Debates of April 25th, 2006

Federal Accountability Act

[Helena Guergis, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Yes, his name was Mr. Paul Bonwick.

Creating more open government by improving access to information is what the accountability act will do as well.

I would like to talk a little bit more about each of these areas, but I do want to say that I will be splitting my time with the member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

Let me talk a little more about reforming the financing of political parties. Money of course should not be the way that one accesses government. Canadians should have the ear of the government and not a chequebook. To me that means quite plainly that one should not be able to buy access. The federal accountability act would help take government out of the hands of big corporations and big unions and would give it back to ordinary Canadians. The federal accountability would limit individual donations to $1,000 a year. We would ban contributions by corporations, unions and organizations and prohibit cash donations of more than $20.

I think I have a great question here. How many members of the Liberal Party had secret trusts that they had set up? These trusts were not subject to the Canada Elections Act. The accountability act would also ban secret donations and gifts to political candidates. It would also increase transparency and help Canadians feel more confident about the integrity of the democratic process.

Another part of the accountability act for which I have great appreciation is the strengthening of the power of the Auditor General. Canadians truly deserve to know how their hard-earned tax dollars are going to be spent and the Auditor General needs the power to follow the money to make sure that it is spent properly and wisely. The government would give new powers to the Auditor General to audit individuals and organizations that receive federal funding.

This would help the Auditor General to hold to account those who spend taxpayers' money. We recall how many billions of dollars were in the foundations. The government and Canadian taxpayers had no authority and no right at all to actually see how their taxpayers' dollars were being spent.

In addition to that, we will provide real protection for whistleblowers. I think the fact that the man who blew the whistle on the sponsorship scandal chose to run for us says a lot about what we are proposing for whistleblower protection. The men and women of the public service deliver important programs and services that touch the lives of Canadians each and every day. That is why another of our federal accountability act's key components will focus on providing real protection for whistleblowers.

People who see problems in government need to know they can speak up. Too often in the past, whistleblowers have been punished for saying the truth. The government will give real protection for whistleblowers by giving the public sector integrity commissioner the power to enforce the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act. The law would be extended to all federal bodies. In addition, the law would be amended to protect all Canadians who report government wrongdoing, not just public servants.

The act would also help clean up government procurement. The Government of Canada is one of the largest purchasers of goods and services in the country. Its practices should be free of political interference and conducted fairly so that all companies, regardless of size and location, have the opportunity to compete for government work. We would enshrine in law the principles of a fair, open and transparent bidding process.

We will also toughen the rules around lobbying. Canadians need to know that lobbying is done in an ethical way. After the 2004 election, we saw Liberal ministers immediately come back to lobby their former cabinet colleagues. People should not get rich bouncing between government and lobbying jobs. Lobbyists should not be allowed to charge success fees, whereby they only get paid if they deliver the policy and the change their clients want. The government would get rid of success fees and extend the ban on lobbying activities to five years for former ministers, their aides and senior public servants. In addition, we would create a new commissioner of lobbying with the power and resources to investigate violations and enforce the rules.

We will also strengthen access to information legislation. Canadians deserve better access to government information. The Government of Canada belongs to the people and it should not unnecessarily obstruct access to information.

I will wrap up and say that I look forward to the many questions I am sure I will be receiving from my colleagues. I look forward to being a part of the government as we work toward restoring accountability for the people of Canada.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the sponsorship scandal has left people feeling quit burned by and cynical about politics and politicians, at the federal and all other levels. Not just in Quebec, but everywhere in Canada. As our colleague stated, it has even tarnished our reputation internationally.

With regard to the accountability legislation, would it not be logical to include a ceiling for donations to leadership races? At present, the legislation does not provide for a maximum donation to leadership races, which runs counter to the maximum donation of $1,000 that will be applicable to individuals. The election of a candidate and that of a party leader are not treated the same.

[Helena Guergis, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I outlined, we will be making some very substantial changes to political donations to political parties. Inside politics, I am sure we can continue to have a further discussion on this, but right now what we are focusing on in the accountability act is completely eliminating political donations from corporations and unions and limiting personal donations to $1,000.

I think Canadians want to know that if we need to see policy change within the country, we simply do not cut a cheque. Just cutting a cheque should not be the way to have policy change in this country. The accountability act will simply eliminate that by limiting personal donations to $1,000 and eliminating contributions from corporations and unions.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her comments on this act, which is a very complex and complicated act. It is being referred to committee, which I think is good, and it will be discussed.

I am very curious about one issue in the act that perhaps I really do not understand. It is the concept of a director of public prosecutions. It is my understanding of the law that whether or not to prosecute would be a provincial decision; federal offences would be drug offences, income tax offences, certain environmental offences, shipping and whatnot. For the life of me I cannot understand what this person would do. If the person could investigate wrongdoing, I assume the first person he would investigate would be Brian Mulroney for the $300,000 payment he received after leaving office, but even for that I do not think he would have jurisdiction.

