John Baird

[Federal Accountability Act, June 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The capable and hard-working whip of the New Democratic Party, with whom I spoke about the National Capital Commission, pointed out that it should be Motion No. 27 and not Motion No. 29 that should be debated.

I apologize and appreciate the wise counsel of the member from Bathurst.

[Federal Accountability Act, June 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to speak to Motion No. 30. This motion addresses the issue with respect to following the money, the authority of the Auditor General and the exclusion of aboriginal organizations.

In committee, a motion was approved that excludes the council of a band as defined in the Indian Act as well as other aboriginal bodies. The motion before us today replaces the words “the council of a band” by “a band” to properly reflect the institution that receives the grant or contribution. In other words, funding agreements are made between the Crown and a band as opposed to the council of a band.

We very much see these amendments as technical. Of course the strong view of the government caucus and members on this side of this House would be that the follow the money provisions should extend to these organizations and I will put that on the record. The purpose of the amendment is to clarify an amendment that was brought in by the opposition.

I want to assure the member for Repentigny, and through him to anyone outside the House, that there is certainly no attempt whatsoever in any way, shape or form to get around the decision taken at committee. I am very happy to put that on the record for his benefit.

[Federal Accountability Act, June 20th, 2006]

moved:

Motion No. 30

That Bill C-2, in Clause 315, be amended by replacing lines 19 to 25 on page 207 with the following:

“provincial government or a municipality, or any of their agencies;

(c.1) a band, as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Indian Act, or an aboriginal body that is party to a self-government agreement given effect by an Act of Parliament, or any of their agencies;”

I want to speak very briefly to the amendment put forward by the New Democratic Party. The member for Ottawa Centre does have a strong commitment, and we should acknowledge that, to reforming the National Capital Commission.

As a member representing one of the ridings in the national capital I think I can speak for all of us. The member for Pontiac is here as well as the member for Nepean—Carleton. I know the member for Ottawa—Vanier and the member for Gatineau would also agree that the NCC is in need of reform. One of the essential elements there though is consultation, that the public be involved in that process.

The good news is that all the members and all parties support reform. The minister responsible for the National Capital Commission, one of the most capable representatives in the federal cabinet, is seized with the issue and I think he will be speaking to that in short order.

Given that this is an amendment, we have received no public consultation on it. I am not saying I disagree with components of it. I do think there is a lot of value to what the member for Ottawa Centre spoke about in committee. It would be certainly the government's view that, while there is great merit in some of the suggestions, it would be better dealt with when there would be an opportunity for the public to be consulted on this amendment before it goes forward.

We did open up the National Capital Commission Act for one purpose, to separate the chair and the CEO which is going to be done. The position is up for renewal in short order and before that happened we felt we wanted to fast track that one small change. However, I would underline the appreciation that I have, and I know all members in the capital would have, for the member for Ottawa Centre's desire to see reform on this issue.

[Federal Accountability Act, June 20th, 2006]

moved:

Motion No. 28

That Bill C-2, in Clause 315, be amended by replacing, in the French version, lines 16 and 17 on page 206 with the following:

“b) concernant la corruption ou la collusion au”

[Federal Accountability Act, June 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I say to my friend from Repentigny, another promise made, another promise kept by the President of the Treasury Board.

[Federal Accountability Act, June 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Repentigny is correct. I had neglected to speak to the official opposition on this issue.

Various members of Parliament have talked about Motion No. 11, as to whether it was intended to remove the Chief Electoral Officer from that list, not to grandfather that incumbent in office. The only part that opened that act with respect to that officer was with respect to the secret ballot. When the secret ballot motion was defeated, we believed we should move it from here.

Having said that, while it would be proper for the legislative framework in our judgment, which is a judgment not a fact, we would be happy to withdraw this amendment if it would provide greater comfort to the opposition.

Would he like some time to think about it? No, so I guess I look to our friend from the New Democratic Party. I have heard representations from her whip on this issue and I would ask for unanimous consent to withdraw Motion No. 11 in my name.

[Federal Accountability Act, June 20th, 2006]

He said: Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not say to all members of the House that there has been a lot of due diligence from the members of the official opposition, the Bloc and the New Democrats on this. Members have certainly tried to do their very best to fulfill their responsibilities. I would be negligent if I did not point that out to the House and, through you, Mr. Speaker, to Canadians who are watching.

I rise to speak to two motions to amend clause 123 of Bill C-2, the federal accountability act, which proposes the enactment of a director of public prosecutions act. This is something that is tremendously important. Clause 123 was amended by the committee examining the bill to confer authority on a parliamentary committee to approve the appointment of a selected candidate to the position of the director of public prosecutions and to require a resolution from the House of Commons to remove the incumbent from office.

It is the government's view that these amendments which were proposed, I believe in good faith by my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois in committee, are beyond the scope and the principle of Bill C-2 as they run counter to the accountability regime that was carefully designed for the position of the director of public prosecutions.

Pursuant to clause 123, the DPP has the rank and status of a deputy head of department, a deputy minister. The DPP is responsible for initiating and conducting prosecutions under and on behalf of the Attorney General of Canada. The DPP is also required to provide an annual report to the Attorney General in respect of the activities of his or her office.

Accountability is inextricably linked to the authority to appoint and remove an office holder. Bill C-2 has introduced and contemplated an accountability framework whereby the DPP would be responsible and accountable to the Attorney General for the exercise of these executive functions. I would underline the executive as apart from the parliamentary or legislative function in this place. A central feature of this accountability framework is the authority to appoint and remove the DPP, which is conferred solely on the governor in council.

In addition, the DPP would be designated an accounting officer under Bill C-2, which prescribes the nature of the accountability of the DPP before the appropriate committees of the House of Commons and the Senate, as well as setting out how this accountability is discharged in appearing before the committee and answering questions. This is a made in Canada regime and this person would have the status of a deputy minister, while the accountability regimes would be blurred through the amendment that was made in committee.

Clause 123 as amended requires parliamentary approval of the appointment and removal of the DPP. It asks that the House of Commons now have a key role to play in the appointment and removal of a public office holder whose functions do form part of the executive branch of government. The Bloc amendment fundamentally changes the nature of the position and confuses the line of accountability of the DPP. This falls outside the principle and scope of the bill as approved by the House of Commons at second reading.

For this reason, I would like to encourage all members, particularly my good friend, the member for Vancouver Quadra, to give serious consideration to reviewing this decision. Is it really an appropriate line of accountability to have someone exercising executive power with the blurred lines of being designated an accounting officer in part of the bill and then being essentially a quasi-agent of Parliament, exercising executive authority? I commend this advice to members of the House.

[Federal Accountability Act, June 20th, 2006]

moved:

[Federal Accountability Act, June 20th, 2006]

moved:

Motion No. 26

That Bill C-2, in Clause 225, be amended by replacing line 36 on page 173 to line 7 on page 174 with the following:

“that was obtained or created by him or her or on his or her behalf in the course of an investigation into a disclosure made under the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act or an investigation commenced under section 33 of that Act.”

[Federal Accountability Act, June 20th, 2006]

moved:

Motion No. 25

That Bill C-2, in Clause 222, be amended by

a) replacing line 9 on page 171 with the following:

“16.4 (1) The Public Sector Integrity Commis-” (b) adding after line 22 on page 171 the following:

“(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in respect of a record that contains information referred to in paragraph (1)(b) if the person who gave the information to the conciliator consents to the record being disclosed.”