Debates of June 21st, 2006

Federal Accountability Act

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I sat on the committee where the Prime Minister's nominee for chair of the commission was so-called questioned by the committee. I can say that it was the most disgusting and reprehensible witch hunt that I ever saw in my entire life. Members of the hon. member's party led the charge in eviscerating a respected, successful and proud Canadian.

This American style witch hunt was a disgrace to Parliament. Why on earth would the Prime Minister put another proud, respected Canadian through that kind of repugnant process? I think the Prime Minister is quite right not to have another solid person put through the kind of disgusting rigmarole that the member's party and others put him through.

Far from being arrogant, the Prime Minister is protecting other good Canadians from this kind of partisan attack for no good reason other than to somehow diminish what the Prime Minister is trying to do. To be part of demeaning a process and then criticizing someone else for the actions of the member's party is reprehensible.

I wonder how the member can possibly defend that kind of witch hunting and bigotry that was demonstrated in that committee against a fine Canadian.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this will be really easy. It is such hypocrisy to hear that from the member for Calgary—Nose Hill. In the last Parliament her party led the charge against Glen Murray and did exactly the same thing to him. Now she stands in the House and accuses us of witch hunts and American style politics, which is really interesting coming from the Conservative Party.

It is not me talking when I say that Mr. Morgan did not meet the criteria as the person to head up that commission. I am quoting from a really radical magazine, the Canadian Business magazine of May 22 to June 4. This is a two page article and a commentary on Mr. Morgan. We hear from the Conservatives repeatedly about how this person is such a great person.

I know I do not have enough time to read the whole article but it goes through incident after incident that Mr. Morgan was involved with in the corporate world; how he destroyed ecosystems; his attack on Kyoto; his attack in Ecuador on a whole ecosystem. He destroyed a whole ecosystem.

The company he headed up in Colorado was fined more money in one year than all the other company fines for 15 years before that. That is the kind of person the Conservatives feel is a paragon of virtue who should be heading up our public appointments process. It is a joke and it is the height of hypocrisy for the government and the member for Calgary—Nose Hill to suggest otherwise.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member for Windsor—Tecumseh has brought a real sense of moderation to many of our discussions in the House and I appreciate his remarks on the accountability act.

Floor crossing is the one area that we have not really talked about tonight and it is something that has affected people across parties, certainly governing parties over the years, and it is something that always creates a discomfort.

We had a chance to deal with this in the accountability act. The Liberal opposition put forward a suggestion on floor crossing. Because it can involve such a range of possibilities, including time from the election to the time when the member changes parties, to a member sitting as an independent, to a member having a serious ideological or principled disagreement with his party or its leader, we put forward a suggestion that would allow each situation to be judged by the constituents who elected that member. It would be a limited recall system where a petition could be called within 30 days and then 60 days to canvas 50% plus 1 of the people who actually voted but not the voter's list because that can change over time.

We thought that was a way that was fair to the MP because the MP could go back directly to his constituents and make a case to those people to whom he or she is most responsible.

I appreciate that the NDP put forward a private member's bill last year but I voted against it. I felt it was too all-encompassing and could not take into account the range of circumstances. I thought that a much more focused way that could put the MP in front of his or her own constituents and make the case and have a limited recall might be a sensible way forward.

That was ruled out of order by the chair of the C-2 committee--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Order, please. Speaking of order, I cannot tell the member that his time is up if he never looks at the chair, but the time for questions and comments expired quite a while ago, but I will give the member for Windsor--Tecumseh a minute to respond to the member's query.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Vancouver Quadra must have missed part of my speech because I spent a good deal of time on floor crossing and being highly critical of the member for Vancouver Kingsway and his conduct and this government allowing it to go ahead.

I am aware of the amendments that were brought forward. It gives me an opportunity to attack the Liberal Party members for attacking our member for Winnipeg Centre. They actually put out a press release saying that he had not dealt with it and in fact had voted against the floor crossing amendment. He complained about it. They did it a second time.

The member for Winnipeg Centre, who was representing our party on that committee, made it clear that we were strongly in favour of legislation that would prohibit, once and for all, floor crossings, not the representation that was made by the Liberal Party members in their personal attack on him.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for Scarborough—Rouge River.

I want to say straight off that I do not agree with Bill C-2, which is being debated at third reading tonight, and the fate of which, if I understand correctly, has already been decided. When time is up, it will be declared passed on division. I therefore want to put my opposition to this bill on the record.

There are too many complications and too many provisions that have not gelled sufficiently and have not been given enough thought. Too many problems may arise out of this bill, if it were somehow to be passed in the other chamber as it now stands.

Let us hope that those in the other chamber will have the time they need, and the will, which they certainly have, to fine-tune the bill, to fix it and improve it, and that the government will allow them the time they need to do that.

I will mention some of the reasons why I am opposed to this bill. I may have a chance, in the 10 minutes I am allotted, to explain some of them in more detail.

First, there is the question of post-employment restrictions. I believe that the period specified, five years, is unreasonably long. That is one of the reasons I do not support this bill.

I know that there was a brief discussion tonight about how returning officers will be selected. I had an opportunity to appear before the standing committee, I talked about this, and I will come back to it.

There is also the question of the contribution limit that Canadians will now be subject to.

There is the question of the Access to Information Act, which has not been resolved at all. On the contrary, we seem to be going off in the opposite direction from where we should be going.

There is the entire question, which was referred to tonight, of the effect of this bill on the public service and the inflexibility that will result.

