House of Commons Hansard #9 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was process.

Topics

Federal Accountability ActGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

Conservative

Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

Mr. Speaker, the process we have is one that has been used in the judicial system on a regular basis. It is one where all sides on a particular issue are given an opportunity to present all the evidence that they choose to present and to be represented at the same time. I do not think there is anything wrong with a balance of probabilities. This is a different burden of proof than what we have under the Criminal Code or in criminal matters but, nonetheless, it is a standard that is fairly high and is not easy to be met. The burden is on the proposer to meet that standard. It is not an uncommon standard. It is a standard that is used time and again in all civil matters.

When reviewing the issue of complaints of wrongdoing raised by employees, when there is substance, not a frivolous claim or a vexatious one, we find that people are expected to go through this process, which is a fair process and allows each and every party to the process to make a full and ample defence and to present their views. There is nothing wrong with that. It is something that is recognized in our provinces and around the world.

Federal Accountability ActGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

Nepean—Carleton Ontario

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member agrees with me that accountability is about telling the truth, something for which the member for Pickering—Scarborough East is not particularly renowned.

To start off with, he has--

Federal Accountability ActGovernment Orders

6 p.m.

Liberal

Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Scarborough East, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hopefully will receive an apology from that member of Parliament before he says what he is going to say, if what he has to say is indeed correct. I will accept his apology before that because what he has just said now diminishes, not only the reputation of this member of Parliament but every member of Parliament sitting in the House today.

Federal Accountability ActGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Does the hon. parliamentary secretary wish to respond to the point of order?

Federal Accountability ActGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON

Yes, Mr. Speaker. I said that the hon. member was not renowned for telling the truth and I stand by those remarks.

Federal Accountability ActGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

That is insinuating that a member of this House is not honest and I have to ask the parliamentary secretary to stick to parliamentary language and perhaps consider withdrawing any kind of insinuation that the member would not be honest.

Federal Accountability ActGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON

I will consider that, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to point out the factual mistakes that the member has made.

Federal Accountability ActGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Liberal

Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Scarborough East, ON

Mr. Speaker, I heard the wisdom of the Chair, who asked the member to withdraw his remarks. You have made it abundantly clear in your statement that he ought to withdraw them. This will be the third occasion. By the rules of the House, if the member refuses to respect the authority of the Chair he should be booted out of the House.

Federal Accountability ActGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I am going to ask the hon. parliamentary secretary to withdraw any insinuation that the member for Pickering—Scarborough East is not honest. He has that opportunity to do so right now.

Federal Accountability ActGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON

Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw the remarks here and just reserve them for outside the House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that first of all, the member accused the President of the Treasury Board of having been involved in some sort of nefarious lobbying activity when in fact what he is referring to is in 1994 as a 24-year-old, the President of the Treasury Board advocated on behalf of a university health and sciences centre in favour of a grant for students and for research. He then went on to say that the president had been cited negatively by the provincial auditor general. In fact the only time the minister was ever cited by the provincial auditor general was in praise of the actions that he took to clean up waste and corruption.

I would like the member's comments, particularly on what the Canadian Taxpayers Federation said about the member for Pickering—Scarborough East when he attacked the Auditor General's reputation for exposing Liberal waste and corruption at Groupaction. They said about the member that he should stop his political mudslinging.

I wonder if the hon. member agrees that the member should stop his political mudslinging and start telling the truth?

Federal Accountability ActGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Liberal

Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Scarborough East, ON

Mr. Speaker, I think you have just heard the honourable member--and I use the word “honourable” advisedly and reservedly--you have just heard him again, notwithstanding your admonishment on the comments that he has made with respect to my reputation and therefore the reputation of every member of Parliament, bringing into question my integrity.

The record will show in reference to what I have raised with respect to his cabinet minister, he was indeed a lobbyist in 1993. He was indeed a minister--

Federal Accountability ActGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Order, please. Sorry, but the hon. member for Pickering—Scarborough East is bringing matters of debate into his point of order.

Perhaps the hon. member for Pickering—Scarborough East would like to conclude his point of order and not bring matters of debate into his point of order.

Federal Accountability ActGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Liberal

Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Scarborough East, ON

Mr. Speaker, I think you, along with members of the House, will have heard that the hon. parliamentary secretary again referred to the word “untruthful”. He just made it in his last comment, Mr. Speaker. I think the blues will show that. I believe that you have now for the fourth time an opportunity to admonish that member of Parliament.

