Debates of April 26th, 2006

Federal Accountability Act

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Avalon for his presentation.

I note that the government wishes to uphold transparency in the workings of government , which is greatly needed. However, I wonder why only three of the nine foundations will be subject to the Access to Information Act? The result is that responsibility for hundreds of millions of dollars will continue to remain nebulous and beyond the control of Parliament.

I would like to hear the position of the member on this matter.

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the federal accountability act would give us the opportunity to control many of the dollars that go out to the citizens of Canada. We cannot control everything but this is a step in the right direction. As a government I believe we have put forward something that would make us accountable to the people of the country. It is the most accountable legislation that has been put forward in the House for a number of years and it is a step in the right direction.

Will the legislation solve all the problems? Will it find all the wrongdoing that happens within our House? No, not necessarily, but I am fully confident that this is a step in the right direction. It is about cleaning up government. Canadians wanted this and they will get it. I think Canadians from coast to coast will support it.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the people of Avalon have obviously made an excellent choice in their member. However I must say that when I hear the word Avalon I think of Anne of Green Gables but perhaps that is another province.

[Norman Doyle]

That's Avonlea.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Is that Avonlea?

My question has to do with the member's comments about the strength of the powers of the Auditor General. The bill puts forward such things as the public service integrity commissioner and the public service disclosure protection tribunal. It puts forward a whole number of things to try to rectify some of the errors.

In the press we have heard the Liberals dismissing many of these things by saying that they are high-handed and that they are very critical of the excellent public service that we have in the country. Is it really designed against the public service?

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the legislation we are putting forward is not designed to be against public servants. Public servants serve the House of Commons and Canadians from coast to coast in a very reputable way. We are proud of the many thousands of public servants who serve Canadians each and every day to the utmost of their abilities.

The legislation we have put forward would put power within government and within offices of the House to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent properly and accounted for and that any questions regarding where the money has gone will be answered in a timely way.

Just think for a moment that if we had had this legislation in the House during the scandals that went on over the past little while, with the sponsorship scandal and the HRDC scandal, all the questions would have been answered. I think that is what this legislation is all about. I look forward to not only having it passed but I look forward to ensuring that taxpayer dollars are spent properly and accounted for properly.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of the principle of the accountability act.

Let us recall that, during the last two federal election campaigns, the Bloc Québécois criticized the Liberal government’s misuse of public funds and corruption. With the word “ethical” are associated such synonyms as “integrity”, “loyalty”, and “reliability”. This is in contradiction to such antonyms as “pettiness”, “arrogance” and “ingratitude”.

The Bloc Québécois wishes to spare Quebeckers scandals such as the dishonourable sponsorship scandal, of which the Liberal Party of Canada showed us the entire ignominy from the mid-1990s, or the Option Canada scandal, which was orchestrated by federalist forces, both Liberal and Conservative, during the last referendum.

With regard to the current Bill C-2, called the accountability act, the Bloc Québécois took part in the Gomery Commission in the constructive spirit we are known for, by developing 72 recommendations which must now be implemented.

In this regard, I am happy to note that several proposals put forward by the Bloc Québécois, some since 1990, have been taken up. For example there is the merit appointment of returning officers by Elections Canada; the independence of the lobbyists registry; the act respecting the financing of political parties, which will be more like Quebec’s in its prohibition of corporate donations; strengthening the power of the Auditor General.

The Bloc Québécois, however, has always maintained that the reinforcement of laws and policies was of no effect if there was no real commitment of elected officials to change things.

As far as lobbying is concerned, for example, it is curious to see the Prime Minister tolerate what he criticized the Liberals for. In the Conservative Party’s ethical platform on page 3, the Prime Minister criticized the Liberals for allowing people to move back and forth between political offices and lobbying firms. I quote:

Under the Liberals, lobbying government--often by friends and associates of Paul Martin and other Liberal ministers--has become a multi-million dollar industry. Senior Liberals move freely back and forth between elected and non-elected government posts and the world of lobbying.

The new Minister of Defence, however, was a lobbyist for some ten years for ordnance suppliers. We are entitled to ask ourselves the following question: will he defend the interests of citizens or the interests of his former clients?

The same is true in the case of the Prime Minister's director of communications, who represented the interests of a dozen or so businesses potentially doing business with the government. Will she defend the interests of the public or of her former clients?

The same may be said for the current director of parliamentary affairs for the Minister of Public Works, who worked for Summa for a number of years. There, he represented the interests of Purolator Courier, Enbridge and SAS Institute Canada or he lobbied the government. Will he defend the interests of the public or of his former clients? That is the question.