There is also the entire question of the omnibus nature of the bill. This often means that some of our colleagues try to take advantage of the situation and introduce amendments to other bills. There have been at least two examples in this case. One well-intentioned colleague—I am not questioning his intentions—wanted to change the structure of the National Capital Commission, without any discussion on that subject having taken place.

Another colleague also wanted to introduce the idea of switching parties into the bill, for a member to be able to cross the floor.

I would have been against this bill, if the virtually totalitarian big brotherism of the provision that public servants who inform on other public servants would be paid $1,000 had not been deleted. In that case, the committee had the wisdom to delete that clause of this omnibus bill before us.

There is also the entire question of the general climate of the debate on this bill. This has been a cause of extreme concern for me, and this is where I will begin.

It is very easy to use a broad brush when you want to tar as widely as possible on the whole question of corruption. The government says that this is the main reason for this bill. Forgive me if I doubt that rationale. Forgive me for thinking that in some cases, there are partisan motives behind the government’s decision to concoct this bill, which is really a crazy quilt, a patchwork of pieces that clash with each other, provisions that will complicate everyone’s life without necessarily achieving the intended objectives.

The Bloc Québécois said that this bill would do nothing to prevent future scandal. I hope the Bloc is wrong, but I am not sure it is. I hope it is wrong. If another scandal were to surface during the tenure of my colleagues opposite, for whom I have great respect, the temptation to use that same broad brush would be very strong. Then all of Parliament would be sullied.

When they were in opposition, I often asked my colleagues across the way—who are now in government—to be careful with their comments and circumspect in their accusations and their tendency to wantonly and unfairly cast aspersions on all and sundry.

I hope that the tables have not turned.

As I said, it would probably be very tempting for members on this side of the House to do the same thing. Of course, they are the ones who would suffer, along with the rest of Parliament. We must therefore take great care not to be motivated solely by partisanship when discussing public policy. We must consider the common good and good governance.

This is why I will vote, or rather, would have voted against the bill, because we know the vote has essentially been carried on division. I guess that makes me a dissident.

The five years that is being required is far too long. If the government insists that certain persons will not be able to work in their field for five years, we should perhaps consider the costs this will incur. It could well be that we are obliged to issue severance pay for two years, two and a half years or three years. That has not been provided for.

Take the case of Elizabeth Roscoe. I do not know her. I met her only once or twice at society parties. This lady is being denied the chance to work for five years in her field, when she served the Prime Minister for two weeks during a transition period. It is unacceptable that the rules should have been changed retroactively. A Parliament should never legislate retroactively, and in this case we seem to be doing that. I am opposed to it.

It is the same thing for returning officers. I know that my colleagues are listening to me on the other side and on this side. When I appeared before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, I said that the way that returning officers were chosen had to be improved. But I also said that we had to be very prudent about what was proposed. If we give an authority the ability to choose certain people and to dismiss them from their service, we will likely be asking ourselves questions about the governance model, that is, whether it is the right one.

This is what the bill seems to be proposing. So I must necessarily stand in opposition to it. I am hesitant. I have doubts about the wisdom of this. Maybe I am wrong. I hope I am, but Parliament will have to be very vigilant about this situation.

The issue of contribution limits is probably another shocker. There is an incongruity here in the discourse of the party opposite. On the one hand, when the Prime Minister was with the National Citizens Coalition, he fought in court. He appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada to affirm the right of individuals to contribute as much as they wanted. If this bill were adopted, I would be subject to a limit of $1,000. However, any company or individual could contribute, in the riding I have the honour to represent, over $3,000, or $150,000 at the national level. In fact, third parties are not subject to the same limits. I believe that this is not only unfair, but probably unconstitutional. I would like this measure to be confirmed and tested before the courts, because in my opinion, what we have before us at the moment is pure partisanship, a purely partisan attempt unfortunately supported by the New Democrats, as regards its coming into force as soon as the bill receives royal assent.

Those are two of the reasons. There is also the whole issue of access to information. The Information Commissioner issued a special report on this matter. He wondered how it was that the government, which had said it would be going in the opposite direction, was tabling a dozen measures that made access to information more difficult.

Given this whole list of measures, I find myself obliged to oppose this bill. I repeat that I sincerely hope that the other chamber takes the necessary time and has the necessary will to correct these shortcomings. I also hope that when this bill comes back to us, we have an opportunity to do likewise in this House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the presentation by the member for Ottawa—Vanier. I am surprised at the lack of recognition that MPs in general have received in the past few years, mainly because of the 13 years the Liberal Party spent in power.

The Bloc Québécois sees gaps and shortcomings in the current bill. It is certainly not perfect. Nevertheless, it seems to me that it can help us gain a little more recognition from the public, whom we would like to convince of our legitimacy and the importance of representing them here in Parliament.

I would like to ask the member for Ottawa—Vanier whether he thinks it is worthwhile at least to take this opportunity to improve the situation. Regardless of what people may think about the responsibilities of the previous government, he could demonstrate his good faith while he is in opposition and show that there is hope of improvement in the years to come.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, once we have discussed it, the hon. member will not question my good faith.

That is not the issue. I am now a member of the official opposition. My role is to oppose what the government proposes, as constructively as possible. I must question, go beyond what is being presented, see if there are any contradictions and see if there are better, more effective ways of doing things.

First, the bill before us is an omnibus bill. That in and of itself should have rung a bell. For the past 30 or 40 years opinions have been expressed in this House on omnibus bills and their nature. I get the feeling that some of these opinions have not changed.

