Debates of April 25th, 2006

Federal Accountability Act

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very short question.

I know people in Quebec do not like too much interference by the federal government. I have already had complaints because of the many controls that have been put in by government over the last few years. The previous government put a lot in to make sure things flowed well.

Is the member worried about even more controls in the bill that will make it harder for volunteer boards and for people who do not have that much capacity to follow all the controls of the government? Will this make it even more difficult for those organizations that are already complaining about the burden of bureaucracy?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the Accountability Act is not to complicate the parliamentary process but to put in place measures that will increase transparency in financing for political parties, for example. The act contains a series of measures that will give people greater confidence in their government.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate you on your re-election to the chair.

I would again like to thank the citizens of St. Albert for having re-elected me for the fifth time, and I appreciate very much their support.

I am pleased to support the government's new FAA, the federal accountability act, which has been introduced. As has been said many times, this is great legislation that will set back the concept of people helping themselves to the government's cash with impunity, hopefully by many years. The notion that governments have to be accountable to Parliament, that Parliament and the government have to be accountable to the people and that they have an obligation to act with honesty and integrity should be taken for granted. Unfortunately, we have had to entrench it in law to ensure that everybody who is in government, or who may come into government or who has been in government gets the message that we have to act with honesty and integrity.

We also have to think about why this bill has been required. We all know what happened with the sponsorship program under the previous government. The Auditor General reported in February of 2004, with a tremendous jolt to the nation, that there was large-scale corruption in our government, that $100 million had been lost and that every rule in the book had been broken. We found out during the investigation that it had been ongoing for years and that the people responsible for ensuring the rules were adhered to were turning a blind eye.

It had tentacles leading right into the Prime Minister's office. Many of the questions were never answered as to exactly what was the culpability of senior ministers and the prime minister, under whose personal directive this program was being managed. His chief of staff, who as we all know appeared as a witness before the public accounts committee and the Gomery inquiry, admitted that he had hands-on administration of this program too. The former minister of public works, Mr. Alfonso Gagliano, had hands-on management of this program, as did his chief of staff, Jean-Marc Bard, and it went on and on. People who should have been, by the rules, barred from being involved in the daily administration of the program were actively involved. I do not know if we ever will know the real story of the particular involvement by these senior public officials, but the result of it has been the new accountability act to ensure that it does not happen again.

It is pointed out in the Gomery report that government reports to Parliament. The public accounts committee, which I chaired at the time, was conducting a full-blown investigation into the sponsorship program, from February until May of 2004, at which time it was cut short by the prime minister of the day who dissolved Parliament and called an election. This is why we told Canadians that we believed in a parliamentary cycle of four years, to ensure that prime ministers of the day could not pull the plug and dissolve Parliament to avoid their embarrassment.

When a public accounts committee, or any other committee for that matter, or Parliament itself is involved in holding the government accountable, it is very archaic for the government of the day to say, “Everyone go home and leave us alone”. That belongs in the middle ages, in the evolution of Parliament back in the 1400s, 1500s and 1600s in the U.K., where the king could dissolve Parliament at will every time they asked an embarrassing question. Surely it does not belong in our hopefully mature democracy in Canada.

That investigation, which was truncated, was followed by the Gomery inquiry. We had a four-volume report from Mr. Justice Gomery, which talked, among many things, about the role of Parliament.

I am looking at the volume “Restoring Accountability” and his recommendations. He talks a great deal about parliamentary oversight in a democracy and our responsibility as members of Parliament to hold government accountable. It is unfortunate that, while he waxed eloquent on many areas of Parliament, his recommendations contained nothing about Parliament, as an institution, being required to be stronger in order that Parliament can oversee government, get the facts and figures and demand answers to ensure that honesty and integrity is the order of the day.

I look at Mr. Justice Gomery's recommendations and the majority of them seem to be that the government should do something.

For example, recommendation 2 on page 199 says, “The Government should adopt legislation to entrench into law a Public Service Charter.”

Recommendation 4 says, “--the Government should modify its policies and publications to explicitly acknowledge and declare that Deputy Ministers and senior public servants who have statutory responsibility...”.

