Debates of April 27th, 2006

Federal Accountability Act

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member began his speech and spent most of his speech talking about floor crossing, which is fair, but near the end of his intervention the member said that the voters voted for the particular party based on its platform during the election.

Our platform during the last election on accountability, the accountability act that we had put forward as an item during the election, was on my website and readily available. Nowhere did it talk about floor crossing in that piece that we had promoted to the Canadian public of what we were going to do to clean up government.

Is it fair to criticize our party for legislation that deals with something that was not what we had promoted during the election? What we actually have on the table is what we did promote during the election?

I fully recognize the right of any person or party to bring forward amendments and additions to the legislation. However what we are presenting here today and have presented over this past week is exactly what we promised to do during the election. We did not promise to bring forward any floor crossing legislation.

Therefore, does the member think it is fair to criticize our legislation based on the fact that he believes that what we put forward in the election is what we should do here in the House?

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely fair to criticize the government for what I see is a failure to address an important accountability issue.

The other important accountability issue that the member for Burlington might want to consider is the fact that, yes, it was not part of the Conservative platform but neither did it win a majority in the House of Commons. The Conservatives need to struggle with what Canadians want to see done in the House. They also need to take account of all of the ideas raised in the last election.

It is very important that the Conservative Party look to all corners of the House to find the best ideas that are most representative of the hopes and concerns of Canadians and bring those forward to this Parliament.

We saw a very arrogant Liberal Party struggling with the whole question of how to govern in a minority position in the previous Parliament. I hope the Conservatives have learned something from watching the terrible struggles the Liberals had with that. One of the ways a government struggles with a minority government is to look for ideas to broaden its base of support and be more representative of the actual outcome of the previous election.

To say that it was not part of the Conservative platform and therefore we are not moving on it, is very wrong-headed and borders on the kind of arrogance that we might have heard from the Liberals often in the last Parliament. I would hope that the Conservatives do not follow that kind of approach and would be willing to take a different tack in this Parliament.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I wish to congratulate you on your appointment as Deputy Speaker of the House. I had not yet had the opportunity to do so. This is an honour bestowed by your colleagues.

Second, I would like to thank the voters of the riding of Terrebonne—Blainville for the affection and recognition they expressed when they re-elected me on January 23.

I am proud of this very positive result in my riding. Almost 60% of voters put their faith in the sovereignty of Quebec and showed that they were vigilant in the face of the charm offensive carried out by the current Prime Minister in Quebec. The voters in my riding quickly realized that the sole purpose of this public and political offensive was to hide the Conservative Prime Minister's true intention of imposing on Quebeckers his vision of, I quote, “a strong Canada”. Judging by the early months of his administration, Canada will soon be governed by laws and measures inspired by the Canadian and American right.

I have read the accountability bill—we will continue to use the word “responsabilité” in the French title. That choice of terminology was confirmed to the Prime Minister by Public Works and Government Services Canada's Translation Bureau. With the parliamentary experience he has acquired in recent years, the Prime Minister should, in my opinion, recognize the Bureau’s expertise. In the past, the Conservatives have always shown themselves to be timid when it came to the status of the official languages, in the House and in committee. They are still demonstrating their lukewarm feelings about that subject.

It is understandable that the use of the French language is a difficult subject for an anglophone, but the Prime Minister’s Office simply cannot, given the resources at its disposal, take this kind of dismissive attitude when it comes to using the correct French terminology.

And so Bill C-2 is the first to be debated in the House of Commons since the Conservatives came to power. It is time to act. This government was elected on January 23 of this year, and not until four months later did it introduce an omnibus bill. It is asking the opposition to cooperate, to facilitate passage of the bill sometime in June. Based on what has happened this morning, I have the impression that it is even wanting to speed things up.

The content of this bill is in contrast with the little throne speech that was read on April 4. The bill that has been submitted to us is a complex law that will amend a number of existing acts. It will therefore take a lot of time, probably months, to analyze it, study it and amend it.

Although the Conservative government says that it wants to pass this bill before the parliamentary summer recess at all costs, the Bloc Québécois and the other opposition parties, and the actors who are affected by the bill, must get to have their say. We must ensure that the members of this House vote on Bill C-2 only when the committee assigned the task of studying it has done its job and all stages in the consultation with the organizations and individuals affected have been completed and they have had time to be heard.

Today, I want to address just one part of this bill. That is the part relating to whistleblowers. I will then leave it to other colleagues to speak to the other aspects of Bill C-2.

Laudable efforts were made by the previous government, in Bill C-11. Unfortunately, that act was never proclaimed, because of the election call in November. This aspect is a major concern of the Professional Institute of the Public Service which, as we know, represents more than 50,000 federal employees.

It may take a lot of time to get a federal accountability act in place, and this will significantly delay the protection for which the Institute has been fighting for more than 15 years.

According to this institute, the government's argument to justify its strategy is that it does not want to implement the machinery of Bill C-11 so that a major review does not have to be carried out after Bill C-2 is passed. The fact of the matter is, however, that public service employees urgently need the disclosure and protection mechanisms provided in Bill C-11.

Hon. members might recall that, at various times during the Gomery hearings, the public witnessed numerous attempts by managers and deputy ministers to shift the blame for illegal actions committed as part of the famous sponsorship scandal to public service employees. Instead, the deputy ministers and managers should have admitted they were the ones who meddled and put pressure to circumvent existing administrative rules.

