Bill C-34 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Ethics Commissioner and Senate Ethics Officer) and other Acts in consequence

Parliament of Canada Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

It being 5:30 p.m., pursuant to order made on September 16, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the report stage of Bill C-34.

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

Business of the House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among House leaders and I have a series of motions which I would like to propose to the House. All of them have been agreed to by House leaders of the various parties.

The first one is, that the division on report stage of Bill C-34 be further deferred to immediately before any deferred division on private member's business at 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday, September 17, 2003.:

The division was scheduled for later this day. In other words, the motion is to defer that vote until tomorrow.

Government Contracts

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to note the interest that the hon. member has in Bill C-34, the ethics bill.

As she will know the debate was concluded yesterday at report stage and second reading. The vote will occur later today. We are looking forward to enthusiastic support for that legislative measure.

Parliament of Canada Act

[Lynne Yelich, Canadian Alliance, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, today we are speaking to Bill C-34 and the roles of the ethics commissioner and the Senate ethics officer. I am pleased to have the opportunity to add my concerns to those already outlined by my colleagues. By now members will have heard most of these points more than once and that fact should be an indicator that these are valid concerns held by a diverse group of people.

First of all, I must say that I am in favour of setting and maintaining a high ethical standard for government and parliamentarians. I am also in favour of ensuring that standard is met and enforced by an independent and objective body. Unfortunately, Bill C-34 does not fulfill those requirements.

What the Liberals have suggested is the creation of an ethics overseer who really would not be independent at all. As proposed, the ethics commissioner would be appointed by the Prime Minister and that choice would be ratified by a vote in the House of Commons by a majority government. It is true that the Prime Minister would have to consult the leaders of the other political parties, but the scope of that consultation has not been defined. Essentially the Prime Minister could ask the other party leaders what they thought about whom he had chosen and then simply ignore any feedback he received.

The ethics commissioner would be responsible for investigating misconduct of MPs from all parties. It is therefore absolutely mandatory that the commissioner be totally neutral from a political perspective. The appointment process outlined in the bill sets the foundation for just the opposite circumstance, an individual that could be biased in favour of the ruling party that chose him or her for the job. All parties should approve a truly independent commissioner; otherwise the government majority will prevail in hand-picking its so-called independent watchdog and skewing any possible perception of fairness.

I am also concerned about the appearance and the presence of accountability within the system. The Canadian public has been exposed to scandal after scandal throughout the reign of the Liberal government: wasted money, a lack of transparency, conflict of interest and preferential treatment. Bill C-34 is an exercise in Liberal damage control. Unfortunately, there is no reason for Canadians to believe that the government that perpetuated these fiascos is capable of appointing an effective ethics commissioner to monitor its own behaviour.

Some time ago I sent a survey to every household in my riding. One of the questions asked constituents to rank several issues in terms of their importance. The number one issue was not health care; it was not taxes; it was not defence. The overwhelming majority of respondents identified government accountability as the most important issue facing our country today. That is where I am coming from in making my points.

To conclude, I would like to share a quote from Duff Conacher, coordinator of Democracy Watch and chairperson of the Government Ethics Coalition, which I believe sums up my concerns about Bill C-34:

Prime Minister Chrétien has proposed a new 'Swiss-cheese' ethics enforcement system filled with holes that will prove to be fatal flaws, especially given that the new ethics watchdogs will conflict with each other, be appointed by Cabinet, operate in secret, and be unaccountable to the public or the courts.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Mr. Speaker, after the remarks of the member opposite who spoke, I felt compelled to rise just to straighten out a point here.

What is before the House right now is an amendment, proposed by another party, one of the minor parties in the House, that would basically ensure that Parliament and the ethics commissioner and ethics officer would not come under the courts. The member who spoke just now indicated, I think fairly strongly, that his party and he himself intend to vote against Bill C-34 for the reasons he outlined. I accept that. Obviously the opposition must oppose and if the opposition feels the bill is inadequate, so be it.

However, I will be very interested to see whether the member who just spoke and his party vote against or for the motion that is before the House because what the motion that is before the House does is put Parliament behind the courts.

We have seen only too vividly in the last few months the impact of judicial activism of the courts overruling Parliament on issues that are near and dear to Canadians. Therefore it strikes me as passing strange that the opposition should now say that it resists the government's very laudable intent to ensure that Parliament remains, as indeed it is, supreme above the courts and not answerable to the courts by having a section in it that would change the Federal Court Act. It states:

For greater certainty, the expression “federal board, commission or other tribunal”, as defined in subsection (1), does not include the Senate, the House of Commons, any committee or member of either House, the Senate Ethics Officer or the Ethics Commissioner.

This is precisely what every member in the House of Commons should want. The whole problem that we are experiencing today in this Parliament is the fact that we pass laws and unelected courts overturn them.

Therefore I am going to look forward to watching very closely how the members opposite vote on this motion. Let them discard at third reading all of Bill C-34, but I do challenge them to vote with the minor party that put forward the motion. They should vote with them and see how the public feels about it when the next day they rise and complain about judicial activism and the fact that Parliament has been sidelined by the courts when they support this type of motion that is before the House.

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague across the floor has made a game attempt at defending the indefensible. I struggled with him. I know he was asked to do that and it was difficult task. He has great ability and he has tried to put that ability to its best use. However he was given a flawed document to begin with, so it was very difficult for him.

