David McGuinty

[International Bridges and Tunnels Act, June 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's wide ranging remarks on consultation. I would like to ask a couple of pointed questions.

He and his colleague are asserting in the motion that there needs to be a reference back to the standing committee to reconsider clauses 7 and 24. First of all, could the member tell the House what is the state of consultation requirements today with respect to anything that the bill addresses? If he does not actually know what the state of consultation is today, how can he assert that it is deficient?

The second question I put to the member concerns his definition of consultation, which is an interesting one. I have not seen it ever reflected in a judicial opinion. I have not seen it in conducting consultation in over 40 national consultation processes in the last decade before I entered elected office.

The member talks about consultation and almost implies that consultation means a seat at the table, and not only a seat at the table but the party being compelled to attend, or that there has to be a manifestation of the views of that party that is going to be consulted in the outcome.

Consultation has always meant consulting. It does not mean necessarily that the parties being consulted are going to get their way. It does not mean that they are going to have to see their views ultimately reflected in the outcome. From whence does he derive his definition of consultation?

He has asserted here twice now that the previous government undermined the powers of Parliament. He has asserted that we expanded the discretionary powers for ministers over 13 years. Asserting something does not make it so. Where is the evidence for either of those claims?

[International Bridges and Tunnels Act, June 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, first, my views about consultation in a previous life and my views about consultation in this life remain unchanged. In fact, if we want to talk about environmental considerations, there are extremely onerous environmental assessment standards across the country, primarily provincial but some federal. My views on the need to achieve sustainable development in the way we pursue international bridges and tunnels remains unchanged.

Second, with respect to my colleague from North Vancouver who tabled the motion, I am afraid I was not a member of the committee at the time that motion was tabled. I did not have the privilege of hearing about it nor debating it, but I would remind the hon. member, if I understood his recollection of the motion, it had nothing whatsoever to do with international bridges and tunnels. We are debating international bridges and tunnels here today.

Third, with respect to what I said moments ago, I will repeat it for the record. It is incumbent upon those members of the New Democratic Party who are concerned about the consultation question to answer some fundamental questions that are more complex than simply saying that any city where a bridge or tunnel is located ought to be, should be or must be consulted. It is not that simple. This is not a simple business and it is incumbent upon the NDP and particularly on the private sector side to explain to the House and to private sector actors precisely what the impacts of their calls for change would be.

[International Bridges and Tunnels Act, June 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I do want to pick up on the theme of consultation because it is interesting to note this morning the extent to which it is driving a wedge between two parties which have formed an obvious partnership over the last several months together in the House, both of which have gone public now to explain to Canadians what that partnership means and why it is important for them.

But let me go to the specific question of consultation. I commend the NDP for raising the question of consultation. Our Liberal government was the government that transformed the relationship and the approach to other orders of government, particularly cities. We were the government that launched the cities deal. We were the government that launched infrastructure funding. We were the government that invested massively in public transit, in water systems and in waste systems.

We were the government that was brought down by the Bloc Québécois, the NDP and the Conservatives, and now we have a situation where a government that might have been perhaps more receptive to the notion of outreach to cities and provinces is now the official opposition. So first let me say that it is rich for the NDP members to not remind Canadians that they had and have some responsibility for putting into government a Conservative regime which, in the last election, was not endorsed by 37 mayors of the largest cities of this country.

However, given that we are talking about consultation, I think there is a duty here on the New Democratic Party, on this member in particular and his colleagues, to put forth with clarity here what it is they are trying to achieve. It is one thing to say that we are going to hold town hall meetings in an affected community and perform, as I think the member's colleague mentioned earlier, what I describe as flash card consultation, that is, now we see it and now we do not, we take under advisement; go back into the kitchen cabinet and make a decision.

There are provisions, it is true, in other federal, provincial and municipal legislation and bylaws that will compel a degree of consultation with the affected community. This is true, but there is a question that concerns me the most about the member seizing upon consultation with a specific and separate order of government, i.e. the cities in particular and the city of Windsor in particular. The question that concerns me, having seized upon that, is that the member has not at all brought clarity to the question of the impacts on private parties.

What does it mean if the minister is compelled? What does it mean that the minister “shall” consult with private parties? What are the legal ramifications of such consultation? What are the litigious possible outcomes derived from such possible consultations? What about trade secrets? What about enforcement?

