Debates of June 21st, 2006

Federal Accountability Act

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I find it a little rich to be given a lesson on accountability by a member of the former Liberal government.

I should first mention that members in two of the committees that I sit on voted for both of our chairs. It is nice for a change to see a Prime Minister who is actually willing to stand by his word and stand by the first piece of legislation that is being passed in the House, the federal accountability act. This is a great step for the Canadian public.

It is, however, disappointing to see opposition come from the Liberal Party on the accountability act. I was hoping that after January 23 the former Liberal government would have learned a lesson and came on board with the accountability act, and perhaps made it even stronger.

Why is my colleague not embracing the accountability act? Why did he vote against some of the strong amendments, particularly the amendment to include the Wheat Board within the ATI provisions?

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am not opposing the act. I am opposing any concept that the act deals with institutional accountability, which this institution cries out for.

The member across talks about the appointment of committee chairs. I would remind the member that he had members of his own party issuing press releases that they had accepted the appointment by the Prime Minister to be a committee chair. Everyone in Ottawa knows that the Prime Minister appointed the chairs to these committees.

For the member to come to the House and say that there was an election, of course there was an election. Once the Prime Minister had appointed the government nominee to stand unopposed for election, then the election was held, which confirmed the Prime Minister's appointment.

The legislation does contain some very good provisions, and I have gone over them. The lobbyist registration has been long overdue. I have been offended for years around here. If I call a deputy minister or an associate deputy minister in some department I am told that as a member of Parliament they cannot speak to me. If I go over to Winston's, the same deputy minister is meeting with some lobbyist around Ottawa. I find that offensive.

I agree that the sooner we tighten the controls around some of these lobbyists around Ottawa the better. I could not agree more with making deputy ministers accountable to Parliament. I think that is long overdue.

What I am saying is that what the act says and what I see being done are totally opposed. I will come back to the appointment. A member of Parliament is here to hold the executive to account, and the member does that in a number of ways. Any member of Parliament who consents to allowing the Prime Minister to appoint his campaign co-chair to the Senate and then immediately appoint that same co-chair as Minister of Public Works and Government Services and then give him a budget of $20 billion is not doing his job as a member of Parliament.

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

Mr. Speaker, following on the comments by the hon. member for Charlottetown, I would like to give him the opportunity to clarify his thoughts on the underlying values of Bill C-2, mainly in matters of transparency and accountability. I am referring specifically to the appointment of a non-elected person to one of the most important ministerial positions—one of the first moves the Prime Minister made in all his accountability and transparency.

I would like very much for my colleague to make his comments in terms of accountability. Accountability is achieved by tabling documents in this House, so that parliamentarians can review them on behalf of the people they represent. Accountability is also achieved every day in this House. In fact, we are denied the opportunity to question the minister of whom we spoke.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I do find that extremely troubling. We have a situation and we allow it to continue every day, all members of Parliament. We have a campaign co-chair who was appointed to the Senate and appointed--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Ajax—Pickering.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is an important issue and one that I am pleased to speak to. I think increasing accountability is important for every member of Parliament and, indeed, a priority.

The member who just spoke, the member for Charlottetown, and I sat on the public accounts committee during the previous session of Parliament and in that session of Parliament had an opportunity to deal with a wide array of issues and make a broad range of recommendations on how government operations could be improved on everything from deputy ministerial responsibility to internal auditing processes. Some of those are being incorporated and some are not but I would say that this is an ongoing process.

One of the things that concerns me as we have this debate and as we talk about the need to increase accountability is to paint pictures that are, frankly, completely inaccurate.

The reality is that the Auditor General, in her report in the fall of, I believe, 2005, said that when it came to the clarity of our fiscal reporting, the quality of that reporting and the robustness of our internal auditing, Canada was number one in the world, around the same level with respect to New Zealand and Australia. We achieved great things in that period of time and the changes that occurred were met with great effect.

