Ed Komarnicki

[Federal Accountability Act, April 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, there may be differences of opinion between members of Parliament and we may have many rules and regulations in respect to the act that we propose, but ultimately it will take the goodwill and good judgment of all members of Parliament to raise the standard of the House so the public can regain their confidence in their politicians. It will take the concerted effort of all parties to come to the place where the House will rise to the level that it ought to.

[Federal Accountability Act, April 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the process we have is one that has been used in the judicial system on a regular basis. It is one where all sides on a particular issue are given an opportunity to present all the evidence that they choose to present and to be represented at the same time. I do not think there is anything wrong with a balance of probabilities. This is a different burden of proof than what we have under the Criminal Code or in criminal matters but, nonetheless, it is a standard that is fairly high and is not easy to be met. The burden is on the proposer to meet that standard. It is not an uncommon standard. It is a standard that is used time and again in all civil matters.

When reviewing the issue of complaints of wrongdoing raised by employees, when there is substance, not a frivolous claim or a vexatious one, we find that people are expected to go through this process, which is a fair process and allows each and every party to the process to make a full and ample defence and to present their views. There is nothing wrong with that. It is something that is recognized in our provinces and around the world.

[Federal Accountability Act, April 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, this bill we are talking about is about changing the culture of politics. I want to begin by acknowledging that with the introduction of the federal accountability act both this House and the people of Canada are seeing at first hand the real and tangible steps that the Conservative Party of Canada is taking to clean up government in Ottawa and to return confidence both to Parliament and to the bureaucracy that runs government.

Such a bill is long overdue in view of the scandals, the corruption and the culture of entitlement that has permeated the Liberal Party and those well connected to it during the past 13 years. The federal accountability act represents our government's response to the Gomery inquiry, to years of wanton and unregulated excesses, to years of patronage appointments, to dealing with highly paid lobbyists who worked their trade in and around the halls and offices of Parliament Hill, and to the culture of political fundraising, which offers those with money access to government. The act now prohibits contributions from corporations and unions altogether and limits personal obligations and contributions to $1,000 so that big money no longer has the sole voice in Ottawa.

The federal accountability act is all about accountability for everyone, starting with the Prime Minister and extending to all parliamentarians and public sector employees, to those who receive government funding and to those who seek access to government officials and decision makers.

The act itself is lengthy and multi-faceted and affects some 28 other pieces of legislation. It is broader in scope than the recommendations of the Gomery inquiry, and while the act may amend scores of existing laws, its primary aim is to address the moral decay that has permeated every level of government.

Our government is unquestionably intent upon changing the culture of politics on Parliament Hill and ending the culture of entitlement that has existed under successive Liberal governments. This act will make this government work better for Canadians. It provides oversight, rules, restrictions and measures to ensure that public interest is preserved and individual opportunism curtailed, and that there is an administration that carries out the affairs of government in a way that is both transparent and accountable.

In the end, of course, only people of integrity and character can change the image the public has of politicians and those connected to them. The bottom line is that Canadians deserve to know that their hard-earned tax dollars are being spent and used wisely by those in government.

Part 1 of the bill deals with the conflict of interest and post-employment code for public office holders. Canadians rightfully expect their representatives and public office holders to make decisions in the public interest and without any consideration of personal gain and without taking advantage of information not available to the public. Public office holders must perform their duties and arrange their private affairs in a manner that will avoid real or perceived conflicts of interest. The bill specifies in clause 4 that:

--a public office holder is in a conflict of interest when he or she exercises an official power, duty or function that provides an opportunity to further his or her private interests or those of his or her relatives or friends or to improperly further another person's private interests.

It restricts the office holder from making those kinds of decisions.

The act deals with recusal from voting or debating on matters that would place an office holder in conflict. Other provisions of the act deal with the issues of preferential treatment, insider information, influence peddling, fundraising, cash donations and the acceptance of gifts and advantages. This is clear and unambiguous language. It is language that demands a much higher standard for public office holders than has been the experience and the custom in Ottawa to this point.

These conflict of interest rules are not merely guidelines or recommendations, as compliance with part 1 of the act itself will be deemed a term and condition of a public officer holder's appointment for employment.

Most important, the legislation provides the rules of the road for those office holders who have assets, are competent and do want to contribute to our country and our society, but who want to do it in a way that preserves their integrity and honour. It prescribes the means that may be used to resolve conflicts, which in some cases may even require the disposal or divestment of the offending assets.