All of these things have not been debated. I think it is a little disingenuous of my colleague to seize upon the municipal consultation question, which I deeply respect and am deeply concerned about, without bringing forward a fuller gamut of solutions to deal with the impacts of instructing a minister of the Crown that he or she would be obliged to perform some kind of consultation.

Yes, there is some legal definition around consultation as rendered by courts at different levels, but I think it is important now to circumscribe this. I am looking for more clarity.

[International Bridges and Tunnels Act, June 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise here this morning to speak to the House on Bill C-3, respecting international bridges and tunnels.

As we have already heard, there are currently 24 bridges and tunnels along the 6,400 km of border that separates Canada from the United States. These bridges and tunnels have different owners: 22 are publicly owned, while two others, along with five rail bridges and tunnels, are privately owned.

In order to emphasize for the House just how important this bill is for Canada, let me state again for the record several key points about the subject of this legislation.

First, international bridges and tunnels play an indispensable role in Canada's transportation network. They facilitate a large portion of our vastly successful international trade. As one of the most trade dependent nations on the face of the earth, the role of international bridges and tunnels to our economy can hardly be overstated.

Second, some 13 years after the Liberal government signed onto the North American Free Trade Agreement, trade between Canada and the United States has increased rapidly, year after year. We know that trade increases averaged more than 6% per year over the last decade, thanks, at least in part, to NAFTA and of course the ingenuity and the commitment of the Canadian people.

Third, we also know that the great majority of Canadian exports into the United States go by rail or by truck, particularly in crossings between Ontario, New York and Michigan. This is extraordinarily important when we consider the role, for example, that the auto industry and the auto parts industry play in the context of central Canada's economy. As the jurisdiction that now produces cars more efficiently than any other single nation state in the world, it is extremely important that we ensure that transportation between our two countries remains unimpeded.

The reality of modern business practice now compels most companies to minimize their inventory and, in fact, many companies today track their inventory in live time as it is shipped or delivered. This just in time inventory management practice and system has swept through most economic sectors and has met with success in large part because companies count on seamless, continent-wide transportation and delivery systems.

Fourth, as I mentioned previously, in 2005 our bilateral trade exceeded $580 billion. Every single day trade between the United States and Canada exceeds $1.6 billion. One study rightly suggests that if Canada does not properly operate and maintain its existing stock of international bridges and tunnels and go further and consider developing new such crossings, then Canada might lose up to 70,000 jobs by 2030 and possibly forgo almost $22 billion in production.

To quote my colleague, the hon. member for Outremont, when he was the minister of transport he made it clear that what was needed was to give to federal government, finally, the legislative authority required for effective oversight of these international bridges and tunnels to ensure the interests of Canadians were protected.

The parliamentary secretary was right in reminding the House that this was, in large part, the work of the previous Liberal government. It was our government's work in this area which culminated in an understanding that we must make more coherent our overall approach to these vital structures.

It is no secret that this bill is identical in purpose to legislation that our government brought to the House on two separate and previous occasions. Here is the chronology of what has brought us to the debate this morning. It began with the Canada Transportation Act amendments that were very much along the lines of the current Bill C-3 we are debating. These were tabled as part of Bill C-26 during the second session of the 37th Parliament when our party formed the government.

It is extremely important to remind Canadians that the current Prime Minister and the rest of what was then the Canadian Alliance Party were not interested at all in working for those amendments and they voted against them at second reading. To this day I am unsure as to what the rationale, if any, was at that time.

In the 38th Parliament we tabled Bill C-44, which included the very same amendments, and once again the opposition of the day, now the government, found little, if any, merit in our proposals, as it did with so many good Liberal bills on the order paper at the time, choosing instead to bring down the government with the help of the NDP and the Bloc Québécois and, in effect, for a second consecutive time, kill the legislation.

As we know, outspoken members of the Conservative government are fond of the preposterous and now ridiculous claim that previous Liberal governments did nothing. The introduction of Bill C-3 is a clear statement for Canadians by the current government, in actions rather than words, that the previous Liberal governments were working in the interests of all Canadians.

I want to thank the Minister of Transport for this vote of great confidence. I am sure he and his parliamentary secretary would be willing to give credit where credit is due. At its core, Bill C-3 is the exercising of the federal government's constitutional powers. These are outlined in sections 91(29) and 92(10) of the Constitution Act of 1867.