There are artificial delays. There is absolutely no reason, expect for the government's desire to say all summer long that it did this or that, to do this now. Given the complexity of this bill—a complexity the members opposite themselves have acknowledged—we should have taken the time needed to do this right. Instead, the committee sat from dawn to dusk for two weeks and worked for six weeks. That is what I am opposed to. I am somewhat opposed to the content, but also to how we arrived at it. Again, I hope the other place will take the time it needs to come up with a better product than we are coming up with tonight.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question will be quite brief.

I would simply like the hon. member to tell us what he thinks of the fact that comprehensive reform of the Access to Information Act is being postponed until later.

Could he tell hon. members what he thinks of this aspect in particular? Is he against this inaction, this refusal to act—for that is what it is—when the government had an opportunity with this bill?

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that this government promised the opposite during the election campaign.

The Information Commissioner said on more than one occasion that he wanted certain things done. The government across the floor, that is, the Conservative government, promised to do them, but it is not. We might ask ourselves certain questions. That is what the commissioner is doing.

What is disappointing about this debate is the NDP's position. I must admit, they put up a good fight to improve access to information. The result was capitulation. They capitulated and say that they achieved some amendments. These few trivial amendments essentially allowed them to save face. The bill, in relation to access to information, is the opposite of what it should be, even with NDP support.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are dealing here late tonight with an interesting bill. It looks like we will be able to pass it before the summer. The bill proposes a lot of changes to the conflict of interest rules and is generally framed as a fix to some of the accountability mechanisms which we have in the federal government.

The bill includes provisions dealing with whistleblowing. I see those provisions recycling a previously introduced bill in the House. There are new lines of financial reporting from departments, a few changes to the political contribution rules, minor changes to the conflict of interest rules, and some new post-employment provisions for public office holders which now involve not just cabinet ministers but senior civil servants a little further down the pecking order.

Most of us see this as fixing something or providing a better framework of accountability. That is the general intention, but it struck me that as the bill was introduced and the lead-up to it, there were an awful lot of allegations coming from the Conservative opposition members then, and even in government now I still hear these allegations. They use the word “corruption”.

I thought I would do some research and see if I could figure out why they were using these words. I was also curious why from time to time the Speaker would not have thought it a matter of some concern that many words of that nature were being thrown about in the House and why some of them were not found to be unparliamentary. That never happened, and my party and I took the verbal blows.

I wanted to do some research to find out why the Conservatives, and perhaps the NDP, were so concerned about corruption. I started going back in time. I was looking to see if there have been any members of Parliament charged or convicted of fraud or corruption offences. I have been here about 18 years, and you have been here longer, Mr. Speaker. I have looked and I cannot find any Liberals on the list.

Let us admit right off the bat that there have been members on both sides of the House who have encountered personal problems, problems with relationships, and problems with alcohol. I am not talking about those kinds of problems here in terms of corruption. These are personal issues and they sometimes percolate up in the life of a member from anywhere in Canada, and those things have been dealt with reasonably well by the House.

I want to talk about real Criminal Code fraud and corruption. I have found the last six individuals who were charged and convicted. I am just going to go through it. I am a little uncomfortable doing it, but these are the individuals who have been charged and convicted.

The first one is a Mr. Gravel. He was convicted on February 13, 1989 of 15 counts of influence peddling and bribery. He was fined $50,000 and jailed. He was a member of the Conservatives.

The next one is a Mr. Grisé, and son of a gun if he was not also a Conservative. He was convicted in May 1989. There were 13 counts of fraud and influence peddling. He resigned from the House of Commons. He was fined $20,000 and served a day in jail. He was a Conservative.

Here is another one. This is Mrs. Jacques. Son of a gun, she was a Conservative. She was convicted on October 13, 1989 of two counts of fraud, one count of conspiracy, and one count of influence peddling. She was sentenced to two years less a day, conditional sentence, plus community service. She was a Conservative.

There is another one. This is the fourth one on my list that I have found. This was Mr. Desrosiers. He was a Conservative as well. He was convicted in 1990 of fraud. In exchange for having all of the other charges dropped, he was fined and given probation for one year.

I kept on with my research and then found number five. This was Mr. Fontaine, also a Conservative. There are an awful lot of Conservatives here. He was convicted in 1999. He pleaded guilty to three counts of fraud. Before the trial was to begin, he was sentenced to a $15,000 fine, and remained in the House while his case went through the system.

That is an awful lot of Conservatives and it is the Conservative Party that is alleging a whole lot of corruption.

Another one was Mr. Stupich, a New Democratic Party member of the House of Commons. He was convicted of fraud and contravening the gaming provisions of the Criminal Code. That was called “bingogate”.

I looked and still I could not find a Liberal member of Parliament who had been convicted, let alone charged, with any corruption offence. I could only find a whole list of Conservatives.

I was very disappointed, if I could put it that way, to hear all of these allegations over the last two or three years coming from Conservatives in the House. It seems to me that the Conservatives and perhaps even the NDP must have been drinking their own bath water. Maybe they were so concerned about corruption because they had it in their own benches. The Conservatives really understood corruption because it was found in their own benches here.

I am still looking for a case involving a Liberal and I cannot find one, no cabinet ministers and no backbenchers involved in fraud. Yet, some members of this place have the audacity to get up and allege that my party and my colleagues over here are somehow corrupt, when it is the Conservative Party that has sown the seeds of corruption and has the convictions.

There is a whole list of charges, not convictions. The convictions were overturned on appeal. I could go through that list, but I am not going to because I do not think it is fair to the individuals. A lot of the charges have been overturned or not proceeded with. I have done my research and I can say they were all Conservatives as well.

I am not saying that every Liberal on this side of the House is perfect, but what I am saying is that if people are going to allege corruption, they should look in their own house first. I do not think that was done. I wanted to put that on the record.