The federal accountability act would combine the position of ethics commissioner and Senate ethics officer and create a new conflict of interest and ethics commissioner. This newly appointed commissioner shall be an individual with judicial experience, either a former judge or an individual with federal or provincial board, commission or tribunal experience.

The commissioner will have the same power to enforce the attendance of witnesses, to compel them to give evidence under oath or affirmation and to produce documents as would a court of record in civil cases. All decisions of the commissioner must be made on the balance of probabilities, the same test utilized by judges in all civil cases. This is coupled with a reasonable opportunity for the public office holder to present his or her case.

These are very real powers and responsibilities entrusted with the commissioner. It is further evidence of the government's commitment to provide the new commissioner with the power and authority to get the job done.

The federal accountability act will expressly make government accountable to the people by affording the opportunity to a member of the general public the ability to bring forward, through a member of Parliament, information to the commissioner of an alleged contravention of the act by a public office holder.

The act also provides for the appointment of a parliamentary budget officer, with a mandate to provide objective analysis to the Senate and to the House of Commons about the state of the nation's finances and trends in the national economy.

Additionally, the government will also provide quarterly updates to its fiscal forecasts. There is now to be an independent analysis on economic and fiscal issues. Gone are the days of unanticipated surpluses used to buy votes with reckless spending. It is time to ensure that we have truth in budgeting.

Another area of change is in the creation of a director of public prosecutions. Part 3 of the act creates the office of the director of public prosecutions and allows this office to initiate and conduct wholly independent investigations and prosecutions, including the decision to lay charges unless the federal Attorney General publicly directs otherwise. The proposed office of director of public prosecutions reflects the best features of those offices that currently exist in British Columbia, Quebec and Nova Scotia as well as those found in several countries around the world, including the United Kingdom, Australia and Ireland.

The federal accountability act also includes a number of real and sincere protections for whistleblowers, something that is long overdue.

People who see problems within the government need to have the confidence and the knowledge that they can speak up without intimidation or fear of recrimination. Too often we have learned that whistleblowers have been punished by their superiors for speaking the truth and taking courageous stands against instances of corruption and abuse.

The public service of Canada is a multi-faceted institution staffed by professional, dedicated and highly skilled individuals. Its employees play a crucial role in support of the government's agenda and they are essential in delivering programs and services to our citizens. This government will foster and champion an environment in which its employees may honestly and openly raise the alarm and express concerns without fear or threat of reprisal.

The bill would give real protection for whistleblowers by creating the position of public sector integrity commissioner and by making this individual an agent of Parliament. It will also give the commissioner the authority to deal with complaints from whistleblowers who feel they have suffered reprisals for identifying potential wrongdoing.

We shall see the creation of an independent tribunal, composed of judges or former judges, with the power to order remedies and to discipline wrongdoers. The remedies available to the commissioner include: the right to permit the complainant to return to his or her duties; the right to pay compensation in lieu of reinstatement; to rescind any measure or action; to cover expenses and other financial losses as a direct result of the reprisal; to provide up to $10,000 for any pain and suffering; and to order disciplinary action against a perpetrator.

It is fair to suggest that the actions of a handful of public servants involved in the ad scam scandal have tainted the image of the public service for many Canadians. This element of the act will reinforce the non-partisan and professional excellence of the federal public service and return it to the place of honour and dignity it has historically enjoyed.

I am reminded of the recent words of the President of the Treasury Board when he stated, “Today is about putting the legacy of political scandal behind us and restoring Canadians' trust in government”.

The federal accountability act will change the culture of politics and it will move Ottawa from a culture of entitlement to a culture of accountability and responsibility, one that is accountable and responsible to all Canadians equally.

[RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY, April 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that this government takes seriously the situation of the farm community. This government will be taking specific steps not only to improve the participation of the farms involved with produce but participation of the farmers of industries that are up the level in the food chain so that they can also participate in some of the extra revenue that can be generated from those types of activities. There is no doubt that we will also be looking at ways and means to make the sale of the product more effective than it now is.

[RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY, April 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the grains and oilseeds programs have not been working to the degree they should. The Liberal government had 13 years to address what was happening in the farm community and it failed to do so. Those members talked the flowery talk about all the kinds of things they would do, but they did nothing.

This Conservative government is poised to actually address the situation. When I talk about lights going out in Saskatchewan, that applies to Manitoba, Ontario and other places across Canada. Rural Saskatchewan is starting to fade away. People are moving. Farmers are leaving their land.