However, for everyday Canadians who are watching, from Cornwall to Windsor, at every place where there might be such an international crossing, this bill reaffirms our government's investment in the safety and security of this country.

Although at first blush the bill would appear to invest, in an almost unfettered way, authority in the governor in council or the Minister of Transport when it comes to all matters dealing with international bridges and tunnels, but closer examination suggests that it achieves the right balance; a balance between the free movement of people, goods, services and the need for emergency powers, standards for building, owning, financing or operating such a bridge or tunnel but all the while building in safeguards to protect against excessive control and appropriate security standards.

For example, under the bill no one would be able to build, change or alter an international bridge or tunnel without getting approval. Most Canadians would consider that to be more than obvious, but this is a hallmark feature of the previous Liberal government's approach to this issue. I would expect no less from the current government than to cut and then to paste these sections into the new bill.

A transparent and predictable approvals process is set out in Bill C-3, including the need for documentation, giving very wide scope for the imposition of any terms and conditions that the Crown, on behalf of the people, considers appropriate.

When it comes to maintenance or repairs, the Minister of Transport would be authorized to order any action of an owner or operator to ensure that for Canadian businesses and citizens the bridge or tunnel is kept in good condition.

Perhaps of all the parts of the bill I am most supportive of is the work done by our government and taken up by the Conservative government, which is now reflected in the bill, and it deals with the issuance of letters patent for incorporation. In simple terms, this allows for the creation of a new company or corporation which could build or operate an international bridge or tunnel. This is not unimportant going forward with the growth of our economy and the concentration of trade with the United States.

Our government worked very hard to ensure a high degree of specificity around any new company that might get into the business of building a bridge or a tunnel. We went as far as to require approval for the number of directors on a corporate board. The current bill reflects this. We are asking to see their powers and duties. We are demanding that a code of conduct would apply to such directors and officers. Finally, the terms of ownership of the corporation would be spelled out in black and white for all Canadians.

We went further to protect Canadians. It is reflected in the bill that we believed then, as we do now, that the government should be in a position to revoke letters patent of incorporation that had been previously granted. This is a strong power vested in the Crown, but one that we felt at the time, and we still agree, might be necessary in the case of risks associated with the free flow of goods, of people or security. As well, we provided very onerous duty of care provisions for any directors or officers of corporations in the international bridges or tunnels business.

All in all, our foundational work, which underpins the bill, reflects the fact that it is simply appropriate for the federal government to oversee international bridges and tunnels. Other orders of government would expect that their national government would have these powers. Canadians who are watching would assume that their federal government was looking after these matters because they deal with one other country in particular.

To pick up on a comment I made earlier, for all their allegations about a government that apparently did nothing for 13 years, a blame game theme that is wearing thin for most Canadians, it is terribly ironic that the new government continues to take our substantive work for the underpinnings for the bill. This is not the first time that Liberal ideas have been begged, borrowed or stolen, or usually adopted, and neither will this be the last.

Canadians could be forgiven for concluding, from its stance on the bill and so many other actions, that the Conservative government speaks out of both sides of its mouth. It wants Canadians to believe a fundamental falsehood: that the heavy lifting and the substance of our time in government simply did not occur. So it is important, I think, to be very honest about the bill.

As the minister is well aware, and as we have just heard in previous exchanges, there is a lingering debate in the House about the provisions in Bill C-3 that speak to the issue of consultation. That is to say, should the Minister of Transport ultimately authorize, for example, the construction of a new bridge or the expansion of an existing tunnel, what might be the obligations on the minister to consult with other orders of government and any other interested parties such as banks, finance companies, corporations, international owners and national owners?

Some have argued that municipal or provincial governments ought to have some form of veto. I have not heard that yet on the floor of the House, but some do argue that municipalities or provincial governments ought to have some form of veto on pursuing such a project. Others have said that compelling private parties, the proponents of projects to build a bridge or a tunnel, to be consulted by the minister might compromise what those private parties describe as trade secrets. I think it is very unfortunate that the government, in its approach to this debate, has not at all enlightened the House with respect to the specific issue of consultation.

It also did not illuminate the state of the debate when it comes to mandatory or discretionary consultation requirements, but instead has chosen to generate more unproductive heat. In this, I think, the government has failed, and its continuing partnership with the New Democratic Party in particular, a partnership referred to just yesterday by the Prime Minister as one that might keep his government afloat until 2009, appears to not be so amicable today.