Federal Accountability ActGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON

Mr. Speaker, I did not use any unparliamentary language. I simply said the words and I will quote them again, that that member should start telling the truth. There is absolutely nothing wrong with urging other members of the House to refer to the truth. I stand by those remarks. There is nothing unparliamentary about them whatsoever.

Federal Accountability ActGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I think we are getting into some points of debate and we should try to avoid that. I encourage all hon. members not to impugn any motives in terms of other members of the House. We can give the hon. parliamentary secretary a very brief 10 or 15 seconds to respond to the original question put forward by the parliamentary secretary.

Federal Accountability ActGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

Conservative

Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

Mr. Speaker, there may be differences of opinion between members of Parliament and we may have many rules and regulations in respect to the act that we propose, but ultimately it will take the goodwill and good judgment of all members of Parliament to raise the standard of the House so the public can regain their confidence in their politicians. It will take the concerted effort of all parties to come to the place where the House will rise to the level that it ought to.

Federal Accountability ActGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

Liberal

Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Scarborough East, ON

Mr. Speaker, on four occasions, indeed a fifth time, the hon. member made a statement again impugning and alleging that something has been said by the member of Parliament that is untruthful. I am here to defend my integrity as well as to ensure that that member understands it is not a matter of debate.

If one member of the House is decidedly allowed to be put in a situation where we admonish or impugn the member's reputation, Mr. Speaker, you have an obligation as the arbiter of this place and in that chair to ensure that that member of Parliament understands that there are limits. It is in the rules.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you therefore to look at the standing rules of this House and to in turn put those in the way that I believe is consistent. It has been in the past that the comments made by the member of Parliament were not just a matter of debate; they were in fact based on previous rulings. Those decisions in the past would demonstrate that the member is clearly out of line and ought to retract his remarks and apologize.

Federal Accountability ActGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON

Mr. Speaker, the remarks that I earlier made which were deemed by the Chair to be unparliamentary have been withdrawn. All later remarks fall fully within the realm of acceptable debate in the House of Commons.

Federal Accountability ActGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

Liberal

Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS

Mr. Speaker, as you know, the rules of order are very important in this chamber. The reason we have this particular rule against the use of unparliamentary language is to maintain order and decorum in this place. That is a very important provision. That is why members cannot say, “I withdraw but I reserve it for outside”. They either withdraw it or they do not. They do not half withdraw; they do not partially withdraw. They either fully withdraw those kinds of comments, that unparliamentary language, or, Mr. Speaker, it is your responsibility as you know, to name them and have them leave the chamber.

Federal Accountability ActGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Pursuant to the Standing Orders the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board did withdraw the original remarks, as per my request. I will review the rest of the exchange, consider the Standing Orders, consider what was said and if necessary, I will report back to the House accordingly.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.

Federal Accountability ActGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

Bloc

Paul Crête Bloc Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to take the floor on this bill which in French was initially called the “projet de loi sur l'imputabilité”. In response to a suggestion by the Bloc Québécois, the French title will be changed to “projet de loi sur la responsabilité”, as it should be in correct French. One must underscore the spirit of cooperation that the Bloc has tried to show with respect to the study of this bill, as well as the government’s response in agreeing to change the title. This is of course a minor element relative to the whole situation, but all the same it was important for this to be done.

Let us remember why the Bloc Québécois is in favour of the principle of this bill. First, ethics was central to the last election campaign, the result of which was the ouster from power of a corrupt government. Quebeckers especially were victims of that government.

The Gomery commission inquiry and its various results have shown that not only was there an attempt to misappropriate public money for personal purposes, but even an attempt—unfortunately, successful—to use that money to influence the choice made by Quebeckers about their future. We saw this during the referendum campaign, and then by the system set up by the Quebec section of the Liberal Party of Canada. The people’s judgment was very clear and very blunt, and it was absolutely necessary to find ways to prevent a recurrence of such incidents.

In that sense, as regards the principle of the bill, it seems to us appropriate that this bill should be tabled to try to correct the situation. Appropriate action must be taken to arrive at satisfactory ethical rules which can restore to elected officials the image that they deserve. They have been chosen by the people to represent their fellow citizens, to do their work honestly, and in democratic debate, to decide on the best choices to be made for our society. That is the rule that was broken by the Liberal government, particularly in Quebec. The present bill will correct this situation.

