John Baird

[Federal Accountability Act, June 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have a request for unanimous consent that I believe will meet with the approval of the House.

The member for Repentigny, my dear colleague from Quebec, has a real concern with Motion No. 4. We believe it is a small technical one, but in the interest of parliamentary cooperation, I would ask for unanimous consent that Motion No. 4 to be withdrawn.

[Federal Accountability Act, June 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I will answer the first question from the member for Repentigny. The accountability bill deals with conflicts of interest of members of government. The latter are at a more senior level of responsibility. It is not a bill governing conflicts of interest of members of this House.

If the member would like to deal with that matter, he is free to do so in another bill, on another occasion. The House will study it. I am certain that all members are open to improvements. However, Bill C-2 concerns ministers, ministers of the Crown and parliamentary secretaries.

I will answer the second question in English.

With respect to clause 67(1), it was suggested at committee that there be a review after a period of five years to look at the effect of the act on the government and others affected by it, and whether it has achieved the intended objectives. That is simply the rationale. It would obviously make sense to do so after the bill has come into force. Some of the initiatives come into force immediately, while other parts will take a bit longer. It will take six months for the new commissioner of lobbying to be established.

I am looking at clause 67(1) and I am hard-pressed to see my colleague's concern. If he would like to make further comments, perhaps I could respond.

[Federal Accountability Act, June 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I may disagree on positions with the member for Vancouver Quadra, but I would never doubt his motivation.

[Federal Accountability Act, June 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I hope I can clarify two issues for my esteemed colleague from Vancouver Quadra.

With respect to Motion No. 6, it is a technical one. Basically the amendment we have introduced today would remove the duplication in the bill that came out of committee in favour of the amendments introduced by the Liberals. I would specifically cite Liberal amendments Nos. 6.1 and 6.2. There was also government amendment No. 29. We are basically just eliminating duplication as the bill came out of committee. Officials are here should the member wish further clarification to be certain on that.

With respect to the transition team members, parliamentary secretaries and ministers have no appeal process, although everyone else does, to the independent commissioner, someone of a judicial or quasi-judicial background. Whether it is senior officials, people at the deputy minister or assistant deputy minister rank, and staff working for ministers, all of those categories, which is the overwhelming percentage, some 95% to 98%, of those covered by the act, do have the capacity to appeal to the commissioner. What we are doing is extending that to the transition team, which was an oversight on our part.

I did notice that at committee the member did not support including the transition team, which is certainly his right. We just wanted to create the equity for assistant deputy ministers, deputy ministers and other staff that existed for everyone else except for ministers and parliamentary secretaries.

[Federal Accountability Act, June 20th, 2006]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-2, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 12 on page 6 with the following:

“(2) No minister of the Crown, minister of state or parliamentary secretary shall, in his or her capacity as a member of the Senate or the House of Commons, debate or vote on a question that would place him or her in a conflict of interest.”

Motion No. 2

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

(a) by replacing, in the English version, line 10 on page 22 with the following:

“ministerial staff;”

(b) by replacing, in the English version, lines 16 and 17 on page 22 with the following:

“or decision-making power in the office of a minister of the Crown or a minister of state; and”

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-2, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 1 on page 33 with the following:

“(2) Subject to subsection 6(2) and sections 21 and 30, nothing in this Act abrogates or dero-”

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-2, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 18 and 19 on page 33 with the following:

“67. (1) Within five years after the day on which this section comes into force, a comprehensive review”

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-2, in Clause 78, be amended by deleting lines 4 to 8 on page 80.

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-2 be amended by adding after line 42 on page 84 the following new clause:

“88.11 (1) Any member of a transition team referred to in section 88.1 may apply to the Commissioner of Lobbying for an exemption from that section.

(2) The Commissioner of Lobbying may, on any conditions that the Commissioner of Lobbying specifies, exempt the member from the application of section 88.1 having regard to any circumstance or factor that the Commissioner of Lobbying considers relevant, including the following:

(a) the circumstances under which the member left the functions referred to in subsection 88.1(5);

(b) the nature, and significance to the Government of Canada, of information that the member possessed by virtue of the functions referred to in subsection 88.1(5);

(c) the degree to which the member’s new employer might gain unfair commercial advantage by hiring the member;

(d) the authority and influence that the member possessed while having the functions referred to in subsection 88.1(5); and

(e) the disposition of other cases.

(3) The Commissioner of Lobbying shall without delay cause every exemption and the Commissioner of Lobbying’s reasons for it to be made available to the public.

(4) The Commissioner of Lobbying may verify the information contained in any application under subsection (1).”

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-2, in Clause 99, be amended by deleting line 9 on page 89 to line 5 on page 90.

[Public Health Agency of Canada Act, June 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened, with great interest, to the speech of the member for Winnipeg Centre. He obviously brings a lot of passion to this issue.

While he spoke a lot about the Public Health Agency, which is important for the future of the country, and he spoke a lot about trans fats, most notable is the fact that he did not speak about the federal accountability act.

I would be remiss if I did not stand in my place and acknowledge the terrific amount of work that member has done to ensure we deliver accountability to the federal government. He should be congratulated for his hard work and for standing up for principle.

[Points of Order, June 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During question period in a question from the member for Oakville concerning the issue of child care, a number of members on the government side clearly heard the member for Beaches--East York heckle, “You don't give a”--and I regret to say--“goddamn about children”. That expression is clearly unparliamentary. It is clearly insensitive religiously. It is taking the Lord's name in vain. It is clearly a slur that is unparliamentary.

I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to ask the member to retract her words and apologize, and for goodness' sake, could he call on the member for Wascana to get control of his opposition bench?

[Federal Accountability Act, June 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it would certainly put the Prime Minister in a rather awkward position because he asked the most well respected business leader in Canada, as voted by his colleagues, to come to government to take what was the biggest salary cut in Canadian history in the service of Canadians. It was rather awkward. Would the member suggest we go to the second most trusted person in Canada?

[Federal Accountability Act, June 16th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the NDP got off to such a great start with her question and then spoiled it at the end.

I want to thank members of the New Democratic Party for their support of bringing accountability on issue after issue after issue. They joined the Conservative Party and the Prime Minister in bringing about real accountability ensuring that we have more qualified government appointments.

If this Parliament can do one single thing, it will be to end the culture of entitlement created by the Liberal Party and bring in a culture of accountability. Bill C-2 is the toughest anti-corruption bill in Canadian history and it is--

[Decorum, June 15th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the people of Ontario are waiting for an apology from the Liberal government which cut the health care budget in this country by $25 billion. The only government in this country that cut health care and created a crisis was the Liberal government, of which that member was a member. He should stand in his place and apologize to the people of Canada.