Recommendation 5 says, “The Government should establish a formal process by which a Minister is able to overrule a Deputy Minister...” and so on.

Much of that has been included in the federal accountability act, but I would have thought that Mr. Justice Gomery, after waxing eloquent on the role of Parliament in a democracy, would have had some greater recommendations to strengthen this institution to ensure that we as parliamentarians fulfill our responsibilities.

I want to talk a bit about other countries and the problems they have with parliamentary oversight. There is now an organization, which I chair, called GOPAC, the Global Organization of Parliamentarians Against Corruption. It is aptly named because while we have had and may still have corruption in our country, it pales in comparison to what happens elsewhere. I believe many of the undeveloped countries are undeveloped because of grand corruption by governments. They are not held accountable by the institution of parliament.

The whole philosophy of GOPAC is an organization of parliamentarians committed to improving the institution of parliament, to strengthen parliament, to ensure that it does really act as institution of oversight for governments rather than being a lapdog of government, in the pocket of government, to ensure that government gets what it wants, and no doubt parliamentarians get well paid along the way. If we could stop corruption in Africa, in Asia and in Latin America, for example, we would find that their prosperity would rise.

We spend $60 billion a year collectively from the developed world into the undeveloped world in foreign aid and yet we do not seem to see much improvement, mostly because of corruption.

The president of the World Bank, Mr. Paul Wolfowitz, has now talked about how corruption is a major agenda of his presidency and how he would like to and is tackling corruption through the World Bank.

GOPAC wants to work with parliamentarians to ensure that parliamentarians who are speaking out against corruption, not just in Canada but elsewhere around the world, can do so knowing that they have a greater opportunity to do so without recrimination. There are some parliamentarians around the world whose lives are on the line, or who have disappeared or who have been found murdered because they spoke out against corruption. Parliamentarians need to know that they have support from their colleagues around the world. We want to provide that support.

We also want to provide education to parliamentarians. When we are elected to this job, nobody tells us how to do our job. Therefore, we need to understand the institution to which we have been elected. We need to know the rules and we need to know that our job is oversight of government, not to be cheerleaders of government, not to oppose it at every turn but, as an institution, to hold government accountable.

The third issue deals with what we call leadership for results. Far too many parliamentary organizations travel, but they really do not accomplish very much. We would like to see GOPAC be an organization that actually achieves things. Our Latin American chapter is working with the Organization of American States to implement the Inter-American Convention Against Corruption. There is the African Convention Against Corruption and the UN Convention Against Corruption. We would like to see these adopted.

The accountability bill being proposed today would ensure that we hopefully would never fall into the pit of corruption that has destroyed the prosperity and the economies of so many countries around the world and that we continue to be a beacon of prosperity and governance around the world.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I have sat with the hon. member for the last five years as a member of the public accounts committee. I agree with most of what he has said regarding this institution, which is in fact an institution of accountability. Our primary role is parliamentary oversight. I associate myself with most of what he said this afternoon.

One issue which disturbs me is the appointment by the Prime Minister of his campaign co-chair to the Senate and then subsequently making him the Minister of Public Works and Government Services. I and all Canadians would like to hear his views. He was a long-standing former chairman of the public accounts committee and he is a person whom I consider to be an expert in accountability. I asked this question to a previous member who said that there was no problem because he was accountable to another institution down the hall. This person is spending $40 million a day and we do not know what he is doing. In fact, I do not even know what he looks like.

I have three questions for the hon. member across the way. Do you agree with the Prime Minister appointing his former campaign co-chair to the Senate? If you agree with that, do you agree with his appointment as Minister of Public Works--

[The Acting Speaker, Liberal, Marcel Proulx]

May I remind the hon. member that his questions are through the Speaker.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

I apologize, Mr. Speaker.

Does the member feel this appointment is in line with the member's vision of accountability for this institution?

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the questions the member has posed are complex. I also would like to acknowledge the great work that he did on public accounts when I was the chair.