The Bloc Québécois has participated intensively in the Gomery commission. It has made recommendations which now have to be implemented. The Bloc is the only party that has prepared a report containing dozens of recommendations which it wanted to see implemented. Some of these are in the bill. So we will ensure that these recommendations are followed up and make it to the final stage.

Also, this is a very lengthy bill. It is large and ambitious. It aims to correct various elements of a system that was highly defective. The government will have to agree not to go full steam ahead with the passage of this bill, for time will be needed to give it very serious study. Good intentions notwithstanding, it does contain various shortcomings which deserve to be rectified, shortcomings related not to its principle, but rather to the way of doing things. Certain elements will have to be changed to ensure we obtain the result we want, and not the opposite.

The Bloc Québécois is particularly pleased with the points taken from the proposals that it made in the House, in many cases repeatedly. The first has to do with Elections Canada appointing returning officers on the basis of merit. The current practice in Canada is archaic. It is a remnant of the days when partisanship was maybe a normal part of the process. But the partisan appointment of returning officers is no longer acceptable nowadays.

We have seen incongruous situations arise in which appointed people who did not have the skills for the job could simply tell the chief electoral officer of Canada to get lost because he was not the person who had appointed them but rather the governor in council. So they could just tell the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada that it was none of his business if they did things the way that they thought they should be done and that he did not have the power to dismiss them because it was the cabinet that had appointed them—a cabinet that took a partisan approach.

This will be set right by the bill before us now. I have been a member of this House for about a dozen years and have seen the Bloc Québécois take up this matter over and over. The first few times, the Liberals—who were in power then with a majority government—had a really arrogant attitude and simply brushed this project aside. They said that they controlled the appointments, and things would stay just the way they were. This situation will be corrected by the bill before us now.

The Bloc Québécois has made a positive contribution that will ultimately improve the democratic process in Quebec and Canada. We should all be happy about that. When the process is implemented in its entirety, people will be appointed. They will be competent people, and that will help them carry out their duties better. This is one of the positive aspects of this bill and one of the reasons why we support it in principle.

Another important point is the independence of the registrar of lobbyists. The Bloc has already made representations in this regard. The bill contains some satisfactory points that improve the situation.

As regards the act respecting the financing of political parties, as Quebeckers, we react by saying, “Finally”. In 1976, 30 years ago, the Parti Québécois was in power for the first time. René Lévesque, a man of integrity, put in place a system which is today one of the rules of the game in Canada. Furthermore, this was one of his primary concerns. At the end of his two terms, this was the act he was proudest of. It must not be forgotten that, in the past 30 years, we have seen a whole range of behaviour in Parliament and among political parties in Canada. People have accepted cheques for inordinate amounts. These cheques from various companies and banks skewed the democratic process. Obviously those who donated $50,000 or $100,000 could expect the government to pay greater attention to them than to individuals without such financial means.

Today, this bill is coming full circle and ensures that corporations will not play a part in financing. This is therefore a huge step and it is what the Bloc Québécois proposed ages ago. I recall that the member representing the region of Sorel-Tracy in this House proposed a bill to this effect in the months following the creation of the Bloc Québécois. Today, we will see the result in the form of a bill, and this is a good thing.

The Bloc, however, regrets that reform of the Access to Information Act has been postponed till later. The government could have gone ahead much more quickly. At present, all it is doing is introducing a bill prepared by the Information Commissioner. This is only a draft bill and it will take some time for the process to be completed. This is somewhat contrary to the position of the government, which claimed to have priorities and to carry through with them. There is already a flaw in the system. The people deserved better than this.

The Bloc will examine the bill closely, as is our practice. We have identified certain shortcomings that will have to be corrected during clause by clause study of the bill and in the light of testimony before the committee.

For example, the bill promotes a culture of unhealthy informing by proposing to give whistleblowers financial awards. In good faith, the government has allowed honest whistleblowers to be compensated. However, the pendulum has swung to create a climate of unhealthy whistleblowing. This must be rectified so that compensation does not become the goal and lead to false accusations and pointless investigations. In my opinion, the focus should be on developing among public servants a spirit of doing their job well. When they see unacceptable behaviour, they can report it but without compensation. The bill will have to be corrected, because it is headed in the wrong direction. I hope that people will testify in committee and make suggestions or propose other solutions to improve the bill and have it corrected. Attention must be paid to the witnesses, on this and many other points. In the end, the bill that is passed will have to correspond to the initial objective. It cannot be adopted in haste or under pressure. Let us take the time to listen to those who have an opinion on the matter.

