Bill C-34 (Historical)

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

Ethics

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

Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely inaccurate and the hon. member should know it.

He knows that the framework legislation that we put forward, Bill C-34, has two components in it, one for ministers, and that the ministers, in any case, are also subject to the code, generally, as it applies to members of Parliament. In fact, there are supplementary requirements for ministers, not less requirements.

Parliament of Canada Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I declare the motion carried.

The question is on the main motion for third reading of Bill C-34.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

It being 5:29 p.m. the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the previous question at third reading stage of Bill C-34, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to add my voice to the debate regarding the government's ethics bill.

I find it difficult however to give the government much credit for this long overdue legislation when so many scandals have emerged and continue to emerge on a daily basis.

These ethical question marks take away from the work of government and tarnish the reputation of parliamentarians and Parliament. They draw attention away from key issues that remain to be resolved, such as the continuing difficulties resulting from softwood lumber, the BSE trade concerns with the U.S., and the timely provision of emergency aid in response to crises, such as the recent hurricane that hit Nova Scotia, as well as the VIP, of which I spoke about today.

Meanwhile, long standing concerns continue to be neglected, such as the reduction of our foreign diplomatic presence and reputation, our inability to protect our coastlines, and the shocking state of funding that exists for Canada's military. All these important issues are not given the attention they deserve because the Liberal government remains distracted by one scandal after another.

This is one last attempt to carve out a legacy for the Prime Minister in the final days of his 10 years in power. History books will reveal a different story on the legacy of the government. Beginning in the early 1990s, when the government took office, it campaigned on a theme of ethical government.

Canadians will remember that this is the government that promised, in its 1993 red book, to introduce change to revive parliamentary democracy by improving ethics, elections and introducing parliamentary reform. A decade later these promises have not yet been met and one wonders if the government ever intended to fulfill these promises.

The government was once quick to pounce on the former Conservative government on ethical questions, even though it pursued this path with only the slimmest shreds of evidence. The Liberals continued to follow this road, even after allegations were proven false and millions of dollars were spent, and official apologies had to be given to the individuals under suspicion. That was a disgrace and a great deal of lost money.

At the same time the government faced a long list of scandals and ethical debacles that forced the resignation of four ministers of the Crown.

Prime Minister number one, as I will call him, faces unresolved questions regarding the now infamous Shawinigate affair. Prime Minister number two faces unresolved questions regarding his blind trust and conflict of interest with his multimillion dollar shipping empire.

Canadians unfortunately are not provided the details of the secret meetings he enjoyed as finance minister. Instead, Canadians and Parliament are expected to trust the word of the Prime Minister and his loyal ethics counsellor.

How this situation gives the Liberals the mandate to introduce legislation on the ethical conduct of government is beyond me, but that is what is on the table today.

Canadians now sit and wait as Prime Minister number one sits on his throne long enough to cause Prime Minister number two as much grief as possible and prevent Parliament from doing its job.

The incoming Prime Minister has taken to saying absolutely nothing at all on any policy issue, including legislation that is still before the House and that will be in place only when the current Prime Minister is long gone.

Our new Prime Minister will be the man responsible for implementing an ethics bill, yet his Liberal government has failed to earn the public's trust to set ethical standards. We all know that as we voted a week ago on marriage and now it is talking about decriminalizing marijuana.

Let me tell the House that I have worked with children who were on marijuana and I worked to get them out of an alleyway. They have come to thank me for that. This is another big mistake for the government.

The Liberal government has also failed to hold to the principles of effective parliamentary democracy or accountability. In recent days one example after another of lavish spending practices has cast a deeper shadow on Liberal government fiscal accountability. This is a government however that, in spite of its long list of ethical problems, proposes to introduce ethical reform in Canada's Parliament. We can only shake our heads in amazement and look for a silver lining.

The PC Party supports the principles of improved ethics, parliamentary improvement and electoral reform. For the last decade, PCs have been by far the most effective party in holding this government to account in Parliament and our efforts are now forcing results.

Effective democracy in Canada will be well served by efforts to recognize the need for an appointed, independent ethics commissioner reporting to Parliament, not reporting to the Prime Minister.

The proposed ethics commissioner will have powers to investigate ethical issues, analyze facts and draw conclusions. That information will be released to the Prime Minister, to the person making the complaint, and to the minister under investigation.

I have to say that the Auditor General we have today does an independent job. She does not hold back. She does what she thinks is right. That is the type of ethics commissioner we should have as well.

The PC Party notes, however, that Bill C-34 discusses only the means to enforce ethics rather than the code of ethics itself. If this bill were to pass, what ethical code would the ethics commissioner enforce?

We note also that although the bill calls for information to be released simultaneously to the public, the commissioner will also provide the Prime Minister with confidential information that will not be included in the public report. That is not right.

In other words, the government is reserving the right to edit the public record and hold back any damaging or unethical findings. The PC Party urges the government to ensure that all relevant findings are made available to both Parliament and the public, all of them, not just part of them but all of them.

We have also raised concerns on the issue of the salary of the ethics commissioner. Currently the salary would be set by cabinet, despite the fact that this could have the negative effect of making the commissioner beholden to cabinet for raises in pay. I would like the government to explain how someone can conduct an unbiased investigation into individuals who buy their groceries and pay their rent.

The PC Party would prefer that the salary of the ethics commissioner be set as it is for the privacy and information commissioners. That is:

That the Ethics Commissioner should be paid a salary equal to the salary of a judge of the Federal Court, other than the Chief Justice or the Associate Chief Justice of that Court, and is entitled to be paid reasonable travel and living expenses incurred in the performance of duties under this or any other Act of Parliament.

My party also has serious concerns that the reports tabled in Parliament will not contain more than a simple statistical list of investigations conducted, dismissed or completed. We trust that they will be considerably more detailed.

Finally, the Progressive Conservative Party is pleased that after many years of appalling ethical conduct, prime minister number one's last gift to Canada will be to impose a stricter code of conduct on his successor. Canadians will wonder, however, whether the timing of this bill is for the good of the country or if it is one last joke at the expense of prime minister number two.

It is the hope of the Progressive Conservative Party that it will not be lame duck legislation and that it will be a first step in leading to improved ethical standards and parliamentary reform in Canada. Canada desperately needs the effective, ethical leadership that it has lacked for far too long.

We can only trust that prime minister number two chooses to improve the ethical standard rather than trample on it as it has been for the last 10 years. Rest assured that the Progressive Conservative Party will continue to hold every government to account and work toward genuine ethical standards and parliamentary reform in Canada.

We look forward to seeing this bill. We look forward to many changes that need to take place.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it says something when the only substantial debate that the Liberals can come up with on this particular bill is to make sure that other people cannot do anything about it, like amending it to make it better. That is atrocious. The Liberals on the other side ought to be hanging their heads in shame. They have come close to coming up with an ethics package that would be useful and workable but it has serious flaws and they will not fix them. I am very disappointed.

I want to talk a little about this whole ethics thing. As we all know it was a little more than a year ago that the Prime Minister came up with an ethics package. One might ask why he would do that. Is it because they were keeping an election promise after 10 years? I do not think so because if they were working on keeping that election promise, one would think they would have brought forward the legislation a long time ago.

The fact of the matter, which is inescapable, and I do not see any Liberal on the other side objecting to what I am saying, is that they brought this forward simply as damage control at a time when the wheels were coming off the Liberal ethical bus. As a matter of fact, I think they have had a tow truck dragging it for the last five or six years. It is a desperate action that they have taken in order to make it look as if they are fixing the problems.

We are in a difficult situation in our party and that is that we have to vote against this package because of its flaws. That produces for us, of course, an extraordinary communication package. I can just see them in the next election going around the country and saying “Here we are, the wonderful Liberal Party. We brought in an ethics package”. Of course they will want the people to believe that they are now becoming very highly ethical. Then they will say “The Canadian Alliance Party voted against it. They are not in favour of ethics”. That is what they will be saying.

Well, I sincerely hope that Canadians will see through that facade and will recognize it for what it is because the occurrences which brought us to this place will not be solved by the ethics package that the Prime Minister announced. I believe that what they are doing is building yet another series of steps that they can take when ethical problems occur so that they can deflect the media interest. I am very concerned about that.

All these breaches that we have heard about have had to do with the executive branch of government: the Prime Minister and the front row of the Liberal Party over there called the cabinet, which is the executive branch in our system of government. Whenever there have been problems, that is from where they have derived. It began, of course, with the Prime Minister himself. He alone has the power to determine whether or not there is an independent inquiry into the thing, and surprise, surprise, he declined. No, let us not find out the truth in this. There was more than ample evidence that he interfered but the results of that are still not in. The new ethics package, which the Liberals have introduced, will not address that problem. It will not require that there be an independent inquiry into such things. It will not require that the minister or the Prime Minister be held to account.

Then we had this dreadful situation with government services and the advertising contracts; contracts being given to advertisers in Quebec, where the only work they did to collect the money was to sign the cheque and take it to the bank. I cannot believe it. No wonder Canadian taxpayers are outraged. We have a government that just loosely gives away the hard-earned taxpayer money.

I regularly hear from constituents that they are having trouble making ends meet and yet their incomes are high enough that they are taxable. I hear particularly from seniors and widows who have a limited amount of income, say $15,000 to $18,000 a year. With that, they have to pay horrendous utility bills and property taxes. Yet the government thinks it is fine for them pay income taxes.

After that money goes to the federal government what does it do with it? It gives it to Liberal friends who presumably contribute to its party during election campaigns, but who do not do anything. They may copy a document that they wrote the year before, put a new date on it, print it again and get another $180,000, or whatever it is that they get for these contracts.

However that money is the hard-earned money of Canadian taxpayers, including those widows who come to my office or who phone me. They want to know what to do. They say that they have expenses but that they will run out of money. They tell me that they have skimped and saved to provide for their future but that after paying high utility bills and all the taxes they will not have enough. Then they read in the paper how some people are getting that money just because of political inbreeding and they are justifiably upset.

The government comes along and says that we will have an independent ethics commissioner because that is what was promised in 1993. That would be wonderful if it were accurate. Unfortunately, it is not. Unfortunately, under Bill C-34 the appointment of the ethics commissioner is, as always, made by the Prime Minister. That is our primary objection to the bill.

When it comes to dealing with ethical breaches on the part of the government, that is the cabinet, what we find is that the ethics commissioner will still be investigating and providing private information and advice to the Prime Minister.

Sure the bill states that the Prime Minister will consult with the leaders of the other parties on the appointment of the ethics commissioner but consultation is left undefined and there is no requirement in that consultation that the Prime Minister actually has to respond if they object.

I find it repulsive that the next time one of the Liberal boondoggles shows up, with a waste of thousands or millions or billions of dollars, the Liberals may haul up some petty little complaint against a backbench MP or an opposition MP and sic the ethics commissioner after them, an ethics commissioner who would have been appointed by the Prime Minister without the concurrence of the other parties.

Some have argued that the ethics commissioner should have the same status as other officers of Parliament. I would tend to agree with that but I would have a further proviso. Since the ethics commissioner would be making judgments that could affect the whole future of another member of Parliament, it should be absolutely mandatory that he receive, for all intents and purposes, the unanimous support of all members of Parliament, instead of just having the Prime Minister appoint him or her.

This is a very frustrating exercise. It is frustrating to the point where one just wants to ask what the point is of it all. What is the point of standing here and arguing, trying to get all those Liberals over there to change their position on this? They do not listen. If they agree with me, let them say so. If they disagree, let them say so. They will not say a thing because they are totally entrenched in their old ways. They will simply vote the way they are told.

The bill will come up for a vote later today and they will stand on command and say that, yes, they agree with the way the Prime Minister wants to do this stuff. That will be the end of the matter and we will have to live with it.

I pledge on behalf of my constituents and all Canadians that we will not rest until there is a procedure in place for a truly independent ethics commissioner, and a truly and transparent set of rules that guide our behaviour so that Canadians can once again put their trust and faith in their institution of government.

Without that, our democracy is at risk, our country is at risk, and our children's future is at risk. We can settle for nothing less.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment of Mr. Forseth on the motion at third reading stage on Bill C-34. The question is on the amendment.

Supply

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was not particularly surprised by the comments of Liberal members, but I am grateful for the motion introduced by the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle.

However, before I read the motion, I want to talk a bit about the Liberal Party's opposition to this motion. It is rather easy to identify its reasons for opposing this motion.

There is some pretty deep thinking involved here. The party in power thinks that if this is the best country in the world, with the best electoral system in the world and the best government in the world, then nothing should be changed. Except that I will shake up the Liberals a bit by advising them to read a certain UN report—wake up everybody—because we are no longer the best country in the world. Our rating has slipped. The Liberals are so used to being the best that they ensure we are also the best at scandals and fraudulent activities. To this end, they exaggerated and extrapolated their obsession with being first at everything. This is true when it comes to politics, expect that, at some point, we need to slow down. Other people should do that. The courts will rule too on their waste and spending habits, on the somewhat less elegant ways they compensated their friends or those to whom they gave money, later asking for 12% back. This was the case in some provinces or some organizations. Fortunately, that way of doing things has been rectified.

So it is understandable, but perhaps we should look at reality in 2003 and say that examining a position does not necessarily mean one admits to being “the worst”. There is some place between the “best” and the “worst”. Do not worry; if we study this, there will be no problem.

But this debate is on the motion of the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, who appears to have been making this a personal issue for a number of years. Permit me to read the motion:

That this House call upon the government to hold a referendum within one year—

I like this part of the motion better.

—to determine whether Canadians wish to replace the current electoral system with a system of proportional representation and, if so, to appoint a commission to consult Canadians on the preferred model of proportional representation and the process of implementation, with an implementation date no later than July 1, 2006.

Personally, I think it would have been much better to ask for the creation of a committee that would hold public consultations and report back in 2006. For reasons I do not understand, they want to make the process more complicated. But it is hard to be opposed to the principle.

We could hardly oppose it, for one simple reason: in Quebec—another distinction or difference—we have not been afraid to engage in this debate and have been doing so for more than 40 years. Mr. Speaker, I realize that you are very knowledgeable about the political parties and politics in Quebec. I am not telling you anything new, but this might be new to a few members in the House.

Over the years, the various political parties tried many times to introduce proportional representation. It was under the René Lévesque government that the process went the furthest with Minister Robert Burns and his excellent deputy minister, Raymond Faucher.

At the time, there was a public consultation process. A bill was also introduced in 1984 concerning territorial proportionality. It was defeated by the caucus after having been supported by the Premier and the leader of the opposition.

So much for transparency in democracy. The Premier and the leader of the opposition agreed, but the caucus defeated the motion for territorial proportionality. At the time, the leader of the opposition was Claude Ryan.

In February—this is a little like what the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle is asking for—estates general were held on electoral reform. Countless stakeholders offered their views. These estates general travelled throughout Quebec and there was a large meeting with more than 1,000 people. People were able to discuss which electoral system they preferred or thought to be best suited to the reality of a modern Quebec.

The Liberal Party is currently reviewing the issue and a bill should be introduced during this term. However, there is a small problem. The Liberal Party made a campaign promise to introduce a form of proportional representation for the next election, but after the election they said it would be for the next election, in other words, in five or six years, and that they would review the issue in the meantime.

Forty years might be a long time, but at least we are tackling the issue and working on improving the system. When the government is ready, the work will have been done.

What the Bloc Quebecois appreciates is that the motion by the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle does not call for the change to be immediate. That is why we are surprised to see the Liberal's opposition. What we are being asked is to be ready when the time comes, when the change needs to be made.

For example, when we proposed that a commission be set up to address a single currency, they said “Look at the Bloc members. They want us to have the U.S. dollar.” That is not it at all. As they say, when the train pulls into the station, we need to be ready to get on board. So it is better to study the question before something gets imposed upon us. The same goes for proportional representation.

Are we going to wait until we have a federal election turnout of 42% before we address the question of why people do not get out and vote? There is perhaps a defect or shortcoming in the way MPs represent their electorate. Perhaps there is a shortcoming in the amount of work MPs who are not in cabinet do. Perhaps there is a shortcoming in the present electoral system.

If we study this system and reach the conclusion that the system we have is the best, then we stick with it. But if we are confident that the present system is the best, we should not have any problems about comparing it with other hypotheses so as to be able to state at the end of the process that the status quo should prevail.

We are so confident that we do not even want to talk about it; we want to hide it, set it aside, save it. What a great show of confidence.

It seems to me that we are clearly in favour of introducing some form of proportional representation. There lies the question. A form of proportional representation does not mean a uniform system across Canada. There may be a middle ground somewhere. At the very least, there are elements of the proportional system that could help enhance democracy and the representation of citizens in the House of Commons.

Because of the first past the post system, political parties that do well in an election sometimes get blanked out. We find that unfortunate.

This proportional system could have been put forward or examined at the time when the reform of the electoral system was dealt with in committee, along with the new ridings and the appointment of returning officers.

There is also a flaw in the Canadian electoral system in that 100% of the 308 returning officers are said to be appointed by the governor in council. The Chief Electoral Officer—and if ever there were a non-political officer, it is he—has requested the authority to appoint returning officers, through a competitive process, which the government party refused, of course.

In committee at the time, I argued that there should be no hesitation. I am convinced that there are competent Liberals. They may not all be competent, but there must be a few who would go through the competitive process and keep their jobs. However, the Liberals are so sure that their returning officers are good, competent and hard-nosed that they will not consider having a competitive process or proportional representation. That is what I call confidence.

In our internal documents, we have noted that the proportional system is an approach that should be part of a larger effort to enhance political institutions and parliamentarians. The confidence bias the public has for Parliament may be a solution. Under Bill C-34, the ethic counsellor will not be the only one resolving the whole world's problems, but this study could also provide a solution.

We support the principle while at the same time saying that our ultimate goal is to represent the people of Canada well, as long as we in the Bloc Quebecois are here. Our ultimate goal is not to improve the system so that it can be used for another 125 or 150 years and work to our advantage. On the contrary, we want to get out of it following a winning referendum on sovereignty.

However, on the other hand, as long as we are in the system, it is very much to our advantage to ensure that voters in Quebec are recognized in a Parliament whose electoral system could be modernized.

The most important part of the NDP motion concerns public consultations. Bogus prebudget consultations are held. On major international agreements, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade holds consultations that are, more often than not, not very serious. And, moreover, when it comes to something as important as the electing representatives, nothing is said about the way in which public representatives are chosen.

The Bloc Quebecois supports this motion primarily in terms of this need for consultation. Such consultations would lead to an exchange of ideas on the issue and would lead to future replacement models that could work in Canada.

However, we question doing this so early in the process. Studies were doubtless undertaken by various committees, or studies could be undertaken before launching this consultation, to allow people to discuss, using concrete examples, as we heard earlier in this House, those countries which have a different electoral system from our own but which are not necessarily banana republics. There are other countries and other electoral systems.

In representative democracy, the way that representatives are elected is extremely important, since this mechanism translates the public's wishes into the number of seats each party obtains.

There are two major types of voting systems: majority voting and proportional voting. In the majority system, constraints related to governance dominate, while in the proportional system, constraints related to representation are predominant. There are mixed systems as well, aiming at a solution lying somewhere between the two, and that, I think, is what Canada should look into.

Each of these types is divided again according to voting methods. Thus, even though we are in a majority system, there are different kinds of majority systems.

At one extreme, there is the first past the post majority system, the one used in Canada, the United States and Great Britain, the preferential system, as in Australia, and not so far away, there is the two round system used in France. In the last election in France, the importance of the two round majority system became apparent.

On the other hand, in the other type of voting systems, there are proportional elections that can be absolute, as in Israel or the Netherlands, that is with one huge electoral district, or moderate proportional systems with larger or smaller districts, as in Norway, Switzerland and Belgium, with a much higher rate of participation.

We are dealing here of countries with a recognized democratic system, countries that are not in the third world, democracies that could reasonably be taken as inspiration for improvements to our system. From another point of view, some say no, our system is so good that we do not even dare to compare it with others.

Finally, there are mixed systems that combine elements of the majority and proportional systems, for instance those in Germany, New Zealand, Japan, and Russia. There are variations in the mixed systems too. They can be of the reciprocal type, as in Germany and New Zealand, where the seats attributed proportionally are intended to compensate for those filled by a majority. That is one model we might consider as suitable, or at least which might provide Canada with some inspiration.

In contrast, in Russia and Japan, it is a mixed cumulative system, and the element of compensation is lacking. When correcting any failings of the current system, we must not make voting more complex for the voters, thus pushing them farther away from their representatives; we must ensure that they at least understand who their member of Parliament is, and that there are no more ridings and no more party representatives. Thus, if this study is done, one priority must be to maintain the close link between the voter and his or her representative.

There is no sense in trying to correct a problem by creating an even bigger one. That is why I am describing systems that exist in other countries. I think that if we implemented this in Canada, it would have to be done slowly and in stages, to allow the public to properly understand the improvements that we want to see made to the current electoral system.

Of the 53 most stable democracies—in other words, where democratic elections are held at regular intervals, countries with at least 3 million inhabitants and a multi-party system—there are 25 that have proportional representation, 15 that have a first past the post system and 13 with mixed member proportional. Consequently, we can deduce that there is no magic recipe or miracle formula.

If out of 53, there are 25 with proportional representation, 15 with first past the post and 13 with mixed member proportional, that means that culturally and politically, people have to identify the system that best suits them during the development of their country, and that electoral systems can evolve, as society does.

The first past the post system may still be used—this was pointed out earlier by the Liberals—in many major democracies, such as the United States. But we must not forget that George W. Bush was elected with a 50% participation rate and that roughly 50% of those people voted for him. Therefore, roughly 25% of the Americans elected their president.

In this regard, there was a minor problem in a state where his brother was governor.

Parliament of Canada Act

[Rahim Jaffer, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to address this particular bill. As we all know, Bill C-34, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act, would appoint an ethics commissioner and a Senate ethics officer.

It frustrates me, as I am sure you as well Mr. Speaker, when we hear members like the previous speaker spout off about things that they feel so passionate about. However, when it actually comes down to demonstrating a commitment to that by making changes in this particular place which would reflect that, which would strengthen our institution of democracy and give more accountability and transparency, which were the words that the member used himself, they refuse to make any commitments. They refuse to vote for changes that would improve the institution of Parliament and improve the ability for Canadians to have a voice in this particular place.

This ethics bill is interesting. What is the reason that we actually have to debate instituting a position of an ethics commissioner in this place? A reflection of the last 10 years will paint a stark picture and give reasons why in fact we are debating this sort of legislation.

Elected officials are held in a higher regard. There should not be questions of conflict of interest. There should not be ethical questions about the ability of ministers to have any influence in their own dealings when they are sitting in those particular departments, but in fact we are debating those very problems.

It is a reflection, unfortunately, of the problems we have seen time and time again from the current government. It started from the top and spread out in an incredible way to all parts of this particular government. This is one of the reasons that this whole debate about the need for an ethics commissioner has come about.

It was not so long ago that I was a student at the University of Ottawa studying political science and economics. I was here and had the fortune of working for a member of Parliament. At that time it was a Liberal MP who currently sits in the House. We often joke about that. But I remember during that time, the Liberals were in opposition and there were many things being debated because it was just before they were going to form the government.

I remember a real void in that particular group. There were a few MPs who really talked passionately about changing this place when they were in opposition, but I started to see a stark difference as that election campaign began between the things that were being said and where the party was going once it actually formed the government. I really lost hope.

Being a first generation Canadian--my family came here as refugees when I was just a baby--the idea of freedom and democracy has always meant a lot to my family, especially my father who taught me about that. That was what inspired me to get involved in politics at a younger age.

I remember that during that transition period I was so disappointed with what I actually saw taking place with the commitment to freedom and democracy, and how to strengthen those principles. It drove me far away from the interest in politics, as someone who came here in an idealistic way and who wanted to get involved in creating a stronger institution for the people. It drove me away from wanting to be involved here because I saw no commitment to that sort of change. Instead, I embraced initially this new movement which, being a new movement, had a lot of challenges, but it talked about bringing those sort of values to Parliament, especially the idea of parliamentary reform.

That is one of the reasons I joined the Reform Party and got involved along with many younger colleagues who got involved in the early 90s. Later we had an impact on that particular process and that particular thinking, and could even get involved in elected office, which is rare to see in many other traditional parties.

However, one the reasons I did get involved, which I mentioned and why I switched from the Liberal Party, was because of the fact that I saw a real void and a lack of commitment to that parliamentary reform. Now the Liberals talk about it in the same way they talk about democratic deficits and strengthening institutions of Parliament, but when it comes down to voting for change, they only go with half measures.

This is a particular example of that when we look at the bill that we are debating, Bill C-34. The amendment deserves merit and deserves some serious debate, which we are not getting from this particular government. The amendment has been put forward because we support the government in its effort to improve Parliament, but again its measures are only half steps.

In trying to improve this bill we would adopt the amendment by having “an all party committee of the House of Commons search for those persons who would be most suitably qualified and fit to hold the office of Ethics Commissioner”. Then the said committee would recommend to the House of Commons the name of the person to hold that particular office. What would be wrong with taking that bit of power away from the Prime Minister?

Currently, the Prime Minister controls almost every aspect of this House. When we go to this particular nomination, it will be appointed by the Prime Minister and then put to the House for a vote. As we have seen in many votes in the past, Liberal members will be whipped to follow the Prime Minister's choice and this particular ethics counsellor will not be independent of Parliament to judge the actions of members of Parliament and their dealings. That person would, in essence, become a lapdog for the Prime Minister.

This minor amendment, that has such profound effects on the way this position would be installed, would seem to me to be something that the government would embrace. What does it fear? What does it have to lose to take that bit of power away from the Prime Minister? Its own backbenchers complain about the fact that they have no say once they come to this particular place.

This slight amendment would strengthen the ability for this House to have more transparency as the previous member talked about. It would allow an independent ethics counsellor to review certain complaints that may be brought forward by members of Parliament against other individuals and report independently of the Prime Minister. It would add a bit of democracy to this place, a bit of freedom that unfortunately continues to be eroded by a government that wants to hang on to power and a Prime Minister on his way out who still does not want to relinquish any of those particular things that would provide effective checks and balances in this place.

That is something that totally amazes us. We know that in the recent past we saw a rift in that particular government when we in the official opposition put forward a motion dealing with committee chairs being selected by secret ballot. We did not want our committees whipped either because, let us face it, committees are supposed to be an independent wing of Parliament. They are supposed to be independent from the House, independent from the government, and they are supposed to study issues and make legislation better. What better way to do it if we could have the chairs of those committees selected by member of Parliaments who they thought were the best candidates for those jobs.

Ultimately it was a tough vote for the government because of the soon to be Prime Minister who has talked about this democratic deficit. There was a huge rift in that particular government when that vote came to the House and in fact that was a small victory for democracy, not for the opposition and not for our goals but for democracy and for Canadians.

Here is a chance for that same spirit to continue, where we could have true transparency by having an independent ethics commissioner chosen by a committee that would select the best possible person for the job and make the recommendation to Parliament.

I want to briefly reflect on the amendment that has been put forward by the NDP. It is something that we did in fact support. We would not be afraid of having the requirement of a two-thirds majority in this place for the appointment of an ethics commissioner. As my hon. colleague from Elk Island had mentioned, there were some complications as they pertained to the Constitution.

On that matter, anything that we could do in this place to evoke change and improve the conditions of this institution, of course, we would support. We want to see Parliament strengthened, we want to see ministers behave in the appropriate manner, and we want Canadians to have the confidence in this place that they should have.

We only wish that instead of talking the talk, the government would actually take the steps necessary to put these sorts of things in place and strengthen the institution's democracy. It is with a great sense of sadness that, unfortunately, we have to debate legislation like this because of the performance of this particular government over the last number of years.

[Deepak Obhrai, Canadian Alliance, Calgary East, AB]

My colleague says it is arrogance. I absolutely agree.

The Prime Minister has been in politics for 40 years. Forty years is great. However as everyone else knows there is a time when it is time to go. The country needs a new vision. We need new ideas. I think there should be a fixed term. Twelve years is a pretty good time to be in the political arena because a person becomes burned out. Here we have 40 years. What do we get? We have a ship adrift.

Then of course we have the Senate where senators are politicians for life. Senators are not accountable to anyone, yet they want to make decisions. How can the people of Canada speak? That House is not even elected. What do we have then? We have a de facto opposition taken over by the provincial governments. Then we have the tugs and the pulls of federal and provincial relationships.

Finally something penetrated across the floor and into the government that there was something seriously wrong. It took a long time. There were many scandals. Now the government has come forward with Bill C-34 to try to tell the people of Canada that, yes, there is transparency in the House and, yes, the government will attend to it.

I have read editorials and it is quite generally accepted that elected officials are held to higher standards than the average Canadian. We sit in the chamber and make laws. Therefore, there is an expectation that we have higher standards. It is a given that elected officials should be held to a higher standard than average Canadians. As such, we agree with the intent of Bill C-34 to have an ethics commissioner who can look at affairs of members of Parliament, as well as the government, and to whom we can talk if we feel the rules have not been followed.