I jumped when I read, in section 53.1, that the Conservative government was considering paying financial awards to employees who make disclosures. What lack of respect for these men and women who devote themselves, with professionalism and integrity, to the daily operations of the federal government.

A major player we heard in December 2004, namely the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, told the Standing Committee on Governmental Operations and Estimates that it did not advocate such rewards. In a survey on values and ethics conducted by the institute, respondents said they wanted a work environment where these values would be an integral part of the organizational structure. Instead of rewards, and I quote the report:

Leadership that visibly demonstrates and supports values and ethics beyond words, and holds people to account for unethical actions and behaviours was identified as the key to creating a trusting environment where employees can express their ethical concerns.

I want to congratulate the Professional Institute of the Public Service on this fine piece of work, a serious report, entitled PIPSC Membership Consultation on Workplace Values and Ethics. This final report was presented on February 28. Professionally done, it has shown us that ethics is a top concern among public service employees.

The report states that “organizational ethics is not a status or a state, but a sense of what is right and wrong embedded in organizational policies, practices and activities.” According to the Institute, which cites a report published by the OECD,

encouraging ethical behaviour is not just about establishing a list of rules, a code or a level of certification to be attained. It is an ongoing management process that underpins the work of government; it is crucial to the functioning and the evolution of governance.

When asked to rate the ethical environment of their workplace, just over half, 51%, of responding members felt it was high, or very high and 16% felt the ethics in their workplace were either low or very low. These statistics reveal a lot about the importance of ethics.

Allow me to draw to your attention the issue of management. In its report, the Professional Institute of the Public Service says it is the managers who are not acting ethically. However, today we are considering a bill that asks federal public servants to become informers, to denounce others. Who should they denounce? Their managers? The deputy ministers? Deputy ministers who are incapable of enforcing the code of ethics?

In my opinion, the problem is neither the informers nor the thousand dollar reward that undermines the integrity of these public servants. The problem is systemic. It starts with deputy ministers and managers. The government must enforce the existing code of ethics for the federal public service because public servants themselves do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was impressed with respect to the manner in which my colleague from the Bloc spoke regarding ethics and how it relates to managers and deputy ministers within the context of the workplace.

I note that the government is putting forward its accountability bill and focusing on that area of management and deputy ministers. The proposal would strengthen auditing and accountability within departments thereby bolstering the internal audit function within departments and crown corporations and keep it within the framework of ministerial responsibility.

Inasmuch as she has indicated, and I think quite appropriately, it is not a question of managers not respecting ethics and not knowing how ethics apply, but it is a question of how we, through the mechanisms of government, auditing, committees and how they report through committees, hold the system accountable.

I would like to ask the member if she could expand on whether she believes that this recommendation would in fact achieve what we all wish, which is for ministers and deputy ministers, through the committee structure and audit committees, and through the Auditor General, to be held accountable.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for this very pertinent question.

In my speech, I wanted to demonstrate that, in the end, the burden of proof always rests upon the public servants and the employees.

However, in its report, the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada raised an extremely important point, namely, that the code of ethics that currently applies to public service employees is unfortunately never discussed.

Enforcing the code is not a priority for managers and deputy ministers. There is no transparency in the management of the code in terms of ethical values. So, how can we expect an employee who receives an order from their manager or deputy minister, who in turn received an order from the minister to enforce a particular standard even if it is unlawful, to say anything?

In my opinion, the committee that studies this bill must go even further. The Ethics Commissioner will address the question of disclosures. Perhaps we could ask a high-level public administrator or the Clerk of the Privy Council to establish a policy for ministers, deputy ministers and managers alike.

As my colleague knows, for the past five years, I have been working very hard on the issue of psychological harassment. Every such case that I have looked at--the institute highlights this fact in the case of whistleblowers--involves a lower-level boss, a manager or a deputy minister who asked that a job be done.

I believe that greater attention must be paid to the integrity of managers.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will say straightaway that I think this is a good bill. This is a good time to discuss it, for all sorts of reasons which we all know and on which we can agree, regardless of our different political opinions.

It would be an illusion to think that a bill of this scope can be made perfect in a hurry. This bill necessarily contains certain weaknesses which I would like to illustrate in a certain way. I do not wish to blame those who designed it. However the legislative process, if properly conducted, can improve a text. That process includes discussion in Parliament and review in committee. I also believe there should be public sessions at which witnesses are invited to comment on this bill and its provisions. Also, if this bill is arriving at the right time, it is because we consider it necessary to do this at this time. So we would like to do the best that is possible.

Among other things, when I read this bill, I cannot help detecting signs of a certain partiality, a certain desire for vengeance or destruction aimed at another political party. During review of this bill, the government should be open-minded enough to accept the criticisms made to improve it. In any case, that is certainly that attitude that my party and myself will be taking, in our desire to improve the bill and see whether it does not go too far at times.

I will speak now of the title, as other francophones have done. Even here I seem to see a sign of a spirit of vengeance. When I first saw the title, I ran to check a dictionary. And indeed, my question was whether “imputabilité” was the appropriate term. It is dangerous to rely on the dictionary only. When we were children, we would do an exercise that involved looking up the definition of a word. We would find various terms describing it. Then we would look up the definition of those other terms, which in turn were described by various other terms. At some point we found ourselves back at the first word. So words are defined by other words. However, one should not refer to the dictionary as an authority for saying that word X has the meaning of word Y; it is clear that different words have different nuances. With the word “imputabilité”, when you impute something to someone, the nuance is generally pejorative.