Another element deserves careful study. The bill proposes a public appointments commission within the portfolio of the Prime Minister. It will oversee the appointment selection process.

We have seen that before. Under the previous government, the Ethics Commissioner reported to the Prime Minister. This made him both judge and judged. The Prime Minister would ask him to investigate him or his ministers; ultimately, it was not a very objective process.

We have managed to get that changed, but now the Conservative government is coming up with a similar process for appointments. The whole process should be at much greater arm's length from the government. Also, the public appointments commission should be able to answer to the House of Commons without putting itself in a conflict of interest situation, so as to satisfy the appearance of justice and transparency necessary for the legislation to produce the desired effect.

The bill proposes that the new parliamentary budget officer report to the Library of Parliament and provides for exceptions, denying the officer access to certain information. The Bloc's 2005-06 election platform, however, proposed the establishment of an independent organization tied to the Standing Committee on Finance, whose mandate would be to make realistic financial forecasts which would be periodically reviewed.

The difference is that the organization proposed in the legislation will have its hands tied. When it will want to gather information to document an issue and shed sufficient light on a given situation, it will not be able to, because it will not have enough independence, given that is will be reporting to the Library of Parliament.

This will have to be looked at in greater detail, and the government really should examine the proposed amendments of the Bloc, as well as those of other parties, as the case may be, and the results of committee consultations on the matter.

This bill proposes that the Access to Information Act apply to three of the nine foundations, leaving six that will not be covered. Consideration will have to be given to extending the list, so that as few as possible of the foundations are excluded. This would prevent problems from arising in a year or so with foundations that might have been forgotten and would be protected.

With appropriate consideration and amendments, this piece of legislation should withstand the test of time. It is imperative that it be given sound basis right away and to ensure that is will address as much as possible all that we want it to.

This bill also poses the threat of blocking democratic debate. Let me explain. The citizen complaint process that has been developed is a problem. Citizens will be able to go to their member of Parliament to describe the situation they wish to report and ask that its relevancy be assessed. In turn, the MP will go to the appropriate commissioner and try to secure a commitment that the matter will actually be looked into. However, under this bill, from the moment that a member has taken this step, he or she would no longer be allowed to discuss the matter. If I understand the enactment correctly, this would limit democratic debate, prevent the member from raising the issue in the House during oral question period and in statements, even statements made outside the House. That needs to be corrected, so that the citizens' right to complain can be exercised without gagging members, whose democratic mandate is to convey the will of their constituents. I think that imposing such a restriction on the members' ability to speak would not serve government accountability well.

It is obvious that many amendments will have to be made to this bill. For example, the proposed changes to the Lobbyists Registration Act do not address e-mail correspondence. In this 21st century, we receive a great many e-mails containing a wealth of relevant information, and this type of communication ought to be addressed. Legislation is not designed for last year's reality, but today's and that of years to come. It is therefore important to make changes in that regard.

In addition, lobbyists continue to benefit from a number of loopholes. E-mail correspondence is not addressed. There is also the issue of political party financing. A cap has yet to be set with respect to leadership races. There is such a race underway within the Liberal Party of Canada. The framework of leadership races has to be tightened.

We have seen excessive spending in the past. Such excessive spending was carried out both by the party that was in power at the time and by the one currently in power.

In both instances, this restriction, and the fact that we could not—

Federal Accountability ActGovernment Orders

6:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I apologize to the hon. member for interrupting him, but unfortunately we have come to the end of the allotted time for this part of the debate. The hon. member will have four minutes left the next time the debate resumes on this issue.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

6:25 p.m.

NDP

Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have had a chance to address the House with yourself in the Chair. I would like to congratulate you on your appointment. I look forward to participating in debate in the House of Commons over the years and to your interventions.

I am rising today again on a border issue that affects not only my constituency of Windsor West but also constituencies across this country. The issue I am rising on is called the western hemisphere travel initiative. This is actually the first late show debate that we are having in the House of Commons in this session and my constituents will not be surprised that I am using this opportunity to talk about the border issue once again. I hope to give Canadians a broader perspective of what is going to happen with the WHTI.

