Jay Hill

[Presence in Gallery, September 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The House is ready to take the recorded division on the ways and means motion before the House that deals with the softwood lumber agreement. I think if you seek it you would find agreement among all four parties to have the bell ring for only 15 minutes as opposed to 30.

[Canada Elections Act, September 18th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, first, to correct my hon. colleague's preamble when she said that the bill purports to be a bill about fixed elections, I would not want Canadians to think that we were fixing elections. I think that was a direct quote of what she said. We are talking about fixed election dates, not fixed elections as the Liberal member opposite stated. Perhaps that is something she would like to work on, fixing elections, but it is certainly nothing that the Conservative Party of Canada would support.

To the serious part of her question about defining what constitutes confidence, earlier today in kicking off this debate on Bill C-16 my colleague the hon. government House leader talked quite extensively about the problems inherent in trying to put a fence around the definition of confidence.

There are traditional confidence measures in the House of Commons. The hon. member quite correctly stated that the budget is one that over a period of years has been deemed to be a confidence measure in a government, whether it is a majority or a minority government. It would also include any bills dealing with taxation or money bills, whether they are ways and means motions or main estimates. Those types of bills are generally accepted as being confidence or if the government was defeated on them, a vote of non-confidence in the government and the government would fall.

Over and above that I would suggest to the hon. member that it would be very problematic for us to clearly define what constitutes confidence and what does not. My colleague the government House leader gave an example earlier today. What if there was a motion before Parliament of such importance and he used the example of Canada going to war. It is my belief we are in a war right now. But if there were a motion before the House, would the government not want that motion to be a motion of confidence, something so important where we would be sending young Canadians into harm's way? That would be a motion of confidence because if the government were purporting to participate as a nation in a war somewhere, it would only be right that if the government lost that vote that the government would fall.

There are things over and above money bills which the member mentioned that have to be confidence measures. We are going to deal with one tomorrow, the ways and means motion on the softwood lumber agreement. I agree it should be a confidence measure because it is of such importance to our nation.

[Canada Elections Act, September 18th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise and join this debate today. I will start by addressing the question that my hon. colleague from the Liberal Party, the member for Yukon, has just posed in regard to his concern that with fixed election dates the last year might result in a lame duck government. I will suggest to the member that we just went through an entire Parliament with a lame duck government. Thank goodness the people of Canada decided to act on that and get rid of that lame duck government last January. Fixed election dates do not affect the ability of Liberals to have lame duck governments.

At the outset, let me indicate that I will be splitting my time with my colleague from St. Catharines. It is a pleasure to do so.

Since this 39th Parliament commenced roughly six months ago, I have taken great pleasure in seeing so many pieces of outstanding legislation tabled in the House by Canada's new Conservative government. While I value the opportunity to participate in debate on any one of these bills, there is a handful upon which I place special value. Most often these are the bills that propose and enact changes I have advocated throughout my 13 years as a member of Parliament.

I cannot sufficiently articulate the satisfaction I experience in finally being able to stand in this House to speak to a piece of government legislation that encapsulates a concept or a belief that I have fought for in Ottawa for so many years on behalf of the constituents of Prince George—Peace River. Bill C-16 is one of those bills. I am very proud to speak in support of it here today.

Fixed election dates in Canada is a democratic reform I have unwaveringly and vocally supported since I entered political life some 18 years ago. To me and my constituents, the benefits of fixed election dates are patently obvious. The concept is simple and serves to enhance our nation's democracy at a time when confidence in our democratic and parliamentary institutions have been eroded by a decade of scandal.

This legislation serves to modernize our democracy, bringing it in line with the realities and demands of Canadian governance in this 21st century. Bill C-16 ensures that no government, not ours or any future government, can manipulate election dates to its partisan advantage.

This legislation in no way serves the interests of the Conservative Party of Canada or any other political party. Our government introduced this reform to serve the best interests of Canadians and to ensure a healthy, vibrant and responsive democracy. Never again will this nation face the manipulation of the timing of elections that we saw throughout the 13 years the former Liberal government was in power.