What is the member's concept of this position? Exactly what authority would this person have to act in any type of situation, other than drugs, income tax or shipping?

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, since I am addressing the House for the first time today I would like to thank the people of the great riding of Mégantic—L'Érable for giving me their confidence and electing me as their representative in the House of Commons. I especially want to thank my parents, friends and volunteers, who believed in me and gave their all to help me get elected. Their hard work was certainly motivated by their desire for change.

In that vein, I must add that in my riding of Mégantic—L'Érable there are three totally different RCMs with various sectors including agriculture, mining, forestry, and all sorts of industries. Despite this diversity, there is one common denominator in my riding: the desire for change. This desire was expressed loud and clear on January 23, as it was in most of Canada's ridings.

My speech in this House on the federal accountability bill is very important. I realize that my constituents, like most Canadians, expect change. Unfortunately, the public has become increasingly cynical about politics.

Worse yet, some Canadians are completely disenchanted and choose not to vote in elections, while in some countries people pay with their lives in order to get that right.

I am very proud that the government, which made federal accountability its ultimate priority, is now presenting strong legislation that will certainly contribute to rebuilding public confidence. We finally have the concrete measures to truly clean things up in Ottawa. For far too long there has been nothing but sterile discussions, when in fact basic ethics rules were being broken. What is more, although the Auditor General was able to uncover these violations, she did not have the authority to do anything about it.

It is all the more scandalous to Canadians who make an honest living and who have to pay taxes from their hard earned money. In future, there will be harsher punishment for lesser crimes than were committed in the past.

It was time that a government finally showed true will to make government transparent, as well as to bring back the clean system Canadians are entitled to. This government, which intends to be one that takes action, is proposing a consistent and efficient system to clean up government. It is not content with haphazardly developing policies to deal with isolated cases. Such policies could prove ineffective in some instances. To propose a system, a comprehensive one, an overall vision is necessary. That is what we, in the Conservative Party, have proposed during the election campaign and, on January 23, the people of Canada voted in favour of our proposal.

The government is delivering on its promises. Less than four months after the election, it is introducing this major and long-awaited reform for approval by the House. More concretely, we can see that, under this reform, accountability is taking on much more importance, starting from the time an election is held. This will make candidates accountable and impress on them the seriousness of our parliamentary institution and the importance of the role played by members of Parliament. Strict election financing rules are being proposed to deal with conflicts of interest and campaign slush funds for candidates. The people are entitled to expect that their peers representing them in the House of Commons are designated democratically.

It is good to talk about ethics but, as mentioned earlier, the role of the Ethics Commissioner has to be strengthened. The commissioner has to play a proactive role and have the skills necessary to exercise control. In fact, that is what is proposed in the bill.

The people also expect transparency in the process to appoint those individuals who will play a significant role within government. A fair process which goes beyond cronyism and is actually based on competency is required. That is what is proposed in the bill.

As a rule a thumb, words fade away but written statements endure. It therefore makes sense for reports on government expenditures to be in writing. The man on the street will have no problem figuring that running a business on the basis of verbal reports does not make much sense. It is no surprise that the people were deeply shocked that such practice was allowed to exist in government.

The bill will therefore require written reports. This is another concrete, simple measure that is easy to implement.

With regard to access to information, major crown corporations such as the CBC and Canada Post are part of Canadians' daily lives.

Yet the public does not have access to essential information. The bill strengthens the Access to Information Act so that the public can have access to additional information.

As has already been stated, the Auditor General must have coercive powers. It is inconceivable that she could identify crimes and major breaches in the past but could do nothing about them. The bill will remedy this deficiency.

The bill also provides for the appointment of a director of public prosecutions. The director's office will be an effective, specialized, independent body. This appointment shows that the government is determined to give complaints all the attention they deserve. We are not talking about just anything here.

Completing the circle, we have whistleblower protection. For our system to work, it must encourage anyone who becomes aware of irregularities to report them. That is what the bill proposes to do in order to make the system effective. Finally, we have a coherent, logical system based on a sound vision. Canadians asked for good governance, and that is what this government will give them.

That is why I say loud and clear that I am proud to be part of the government that is bringing in this major reform. Needless to say, I support this bill.

[Louise Thibault, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, you will forgive me for being flabbergasted. I imagine that many of my Bloc colleagues are as well. I am going to question the member for Mégantic—L'Érable on this point.

It is caused, in part, by the terminology he has chosen. He has obviously used his party’s slogan and said that his government would keep its promises, that it would solve the problem of cynicism and that it would restore trust.