This is the institution of oversight. We are the ones who approve legislation or otherwise. We are the ones who approve the budget and the estimates or otherwise. We are the ones to whom government reports. If we do not like the way the government does things, we should change it.

When I think back over the 13 years of Liberal government, I did not see any effort by it to improve accountability. I did not see any situation where the Liberals did not use the Senate to their advantage. They continued to appoint members to the Senate even though we were calling for elections to the Senate. Now we have to wait until we get that legislation forward in due course.

The point is, if we do not like what is going on in government, we are the ones who can change it. Therefore, I would expect the member opposite to propose changes along the lines that he would like and they would be considered by this institution and if deemed favourable, would be adopted.

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

Mr. Speaker, the first thing about accountability is being accountable to our constituents.

When the member for Kings--Hants crossed the floor to join the Liberal Party, the opposition leader, now the Prime Minister, said that anybody who crossed the floor for the perception of 30 pieces of silver would lead to a corrupt government. If the member for Vancouver Kingsway had stayed in his seat as a Liberal member, he would have received a regular MPs salary. However, he crossed the floor and became a cabinet minister. I do not believe he would have crossed the floor if he had been just a regular backbench MP. He crossed the floor, became a cabinet minister and received an over $70,000 increase to his salary, plus his pension and everything else.

I have great respect for my colleague, but if the situation had been reversed and that party was in opposition, those members would be on their chairs screaming and yelling at the top of their lungs that this was wrong. How can he stand up and talk about accountability? He is right when he said that the Liberals are not even in this discussion on accountability. How can government members not be accountable to their constituents?

How can the government justify Jim Gouk now becoming a member of Nav Canada's board of directors and John Reynolds becoming a member of the Privy Council? The list of Conservative members of Parliament now in favoured positions goes on. How is that being accountable to the people of Canada?

[The Acting Speaker, Liberal, Marcel Proulx]

We are out of time, but I am sure the hon. member for Edmonton—St. Albert would want to answer these questions.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, of course I would like to answer the questions. We always want to do that and be held accountable for what we say.

I know the member has introduced legislation regarding anyone crossing the floor. It states that they cannot cross, they actually have to stop halfway, resign, and see if they can win a byelection before they travel the rest of the way.

I believe in free speech and I have contemplated this bill many times. While I understand the member's motivation, there are two things that are important here: first, is the freedom of free speech in the House, free of party discipline. We are given the opportunity to speak out in this place.

If we feel strongly about any particular issue and if we want to go against our party, then that should be our privilege without any fear of any kind whatsoever of losing our job. It is like tenure at a university. When people come up with radical new ideas and we laugh them out on the street as we have done before in the past, at least their job is protected. That is what tenure is about in university and we need tenure in the House as well to guarantee the right of free speech because if we do not have it here, it will not be anywhere else in this country. So we must defend it here.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Mississauga--Brampton South.

I am sure I will not be the last member to speak on some concerns that many Canadians have with this bill in regard to access to information. There are just too many gaping holes that suggest real transparency may be nothing but lip service from the government, as it is with so many aspects of accountability as well.

On April 11, the justice department released a discussion paper which suggested even further expanding the government's secrecy powers. This would essentially make everything outside of administration immune to access to information requests for some institutions.

We could debate the pros and cons of secrecy post-9/11 for such institutions that fit into the discussion paper's five broad categories, such as national security. The fact is that we have seen some roadblocks to accountability appear under the heading before. I am speaking of the problem of security certificates issued to a handful of Canadians with the reason and conditions of the incarceration, matters that could not be discussed or questioned in what one would call a meaningful dialogue or debate.

It could be argued that the whole issue compromises questions of what is considered a fair trial in a democracy. There is a case to be made for the fact that the democratic process requires more openness, that we do little to further the principles we hope to defend for all by denying them to even a few. I have not seen any real detailed information how what is determined national security will not compromise what an open democracy requires.

On the other hand, for other institutions such as the CBC, I also wonder how matters of secrecy that help determine freedom of press will be articulated. I am speaking of the importance of what is often called among journalists “protecting the source”. I do not see enough of real substance to affirm that the essential right of both journalists and the public will be affirmed.