That brings us to the accountability act. I would like to see a number of items changed and improved but the bill concerns me deeply. I started off believing that it was a selective accountability act but it has become more of a realization that it is a non-accountability act in many respects. I think that realization started off with a press conference the Prime Minister had on the topic and he took a total of two questions. He launched a major initiative on accountability, the press was there, he took two questions and he walked away.

When we take a look at the bill and we start skimming below the surface, we see some items here that are of deep concern. We will start with access to information, an issue that I think a number of us have been pushing for some period of time to improve.

I would like to quote what the Information Commissioner had to say on this particular item in the proposal of the accountability act. Mr. Reid said:

All of the positions the government now takes in the discussion paper are contrary to the positions the Conservative Party took, and its leader espoused, during the election campaign.

Mr. Reid recently said, “the decision was taken that they were not prepared to live under the terms of open government”.

He was stating this is what they had done.

He went on to state and criticize the accountability act for introducing new provisions and exemptions protecting sensitive information from public scrutiny.

In another instance he said, “no previous government has put forward a more retrograde and dangerous set of proposals to change access to information”.

When we look at it again and again we see areas of deep concern. What worried me at the time is the NDP member for the riding of Winnipeg Centre had stood and recognized some of these concerns and said that sending the access to information portion off to committee was a kiss of death, that would be the end of it and that it was a stall and delay tactic. However, we are with the NDP supporting the bill despite those very real concerns and no progress having been made with the issue of access to information.

I am also concerned with campaign finance reform but not so much because the amounts are lowered. In fact, it was a Liberal government, through Bill C-24, that introduced some of the most stringent requirements on campaign contributions that one will find anywhere in the world. Those were appropriate and have worked well and served us well.

However, these new changes concern me in one particular area; and that is, in the area of third party advertising and thirty party involvement.

The reality is that third party actors are not being controlled under this legislation and it creates a totally uneven playing field. On the one hand we are saying to political parties and to political candidates that they are extremely restricted, in fact far more so than they were before on how they can raise money, but if one is a third party trying to advance a particular issue, we will not get involved in that. That creates an unlevel playing field and actually gives those who are on the peripheral of the political sphere more power in delivering their message. That is exceptionally concerning. If one were to make a change in one area, certainly third party advertising should be changed as well.

I am also concerned with the notion of lobbyists, not so much on the portion with which the bill deals, but on the portion with which the bill does not deal. We have on the one hand a cooling off period for those ministers who leave the public service and go on to other things, but what about those individuals who are lobbyists coming into government?

We have a situation today with the Minister of National Defence. He was a military lobbyist and he lobbied the same people on whom he now makes decisions as Minister of National Defence. Clearly that does not add up, in my opinion. If we are to deal with lobbying, then we should deal with both those coming in and those going out. It is an example, again, of the government selectively choosing the areas where it wants to be accountable.

We can go further. We can talk about the issue of ethics. It has been brought up a number of times, but I think it is worth mentioning again. It is extremely contradictory to appoint somebody, who was a key part of a campaign team, obviously somebody very partisan, to the Senate, even though the government said it stood against those kinds of appointments, then to turn around within a very short period of time and appoint that same person to a senior cabinet position where we do not have the ability in the House to question him. The government then labels that accountability. Clearly that is highly contradictory at the very best.

We have a health minister who we now discover has a 25% interest in a pharma company. Yet is making decisions with respect to pharmaceutical companies and is not willing to sell his shares.

We have a Prime Minister who, shortly after the election, appointed a good friend as a member of the transition team. He gave that individual an untendered contract to review, of all things, the tendering process. There are all these inconsistencies that simply lead me to have a great deal of concern.

We should take a look at the budget office as well and the notion that we want to know exactly what the figures are. Of course we do and we had that in the last government. The reality is we had a variety of independent experts who gave their forecasts. We consistently had an economy that outperformed our expectations. For a 10 year period, we had an economy that was red hot. We put policies in place that allowed that to happen.

However, when members of Parliament try to become experts at being able to tell what is in the fiscal future, to become clairvoyant on fiscal matters, we begin to cut too close to the marrow. When the economy takes an unintended turn, then we will return to deficits, which is something the Conservatives did very well. We had years of them under the Conservatives. However, it is imperative that we not do that, and that we be careful on a go forward basis.