My question is about the transparency and accountability the government talks about. One of the first things the Conservative Prime Minister did was to appoint a minister who had not been elected. That person cannot, therefore, be accountable for his department in this House. This seems to me to be the height of inconsistency.

With respect to the terminology he used, I would very much like the member to explain to me how that is consistent. To the majority of people who heard that decision, this is total inconsistency coming from a government that calls itself transparent and that wants to hold people accountable.

I am the Bloc Québécois critic for public works and government services. I will never see the minister in this House. How can you explain this, from a government that advocates transparency and accountability?

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her question.

I am part of a government that wants to listen to Canadians. The greater Montreal region accounts for nearly half of Quebec. It is therefore unimaginable that this region should not be able to make itself heard. The Prime Minister has made the wise decision to appoint a representative from that important region so that the issues can be discussed in the proper places.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member does not take my criticisms too hard, but it is very difficult not to be cynical when he said in the preamble of his speech that we were elected in a democratic process. The trade minister was not elected in a democratic process, he was appointed. Since then, we have had an appointed senator, a floor crosser who was given a cabinet post, three or four Conservatives who we know of who have been appointed to prominent positions within government agencies, and the list goes on.

He says that he wants to listen to Canadians. Canadians do not accept this. The Liberals did this and every time it happened, the Conservatives got up from their chairs and screamed like banshees that this was wrong. Now that they are in government they seem to say think it okay. They are going to do all these things first and then forget about them later.

The other day the Prime Minister was asked a question about a fundraiser that he was having in New Brunswick, at $500 or $1,000 a plate, which would be against the new rules, if passed, for federal politicians. The Prime Minister has to travel from here to New Brunswick. Will it be the PC Party of New Brunswick that pays for his travel to New Brunswick for a PC Party event, or will it be the taxpayers of Canada who pay for the Prime Minister to fly on the Challenger to attend a party event in New Brunswick?

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. He has raised a lot of different points. I would like to come back to the case of the Minister of Industry.

The Minister of Industry was elected democratically. The Prime Minister is clear on that point: if members want to introduce a bill, no one is preventing them from doing that in this House.

With respect to the fundraising campaign in New Brunswick, I believe that the Prime Minister was extremely clear. He complied with provincial legislation and the federal government has nothing to do with it. It goes without saying that in the course of his duties the Prime Minister has to travel everywhere in Canada. I do not see a problem in any of that.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Before resuming the debate, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Windsor West, Canada-U.S. Border.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Skeena--Bulkley Valley.

I would like to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your appointment.

We are faced with an opportunity today to change the way things are done in the federal government. The legislation before us does take some important steps in remedying the lack of accountability and transparency between Parliament and government. However, there are some measures lacking that would make Parliament and government more accountable to Canadians.

Prior to the election last November, Ed Broadbent and the NDP demanded changes in ethics and accountability. The New Democratic Party proposed the following set of ethical reforms.

First, we called for democratic accountability for MPs. This means that no MP would be able to ignore his or her voters by leaving the party that he or she ran for and crossing the floor to another party without first resigning their seat and running in a byelection. We must put an end to the political opportunism that accompanies the backroom dealing in floor crossing and the accompanying job offers for personal gain. This simple rule would help to restore a measure of trust that has been replaced by voter cynicism. It is unfortunate that this measure was not included in this accountability legislation. My party is committed to banning floor crossing and will continue to demand this accountability measure for Canadian voters.

Second, we believe that election dates must be fixed. The date should be every four years, unless a minority government is brought down because of non-confidence. The large majority of the world's democracies do not give the party in power the right to determine when to call an election. The prime minister and the ruling party use this measure to ensure that elections are called at a time that is most beneficial to their re-election bid. This is anti-democratic. Fixed election dates would add fairness and transparency around elections for Canadians.

The power of the prime minister to set election dates has other negative effects on the way our government operates. Much of the business of government stays on hold when the possibility of an election looms. The longer the period of uncertainty, the less that we are able to accomplish for the voters who sent us to Parliament. This measure was also not included in the accountability legislation.

Third, we called for spending limits and full disclosure on leadership contests. As Ed Broadbent pointed out, parties are not private clubs. The legislation does include a ban on all corporate and union donations, something with which this party agrees. However, while we have strict spending limits on election campaigns, candidates and local riding associations, the amount spent by those seeking to lead their parties is limitless. This is a major deficiency in accountability to the citizens of our country who finance our parties. Often a new leader of a party will become the Prime Minister of Canada before facing the general electorate. We deserve to know as much about how he or she arrived at the most powerful office in the country. This new legislation does not accomplish this and that is unfortunate. In a democracy, leaders of parties should not be chosen simply by the virtue of unlimited access to money.