The last thing I want to say is not about corruption at all. It is about the contribution limits contained in the federal accountability act, the act that was generated because the Conservatives thought the Liberals were so corrupt, which turns out not to be true.

I do not know how it is all going to work out, but there is a contribution limit in the bill now of $1,000 per person. My experience in the political system now is that some members of political parties will, in the ordinary course of a year, by following through all the political activity that goes on, including provincial, federal, regional or leadership conventions, will actually end up spending convention fees of a significant amount, between $500 and $1,000.

If they are spending that kind of money participating in ordinary political activity, will they have any room to make an actual cash donation to the party for an electoral purpose? I am suggesting that they may not. I think it is unfair that those who participate a whole lot in the political process with their parties will not have any contribution room when it comes to donating at the time of an election to a candidate or party.

I do not think that is fair. I think that is inequitable. I wish that the bill did not have that limit. I wish the bill had a provision that allowed for a higher limit in circumstances such as I have described.

I thank the House for letting me get through those remarks without a whole lot of cat calling. I guess the House is in a better mood tonight.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the speech by the hon. member, but I do have to disagree with him on a number of points that he made.

I will reference the Toronto Port Authority scandal as just one of the many. He talked about the sponsorship scandal and the scandal involving André Ouellet. There are many scandals that we could bring forward, but the Toronto Port Authority, and the hon. member's constituency is part of the region of greater Toronto, involved the unlegislated, illegal transfer of funds to the Toronto Port Authority of moneys that have gone now to the Toronto Port Authority to subsidize a port authority that should not have received those funds in the first place.

During the entire period over the fall we were endeavouring to get to the bottom of that transfer of money, $35 million. It just disappeared and we have yet to find out what happened to those funds.

I would disagree with the hon. member that somehow there is a cleanliness throughout the Liberal Party operations meaning there is no taint resulting from any of these scandals. Clearly, here is an area where moneys were transferred. Moneys were transferred against the statutes that exist. Yet there was no way of finding out what happened to those funds.

Now there is an inquiry in place. Hopefully, within a few months we will find out what happened to those moneys, but these were appointees made by the Liberal Party.

I have not finished yet. I appreciate the hon. member getting up with such alacrity.

Here is another clear case where there should have been transparency. Canadians should have been aware and should have been told quite openly what happened to those funds and this new Parliament is now having to dig in to find out what happened to those moneys.

Those types of issues are what led to the result that we saw at the end of January, which led to more Conservatives being elected, certainly, but many more New Democrats as well being elected with the idea that we would be cleaning up Parliament and restoring the confidence of Canadians in what is happening here in Ottawa in the use of public moneys.

I cite that as an example and I would be very interested in hearing the response of the hon. member.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

The hon. member could hear from me a lot quicker if he would cap his question, Mr. Speaker.

I feel badly for the hon. member. I do not know why this is, but he seems to be incapable of distinguishing between the members of Parliament in this place and the party for which we sit here.

He has referred to an agency of government, which has nothing to do with the Liberal Party of Canada or the Liberal government. It is simply a statutory agency of the government, of which there are hundreds. I have no idea why he would ask me, as a Liberal member of Parliament, to account for something that happened in a harbour commission or in the Halifax disaster commission.

As a Liberal member anyway, certainly as a parliamentarian, I have about the same amount of career and occupational obligation to account to our electors for these moneys, but I was talking to the House about charges and convictions of members of the House of Commons, members of the Conservative Party and members of the New Democratic Party.

I am not talking about the rest of the activities that go on generally in the Canadian population. If he cannot figure that out, we will have a problem discussing public accountability around here.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the member for Scarborough—Rouge River a brief question. I listened to his speech and I think I got the point that he was making, which is that he found it offensive for the word “corruption“ to be used again and again in relation to the incredible scandals that have been revealed to Canadians over the last few years, but it seems to me that he has entirely missed the point.

First, the reason why “corruption” has come to the lips of so many people is that finally the cloak of secrecy around a lot of activities has been lifted. The result is that brought to the light of day have been a lot of very unacceptable practices. Unless the member has failed to knock on any doors and talk to electors, he has to know that this has caused a lot of concern among Canadians, to the point where trust in political processes is at its lowest ebb in Canadian history.

Does the member not understand that the whole point of the federal accountability act now before us in its final stages of being debated is to try to lift that veil of secrecy, to bring to the light of day what kinds of practices go on and that, in an attempt to prevent the kinds of corrupt practices that have been revealed and have shocked Canadians, we actually are going to clean up our act and be seen as restoring public confidence?

If the member does not understand where that is coming from, I suppose I understand now why he is voting against the bill.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member should be careful before she decides how I am going to vote. She should wait to see how one votes.

However, the point I am making is that if there is corruption in the public service, if there are people stealing from government, the accountability act may well assist with that, but there is nothing in this accountability act which would prevent or reduce the likelihood of another Conservative or NDP member of Parliament defrauding this place and the taxpayers. There is nothing in the accountability act which would address patent overt fraud by members of Parliament. The act does not even try to do it. That is my point.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an inordinate pleasure for me to be able to speak at such a late hour. This shows how much we want better rules under which political parties and a parliamentary system can really come into their own and on which a democracy can be based. Nothing is perfect, but these rules will certainly help.

Not so very long ago, I was a teacher in Franco-Ontarian and Franco-Saskatchewanian circles. I taught ethics and philosophy. When I think of all that has happened over the last few years in Quebec and Canada, when I see that the Gomery commission had to be established because of all the corruption that was in the air, prompting a feeling of resentment in the public toward politics, I said to myself that it was time to set things straight.

