Paul Szabo

[Federal Accountability Act, June 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the member has raised some interesting points about allegations or information related to criminal activity. Of course it is not the Minister of Justice who lays charges. They are matters that would be referred to the RCMP. However, I get her point.

The member seems somewhat concerned about the Access to Information Act and maybe with regard to the Information Officer, Mr. Reid, who has been very vocal about the abandonment of the recommendations that he made, notwithstanding that his term had been extended. The Conservative Party itself made the motion to have this person in the position because the Conservatives trusted him. I am curious as to whether the committee has a good explanation as to why the concerns of Mr. Reid were ultimately rejected by the government.

[Federal Accountability Act, June 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that anyone, whether they be an information officer, an officer of the House or any Canadian for that matter, who becomes aware of an offence under the laws of Canada has an obligation to report that offence notwithstanding anything that might be in this bill.

I wonder if the member is aware of this Criminal Code provision with regard to offences under the act.

[Federal Accountability Act, June 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy listening to the hon. member. He is very enthusiastic and has taken the opportunity to make a broader statement about Bill C-2, not with regard specifically to any particular point of concern on the group other than for the official languages, with which I tend to agree.

It is interesting that he also mentioned the bill would end the corruption of the government. When a party is in government, all the bureaucracy, every department and everybody who works for the Government of Canada, is part of the government. Without the context, when people talk about party, they mean government. When they talk about government, it is not just some MPs and the cabinet, it is also all of the bureaucracy.

As the member will know, charges have been laid and the RCMP is still considering other charges. However, there has been no charges of corruption against anybody in a political party. That is still ongoing.

It appears that Motion No. 14, with regard to the exemptions under the Access to Information Act, still allows the Official Languages Commissioner to refuse to give information, but it also allows the Privacy Commissioner and the Access to Information Commissioner to have an exception. Is that his understanding of that motion?

[Federal Accountability Act, June 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 14 is of particular interest. At first blush I thought it simply deleted paragraph 16.1(1) and folded the Auditor General into the second clause as subparagraph (d) and then renumbered these matters. However, I am not sure if it is exactly that clear. The new paragraph in the bill, as reported back from the committee, says that the head of one of the government institutions listed shall not refuse under certain circumstances. There are exceptions.

I see that the Information Commissioner and the Privacy Commissioner shall not refuse but I am not exactly sure where the Auditor General comes in here. Are there exceptions for the Auditor General? If it is the member's view that the Auditor General does not have some exceptions, I would question that.

[Federal Accountability Act, June 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I believe there is also Motion No. 22, which is related to the motion on the Wheat Board but is about development and research. In view of the fact that the member is one of the more knowledgeable people in the House with regard to the operation of the Canadian Wheat Board and the importance of protecting the best interests of the farmers, he may want to provide his thoughts on that motion as well, as it relates to the same matter.

[Federal Accountability Act, June 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is somewhat unusual that a matter is added on to a group of motions after all of the principal speakers have already spoken to it. Under the rules they cannot speak again, but I wonder if there would be consent to allow each of the parties to put up one speaker to address any matters with regard to this reinstated Motion No. 5.

[Federal Accountability Act, June 20th, 2006]

No, that is not true. The Chair could advise whether or not we can overrule the Speaker's decision on the admissibility of Motion No. 5 by unanimous consent. I wonder if we could get that advice.

I would also ask that, in conjunction with the response, there be some explanation given as to the reasons why Motion No. 5 in fact was excluded and ruled out of order by the Speaker. There may be a possibility of repairing Motion No. 5, which would take an amendment to Motion No. 5, if the House agreed.

This is something that there is interest in pursuing, provided that there is a full understanding by the House that the Speaker's ruling is being summarily overturned by the member's request.

[Federal Accountability Act, June 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I heard the minister clearly, but Motion No. 5 was ruled out of order by the Speaker. The minister wants to reinstate it in Group No. 1. Are there any amendments? I doubt that it is in order to overrule the Speaker's decision. Perhaps the Table could advise.

[Federal Accountability Act, June 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I know the members are interested in the Wheat Board, which is going to come up, but Motion No. 6 was of some concern to members. Just to remind the hon. member, Motion No. 6 deals with the deleting of lines 4 to 8 on page 80, which is actually deleting a clause.

I think I understand what the amendment is seeking to do, but I wonder if the member could simply confirm to the House the reason the government has decided to move Motion No. 6.

[Federal Accountability Act, June 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There is a will to get this done, but we have to ensure that we do it in the proper fashion. I do not believe we can move an amendment on question and comment.

Motion No. 9 still stands on the paper with other wording. Therefore, there has to be a motion to delete a sentence in Motion No. 9 and click in the proper line numbers for 3 and 4. That should be moved by someone who is making a speech. I suggest that it could either be the Minister of Justice or a subsequent speaker.