I offer an example. Mr. Kagame’s visit to the country is in the news. Those who are against this visit and demonstrating their opposition “impute” to him the role of provoking the airplane accident that triggered the terrible genocide. He denies this and defends himself: he instead “imputes” this act to Hutu extremists. This shows the connotation of accusation that is carried in the French word “imputer”.

In addition, when we read the highlights of the accountability action plan, we see that imputability is not what is meant. It seems to me that the government is pointing the finger at the members of the former Liberal government and saying that now there will be an act to punish people who do not carry out their responsibilities properly. The government gave us a booklet that explains the action plan, and it is funny to see that, from the very start, it uses different French terminology:

Dans le cadre de la Loi fédérale sur l'imputabilité et du plan d'action qui s'y rattache, le gouvernement du Canada prévoit des mesures précises qui visent à accroître la responsabilisation, la transparence et la surveillance des activités gouvernementales.

The introduction to the document begins as follows:

La responsabilisation constitue la pierre d'angle du régime canadien de gouvernement responsable. Un régime rigoureux de responsabilisation est essentiel pour garantir au Parlement et à la population canadienne que le gouvernement du Canada—

Further on, the document states:

Une responsabilisation efficace suppose également que les gestionnaires des ressources publiques —

The text continues:

Dans une culture de responsabilisation, les rôles et responsabilités sont clairement définis, de sorte que les gens savent ce que l'on attend d'eux et qu'ils répondent de leur rendement, le bon rendement est dûment récompensé et il existe des conséquences immédiates lorsque les règles sont sciemment contournées.

These excerpts, which use the word “responsabilisation”, reflect an open-mindedness that I did not sense in either the title of the bill or certain other provisions.

Transparency and accountability will be upheld. Imputability will take care of itself, as it always does when rules are broken.

I found another interesting passage on page 30 of this explanatory guide. It says in French that the purpose was to “renforcer la vérification et la responsabilisation des ministères”. This supports the arguments made by authorities in these matters. Translators say that this term is incorrect, as does the Office de la langue française du Québec and certain utilizers of the language and French teachers. This term should therefore be corrected in the bill to give it the general character that it is meant to have.

I also noted that some provisions really need to be improved, or at least raise questions. In this respect, the Bloc finds itself in a good position. We do not aspire to form the Government of Canada. On the other hand, though, I always remind the House that the Bloc is not here just to “block”, contrary to what some people like to say. Like all my colleagues, I am happy to state over and over that I do not dislike either Canada or Canadians. As a matter of fact, I like Canada much more than any other country in the world. What I do detest, though, is the Canadian constitution from which we want to escape in order to create one on the basis of the sovereignty of the two great nations that make up Canada. In so doing, we will be more open to the other nations living here as well.

They want to impose a $1,000 limit on contributions. I feel compelled to compare the ways in which the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party are financed. It is true that the Liberal Party received contributions from some very rich people. The Conservative Party, like the Bloc Québécois, I might add, is funded by ordinary citizens. This was also true of René Lévesque’s party. He had the advantage of being a great media star. It was easier for him, therefore, than it is for other, less well-known people. Even he, though, imposed a limit of $3,000. This corresponded at the time to about $5,000 in 2006.

Some contributors are prepared to give more. I might humbly say that, personally, I have been contributing more than $1,000 to political parties for a long time. I do so out of conviction, without ulterior purpose. And I know other people who do the same. The limit established in the bill seems to me specially chosen to upset the Liberals. There is a spirit of vengeance here that I do not like.

There is a bit of the same thing in the rewards for whistleblowers, even though this is not aimed directly at the Liberal Party. We respect whistleblowers. We feel that they really are acting in the public interest and have no personal reason for blowing the whistle on things they find unacceptable in the conduct of government affairs. So I have a lot of respect for these people. It is very important to protect them and provide legal support, as the bill does. Whistleblowers will be able to go to an independent commissioner, I think even anonymously. However, the idea of giving them a reward detracts a little from the respect that people might have for them.

The Conservative government will always have the honour of being the originator of this bill. But if we address the problem in a spirit of openness, the honour will go to all the political parties in this House.

How much time do I still have, Mr. Speaker?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

In fact, your time expired a while ago.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I had not noticed.

Obviously, these reasons are given in a spirit—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

I am sorry but I have to interrupt the member.

We will now proceed to questions and comments. The member for York South—Weston has the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, perhaps my question will give the member the opportunity to follow up on the theme he was just engaged in. That was the role of the Auditor General with respect to reporting, as is her responsibility, on matters of internal and external audits and the whole role that she plays with respect to making the functions of government, particularly the comptroller general and the role that is now going to play, in closing the accountability loop. I appreciated everything the member has said.

A great deal of this legislation focuses on the accountability of the institutions and structures through appointing watchdogs of various degrees, but at what point is there a crossover where we, as the members of Parliament through our structures, for example the committees, can hold the executive power to account? At what point is there a crossover? Does the member see that in this legislation, or are there further amendments that would reinforce the kind of accountability that exists among the policy makers and those who are elected to develop policies and those in the government who are charged with responsibilities to be accountable at the departmental level?

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe we have a system where accountability does exist. The government is accountable to the House. We have various tools at our disposal to hold the government to account. Question period is one of those tools, and committees are another one. I think it forces the government to be more transparent so that those who were elected by the people and can hold the government to account are better informed.

