Yasmin Ratansi

[Canada Elections Act, February 14th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should read what he is talking about. It was Bill C-2 that restricted the $1,100. This is Bill C-54, which deals with loans. Perhaps he is going to be talking about the member in his own caucus who took $30,000 from his company. I think the member should figure out what he is talking about before asking questions.

[Canada Elections Act, February 14th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, women were able to participate because there were no Draconian measures. I think he missed my question to the previous member where I said that the current legislation demands that loans be publicly disclosed, including the amount of every loan and the name of every lender and guarantor. The only person who has not disclosed that is the Prime Minister.

In addition, the current legislation also states that loans cannot be used to avoid donation limits.

When loans were in place, processes were in place that women could access funding. He missed the point quite clearly that women have a problem accessing funding. The Standing Committee on the Status of Women has been looking at women's participation and found that they cannot access funding and, if they do access funding, it is to their detriment because the bank wants guarantors.

What is wrong with the current system that allows these women to get their loans from individuals, from family or from friends? That is the process that was available to allow women to participate. I am glad I was in the process to participate.

When the member makes statements, he should look at what has been done before. The rules were not regressive and, therefore, women could participate.

In terms of Michael Fortier, the bottom line is that he is an unelected member. The leader of the current opposition party was a member in the House. If the member gets his facts wrong, I am sorry but that is the problem with them. They keep getting their facts wrong and whatever they say they think is right. However, the facts speak for themselves.

[Canada Elections Act, February 14th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to address the report stage amendments to the bill that would amend the Canada Elections Act regarding accountability with respect to loans.

As my hon. colleagues have already talked about, this is a moot point because it is very explicit under the law that is currently in place. Details of loans, including the amount of every loan, the name of every lender and every guarantee must already be publicized and disclosed.

What we want to know is the purpose of these changes or regression that the Conservatives want. May I say from the outset that it is in the interest of all Canadians to ensure that the federal government is accountable because we were sent here by the people to be accountable.

I am an accountant by trade. I was elected by the people of Don Valley East as their federal representative because they wanted someone deeply concerned about transparency and accountability. We are wondering about the need of some aspects in the proposed legislation. The committee looked at it and had made recommendations. Some things are very important that we need the committee's democratic process to run with.

When we look at some of the initiatives that were launched by the previous Liberal governments in 1993 and 2006, they were initiatives that made government more accountable and the whole process more transparent. We introduced the office of the Ethics Commissioner. The Ethics Commissioner is an important element that we need because we have to refer matters to him. We fostered the development to make the ethics officer independent from the Prime Minister's Office, which is important because the ethics officer is accountable to Parliament.

It was the Liberal government that also established a separate Senate ethics commissioner and it was the Liberal government that first established clear guidelines for public office holders. Furthermore, it was the Liberal government that restored the comptroller general function at each department and subsequently instituted an internal audit department. Being a person who comes from that environment, I think it is very important that we instituted those checks and balances.

What does the bill attempt to do? The bill attempts to build on the changes that were proposed by the committee. They attempt to build on the reforms that were originally introduced by the Liberal government, for example, electoral reform.

It was under the Liberal government that we introduced Bill C-24, which was a dramatic reform of political financing in Canadian history and it passed the strictest limits on the amounts of money that private companies and trade unions could contribute to a party or a candidate. Through the same bill, it was the Liberal government that first introduced public funding for political parties, an innovation that made political parties far less reliant on corporate or union financing.

Those types of transparencies have been introduced. The barriers that people had, the barriers to transparency were eliminated by bringing in those type of reforms.

We in the Liberal Party support the efforts to increase transparency and accountability in the electoral process and that is why the Liberal leadership candidates of the Liberal Party went beyond the requirements set out by Elections Canada in reporting loans to its campaigns.

In stark contrast, the Prime Minister still refuses to disclose the names of those who donated to his leadership campaign in 2002. How can the Prime Minister and his party sit there and talk about accountability when the Prime Minister himself thumbs his nose at accountability? How does his non-disclosure represent transparency? The Prime Minister has a litany of broken promises.

It is clear that the Prime Minister believed in an elected Senate. What is the first thing he does? He arrives in Ottawa and appoints his campaign manager to the Senate and makes him the Minister of Public Works. That is not transparency. That is deceitfulness and that is not the way transparency works. In fact, he makes a farce of transparency by thumbing his nose to Canadians and telling them to do what he says but then does the opposite of what he says.

Michael Fortier, the minister of the largest department in the federal government, is not accountable to this House. This is the House to which he should be accountable, but he is an unelected minister. Does the Prime Minister have two sets of accountability, one for his friends and himself and the other for the rest of Canadians?

We looked at this issue of loans. If the Conservative coffers are filled and they supply money to their own candidates, women, who will be the least able to go to the banks and get loans, will be the most marginalized. Is that what the Conservatives are looking for or are they looking to ensure that minorities do not come into government? What is their purpose? What is their hidden agenda?

When we look at the election platform of the Conservative government, at page 9 it states:

A Conservative government will:

Ensure that all Officers of Parliament are appointed through consultation with all parties in the House of Commons and...not just named by the Prime Minister.