It is surprising to note that the Conservatives have learned nothing from the mistakes of the Liberals. Like the Liberals with Alfonso Gagliano, the Conservatives appointed their political organizer in Quebec to head the public works department. The Minister of Public Works, who has acknowledged doing political funding work for the Conservative Party, is responsible for $10 billion in government spending. If the accountability legislation freely permits this sort of activity, where does the accountability lie?

In this regard, we hope that the Conservative government will take the amendments by the Bloc Québécois into account to ensure it really does want to change things.

If the current government really does want to change things, it will have to revise the sanctions for conflict of interest. As my colleague from Repentigny said yesterday, a fine of $500 for infringement of the Conflict of Interest Act is far from acceptable given that contracts can exceed $200,000, as we have seen in the past.

If the government really wants to change things, it will have to examine this aspect of the bill very closely.

It is important to note that the conflict of interest and ethics commissioner is authorized to impose penalties. Unfortunately, this power is not very clearly defined. Can the commissioner impose financial penalties exceeding $500? This issue must be cleared up.

With respect to the Access to Information Act, here again the government seems unwilling to budge.

This Act was adopted in 1983. Since then, despite numerous calls for it to be revised, it remains essentially unchanged. The Conservative government has chosen not to reform the Access to Information Act as part of its omnibus legislation, despite the fact that the bill proposes changes to about 40 acts in its 317 clauses. The Access to Information Act should have been among them. The President of the Treasury Board claims that additional consultations will be necessary.

Nevertheless, the Conservative government promised reforms to the Access to Information Act many times over during the last election campaign. For example, on page 7 of their election platform, they said:

A Conservative government will:

Implement the Information Commissioner’s recommendations for reform of the Access to Information Act.

The Conservative members, like all the other members who sat on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, rejected the suggestions made by the former Liberal Minister of Justice, who wanted to study the bill further. On November 3, 2005, the committee unanimously agreed to the act proposed by the Information Commissioner and asked the government to legislate without delay.

Various governments have been holding consultations for 20 years. Back in 1987, the Standing Committee on Justice made 100 recommendations for reforming the act. In August 2000, the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Justice formed a task force of public servants to review the act, regulations and policies on which the present access to information scheme is based. In November 2001, the Bryden committee proposed a dozen recommendations that it regarded as priorities. It will be recalled that the present Minister of Justice signed that report.

This House also had an opportunity to debate this act, when a number of members introduced private members’ bills. The Information Commissioner even proposed a complete bill to the government in October 2005, as he had also done in 1994.

Is the unspoken truth that the Conservative government is in less of a hurry to reform the act now that it is in power? That is the question.

The Information Commissioner recently observed that this is a consistent reaction by all governments. I quote him:

The reason that action, not more study, is required is that governments continue to distrust and resist the Access to Information Act and the oversight of the Information Commissioner.

In conclusion, I reiterate that the Bloc Québécois has always maintained that it was ineffective to strengthen laws and policies if this were not accompanied by a genuine intention on the part of the elected ministers to change things. Let us say that the signals we have been receiving from this government in the last few months are a cause for concern.

We have identified a number of loopholes in this bill that might allow wrongdoing to occur. On that point, we invite the President of the Treasury Board to take the time that is needed to properly analyze the amendments to the bill that will be proposed, in order to reduce the risk of wrongdoing like that which has greatly contributed to the cynicism about politics and the people who are responsible for upholding the public interest.

My colleagues may rest assured of my full cooperation in efforts to improve this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his comments. I would also like to know whether he is anxious to see this bill implemented quickly.

I ask this question because we have talked a lot about accountability, whatever word we use for it in French. We have talked about it for years and years. The time for talking is done; it is time for action. We have to act quickly to put in place the changes proposed in this bill. I think that this bill should be implemented before the summer. That is the position of this government. I even think that the members of this House do not deserve any summer vacation if this bill has not yet been implemented.

Does my colleague think that the members should stay here for the summer and that the senators should stay if this bill has not been implemented by the summer?

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board.

We currently have before us an omnibus bill that will amend some 40 bills through rewriting 317 clauses. This is purely and simply in the mechanical structure of the bill. As far as the content is concerned, we are dealing with a highly sensitive issue that shook up the guilty political parties during the last election. I say “parties” because we know that the Conservatives were just as involved as the Liberals in the Option Canada plot to steal the last referendum from us.