However the problem with Bill C-34 is the government is not willing to let go. It is afraid. I do not know why the government is afraid. We tell other countries what to do. The government will not appoint an independent ethics commissioner.

Last year or the year before that the issue with the minister responsible for CIDA came before the House, after I wrote the commissioner. In my dealings on that issue with the minister responsible for CIDA, I came to realize that it was very necessary to have an independent ethics commissioner. It became obvious that it was necessary to have independent officials of the House.

My friend on the other side just asked a question about whether this responsibility should be shared with other officers of Parliament. I say absolutely. These officers should be independent because the Parliament of Canada is independent.

In Bill C-34, while the government technically uses the words an “independent ethics commissioner”, will that person really be independent? The answer is no. The prime minister will appoint the individual in consultations with the opposition parties. What consultations? With the government there has never been consultations. The government does not have a great track record with the Canadian public in reference to transparency. The government does not have a record of cooperating with the provinces, so why would it cooperate with opposition parties.

The simple question being asked by everyone is: Why can there not be a real independent ethics commissioner? Why does the government want to have a noose around the neck of the ethics commissioner? Is it because if he gets out of line the government can pull him back? What does the government fear? There is nothing to fear.

We in the House want to stand up and be counted so Canadians will see that those who are making the laws are people of integrity. I will not deny the fact that everybody in the House is working very hard for Canadians. I therefore have to ask why the government wants a noose around the neck of the ethics commissioner.

Why does the government want to control the ethics commissioner? It is because over the last 40 years that the Prime Minister has been in the House those members have created this power and grabbed it, which s why there is tension between the provinces and the federal government. The Liberals want to grab all the power and do not want to let it go.

We just have to look at how much the Prime Minister's Office controls this country. We just have to look at how much power is concentrated in the Prime Minister's Office. Senators in the other place are appointed by the PMO. They do not run in elections. Individuals who are rejected by Canadians end up in the Senate making rules for the country. Where is the voice of Canadians?

The amendment brought forward by this party would address that concern and would bring back some respectability to the House. The amendment asks that the bill go back to committee so we can really and truly have an independent ethics commissioner. Canadians need to feel confident that an independent ethics commissioner is looking after their interests.

I hope the government will listen. I hope we will not go the same way we have gone year after year, election after election, and not see Canadians turn out at the polls.

[Deepak Obhrai, Canadian Alliance, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-34. I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the work that the member for Elk Island has done on the bill. He has taken the lead in this debate and has brought out the flaws with Bill C-34.

The amendment proposed by the Canadian Alliance tries in reality to address the bigger concern that we on this side of the House have with the bill. Let me go back and tell members why we have a very serious concern with Bill C-34.

I was elected in 1997. That was the time I put a foot into the political arena. One glaring issue that became quite clear was that Canadians were losing confidence in their elected officials.

Before I carry on, I would like to congratulate my other colleague sitting in the Speaker's chair, who I think is sitting there for the first time and looks pretty good in it. That does not mean my colleague will get my vote.

Back to the business of Bill C-34. As I was saying, when I was elected in 1997 I found that people held elected officials in extremely low esteem. About three or four days ago I was listening to CBC Radio. The issue was why young people did not vote in current elections. A study was commissioned by the Chief Electoral Officer, a copy of which I received yesterday in the mail, and I am sure every member of Parliament received it.

An interesting issue came up on the radio talk show. The host was interviewing a couple of young people from Carleton University in Ottawa, the capital of our country which one would say is a place where politics is very active. The general responses I heard from the young people were they were disconnected from politics. One young girl said that because she had low esteem for politicians, she, to put it in her words, did not trust politicians. Why did she not trust politicians? All she wanted was for the politicians if they made promises, to keep their promises.

The erosion of confidence in young people about their elected officials is a very serious issue. I am glad the Chief Electoral Officer commissioned a study to look into this. Practically everybody in this House works very hard, whether they are on that side of the House or this side of the House, and have the interests of the country at heart, but we seem to have sent out a wrong message to the electoral of Canada. They seem to have decided to disconnect themselves from politics after hearing about some of the things that have gone on here. They feel elected officials cannot be trusted. That is a serious blow. As a matter of fact, I would venture to say that many times this impression comes from the governing side as well.

Since I became an MP, I have heard on many occasions the so-called famous words of Prime Minister Trudeau that MPs were nobodies outside Parliament Hill. That was the Prime Minister of Canada talking about elected officials. Talk about having no confidence in these things.

At one time I even heard a minister say to her public official not to worry about members of Parliament but to do what the government said.

The bureaucracy, which is supposed to be an independent arm, should understand that the people of Canada speak through Parliament, through their elected voices. This is the House where we debate. This is the House where the people of Canada have a voice through their elected officials, not the other House because they are not elected. This is the place where the people of Canada can speak. Yet the Liberal government, from Prime Minister Trudeau to the ministers today, have sent out the message that the House is irrelevant, that hard-working people in the House are not relevant. Only the government, the Privy Council and the bureaucracy are relevant. That is the message I got.

As a matter of fact it has been compounded in my dealings with the public service. On many occasions this attitude comes across. The director of Revenue Canada in Calgary, the immigration officer in charge of immigration in Calgary, these public officials have told my office to leave them alone because they know what is best. They are the ones who are not cooperating. They do not understand the fact that democracy is the essence of transparency.

What is ironic is that we in Canada spent a huge amount of money lecturing other countries. Even today we have a delegation of African parliamentarians visiting Canada to look at good governance and transparency. This is what we preach to them. We tell other countries that if they do things this way, then we will look at assisting them in their development needs. That was one of the foundations of NEPAD which the Prime Minister talked about when he was at the G-8 in Kananaskis. We tell everyone out there that transparency, democracy and accountability are the key elements in good governance.

The disconnect continues. Therefore, what do we have? Canadian people are reacting and their reaction is not be good news for us. They are not voting. We can see the numbers of people who vote go down and down. Do we want to make the House of Commons, the voice of the people in Canada, an irrelevant body?

At the end of the day this message seems to have penetrated the governing party. After all the corruption and scandals that we have seen or that many of us have alluded to on this side, the message that there is a serious problem with the confidence of Canadian people in the House of Commons has finally penetrated the government

The prime minister in waiting talks about the democratic deficit. Why is he talking about democratic deficit? His party has brought us to this condition where the democratic deficit is now a glaring reality.

At the end of the day the people of Canada look at the House of Commons and its elected officials and do not see transparency. They have become disconnected and disillusioned. When my colleagues on this side of the House, and I am sure on that side too, go to their ridings and talk at town hall meetings, it is always the same. The degree of frustration is very high.

This is why we have talks of separation. Western alienation and separation are issues about which people talk. I want to make it quite clear that I am not in favour of separation. However that discussion is out there. Why? Because of the level frustration with the House not wanting to reflect the wishes of Canadians. From where does this all come? It comes from the governing party.

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak briefly about the bill before us, Bill C-34, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Ethics Commissioner and Senate Ethics Officer), and the Canadian Alliance amendment to send it back to committee.

First I want to mention that the NDP has long been a supporter of the concept of a code of ethics for parliamentarians. I am proud to say that one of my early colleagues when I became an MP in 1997, Gordon Earle, the former member for Halifax West, was first to put forward a code of ethics, in the 36th Parliament. I want to talk briefly about that because I think it sets the tone for this.

Gordon Earle, a man of great integrity and a friend, really did see his job here as one of inspiring and strengthening people's confidence and trust in the democratic process. He felt that integrity, honesty and straight talk were the order of the day, that they are what we are here for, and if we cannot do that then we should be somewhere else. Really there was not a day that went by that Gordon Earle did not spend time talking about this.

He put forward a private member's bill on that very issue. I want to read to the House a couple of the thoughts he put within his private members' bill.

He prefaced his remarks by saying that over the years people have become so cynical and pessimistic concerning their elected officials, and we all know that is true, and that elected officials must not only conduct themselves in a manner befitting of trust but they also “must be seen to be carrying out their responsibilities beyond reproach and free from conflict of interest”.

His bill was based on the following principles, which I think are really central to this debate today. He said:

Parliamentarians should have the highest ethical standards so as to maintain and enhance public confidence and trust in the integrity of parliamentarians and Parliament.

Parliamentarians should perform their official duties and arrange their private affairs in a manner that will bear the closest public scrutiny.

Parliamentarians should avoid placing themselves under any financial or other obligations that might influence them in the performance of their official duties.

Parliamentarians upon entering office should arrange their private affairs to prevent real or apparent conflict of interest. If such does arise, it should be resolved in a way that protects the public interest.

Parliamentarians should not accept any gifts or personal benefit in connection with their office that may reasonably be seen to compromise their personal judgment or integrity. Parliamentarians would not accept any gift other than those received as a normal expression of protocol and courtesy.

No parliamentarian would be permitted to be a party to a contract with the Government of Canada under which the parliamentarian receives a benefit.

Parliamentarians would be required to make a disclosure of all assets once every calendar year and would be required to make public disclosure of the nature, although not the value, of all assets each year.

Finally, to ensure that public interest and the highest standards are upheld, there would be an ethics counsellor to advise parliamentarians on any question relating to conduct.

So now here we are back to the ethics counsellor, six years later. I am happy to say that the NDP is very much in support of this concept. After Gordon Earle put forward that private member's bill, we saw it reintroduced in this Parliament's first session by the then NDP leader, the member for Halifax.

That bill of the member for Halifax asked for a two-thirds majority in the House of Commons for a vote in favour of an ethics commissioner. That is the central point I want to address here and now. It goes back to the idea that we must have complete confidence in the choice, in the person selected.

That means we have to be above politics. We have to make sure that not just 50 plus one but a large majority of people in the House from all parties are willing to say, “Yes, this is a person we can trust to carry forth the idea of ethics in the House”. That is an amendment we are very strongly putting forward.

The amendment before the House of Commons today calls for sending the bill back to committee to have “an all party committee...search for those persons who would be most suitably qualified and fit to hold the office of Ethics Commissioner”. We support that amendment.

The NDP supports having an ethics commissioner for all parliamentarians. We support a code of conduct which would oversee a regime for the disclosure of the private interests of MPs and senators, including those of their immediate families. We support having an ethics commissioner who gives advice to parliamentarians on issues of ethics and conflicts of interest.

The NDP also feels that the public should have access to the complaint process. The ethics commissioner should have the power to receive and investigate complaints made by the public about improper behaviour. The public should be able to make complaints directly to the ethics commissioner and not just to a member of Parliament. It goes without saying that frivolous accusations should not progress to grievances; this process must be taken seriously. We must look for assurances from the government that complaints from the public will be treated seriously by an ethics commissioner.

A vote in the House of Commons to accept the appointment of an ethics commissioner should require a two-thirds majority of the House, as I have already stated. The NDP made an amendment at committee on this issue and unfortunately the government side voted it down. In our estimation, a simple majority vote of the House to support an ethics commissioner would not go the distance in giving parliamentarians and the Canadian public confidence in this office. Again, the ethics commissioner must have the trust and support of all members of Parliament to have the confidence of the House of Commons.

In conclusion, we support the bill in principle. As I have noted and am proud to say again, a couple of our members have been instrumental in bringing forward the language and principles of the bill. I was proud to read some of the references from the former member for Halifax West, Gordon Earle, in the 36th Parliament. We support the principles of the bill. We believe that the amendments improve the selection process of the ethics commissioner and we support them. However, we remain adamant that this process must be backed up by a two-thirds majority vote in the House of Commons in terms of the approval of the actual ethics commissioner.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by the hon. member for St. John's East. He did a very good job in articulating his point of view.

Contrary to the 1993 red book which was co-authored by the member for LaSalle—Émard, the Liberals are breaking their promise not to appoint an independent ethics counsellor. In fact they voted against the Canadian Alliance motion sometime ago to appoint an independent ethics commissioner.

As part of Bill C-34 that we are debating today, the ethics commissioner will be appointed by the Prime Minister. The ethics commissioner will be rubber stamped by the Liberal majority. The ethics commissioner will report to the Prime Minister in confidence and in private.

Does the hon. member think that the ethics commissioner will be a true watchdog overseeing the ethical standards which are already so low in the Liberal government?

[Norman E. Doyle, Progressive Conservative, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say a few words on Bill C-34. I am particularly interested in saying a few words on the amendment:

It reads:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

“Bill C-34...be referred back to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for the purpose of reconsidering Clause 4 with the view to ensure that:

(a) a standing or “an all party” committee of the House of Commons search for those persons who would be most suitably qualified and fit to hold the office of Ethics Commissioner; and

(b) the said committee recommend to the House of Commons the name of a person to hold such office”.

My party supports this amendment because it is a good amendment. I cannot see why anyone would not support it. After all, this is public money that the government is spending. It is the hard earned dollars of taxpayers that we are talking about here.

Why would we not want an independent individual, arm's length from government, to oversee the ethics of the people who are spending this money on behalf of the people of Canada? Why would the government not want an all party committee to do the search and find a truly independent individual who would report to Parliament?

The public would then know that we do not have an ethics commissioner who is the lapdog of government, or an individual who is a friend of the Liberal Party of Canada acting as an ethics commissioner for the people of Canada.

It is ridiculous that we should even be talking about this amendment today. The government should already have this amendment in its bill. An all party committee of the House of Commons should be the process to be used to appoint an ethics commissioner.

We all know that an ethics commissioner should have some ethics. If an ethics commissioner were to comment on and preside over the ethics of a minister or the Prime Minister of the country, then his or her own ethics should be above reproach and scrutiny.

One way we could ensure that the ethics commissioner is indeed above reproach is to have an all party committee of the House of Commons do the search. After all, we should have absolute confidence in the ethics commissioner to do what is right.

When we get right down to it, is it fair to ask any future ethics commissioner to go poking around and judging the very people who appointed the individual if that person is not a truly independent individual?

Therefore, one has to ask the question, is the government afraid to have a truly independent individual appointed? Is the government so caught up in scandal, wrongdoing, graft and corruption that it cannot bear the thought of allowing a truly independent person to be poking around in the government's bag of secrets?

We should not even be talking about this amendment today. The amendment should already be included in Bill C-34. After the numerous scandals of the government, it should be truly rushing to have an independent person appointed as the ethics commissioner.

We all remember the main feature of the 1993 election campaign was a promise by the Liberal Party to establish new standards of ethics. It has certainly done that. The Liberals have established new standards of graft and corruption, and standards which the people of Canada are very concerned with.

The Prime Minister, for instance, intervened with a Crown corporation to benefit a business of which he had once been a part owner. At least three ministers have been forced from office for conflicts of interest. A fourth has been given safe refuge as ambassador to Denmark. If we had a truly independent ethics commissioner, I wonder if these things would have occurred?

The Minister of Canadian of Heritage, for instance, broke the guidelines. According to the rules, she should have resigned her cabinet position. However, the Prime Minister, going against his own rules, chose to protect his cabinet colleague. One has to wonder if we had a truly independent ethics commissioner, whether that would have happened?

The government is now proposing new legislation establishing new ethics commissioners whose appointments can be controlled by the government majority. That is not the way to go if we want to give the people of Canada confidence that their money is being spent properly and that their ministers are acting in the way they should be.

Remember the observation on Shawinigate by Gordon Robertson, the distinguished former clerk of the Privy Council, who wrote the first conflict of interest guidelines for Prime Minister Pearson. Mr. Robertson noted that there had been no specific provisions governing the Prime Minister because it never occurred to anyone that a prime minister's actions would require guidelines. It was not until this government made a show of appointing an ethics counsellor and then made a sham of the office by having it report not to Parliament, as has been promised, but to the Prime Minister of Canada. That makes a sham of the ethics commissioner.

The most notorious loosening of the rules involved the so-called blind management trust. We are all very well aware of that. For decades cabinet ministers in the House were required to put their assets in an absolutely blind trust. If one pursued one's private interests, one stayed out of cabinet and if one served the public interest, one cut off all contact with one's private assets. A choice was made. That is the way it worked way back when.

The government changed that rule deliberately. It deliberately broke the separation between private interest and public interest. It created a system where a minister could look after his or her private interests and at the very same time he or she was purported to be acting in the public interest.

If we had a truly independent ethics commissioner acting for the people of Canada over the last four or five years in particular, I am convinced that the scandals that have plagued the government and the people of the country would not have occurred, or at least would have been a whole lot less serious than they were.

As a footnote, but to make matters worse, the Prime Minister told the House of Commons that this system had been used by ministers of former governments. He knows that is not true, but he has not had the rectitude to correct the record of Parliament.

I do not know why the government lets ministers abandon blind trusts. I do not know if that was done specifically to meet the requirements of the Prime Minister-in-waiting, the member for LaSalle-Émard, but he was certainly quick to take advantage of the looser system that had been established. As the Minister of Finance for the country, he knew very well how he could take advantage of that system.

Some time ago, under pressure, the member for LaSalle--Émard, the individual who will be the Prime Minister of Canada, announced that he was divesting himself from his giant shipping company, Canada Steamship Lines. He admitted that during the time he was Minister of Finance he held 12 separate private meetings with his company officials regarding business activities of the multi-national private company that he personally owned. I really do not know if people are truly aware of the seriousness of that.

The Prime Minister-in-waiting--the person who was second in command in this country, the most powerful position outside of the Prime Minister of Canada, the Minister of Finance--held 12 separate private meetings with officials of his own company while he was sitting around the cabinet table of Canada talking about tax havens, environmental problems, shipping standards, and all kinds of things pertaining to the operation of his own company. He sat around the table with his corporate officials on 12 different occasions and had 12 different meetings while he was number two in power in Canada.

For the record, I do not believe he had these meetings to make himself any richer than what he already was. He came here as a rich individual, and I do not believe he needed any more money. F. Scott Fitzgerald noted that the rich are not like the rest of us. He probably did it because he thought the rules that applied to others should not apply to him The former Minister of Finance felt that the rules that had been established really did not apply to him, but did apply to everyone else. If we had a truly independent ethics commissioner who was capable of delving into these problems, would this have happened?

Whatever the motive, the government broke down the wall between private and public interests. That is what it amounts to. Even the member himself, the Prime Minister-in-waiting, now admits that the system fails the test of appearing to be fair. We always hear that not only must the system be fair, but it must have the appearance of being fair as well. What is clear is that the tailor-made system was not recommended by independent, outside experts who could examine the current rules and regulations and come up with some really good ones to make cabinet ministers and the Prime Minister truly accountable to the people of Canada.

Justice Parker, who conducted a public formal inquiry into the Sinclair Stevens affair, which I am sure all members remember, warned specifically against the type of arrangement that we have today. Justice Parker defined conflict of interest in his report as:

--a situation in which a minister of the Crown has knowledge of a private economic interest that is sufficient to influence the exercise of his or her public duties and responsibilities.

The minister need not act on that knowledge. Justice Parker did not find that Mr. Stevens acted on that knowledge. He was required to resign simply because it was alleged that he had done nothing more than what the member for LaSalle--Émard has set limits on doing on 12 separate occasions. That is worth noting.

That was the standard in Canada before the Liberal government deliberately lowered the bar on ethics in this country. Simple knowledge of a private economic interest was enough to constitute a conflict of interest. Is that not interesting? Simple knowledge of a private economic interest was enough to constitute a conflict of interest. We are all very much aware that for eight years the member for LaSalle--Émard, the prime minister in waiting, regularly acquired that kind of knowledge. That is not in dispute. The member himself admitted that he regularly acquired that kind of knowledge.

According to the Prime Minister, Justice Parker's definition of conflict of interest is at the heart of the government's code of conduct for ministers. He has repeatedly said that in the House of Commons.

Here is a very interesting quote from former Liberal Prime Minister Turner who said in Parliament on May 12, 1986:

In public administration a minister has the burden of proof, the duty to show that what he is doing is beyond reproach. The burden of proof is not on Parliament. It is not on the opposition, nor the media. The burden of proof is on the minister.

That is what former Prime Minister John Turner said on May 12, 1986. But the new looser system of the managed blind trust does have its own clear rules. Canadians have a right to know whether even these rules were respected. Article 7 of the agreement stipulates that if at any time while this agreement remains in effect it appears that an extraordinary corporate event is proposed or threatened which might have a material effect on the shares of an asset, the supervisors may consult with and obtain the advice, direction or instruction of the public office holder.

The then minister of finance was allowed to be briefed only if first, Canada Steamship Lines had an extraordinary corporate event, second, if it had a material effect on the asset, and third, the supervisor was unable to handle it on his or her own. We are asked to believe that that happened 12 times in eight years, with the former minister of finance, the prime minister in waiting, and Canada Steamship Lines.

The Prime Minister says that while he has no knowledge of the subject of these 12 meetings, he is satisfied that each of them met the criteria of article 7. Why? Because Howard Wilson said so. The member for LaSalle--Émard agreed and the Prime Minister declined to do his duty and find out if his new loose rules were respected or whether they were broken. Again this points out the need to have a truly independent ethics commissioner who will be appointed by an all party committee of the House.

The member for LaSalle--Émard says he excused himself, that he stepped aside from the cabinet table whenever there was a possible conflict of interest. However, more than the vast majority of companies, Canada Steamship Lines is critically dependent upon a wide range of federal laws and regulations, including the tax system. The question has to be asked, was the then minister of finance outside the room whenever taxes were talked about, or environmental laws, or shipping regulations, or safety standards, or changes in international laws or treaties?

Hopefully the government will agree to have an all party committee of the House look at this issue and make recommendations for a truly independent ethics commissioner.

[Reed Elley, Canadian Alliance, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in today's debate on Bill C-34 regarding the ethics commissioner. I already spoke to the bill at second reading stage.

As members of the House know, the bill would appoint a Senate ethics officer whose duties and functions would be assigned by the Senate regarding the conduct of its members and most important to us here in the House of Commons, an ethics commissioner whose duties and functions would be assigned by the House of Commons.

All members, and indeed all constituents, are concerned with the conduct of its members and the administration of ethical principles by the members of Parliament in this place.

The return of the bill to the House of Commons for debate this week is very interesting and perhaps very timely. We all know that the bill is part of the Prime Minister's ethics initiative first announced in May of last year, a time when he and others in his caucus were increasingly under the ethics magnifying glass.

The bill was born out of public necessity, not through foresight and careful planning. Furthermore, and as is all too often the case with the government, the Liberals use the right words but shift the meanings in such a way that what most Canadians expect and what the Liberal government delivers are often two entirely different things.

They say “independent ethics commissioner” but we all know that since the prime minister would make the choice there is no real independence. The consultation process would be with the leaders of the parties in the House and then there would be a vote following in the House itself. Remember that the prime minister does not have to follow any recommendations that are made and the confirming vote in the House would undoubtedly be a vote in which all Liberals would mysteriously vote in favour of the prime minister's choice regardless of who the person is and what that person thinks about him.

The House of Commons ethics commissioner would work under the general direction of a committee of the House of Commons, presumably the committee on procedure and House affairs.

It is appropriate that the ethics commissioner would perform the duties and functions assigned by the House of Commons for governing the conduct of its members of the House of Commons. A code of standards would be established and at some point would become part of the Standing Orders by which we all abide.

I trust then that the committee responsible for drafting the code would take a truly a non-partisan and honest approach to this very important task.

I will commend one aspect of the bill that I certainly can support. I believe it is important to recognize that a ministerial investigation can be initiated by a formal complaint from a member of Parliament or Senator and the fact that the results of such an investigation will be made public.

That sounds very good and I certainly agree with it. However I am concerned that the public report could be sanitized by removing all confidential information and what power that report might have after that is a moot point.

If there has been a breach of ethics, I firmly believe that Canadians have a right to know. What I am not pleased with is the lack of clarity as to whether a minister of the crown, a minister of state or a parliamentary secretary would be held accountable under the same rules that would apply to all other members of Parliament. This is assumed but it is certainly not specific in the bill.

Many years ago the Canadian Alliance addressed the whole issue and in our policy statement we said:

We will facilitate the appointment of an independent Ethics Counsellor by the House of Commons. The Ethics Counsellor will report directly to the House of Commons and be given the mandate to investigate, and where applicable, recommend prosecution for conflict-of-interest infractions by a Member of Parliament and/or his/her staff.

I strongly favour a high standard of ethical conduct by government and parliamentarians. I believe this is a core value in our democracy and one of the main reasons why the Canadian public sometimes views many politicians and politics in general with disdain because we simply do not measure up to the mark.

There are members of the House, past and present, who have abused the trust that Canadians have placed in them. The end result is the democratic deficit that is apparent all across Canada today: voter apathy, low voter turnout and contempt for many politicians.

This is not to say that my Canadian Alliance colleagues and I are in any way opposed to a code of ethics. Quite the contrary, I believe that ethics and moral standards are at the very core of what we do, so much so that we must strive for and maintain the highest standards possible. The Liberal lowest common denominator is simply not acceptable to us.

If we truly want a code of ethics that applies to all current and future members of the House we must have an ethics commissioner who is chosen by all, not appointed by and answerable only to the Prime Minister himself. To do otherwise will do all Canadians a great disservice in this exercise.

I believe that we need to give active consideration to having a truly independent commissioner being approved not by just a simple House majority but by both government and opposition parties as well.

Unfortunately, when the final vote is scheduled for the bill the government majority will prevail here in this place and, in the end, the ethics commissioner will be nothing more than a political appointment of the Prime Minister and confirmed by the Liberal majority of the House.

The one way that this may be overcome, of course, is to make this a truly free vote. It would be most refreshing if we saw a truly free vote on the government benches, not the type of free vote that the Liberal government has shown time and time again, most recently in the vote on the traditional definition of marriage, which is so important to the country, when cabinet is whipped and pressure is exerted on backbenchers to violate their consciences and not stand up for the majority wishes of their constituents.

Once again I note that in my home province of British Columbia the ethics commissioner is chosen by an all party committee that makes a recommendation to the premier, who must then obtain a two-thirds confirming vote by the assembly in order to make the appointment. Alberta has a similar process.

Let us be clear: the bill is primarily a damage control exercise. When minister after minister was shown to be in conflict and either removed from his or her posting, and we see frequent changes on the government frontbench in this place, or shipped off to Denmark or shuffled off to be quiet on the backbenches, the Prime Minister simply was forced to act. The bill did not come out of the Liberal red book, although the Liberals made that promise back in 1993. It came from the anger of Canadians all across the country who are simply fed up with the way this government handles its ethical standards.

Like a good Liberal, the Prime Minister checked which way the wind was blowing and quickly came up with a poorly thought through plan. The result is the bill that we have before us today.

The ethics commissioner should be totally and completely politically neutral. I question whether under this bill that will ever be the case. For a government that has had a decade to draft and bring a bill forward for public debate, this is a poor, last minute approach to somehow substantiate the Prime Minister's legacy and leaves much to be desired.

If this is the best the Liberals can come up with in a decade of ministerial mishaps, then shame on them, and we really are concerned about the future of the country.

[Lynne Yelich, Canadian Alliance, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to contribute to this debate on Bill C-34. As we are aware from speeches in the House both today and earlier, there are many who have great concerns about the current state of ethics in government and how the current government proposes to address these concerns in the current legislation.

Let us remember first and foremost that we are privileged to be a multi-party democracy where there is a parliamentary opposition. The opposition serves as the conscience of government, acting in a way to curb unethical behaviours as well as to advance political perspectives other than those favoured by the government.

We see how important an opposition is to the workings of government when we reflect on comparable circumstances in single party states. The fact is that no matter how concerned the government of a single party state may be for the welfare of its people, corruption is far greater and far more institutionalized than is found in a multi-party democracy such as Canada's. That is due in no small part to the role of the opposition in bringing government unethical behaviours to public light and in seeking that justice be done concerning unethical behaviours.

Some might argue that ethical breaches in our current government are best addressed through public awareness, through the actions of the opposition and the actions of our Canadian investigative media. These people would argue that an ethics commissioner is not necessary or is acceptable in whatever flawed form is proposed. The fact is, while there is an active opposition in Canada and a degree of quality investigative coverage by media, both need the assistance of an independent oversight body in order to best curtail government ethical wrongdoing and to bring the wrongdoers to justice.

Let us remember that a majority government must effectively be shamed into acting against its own transgressions. If we have a government with no sense of shame, and I believe that to be the case with our current federal government, raising issues of ethical malfeasance in the House of Commons becomes little more than today's news. The government becomes too accustomed to simply shrugging off matters and assuming that gaps in public memory will ultimately save it from being at the mercy of enraged electors. Since when have we seen the current government act independently or as motivated by opposition criticisms to fundamentally change the cronyism that seems to be so readily associated with abuses of power?