Why should farmers have to march on Ottawa with their hands out, asking to survive, asking to get almost their cost of production? They have eaten up their equity during 13 years of Liberal government. For many years farmers have lost hard-earned money and yet Liberal members have the audacity to say we have not done much in the throne speech. We have referred to agriculture specifically. We have set out the priorities and we will actually accomplish them, as opposed to the Liberals who will indicate numbers of promises, many promises, and who will make flowery talk but take little action, year after year. It is the same thing, year after year.

Canada recognizes that it must work in cooperation with other countries around the world, not only the United States, to make this country a better place. I can tell the hon. member that the immigration minister will work hard to achieve many of the goals that need to be achieved. It is not the number of times the word “immigration” is used in a throne speech that makes it good or bad; it is what we actually effectively do when we get into office to make it work better.

If that hon. member had put his government to the test over the 13 years it was in office, he would have found that the immigration system was under a lot of stress because of the inaction on the promises that were made but never carried out, because of the talking that was done without action being taken. It is only the good service of the public servants that has kept the system together, that has made it work as well as it works. It is their hard effort that has kept the system together, not what the previous government has done or said it would do.

[RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY, April 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by acknowledging what a great privilege it is to be elected as a member of Parliament. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the constituents of Souris—Moose Mountain for re-electing me for a second term.

It is indeed time to turn a new leaf. The throne speech was short and to the point. It is an indication of our no-nonsense approach to governing. The government is turning a new leaf because people have chosen change.

It is sometimes difficult to see change when the first few steps are taken, but change is coming. We are turning a new leaf. We will see our country change direction. It is changing direction for the better, whereby ordinary Canadians with ordinary values will once again be recognized.

Canadians pay too much tax. The government will, over time, reduce that tax burden, starting with a reduction in the goods and services tax.

It is time also to tackle crime, to make changes to the Criminal Code to provide tougher sentences for violent crime and repeat offenders, to increase the age of consent, to adopt zero tolerance in response to child pornography, and to place more police officers on the streets. Safe streets, safe communities and strong families will ensure a strong country. The strength of our families is the strength of our nation.

We must earn the trust of our citizens, and we also must earn the respect of our citizens. There is nothing more fundamental than that. The government must also be held to account. One of the first pieces of legislation tending in that direction will be the federal accountability act. This act will set the stage for bringing accountability back to government.

One of the most important investments we can make as a nation is to provide direct financial support to help families who raise young children. During the election campaign at a coffee shop at a small community rink in Storthoaks, Saskatchewan, I asked the young moms at the table how many children they had between them under the age of six. There were eight children under six, which would be a total of $9,600 for those young moms in that small community. They could hardly believe this to be true. This represented a very real and meaningful benefit to those families.

How dare the Liberals say the program is of no effect? I invite them to visit the small rural communities that for the most part have been forgotten by the Liberal governments in Ottawa.

The rural communities in my constituency are starting to shut down due to years of Liberal neglect. The farming community is similarly starting to shut down. Recently, near my home community, an auction took place for an intergenerational farm, with a full line of farm machinery and 41 quarters of farmland all on the auction block. Land now sells for half the price it used to command just a few years ago.

On April 3, several auction sales were held in my constituency within about half an hour's drive of Benson, Saskatchewan. Six farmers held an auction sale on the same day. To see six auction signs one after another in the village of Benson caused me to stop, take note and see what was happening. We do not have to debate it in the House. It is obvious for all to see. In all of my life, I have not seen the likes of it. A sight like that is hard to take and goes right to the core of a person's being. It is evidence of an agricultural economy shutting down.

The number of auction sales this year increased from last year, and last year increased from the year before. Young people have been leaving with no immediate plans of coming back, yet the Governor General stated in the throne speech that “our young people represent not only the promise of a brighter future, but also the vitality of our present”.

Under the Liberal government, the lights have gone out on many Saskatchewan farms and hope has been lost. Our government has a huge job to re-establish hope, but we must start by sowing seeds of hope that will in time translate into a vibrant rural community.

The Speech from the Throne is a good first step. It stated very clearly that the government recognizes the unique challenges faced by those who make their livelihoods from our land in agricultural industries. Our government will take action to secure a future for Canadian agriculture following years of neglect under the watch of the Liberal government.

