House Publications

    I have the honour to lay upon the table the report of the Privacy Commissioner pursuant to the Privacy Protection Act for the year 2005-06.

    Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h), this document is deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

    Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to four petitions.

    Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation of the Canada-Africa Parliamentary Association on the bilateral visit to Maputo, Mozambique, from March 21 to 23, 2006, and to Cape Town, South Africa, on March 24, 2006.

     moved for leave to introduce Bill C-336, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan (arrears of benefits).

    She said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce legislation today that would allow for full retroactive payments plus interest when someone applies for benefits under the Canada pension plan.

    The CPP is a pay-as-you-go contribution based program that is funded solely by employers and employees. It is absurd that a person who is late in applying for his or her pension under the CPP is only entitled to 11 months of retroactive benefits. It is not the government's money.

    The bill would put an end to this insufficient and unfair period of retroactivity and would do the same for disability pensions, a survivor's pension and a disabled contributor's child benefit. This is something that should and could have been done long ago. In fact, my colleague, the member for Sault Ste. Marie, championed similar legislation in the last Parliament.

    I urge all members not to wait any longer and support this important improvement to the income security of Canadian seniors.

     moved for leave to introduce Bill C-337, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (child sexual predators).

     He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to reintroduce this private member's bill, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding child sexual predators.

    The bill would ensure that the fullest force of the law is brought to bear on those who prey on our children. It carries a minimum sentence of life imprisonment for cases of sexual assault on a child that involves repeated assaults, multiple victims, repeat offences, more than one offender, an element of confinement or kidnapping, or an offender who is in a position of trust with respect to the child.

    Those who prey on our children must know that there are serious consequences for their actions. Thus, if the bill passes, no longer will they walk away with a slap on the wrist while their victims are left to deal with a lifetime of hurt and pain. The bill would ensure that they are locked away for a very long time.

    Mr. Speaker, I have a petition that calls on Parliament to immediately halt the deportation of undocumented workers and to find a humane and logical solution to their situation.

    Today is World Refugee Day and it centres around the theme of hope. I would like to congratulate High Commissioner António Gutteres and all his officials for the wonderful work they do in protecting refugees around the world and of course the people who are without status.

    Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table petitions signed by 993 individuals, mostly from Ontario, regarding a motion passed in May 2005 by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade concerning the conflict between Eritrea and Ethiopia, which stated that Ethiopia should abide by the final decision on borders and that its refusal to do so was having an impact on the humanitarian crisis in both countries.

    The signatories are asking the government to stop providing direct aid—which it has already done—and to participate in the World Food Program's fundraising campaign for Eritrea—which it has not yet done.

    I am honoured to table these petitions.

    Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition today, spearheaded by a mother from the town of Hampton in my riding, containing 17,471 signatures, in addition to 3,175 signatures from Canadians across Canada on the website.

     The petitioners believe that a funeral is a necessity and should be a non-taxable service. They ask that Parliament have some respect for the dead and compassion for the grieving family by removing the GST, PST and HST taxes from all funeral services.

    Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present two petitions from a number of constituents in my riding of Fredericton and throughout New Brunswick that recognize that the government has traditionally supported an enhanced mail delivery in all parts of the country, that Canadians require their mail in a timely and efficient manner and that many seniors, the sick, shut-ins and people with disabilities face barriers daily regarding accessibility issues.

    The petitioners call upon the House and the minister responsible for Canada Post to maintain traditional mail delivery and service instead of implementing changes that are causing people to travel long distances from their homes to receive their mail.

    Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to table a new petition concerning Wilbert Coffin.

    Mr. Coffin was unjustly condemned to death in 1954 for the murder of three American hunters killed in 1953. He was hung on February 10, 1956.

    People in my constituency are submitting a new petition requesting that Parliament direct the Minister of Justice to order a complete judicial review of the Coffin case.

    Mr. Speaker, I present a petition today from a number of people in southwestern Ontario who call upon the Canadian government to strongly and publicly call for an independent investigation by the international community into the death camps in China and strongly and publicly call for an end to the persecution of the Falun Gong.

    Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition consisting of many pages of signatures of people in the city of Toronto.

    The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to enact legislation to provide a side guard for large trucks and trailers to prevent cyclists and pedestrians from being pulled under the wheels of these vehicles. The petitioners state that given that a coroner's report in 1998 looking into the deaths of Toronto cyclists has recommended several times that these side guards be installed and given that it is a legal requirement in the United Kingdom and Europe, Canada should also do the same.

    Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

    Is that agreed?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    There are 30 motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-2.

    Motions Nos. 5, 15 and 25 to 27 will not be selected by the Chair as they could have been proposed in committee.

    All the remaining motions have been examined and the Chair is satisfied that they meet the guidelines expressed in the note to Standing Order 76.1(5) regarding the selection of motions in amendment at the report stage.

    Two of the report stage motions received are identical to the proposed amendments negatived in committee by a casting vote of the chair.

    Since the rejection of these motions was essentially a matter of procedure rather than a judgment on their foundation, I have decided to select them at report stage, which will allow the House to vote on the substance of these amendments.

    The motions will be grouped for debate as follows:

     Group No. 1, concerning conflicts of interest and lobbying, will include Motions Nos. 1 to 4, 6, 7 and 9.

    Group No. 2, concerning access to information, Motions Nos. 8, 13, 14 and 17 to 22.

    Group No. 3, concerning the director of public prosecutions, will include Motions Nos. 10 to 12, 16, 23 and 24.

    Group No. 4, concerning procurements and contracting, Motions Nos. 28 to 30.

    The voting patterns for the motions within each group are available from the clerk. The Chair will provide the details to the House at the time of voting.

    I shall now propose Motions Nos. 1 to 4, 6, 7 and 9 in Group No. 1 to the House.

     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.

    Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the occasion to speak to these motions. I think most members of the House will agree that these amendments are largely technical in nature and fix the minor problems that the committee was not able to address.

     I would invite any comments and questions from members across the way but I do not see these as being particularly controversial.

    Mr. Speaker, members of the official opposition do not agree that these are merely technical amendments. We will be willing and anxious to debate them in the proper groupings.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The parliamentary secretary has just delivered a speech on Group No. 1 but I do not believe there was a call for questions. I wonder if the Chair would entertain questions for the parliamentary secretary.

    I was not in the chair at exactly that moment but my understanding was that debate was called, the parliamentary secretary rose and gave a very short speech and then the member for Vancouver Quadra rose and gave an even shorter speech.

    Apparently questions and comments were in order and were not called.

    Mr. Speaker, I believe my remarks were a preamble to my questions and comments, at which point I deferred to my friend on a point of order.

    That certainly was not obvious but if the member wants to proceed to questions or comments to the parliamentary secretary then feel free to do so.

    Mr. Speaker, thank you so much. I appreciate your clarifying the situation so well.

    With respect to Motion No. 1, we had considerable evidence and testimony before us in the special committee from the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel on the infringement on the autonomy of the House of Commons and members of Parliament with respect to Bill C-2.

    Numbers of amendments were made, including the one that is restored in Motion No. 1. They were made by committee in direct response to the advice that such an inclusion in the bill would offend the autonomy of the House and its members and disturb the appropriate independence between the members of Parliament, the House, with respect to both the executive of government and the judicial branch. I have great concern that this motion would reinstate the amendment that the committee took out on the recommendation or at least the strong advice of the chief law clerk.

    Furthermore, with respect to Motion No. 6, this again reflects the replacement of a deletion by committee with respect to Mr. Walsh's advice of infringing the autonomy of the House. I would ask the parliamentary secretary if he would explain exactly why he is continuing with that infringement after we had dealt with it at committee.

    Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his work on the committee.

    On the question of Motion No. 1, I will bring to the House's attention exactly what this amendment does. It deals with the provisions around parliamentary secretaries and ministers of the Crown voting on matters in which they have a direct commercial or financial interest. The member has asked why we believe this should continue to be in the law. There are a couple of reasons, but the most obvious is that if a member of cabinet or a parliamentary secretary has a financial interest in a particular sector or industry, they should not be able to use their position in the House of Commons to further that interest.

    We did hear some interesting and persuasive testimony to the contrary from the House legal clerk. He believed that it infringed upon members of Parliament and their parliamentary privileges. We, however, take a different point of view.

     As initially proposed by the government, subclause 6(2) would have expressly prohibited a minister or a parliamentary secretary from debating or voting on a question “that would place him or her in a conflict of interest”. This provision is an essential element of the conflict of interest regime that we are attempting to codify in the accountability act. It is based in part on a similar provision found in the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons, itself forming part of the Standing Orders of the House.

    These provisions already exist in the Standing Orders of the House of Commons and therefore we believe they should be codified directly into statutory law. That is what the accountability act sought to do in the first place. It was to take what were rules of the House and make them statutory law, codified in law so that they could be enforced more.

    Absent such a provision, it would be open for a minister or a parliamentary secretary to vote even where to do so would be a conflict of interest and even where the conflict of interest and Ethics Commissioner had ordered him or her to refrain from voting. In other words, an individual could come into the House against the explicit instructions of the Ethics Commissioner and vote on an issue in which he or she had a direct financial interest.

    In addition, absent such a ban, a minister or parliamentary secretary who did vote on a question that would put him or her in a conflict would not be subject to complaint, as no breach of the act would be made. In other words, they could stand in the House and vote on something that related directly to their personal financial interest and no member of the House would be in a position to file a complaint with the Ethics Commissioner because there would be no statutory prohibition on doing such.

    That is the reason why we have introduced this amendment, Motion No. 1. We stand by it. We believe it is the right thing to do. We encourage all members of the House to support it.

    Mr. Speaker, in looking at the amendments, Motions Nos. 6 and 7, it is curious that in Motion No. 6, which the government seeks to delete, we are deleting the requirement of the commissioner to table reports in both Houses of Parliament on such matters. I am certainly very curious as to why that would be thought to be appropriate. That is Motion No. 6.

    Motion No. 7 adds further sweeping powers to those of the commissioner to exempt people who might otherwise be precluded from registering as lobbyists. I can only recall the words of the Prime Minister when declaring publicly that a volunteer member of his transition team would be caught by the proposed accountability act and that it would not be appropriate for that person to register as a lobbyist for five years. A great deal was made of that, whether that person was a sacrificial lamb or whatever, and it was said that this showed the toughness of the act.

    However, Motion No. 7 seems to provide an exception for that type of situation. While I am not necessarily debating against that provision, I find it curious that after making such a matter of it in the public as a demonstration of the strictness of the act, an exemption then would be allowed by order of the commissioner. I find that quite strange.

    Also, while I am on my feet in the matter of this debate, I might say more broadly that the Liberal amendment put forward to ensure that the restrictions against lobbying for the period of five years not simply be against ministerial staff, public office holders and their senior staff, but should also be for senior members with official positions in the opposition and their senior political or policy staff, for a period of five years, for the obvious purpose of ensuring that when there is a change of government, the opposition House leader, party leader, deputy leader, whip and their senior staff, with their party in government, also would be precluded from registering as lobbyists, whether it is for three years or five years, and we are still debating those terms.

     It would seem only logical, if the government, which was the opposition, were truly serious and genuine about getting money out of politics in the sense of political influence, of not going into the lobbying business and making money out of contacts in government. If the government were genuine about that, I would think that it would have accepted the opposition amendment to make sure this was balanced.

    After all, we must make sure that the revolving door between positions of political influence and the lobbying industry, of which the Prime Minister and the President of the Treasury Board have often spoken, is not a one way street. We must have balance in it. If the stated government objective is to be achieved, that balance is absolutely necessary.

    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.

    Mr. Speaker, while I thank the President of the Treasury Board for that explanation, I think the concern that I and my colleagues had in committee with respect to the transition team inclusion, the extra amendment that would include this, was simply on the basis of an apparent unfairness, in that the impact would have a retrospective negative outcome for a particular person who was a member of the transition team.

    I appreciate that explanation. I think the inclusion is appropriate on that ground so that there could be special circumstances that are considered.

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

    Mr. Speaker, we are discussing Bill C-2, specifically the first group of amendments, which includes amendments 1, 2 to 4, 6, 7 and 9, if my memory serves me correctly. I will speak to these amendments.

    As I begin, I will talk about the review of Bill C-2 and the problems we encountered. If I go off topic I am sure you will rein me back in.

    Many amendments are being presented today at this stage because of how very quickly Bill C-2 was considered. We had very little time. I ordered a study from the library on similar bills, that is, bills with 300 or more clauses. I learned that the average duration of consideration of these bills since 1988 was roughly 200 days. We had more or less 40 days to review Bill C-2, which shows how hastily it was done. It is clear that a number of aspects of this bill should be improved; a number of witnesses pointed this out when they came before the committee.

    Today, reading the proposed amendments, we recognize that this bill can and must be improved. It is also very important to remember what the Auditor General said about the sponsorship scandal, as our leader very eloquently pointed out during a scrum yesterday. The Auditor General's remarks have a direct bearing on this bill.

    Before Mr. Justice Gomery and at a press conference, Ms. Fraser said that all the rules had been circumvented. The rules were in place, but they were circumvented. The fact that the government, through the Treasury Board president, is introducing an accountability bill is a good thing in itself. Reaffirming certain existing rules is a good thing in itself, but what is most important is whether the government will have the will to abide by these codes of conduct and these accountability rules that are before us today. Time will tell.

    It is very important to remember that the rules were in place and were circumvented. Whether or not the rules set out in Bill C-2 are circumvented will depend solely on the government's will.

    The government's will will very quickly become apparent as Bill C-2 is implemented.

    The first motion, made by the President of the Treasury Board, reads as follows:

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

“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”.

    This was originally in the bill. The committee members defeated this clause and deleted it from the bill, but the Conservatives want to reintroduce this part. This is interesting, but I have this question: does the spirit of the act apply solely to ministers, ministers of state and parliamentary secretaries or does this part of the act also apply to government members, Conservative members?

    I see that the President of the Treasury Board is present. What follows may be of interest to him and to the whip. It is useful to remember that last week, the member for Simcoe North introduced a Conservative bill asking the federal government to release funds for a feasibility study on a waterway in order to promote tourism. Strangely, when we visited his website, we noticed that this Conservative member owns the main hotel in this tourist area.

    In fact, it was noted that his family has owned that facility for five generations, since 1884.

    Will this standard be applied haphazardly or scrupulously? What will be permitted? If anyone is wondering to which member I am referring, it is the member for Simcoe North. He tabled a bill that would seem to involve a conflict of interest, at the very least.

    If the Conservative party confirms that this respects the spirit of Bill C-2, that the ethics counsellor supports it and that everything is in order, we from the Bloc Québécois will reconsider our position and perhaps support the member. However, when a party purports to be cleaner than clean, purer than pure, and then, at the first opportunity, a member tables a bill that goes against the principle and spirit of Bill C-2, one might wonder how that bill will be applied in the future.

    Speaking of the future, we have a problem with another amendment in the first block of amendments. Surely the President of the Treasury Board will be able to alleviate our concerns, which seem legitimate to me at this point. I am referring to Motion No. 4 regarding subsection 67(1) on page 33 of the bill—since we must compare like with like. The section now reads as follows:

Within five years after this Act receives royal assent, a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act shall be undertaken by such committee—

    The following amendment to subsection 67(1) has been proposed:

Within five years after the day on which this section comes into force—

    Why change something that does not appear very important? Instead of saying that the act should be reviewed five years after receiving royal assent, this indicates five years after subsection 67(1) receives assent. Fortunately, we have meticulous, effective, attentive experts to point out minute details that may seem trivial, but that are very important in practice.

