took samples to the United States and they found out that the grain really was not that bad. Under the U.S. grading system the Americans were willing to give us a decent price for the grain. We began to set up a buyback from the Canadian Wheat Board in order to take our grain across the border.

We had a decent price for it. When we do a buyback with the board we have to give it all our sales information including the name of the company we are doing business with. It was not much later that farmers got a phone call from the company which said, “We do not need your grain. We are not going to buy it from you. We have as much of a supply of that type of grain as we want”. We found out the price that it was offering for it was bout 85¢ a bushel less than our farmers had been able to negotiate.

The bad thing about it was we watched the trucks come into our elevator, load up, and followed the trucks across the border to those same elevators. The board had taken the sale and offered it to these companies at about 85¢ a bushel less than the farmers themselves had been able to negotiate. We watched our wheat go out at that price. That of course started to make farmers angry and that really was the genesis of the 1990s opposition to the Canadian Wheat Board and an interest in marketing choice.

Out of that of course there were farmers who moved ahead and decided that they wanted to move their grain into the United States. When they started doing that, the Liberal government started pushing back on them. Farmers went to court. Actually when they won in the courts, that same day, and the member for Wascana was the minister, the government moved to change the regulations so that the farmers could not do that. As the farmers won, the government counteracted, shut things down, changed the regulations on the fly so that what farmers were doing would be considered illegal.

Farmers went ahead and moved their grain across the border. The government arrested them--and the member for Malpeque is well aware of this--and at least a dozen farmers went to jail for periods of time ranging from a few hours to a couple of months. One of those farmers in particular was strip searched a number of times. I guess he was dangerous enough that the government felt it really needed to make an example of him.

What was really a concern about it was that it was not just one agency that was doing this. There were at least five government agencies that were involved in these activities. The RCMP, Canada Revenue Agency, justice, the Canadian Wheat Board and others were all ganging up on individual farmers just because they wanted a fair price for their grain.

Mr. Chatney was one of those farmers. We can begin to understand why the member for Malpeque did not want him at the witness table. He sits over there and laughs about it. It is a joke to him, but it is not a joke to western Canadian farmers who want some choice in marketing their grain.

A graph was circulated to MPs' offices last week from one of the western Canadian grain organizations. It shows that western Canadian farmers over the last year have received on average about 50¢ a bushel less than their counterparts in the United States. We continue to pay a price for just wanting to market our own grain.

Coming back to the motion, the committee report talks about recommending a plebiscite. The member for Malpeque knows that we are having a plebiscite. We committed to having a plebiscite in the new year. It is going to be on barley. It is going to be a clear question put to a broad base of voters. It is going to allow barley producers to vote on the future of their industry. That is the way it should be.

In the new year western Canadian farmers are going to be able to vote on a clear question of whether or not they would like choice on barley. We want to stress that the Canadian Wheat Board will be one of those options. It is going to be the option of selling one's own grain or the option of using the western Canadian Wheat Board to market the grain. For feed barley that is already the way it is. Farmers have the choice of going through the Wheat Board or going on the open market with their feed barley. With malt barley right now, they have to go through the Canadian Wheat Board. We want to give them the option of whether they want some choice in dealing with their malt barley as well.

It is very interesting how well our marketing system is working right now. In western Canada this fall, feed barley, which is on the open market, has been at a higher price than malt barley, which is supposed to be the premium barley. Malt barley is supposed to receive the premium. It goes through the Canadian Wheat Board. It cannot react quickly enough to the market. The open market does react quickly. Farmers have been selling their barley onto the open market at a higher price than they can get for their premium barley through the Canadian Wheat Board.

The farmers themselves deserve to be heard. They will be heard in a plebiscite which will be held in January.

The report dictates what the questions will be and who should be able to vote. I want to point out that section 47.1 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act specifically grants the minister these powers. He has the full authority to develop the process for the vote, and I will quote from act so that it cannot be misunderstood.

The Minister shall not cause to be introduced in Parliament a bill that would exclude any kind, type, class or grade of wheat or barley, or wheat or barley produced in any area in Canada, from the provisions of Part IV, either in whole or in part, or generally, or for any period, or that would extend the application of Part III or Part IV or both Parts III and IV to any other grain, unless

(a) the Minister has consulted with the board about the exclusion or extension; and

(b) the producers of the grain have voted in favour of the exclusion or extension, the voting process having been determined by the Minister.