Our fourth demand was electoral reform. In the recent Speech from the Throne the government committed to involving parliamentarians and citizens in examining the challenges facing Canada's electoral system and democratic institutions. I am encouraged by this, but I am also aware that serious reform will take serious action. In Canada every vote should matter. Ninety per cent of the world's democracies, including Australia, New Zealand, Scotland, Ireland and Wales have abandoned or significantly modified their original electoral system. However, this is the same electoral system that still exists in Canada.

Not only would we attain a House of Commons that numerically better reflects the way people vote, but with much better regional representation in all party caucuses we would more likely have better decisions and more thoughtful debates on regionally divisive and other important issues. In addition, empirical evidence drawn from other countries strongly suggests that women and minorities would be much better represented in the House of Commons.

I believe it is imperative for Canada to change its electoral system so that Canadians can receive what they voted for and have their elected officials work on their behalf in the most meaningful and positive way. I, for one, will welcome the day when the mindless exchanges in our question period cease to be the standard by which Canadians judge our national political behaviour. My party will continue to work to ensure that our present electoral system is improved, making us more accountable to Canadians.

Our fifth objective was the elimination of unregulated lobbying. While this new act toughens regulation of lobbyists, including “Ed's clause” to ban success fees, it falls short of ending the practice of awarding government contracts to firms that also lobby government. There is also nothing to stop anyone from going to work for a lobbyist; he or she is stopped only from being a registered lobbyist.

The sixth measure in the NDP ethics package was a change to the way government appointments are made. The New Democratic Party has proposed that the government develop skills and competence related criteria for all government appointments, that these criteria be publicly released, and that committees scrutinize appointments.

This new act does create a new process that would improve the way government appointments are made, including a new public appointments commissioner, whose own appointment is now called into question given his links to the government. However, this process for appointments is kept with the PMO and therefore is not independent. The unfair and unethical patronage practice of government appointments must end. The NDP would ensure that any Canadian who qualifies for these positions on boards, commissions and agencies would have equal access and thus again bring accountability to all Canadians.

Another objective was to ensure serious reform to access to information legislation. I am sad to say that access to information reform is limited in this act. While it is expanded to include seven officers of Parliament, seven crowns and three foundations, comprehensive and meaningful reform has not been included in the act but instead has been sent to committee as a draft bill and a discussion paper. Canada badly needs the improved Access to Information Act. Canadians want more access to information about their government. My party is committed to accomplishing these objectives.

My colleague from Winnipeg Centre has worked tirelessly on this matter over the last two sessions of Parliament. His proposed changes would lead to the real openness and transparency that Canadians want in Ottawa.

I would like to conclude by discussing the long awaited legislation to provide for the protection of persons who are involved in the disclosure of wrongdoing in the workplace. These workers provide support for the government's agenda and must be protected against retaliation when they honestly and openly raise concerns that are evident to them in the workplace. This is the only way for Canadians to become aware of any wrongdoing, either ethical or legal, in the government departments they support. These women and men have been waiting too long for this protection from their government.

This act allows for disclosures to be made directly to the commissioner, who would now have the authority to deal directly with complaints both from public servants and the public. The NDP supports the initiative to remove the process whereby allegations were made to a middle person before a complaint was brought to the commissioner.

We are concerned, however, that whistleblowers would not have the right to seek remedy through the court system even as a last resort and also that in cases of retaliation a whistleblower would be referred to a “tribunal” headed by judges who are appointed by the Prime Minister. However, we are confident that we can influence the necessary changes to this act so that it is truly accountable to all Canadians.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Before we go to questions and comments, I would like to make a comment of my own and it has to do with cellphones. I know they are fun toys, but please turn off the music.

I recognize the hon. member for Nepean—Carleton under questions and comments.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his very informative remarks and for his very committed work, in particular to protect whistleblowers, as he strives to better represent the thousands of public servants who live in his constituency.

He said in the closing portion of his remarks that he was concerned about the tribunal process we have in place to protect whistleblowers. That process includes a group of judges who are active in part of the judiciary, who would listen to grievances by whistleblowers, offer restoration where necessary and discipline where they must.

He questions the independence of that process given the fact that the Prime Minister would choose the judges who would be involved in the tribunal. In the very next breath, he said he wants to use those same judges through the court system. If he questions the independence of judges who form, evidently, the basis of our judiciary when it comes to the tribunal, why is he perfectly willing to accept judges in the courtroom as the protectors of whistleblowers?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our point as a party is that notwithstanding the fact that there is seemingly more independence in this process than the previous whistleblower legislation, we have concerns that whistleblowers going forward may see that their grievances are not being heard fully and independently by someone appointed by the Prime Minister. We need to look at the scrutiny of appointments by the Prime Minister. Perhaps this is something we could look at in terms of amendments. That is my first point.