That said, it is important to get the best bill possible on such a major issue. It is out of the question to fast track this bill and make a mess of it. We will take the time we need in committee with the parliamentarians to ensure that this bill responds, as much as possible, to the questions that were raised at the Gomery commission, to avoid this type of situation from ever happening again.

There are also questions about what is lacking in this bill. I could go into detail about other problematic aspects of its clauses, but we do not have enough time. We will get into that in committee.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, following up on the member's dialogue with the parliamentary secretary, this is the federal accountability act and I really am a little concerned to hear it suggested that somehow there is a deadline for parliamentarians to do their work, to make wise decisions and good laws, that this is somehow the criteria we have to follow, as opposed to what is the responsibility of the legislative committee to hear all appropriate witnesses on the key elements.

This is a complicated bill. We want to be absolutely sure we get it right and get it right the first time, but that is certainly not to suggest that somehow we have to get it done by such and such a date. I know the House could sit forever if it had to, but the reality is that even the whistleblower legislation, Bill C-11, which passed in the last Parliament, took one year from the time of first reading through royal assent. It was not more complicated than this.

I wonder if the member would agree that we must take all the necessary time to have the necessary witnesses and to be able to inform ourselves so we can make good laws and wise decisions.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague. The idea is to take the time we need in committee to meet the civil society partners who could enlighten us on how to get the best bill possible.

Considering that committees might start up this week, but more likely next week, we have to be sensitive to the schedules of the stakeholders we would like to meet with.

The summer ends on September 21 and the fall session goes until December 21. It is not a matter of season, or about when Royal Assent will be given. It is a matter of ensuring that we have the best bill possible on such an important issue.

[Rahim Jaffer, Conservative, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to speak here today. I want to start by first congratulating you on a job well done. Congratulations in your new role as Deputy Speaker in this House. You wear the robes well and we look forward to your continued performance in this position. It is a great pleasure to be able to congratulate you in that capacity.

This is the first time that I have had the chance in this session of Parliament to stand and address what I think is one of the most important pieces of legislation to ever come into this Parliament, I would say, especially after the performance of the previous government and in view of the fact that we have to move quickly in ensuring that Canadians restore their faith in politicians and their government. I am excited to be able to rise in the 39th Parliament to speak to this very profound legislation.

Before I do so, I would like to start by congratulating and thanking the residents of Edmonton--Strathcona, who have been so kind to send me back to this place for my fourth term. It is hard to imagine that I am approaching nine years in this place. Time goes by so quickly. I have learned a lot over those years. I have had some incredible debates and some incredible experiences. I must say that even though my neck is a little sore as I face the Speaker from this angle, it is nice to be in government after all that time.

As we move forward in the House, I would like to start by addressing some of the key things to start cleaning up government, to start cleaning up the mess that was left behind by the previous regime after 13 years. We have heard a number of our colleagues on this side of the House and the minister who has been in charge of this legislation, the President of the Treasury Board, address the reason why it is so important that this legislation come forward at this time, and why Canadians, after January 23, spoke so resoundingly in saying that they wanted to have a change in environment. They wanted increased accountability and increased transparency.They wanted to change the way business was done in Ottawa. That was clear after January 23.

For those who are tuning in and watching to see how this debate is unfolding and to hear about exactly what criteria are involved in this particular legislation, I think it is important that from time to time we highlight some of the key points in this legislation so Canadians do see how important it is in the efforts of this government to try to clean up the way things have been going here in Ottawa.

There are some concrete and I think welcome changes. I heard that during the course of the campaign and even leading up to the tabling of this legislation. Canadians could not wait to see things like the strengthening of the powers of the Auditor General, banning union and large corporate and large personal political donations, and providing real protection to whistleblowers, which I think is something that we have heard about over and over.

They also could not wait to see things like ensuring that government contracting is proper, fair and open. We know about the problems that led up to the sponsorship scandal of the last Parliament and the last government, so I think this is something that is still top of mind for Canadians. There is also the preventing of lobbying by former ministers and other public office holders for five years, which is a very strict measure. We look forward to seeing how this will be felt, especially as we move forward in the committees. Finally, there is also the creating of more open government by improving access to information.

This last is something that I would like to start focusing on in the time that I have this afternoon for this debate. I would like to start with that particular topic and move on from there to address as many of the topics as I can, topics that are the basis of this legislation.