The speech clearly stated that the government will respond to the short term needs of farmers, create separate and more effective income stabilization and disaster relief programs, and work with producers and partners to achieve long term competitiveness and sustainability.

I urge our environment, agriculture and natural resources ministers to take bold and immediate steps to ensure not only that our farm families are preserved, but that our cities, towns and villages have quality food to eat and clean air to breathe. This means that we must get past the rhetoric, roll up our sleeves and pay the price of personal effort and sacrifice to make it happen.

We are all aware that world food markets are such that supply outstrips demand and commodity prices are lower than the cost of production. No one can operate on that basis for very long. We must take immediate steps to convert many of our acres to biofuel production, which not only will supply our increasing energy demands but will also make us less dependent on world markets.

We must ensure that our farmers participate in the profits generated in the biofuel cycle. This will take new ideas, fresh initiatives and some legislative intervention to make it happen. We must act and we must act now. The face of our world is changing quickly and so must our policies change if we wish to offer the promise of hope to our farmers and to preserve an industry that is the very bedrock of our society and the catalyst that will keep our rural communities alive.

I would like to transfer my attention for a few moments to the portion of the throne speech that touches upon immigration and its effect upon the fabric and strength of our nation.

I want to begin by saying that it is a privilege to be appointed Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I want to thank the hon. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the right hon. Prime Minister for the opportunity to serve my country, my constituents and indeed all Canadians in this capacity. I look forward to working with all members of the House in promoting and advancing the interests of Canada and the many applicants for entry into Canada under Canada's immigration and refugee program.

Canadian citizenship is highly valued not only in Canada but throughout the world, and it is something we can all cherish and take pride in. At the very outset of the throne speech, the Governor General described Canada as a land “where people from around the world have found a home”. She stated, “Women and men of ideas, conviction and action”, people from all walks of life from around the world, have made Canada the unique and great nation it is today.

This refers not only to the massive contribution immigration has made in the past years, but to the role it will play in the decades ahead. To remain competitive in today's global economy when our demographics are dramatically changing, we need the skills, the ideas and the conviction that newcomers can contribute to their new country and to our future together. Immigration is not just about our past, it is about our future, a future built upon hope and a new dynamic that will express itself in a new and vibrant Canada, a Canada that is building, expanding and creating new opportunities for all peoples, a Canada where all of us can enjoy and share in the benefits of our growth and prosperity.

The speech also refers to Canada as offering “a promise of hope for the oppressed”. There are many in our world who are oppressed and Canada recognizes and accepts its international obligations. This is exemplified by Canada's humanitarian tradition of being a safe haven for those in need of protection.

In its essence, our refugee program is recognized by the United Nations and countries around the world as a model of fairness and compassion, but yet no system is perfect, so improvements can always be made to make it more timely and effective. Our refugee system needs to be one that is readily available to those in need and vigilant enough to guard against those who seek to abuse it. It is a fine balance that we must attempt to obtain.

The Speech from the Throne affirms that our government will seek to improve opportunity for all Canadians, including aboriginal peoples and new immigrants. That is why our government envisions, among other measures, the reduction of the right of permanent residence fee for applicants who wish to make Canada their new home.

The government will work to hasten the recognition of foreign credentials. This will assist us in getting properly trained professionals working in Canada much faster and in jobs that make the best use of their skills and education.

Finally, the throne speech describes Canada not only as “a country where everything is possible, where each of us is free to follow his or her dreams”, but also as a country where everyone “has a duty to help build our country and prepare it for the challenges that lie ahead”.

With the great privilege of Canadian citizenship comes also the responsibility of citizenship, the shared responsibility all of us have, newcomer and long-timer, to contribute the best of what we are and have to a richer and better Canada of which we are all a part, a Canada where we are committed to the well-being of our neighbourhoods, our communities and our country.

The Speech from the Throne recognizes immigration as central to our past and vital to fulfilling the promise of the future. I am very pleased to stand in the House and recognize that this government is determined and committed in its aim to cherish and promote our shared values through Canadian citizenship and by enhancing and improving Canada's immigration and refugee program, not only in substance but also in process.

[Supply, November 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that it would be awfully difficult for a person to make the decision whether he was going to sue himself or those close to him. Those decisions should be made at least at arm's length and perhaps should be made by those who have no connection or anything to benefit by it.