This leads us to a point of debate on the legislation before us. Regrettably, Canadians need an ethics commissioner. I say “regrettably” because one would like to think that those who hold such esteemed elected public office would shirk from being associated with any actions that in any way could be called into question ethically. Unfortunately, political leadership can be visionary and charismatic or it can lead by example into an ethical cesspool. When one reflects on the Prime Minister's reactions to so many ethical concerns raised about his behaviour with public funds in matters associated with his own riding, when one sees an attitude of virtual indifference on his part to how his behaviour would appear to any reasonable person, then one can see why there is so much ethical abuse at other levels of government.

If the leader is using his position in an unethical manner, subordinates use that as a cue to what is acceptable behaviour on their own part. Let us remember that in the disgrace of Enron in the United States, as well as that of WorldCom, what was noted in both cases was a culture of deceit extending from the most senior levels downward. I would hate to think that our current government, from a leadership perspective, may be viewed as demonstrating an Enron-like culture, but there is no escaping the analogy in my view and to my regret.

We live in a world that is very different in terms of ethical concerns from the world of even a decade ago. Even a decade ago there was still some belief that conscience and deeply held beliefs would guard from corruption those in senior positions in politics, business and the professions. In terms of the professions such as law and accounting, we placed our confidence in their self-regulatory regimes. Accountants regulated accountants. Lawyers regulated lawyers.

The idea was that the accountants were in the best position to assess and discipline the breaches of ethics of other accountants. Yet what the accountants had and what the lawyers generally still have is something approaching the ethics commissioner being proposed under Bill C-34, an oversight body that is not independent in fact or in appearance. It is only after the Enron scandal and its related impact in Canada that public accountants have realized that their self-regulatory model was inadequate. They are now instead in the process of supporting the creation of a totally independent oversight regime, independent in fact and appearance, something the current federal government could use a few lessons from in my view.

Under Bill C-34, what the Liberals have suggested is the creation of an ethics overseer who really is not 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 say to other party leaders, “This is who I have chosen. What do you think?”, and then simply ignore any feedback he receives.

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 who could be biased in favour of the ruling party that chose him or her for the job.

All parties should approve the appointment so that the commissioner may be viewed as being truly independent in fact and appearance. 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 presence of accountability within this system. 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 nor was it 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 today. The Canadian people continue to yearn for a government that remains consistently committed to the highest standards of ethical behaviour, from the leadership downwards. The Canadian people continue to be disappointed in governments that once in power seem to forget the hope for change that brought them to power in the first place. Those who continue to believe in ethics in government may be viewed as demonstrating the triumph of optimism over experience. Since there is little cause for optimism in the context of the behaviour of the current government, one can only hope to see changes as matters evolve on Canada's political landscape over the next year.

Observations include the following. The bill is part of the Prime Minister's ethics initiative first announced in May 2002. It is often the case with this government that it uses the right words, but the meanings are shifted in such a way that the results are confusing.

The term “independent ethics commissioner” is misleading. Since the prime minister will make the choice, there will be consultation with the leaders of the parties in the House and there will be a confirming vote in the House. This sounds good, but we must consider that consultation with the leaders does not mandate that the prime minister may change his mind if they disagree, and the confirming vote in the House will undoubtedly be a vote in which all Liberals will vote in favour of the prime minister's choice.

The Senate ethics officer is appointed for an initial seven year term and is eligible for reappointment. The House of Commons commissioner's term will be an initial five year term and the commissioner is eligible for reappointment. The House of Commons ethics commissioner will work under the general direction of a committee of the House of Commons, presumably the committee on procedure and House affairs.

The ethics commissioner will perform duties and functions assigned in the House of Commons for governing the conduct of its members when carrying out the duties and functions of their office as members of that House. This means that a separate code will be established and will become part of the standing orders. It is this code that the commissioner will enforce.

The commissioner's supervision of cabinet ministers will be about the same as now. There is private, confidential advice to them and to the Prime Minister.

The fact that an investigation of a minister can be triggered by a formal complaint from a member of Parliament or a senator is positive, as is the fact that the results of such an investigation will be made public.

It is not satisfactorily clear that a minister of the crown, a minister of state or a parliamentary secretary can be held accountable under the same rules as those applying to ordinary members of Parliament. This is assumed but it is not specific.

We are in favour of a high standard of ethical conduct by government and parliamentarians. It is the Liberal version of ethics to which we are opposed. The Liberals, undoubtedly, will try to characterize us as being against a code of ethics if we do not vote for this bill. However we must emphasize over and over again that we object to this interpretation.

We object to the fact that an ethics commissioner appointed by and answerable to the prime minister will have jurisdiction over backbench and opposition MPs. Our primary objection is that the ethics commissioner will be appointed by the prime minister without a meaningful role by rank and file members of Parliament. The bill contains a provision for consultation with party leaders but no requirement.

The bill does not change the relationship between public office holders and the ethics commissioner. He or she will continue to administer the prime minister's code and provide confidential advice to the prime minister and to the ministers. If an investigation of a minister is requested by a senator or an MP, the ethics commissioner would be obliged to investigate it but any public report arising from this investigation could be suitably sanitized by withholding any information considered confidential.

Scandals have plagued the Liberal government and this will probably not be preventable or subject to exposure under this legislation.

Coming back to my point, the Canadian people do yearn and continue to yearn for a government that remains consistently committed to the highest standards of ethical behaviours from the leadership downward. The Canadian people continue to be disappointed in governments that once in power seem to forget the hope for change that brought them to power in the first place.

Those who continue to believe in ethics in government may be viewed as demonstrating that triumph of optimism over experience. Since there is little cause for optimism in the context of the behaviours of the current government, one can only hope to see changes as matters evolve on Canada's political landscape over the next year.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the speech by the member for Mississauga South. I appreciate his intervention in the debate but I want to suggest to him that if he is concerned about the tone of the debate and if he is concerned about the focus not only in this place but in the media and among the public at large about wrongdoings, maladministration and allegations of less than ethical behaviour, then he needs to look no further than the benches around him, the benches of the government of the day.

It is absolutely clear and we all know that when there is one rotten apple, it spoils the whole barrel of apples. That is an issue with which we have to deal. That is why we are trying to have a serious debate on the proposed legislation, Bill C-34.

The member ought to recognize that parliamentarians have not always been able to pursue allegations to their fullest satisfaction. If we look at the public accounts experience with respect to Groupaction and the sponsorship ads, if that process had been carried out to everyone's satisfaction, why were there minority reports from all the opposition parties? Why did opposition members raise concerns about being shut down, about being unable to call appropriate witnesses? Why was the concept that was clearly alive and well, the money for nothing contracts concept, not allowed full debate and discussion? That is an important issue.

The other has to do with the actions of the government in handling other allegations of corruption, other allegations of wrongdoing, for example with respect to the recent charges of high ranking officials in the Department of Health surrounding Sagkeeng Solvent Abuse Centre. It causes all of us concern when individuals are accused and are facing charges but are allowed to continue working within government, in this case within the public works department. Why for example was it so easy for Paul Cochrane, the ADM facing these serious charges, to leave the Department of Health and get a job in public works where there is direct involvement with Health Canada?

All those issues make us really wonder what the government is all about and why it is trying to hide from Parliament's scrutiny of the full extent of these allegations.

First, does the member not recognize that the actions of his own government contribute to the very problem about which he is concerned? Second, would it not have helped in the case of this proposed legislation for members on the Liberal side to have supported the idea of a different percentage in terms of the appointment of the new commissioner so that all of us would feel confident about the new ethics commissioner and none of us would feel that this person would be a lap dog for the PMO or in the hands of the Liberal Party or anything less than independent?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to follow a substantial amount of the debate today and I wanted to comment on a number of themes that have been raised.

First of all, I will declare that I support Bill C-34. It moves us in important directions to the extent that is possible given some of the pragmatic difficulties that members may have raised. There is no simple solution to finding the perfect candidate that is acceptable to all and even after that, if the decisions were not acceptable or not viewed to be acceptable, there would be some sort of allegations of bias, et cetera. This is a very difficult position to fill for both the Senate and the House.

Following up on this last dialogue with regard to the appointment process and whether there is an election, the members will know that under the act this is an order in council appointment. The position of the ethics commissioner is the equivalent to the level of a deputy minister. It is not an officer of Parliament. It is not an appointment of Parliament the same way that the Auditor General would be or the privacy commissioner or the information commissioner or the official languages commissioner. It raises the question about whether or not this position is in fact properly positioned in terms of the authority and the responsibility that the House would like to see.

As members will know, officers of Parliament are very independent. They have their own offices and, as we know from the Auditor General's office, have the mandate to discharge certain responsibilities. As we learned from the issue of the case of the former privacy commissioner, Mr. Radwanski, even Mr. Radwanski could not be removed from office by Parliament without a vote of Parliament. It is a whole different situation.

I raise the question about whether or not some members are saying that this position in fact should be an officer. Is that what it is going to take for that position to have the respect of the House?

Members should recall that when we vote on an officer of Parliament, the appointment of the Auditor General or the appointment of a new privacy commissioner when we have that interim position filled, under our rules always has been a straight vote of Parliament. If we are going to start having a special voting arrangement for the ethics commissioner, should that not also apply to the officers of Parliament? There should be some consistency in terms of the importance that we place on it. Maybe the question should be, why is this position not an officer of Parliament? I am not sure of the answer. I hope that we might be able to get the answer to that.

The other aspect as I saw throughout the debate has to do with who is covered and why. In having an ethics commissioner together with a code of conduct for members of Parliament is going to certainly enhance the transparency and the accountability of all members of Parliament and that is important. I think everybody agrees with the principle that it is important that we do whatever we can to build the confidence of the Canadian public in the profession of being a member of Parliament.

If we discuss this in a more frank sense, and many members have raised this, the issue or the risk area has never been members of Parliament at large. Members of Parliament have a budget to conduct their work, probably about 75% of which is the cost of employees and a very small amount is actually discretionary once all of the office bills, the rental of equipment and all the other things are paid. We have very little discretionary money. Effectively the influence that we would have is certainly not related to our ability to deliver grants or funding for any program that we have sole responsibility for. We do not.

Historically, the interest has been mostly related to the cabinet. Based on the debate that has gone on today, it is even further than that. Many of the examples that have been raised by members have to do with the Prime Minister's position itself and the ethics of the activity of a sitting Prime Minister.

It is very interesting that probably the genesis of the need for this kind of bill has less to do with members of Parliament at large and more to do with the cabinet and indeed the Prime Minister's Office.

The question then has to be asked, have we created in the bill a position which is going to squarely hit the target? I am not so sure that members are convinced that we have done all we could within the bill in terms of crafting the position of the ethics commissioner.

There is no question that members of Parliament would be under the umbrella of the responsibilities this person would have under our code of ethics, et cetera, and accessible and certainly transparent with regard to Parliament. The cabinet I am not so sure.

I know that in 1994 when I first came to Parliament the whole issue of the appointment of an ethics counsellor, not a commissioner but an ethics counsellor, and having that person report directly to Parliament was problematic. It was raised by the designate himself, Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson raised the whole issue about how could he discharge the responsibilities of his position and still protect the confidentiality of cabinet and those matters that would in fact be subject to cabinet confidentiality. It leaves a gaping hole.

That does not mean that everything a cabinet minister does is subject to cabinet confidentiality. In fact many of their actions and their programs are all very transparent and subject to the scrutiny of all, not only parliamentarians but the Canadian public at large. The question does become, how do we get at those items, how do we have that accountability, that ethical scrutiny, of those matters which fall under cabinet confidentiality?

To put an even finer point on it, the issue comes down to the person who is in the Prime Minister's Office. This is the most senior person in our political democratic system in Parliament. It is the Prime Minister.

That ethical scrutiny does not happen when someone raises an allegation. It happens each and every day, every time the Prime Minister speaks, every time the Prime Minister makes a decision. It happens every time there is an order in council, i.e., a decision of the cabinet, who sit at the pleasure of the Prime Minister and therefore, effectively it is the Prime Minister making the statement and it is attributable to him or her.

It is a very interesting question about whether or not the intent and the motivation of members who have raised some of the allegations in the House today are really trying to pass judgment on the ethical activity of a sitting Prime Minister.

That happens daily. The scrutiny is here in this place every day during question period. The scrutiny is in observing and participating in all of the things that happen in this place, whether it be in international affairs or another subject.

Certain cases have come up. Let me preface this part by saying that throughout the debate there has been some suggestion, and certainly allegations and innuendo in specific cases like Alfonso Gagliano and the sponsorship programs and the HRDC boondoggles. Floating around there also has been this insinuation of corruption and illegality.

This causes me some concern because in this place, when there are statements made to suggest that there is corruption in government, that is a reflection within the public's eyes, not just of the people who happen to be sitting on this side of the House but of the entire House.

One of the challenges we have had for many years is how to raise the level of this position in terms of public perception. We cannot just throw out the language and allow people to draw a conclusion that the government is corrupt or that a minister is corrupt. That is an illegal act. It constitutes a matter which under the law would be illegal.

Earlier a member was taken to task on whether there was one example of an illegality. There was not. There was nothing forthcoming. There certainly have been allegations and innuendo and we have to accept that.

Let me deal forthrightly with the situation of Mr. Gagliano who is now an ambassador. I was his parliamentary secretary. I was there during the period of Groupaction and the other companies, the sponsorship programs, the reports and paying for things that were not there. I had first-hand knowledge of what was transpiring and what was coming out. It was one of those situations where it was very difficult for a minister to defend himself because most of it was allegations which were plausible but were not yet dealt with by a jurisdictional authority.

The current Minister of Public Works and Government Services came in. I think the House will agree that he has been very forthright in terms of dealing with those allegations and how important it was that if there were payments that should not have been made, all attempts would be made to recover the money and that if there were any allegations of wrongdoing, they would be referred to the proper authorities. Those things have now happened to some extent and continue to unfold, even though it was over a year ago that this actually broke.

The public accounts committee has looked into this. The Auditor General in her review indicated that some employees broke virtually every rule in the book. The question now becomes, if there are department personnel who did not discharge their responsibilities, to what extent is a sitting minister of that department responsible for their failure to perform and in fact their performing in a way that breaks the basic rules of the House or of Parliament and the Financial Administration Act specifically?

Ministers have to take the flak, but the allegations do not relate now to either the current minister, the previous minister, or in fact the minister prior to that, who was Mr. Gagliano. Mr. Gagliano has not been implicated in these in any fashion. In this place because the opposition role is to try to embarrass the government, it is easy to talk about Mr. Gagliano and Groupaction and say, “Look at this paying for reports that we did not get”. However, there is no evidence whatsoever that has come out that Mr. Gagliano was a party to that.

Members will know that this action is still proceeding, but we have been operating in this place and the allegations and innuendoes have been made on the basis of guilty until proven innocent. Whatever happened to the presumption of honesty? How low do we have to go to compromise our reputations to smear everybody in this place simply for cheap political points? When does that stop? When do we start realizing that when matters go, whether it be to the RCMP or to the Auditor General, that those people are in those positions to discharge their responsibilities to get the answers that we need to know.

Once members get all the information, I do not know how many people are going to have to rise in this place and apologize for jumping the gun, for accusing or for presuming guilty until proven innocent. I think that we really have to be careful on this.

On Bill C-34, we need to have an ethics commissioner, yes. I am not so convinced we need a person to scrutinize ordinary members of Parliament. We all know cabinet probably has the highest risk position of being in situations where a potential conflict or an ethical breach might occur. Quite frankly we are all the ethics commissioner when it comes to the prime minister, as is every Canadian because they express themselves when they see things.

Mr. Wilson has made some pronouncements on certain things. There is nothing to say that opposition members have to accept his words, but he is a man of honour and integrity. Some members may not think so. I do. I know that under this act, Parliament, all parties, will have to be consulted on this. Parliament will have a vote and nominees will be appointed through order in council, subject to receiving the ratification by the House.

For me though, the question is whether it will be sufficient to have this person simply occupy a role that is equivalent to deputy minister. Maybe it should be the same level as an officer of Parliament. Is that important enough? I think it might be. I had not really thought about whether there were good reasons why it should not be, other than the fact that I do not know how one bridges this problem with having confidentiality. I am not even sure if maybe there should be two: one for cabinet and one for all other MPs or cabinet members acting in a capacity of an MP as opposed to acting in their role as a cabinet minister.

These things have been certainly discussed and thought out. We have come forward with a bill at this point. Members probably are not very convinced that it will satisfy everybody's wish list, even right down to whether two-thirds of the people have to support a nominee for it to be ratified. Are we going to a U.S. style, where people who are appointed to positions of responsibility somehow have to stand a test of scrutiny? Probably in this place one-third of the members of Parliament would be against anything the government brought forward. That is part of the parliamentary process. That is part of democracy. Disruption and delay is part of democracy. We do not do that with the appointments of Supreme Court justices.

I raise these questions, some of them rhetorical. We are at third reading. This is not where changes are made. In fact there are opportunities to recommit back to the committee, if the House feels strongly about it, or to accept this as a starting point and then consider, as we do with all pieces of legislation, whether we have squarely hit the target.

However I want to caution members, as we think about things like opening up the process so the public can also lay allegations against members of Parliament, that we risk breaching our parliamentary privileges and maybe raise more disruption and cynicism about our roles, if we are open to receive all allegations. I raise those maybe rhetorical-type questions for the consideration of the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central to participate in the debate on Bill C-34, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Ethics Commissioner and Senate Ethics Officer) and other acts in consequence.

I enjoyed the eloquent speech by my hon. colleague before me. Even the Q and A showed how much the official opposition is interested in raising the bar and restoring honesty, integrity and confidence in the government and in politicians.

I want to talk about integrity in government. The infamous 1993 Liberal red book has a chapter entitled “Governing with Integrity”. The Liberals used that chapter, opportunistically, to get elected to the House and form the government. The chapter talks about integrity, confidence and honesty, but since coming to power the Liberals have been governing with hypocrisy. The government has been consumed by ethical controversy, patronage scandals and even allegations of fraud. Cabinet ministers have been demoted or forced to resign.

The Prime Minister himself was caught up in a controversy over his handling of personal investments in Shawinigan. The Prime Minister maintained that pressuring the president of the crown corporation, over whom he has the power of appointment, to give a loan to a friend in no way violated ethical guidelines. The rest of us, perhaps with the exception of the member for Cardigan, know better.

The current ethics counsellor has no independence or investigative powers, is completely controlled by the Prime Minister and reports in private and in confidence to the Prime Minister, not to Parliament, about conflicts involving the Prime Minister and his cabinet ministers. The lapdog counsellor simply rubber stamps almost everything the Liberals do as ethical.

The proposed new ethics commissioner will not be as independent as he or she should be. We are also getting an independent ethics officer to oversee the conduct of senators in the other House. The Prime Minister retains the power to appoint both of them but each choice must be ratified by a vote in the respective chamber.

The Commons commissioner will be appointed for a five year renewable term and the Senate commissioner or officer for a seven year renewable term. The new commissioners, or officers, will not be truly independent if only a majority vote by a majority government is required to ratify the appointment made by its leader, the Prime Minister. We believe the opposition's approval should be mandatory.

Later on I will talk about some of the provincial jurisdictions and how they have resolved this appointment.

The Prime Minister probably hopes that this bill will end accusations that the current ethics counsellor is simply the Prime Minister's lapdog and cannot be trusted to objectively investigate potential breaches. He probably also hopes that now, by finally carrying though with the party's decade-old promise, the Canadian electorate will overlook the ethics malaise that has afflicted the Liberals. Perhaps he is introducing the legislation to distract Canadians from the systemic corruption on the Liberal front benches as well as in the Liberal Party. We know 13 investigations are currently going on. Perhaps he is introducing this legislation to fool Canadians, that the promise he made 10 years ago, and after a horrible record in the government, will be forgotten by Canadians when the time comes to vote.

Yes, the Prime Minister's ethics package is primarily a public relations exercise. The Liberals want to be able to go into next spring's election saying that they have done something about it. It is all a whitewash and it will not work.

We have to consider why we need an ethics commissioner in the first place. It is because we cannot trust the government to police its own members for it does not have any ethical standards. If the Liberals had proposed the bill after their election in 1993 could the scandals and corruption of the last decade been avoided?

Would the bill have prevented the questionable contracting activities of former public works minister Alfonso Gagliano? Would it have prevented his successor from accepting personal favours from a departmental contractor?

Would the bill have prevented the former defence minister from giving an untendered contract to his girlfriend or the former solicitor general from lobbying his own officials to award millions in grants to a college led by his own brother?

Would the bill have prevented the Liberals from ignoring the Auditor General's charge that they had mis-stated the government's financial position by $800 million in 1996 and $2.5 billion in 1997?

When I was a member of the public accounts committee I remember that the Auditor General refused to sign the government's books simply because the government had paid for a foundation that was not even in existence on the day the government's books closed. If this were done in private business people would be put in jail.

Would the bill have prevented the government from interfering with the Somalia inquiry when its efforts to get to the bottom of document destruction at National Defence threatened to expose people at the top?

Would the bill have prevented the government from attempting to obstruct the Krever inquiry into the tainted blood scandal when it threatened to expose culpability on the part of the Liberals at high levels?

Would the bill have prevented the systematic misuse of taxpayer dollars for partisan purposes in the billion dollar boondoggle at HRDC?

Let us consider a member of the current cabinet, the industry minister. I do not want to be personal but let us look at his record. As justice minister he indicated that the gun registry would cost $119 million and would collect $117 million in fees. The Auditor General told us that the justice department failed to provide sufficient information to Parliament, or probably misled Parliament, to allow it to effectively scrutinize the Canadian firearms program.

As early as November 1996, the justice department was aware that its earlier cost profiles were widely inaccurate. As justice minister he also bungled the Airbus inquiry. As health minister he mismanaged the hepatitis C, tainted blood, Cipro and cigarette smuggling files. Despite all these failures, he continues to sit happily in cabinet in the front row. That is how low Liberal ethic standards have fallen. Is it any wonder that the Canadian public is losing faith in their politicians? Those are the root causes of why Canadians are losing faith in their politicians.

Back in 1992, when testifying before a parliamentary committee considering proposed ethics rules for members of Parliament and senators, the member for LaSalle—Émard, the unofficial prime minister elect, supported a fully independent, fully empowered ethics watchdog, and I quote, “to provide the public with the assurance that individual transactions which might be in conflict have been handled in a fair and legitimate manner”.

After 1992 here he is, the former finance minister and the prime minister in waiting, saying that he has a special privilege for his blind trust. I call that the blind trust for the public but not for him. It has become a see-through blind trust for him. We know a conflict of interest is there. How he made that statement and how we find out goes afterward.

The member for LaSalle—Émard, of course, was the co-author of the infamous Liberal red book, the red book that promised an independent ethics counsellor who would be appointed after consultation with the leaders of all parties, not only appointed by the Prime Minister, but in consultation with the leaders of all parties, and who would report, not to the Prime Minister in confidence or in private, but to Parliament.

Two years ago the former finance minister, along with the rest of the Liberal caucus, voted against a Canadian Alliance motion to establish an independent ethics counsellor who would report to Parliament. It is the height of hypocrisy for members who asked for an independent ethics commissioner or counsellor to then get elected and thereafter vote against such a motion.

The prime minister elect now claims that strong, independently enforced ethics rules will discourage people like him from becoming politicians. What a difference a decade can make. He more than happily relied on the Prime Minister's ethics lapdog to clear him of past conflicts involving Canada Steamship Lines. Even though the former finance minister has given up control of Canada Steamship Lines to his sons or family members, he still has to exclude himself from cabinet talks relating to shipping and the St. Lawrence Seaway and so forth because family control still represents a potential for conflict of interest. I see something wrong with this picture that I have shown.

The ethics commissioner will determine the precise issues from which the member for LaSalle—Émard must step away. However he would not report to Parliament on that since he only reports, in confidence and in private, to the Prime Minister. The integrity of the new commissioner hinges on total, not partial, independence. The precursor to having an efficient independent ethics commissioner is that the ethics commissioner would not report to the person who appoints the ethics commissioner. By extension, the integrity of the former finance minister's divestment requires that it be overseen by a truly independent commissioner, not a subordinate.

The following is how the Liberals operate. They get into cabinet. They have tremendous influence over how tax dollars are spent and grants are doled out. They take full advantage of it. The Prime Minister has always said that MPs, in cabinet or out, should fight for as much largesse as possible for their ridings. He has demonstrated that by examples. Shawinigan now has a wonderful water fountain in the middle of a river, a high priced national gallery art exhibit and $1.6 million in federal funding for a horse show, and so on.

Conflicts of interest are integral to this Liberal regime. Taxpayers do not want ministers lobbying or bullying officials, or agencies answering to them.

Ministers should be working, not only for Liberal friends but for all Canadians all of the time. Government officials and institutions must be absolutely free to act in the interests of the public at large and not the cabinet ministers nor their Liberal friends.

In 1996 the Supreme Court of Canada set out a principled government ethics standard, writing that:

...given the heavy trust and responsibility taken on by the holding of a public office or employ, it is appropriate that government officials are correspondingly held to codes of conduct which, for an ordinary person, would be quite severe.

It is not necessary for a corrupt practice to take place in order for the appearance of integrity to be harmed.

This is one time that the Liberals have failed to heed the words of the Supreme Court.

Until the resignation of the former minister of national defence, nobody had been forced to resign. Does that mean the Prime Minister actually dealt with the problems that would lead to resignations? Absolutely not; it just meant his standard was that no one ever had to resign. He has a code of conduct that is completely different from that of past Canadian prime ministers, one that is an historic low. If ministers engage in misconduct or gross incompetence or outrageous statements, they are backed to the hilt by the Prime Minister. All of this of course just generates cynicism. After talking about ethics and opportunistically getting elected on this issue, the Liberals have turned around and done nothing about it. It is a shame.

Bill C-34 is flawed. This is a government that believes in half measures. That is what we are debating today: a half measure full of loopholes. With Bill C-34, the Liberals have ensured that a new ethics watchdog for ministers will be an unaccountable, government controlled lap dog.

The ethics commissioner will not be completely independent. He or she will be appointed by the prime minister and will report privately and in confidence to the prime minister. This appointee will simply be rubber-stamped by the majority government; there will not be a free vote in the House, as we know from the record. There should be an ethical system of high standards in place to appoint, select or choose an ethics commissioner.

In British Columbia, for example, an ethics commissioner is chosen by an all party committee which makes a recommendation to the premier, who must then obtain two-thirds of the votes in the legislature to confirm the appointment. A similar process also exists in Alberta, but a two-thirds majority is not required there; all parties are consulted and there is a free vote on it.

This commissioner will continue to be a confidential adviser to the prime minister and that is not what the mandate should be. The prime minister can continue to maintain secrecy by having an ethics commissioner who will report only to him. Bill C-34 is just a damage control exercise, just a cover-up to cover up the horrible record of the Liberal government in the past decade.

We know that members of Parliament, their spouses or backbenchers are not the source of government scandals. We know what the source of government scandals is and we know who is responsible for all these mishaps. This is where a watchdog is required. We do not have any objection to it not being for everyone, but at least that is where the focus should be. I believe that the ethics commissioner should be totally neutral politically. He or she should not have any incentive to serve government members or cabinet members. We know that presently the term is renewable, but who renews that term? It is the prime minister who will renew that term, so in whose interests will the commissioner serve? The prime minister's, naturally. That is wrong and it is unethical. I believe the ethics commissioner should be ethically appointed, not unethically appointed.

[James Rajotte, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

I think the B.C. model is one that should be seriously considered. That is where we would have a parliamentary committee made up of members from all parties. Members could submit names to the committee. It would consider those names. Then there would be a unanimous recommendation from the committee or a consensus from the committee to submit a name to Parliament for full approval. That would certainly be a much better way than what is proposed in Bill C-34.

[James Rajotte, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his comments. He has been our leader on all of these ethics issues and is an excellent example of a member of Parliament with integrity.

I appreciate his comments about Mr. Wilson. I frankly felt the same way. There were a few members in committee who went after him and I thought it was inappropriate. He is in a difficult position.

I want to read further from the committee evidence because it highlights how difficult a position Mr. Wilson was in. This is from the industry committee of June 13, 2002. I went through what powers the ethics counsellor had and I think it is really instructive:

With regard to allegations against cabinet ministers, do you not have the legislative power to subpoena witnesses?

The response was:

No, I do not.

My other question was:

If someone does not want to produce evidence, you do not have the legislative power?

The answer was:

That is correct.

Another question was:

--do you have the legislative power to compel evidence?

Mr. Wilson's response was:

I think you have to appreciate, sir, that this is a code and not a piece of legislation. It sets up the principles under which ministers conduct themselves, and some rules pertaining to disclosure.

I went on to question:

So if you determined that an infraction was committed by a certain cabinet minister, you would provide that advice to the Prime Minister, but it's basically up to the Prime Minister himself as to whether or not he decides to follow through on that infraction and dismiss that person from cabinet.

Mr. Wilson stated:

That is exactly correct. It's his responsibility.

He went on to state:

I have insisted that my role is that of a counsellor who provides advice to the Prime Minister and administers the Conflict of Interest Code.