As I mentioned, during almost nine years in opposition there were some frustrating times when we were dealing with issues of ethics, accountability, and transparency, with issues of being able to show what was happening with taxpayers' dollars in different aspects of the government, wherever that might be. I am most surprised by some of the comments I have heard today in listening to this debate, especially those of our colleagues across the way, many of them who served in the previous government.

We heard questions on the semantics of definitions of what accountability means. We heard one of the members say that this is a facade. It seems to me that the members across the way would not know what accountability is even if it came and bit them in the you-know-what, Mr. Speaker. It is surprising to me, especially after all these years of problems we have seen in this place, in regard to these simple measures. I recall when I was sitting in the opposition benches how frustrating it was when we were trying to get access to information on crown corporations.

The most incredible thing is it seems that today we are hearing many of the Liberals complaining about this particular provision. The only reason I can imagine that is happening is, as we know, in many of the crown corporations, many of the members, directors and others were appointed cronies and friends of the Liberal Party of the past. There was no real transparency in that process, so it does not surprise me today that in trying to open up that process and accountability to those particular crown corporations, something for which opposition members had been calling for years, there seems to be some sort of pressure coming from the Liberals not to allow that to happen. It begs the question of why they would want that, unless they are still trying to protect their friends in many of these positions across the width of these crown corporations.

We have heard over and over again of problems at Canada Post, at the Mint and other crown corporations regarding lack of accountability and the attitude of being entitled to their entitlements. We saw a number of other incredible stories over the last era of 13 years of mismanagement, which we hope to change by ushering in this new aspect of access to information that all members of this House should be welcoming.

I know that the members of the Canadian public would love to see how their taxpayers' dollars have been spent, especially in the areas of Liberal appointments of cronies over the years in many of those positions.

Another area that I remember defending passionately when I was in the opposition benches was strengthening the power of the Auditor General. Members may recall there was a time when the whole sponsorship scandal was out in the open and the Auditor General continued to find in department after department problems of mismanagement, money going missing and lack of accountability. At one point we even heard the Liberals, at the time they were in government, wanting to try to restrict and curb the powers of the Auditor General. I was shocked when that was happening. I could not believe it.

We have a number of checks and balances in the system that we are trying to strengthen, but Canadians would agree that the Auditor General's power should be one of the fiercest, and the resources required to do that job should be put in place by any government and by members of this House. It is in the interest of all our members here and the interest of Canadians to have that office treated with the respect and the resources it needs and deserves to do its job on behalf of Canadians. I do recall there was talk in the previous government of cutting that budget and restricting the powers. I cannot believe we even heard those kinds of things.

Canadians can be assured that is not the attitude of this Conservative government. We are going to make sure that Canadians know that their hard-earned tax dollars are spent wisely. The Auditor General needs to have the power to follow the money to make sure that it is spent wisely and properly.

This government is going to give new powers to the Auditor General to audit individuals and organizations that receive federal funding. This will help the Auditor General hold to account those who spend taxpayers' money.

We all think back to our constituencies and the people who are affected most by government decisions. I know that the people in Edmonton can look forward to an independent authority to find out where their money is being spent and that they will not need to take only our word for it, that there will be open and accessible information available for them.

One of the things that I know makes the previous members of the Liberal government a little nervous is the idea of changing the financing regulations. I will admit they made some changes in the last Parliament over the years to restrict some of that corporate funding, but quite frankly, they did not go far enough. We still see the effect of lobbyists and big money in the decisions made by the previous government. The new financing components in this bill we are proposing, by actually banning donations by corporations and big unions, give back the power to ordinary Canadians to be able to communicate to their government and be taken equally as seriously as the unfortunate culture that developed in the previous government of big money being able to control the agenda.

Our members are passionate about these measures we have been speaking about in this new government. We are excited to be able to deliver a new era of good government to Canadians.

We are excited to be able to work with Canadians to finally restore the confidence they want so much in their government. Hopefully we will usher in, as I mentioned, a new era for all Canadians to take part in their democracy and take their democracy back from the 13 years of mismanagement, corruption and unfortunate malaise.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member covered a broad range of topics that the bill covers.

One which I know is very important to the House and I know to the member is the whole aspect of whistleblower protection. I have carefully read the bill. I find that the reference to the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act is on page 96 of the bill, clause 121. It is only one clause long in this bill.

Would the member inform the House how Bill C-2 in fact does anything for whistleblowers? It is not here. I would like to know why it is not here.