What is the first thing the Prime Minister does? He turns around and arbitrarily appoints a loyal Reform Party member as head of the federal appointment process with absolutely no consultation with Parliament. That is not the way accountability and transparency works.

We have heard in this House numerous misdeeds that have been done by the Conservatives. We sit here and ask ourselves how anyone can even trust them. Canadians do not believe a word the Conservatives are saying.

It appears that the Prime Minister is standing up for his closest friends. He appoints unelected members as ministers, appoints his close friends and then basically thumbs his nose at every piece of legislation that deals with accountability and transparency. This is precisely the type of behaviour that fuels public mistrust of government institutions.

If the Prime Minister is concerned about accountability and transparency, when will he disclose who donated to his leadership campaign? Would this bill make him do that? We already have a bill that asks for it and he thumbs his nose at us. By changing the bill, what is he trying to? Is he trying to pretend that he has brought about some sort of transparency and accountability?

We have heard of ministers being mired in conflict of interest, in interference and in all sorts of farces. That is the type of accountability we do not need. We do not need a lesson in transparency and accountability from the government.

The Liberal Party is prepared to support a bill that was amended by the committee. This is how democratic systems work. We are living in a democracy, not an autocracy. We need to understand the reasons for the Conservatives being so gung-ho in trying to bring about regressive changes. Is it to their advantage? Do they want no minorities, no women? What is it that they want?

We will be placing this legislation under close scrutiny to salvage genuine reforms. We do not want these nonsensical reforms, this deceitful double-talk that has been coming from the Conservative benches. We want better accountability but it will be done through a democratic process at the committee level, not by bullying tactics.

[Canada Elections Act, February 14th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member on her very eloquent presentation. She is a person who is very keenly involved in women's issues.

According to the current law, all loans, including the amount of every loan, the name of every lender and every guarantor, must be publicly disclosed. The only person who still has not followed this law is the Prime Minister, who has not declared who his donors were in 2002.

As the government is trying to ensure that everyone goes to a bank for a loan, we would not be able to get women candidates. Women candidates would now be restricted. Previously they could get money from their friends and family, but now the government wants candidates to go to a bank, and the bank will need a guarantor. That could be the person's house or first born, et cetera, because banks are very particular.

What does the hon. member think is the reason for the government wanting to be so regressive? Does it not want women to participate? Or is it that the Conservatives' coffers are full and they fund their own candidates, and they are trying to somehow bypass something? We saw one of their own members take a loan from his own company. Is that what it is?

[Government Contracts, February 14th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister is not the only member of that corrupt government who is abusing the tendering process.

Today we learn from Treasury Board documents that 15% of Conservative contracts came in at just under $25,000. The Prime Minister's own department, the PCO, is guilty of this abuse.

The Conservative government's claim of transparency is a farce. Why is the government so determined to avoid the tendering process?

[Government Contracts, February 14th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister is a walking ATM, dispensing cash to his political friends.

His untendered contract for $122,000 is just the tip of the iceberg. The finance minister has also handed out over 100 contracts to other cronies at just under $25,000, also to dodge the tendering rules.

Why is the finance minister using taxpayers' dollars to pay off IOUs from his failed leadership bid in Ontario?

[Committees of the House, February 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women in relation to women and the court challenges program.

The court challenges program was relatively inexpensive but highly effective. It provided vulnerable women and minority groups with the right for equality.

Therefore, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women recommends that this government, which cancelled this very inexpensive but very effective program, reinstate the program to its funding and to its mandate.

I also have the pleasure to present the third report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women in relation to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Canada was the lead on this declaration but through the Conservative government the declaration was denied and Canada voted against it. The committee recommends that the government endorse this declaration.

[Certified General Accountants Association of Canada, February 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, 2008 marks the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada.

CGA Canada represents 68,000 professionals and students and is one of the three accounting designations recognized equally by provincial and territorial statute in Canada.

It is, therefore, perplexing why the Conservative government recently posted a notice of vacancy for the important position of Comptroller General of Canada stating a preference for the single designation of chartered accountant. This implies a bias against not only CGA's members, but certified management accountants as well.

As an equal opportunity employer, I would like to know why the Conservatives are denying thousands of professional accountants fair access to opportunities in the federal public service.

[Status of Women, February 8th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, when the minister was before the committee on Tuesday, she incorrectly testified that she had put equality back into the women's program. What the minister should have told the committee is that she put the word “equality” back on the home page of the program, but not into the funding guidelines where it actually counts for women's organizations.

[PREBUDGET CONSULTATIONS, February 8th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very valuable question. When the Liberals inherited the government, there was a $43 billion deficit and a debt of $500 billion. It took the Liberals four years, until 1997, to clean up the incompetent government of the previous Conservatives. Those Conservatives had no idea. They kept on running up deficits because they were on a drunken spending spree. Once we cleaned up the mess, the IMF claimed that we were the best run G-8 country. We had balanced budgets. In 1997, we gave Canadians tax cuts of $100 million. They were largest tax cuts in history.

Those members cannot cover up history. The Conservatives have proved time and time again that they are incompetent. By cutting the GST they have not invested anything in research and development or in productivity. They are totally without vision. The manufacturing sector needs investment. Research and development needs investment. We need a vision. We do not need a government that is totally clueless.