If the justice department's recommendations are followed, the government will have sweeping powers to override the access act, so how is this any improvement on transparency and accountability? Moreover, the reforms mentioned in this discussion paper are modestly targeted at around $120 million. Canadians are not hearing these numbers. They have been led to believe this is all a very straightforward exercise and that ordinary taxpayers will just suddenly consent to the millions and millions of dollars thrown around to make the government appear more transparent.

There are seven crown corporations, including Canada Post, Via Rail and the Public Sector Pension Investment Board, that are covered under the access act, and for the price tag for reforms, how much further ahead are Canadians?

There are more questions about this act that come from the difference between rhetoric and reality. The rhetoric by the lobbyists is a case in point. We heard initially that this act would require ministers and senior government officials to record their contacts with lobbyists, the idea being that all lobbyists would then become a matter of public domain, but that is not really the case. The act requires some lobbyists to disclose some of their communications.

Beyond the argument of creating a culture of suspicion by assuming the worst for what I believe is an essential and honourable part of government relations, we are dealing with the fact that if a loophole is created, most certainly a culture is created exploiting those loopholes. Unless I am told otherwise, the business of government relations is also competitive. It is wonderful to market forces, as in any other industry, and those who can keep information privileged will prosper.

There is also a gaping hole in what is defined as a ministerial advisor, one who would be prohibited from lobbying for five years. The act defines this person as someone other than a public servant who occupies a position in the office of a minister of the Crown or a minister of state and who provides advice to that person on issues relating to his or her powers, duties and functions as a minister of the Crown or a minister of state whether or not that advice is provided on a full time or part time basis, and whether or not the person is entitled to any compensation for this advice.

The larger, less prohibitive definition of ministerial staff is for those persons who work on behalf of a minister of the Crown or a minister of state. As the act defines it now, it rests on the minister or the former minister to define whether a person has crossed that critical Rubicon from staff to advisor. A simple letter stating that a person was not an advisor and outlining what his or her job description was as it was made known to the minister will suffice to get the person off the hook and into the lobbying business. This is clearly not good enough.

I think members can see how the whole culture of exploiting loopholes can be created. They entitle the policy advisors to simply take on the function of amending them and those who elude this definition may provide the real advice.

We are in the theatre of the absurd here where the crucial grey areas of counsel, the areas between partisan and non-partisan, become black and white, but black is really white and all can be fixed to avoid a five year ban with this letter from a minister or minister of state.

There is also a disparity between rhetoric and reality as it relates to the Ethics Commissioner's interface with the public. We heard initially that this act would allow members of the public, not just politicians, to make complaints to the Ethics Commissioner. As the act is written, only politicians can make complaints to the Ethics Commissioner.

Supposedly, there is a case happening right now in my riding where campaign donations are now a matter of an RCMP probe and there is some question as to how donation money ended up in the personal account of a previous member of Parliament. Many who donated never got a receipt. If I were just a voter and not a politician, why should I not be able to take this matter to the Ethics Commissioner myself? Why should I have to rely on a politician to be my voice when I have an articulate voice of my own on this issue and why should I not personally get an answer? How is this government any more responsive and accountable if it denies the right to everyone?

However, it is not only a question of how these watchdogs will divulge to the public how they reached their verdicts. The procurement auditor, the conflict of interest commissioner and the Ethics Commissioner will never have to divulge their backup investigation and audit work. I think an argument can be made that this information could be considered crucial to the decision. What are we left with if we cannot question their investigation and audits? We are left with nothing more than blind trust, no pun intended, but it gets worse on the audit front.

As for this version of the FAA, the government's own draft audits and working papers can be kept secret for 15 years. I do not think that requires much comment. Everyone knows the problem with that.

My last point on the rhetoric and reality relates to the public opinion poll research. We can all recall the televised episodes of the public accounts committee, the great theatre, about how there was talk of tabling certain forms and curbing competition. Information on public opinion poll research contracts with the government can be delayed for up to six months and certain polls would be exempt. Again we have the creation of a culture around the exploitation of loopholes. Six months can become a crucial period before an election, so I challenge the government to tell me how this can be imposed with any real rigour.