[Rahim Jaffer, Conservative, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I can understand why a Liberal member would like a lot more words and a lot more discussion in trying to give teeth back to something that I think is so important in protecting the ability for the public service and public servants to speak out when they see something that is wrong. It does not have to be a long and complicated procedure. Whether or not the member thinks that particular clause of the bill is long enough, the fact is it gives the teeth that are required for public servants to be able to do their job.

The men and women of the public service deliver important programs and services and make a real difference in the lives of Canadians every day. I do not think anyone would dispute that. That is why the federal accountability act's key components focus on providing real protection for whistleblowers. People who see problems in government need to know that they can speak up. Too often in the past, whistleblowers have been punished for standing up for the truth.

Our member for Avalon identified Mr. Cutler, one of those particular people who, unfortunately, was penalized for standing up for the truth.

Giving the public sector integrity commissioner the power to enforce the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act will do just that. I do not know how it can be made any clearer than that.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the member for Edmonton—Strathcona. It is true that he seems to be absolutely out of his mind ecstatic about the legislation that is before us. There are many elements of this mega-legislation of which there is widespread agreement, and there is no question about that.

A very important part of this process is there will be extensive committee examination, discussion, analysis and so on. Obviously there are some aspects of this legislation that are a real disappointment. I do not think anyone questions that members of this House, and I include very much the government party, focused a lot on the need to clean up government, to clear out the corruption and to try to rebuild public confidence. There are many elements of what is needed to do that in this legislation.

In terms of specifics, I would ask the member if he could briefly speak to some of the things that are either very much missing or just grotesquely inadequate. Would the member agree that at the committee level there needs to be some real consideration of the failure, for example, to include any spending limits or requirements for full disclosure for contests for party leadership? In some ways that is where it begins within a political party.

The fact is there is no legislation proposed to ban floor crossing. I know it is easy for government members to make jokes about how we want to be concerned about our members crossing to some other party. The reality is that this is a real concern when people vote for someone who then disappears the next day into another party. Would the member speak to a couple of those matters in the time available?

[Rahim Jaffer, Conservative, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there is truth to what the member says. I do take a great level of pride and there is a level of ecstasy when we rise and speak in this place on behalf of people within our ridings. I do take a great sense of pride when I do stand up and speak.

One of the things that our President of the Treasury Board and others have said today is that we would like to see this legislation move as quickly as possible into committee so that we can discuss any measures that members feel can help strengthen this momentous legislation. A lot of hard work has already gone into it. There has been a tremendous amount of work done by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and the President of the Treasury Board.

Those areas that the member for Halifax has identified, spending limits and she mentioned another one as well, those things are fine to be brought forward in front of the committee. Let the committee talk about these and see how we can strengthen the legislation even further.

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

Mr. Speaker, the basis of this so-called accountability bill rests on something that I will refer to as the big lie. It is the false premise that government is corrupt and cannot be trusted and somehow that Ottawa needs to be “cleaned up”. The Conservatives managed to successfully ride that false premise into government.

Indeed, the accountability bill has everything to do with political strategy and nothing to do with accountability. True accountability is being confused with conduct. I think the strategy of the Prime Minister is if we repeat accountability often enough, something that we all agree on, it sounds good and we confuse it with conduct, that somehow we can put a bill through that is simply going to be adopted by all parties, including the opposition because no one will have the courage to call it what it really is.

Justice Gomery said that the vast majority of elected officials in the House, in Parliament and in government are honest, hard-working, diligent individuals who carry out their duties. That is the truth of the matter.

The bill sounds good on the surface but has, as I said before, very little to do with true accountability. It has to do with conduct. It will cause gridlock. It will cause a series of ritual and expensive investigations into what takes place in Parliament and will not serve the public well at all. It will cost taxpayers money. It will draw down the ability of this place to work effectively in the interests of the public.

It is interesting that in this particular bill there is not a single definition of what accountability is. That is remarkable. What is accountability? Let me quote a national authority, a gentleman who used to work in the Auditor General's office, Mr. Henry McCandless. He is an expert in public accountability. He said that responsibility means the obligation to act; conduct is the manner of carrying out a responsibility; accountability means the obligation to explain how responsibilities are being carried out.

That is what accountability is. That is not listed anywhere in the bill because the so-called accountability bill has to do with conduct and not true accountability.

In plain common language, accountability is the obligation of persons to explain fully and fairly how they are carrying out their duties and responsibilities to the public.

It also requires a set of reporting requirements on performance and that too is absent from the bill. Does this make a difference? Does this misrepresentation of true accountability make a difference in how this place works in the interests of the public?