In 1997, Jean Chrétien sent Canadians back to the polls early despite the flood crisis in Manitoba, which of course, Mr. Speaker, you are very well aware of. In 2000, for the second time, he called another early election to take advantage of favourable polls.

Three and a half years after that, in 2004, his successor, the member for LaSalle—Émard, called another early election when Parliament began to unearth Liberal scandal in its inquiry into the sponsorship issue. This is a perfect example of why Canada needs fixed election dates. This kind of manipulation unnecessarily derails important government and parliamentary business and gives rise to cynicism among voters.

As I said, the concept of fixed election dates is not new. In fact, we are not the first legislative body in Canada to pass the necessary legislation.

As my colleagues have pointed out, my home province of British Columbia was the first to enact fixed election dates. The B.C. legislative assembly passed this electoral reform legislation in 2001. We enjoyed our first fixed election on May 17, 2005. We already know that our next provincial election will be held on May 12, 2009, and on the second Tuesday of May four years after that unless a minority government falls through a vote of non-confidence.

Newfoundland and Labrador enacted fixed election dates in December 2004. Its residents know that their next general election will be held on October 9, 2007, and, in accordance with their legislation, afterward on the second Tuesday in October in the fourth calendar year following polling day of the most recently held general election.

Finally, last December, the Ontario legislature passed a law which deems that Ontario residents will go to the polls on October 4, 2007, and on the first Thursday in October every four years thereafter.

Under Bill C-16, Canadians could face the same certainty, fairness, predictability and transparency that the residents of B.C., Newfoundland and Labrador and Ontario now enjoy through fixed election dates.

Upon passage of this legislation, the next federal election would be held on October 19, 2009, unless the current government loses the confidence of the House before that date. Should that happen, the next election following that and others following majority election wins would be held on the third Monday in October in the fourth calendar year following the election arising from the fall of a minority government.

The third Monday in October is a good choice for Canada, I would submit. Optimum weather conditions, offering the best chance for Canadians to get to the polls, are between May and October. The summer months of July and August, vacation time, obviously are inappropriate for an election. The October date also minimizes conflict with provincial or municipal elections.

This legislation is supported by the Canadian Snowbird Association because it improves the odds that those Canadians who travel abroad during the winter can make it to the polls on election day. They would have that certainty of knowing when the election would be.

The legislation also enhances the opportunity for students to cast their ballots. This is especially important at a time when voter turnout, particularly among our younger generation, has plummeted.

While the proposed date does not appear at this time to conflict with religious or cultural occasions, Bill C-16 carefully ensures that the Chief Electoral Officer can recommend an alternate voting day, on the third Tuesday of October or the following Monday, in the event that such a conflict did arise.

The final benefit of this date, I would like to point out, is that the third week in October also happens to fall within citizenship week in Canada. I do not think there is a better way to highlight the privileges, rights and responsibilities of being a citizen in a democratic nation like ours than to have an election during that week.

Like much of the legislation tabled by this government, Bill C-16 is about moving forward with practical and substantive reforms that provide tangible results and benefit our nation for decades to come. It is about getting the job done. Our nation and this Parliament have many complex and controversial issues to address. Our government is taking immediate legislative action on those matters where we can or is working quickly in concert with Canadians to develop appropriate legislation.

What is refreshing is that we are managing the business of our nation so that when there are issues on which we can take simple, straightforward steps such as this one to enact fixed election dates, we move ahead and do it. That is leadership and, I would submit, it is something this nation has been without for far too many years.

At the end of my formal remarks, I would like to state I am very pleased that the Bloc Québécois is suggesting that it is going to support the legislation. It is a positive sign. I would urge the other opposition parties, the Liberals and the New Democratic Party, to likewise support this legislation.