My second point is about the remedy that would be in place for those grievances if the whistleblower was not satisfied or was not being heard. We have seen this time and time again with whistleblowers. In fact, some of the whistleblowers who have blown the whistle in this city and who are constituents of mine have blown the whistle one, two or three times. Each time they are fighting the cause and doing good work for Canadians, but they are being beaten down because there is no access to an appropriate remedy.

I am simply making the point that if at the end of day there is not a fair hearing for whistleblowers, they should be able to avail themselves of the court system, which is independent, not questioning the appointments of the judiciary, simply talking about the avenues in which they can go and the fact that we have oversight for those appointments for this tribunal process.

[Barry Devolin, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question has to do with reform of this place. There were comments made about changing the nature of Parliament. It is a topic that I have had a personal and professional interest in for a long time.

There are two concerns I have always had with proportional representation that I would like the member to comment on. First, under our current system, any citizen of Canada has the right to run for this place directly and to represent his or her peers as a member of Parliament. Under a proportional representation system, that would not exist any more. As an individual, one would have to go through a party. A party would actually determine who would be here.

That raises my second point. If it is a list system in a proportional representation legislature, who determines who gets on the list? These two points are connected. As a member of Parliament in my riding, I feel responsible to my constituents for what I do. There are a lot of Saturday mornings when I roll out very early to head off for a full day of events because it is my riding and they are my constituents. I think that people elected in a proportional representation system would be much less likely to do that.

I have two parts of one question. First, how does the member resolve this issue that individuals actually cannot run for Parliament, that it is up to parties to decide who would sit in this place? Second, how would the member convince the voters out there that they would be better served by members of Parliament who are not actually directly connected to them or not directly elected by them, and consequently have no responsibility back to them, but who will be less accessible to them because it is not their own constituency per se?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have an observation. When we look at the present cabinet of the government, we see someone who has not in fact been elected and was appointed by the Prime Minister by way of going into the Senate. I think we have some problems at present.

I will say quickly that we are not talking about full proportional representation. If we were to go to the Law Reform Commission website, we could see what the model is. It is very sensible. Most Canadians who have seen it agree with the model. I look forward to further debate on electoral reform.

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

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the member for Ottawa Centre for splitting his time and for his speech, which I thought was commendable and touched on some of the points that I think need to be raised in the House and have not received the proper attention they need from the government.

Second, as this is my first time to rise in the House, I would like to thank the voters of Skeena—Bulkley Valley who saw fit to place me in this seat again and represent their views. It is from their perspective that I am looking at this voluminous bill which seems to cry out for clarity and attention to detail.

I will be fully transparent with the House. I am ambitious, but I have only made it three-quarters of the way through the bill. I would not want to be disparaging in thinking about how many members who have spoken, particularly from the government ranks, have not read the bill in its entirety as yet. Let us presume they have and have missed a few of the key points that need fixing.

The riding from which I hail is a rural riding in northwestern British Columbia and is extraordinarily beautiful. In that riding are people who bring a great deal of rural Canadian common sense to issues of the day and who ask me to bring some of that perspective to bills like this one that are filled with the obviously necessary legal jargon in order to be presented in the House. Yet in a region like mine, which is just now turning the corner from years of regional economic pain and suffering, a region that is 30% to 35% first nations people with a long and strong history of good governance and sound pride in their culture and tradition, they want a government they can trust.

And gosh, after all these years of watching brown bags pass across tables in Italian restaurants, still there is a kernel of hope in the voting minds of our constituents, who want to believe that this place can become more accountable. They want to believe that the members, and particularly those who do not sit in the seats that represent the cabinet of this country, will in fact represent their interests and not the interests of narrow self-interest groups and lobbyists.

I will break the accountability act into two parts. One part is what is in it and one part is what is not in it. The former shall be quite a bit smaller than the latter. In it is some progress on whistleblowing and some progress on campaign finance reform and crown corporation transparency; that is the government's due. We must again commend the work of Mr. Broadbent for what is not missing. He spent many years in this place and outside this place pushing for many of the reforms that I find in Bill C-2.

This, I believe, is the duty of all members of the House, from all four corners, both opposition and government. It is not simply to stand up and clap ourselves on the back and say, “A job well done and let us get on with it”. It is the duty of all members to look at the bill. Let us look at what the government is proposing and look at believing in the intention that the Prime Minister has spoken about. We must look to see if that intention is true, from the campaign to now, about truly opening up government to the scrutiny of Canadian citizens and their representatives who sit in these seats in this House.

The list is long, but I will try to focus on what is not in this bill, on the pieces in the bill that need either serious reform or an outright new look, and at whether that is presented in another omnibus bill, heaven help us, or in a partial act that comes before the House. Floor-crossing comes immediately to mind.