In terms of a change in direction, we have had ample time now in the House, in this session, to see that very little has changed. The means are whatever are necessary to get to the end. If the end is staying in power, to continue the culture of entitlement to benefit those around them, if it means the Liberals have to drop billions of dollars, in fact, empty the entire vault just to stay in power and do things a day or two before an election, or buying votes, that is wrong. This is the exact thing that needs to be rooted out of this place.

[Supply, November 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, if I ran a department or were a head of government, I would take responsibility for what happened on my watch. One cannot have billions of dollars going by without knowing something is wrong.

When we look at what happened in the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party, it was quite deep and vast and a lot of funds were misused. One would have to wonder at some point. They had a specific meeting to set up this fund. Moneys were going through with no particular audit trails or approval processes. I would have thought one might have wanted to ask if moneys were being dispensed in a proper way when one part of the province was doing very well in meeting its expenses and paying its employees.

There is an obligation on those who are responsible to ensure not only that the systems are in place but to be vigilant. To use the words of the Prime Minister, “I should have more vigilant”. He could have said “we”. Corporately we have a responsibility to be more vigilant, but he personally had a responsibility to be more vigilant and to see that this kind of thing did not take place.

As elected members of this House, there is a responsibility that goes with the office. If things happen under our watch, the responsibility has to kick in. The public will see to it that the ultimate justice is paid in this case. It is a culture that has pervaded government. The Liberals almost do not recognize that there is a problem. It is for that reason that a cleaning of this House is required.

[Supply, November 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the question is why do we need an election? The non-confidence motion says that this House has lost confidence in the government. To put it in simple terms, it is because it is time to clean house. Specifically, it is an indictment of the government by the House saying that the government is condemned for its arrogance, for its culture of entitlement and for the corruption, the scandal and the gross abuse of public funds for political purposes. The government has lost touch with the common people and it is here to serve only its own ends.

Why do we need an election? Because it is time to clean house. There is a job that needs to be done and it needs to be done now. In fact, the majority of people will take the time in a responsible way to exercise their duty and responsibility to set the country on the right course by electing a new government.

It is the solemn responsibility that must be exercised as a cloud falls over the present government. It is a fundamental change that the people of Canada are about to make and make it they will with all the seriousness and determination that will be required, despite the time of year or the exact call of the day, because it is the right thing to do and it is the very thing that needs to be done to set our country on the right course and in the right direction.

Why does the Prime Minister want to wait until the second part of the Gomery report when the first part has been the fact finding part, and all the facts are in? It is not because he hopes to learn more about what happened, but rather it is the hope on his part that the public will have forgotten what happened, that the attention will be drawn to something else, that the real transgressions, that the severity and the magnitude of them will somehow be softened by the lens of time.

The Prime Minister is afraid to face the music, or shall I say the consequences. It is the cowardly act of not wanting to face the consequences here and now when the evidence is still fresh. The government has taken away supply days and the opportunity for earlier confidence votes. Now it is trying to say that somehow the opposition is forcing an election at this time of the year.

I am a lawyer, and Gomery indicated that on the evidence he could not find any blame or responsibility. That is not saying there is not any blame or responsibility. A case can be won or lost based on the evidence that is presented. One can have a winning case and still lose if the evidence is not presented or the necessary evidence is unavailable at the time of the hearing, or it is not pursued with the vigour required to unearth it to bring it forward. In fact, it may be because the nature of the evidence is buried and cannot be brought forward.

To the use the words “based on the evidence” makes the finding very qualified. Let me reiterate what I mean. Justice Gomery said in respect to one aspect of the hearing:

It is extraordinary that no witness is willing to tell the Commission exactly what transpired in the period following the political decision made by Cabinet on February 1-2, 1996....It is impossible to believe that there were no meetings or discussions involving the Prime Minister and his staff during that period concerning the implementation of the decision, but Mr. Pelletier conveniently purports to have no recollection of what actually happened.

That does not mean that there were no meetings. It only means that based on the evidence, he could not find that meetings took place.

He also spoke about Lafleur Communications and how he had the suspicion that the objective of public works was to qualify them as quickly as possibly so it could be one of the suppliers, although he had a suspicion the evidence was not there.

Somehow the Prime Minister interprets or takes the words of Justice Gomery to say he is exonerated from blame or for any carelessness or misconduct. The one person who knew of the evidence is the Prime Minister who made a national address saying the following with respect to his involvement. He said:

Let me speak plainly: what happened with the sponsorship file occurred on the watch of a Liberal government. Those who were in power are to be held responsible. And that includes me.

