John Baird

[Government Programs, October 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, not one of the government amendments to the bill in the Senate weakened the bill, but I share the disappointment of the member opposite with respect to the actions of the unelected Liberal Senate. It wants to increase the role of big money in politics. We want more openness and we want to reduce it.

The unelected Liberal Senate wants to, for the first time in Canadian history, reduce the number of organizations covered by access to information. We want to increase the number of organizations covered by access to information. What we see by the actions of the unelected Liberal Senate is that problematically the Liberal Party--

[Infrastructure, October 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend from Hull—Aylmer that this is the only municipal project anywhere in the country where I have had two formal Liberal candidates call me and write to me and express huge concerns about this project. Two Liberal candidates have expressed significant concerns to say that this project cannot be delivered at its cost.

Let us look at what the Canadian Taxpayers Federation said. It said, “Taxpayers have been misled from the get-go and it is about time the light rail project got looked at by fresh eyes. This project has been cloaked in secrecy and half-truths for months. We will bring light where there is darkness. We will bring”--

[Infrastructure, October 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, when this government ran for office, we promised a new era of accountability. We promised to change the way government business was done in Ottawa and we are doing exactly that.

Gone are the days where backroom deals could be made on billion dollar contracts only to see huge cost overruns and scandals brought forward by the previous government.

Let us hear what Michael Polowin, a commercial property lawyer writing in the Ottawa Citizen on October 16, had to say. He said:

[This project] deserves to be dealt with in the full light of day, instead of in secrecy. The lack of full and honest disclosure leaves me wondering what else is there that we don't know.

[Infrastructure, October 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, when I was a young fellow growing up in Canada, I would often visit my grandfather in the Maritimes. We used to go digging for clams. The clams like to be cold and in the dark. That is not how this government operates. What we decided to do was to accept our responsibilities and do our due diligence.

I say to the member opposite that when it comes to public transit and light rail in his own constituency, I promise the same accountability.

[Infrastructure, October 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to see the Liberal Party members opposite wanting to see government veiled in a cloak of secrecy. It reminds me of an editorial I read in the Ottawa Citizen on Saturday, October 14, which stated:

Turns out there are some people [the Liberals opposite] who favour secrecy, who are happy to keep the taxpayer in the dark, and not surprisingly they belong to the federal Liberal party--the same party that when in power was hardly famous for openness and transparency.

[Infrastructure, October 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we deal with issues based on the facts. The facts are that this issue came before the Treasury Board on September 28. We believed it was tremendously important that on one of the largest contributions, one of the largest grants given this year across the country, we do something that was rather unusual, something that might be foreign to Liberal members opposite. We did our homework. We did a thorough review of the case. We were told then by numerous officials that a decision had to be made just a few short weeks before an election. When it was discovered that we had more than enough time to wait until after the election, we were very pleased to do that.

[Government Programs, October 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I gave no such instructions to my deputy minister or officials.

[Softwood Lumber, October 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, paying one's own freight is obviously a concept that is unfamiliar to the Liberal Party. I have answered the question about as directly as I can.

What I want to know is why the Liberal Party of Canada here in the House of Commons is hiding behind the unelected Liberal Senate to do its dirty work to limit access to information for the first time in Canadian history. What do the Liberals have to hide at the Canadian Wheat Board? The member should stand in his place and tell that to Canadians and to hard-working farmers in western Canada.

[Softwood Lumber, October 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I understand they did not claim any expenses, which is a rather foreign concept to members of the Liberal Party.

Let us look at the Liberal Party's hidden agenda on accountability. It wants to increase the role of big money in politics. It wants to reduce access to information available to Canadians. It wants to continue the political patronage of our public service. Most galling of all is that it wants to water down the role of our new Ethics Commissioner. It actually wants to eliminate retroactive access to information.

Maybe the member opposite could stand in his place and explain the secret hidden agenda of--

[Government Programs, October 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. We strongly believe in accountability. That is why my deputy minister, my assistant deputy minister and I all appeared before the government operations committee last week.

My colleagues have appeared before numerous committees. I believe the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development will be appearing before two committees this week and I understand the Minister of Public Works and Government Services will be appearing before committee, all of this with their officials.

In the previous Parliament, we could not find a Liberal minister who would ever agree to go before a committee. Now in this government we are only too happy to be accountable before committees.