In terms of transparency and allowing the legislative part of Parliament to have a larger voice, we do not see that at all. In fact, free votes are disappearing. There is more and more control over committees. There is more and more control over media and messaging and Parliament is becoming less and less an open place. There is less and less opportunity for parliamentarians to express their voice. Committees decisions are being railroaded time and time again.

We are seeing an inverse of what was promised, and there is a pattern. In the case of the Conservatives, they say one thing and give it a label like accountability and they do something entirely different on the other side. They take an entirely different tack going forward. Time and time again this hypocrisy reveals itself.

Rather than trying to ram through flawed legislation, which has been not only recognized by the Information Commissioner and the House solicitor as being flawed, but is being recognized broadly as being rushed legislation that is full of holes, we should take the time to do this properly.

We should take a look at the work that had been done through the public accounts committee, as one example. We should implement some of the recommendations, as my colleague said earlier, of Justice Gomery. We should take accountability seriously, not use it as some kind of rhetoric tool, to abuse the word “accountability” for the sake of political gain. Rather, we should take a measured approach and ensure that the measures brought forward will bring real improvements in accountability.

In that regard I would hope, although we will have to see what the House does in the coming hours, we take a pause and we get this right.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the presentation by the hon. member for Ajax—Pickering. I noticed that he did not talk about one very essential point included in Bill C-2 and that is the appointment of returning officers following a public competition by the Chief Electoral Officer.

As a relatively new member, I had a hard time with the fact that the returning officer in my riding was a known political patronage appointee. I feared that, regardless of the party in power, following a change in government he would simply be replaced by another appointee of the new government and therefore not necessarily fair and honest in his decisions.

This is a victory for the Bloc and an important one. Now the bill includes a provision to appoint returning officers following a public competition.

I would like to know what the hon. member for Ajax—Pickering thinks of this aspect of the bill. Why was this not done before and how does he now see this aspect of political life?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked a very good question. I think it is very important to do things that relate to this.

Sorry, I am still working on my French, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the comment and I appreciate the change. I think the appointment of a returning officer by Elections Canada is important. It is a worthy change in the bill. I would go a step further. There is a larger role for Elections Canada in a variety of different venues. For example, in nominations for all parties, Elections Canada should be responsible for overseeing that.

One thing that greatly disappoints me in the bill, while that it is beneficial, is the lack of steps it takes to increase the powers of committees and of parliamentarians. In fact, we are seeing a real reversal, both by the appointment of committee chairs and by the taking away the power of individual members of Parliament to speak freely on a number of different issues, as we have seen on the other side, and from restricting media access to the Prime Minister and ministers. Those are very disturbing trends.

We see some positive changes, as mentioned by my hon. colleague, but we need to focus on ways to make this chamber, the House of Commons and its members, through its committees, to have greater say and be able to represent their constituents with greater authority.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague. I know he has a number of opinions and some integrity on the issue of accountability. At the very end of his speech, he talked about accountability and the power of committees. He talked about the important work done at committees and about the importance of committees having independence.

Could he comment on what might be deemed a bit of a travesty in terms of democracy today?

A motion was brought forward to committee by myself with respect to the capabilities of the current environment minister. Two days ago his party called for her to step down and resign for a list of reasons, which they and others in the community listed. The motion was deemed in order by the Conservative chair. It was also deemed in order by the Speaker of the House because we wanted to ensure it was correct. We prepared for debate on the motion. Then the Conservatives came forward with a motion to rule it out of order. Clearly they were wrong and the chair and the clerk of the committee let them know our motion was in order and everything was correct. Then the Conservatives challenged their own chair's ruling, saying it was incorrect.

Clearly the motion was in order and everything was fine, but lo and behold, the three Liberal members who were at committee this afternoon decided to side with the government to rule the motion out of order and we never got to speak about it.