That shows the difficult the position Mr. Wilson was in. He was appointed and he was under the purview of the Prime Minister. Then he had to report any ethical infractions, in his view, to the Prime Minister who then, as he admitted himself, would have broken the new guidelines that were being proposed.

It just sets up a system frankly where a person who is judging conflict of interest is almost put in a conflict of interest himself and his hands are tied. We do not want that situation repeated which is why we want the bill changed. It is to have a better appointment process.

In terms of Bill C-34 and cabinet ministers, and whether or not they would want to have full transparency and airing of views, I fully agree with the member. I would think that it would be Liberal members of Parliament, who have a high standard themselves, who would be the people calling loudest for transparency, openness and reform. If there is one bad apple in a bunch, if a cabinet minister is bad, it impacts on the entire cabinet. It has a reflection on the entire cabinet. We would think that the rest of cabinet would stand up and say that this is impacting on their ability to do their job and impacting on their perception by the Canadian public. They would want it stopped along with a full airing of the investigation and the facts. Therefore, it seems to me that it should be government members themselves who should be the strongest proponents of transparency.

I strongly encourage those members opposite to vote for the amendment, to send the bill back to committee so that we can have a good process at appointing a truly independent ethics commissioner.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I value the intervention that my colleague has made today especially because he sits on the industry committee which is the overseer committee that the ethics commissioner presently answers to. He made allusion to the fact that he did not know Mr. Wilson. I would probably put myself into that same classification even though I have been around longer and have probably had more direct contacts with Mr. Wilson.

I must share with the House that I often genuinely felt sorry for the man because I had, and to a degree still have, a lot of respect for the individual. I can say that honestly because even though we felt that there was a real shortcoming in the way some of the investigations were conducted, he honourably conducted himself as required by the Prime Minister. In that sense, he need not hang his head in shame.

As my colleague has indicated, under the present system, the ethics commissioner has his hands tied. He is appointed by the Prime Minister, he answers to the Prime Minister, and even though he may table a report to Parliament in all instances, it is not a requirement to fully divulge the issue that is at hand. This is a very serious flaw.

The thing that I am concerned about in Bill C-34 is that with respect to dealing with charges of conflict of interest of cabinet ministers, it appears to me that nothing has changed and that is regrettable. I have said before in my speech that, if a charge is laid and if in fact the person is guilty, the public has a right to know on what grounds the individual was found guilty and there ought to be penalties. If the individual having been charged is judged to be not guilty, then that person should be fully and totally exonerated. If that were to occur, then it almost would require public disclosure of the facts on which the conclusion was based in order that the public would fully trust the judgment that was been made.

I know there would be some cases where one could say that we were treading into grounds of personal privacy and that some things ought not to be disclosed. I do not know, but it seems to me that if I were a cabinet minister being unjustly charged and part of the investigation went into some of my personal affairs, I would gladly give permission for those personal affairs to be made public if it were to help clear my name. I made mention of that, for example, when we were dealing with the government credit cards being used by a cabinet minister. All these things were whited out and the reason given was that this was private.

I argued that if the individual put charges on a government card, it has moved out of the range of being called private. It is now public. I said at that time, and I would still say the same thing if it were to clear my name and show that everything was done properly. At the present time at least I would have no problem showing my private credit card statements. I have nothing there to hide if people want to know that I went to Pizza Hut. There is other evidence that supports that, too; there is just nothing there to hide.

We need to carefully rethink how important all these privacy issues are and whether or not the ethics counsellor, now the ethics commissioner, should make all of the hearings public and that the amount of stuff that is withheld due to privacy considerations be minimized. I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that.

[James Rajotte, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to address Bill C-34, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Ethics Commissioner and Senate Ethics Officer) and other acts in consequence.

At the outset of my speech, I would like to explain the purpose of the bill as stated.

It has a twofold purpose. The first is to provide for the appointment of an ethics commissioner whose duties and functions would be assigned by the House of Commons regarding the conduct of its members and to administer any ethical principles, rules or obligations established by the prime minister for public officer holders.

The second purpose is to provide for the appointment of a Senate ethics officer whose duties and functions would be assigned by the Senate regarding the conduct of its members.

Of course I do not have to tell members this but I always like to remind the House that we on this side of the House would prefer to have a Senate which is fully elected and fully accountable to the people of Canada. We think it is time for the upper chamber to be elected, to be a fully democratic body, so both of our legislatures within our bicameral system are fully elected. Free elections should take place and I think we all realize and recognize that.

In terms of the ethics commissioner for the House of Commons, I want to make some substantive comments, particularly with regard to the consultation process that is apparently supposed to take place between the prime minister, after the prime minister designates such an individual, and the other opposition parties.

We should recognize that if we did have a genuine independent ethics commissioner, this could do a lot toward revitalizing the public support for such institutions as noble as the House of Commons. However we have to ensure then that the manner in which they are appointed, the manner in which they are selected, is above reproach and is unquestioned. Unfortunately, this bill fails to do so.

The bill does call for consultation between the prime minister and the various leaders of parties represented in the House, but the decision as to who shall be appointed is ultimately the prime minister's alone. This single-handedly bestows control onto the prime minister.

It was interesting to hear the government House leader this morning say that this was a process that an opposition member within the Canadian Alliance had suggested. Apparently that is not true.

What happened, and he should know this better than anyone, was there was no process set up for the government appointing people, and one such example was the Commissioner of Official Language. Our government House leader at the time, the member for Langley—Abbotsford, suggested a process such as this take place. That was not a legislative guidance. It was guidance for a committee and for Parliament as to how it should appoint people.

However the government House leader still failed to answer my direct question which was this. If the prime minister selects an individual and if the Leader of the Opposition disagrees with that selection, it does not matter because the prime minister in the situation now holds a majority. It does not matter if the Leader of the Opposition, or the leader of the NDP or the Bloc or the Conservative agrees because the prime minister ultimately controls the majority of the House of Commons, controls the majority of the members and can therefore, at his or her selection, deem who is the ethics commissioner.

This is a fundamental problem. We do need genuine consultation.

It is interesting that with the present ethics counsellor, members of the government side will insist that there was consultation. We heard this at the industry committee, when Howard Wilson was before our committee because the ethics commissioner reports to the industry committee, that Howard Wilson was appointed after consultations with the opposition leaders. I then asked Preston Manning, who was the opposition leader when Howard Wilson was appointed, if the Prime Minister ever called him and asked whether this was a good appointment. He said that the only call he got was a notification that Howard Wilson would be the ethics counsellor. Now if this is consultation, it is just not appropriate and it is not acceptable.

If there is to be genuine consultation, one possible suggestion I will make is we follow the B.C. model. A parliamentary committee would put forward names, the committee would then discuss these names and make a unanimous recommendation to Parliament as to who should be the ethics commissioner. That certainly seems to be a much better system than to have the prime minister designate who shall be the ethics commissioner.

A lot of people talk about clouds of scandals and corruption. I know members opposite will ask for examples to substantiate our claims. I do not want to go through a whole laundry list but I want to go through what happened at the industry committee with the current ethics counsellor because I think it really describes very well how the ethics counsellor's hands are tied right now. I do not know him that well personally. I do not know what kind of a person he is. I assume he is an honourable gentleman. The fact is his hands are tied. He is not an independent ethics commissioner.

It was very interesting when he appeared before the industry committee. Three essential points were made from our side of the committee. This was when he was bringing in his new rules and regulations, arguing with some of what the government is doing in this bill today. I think it explains to people why there is this legislation before us today. The member for Macleod summarized the position to the ethics counsellor.

I will read it directly. He said, “Firstly, you and your office have no legislative or sanctioning authority or power”. That is no authority provided by legislation to summon, whether it is a cabinet minister or a member of parliament to compel evidence. This really limits the power of the current ethics counsellor.

He went on to say, “Secondly, the Prime Minister would have broken these new guidelines if he had contacted the BDC today”, under the guideline that were being proposed. I want to touch on that point later in my speech.

Then he said, “Thirdly, these guidelines”, the guidelines that were being proposed, “do not address any of the ethical problems, the morass, that we've been involved in over the last two months or so”. This was last year, so this would obviously be at that time period.

I will then go on to what the ethics counsellor was saying at that time with respect to the fact that the Prime Minister would have broken these guidelines that were being proposed if he had indeed contacted the head of the Business Development Bank, which he did in the Shawinigan case.

I quote a discussion between my colleague, the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke and Mr. Wilson. The question from our member was:

I'd like to clarify this evolution of the guidelines that you're talking about. If the guidelines for the ministry and crown corporations had been in place, would the Prime Minister have violated these rules—the first rule, in fact—by making representations to the president of the Business Development Bank of Canada on behalf of the constituent?

This is obviously what happened in the Grand-Mère case.

The response from Mr. Howard Wilson was:

If they had been in place? They were not. No rules were in place, but there are now rules. Therefore, as the Prime Minister himself said the other day at his press conference, I will not make such a call.

The member, our colleague, pressed it further. She asked:

If the same incident were to occur today that occurred in the past with this crown corporation, would there be a breach of these guidelines?

Mr. Wilson responded:

There would be, yes. That's correct.

It is quite an admission from the ethics counsellor that had these guidelines been in place when he lobbied the head of the Business Development Bank, the Prime Minister himself would have broken the guidelines.

The whole issue points to the fact that the ethics counsellor realized he broke the guidelines. However even when we challenged the ethics counsellor and asked him how he would enforce it, he defended the Westminster system of Parliament and said that it should actually rest with Parliament, the Prime Minister and the whole view of responsible government, that he himself could not intervene in that and therefore he did not want to overrule it.

We asked him further if that ultimately left the whole question of impropriety or ethics within the view of the Prime Minister. He said yes, that was true. It did not leave it within Parliament or within an ethics counsellor such as himself or an ethics commissioner, it left it within the view of Prime Minister.

Then he admitted at the same hearings that in fact the Prime Minister would have broken these guidelines. Therefore, the person who broke these guidelines is now the one who will enforce all these guidelines and who will now appoint a so-called independent ethics commissioner, which in our view will not be independent because the necessary appointment process is not in place.

We see that as a fundamental problem and that is why we have proposed the amendment. We would hope that the government House leader would see the wisdom in returning the bill back to the committee so members, like the member for Elk Island, can further reform the bill to ensure there is an appointment process in place, similar to what happens in B.C., where it is generated from a parliamentary committee by unanimous consent and a name is submitted to parliament.

I suspect that if we could get a parliamentary committee to agree unanimously to a name, Parliament would certainly agree to that name.

That is our hope in putting forward the amendment and it really is incumbent upon all of us because all of us are considered politicians and public figures. Whether Liberal, Alliance or PC, there is a perception of politicians that is frankly not acceptable. If we look at the positions that mothers and fathers want their children to fulfill, politicians almost end up at the bottom of the list. That is not how it should be.

There are many fine men and women in Parliament and there are many fine men and women who should seek to sit in Parliament. It should be, as the Greeks described it many years ago, a place where people who are noble seek to serve. We need to reform our institutions and the perception of our institutions.

We need to do things like appointing an independent ethics commissioner so we can reassure the public that their interests are being looked after, that taxpayer dollars are being respected, and that they as citizens have parliamentarians of which they can be proud. In many cases they do so now, but this would certainly go to address a lot of the cynicism and apathy we currently have in Canada.

I call on government members opposite to seriously consider the amendment of returning the bill to committee so that we can rework it and truly have an independent ethics commissioner here in Canada.

[Rob Merrifield, Canadian Alliance, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege and a pleasure to stand and speak on behalf of our party and the people of Yellowhead on Bill C-34. This is a very important piece of legislation that is long overdue, but there are a lot of problems with it.

We have to ask ourselves what the point of this legislation is and what it is all about. To do that, we have to define what a conflict of interest is. Quite simply, a conflict of interest occurs when an individual puts his own interest ahead of the interests of the public. This is especially true in a public trust situation like that which every member of this House is entrusted with.

The bill goes right to the heart of the Liberal government's integrity. The bill is not about damage control, which is honestly what the government is trying to do. The bill is not about openness or accountability, no matter how much the members from across the way have tried to make us believe that as we have listened to the debate here today.

Bill C-34 is only a half-baked measure. The bill is a response to Canadians losing confidence in their members of Parliament. We saw that in the last election when 40% of the electorate refused to come out and vote. The electorate has lost a lot of confidence in the House.

There are obligations that all members of Parliament should take very seriously. What can members of Parliament do to freshen up the image of Parliament across Canada as the Canadian electorate looks at us? We must ask ourselves what makes the electorate say that politicians look so slippery and sleazy and why politicians are so low in popularity at the ballot box when individuals look at the credibility of politicians.

This is happening because of some of the things we see occurring and it happens when we see the government trying to bring in a piece of legislation to defend itself from some of the things we have seen.

It has certainly been an interesting response that we have had from the Liberal government. It is not that we are seeing a denial of wrongdoing or ministers sent off to the chopping block. There has been no apology to Canadians for the abuse of power entrusted to the government, which is what we should have seen. We have seen half measures in regard to what the Liberals promised Canadians back in 1993 in regard to how they would do things differently.

I listened with great interest to my colleagues across the way as the Liberal House leader commented on how he remembered the days when he was in opposition. I think many of us remember the days when the Liberals were in opposition and how they promised to do things differently once they came to power.

One thing the Liberals promised Canadians is that they would clean up this image, this idea of how we as politicians are to be more credible. This was penned by the then leader of the opposition, the member from Shawinigate, who promised Canadians that if elected he would appoint an independent ethics commissioner, one that reported directly to Parliament and not to the Prime Minister. This was a policy authored by that then prime minister in waiting, and by the member for LaSalle—Émard, and if members ask why I would mention him, it is that he is now the next prime minister in waiting.

However, once the trouble of an election was over, the Liberal government broke that promise with Canadians and appointed an ethics counsellor with limited powers, one who owed his career to the Prime Minister and one who reported secretly and directly to the Prime Minister. This is but one on a long list of broken promises, promises that were made to the Canadian people over the last 10 years.

The Liberals are, however, a government best known for wasting billions of dollars. They are best known for having expensive tastes in restaurants on the taxpayers' dime, for missing contracts, for contracts written on the backs of napkins and for the common practice of awarding untendered contracts to Liberal friends.

Why would they want a cabinet watchdog? We have to ask ourselves why the Liberals would not have honoured that promise. What is so difficult about it? Why the hedging? Why the delay of a decade? All of this really makes us sit back and wonder.

This ethical problem with the Liberal government came to a head in February 2001 when Parliament voted on a Canadian Alliance motion calling for Parliament to appoint an independent ethics counsellor. It was one of the first votes that I myself as the member for Yellowhead voted for in the House of Commons. It was a motion that was taken directly out of the 1993 red book that promised this to the people of Canada. Instead of embracing democracy and transparency, the Liberal government made the motion a confidence vote and forced Liberal backbenchers to toe the new party line. That was another abuse of democracy.

I am becoming more and more alarmed and more and more amazed at how dysfunctional the House of Commons has become. I have only been here a little over two years and am relatively a newcomer. I can say that the erosion over the last 30 years has come to the point where we cannot ignore it anymore. We have seen power shrink down into the Prime Minister's Office and the Press Gallery.

Members of Parliament must understand and discern that and be prepared to do something about it. Power must be taken out of the Prime Minister's hands and given back to the people of Canada. Members of Parliament must vote the will of the people who put them here because that ultimately is what democracy is all about. Democracy is about speaking on behalf of the people we represent. If we are not free to do that in the House of Commons, then we do not have democracy in this country.

Many of our forefathers fought in wars for the ability to differ on ideas and to debate those ideas and then to do what was in the best interests of all Canadians. Those are the fundamentals of democracy. If we are not prepared to fight for them in the House, then we have given democracy away and shame on us.

The people of Canada are rightfully judging us as individuals in the House of Commons who are not prepared to do what we say we are going to do, and not prepared to speak on their behalf as the Parliament of Canada. If Liberal MPs cannot support their own Liberal platform, that says a lot about the commitment, the promise and the ethics of the government.

While the Prime Minister was out of the country and did not vote in 2001, the prime minister in waiting, the former finance minister, was here and voted against his own election promise. He made this comment after the vote, “It never bothers me to vote with the government”.

Is that so? Does he feel that way even when the government is voting against its own promises? What about voting for the promises it made? What about voting for what is in the best interests of Canadians? What about voting for democracy? What about voting for transparency? That does not inspire confidence in me when I think about the next prime minister of this country.

Bill C-34 is a miserable half measure for dealing with the questionable ethical actions of the government. No matter how often the Liberal government says it is setting a new ethical standard with Bill C-34, it does not make it true. The purpose of setting higher ethical standards is about climbing over the bar, not slithering under it. It is important for us to understand Liberal ideology. Canadians need to understand.

Since I have been here over the last two years I have seen the Liberal playbook. I am able to discern a bit how that playbook goes. I would like to lay out a few plays that I have seen happen.

Play number one, during an election, promise Canadians policies that are in the best interests of the country. Play number two, after the election, forget the promises that were made and do what is in the best interests of the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party. Play number three, ignore opposition proof of questionable ethics and integrity and if we pretend nothing is wrong, then Canadians will then also believe nothing is wrong. Play number four, if reporters ask too many questions, send a loyal cabinet minister to Denmark. Play number five, implement legislation with a catchy title that will not actually do anything. Make sure MPs get a call from the whip.

Bill C-34 breaks Liberal promises of an independent ethics commissioner by only allowing the parliamentary ratification of the Prime Minister's appointment. It is time to end the charade of the ethical watchdog who is hand-picked by the Prime Minister.

I do not believe in criticizing the government without explaining what could be better, what could be more positive, what Canadians have come to expect and should come to expect from a government that is ethical, a government that is truly voting and working in their best interests.

The proposed Liberal model simply calls for the majority approval of the Prime Minister's own appointment. There are provinces that have the same sort of ethics commissioner. They actually look for two-thirds of the vote but not from the Prime Minister's appointment but from the legislature's appointment.

The ethics watchdog will still owe his or her job to the Prime Minister under the bill. He or she will secretly report to the Prime Minister. A truly independent commissioner must have the approval of all opposition parties as well. That ethics commissioner is one who really is working in all of our best interests on behalf of Canadians. If the commissioner does not garner the support of all members of the House, he or she certainly will not garner the support of all Canadians. Ultimately that is what this is all about because we are entrusted to work on behalf of Canadians.

If Bill C-34 is the best that the Liberals can come up with, with a decade of miserable ministerial mishaps, then we should all be very disappointed. The government has thrown in the right catchwords, so we can call it an independent ethics commissioner. I think that is what it really wanted, to get the right wording in the bill, but the reality is until the commissioner reports directly to Parliament, the government is not fooling anyone.

Liberal backbenchers should be concerned that their leaders are willing to paint all Liberals with an ethically challenged brush. I do not believe that is true. Most members of Parliament are very ethical individuals, individuals who really do want to do what is right. Bill C-34 is a direct response to the government's inability to ensure cabinet lives up to the highest ethical standards. Instead of shedding light on the workings of cabinet ministers within departments and their business holdings, the Prime Minister has cast blame on all members of Parliament, who are included in Bill C-34.

Why would we not want to hold those who have the money, those who have the power to the highest ethical standards and in the most transparent way? Under the bill all opposition and Liberal backbenchers are held to a higher standard than the people who have the power and the money. To me, that just does not make any sense at all when thinking of it on first blush.

The cabinet ministers pick the programs. That is how government works. The Prime Minister approves those projects and the finance minister cuts the cheque. That is really how it works.

I certainly do not have a problem with the transparency of members of Parliament. I think that is fine. However Bill C-34 tries to address the problems of the questionable ethical decisions by cabinet by broadening the mandate to include all members of Parliament.

All members of Parliament should be concerned that the bill also does not turn into political intimidation. By ensuring that the ethics commissioner secretly reports to the Prime Minister, members of Parliament will be unable to defend themselves from unwarranted investigations.

Bill C-34 in my mind is a pathetic response to the ethical challenges facing the Liberal government. It is a half measure and it will do nothing to improve cabinet transparency. Bill C-34 will do nothing to restore the confidence in the government. It will do nothing to address the broken promises that the government has had over its history of the last decade.

Canadians deserve an independent ethics commissioner who reports directly to Parliament. They deserve nothing less. Until we are prepared to challenge the bill, correct it and be able to make it right on behalf of all Canadians, they will not trust us, nor should they, nor should they trust the government.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is certainly true that we live in a time warp world. It is difficult for me to believe that at 10 o'clock I was at the Edmonton airport and now I am here rising to speak on this important bill.

Because of the fact that I could not get away earlier, I would like to thank all of my colleagues in my party for carrying the debate. I knew that things were in good hands even though I am supposed to be the chief critic on this particular issue.

The question of ethics is one that has permeated discussion about Parliament and our government for as long as I can remember. Long before I had any interest directly in politics, I remember there being charges and countercharges of scandals, misdoings and misbehaviour. As a matter of fact, it was a general conception in the minds of people about the misconduct of certain members of the previous government that gave the Liberals the government in 1993. Perhaps some of those perceptions were misplaced. According to the records now, when we look at the court decisions and the appeals that were made, it looks as if some of that was ill-founded and that is sort of a bright light.

Yet, it is true that as leaders in our country--right now 301 of us, soon to be 308 members of Parliament, and over 100 senators--Canadians deserve to receive from us a highly decent, ethical behaviour. The member for Edmonton North was here before 1993, but most of us arrived in 1993 and many of us have continued to be re-elected because we still stand for the same things.

Our message over those years has been that we want to contribute as much as we can to improving the ethical behaviour of parliamentarians, certainly of the government, that is, the Prime Minister and cabinet, and also of members in the other place, as well as bureaucrats and civil servants. Very frankly, it has been my observation that most people in those different categories that I have named do want to do what is right. I know I do.

I sat beside a young lady in the airplane today and we talked just briefly about this issue. She was surprised to find me in the economy section of the plane. I said that in 1993, when I was first elected, I pledged to the electors in the riding of Elk Island that I would spend the taxpayers' money as if it were my own. I made perhaps a rash statement. I had no idea I was going to gain 30 pounds on this job, but I made the rash statement that I would never spend $1,000 of my own money to sit in front of the curtain. Now, of course, it is sometimes a little uncomfortable for the people who are right beside me and some people have encouraged me to get into the wider seats, but I have held my ground on it and I intend to continue to do so as long as that is physically possible.

I am going to do a little free advertising for WestJet. Last week I travelled with WestJet and saved the taxpayers well over $1,000 just by going with WestJet instead of Air Canada. It was a perfectly fine flight with almost a new airplane, and a wonderful and exuberant staff happy in their work. It was really a joy to fly with WestJet. The only difficulty is that the scheduling is still a little thin because it is a smaller company, so to get the connections at exactly the time when it is most suitable is a difficulty, but I thought that if I could earn the taxpayers $150 an hour, maybe I should consider doing that. Actually it would be quite a bit more than $150, I just pulled that number off the top of my head.

It is something we should all have, first as a guiding principle so we will do what is right and what is fair to the taxpayers, voters, and citizens of our country irrespective of any rules or regulations or codes that are put our way and irrespective of people who are appointed, like an ethics commissioner or ethics counsellor, or ethics officer, as the position is referred to in the Senate.

I believe one should do what is right irrespective of whether or not there are regulations that say it and irrespective of whether or not there are people out there who are going to catch individuals if they do not do what is right.

Speaking of that, I had a very interesting interview with some of the media last week. They talked about the government operations and estimates committee, of which I am a part. One of the reporters asked me if I did not feel that this committee was feeling its oats; we got Radwanski and now we were going after the Governor General. I said no, they had it wrong. I could not speak for all the members of the committee, but I was greatly saddened by what we found when we investigated Mr. Radwanski's expense sheets.

It is so sad when people who should have the trust of Canadians breach that trust. I said that to the reporters. Of course they chose not to use that particular clip on television. When they interview someone for five or eight minutes, they get to choose the six seconds they use and that particular cut did not make it. However it is very critical. We should never, ever feel happy when we find somebody doing wrong. We should always feel sad and remorseful that that actually happens.

My whole perspective in working in the ethics portfolio over the last 10 years, first in the reform party and now Canadian Alliance, is that we need to do basically two things. First, we need to ensure that those who are ethically challenged, that is, they do not have a strong built-in moral compass, know what the rules are. Most of us rely on our common sense, but every once in a while there is something that is a little marginal and people will ask if that is wrong and what is wrong with it? Let us spell it out then so that it is clear, so that an individual who is working on behalf of Canadians knows what is expected.

The second thing, and this is equally important, is that there ought to be a method of accountability. One of the great strengths of a democracy is that there is a continual chain of accountability.

I regret that I cannot use a board here. I was a teacher and an instructor for some 31 years and I like blackboards, chalkboards, whiteboards, overhead projectors, and nowadays, PowerPoint presentations and all these things. I like visual aids, so I will have to draw this in the air.

When I meet with students, as I guess all of us do frequently as members of Parliament, I like to draw a big circle on the board. I tell them this is how democracy ought to work. The electors elect the member of Parliament. Whoever gets the most seats forms the government and chooses the Prime Minister and the cabinet, indirectly of course. We have all the people in government who are responsible to the cabinet and then through the minister. That is called ministerial responsibility. It is a great responsibility that ministers have and, again, it is regrettable that in their departments things happen that ought not to happen.

I know the HRDC minister went through the wringer when she tried to correct errors that occurred in her department. She was responsible for those serious problems in her department even though she inherited them from a previous minister. However in our kind of government it is the ministers who bear the responsibility for the whole department.

The voters elect us and then we are accountable for the people we select to work for us and in our departments. In the end we make a bunch of rules and laws so that the very citizens who have elected us now become subject to those rules and laws. Therefore they cannot do whatever they want either.

I would like to indulge in a little aside here. I am concerned when our society loses the decency of good debate. I was at a pro-marriage rally yesterday and some of the young people who were there did not even like the fact that we were discussing it. I had a young lady standing next to me. I think if I had had a dB meter her screams in my ears would have been up over 100 decibels. It literally physically hurt. I asked her to please be quiet so that we could have the respect of listening to the person who was speaking. She would not stop. She looked right at me and she kept screaming in the loudest of her voice, “Stop preaching hate. Stop preaching hate”.

Anyone who knows me knows that I do not have any hatred for anyone, including her, but she would not stop long enough for me to even express it. If we do not have those elements in our democracy, that mutual respect, that care for one another and certainly the honesty to deal with financial and other matters forthrightly and honestly, then our democracy is at risk and we will trade it for anarchy and a system of government that will be much less effective.

I would like to say that over the 10 years that I have been working here, those are the premises and the circle of accountability on which I have worked, that we are responsible to the taxpayers and the citizens, and they in turn are responsible to obey the rules and laws of the land.

In every area, because of the nature of people, we have to build in some checks and balances. There are rules. If people collect employment insurance and receive benefits to which they are not entitled, the rules require them to pay the money back. That is how it has to be.

I would venture to say that most people who find themselves in a position where they need to collect some of these benefits would do so honestly. They would do the paperwork correctly to the best of their knowledge. They are not interested in ripping off the system. However, for those few people in our society, and I suppose in the House of Commons, who do not have the standards that are accepted and expected, we need rules and we need enforcement.

One of my colleagues, in his earlier speech, said that if there was never any enforcement the rules become ineffective. I sort of think that is what has happened in Ontario with the speed laws. It is incredible how blatantly people break those rules and a whole bunch of other rules. However it certainly is true that rules have to be enforced in order to be meaningful, just because there is some proportion of our population that needs that restraint.

The ethics measure that the government is now promoting is, I believe, a response to that expectation. Unfortunately, it is a little too late and it is being done in a way that really causes me a lot of concern. The real authority of government is on the front benches of the government. The Prime Minister, whether we like it or not, has a virtual clear say on whatever he wishes to have a say. He appoints the members of the Senate. He appoints the judges. He appoints over 2,000 top level bureaucrats. He has a lot of influence and a lot of control.

As we all know, there have been a number of breaches of ethical behaviour on the part of different individuals, but all of them have involved those people who have the power to give a government contract.

I know that individual members of Parliament on a very small scale do the same. We rent office space, we hire staff and we buy certain amounts of equipment. We have room on a very small scale to fail the ethical tests. However, compared to the billions of dollars that fall under the responsibility of cabinet ministers, it really is minuscule.

What does Bill C-34 do? It sets out to establish an ethics commissioner for the House of Commons. I am distressed by the fact that the ethics commissioner would be appointed by the Prime Minister. The bill explicitly states that if there is a conflict between the rules as applied in our internal code of conduct for members of Parliament and the code that is set out by the Prime Minister for cabinet ministers, then the latter shall prevail. I have concerns about that.

Any investigations that we have called for have pretty well been stonewalled. I do not want to go into the list. I find it repugnant that the number of different questions that have legitimately been asked by Canadians and, on their behalf, by the opposition and all the parties here, that those investigations lead nowhere or do not get off the ground.