At first I was concerned how he would handle the sadness of being disavowed of the thought that this in fact was good legislation. However I must disavow him of another notion which he stumbled into by raising it. He said that this Parliament was the highest court in the land. That is an honourable notion and one which I hope one day will be the case. However it is a notion thoroughly discredited by his government in the way it has allowed other assemblies of people to be the final presiders over decisions, incidents and situations that are very important to Canadians. I will look to him to take some steps that are in the Constitution, one of which will be a notwithstanding clause. When courts try to take away from Parliament this correct notion that we should be the highest court in the land, I will look to him to work with us in ways to re-establish Parliament as the highest court in the land. I am sure he will be excited to do that because he has stated that is the case today.

I move to another book, the one which he gamely trying to defend, the Liberal red book. It has been thought of by my colleagues across the way as a catalogue of commitments. In fact it has been proven not to be a catalogue of commitments. It is a manual on mendacity. It is a brochure of broken promises. It is a pamphlet on pandering. It is not a catalogue of commitments.

It has been the task of Canadian Alliance MPs, and they have shouldered this task in an admirable way, to slog their way through that red book of promises and find out just how mendacious they are. The one that we are focused on today is the commitment that there would be a truly independent ethics commissioner operating in this House on behalf of all Canadians. That is a commitment that was thoroughly discredited right here in this House.

I believe members are aware of what took place when Canadians were frustrated, at times beyond words, with what was happening out of the Prime Minister's office related to involvements that were--the best euphemism could be misconduct. Whether we are talking about golf courses, hotels or the litany of contracts, which my friend in the Canadian Alliance referenced just moments ago, it has become shocking. You were here the day, Mr. Speaker, when we were so upset by the fact that the government was not living up to its election commitment to have an independent ethics commissioner in place in the House of Commons.

When members of Parliament or aspiring members of Parliament are out in public and make commitments, make promises, and even have them in print, if they are good commitments that resonate with the voters, then they will pick up the currency of politics, which is votes, by making those commitments. In the last election, when we were quite rightly exposing the lack of ethics exhibited by the government to cover its tracks, it promised people there would be an independent ethics commissioner in this House and it picked up the currency of politics, it gained some votes. It is hard to say how many votes, whether it was in the hundreds of thousands or the tens of thousands, but across the country, as we know now, the government usurped the votes of Canadians based on that promise. After the election, when we continued to see in an even more incredible fashion the need for an independent ethics commissioner, the government continued to stall and did not live up to its promise.

Therefore, the Canadian Alliance, the official opposition, on one of its days in which it got to propose certain things in a very formal way in the House, took the promise that was in the red book, the promise that Liberal MPs had used during the election to gain votes, and brought it into the House in the form of a motion using the words of the government itself, right from its red book of promises. We used its words. We said that we agreed there should be an independent ethics commissioner.

Members will recall that a vote was taken in the House and the Liberal government forced all its members to vote against the motion and break their own promise. It is one thing if we as individuals break our word with somebody. We have to bear that responsibility. It is a very serious thing when we tell other people to break their word or as a matter of fact when we order them to break their word. That was exposed. It was a calamity.

Good people like my honourable friend across the way were pulled into the vortex of that power move to force people to break their word, to force them to stand and vote against a promise that they had in fact printed.

In a strategy with which we and all Canadians are well familiar, when the government, not governing on principle but governing only under pressure, feels the pressure of a bill, of a law, of a suggestion or of a policy that is not its own, when it feels the pressure coming from the public perhaps because the opposition or some other group has raised it, it just keeps testing the water. It polls nightly and if it looks like it might be harmed if it does not adopt what the opposition suggests, then it takes a half step in that direction, partially appropriates the idea or initiative, just enough to put a title on it and says to Canadians that it has dealt with it. It is an ingenious although somewhat devious process and it works a lot of the time because Canadians are busy. They are working, paying their taxes, are law-abiding and raising their kids so they do not have time always to plumb the depths beyond the title of a certain bill.

It was after the Liberals published in the red book that they would have an independent ethics commissioner, that we brought that promise to the floor of the House and gave them full credit for it. They broke their promise and voted against it. The pressure has continued to rise.

The opposition, though we should take some of the credit, cannot take all the credit for this. It has become so obvious to Canadians. Now unfortunately it has become so obvious to the authorities that investigations abound in terms of the contracts and some of the conduct of the government. It has become so obvious that we need an independent ethics commissioner that the government has put forward a bill. However remember the process that it uses. It takes a half step, the baby step. It only partially appropriates the good initiative the opposition is proposing, whether it be an ethics commissioner, lowering taxes, mandatory sentences for vicious repeat offenders or whatever it might be, and publishes what looks like a big headline. Under cover of that, under the radar of that headline, it says it has done it and it tries to put to rest the concern of the public.

Bill C-34 does not provide for a truly independent ethics commissioner. The person would still be the appointee of the Prime Minister, would still operate in a veil of secrecy and would still not fully report and be fully accountable to Parliament.

We will do all we can to raise and bring to the attention of Canadians that not only did these Liberals break their own promise, which was written in their manual of mendacity, not only did they rise one by one and vote against it under threat of their whip, they also voted to break their own word. Now they are trying to cover that whole sham with something called Bill C-34 to do with apparently an ethics commissioner.

It falls short, and Canadians deserve better. We will continue to press on this point and on others so Canadians will get better service and better government as they listen to the opposition and other concerned Canadians about how they are being taken down the garden path on this and other pieces of legislation by this government.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say a couple of words about this report stage motion on Bill C-34. Bill C-34 is an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act with regard to the ethics commissioner and Senate ethics officer and other acts in consequence.

The motion before the House is with regard to clause 38. Its intent is to delete clause 38. The purpose of clause 38 is to ensure that the activities of the ethics commissioner and the Senate ethics officer are not within the jurisdiction of the Federal Court. The amendment is interesting. At first blush, my impression is that it again raises the question about the supremacy of parliament and the issue of court made law.