What we are really looking at here are some gaping holes that were decided upon through a star chamber process where exceptions and inconsistencies can be presumed as calculated circumstances.

As there has been so much around bureaucratic activity, transparency--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Questions and comments?

The honourable member for Kenora has the floor.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Newton--North Delta raised some very good points and made some good arguments.

My question deals with the part of his speech where he mentioned lobbyists. We all know the challenges the government has to ensure it has proper controls in place and the proper means to deal with lobbyists and their effect and impact on government.

What does he see as being a challenge now that we see so many retired MPs moving into areas of lobbying? We have them from the former party, from this party. Is it more dangerous to have a minister of the previous government, who has either retired or left the House, now working for a lobbyist firm, or to have a lobbyist being elected to Parliament and becoming the Minister of Defence? Which does he see as being the most dangerous part for the new government to deal with?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when we are members of Parliament and we go out of this House we do not carry that much authority and power. On the other hand, the Minister of Defence, who was a lobbyist for many years, now carries real influence and that is more dangerous. I do not think people who were lobbyists should be allowed to be ministers.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for his overview of the accountability bill.

I spoke earlier with respect to the oversight nature of committees, in particular, as it relates to the public accounts and the estimates. I know the member has not had an opportunity to sit on committee but I might tell him that one of the goals of having transparency and accountability was to empower committees to have more oversight.

The proposition put forward in the bill is to create a parliamentary budget authority. Does he believe that, first, committees should have the responsibilities of oversight and, second, would he agree that to give the committees more capacity in the area of budgetary analysis would further reinforce the accountability of members of this Parliament?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for giving me a bit of information as I am new here and have not served on any of the committees. I understand that committees play a major role when decisions are made around this Parliament. In fact, most of the real work that happens is around those committees. As committee members work together as a team, they should be the ones who decide in which direction they are heading and therefore they are the ones who should have more powers.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the maiden speech by the member for Newton—North Delta. I also thank him for allowing me the opportunity to share his time.

I stand today to speak to Bill C-2, an act providing for conflict of interest rules, restrictions on election financing and measures respecting administrative transparency, oversight and accountability. It is a mouthful but more simply put, the accountability act.

I want to state right from the beginning that I do support accountability. I support the notion of enhancing accountability and transparency in government because I believe the drafting of legislation can help to restore the public faith and public trust in our institution and in our democracy.

Accountability is an issue that I take very seriously and that is why it is disappointing that the government has decided to put forth an omnibus bill that includes over 300 clauses when the material in the bill could very easily have been split into three or four bills. This would have allowed us a more thorough examination of the issues. Instead, we have to deal with it in its entirety.

I do have issues with the bill in terms of the fact that I find it extremely convoluted, poorly organized and it does not really have a logical flow. Nevertheless, I am here in my given time to address some of my concerns and voice some criticism of the bill. However I do support the essence of the bill.

I will touch upon a few areas, the first one with respect to reforming the financing of political parties and third party financing. I also want to touch upon the role of the Ethics Commissioner, respect for that office of Parliament and, more important, cooperating with that office of Parliament. The next area concerns the Access to Information Act. I also want to discuss some issues on which the government has backtracked. I want to discuss the issue of government appointments and the government's poor judgment on those appointments. I find a bit of hypocrisy on the part of the government in protecting whistleblowers. I do again question some of the monetary incentives that have been built into the bill.

I must also highlight, however, that the bill is a reflection of many years and an initiative that was put forth by the previous Liberal government. I would like to commend the government of the past for building the foundations for the discussion that is taking place today.

As I enter into the debate around accountability, I must also point out that the Conservative Party, led by the Prime Minister, has lost a great deal of credibility on this subject in the past three months and I will demonstrate that throughout my remarks.

The first area I want to touch upon is reforming the financing of political parties and third party advertising. The Conservative government wants to reduce the influence of organizations and corporations that can be exerted through large donations. I want to remind the members, especially government members, that it was the Liberal government under Bill C-24 that brought about meaningful changes to the many donations for unions and corporations from unlimited amounts to $1,000 for a corporation or a union and $5,000 for an individual and put limits on the influence of third party advertising during the election campaign.