I would like to add that it is important to take Mr. Loubier's suggestions seriously. I am not an economist—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The member has gained considerable experience in two previous Parliaments, if I am not mistaken. He knows that members are not referred to by their names, but by the names of their ridings.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, you are right. I apologize. I will rephrase.

The member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot had a great deal of experience. For example, he said that he can forecast what the actual government surplus will be. As a matter of fact, he said that anyone with the same background he has—he is an economist—can do it.

Consequently, if the government came up with a different forecasted surplus based on the same numbers, there certainly was a reason for that. The member talked in his remarks about the need to appoint an official who would be totally independent and who would have the necessary tools to make these kinds of forecasts.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join in the debate today. Obviously when dealing with accountability and ethics, as we are doing here with Bill C-2, one cannot get too far without bringing into the debate the opinions and contributions of the former member for Ottawa Centre, the hon. Ed Broadbent.

I will say as my own personal historical footnote, that I am not only honoured to have been returned to this place by my fellow citizens in Hamilton Centre, but I am also sitting in what was Ed Broadbent's seat in the House. I also have the honour of being in his former office. I feel somewhat responsible to ensure as much as I can, and it will be totally and woefully inadequate, that I present the thoughts of Mr. Broadbent. It is important that they be part of this debate.

Mr. Speaker, you may be familiar with the document that was put out by Mr. Broadbent and the NDP caucus before the last election entitled, “Cleaning Up Politics: Demanding Changes in Ethics and Accountability”. In the front of the document Mr. Broadbent stated:

When they find themselves in the midst of wrongdoing those with a vivid sense of right and wrong have feelings of remorse. On the other hand the defining characteristic of corruption is that feelings of remorse have been lost, replaced by the impulse to deny, perpetuate and cover-up. The Liberal party is losing its sense of remorse.

Certainly the Liberals lost a lot more than that in the last election.

Let us understand that the reason this is here is the scandal coming out of the previous government, the Liberal Party. When the Liberals were given the trust of the Canadian people to govern this great nation, they betrayed that trust. They not only had their fingers in the cookie jar, they had both hands, both feet, body and all, and a whole host of other Liberal members were into the cookie jar with them. It was disgraceful. It is one of the most outrageous scandals this nation has seen arguably since the great railway scandal. It is that big.

Today in this minority House we are attempting collectively to do the best we can to bring in rules that will deal with those who are dishonest. Honest politicians, like honest citizens, do not really need the laws or enforcement of them. They know what the laws are and they abide by them. It is the dishonest ones that require rules and oversight. We do that through transparency and accountability. I must say that to some degree Bill C-2 gets us going in that direction.

Certainly there are good things in Bill C-2. We in the NDP would like to see some changes. Hopefully, there will be some improvements at the committee stage and we can make some amendments, but notwithstanding that, this is a good start. Unless there are major changes to it, the NDP caucus will support that good start. Make no mistake that there is a long way to go. I only have a few moments and I want to pick up on at least two issues not in the bill that we in the NDP believe have to find their way into legislation if we are truly going to deal with the issues coming out of the Liberal sponsorship scandal.

The issue of floor crossing is huge. In fact, Ed Broadbent made it number one in his recommendations. He made it number one before the last election, before any of us knew anything about what the member for Vancouver Kingsway was about to do.

Let me say something that needs to be said over and over. Let us understand exactly what happened. Historians are going to have their breath taken away by this. We sort of lose track a bit because we move on. People in Vancouver have not forgotten it, but for the rest of the country things go on. People will look back and will see that before the official count was in, before he had even packed up his campaign office, the member crossed the floor, took a cabinet position and had the audacity to say that he was doing it out of the goodness of his heart for his constituents, that he did it for them. Such sacrifice is beyond what any one person should be asked to give in the service of Canadians, but we are lucky that the hon. member saw fit to put his constituents ahead of the election process, a minor little detail.

What did Ed say about this? Certainly we know how the people of Vancouver Kingsway feel. If we listen to other members from my caucus who are in that area, those constituents are angry. We may not hear it every day in Ottawa but believe me, they are not taking this lying down.

There are an awful lot of people who gave money, who worked hard and gave up their weekends and vacations to help that member get elected. Why? Because they loved the member? Some probably did, but we can bet there were an awful lot of people who were there because they believed in the platform that was put forward.

Our system is very different from the American one. In large part the American Congress is almost like a large city council. My friend the former mayor of Toronto would know much about this in terms of the wheeling and dealing that happens. We do not get elected on the same kind of platform here. That is why it matters what party we belong to, because our platform is our party's platform. In the U.S. it is a lot looser. It is not unusual for Republicans and Democrats to have personal platforms in their material that is contrary to their party, or more consistent with the other party, but that is what works in their electoral area and so that is what they go with.

What did Ed Broadbent say about floor crossing, recognizing that this was before we saw the wishes of over 80% of the people in Vancouver Kingsway being ignored? He said:

Democratic accountability should mean no M.P. can ignore his/her voters and wheel and deal for personal gain: No MP should be permitted to ignore their voters' wishes, change parties, cross the floor, and become a member of another party without first resigning their seats and running in a by-election.

Some feel that is unfair and that it is a little too restrictive, but two weeks after the election? We are not saying that members are prisoners of their caucuses, if we approve the proposal put forward by Ed Broadbent and the NDP. We would say that for whatever reason, if a member feels the need to leave his or her caucus, the member would have that mechanism. The member could sit as an independent and finish the term and choose to do what he or she wanted to do after that.