I listened to the two parliamentary secretaries prior to my speech and found them wanting in their discussion about open and transparent democracy. On the one hand, it was suggested that the bill furthers the cause of democracy and accountability in this country. On the other hand, it was said that it was quite acceptable to appoint someone to the Senate and then drop them into a cabinet seat if the government was unable to win seats in the vicinity of Montreal.

Then, lo and behold, some of its policies and its candidates did not attract the voters in the vicinity of Montreal. Perhaps one should work harder in that direction and not go against the wishes of the Montrealers I know, who find it difficult to believe how an appointed friend of the government helping it run a campaign somehow deserves the honour of sitting at the cabinet table and making decisions on behalf of them when they had no voice and no say in that person's election. I find the hypocrisy in that one statement alone incredible.

Regarding floor crossing, I know there are hon. members present who are interested in this issue. When people cast their ballots in that most sacred and private act which is an election, they make decisions about their future and about the combination of a party's leader, the party's policies and platforms, and the candidate presented in the local riding. Clearly nobody in this place would suggest that our own presence as candidates is enough to sway the majority of voters in our ridings to vote for us alone. It is the combination of what we represent by the parties we sit with and the policies and debates that we engage in, and it is on that combination that voters present their opinions.

To simply take for granted those opinions, that sacred trust placed in the ballot box and decide for ourselves where we should sit in this House, what policies we should be pushing for and what credo we should stand by is hypocrisy that Canadians clearly cannot stand for. It further erodes the confidence people have in the simple act of putting measures in this so-called accountability act, which many Canadians agree with, which simply asks members who choose to no longer sit with a party, however long or short the time has been that they have sat with that party, to sit as independent members. Some independent members have been very effective in this House. In a byelection the members would seek a new mandate under the new party's flag, policies and leader, in order to go forward and do the work they feel is best on behalf of their ridings. It passes the test when I speak about it in various parts of this country and particularly in my home in Skeena--Bulkley Valley.

The biggest hole in this bill in terms of details is access to information that citizens and members of Parliament need to have. Knowledge truly is power when it comes to the dealings of government. While the vast majority of civil servants, the majority of members of Parliament, those sitting in government and otherwise, come to their work with integrity and honesty, there will always be suspicion. Voters and members of Parliament need solid access to information legislation set in law that will allow them the power to wrest information from government, which has its own self-interests as members now sitting in the official opposition can well attest, and bring it to the light of day. My colleague from Winnipeg Centre has said that sunshine is one of the best cleaners we have. The best determinant we could have to proper and just government is full and open transparency.

That brings me to the BlackBerry, the wonderful device that many have become so greatly addicted to. When we look at lobbyist reform, we find that as long as lobbyists conduct themselves via the most popular form of communication available on the Hill, they are not subject to the scrutiny of transparency and openness, but if they make a phone call, perhaps yes, and if they sit down, certainly yes. That seems absolutely silly and obviously is an oversight which I look forward to the government correcting as the bill heads to committee.

Appointments will be the last subject I touch upon. When we raised the issue of floor crossing earlier in this debate, a member of the government stood up and said that lo and behold, some 25 years ago a member from the Progressive Conservatives crossed over to the NDP, that the NDP accepted it at that time for two months prior to an election, and how dare they see the light of day and realize that floor crossing is not such a good idea?

I remember reading a news article about former prime minister Mulroney making 1,250 appointments on his last day in office. That is wrong and Canadians identify that as wrong.

When we look at what the government has done in the three months since being in office with respect to open and transparent appointments of officers and people in positions of authority, one scratches one's head to think that hypocrisy can reign so quickly, that in the 13 years it took to mature into the party that is now the official opposition, the government is now on a fast track and able to pull off such leaps and bounds of reason and logic after three months to entice floor crossers, to appoint senators, to appoint failed candidates to positions of influence and authority and all the benefits they ascribe to.

Again, I take the perspective of the common average citizens from my riding and the common average sense and sensibility they bring as Canadians to what they want to see in government . This bill begins to take us along that path, but clearly, the committee is going to be an interesting place to be. There are some fundamental reforms that need to take place in order for this bill to actually become the piece of legislation we all desire.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I really do not understand members of the NDP on this particular issue of changing political parties. I think they tried twice in the last Parliament, I think with a motion and a bill, and they lost on both accounts. It is their prerogative to raise the matter again. With all the issues this Parliament could be discussing, all the things that are important to Canadians, they are obsessed by this. We get it every day during question period. I think there are three slots for the New Democratic Party in question period and usually one out of those three is that they are upset about people crossing the floor.

I could point out to the member that this practice has been part of our democratic tradition for centuries. The greatest parliamentarian probably in the history of our system was Sir Winston Churchill. He crossed the floor. He started off as a Conservative. He fell by the wayside and he became a Liberal. When he saw the light again, he came back to the Conservative Party. It was a great move, a great thing for democracy in Britain and one could argue for the world. He did it.