The word “democracy” is derived from dêmos and cratia; dêmos meaning people and cratia power. It means, therefore, power to the people. When we speak of ethics, we mean what is good, and the trust that people must have in the institutions that govern us in a democracy.

We should remember one basic thing. Bill C-2 did not happen by chance but as a result of a situation that Canadian federalism was keeping quiet but that the Gomery commission fortunately exposed. They were trying to stamp out Quebeckers’ pride through fraudulent means. The Guités, Corriveaus, Gosselins, Braults and Gaglianos created a situation where money was given to agencies to stamp out the idea that Quebeckers are a proud and noble people who have a right to their sovereignist aspirations.

We should also remember Mr. Guité’s statement before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, or at the Gomery commission, where he spoke about war with the separatists—a term often used by federalists—these big bad wolves. It was in the name of this war that things went as far as they did.

One of the basic principles of democracy is that there are opposing and different ideas, but that in a democratic forum like the Parliament of Canada, these ideas can co-exist.

For example, currently in Quebec, 68% of the federal members are sovereignists. They are in the Bloc Québécois. We were legitimately elected by the people of Quebec.

I will give an illuminating example where the ignominy of the Liberal Party made it possible for some pretty ugly things to happen. There is still much to investigate in this regard. I am referring to Édith Gendron, a public servant whom I know very well. She was fired because she was the president of an organization called “Le Québec, un pays!” She was returned to her job one year and ten months later thanks to the staff relations board tribunal. It turned out that this public servant had a right to her political views outside of working hours. On the job, all that could be said of her was that she was an excellent federal public servant. In the end, the idea of stamping out Quebeckers’ pride went beyond all bounds.

I should point out that three political parties still supported this public servant. Ed Broadbent, who was the member for Ottawa Centre, supported the sovereignist Édith Gendron. The current member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington supported Édith Gendron on March 25, 2004. Even though he did not share her views, he maintained that she had a right to her opinions. In addition, the current member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel supported this public servant on behalf of the Bloc Québécois.

It is an attempt to crush Quebeckers' pride. The federal cabinet will go to Quebec City a day from now on the occasion of Quebec's national holiday, but it does not recognize the nation of Quebec. This entire idea of nationalism implies that Canada has the right to its nationhood, that the first nations have the right to their nationhood and that Acadians are entitled to their nationhood. I recognize them even though the nation of Quebec is not recognized in the House of Commons of a G-8 nation, a so-called democratic nation. At any event, we do not need this institution of Canada to know that we are a people and that we are proud of it.

The sponsorship scandal was a disgusting example of how the money of Canadians and Quebeckers was used to try to deceive Quebeckers. We are not immune to such a situation. I know that at least one member from Saskatchewan remembers that at least 15 ministers in Grant Devine's government went to court on charges of corruption. That was the Conservative Party of Saskatchewan. That party was forced by a moratorium to disappear. There is no longer a Conservative Party in Saskatchewan. It did away with itself and created, together with the area Liberals, the Saskatchewan Party, a type of Reform Party of the era. Today, it is the official opposition to the NDP in Saskatchewan.

Corruption can taint the Conservatives, the Liberals, the NDP or the Bloc Québécois. We must protect ourselves from it. Legislation, whether omnibus or more specific, protects us from such situations. We must be on our guard. Senator Bernston was forced to resign, as he was the deputy premier of Saskatchewan at the time. However, he tried to hide behind his senatorial robes in order not to be brought to justice. Fortunately, in 2001, the pressure was so great that he resigned. He too had to face the music.

Laws are needed. I am also thinking of another aspect that I will not discuss in detail. My NDP friends were talking about crossing the floor, that is, leaving one party to join another. They should be careful, or maybe they should start reviewing recent history. A former premier of British Columbia was a minister in the previous government and is still a Liberal member to this day. Bob Rae, Ontario's only NDP premier, is running in the federal Liberal leadership race. Chris Axworthy, once the member for Saskatoon—Clark's Crossing, was a member of the NDP here. He ran in the leadership race and lost to Mr. Calvert, then became Saskatchewan's Minister of Finance as a New Democrat. Yet in 2004 and 2006, he ran under the Liberal Party of Canada banner. One would be justified in wondering whether the NDP is just the farm team for the Liberals. As for crossing the floor, you have to be aware of your own recent history and not start pointing fingers until you know your own party's history.

That said, in light of my statements, the Bloc Québécois will support this bill. The bill is not perfect, but it is important. As part of our support, we have to shine some light on a few very important things. This bill has the advantage of ensuring that returning officers will no longer simply be appointed, but will be selected according to merit criteria. The same goes for the registrar of lobbyists. Some things have been brought to light in this regard as well. There is also the whole issue of giving the Auditor General more power to ensure that she can keep an eye on how the government spends taxpayer dollars contributed by Canadians and Quebeckers. This money must be spent effectively and honestly.

The goal is to ensure that every person who goes to work every day and pays income tax to the government can have honest accountability.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the Bloc member's speech and comments, particularly about members who are elected under a certain political party's banner and then cross the floor of the House to sit as independents or to join the ranks of another political party, which could even include a newly created party.

In Canada's recent history, the largest group of members to cross the floor was made up of a number of Progressive Conservative MPs, who had been elected in Quebec as such. They crossed the floor to become members of the Bloc.

I was very glad that the Liberal member for Vancouver Quadra introduced an amendment to Bill C-2. This amendment would have resolved this problem by creating a process through which voters who had voted for a member who then crossed the floor could have forced a byelection. Unfortunately, the chair of the committee decided that the amendment was out of order. In committee, I was happy to see the two Bloc members vote with Liberal members, agreeing that the committee chair's decision was unjustified.