In Bill C-34, there are a couple of the provisions that are useful. I think it is probably worth putting into the record. With regard to the mandate of the ethics commissioner as stated in the bill, proposed section 72.07 states:

The mandate of the Ethics Commissioner in relation to public office holders is

(a) to administer any ethical principles, rules or obligations established by the Prime Minister for public office holders;

(b) to provide confidential advice to the Prime Minister with respect to those ethical principles, rules or obligations and ethical issues in general; and

(c) to provide confidential advice to a public office holder with respect to the application to him or her of those ethical principles, rules or obligations.

The aspect of confidentiality is very clear in terms of the mandate of the ethics commissioner. It also raises the question about whether or not there should be an ethics commissioner who reports to parliament.

As the previous speaker said, in fact it is laid out that the ethics commissioner position is a position which is in fact nominated by the Prime Minister, but let us look at that. It is the governor in council, “by commission under the Great Seal”, that appoints an ethics commissioner “after consultation with the leader of every recognized party in the House”, so there is a consultation process that takes place. As well, it states “after approval of the appointment by resolution of that House”, so there will be a vote in the House.

This raises for me the reflection of the whole question about whether or not there should be an ethics commissioner who is responsible to parliament and reports to parliament. I can recall that this issue has surfaced time and time again: it is the matter of whether or not an ethics commissioner could properly discharge his responsibilities, be open with the House in all its detail, and still protect, for instance, cabinet confidentiality. I do recall that the ethics counsellor ultimately appointed was of the opinion that he would be unable to discharge the responsibility if he were to report directly to parliament, simply for the reason that cabinet confidentiality could not be compromised. It is an interesting point, but I think the will of the House has always been to promote accountability for and transparency of the activities of public office holders, and in the event there were some allegations or suggestions of an impropriety or a breach of basic ethical rules this place should be able to be assured that this was being looked at with independence and transparency in regard to the process.

I am not so sure it was the wish of the House or the intent of the House or of anybody else that the full details of any alleged impropriety be dealt with and discussed on the floor. We know what happens when we deal with allegations. Obviously there is a process to be followed, which would protect the integrity of the process but at the same time protect the rights and the reputations of those who may be involved in the discussions with regard to an allegation of a breach of ethics.

There is much more to this than just simply asking that we in fact delete clause 38 and allow the Federal Court or the Federal Court of Appeal to have access to the information with regard to the ethics commissioner. I would tend to agree that Parliament and parliamentary supremacy are very important. That brings with it some parameters which I think we all understand. We went through this when we discussed the role of Parliament and the role of the courts. I believe that the preponderant position taken by the people in this place is that Parliament is the supreme court of the land and that parliamentary supremacy is to be protected and defended.

We have other issues before us that are going to challenge that concept, but there comes a point when parliamentary privilege and the supremacy of Parliament have to be defended. I believe that clause 38 is consistent with the premise that the privileges of Parliament have to be protected. We have certain privileges in this place. Unfortunately from time to time maybe they do not serve the public well because even in this place members are protected from prosecution should they make public allegations. Within the confines of this chamber they are not subject to challenge and to being dealt with in regard to their statements or comments or allegations which outside this place would probably lead them into some difficulty.

I do not believe that is where we should be going or that we want to continue to perpetuate this aspect, but by the same token we need to be sure about the business of Parliament, particularly since the mandate of the ethics commissioner is to deal with matters on a confidential basis and to deal with matters that are very sensitive and do impact the lives of public office holders. There is a way to deal with them without in fact potentially damaging unduly the reputations of public office holders. I think we want to protect those things.

For me it also raises, in terms of matters to do with whistle-blowers, which I have discussed with the President of the Treasury Board, another aspect of how one deals with allegations of impropriety in terms of following policies and procedures of the public service and how to assure people who have concerns. I mentioned to the minister that in my own profession of chartered accountancy there are rules within our code of conduct which state that in the event I become aware of the impropriety of a colleague, a member of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, it is incumbent on me to bring it to the attention of the ethics commission of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. It is up to the commission to discharge the determination of whether any work should be done or any action should be taken. In the event that it subsequently comes to the commission's attention that I knew of but did not disclose that information, there is a consequence and there are sanctions against me.

In this regard I think there is some precedent for organizations and institutions, whether it be the public service or a profession, or indeed Parliament. There is certain business in its activities that should be dealt with within the organization simply because it is important to protect the integrity and the good name of people.

At this point I will conclude simply by saying that I believe the amendment does not fit what should be the premise of this place, that Parliament is supreme, that the privileges of Parliament must be protected and that maintaining clause 38 is consistent with that position.

[Gary Lunn, Canadian Alliance, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand and represent the people of Saanich—Gulf Islands. I am not too sure if I am so pleased with what we are speaking about.

I have to ask a simple question: Why are we now having a discussion about Bill C-34, which is about ethics? The reason we are having this discussion is simply because of all the scandals that have happened involving ministers and the abuse of public funds. It goes on and on.

Let us have a closer look at exactly what is happening. I would suggest that the bill demonstrates how little respect the government has for this place. There is no question that we do need an independent ethics commissioner. The Canadian Alliance has pressed for such a move. The response, though, is typical: a lot of smoke and mirrors to hide the absence of any real, meaningful change.

In truth, I would like the House of Commons to be a place where we did not need an ethics commissioner. I would like to believe that all parliamentarians would be in a position where they would not be promoting their own personal gain over that of public service. However the problem is that once we have power we lose focus. We lose sight of the fact that we are here as public servants. We are here to serve the public but we become mostly interested in self-promotion.

Six years in this place has taught me that we see more and more self-promotion. Time and again we have witnessed serious conflicts of interest. Unfortunately, when these conflicts happen is anyone held accountable? No, they are not held accountable, but even worse, they are rewarded.