That being said, I look forward to supporting Bill C-3. In sum, with this bill I think that our previous government crossed the Rubicon and moved as a government to tie together our social, environmental, trade, economic and security concerns as they relate to our outstanding relationship with our southern neighbours. Bill C-3 is at its heart another example of the Liberal legislation that for 13 years has strengthened the Canadian economy and defended Canadians against threats to their safety, their security and their mobility.

I commend the government for choosing a modest and well-founded work for its second bill this session. Working as a good faith opposition in a minority Parliament, I can assure everyone in this House that we will not play games with what is clearly a bill in Canada's public interest.

[International Bridges and Tunnels Act, June 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on the member's passion and his comments.

First of all, obviously he speaks with great passion. His community is affected by the existing flow now in terms of the Windsor-Detroit crossing, but I have two very specific questions for the member.

First, leaving aside the merits of the process that has been followed to get us here this evening, question number one is the following: is he suggesting that the federal government somehow will be able to avoid or contract out municipal and provincial standards, for example on environmental assessment, should this bill become law?

Second, his colleague who sits on the committee just a few moment ago suggested that consultation ought to be between the federal and particularly the municipal governments, with a passing reference to the provinces, leaving out also, of course, the question of interested parties such as banks, financing companies, mortgage companies, those who are involved in sureties. Those who are financing the construction, expansion or operation of such international bridges and tunnels will be very big players.

If we make these consultation requirements any more onerous on the federal government, is there any merit to this question of making the whole bill more litigious in nature if we give interested parties more opportunity to proceed against the federal government for failure to pursue sufficient consultation, for example ?

[International Bridges and Tunnels Act, June 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his kind remarks at the close of his speech.

I would like to ask him a question that deals specifically with the amendment we are dealing with this evening, which is an attempt to achieve a balance in the bill. There are some fairly overwhelming powers here vested in the minister and the governor in council with respect to, for example, the construction, the alteration and the operation of a bridge or tunnel. This bill goes as far as saying that the governor in council controls completely the construction, the alteration and the operation of an international bridge or tunnel, that an elaborate system of approvals must be sought. It goes as far as creating letters patent and spells out in very detailed fashion what letters patent would look like in such a case. It goes as far as speaking about officers' and directors' liabilities, for example.

I want to come to the balance between these new powers being vested in the minister and the governor in council and the right of other orders of government to participate in the decision making. Our colleagues in the NDP on a couple of occasions have raised some concerns around this. I have found that the amendment as drafted achieves a relatively appropriate balance between new powers vested in the minister and access to input for other orders of government.

Could the parliamentary secretary comment on that, please?

[International Bridges and Tunnels Act, June 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I will first enlighten my colleague and let him know that I did not have the privilege of sitting on the committee when that particular amendment was brought forward and others were debated, but let me do my best to answer the balance that I think it is trying to achieve.

In the first instance, I think it is trying to give to the minister authority where it is required, for example, to have those consultations should they be required. There is the ongoing question of the trade secrets type of information and private matters. For example, we have a couple of instances in the country where these bridges are in private hands. It will be very delicate for the minister, for example, when the minister is seeking information, as the member points out.

It will be delicate and I am sure that ultimately flowing from the bill provisions will be made, and also in the regulations that will follow, to make sure that such information that is provided remains confidential. If it does not remain confidential, obviously that will be quite detrimental to the case of private owners and operators. I am quite assured that the bill actually strikes that right balance.

[International Bridges and Tunnels Act, June 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

First of all, I think it is important for parliamentarians to demonstrate to the Canadian people from time to time that they are capable of working together. In my view, Bill C-3 is a very good example of this.

Next, with the intensification—or urbanization—and emergence of new city-states in Canada, it is almost mandatory to engage in increasing consultation with those provinces and municipalities where a bridge or tunnel now exists or will exist in future.

In my opinion, the amendment will have a positive effect on planning. It will not affect the powers of the federal government as regards its planning with the provinces and with the parties affected by the development or operation of a tunnel or bridge. In 2006, more consultation with the parties concerned and the different levels of government is mandatory.

I would close by saying that in a time of increasing urbanization, at a time when we are seeing increasing densification of population and of Canada-United States trade and the benefits that have flowed under NAFTA in the last 10 years, it will be extremely critical for us to ensure that provinces and municipalities, as well as interested parties, are consulted during the process.