I would like to know what this member thinks of these former colleagues who were elected under the banner of the Progressive Conservatives, but then crossed the floor of the House to become Bloc members.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think of GIlles Rocheleau, who was a member of the Liberal Party of Canada and was the mayor of Hull at one point. He was also a minister in the government of Robert Bourassa. He was here. He had come to meet John Turner and had supported the Liberal Government of Canada. He was one of the founders of the Bloc Québécois.

I think also of the current member for Outremont, who was a Bloc Québécois member and founder and who returned to the Liberal Party. I do not know whether my hon. colleague is looking to correct the situation, but that would be a good place to start.

I think of my colleague from Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, who has been here since the inception of the Bloc Québécois. If I remember correctly, there was the Conservative Reform Alliance Party. Under Preston Manning, a portion of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada became the Reform Party, which became the Canadian Alliance, which did away with the Progressive Conservative Party and created what we have today, the Conservative Party.

The same thing happened with the New Democrats. I think of Robert Toupin, who, during the Mulroney era, left the Progressive Conservative Party to become a New Democrat. Mr. Broadbent welcomed him with open arms. Ms. Venne left the Progressive Conservative Party to join the Bloc Québécois. This type of situation has occurred in the history of Canada and even in the history of Quebec. People in the Union nationale have become members of the Quebec Liberal Party. Think of René Lévesque, who was elected to office representing the Quebec Liberal Party. Think about other members like Gilles Grégoire of the Social Credit Party, who was one of the founding members of the Parti Québécois.

When people share ideologies, they want to form a new political party together. Society evolves. These people have the right to evolve. Some would say “regress”, but that is a matter of opinion. The fundamental basis of a democracy is that all of us here are elected by citizens who want us to represent their riding. The vast majority of us represent a political party. There can also be independent members. We need to think about what a member of Parliament is. This is how we need to see the situation.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the NDP in support of this important legislation.

We owe a real debt of gratitude to Ed Broadbent who was the original architect of fundamentally transforming our federal legislation so we could look at accountability and look at the starting to renew the public's confidence in federal institutions. Mr. Broadbent, the former member of Parliament for Ottawa Centre and before that for Oshawa, put forward his points almost a year ago. He made it very clear how important it was to renew Canadians' trust and confidence in our federal institutions. It is for this reason that we owe such a debt of gratitude to Ed Broadbent.

Mr. Broadbent talked about establishing democratic accountability for members of Parliament. He talked about fixed election dates, a very important component that the NDP has pushed for some time. He also talked about establishing transparent leadership contests, again a very important component of establishing public trust from coast to coast to coast. Mr. Broadbent talked about electoral reform, about establishing the principle that a vote is worth a vote in the sense that the House should really represent how Canadians voted in a national election.

The NDP traditionally has been under-represented in the House. If we had the membership proportional to the voting support that we received across the country, we would have 60 members of Parliament voting for progressive legislation. The only reason we do not have 60 members of Parliament is because we do not have electoral reform. Though we play an important role, we would play an even more important role with the establishment of electoral reform. This is not present in the current legislation, but I will come back to that in a moment.

Mr. Broadbent also talked about ending unregulated lobbying and establishing an ethical appointment procedure. In his years in the House, Mr. Broadbent spoke very passionately about establishing access to information. This is really the essence of accountability and responsibility in federal institutions. It is about the right of Canadians to know what is going on, to have access to information that establishes transparency around our public institutions. I will come back to this important component of the Broadbent plan.

Why did he propose this? It is obvious that Canadians felt increasingly concerned about what transpired over the last few years in areas of our federal institutions. They saw the sponsorship scandal. They saw the scandal around Liberal political appointments. As I mentioned earlier in a question to a member of the Liberal Party, we had concerns about the Toronto Port Authority and the transfer of illegal funds and moneys that were lost. We have never been able to find out exactly how those funds were used. These kinds of scandals eroded public confidence in what was happening in Ottawa. Those kinds of scandals established the principle among Canadians that they had to take back Parliament.

It is important to note that not only were the various scandals coming forward and Canadians were becoming aware of the misuse of taxpayer money, but Transparency International, an independent NGO that rates countries according to the transparency and the accountability of their various public administrations, reported that Canada came from being a decade ago one of the top and most transparent, most accountable, cleanest governments in the world to falling to an also-ran.

It was not just the accumulation of scandals, it was also the fact that independent, impartial evaluations of public administration clearly indicated that Canadians were also getting haphazard administration, not transparent, with various levels of corruption and various levels of scandal. That is something we have to rebuild.

I believe that is why Canadians on January 23 voted to elect more Conservatives to the House, but also voted to elect many more new democrats. They voted to get many more New Democrats in as an effective watchdog to ensure that we could move forward on accountability legislation.

What happened? A bill was introduced. The NDP said it was in favour of it in principle, but it also said very clearly that it wanted to improve this bill. What Mr. Broadbent presented here in Ottawa almost a year ago went quite far.

What did we do? We worked for months. The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre and the new member for Ottawa Centre also worked hard. We made improvements to the bill as presented at first. We established a new Public Appointments Commission. We had proposed that for a long time in order to make favouritism illegal, to create a process based on merit and to verify ministerial appointments. We established a new, stricter rule to put an end to the practice of revolving doors between lobbyists and the upper levels of government.

We also made some improvements to the Canadian access to information legislation to broaden the application of the legislation to all government institutions. That is an extremely important aspect. The NDP caucus was able to make progress during the weeks of study and work on this bill.