Nothing will change after Bill C-34 passes into law. Like so many bills that have come from the government, it is not about reform. This is a public relations exercise. It is designed to show that the government cares about ethics, but it does nothing to uphold them. The government will be no more accountable as a result of this new version of the ethics commissioner than it is currently.

Right now we have an ethics counsellor that is appointed by the Prime Minister. What would happen under the new bill? The Prime Minister would still appoint the ethics commissioner and it would be ratified by a simple vote in the House of Commons. However what happens in this place? As we saw during the hep C vote and other votes, when some of the government members even talk about voting against their own party, I am told, although I am not privy to witnesses, in the government lobbies that the Prime Minister actually stands up and tells his own members that if they do not vote with the government they will not be Liberal candidates in the next election. It is that simple. They then fall into line. In some cases we have seen them literally in tears, with mascara running down some of their faces as they stand up to vote against their own beliefs and everything they have stood for to follow the government.

Let us look at some of the specifics here. Why are we having this discussion? This is a government where cabinet ministers help their personal friends through Human Resources Development Canada and are awarded diplomatic posts when they are caught; a government where a Liberal advertising company is given $1.5 million to write the same three reports and no one thinks there is anything wrong with it; a government where corruption in sponsorship programs is so widespread that the 2002 Auditor General's report revealed that senior bureaucrats broke every rule in the book in awarding contracts to Liberal contributors. This led to revelations of waste in government advertising spending totalling over $230 million. Has anyone ever been held accountable? No. No one has actually said that there is something wrong and that it needs to be fixed. Government members go into justification mode and try to justify the expenses.

The current Prime Minister has consistently used his position to unfairly lobby in his home riding where his friends received $600,000 in grants from HRDC where the only approval is announced without any departmental paperwork, and where internal memos revealed the government office felt that it had no choice but to approve the grant since the Prime Minister had personally promised money even though it did not meet existing guidelines.

This is wrong. Exactly one-third of the $90,325 in donations to the Prime Minister's 1997 personal election campaign has been linked to grants, contributions and contracts in his riding. Is it any wonder that the Canadian public has so little trust in this place?

The government comes along with a “new” ethics bill, but it is a whitewash. It is not genuine. The Prime Minister is still going to appoint, and absolutely nothing will change; prime ministers still can secretly solicit advice from the ethics counsellor.

Let us look at British Columbia's legislation. In the British Columbia legislature, an all-party committee, an all-party representation, has to select appointments for the ethics commissioner, which are then recommended to the premier. It is done by all parties. It is not an appointment by the Prime Minister. They select the candidate and advise the premier, who makes the appointment, which then has to receive a ratification vote in the legislature of two-thirds of the members.

Not here: this is another charade. It is another game. It is another way to fool Canadians. This is a public relations exercise. This is not about public service. This is about their own self-promotion. It is wrong.

Let us go to the member for LaSalle-Émard. Of course he is going to be taking over the government. In fact he will acknowledge that he wrote the Liberal red book in 1993, which incidentally promised “an independent ethics commissioner”. In 10 years, he has done absolutely nothing to ensure that it happens.

If we are going to create an ethics commissioner, then that ethics commissioner must have certain characteristics if he or she is going to actually be useful. They absolutely must be independent. They must be acceptable to all parties in the House, not an appointment by the Prime Minister and a rubber stamp in this place, with its own members being threatened. They must have their decisions open to review by Parliament. This bill fails on all counts.

Why have the Liberals failed to deliver a true ethics commissioner? I believe it can only be for one or two reasons. It could be because they know just how inappropriate the behaviour of their cabinet has been. They know that a truly independent agency would expose these conflicts and force them to resign.

Or could it be they feel in their hearts that all the things I mentioned earlier were completely fair? That giving special deals to friends is part of being an MP, that being the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance means that they can be just as carefree with their telephone calls and stock options as any other backbencher, and that when ministers of the crown gets caught with a hand in the cookie jar the worst they should endure is to shuffle back to the House leader's office or a short holiday to Denmark. That is punishment, is it not? When one gets caught with a hand in the cookie jar, how about an appointment to Denmark? It is pretty good over there, what with being given a nice new house, a car and a driver, and a big fat salary, all on the backs of the taxpayer. That just sounds wonderful.

I know Canadians can see the difference. Why cannot the government see the difference?

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure, on our return to Parliament, to rise today on behalf of the residents of Surrey Central to participate in the debate on Bill C-34.

The Liberal government believes in half measures, which is what we have before us today, a half measure full of loopholes.

Let us remember why we are debating Bill C-34, the first item on the agenda today. We have witnessed boondoggle after boondoggle. Blind trusts are not blind anymore. If at all blind, it is only to the public. There have been so many contract scandals and leadership fundraising peccadillos that the Prime Minister has yielded to the opposition pressure to bring in the new ethics rules.

So numerous have the infractions been that people are losing track. Never before has the word corruption been uttered so often in this Chamber: not during the Pacific scandal, not during the pipeline debate and not during the notorious first term of Prime Minister Mulroney.

The Liberals came to office 10 years ago promising to restore honesty and integrity to government. Shortly after the 1993 election, the Prime Minister rose in the Commons to announce the dawning of a new era in government ethics, promising to make the system more transparent and open. One would have thought the Liberals would have had an easy time improving on that record but not so. The government has failed to live up to its promise. If anything, government ethics have fallen to a new low.

Half of Canadians surveyed last year believed that this government fared no better ethically than its predecessor. Fifteen per cent believed that the government had worse ethical standards. A Leger Marketing poll taken in April 2002 revealed that 69% of Canadians believed that the federal Canadian political system was highly or somewhat corrupt. Eighty per cent said that they wanted a major reform in the way government contracts were awarded.