Members have spoken about the issue of trust. Indeed true accountability is intimately entwined with trust. Trust is a function of a government's account to its citizens. A government must account and explain to the public what it is doing and why it is doing it before it does it. There are sufficient performance and accountability measures on top of that.

If that occurred, if the bill could be crafted in such a way, then the government would be doing something that has not truly been done before. It would be putting forth a bill that dealt with true public accountability.

When citizens understand quite fully what a government is doing, then citizens can either support that government, can alter the actions of the government, or can defeat the government. That is the basis of true accountability and that is the basis of trust. If the government wants trust and wants the public to actually trust it in what it is doing, then it would pay heed to what true accountability is and would include that true public accountability in the essence of the bill.

The bill contains a series of auditors which will cause gridlock: the parliamentary budget officers, the procurement auditor, the director of public prosecutions, a whistleblower system that pays money to public servants and will cause fear and paranoia in our public service. It will cause gridlock in the system. All of those auditors imply that the current system is not working and that the government does not trust the current auditors.

With respect to the sponsorship issue, people broke the rules. Was there a problem with the rules? The Auditor General was very clear and said there was no problem with the rules. The rules were there and they were broken.

Right now our public service, indeed our government, is mired in a lengthy overweening sense of obligation with respect to procurement. It is too slow, too complex and too expensive. It needs to be streamlined. As defence minister, the current Leader of the Opposition did that very well.

The Prime Minister has introduced a bill that has nothing to do with accountability. He has actually broken the rules on accountability on a number of counts himself. For example, he muzzles his cabinet and his MPs. He restricts the ability of the press to do its job. He appointed an individual as Minister of Public Works and yet that minister does not sit in the House. That ministry is responsible for spending billions of dollars of the public's money. Shielding a minister of the Crown, who is responsible for spending billions of dollars of the public's money from questions in the House, so he cannot account to the public freely and openly is an egregious violation of true public accountability. Nothing in the bill says anything to that practice. That particular appointment shields that individual from questions in the House and the right of the public to know what is taking place within the Department of Public Works and the spending that occurs there.

With respect to the issue of funding, we restricted public funding quite significantly, $5,000 from individual donations and $1,000 from corporations. The bill says nothing about third party funding from special interest groups and this is critically important. Bill C-2 is a political bill as opposed to one in the interests of the public service and the public. The bill would actually restrict the ability of political parties to do their job and restrict the public's ability to have their wishes and their views expressed through the people they elect.

Can a corporation buy influence from a member of Parliament for $1,000? I do not think so. Not at all. I have never been offered any money and I do not know anybody in the House, regardless of political stripe, who has been offered money. Could someone possibly gain influence by making a $5,000 donation or a $1,000 donation? That is what we implemented when we were in government. The government of today will not restrict third party funding that could have undue influence on governments or political parties. This is a critical absence in the bill.

This particular bill says nothing about true public accountability. It is going to put true public accountability back more than 20 years. This is a political bill, not a bill in the interests of the public. This bill is overweening and overkill and is going to damage public accountability.

I would beseech the government to listen to the comments that have been made here today and to listen to the true public accountability experts like Henry McCandless and others who are working or have worked in the Auditor General's Office or in academia. The government should put a bill forward that would truly deal with public accountability and in doing so, the government would be doing something that has not been done in 20 years. To say that Ottawa is corrupt and needs to be changed does a huge disservice to what we do as members of Parliament. It also does an enormous disservice to public servants.

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

Mr. Speaker, it would seem that the member has now reversed his party's position. He has now come out in opposition to the accountability act. Clearly, the act runs contrary to the practices of the Liberal Party and I can understand why he would therefore want to oppose it. He wants business as usual to continue here in this place.

I want him to defend the remarks made by his colleague from Mississauga South who stood in the House and said there is one clause in the entire bill dealing with whistleblower protection. I have in fact page 123 all the way up to page 161. If the member could do his math, that is almost 40 pages of legislation dealing with whistleblower protection.

Let me be clear on what is included in these nearly 40 pages. It says that an independent tribunal of judges would be made available to whistleblowers who believe they have experienced a reprisal. That particular tribunal would have the authority to restore whistleblowers to their previous jobs, give them their back pay plus pain and suffering compensation. It would also have the power, independently, to punish or discipline executives or politicians who have bullied whistleblowers. It would remove cover-up clauses from the existing system. It would give legal representation to whistleblowers.