We also supported giving more teeth to some provisions of the Canada Elections Act, namely making the use of trusts illegal and bringing the ceiling for donations to political parties down to $1,000. This is an important principle. Money will no longer be able to buy an election. We also lowered the ceiling for donations to $1,000, which is something all Canadians can agree on.

We have also tightened the rules governing conflicts of interest and authorizing any Canadian citizen to file a complaint with the new conflict of interest and ethics commissioner. And through this legislation, we have protected the rights of the first nations.

The bill that came forward had holes. Subsequent to that we were able to make substantial improvements to the initial bill. These are not minor improvements. These are improvements that will help substantially.

That does not mean that the bill meets the vision that Mr. Broadbent set out almost a year ago. There are still areas where, very clearly, there are holes, most notably in the area of floor-crossing. The NDP will continue to work on the principle that a vote is worth that vote and that members, once elected on a political party, should they choose to change, they submit themselves to the will of the electorate.

We will continue to work for improvements in public accountability in the House and in federal institutions, but Bill C-2 represents a step forward from what we have seen in the past and we will support it because of that.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the member of the NDP. I apologize for not recalling off the top of my head the name of his riding, but I appreciated many of the comments he made.

I would like to point out that I have been listening to the debate on third reading. I believe I have listened to all of the speeches. When I was not seated in my place I was in the opposition lobby watching them on the television screen.

A point that virtually no member has raised is the issue of how the opposition members saved an important constitutional reality for members of the House of Commons and for the House of Commons itself, which is that under the original Bill C-2 presented by the Conservative government, it would have diminished and impeded constitutional autonomy of the House and its members. It was Liberal amendments and NDP amendments, put forward by myself and the member's colleague from Winnipeg Centre, which re-established the historical parliamentary constitutional authority of the House and its members.

The government members initially were opposed to that. It took a significant amount of arguing and a brief presented by the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel to convince them that those amendments should go through. I would like to hear what the member from the NDP has to say about that victory, because it was a historic victory.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Very clearly, Mr. Speaker, what we have seen is an initial bill that had flaws and holes and was not perfect by any means. Members of the opposition, working together, and indeed, members from all four corners of the House working together, have succeeded in substantially improving the legislation. That is our role as parliamentarians: to work to improve legislation.

I think what we have come up with is something that is substantially improved. It still falls far short of the Broadbent vision, but we can still, in all four corners of the House, in the interests of continuing accountability and building upon accountability, work on other issues like floor crossing.

Floor crossing is something that Canadians fundamentally disagree with. They do not agree that the member for Vancouver Kingsway can run for one political party and the next day decide he is going to be a representative for another political party. They fundamentally disagree with this. I have been in Vancouver Kingsway and have heard the outrage and frustration expressed. Unfortunately, it undermines the pretension of the Conservative government that it is indeed working for more accountability.

I hope that the amendments brought forward by the hon. member, the member for Winnipeg Centre and members from all four corners of the House to improve the initial flawed legislation can be continued. I hope we can move from here to dealing with other issues like floor crossing so Canadians can have confidence that when they vote for a candidate of a political party and that person decides to dramatically change that representation, he or she will go back to the voters to ensure that the voters have the final say about that representation.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to ask my colleague a question with regard to election financing. It has not been discussed very much lately, but there are improvements in the bill, in my opinion, in terms of restricting corporate and other donations, as well as the limits that I think will improve the availability of all individuals to be able to contribute in a fair way to politics.

I would like to have the member's comments with regard to capping the amount at $1,000 per individual and how that might better enhance our democracy by limiting the flow of cash that could be stuffed in at the last minute by special interests.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member from Windsor West asks a question about a pretty fundamental issue. Indeed, money should not be the preponderant influence in politics. Someone should not be able to donate $5,000, $10,000, $15,000, $20,000 or $30,000 to an election campaign.

We have made substantial improvements. We have eliminated corporation contributions. We still have to close those loopholes that might allow a corporate contribution to be routed through children to get around election legislation, as we unfortunately have seen in the leadership campaign.

What we need to do is ensure that all Canadians are on an even playing field. By limiting contributions to $1,000, what we are doing is ensuring just that. Candidates and political parties that have a wide degree of support, that go out there and work hard and get small contributions from hundreds of different sources, will be able to fund their campaigns.

Everybody is entitled to those same rules. Somebody who might have some wealthy contacts will not have an advantage. That is the essence of democracy: accessibility and a level playing field. I think the legislation goes a long way toward achieving that.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise here this evening to speak to Bill C-2, this historic piece of legislation that is reaching its final moments in debate in this House of Commons in the 39th Parliament. It is a bill that I think is very important to Canadians, as confidence in government is so desperately needed with regard to a democracy. When that is undermined, we have a situation where Canadians lose faith in that democracy. They stop and they disengage from the political process.

It happens on two fronts. There are those individuals who no longer even belong to campaigns or parties, or who are independents, and who pull away in terms of being part of a process of electing individuals and parties. Second, there are Canadian voters who become disengaged with the process and no longer believe their ballot has worth. A significant element is necessary for people to feel engaged and, more important, to participate in meaningful way to make decisions about how civil society is run.

Many democracies have faced these questions through a variety of different mechanisms, whether through war, corruption or some type of process change from one form of government to another. If we lose the faith based principles of engaging in civil society, in the government of a society, people no longer contribute in a meaningful way. That restricts the availability and also the ingenuity of society, because people no longer get engaged themselves in being candidates and leaders in society.

That is why Bill C-2 is very important. It starts to set the framework for this change, this cultural shift.

My colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster noted the good work of Mr. Ed Broadbent, the former member for Ottawa Centre, the former member for Oshawa and party leader of the New Democratic Party for many years, who came back to this chamber out of retirement to contribute to a change in electoral reform in Canada as well as ethical reform. He added a presence.

I think we have a legacy here today because of those efforts. I will always feel a debt of gratitude for that type of leadership. I know that people in my party and my colleagues here today will feel the same. It is important to note that Ed Broadbent did not have to do that. He was occupied with a whole bunch of different initiatives and matters that he was involved with internationally as well nationally. He had other personal matters that were very significant in his life. He came back to dedicate his time and his energy to help and to be part of a reformation process, which is so important.

I would like to read a quote from “Cleaning Up Politics. Demanding Changes in Ethics and Accountability”, Ed Broadbent's seven-point plan, which he published prior to his retirement. He 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.

I will come back to this later and touch upon this statement from his seven-point plan.

Progressing to where we are today, there is a quote from another person who was very much a fixture in accountability and in the application of legislation that would change and clean up politics, long before Bill C-2, and that is the member for Winnipeg Centre, who has done yeoman's work for us and for this country on this matter.

His paper in terms of the accountability act states:

It was the culture of secrecy that allowed corruption to flourish in Ottawa, but in a few short months we have advanced the cause of transparency dramatically.

I want to highlight briefly some of the accomplishments that we feel are very important to note in this legislation. It does not give us everything we want in terms of a bill. It falls short in several departments, but overall it is an excellent first step in cleaning up politics in Canada.

During the recent election many Canadians discussed the issue of corruption, scandal and a series of things, but at the end of the day, all those things aside, what they wanted to see was significant change in Ottawa. They wanted to see a real difference. They wanted to see all members come back to the House and restore the sense of pride that has been lost in the House of Commons. With that in mind, the former member for Ottawa Centre went about proposing legislation to change the bill.

The NDP members are very proud of our proposal for a new public appointments commission which would outlaw patronage, create a merit based process and audit appointments made by ministers. In the past it had always been assumed that “who you know in the PMO” will get a person a position or an appointment somewhere in the country, a job for which no other Canadian would have the opportunity to compete. This was the culture of entitlement that disengaged many Canadians and they felt very frustrated.

The appointments commission is a significant shift and having party leaders consulted is important because it adds a level of transparency and begins to pull back that veil on the concept of entitlement.

We are also proud of the proposal for stricter rules to stop the revolving door between lobbyists and senior levels of government. That is an important shift. The problem is that the Conservative Party has backtracked on this, with the war room being exempt from these measures. It is something that we were disappointed to see happen. The headline in the Globe and Mail today read, “Tories backtracking on accountability bill”, and it referred to that issue quite significantly.

It is disappointing because the issue of lobbyists and the revolving door is important for Canadians. They feel that others have access through money and resources and the ability to influence legislation at a higher level than they have. They worry that they do not have the same opportunities. This, unfortunately, does not go the full way but at least it is a start in the right direction.

There are some improvements to Canada's access to information laws, including broadening the act substantially to include all government institutions. We know a committee will be formed to get into greater detail with this. We were hoping to achieve more goals and more objectives. We did not get there at this particular point in time, but at least it is a change and a shift that is important to note.

As well, we are talking about strengthening parts of the Election Act, including outlawing the use of trust funds and lowering donation limits to $1,000. Another issue has been the trust funds and their relationship with candidates and members of Parliament who are able to sock away large sums of donations and moneys that they can use almost like a slush fund and carry on. Some members had them in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. These trust funds were used almost in an unfettered way to circumvent election laws and outperform and outmanoeuvre the legitimate democratic process, which is why we believe the elimination of trust funds is significant.

The second item is the $1,000 limit on donations. We did have some electoral reform in the form of Bill C-24 that restricted some donations and eliminated the major restrictions on corporations and unions. Now there will be outright elimination of that. The $1,000 limit is important because individuals will be able to participate on a more even level in terms of donations.

We hope we can plug up all the loopholes where there was in the past a practice of loans and a series of other circumventions of giving toward campaigns, whether they be for leadership or for individuals, because we believe the $1,000 limit is very important.

As well, we have a tightening of the conflict of interest rules that allow any Canadian to make complaints to a new conflict of interest and ethics commissioner. The protection of first nations rights is also within the act.

In conclusion, I would like to thank the former member for Ottawa Centre, Mr. Ed Broadbent, for all his hard work. Although not all of his ideas were included in the act, it is important to note that he actually developed the platform that has resulted in a significant change for all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member spoke about transparency and accountability with respect to the bill. I wonder if he knows that when we were in government, we introduced the comptroller general system and we put a large chunk of crown corporations under greater public scrutiny. I wonder if he would acknowledge that.

I also wonder if he would agree that this particular bill does not have anything to do with public accountability. It has to do with conduct. This is a conduct bill.

The Auditor General said very clearly that we do not need more layers of rules and regulations. There are enough rules and regulations. Failures did not occur because rules and regulations were flawed; problems happened because people did not follow the law.

There is nothing we can do to prevent an individual who wants to commit theft from committing theft. We have sufficient rules and regulations and when people do it, they are caught and prosecuted. The fact that people have been caught and are being prosecuted is a testimony to the laws that are already in existence.

I wonder if the hon. member would simply comment on the fact that the bill will put layers and layers of regulations on the public service and will cause gridlock in the public service. It will in fact drive good people away from the public service. Who in their right mind would want to join the public service with those kinds of rules and regulations? It will also damage or destroy the innovation that is absolutely essential for our public servants to do the extraordinary job they do day in and day out.