Looking back over the last year and a bit it is little wonder that the public has lost faith in the honesty and integrity of the government. With Bill C-34 the Liberals have ensured that a new ethics watchdog for ministers will be an unaccountable, government controlled lapdog.

The Liberals came to power with a mandate to govern based on their red book promises. The red book described the problem of ethical integrity in the government, one of the reasons the previous government was removed. It states on page 91:

--after nine years of Conservative rule, cynicism about political institutions, government, politicians and the political process is at an all-time high. If government is to play a positive role in society, as it must, honesty and integrity in our political institutions must be restored.

What has been done? There has been absolutely no change since 1993. The Prime Minister wasted no time before reneging on his promise. Instead of an ethics watchdog, he installed a lapdog who reports in confidence to the Prime Minister. The Liberal government repeatedly got away with questionable behaviour. No wonder the lapdog commissioner never gained the public confidence so crucial to be effective in his office.

The Liberals have failed to deliver on their own specific red book promises. So much so that they even voted against their own red book promise during a Canadian Alliance motion to appoint an independent ethics commissioner.

What has the Prime Minister's present song been? Up until the former minister of national defence, nobody had been forced to resign. Does that mean he actually dealt with the problems that would lead to resignations? No.

It just meant that his standard was that no one ever had to resign. He has a completely different code of conduct. If a minister engages in misconduct, gross incompetence or outrageous statements he or she is backed to the hilt by the Prime Minister. Then in the next cabinet shuffle they are shipped off to Denmark or so. However he can say that there has been no misconduct and no one has ever been fired in his government, but we know the facts. The fact is that the list of people who should have been fired is longer than the list in the previous Conservative government.

Last year alone Mr. Alfonso Gagliano resigned as minister of public works following accusations that he used his ministerial influence to get jobs for his friends and family. The minister of national defence resigned after revelations that he gave an untendered contract to a former girlfriend. The member for Glengarry--Prescott--Russell was demoted from public works to House leader for staying at a retreat with which his department had done business. The solicitor general resigned after the ethics counsellor concluded that he breached conflict of interest rules by directing government projects and contracts to friends and family.

All of that of course just generates cynicism. It is worse because after talking about ethics and opportunistically getting elected on this issue, the Liberals have turned around and have done nothing about it.

Bill C-34 is flawed. We the opposition MPs on the procedure and House affairs committee tried to correct the serious flaws proposed in Bill C-34 only to have Liberal MPs on the committee defeat the amendments.

The Liberals rejected amendments that would have strengthened the ethics enforcement system in the following ways: making the ethics commissioner actually independent by requiring two-thirds of MPs to approve in a free vote the person appointed as commissioner; making the commissioner independent by guaranteeing that the commissioner's pay could not be cut if cabinet were upset about the commissioner's activities, and by limiting the commissioner to one seven-year term so that the commissioner would not be tempted to please cabinet in order to secure another term in office; ensuring that the public has a right to file complaints with the ethics commissioner about unethical behaviour by ministers; ensuring that the ethics commissioner could be taken to court for failing to enforce ethics rules; and ensuring the ethics commissioner could not give secret advice to the Prime Minister.

If the Liberals were serious about honouring their promises they would grant the House the authority to seek out and nominate a truly independent ethics commissioner. The ethics commissioner would report to the House as a whole either through a select committee or an appropriate standing committee. That would remove the influence of the Prime Minister and his office.

B.C. has the best process for selecting an ethics commissioner. In that legislature, members are directly involved in the selection process. An all party committee makes the selection and the recommendation to the premier and then, in turn, the premier gets the confidence of two-thirds of the members.

The ethics commissioner would be responsible for investigating misconduct of MPs from all parties. Therefore it is absolutely mandatory that the commissioner be totally neutral, politically. Under the bill that would not be the case.

The code of conduct for MPs and their spouses is included to take the heat off the real issue, for example, the constant misconduct by the Liberal cabinet. If this is the best the Liberals can come up with in a decade of ministerial mishaps, then we should all be very disappointed.

It is no surprise that confidence in the Liberal government and in its honesty and integrity is dithering. Thirteen different investigations are ongoing currently involving the Liberals.

While the commissioner would table public reports each year, no information required to be kept confidential can be included. Where is the assurance of transparency?

The public would be denied the right to file ethics complaints against any parliamentarians. Bill C-34 prohibits a court review. Due to separate ethics officers for MPs and senators, there are different ethical standards for the two groups of politicians.

Since my time is over I would say there are no measures in place that, at best, fail to match our confidence and, at worst, undermine it further. Bill C-34 is mostly a damage control exercise to camouflage big scandals involving ministers. Therefore I cannot support the bill.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to be back to make a couple of speeches on the first day of the autumn session of Parliament. I would like to welcome everyone, especially the new pages. I would like to assure my constituents in Yukon that the new pages have already completed the most important part of their training and fully understand that Yukon is the best constituency in the country.

Before I go into details on the amendment to Bill C-34, the previous speaker discussed the general legislative climate this fall. I would like to follow up on that because it is a very aggressive and detailed legislative agenda and I hope people do not lose track of that.

There are many bills that we are in the midst of bringing forward and must continue with such as, Bill C-34, which we are talking about now; but also Bill C-13, assisted human reproduction; C-22, family law; C-38, marijuana; Bill C-45, which I hope to talk about later today concerning the Westray bill for worker safety; Bill C-46, market fraud; Bill C-19, resource taxation; Bill C-6, first nations specific claims resolution for the economic development of first nations; archives legislation; bills related to child pornography and the sex offenders registry; citizenship; as well as urgent veteran's needs.