The member for Malpeque is quick to quote the act and demand rigid adherence to it, but he wants to ignore it, as he has done in his report, when it suits him. We need to point that out, that there are some serious inconsistencies here. On one hand he is up yelling and screaming about how the minister has to abide by this and that, his interpretation of the act and all that that means, and on the other he comes forward with a motion that clearly does not agree with the act itself. That does not bother him. He is here today. He wants to have his three hours of debate on this issue and he has brought forward a motion that basically violates the act.

The draft question that is offered in the report is one possible formulation. The Minister of Agriculture has said that he is going to listen to views about the question, but at the end of the day he is the one who is going to be developing the question that meets this commitment. He will be consulting as well.

The report also proposes to use a voters list that members on both sides of this House know includes people who are not barley producers. I guess the member for Malpeque should be answering the question about why it is that he is expanding the vote in his motion today to include people who do not grow barley and who are not included in the barley industry. I am not sure what his answer would be. Perhaps later he could give us some clarification on that.

The minister has promised to have a plebiscite question considered by a broad base of voters. That is what he intends to do, but that is not what the committee report proposes, and unfortunately I am sure the opposition members will be supporting it. They should think twice about that and I would suggest that they should reject it.

I would also like to take issue with the fact that we often hear the charge that we are rushing through change. Nothing could be further from the truth. This House would be aware that in mid-September the minister launched a technical task force to explore the transitional and structural issues that might be encountered in the move toward marketing choice. The task force came out in late October. It recommends a phased in transition from a Wheat Board with monopoly powers to a marketing choice environment, preparing for change, launching the new Wheat Board with transition measures, and a post-transition period. It is a fairly comprehensive report that lays out some of the possibilities as we move ahead with change to the Canadian Wheat Board.

The task force was not marching to orders from the minister. It was giving advice to him. For example, the task force advised to start with legislative change, and we are glad to see that the minister has decided to start with consultations first. That is why at the end of October he announced the plebiscite on barley.

The plebiscite on barley is the only thing in the window right now. The board is going to remain in place. It will continue to be one of the options for marketing.

Canada's grain industry is open for business. That is the positive message that our customers overseas need to hear loud and clear. They do not need to hear some of the doomsday scenarios that have been coming from some quarters.

This is something that has had a number of us concerned. We hear from some of the people in the board and the provincial governments in Saskatchewan and Manitoba that the sky is falling. They have been screaming and exaggerating the consequences for some months. Now they tell us that some other people are actually listening to them when they say that.

The government is saying to the board, “Focus on marketing grain. Go out and do a good job of marketing grain for western Canadian farmers. As we bring some choice forward, you will have a lot more farmers who will support you as we move into that choice environment”.

It is interesting that those on the other side decided to exaggerate the possibilities as far as they could in order to scare farmers. I guess the farmers are being scared by the rhetoric that they are hearing.

The government has been very clear. We made a campaign commitment to provide marketing choice to western Canadian farmers with the Canadian Wheat Board as one of those options. That is the direction in which we continue to move.

[Robert Marleau]

That's a big challenge. I believe the commissioner, as part of his advocacy role, should do a complete assessment of Bill C-2 and publish, on his website, the perspective of the impact from the commissioner's point of view. I think it has to be done in concert with the executive in terms of what their perspective is as well. You just can't have two conflicting or two parallel tracks out there, so that's why I talk about this sustained dialogue. Without giving up independence, I think you can have that dialogue and come to some kind of common agreement as to where Bill C-2 will take us.

The impact of Bill C-2, of course, touches on the ATI, and it's an improvement. It's not the improvement that I understand the previous Information Commissioner wanted. The biggest improvement I think in recent times is not so much Bill C-2 as it is the creation of this committee. I believe there have been more appearances of the Information Commissioner since the creation of this committee, before parliamentarians, than there were in the previous 15 years. Now that there is a focused group of parliamentarians on the issues, that's a key way I think for the commissioner to get the message out, as you say, to brief MPs on a regular basis about the needs and the growing impact of the act on government, and maybe through this committee.... I know, for instance, that this committee has filed a report with the House requesting that the government bring in a comprehensive review of the act. That is to me proof that the dynamic is well on its way.

Sorry, Mr. Chair, if I'm going on at length, but as far as briefing new MPs is concerned, that's a big challenge. As Clerk of the House, we used to put on orientation sessions for MPs. I was approached by the Auditor General and by the language commissioner to see if they could find a module in there to at least explain their role and their relationship to Parliament. And we did from time to time have them in, but the demands on the new MPs' time in those critical weeks when the House is just back is tremendous. It's very hard and it's information overload.

So my tack on it would take the longer-term view, through this committee and other opportunities to interact with members, or one on one, even, with the office, to help them along in understanding what they can do and where they want to go and how we can help.