John Baird

[Public Service of Canada, April 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I can indicate to my friend from Ottawa that this government values the role of the public service.

Rumours and mischief and fearmongering have gone on with respect to the public service. Our budget will be tabled in this place on May 2 and I think public servants will welcome it, as will all Canadians. It will be a real change for Canada. It will allow Canadians to keep more of their hard-earned tax dollars, and that will be welcomed by all Canadians, especially our public servants.

[Public Service of Canada, April 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I can indicate to the member opposite that the government will ensure that a respectful, productive relationship for public servants on both sides of the river is maintained. Morale has been quite low. We look forward to a productive relationship. I would encourage the member opposite to not believe any mischievous statements that might lead to some fearmongering.

The government wants a strong, vibrant public service to help deliver good programs to the people of Canada.

[Aboriginal Affairs, April 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the government did not want to establish a two tier process for the Auditor General. We believe that the Auditor General has been a real hero to the Canadian taxpayer and all Canadians. We want to give her the discretionary power to follow the money. I think all Canadians, including aboriginal Canadians, will welcome this initiative.

[Aboriginal Affairs, April 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the member opposite that before the decision was taken to include first nations in our federal accountability act, I had the opportunity to sit down and talk to Chief Fontaine. He asked for a meeting and one was granted within 24 hours.

[Public Service, April 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the government is committed to a constructive relationship with the public service, whose morale was very low after 13 long years of the blame game attributed to Liberal members and to the previous cabinet.

Let us look at what the head of the Public Service Alliance of Canada had to say about the government: “[The minister] has proven he is willing to work with the PSAC and he has taken the time and gone around to meet with different unions and meet with members. That is a good sign”.

What did he say when the Liberal fearmongering began? He said that he is “apt to believe Baird”.

[Gomery Commission, April 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to any other Liberals from the former government who might be lining up for money to go to a judicial review to fight the charges of kickbacks and corruption, I can confirm to the member opposite that any such requests landing on the desk of this Treasury Board President will be dead on arrival.

[Gomery Commission, April 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, let us look at the facts. Justice Gomery found evidence within the Liberal government of kickback schemes and corruption. The people of Canada, through their members of Parliament, threw the Liberals out of office by defeating them.

Minutes, even hours, before the people of Canada turfed the government out of office, the former government was stepping up to the plate to give a $40,000 payment to a former senior Liberal. It is regrettable and unfortunate, and it was not in the public interest. This government will always act in the public interest.

[Gomery Commission, April 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the former Prime Minister, Mr. Chrétien, when he sought a judicial review, said that he would not be looking to the taxpayers of Canada to fund his legal fees. The then Treasury Board president said that funding for this type of activity would be over. We learned in the dying hours of the previous regime that the Liberal Party felt the need to have one more flypast over the gravy train. It is regrettable and it is unfortunate.

[Federal Accountability Act, April 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, when there was a concern about Mr. Mulroney, the previous government undertook some investigations and ended up having to write a $1 million cheque to Mr. Mulroney and issue an apology because there was nothing there.

What happened is quite interesting. The Liberals had to write a cheque for $1 million that had been stolen from the Canadian people and funnelled to Liberal campaign and political operations.

The member asked about a certain individual. I know the member's government had to write a cheque to Mulroney for $1 million because there was nothing there, while we know there was something running afoul in the previous government.

The member opposite asked a question about lobbying. It was interesting to hear the member for Saint John make an interjection. He himself was a lobbyist. We are putting a five-year ban on those who worked in government. If the member opposite wants to extend that to opposition staffs, if he thinks it is so important, I would encourage him to make an amendment to the bill and include his own staff.

Let us make it retroactive for the Liberals who worked in the previous government, if the member opposite is saying the bill does not go far enough and we should regulate people who serve in opposition. We are not even proposing to regulate members of Parliament, only those who serve in the executive branch. If the member wants to take this to the legislative branch because he feels it is not going far enough, by all means he should bring forward amendments. However, if I were a betting man, I would suggest it will not happen.

[Federal Accountability Act, April 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to those individuals who change their political stripe, this was not part of the campaign document. It was not part of the federal accountability act that the now Prime Minister presented on November 4. There has been some debate in this place and in the country on the issue. I did see the then leader of the opposition appear on a CBC national town hall meeting saying that he did not support such a measure, so he certainly did not change his position.

I do not personally support such a measure. I think members of Parliament, hopefully on rare occasions, may come to a conclusion they could best serve their constituents. At the end of the day, they are accountable on election day, as we all are, for all choices that they make.

I know it was part of Mr. Broadbent's plan, and I have a great deal of respect for that individual. He is a man of great character. I did though remember, when he was leader of the NDP, that a fellow by the name of Robert Toupin crossed the floor to the New Democratic Party. He did not mind it back then when it happened to him. I just point that out for the benefit of the House.

With respect to how much the fiscal accounting will cost, the price of accountability is priceless. These measures hopefully will save money, not cost money.