Even the involvement of the Prime Minister and the fact that there was interference with the Business Development Bank, there was never any answer given to that. It was just dropped. We do not know the answer to that. Records were taken that were never accounted for. We need system of accountability.

This code and this commissioner will be consumed with, I believe too often, petty little complaints about individual members of Parliament, which often could be politically motivated. There is concern of what would happen during election time when there is no time to get out all the facts and defend oneself against a false charge. To have that commissioner appointed by the Prime Minister is an item of great concern to us in the official opposition.

I tried so hard in committee to persuade my colleagues, namely the Liberals who have the majority on that committee as elsewhere, that in order to make this work so that all members would have an absolute clear faith in the ability of the commissioner to do his or her job that there should be all party involvement in the selection of that commissioner. In their wisdom or, in my view, their lack of it, they decided to not go that route.

Instead, the legislation simply states that the Prime Minister will choose a name. It is required that he consult with the leaders of the parties but consultation is not defined. It could be just a phone call that says, “We have decided to appoint so and so as the ethics commissioner. What do you think?”. There is nothing that says that if the opposition leader says, “We do not think that is a good person to choose” or if the opposition leader objects, the Prime Minister is under no obligation to change his mind and look for someone else.

We would like to see an all party committee that would make that selection. There would be agreement of all parties. There are people who have the confidence of all members in the House. All we have to do is find them. We need to make sure that the individual has a proven track record of absolutely non-partisan fairness. If that is left simply in the hands of the Prime Minister, in investigations involving cabinet ministers, the commissioner would still report to the Prime Minister.

We have not progressed at all on the problems that have plagued us. All we are doing is engaging in a little side activity which, unfortunately, from time to time will be used to deflect valid criticism from the government at a time when it should be held accountable.

I have much more to say but I am sure some members in the House will have some questions for me. I certainly urge members to support our amendment.

[Paul Forseth, Canadian Alliance, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my constituents have long desired ethics and honesty in government and I think I have been able to give it to them through my leadership by example with honest representation as an opposition MP. However the government certainly has not set a good example.

I am motivated by the hope of most Canadians that some day Canada will have an ethical political culture. Some day I hope that any parliamentarian who is tempted to behave wrongly will be quickly found out and denounced. That illusive hope is the backdrop to the bill before us today.

Historically, both the Liberal and Conservative governments of the past have been too easily tempted to break or bend the rules for what they thought was in their political interest or to their advantage. The long term record is that Canadians have been inadequately served by ethically challenged governments. In contrast to what the Canadian Alliance has emphasized, local accountability and grassroots democracy, the Liberals: greased palm bureaucracy.

The recent revelations in the media of the dark inner workings of the Liberal Party are just the latest manifestation of its ethical deficit. The Liberals approach to the public service integrity office for whistleblowing is similar to the way they handled the ethics counsellor position. The promise had been made to create an ethics commissioner reporting directly to Parliament. The Prime Minister opted instead for a counsellor who reports directly to him, an act in itself that was not ethical. It took a series of scandals and ongoing pressure from our party to get some movement on that policy.

The way the current inadequate position operates, the ethics counsellor seems to go out of his way to try and interpret the rules as liberally, pardon the pun, as he possibly can. This is not any real surprise but is a continuation of the marginal usefulness of the ethics counsellor function under the current set up.

Patronage and special favour have been the boastful stock practices of every federal and provincial party that has ever taken office and, even to a very small degree, in regimes of such sanitary former premiers as W.A.C. Bennett of B.C. and E.C. Manning of Alberta.

Rule bending is considered more a Liberal trait or sin because such rewards for the faithful are very predictably given and could be counted upon without shame from Liberal governments. Mulroney rightly said to Turner in the 1993 TV election debate that he had an option not to deliver the long list of Liberal favours. Sadly, it did not take the new incoming Prime Minister long to stoop to the very same thing.

Parliamentary reformers always talk about open competition for posts with hiring choices made on merit, not on partisan standing, but the pleas have not diminished the practice, even for diplomatic posts where a neutral record might seem advantageous. We remember Mr. Gagliano.

The old line parties simply cannot seem to do without such rewards. Why should they? Patronage and favouritism have their roots in human nature and they have been evident in the governance of society since recorded history. It is so human to help one's relatives, friends and fellows in a common cause, and the practice is not confined to partisan politics.

No one has been making a big deal of it, but the Treasury Board policy, entitled “Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service”, is supposed to be in the hands of every federal official, great and small. Treasury Board rules and guidelines fill the shelves but seem to be routinely ignored by the government.

Repeatedly over the years, acquaintances within the bureaucracy have told me that there is patronage in filling jobs and awarding promotions in the public service as the Prime Minister's Office sets the tone at the behest of ministers and insider MPs.

When participating in any decision making related to a staffing process, public servants should ensure that they do not grant preferential treatment or assistance to family or friends. When making decisions that will result in a financial reward to an external party, public servants should not grant preferential treatment or assistance to insiders or entities who were not selected purely on objective merit. The problem of awarding purchasing contracts only on merit in an ethical manner remains a big stumbling block for the government.

The scale of public service appointments and promotions runs into the tens of thousands each year, whereas the so-called political posts monitored by the ethics counsellor only numbered several thousand. Therefore we need a culture change for the whole public service as well as a new tone in the House of Commons.

The Prime Minister is leaving so, true to form, last week or so some 50 plum appointments were made. In this transition phase we will see a lot of this Liberal unfairness for some of the most cherished appointments, including, of course, the usual dumping ground of the Senate.

Liberal MPs, bagmen, and Prime Minister cronies salivate at the prospect of a Senate place where the pace is easy and without electoral risk until the age of 75. Despite this, there are some good people there who do good things, but it is how one gets there that is the big problem.

Long ago I lost my surprise at encountering MPs and party apparatchiks on Parliament Hill who dreamed of quietly pressing for a place in the red chamber. Most aspirants rank it ahead of all other gifts at the Prime Minister's command. Since Confederation, the Senate bonanza has been a prime lure into partisan activity, encouraging continuous party loyalty.

Our party, and certainly most of the folk in my constituency, abhor political partisan and bureaucratic patronage. Unfortunately, people, being people will be tempted. The real power in federal Ottawa is now wielded by a presidential kind of Prime Minister and a Supreme Court that, since the recent charter's advent, has superceded Parliament as the highest court in the land.

In view of this wrong trend, I hope Canadians will vote in the next election as much on the ethics question as much as other things. When we talk about ethics in a public office holder context, it is more than just appearing to be honest. The object of a code is to enhance public confidence in the integrity of public office holders and the decision making process of government. The rules should encourage experienced and competent persons to seek public office. The rules should facilitate interchange between the private and public sector, and establish clarity respecting conflict of interest for post-employment practices, applicable to all public office holders. The rules should minimize the possibility of conflicts arising between private interests and public duties of public office holders, and provide for the resolution of conflicts for the public interest should they arise.

Every public office holder should conform to the following principles. Public office holders should act with honesty and uphold the highest ethical standards so that public confidence and trust in the integrity, objectivity and impartiality of government are conserved and enhanced.

Public office holders have an obligation to perform their official duties and arrange their private affairs in a manner that will bear the closest public scrutiny, an obligation that is not fully discharged by simply acting within the law. Public office holders, in fulfilling their official duties, should make decisions in the public interest with regard to the merits of each case without consideration for advantage to themselves or their political party.

Public office holders should not have private interests, other than those permitted pursuant to the code, that would be affected particularly or significantly by government actions in which they participate. On coming into office, public office holders should arrange their private affairs in a manner that will prevent real or apparent conflicts of interest from arising, but if such a conflict does arise between private interests and official duties, the conflict must be resolved in favour of the Canadian public interest.

Public office holders should not solicit or accept transfers of economic benefit, other than incidental gifts, customary hospitality or other benefits of nominal value, unless the transfer is pursuant to an enforceable contract or property right of the public office-holder.

Public office holders should not step out of their official roles to assist private entities or persons in their dealings with the government where this would result in preferential treatment to any person.

Public office holders should not knowingly take advantage or benefit from information that is obtained in the course of their official duties that is not generally available to the public. It is the so-called insider trading principle.

Public office holders should not directly or indirectly use or allow the use of government property of any kind, including property leased to the government for anything other than officially approved activities.

Finally, public office holders should not act after they leave public office in such a manner as to take improper advantage of their previous office.

We must look at these standards that I have outlined and then examine the Liberal record. The Liberals have all too often talked about ethical rules, but mostly for show. They have not had a deep commitment to transparency of activity that would naturally arise from a belief in self-control and ethical self-governance.

Sadly, it has taken years to get even this somewhat and inadequate bill entitled, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Ethics Commissioner and Senate Ethics Officers).

The Liberals promised back in the 1993 red book. However when we quoted from that book in the form a votable motion, incredibly the Liberals voted in the House against their own published red book policy.

That smiling Liberal fellow who was collecting leadership delegates this past week did that insincere flip back then by voting against the very policy that he wrote. Therefore, how can we trust anything that he may say in the future?

Briefly, the bill claims to amend the Parliament of Canada Act to provide for the appointment of a Senate ethics officer. It also requires the Senate ethics officer to perform the duties and functions assigned by the Senate regarding the conduct of its members. However the bill also amends the act to provide for the appointment of an ethics commissioner for the House of Commons. It provides for this commissioner to perform the duties and functions assigned by the House of Commons regarding the conduct of its members and to administer any ethical principles, rules or obligations established by the Prime Minister for public office holders.

The imperfections are already evident, as it is an independent Parliament as a whole that should establish the rules for self-governance, not the Prime Minister.

Bill C-34 talks about independent ethics commissioner but the term is misleading since the Prime Minister will make the choice and there will only be consultation with the leaders of the parties in the House with a confirming vote in the House.

As far as I can tell, there will be no standing committee examinations or official committee report to the House. Sadly, consultation with the other party leaders does not mandate that the Prime Minister must change his mind if they disagree. The operative word is only “consult”, rather than “obtain approval”.

The confirming vote in the House will undoubtedly be a vote in which all government MPs will be required, by their leader and party membership, to vote in favour of the Prime Minister's choice. The whip will be on.

The Senate ethics officer is appointed for an initial seven year term and is eligible for reappointment for one or more terms of up to seven years each. It is not clear to me if the senators themselves get to nominate, examine in committee and vote on their own House officer. They currently cannot even vote to select their own Speaker of their chamber.

The House of Commons ethics commissioner is appointed for an initial five year term and is eligible for reappointment for one or more terms of up to five years each. The House of Commons ethics commissioner will work under the general direction of a committee of the House of Commons, presumably the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

This commissioner will perform the duties and functions assigned by the House of Commons for governing the conduct of its members when carrying out their duties and functions of the office as members of that House. This means that a separate code will be established and will become part of the standing orders which the commissioner will enforce.

The commissioner's supervision of cabinet ministers will be about the same as it is now. No news there. This is private, confidential advice to them and to the Prime Minister.

However, the new fact that an investigation of a minister can be triggered by a formal complaint by a member of Parliament or senator is positive. The results of such investigations will be made public. Nevertheless, the public report, unfortunately, can be sanitized by removing information.

It is not sufficiently clear that a minister of the Crown, a minister of state or a parliamentary secretary can be held accountable under the same rules as those that apply to a regular member of Parliament. It may be assumed but it is not specifically clear in the bill.

In addition the ethics commissioner or his staff cannot be compelled to be a witness in an ordinary court about evidence that arises in the course of their duties. I support this though that this should serve for greater trust in the relationship when seeking advice from the commissioner.

Our party has had a longstanding blue book policy which states:

We will facilitate the appointment of an independent Ethics Counsellor by the House of Commons. The Ethics Counsellor will report directly to the House of Commons and be given the mandate to investigate, and where applicable, recommend prosecution for conflict-of-interest infractions by a member of Parliament and/or his/her staff.

That is the longstanding position of our party.

It is not clear if this bill meets that standard. Our caucus members always strive for a high standard of ethical conduct by both government and parliamentarians. It is this deluded Liberal version of ethics in this bill which we find difficult to support.

I just find it hard to understand why it has taken so long to get so little from the government, concerning ethics. The Liberals would try, as usual, to characterize us as being against a code of ethics, and we must remind that we object only to a Liberal, diluted interpretation.

We object to an ethics commissioner appointed by and answerable to the Prime Minister who will have jurisdiction over backbench and opposition MPs. That dynamic is an inappropriate blurring of the independence of Parliament from the government. Parliament is not the government. It is the special place where the government comes to obtain permission to tax and spend the people's money and get its legislation passed. The officers of the House of Commons, like for example the Auditor General, are not part of the government.

Certainly a basic flaw to this bill is that the Prime Minister will appoint the ethics commissioner without a meaningful role by rank and file members of Parliament. There is provision for consultation with party leaders but no requirement that the agreement be reached. The Prime Minister does not appoint the Speaker of the House and he should not really be involved with the commissioner's appointment or any of the officers of Parliament.

It brings to mind the flawed basis of how the Auditor General is appointed, as well as the other independent officers of Parliament, like the infamous Liberal insider Radwanski, the pugnacious former privacy commissioner. The independence of all House officers must start at the very beginning concerning how all of them are nominated, examined, confirmed and continue in tenure.

The bill does not apparently change the relationship of ministers with the ethics counsellor. He will administer the prime minister's code and will provide confidential advice to the prime minister and to ministers. If an investigation of a minister is requested by a senator or MP, the ethics counsellor is obliged to investigate but any public report arising from the investigation can be sanitized. The scandals that have plagued the Liberals will not likely be preventable or subject to much exposure under this form of legislation.

Some may say that half a loaf is better than none at all but I hope that the few MPs within the Liberal caucus who have had these kinds of matters on their minds for some time will speak up and support all parliamentarians who want a better bill. Canadians deserve a powerful and fully independent ethics commissioner. It actually may take the Canadian Alliance to deliver upon the red book promise which it copied from our blue book, the ideal that has been sought by parliamentarians for so many years. The country deserves and needs a truly independent ethics commissioner for Parliament.

To conclude, I move the following amendment:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following therefor:

Bill C-24, An Act respecting the Parliament of Canada Act (Ethics Commissioner and Senate Ethics Officer) and other Acts in consequence, be not now read a third time but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for the purpose of reconsidering Clause 4 with the view to ensure that:

(a) a standing or “an all party” committee of the House of Commons search for those persons who would be most suitably qualified and fit to hold the office of Ethics Commissioner; and

(b) the said committee recommend to the House of Commons the name of a person to hold such office.

[Dave Chatters, Canadian Alliance, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always refreshing to hear the bubbling enthusiasm of the member's endorsement of a government initiative, no matter how thinly it is disguised as being genuine.

However I certainly agree with the member that we all would like to see public confidence in elected members of Parliament and appointed members of the Senate to be beyond reproach. However I do not know how the member can muster this kind of enthusiasm after the 10 year record of the government, when there were allegations against the Prime Minister and the golf course and the hotel loan; a defence minister resigning; a couple of solicitors general resigning; advertising contracts given to friends; and the list goes on and on. All of this is happening at the same time as the Prime Minister tells us that his current ethics counsellor would do the job and would restore the confidence of the Canadian public in the government and in elected members.

After all we have heard all day long in this debate, with everyone pointing out its shortcomings, what is it in Bill C-34 that gives the member that kind of enthusiasm in his support of the bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the member will agree, however, that when it comes to the bureaucracy and the way they comport themselves, this really should be covered by the public service code of conduct.

The public service code of conduct, the House should know, thanks to the President of the Treasury Board, has been overhauled and has been implemented. I would agree that it is long overdue.

However this is not to take away from the member's point. It is extremely important that members of Parliament and senators be models for the public service. I might add that it is not just a matter of being a model. It is also very necessary to have high level transparency because it is very difficult to do the things that the member described, which essentially is to give out contracts as a form of favour, when that type of deed is going to become public knowledge.

We have a balance there. We must have the transparency that allows the deed to appear before the public, before the media, and we must have the model established by the members of Parliament and the government. I believe we are moving in that direction very strongly, not just because of this legislation, not just because of Bill C-34, but I refer the House to legislation we have already passed and that is the political financing bill.

What that did is that separated, as best we could, this time around at any rate, the receipt of money from corporations vis-à-vis the perception of those corporations that would be receiving favours.

That is the way we have to go. It is not so much what may be done wrong so much as how things are perceived. I really do believe that belatedly, absolutely belatedly, I would agree that it should have been done years ago. As someone who has been campaigning for opening up the Access to Information Act, this is of course very close to my heart.

However, in the last year or so, I think the government has moved significantly forward with legislation that improves accountability, that sets benchmarks of good behaviour. I hope Bill C-34 will pass the House within the next couple of months and I think we will all be the better for it.

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

And the Commissioner of Official Languages, as one of my colleagues pointed out.

There is another aspect of the bill that I find most fascinating and which I would also like to draw the attention of the House to. It goes back to section 72.06 that describes public office holders. Basically what this section does is it deals with the reach of the ethics commissioner in probing and monitoring the conduct of public office holders. That has to be married in the bill with another section that gives the opportunity to members of Parliament to submit a request to the ethics commissioner to investigate public officer holders and those listed under section 72.06.

Well, lo and behold, as we look down through here we see minister of the Crown, various public servants, a lieutenant governor, officers and staff of the Senate and so forth. What we find is included in those individuals whose behaviour is to be monitored by the ethics commissioner is a judge who receives a salary under the Judges Act. I think this is an enormous forward step because we do know that the judiciary has been almost completely exempt from any kind of scrutiny, other than that done in camera essentially by the judicial council.

While we have anecdotal information from time to time that judges under the Judges Act may not be conducting themselves with the kind of probity and good behaviour that we would expect of any public office holder, as far as I know other than the judicial council there is no way to bring that type of behaviour to account. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I have had complaints in my constituency office about the behaviour of judges before the court who, at least according to the people who have made the complaint, have not done due diligence on the files before them or have behaved in some manner that would ordinarily cast some, shall we say, concern about the conduct and the even-handedness or the competence, shall we say, with which these judges have been handling the cases before them.

The difficulty is that when we get a complaint like that from a constituent, under the law now there is nothing we can do about it, other than write to the judicial council and of course we never hear back. The joy of this legislation is that now that we have the judges under the purview of the ethics commissioner, a member of Parliament responding to a complaint from a constituent, or responding I would hope to several complaints from constituents because we would not want to make this a trivial thing, can actually take it to the ethics commissioner and ask him to investigate and report.

I would say that this is an enormous forward step because one of the unfortunate things particularly as we have debated other issues pertaining to the judiciary in the House in this last little while, the reality is that there has been little movement in a century toward modernizing the judiciary, making it transparent in the same way as other government institutions have been moving forward in that fashion.

Finally, I would like to emphasize for those who may be watching this debate that Bill C-34, while it does bring parliamentarians and members of the Senate under the purview of the ethics commissioner, it still leaves latitude to members of the House of Commons, and members of the Senate because there is the creation of a Senate ethics commissioner as well, but it does still give the power of members of the House and members of the other place the opportunity to draw up some kind of code of conduct that reflects adequately the way in which we want to be seen by the public and the way in which, even more importantly, we want to see ourselves.

I think it is important, at least at this stage, that we have legislation that respects the need for MPs and senators to be masters in their own houses and to set rules of behaviour. These rules of behaviour will be overseen by the ethics commissioner who will report to a committee of the House.

I think we still have the next step to go. That next step is to set some kind of series of benchmarks that the public can understand with respect to the behaviour of members of Parliament.

Finally, I should add that a very important aspect of the bill is the creation of a Senate ethics commissioner. The senators live in a slightly different world than elected representatives in the sense that they are appointed. The reality is if members of Parliament deport themselves in a manner that is reprehensible, the voters know exactly what to do with them and they can be voted out of office.

This is not the case for senators because they are of course appointed for life, up until the age of 75. Nevertheless it is very important that they have a set of rules that they can create themselves. Right now the rules that govern the behaviour of senators, particularly the possibility of a conflict of interest, are antiquated. They are in the Parliament of Canada Act. They need to be overhauled.

I am confident that when a Senate ethics commissioner is appointed, with the agreement of the Senate we will see a series of rules set up by my colleagues in the other place that will ensure that there will be great confidence in the integrity of the Senate and as much confidence in the integrity of the Senate as I like to think there is in members of the House.

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

If I may say so, Mr. Speaker, in 15 minutes in this place you could actually describe the entire Constitution, so I am very delighted to have that much time to dwell on a few points that I had commenced at the beginning before question period.

In my earlier remarks I was alluding to the fact that I was actually praising the legislation for having defined public office holders so there was no ambiguity that ministers of the Crown and their exempt staff were covered by this legislation, whereas we note that under the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act there is ambiguity and they are not legislatively covered, although the government has taken steps to make sure that this type of information from that type of individual is available.

Having said that, I have to sound a negative note. I always regret to criticize a government bill in any way naturally, but I do note in this legislation that they have struck the ethics counsellor from schedule I in the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act and they have not replaced the ethics commissioner in that schedule I.

Schedule I, Mr. Speaker, as you well know, defines what government institutions are governed by the Access to Information Act. The Access to Information Act guarantees that Canadians have a right to get certain operational information and transparency related information from these various government institutions that are listed under schedule I. So indeed it is a disappointment to see the ethics commissioner is not listed under schedule I even though the ethics counsellor, his predecessor, was.

I think the rationale is that this new ethics commissioner as described in Bill C-34 is to be seen in the same context as an officer of Parliament as the Information Commissioner as the Privacy Commissioner. Mr. Speaker, I do note that these other officers of Parliament are not under the Access to Information Act. I would suggest to you that what needs to happen is that all officers of Parliament have to come under the Access to Information Act. It should be done with alacrity, not just for the ethics commissioner but for the Privacy Commissioner, the Chief Electoral Officer, the Auditor General and the Information Commissioner.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have this opportunity to draw the attention of the House to an aspect of this legislation that might be otherwise overlooked. It is a very important aspect of the legislation and one that I, because of my particular interests I suppose, am especially qualified to comment on, or at least I am the one most likely to notice and that is because of my interest in issues pertaining to access to information and privacy.

I draw the attention of the House to section 72.06(a) and (b). This section of the act describes the functions of the ethics commissioner in relation to public office holders. What we have in this section is a definition of public office holder that includes a minister of the Crown, a minister of state or a parliamentary secretary, which is fine, and in (b) even more significantly a person, other than a public servant, who works on behalf of a minister of the Crown or a minister of state.

Members of the House will recall that about a year ago there was quite a controversy involving the expense accounts of an exempt staff member of one of the ministers. The Treasury Board had ruled that the exempt staff of ministers were not public office holders. This was a fairly longstanding definition, or interpretation I should say.

Actually I have the Treasury Board analysis. It was actually a guideline, guideline 78 that was released in March 2001. It advised with respect to section 3(j) of the Privacy Act that ministers and their exempt staff are not deemed to be officers and employees of government institutions and as such are not covered by section 3.

When ministers take office they certainly have staff that are provided to them by the bureaucracy, by the public service, but they also have a certain number of employees who are their direct aids that act as intermediaries between the minister and the bureaucracy, sometimes as intermediaries with the media. Sometimes they also look after some of the ministers' politically partisan activities.

The problem is that as a result of this interpretation, this type of individual was not covered by the Access to Information Act. This exploded into something of a controversy when it was discovered, quite to everyone's surprise, that access to information requests made to this type of staff of ministers were being denied and were being denied as a result of this guideline set out by Treasury Board.

What is so interesting about the section I alluded to in Bill C-34 is the good news is that the government has acted on that controversy. We already knew that the government had acted on that controversy because after the hearings before the public accounts committee, even though it became very clear as a result of the testimony that this was a valid interpretation that ministers' staff were not covered by the Access to Information Act, there was a directive issued, I believe by the Prime Minister's office, to ministers to exercise their discretion and endeavour to ensure that type of information was released.

Thus we have the news of the day now where the staff of certain other ministers are receiving a certain amount of media coverage because of--I do not know how to describe it--elaborate spending, shall we say. I do not want to suggest excessive because I do not want to make a judgment, but we have seen in the news a number of expense account stories. That arises directly out of the public accounts activities and the questions raised about ministerial exempt staff.

As I say, the really good news is that obviously in Bill C-34 the government has received the message from the backbench, has received the message from the public accounts committee and has actually put into this legislation that a public office holder is indeed a minister, as indeed are the staff that the ministers hire. That is good news.

It means that the ethics commissioner will be part of a package of transparency that looks at not just how people spend money in departments, but how they deport themselves. I think it is a very good thing that the government has seen fit to put that actually in the legislation.

[Brian Pallister, Canadian Alliance, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member whose sincerity and enthusiasm I admire and have for a long time. I know many of the points she has articulated today are points that we share in the Alliance. We have made those points in debate on this bill and will continue to do so.

The member alluded to this as being a legacy piece of legislation. That is a fair observation. There is an attempt here to throw a bandage to a person who has been punched and bloodied pretty much over the last 10 years by the Prime Minister. It is about that trivial an attempt. It is a cosmetic attempt to try to patch up the credibility of a government that has had great difficulty in behaving credibly.

The member opposite, in defending the government on this issue, asked a question about specific examples. I could go on at much more length than I have time for today. However, for example, when a government pursues trumped up charges against the preceding prime minister, when it cancels contracts solely on the basis of a partisan initiative, when it cancels whether it be helicopters or Pearson Airport contracts, it costs taxpayers millions of dollars.

What this does is it calls into question not only its management ability, and certainly that would be in question, but it also calls into question its own ethics. It is under the Prime Minister that these things have happened.

Management competence versus ethics we could get into when they brush up against one another, which is the predominant problem, the management inability of the government or its ethical lapses. However the fact remains that this is a government that has been plagued by both of those problems.

Bill C-34 will not address satisfactorily the independent promise it made to affix an independent officer, an independent ethics commissioner, under the 1993 red book authored by the new prime minister, the member for LaSalle—Émard. If we expect a fresh face and a fresh approach, I do not think we will get one from that member because after all that is a book of unfulfilled promises.

Would the member like to elaborate a little more on some of the unfulfilled promises of that book in terms of the promises it made to improve the lives of Canadians, those less fortunate, those have not Canadians? I would like her to elaborate a little on that aspect of the unfulfilled promises of that book and how that might relate to a better role for an ethics commissioner who would be truly independent in this Parliament.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member has raised some interesting questions. I have a great deal of respect for the member. We have worked together on many issues.

I have a concern though. If we reconsider the intent of Bill C-34 with regard to the whole ethics question, it really has to do with the integrity of the profession and of this place. I think we all want to work to improve upon that. However the member has raised more examples of allegations, innuendoes, et cetera and sprinkled in the word corruption two or three times in the speech to make certain suggestions. That is inappropriate. If the member has one example of corruption in government, and since corruption is an illegal act, I wish she would advise the House what that example is, because there is not any.

I would like the member to perhaps set that aside. I will accept her concurrence with the fact that there is no matter of corruption since the governments prior to 1993. However there are issues of allegations, innuendo, et cetera that have been referred to the appropriate authorities, whether it be the sponsorship file or whatever. We know corporations are subject to criminal proceedings, and possibly some people were in the employ of the bureaucracy at the time. That is very unfortunate but it is a reflection on us all.

Finally, would the member care to comment on the dilemma I raised with the previous speaker with regard to how we have an ethics commissioner who clearly reports to Parliament, as for instance an officer of Parliament like the Auditor General, but who also can deal with probably the area of most concern and most risk, and that is with regard to cabinet and the issue of cabinet confidentiality? How do we administer that independently within the House of Commons, accessible to the public and be able to access or deal effectively with the whole aspect of cabinet activity, most of which will be subject to cabinet confidentiality rules?

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we are being asked to debate a bill today that is long overdue, many would say 10 years overdue, and after all that time, it is a half a loaf. We are being asked to support a bill that has been desperately needed in this country for at least a decade and falls short in so many ways.

That is the dilemma we are all facing today. Do we support something because it is better than nothing, and try to address this paucity of action, this lack of decisive initiative by the government, or do we send it back to the drawing board and start again? It is a terrible dilemma to be in.

It is an unacceptable position to have to face, given the amount of time the government has had to deal with this matter, and to consider the concerns of parliamentarians and the views of Canadians. However, we are in that position today and we have to make that decision.

My colleagues in the New Democratic Party have wrestled with this decision around Bill C-34 long and hard. We have many concerns with this bill. We have made many amendments that have been rejected and we are disappointed in the process, but in the final analysis we know that we need an ethics commissioner for Parliament that has some independence and is different than the present arrangement. We desperately need that.

When all is said and done, we will have to support this bill. We will have to hold our noses and say that it is too bad that we had this great opportunity, that we had a moment before us where we could have made such a difference and we had to go for second best. We had to lower our expectations and we had to subject ourselves to true Liberal politics in this country today which is to never do the best when the situation presents itself, to always go for the bare minimum and keep the standards low. That is what we are dealing with today.