Could talk about accountability as a fundamental measure when a circumstance like that comes before the House, when Canadians are looking for real answers to what happens in our committees?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The period for questions and comments is over, but I will allow the hon. member a short response.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not a member of that committee, but the committee has the opportunity to deem what it believes is pertinent to deal with and what is and what is not in order. Members have the right to challenge the chair. It was the democratic will of that committee not to move forward on that item, and I think that is important.

The only comment I would make is that this actually speaks to the point I made about respecting the democratic will of committees.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to join my colleagues today in support of Bill C-2, a bill that will make government more effective and accountable.

Tonight I will be splitting my time with the Minister of Labour.

Canadians expect politicians and public sector employees to conduct themselves according to the highest ethical standards. As the member of Parliament for Palliser, my goal is to make government more effective and accountable to Parliament and to Canadians.

One of Parliament's most important roles is to hold government accountable for its use of taxpayer dollars. To do this effectively, parliamentarians need objective and fact-based information about how well the government raises and spends public funds.

During the last election campaign, I knocked on a lot of doors and was told by hundreds of people how fed up they were with Liberal corruption. These are hard-working men and women who play by the rules and pay their taxes. They were absolutely fed up and disgusted with the culture of entitlement that developed in Ottawa under the former Liberal government.

[Jim Peterson]

Oh, come on. Get out your agenda.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Bill C-2, the federal accountability act--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Willowdale may want to take his seat and speak when it is his turn.

The hon. member for Palliser.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate you restoring a little bit of order and some of this touches a bit of a nerve with members opposite.

As I was saying, people were absolutely fed up and disgusted by the culture of entitlement that developed in Ottawa under the former Liberal government. Bill C-2, the federal accountability act, delivers on that commitment that we made in the last election to clean up corruption and demonstrates that our government is taking concrete action to restore the trust of Canadians.

Bill C-2 is about fixing the system for Canadians. The act will move us from a culture of entitlement to a culture of accountability. It will make everyone in the government, from the Prime Minister on down, answerable to Canadians. It will strengthen and streamline how government works by making government more effective and accountable, and will let Canadians know that their hard earned tax dollars are being spent properly and wisely.

Concrete changes for Canadians in the new federal accountability act include: banning corporate, union and large personal political donations; giving Canadians confidence that lobbying is done ethically by bringing in a five year lobbying ban on former ministers, their aides and senior public servants; providing real protection for whistleblowers; and ensuring that Canadians know how their money is spent by enhancing the power of the Auditor General to follow the money.

Bill C-2 will bring in some of the toughest anti-corruption legislation in the country while empowering officers of Parliament to ensure that nothing like the sponsorship scandal can happen again.

I would like touch on some of the new reforms introduced in Bill C-2. One of the most important and well publicized aspects of Bill C-2 is that it eliminates the undue influence of big money donors by banning large personal or corporate donations to political parties. With the new federal accountability act, our government will wrest power out of the hands of powerful interests and give it back to the people.

The federal accountability act will limit individual donations to $1,000 per year; ban contributions by corporations, unions and organizations; prohibit cash donations of more than $20; and it will also ban secret donations and gifts to political candidates. That last point is particularly important. At present, even though campaign donations are regulated, riding associations can still give large amounts of money to candidates through trust funds.

Among other changes Bill C-2 will prohibit candidates from accepting gifts that might be seen to influence them in the performance of their elected duties. It will also prohibit MPs from using money for political purposes and require candidates to report any gifts they receive worth more than $500. These are positive changes that will bring greater transparency and fairness to political financing.

I would also like to talk about the provisions of Bill C-2 that strengthen the ability of the Auditor General to review annual federal grants, contributions and contracts. It is absolutely critical that Parliament is able to hold the government to account for the use of taxpayer dollars. That means Parliament needs objective facts and information about how well the government raises and spends public funds. This is the critical role the Auditor General plays.

The new federal accountability act will give the Auditor General the authority to follow the money by inquiring into the use of funds that individuals, institutions and companies receive under a fundraising agreement with any federal department, agency or crown corporation. It will also require the government to include provisions in all funding agreements requiring recipients to keep records and cooperate with the Auditor General on request.