Whether it involves the operation of bridges and tunnels, the construction of bridges and tunnels or the question of security and emergency powers granted to the federal government in this bill, it will be important for the federal government and the minister named in the amendment to deal with other orders of government going forward.

[International Bridges and Tunnels Act, June 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise this evening on Bill C-3, an act respecting international bridges and tunnels.

As the transport critic of the official opposition, I am very aware of how crucial bridges and tunnels are to the Canadian and international trade transportation networks. The vast majority of Canada’s exports to the United States go by way of these bridges and tunnels and the crossings between Ontario, New York and Michigan have the highest traffic volumes.

It is hard to overstate the magnitude of the trade between Canada and the United States. Under NAFTA, the trade between our two countries grew over the last decade by an average of 6% a year. In 2005, our bilateral trade was valued at more than $580 billion, with goods and services worth nearly $1.6 billion crossing the border every day. Millions of jobs are involved, and our transportation infrastructure is crucial to enabling this trade to proceed efficiently. This is therefore an extremely important bill.

I would like to congratulate the government for bringing Bill C-3 to the floor quickly. This bill, for nearly all intents and purposes, is identical to provisions that productive and progressive Liberal governments brought to the House on two previous occasions.

If I might, I will take a moment to remind the House of the path that the bill has taken.

Amendments to the Canada Transportation Act along the lines of Bill C-3 were first tabled as part of Bill C-26 during the second session of the 37th Parliament. Unfortunately, the current Prime Minister and the rest of the Canadian Alliance, at the time, opposed these measures, voting against them at second reading.

We brought these amendments back as part of Bill C-44 in the 38th Parliament. Once again, the opposition of the day found absolutely no merit in the legislation being considered by the House at that point and chose, instead, to defeat the government, effectively killing the bill for a second time.

As I said, I am very pleased to see that the government has come around to supporting our work now that it has the responsibility of governing. Bill C-3 seems to respect, at its core, its origins as a low profile bill that strengthens Canada. It is about taking one step at a time.

The hon. member for Outremont, my colleague, when he was minister of transport, outlined several benefits of the legislation that I hear the government echoing today.

First, provisions in Bill C-3 give the federal government the legislative authority that is required for effective oversight of international bridges and tunnels to ensure that the interests of Canadians are protected. This is a very important affirmation, an appropriate one, of the federal government's constitutional powers as outlined in sections 91(29) and 92(10) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

Second, the hon. member for Outremont presented a bill to Canadians that provided the Governor in Council:

--with the authority to approve the construction or alteration of international bridges and tunnels, and to develop regulations pertaining to the governance, maintenance, safety, security and operation of these structures.

A broad power, but an important one.

This is a point worth re-emphasizing. Without fail, Liberal governments have invested appropriately in the safety and the security of Canadians. We can see, for example, the positive outcomes of our security investments, in general terms, with the successful apprehension of alleged terrorists in Toronto just several weeks ago.

Third, the hon. member for Outremont, when he was transport minister, stated very clearly that this new governance system for international border crossings “will help expedite the approval of new facilities and ensure the efficient and competitive flow of goods and people”.

The proposed changes concerning the power to issue letters patent will confer a new ability on the governor in council to establish corporations for the purpose of constructing new structures or operating existing ones.

The volume of trade at some of these crossings is simply mind-blowing. Over 23% of surface trade between Canada and the United States, for example, passes through the Detroit River area. One study suggests that if crossings are not properly maintained and developed, Canada can expect to lose up to 70,000 jobs by 2030, foregoing $21.5 billion in production.

In summary, Bill C-3 is yet another example in a long line of Liberal legislation to promote the Canadian economy and protect the safety and security of Canadians. While we may have differences about some of the details of the legislation, and amendments here and there, we cannot in good conscience thwart or stall what is in essence a very good bill.

With respect to the amendment itself, it does go some distance in ensuring that the federal government will consult, that it will consult with other orders of government, with the provinces and municipalities, for example, which have jurisdiction where a bridge or tunnel is situated or is to be built. It also goes some distance in ensuring that the federal government consults with anyone who has a direct interest in the matter, an appropriate balance, we believe, between government's responsibilities for safety, security and maintenance, while at the same time allowing for meaningful input from provinces and municipalities that might be affected and of course any proponent, any lending institution or any developer that might be in the business of building, maintaining or operating such bridges and tunnels.