And then of course all the committees are working. The finance committee will be doing its pre-budget work. There are always important issues in foreign affairs. The health committee has to work on the West Nile virus and the agriculture committee on mad cow disease.

This is a very detailed agenda and continues to be one of the most productive legislative agendas we must get through. I hope people do not get sidetracked in the House or in the media about other things or go off these important changes that affect real people in Canada.

I am pleased to address the NDP amendment at report stage with respect to Bill C-34, a bill which would establish an independent ethics commissioner reporting to Parliament. The amendment proposes the deletion of clause 38 of the bill in its entirety.

This clause would change subsection 2(2) of the Federal Courts Act by adding references to both the ethics commissioner and Senate ethics officer so that the activities of the ethics commissioner and Senate ethics officer are not subject to review by the Federal Court, whether by judicial review or by appeal.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader has already explained why the NDP amendment is inappropriate and should be rejected. I want to comment on the need to preserve the House's privileges in this area.

The House and its members have traditionally been responsible for their ethical conduct. This is a tradition we in the House have had since Confederation and which we share with other parliamentary democracies.

Let me set out how the bill preserves this tradition of parliamentary privilege and ensures the House's accountability to Canadians.

Clause 38 amends a provision in the Federal Courts Act which itself exists for greater certainty to ensure that the activities of Parliament and parliamentarians are excluded from review by the Federal Court. Given the role of the ethics commissioner and the Senate ethics officer in dealing with the conduct of parliamentarians, it is logical that those provisions be extended to these two officers of Parliament.

This clause is but one of several provisions in the bill intended to ensure that the House, and not the courts, continues to have the ultimate responsibility, and accountability, for the ethical conduct of its members. For instance, the bill would create an ethics commissioner as an officer of the House.

Section 72.05 includes express recognition that the ethics commissioner “enjoys the privileges and immunities of the House of Commons and its members in carrying out his or her duties and functions”. This section also provides express recognition that the bill does not in any way limit the powers, privileges, rights or immunities of the House or of its members.

Further, Section 72.12 would ensure that the ethics commissioner and his or her staff could not be taken to court in respect to their official activities. This section also acknowledges that the commissioner and his or her office are protected by the privileges and immunities accorded to Parliament as an institution. Similar provisions have been made for the Senate ethics officer throughout the bill.

Collectively, these provisions, including clause 38, are essential if we are to create an ethics commissioner who, in respect of matters pertaining to members of the House, is to function as the legislation requires and is accountable to the House.

In this regard, the bill states that the ethics commissioner's functions in relation to members would be carried out “under the general direction of any committee of the House of Commons that may be designated or established by the House for that purpose”.

Canadians expect members of the House to establish and abide by ethical rules. This is only proper because as parliamentarians we are ultimately accountable to the public, both for our own ethical behaviour and for the steps taken by the ethics commissioner as an officer of Parliament.

In our view, the proposed amendment would seriously undermine Parliament's long standing privileges, the ability of the House to properly assign duties and functions to the ethics commissioner, and the House's ultimately accountability for the ethical conduct of its members.

It would undermine the ability of the House to govern its affairs and would open up the possibility that the courts might be called upon to second guess or review the actions of the ethics commissioner.

Canadians have every right to expect that the House would create and enforce the highest ethical guidelines for members. They know and expect that the House and its members are ultimately accountable for the ethical code it will implement. They do not want parliamentarians to transfer this responsibility to the courts. Accordingly, I would encourage members of the House not to support the amendment.

I want to conclude by again referencing the previous speaker's speech when he commented on the tremendous potential leadership awaiting in the wings for the country and how popular that is with Canadians. We will have a great transition to even more exciting times, but as I was saying at the beginning of my speech I hope that the important things that affect the lives of Canadians, which I mentioned and the number of bills that we will be dealing with throughout the fall, winter and spring, would not be lost in the simple transition of politics.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to Bill C-34, as Parliament resumes. I recall my conversations with some reporters on June 15, when they were asking me what I was going to do for my three month vacation. It has to be said that the fact that Parliament is not sitting does not necessarily mean that the MPs, regardless of what side of the House they sit on, were on holiday for three months. We are, certainly, human beings who need a rest like everybody else, like all other people who work. We took the time to rest and recharge our batteries, but we were not on holiday for three months. Not me anyway.

This morning we have an important exercise to carry out with respect to Bill C-34, which will create the position of ethics commissioner. We are at report stage and second reading.

In a ironic twist of events, only this past week, the RCMP at last laid criminal charges against a Montreal communications firm, Communication Coffin by name, in what has become known as the sponsorship scandal.

I would remind hon. members that we are occasionally stopped by people on the street or at the shopping centre who want to know what our role is, what the importance of the Bloc Quebecois is in Ottawa, when there is no referendum on Quebec sovereignty in the offing.

I would remind everyone that the party that raised this whole matter of the sponsorship scandal is the Bloc Quebecois. This ought to be part of our collective memory, but memories are not, unfortunately, always reliable.

We called upon the public works minister, now the government House leader, but very briefly public works minister, to resign, in light of the circumstances we all will recall. I will spare members any mention of the person who was pPublic works minister three cabinet shuffles ago, the Hon. Alfonso Gagliano, the former member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel. As a reward for services rendered, he was appointed Canadian ambassador to Denmark. Imagine, this was a fine reward for all services rendered, particularly in connection with the sponsorship affair.

I have no intention of going over the history of this sponsorship program. The police investigation will take care of that anyway. An initial charge is expected to be laid, and we hope that more will follow in the whole issue of what actions were taken by Groupaction and so on.