Has the Liberal Party not actually read the bill? Is it not aware that there are 40 pages of ironclad protection here for whistleblowers? What is wrong with that group over there?

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

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary can ask the member for Mississauga South himself if he wants an answer to that particular question. He still obviously does not get it. The government does not understand.

He gave a long dissertation, not about public accountability but about conduct. That is not the same as public accountability. If Conservatives truly want to engage in and produce more trust from the public into this great institution, if they want to repair the damage they did during this past election by falsely portraying Ottawa as a place that was corrupt and needed to be cleaned up, if they truly want to do that, then they must define public accountability in this bill for what it is: the responsibility of the government and senior public officials to tell the public what they are doing before they do it and ensure the performance requirements there are measured.

If they do that, then we will truly have a system of public accountability and not a system of gridlock and conduct, which is what this bill does.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech with great interest. One particular point where I will focus my attention is with regard to defending the idea of being bought for $5,000 in terms of political donations. I personally do not see the downside of lowering donations to $1,000 as most Canadians cannot spend that to begin with on political contributions. I think it brings a greater accountability because it evens the playing field between those who can actually contribute during a campaign with a $5,000 limit to businesses.

It should be noted that there could actually be a chain of different businesses that accumulate those donations versus, for example, union donations that were capped at $1,000 per union across the country. Locals could not do that, but franchises could donate $1,000 under the previous Bill C-24.

I would like to hear from the hon. member on limiting the $1,000. What do we have to lose by having a better balanced approach to contributions, where more Canadians could have quality in their donations to political parties?

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

Mr. Speaker, the issue of donations by individuals and corporations does not have to do with accountability. It has to do with conduct. The so-called rationale for putting this through was whether one could actually buy influence. The essence and purpose behind it is the premise that influence can be bought and peddled because of moneys going to elected and unelected officials. That is supposedly how this is being portrayed to the public. The reality is that is not the case. We already have significant restrictions in place. Penalties and laws do exist. They are strong laws and some of the best--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with great interest that I take this opportunity to speak to Bill C-2, the federal accountability act.

Today is not a proud moment in Canadian history for Canadian democracy. The fact that it has become necessary, within our parliamentary system, to bring forward the accountability act speaks volumes about the previous administration.

While the legislation is being brought forth in the name of the President of the Treasury Board, Canadians know that the Prime Minister has been the steering force in bringing accountability back to Parliament.

I congratulate the Prime Minister, the right hon. member for Calgary Southwest, on identifying for all Canadians the importance our party places on accountability in government and the priority we have placed on maintaining our democratic institutions.

As a measure of this importance, I share with my party the principle of accountability on a regular basis. I canvass the opinions of the people in my riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke to seek their guidance and support as I represent their concerns to the Parliament of Canada.

The number one issue people in my riding have identified as being of prime importance is the issue of honesty in government. They recognize that government is complicated. However, if government is not honest in its undertakings on behalf of its citizens when every decision is made, it is not honest. It is wrong.

A strong house can only be built on a solid foundation. Confidence right now is at an all time low in our democratic institutions because of the actions of the last 13 years. This gradual deterioration did not happen overnight. It is instructive to quote from a speech in the 35th Parliament:

Mr. Speaker, this government has set high standards of integrity and probity for itself. I have made integrity a number one priority personally.

I have said it before, and I will say it again: Setting such standards for the holders of public office is essential in renewing and maintaining the faith of Canadians in their public institutions.

This is the case in particular of ministers who must remain above reproach at all times and in all of their activities, whether it be as ministers, members of Parliament or private citizens. That is the burden of public office, and one that we all gladly accept to bear.

This quote comes from the now disgraced former leader of the Liberal Party after being found out in the first of what would become an ever lengthening list of corruption and scandalous behaviour. These are hollow words from an administration that will forever be known in history for the sponsorship scandal.

Let us be clear. It was the activities of the Liberal Party that prompted the commission of inquiry into the sponsorship program and advertising activities that has led to Parliament debating the legislation now before us, the federal accountability act.

In the words of the fact finding report, from 1994 to 2003, the amount expended by the Government of Canada for special programs and sponsorships totalled $332 million, of which 44.4% or $147 million was spent on fees and commissions paid to communication and advertising agencies. These amounts do not include the salaries or costs of the public servants who worked on the sponsorship program, the cost of the numerous audits, and the investigations or the cost of the present commission of inquiry.