We are not captives of our caucus. If caucus is doing or saying something or taking a position that members cannot live with or is not in the best interests of their constituents, then they may sit as independents. But if members want to make the big sacrifice that the member for Vancouver Kingsway did and go to cabinet and be forced to take another $60,000 or $70,000 a year, if that is their lot in life, then they have to go back to their constituents and get their okay. That is not unreasonable, not when we think about the implications. Let us look at this House, at one vote and how it matters. This is an area that needs serious consideration.

My time is rapidly winding down, but I also want to talk about another key area. This is very big. The fact is that there are still not the kinds of controls and transparency we need around party leadership races. As Ed Broadbent and the NDP said:

Set spending limits and transparency conditions on leadership contests within political parties: Parties are largely financed by the [taxpayer] and the same principles pertinent to the public good should apply to the internal affairs of parties as they do to electoral competition between parties.

That certainly is true when the person who wins that party leadership becomes the prime minister of Canada; it is not unreasonable for the House to say that the mechanism by which one can become the prime minister will have as much control, whether it is through a general election or whether it is done inside one's own party. The fact remains that there must be accountability. Money still plays far too big a role in Canadian politics. I like the idea that we are no longer allowing union or corporate contributions. In my opinion, the further we keep politicians away from money, the better the democracy we are going to have.

These are just a few of the areas that we believe need a lot more work. Certainly out of respect for the work that Mr. Broadbent did in this place and the commitment that our leader and the NDP caucus have around these issues, we are going to be on top of the bill. We are going to follow it very closely. We are going to push really hard. Hopefully members of other caucuses will be open to some of the amendments that we want to make because we want to improve this. We are here to get something done. We are here to make things better. Bill C-2 is a good start, but there is more to do and the NDP is ready to roll up its sleeves and get that work done.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague who just spoke was referring to one who is in the chamber who served as the mayor of Toronto. Being one who was present, and I think he was looking in this direction, I would like the record to be correct. In the interests of not maligning those who really were the mayor of Toronto, I was the chairman of Metropolitan Toronto and I appreciate my colleague giving me that recognition.

The member spent a great deal of time talking about floor crossing, and I do believe that is important, but I think the House would also be interested in what his party has talked about as democratic accountability and open government.

My colleague also has served on the public accounts committee. From the perspective of members of the House who want to see more accountability through this House and through elected members, and based on his experience and coupling that experience on the public accounts committee with the recommendation to establish a parliamentary budget authority, which I take would reinforce the efforts of committee to hold the executive into account and the administration into account, I wonder if the member would give us his opinion.

Would he give us his opinion with respect to his experience on the public accounts committee and whether that recommendation, and through the public accounts committee, would even further close the accountability loop in a manner that we would all like to see?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for York South--Weston and I recognize the minor error. I would just say that from the viewpoint of Hamilton, when we thought Toronto, we thought the hon. member. I was pleased to have been in the municipal world when the hon. member was there.

The member raises some very good points. I do not think I am in any way avoiding the answer, but to step it out one, Justice Gomery made quite a number of recommendations as a result of his inquiry. Many of those affected the public accounts committee. I am pleased to say that I am back on that committee again. I am looking forward to the work that will go on there.

However, I would say to the hon. member that there were a number of things flowing from the inquiry that could also be in Bill C-2. I recall that for the actual public accounts committee itself, Justice Gomery said there should be more resources and more independence. The member will recall that there times when we wanted to get further legal advice; it was more a matter of having a staff assignment rather than a question of whether or not they could be unbiased, and I want to be very clear about that. It was a matter of having the resources, in other words, of having a staff lawyer assigned to the committee who would be with us and know the corporate history and the issues and be able to give us advice along the way. Because it was a very legal process we went through, in that it involved personal information, people's rights, et cetera.

There is another thing that the committee would have been given the power to do had Bill C-2 incorporated those recommendations. The committee would have been given the power to ensure that deputy ministers were held accountable for their legal responsibility. Right now in terms of transparency and accountability, the minister rolls in and says, “I make the policy decisions and the department is run by the deputy, so I really cannot answer that one because it is about the mechanics of the ministry”. The minister says to speak to the deputy.

Okay, so we bring in the deputy minister. He rolls in and we ask the deputy, who says he can speak to some of the mechanics of what happened, but that most of this relates back to the policy and he does not make policy decisions, that the minister does. The deputy says we need to ask the minister. I am not making this up. This is how it works and anybody who was on the committee watched this.

Then we get to the second and third tiers of the bureaucrats in trying to get at the answer, and of course when it is a political issue, they are not going to get involved if they do not have to because there is no win. But deputy ministers have a legal framework of responsibility and Justice Gomery was saying that it should extend to going to the public accounts committee and answering for all decisions made by the deputy or his or her staff with regard to all areas of legal responsibility. It would end the ability to have this merry-go-round whereby one person comes in and says it is not really his or her job, but to ask so-and-so. When so-and-so comes in, the answer is no, we have to go back to someone else. We can go around and around with this.

Had Bill C-2 incorporated this, we could--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Joliette.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be taking part in this debate on Bill C-2, the federal accountability act. To start with, like a number of my colleagues, I will point out that the title of the bill is not correct in French, and that an amendment which should be unanimously agreed to by this House would make the French title of the bill the Loi sur la responsabilité.