I want the record to be clear and I want members of other parties to know that while we will end up supporting this bill, we do so reluctantly and we share many of the concerns raised in the House today.

What will it mean if we pass Bill C-34? How will it change the situation and will it endure the test of time? I asked the question earlier of the government House leader about how long this new initiative would likely last given the new regime that is about to take over on the government's side and for good reason. I asked that question because we know that when it comes to the Prime Minister's legacy agenda, the Prime Minister and leader to be of the Liberal Party has said that he is not above tampering with legislation that the House is either in the process of implementing or considering.

We heard the former finance minister say last week, after we had the big debate on same sex marriage that whatever Parliament decides, he might make some necessary changes despite the will of Parliament. We heard the former finance minister also say that whatever this place decides on the decriminalization of marijuana, he might have something else in mind and he might just ignore or disregard what Parliament does.

The logical question is, if we proceed with Bill C-34, no matter what the government House leader says, what guarantees are there that the next Prime Minister of Canada will not find some way to alter or change this legislation, this idea, this important initiative?

It is a legacy agenda for the Prime Minister, that is for sure. The Prime Minister has said that he wants to see the bill through, no matter how flawed, as part of his legacy. Some would ask, what legacy? Others would say, though, that if it is his legacy agenda, given what the former finance minister has said it is doomed anyway. It is probably going to be changed, watered down, weakened and tampered with.

So let us put that in perspective. Let us keep that in mind as we deal with this legislation at a time when it is so difficult for us as parliamentarians to know how to pursue the issues on which Canadians sent us here in the first place, to pursue change and to pursue important public policies, when in fact we are dealing with a two-headed government. We are dealing with a Prime Minister who is intent on accomplishing a legacy agenda that is questionable and which the next prime minister of the day is likely to in fact take apart anyway, so what do we do as parliamentarians?

I guess we do the best we can with what we have. We continue to speak out on behalf of the concerns of Canadians. Today we have that opportunity. We have an opportunity to say to Canadians that we recognize this is vital for democracy in the land, that it is incumbent upon us as parliamentarians to deal with growing cynicism and skepticism among Canadians about the work of parliamentarians and about the influences they have in their day to day lives. It is critical for us to at least validate those concerns and to say it makes absolute sense and we will fight with everything we have to implement those changes and ensure that this place has an ethics commissioner who will in fact work to ensure that parliamentarians are operating at the highest levels of integrity, honesty and decency.

That is really what this is all about it. Others have said it today. This is about restoring faith in democracy. It is about giving people reason to believe that when they participate in elections those who are elected fulfill promises, operate at the highest standards and are not influenced by money and influence and power for the sake of power.

Canadians have asked for this for a long time and the Liberals have promised it for a long time. As others have said, in 1993 there was the red book promise. It is just like the promise for national home care and national pharmacare. It is like all kinds of promises that just sort of disappeared and are gathering dust somewhere. In fact, I would like to hear some day from a Liberal across the way how many of those red book promises in 1993 actually were implemented. I have a feeling that it is not a very high percentage. Let us go back to the 1993 red book and remind members across the way and all Canadians of just what was promised to them.

Liberals in that election said they would:

--appoint an independent Ethics Counsellor to advise both public officials and lobbyists in the day-to-day application of the Code of Conduct for Public Officials.

That is one thing the red book said. It also said that Liberals would enshrine the principles and commitments of political non-interference in public decisions and free access to public office holders and, it stated, the Liberals:

--will develop a Code of Conduct for Public Officials to guide Cabinet ministers, members of Parliament, senators, political staff, and public servants in their dealings with lobbyists.

They were fine words. It was a commitment made for good reason. There were enough examples even back then of influence peddling and of corruption within government. The need for this was clear. Ten years later, we are debating legislation to establish an ethics counsellor, legislation that is flawed, falls short of what is required and does not reflect the will of most parliamentarians.

Probably the red book of 1997 repeated the same promises. I do not know. I do not have that in front of me, but I do know what the Speech from the Throne said in 1997. I was here, newly elected, and naive, I suppose, and a former colleague, in response to the Speech from the Throne, said:

So many of our citizens have become so discouraged with our politicians and our political system that they have chosen not to exercise the basic rights for which our forefathers fought and died. But the sad reality is, and it came across loudly and clearly to me during the election campaign, that many citizens have lost faith in their politicians. Politicians were described to me as not really caring, being in it only for themselves or for the money, being dishonest or full of empty promises....As I stand here today I pledge that I will do my best to put a new face on politics.

That was in response to the throne speech of 1997. Here we are in 2003 debating legislation to establish an ethics counsellor, legislation that is imperfect, flawed and falls short of the mark. Why?

Those were wonderful statements about Canadians' concerns with democracy and faith in politicians, but these statements, by not being acted upon, in fact add to that cynicism and skepticism. There seems to be more disillusionment than ever. It is another set of fine words from politicians, which no one acted on.

There have been attempts in the House over the last decade to get this government off its duff and get it started doing something with respect to the red book promise of 1993 and the throne speech promise of 1997. I do not need to remind members in the House that it was one of my former colleagues as the member for Halifax West who twice brought forward legislation in the House to convince the government to act. He would have been happy if the government had taken the idea and acted on it. It did not have to be his bill. It did not have to be that private member's initiative. But he brought forward legislation that did not go anywhere. I want to quote from Gordon Earle's speech of December 16, 1999. He stated:

This bill is realistic. It is reflected in provincial legislatures and other nations' national assemblies. This code of conduct would raise the level of integrity of our Parliament. This bill is rooted in very practical and legitimate concerns Canadians hold about their Parliament.

He went on to say that he was very disappointed that the issue had not been acted on to that point in December 1999. He talked about everything that Parliament should be, and which we think it is, but he talked about how it fell short because we did not have the framework in place, we did not have the proper legislation in place and we did not have an effective model for an ethics commissioner in place. That was in December 1999. At that time, even though the Liberals made the promise in 1993, the parliamentary secretary stood up in the House in that debate and said, “This is not a priority”. It was not a priority.

We did not give up with the loss of that opportunity. Gordon Earle was unsuccessful in the 2000 election. The cause was taken up by our member for Halifax, then leader of the New Democratic Party, who reintroduced this private member's initiative, which became Bill C-299, with a view to pushing the government, giving government the tools it needed to make an election commitment a reality. We did the homework. We made it possible. We said, “Steal the idea. Run with it.” Did anything happen on that front? No.

Finally, I guess, enough scandals happened, with enough rumblings and speculation about ministerial involvement in the sponsorship contracts. We got more and more examples of lack of ethical standards in the high echelons of the bureaucracy. We were talking earlier about Charles Boyer, but we should also remember that we recently had the case of Paul Cochrane, the former ADM at the Department of Health, and others of his colleagues who are charged with criminal wrongdoing, numerous counts of fraud, corruption and bribery, and who have now experienced charges in this case, which will be heard soon.

There have been all kinds of examples that have caused this issue to stay at the top of the political agenda. Finally, and I guess because of that, the Prime Minister decided in the spring of 2002 to move on this area. He introduced his package around election guidelines, election donations and leadership contributions, a code of conduct for parliamentarians, and some sort of legislation on an ethics commissioner. Was he serious? I think he was. I do not want to question his motives.

However, by that point it really ended up being a band-aid on a pretty big sore, a pretty big open wound, with all kinds of festering happening as more of these scandals came to life, more allegations were made and more Canadians became cynical about this place.

On the one hand one could argue that yes, in fact, the Prime Minister finally, after a decade, was deciding to put into action what he believed in all along. Or one could argue that perhaps he was trying to make life a little difficult for the former finance minister, the member for LaSalle—Émard, who was in the middle of all of this at the time with the concerns around Canadian Steamship Lines, concerns around money going into Barbados, and concerns around numbers of donations he was getting and the lack of a system to disclose those donations. All of that was coming to a head at the same time and perhaps the Prime Minister was really just trying to make life a bit difficult for the member for LaSalle—Émard. Who knows?

Needless to say, we are here today with a less than perfect piece of legislation. It is less than perfect on a number of fronts.

We have heard today particular concerns about the fact that this position is not really independent. The ethics commissioner is to be appointed following a simple majority vote in this place. It is an improvement from the way in which the ethics counsellor now operates; he was appointed by the Prime Minister. But will someone who receives 50% plus one be accountable to all of us and be open to all our suggestions and concerns? Or would that person in effect still be manipulated by the Prime Minister's Office?

What members, at least those on this side of the House, wanted to see was an amendment to the bill such that it would require a two-thirds majority for an ethics commissioner to be accepted by Parliament. A two-thirds majority makes sense, right? It would mean that we would have to involve all parties. It would go beyond the control of the government of the day. It would certainly carry the hope for more independence.

A simple majority vote in the House to support the appointment of an ethics commissioner is simply not effective. That is what members have been saying today and all through this debate: the ethics commissioner must have the trust and support of all members of Parliament to have the confidence of the House of Commons.

That amendment was presented in good faith and with good rationale and good reason. Members of the government side, the Liberal Party, turned down that amendment. Why? Why turn down something that would allow for more independence? That is a major concern.

Let me also reference the concern about the fact we had hoped that this legislation would ensure that the position would be able to incorporate a regime for the disclosure of private interests of MPs and senators and would include their immediate family. We have a couple of concerns on that front.

First, we understand that separate codes of conduct would be established by each of the respective Houses. That clearly begs the question, and there is a lot of history here to justify this, of whether there will be two sets of standards for parliamentarians and senators. Will there be one set for MPs and another set for senators? Are we not talking about basically the same thing, which is a way to ensure that conflict of interest is declared in an open and meaningful way?

Second, we are very concerned that we have not resolved the issue of family members, in particular the question of the spouse of the MP or the Senator, with respect to disclosure provisions and the code of conduct to be developed.

Finally, there is a very legitimate concern that has not been addressed by the bill and that is the public ought to have some way to access the system.

I will just conclude by saying we believe that receiving and investigating complaints of improper behaviour by the public should be part of the regime. The public should be able to make complaints directly to the ethics commissioner not just through a member of Parliament. The public should have some input in this process. It goes without saying that frivolous accusations should not be party to this kind of system.

We are very concerned. We hate being put in the position of accepting something because it is better than nothing. However we want to see an ethics counsellor. We will support the bill but we register vehemently our concerns with the process and the dragging of heels by the Liberals. We urge them to address these concerns immediately.

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure we agree on a lot of things, but the independence of the ethics commissioner issue is also a problem with Bill C-34. Just imagine again the Auditor General, if she were to deal with matters in the same fashion as the ethics commissioner. We would not have the great reports and the objective reports that she comes forth with. It does not matter whether they are against the Conservatives when we were in power or against the Liberals now. Her office is a great institution because it is independent and the ethics commissioner will never be any good until that position is independent.

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I should have done a little more homework to find out what the ethics commissioner earns a year, but I imagine it is in excess of $200,000 a year probably. He has a very prestigious position. He can only keep that position if he keeps one person happy, and that is the Prime Minister. He will not keep that job because he does not answer to Parliament. He answers to the Prime Minister. He serves only the Prime Minister.

If he were to come to a conclusion that was against the interest of the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister could say he would not renew his contract for whatever reason. It is just human nature that there is a conflict of interest there. He would not look at these accusations objectively because he knows he serves at the pleasure of one person and if he were to offend that one person, he would be gone.

That is why we have seen a consistent array of decisions in defence of inappropriate behaviour, that we all know was inappropriate. The media knows and so do the Canadian people. The ethics commissioner has become a joke because of his decisions when everybody knows that inappropriate behaviour has happened and he condoned it.

There is a conflict of interest because he would answer to one person. A judge cannot work for the accused. That is what would happen here and that is what would happen under Bill C-34. The judge would work for the accused.

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak anytime in the House and although I wish we had made more progress in developing Bill C-34 into what it should be, I will speak to it today.

As other members mentioned earlier, Bill C-34 is a missed opportunity. It is a missed opportunity for the Liberals to keep a promise. Someone earlier mentioned the 1993 Liberal red book. I will quote a part of it. It says “The Ethics Counsellor...will report directly to Parliament”.

That is a nice simple statement. It was a promise by the Liberals that if Canadians voted for them they would keep this promise. Ten years later they still have not kept it. In fact, they are entrenching it with Bill C-34, which is an alternative to what they promised Canadians in 1993.

The red book went on to say “The Liberal government will appoint an ethics counsellor who will be available to the Prime Minister to investigate allegations of impropriety by cabinet ministers”.

It is amazing to note that the Liberals kept half of their promise but not the other. The ethics counsellor, unfortunately, does not report directly to Parliament. He in fact reports directly to the Prime Minister. I am not sure how much the ethics counsellor gets paid but I imagine it is in excess of $200,000 a year. He probably has a car, an office, a lot of benefits and an expense account like none of us have. It is a huge job. The Prime Minister has bestowed a great benefit on the ethics counsellor.

When the ethics counsellor has to deal with issues which could possibly smear the Prime Minister indirectly, such as when a minister is being accused of doing something wrong, it is only human nature for the ethics counsellor not to do anything to jeopardize his position and hurt the person who gave him the big job with the big money and the person with the power to renew his contract. It would be just human nature that the ethics counsellor would not do anything to jeopardize his position and hurt the person who employed him, the person who appointed him, the person to whom he answers, and the person under whose pleasure he serves. It is really backwards.

If a minister is accused of wrongdoing and the ethics counsellor is brought in, it is like a judge, or in this case the ethics counsellor, working for the accused. If he determines that the minister failed to do something properly, correctly or ethically, it would be a smear on the Prime Minister who is also the judge's boss. The judge works for the Prime Minister. He serves at the pleasure of the Prime Minister. He answers only to the Prime Minister. It is a shame the Liberals missed the opportunity to fix that. I feel the whole bill is worthless because they did not do that one thing.

They can extend it to include members of Parliament, like myself, or to senators and others. However it does not matter because in the end the ethics counsellor answers to the Prime Minister. It is exactly the same. In fact, if the ethics counsellor turns out to be partisan, and I think human nature will deem he or she will be, those of us in the opposition who might have an exact same circumstance as a member in the government, may receive a completely different determination from the ethics counsellor. We might be accused of wrongdoing whereas someone on the government side may not because the ethics counsellor reports to the government. He serves at the pleasure of the government. This to me is a scary thing.

We have heard lots of accusations of scandal and corruption, but it has not been members of Parliament who have been accused. Even senators are not accused very often. It is mostly ministers who are in a position to influence the government's spending, to direct funds to certain parties that may be supporters or otherwise, or to make deals that could somehow indirectly benefit property they own or something like that. It is not members of Parliament who are accused of things like that, it is cabinet ministers.

Bill C-34 has been broadened so much to cover so many of us it looks like an enhancement, but it really is not. As long as the judge, in this case the ethics counsellor, answers to the Prime Minister for his job, for his pay and for his benefits, the position will never be impartial. It will never make any sense to me.

One can just imagine what it would be like if the Auditor General answered to the Prime Minister. We would never see these reports that come out that are so well done and so accurate. We are lucky to have her in this job and to have her answering to Parliament. She has come out with scathing reports on HRDC, on public works issues and on the sponsorship program. She reports on the military and on fisheries. Her reports are impartial and I am sure they effect positive change.

On the other hand, the ethics counsellor answers only to the Prime Minister. His reports go to the Prime Minister and we never know what is in them or what is behind them. It is all done behind closed doors, as opposed to the Auditor General who answers to Parliament. It is a wonderful system. We are very fortunate to have the excellent auditors that we have had. The fact that they answer to Parliament makes the Auditor General's Office perhaps the most valuable institution in Ottawa.

However it is just human nature that when our boss wants an answer and our jobs depend on giving a certain answer, we will give that answer in many cases. This is especially true if the job is as lucrative as the job the ethics counsellor has now.

I believe the ethics counsellor is in a conflict of interest. He knows his job will be in jeopardy if he gives the wrong report because he does not answer to Parliament. He answers to the Prime Minister. If he does anything to smear the Prime Minister, the cabinet or the government , his job could be at risk. Therefore he is in a conflict of interest and Bill C-34 entrenches that.

Recently we had the independent ethics commissioner in Ontario, who answers to the legislature in Ontario, write a scathing report about an expense by a minister. The minister had to resign over the expense. That would never happen here.

The ethics counsellor here would say that he met all the criteria, that he did this or he did that, and it would be all smoothed over and everything would be hunky-dory because he answers to the Prime Minister. He serves the Prime Minister. He is paid by the Prime Minister. He serves at the pleasure of the Prime Minister. In Ontario the ethics commissioner answers to the legislature. It is fundamentally different.

I had a small case myself and I could not believe that it passed the ethics counsellor's scrutiny. A federal minister in the government personally signed an agreement to pay for a highway in New Brunswick. The other signator on the agreement was another provincial Liberal minister. They both signed this agreement saying that the highway would be 100% paid.

The minister in question, a former minister of transport, was defeated in the election and he went back into the private sector. Immediately the same provincial Liberal minister, who signed the agreement, signed the highway over to the defeated minister. It is amazing to see that the same two signatures are on the agreement, where a provincial minister signs over a highway to be a toll highway to a former federal minister, when the federal minister signed an agreement saying that 100% of the highway would be paid.

I took this to the ethics counsellor and somehow, even though this contradicted the post-employment criteria in every way, he found a way to exonerate the minister involved, even though it did not make any sense to have a minister pay for a project and then end up getting the entire benefit of it in the end. He signed both when the money went out and when the money came in. I could not believe the ethics counsellor found no problem with that even though very strict post-employment criteria were not followed. That is what convinced me that the position of ethics counsellor was pointless.

I can only assume that the ethics counsellor felt that if he criticized the former minister it would be a reflection on his boss. I do not know how he arrived at his finding but it certainly does not make sense. The signatures were on the paper, a federal minister paid for a program and then he got a multi-million dollar benefit from it in the end. I will never understand how that was approved, but it was. I do not believe it would have been approved if the ethics counsellor had been hired by Parliament and answered to Parliament.

Bill C-34 is all smoke and mirrors. It will not change a thing until the ethics counsellor answers to Parliament, not to the Prime Minister. The one thing I do fear is that opposition members will be treated differently than government members. Now that we are all included in this big net that the government has cast over all of us, I think we will be treated differently. If the opposition is accused of something it will not reflect badly on the government. It will probably reflect good on the government.

I believe that we will be treated differently than members of the government if they are accused of exactly the same thing because the boss of the ethics commissioner is still the Prime Minister.

I think it is smoke and mirrors. It is a missed opportunity for the Liberals to keep their promise they made to the Canadian people in 1993. It is a missed opportunity to correct a bad problem. It is a missed opportunity to provide confidence to people, their parliamentarians and their government, but they are not going to have confidence in an ethics commissioner that answers to one person and serves at the pleasure of that one person in Parliament.

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

My hon. colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville tells me that we could also mention tax havens; we could talk about companies that do not pay taxes here and which transfer all their revenues to tax havens. We could talk about this for a long time.

So, this ethics commissioner would replace the government's ethic's counsellor, Howard Wilson. I am a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which is considering the adoption of a code of conduct, and Mr. Wilson has been following the committee's work quite diligently. There were rumours that he might be interested in this position.

But, with all due respect for Mr. Wilson, it is not necessarily him, but the role he played over the past ten years. He was the independent ethics counsellor the Bloc Quebecois had hoped for. Over the past ten years, Mr. Wilson has acted as a political advisor to the Prime Minister, the hon. member for Saint-Maurice. He did not act like someone responsible for ensuring that the government behaved ethically.

Let us say, whether out of ignorance or incompetence, or what is termed in legal parlance wilful blindness, Mr. Wilson had a rather questionable view of ethics. If anyone needs convincing, they need only think of the example of the Prime Minister's ethics adviser authorizing secret meetings between the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard, owner of Canada Steamship Lines—a situation he has apparently regularized recently—and the directors of that company.

This is a rather dubious view of ethics, a rather elastic view. The property of elastic is that it can be stretched to suit us. There can be no denying the fact that, at these meetings, the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard certainly acquired certain information about his assets.

We in the Bloc Quebecois are in favour of the ethics commissioner receiving complaints from members, and those members receiving feedback and follow up.

We also are in favour of having the ethics commissioner report to Parliament. At the present time, the ethics adviser reports to the Prime Minister in total secrecy, behind closed doors, unbeknownst to anyone, away from prying eyes and ears. This is not what is expected of an ethics commissioner.

We are told that there is total transparency on the government side. If it has nothing to hide, the government has only to appoint an independent ethics commissioner. That is what the bill indicates and I can tell hon. members that, on this side of the House, we are in favour of having the commissioner report to Parliament.

We were in favour of referring the bill to the procedure and House affairs committee prior to second reading, because we wanted to see certain points clarified by that process. Today it is very hard to get a precise idea of the provisions, as long as we are unable to analyze the bill in parallel with the parliamentarians' code of ethics, which we are currently involved in drafting in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

In all humility, we believe that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has all the expertise it requires to analyze the bill and make any necessary amendments.

Some issues must be clarified. Among them, is this question: in what particular ways should the rules apply to ministers? After all, the code of conduct we are now working on is intended to govern parliamentarians.

We all know that a minister, is, of course, a member of Parliament, and governed by our code of conduct. Nevertheless, what will become of the code of conduct for ministers that the Prime Minister has a member of Parliament sign when he or she becomes a cabinet minister? Which of these rules will take precedence? Is it the code of conduct which governs the work, decisions, and functions of all MPs, or that governing the minister in decisions made in that role? The bill should clarify this issue.

Is there a complaints process if members should fail to respect the code of conduct? That also should be clarified. What will the penalties be, and so on? There are a certain number of points in this regard on which we would like some information.

In short, our party is pleased that the bill has been referred to committee before second reading. We believe that this bill requires very serious analysis, and that this analysis, as I said before, should take place in conjunction with the study of the code of conduct we have doing in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

There is one more element of interest to us. When I say this, I hope it will show the House that we are not an opposition party that criticizes simply for the pleasure of criticizing. When elements of a bill do not suit us, we say so loud and clear, and we defend the interests of Quebeckers. On the other hand, when we in the Bloc agree with certain elements, we also want that to be known.

The element in question is that we will be assured from now on that the leaders of recognized parties in the House will be consulted on the subject of appointing the ethics commissioner, since this obligation will be written in the law.

When we questioned Mr. Wilson's competency, the Prime Minister told us, “Yes, but you were consulted. We consulted you.” Obviously, there are different kinds of consultations, one of which is more informative: “I hereby advise you that I have made such and such a decision.” There is another possibility, which is: “I am asking for your opinion.” The presumption is that the decision has not yet been made.

In this case, consultations by the Prime Minister regarding Mr. Wilson's appointment were bogus: “Please be advised that I have appointed so and so. This is the person I want.” It is important, nonetheless, to be careful.

This legislation would make this a statutory requirement from now on. This was not part of the Prime Minister's commitment set out in the draft legislation introduced on October 23. So, now the House of Commons is supposed to adopt a resolution to approve, as well, the appointment of the ethics commissioner.

This provision was not included in the draft legislation. In a unanimous report tabled in April 2003, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs recommended that these provisions be included.

In closing, I want to say that we also welcome the formal establishment of a complaint process for parliamentarians with regard to ministers, ministers of State and parliamentary secretaries.

Additionally, each year, the commissioner should table in the House a report of his activities. These provisions are set out in the draft legislation introduced last fall.

In short, our party supports Bill C-34, but we must recognize that there is still room for improvement.

I know that the members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs will be able to make constructive suggestions to ensure that this legislation is improved.

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

Mr. Speaker, I hope you will restart the clock at zero. That is a good way to make us lose our concentration, and all the more so since we do not actually have a time clock, something I requested of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons. It seems that my voice was not heard by the committee members. But that is not my point and I would not want to cause you trouble.

I am pleased to speak to Bill C-34, which provides for the creation of the position of ethics commissioner. In particular, today we are examining the bill at third reading.

When talking about an ethics commissioner, I would like to begin by saying, “At last.” I would like to add, “Better late than never.” I would like to suggest that members read the Liberal Party's red book, a veritable bible for all Liberal candidates in the 1993 election. The red book entitled “Creating Opportunity: the Liberal Plan for Canada” talked about an ethics commissioner. This red book clearly stated:

A Liberal Government will appoint an independent Ethics Counsellor...The Ethics Counsellor will be appointed after consultation with the leaders of all the parties in the House of Commons and will report directly to Parliament.

That is why I would say, “At last. Better late than never.” Sometimes we find that our constituents or other people we meet tend to view politics and politicians with rose coloured glasses and sarcasm. I think that the fact of having waited 10 years and gone through three elections with this recommendation shows how much the Liberal government wants to live up to the promises it makes in its campaign literature. It is high time that this government decided to keep its promise.

We must not forget that, over the past ten years, various events occurred within this government in relation to which the appointment of an independent ethics commissioner—and I stress the word independent—would have been quite appropriate. Let me explain.

Over the past decade, the Liberal government has faced numerous scandals, which remain unresolved. This is true of the majority of these scandals. We only need think, to name only the biggest, of the Auberge Grand-Mère and HRDC scandals, as well as the sponsorship program, in relation to which the RCMP laid charges just a few weeks ago. However, the Bloc Quebecois noticed that the Minister of Public Works avoided the issue for nearly a year and said that it had been referred to the RCMP for investigation. It took a year before charges were laid.

I remind this government that the corrective measures taken do not change the past. In Quebec, we have the wonderful motto “Je me souviens” or “I remember”. Unfortunately, we do not repeat it enough. I hope that people will remember this Liberal government's ethical failures. Although the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard was all but crowned leader yesterday, it is important to remember that he was a member of this government and a cabinet minister for most of the past ten years.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to speak to this bill on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois. Other hon. members from my party will also speak on Bill C-34, the bill to create the position of ethics commissioner.

[John Duncan, Canadian Alliance, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to talk about Bill C-34 which is an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act and other acts in consequence in respect of providing for the appointment of a Senate ethics officer and providing for the appointment of an ethics commissioner for the House of Commons regarding the conduct of its members.

There is a jurisdiction in Canada that has really been at the forefront in terms of conflict of interest and behaviour of its elected officials and that is the province of British Columbia. I would like to quote from a commentary prepared by Gregory J. Levine, who is general counsel for the Office of the Ombudsman for the province of British Columbia. The following is an interesting capsule from his commentary on Bill C-34:

The current package is part of a dance of denial, a dithering that does not instill confidence. The Canadian people deserve better. What circumstances demand are clear rules forthrightly enforced by an ethics commissioner who is truly independent and powerful.

In other words, the bill simply does not cut it. It was brought forward in June of last year amid allegations of scandal and corruption in the seventh year of the reign of an ethics counsellor who has become known in the media as a lapdog, not a watchdog. He was appointed by the Prime Minister and reports to the Prime Minister. There are multiple scandals which have never been gotten to the bottom of and the cynicism within the public has expanded over the term of the Prime Minister. In many ways the current Prime Minister's legacy will be all about the abuses that were allowed to occur in this place despite the fact that for the first time there was somebody whose mandate was ethics. It was an abysmal failure.

That sets the stage for the fact that this legislation really does not do it. While the high-sounding bill would suggest that it is addressing a real problem in an objective manner, the reality is quite different. It is essentially smoke and mirrors.

Any of the scandals that have occurred around the government would not be addressed by the new scenario. The ethics commissioner envisioned by the bill for the House of Commons would not be independent. The ethics counsellor who has been in place for a number of years was not independent and neither would he be under the new scenario.

What has become abundantly clear is that the current Prime Minister has placed his personal interests and the interests of the Liberal Party of Canada ahead of the interests of Canadians and the national interest.

I can point to the loophole we addressed last week. The Bloc supply day motion had to do with the well known Barbados loophole utilized by the former finance minister's company, CSL. We now know that hundreds of Canadian companies are utilizing that loophole and exploiting it.

We know that this was all a part of the Liberal Party of Canada's courting of some interests within the business community. These friends of the former finance minister were well-informed as to the existence of the loophole. This glaring exception was allowed to continue to and it became and continues to be a glaring problem for the country.

The bill would not address the democratic deficit. It would contribute to it, from the standpoint that our committees are still overwhelmed by government members. We know that in almost every case appeals to the ethics commissioner have been largely not useful.

This initiative would create two new officers, which I consider to be largely window-dressing. One could ask the question: Why all of a sudden are backbench and opposition members of Parliament somehow responsible to someone who reports essentially to cabinet and the Prime Minister? This is ripe for abuse. As an opposition member of Parliament, I believe this is ripe for my privileges being abused and is an inherent conflict of interest in itself.

If we want to look at an example of how we could change all that, let us make an officer of Parliament who is elected in the same way as the House of Commons elects our Speaker. That is the model we should follow. Not the model that was promoted in this legislation or the model that the previous speaker suggested this morning. Let us fix this because what we have in place in this bill is completely inadequate.