Let us move it forward and get it into committee. If it needs to be amended or altered, let us discuss that there in a spirit of cooperation and a willingness on the part of all four political parties to move this important bill forward.

[Terry Fox Run, September 18th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, this past weekend thousands of Canadians from coast to coast participated in Terry Fox runs to raise funds for cancer research.

In the 26 years since Terry ended his run on September 1, 1980, $400 million has been raised to fight cancer through Terry Fox runs. His Marathon of Hope captured the hearts of Canadians when a young man with an artificial leg ran with a double step and a hop for 42 kilometres a day for several months.

Terry may have never reached the Pacific but his Marathon of Hope continues on. Across the street from Parliament Hill is a statue of Terry running westward. It reminds people of the difference that just one Canadian can make in this world.

On behalf of all British Columbians I proudly call Terry Fox a British Columbian and a Canadian hero.

[Canada Elections Act, September 18th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Vancouver Quadra raised the issue in his answer about the prime minister still having the prerogative under a majority situation to call an election before the fixed election date, if the bill becomes law and were to be in place.

Yes, under the legislation the prime minister of the day would still have that freedom to go to the Governor General and ask her to dissolve parliament and call an election. I suggest it would be very difficult for any prime minister to sell that to Canadians if they were expecting, especially under a majority situation, that parliament was going to last for a period of time. I cannot imagine why a particular prime minister would feel that he or she could not continue to govern, despite the fact of having a majority and having an election date some time into the future. I believe it would have to be an extraordinary situation for a prime minister to do that. If a prime minister went against the spirit of this legislation and purely called an election because he or she felt the opportunity was ripe, that the situation for his or her particular political party was very advantageous to go to the polls, I suspect that person would quite likely be punished by the Canadian people in the subsequent election campaign.

[Canada Elections Act, September 18th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the comments made by my colleague for Vancouver Quadra on this important legislation.

Already in the debate this morning, there has been some discussion and questions from opposition in regard to the legislation. I thought the government House leader did an excellent job of explaining the rationale for the legislation and why we believe, in the Conservative Party of Canada, that all members of Parliament would want to support it as our Parliament and parliamentary institutions continue to evolve. It is an important step forward.

My question deals with the prime minister's prerogative to note that he and his government perhaps have lost confidence of the House, therefore precipitating an election. There were some questions about why we would still need that and what would constitute loss of confidence in this place. I believe the government House leader did a pretty good job of explaining why that is necessary.

We certainly do not want the courts to muck about and define what is or is not a confidence motion for our Parliament. However, I would suggest to my hon. colleague for Vancouver Quadra that if we get this legislation in place, there will be public pressure, both on the opposition in a minority situation and on the prime minister and the government, to very clearly explain to Canadians why an election would be necessary.

Once there is a fixed election date in front of Canadians and they are anticipating and planning for an election, in this particular case on Monday, October 19, 2009, if confidence is lost in this chamber and the Prime Minister is required, under our system of government, to go to the Governor General and have her call an election, I think there will be increased pressure to explain to Canadians why we could not wait until that fixed election date. That is a good thing, because it would provide, at least I hope, for much greater stability in Parliament and in the nation.

[Committees of the House, June 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions between all parties, and I think you will find there is unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding the Order made on Tuesday, April 25, 2006, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security be authorized to continue its deliberations relating to its review of the Anti-terrorism Act beyond June 23, 2006 and to present its final report no later than December 22, 2006.

[Federal Accountability Act, June 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, suitable to whom? I think that is the question.

We and the Prime Minister did not deny that committee the right to democratically express its opinion on the appointment Gwyn Morgan. That committee had its right to do that, and we do not deny that.

Gwyn Morgan, who headed up EnCana, was not unsuitable. He is one of the most highly regarded and highly respected business people. He was going to do this job for $1 a year. It is important for Canadians watching these proceedings at home to understand that. In other words, he was going to do it for free. A person of that stature was going to assist to set up an appointment process. He was not going to make the appointments himself. Let us be clear about that. Because of his knowledge and his understanding of structure and corporate structure, he was going set up that process. The opposition parties, for purely partisan reasons, trashed him in committee and passed that motion.