In closing, when the government puts forward sensible legislation, we are happy to work in cooperation with it to achieve goals that all parties and indeed all Canadians hold in common. I congratulate the government for tabling the bill in such a speedy fashion.

[Committees of the House, June 14th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on the comments made by the parliamentary secretary just moments ago and commend him for his efforts in defending the indefensible.

It is clear that most Canadians could be forgiven for assuming that this question of a deal with a particular property in mind, in the Ottawa area, is part of a pattern of conduct that the government has embraced very early on in its mandate.

Let me state something for the record clearly. I think all parliamentarians would join me in saying that we are trying to encourage and strengthen accountability. Most parliamentarians are working feverishly to see the accountability act pass with the right kinds of amendments. I still think Canadians could be forgiven for deducing that there is a pattern of conduct here, which is leading Canadians to ask some fundamental questions. Let me illustrate.

First, the government is wreaking havoc, for example, in changes it is making to the sole source procurement system of our country, without notice and without consultation. Many of my constituents and thousands of companies are working now in concert with the federal government, and have been for years, only to find out one morning that the sole source system, which the government is forcing down their throats, is one about which they have not even been consulted.

It has done away with the procurement strategy for aboriginal businesses. It has been silenced behind the scenes. This is again part of a pattern.

The House of Commons legal counsel has issued an opinion saying that the accountability bill is at least partly unconstitutional, but the government has not addressed the unconstitutionality of the bill.

The Minister of National Defence, leaving aside the optics of the fact that he was a former lobbyist for the defence industry, wanted to sole source and acquire $3.2 billion worth of airplanes without any kind of tendering process. He is now denying it and backtracking.

Now we have a real estate deal, a letter of intent, as acknowledged by the parliamentary secretary, and, on his behalf, the Minister of PWGSC has acknowledged it as well, but apparently there is no deal. The government is backtracking again. I think Canadians could be forgiven for deducing there is a pattern of conduct here.

The government has not learned anything from the Nielsen report in the Mulroney years. At that time, Prime Minister Mulroney asked the former minister, the member for Yukon, Mr. Nielsen, to do a major analysis of property deals with respect to the federal government because of the trying circumstances around many of those deals. This ended up causing problems for the former prime minister and his Conservative government. I really do not think the present government has read that report or understood much from it.

This is reminiscent of the comments recently made by the Minister of Transport who, in a speech in Gatineau, said that he was prepared to move an $800 million museum from my riding in Ottawa South to his riding across the river because he would exercise his political influence. He said this even though a $1 million engineering and architectural design and analysis study was commissioned by the museum, which suggested that the site the minister was targeting was not even on the short list of five. Again, I would forgive Canadians for deducing a pattern of conduct here.

Furthermore, the Minister of Transport freelanced recently on a question on the National Capital Commission, an instrumental organization in the development of this region. He said that he questioned the very existence of the NCC. There was no notice given, no dialogue, no debate, no commentary and no input. Instead of pursuing constructive reform ideas, we get a pattern of conduct that seems to continue. It is a do as I say, not as I do pattern.

Most recently we heard about the Minister of Health owning 25% of a private health care company, which he now regulates as the Minister of Health. The government, while in opposition, savaged the Ethics Commissioner saying that he was not a real Ethics Commissioner. Now it hides behind his ruling. The Minister of Health did not place his stocks in a blind trust. On the contrary, he makes a very small statement that he has no intention of dealing with the matter while he is a minister of the Crown. Again, I would forgive Canadians for deducing there is a pattern of conduct here.

Finally, the question of unsolicited proposals, allowing economic development versus value for taxpayer dollars, as the parliamentary secretary to the minister puts to the House, is frankly a mugs game. It makes no rational sense whatsoever.

Public tendering is the central building block of any procurement regime. It is the central building block of any transparent procurement regime. For a government that rode into town high on its horse of accountability, it is bewildering for most Canadians to try to understand this pattern of conduct in the short 120-odd days since being elected.

In my estimation, the motion is a sound one. I would urge all parliamentarians to support it. It really does speak now to the question of our willingness as parliamentary colleagues to address the question of transparency and accountability in a serious way.

It is very unfortunate for the government, in its unwise decision, to appoint an unelected individual, who refused to seek office in the last election, to the Senate so he could be responsible for managing billions of dollars of procurement and not be here to answer those questions.