The WHTI involves the implementation of passport requirements or another document for U.S. citizens to get into and out of their country. The actual document requirement has not been finalized yet. Canadians are going to require a passport as well in order to get into and out of the United States. This will be a big problem because it will affect our tourism and trade industries.

The question I asked the Prime Minister related to the abandonment of the position of the Canadian Parliament on this issue. We had come to a resolution during the last Parliament and I would like to revisit the history of this issue.

Days after the actual implementation was announced by the Homeland Security Department, I immediately wrote the previous Liberal government calling for action. We are not only going to suffer consequences to our tourism industry, but we will also suffer socially and culturally. Our borders will be clogged and individuals will no longer travel between our two great nations for varying types of reasons, whether for pleasure or for work. This is critical because our relationship with the United States will erode.

We put a lot of pressure on the Liberal government, and I will give the Conservative Party some credit with regard to that pressure. A take note debate was held in the House and the present Minister of Veterans Affairs pressed this issue as well. We came up with a position that was adopted by the House and we submitted our objection to the WHTI.

That take note debate was important because it outlined our position on why we were opposing the WHTI. It also laid down the framework of where we were going in the future. When the Prime Minister went to Cancun to meet with President Bush and President Fox, he immediately capitulated the position that had been adopted here in the House by agreeing that we would have to endorse this without any type of plan in place.

I specifically asked why we were abandoning the position that was championed with the Conservatives, the New Democratic Party and the Bloc to get the Liberal government at the time to make a submission. That four page submission was the starting point of a formal argument about the effects of the WHTI, the implementation of passports, and the consequences to our national economy. Four independent studies have confirmed the grave consequences.

The Prime Minister's position was rather puzzling because of the champion work that the current veterans minister had done on this file. It seemed like a capitulation that was not going to be in the best interests of Canadians. At that time I asked the Prime Minister to present a specific plan as to what the government was going to do.

6:30 p.m.

Oxford Ontario

Conservative

Dave MacKenzie ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety

Mr. Speaker, like those who have gone before me, I would like to congratulate you on your new role. Obviously, it means that you will not be sitting on all those committees with the rest of us.

I rise in response to the question put to the House by my hon. colleague, the member for Windsor West, regarding the western hemisphere travel initiative of United States.

Canada recognizes and shares the U.S. security concerns, which the western hemisphere travel initiative is attempting to address through improved security of documentation. At the same time, we have questions and concerns about whether the initiative, as proposed, fully serves the interests of both our countries, particularly in light of what we know about the negative impacts on trade, tourism and border communities. Such concerns have been raised on a number of occasions with our American counterparts, including President Bush, Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff and Secretary of State Rice. I would also note that these issues have also been brought forward by a number of representatives in the U.S. Congress and Senate.

That being said, the western hemisphere travel initiative is a law passed by a majority in the U.S. Congress and President Bush has clearly stated that he will abide by it. Therefore, it is incumbent upon this government to take the necessary and appropriate steps in preparation to meet these deadlines. This includes collaborative work between the most senior officials in both Canada and the U.S. to explore alternative documents other than the passport and the United States pass card for securing efficient cross-border travel.

The Minister of Public Safety recently had a series of meetings in Washington with Secretary Chertoff and other senior U.S. officials, and good progress was made on several fronts. In particular, it was clarified that the U.S. remains open to the idea of alternative documents, other than the proposed passport or pass card, for the purposes of cross-border travel. This is important as we continue to address with our American counterparts the need for affordable and easy to obtain documentation that meets the security requirements under the western hemisphere travel initiative.

I am pleased to report that the Minister of Public Safety and Secretary Chertoff were in full agreement that wherever possible, our two countries should look for opportunities to enhance the flow of trade and travel across the border, and we will continue to examine options to make this work. Secretary Chertoff will be coming to Ottawa in late May or early June so we can jointly assess our progress on this critical issue under the western hemisphere travel initiative.

While this joint Canada-U.S. work moves forward, we at the same time remind Canadian citizens who may wish to travel to the United States after January 1, 2007, that they will be able, as always, to use their Canadian passports. What is of critical importance to both countries is how best to implement a meaningful solution which ensures that our borders are open for legitimate trade and travel and closed to terrorists, drug dealers and smugglers.