The accountability act, however, does not, in my opinion, which I think many people share, reduce third party election spending and actually strengthens third party influence. I do want to note that there seems to be a bit of concern about the current Prime Minister, who was a former member of a special interest group, the National Citizens' Coalition, and the fact that he has not opposed all efforts to put limits on third party advertising. I would question his integrity and his intent when it comes to this section of the bill.

The other area that I would like to touch upon is strengthening the Office of the Ethics Commissioner. It is important that the bill wants to strengthen the role of the Office of the Ethics Commissioner and integrate the role of the Senate and the House ethics offices into one office and to introduce a new conflict of interest act. I would remind the current Conservative government that it was the Liberal government that created an independent Office of the Ethics Commissioner. It was the Liberal Party that full cooperated with the Ethics Commissioner and the work that he was trying to achieve.

We should look at the track record of the Conservative government. I alluded to this earlier in my remarks and I will, from time to time, remind the Conservatives of their distrust and disdain for the Ethics Commissioner.

Last year the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics held a confidence vote on the Ethics Commissioner. The Liberals supported the office but the Conservatives did not. When the Ethics Commissioner announced that he would investigate the role of the Prime Minister in convincing the member for Vancouver Kingsway to cross the floor, the Prime Minister had an opportunity to show that he supported the work of the Ethics Commissioner and yet he worked to undermine the Ethics Commissioner and declared that he would not cooperate.

I do have some reservations. The Liberal Party has clearly demonstrated its ability to respect the Office of the Ethics Commissioner and we look forward to the changes but it would be imperative for the current Conservative government to follow suit.

The third area I want to examine is strengthening the Access to Information Act. The Prime Minister has another credibility issue with regard to access to information. During the election he promised to implement all of the recommendations made by the Information Commissioner. Now that he has a chance to act on this, the Conservative Party has decided to take the Access to Information Act out of the accountability act and to table a draft bill and a discussion paper that will be discussed in committee.

I find it a bit ironic to have this thick document, this bill that contains a vast array of issues to the effect of reforming the financing of political parties, banning secret donations, strengthening the role of the Ethics Commissioner and so forth, and yet when it comes to access to information, they want to have a separate bill. As I said at the beginning of my speech, I do have concerns with respect to the logical flow of the bill.

In November 2005 the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics was chaired by a Conservative and pushed for a vote that endorsed the Information Commissioner's bill. I do not see the issue here. Why are all those changes not incorporated in the bill? Again, this backtracking is an area of concern that I have as well.

The other area I would like to address is making qualified government appointments. Again, the government wants to make a uniform process of appointing agents and officers of Parliament by ensuring they are based on merit. Again, it was a Liberal government in our past 13 years that had parliamentary committees empowered to review the appointments of heads of crown corporations. We brought forth transparency and it was increased even in the selection of Supreme Court justices. The Access to Information Act was extended to include 10 key crown corporations.

I do want to question the Prime Minister's judgment on appointing an individual by the name of Mr. Morgan to oversee political appointments and to end patronage. I see a great deal of hypocrisy in this. He wants to reflect a Conservative pledge of making appointments based on merit and yet the individual has clearly shown bias in his remarks and that he is partisan. I again have deep reservations and concerns with respect to this component of the bill.

I do not want to remind people, but it is important for those listening to CPAC to know that it was the current Prime Minister who appointed an unelected individual to the Senate, contrary to the commitments that he made for a department that oversees $10 billion worth of spending.

The area I want to touch upon next is the protection for whistleblowers. We completely agree with the strengthening of the whistleblower protection. It will give the public service direct access to the public service Integrity Commissioner to report wrongdoing, which is excellent, and a new independent tribunal with the power to order remedies and discipline. Again, we agree with that in spirit as well.