     We always said that we supported the principle and philosophy of Bill C-2. We wanted to be in favour of more accountability and all those aspects of the legislation. However, no legislation is perfect. I defy the members of this House to show us perfect legislation. It was very important, therefore, to be able after five years to review not all of Bill C-2 but just the part on wrongdoing. That is why we wanted the committee to be able after five years to review what had worked well so that it could be established and continued, as was done with the Environmental Protection Act and several other pieces of legislation. If some aspects did not work so well, however, they could be re-assessed.

     If amendment No. 4 passes, the government could say that Bill C-2 comes into force tomorrow morning, apart from subsection 67(1). It could decide to have this subsection come into force in four or five years. This would mean that the legislation would be reviewed only when the government wanted.

     In committee—the Conservatives voted in favour of this amendment to review the act after five years—we were told that there might be some shortcomings and some things might have to be corrected. What is implied by this change? Maybe there is an explanation that can convince us. Why take correct wording, which appears in other legislation and says that the act will be reviewed in five years, and change it to say that the act will be reviewed five years after subsection 67(1) comes into force? What were they trying to say?

     Usually, amendments are not introduced just for the fun of it. We have better things to do.

     We ensure that amendments are introduced to correct or improve the bill. Sometimes, maybe, they are introduced to distract attention from certain gains that some think they made in committee. By a little word, a little sleight of hand, the gains are erased.

     We cannot support amendments that would restrict the ability to review this legislation. We will ask questions until we get answers, in particular: what was the underlying intent of these changes?

    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.

    Mr. Speaker, I thought I had made myself clear. I expressed my concerns five times in my speech so that he would understand. Nevertheless, I will repeat them. I was formerly a teacher and sometimes it took quite some time to explain things.

    First, an amendment was adopted: the French title of the act has been changed from “Loi sur l'imputabilité” to “Loi sur la responsabilité”. That is one of the Bloc Québécois' victories.

    Next, by stating that this bill only deals with the executive, he is openly saying that a Conservative member may have a real or perceived conflict of interest. A member may own a hotel and ask for a feasibility study. To my knowledge, the member for Simcoe North is the second to do so. The first was the member for Shawinigan, who owned a hotel in Shawinigan and asked the federal government to finance part of it.

    I asked the member for Simcoe North if he also owned a golf course, just to see if there were other similarities. He did not respond.

    As for the question from the President of the Treasury Board, subsection 67(1) of the current act—the large document with many pages— states: “Within five years after this Act receives royal assent—”. The amendment proposed by the President of Treasury Board states: “Within five years after the day on which this section comes into force—”

    Why?

    Mr. Speaker, the member raised some interesting points. The issue of haste has been a question in this place for some time.

    The member raised another question with regard to the motivation behind certain of the changes being proposed. Part of the difficulty is there was no speech given by the government to explain the purpose or the intent of the motions that were provided. As the member will know, these amendments were not even put in until 6 o'clock last night and were not available to members until after midnight, which did not give us an opportunity to do a proper review.

    I think the member is quite right. We should encourage the mover of the motions to at least make a statement of intent of the motions being presented to this place.

    Mr. Speaker, this is like the sequel to a movie, but a sort of watered-down and less interesting version.

     We have been—how shall I put this—

    An hon. member: Rushed along.

     Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: We have been rushed along—thank you—throughout our consideration of Bill C-2. All I could think of was the expression fast track, but I did not want to say it. So we have been rushed along, both the witnesses and the personnel who were directly or indirectly involved in the legislative committee on Bill C-2. We, the members, have been rushed along from beginning to end, including in the clause-by-clause study of Bill C-2. Furthermore, we have tried to show, insofar as possible, our good faith in moving the bill along constructively, but this was not always well perceived by the government party.

     As far as the amendments are concerned, it is still more or less the same old thing. What is different, however, is that it is just like Canada, just like the House of Commons. So what we saw a little more of in camera in committee—even if it was televised, it was not so obvious to people—what the Conservative government has done, from the beginning, in the legislative committee on Bill C-2, it is pursuing this route again today, in the House of Commons, by tabling 30 last-minute amendments in a big rush.

     I think it is only natural to ask questions. When we asked questions in committee, we were accused of bad faith. We are asking questions today, and we are accused of wanting to delay the procedure, or no one answers us.

     A five-year review was planned further to enactment of the bill. We are told that, no, it is no longer after enactment of the bill, but after the section comes into force. Why? I would think this is a legitimate question. We cannot get an answer to this question, and this makes us people of bad faith.

     For the member who just asked me the question, I would say that what is happening in the House of Commons is the same as what happened in the legislative committee on Bill C-2, but on a larger scale, and I think that the day that is beginning will continue like that, unfortunately.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise to say a few words about the first group of amendments at this stage of Bill C-2. I note that the ruling has been made to delete some of the amendments and to allow others, then to cluster them into what seem to be logical groupings. I cannot find fault with the methodology here. They seem to be along the same themes. There is some logic and flow to the methodology.

    I must begin by taking offence with some of the comments made by my colleague from the Bloc. If we are going to deal with Bill C-2 properly and do justice to it, we must begin from the same base level of information and, hopefully, from the same base level of truth and facts. I notice that my colleague never misses an opportunity to open his remarks with a certain sarcasm and even a certain level of insult to some of us who were on that committee. The member tries to imply or to lay some foundation that there was a prejudice toward him being able to do his job properly.

    I think we should put it on the record that there was ample time for all the witnesses who wanted to be heard to be heard. In fact, the committee ran out of witnesses. The committee had dedicated hours left vacant as it were and regularly, habitually, members ran out of questions prior to the end of the questioning period allocated for the witnesses.

    Anyone who implies that the compressed period of time that we used to study the bill was in fact a shortened period of time is simply misleading the public. It should be put on the record that we should begin this study with honesty and in a forthright fashion with all the facts.

    Bill C-2 is all about transparency, ethics, et cetera. It would be unethical to imply that anyone was denied the right to do a proper and thorough job in the study of the bill.

    Some of the amendments put forward in Group No. 1, as I say, the NDP finds no fault with their technical nature dealing with the conflict of interest act. As I say, we are going through it in a thematic way. The first topic as we come to it in Bill C-2 is dealing with the Conflict of Interest Code, to codify the code. This will move the code into the act to make it statutory in nature, rather than a guideline and expanding the application of the conflict of interest act to ministers of state who may find themselves in conflict as well.

    The NDP does not oppose that. Our party finds that there have been ample examples in recent history, within the last Parliament certainly and possibly even this Parliament, where it would have been logical to have the application of the Conflict of Interest Code apply to a broader base, to more members.

    It should be explained to members that there is great public interest in Bill C-2 and in the speedy passage of the bill. There is a method to our madness in trying to ensure that the bill gets through the House in this session of this Parliament. There are people who are opposed to some of the fundamental principles of the bill, especially the election financing section as we come to that later.

    One of the political parties is claiming that this is some conspiracy to disadvantage them. Legislation is not crafted for the partisan interests of any one of the four political parties in the House of Commons. All of the political parties had their executive directors and president appear as witnesses before the committee. None raised the fact that they should get special privileges or that we should craft this legislation with the health and well-being of any one particular party in mind. We crafted the bill for everyone and we apply it equally, fairly and universally to everyone.

    We should not delay the implementation of the bill to accommodate the greed of one political party. I say greed because the only problem it is running into is the fact that it charges $950 for delegate convention fees to its convention. That party would not have a problem if it was not trying to make money on its convention.

    We in the NDP are also having a convention this fall. Our party's convention fees are $135. It is $95 if the person is an early bird. That party is the architect of its own problems, as usual.

    I caution the Liberals that if they are considering conspiring with their Liberal-dominated Senate to delay, block, undermine or sabotage this bill, we will expose them in the House and outside the House. We will cry from the highest rooftops and condemn them for--

    Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the member is off topic. It is not relevant.

    I do not think that is a point of order. It is a point of debate.

    The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre has the floor.

    Mr. Speaker. we are dealing with the amendments. It is our first opportunity to deal with the amendments of Bill C-2 at report stage in the House of Commons. It is important to frame the context in which this debate will take place. There are enemies of this bill who are conspiring to undermine the implementation of this bill. That should be exposed with the same frankness as my colleague from the Bloc spoke of when he was trying to accuse the other parties of undermining his right to do a thorough job and study of this bill.

    I do not think the Senate needs to take any longer than we did to deal with this bill. We rolled up our sleeves and did the grunt work, if I can speak plainly. We worked extra hours. We worked into the night. A week's worth of witnesses and a week's worth of committee stage should be all the Senate needs.

    I am disappointed when I hear Liberal members of Parliament saying that we should be talking about this well into the fall, well into the winter. One Manitoba Liberal senator is saying that Christmastime and beyond is not unrealistic for the Senate to do a thorough analysis of this bill.

    That is the kind of sabotage talk that we heard from the Bloc earlier on too, that we should still be hearing witnesses into the spring. That is crazy. We all know what needs to be done. It is not that tough. Honesty and ethics are not concepts on which we should have to start from scratch. We all know the difference between right and wrong.

    There are some people who are so steeped in the tradition of unbridled patronage and rum bottle politics, learning at the feet of Allan J. and people like this. They just do not know anything else. There are some parties that cannot survive in a climate of transparency and accountability. They would strangle in that atmosphere. It is poisonous to them.

    We are trying to create an atmosphere where ethical standards rule the day. We are trying to create an atmosphere where ethical standards dominate. There is a downside to the culture of secrecy that allowed corruption not only to flourish but to rule the day, to dominate. It is an end to that era.

    This first set of amendments to the report stage of Bill C-2 is beginning to lay the foundation of a whole new era. It is like moving from the Mesozoic era to another era.

    I am optimistic that we are going to hopefully get all this out of our systems early on, that we do not hear the cheap potshots from my colleague from the Bloc, and that we do not hear grandiose revisionist history from the Liberals.

    I saw a press release put out by the Liberal Party in western Canada that said that the NDP voted down its recall amendments, its floor-crossing amendments. That is untrue. The floor crossing thing was ruled out of order. Nobody voted for it or against it because it was ruled out of order. It is a complete fabrication. It is an--

    Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, in fairness, we do have a group of motions to debate and much of what is being said here has nothing to do with those motions. It is not relevant to the debate.

    I am sorry, but in the context of report stage, members often speak to the whole bill and that is what I understand the member for Winnipeg Centre to be doing.

    The member for Winnipeg Centre, wrapping up with one minute to go.

    Mr. Speaker, I was only making my remarks in my first opportunity to speak at this stage of this bill. I felt it was important to clear the air and to begin from a basis of the same body of information and facts.

    First of all, some of the Liberal propaganda is absolutely false. No one voted for or against the floor-crossing amendments because those amendments were ruled out of order. I ask them to perhaps send a second press release into western Canada and stop accusing the NDP of sabotaging the floor-crossing amendment. The truth is that the Liberals crafted it in such a way that it could not be entertained in committee. It was out of order, plain and simple.

    We will do the general public a good service and we will do justice to this bill if we begin from the same informed base of information. These technical amendments in the first grouping should not trigger a great deal of gnashing of teeth or rending of garments. I think they should be accepted.

    Mr. Speaker, I have two points with respect to the previous speaker's more general observations. One is general and the other is specific.

    The bill was certainly rushed through committee stage. Almost every expert witness from different sectors cautioned us, as a committee, to take our time because it was complex and lengthy. It involved dozens of different statutes and it would have some dramatic impact in many of the opinions of witnesses. That was simply the evidence before us.

    We moved at quite a pace. A number of witnesses were grouped together in time periods, which frustrated them in feeling they were being properly listened to and understood.

    Therefore, I do not think there is any question that, while we moved quickly and effectively through most of the bill, many of the witnesses, including Arthur Kroeger, the dean of the senior public official community in Ottawa, thought it should take the committee all next fall to go through it properly.

    The other issue the member raises is with respect to the crossing the floor amendment, which I introduced. He is absolutely right. The chair of the committee did rule it out of order. I then asked for a vote to overrule the chair so it could be considered. The NDP voted with the government against overruling the chair. That was in substance the same thing as voting against for the amendment.

    I take no issue with the members being opposed to that amendment, but there was a vote against my motion to overrule the chair in his finding the amendment out of order. That was the sequence of events. However, we are here to debate the bill.

    However, let us get on, go through clause by clause and have a good discussion on this and perhaps stop the more general speeches.

    Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for clearing up the misinformation that is abounding in western Canada, certainly in Barbara Yaffe's column in the Vancouver Sun. She quotes the member for Vancouver Quadra saying that the NDP voted down his floor-crossing amendment. The big bad NDP could have punished the member for Vancouver Kingsway, but we chose not to. There is a big difference between not voting for the member's amendment and voting to uphold the ruling of the chair. I too shared the chair's opinion that my colleague's amendment was out of order. It does not mean I did not support the content of his amendment.

    I had two floor-crossing amendments, both of which were ruled out of order. I liked ours better. If both of mine were ruled out of order and if his were in order, I would have supported his. Therefore, there is some misinformation abounding in the country. It does a disservice to this debate and a disservice to Canadians to have this bantering back and forth.

    Let us all agree on one thing. Bill C-2 has great merits and should be passed expeditiously for the well-being of the whole democratic system and to keep those who would violate and breach the public trust in check. Those who would violate the public trust, as we saw in recent history, should be held in check and should be barred and blocked from ever doing so again should they ever form government again.

    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.

    Does the hon. minister have the unanimous consent of the House to withdraw the motion?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    Mr. Speaker, this is a general comment. It has been mentioned a number of times before by my colleagues on the committee, both from the Bloc and the Liberals, that we were rushed through committee and we did not have adequate time to examine and discuss all the legislation contained in it.

    I would merely remind my esteemed colleagues that we had passed a motion in committee to extend the sitting time of that committee for the entire summer, if need be. In other words, we were not putting any restrictions on the length of time that we required to examine the bill with rigour and to give it its full examination and the due diligence required. We were quite prepared to sit as long as it took.

    Because of the extended hours and because of the complete and sincere motivation of all members to ensure that the bill was as strong as possible, we were able to complete the examination of clause by clause last week, but it was not because we were rushed. We had the ability to sit as long as we wanted. It was the decision of the committee to pass the bill clause by clause when we did.

    Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this very important legislation, something the current Prime Minister and this party campaigned on persistently, day in and day out, through the election campaign, getting the support of Canadians from coast to coast to coast to clean up the slide in ethics we have seen in the federal government for a very long time, particularly in the previous 13 years.

    What this Parliament had an opportunity to do, on the C-2 legislative committee, was work through a very large, comprehensive piece of legislation. I believe we dealt with over 280 individual amendments to the legislation. To be honest, I am quite shocked and saddened to hear some of the debate today. Something seems to happen in a democracy where everyone seems to be working on good faith and then all of a sudden, if they happen to lose debate on amendment or lose a point at committee, people turn around and start attacking the motives of other people rather than accepting that as the give and take of democratic society.