There are members of my own political party who have been members of three or four different parties. They were part of the Alliance or the Reform, the Democratic Alliance, the Progressive Conservative Party. They were doing their best for Canada and they changed parties.

The NDP wants some outside control. I know what it is all about. It is all about having the party have more control. If members want to leave the NDP or leave any other party, they have to kowtow to the party apparatus or they are in big trouble.

I am prepared to place my confidence and my trust in the voters who will ultimately get a chance to decide on these things.

I realize that members of the NDP are not quite happy with the system we have and they would like referenda on a regular basis to dissolve the Parliament. Perhaps it is because nobody wants to join the NDP. I do not know if that is the problem. I did not hear about this much from the NDP, quite frankly, last May when members of the Conservative Party changed parties, but now it has become an obsession with members of the NDP. Every day during question period, at every opportunity, that is all they are worried about. They might want to worry sometime about crime in this country, about bringing in some minimum sentences. How about worrying about getting that $1,200 to parents with children? How about worrying about that sometime?

Again they are welcome to do that. They can spend the whole 39th Parliament worrying about somebody enticing their members or some member switching parties. They could spend the whole 39th Parliament for all I care--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Order. The hon. member for Skeena-Bulkley Valley is being recognized.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will wade through that diatribe to find a question. The question that I actually find is that in fact members of the hon. member's own party, somewhere near 40 of them, voted for such legislation to be brought in in the last Parliament, and would it not be an interesting exercise to go through such a thing again? That is what we hope to do.

In terms of justifying this floor crossing practice and saying it is tradition, there are many things in our tradition that we have left by the wayside, many of them quite bad. Thankfully we do not have some of the traditions that we used to have in yesteryear . Perhaps women not voting or minorities or natives or any of those others not voting are traditions the hon. member would like to grab back because they were considered to be sound and wise traditions, even in Winston Churchill's time.

He chose to go after a party in the middle of this debate and deride it for whether or not it had the attention of voters--while the NDP doubled its votes in the past election and then went up another half again--and to take this debate to such a base level. All we were suggesting is that the voters need to be brought back into the conversation of where it is that members of Parliament stand on issues. When voters hear a candidate during an election deride another party, run it down and accuse it of all sorts of terrible things and then within hours find that the candidate is in agreement with such things, the voters have to question the validity of the electoral process. All the New Democrats are saying is to allow the voters to make a decision and wrest control from the parties. If a member finds it so abhorrent to actually sit with a party any longer that the member needs to cross the floor, the member can simply return to the voters and seek that mandate, for clearly this is not an occurrence that happens every week.

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Don Valley East.

As this is my first opportunity to rise in the 1st session of the 39th Parliament, I would like to sincerely thank the citizens of my riding of Saint John for the confidence they have expressed in me. I look forward to advocating strongly on their behalf on issues such as harbour cleanup, housing and child care.

I am pleased to offer my perspective on Bill C-2, the federal accountability act. This is an issue I well understand. In 1988 I represented the Canadian Bar Association before the Holtmann committee that the then prime minister Mulroney had convened to examine the area of lobbying in Canada. In 1994 and 1995 I chaired the industry committee and during that time I chaired the subcommittee on Bill C-43, the Lobbyists Registration Act. In the last Parliament I sat on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

I believe that the government has to tread very carefully on this issue and to be intellectually honest about what it is trying to achieve. A lot of media spin and rhetoric from the government that has surrounded the introduction of this bill would give one the impression that all of government is corrupt. This is simply not the case.

This type of rhetoric brings disrepute on the men and women who serve in public life, the people who come to this House of Commons with the right morals and the right intentions. We all come to this place wanting to make a better country, a better place for our children and grandchildren. Anyone who claims that he or she has a monopoly on accountability does a disservice to Parliament and to this country.

Flippant comments and generalizations that are not based on fact bring this House into disrepute. It also brings honest, hard-working civil servants into disrepute. We need to be judicious and we need to be factual about what we say and the perception that it can breed.

Canada is a successful, modern democracy, not some banana republic as the government would like to portray. What it comes down to is either a person is fundamentally honest or not. As the hon. Mitchell Sharp, the esteemed former member of this place, said before our committee in 1995, “You cannot legislate integrity”.

This brings me to the federal accountability act. The measures in this legislation are not fundamental or even dramatic changes. To describe this legislation as wide sweeping, fundamental, ethical reforms is just not the case. We should not be telling Canadians that we can legislate integrity. We cannot.

The changes proposed in this legislation are things that we as parliamentarians have been talking about and moving toward since the 1980s. This is part of the Canadian tradition. We review legislation after a three or a five year period and improve or change the legislative framework so that it is more reflective of public expectations of legislators and civil servants.