Because of Bill C-2, every government department will be required to review at least once every five years the relevance and effectiveness of its grants and contributions programs. These changes will reassure Canadians that their tax dollars are being used wisely and will also ensure that the Auditor General is able to get all the facts necessary to do her job.

One of the areas where we know work needs to be done to improve accountability concerns the awarding of government contracts. Unlike the former government, our government will ensure that the government procurement process is free of political interference and that the bidding process for government contracts is open and transparent.

To address this, the federal accountability act will create the position of a procurement auditor to review procurement practices across government, review complaints regarding contract administration, and submit an annual report to be tabled in Parliament. As these changes indicate, delivering accountability means addressing the broader relationship between government, and those persons and companies that do business with the government.

That is reflected in the provision of the bill that concerns government contracts, but it is also reflected in components of Bill C-2 which will toughen rules for lobbying including: establishing a new commissioner of lobbying as an independent agent of Parliament; prohibiting ministers, ministerial staffers and senior public servants from registering and lobbying the Government of Canada for five years after leaving office; and doubling the criminal monetary penalties for lobbyists who fail to comply with the requirements of the lobbying act.

With these new changes the commissioner of lobbying will ensure that lobbying is done in a fair and transparent manner. These changes are dramatic and are part of a package which will produce real results for Canadians.

While I do not have enough time to go into detail on some of the components of the proposed bill, I do want to make note of some of them because they are very important. There are components such as: strengthening auditing and accountability within departments, creating a director of public prosecutions to conduct prosecutions for offences under federal jurisdiction, and providing real protection for whistleblowers to help create an environment in which employees can report wrongdoing in the federal government without fear of reprisal.

I am proud to be part of a government that has made accountability a priority. I know the residents of Palliser have been waiting for these changes and will welcome our government's actions to bring transparency and accountability to government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a fair, direct and simple question for the hon. member.

He talked about the need for a new breath of fresh air and accountability. While there are aspects of the bill that move us some way forward, I wonder, in a very specific and simple way, with the appointment of a fundraising co-chair to the Senate and then that person to have such incredible influence as to actually sit at the cabinet table as one of the first acts of the new government, how the bile almost rises up in the throat when we realize that.

On one hand, the Conservatives are saying something about accountability, turning a page or a new leaf and all the various metaphors they have, and on the other hand they do one of the most shameless and partisan acts. This was completely an unaccountable act to the voters of Canada and was certainly unaccountable to the whole theme and measure that the member's party talked about while sitting as the official opposition and throughout the campaign.

The member might correct me if I am wrong. I do not recall the now Prime Minister campaigning on the principle of being able to appoint fundraisers to the Senate and then allow them to sit at the cabinet table. If that was the case, I may have missed that press release. We, the New Democrats, were busy door knocking and engaging Canadians on the idea of a new way of doing government.

How does he square the circle of the strong and courageous rhetoric in his speech with what his government actually did as one of its first acts when it seized power and was able to grab its closest and best friend and plunk him into a patronage spot which he can maintain for nearly the rest of his life?

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, talk about rhetoric. The member began his question by asking how a fundraiser from Quebec could be chosen. I wonder what the member has against Quebeckers. I wonder if he feels it is not important for Montrealers to have a voice at the cabinet table.

The desire for more transparency and accountability in government is something that I would hope would be shared by members of the NDP and all members in this place. I hope even Liberal members on the other side will support our government in our efforts to clean up the culture of entitlement that marked the former government.

It is not the Conservative Party but Canadians who will benefit from our accountability package and the new federal accountability act. As I stated earlier, government should serve the public interest and not personal interests. After years of Liberal government, my constituents in Palliser and Canadians across the country were very clear; they wanted a government that would restore their faith in our public institutions by making them more accountable and effective.

Canadians expect politicians and public sector employees to conduct themselves according to the highest ethical standards, and this government has responded to that expectation by bringing in the toughest piece of accountability legislation in our nation's history. It is a solid accountability package. It is what Canadians have been asking for. It is what we were sent here to do. It is fulfilling one of many priorities. I would expect members of this House to welcome this monumental legislation that will make our federal government more accountable to Canadians.