    In the six years I have been a member of Parliament there have been three independent legislative committees. There was the Bill C-36 legislative committee, after September 11. There was the Bill C-38 legislative committee, dealing with same sex marriage. Now we had the Bill C-2 legislative committee, dealing with the federal accountability act. Of the three committees I have observed over my time, this committee really stood out as a model.

    Last Wednesday night, when our committee finished going through the clause by clause section of the bill, there was an interesting moment. We went person by person around the table, four Liberals, two Bloc Québécois, one New Democrat, five Conservatives, and each of us took an opportunity to say what we thought of the committee. I did not hear anyone at the close of the committee say that it was a sham, or the witnesses were rushed, or we did not give due consideration or the minister did not do his job.

    Six days ago everyone was very pleased with the way the process. People were pleased with the due diligence that the committee gave. In fact, throughout the course of this committee, we sat for 24 hours per week and the committee did a lot of heavy lifting. Through the course of that committee, I thought it was a model for how a minority Parliament could work. We will see how we go for the rest of today, going forward to the end of this week. However, the legislative committee was a model of how a minority Parliament could work within a smaller dynamic of a legislative committee because every party put forward amendments. Every party won some and every party lost some. That is how a democracy works.

    All of a sudden we come back to the House for report stage and we hear people like the member for Vancouver Quadra and the Bloc Québécois say that this was rushed and people were not given their opportunity to put forward amendments and have thoughtful conversation. The truth is, as the member for Winnipeg Centre said, not one witness came before the committee and said that he or she needed to be rescheduled, or needed a week to think about this, or needed to regroup and talk to some lawyers and get specific legislative counsel on how to go forward with some ideas. Everything seemed to go forward very effectively. Members of the committee should be applauded, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, the member for Vancouver Quadra and the member for Winnipeg Centre.

    As I have the opportunity, I tip my hat to my colleague from Nepean—Carleton, the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, for the great work he has done of this legislation.

     Bill C-2 is an incredibly complicated bill. It corrects a lot of the things that Canadians have been complaining about in our parliamentary system for years. It gives more power to independent officers of Parliament. It gives more transparency and accountability for members of Parliament. It deals with the issues of lobbyists and accountability, campaign finance reform and important reforms to procurement, which is my area of responsibility as parliamentary secretary to public works. This is vast, complex, important legislation and all Canadians have been thrilled with the incredible work done by the member for Nepean—Carleton.

     We are addressing now Group 1, Motions Nos. 1 to 3, 6, 7 and 9. Specifically I want to talk briefly about Motion No. 9.

    Motion No. 9 is an amendment which would delete paragraphs 41.4 and 41.5 in clause 99 of Bill C-2 regarding the trust funds of MPs. These provisions allow a House of Commons committee to issue an opinion on whether an MP has breached the new trust fund rules, which will now be a criminal offence. No prosecution can begin until the committee has issued its opinion or at the very latest, before 30 sitting days. If a prosecution is later commenced, the prosecutor must give the committee's opinion to the trial judge who in turn must consider it in deciding whether the MP has committed the crime.

    We moved this amendment for several important reasons. First and foremost, we believe these provisions are inconsistent with the fundamental principle underlying the director of public prosecutions provisions of Bill C-2, namely, the need to ensure that prosecutions are free from political interference both in appearance and in reality. By delaying the commencement of prosecutions and requiring the prosecutor to submit the committee's opinion as evidence in a criminal trial, these provisions contradict this key principle of prosecutorial independence.

    Second, MPs accused of violating the new trust fund rules have the right to a fair trial. These provisions would compel a trial judge to consider the committee's opinion in determining whether an MP is guilty of a crime. This could force a judge to consider evidence that would otherwise be inadmissible in a criminal trial, thus potentially jeopardizing the fairness of an accused MP's trial.

    Third, there is a relationship between Parliament and the courts. Requiring a judge to consider the committee's opinion in determining whether an MP is guilty of a crime would impinge on at least the perception of the court's impartiality and independence. The separation of powers between Parliament and the courts is integral to Canada's constitutional makeup and vital to upholding public confidence in our justice system.

    It is for these three core principles that we are moving to delete proposed sections 41.4 and 41.5 from clause 99 with government Motion No. 9.

    A number of my colleagues will be speaking to other clauses, but I would remind the House that Bill C-2, not only as a piece of legislation but the process that we have undertaken has demonstrated how this Parliament can work. We set up an independent legislative committee. Anybody who wanted to speak to the bill was allowed to speak to the bill. Amendments were allowed, and I think that 280 or 290 amendments came before the committee. Every party won some; every party lost some. This is an opportunity to demonstrate how this Parliament can work if we are all interested in the public good and not our own partisan political good. Bill C-2 will stand out as a real harbinger for good things to come for this Parliament if we maintain the faith.

    Mr. Speaker, I want to address some of the issues that the parliamentary secretary underlined. He mentioned the reason the government came forward with Motion No. 9, which would delete a series of clauses in Bill C-2, clauses which were adopted subsequent to amendments that were brought forward by me, based on the recommendations of our Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, Mr. Walsh. They dealt with ensuring that the constitutional autonomy of the House and its members was not impeded upon or in any way infringed or subjugated to the provisions of Bill C-2.

    It is quite interesting. The amendments which were adopted at committee dealt precisely with criminal prosecutions, allegations and accusations, charges that a member of Parliament had committed an offence and would require that a committee actually deal with it and issue an opinion. It could not go forward until a committee had dealt with it, and that once a public criminal prosecution went forward, the prosecutor was legally obliged to provide the committee's opinion to the judge, and the judge had to--could, not had to--could take into consideration said opinion of the committee.

    The point that was made by Mr. Walsh when he appeared before the committee, the point that I made when I raised it in committee and the point which was accepted by committee because it was adopted unanimously in committee, was that such a procedure and requirement already existed in the Parliament of Canada Act. I believe it is section 56, but I could be wrong. The requirement was that the prosecution not go forward until the appropriate committee of the House gave its opinion, in that case it is the Board of Internal Economy for allegations of misuse or fraud of a member's operating budget. A criminal prosecutor had to provide the opinion to the judge and the judge could take the opinion into consideration in rendering a conclusion, decision, sentencing, et cetera.

     That already exists in terms of criminal offences that could flow out of allegations of misuse of a member's operating budget. It already exists. Therefore, the government's argument that it wishes to remove those sections from Bill C-2 because it would infringe on a criminal proceeding does not hold water.

    Mr. Speaker, this government certainly disagrees with the opinion of my colleague opposite. Her opinion is earnest and legitimate, but when she was making her statement, she in fact stumbled over the key word “would” or “could” consider.

    We believe very strongly in defending and protecting the independence of our courts. Requiring a judge to consider a committee's opinion in determining whether an MP is guilty of crime, by mandating such a thing or having the perception of such a mandate could infringe on the perception of the independence of the courts. That is something that the Liberals have tried to use as a political baseball bat against their opponents in the past.

    I know my colleague does not believe that any government should in any way have the perception of impinging on the independence of any of our courts. That is why we are moving this motion.

    Mr. Speaker, I want to make some general comments on the debate as a whole.

    The speech by the parliamentary secretary was somewhat brief and basically characterized the amendments in this group as being general cleanup. I did not see it that way. As a matter of fact, Motion No. 5 which was deemed out of order raises some interesting questions about the thinking.

    Among other things, report stage is meant to allow members of Parliament who are not on the committee to propose amendments and to debate some of the changes that have been made to a bill. They are members who have not had the opportunity to hear all of the witnesses and they may have a fair bit of work to do once they see the nature of the changes coming forward at report stage.

    Notwithstanding that the bill was completed at committee last week, the amendments before us today were only put on the notice paper last night at 6 p.m. Of the original 30 amendments, only 24 remain. The amendments were not available to members until after midnight. Until yesterday there was only one report stage amendment relating to the Canadian Wheat Board on the notice paper. If there were only a couple of amendments, we might have been able to do this, but now we are faced with a vast array of amendments, most of them from the government itself.

    If there are 20 amendments coming from the government on this bill, why have these been made at this late time? We are talking about the federal accountability bill and if openness and transparency are being encouraged by this bill, then the process we are going through right now does not support the concept of openness and transparency. Proposed subsection 41.4 was deleted in its totality yet this clause was strongly recommended by the House counsel at committee and was adopted by the committee. The government has turned around and put in Motion No. 9 to delete proposed subsection 41.4 in its totality.

    Some answers need to be given as to the rationale behind the move the government has made. The House is probably entitled, if I may use that infamous word, to have an explanation from the government or the mover of the motion as to why certain changes have been made. It is interesting that there was absolutely no commentary whatsoever made on any individual motion in Group No. 1, in which there are seven amendments. This basically says that other members of the House are on their own.

    The member for Winnipeg Centre has basically said that all the work has been done and everybody should simply accept it. We know that throughout the committee stage, the NDP member took his orders from the government. I am not sure why the member has not raised some of the questions that have been posed by other members about the raison d'être for some of these amendments. I am not sure if he was aware of them. He did not talk about these amendments in his speech. It was more about getting the debate over with.

    I do not think there is anybody in this place who does not want to have this bill passed. Before the House starts in the morning, there is a prayer about making good laws and wise decisions. If there are elements within this bill which do not reflect the best counsel that has been made available to committee and the amendments that committee made with all of the benefit of that work, and the government summarily dismisses and deletes whole clauses, that requires some explanation. That is valid. That is not delay. That happens to be good parliamentary practice.

    For the member to suggest that questions by any member in this place are somehow motivated by something other than trying to find out why the details are there and why we are trying to make good laws here raises a question about the member's motivation. I would leave it at that.

    I am pleased that the minister has offered, and it has been approved by the House, to deal with Motion No. 4 on the five year review. It struck me that as we consider the bill as approved by the committee and reported to the House at report stage and then examine these motions, as we consider one motion and try to determine the effect of the change, and often the entire clause and the wording of the lines is repeated, we have to pick out the nuances. I think the Bloc member was trying to point out that it might be a change of only one word.

     Motion No. 4 has to do with whether this matter will be in force from royal assent or from the day on which it is enacted or proclaimed. We had the same situation, as a parallel, with Bill C-11, the whistleblower legislation. In the last Parliament, after two or three years of work by all parties, the bill was passed at third reading and received royal assent. It is the law in the country but it is not in force today because it was never proclaimed by the government. We will find, as we get into further debate on this matter, that some amendments in Bill C-2 would amend Bill C-11, which has not yet been enacted. We will need to proclaim Bill C-11 from the last Parliament before Bill C-2 can be totally in force because it cannot amend a law that is not in force in Canada.

     As was indicated by the member who just spoke, the bill has a lot of clauses and many of the amendments have been dealt with. We do know the government has the opportunity and the right, notwithstanding that the matter has been dealt with fully at committee, to make changes at report stage, which is a privilege not available to other ordinary members.

    The government can decide to tell the committee that it does not agree with the committee and it can throw an entire clause out, which is what was done under Motion No. 9. I hope, as we move on to the other groupings, if the government intends to be open and transparent on the provisions of Bill C-2, that at least one speech will explain, at least in brief, the purpose, intent or the effect of each of the amendments being proposed in the groupings the Speaker gave us.

    Group No. 1 consists of six motions that should have been commented on. If they are just clean up motions then we should have had representation that they were clean up or translation problems.

    Group No. 2 consists of nine motions, Group No. 3 consists of six motions and Group No. 4 consists of three motions. It would help the debate along if the government would at least put on the record the nature, the intent and the effect of each of the motions it has posed. If there is not enough time in the 10 minutes available to the movers of those motions, I would be most happy to give unanimous consent to extend the speaking time of the government speaker so that at least the speaker would have two or three minutes on each motion to do a proper job and to be open and transparent in the discussion of Bill C-2.

    Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out a couple of things for my hon. colleague in contravention to what he has suggested in his speech.

    First, he made a comment that due to the lateness of the amendments submitted by the government it perhaps was putting hon. members, who had not had the opportunity to sit on the committee, at somewhat of a disadvantage since they did not really see any amendments until after midnight last night.

    I would point out that of the 30 amendments submitted, 10 of them were by opposition parties. Therefore, for the member to suggest that it was only the government that was trying to hijack the democratic process by submitting amendments at the last moment is not quite correct.

    Second, I also have to object to the suggestion made by my hon. friend that the government did not speak to these amendments. Although the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board was quite brief in his opening remarks, the President of the Treasury Board spoke to Motions Nos. 1, 3 and 6. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works just spoke in his address to Motion No. 9. I make reference now to Motion No. 7, which was mentioned earlier by one of my colleagues.

    Although I am not objecting to the Speaker's ruling, I want to point out that Motions Nos. 5 and 7 were quite complementary because they dealt with the ability of a transition team member to appeal his or her decision to the commissioner of lobbying if in fact the decision was to restrict that transition member to the five year ban on lobbying.

    On Motions Nos. 5 and 7, one dealt with the previous transition team and one with future transition teams. I am not sure exactly why the Speaker's ruling was to exclude one and allow the other but so be it.

    Would my hon. colleague agree that, even though the Prime Minister has been quite clear and unequivocal in his statements that no member of a transition team of the government will be allowed to lobby the government for five years, this amendment, which would provide transition team members with the same recourse, the same right to appeal as any other public office holder, is equitable and fair?

    Mr. Speaker, some things are prima facie and I would suspect that others would share that view, so maybe the answer is no.

    In terms of the suggestion that there is a hijacking of the democratic process, I suppose the fact that the Liberals put in two amendments and the NDP, I believe, put in four, that leaves 24 for the government.

    An hon. member: Five.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Okay, a substantial number.

    The member should know that the government has the unique authorization to make amendments which are out of order for other members of Parliament. It is the minister's bill and he can make those amendments and basically tell the committee thanks but that he does not accept its position and that he will go another way.

    I saw that happen in the bill on reproductive technologies where we saw a couple of clauses of the bill totally reversed. I am aware of that.

     I do not subscribe to the hijack thing but I would suggest that although a series of speakers over the day may address every motion, I think it is incumbent on the mover of the motion to make a statement to the House at the beginning of the debate on the motion of the intent of the motion, such as, Motion No. 1 is clean up, no problem; Motion No. 2 is translation, no problem; and Motion No. 3 we do not agree with the committee and we have decided to delete that clause and here is another one because it is duplicative.

    Those kinds of indications of the basis may help another speaker trying to participate in the democratic process to at least use those as a filter to consider their own commentary that they may have made without that knowledge.

    As a courtesy to the openness and transparency of the debate, I ask that the mover of the motions make a quick summary on the ones that are clean up and on the ones that are not controversial and to sum up why it is making changes to others. If we do that I think all members of this place and Canadians as a whole will benefit from the debate.

    Mr. Speaker, it was a privilege to serve with other members of Parliament on the committee studying Bill C-2, the accountability act. I think we did tremendous work on behalf of Canadians.

    From the testimony we heard and from the work that was done, we had a thorough vetting of the issues related to accountability. We heard from a great number of witnesses and we worked in a way to move the bill forward. Members on all sides of the House sacrificed a great deal to see the bill through committee.

    It is the number one priority of our government and it is something that was long overdue. Canadians were demanding more accountability from public office holders and from Parliament, more accountability in the way their tax dollars are spent and more transparency in the way we run our democratic process. This bill, at the end of the day, accomplishes all those things.