I want to remind the Conservative government that it was the Liberal Party that made it easier for whistleblowers to come forward. It was the Liberal Party that brought forth meaningful legislation to protect whistleblowers. I fully support granting protection for whistleblowers but my concern, and this just boggles the mind, is with the offer of a monetary reward for ethical behaviour. It is counterintuitive. It just does not make sense. People who come forward are individuals of integrity and ethics. They are not looking for a $1,000 reward to provide additional incentive.

I want to remind members in the House that, yes, we are talking about accountability and it is important legislation which I support in spirit, but it was the Liberal government that had many accomplishments when it came to accountability. We took on a leadership role and we are glad to see that the Conservative government is following suit. We look forward to working with the government to further strengthen accountability measures. It was our Liberal government that set up the most sweeping inquiry in modern political history. We brought dramatic reform to political financing laws in Bill C-24, to which I alluded, and we proposed whistleblower legislation.

We brought in Canada's first independent Ethics Commissioner. We brought forth clear conduct guidelines for public office holders and proactive disclosure of hospitality and contracts over $10,000 on a website. These are all major reforms when it comes to accountability that were brought forth by the Liberal government.

I am glad to see the Conservative government has followed suit. I look forward to working with members in committee to strengthen this bill.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Questions and comments. I recognize the hon. member for York South—Weston.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I meant no harm when I said that it is nice to be recognized these days. It was an attempt at levity and once again it was a failure. I do congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your elevation to the Chair.

The member has given a very comprehensive overview of the legislation and the continuity of the development of legislation which in fact started in previous governments in terms of searching out that ultimate balance that we all desire in terms of open government, transparency and so on.

Perhaps the member would like to pursue one area a little bit further, given his extensive knowledge and background on the access to information component of the bill. In the last Parliament the access to information officer had prepared a report. The report was approved by committee. In fact, there has been extensive consultation on access to information.

Would the member care to comment on the suggestion that that aspect go to committee? Perhaps it could simply be presented as a bill because there has been so much consultation on it.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the essence of the question is alluding to the notion of the spirit of the accountability act and its incorporation in the accountability bill.

I said earlier that the concern I have is that this is a bill that is lengthy in nature. It lacks a coherent message and does not have a logical flow. Various sections have been excluded. Parts of the Access to Information Act and the recommendations that we made in committee have been excluded and will be put forth in a separate bill that will be going forward to a committee.

My concern is that we had extensively debated those issues. More important, not only did we debate those issues, but we had the full support of the Conservative Party and the Conservative members that sat on the committee with me.

I do not see what has drastically changed now that the Conservatives are in power. Why do they no longer want to pursue those changes and recommendations that we made in committee? We exhausted all possible avenues to the best of our ability. We consulted with the Information Commissioner and took his considerations into account as well. We came to an agreement on some of the changes on which he made recommendations. All that has been done.

I do not see any further value added by taking that particular component of access to information to the committee. Something we have to seriously consider when this bill goes to committee is that we might need to incorporate it to further strengthen accountability.

I have said before that the Liberals have taken a leadership role on accountability. We have done tremendous work on accountability. I look forward to working with the government in making sure that we continue to strengthen accountability and make sure that Canadians have trust in public institutions.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my friend from the Liberal Party in his intervention reminded us of some of the discussions that happened at committee. I would like to remind him that although the Liberals began making steps forward on some of the issues around accountability, they did not go far enough. This is why we have brought forward the federal accountability act that I am so proud to endorse on this side of the House.

We have to remember that events happened in the last government, the Liberal ad scam for example, that required us to toughen up the rules and the way we do business as politicians, the way we do business as government. We need to make sure that we bring about the changes Canadians wanted when they voted on January 23.

Does my colleague agree that the accountability act that we began debating this morning will achieve the results that are so desperately needed to make sure that Canadians have faith in government and the people that they elect to the House of Commons and to fulfill the aspirations that Canadians have of us?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member must be warned that it will be a very short answer.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the heads up. I want to capture the essence of the comments made by the member. This will really summarize it. I saw a quote yesterday which I would like to reiterate with respect to the accountability act. “The accountability act is the toughest piece of anti-corruption legislation ever tabled in Canadian history”. That was a statement made by the President of the Treasury Board on April 11, 2006. However, if we look at the comment made by Justice Gomery, he said, “Canadians should not forget that the vast majority of our public officials and politicians do their work honestly, diligently and effectively and emerge from this inquiry free of any blame”.