Our spokesperson on this subject, the member for Repentigny, said at the beginning of his speech that the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-2 in principle. Obviously, the entire question of ethics and good governance has been central to our debates in recent months, starting from the specific point when the Auditor General submitted her report on what is now commonly called the “sponsorship scandal”. In the last months of the session preceding the election, we therefore had ample opportunity to discuss all aspects of that scandal in this House.

I would remind the people listening that the Bloc Québécois did not wait for the Auditor General’s report. In our 2000 election platform, we had already identified the advertising agencies that had obviously benefited from the diversions of funds resulting in the sponsorship scandal. In recent months, we have spoken at length about the question of ethics.

The recent campaign was an opportunity, particularly for Quebeckers, to punish the Liberals for their negligence in managing public funds, and particularly for the fact that a portion of those public funds ended up in the coffers of the Liberal Party of Canada. And so Quebeckers punished the Liberal Party very severely: it now has 13 members in Quebec, when Mr. Trudeau once had 74 of the 75 members. This is an indication of the extent of the harm that this scandal caused in terms of public trust in the Liberal Party of Canada, but also to politicians as a class, unfortunately. It was therefore entirely appropriate that one of the first bills introduced by the minority Conservative government deals with ethics. I think that we are all very glad to see this.

The Bloc Québécois participated in the Gomery commission, and submitted a report that included 72 recommendations, some of which have been incorporated in Bill C-2. We are very pleased with this. On the other hand, there are things missing, gaps that we want to address over the course of the parliamentary process that will lead to passage of this bill. I would reiterate that the Bloc Québécois supports it in principle, for the very obvious reasons to which I have referred.

We are very pleased to see that returning officers will be appointed by Elections Canada based on merit, under Bill C-2. Of course, we would hope that, as in Quebec, returning officers will be selected after a public competition is held. We will have an opportunity to come back with this proposal and argue its merits to all of the members in this House.

Another thing we are pleased to see in Bill C-2 is that the Registrar of Lobbyists will be independent. It seems to us that it is extremely important that the person responsible for registering lobbyists be totally independent of the government and have the resources to do that job.

We know that the practice of lobbying is growing. I imagine that all our new colleagues who were elected in the last election of January 2006 must have been a little surprised to see the number of pressure groups who wanted to meet with members of Parliament to express their concerns to them and the solutions that they had to offer for the problems they identified.

I consider that it is absolutely proper, in a democracy, for hon. members to receive input from groups of lobbyists. However, we must avoid the excesses that we saw with the previous government.

For that reason, the independence of the registrar is important. Moreover, as in the case of the Ethics Commissioner, it is essential to ensure that the registrar has the resources to fulfill the mandate that the House has established.

Concerning the Act to regulate the funding of political parties, the Bloc is pleased to note that the suggestion from Quebec and from the Bloc Québécois has been included. That suggestion dealt with a prohibition on corporate donations. It has been part of the Quebec legislation from the very beginning. In reality it is a step forward to ensure that there is no blemish on the independent judgment of hon. members and parties. Personally, I do not believe that corporate donations could buy the consciences of some of our colleagues but they have created negative impressions among the public. Once those donations have been eliminated, the public image of all politicians should have a higher standing among the population.

There is a last element with which we agree and that we are pleased to see in Bill C-2. That is the strengthening of the powers of the Auditor General, in particular, the fact that in future she will be responsible for overseeing the administration of crown corporations. I recall that the Bloc Québécois had introduced a bill for that purpose. The government’s decision to adopt that measure is good news.

However, there are a number of elements that we do not agree with. As a result, I will take some time to analyze and comment on the bill. The amending of the Access to Information Act has been put off to a later date. A draft bill was introduced—if I may call it that—and yet we have been discussing amendments to the Access to Information Act for decades, to make it more accessible and to broaden its application. So it is not something new.

It is a shame that the Conservatives, who had promised—in fact, it is in their election platform—that the recommendations of the Information Commissioner and the Privacy Commissioner concerning amendments to the Access to Information Act would be implemented, have now decided to put that off until later. They made a promise and the Bloc agreed with that approach. In spite of that, they have decided to delay, while the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, during the previous session, rejected a proposal by the then Minister of Justice who wanted to postpone any changes in order to further study the recommendations of the Information Commissioner and the Privacy Commissioner. The committee, including the Conservative members, rejected that position and unanimously accepted the commissioner’s report as the basis for legislation. The committee also called on the government to introduce legislation without further delay.

It is amazing to see how the Conservatives are in a lot less of a hurry to give the media, the legislators and the public in general a means of gaining access to government information than they were when they sat on the opposition side. This is very strange.

As I pointed out at the beginning, during the study of this bill, the Bloc Québécois will want to improve the proposed legislation by adding the items I have just mentioned.

The Bloc has also identified some flaws, such as the idea of a financial reward to public servants who disclose wrongdoings. The Bloc recognizes that the strengthening of the law protects those who report questionable or dishonest practices. We believe that this is extremely important.

In closing, I will remind members that, with regard to the Access to Information Act, the bill proposes that only three of the nine foundations be subject to that act, and I did mention how unfortunate it was that the Conservative government did not keep its promise. This is very strange. Why these three foundations and not the other six? There is no logic to this decision.