    I want to speak to Motion No. 9, which is a serious motion and one I urge all members of the House to consider as it impacts on some very fundamental rights and issues relating even to members of Parliament.

    Specifically, the changes brought in by adding two provisions, subclauses 41.4 and 41.5, to the new MP trust fund rules proposed for insertion into the Parliament of Canada Act raise serious legal policy issues regarding the independence of prosecutions from political interference, as well as serious Charter of Rights issues related to the ability to get a fair hearing. They also raise some concern with regard to the Constitution and the division of power. It is for those reasons that the government proposed reversing those amendments.

    To be clear, I would urge all members of Parliament to consider this amendment very carefully. It is not a minor amendment like dotting an i or crossing a t.

    The amendment in subclause 41.4 would require:

Any person...who has reasonable grounds to believe that an offence has been committed under section 41.1 shall...notify the Committee of the House of Commons designated to consider such matters.

    This is the clause that prohibits members of Parliament from accepting benefits or income from a trust established by reason of their positions as members of Parliament, and from circumventing this rule.

    The committee may then issue an opinion on the matter. The committee would study the facts of the situation and then issue an opinion on the matter. The new paragraph 41.4(4) provides that, in any prosecution of that offence, if there is a criminal prosecution of the offence, the prosecution shall “provide the judge with a copy of the opinion of the Committee”, which would be a committee of this House. It is important to note the exact wording, “and the judge shall consider the opinion in determining whether an offence was committed”.

    Further, a similar process is proposed in the second amendment, subclause 41.5, for contraventions of subclause 41.3, and that authorizes the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to make orders regarding the treatment of MPs' trusts, with the same requirement as I outlined before in paragraph 41.4(4), that “the judge shall consider”--the committee's--“opinion in determining whether an offence was committed”.

    Obviously it is pretty clear, even on the face of the wording, that these amendments raise serious legal policy and constitutional concerns.

    First and foremost, the amendments are inconsistent and completely at odds with the fundamental principle underlying the new director of public prosecutions provisions contained in Bill C-2, the federal accountability act, namely, the need to ensure the independence of prosecutions from political interference. It is that perception of political interference, the whole idea that somehow politicians could influence a judicial outcome, that is the whole reason for the underpinnings of the move to the director of public prosecutions. It underlines a lot of what we have done in the federal accountability act.

    Obviously I hope that all members of the House would agree with me that we should not have political interference in the judicial process. I think that is fairly basic. This amendment, as the bill currently stands, would provide for just such an interference.

    Second, the amendments present a serious risk of violating the Canadian charter right to a fair trial of a member of Parliament charged with an offence. All of us as Canadians, and even those of us who are members of Parliament, are entitled to a fair trial under our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

    By requiring a judge to consider a parliamentary committee's opinion on whether an MP has committed an offence, the amendments would preclude a judge from respecting the procedural safeguards mandated by the charter, for example, by requiring a criminal court to consider evidence that is otherwise inadmissible either as hearsay or as opinion evidence with respect to an MP's guilt or innocence and/or to consider prior incriminating testimony, including testimony that the committee may have compelled from the accused member of Parliament. To be clear, this has an impact on the charter rights of members of Parliament and would undermine the right under the charter to a fair trial if we allowed this to proceed as proposed.

    Third and finally, the amendment appears to undermine the separation of powers among the legislative, executive and judicial branches. The Supreme Court of Canada has consistently held and has often stated that this is a fundamental constitutional principle. In the House, we all know that there is a separation among the executive, the judicial and the legislative branches. It is essential to having a thriving democracy and fairness in our system that those divisions be kept sound. It is a basic constitutional principle.

    In passing this as it is, it would impinge on at least the perception of judicial impartiality and judicial independence, another fundamental principle that flows from our Constitution. It is for these reasons that I ask all members to consider deleting proposed sections 41.4 and 41.5 from clause 99.

    To sum up, the independence of the judiciary, the right for a member of Parliament to get a fair trial under our charter of rights, and the division and the separation of powers among the judicial, executive and legislative branches of our government are all pretty basic fundamental values that we all hold dear. I ask all members to consider that when we consider Motion No. 9.

    I urge that the motion be adopted because otherwise we risk putting members of Parliament in a very serious situation with regard to their rights and we also undermine the independence of the judiciary in this country.

    Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for giving a very good summary of his concerns and opinion on Motion No. 9, which seeks to delete proposed sections 41.4 and 41.5 in their totality from the bill as reprinted from the committee.

    When I reviewed this, one of the issues I flagged was that it suggests in proposed subsection 41.4(4) that the committee shall provide the judge with a copy of the opinion of the committee and “the judge shall consider...”. That is where I stopped, because the point on the independence of the judiciary certainly was a very important aspect.

     I do not think we can legislate that a judge “shall” do anything. We went through a process where there was a review of the sponsorship program by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. A number of those matters went forward to a judicial inquiry. Subsequent to that, there have been legal proceedings.

    Is this the kind of thing that the member is suggesting shall not happen in the future in terms of a committee undertaking at its discretion or being designated to be a quasi-judicial review committee for purposes of identifying wrongdoings that may be subject to prosecution under the laws of Canada? If so, is this in fact changing a practice that already exists in Parliament?

    Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his consideration of the arguments that have been put forward. I think they are serious arguments. I heard the quote by the member, which reads that “the judge shall consider the opinion in determining whether an offence was committed”.

    The member also stated that we cannot tell a judge what to do, but that is exactly what the bill is doing. It is saying that a judge “shall consider” the opinion of the committee. This is not any committee. We are not talking about general laws relating to evidence. We are talking about a House of Commons committee, a committee of Parliament. We are talking about a committee that falls under the legislative branch. We are blurring that line between the legislative branch and the judiciary.

    Committees are made up of elected members of Parliament. As anyone who sits on a committee knows, there can be influences on one's judgment. We have to be very careful that we never do anything to undermine the right of a member of Parliament or anyone else in Canada to a fair trial. That is one of the underpinnings of our justice system. It is one of the rights that we cherish under the charter and that we are all entitled to as Canadians. As I said before, even as a member of Parliament one is entitled to a fair trial.

     By forcing a judge to consider evidence of a committee, we are blurring that line. Not only would we be blurring the line among the legislative, the executive and the judiciary if we were to adopt this, not only are we doing that, but we are at serious risk of undermining the charter rights of a member of Parliament who is potentially involved in one of these trials.

    Just so we know the context, we are dealing here with offences that may be committed under clause 41.1, which would prohibit MPs from accepting “any benefit or income from a trust established by reason of his or her position as a member of the House of Commons”. Any person with reasonable grounds to believe that has happened can make a complaint to the committee. The committee will study it. The real problem is mandating that the committee's evidence be put forward to a judge and that the judge “shall” consider it. It undermines the charter rights of the accused.

    Mr. Speaker, as the second member of the committee representing my party, it is truly important to me to take the floor today on Bill C-2 and the amendments we were presented with very late yesterday evening.

     I must also speak about the process of the committee. In more than 13 years in the House of Commons, I have never seen so hurried a process as in the committee studying the Accountability Act. I can also add that certain people are very unhappy at not having been able to testify before the committee. I have received many letters from many witnesses writing me to say that they wanted to testify to the committee, but it had been impossible for them to do so in so little time, impossible to draft a brief in 24 hours. And so, for all sorts of reasons, many individuals, groups and associations have been unable to come and testify before our committee, because of the enormous time limits imposed on them. As my Liberal colleague was saying earlier, certain groups were brought together, but they were given so little time. For example, five different groups had a total of 10 minutes to make their presentation. And they were keeping such a close eye on the stopwatch when we asked our questions that working under such conditions was terribly stressful. I had never seen that here.

     As you know, this is a rather bulky bill: that is obvious. We were told at the Library that a bill of this size normally requires some 200 hours in committee, and we did the job in two weeks.

     So I am very, very pleased that the President of the Treasury Board has withdrawn Motion No. 4. It must also be understood that this motion was strictly concerned with the ethics portion, which will have to be reviewed in five years. So I am very pleased that he has withdrawn it. I am certain that by the time five years are up we will have found a multitude of problems in this bill, because it will have been passed at top speed.

     All the same, we have cooperated. We have contributed some important amendments, and all the political parties have cooperated. However I do not know why we were sent amendments at the last minute, again, yesterday evening. One might say it was to hurry us up. We have a number of them to examine, to study, and we are still working at top speed to get this bill passed at once.

     That is deplorable, because we are supposed to be doing important, serious work, and we are going to do our best. At the same time, I note the size of this bill and I want to express my concerns regarding its eventual implementation. For in fact, we studied it so quickly that I fear we may encounter certain difficulties in applying this legislation.

    In time, we may find that parts of this bill are not working because we may not have had enough time to study them thoroughly.

    That said, I would like to discuss the two motions that the Bloc Québécois finds problematic. In Group No. 1, which includes Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 and 9, Motions Nos. 6 and 9 are problematic. Let me explain why.

    I will begin by reading Motion No. 6, which is on page 80 of the bill in clause 80, subsection 11.2.

Every report to Parliament made by the Commissioner shall be made by being transmitted to the Speaker of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Commons for tabling in those Houses.

    This section would effectively remove our parliamentary rights.

    Furthermore, in Motion No. 9, an entire paragraph, paragraph 41.4(1) is removed. It reads as follows:

Any person, including the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, who has reasonable grounds—

    I will not read the whole thing to you, but at the end, once again, it states that this situation would never come before the House of Commons. It mentions judicial and parliamentary roles and says that we should not place ourselves in conflict of interest situations. Pardon me for saying so, but we were elected to the House of Commons to legislate with the full confidence of the population and we are here to make decisions.

     We are not here just to hear ourselves talk. The committees are extremely important and the work they do is normally done apolitically, if I can use that expression, particularly in a situation where there is a question of ethics. I think that the members of this House are capable of setting politics aside and considering what may sometimes be a complex situation.

     And then if we remove this subsection altogether, we are leaving ourselves open to lengthy, expensive legal proceedings when we could have gone through one of the committees of the House of Commons. We will decide which one. That committee could already assess the situation. That is what we are elected to do, we are here precisely to ensure that things are done properly. Let us first consider it in committee. If the committee believes that there are grounds for prosecution, it may make a recommendation. However, that recommendation would have no legal effect. It would be the opinion of a committee of the House of Commons. Then, if there is a prosecution, the judge will make his or her decision based not only on the opinion of a committee, but based on actual facts, because we too will have done an initial examination of them.

     There cannot be one without the other, and neither interferes with the other; on the contrary. It is an opinion and the judge could ask for other people’s opinions. The judge could ask a committee to meet and could have private studies done. That will cost us even more money when we can very well, here, find the body that could examine such a situation.

     This raises quite an important question. Mr. Walsh, who is the guardian of our rights as parliamentarians, testified before the committee. He made some extremely important recommendations. He told us that this section would interfere with our rights as parliamentarians and would take away rights that we now have. And so if we remove those sections, parliamentarians will have nothing more to say about the bill. We will no longer have any role to play in this House. In terms of ethics, it means that we parliamentarians are not intelligent enough to make recommendations.

     In the past, we have proved that we were capable of doing serious work in committee and considering important matters, including these. There are actually still a lot of things in this bill. Ethics is not the only subject. There is the part about political party financing. I therefore think that we are having rights taken from us, and that is why, in our view, Motions Nos. 6 and 9 should not be before us.

     Mr. Walsh did not make his recommendations on a whim; quite the contrary. He came to see us. In fact, we had to press the matter to get Mr. Walsh to sit on the committee, for three years, so that we could get to the bottom of things. The Conservatives did not want that. It was Mr. Walsh, when he came to the committee, who alerted us to it. He told us that he was the guardian of the rights of parliamentarians and the rights of this House. He warned us that we were going to be taking away fundamental rights of parliamentarians. We are doing that again. I very well recall that in committee we had voted against amendments of this nature because we thought that it made no sense to take away our rights as parliamentarians.

     Today, with these two new motions, we are bringing something back before the House that we did not agree with in the first place.

     Obviously, I would have liked the President of the Treasury Board to withdraw these two motions, so that we could have worked together and kept—and I do mean kept—our rights as parliamentarians and could have continued to do our work here, as responsible, elected individuals and honest people.

    Mr. Speaker, the member made some very good points, particularly with regard to the representations made by Mr. Walsh to the committee.

    I had the opportunity to work with Mr. Walsh on the government operations and estimates committee when we were dealing with the Privacy Commissioner, Mr. Radwanski. Under our rules and the way matters work, we must seek some advice on how to do these things properly lest we make a mistake that could frustrate the intent of Parliament.

     Mr. Walsh came to committee and with the full consultation of his legal team brought these two clauses forward and convinced the committee to accept and adopt their inclusion. I am not sure whether or not the government at the time made any argument whatsoever opposing the adoption of Mr. Walsh's recommendations.

     I am a bit concerned about the phrase “that the judge shall consider the committee's report”. I am not sure whether or not we have a problem with the independence of the judiciary. We do have an opportunity to amend any report stage motion, and we could delete subsection 4 if it is the offending provision and salvage the rest of it. If that is the case, maybe other members who wish to speak to Group No. 1 may want to consider that amendment to make the retention of sections 41.4 and 41.5 more palatable to the whole House.

    I would ask the member whether or not that is a problem for her or whether she is just prepared to vote against Motion No. 9?

    Mr. Speaker, I will say first, regarding my colleague’s concerns, that Mr. Walsh has no political affiliation. He is really the official responsible for our rights and is a lawyer. Yes, he was at the committee with a number of legal advisers who were there to help him.

     To re-assure my hon. colleague, I will read subsection 41.4(4):

In any prosecution under section 41.1, the prosecutor shall provide the judge with a copy of the opinion of the Committee, and the judge shall consider the opinion in determining whether an offence was committed.

     The judge shall consider. He is under no obligation. He determines whether or not an offence was committed. Personally, I do not see any problem with that.

     The problem is that we are losing our rights as parliamentarians. The judge, though, is free. If we provide a report, it does not mean that the judge will not be free to decide whether or not an offence was committed. At this point, we get into the legal aspects of the legislation.

     A committee is perfectly capable of studying a case and seeing whether there really is a problem. We are not lawyers; we are parliamentarians. As such, our first duty is to determine whether there is a case or situation in which ethics were broken, or a mistake was made, or someone intentionally did something that was unethical. When the committee reports, a copy is given to a judge. The judge decides, not us. We do a rough draft; we take a quick look at a situation. A committee can easily determine that no offence was committed. There is no need in that case to go before a judge.

     This will be less expensive because it is part of our work as parliamentarians. If every time there is a possibility that something is unethical it has to go directly to a judge, there will be no end. A host of lawyers will get involved. We have to consider the cost of all that. We have to see things as a whole, and not just little parts of subsections.

     I would like this section to remain in the bill so that parliamentarians can do their job and do it fully. There is no conflict between the two, quite the contrary. I think they are complementary. As I said earlier, I would like to keep this section in its entirety.

     The same is true of Motion No. 6, which deprives us of our rights as parliamentarians. I am opposed to that.

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise some concerns that I have with respect to the amendments that were made to Bill C-2 in committee dealing first with subclause 41.4(4). It states--

    The hon. member for Repentigny on a point of order.

    Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. Minister of Justice.