Why would we select someone else to go through that process?

[Federal Accountability Act, June 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that thanks to the NDP and the other opposition parties, that process is not in place now. That is simply because the person whom we had considered to head up that commission, a very renowned gentleman from western Canada who was a businessman, was brought before a parliamentary committee, criticized and torn apart in front of all Canadians on national television. It was a televised committee meeting. His appointment was rejected by that committee.

Despite the best efforts of the Prime Minister and this government, the Conservative Party of Canada, who wanted to have an arm's length process in place that the member says she supports, the opposition parties did everything possible to demean that process and to ensure that no other individual would want to let his or her name stand to go through that type of process.

I think that is a real shame. The reality is that we should have, and the Prime Minister supports, an arm's length process so that we do not have the old system in place where it is only the Prime Minister and individuals in the PMO who make those selections and make those appointments. We would rather have that other system, but I would hesitate, as certainly the Prime Minister would, to appoint someone only to have him or her appear before a committee and be torn apart by partisan interests on the part of the opposition parties.

[Federal Accountability Act, June 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to speak to Bill C-2, the federal accountability act, despite the late hour this evening. I do not believe it is an overstatement to call this one of the most important pieces of legislation in Canadian democratic history. The very circumstances under which this bill was drafted and introduced have been historic.

It might surprise my opponents across the way that I am not going to use my opportunity to speak on this bill by rehashing the sponsorship scandal and other well publicized scandals which led to the Liberal Party of Canada's troubles while it was in government, as well as its current state of turmoil now that it is in opposition. While these unfortunate events were the catalysts that ultimately led to the tabling of Bill C-2, I refer to them only in order to demonstrate that this legislation we are debating will not only serve Canadians and our entire democratic political system, it will ultimately serve the best interests of the political parties themselves.

First and foremost, the federal accountability act protects Canadians' hard-earned tax dollars and preserves the credibility of and confidence in our democratic institutions. However, by its very nature, this legislation will provide all political parties with the comfort and reassurance of strict guidelines and codes of practice. Had these stringent rules legislated under this bill been in place several years ago, it is possible that my colleagues in the Liberal Party may not have had to endure the controversy and the internal turmoil that is their reality today.

I may disagree on many issues with my colleagues across the floor of this chamber, but I know that Canadians are best served by both a strong government and a strong opposition.

The reforms proposed under Bill C-2 are designed to enhance the openness of all federal political parties. If a particular party gains the ultimate confidence of Canadians and forms a government, it will benefit from the reforms and guidelines this legislation imposes upon government operations and accountability.

By toughening the laws concerning the financing of political parties and candidates, Bill C-2 will increase transparency and reduce opportunities to influence politicians, thereby helping Canadians feel more confident about our democratic process.

These measures include a ban on contributions by corporations, unions and organizations, and lower limits on contributions that individuals can make to a registered party, candidates, nomination contestants and district associations. This legislation also bans secret donations to political candidates. It prohibits candidates from accepting gifts that might risk influencing them in the performance of their elected duties. It requires them to report any gifts over $500.

When it comes to influencing government, this bill includes significant measures to ensure that lobbying is practised in an ethical and transparent manner. For example, ministers, ministerial staff, transition team members and senior public servants will not be permitted to lobby the Government of Canada for five years after leaving office.

Bill C-2 will also ensure that government contracts are free from political interference. In addition, government polling and advertising will be subject to strict new rules. Significant violations and scandalous practices within these two aspects of government operations were brought to light in recent years by the Auditor General of Canada.

As we are all well aware in this House, reports issued by the Office of the Auditor General of Canada are largely what compelled Canadians to recognize the urgent need to address severe and widespread deficiencies in government accountability and the misuse of taxpayers' money. Parliamentarians need objective and fact based information about how the government raises and spends public funds. The Auditor General is an independent and reliable source of such information.