As a political party that cares about democracy and the strengthening of democracy—and this is true for Canada as well as for Quebec—we will have an opportunity to bring forward amendments to this bill. I am convinced that all members will support the suggestions from the Bloc Québécois. They will aim at making the bill better and more complete, which has always been our goal as a constructive and vigilant opposition.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, recently we learned, contrary to the contents of the federal accountability act, that the Conservatives have been engaging in a practice that would seem to contradict what they state. A member of the transition team, which hired the new Conservative government officials, chiefs of staff, deputy ministers, et cetera, is now a senior lobbyist in Ottawa, lobbying the very people who she hired for the government.

Clearly, this is either an oversight or a blatant undermining of the spirit of the accountability act. Would the hon. member agree with me that this type of lobbying should be outlawed, barred and specifically cited in the federal accountability act?

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

I think we have all been able to see that the Conservatives in power do not have quite the sense of ethics and good governance that they had in opposition. This is a little disturbing, for we would have expected more consistency on the part of that party, even though, as I mentioned, the bill is a step in the right direction.

There have indeed been actions on the part of the government that are incompatible with sound ethics and good governance. The hon. member has just mentioned one. The appointment of Michael Fortier as senator so that he can be in Cabinet and represent the Montreal region is another. The fact that, two weeks after the election, the Minister of International Trade crossed from the Liberal Party to the Conservative Party is another major ethical issue.

In no way has the Ethics Commissioner cleared this affair. He has said that it is the responsibility of parliamentarians to tighten the law so as to avoid this type of situation. For what happened between the election on January 23, 2006 and the decision by the Minister of International Trade to move from the Liberals to the Conservatives? Probably a telephone call from the Prime Minister. If so, it was not the political environment that caused the Minister of International Trade to change his plans.

I always give the following example. When Lucien Bouchard, who was a Conservative, decided to go independent and found the Bloc Québécois, something fundamental in Canadian history happened, namely the rejection of the Meech Lake Accord. That was justification for leaving one party and creating the Bloc Québécois.

In the case of the Minister of International Trade, opportunism and his political career were probably the only criteria for his decision. In that sense, I am in complete agreement with the hon. member. One does not sense a political will on the part of the government to make a real change to ethics in this Parliament and this government. In my view, the weeks ahead will be very telling.

To close, I would mention that the Prime Minister’s relations with the media are also worrisome. The fact that the Access to Information Act is being brushed aside is consistent with his refusal to work with the media toward better publicizing the analysis and political directions of his government. This is prompting a great many questions and is inconsistent with Bill C-2.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a simple question for the hon. member for Joliette. It concerns the process for selecting the conflict of interest and ethics commissioner. As we know, the commissioner is selected by the Prime Minister alone.

Does the hon. member not think it would be a good idea to have a process established by a committee of this House or some other mechanism along the lines of this bill, which would be fair and transparent?

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

I totally agree with the hon. member, Mr. Speaker. All programs of the public appointments commission, which is responsible for overseeing appointments made by the Prime Minister, come under him, because appointments are generally made by the Prime Minister's Office.

We end up with exactly the same kind of situation as previously, when the Ethics Commissioner was appointed by Prime Minister Chrétien and responsible for monitoring ethics within government. This is very much like asking the fox to guard the hen house.

I believe that all these very important players in our parliamentary life ought to be selected by the House.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-2, a very important bill.

First, I thank the member for Winnipeg Centre, who is our lead critic on this bill and on the question of ethics. He has done a brilliant job of focusing the debate on the issue before us.

We are very aware that this is a massive bill. It is a very weighty document, and it is a lot of material to go through. I think from the point of view of the public interest and public concern, it is very important that we focus on some of the key issues and ensure that this is actually followed through.

Just before the election, when the whole sponsorship scandal was in full flight and was raised every day in the House, I remember being in a coffee shop in East Vancouver getting a cup of tea when somebody came up to me and talked about the sponsorship scandal. The person looked at me and said, “Well, what do you expect. We don't expect any different”. That comment really struck me. It spoke to the deep level of cynicism, unfortunately, that people have about politics, the political process and this place. They shrug their shoulders. They do not expect anything different from the people in Ottawa, or anywhere else for that matter. I find this very disturbing.

The Liberal corruption and sponsorship scandal was an issue that was raised and very hotly debated in the House every day. However, it was also an issue that went so broad and deep that we all ended up suffering from, this growing cynicism about electoral politics and the political process. That is a very difficult thing to get at.

On the one hand, the bill sets out very strenuous rules about ethics, conduct, conflict and public interest. On the other hand, it is very hard to legislate ethics. Ethics comes from an environment. Unfortunately, we have become very used to an environment where, as Mr. Gomery himself said, the culture of entitlement was very prevalent in this place. That is what we are up against.

The bill is significant and it is an important document. The NDP will be examining it in great detail and we will be offering suggestions about how to make the bill a better instrument. However, it is also incumbent upon us, as members of Parliament, to think about our own personal conduct.

I am reminded of the speech that Mr. Broadbent made when he announced to the House that he was leaving Parliament after many decades of public service. He spoke about the dignity of members and the respect that we needed to have for each other and for this place, and the service we provide to our constituents. We cannot legislate that kind of thing. It comes from us in terms of how we conduct ourselves, and that is something for which we all bear responsibility.

Another thing I want to raise in a general sense around the bill is this. It always bothers me, when corruption scandals erupt and so much public attention is on them, as there should be, that the role of the civil service and civil servants gets dragged into them. It becomes something that is dishonourable.