If my colleague is not in favour of this legislation, he should be prepared to face his constituents and explain why he is not in favour of improved government accountability.

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

Mr. Speaker, the reply given by the member for Palliser to the question posed by my colleague from the NDP did not seem convincing. A political organizer was appointed as a senator, only to then be given a cabinet post. That minister is not responsible for answering members in the House. It is not enough to say that he gives a voice to the Montreal area, where he resides.

I would like to use the example of a minister from the Montreal region in the previous government: Mr. Gagliano. This is not necessarily a positive reference, after everything that was revealed by the Gomery commission. This is precisely the kind of problem that can arise with appointments such as the one made by the government. The fact that he is proposing a bill on accountability here today adds little to his credit.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have to speak if I may on behalf of the Minister of Public Works and Government Services by saying that we sure do not want any comparisons to Mr. Gagliano, and I know my friend opposite was not trying to make any inferences there.

Canadians, and certainly my constituents, appreciate the job that is being done by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services. The member for Port Moody--Westwood--Port Coquitlam is doing a fantastic job.

The ballot question in 2004 was accountability. The ballot question in 2006 was accountability. The question was who could restore honesty and trust to this place. Canadians spoke on January 23. I am very proud to be part of this government that is committed to cleaning up the way this place works forever, to function and serve those people who work hard, play by the rules, and pay their taxes.

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Minister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all of our colleagues, from all political parties, who are here this evening to deal with this important subject.

On January 23, Canadians sent the government a message. The message was about change. They expressed a desire for the government to be accountable and worthy of the trust they place in it to spend their hard-earned money, and for the government to work with them effectively and efficiently.

As well, today, may I say that all members from all political parties have clearly shown, certainly in some cases with difficulty, that they are determined to move this bill forward.

The commitment of committee members has taken many forms. They heard more than 70 important witnesses; they answered their thoughtful questions; they tripled their workload in recent weeks to complete the laborious process of clause by clause consideration; in short, they pulled out all the stops to give this House and the people of Canada the best bill possible.

This act deals with 13 separate areas, and so the committee members had to become true specialists in each of those areas, to give it the level of attention it required and to pay particular attention to every detail, effectively, openly and carefully.

The committee members considered hundreds of provisions and a varied lot of amendments, and analyzed them in depth. They spent no less than 90 hours over the last six weeks on this, in addition to doing their everyday work as parliamentarians, to be sure that we are on the right track and that the Federal Accountability Act will enable the government to honour its commitment to accountability and openness, while ensuring oversight and flexibility.

New legislation of course requires a joint effort. This act shows that the idea that we should act in the interests of Canadians crosses party lines, rallies many representatives of every stripe and calls for genuine determination.

As a result of the process followed by the committee, this bill is now a solid piece of legislation. As well, we have worked with all parties to improve it. For example, eliminating the provision for a secret vote for the appointment of officers of Parliament will be more consistent with the autonomy of this House in making its own rules of conduct and protecting its commitment to maintaining transparency.

Something else to note: the act provides that drafts of internal annual reports be disclosed under the Access to Information Act, once the final report has been published.

I am also happy to be able to tell the House that this wider scope has been provided for in the amended act. At the same time the act ensures a fair balance between greater transparency and the protection of sensitive information such as the Auditor General’s working papers.

Furthermore, thanks to the process the committee followed, the bill now requires all ministers to publish an annual report of all their office expenses that have been charged to the public purse. By thus increasing transparency, we will help to restore Canadians’ trust in their government.

This act is not the only way of demonstrating that the new Government of Canada is keeping its promise to make the government more responsible and more effective.

The federal accountability action plan also plays a key role in this regard. I pointed out a number of reviews contained in the plan that will reduce the host of rules that paralyze the work of public servants, as they do the work of organizations and individuals dealing with the government.

On June 6, the government announced the creation of a group of experts responsible for reviewing the policy respecting grants and contributions.