This new Conservative government recognizes the major contribution of the Auditor General. In fact, Bill C-2 is our tangible tribute to the professionalism, diligence and forthright honesty of our current Auditor General, Sheila Fraser. She is probably the most respected and trusted federal official in Canada today. Many of the reforms proposed in this legislation are based upon recommendations that she herself made.

Therefore, in drafting the federal accountability act and the accompanying non-legislative action plan, it was clear to our government that we must also strengthen the Office of the Auditor General to further enhance her ability to serve Parliament and Canadians.

The Auditor General audits federal departments and agencies, most crown corporations and many other federal organizations. She reports up to four times a year to the House of Commons on matters that she believes should be brought to the attention of the House, and she testifies on audits before parliamentary committees.

The federal accountability act would give the Auditor General much wider powers to follow the money. In 2005 the Auditor General Act was amended to allow the Auditor General to inquire into the use of funds, essentially transfer payments and loans received by not for profit corporations or corporations without share capital that had in any five consecutive fiscal years received a total of $100 million or more under funding agreements.

This was a good start to address the Auditor General's concerns on significant transfers to foundations. However, it does not allow the Auditor General to follow the money for a wider range of transfer payment recipients. The federal accountability act would greatly extend this mandate.

At her discretion the Auditor General would now be empowered to inquire into the use of grants, contributions and loans by individuals, institutions and companies that receive funding under funding agreements. The only exemptions are for payments to other governments, which includes first nations, and to international organizations. The power will extend to funding provided by crown corporations themselves. The financial limit will be lowered from $100 million so that recipients that receive $1 million or more in total over five years are included. The $100 million threshold will allow the Auditor General to focus on larger payments and will serve to exclude payments to Canadians under basic statutory entitlement programs such as old age security and guaranteed income supplement.

The act would also enable regulations to be passed that will require that funding agreements with recipients include provisions that support the Auditor General's mandate. Specifically, funding agreements will include terms that require recipients to provide information and records to the Auditor General on request. These changes will allow the Auditor General much greater ability to follow the money when she considers it to be appropriate for the purposes of informing Parliament on the use of funds.

In addition, certain immunities available to some other agents of Parliament will be extended to the Office of the Auditor General. The act would provide immunity for the Auditor General from criminal and civil proceedings for actions taken in the performance or execution of her duties, functions or powers. This protection would not extend to excesses or abuses of authority, but would protect the Auditor General and persons acting on her behalf or under her direction where their actions are taken in good faith in the performance of their duties.

The act would also provide protection to the Auditor General from being a compellable witness in most proceedings. She and persons acting on her behalf or under her direction would not be required to testify about information that came to their attention in the course of performing their duties.

Further to the legislative changes to be enacted through the federal accountability act, we will proceed immediately with non-legislative measures to ensure that the Office of the Auditor General has adequate resources to fulfill its mandate. The Auditor General is one of five agents of Parliament currently participating in a two year pilot project. Under this pilot project an all party parliamentary advisory panel considers the funding requests of agents prior to a final Treasury Board decision on their budgets. This process gives Parliament a greater role and respects the independence of agents of Parliament while allowing the Treasury Board Secretariat to provide input on panel recommendations.

These changes will reassure Parliament and Canadians that this government strongly supports the Auditor General's role as an essential source of independent information about government spending. Our current Auditor General is a hard act to follow. However, it is my fervent hope that once Bill C-2 and its accompanying non-legislative reforms become well established and entrenched in our democratic and political institutions, Canadians will extend to more federal officials the kind of confidence that they now hold for the Auditor General.

In conclusion, I know that in my riding of Prince George--Peace River in northeastern British Columbia confidence and trust in government have eluded my constituents for far too many years. I believe that the passage of the federal accountability act will serve to help restore those highly valued fundamentals of Canadian democracy.