Pierre Poilievre

[Federal Accountability Act, April 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, this government has gone to lengths to exclude those particular aboriginal organizations that have self-government agreements with the federal government. The decision of the Prime Minister and our government to subject the others to treatment by the Auditor General does not contradict any self-government provisions whatsoever.

I do not understand why the Liberal Party would not want these billions of dollars in expenditures to be subject to the same accountability as other expenditures made by this government and paid for by taxpayers right across the country. Why is it that she wants to shield all of those billions in spending from any scrutiny by the Auditor General? Is it because she knows that under the previous Liberal government there were expenditures that did not actually benefit the aboriginal people? Is it that money was wasted in that area just as it was wasted on the gun registry, in the HRDC boondoggle and in the sponsorship program? Is she afraid to expose to scrutiny the actions and mistreatment by her Liberal government toward aboriginal people and to the taxpayer?

[Federal Accountability Act, April 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it would seem that the member has now reversed his party's position. He has now come out in opposition to the accountability act. Clearly, the act runs contrary to the practices of the Liberal Party and I can understand why he would therefore want to oppose it. He wants business as usual to continue here in this place.

I want him to defend the remarks made by his colleague from Mississauga South who stood in the House and said there is one clause in the entire bill dealing with whistleblower protection. I have in fact page 123 all the way up to page 161. If the member could do his math, that is almost 40 pages of legislation dealing with whistleblower protection.

Let me be clear on what is included in these nearly 40 pages. It says that an independent tribunal of judges would be made available to whistleblowers who believe they have experienced a reprisal. That particular tribunal would have the authority to restore whistleblowers to their previous jobs, give them their back pay plus pain and suffering compensation. It would also have the power, independently, to punish or discipline executives or politicians who have bullied whistleblowers. It would remove cover-up clauses from the existing system. It would give legal representation to whistleblowers.

Has the Liberal Party not actually read the bill? Is it not aware that there are 40 pages of ironclad protection here for whistleblowers? What is wrong with that group over there?

[Federal Accountability Act, April 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his comments. I would also like to know whether he is anxious to see this bill implemented quickly.

I ask this question because we have talked a lot about accountability, whatever word we use for it in French. We have talked about it for years and years. The time for talking is done; it is time for action. We have to act quickly to put in place the changes proposed in this bill. I think that this bill should be implemented before the summer. That is the position of this government. I even think that the members of this House do not deserve any summer vacation if this bill has not yet been implemented.

Does my colleague think that the members should stay here for the summer and that the senators should stay if this bill has not been implemented by the summer?

[Federal Accountability Act, April 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his remarks. After 13 years in power, the Liberals failed to implement any measures to protect whistleblowers in the public service. This bill, the federal accountability act, will provide real independent protection for whistleblowers.

Parts of this protection would include a tribunal, which an independent commissioner would convene, of existing judges who would oversee cases where a public servant alleges he or she has experienced bullying as a result of his or her speaking out against corruption. It would remove the cover-up clauses that the Liberal government put into its Bill C-11, which never passed. It would remove those cover-up clauses and extend protection to all Canadians, including contractors and crown corporations which could otherwise have been struck from the previous Liberal bill at a moment's notice by Order in Council.

We have made all those changes to strengthen whistleblower protection and to introduce some of the best of its kind in the world.

Does the hon. member intend to support the principles I have just enunciated?

Second, I would like to know whether he and his party are going to support us in our goal, which is to pass this bill before the summer.

[Points of Order, April 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday during a vigorous debate on the accountability act, I made some remarks which some members of the House have deemed to be unparliamentary. In order to avoid further time spent on those heated remarks, I would respectfully withdraw them and, in particular, I extend a hand of friendship to the member for Pickering—Scarborough East in the hope that we can work together to improve the debate in the House of Commons.

[Federal Accountability Act, April 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the remarks that I earlier made which were deemed by the Chair to be unparliamentary have been withdrawn. All later remarks fall fully within the realm of acceptable debate in the House of Commons.

[Federal Accountability Act, April 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I did not use any unparliamentary language. I simply said the words and I will quote them again, that that member should start telling the truth. There is absolutely nothing wrong with urging other members of the House to refer to the truth. I stand by those remarks. There is nothing unparliamentary about them whatsoever.

[Federal Accountability Act, April 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw the remarks here and just reserve them for outside the House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that first of all, the member accused the President of the Treasury Board of having been involved in some sort of nefarious lobbying activity when in fact what he is referring to is in 1994 as a 24-year-old, the President of the Treasury Board advocated on behalf of a university health and sciences centre in favour of a grant for students and for research. He then went on to say that the president had been cited negatively by the provincial auditor general. In fact the only time the minister was ever cited by the provincial auditor general was in praise of the actions that he took to clean up waste and corruption.

I would like the member's comments, particularly on what the Canadian Taxpayers Federation said about the member for Pickering—Scarborough East when he attacked the Auditor General's reputation for exposing Liberal waste and corruption at Groupaction. They said about the member that he should stop his political mudslinging.

I wonder if the hon. member agrees that the member should stop his political mudslinging and start telling the truth?

[Federal Accountability Act, April 25th, 2006]

I will consider that, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to point out the factual mistakes that the member has made.

[Federal Accountability Act, April 25th, 2006]

Yes, Mr. Speaker. I said that the hon. member was not renowned for telling the truth and I stand by those remarks.