    A colleague in the back pointed out, quite rightly, that the television screen currently reads “C-2—Projet de loi sur l'imputabilité” in French. Since the amendment was agreed to, I would like us to be able, by unanimous consent or some other procedure—I am not sure how—to have this changed so that the correct title of the bill appears on the television screen.

    I thank the hon. member for his comments.

    We will take note of that. We hope the people responsible for the television recording of the House will act appropriately.

    Resuming debate, the hon. Minister of Justice.

    Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few brief comments with respect of subsection 41.4(4). In dealing with this issue about a possible prosecution where the committee has considered the matter, subsection 41.4(4) says, both in subsection 41.4(4) and in subsection 41.5(4), and the wording here is very important. Subsection 41.4(4) states:

In any prosecution under section 41.1, the prosecutor shall provide the judge with a copy of the opinion of the Committee, and the judge shall consider the opinion in determining whether an offence was committed.

    There are two serious concerns I have with that subclause. First of all, the binding of the prosecutor's right to determine how he or she should conduct the prosecution by requiring a specific report to be tendered as evidence as to guilt or innocence.

    The point that I would like to make is that this raises all kinds of questions under the Canada Evidence Act with respect to cross-examination on reports and the like. I think it introduces a very serious restriction on the prosecutor's ability to prosecute. It also may create difficulties for the prosecutor.

    The other point, though, is a much more serious point. That is:

--the judge shall consider the opinion in determining whether an offence was committed.

    The committee itself does not rely on formal rules of evidence. It may hear all types of evidence, whether it is hearsay, opinion, whether that is admissible under the strict rules of criminal law or not. The opinion then is created by the committee, probably in many respects in a way that does not respect the proper criminal law trial process.

    Then the judge is compelled to consider what may be evidence that is not properly before him in any other context. The judge is required to consider the guilt or innocence of a person on less than satisfactory evidence.

    Even if the subclause were to say that the prosecutor may tender the copy of the opinion or the judge may consider the opinion, I would think it would be highly irregular for a judge ever to consider that. If the evidence is relevant to the guilt or innocence of an accused, the prosecutor should be required to put that evidence into trial in accordance with the proper rules of evidence.

    I would submit that there is a serious Charter of Rights and Freedoms problem in terms of a fair trial. Second, there is a serious problem in terms of requiring a judge, a judicial actor, to consider the report of the committee which performs a very different parliamentary function.

    I have spoken to some of the other members here. I believe that there may be a solution in the works to this particular problem. I wanted to put my concerns on the record and perhaps the member from the Liberal Party would want to address this in a formal manner if that could be done.

    Mr. Speaker, I understand the concern of the Minister of Justice with respect to proposed sections 41.4 and 41.5. I would suggest, as a subamendment to Motion No. 9, rather than deleting all of proposed subsections in proposed sections 41.4 and 41.5, that we simply delete lines 19 to 28 on page 89, which would remove proposed subsections 41.4(3) and 41.4(4) with regard to the prosecution. On page 90, under proposed subsections 41.5(4), delete 41.5(4) rather than the whole of proposed section 41.5. That deals with the concern of the Minister of Justice with the courts.

    That would ensure that both the courts stay out of the House of Commons business and the House of Commons and its committees stay out of the courts and prosecutorial business, which is the constitutional structure that we have of autonomy and independence of those branches of government. Yet it would still allow the prosecutorial service and the courts to have the benefit of the public committee or House report that might have been tabled in its proceedings. It could therefore pay what attention it deemed appropriate to it. That would be my subamendment.

    As a matter of clarification, Mr. Speaker, on the member's comments. I note that the proposal he is making would essential remove proposed subsections 41.4 (3) and 41.4(4) in proposed section 41.4.

    Would he want to do the same thing in respect of proposed subsection 41.5(3) as well in proposed section 41.5, because those are identical provisions, proposed subsections 41.4(3) and 41.5(3). If he is proposing that there be unanimous consent to the removal of proposed subsections 41.4(3) and 41.4(4) and proposed subsections 41.5(3) and 41.5(4), I think the Speaker could find the support unanimously to make that amendment.

    If the Minister of Justice is seeking unanimous consent right now for his amendment, will he provide the table and the Speaker with a copy of the motion?

    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.

    The Minister of Justice did indicate he was seeking unanimous consent during questions and comments.

    Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, my colleague from Vancouver Quadra made this proposed amendment. It is a sound amendment. I was suggesting that he also add, and I was not clear whether he had done that, proposed subsection 41.5(3). If he has concerns with proposed subsections 41.4(3) and 41.4(4), then he should also have the same concern with proposed subsection 41.5(3). I understand his position is he would like to remove proposed subsections 41.4(3) and 41.4(4) as well as 41.5(3) and 41.5(4).

    We are certainly amenable to a unanimous consent amendment on that basis. If the House requires a more formal amendment, perhaps that can be moved later. I do not want to cause problems for the House in terms of its record keeping because I understand that is important as well.

    Mr. Speaker, l agree with the Minister of Justice in his suggestion that proposed subsection 41.5(3) also be deleted. That makes the package complete. What we are suggesting, with unanimous consent, is to delete the government's Motion No. 9 and replace it with an amendment that would delete proposed subsections 41.4(3) and 41.4(4) and 41.5(3) and 41.5(4). I would seek unanimous consent for that opposition.

    Mr. Speaker, I believe that the correct wording to amend Motion No. 9 would be: That Motion No. 9 be amended by deleting lines 19 to 28 on page 89 and lines 39 to 5 on page 90. That would delete the two paragraphs, which are proposed subsections 41.4(3) and 41.4(4) and 41.5(3) and 41.5(4). The rest of those two clauses would remain intact.

    I appreciate the interventions. For clarity, we will now seek unanimous consent for the motion from the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine for the alterations she just read out. Does she does have a written copy for the table and for the Speaker? We are dealing with some changes to the bill and we will need to have the hard copy.

    If it pleases the House, we could resume debate until everything gets sorted out and then we could have a tidier motion with the written copy.

    The hon. member for Malpeque.

    Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the first group of motions, but I want to speak more in the general sense because I have some serious concerns with the bill overall.

    To begin with, I congratulate the committee on its work. It worked extremely hard and did the best under very rushed circumstances. I personally think this was drafted as much for political purposes as it was for its accountability provisions.

    I believe this to be an bad bill. It is an overreaction to accountability issues more so on the perception of what is happening out there rather than the reality. The intent of the bill is fine, but we need to be serious about this. I believe there would be some serious long term consequences to the political process in Canada as a result of the bill.

    I will say one thing about the member for Winnipeg Centre. He has not hid the fact of using the financial provisions in the bill as an attack on the official opposition and the ability of that party to finance itself under its traditional method of financing. In quite a number of ways all parties had financed their parties the same way, with funding from companies and unions, and higher limits.

    One of the presumptions in the bill seems to be that everyone is considered first and foremost a crook, whether they be in the bureaucracy or in politics and that in the bill we have operate by exclusion. I was opposed to my government's move to limit as much as it did the right of companies and unions to contribute to the political process. I think we are making a serious mistake in that regard.

     Why should companies and unions be completely excluded from the political process? If we are to have a democracy and have it work well, then we want inclusion of everyone. It is not exactly where the money comes from when we have caps on the amount of money, be it $5,000 or whatever. It is how we account for the money spent in a transparent. That is the important issue. By these exclusions, I think we will hurt our over the long term.

    I do not mind if unions contribute to the NDP. I think that is a good thing. I do not mind if the banks contribute to the Liberals and the Conservatives. It involves them in the political process and makes them responsible to that political process, as long as there is good accounting for how that spending is done. We do have spending limits for candidates during elections. We do have spending limits for national parties. Therefore, we have substantial controls in that way.

     I raise that point because I am really concerned about the long term consequences on democracy in our country with the kind of exclusions put forth in Bill C-2.

    In terms of some of the comments that have been raised by the member for Winnipeg Centre, I think there is an attempt to use the current leadership contest within the official opposition to bring in these measures quickly enough to hamper the ability of that party to have a good democratic convention to elect its leadership because the rules are being changed in midstream. Many of us, including me, will be affected because we already have financed the party in certain ways.

    I have to ask, does anyone really think that adding those kinds of restrictions and making it more difficult for a leadership contest of one of the major parties in this country to take place will add to democracy in this nation? Will it really add to democracy? Is that what we are after? I do not think it will by putting those restrictions in midstream.

    Politics and leadership are all about the debate of ideas. Political parties are supposed to be all about the debate of ideas and policies that can be put forward. We can differ in terms of those ideas but political parties have to have the ability to finance themselves, yes, in an open and transparent fashion. There were problems in the past and I am not denying that. In fact, I do not believe that I receive any money from companies or unions.

    I am concerned about the process as we go down this road in 10 or 20 years. The Liberals happen to be in a leadership contest right now, but other parties eventually will be as well. We have to be concerned about the future of our democracy with some of the proposals that are in this bill.

    I have made my points on unions and corporations. One thing that is glaringly not in the bill is the whole issue of third party financing. There is some and I worry about what I see happening in the United States. I do not want to see funding of advertising during election campaigns and the kind of attack ads and negative advertising that occur in the United States happen in this country. I do not want to see that happen in Canada, but with third party financing being allowed the way it is, I think we might get into that. That worries me and I raise that as a concern.

    The other general concern I have is on the whole issue of accountability within government itself. What happened in terms of what brought about the Gomery inquiry should not have happened, I agree. However, I believe, and this is strictly a personal comment, that if one is in business, one has to risk some money. If one is going to have efficiency in terms of a business and its operations, one has to risk some money in order to gain efficiency. If there are problems, charges will be laid and people will be dealt with.

    I am concerned about going down the road the way the government is going. The Liberal government I will admit was going the same way previously and I think that was wrong too. I believe we are spending a lot of money on auditors and accountants in first considering everybody that moves to be a crook. We are spending $3 to chase $1 instead of spending the money efficiently in terms of the projects and programs that mean something to people. I am concerned about that.

    Departments now are looking at how to get results for how one thinks. Some departments are actually hiring consultants because of their concern about whether they will be able to account for how that money was spent in terms of that thought process. That is not going to make efficient government.

    I lay out those few points because I think they have to be said. I am concerned about the direction in which this bill is going. I am concerned about its impact on the political process. I am concerned about its impact on the ability of government to be an efficient machine in terms of getting the job done for the people of Canada.

    Mr. Speaker, I want to make a couple of quick comments on my hon. colleague's presentation. I find it astonishing, frankly, that on one hand the hon. member would talk about how he hates to have exclusion by not allowing corporate and union donations, yet in the same breath he has introduced a motion excluding the Canadian Wheat Board from the Access to Information Act. He talked about not wishing to exclude corporate and union donations to the political process, yet he forwards an amendment saying on the other hand he wants to exclude the Canadian Wheat Board from the scrutiny of access to information. He does not want farmers who have been contributing to the Canadian Wheat Board, whose money the Canadian Wheat Board is using, to have the ability to find out where that money is being spent. I find that so contradictory it is almost laughable.

    I also want to make my main comment on his contention that the proposed act would in some way restrict the ability of the Liberal Party of Canada to hold leadership conventions because it is putting $1,000 limit on contributions. The Liberal Party seems to have a $995 registration fee. I want to get on the record that hard costs are not considered a contribution. In fact, if it costs $300 per delegate to host the convention, that is excluded from any donations from a contribution standpoint. What I am trying to get at is if the Liberal Party wishes to up-charge its delegates, if the hard costs to put on the convention are only $300 per delegate and the Liberal Party is charging $1,000, it is actually getting a contribution of $700 per delegate and that should be considered a contribution.

    I am not sure where the hon. member is coming from. Quite frankly, if he wants to make sure they are able to hold leadership conventions in the future, merely charge the amount of money that it costs to put on the convention. It will not be considered a contribution.

    Mr. Speaker, I will take the member's points on hard costs. There will be an opportunity in Group No. 2 to deal with the Canadian Wheat Board issue but because the member made the point, I feel obligated to respond.

    The member has clearly shown what little he knows about the Canadian Wheat Board. The fact of the matter is the Department of Justice itself indicated that the Canadian Wheat Board should not be under the Access to Information Act in the proposed act because it is not a government agency. The members opposite try to portray it as a government agency, but it is a farm marketing agency. That is what it really is. The board of directors is elected by farmers.

    The fact of the matter is to get information on the Canadian Wheat Board there is no need to go to access to information because the Canadian Wheat Board puts together every year an audited annual report. On top of that, the Canadian Wheat Board goes out to every district where it has people elected. Those district elected people can be questioned on how the Canadian Wheat Board spent its money. It is clear that the Canadian Wheat Board is probably one of the most transparent in terms of its administrative operations of any organization in the country. Therefore, the Access to Information Act need not apply.

    By the standards of the member's question, it is a wonder he is not suggesting that Cargill Grain or Archer Daniels Midland Company, the good friends of members of the government, should be in this particular accountability act as well under access to information.

    Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked about an attack on democracy. If we look at it and those big corporations that give, he will say that the unions do it too. Well, we are treating them both the same and there will be no more of it.

    However, when we talk about what happens in our country, he should be ashamed. He has the right to make comments in the House of Commons, but he should be ashamed of what happened in our country. I remember that the former prime minister of the country, Jean Chrétien, received money from Auberge Grand-Mère. He took money from the transition fund to pay Auberge Grand-Mère. After that what happened in our country was we lost the transition fund which could have helped small and medium businesses.

    It is the same all over again with the sponsorship scandal. The sponsorship program could have helped community radio stations across Canada, which would have helped the regions. But the Liberals had to cause another scandal. We lost all of our good programs because of the Liberals. Now we have such a bill here before us, not because everyone is corrupt, but to ensure that no one will be ever corrupt again. This is the result.

    Given the current democracy, does the member not agree that the best thing, in the end, would be to ensure that no one ever has a chance to be corrupt, which will mean a better reputation for us here in the House of Commons?

    Mr. Speaker, Tommy Douglas would be rolling over in his grave if he was listening to the NDP members these days. They lost their social conscience and are now in bed with the Conservative Party of Canada. It is absolutely amazing to think about the little deals that the member for Winnipeg Centre must have cut with the President of Treasury Board when he had that meeting in secret behind closed doors. Maybe we need access to information to see what the member for Winnipeg Centre and the President of Treasury Board talked about in that exclusive meeting so that the member for Winnipeg Centre would side with the Conservatives every step of the way in terms of the accountability bill. Maybe that is where we need access to information.

    For the NDP to operate in the politics of exclusion is really unbelievable. I thought it was an inclusive party. For the member for Acadie--Bathurst to make allegations and talk about people the way he attempted to do, the bad apples, those who have done wrong have been charged. Some of them--

    Order. I would like to have a little order for the rest of the debate here today. I hear a lot of noise coming from all sides of the House. If we could have a bit of order for the rest of the debate today, that would be greatly appreciated by the Chair.

    Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to inform you that if you seek unanimous consent, I believe you will receive it for the following amendment. I move:

That Motion No. 9 amending Clause 99 in Bill C-2 be replaced with the following:

That Bill C-2 in Clause 99 be amended by deleting lines 19 to 28 and lines 39 to 44 on page 89 and lines 1 to 5 on page 90.

    Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the amendment?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer): The House has heard the terms of the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to talk to Bill C-2. I want to address a couple of specific issues.