When we questioned the government on behalf of the people of Quebec, we in the Bloc Quebecois were trying to determine whether there was a connection between these sponsorships and the whole matter of subsidies or contributions to election campaigns made under the table to the Liberal Party.

This was the forum where we could raise these issues, hence the importance of having a real ethics councillor, and not a political advisor like Mr. Wilson under the current Prime Minister.

We called for a real ethics counsellor who would report to Parliament.

This government and this Prime Minister, looking for some kind of political legacy entitling them to a few lines in the book of Canadian political history, tabled, or rather had the government House leader table Bill C-34, establishing these ethics officer and ethics commissioner positions. There will be two, as we know, one for the House of Commons and one for the Senate.

The Bloc Quebecois maintains its support for Bill C-34, especially since this matter is among our priorities. In fact, we have been asking for and demanding this for several years.

This morning, we are debating an amendment put forward by our colleague from the New Democratic Party to make the decisions made by the ethics counsellor conditional on or subject to the approval of the Federal Court. In other words, these decisions would become conditional and be referred to the Federal Court. Without lapsing into legalism, for the benefit of those listening, we are talking about possibly asking the Federal Court to review a committee decision on ethics.

Our honourable colleague from the NDP asks that we withdraw clause 38 from the bill and thus remove the ethics counsellor from the list of persons who cannot be challenged in the Federal Court. At the moment, that list of persons and institutions includes the Senate, the House of Commons and all committees or members of either of these Houses. Their decisions are not subject to challenge in the Federal Court.

At first sight, one might think, “That is a good amendment. Decisions made by the ethics commissioner could be reviewed by the Federal Court.” In theory, I agree. But in practical terms, the members of the Bloc Quebecois disagree. That is why we shall continue to oppose and vote against the amendment proposed by the hon. NDP member. We consider that it is detrimental to parliamentary privilege.

Parliamentary privilege is what protects us. It allows parliamentarians to do their work effectively within this chamber and also within the committees, which are legal extensions of the House of Commons.

If we want members of Parliament to be free to raise issues and questions—and that is our role—I think that parliamentary privilege must be respected. For these reasons, we will not vote in favour of the amendment proposed by the hon. member.

In fact, it is clear from the Federal Court Act, especially the definitions in section 2, that the Office of the Ethics Counsellor is comparable to a federal board, commission or other tribunal. The act refers to a federal board, commission or other tribunal, all of which are subject to the Federal Court Act.

So, there are enormous political implications. As I mentioned earlier, if the Federal Court can review decisions made by the ethics commissioner, this inevitably gives the judicial branch, meaning the courts, oversight of the political branch in terms of the balance of powers in our British parliamentary system. This is our current system. Quebec's National Assembly is also based on the British parliamentary tradition and the same comments apply.

We must be clear that this right of review of the ethics commissioner's decisions no longer serves a purpose when it comes to requesting a review of a decision about a minister's behaviour. The ethics commissioner can only issue opinions about a minister's behaviour.

In short, when it comes to decisions about members, the ethics commissioner must apply the rules concerning members implemented by the House of Commons. In our opinion, an appeal by an individual of a decision made in that context before the Federal Court constitutes challenging parliamentary privilege. The House of Commons is responsible for making decisions about the behaviour of its members insofar as it relates to the fulfillment of their parliamentary duties.

I am not suggesting the possibility of excluding appeals when it comes to the actions of parliamentarians outside their parliamentary duties. As a result, we believe that the Federal Court cannot play this role and, therefore, this amendment must be defeated.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to talk about the work done by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on Bill C-34, which provides for an independent ethics commissioner who is to report to Parliament.

I would like to thank the members of the committee for the zeal with which they tackled Bill C-34, which they began studying as draft legislation last year.

Bill C-34 was sent back to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs before second reading. The Standing Committee reported back to the House of Commons with an amendment.

This amendment would add a provision requiring the Prime Minister to establish ethics principles, rules and obligations for public office holders and to table them in each House of Parliament within 30 sitting days after coming into power.

Any subsequent change to these ethics rules would have to be tabled in Parliament within fifteen sitting days of being made by the Prime Minister.

The government in 1994 established and made public a conflict of interest code for public office holders shortly after entering office, so this is a practice that predates the current bill. Nevertheless, the amendment makes it clear that future prime ministers will have this obligation within a specific timeframe.

I want to turn now to the report stage motion tabled by the member for Windsor—St. Clair, which proposes the deletion of clause 38 of the bill. Clause 38 is a coordinating amendment of the definitions found in the Federal Courts Act, which ensure that the institution of Parliament is not subject to judicial review by the Federal Court. This is consistent with Parliament's long-standing privileges. Clause 38 amends subsection 2(2) of the Federal Courts Act by adding references to both the ethics commissioner and the Senate ethics officer in order to exclude these officers from being subject to judicial review by the Federal Court.

During committee examination of Bill C-34, parliamentarians were clear: they want Parliament, not the courts, to administer and enforce their own ethical codes, as has always been the case. I would add that Bill C-34 contains other provisions to ensure that both the ethics commissioner and the Senate ethics officer are able to perform their functions fully and independently as officers of Parliament. These provisions include express recognition that both officers enjoy the privileges and immunities of the House and Senate respectively in carrying out their duties and functions, and express recognition that the bill does not in any way limit the powers, privileges, rights and immunities of Parliament or its members. These privileges include freedom from scrutiny by the courts in matters relating to the conduct of members of either House. These provisions are based on the principle that Parliament regulates its own affairs. This is a long-standing parliamentary tradition and privilege, which is critical to the effective functioning of Parliament and its members.