In December, the group will present its recommendations on how to better manage programs pertaining to grants and contributions, which total close to $26 billion and under which we provide important services to all Canadians.

Besides creating this group, the government will soon announce the details of two other reviews of all the rules put in place by the previous government and the government’s procurement policy.

These three reviews represent a major part of our commitment to make government more accountable and to assure that all programs are delivered effectively and efficiently, and always transparently. We must restore the public’s trust in government and leave behind us the scandal everyone has been hearing about in recent months.

Together, and together as well with the action plan and the federal accountability act, they will enhance accountability. This will enable us to institute a culture of accountability that will forever change the way in which business is done here in Ottawa. It will no longer be possible to influence politicians through large political donations. Lobbying will be done openly and in an ethical way. The prohibition for five years on the exercise of political influence will be a way to ensure that no organization is advantaged in comparison with others. Whistleblowers will know that not only are they protected but their vigilance is appreciated. Officers of Parliament will also have the tools they need to better hold the government to account.

These measures and those in the bill are necessary to restore trust in parliamentary institutions and government. Our goal is to ensure that the government embodies the best of what Canada has to offer Canadians.

This entire process has to do with accountability. It is what the Prime Minister asked for. Most of all, it is what Canadians asked for in the last election. Our legislative committee was up to the task. It carefully vetted legislation to raise the ethical standard to which politicians and their senior officials must adhere.

By increasing the extent to which everyone is accountable, the federal accountability act will restore Canadians’ trust in their government and ensure that it works better for all Canadians.

We promised that this would be the first bill we brought before the House of Commons. Our Prime Minister and our government have kept their word, and this evening, we are going to deliver this first bill on accountability. When it comes into force, this bill will improve transparency and accountability, for the benefit of all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have had the opportunity to hear the Minister of Labour talk about accountable government. He told us about the elements of the bill and explained why this bill would make the government more accountable, would strengthen accountability.

I would like the minister to explain why one of the first things the leader of this government, who claims to be accountable, did was appoint an unelected person to the Senate and give him a portfolio that requires the greatest degree of accountability not only because of the budget it handles, but because of its mandate and its impact on good governance, transparency and so on. Is there a contradiction in that? I would like the minister to comment on this.

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Jonquière—Alma, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in response to my colleague's comments, I would like to say that the Prime Minister made an excellent decision. It is important for the Montreal region to have a representative who can defend its interests and who can also carry out an important responsibility in Parliament.

Our colleague was appointed to the Senate. He himself made a very clear promise to Montrealers that he will step down as a senator as soon as the next election is announced and run for office. It seems to me this is not only a very responsible thing to do, but also very useful for stakeholders in the Montreal region.

I should add that we are not well represented in Quebec. We are only ten or so. We have to send a clear message that we want representation in each one of the province's large regions.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to my Conservative colleague, the member for Jonquière—Alma. I spent a good deal of time in his area, which I appreciated very much, although I am sorry to say that it did not perfect my French.

I know that he has only fairly recently returned to the House, but he will know that those who are now his Conservative colleagues have talked and talked about how the ultimate accountability for any member of Parliament is to one's constituents.

We now have the federal accountability act before us with, I say without reservation, a good many important measures and improvements in accountability. I think one would have to say that it is a fairly major overhaul, one much improved by a good many amendments that my colleague from Winnipeg Centre was able to gain cooperation to introduce as well.

Regrettably, one of the things that is missing, sadly, is any dealing whatsoever with the phenomenon of floor crossing, which is in many ways the ultimate thumbing of one's nose by individual members and political parties at that notion of accountability to one's constituents.

The member will know that people were outraged not just in the particular riding involved but right across this country, outraged at the notion that someone who ran for one political party and constantly trashed the party that became government on election day simply crossed the floor and decided to join the so-called winners almost immediately following the election.

Would the hon. minister not agree that one of the very great omissions in the new so-called accountability legislation that we are now debating is the complete failure to deal in any way whatsoever with the issue of accountability to one's constituents in relation to floor crossing activity?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The time available to the minister is up, but I am going to give him a little more so that he can answer this question.