For example, the evolution of the ethics counsellor who reported to the prime minister evolved to an Ethics Commissioner who reports to Parliament, to the creation of a new ethics auditor on lobbying.

Interestingly, we talked about this in the 1995 report, “Rebuilding Trust”. The government speaks of these changes, yet at the same time it seems to have shown disrespect for independent officers of Parliament, such as the Ethics Commissioner. While parliamentarians may not always agree on everything that the Ethics Commissioner says, to politicize the issue casts a negative pale over everyone in this place.

Members in previous Parliaments worked together to establish an Ethics Commissioner who reports directly to Parliament and yet time and time again members of this government refused to participate in investigations and tried to undermine the integrity of Mr. Shapiro. Either we have accountability or we do not. The government cannot pick and choose which investigations it wants to participate in or who occupies the position of the Ethics Commissioner.

The issue of reforming the financing of political parties and candidates is not a new issue. A significant overhaul was already completed by the Liberal government in 2003. I support the latest changes, but they are tinkering with the natural process. When this bill reaches committee, I would also like to see the inclusion of third party advertising restrictions perhaps.

This bill talks a lot about lobbyists. The government, through its media spin, would have Canadians believe that all lobbyists are crooked or corrupt. That clearly is not the case. I would like to remind parliamentarians of a 1995 report called “Rebuilding Trust”. This report came out of a committee that I had the privilege of chairing. It was called “Rebuilding Trust” because of a perception that, between the period of 1984 and 1993, there was a lot of corruption under the Conservatives. That government did suffer some serious ethical challenges which then Prime Minister Mulroney attempted to redress.

Interacting and advocating to government is a natural part of the democratic process, whether it is charities like the Canadian Cancer Society or the Canadian Institute for the Blind, or firms that are looking to do business with the government. There are checks and balances in this current legislation. To pretend that this bill is a complete overhaul is disingenuous indeed.

In the fall of 2002 when the government was in opposition, the then prime minister put forward a motion to the House of Commons proposing that the chairs of House committees be elected by secret ballot rather than being appointed directly by the prime minister. With the cooperation of members of the House, the motion passed and our committee chairs were elected by secret ballot. The government is now seeking to reverse this very process that we in the House put in place. This one act of not electing our chairs would lend some hypocrisy to this legislation. The government has spoken about reforming the appointment process and I am fully in support of this, but this is a natural evolution of this policy.

Whistleblower legislation is also a natural evolution. Legislation was before the House during the last Parliament and I look forward to participating in that debate.

Steps are going in the right direction to expand the reach of the Auditor General. They would build on improvements that we made when we were in government. Strengthening auditing and accountability within departments was done in the last Parliament. It is not something new; it is not something dramatic. There are aspects of the legislation that will work well; however, it is the natural evolution of this Parliament.

Accountability is about doing what we say we are going to do and keeping our promises. Accountability should be about the Prime Minister coming to my riding of Saint John, New Brunswick and delivering money that is needed to clean up our harbour as he promised he would do on three occasions. Instead, the Prime Minister makes a token gesture of $2.2 million and says the government is starting to clean up the harbour. The previous government promised $44 million. To pretend that $2.2 million is going to clean up our harbour is not genuine. Reinvesting money in our community is about accountability.

I look forward to sending this bill to committee and to working with all members of the House toward improvements.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I note that the member criticized the approach of the government with respect to cracking down on the pervasive culture of lobbyists who exerted undue influence in the previous government. He himself of course was a lobbyist. Immediately after leaving office he entered that sector, stayed in it, and now he is coming before the House of Commons and criticizing our legislation which seeks to regulate and control, with some degree of accountability, that sector.

We are taking steps to make public the number of meetings that occur between lobbyists and ministers, to end the revolving door between ministers' offices and lobby firms, and to institute a cooling-off period of five years from the time people leave a minister's office until the time they can begin lobbying that minister's office.

These are real steps. In fact, the Ottawa Citizen has called them a cultural revolution. The National Post called them the most sweeping ethics changes in a generation. The Globe and Mail said that clean does not get any squeakier.

Why will this member of the House and former lobbyist not stand now and affirm that he will support the accountability act, fall in line with what his other party members have finally said, and affirm his support for this, the toughest anti-corruption law in Canadian history?

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the presumption of the member's question is a little flawed. First of all, my criticisms are in fact part of what this process is about. Let us get this piece of legislation, which in principle I support, to committee and let us get some improvements to areas that need changes. To pretend, like the hon. member would have us believe, that this is wide sweeping legislative change is just not correct. That is not a fact.

I would commend the hon. member to read a report called “Rebuilding Trust”. Members of his own party or, I should say, members of the former Reform Party participated in “Rebuilding Trust”. It was a very fulsome--

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

What happened to them?

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Saint John, NB]

Does the member want me to answer the question, Mr. Speaker?