The ethics counsellor envisioned by this would be appointed by the Prime Minister, would report to the Prime Minister and would be responsible to the Prime Minister and his cabinet. That essentially is still the way it is.

This conflict of interest is so obvious as to laughable. It breaks the Liberal red book promise of 1993 and has thoroughly discredited the office, in the public mind. One can only assume that the Prime Minister wishes to divert attention onto these two new ethics officers without fixing the crucial ethical questions which hang over the Prime Minister and his cabinet, despite government spin.

The Prime Minister would make the choice of this new commissioner. There would be so-called consultation with the leaders of the parties in the House and there would be a confirming vote in the House. Of course all this means that the Prime Minister would determine who would be appointed and the government members of Parliament would vote in favour of the Prime Minister's choice. Remember, the Prime Minister likes to say that he consulted with opposition leaders before appointing Howard Wilson, as his personal ethics commissioner, and we all know where that has led.

Contrast this with the red book promise and the way the House of Commons chooses the Speakers, as I just mentioned: a secret ballot and a Speaker who is responsible to the members, not to the Prime Minister, not to the cabinet, not to the Prime Minister and cabinet.

One might ask the question: What would happen under the legislation to address any of the scandals that have plagued the government? Would the new arrangement somehow make any of that any different? I think it is very clear that it would not prevent this activity. Nor would it make it any more subject to exposure.

I am very concerned about potential abuse of the new power because we now have a situation where complaints from members of Parliament, or in the case of the Senate officer, must be acted upon. We see, now that opposition members of Parliament are covered under the new umbrella, an opportunity for misbehaviour on the part of the government which basically controls the process. Through the Prime Minister and cabinet, there is now an opportunity to manipulate this with a timing such that it can be used for mischief making during critical times such as elections. We think this is a very obvious abuse and a singular enough reason why it needs to be changed.

Bill C-34 would also create a situation that would be problematic from the standpoint that we would now have the growth of two standards, one for the House of Commons and one for the Senate, simply because we would have two different appointees. Objective concerns about the bill have been expressed by people dealing with conflict of interest in ethics. They suggest this is very problematic. I subscribe to that as well.

Another issue deals with payment for services. The remuneration for both officers is to be set by cabinet. This is also a law inconsistent with removing a conflict of interest and government control over this process because obviously remuneration levels can be used as a lever. The mere fact that can occur or would have the appearance of being able to occur is enough to suggest that it is a conflict of interest and that should not be allowed to occur. Therefore it is one more reason why we would oppose the legislation.

The two individuals who would be given these new positions would also be given the rank of deputy heads of a government department for the purpose of operating their respective offices. It is very unclear and completely unaddressed as to what this really means in terms of independence because it would suggest that they are tied to government process. Once again, we have to make a clear distinction here.

We are opposition members of Parliament. We are not members of the government. This is another conflict of interest. This is a natural problem. This has not been well thought out. This is not addressed appropriately in the way the legislation is put forward. I object because I believe this is one more way in which opposition members of Parliament's privileges are being abused potentially by the legislation.

We currently have rules regarding our conduct within the Parliament of Canada Act which pertain to the Senate and the House of Commons and the members. These rules of conduct prohibit involvement in government contracts, prohibit employment in government services and prohibit us from taking money with respect to issues before the Senate or the House of Commons. Many of these rules will be repealed under the bill. Once again, objective, independent analysis of the bill suggests that we are weakening the rules of conduct with this proposed legislation and not strengthening them.

Once again this gives currency to my opening statement which is that the bill is an abysmal performance that does not do what it purports to do in terms of strengthening our ethics situation which we know has been very tarnished by the performance of the government over the last 10 years, 10 years next month. Those are some of the broader aspects of the bill.

I would like to remind people who are listening to the debate of some of the problems that are inherent in how the government has been operating. For example, we have heard major criticism in the last week or two about Charles Boyer and his expense accounts and the fact that the Minister of Canadian Heritage signed for every one of his expense accounts on the account of the taxpayers.

This has really resonated with the public. When George Radwanski carried on this kind of behaviour, the statement I got from the public was “Under this government as a senior employee we expect that kind of behaviour”. However when they saw the same kind of behaviour from a junior employee, directly approved by a minister who should know better, it drove them wild. There is no direction from the government to change it.

As a matter of fact, I quote from the Winnipeg Sun . It states, “Leading the nation by shining example, [the current finance minister] has given his blessing to fellow cabinet colleagues who routinely file hefty expense claims without providing a single receipt. Heck, he does it himself”. Other ministers are mentioned also.

There are many other references to ethical lapses in the government. We know Alfonso Gagliano, the former minister of public works, now enshrined in Denmark, was never ever caught up in his ethical lapses because the Prime Minister got him out of the country. We have seen similar behaviour and the ethics commissioner has certainly not been as independent as we would like to see.

In summary, the bill does not do it. Canadians deserve better and parliamentarians deserve better.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to ask the government House leader a question on Bill C-34. He will know it has been important to our caucus for some time, with earlier versions having been introduced by the former member for Halifax West and by the present member for Halifax.

Obviously we are interested in having the bill passed, although there are some flaws in it and we still have concerns. We are interested in having the bill passed and having it come into effect. Given some of the indications coming from the former finance minister, who obviously after this weekend is slated to become the leader of the Liberal Party and the prime minister of this country, I would like to ask the government House leader how long he expects this legislation to last under the new regime.

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

moved that Bill C-34, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Ethics Commissioner and Senate Ethics Officer) and other acts in consequence be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to third reading of Bill C-34, the bill to establish an independent ethics commissioner reporting to Parliament.

The bill implements all—and I do mean all—of the recommendations the Procedure and House Affairs Committee made to a draft bill that was tabled last October.

When the committee reported the bill on June 11 of this year, it did not propose any amendments, or at least not the second time.

The government has accepted the House committee's recommendation to make the appointment process subject to consultation with other party leaders--I think that was a very good amendment and we agreed with it--and of course the approval of the appointment process by a resolution of the House. This is essentially the same now as what we have for all officers of the House and that is the formula we have accepted in the House modernization committee. All parties have agreed to the formula.

We just had the fourth modernization committee report last week. By unanimity we have made a number of improvements to the House rules. Of course at the time we had not addressed this particular position because it did not exist, but now this position will be subject to rules that are very similar to what we have adopted unanimously.

I want to the thank the chair and the members of the committee for their excellent work on this issue. I also want to thank the Senate committee that studied the draft bill. It recommended, as we know, a separate Senate ethics officer. That is certainly appropriate as well. There are a number of officers of Parliament common to both Houses, but there are also a number of officers of Parliament that are distinct in each House. An example, of course, is those who serve at the table in this House, such as the sergeant-at-arms, the clerk and others. They are distinct in each House. That is certainly another model which is very acceptable and we agreed with the Senate committee's recommendation.

That being said, it means we have accepted all recommendations that have come from the House and the recommendation that came from the Senate as well about having a separate Senate ethics officer as it pertains to someone distinct from the official appointed to deal with this side.

In light of these recommendations, all of which we passed at the draft stage, and in light as well of the fact that the parliamentary committee did not make any recommendations for amendments when the formal version was referred to it, and particularly in light of the years of work that have gone into this, I feel it is high time to move on and pass the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I recall our days in opposition, a very long time ago. We examined some initiatives of this type at that time. Conservative MP Donald Blenkarn, who has not been in the House for the past ten years—so it was before he retired, a pretty long time ago now—had presented a report recommending creation of this position. I was a member of the parliamentary committee at that time. The co-chair was Senator Donald Oliver. After we did all that work, the present Speaker of this House also carried out a study, when he was the head of a parliamentary committee.

Today we are at last seeing the culmination of the efforts of all members and senators who have worked on the creation of an ethics commissioner position.

I congratulate all members on their work on this issue and recommend this bill to the House. I wish to thank in advance all those members who will work on implementation of the code, which is nearly complete, from what I hear in committee. I am certain we will have those tools in hand in the very near future. Once again, my thanks to all hon. members who have worked on this over the years. They will, I am sure, all be pleased and proud that it will be available to us from now on.

Now that amendments have been proposed and everything is done, I recommend that all members, regardless of party affiliation—I know that at least three parties voted in favour of the bill at report stage—rally round this bill in order to create this position with the support of all members of this House. That is what I recommend, anyway. In future, of course, a candidate will be proposed for the position, and at that time we will have the procedure in place to create our own ethics commissioner, appointed by this House, for this House.

In the meantime, I thank members in advance for the support they will be giving to this bill.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased over the following weeks to continue to elaborate on the program from now until December 12 for the benefit of the hon. member and for anyone else. More specifically, about the following week, I wish to express the following by way of the business statement.

This afternoon, we will continue with the debate on the opposition motion.

Tomorrow, the House will return to the motion to refer Bill C-49, the electoral boundaries bill, to committee before second reading. This will be followed by Bill C-45, the corporate liability bill, or Westray bill if you like, and Bill C-34, the ethics commissioner bill.

On Monday, we will begin with bills not completed this week, Friday in particular. We will then proceed to Bill C-46, respecting market fraud, Bill C-50 respecting veterans, Bill C-17, the public safety bill, and finally Bill C-36, the Library and Archives of Canada bill.

Tuesday will be an allotted day.

On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will begin consideration of Bill C-48, respecting resource taxation, and will then return to any of the business just listed that has not been completed.

Parliament of Canada Act

[The Speaker]

Accordingly the question, by unanimous consent, is as follows:

That Bill C-34 be amended by deleting clauses 7 and 38.

(The House divided on Motion No. 1, as amended, which was negatived on the following division:)

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think if you ask the House you will find that I have unanimous consent for the following with regard to my report stage amendment to Bill C-34.

In the report stage amendment to Bill C-34, I moved the deletion of clause 38 of the bill. Clause 38 is a coordinating amendment to Bill C-34 that replaces clause 7 of Bill C-34 in the case where a section of the Courts Administration Service Act comes into force before clause 7 of the bill.

My report stage amendment should also have deleted clause 7 of Bill C-34 to cover the situation where the section of the Courts Administration Service Act does not come into force before clause 7 of the bill. That way it would have been clear that any point in time clause 7 of Bill C-34 should be deleted.

For the sake of clarity and consistency, I ask for unanimous consent to amend my report stage amendment in order to delete both clause 7 and clause 38 of Bill C-34.

[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.

Committees of the House

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 38th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, in both official languages, regarding its order of reference of Tuesday, May 6, 2003, in relation to Bill C-34, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Ethics Commissioner and Senate Ethics Officer) and other acts in consequence. The committee has considered Bill C-34 and reports the bill with one amendment.

I would like to thank the members of the committee and also and in particular the staff of the committee and the additional staff we had for this very important legislation. This was a very fine piece of work.

Lobbyists Registration Act

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to join in the debate on Bill C-15. I want to thank other members for their contributions to the debate today. I found them helpful and I learned a great deal.

I want to thank my colleague from Churchill for her energetic and enthusiastic intervention. She touched on a great number of concerns that ordinary Canadians have about lobbyists particularly about having undue influence in our Canadian political system. That is the way I could summarize the apprehensions many Canadians feel.

Canadians feel that there could be a trend and a tendency for lobbyists to have such influence in our Canadian political structure so as to undermine democracy. Many people look at the United States in a critical light and recognize that lobbyists play an incredibly important role on Capital Hill. Most Canadians do not have an appetite to see us going in that direction.

In the American political structure with more independent free votes, more effort is made to ensure that congressmen and senators vote in a certain way because they more or less have to earn the votes one by one instead of along party lines. Many people believe Washington is driven by lobbyists and feel they play an incredibly influential role in how it operates. In that country, a lobbyist is the highest on the pecking order in the sphere of political strength. Canadians do not want to see us going down that road, and that is why they welcome a firm and clear regulatory regime within which lobbyists may operate.

We all recognize the fact that lobbyists play a legitimate role in bringing specific issues to the attention of members of Parliament. The only lobbyists I welcome into my office as a rule are those from the non-profit sector. However, lobbyists do come to Parliament Hill with the legitimate purpose of trying to make members of Parliament more aware of issues of their concern. I think of the effective and legitimate annual lobby of firefighters. There is no self-interest involved in that lobby. It is a matter of health and safety issues et cetera. Many non-profit organizations do knock on our doors on a regular basis.

The lobbyists we need to regulate are those representing personal gain, self-interest, profit et cetera. We do not want our decision-makers influenced in an undue way by the overwhelming influence of these people.

I would like to quote from Democracy Watch, an organization that has been very diligent in following these matters. The coordinator of Democracy Watch, Duff Conacher, commented on the recent Senate committee on rules and procedures as it dealt with the Lobbyists Registration Act. He said:

The federal Liberals proposed lobbying law changes are not enough to end secret lobbying or unethical ties between lobbyists and politicians.

Mr. Conacher was speaking for many Canadians when he said that they do not see enough in Bill C-15 to satisfy them that the regulations are tight enough to put an end to the secret lobbying that we know takes place. We are not being inflammatory or saying anything outlandish when we say that we have reason to believe that secret lobbying takes place without being fully reported. We have reason to believe that there has been and may still be unethical ties between lobbyists and politicians, or as was pointed out by the member for Churchill, even more commonality between lobbyists and senior bureaucrats. It is not necessary that they reach the actual cabinet minister.

It is probably very rare that lobbyists gets through all the various shielding that goes on around cabinet ministers and get to the individual cabinet minister, but certainly they get to visit and see senior bureaucrats with no record and no obligation to make public or to make known those meetings that may take place.

We are not satisfied with the current amendments to the Lobbyists Registration Act. Speaking on behalf of many Canadians, the amendments are not rigid or stringent enough to safely say that we can put an end to secret lobbying or unethical ties.

Some of the key loopholes in Bill C-15 that still need to be closed and that still exist are loopholes that some commentators have said are big enough to drive a truck through in terms of the opportunities that are there for abuse and misuse. I will not go into specific industries, but people have mentioned some industries that concentrate a great deal on lobbying on the Hill such as the drug industry, the oil industry, et cetera. We believe that there is not full transparency in the activities of the paid lobbyists on behalf of some of those key industries.

A key loophole that still remains in Bill C-15, even after the Senate committee has had a go at it, is the fact that ministers and other senior public officials should be required to disclose, on a searchable Internet site, who is lobbying them and ensure that all lobbying is exposed. That is not automatically available. We should know who is trying to influence what minister or what senior bureaucrat at any given time.

Those of us who have the research capabilities could dig back. After a piece of legislation has been introduced some of us who may be curious to know just what motivated the government to introduce that legislation may do some research, track backwards and find which lobbyists have been aggressively pushing for this, but it is not easy and it is not readily available. It certainly is not readily available on any Internet site, as is being proposed by Democracy Watch, so that ordinary Canadians, anybody who could operate an Internet site better than I, would be able to find out who is lobbying who at any given time.

I think it would be very revealing, looking at major capital expenditures such as military investments, specifically the helicopter deal, to see how much lobbying is going on by the various helicopter manufacturers that are trying to sell products to the Canadian government. It is not readily available and it would be very interesting to most Canadians.

We also believe that Bill C-15 leaves loopholes in that hired lobbyists should also be required to disclose past offices that they may have held, if they were a public servant or a politician at one time, or held any other public office. Corporate and organization lobbyists would be required to do so, but we believe that all other individual lobbyists should be required to disclose fully their past c.v. and their track record. Some are obvious. We have paid lobbyists in Ottawa, on the Hill, who are former members of Parliament. I suppose that is a matter of public record. It is fairly self-evident to anybody who follows these things, but we should know if they were at any time senior public servants who may have had dealings with that industry in their capacity representing the federal government.

If those same individuals are now registered lobbyists, we should know because it is too close a connection, it is too tight, and they may be using privileged information or information that they gleaned while they were in the employ and the trust of the federal government. That information could be advantageous to them in their new capacity as lobbyists. Again, we have the right to know that.

We are also concerned about a very specific point. The exemption of section 3(2) in Bill C-15, which amends section 4(2)(c) of the Lobbyists Registration Act, should be removed from the bill because it would allow lobbyists who are only requesting information to avoid registration.

That surely opens the door for abuse. Some lobbyists will be excluded from the obligation to be registered if they say that they are only lobbying for the purpose of getting information from the government. It is a rare thing that an organization or a private interest would hire someone to go to the government just to obtain information. If a person stated that was the purpose for lobbying on the Hill, that person would go under the radar. No one would have to register at all. Who knows what lobbying really goes on once the door is closed and once there is access to the people involved. We believe that specific point should be addressed.

I know it is the purpose of this debate tonight to deal with the specifics of Bill C-15. Therefore the exemption in subclause 3(2) of Bill C-15, which amends subsection 4(2)(c) of the Lobbyists Registration Act, should be removed from the bill. That is the strong view of the NDP caucus.

Also lobbyists should be required by law to disclose how much they spend on a lobbying campaign. That information again is not readily available. If that information were readily available, I think journalists or any interested party, including ordinary Canadians, may be interested to know. Certainly a red flag should go up if there is a huge amount of money being dedicated to a specific campaign, and that is cause for concern. We should be aware that this private interest is so motivated that it feels compelled to spend $.5 million or $1 million on a lobbying effort. The country should know that.

We would want to question the people who have a serious interest in this issue and ask what the motivation is and the opportunity for gain. Perhaps it warrants more scrutiny by parliamentarians and by the general public. I am surprised that is not law already. I learned a great deal just by reviewing the details surrounding the Lobbyists Registration Act, and I think a lot of Canadians believe this is already the case. In fact I think they would be disappointed to learn that we do not already have these safeguards and measures in place to plug any opportunity where there is room for abuse.

Lobbyists as well should be prohibited by law from working in senior campaign positions for any politician or candidate for public office. That raises an interesting point. What about Earnscliffe? Did Earnscliffe not play an active role just recently in a fairly high profile leadership campaign race? Does it not have paid lobbyists? Is that not what it does on Parliament Hill? That is a graphic illustration of an example that we would want to see disclosed. We are aware of that now anyway, so I suppose that particular example does not pose any problem. However in other examples it is not self-evident, with a less high profile situation perhaps.

We believe lobbyists should be prohibited by law from working in senior campaign positions for any politician or candidate for public office. I think one precludes the other. They cannot have it both ways, I do not believe. We are trying to avoid this kind of incestuous relationship.

Also, lobbyists should be prohibited from working for the government or having business ties to anyone who works for the government, such as if a lobbyist's spouse is working for the government. We know there are examples of that as well. The connection is just simply too close. We would speak strongly for making that change to ensure that lobbyists are prohibited by law from working in senior campaign positions or from working for the government or having business ties to anyone who works for the government, business ties or personal ties I would add.

The prohibition on lobbying the government for ex-ministers and ex-senior public officials should be increased to five years, not the current situation. It is too brief. We believe five years would be long enough to span one term of office, one session of Parliament, possibly even one government. The government may change within a five year period. It is too fresh to simply leave such a senior position, like an ex-minister, an ex-senior public official or a deputy minister, for instance, and then 12 months and one day later become a lobbyist.

This is what we found with Chuck Guité, the deputy minister in the Groupaction scandal. He left his job, a senior position, with all the scandals associated with Groupaction. One year and one day later he was registered as a lobbyist for the public relations firm's associations. I do not have the names. He was working on the Hill 366 days after leaving that senior position in public works where he was the one who awarded those very contracts to those very people he now represents. That is too close. There is too much opportunity and room for abuse. That is a good example of a name that should certainly raise the alarm with anyone.

Another point raised by Mr. Conacher with Democracy Watch, and I would argue on behalf of ordinary Canadians, is that he believes the proposed new ethics commissioner to be created under Bill C-34 should also enforce the lobbyists code of conduct rather than the registrar of lobbyists as proposed in Bill C-34. We believe that would prevent any conflict in ruling. That could be a role. If we had an independent ethics commissioner, or even the ethics commissioner to be created under Bill C-34, that person should enforce the lobbyist code of conduct, instead of the registrar of lobbyists, to put more distance and have more objectivity.

I am pleased that a number of presenters raised this connection. I suppose it is not a coincidence that we are dealing with Bill C-15 and Bill C-34 simultaneously in the same week in the House of Commons. I believe there is a direct connection between the campaign finance bill, the elections financing act, and the Registration of Lobbyists Act. Surely people can see that we want to take big money out of politics.

We do not believe anybody should be able to buy an election in this country. We have seen what happens in the United States where big money, soft money and all the terms they use down there has far too much influence, undermines and even bastardizes democracy in that sense. These two are inexorably linked, because one of the biggest promises a lobbyist can bring to a government to buy influence is the opportunity to make campaign contributions.

I see an opportunity in both of these bills to make Canada more democratic, but I also see shortcomings. Bill C-24 does not go far enough and it still allows far too much business contributions. It strips away trade union contributions but still allows individual franchises of the same company to donate $1,000 each, whereas a national union with 100 locals can only donate $1,000. That is my criticism of Bill C-24.

Just to wrap it up then, I believe there is a direct correlation. Bill C-15 does not go far enough in the ways that I have outlined, the seven different points that I have raised. Bill C-24 does not go far enough in that it treats trade union contributions more strictly than it does business campaign contributions. The connection is lobbyists will no longer be able to say that if one favours their client, their client will likely make a large campaign contribution to one's political party. That is a legitimately a good thing. We believe that only a registered voter should be able to make a political campaign contribution. That is what we have done in the province of Manitoba. There is not even any provincial government money to offset the lack of union and business donations. The rule is clean, pure and simple that only a registered voter can make a political campaign contribution, and that is the way it should be.

Ethics Counsellor

[Claude Duplain, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, I will endeavour to touch on the topic of discussion this afternoon, but I think that everything that has been said needs to be repeated over and over.

In assessing the situation, several documents relating to the ethics counsellor's investigation into the activities of the former Solicitor General have already been made public, including a copy of the correspondence between the former Solicitor General and the ethics counsellor in 1999. The October 2002 correspondence between the Prime Minister and the former Solicitor General can also be found on the Prime Minister's website. This means that anyone can easily have access to all the documents on the website.

Information collected as part of the investigation by the ethics counsellor and released under a request for access to information can also be found there. The final report concerning the former Solicitor General has not been released.

The ethics counsellor is in the process of posting a number of his reports concerning other cabinet ministers on his website. These reports have been produced at the request of parliamentarians or other interested parties. However, reports on the conduct of members of cabinet, prepared to advise the Prime Minister, are only released at his discretion. One of these reports has been released. Indeed, the report of the ethics counsellor on the former Minister of Finance in respect of his involvement with the Canada Development Corporation and the tainted blood scandal was made public to follow up on a commitment made by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons on May 31, 1999.

In his capacity as the leader of the government, the Prime Minister has this discretion in order to fulfill his responsibility for government and ministerial conduct. It is important that the Prime Minister be able to rely on confidential advice on the conduct of his ministers, secretaries of state and parliamentary secretaries.

The Prime Minister himself, and he alone, decides the make-up of his cabinet, and he is accountable for his decisions both to Parliament and to the people of Canada. A similar system is in place in other countries, such as the United Kingdom and Australia.

These are certainly not procedures unique to us or which can be described as irresponsible.

With Bill C-34, which establishes the positions of Ethics Commissioner and Senatorial Ethics Advisor, the Prime Minister, who is ultimately responsible for the conduct of his ministers, will be able to continue to obtain confidential advice from the commissioner. Although the bill does not say so, the Prime Minister will continue to have the discretionary power to make or not to make public the advice obtained in this confidential manner.

Parliamentarians will also be able to request an investigation by the commissioner into the conduct of a minister, a secretary of state or a parliamentary secretary under the Prime Minister's code of ethics. The member who requested the investigation will receive a report setting out the facts, analysis and conclusions, as will the Prime Minister and the individual who has been the subject of the request, and the report will be made public at the same time. The bill stipulates that the ethics commissioner may not include in his report anything he is required to keep confidential.

The report on the former Solicitor General that Mr. Clark wants to obtain contains confidential information and was provided to the Prime Minister—pardon me for having used the member's name instead of his riding—by the ethics counsellor on a confidential basis. The decision to not comply with the hon. member's request is in keeping with the arrangements proposed in Bill C-34.

Since a number of the ethics commissioner's documents relating to the inquiry into the activities of the former Solicitor General have already been made public, they may be consulted on the web site. The site is there to be visited, or application can be made and the required procedure followed.

[Paddy Torsney, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think all members in the House are very concerned about ethics. Members are working so that all members of Parliament are respected. The Prime Minister's ethics package will go a long way to ensuring that does occur.

Bill C-34, which is presently before a committee, is an important piece of legislation. I would urge the hon. member opposite to support the bill.

Obviously, we need ensure that confidentiality is respected when these reports are drawn up. The current ethics counsellor writes reports as an advisor to the Prime Minister that include confidential and other information. The people who give that information have every right and expectation of privacy.

In the new bill the reports will be quite a bit different. There will be an opportunity for all those reports to be made public. That is an important aspect to ensuring that people do understand how ethics work and what the process is for members of Parliament. It will be an important opportunity for people to clear their names very convincingly with the public.

One of the problems we have now is people are accused of things. There is a report and people do not always get to be fully convinced that the person was in fact in the right. The improvements are something that the member opposite should be supporting. I would encourage him and his party to support those.

The issue of confidentiality and giving of advice to the Prime Minister is important. I know that on occasion, when I was unsure about how to act on an issue, I was able to contact the ethics counsellor as a backbench MP and receive some advice. It was important to know that before I acted there was a way to check and balance with someone, especially as a new member. I see there are some new members opposite over there who may want to avail themselves of that opportunity. This is something that we can all do.

As well, the reports that the ethics counsellor has put on the website, which describe what a certain situation was and what his findings were, are very instructive to the general public. They are very instructive to other members of Parliament and ministers so they are ensuring that they are conducting themselves in the most appropriate way possible.

I cannot support the motion by the right hon. member for Calgary Centre. I encourage him to look at Bill C-34 and to put his full support behind it. I encourage him to ensure that we enhance with the general public its expectations from members of Parliament and its confidence in members of Parliament from all parties.

One thing that is very stressful for me is seeing members denigrated and hearing accusations made against people in an irresponsible manner. The front page is always the place for accusations. Unfortunately, the back page sometimes is where the clarifications are issued. I know other people of high public standing are faced with that affliction as well.

Bill C-34 will ensure that there is a better process and that there is clarity. It is an important piece of legislation, and the motion from the member opposite does not enhance the process at this time. We need to ensure that we move forward in a very progressive way. The Prime Minister has demonstrated great leadership on moving forward.

I encourage all members of Parliament from all parties to support the Prime Minister's initiative going forward. I have always had every reason to have confidence in the government and many times in other members of Parliament from other parties. I am sure the member opposite can remember when members of Parliament were not held in very high repute. Certainly some of those years were very difficult prior to the present government coming into office.

There is a need for people to have confidence. The ethics package that the Prime Minister is moving forward with, and that the Liberal Party will be moving forward with, is an important part of that process because people need to have confidence. People have a right to have confidence in their members of Parliament. We can do everything to ensure that they have that respect.

I will not be supporting the motion of the member opposite. I encourage him to support the government's bill, Bill C-34.

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, ON]

I know it is lonely in the gutter, but I am sure you must enjoy it there.

The Prime Minister has already released this information. It is something that I had hoped would never enter Parliament, but I know that the member, being a former prime minister, had ministers who could not count and he lost an election. He called an election because one of his ministers forgot to count the House: “Oh, golly, I guess I am not the Prime Minister anymore”, and then he lost the government. The Conservatives were so bad they were down to two people, one of which was not him, one of which I thought maybe even became bright enough to become a Liberal and now is a premier of a province. There is a certain amount of this that goes a long way.

I went to the riding of the member for Cardigan, to the Tea Hill Park social , a great strawberry social. I never met so many people who felt that the member had been so slighted by the Tories, by the people trying to drag him down and make him something that he is not. He is a fine upstanding gentleman. He has a lovely family. He works hard for the people of his riding. And for that he has to be dragged through the mud by a former prime minister who had a minister who could not count.

It is with regret that the Prime Minister had to accept the honourable resignation of his minister. He made public the letter of resignation that was sent to him by the former solicitor general and his reply to him. In addition, the text of the letters exchanged between the ethics counsellor and the former solicitor general have also been made public. That is not good enough for the ex-prime minister who could not count. He wants to drag someone through the mud. Personal denigration seems to be the order of the day for a dying party sitting on the other side, lost in the corner.

I should not really talk about that because I am kind of lost in this corner.

The ethics counsellor's report requested by the member for Calgary Centre was provided to the Prime Minister as confidential advice from his counsellor. When the ethics counsellor provides advice to the Prime Minister, these communications are privileged between the ethics counsellor and the Prime Minister. Not having been a prime minister for very long, I guess the member did not learn the rules back then before he became the member for Calgary Centre.

The particular report contains information and advice to the Prime Minister that I do not feel should be released. It is based on client privilege. Is it not something that due process of the law has been served and that the case is over? Oh no, let us drag people through the mud; let us see how low we can go, the old Tory thing: let us tear someone apart and boy, will we feel good when we get someone down there in the mud with us tearing them apart.

