Mr. Speaker, I suppose it depends on how one defines innovation.
We could talk about crown corporations and how the member's government used crown corporations as political patronage paybacks.
I would point quite sincerely to the situation with David Dingwall where basically there was a circumvention of the Industry Canada rules with regard to payments for programs and services that were routed back to him. It led to a great controversy about our crown corporations.
Canadians understand that this law will bring greater accountability. If there is going to be a greater demand on the public service with regard to the bill, then it is the duty of Parliament to ensure that our public servants are supported quite strongly in carrying out this law.
The New Democrats have no problem with a strong and accountable public service if we provide fair rules. That is one of the reasons we believe in strong whistleblower legislation. One of the things missing in the bill is that whistleblowers who are students and researchers are not included. We would like to include them in the bill. It is a shame that the other parties did not agree with that.
We believe that the public service will be better served by the bill. It will also be less abused, because it seems that flunkies or bureaucrats related to the sponsorship scandal have been the problem, but we know there are political connections in this file. The bill is an improvement.
I do not disregard the member's comments with regard to adding other levels of work on our public service. It is an important point that probably should be talked about more.
It is incumbent upon us to provide those appropriate supports. If there is a failing of that system, once again it will be Parliament that will have to provide the necessary means to correct it. I believe that Canadians in general view this as accountability in Parliament and in the whole system. We have to deliver on that in terms of real results and not just pass an act that does not provide a fair system for all.