The NDP have enormous respect for people in the civil service. I think people act in a very honourable way, yet they see all this stuff going on around them, the accusations, the wrongdoing, the cover-ups and the secrecy. Hundreds of thousands of people work for the public service, whether in Ottawa or in our local communities. They go out day after day on the front line and try their very best to do the right thing, and they do the right thing. They are the ones who provide the service, but they are also the ones who get a lot of the flak because of this culture of entitlement and cynicism.

It needs to be said by us all that we value the work of our public servants. We recognize the role they played in exposing the secrets that had been hidden within the government. It was a very bold thing to do and it took a lot of courage.

I want to thank and pay tribute to all of those civil servants in the public service who work so hard and provide the service to our constituents and the people of Canada. They are very honourable people and should be held up as a role model of what we should be doing as parliamentarians.

A lot has been said about this bill and a lot more will come. There are some aspects that are quite disturbing that are not covered. My riding is Vancouver East. The riding next door to me is Vancouver Kingsway. The day that the member for Vancouver Kingsway crossed the floor and became a member of the government my phone was ringing off the hook. There were e-mails instantly from people in my own riding, but also from Vancouver generally. These people felt so betrayed by what was done by that member.

I think that member has a difficult time showing his face in the city of Vancouver and attending any event. There is a fundamental feeling that the most basic form of accountability is to your voters. Bill C-2 does not deal with that. We have to ask the question as to why this bill, if it is about ethics and dealing with ethical practices, does not deal with this most fundamental question of honouring the vote of the people who elect us as members in this place?

I know that the member for Vancouver Kingsway has heard a lot from his constituents. I also want to lay it at the door of the Prime Minister. It was the Prime Minister who set up this arrangement just a few days after he spoke about the new government being the most transparent, the most accountable, and that he wanted to bring back the public trust. To me and to many people, it is quite incredible that within a few days of saying those words we would have this action take place, where the voters of Vancouver Kingsway had their trust betrayed by a member who crossed the floor and a Prime Minister who basically participated in that act.

There are other issues that we wish were included in the bill, including the issue of democratic electoral reform. Again, this gets at the question of accountability and ethics as it relates to election practices themselves, the way we conduct our elections and the way we are voted into office. I am very proud of the fact that we in the NDP have championed the issue of democratic electoral reform. We are not going to give up on that issue.

We are very concerned that there is nothing in this bill that deals with electoral reform. It is an issue that we will keep pressing with this government and with all parties because we believe there is a real public appetite to democratize our electoral system. When people vote, their vote should actually count. We want the House of Commons to reflect the way people are actually voting. This is something we will definitely keep pressing.

We are also concerned that Bill C-2 does not go far enough in terms of the limits that need to be placed on practices around lobbying. As the member for Winnipeg Centre outlined in his comments, we still see this going on. We see practices where the relationship with the government and lobbyists and people being appointed and favours being done is still there. It is still happening.

Although the bill does go some distance, we believe that it does not go far enough in limiting the way that lobbyists act. Canadians can expect to see amendments from the NDP when the bill goes to committee.

The same is true of the appointment process. Mr. Broadbent had put together a very good package to deal with appointments. While this bill contains some of those elements, it is still within the purview of the PMO and basically gives a veto to the PMO. We think that is something that needs to be further reviewed to ensure that there is clearly an independent process.

Finally, as many members have remarked, it is questionable as to why the government chose to leave out its access to information reform package that was promised. We all know that when there is an environment of secrecy, there is also an environment of corruption.

The promised package of reform on access to information, opening up information and providing access to people, is a fundamental part of the spirit of this bill. The fact that it is not here is really a contradiction to what the government has put forward. We are very concerned that it is not here and again we will be pressing that in committee to ensure that those questions are raised and that there is indeed a commitment to bring forward the reform for access to information.

We will be giving this close scrutiny in committee. It is a substantial bill. We need to ensure that it is actually followed through and that it does not fall or stall under its own weight, whether it is in the House or in the Senate. We believe that elements of this bill must go through and that we must work in the public interest to bring back public trust and confidence in what we do in this place.

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, through the past terms of Parliament, the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates took approximately 17 months of meetings, reviews, calling of witnesses, and drafting and passing legislation for the whistleblower act. That legislation was awaiting royal assent, but obviously that will not happen.

This part of the proposed act would cause a total recommencement of this entire process, which occurred at considerable expense to the government by calling witnesses from essentially all over the world.

Generally, in a minority government situation, it was clearly the prerogative of the other parties to defeat that legislation, even in committee, or insert those amendments that they felt were necessary because it certainly would have carried.

I am asking the member if her party has a particular perspective on the recommencement of this legislation and if her representative actually felt that it was good legislation because it did pass unanimously through the committee stage and on to first, second and third reading?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, while I am not the critic and I am not a member of that committee, I would point out that the NDP has been very consistent in wanting to bring forward whistleblower legislation and have it pass through the House.

I would point out to the member that the original introduction from the President of the Treasury Board under the Liberal government was so poor that it actually did fall to the committee and the opposition parties to go back and redo it, and to come forward with another package. In fact, many people thought the bill that was brought forward was actually worse than the status quo. That was kind of an interesting situation and I do not think we should forget that.

It is a priority for the NDP to put in place whistleblower legislation that protects people's rights. There are some aspects of the current provisions in Bill C-2 that we have concerns about in terms of the compensation that is being put forward, but we have been on this from day one.

It is one of those issues where the former government had so much time to deal with; however, like so many issues, it was a record of broken and failed promises. That legislation could have happened a long time ago if the government were truly in favour of it, but what it brought forward was not very good and it had to be redone by the committee.