That sounds like a confession. He went on to say, “I was the Minister of Finance. Knowing what I've learned this past year, I am sorry that we weren’t more vigilant”. Then he had a stroke of conscience and corrected himself, “That I wasn't more vigilant. Public money was misdirected and misused and that is unacceptable”.

This happened on his watch, while he was the finance minister, when he knew where every penny moved, where every dollar went. He was not there to ensure that it did not happen. He must now face Canadians and let them judge. The facts are in and it is time for the jury to make its decision.

When the captain was involved, we have to wonder about the involvement of the first officer. The Prime Minister either knew of the general climate in Quebec or he otherwise turned a blind eye to what was going on around him. He was an able minister and he had the pulse of what was taking place when he orchestrated a silent coup to displace the then prime minister. He stated that he knew nothing, saw nothing, yet nothing moved without his knowing.

One would think that the government would have learned from the Gomery experience, but it is clear that it has not. We have only to look at the Dingwall affair and the Herle affair to see for ourselves that despite the multitude of promises and assurances from the Prime Minister that things would change, they have not. Nothing has changed.

Let us look at the Dingwall affair. An executive quits his job, the Prime Minister issues high praise for him, yet his expense account would make the most liberal of Liberals blush. That is okay, let us pay him a severance of $500,000 without even blinking an eye. Only when extreme pressure was placed on the government, did the Prime Minister blush at his earlier comments.

Let me give the House a more current example of the culture of which I speak.

The rules say that bids are to be solicited before any contract is entered into. There are certain exceptions, pressing emergencies, contracts under $25,000 and so on. Mr. Herle, known to just about everybody as the national Liberal campaign co-chair and party pollster, was given a contract to the maximum amount of $23,112, just under the $25,000 rule limit, where he billed about $3,000 without bids being solicited. He was contracted to provide advice, including advice on public opinion research, regarding the Minister of Finance's mini-budget or economic update. Was there anything wrong with that? He said that the contract had been given by the Department of Finance. It was within the rules, and the guidelines were followed.

The government does not get it. There is something with that culture of entitlement with benefiting its own. It is the idea as Rex Murphy stated of “tacit license to feed and appoint its own, to make merry with the public purse and a mockery of all the established rules under the self-serving gloss that it is acting in the public good”. As he further put it, “It's a closed, incestuous circle in which elected office is seen as a lever to reward friends or party workers or as the ideal base to prepare for lucrative careers on the public purse after elected politics”, the whole gauntlet of reward appointments for the well connected. He went on to say, “But outside of those extremes, they've hit the bottom of the barrel, dug underneath the barrel, and found an even lower place where there are no self-respecting barrels at all”.

That is why we must have an election and why the government must go.

New rules to show the way are important, but what is more important is a brand new set of people and a brand new government that will truly be the people's servants, who will be prepared to take a loss and sacrifice for the good of the country, for the good of its people, not because that is what the public would expect but because it is the right thing to do.

All of this is best highlighted and shown for what it is by the recent announcement by an individual who was prepared to pay a huge personal price and to make a personal sacrifice in order to do the right thing. The epitome of what I say, Mr. Allan Cutler, who blew the whistle. He knows all about this. I am reminded of his words earlier this week when he said that he took a look around and was impressed with what he saw in the federal accountability act, but more important, in the leader of the opposition as well as those around him.

Mr. Cutler wants to see accountability in government. Canadians, people who work hard, pay their taxes and play by the rules also want to see accountability in political leaders, and our leader exemplifies that. Mr. Cutler and all Canadians want to see the end of the influence of money in politics. Our leader is the right man to do the job. Mr. Cutler, along with all Canadians, value honesty and integrity in a leader and that is something our leader exemplifies.

This team will clean house and will implement the tough federal accountability act to ensure that this does not happen again. We have the plan, we have the rules and we have the right people. We do not have to wait for Justice Gomery any longer. We need an election because it is time to clean house. It is this culture of corruption and entitlement that must go and it must go now. The people of Canada will see to this.

[Canadian Wheat Board, November 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, farmers, farm groups and the Canadian Wheat Board have asked the minister to raise the initial prices and the minister has failed to do so. He is putting a veto on the Canadian Wheat Board, which is still controlled by the government. It is time that he act and act now.

There is absolutely no reason why this minister cannot make a decision here and now, today. Where I come from, immediately means within 24 hours, same day, not months.