The proposed amendment to Bill C-34 by the member for Windsor—St. Clair is inconsistent with this approach. The government does not support the amendment because it could provide a basis for arguing that the Federal Court can review the activities of the ethics commissioner in relation to the conduct of members of Parliament. The amendment is inconsistent with other provisions of the bill that provide for the ethics commissioner to have the same privileges as Parliament and the amendment is contrary to the views of the House and Senate committees that reviewed the draft bill. Accordingly, I would ask members of this House not to support this amendment.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

moved:

That Bill C-34 be amended by deleting Clause 38.Debate arose on the motion in Group No. 1.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to this particular amendment to Bill C-34. In its simplest form, the amendment would withdraw clause 38 from the bill.

While I suppose one could argue that clause 38 is fairly technical, its ramifications are really quite serious. In its simplest form, by withdrawing that clause we would open up the ability of both individuals and members of Parliament to challenge the ethics commissioner in court.

The effect of clause 38 as printed and now before the House is to include the ethics commissioner in the provisions of Bill C-34 that in effect precludes the commissioner at any time from being challenged in the Federal Court of Canada.

We know from the provisions in the rest of the bill that the federal ethics commissioner, if the bill is passed and becomes law, will, for all intents and purposes, be chosen and appointed by the government.

In spite of our attempts at the committee to have the appointment approved by a vote of two-thirds of the House, that was rejected by the government. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, as long as we have a majority government it will be appointing the ethics commissioner.

I will not spend a lot of time in terms of the concerns that have been expressed over the role the commissioner has played up to this point but it certainly has not been a satisfactory role.

The role played by the ethics commissioner, who would be appointed by a majority of the House of Commons, which is the government, would simply not be enough. The role would not be satisfactorily performed. The independence that is required from that person playing the role would certainly not be guaranteed at all unless we had that two-thirds vote.

If we were to take out clause 38 it would give both individuals and members of Parliament the ability to bring the ethics commissioner to account. To a great extent that is what the amendment is about. The amendment is about the accountability of this person.

The effect of the amendment, if clause 38 is not amended, will be to equate to a great degree the ethics commissioner to the role and privileges that we have as members of Parliament. The House has been critical, even to the degree that the government has attempted to push that role, that privilege.

We currently have outstanding litigation that will in effect say that the privilege extends to human rights and that the privilege of the member even overrides human rights in the country. That is a position that we have been opposed to but it is one that the government is pushing at this point.

Also, if clause 38 is not repealed, that role, authority or privilege, as wide as it is and as historically based as it is, would extend to the ethics commissioner.

I and my party believe that clause 38 does not have a role to play in the role that the ethics commissioner should be playing in this country. We should be saying to the ethics commissioner that we expect him or her to be responsible to the House and to the Canadian people but unless clause 38 is removed the Canadian people will have absolutely no role to play.

If there is concern on the rulings of the ethics commissioner in the future, if he or she take positions to the House that are not satisfactory to individuals, groups of individuals or communities within the country, they will not be able to do anything about that unless clause 38 is removed.

The history of the use of judicial review, because that is the process that would be allowed if section 38 were repealed or removed, has been one of checks and balances. We have a government system that generally sees Parliament as being supreme but it is not in all cases.

It was quite clear in 1982, when the Constitution was repatriated and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was introduced, that we were putting limitations on the role of Parliament. If it were appropriate to use judicial review at that time vis-à-vis the ethics commissioner then it is appropriate at this time.

Section 38 is in effect a throwback. It states that the ethics commissioner would, in many respects, be above the law. Yes, I recognize that person would ultimately still have to report to the House but that individual would be above the law with regard to anybody else. It is not an acceptable position in this day and age.

As elected officials we call upon our constituents to be more involved. We are concerned about the lack of participation at election time. We are also concerned about the lack of participation in the democratic process on a number of other occasions. I suggest this would be one of them. If we pass section 38 unamended we will be precluding that participation from the public.

It is also worth noting, and almost as a warning to other members of the House, what would happen if we had an ethics commissioner. I am not going to suggest for a moment that the government or any other would appoint a commissioner who was not expected to do a good job. However I would point out that whoever that person is he or she will be human and will have eccentric behaviour and personality clashes from time to time. That individual will also make mistakes from time to time. Rulings from the ethics commissioner could have a very detrimental effect on individual members of Parliament. I would suggest that members of Parliament having the ability to resort to an independent tribunal in the form of the federal court would be an appropriate thing to have built into the legislation.

It is not only individuals or groups who would like to make the commissioner more accountable. By removing section 38 we would also be permitting individual members of Parliament to press the commissioner if they were not treated fairly or the commissioner makes a mistake.

In spite of some of the paranoia that we have heard from the Leader of the Official Opposition in the last couple of weeks about our judiciary, the reality is that Canada has a very proud tradition in terms of its independence and the quality of our judiciary. By removing section 38 and relying on our judiciary to be the final arbitrator or final decision maker if the ethics commissioner does not perform his or her job appropriately is something of benefit to individual members of Parliament but, more important, it would give average Canadian citizens the ability to make the commissioner accountable.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

There is one motion in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-34.

Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted upon.

Business of the House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I usually answer about the legislative program in the House and that is what I will do now.

This afternoon we will continue with the business of supply, with votes scheduled for 8 p.m., pursuant to the arrangement made earlier.

The business that the government will put forward before the House tomorrow, pursuant to another agreement which I will be submitting to the House a little later this afternoon, will be Bill C-42, the Antarctic agreement, Bill C-44, respecting compensation for certain military personnel, and then Bill C-35, the military judges bill. If there is any time left, we will then consider Bill C-34.

The program for next week would be Bill C-7, first nations governance, Bill C-17, public safety, and Bill C-13 respecting reproductive technologies, as well as other legislation which has returned from committee, for instance, legislation such as the sex offender registry and bills like that.