    In the last few minutes, we have heard the member for Malpeque attacking the member for Winnipeg Centre. We also heard him on a rant about the Canadian Wheat Board and his beliefs on that. I want to quote him a couple of times. He said in his speech in talking about political fundraising that he wants the inclusion of everyone. He wanted to have everyone treated equally in terms of fundraising for political parties. He also said that exclusions hurt democracy, but it is interesting that when it comes to his position toward the Canadian Wheat Board, he wants it excluded from the access to information provisions of this bill. We need to say that it would a tragic thing if that were to happen in this House.

     I want to thank the member for Winnipeg Centre for having brought forward the amendment in the committee and for standing strongly behind it, because we believe it is an important amendment.

    For 13 years the Liberal Party was in power and for 13 years the Liberals have hidden things. We know that they have hidden things because, in the end, we saw the results of them hiding one thing after another. Finally there was the scandal and the corruption was revealed, which everyone in Canada is familiar with, but I do not think there was any place in this country where they hid things more than they did in terms of the Canadian Wheat Board.

    Mr. Speaker, I know you are fairly young, but in the 1990s you must have heard this. All of Saskatchewan is familiar with the fact that at one point the present House leader of the Liberal Party was in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. There was a time when the Canadian Wheat Board, the RCMP, the customs department and Revenue Canada banded together to come up against individual farmers. There is a litany of times when farms were raided in the middle of the night. There was one story of people who got home from the hospital in the afternoon and this conglomeration of government officials invaded their farm in the middle of the night, trying to seize their trucks and their grain because these farmers had had the courage to actually take a load of grain across the border.

    It ended badly. It ended with a dozen farmers in jail. The problem with the whole situation was that no one could find out what happened. There was no access to information as to what had happened in that whole scenario. Farmers still do not know who was doing what, how the whole thing was put together, and why they ended up in jail.

    Not only that, but farmers have questioned the Canadian Wheat Board's spending over the years. They have not been able to find virtually any information about the spending. The member for Malpeque mentioned that the Wheat Board has annual reports. It is true that it does have annual reports, but each one of them has become harder to dig through to find out the information as to how it is spending farmers' money.

    I need to point out that it is all farmers' money that is being spent by the Canadian Wheat Board. It takes the grain, it sells the grain, and it takes off what it needs. It now has $70 million a year in administration costs. Then it delivers the rest of the money, or it is supposed to, back to the farmers. Farmers have no way of knowing if that is in fact what happens, because there is no way of finding out what is going on behind the scenes at the board.

    Farmers have questioned things like the cost of administration, which has risen to the point where it is at $70 million a year. They have questioned how the special funds and the contingency funds are being put together and managed. I do not know if members know this, but there is a fund of farmers' uncashed cheques. The board keeps these farmers' uncashed cheques set aside, and after six years they are put into another fund. The board has been spending that money. There is no way that farmers can find out how that money is being spent. Actually, I do not think there is even any way for farmers to find out if they have money in that fund.

    It is very important for farmers in western Canada to have access to information for the Canadian Wheat Board. It is a government agency. It is legislated and mandated by the Canadian government. We have a Canadian Wheat Board Act. We have a minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. Certainly it is a government agency. For a long time, the Liberals have stopped farmers from finding out what is going on there. We need to have access to that information.

    I again want to thank the member for Winnipeg Centre for having the courage to bring forward the inclusion of the Canadian Wheat Board in the provisions of the access to information sections of this bill. Obviously anyone who is concerned about fairness and accountability would be willing to support those provisions.

    One of the things that really bothers me is this. What is it that the Liberals are afraid of here? Why is it that the member for Malpeque would be so paranoid about farmers actually finding out about what is happening within the Canadian Wheat Board? I think that probably it is because they know that after 13 years it is just as well that farmers do not find out what has been going on there and what role the Liberals have had to play within the Canadian Wheat Board. We know that it has been significant. We know that they have had a lot of influence on it over the years. We also know that where they have had influence throughout this country in the past 13 years, it generally has not been a good thing for Canadians.

    My question, then, is this. What is it that they are so afraid of? What is it that they are afraid farmers will find out if farmers have access to the Canadian Wheat Board's general information?

    I want to point out that this access to information provision protects commercially sensitive information. It is not that farmers, competitors or whoever are going to be able to go in and find out what is going on with the commercial contracts. That is not a part of this. It is about the general information and the work that is being done there.

    I again want to congratulate the member for Winnipeg Centre, thank him for including the Canadian Wheat Board in the access to information provisions and encourage him to continue to support that provision.

    Mr. Speaker, I understand that we are still on Group No. 1. This topic does not come up until Group No. 2, but seeing as it was mentioned, I have to ask the member opposite to keep in mind that he took an oath when he became parliamentary secretary.

    I find it remarkably strange that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food with responsibilities for the Canadian Wheat Board is standing in the House today to argue that it is fine for people to break the law. Because the fact of the matter is, in regard to the farmers he talked about earlier, that the Canadian Wheat Board operates as a single desk selling agency. One of the reasons it operates as a single desk selling agency is so that it can maximize returns to primary producers. If people were to sell around that and basically bootleg grain to the United States, they could be undercutting the ability of the Canadian Wheat Board to do its job for producers collectively.

    That is the law of the land. I would ask the member opposite to answer. As for why they could not apply under access to information, it is the same reason used if there is a criminal investigation, which this was, a criminal investigation involving the RCMP and other security agencies. One cannot apply access to information to the RCMP because it is a criminal matter.

    Will the parliamentary secretary, who took an oath, stand in the House and tell us whether or not the charges were laid because those farmers were alleged to be in violation of the laws of the land?

    Mr. Speaker, the member knows better than this, because he knows full well that when the government went to court, it was defeated in court. The present opposition House leader changed the regulations that day in order to put these farmers in a situation that they could not get out of. The government was found to be the one that was pushing the edges of the law in that situation.

    I just want to mention that I think it is passing strange as well that these folks wanted to make sure there is no access to information by the farmers when the farmers are the ones who are paying all the bills of this agency and this organization.

    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.

    Mr. Speaker, that will have to be dealt with in further debate. My point in getting up was to address the issue that the member for Malpeque raised. He said that it will come up again in Group No. 2. He raised these issues about the Canadian Wheat Board in Group No. 1. My point was that for the sake of farmers in western Canada we need to include the Canadian Wheat Board in the access to information provisions in this bill.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We have had discussions with all parties about grouping Motion No. 5, which was ruled inadmissible with respect to the part on future transition teams. I think you were to seek it you would find unanimous consent to group Motion No. 5.

    Does the hon. minister have the unanimous consent of the House?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    Some hon. members: No.

    Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I take the floor in this chamber. Perhaps I shall succeed, as women often do, in restoring a little moderation to all these discussions.

     Let us look first of all at the evolution of this bill. As it is a bill on accountability, one cannot help but be struck by the way that certain powers have been removed from the parliamentary committee by hastening the debate and ending up with certain amendments that will reduce the power of parliamentarians.

     As a parliamentarian, I take my responsibilities to heart. The citizens of Trois-Rivières have placed their trust in me. For me, it is important to guarantee democracy in this Parliament. The committees are an important mechanism for achieving that goal.

     The Bloc Québécois is in favour of the principle of this bill. For some months now, it has proposed numerous recommendations for improving the current accountability framework.

     The Bloc Québécois did its homework and tabled 72 recommendations in the wake of the Gomery commission. Those 72 recommendations were made necessary by all the ethical problems that have been encountered. We wanted to locate the sponsorship money, assign powers and resources to officers of Parliament, amend the Access to Information Act and the Lobbyists Registration Act, and protect whistleblowers. All of these subjects are addressed in this bill—unfortunately, some not so successfully.

     For example, consider ethics. Ethics was certainly at the heart of the last election campaign. The sponsorship scandal was revealed by the Bloc Québécois. The Bloc was constantly alerting the public on this subject, and so helped to oust the Liberals from power.

     What did the public tell us in electing a minority Conservative government? It told us that this government had to clean up political practices and establish accountability in this Parliament. However, one can wonder why it is necessary to do this so quickly, in such a rush.

     The Bloc Québécois has some major criticisms to make about the passage of this bill, which is crucial and much awaited by the population, and which deserved more extensive review. Why the urgency? We have the right to ask the question.

     The Gomery commission produced a set of recommendations which have to be implemented: that is certain. However, given all the abuses we have seen, it is clear that the problem is not caused by a lack of rules, but by the fact that those rules are not being followed. Now what does this bill propose to us? It proposes new rules.

     In the opinion of the Bloc, the bill has certain weaknesses in this regard, insofar as the process is not clear. This amendment calling for a review every five years, to which the Bloc has just given its support, can certainly provide the beginning of a solution.

     In five years, perhaps we will be having the same discussions, to the effect that we have a lot of rules, but no means of preventing the rules from being circumvented and that a review is needed.

     Accountability demands a great deal of transparency. One wonders how an abuse can be denounced if it is not known. That is why the Bloc called for a reform of the Access to Information Act. Information is power. For the Bloc, it is important for all information to be accessible. It is also important for all the foundations and crown corporations to be subject to this Access to Information Act.

    One cannot be halfway transparent or a quarter or an eighth of the way transparent. When we talk about transparency, we must be sure that everything is on the table so that parliamentarians, and parliamentary committees in particular, can debate it and come up with solutions. Human nature being what it is, we know full well that there will always be individuals who will sneak through the back door. That is how we end up with such significant abuses.

    There is another crucial aspect that is very little talked about and that is the real will of the government caucus and all parliamentarians in this House to intervene and change things. I have been a member here in this House for two years now. Judging by a number of bills and committee reports, we find that political will is lacking. Things do not change. Another election is called and we end up dealing with the same problems.

    What is more, in this bill, the government refused to increase the penalties for those who contravene the Ethics Act. We feel this lacks transparency and this certainly would have been a way to prevent abuse. It is important for this bill to be debated in this House. It is a shame it is being debated so quickly. Even elected officials from France, on their recent visit to Canada, said they were watching what was going on this House and mentioned that they, too, were having challenges with respect to accountability and that our work could, perhaps, have been used as a model. Nonetheless, it seems we are missing a good opportunity to get to the bottom of things because we are only skimming the surface and moving far too quickly.

    The hon. President of the Treasury Board on a point of order.

    Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent for Motion No. 5, which had been ruled as inadmissible, to be included in the first batch.

    Does the hon. minister have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    Some hon. members: No.

    The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer): There is no agreement.

    The hon. member for Mississauga South on the same point?

    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.

    Hon. John Baird: We did it for the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: 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.

    Motion No. 5 was not selected by the Speaker because it could have been moved in committee.

    However, there are precedents where the House can select a motion that was not selected by the Speaker and include it in a group of amendments. Therefore, it is in order for the President of the Treasury Board to seek the unanimous consent.

    Mr. Speaker, I move:

That proposed Motion No. 5 be included in Group No. 1.

    Does the President of the Treasury Board have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer): Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    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.

     Does the House give its consent?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    Some hon. members: No.

    Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak at this stage, to address the first group of amendments, which takes certain powers away from certain committees.

     I have had the pleasure of sitting on both the legislative committee on Bill C-2 and the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. I say that I have had the pleasure, but I should rather say that I have had the experience of working on them, because I will admit that it was not always pleasant.

     Yesterday, as well, we had the pleasure of meeting with the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. He came with some reservations about the Information Commissioner’s proposed open government act, and he asked us to bring forward a bill. Obviously, that was not our intention, because that is the job of the government. On occasion, some of us have brought forward private member’s bills, which is proper, but we may not bring forward bills that involve an expenditure of money. It would seem that a bill on transparency would cost this government a good deal of money.

     The minister told us then to continue our studies and our reports, to modernize and strengthen the act that was passed in 1987. When I asked him whether he had a timetable for this bill, he did not answer. We know what that means: he had no timetable.

     And why he has not set a timetable? Because he has no political will. What would he have done if he had had the political will to bring forward a real transparency bill, a real bill on access to public information, one that really modernized and strengthened the act? He would have done exactly as was done for Bill C-2; he would have done it himself and he would have submitted it to a legislative committee. In fact, for Bill C-2, he stretched it to its limit, if I may say so. Not only did he have the political will, but it rose to the level of arrogance. We have seen and felt it; each one of us has complained about it among ourselves. The timetable was much too tight. The witnesses were zipping past at a great rate and we had no time to think about what they were saying. We had no time to read the invaluable documents being given to us. We had no time to do research, to compare, and to seek out more information. None at all. The committee sat as many as 45 hours in a single week. And then, we told them what I will say again now: Watch out! We are going so fast that we are putting together a flawed bill full of holes. The proof of this is that once again the minister has just brought forward a last-minute amendment to fix it. So we know that this bill will be flawed.

     This bill also includes some amendments, not a lot, to the Access to Information Act. That is why the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada is not going to do anything more.

     Indeed the real changes he wanted to make to the Access to Information Act are contained in Bill C-2. We should not expect anything else of this government or of this minister. In my humble opinion, this government will not table another bill on access to information. We also know that Bill C-2 contains a few partisan elements, such as the one that might throw a wrench into the works of the Liberal Party leadership race. Also, as we can see now, it even takes away certain powers from certain committees, as witnessed by this group of amendments.

     There should be a little more balance in this government. In fact there is no schedule proposed for the Access to Information Act.

     The minister told us to take our time, to make reports and do analyses, to make sure it was perfect. We have done enough studies and reports. I could pile them up here at least a foot or two high.

     It must be understood that there is no political will behind the Access to Information Act. This is so true that yesterday, in our committee, when we were discussing our fall action plan and were getting ready to vote on a measure that would have enabled us to ask the Minister of Labour and the Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec Act to come back, when the House resumes in September, with a government bill on access to information this time, what happened? The Conservative members on the committee monopolized the floor.

     The member for Dufferin—Caledon, among others, talked for the rest of the meeting. There were 10 or 15 minutes remaining. He talked the whole time. He said things and contradicted them. He said the opposite of what he thinks. The members were contradictory, talking non-stop, stating figures. They said any old thing to use up all the time so that we could not discuss a bill that would come from the department.

     It was too bad for democracy and too bad for transparency. Some transparency! If this government does not intend to rewrite the Access to Information Act, let it say so quite simply instead of beating around the bush and avoiding real debates. One of the Conservative members even said yesterday in committee—this is a laugh—that a minister was also a member, and that a member was also a minister. I did not know I was a minister. I learned this from a colleague in the Conservative Party, who said so in committee.

     How can we expect this government to offer us a real transparency act? In committee, I asked this government to propose an access to information act. That motion was rejected by the Conservative members. The same request was made last November, and the motion was adopted unanimously. The same motion that was rejected by the Conservatives in committee on May 15 had been adopted unanimously last November. Remember that there was even a Conservative Party opposition day, last November 15, regarding a new access to information act. What has changed between last November and now? Simply that this party got itself elected and is forgetting its election promises one after the other.

     The Conservative government promised to reform the Access to Information Act many times during the last election campaign. It was in their last election platform. Yesterday we saw that this was not true. There will be no new access to information act.

     The pity of it is that an accountability act is a fine and proper idea, even though this act is very imperfect and even though the Bloc Québécois has many reservations. This government can expect the Bloc to vote in favour of this bill. But an accountability act without a transparency act is not going to work. It would not prevent a new sponsorship scandal, or other scandals. It is in fact the intention of this government to avoid transparency. It does not want to be transparent. The unfortunate result of this is that Bill C-2 is not going to achieve the goals we thought it would.