According to the Auditor General, from 1997 until August 31, 2001, the federal government ran the sponsorship program in a way that showed little regard for Parliament, the Financial Administration Act, contracting rules and regulations, transparency and value for money. Parliament was not informed of the program's objectives or results it achieved. It was misinformed as to how the program was being managed.

Those responsible for managing the program broke the government's own rules in the way they selected communications agencies and awarded contracts to them. Some sponsorship funds were transferred to crown corporations using unusual methods that appear designed to provide significant commissions to communications agencies while hiding the source of funds and the true nature of the transactions.

Further, the Auditor General stated that documentation was very poor and there was little evidence of analysis to support expenditure of more than $250 million. Over $100 million of that was paid to communications agencies as production fees and commissions.

While the Auditor General identified $250 million defrauded from taxpayers, Justice Gomery put the figure at $332 million for this program alone. Oversight mechanisms and essential controls at Public Works and Government Services Canada failed to detect, prevent or report violations.

While the Auditor General was conducting her special audit, more details slowly emerged of massive, systemic looting of the public treasury by certain members of the Liberal Party. The commission of inquiry found a complex web of financial transactions among Public Works and Government Services Canada, crown corporations and communications agencies involving kickbacks and illegal contributions to a political party in the context of the sponsorship program; five agencies that received large sponsorship contracts regularly channelled money, illegitimate donations or unrecorded cash gifts to political fundraising activities in Quebec with the expectation of receiving lucrative government contracts; certain agencies carried individuals on their payrolls who were, in effect, working on Liberal Party matters; the existence of a culture of entitlement among political officials involved with the sponsorship program, including the receipt of monetary and non-monetary benefits; and the refusal of ministers, senior officials in the Prime Minister's Office and public servants to acknowledge their responsibility for the problems of mismanagement that occurred.

The fact that only certain persons or organizations are mentioned does not absolve the others assigned blame by Justice Gomery. By limiting the scope of the Gomery inquiry, the Liberal Party prevented Justice John Gomery from investigating chapter 5 of the Auditor General's report. That chapter criticized the Liberal Party for using taxpayer dollars to conduct polls for partisan political purposes with questionable value to Canadian taxpayers. By preventing Justice John Gomery from including the entire November 2003 report of the Auditor General from being investigated, suspect practices were allowed to continue in the Liberal government.

According to the commission report, the method of financing the Liberal Party using kickbacks from persons deriving benefits from the sponsorship program is described in the fact finding report of the Gomery commission. The persons who accepted contributions, cash and other improper benefits have brought dishonour upon themselves and their political party. Liberal Party members deserve to be blamed for their misconduct. They disregarded the relevant laws governing donations to political parties. The Liberal Party as an institution cannot escape responsibility for the misconduct of its officers and representatives.

According to Justice Gomery:

The Commission has heard abundant evidence of irregularities and improprieties committed by the five communication and advertising agencies specifically identified... including systematic overbilling, failure to fulfil obligations, charging for work not performed, conflicts of interest, assigning work to subcontractors without justification and without competitive bids, and other very dubious contracting practices.

It became evident to a majority of Canadians that the only way justice could be served and those guilty brought to justice was for a change in government to occur. Canadians voted for that change. While the federal accountability act seeks to accomplish many things, strengthening the role of the Ethics Commissioner and establishing clear judicial qualifications for that role is imperative for the proper functioning of that office.

If the public is to be allowed an opportunity to bring forward complaints through a member of Parliament, there must be confidence that complaints that are frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith are rejected. By requiring members of Parliament to attest by oath or affirmation that a public complaint they were sponsoring is well-founded, is the one check on potential abuse of this process. The commissioner must then be suitably well versed in the law with a judicial or quasi-judicial background in order to uphold the integrity of the Office of the Ethics Commissioner for that office to maintain respect in the job it is required to do.

Unfortunately, this has not been evident as the position was established under the previous government. The fact that rulings have been inconsistent with the member's code suggests that this might be the most important change of all to rebuild public confidence in our democratic institutions.

If anything tells us that history repeats itself it would be in the comments of the member for Calgary Southwest in the 35th Parliament to sum up that first session and how those observations could have been made at the conclusion of the 38th Parliament of Canada.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, when the Liberals were in power they reduced the contributions from corporations, which could have been millions of dollars or whatever, there were no particular limits, down to $1,000 and it was the same for unions. For private people they reduced them down from the same unlimited amount to $5,000.

Does the member think that increased accountability is good public management?

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

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the Liberals broke all the rules so we are making them tighter.