[Helena Guergis, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to take a moment to congratulate you on your position as Acting Speaker. I would also like to thank the constituents of Simcoe—Grey for giving me an opportunity to represent them for another session in the House of Commons. We increased our plurality substantially this time and I really appreciate the good work of my entire team back home.

It is a pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to the first piece of legislation that my government has put forward, the federal accountability act. I want to talk a little about the people in my riding of Simcoe--Grey. I believe they are truly representative of Canada. We have every kind of farmer in Simcoe--Grey, from potato farmers, to chicken farmers, eggs, beef, dairy, pork, grains and oilseeds, sod, and so on. We have apple farmers. There has also been conversation about planting grapes within the town of Blue Mountain. We may have a winery coming into Simcoe--Grey. This is something we are all looking forward to and something I am very proud of.

We also have thousands of auto workers in Simcoe--Grey. We have the award winning Honda plant and dozens of parts plants that supply our automotive industry within Simcoe--Grey. Hundreds of people work at our resorts. We have a very strong tourism industry in Simcoe--Grey.

Smack dab in the middle of my riding, which is right beside my hometown of Angus, Ontario, is base Borden which is the largest training base in Canada. I am looking forward to seeing an increase in the number of Canadian soldiers on base Borden and the impact it will have, especially on small businesses in the communities surrounding base Borden and how positive that will be for my riding of Simcoe--Grey.

Last but certainly not least, in Wasaga Beach, which is the fastest growing community in Ontario, fourth in Canada, we have skilled trades and aggregates in sod.

Over the past few weeks we have heard many members of the Liberal Party continue to criticize our throne speech and agenda. They say the five priorities are not enough. Of course, to the previous Liberal government everything was a priority but nothing was actually completed. During the campaign I can remember that our party researchers assembled a list of quotes from the former prime minister of everything that he said was a priority for him and his government. I can recall the list being about 100 items long.

Outside of promises, I cannot think of much that the previous government actually did. The Liberals were consumed with extricating themselves from a growing scandal of sleaze and greed. They were doing everything they could to hold on to power. It was really their only priority and it was at all costs with no care for what was truly best for the country.

Why did we start with accountability? I think my words have already stated that. It is because without accountability, nothing else will work. Government will break down and it starts to fail the people. That is what happened with the previous Liberal government.

Just over a year ago I had an opportunity to go to Taiwan with many other members of the House. The sleaze and scandal of the sponsorship scandal was really starting to unfold. It was being exposed for what it truly was. I can recall that senior dignitaries were asking me about the sponsorship scandal here in Canada. I was thoroughly embarrassed and very ashamed.

The previous Liberal government had a difficult time accepting the fact that what was going on here with the sponsorship scandal in Canada was actually changing how the world looked at Canada. Now that we voted for change on January 23 we are getting back to accountable government. We are going to see that Canada's reputation on the international scene again is something to be very proud of.

We still do not know how much of the country's money the Liberal Party took, but we do know that the people of Canada have had enough and they have voted for change. We told Canadians during the election that we had the five priorities. They voted us in and now we are keeping our word.

The first is the piece of legislation we are talking about today, about putting the House back in order, restoring trust to the people of Canada, because people have to have faith in their institutions and in their politicians. The federal accountability act is a really good first step.

The act is about moving from a culture of entitlement to a culture of accountability. It is about making everyone in government, from the Prime Minister on down, answerable to Canadians. It will of course ban corporate, union and large personal political donations. We will strengthen the powers of the Auditor General. We will provide real protection for whistleblowers. We will ensure government contracting is proper, fair and open.

We will prevent lobbying by former ministers and other public office holders for five years. This is something that I experienced in my own riding of Simcoe—Grey with a former member actually going into the lobbying business and circumventing the member of Parliament as an assistant. But we would also create more--

[An hon. member]

Paul Bonwick.