     The Gomery report recommended many things, including new transparency legislation. One can see that few of those recommendations have been adopted in Bill C-2.

     From now on, when people talk about an election promise that is forgotten as soon as the party is elected, they will use the term “Conservative promise”. That is what this is. We thought that a transparency act and a modernized and strengthened Access to Information Act would be forthcoming from this government. Alas, no, it was a “Conservative promise”. There will be no new access to information act.

     This government is not seeking to avoid a new scandal. That is not what it wants to avoid. Its initiative is partisan, opportunistic and superficial. All that it wants to tell its electors the next time it goes on the campaign trail is “mission accomplished: we created an accountability act”. That is all it did, but it did it. That is all.

     When we look at what is in this bill, we see that it is a very timid step in the right direction and does not include transparency. As I was saying earlier, accountability without transparency will not go far.

     This Bill C-2 is a small step forward, but a very small step, a feeble, tottering step. However it is better than a step backward, and therefore the Bloc Québécois will be supporting this bill.

    Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech on Bill C-2. As she stated, it is a small step forward.

    Following the sponsorship scandal in recent years, the Conservatives attacked the Liberals repeatedly in this House, together with the Bloc Québécois and the NDP. We would have thought that the Conservative party would have included and even given more prominence to the Access to Information Act, but it did not do so.

    I would like the member to explain why the Conservative Party is so hesitant about having greater transparency in this House with regard to the work, policies and programs of this government. And why this resistance with regard to the Access to Information Act?

    Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his excellent question. This is in fact a member whose questions are always excellent because, I should point out, he always cuts to the chase.

    I would like to bring up an element of the Conservative election platform which said—and please listen to this and try not to die laughing:

A Conservative government will... Implement the Information Commissioner's recommendations for reform of the Access to Information Act.

    Some of us do find it hard not to laugh when hearing such a statement because that is not really what the government is doing right now. This is absurd. I think that in fact what the people of Quebec and Canada really feel like doing is to cry, especially since that was an election promise. There is nothing worse than a broken promise to cause the public to lose confidence in a person or an organization. The fact is that people lose confidence in any organization, group or political party that breaks commitments. It is written in black and white:

A Conservative government will... Implement the Information Commissioner's recommendations for reform of the Access to Information Act.

    That commitment was made in November. A mere six months later, here is the deal, as we found out at committee yesterday: this government has no intention of reforming the Access to Information Act. The Minister of Justice nonchalantly told the committee about some existential angst, some concern of his about the Information Commissioner's transparency legislation, thus asking that we think it over and submit a few more reports to him.

    That does not work. It is clear that this government lacks political will. It is also clear that the Conservatives do not want any transparency in their government. I would just ask that they make perhaps a bit of an effort to “transparently” admit it. Let them come out and say that they do not want the Access to Information Act to be upgraded. They should just say so. It would make life much easier. No one would waste their time and everyone would then be able to start off in a new direction.

    Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague from Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert on her excellent work and her excellent presentation.

     I will also take this opportunity to commend the excellent work done in committee by our colleague from Repentigny. He took the time and had the patience to try, for hours and hours, to make the government understand that it had to take all the time needed to do the job right. He had no shortage of either time or patience. He was even prepared to give of his time for the entire summer so that he could talk to the government members about how this accountability act has evolved.

     The Bloc Québécois’ position has never varied: the ethics of this Parliament have to be changed, and the job has to be done right. That has always been the message delivered by the Bloc Québécois.

     Our colleague from Repentigny has consistently delivered the same message and invited his colleagues to take the time that was needed to genuinely change the ethics of this administration, of this Parliament, and the way that the government of Canada operates, a government that, over the years, has set about evading virtually every law there is and making off with taxpayers’ assets as if they were its own.

     That is rather like what was done in the case of this Bill C-2, which has been presented to this House. But the men and women listening to us, Mr. Speaker, have to try to understand how Parliament works.

     Introducing a bill is all very well, but when a government is in a minority position, a bill that it brings forward has to be studied in committee and have the benefit of the improvements suggested by the opposition parties, who, you will have noticed, hold a majority of the seats in committees. In a minority government, it is the opposition parties that are in the majority in committees. The government must therefore take all parties’ positions into consideration, and not just enter into misalliances of convenience, as the New Democratic Party did, to try to push the bill through and get a few minor improvements, so the NDPers will be happy and, once again, a bill will be passed that will not solve the entire problem.

     When we analyze a bill that is presented in Parliament, we have to know where it comes from. Where does this accountability act come from? It is the direct descendant of the sponsorship scandal. For everyone in this House, including the new members, the sponsorship scandal is the biggest scandal to have hit the federal government in its entire history. Those are the facts.

     Today, the bill they are trying to ram through is the very foundation of the entire operation of the government of Canada. The scandal that struck the people of Quebec, and others, deserves the time it takes for us to be able to pass a bill that will guarantee to Quebeckers that no one will ever again try to buy their social conscience with their own money. That is what they tried to do. That is the tragedy of the sponsorship scandal: taking the public’s money and giving it to advertising agencies that handed it over to political parties. We want to do the right thing.

     I encourage my colleagues in the Conservative Party, especially the new members, to take another look at the Gomery report, to re-read what the judge said and even the questions asked before the Gomery commission. The reality, ultimately, is that there was a culture of silence. The bill before us today will do nothing to stop that. The proof lies in what the Information Commissioner said.

     During the last Parliament, I sat on the committee responsible for studying access to information and the duties of the other commissioners. The Information Commissioner said that there was, in fact, a culture of secrecy. There was no paper trail, no documents. That is why some of the guilty parties have not been punished: there was no documentation. People talked. Paul’s office talked with Pierre’s office. Somewhere, everyone talked with each other in Jean’s office. So Pierre, Jean and Jacques were all there. The problem is that there was no paper trail.

     The Information Commissioner told us in regard to the accountability bill that we should watch out because it did not get to the heart of the problem at the Gomery commission and in the sponsorship scandal. Everything was done without documentation.

     The accountability bill does not deal with this problem at all. The Bloc’s concerns are therefore very understandable.

     In its election campaign, the Conservative Party said that when it arrived it would clean everything up and introduce a bill to prevent what had happened in the past from happening again.

     I encourage my Conservative colleagues to read the recommendations in the Gomery report, which also said that this bill did not go far enough. The Conservative Party’s cure for the disease of corruption does not remedy anything because it does not prevent the culture of secrecy. The government will not keep any trail and public servants will be able to continue to communicate by telephone without having to put anything in writing. That is what happened in the sponsorship scandal: everything was done on the phone and nothing was in writing.

     When the Information Commissioner received requests, whether from Mr. Justice Gomery or all the various departments, he could not find the documents that were requested. That is what Commissioner Reid still says today when he maintains that this bill does not change what is important, namely the fact that everything is based on access to information but only to the extent that the information is available.

    So you will understand why our colleague from Repentigny went to such lengths to try to make the other parties, especially the Conservatives and the NDP, understand that they should not go so fast. Some very important things were criticized, and this bill does not change them.

    The most important of these things is to require that the administration keep written records and keep all the documents about every issue, every program. This bill does not do that, as the Information Commissioner and others said. Access to information is not amended, so no information is available, and there is no requirement to keep any information.

    A full-scale reform of the situation that gave rise to the sponsorship scandal is needed. Yet this is not what the Conservative Party is doing. The Conservative Party is playing politics. It has a minority government, and it had high hopes of quickly winning a majority, but this will not happen. Why? Because too many Conservative members do not realize that by going too fast, they are not fixing anything.

    Obviously, no one could be against the principle of the bill, which is a step in the right direction. But this is not what the Conservatives promised during the election campaign. They promised to fix the problem.

    Hon. members will no doubt understand why the position of the Bloc Québécois was clear, why our leader explained the Bloc's position. This bill will not fix the real problem that led to the bill: the sponsorship scandal.

    As a result, if we pass this bill, there could be another sponsorship scandal or another scandal where public money is misappropriated for strictly partisan purposes, simply because the Access to Information Act has not been amended, because there are no requirements and because the guilty parties will not be penalized, as the Information Commissioner recommended. During the last Parliament, not ten years but just eight months ago, he tabled in our committee, at the committee's request, a bill to amend the Access to Information Act.

    At the time, the Conservatives were in agreement; there was unanimity. The Information Commissioner had been asked to put forward legislation precisely to allow him, who has to field requests from all departments whenever a scandal like the sponsorship scandal breaks out, to provide all the information and to ensure that all pertinent documents are available. So, the commissioner put forward a bill himself. This was the first time that a bill prepared with his staff and legal counsel was put forward by a commissioner to tell us what was required.

    However, in its accountability bill, this government totally ignores the Information Commissioner's recommendations, which were at the heart of it all.

    Obviously, as you can understand, Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois will support this measure. It does not make things right, however, because the Conservatives said they were going to deal with programs like the one involved in the sponsorship scandal. It is obvious that this bill does not do that.

    We will support this measure, which is a very small step for a government hoping to become a majority government very soon. Once again, Quebeckers will realize that this attempt at dealing with a problem is nothing but smoke and mirrors and, therefore, will continue to turn to the Bloc Québécois, and the hon. member for Repentigny among others, to defend their interests.

    Mr. Speaker, Bill C-2 prevents large corporations from donating money to a political party. If we look back to the sponsorship scandal, we know that some were tempted to do that. Indeed, as we saw in the Gomery report, funds were transferred to a political party, namely the Liberal Party.

    So is this not at least a step in the right direction? A bill can always be improved. This is why Parliament did not close its doors a hundred years ago. It still exists today and will continue to exist. Does this bill not represent at least the beginning of a process to eliminate corruption?

    In the sponsorship scandal, the government did not give money to companies for nothing. That money found its way back into the party's coffers. With Bill C-2, at least we know one thing for sure: the temptation will not longer exist, regardless of which party is in power.

    My question is simple. Does the member not think that we are moving in the right direction? If people are given a slap on the wrist, they may not want to take money from taxpayers anymore.

    Mr. Speaker, I am glad that my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst asked me that question because it is a good example of the New Democratic Party's philosophy. The only thing they are interested in is taking money away from the Liberals. It is purely political. The NDP has the same goals as the government. In the short term, it wants to take money away from the Liberals.

    We have taken care of this problem in our neck of the woods: in Quebec, Liberals have pretty much disappeared. The NDP could not manage that in the other provinces, but that is its problem. We have no problem waiting three or four months to get a real bill that would stop the entire administration from using the people's money and creating more scandals.

    We got rid of the Liberals. I realize the NDP did not. The problem is that for short-term partisan and political reasons, the NDP is shelving what was the seed of a true revolution whose goal was to ensure that we will never again have to resort to a judge like Judge Gomery to resolve disputes between Canadians and bureaucrats.

    Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the hon. member when he says we are politically motivated. We simply want to be reasonable. There is a political party that was not reasonable, like others may not have been either. However, Bill C-2 is a start. It allows us to say it is time for this to stop. The only reason money was given to the companies and the promoters was that it ended up back in the coffers of the political party.

    Would someone say we want to put an end to this situation for political reasons? I think we are here to be politically active. We live politics from dawn to dusk. We just want to put an end to the misuse of taxpayers' money.

    We had good programs, including the transitional assistance program through which Jean Chrétien gave money to the owner of the Auberge Grand-Mère in Quebec, to whom he had made a loan. Bingo. He recovered his money and said this was normal, “He owed me money and he paid me back”.

    Yes, but we lost the program. It was a good program through which our small and medium size businesses could get money.

    My colleague talks about Bill C-2 as though it were just a case of politics on the backs of the Liberals. And yet I remember not so long ago that the Bloc Québécois voted in a way that made the Liberal government fall and led to a general election.

    I apologize to the hon. member, but we have to allow enough time for the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel to respond.

    Mr. Speaker, the problem is simple. The Auditor General, even with regard to the sponsorship scandal, stated that all the rules were in place. However, they were not followed.

    The problem reported by the Information Commissioner is that there is a culture of secrecy. When people have wrongdoing in mind, there is a culture of secrecy and no one writes, they telephone one another. My problem today is that another scandal could break out, this time caused by the Conservative government. My NDP colleague does not see it because he wants to settle a score with the Liberals. That is fine, but all the Bloc Québécois wants to do is to prevent another party using the same tricks as the Liberals and doing this all over again. It is for this reason that we wish to take three or four months longer and that our colleague for Repentigny was prepared to work harder. We did not want to just rein in the Liberals; we wanted to eliminate any temptations the Conservatives might have. The NDP may realize this one day.

    Mr. Speaker, it would have taken hours to make this bill acceptable, and I do say “acceptable”, in spite of the concessions made to the members of the Bloc Québécois who sit on this committee. I take this opportunity, moreover, to express to them my admiration. I am talking about the members for Repentigny and Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert. Up to now they have been sitting for 42, 43 and even 45 hours a week in order to study this bill.

     Many workers will say that is nothing, since they work that many hours every week. But I am talking about 42, 43 and maybe even 45 hours just studying this bill. They still had to do their office work here in Ottawa and in their constituency. I can assure you that they are very present in their ridings. I am talking about the members of the Bloc, of course, because I know them.

     This bill, the French title of which the government agreed to improve, further to the repeated demands of the Bloc Québécois, was suggested in large part by the Gomery commission. I say “in large part” because a lot of redundant, irrelevant and unverifiable statements were added, as we shall find out in the future. It will be hard for a layperson to interpret it; it will be one more law to make the lawyers wealthy.

     A coincidence maybe, but this morning this is a topical subject, what with the case of Charles Guité. Is his sentence deserved? I think so, of course, but at what level would a psychologist, especially a military one, have evaluated his degree of responsibility? That would have been interesting to know when creating a law like the one we are presenting today.

     The credibility of this bill would be tarnished if this government used it as an election springboard. This means that it is now, at the same time as this bill is enacted, that the procedure must begin, if the government is serious, of course.

     There are other public servants like Charles Guité who think that their duty forces them into unconditional loyalty. In this case, he had been a soldier who had learned to carry out orders. As a soldier, it was not up to him to ask questions. He had his mission. And this bill was to be the rule that would make it possible to seek out the person of whom someone like Guité could not ask questions. I doubt the capacity of this law to do the job.

     However, as I said at the beginning of my address, our Bloc representatives on this committee managed to get enough changes made for them to feel that not all the time they spent working was in vain.

    The Auditor General will be somewhat disappointed to note that she still does not have access to all government services and crown corporations, once again due to one party's lack of political courage. Although that party was very brave in opposition and during the election campaign, it loses its nerve when it is time to act. If this is any consolation to the Auditor General, I would like her to know that the Bloc Québécois, myself included, is just as disappointed.

    The Auditor General, as I know her role, and who will serve as a reference point for several years to come, will certainly be happy to maintain her political independence and to acquire additional powers, even if they are still insufficient. She must be fed up. Even though I was not terribly pleased with this bill, I think I would support it simply to be able to continue to applaud her work.

    Unfortunately, nothing in life is ever perfect. What casts a shadow on this bill is the absence of real sanctions for those who violate the ethics legislation. However, the commissioner is so closely monitored in his duties that, if he announces an offender, it means that he really and truly has no choice. Whatever the members of this government may be guilty of or believe they may be criticized for, that is up to them to judge.

    They are so perfect, they do not want to implement Kyoto, but it is not their fault; the Liberals were the ones who polluted. They do not want to pay back the money taken from the EI fund; again, the Liberals are to blame for taking it. They do not want to create an agency to monitor gas prices; that was the Bloc Québécois's idea, and the oil companies might become separatists some day.

     Surely they have no need to worry, they are so perfect! And like angels, if they make just one little mistake, like changing parties after leading the voters to believe that the other party is the devil, they lose only one wing, after all.

     Does the Ethics Commissioner really have all the powers and the independence—above all, the independence—necessary to perform his duties? Allow me not to think so. The complaints of citizens, among others, will still be filtered by parliamentarians. They will be losing more than wings.

     The public will say, probably rightly, that the corrected political party financing legislation is a fine smokescreen cast in the face of the electorate. I do not think they will be far wrong.

     One has to be realistic. Quebec has made every effort to try to clean up the political party financing legislation, but something is always happening to distort the data. Take the example of a minister who announces a government grant in a community. Is this not a political message to those who will benefit from that grant? And yet it is taxpayers’ money that is paying for the financing and announcement of this project. Is this recorded in the financial books of the party in power?

     We have a flagrant example with the Quebec Election Act, which is a very good law. In the Mont-Orford case, it appears that the shareholders, destined to be the biggest winners of this privatization, are very good financial backers of the party in power. Can this reward be considered an encouragement to new financial backers? Will it simply encourage the same backers to continue contributing so generously? That is the impression left with the population.

     When that population understands that smoke has been thrown in its eyes, as in the case of Quebec’s presence at UNESCO, the sentence is a stiff one. Just ask our neighbours on the benches.

     With regard to the Access to Information Act, I would like to remind this government that, no later than last fall, it supported a unanimous motion of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. That motion rejected a suggestion by the justice minister on setting a deadline for review of the act.

     No later than last January, this party was saying on page 13 of its election platform:

A Conservative government will:

Implement the Information Commissioner’s recommendations for reform of the Access to information Act.

     Does our view of ethics not change, once we are in power?

     Is the House ready for the question?

    Some hon. members: Question.

    The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer): The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    Some hon. members: No.

    The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

    Some hon. members: Yea.

    The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer): All those opposed will please say nay.

    Some hon. members: Nay.

    The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer): In my opinion the nays have it.

    And more than five members having risen:

    The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer): The recorded division on Motion No. 1 stands deferred.

     The next question is on Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    Some hon. members: No.

    The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

    Some hon. members: Yea.

    The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer): All those opposed will please say nay.

    Some hon. members: Nay.

    The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer): In my opinion the yeas have it.

     I declare Motion No. 2 carried.

    The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer): The next question is on Motion No. 3. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    Some hon. members: No.

    The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

    Some hon. members: Yea.

    The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer): All those opposed will please say nay.

    Some hon. members: Nay.

    The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer): In my opinion the yeas have it.

    And more than five members having risen:

    The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer): The recorded division on Motion No. 3 stands deferred.

    The next question is on Motion No. 5. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The next question is on Motion No. 6. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    Some hon. members: No.

    The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer): All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

    Some hon. members: Yea.

    The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer): All those opposed will please say nay.

    Some hon. members: Nay.

    The Acting Speaker (Mr. Andrew Scheer): In my opinion the nays have it.

    And more than five members having risen

    The recorded division on Motion No. 6 stands deferred.

    The next question is on Motion No. 7. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The next question is on Motion No. 9. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    I shall now propose the motions in Group No. 2.

     moved:

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-2, in Clause 89, be amended by adding after line 15 on page 85 the following:

“(2) However, the Commissioner shall not refuse under subsection (1) to disclose any record that contains information that was created by the Commissioner or on the Commissioner’s behalf in the course of an investigation conducted by, or under the authority of, the Commissioner once the investigation and all related proceedings, if any, are finally concluded.”

     moved:

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-2, in Clause 143, be amended by replacing line 1 on page 117 with the following:

“(b) any parent Crown corporation, and any wholly-owned”

     moved:

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-2, in Clause 146, be amended by replacing lines 3 to 31 on page 118 with the following

“16.1 (1) The following heads of government institutions shall refuse to disclose any record requested under this Act that contains information that was obtained or created by them or on their behalf in the course of an investigation, examination or audit conducted by them or under their authority:

(a) the Auditor General of Canada;

(b) the Commissioner of Official Languages for Canada;

(c) the Information Commissioner; and

(d) the Privacy Commissioner.

(2) However, the head of a government institution referred to in paragraph (1)(c) or (d) shall not refuse under subsection (1) to disclose any record that contains information that was created by or on behalf of the head of the government institution in the course of an investigation or audit conducted by or under the authority of the head of the government institution once the investigation or audit and all related proceedings, if any, are finally concluded.”

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-2, in the English version of Clause 165, be amended by adding after line 24 on page 124 the following:

“Atlantic Canada Opportunities

Agency Agence de promotion économique du Canada atlantique”

     moved:

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-2, in Clause 165, be amended

(a) by deleting, in the French version, lines 38 to 40 on page 124.(b) by adding, in the French version, after line 44 on page 124 the following:

“Centre de recherches pour le développement international

International Development Research Centre”

     moved:

Motion No. 19

That Bill C-2, in the French version of Clause 165, be amended by adding after line 44 on page 124 the following:

“Centre de recherches pour le développement international

International Development Research Centre”

     moved:

Motion No. 20

That Bill C-2 be amended by deleting Clause 165.1.

     moved:

Motion No. 21

That Bill C-2, in Clause 172.1, be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 5 on page 128 with the following

“Corporation's mandate, the Minister shall review”

Motion No. 22

That Bill C-2, in Clause 190, be amended by

(a) deleting, in the French version, lines 5 to 7 on page 135; (b) adding, in the French version, after line 11 on page 135, the following:

“Centre de recherches pour le développement international

International Development Research Centre”

    Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to address very succinctly the motions that we have before us in the Group No. 2 package of amendments to the accountability act. I will list very quickly the government's position on those amendments.

    First is Motion No. 8 by the NDP. We are open to considering this amendment. This would provide a permanent exemption for information obtained during an investigation and an exemption for information created during the investigation until that investigation is complete for the commissioner of lobbying. This allows, for example, the commissioner of lobbying to carry out an investigation without being harassed by access to information requests. It seems to me to be a reasonable amendment. We will consider it and are open to be persuaded on it.

     Second is Liberal Motion No. 13. We will support the amendment because it amends the definition of a government institution to include only wholly owned subsidiaries of crowns. The subsidiaries of crown corporations that are majority owned include private sector ownership. Under the ATI we do not want private sector owned organizations to be subject. As a result, we think Liberal Motion No. 13 is very reasonable and we can support it.

    Motion No. 14 by the NDP removes the permanent ATIA exemption for records created by the Auditor General. We will oppose this amendment. We do not believe the Auditor General should have to reveal all of the documents and notes that she creates in the course of her investigation. She clearly operates in the spirit of transparency and is willing to release all relevant information when she tables her report to the House of Commons. It is not, therefore, necessary for all her notes to be made public. As well, it might inhibit open discussion within her office, when that office is carrying out audits, if it knows that those discussions may be subject to access to information. As a result, we will oppose NDP Motion No. 14.

    Motion No. 17 by the NDP adds ACOA to the English version of clause 165. The government's Motion No. 18 accomplishes the same objective, but does so in a more legislatively eloquent fashion. Therefore, we do not believe that NDP Motion No. 17 is necessary.

    Finally, I will address Motions Nos. 18 and 22, amendments to schedule 1 of the Privacy Act and the Access to Information Act, resulting from the adoption of previous motions. These motions are worthy of some discussion. During the legislative committee's review of Bill C-2, motions were made by the NDP with respect to the definition of “government institution” under the Access to Information Act. Those were adopted.

    The definition of “government institution” was amended to include parent crown corporations and their subsidiaries, which made listing them in the schedule of these acts duplicative and no longer necessary. To remove them from the schedules of these acts, the NDP put forward motions that contained the list from crown corporations to be removed. At this point, we will be looking for some commentary from the NDP on these matters. I suspect we will want to speak to Motions Nos. 18 and 22.

    That is a very quick summary of the government's response to the motions in Group No. 2. By and large, we look forward to a vigorous debate and prompt passage of the accountability act.

    Mr. Speaker, could the parliamentary secretary provide a little more elaborate explanation of the amendments to the schedules where ACOA seems to be deleted and IDRC is added? Could he tell us why that is necessary? It was not clear to me in his remarks.

    For the most part, the Liberals agree with the government's statements on these amendments, as well as those proposed by the NDP. I think there may still remain some confusion around the amendments to the schedule, both recommended by the NDP and by the government. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary could give me a little more detail on that.

    Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted. I see our time is evaporating now, but in the brief time that we have left the NDP Motion No. 17 adds ACOA to the English version of clause 165.

    We believe the government's motion, Motion No. 18, accomplishes that objective, but does so in a fashion that is more eloquent and drafted more correctly. As such, it is our hope, respectfully, that the NDP would consider withdrawing Motion No. 17 in favour of government Motion No. 18. However, in the event that the NDP does not withdraw Motion No. 17, we will vote against it.

    Mr. Speaker, I just want to be sure that I understood correctly what the parliamentary secretary just said.

    Did he say that Motions Nos. 17 and 19 could be withdrawn to give Motion No. 18 precedence over the other two? If such is the case, I humbly suggest to him that he ask the unanimous consent of the House to withdraw Motions Nos. 17 and 19 because we agree with him.

    Mr. Speaker, the member is not correct. It is not possible for the government to withdraw Motion No. 17 because it is an NDP motion. Theoretically, we can only withdraw our own amendments.

    However, we encourage members of the House to oppose Motions Nos. 17 and 19 and then support the government's Motion No. 18. We believe this would lead to the best legislative outcome and the best final product, from a drafting point of view.

    Mr. Speaker, I think we are coming to a consensus on what we are trying to achieve with Motions Nos. 17, 18, and 19. The NDP is willing to cooperate with the idea to simplify things. I understand the motion is in the name of my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst. Therefore, I do not believe I am authorized to withdraw Motion Nos. 17 and 19. Perhaps after question period the House can have our assurance that we will do that to expedite the process.

    Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for making this promise. I also thank him for the work he does in committee as well as in the House.

    Mr. Speaker, I have a question to ask of the parliamentary secretary. Since this second group of amendments deals mainly with the reform of the Access to Information Act, why did the Conservatives refuse to undertake a quick and efficient review of that act when they had promised to do so on page 12 of their document entitled “Stand up for Canada”?

    Mr. Speaker, an improved Access to Information Act is precisely what this government has delivered. We have delivered amendments in the accountability act that extend access to information far beyond where they have ever gone before. This is the greatest expansion in the history of Canada of access to information. We are opening up the drapes, letting in the sunshine and opening up government for all Canadians taxpayers to see.

    Mr. Speaker, I agree to withdraw Motions Nos. 17 and 19 and to keep Motion No. 18.

    Perhaps the member could seek unanimous consent for that after question period.

    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister keeps saying that Canadians voted for change. They got change, but they certainly did not vote for the following:

    The Liberal government's commitment for new tactical airlift fleet, at least 16 new aircraft, for the Canadian Forces has been scrapped.

    The $3.5 billion promised for labour market partnership agreements with the provinces has been put in fiscal limbo.

    Instead of $1.6 billion in funding for affordable housing, which we delivered under the Liberals' Bill C-48, the Conservatives have promised only $1.4 billion.

    The Conservatives have cut the $1 billion for housing and infrastructure for aboriginals. They have cut the $1.3 billion for aboriginal health. They have cut the $200 million for aboriginal economic development. They have cut the $170 million for aboriginal accountability infrastructure. They have refused to uphold $400 million in extra funding for water treatment on reserve.

    Canada's north has been ignored as the Liberals' northern strategy has not been implemented.

    There is no new money for harbour cleanup for Saint John.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to acknowledge a wonderful initiative in my riding. Operation Sharing, an ecumenical ministry with widespread support started the Food for Friends program last fall.

    Four major grocery stores in Woodstock encourage customers to donate 25¢ or more when they check out. The money is then put on food cards for those in the community who need assistance. This allows them to make choices that meet their dietary needs and more important, maintains their dignity.

    The program is the brainchild of Chaplain Stephen Giuliano who serves as the program coordinator. Stephen is a wonderful advocate who builds confidence and brings hope to those who need a helping hand.

    Oxford's residents have responded with great generosity. The program raised over $30,000 in its first three months.

    Thanks go to IGA, Food Basics, Zehrs and Sobey's for facilitating the program, along with Stephen Giuliano and Operation Sharing.

    I congratulate the residents of Oxford for demonstrating their generous spirit once again.

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the cast and crew of the movie Duo, which was filmed almost entirely in the Charlevoix region. This romantic comedy starring actors who are well known in the artistic community received a standing ovation from the audience at the world premiere in Charlevoix.

    It is always nice to see Quebec films that put our own actors in the spotlight and showcase magnificent images. The film reveals the beauty of Charlevoix, where the mountains meet the sea. Duo's production team fell in love with the region's imposing scenery during filming of what is sure to be one of the summer's biggest hits.

    I invite Quebeckers and Canadians to come discover the beauty of Charlevoix's enchanting scenery, its tourist attractions, its unique landscapes, and the hospitality of the people who live there. Above all, remember to go see Duo, the Quebec film that will certainly be a success.

    Mr. Speaker, today is World Refugee Day, a good day to note concerns about Canada's refugee program.

    The refugee appeal division still has to be implemented. Justice demands a merit based appeal. The government should obey the law.

    Refugees continue to seek sanctuary in churches. The government must solve these particular situations that drive religious communities to this difficult step.

    A time limit must be imposed so that failed refugees from countries to which a moratorium has been placed on deportations do not have their lives put on hold indefinitely.

    Application fees charged to in-Canada refugees must be eliminated.

    Canada must review the safe third country agreement with the U.S. The number of refugee arrivals at our land borders has been cut in half and many question the fairness of the hearing that some receive in the U.S.

    The private sponsorship program, the basis for our international reputation on refugee issues, is backlogged and must be revived. Canadians remain ready to do their part and the government must respond.

    Refugee issues demand our attention. World Refugee Day would be a good day for the government to announce action on these issues.

    Mr. Speaker, Cinderella is alive and living in Edmonton. Unfortunately, on the way to the Stanley Cup championship last night, the Edmonton Oilers' victory chariot turned into a pumpkin as they lost a heartbreaking game seven to the Carolina Hurricanes.

    Despite that loss, the Edmonton Oilers defied all odds and can be extremely proud of the hard work, determination and undauntable warrior spirit that took them to the brink of hockey's holy grail.

    As inspirational as the Oilers were on the ice, the fans gave us another real and important lesson. Fans in both cities were an appropriate metaphor for respectful international relations as they showed us how two rival teams, cities and countries can still respect each other despite fierce competition.

    In both cities the fans sang and cheered the other team's national anthem with gusto. It brought a tear to my eye and a shiver to my spine.

    I am sure that everyone in the House and across Canada will join in congratulating the Stanley Cup runner-up Edmonton Oilers, the champion Carolina Hurricanes and the fans from both cities.