On the standards for the conduct of ministers, all considerable breaches of standards, when the need arises appropriate action is taken. The hon. member resigned. He felt that his honour was at stake. He did not want to take his family through the muck raking that would happen which is happening now anyway. I guess maybe he should have stayed.

The Prime Minister is accountable to the House and to all Canadians for the conduct of ministers. Members of course can question the government on its decisions and its actions. The Prime Minister provided very good answers when questions were asked in the House on this issue. That is the way Parliament works.

The government is committed to open transparency and is actively engaged in initiatives in this area. It is on the record. The members hate to hear it over there. Listen to them heckling like a little bunch of hens.

Last June the Prime Minister announced an eight point plan of action on ethics in government and included a commitment to the new appointment procedure for the ethics counsellor. That is not good enough for the former prime minister who could not count.

The government introduced Bill C-34 which implements the recommendations of a procedure and House affairs committee report regarding the creation of an independent ethics commissioner reporting to Parliament.

The ethics commissioner would have two functions: to administer conflict of interest provisions for members of the House; and to administer any principles, rules or obligations established in the Prime Minister's code for his ministers and other public office holders.

It is very important that the Prime Minister be able to request confidential advice on the conduct of his ministers. The Prime Minister has the responsibility for deciding who will serve in his cabinet and be questioned by Parliament and by Canadians on those decisions. The Prime Minister always makes that very clear. This approach is shared. We talk about the Westminster model. It is the same approach that the United Kingdom has. It is the same approach that Australia has.

The principle that the Prime Minister can request confidential advice is reflected in Bill C-34, but at the same time, parliamentarians would be able to request the ethics commissioner to examine the actions of a minister as they relate to the provisions of the Prime Minister's code of conduct. Under Bill C-34 the ethics commissioner would be required to examine such requests and then provide a report to parliamentarians who made the request to the Prime Minister, to the person who was the subject of the complaint, and to the public, all at the same time.

In addition, under Bill C-34 the ethics commissioner would be required to table an annual report on his administration of the Prime Minister's code in both the House and the Senate. Bill C-34 also requires that the ethics commissioner not include in the report any information that he or she requires to keep confidential.

With respect to the former solicitor general, the report sought by the member for Calgary Centre contains confidential information and was provided by the ethics counsellor to the Prime Minister as confidential advice.

I ask that the House not sink to the level of the former prime minister for a short time because his ministers could not count, to rely on the good honour of the ethics counsellor, to vote for Bill C-34 and to turn down this dilatory motion by the member for Calgary Centre.

[Jim Gouk, Canadian Alliance, Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Canadian Alliance supports this motion for the production of copies of all reports of the ethics counsellor concerning the former solicitor general. It is important that details of this conflict of interest be open and transparent, as well as many others that have been raised in the House today. The Government of Canada has a duty to tell the people why the former solicitor general was forced to resign. They have the right to know.

Over and over we see the government's complete lack of will to provide openness and transparency. The promise by the government to establish new standards of ethics has taken over a decade to surface and even then it is only just barely popping its head up. We have seen scandal after scandal with the government and each time the government promises to be open and more transparent. Yet each time that a scandal erupts, the government does damage control and then tries to cover up the wrongdoing of the minister.

This is not just limited to the former solicitor general. We are also talking about the former minister of public works, Alfonso Gagliano; the former minister of national defence; the House leader of the Liberal Party in his role as minister of public works; the minister of industry; and even now there is one that is still ongoing where medical studies on aboriginal health were done by an auto restoration firm; and of course, the Prime Minister himself. The government has existed on excuses and when it cannot come up with excuses in the existing conflict of interest guidelines, it manipulates the guidelines to encompass a whole set of brand new excuses.

The Liberal standard has fallen to a new all-time low. The government need only review the words of former Prime Minister John Turner who said in Parliament on May 12, 1986:

In public administration a minister has the burden of proof, the duty to show that what he is doing is beyond reproach. The burden of proof is not on Parliament. It is not on the opposition, nor the media. The burden of proof is on the minister.

If the minister failed this test put forward by the Prime Minister through the ethics counsellor, then Parliament and Canadians have a right to know what was so compelling as to require his resignation.

In October 1993 the Liberal Party of Canada published its election promises book known as red book I. One of the promises in it stated:

A Liberal Government will appoint an independent Ethics Counsellor to advise both public officials and lobbyists in the day-to-day application of the Code of Conduct for Public Officials. The Ethics Counsellor will be appointed after consultation with the leaders of all parties in the House of Commons and will report directly to Parliament.

An ethics counsellor was indeed appointed, but without any consultation and reporting directly to the Prime Minister.

Let us fast forward to February 2001. The Canadian Alliance brought forward a supply day motion quoting word for word from the 1993 Liberal red book promise. The motion asked the House of Commons to adopt a policy to appoint an ethics counsellor who would report directly to Parliament and asked the government to implement that policy. It was defeated by a vote of 145 to 122 with all opposition members voting in favour. Once again the Liberal government failed to live up to its promises.

In Bill C-34 it is proposed that the new ethics counsellor will report to the House. If that is good enough now, then why not table the reports regarding the solicitor general today? Why wait and why create a double standard?

There were many unanswered questions surrounding the dealings of the former solicitor general. The government parades itself as being responsible and ethical. If this is so, then the government has a responsibility to table the ethics counsellor report in the House of Commons.

The government has taken 10 years and has made many attempts at striving for ethical standards. It should prove to the people that it is serious in making sure that parliamentarians work under ethical standards. A step in that direction would be to table the documents and show by action what, in essence, the Liberal government says it really means. If this is not done, the government will have let Canadians know that its decade old attempt at coming up with an ethical standard is just another empty promise.

Canadians need the government to be candid, something it has not been. The government has continually attempted to set rules for its members to follow. When they cannot follow the rules, it simply sets up new rules.

We need to assure Canadians that rules have been followed and can be followed and when they are not, that the government will be forthright with Canadians as to what went wrong.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Madam Speaker, I thank the House for the chance to speak to this motion, which calls for the government to release any reports by the ethics counsellor concerning the former solicitor general. It is particularly gratifying since it allows me to speak in support of two important principles which are important to all Canadians: first, the need for transparency and openness in government, and second, the need to protect the confidentiality rights of all citizens.

As all members are aware, these two principles can seem contradictory at times. I want to emphasize my own personal commitment to making sure Canadians have access to as much information on the workings of government as possible, for transparency and openness are vital to involving citizens in the important issues of the day and enhancing confidence in the institution of Parliament.

The government's handling of this issue to date underlines its commitment to this principle as well, for a number of documents relating to this motion already have been released. These include letters exchanged by the ethics counsellor and the former solicitor general in 1999 as well as those exchanged by the former solicitor general and the Prime Minister in October 2002. This second set of letters has since been published on the Prime Minister's website, which is about as public as one can get.

Then too, information collected during the ethics counsellor's investigation of the conduct of the former solicitor general has also been released under the Access to Information Act, which means this material is not a secret either.

Also, the ethics counsellor has posted on his website a number of reports concerning other members of the government, material prepared in response to requests by parliamentarians and other interested parties.

But while transparency and openness are important principles, they do not trump all other rights, such as the right to privacy, such as the right to cabinet confidentiality and the discretion required by the Prime Minister to fulfill his responsibility for the conduct of government.

And so over the years, successive generations of parliamentarians have decided, quite rightly, that some documents should not be released, such as confidential advice to a member of Parliament from a parliamentary ethics adviser on a conflict of interest matter, or confidential advice to the Prime Minister on the conduct of ministers, secretaries of state and parliamentary secretaries who serve in his government.

Of course this makes eminent good sense. Parliamentarians should be able to request confidential advice on conflict of interest issues so they can properly arrange their affairs.

And the Prime Minister should be able to request confidential advice on ministerial ethics since the Prime Minister bears ultimate responsibility to Parliament and to Canadians for the conduct of ministers.

It is the Prime Minister who establishes the standards of conduct they must follow and acts to remove them if they are in serious breach of these principles. It is the Prime Minister who is accountable to the House, and indeed to all Canadians, for their conduct. This means that the Prime Minister must be certain that the advice he receives in confidence today does not become tomorrow's front page news. Because of this, reports concerning the conduct of senior members of government prepared as advice to the Prime Minister are released only at his discretion. This is also the practice in other mature democracies like the United Kingdom and Australia.

Of course, such documents may be released occasionally with the Prime Minister's approval, as in the case of the report on the former minister of finance in relation to the Canadian Development Corporation and the tainted blood scandal after a commitment by the Prime Minister to make this information public. But in general, this is not a common practice. As the sponsor of this motion, a former prime minister must surely know this.

So it is not surprising that the government should oppose this motion which seeks release of the ethics counsellor's confidential advice to the Prime Minister, particularly since the code of conduct for MPs developed by the Milliken-Oliver committee, currently under study by the procedure and House affairs committee, also proposes to keep some information confidential when it involves MPs' enquires to the proposed ethics commissioner.

This being said, the government nevertheless is committed to greater transparency and higher ethical standards in the conduct of public affairs, as shown by the Prime Minister's eight point plan on ethics in government announced last June, and by the introduction of Bill C-34, which seeks to strengthen ethical conduct in government and enhance public confidence in our system of government through the appointment of an ethics commissioner reporting to the House of Commons, and a Senate ethics officer reporting to Senate.

The ethics commissioner and the Senate ethics officer would administer conflict of interest provisions for members and senators and would assist in the administration of the Prime Minister's code of ethics for ministers and other senior public officials. Even here there would be respect for the right of the Prime Minister to receive confidential information, for while the ethics commissioner would table an annual report on his administration of the Prime Minister's code in both the House and the Senate, it would not include confidential information.

In conclusion, the information requested in the motion clearly falls into the category of confidential advice provided to the Prime Minister which can only be made public at his discretion. Releasing such information would fly in the face of established parliamentary traditions not only in Canada but also in many other mature parliamentary democracies. It would also set a very bad precedent and would undermine the ability of this and subsequent prime ministers to successfully perform their duties, all of which would cause long term damage to our system of parliamentary democracy.

For this reason, I will be voting against this motion. I would urge all other members to do likewise.

Parliament of Canada Act

[The Speaker]

It being 3:02 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the referral to committee before second reading of Bill C-34.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will be brief on this particular debate. My good friend from Acadie—Bathurst has a private member's bill which I know he is champing at the bit to get on the floor of the House and legitimately so because it is a relevant bill that deals with the employment insurance issue.

On Bill C-34, I have a lot of respect for the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. He speaks from the heart. The issues he put forward with respect to the democratic deficiency and certainly with respect to ethics in the House were very appropriate.

Madam Speaker, as you and I and other members of the House know, one of the worst things we have to deal with as members of Parliament is the impression that we have in the community. I think we are our own worst enemies. Too often people will approach us and say “The House is dysfunctional. The democracy that we have is dysfunctional. In most cases members of Parliament are there for all the wrong reasons. They are selfish and they are crooked”.

That cuts me to the core. Quite frankly I consider myself to be a very honest person, someone who has been a public servant and who has represented not only my community but my constituency for well over 20 years.

When people tell me this of other members, they always say “but that does not mean you; this is about other people that we see in the House of Commons”. It hurts and I know that we are our own worst enemies.

We have to put in place not only legislation that we have to deal with but also consider the ethics bill that we are talking about today. We as members of Parliament must be seen to be as pure as the driven snow. In our own operations we have to recognize that we have to set a higher example, a better example not only of our own selves in the House but certainly of our colleagues in the House, so that people will respect us more as politicians than they have in the past.

I sit on the procedure and House affairs committee and I look forward to having this piece of legislation referred to it. I have had the opportunity to deal with the ethics package and to debate the issue of the ethics commissioner over the past number of months. I can assure the House that provincial jurisdictions are far ahead of the federal jurisdiction.

My own jurisdiction of Manitoba had the opportunity to deal with the issue of an ethics commissioner. I assure the House that just having the rules in place is absolutely vital. It is not so much even for the public to say that there are some rules to gauge and see what politicians are following but it is a preventative measure also for the members of the jurisdictions. It is easy for us to get wrapped up in our own lives and not see the shades of grey between the black and white of ethics.

What I see as part of the job function of the ethics commissioner here is as a preventative action for members of Parliament. When we have some difficulty as to where we are heading in our own lives with our own investments and our own constituencies, we now have somebody to go to and ask whether or not we are on the right track. None of us has all the answers. Anyone here who thinks he or she has all the answers obviously would be much better than the opposition side or for that matter even the Prime Minister because even he does not have all the answers. It is good to be able to share and ask other people what it is we should or should not be doing.

There are two issues. One which I could not get over is the squeamish acceptance by the government at committee when we talked about spousal disclosure with respect to the ethics bill. The regulations will be drawn up. As part of the regulations it should be required that not only should the member of Parliament disclose his or her assets but we are saying that in order to make this up front and to make it totally transparent and believable, spousal disclosure has to accompany that of the member. That is just open, honest common sense.

Every other jurisdiction has it but the Liberal members had some difficulty with that. They thought perhaps there should be a backdoor way of getting around the regulations or the ethics. I do not see it that way.

In another life I had the requirement to disclose and declare what my assets and interests were. My spouse and also my dependants at that point in time were part of that declaration also.

It is only fair that we look seriously at that spousal disclosure when we go to the regulation. I think we finally convinced the Liberals that they should be seen to be above that and go with spousal disclosure.

The other thing is the ethics commissioner. I am absolutely astounded that it took the Prime Minister 10 years to embrace the idea of ethics. In his original red book of 1993, it talked about open government, open Parliament and open ethics. Now, 10 years later, when he is leaving, when he has his foot out the door and the door is about to hit him on the way out, he has embraced this wonderful concept of ethics. I do not know why it was not necessary for the last 10 years that he follow his own rules, that in fact he be more ethical in his position as Prime Minister, but I guess sometimes it is better late than never.

One of the things with the ethics commissioner, as part of the jurisdictions we talked to, is that the individual, he or she, must have the respect of either the legislature or the Parliament. It is difficult to have that individual give us advice, as members, when we do not have respect for him or her, or vice versa.

In order to achieve that, not only do we need to have, and should have, all the leaders of every party in the House to be part of that process of appointment, I honestly believe that the House must have a very serious part in that process of appointment. We must have the ability to vote, not unlike what we do with the Speaker. When every Parliament is opened, we have the opportunity to put forward the name of an individual who we believe will best represent our rights in the House. I think it is necessary that we do the same thing with the ethics commissioner.

Should it be 50 plus 1? We have had that argument. We have that argument in referendums all the time, I think. Quite frankly, I believe it should be more than that. I think it should be more than simple majority. In fact I would love to see unanimity but we will never get that. However I would hate to see just simply the majority government of the day being able to tell me who my ethics counsellor or commissioner will be. There should be more than just simple majority. Perhaps two-thirds or three-quarters. Let us pick a number. However I think we can do that at committee.

I do not want to take up any more time at this point but I will take up a substantial amount of time at the committee when this bill comes forward. I can assure all hon. members that when it comes back to the House it will be in a much better fashion, with some changes made to it. I know we can do it with the help of the government in the committee.

[Reed Elley, Canadian Alliance, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Madam Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise and be able to speak on behalf of my constituents to Bill C-34, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act, specifically regarding the ethics commissioner and the Senate ethics officer.

As well all know, the current Prime Minister has been searching for his legacy, something that Canadians will remember him by after his years of public service. While I greatly respect his years of service, I do not have to endorse what he has done during those years. The bill is a prime example of the Liberal legacy, saying that it will do something but only doing it in half measures.

If the purpose of the bill is to fulfill a 1993 Liberal red book election promise and provide for the appointment of a truly independent ethics officer that would report directly to the House Commons regarding the conduct of its members, then we would be able to proceed quickly with the bill. Unfortunately, as my colleagues before me have stated and as I will mention in the next few moments, this is really is not the case.

The bill is part of the Prime Minister's ethics initiative that he first announced in May 2002. As is often the case with the Prime Minister, his cabinet and his government, they use the right words but the meaning and implementation are shifted in such a way that the results are confusing. In other words, they simply do not walk the talk.

I believe if any one of us asked our constituents what they thought the term “independent ethics commissioner for the House of Commons” actually meant, there would be a fairly consistent response. Canadians who I have spoken with over the past number of years on this issue take the view that an independent ethics commissioner means exactly that, independent, free of influence and restrictions from anyone else.

While that would be the Canadian norm, the Liberal version of the world is always just a little bit different. Under the bill the term “independent ethics commissioner” is misleading. Under Bill C-34 the Prime Minister will make the choice of ethics commissioner. There will be a consultation process with the leaders of the parties in the House and then there will be a confirming vote in the House.

This may sound like it meets the needs of an independent ethics commission. However, we must consider that the consultation process with the leaders does not mandate that the Prime Minister change his mind if they all disagree.

Consider that the confirming vote in the House will undoubtedly be a vote in which all Liberals will mysteriously vote in favour of the Prime Minister's choice. This will not be a secret ballot where every member of the House can vote according to his or her independent view of the proposed ethics commissioner. Is it not ironic that an independent ethics commissioner will not be voted on by independent minded members of Parliament?

As we all very well know, there is a very strong precedent for secret ballots in the House. The Speaker of the House of Commons has been voted on in this fashion for the past several times and it has worked extremely well. The wishes of the members are clearly heard and they in turn are well served by that democratic choice.

I note that the House of Commons ethics commissioner is appointed for an initial five year term and is eligible for reappointment for one or more terms of up to five years each. Furthermore, Bill C-34 states that the House of Commons ethics commissioner will work under the general direction of a committee of the House of Commons, presumably the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. While this seems all quite logical, I believe we need to look at the working details of the bill more closely. Unfortunately again, Liberal logic and Canadian logic often do not match with each other.

When speaking out in opposition to Bill C-34, let me quote directly from Canadian Alliance policy and what I firmly believe should be involved in the bill. It states:

We will facilitate the appointment of an independent Ethics Counsellor by the House of Commons. The Ethics Counsellor will report directly to the House of Commons and be given the mandate to investigate, and where applicable, recommend prosecution for conflict-of-interest infractions by a Member of Parliament, and/or his/her staff.

I am fully in favour of setting and maintaining a high standard of ethical conduct by government and parliamentarians. As public servants, we must ensure that a high standard is maintained. In this case it is this Liberal version of ethics to which I am opposed. By its very nature ethics are not something that can or should be subject to internal definitions.

I have no doubt that the Liberals will try to characterize my fellow opposition members as being against a code of ethics but let me emphatically state again that I fully support the premise and the need for an independent ethics commissioner. Unfortunately, after reading the details of the bill, while the position may be for an ethics commissioner, the position is certainly not independent. It is on this basis that I disagree with this bill.

I ask the obvious question of how an ethics commissioner appointed by and answerable solely to the Prime Minister can have any legitimate jurisdiction over backbench and opposition MPs. I urge all hon. members of Parliament to carefully consider these implications. This is nothing more than one more Liberal wolf dressed in sheep's clothing. How can an ethics commissioner for all members of the House of Commons have any validity when he or she would be appointed by the Prime Minister without an endorsement by the rank and file members of Parliament?

As we have seen in the past, situations arise where an investigation by an independent ethics commissioner is required. If an investigation of a minister is requested by a senator or an MP, the ethics counsellor is obliged to investigate. However under Bill C-34, any public report arising from the investigation can be suitably sanitized by withholding any information considered confidential.

An independent ethics commissioner must report to the House of Commons ideally through one of the committees, not through the Prime Minister's office. Without this provision there is no independence and the position continues as a lapdog to the Prime Minister.

I know the government House leader has indicated that Bill C-34 meets all the recommendations of the standing committee in its report tabled just before Easter. However that is not necessarily the case. The method of recruitment and the appointment of the ethics commissioner is key to guaranteeing his or her independence. Unlike all other officers of Parliament, the ethics commissioner reports on the conduct of members of Parliament and not the government. Therefore, faith in his total independence is essential.

I note the standing committee made favourable reference to the practice in the provinces where there is direct involvement by their members in the selection of their commissioners.

In my home province of British Columbia he is selected by an all party committee, which makes a recommendation to the premier, who must then obtain a two-thirds confirming vote by the legislative assembly to make the appointment. Alberta uses a similar method without the two-thirds requirement. In this package the House will have, arguably, no real involvement in recruitment and appointment, and in the end the government majority will simply prevail.

There are many other issues that arise out of this bill that time prevents me from addressing. I know that opposition parties and many backbench government members have grave concerns over this bill.

Some of the issues I have had the opportunity to speak to but there are many others. I am concerned over the confidential advising to the Prime Minister and the ability of the PMO to clean up the report over confidential issues between the Prime Minister and his ministers. The bill provides no real role for the House in the selection of the ethics commissioner, therefore arguably not really truly independent.

I am strongly in favour of a code of ethics by which all members of the House can abide. I affirm the need for a truly independent ethics commissioner to uphold this standard. Unfortunately, the Liberal government thrust its own definitions on the role and position and in so doing, have circumvented the legitimacy of a truly independent ethics commissioner.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-34, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act.

First, I would like to state that the New Democratic Party supports the adoption of a code of ethics for all parliamentarians. It is interesting to note that all of the provinces of Canada have codes of conduct that require disclosure to an independent commissioner or to a legislative clerk. The House of Commons must therefore update its practices in this regard.

It is also interesting to realize that most of the conflict of interest scandals which we have witnessed in recent years, and which have culminated in a bill, involved ministers, and not backbenchers. Clearly the ministers are not following the guidelines already in place.

Ethics legislation must at the very least create an independent ethics commissioner, who would be an officer of Parliament and who would have the following duties: ensuring that the rules for disclosure of private interests of senators and members of Parliament, including their immediate family members, are respected; providing advice to members of Parliament regarding ethics and conflicts of interest; hearing complaints from the public regarding inappropriate behaviour under the terms of the code of conduct; and carrying out investigations into these complaints.

This last point is very important. In fact, Canadians should be able to file complaints directly with the ethics commissioner, and not solely through a federal member of Parliament. This would show the public that it is able to contribute to the process. It goes without saying that frivolous accusations must not be grounds for complaints. This process must be handled with the respect it deserves.

I believe that ethics standards should be the same for all parliamentarians, be they members of Parliament or senators. My colleague, the member for Halifax, introduced a private members' bill on the issue, in which she proposed creating a code of conduct for all parliamentarians. I think that her draft legislation would have been a better model than the bill before us today.

Bill C-34 sets out the duties and functions of an ethics commissioner and a Senate ethics officer. It is interesting to see that this bill proposes the appointment of two ethics officers, one for federal members of Parliament and one for senators. This leads me to believe that senators follow different ethics rules than members of the House of Commons.

I have a solution to this problem, and perhaps many Canadians will agree. All we have to do is get rid of the Senate and we will no longer have to deal with this problem. Why should we have senators, who are not accountable to the people? On reading this bill, it is obvious that if a senator has a conflict of interest, his peers will protect him.

At least, with members of the House of Commons, if voters do not like their ethical standards, they can show their dissatisfaction by not re-electing them. You need only ask Doug Young. I think he could tell you how the electoral process works.

Unfortunately, we cannot get rid of the senators. This is ridiculous. The purpose of this ethics bill is to reinforce the public's confidence in public office holders. Yet, Bill C-34 proposes two separate standards for parliamentarians. The NDP cannot support this double standard approach.

I am disappointed that this bill does not clearly explain how the ethics commissioner will be chosen. I believe that a vote in the House of Commons on the approval of the person appointed to the position of ethics commissioner should require a two-thirds majority. This seems essential to me. A simply majority would not be enough. The ethics commissioner must have the confidence and the support of all members of the House to have the confidence of the House of Commons.

I sit on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I can say that this committee has debated at length the issue of appointing an ethics commissioner and the rules contained in the code of conduct federal members of Parliament would be required to comply with. I would like to pursue these discussions when this bill is considered by the relevant legislative committee.

The House committee has already discussed what should be included in the code of conduct in terms of the definition of assets held by federal MPs.

Members generally agreed that spouses should be included in this definition, recognizing that many federal MPs share the ownership of assets with their spouse. To not include spouses would be to overlook a significant portion of the information regarding members' assets.

It was also suggested that it might be appropriate to include children who are not adults in the definition of family. I think the code should go even further and include adult children. This is one of the proposals in Bill C-417 put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Halifax.

I am disappointed that this bill is not more comprehensive. Most of the rules of ethics that federal MPs are expected to comply with are set out in the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, and not in a piece of legislation.

I think that this weakens the bill. I also think that we should have rules that could be used in court, in addition to those which apply only in the House of Commons.

As my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois said earlier, polls on how Canadians perceive their members of Parliament show that their popularity level is the lowest. It is sad to say that this lack of popularity of Parliament was the doing of ministers. It is due to the way they managed their portfolios, their departments. It is due to scandals, widespread scandals, like the one involving Groupaction. Think of—

Think of Auberge Grand-Mère, government advertising contracts, the gun registry for which Groupaction was paid $22 million. One might wonder how they got these contracts.

It is important to have a code of ethics for all the members of the House of Commons. If we are to have a code of ethics for the House of Commons as a whole, it must show respect for the House of Commons. The only way to do that is not to shift the burden onto the Prime Minister of Canada, who would pick the ethics commissioner. The ethics commissioner should be selected by Parliament through a two-thirds majority vote, through a majority of parliamentarians. That person would be accountable to parliamentarians. He or she would have to be accountable to Parliament and not to the Prime Minister of Canada who, with all due respect, might choose someone he knows, someone who is a good supporter of his party as we saw in the case of the Electoral Boundaries Commission and any other commission put in place. It is always questionable.

If we want Canadians to have respect for Parliament, let us give the job to parliamentarians. Let us do it through a two-thirds majority of votes here in the House of Commons, and then maybe Canadians will give us a better rating, bringing it from 17% to 60% or 75%. We are the people's servants. We are here to serve the people, and our fellow citizens should have faith in us.

All I am asking for now—and one might hope it will happen—is that at second reading we look into the process, a process the Canadian people could respect. The best way to proceed is through democracy and by holding a vote in the House of Commons where two thirds of parliamentarians would choose the ethics commissioner because they are the ones the people elected.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-34, concerning the appointment of ethics commissioners, and on the possibility of referring the bill to committee before second reading. Bill C-34 seeks to amend the Parliament of Canada Act and to create two distinct positions.

I am going to describe this bill briefly, for the people listening now and those who, we hope, will be reading these debates in the future.

These are the two positions. There is an ethics commissioner, responsible for administering a House of Commons code of conflict of interest—which does not yet exist, but which is being discussed and studied in committee—and for assisting the Prime Minister in administering the code of conduct for public office holders with respect to post-term conflicts of interest. There will also be a separate Senate ethics officer to administer the code of ethical conduct for the Senate.

As I was saying, the Senate code of ethical conduct and the House of Commons code of conduct governing conflicts of interest are now being developed within the two appropriate committees.

The Senate ethics officer will be appointed for a seven-year renewable term. The House ethics commissioner will be appointed for a five-year renewable term. This follows the pattern for the appointment of other officials, such as the Commissioner of Official Languages, or the Auditor General, or those who act as independent representatives before Parliament.

However, the unanimous report of a House of Commons committee, presented early in April, recommended that both these terms be renewable in order to reduce the loss of institutional memory. If it appears necessary to renew the term of someone in such a position, it is important to be able to do so, in order to preserve institutional memory.

The ethics commissioner will be appointed by the governor in council, after consultation with the leaders of recognized parties in the House. My colleague from the Canadian Alliance was wondering whether the appointment would be subject to consultation or to approval. That remains to be defined, but in this we recognize the wording of a promise from the 1993 red book. Ten years later, an old Liberal promise has almost been fulfilled. In fact, during second reading or in the committee stage, the top priority should be to make this point clear.

The draft bill tabled in the fall did not contain any provisions guaranteeing that the party leaders would be consulted. This is already a step forward. The government has committed to doing this, and we recognize this today.

Nor did the draft bill provide for a resolution by the House of Commons. Today, there is a possibility for a resolution in the House of Commons before these two commissioners are appointed.

We are also pleased that the bill will be sent to committee before second reading. This bill must undergo very serious analysis, which can only be done by concurrently considering the House of Common's conflict of interest code being drafted as we speak by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

It is impossible to discuss the appointment of an ethics commissioner, either separately or concurrently, without knowing all the ramifications of this code for members, ministers and parliamentary secretaries. Only by comparing the two documents will we be able to evaluate the overall process, in terms of whether there are possible ethics loopholes for elected representatives in the House of Commons. A serious analysis must be undertaken to understand what rules apply to public office holders, ministers and parliamentary secretaries. We intend to consider these issues very carefully, and we will continue this consideration in committee.

However, it is clear already that several aspects of the bill are very intriguing. We now have the assurance that the leaders of recognized parties in the House of Commons will be consulted about the appointment of the ethics commissioner since this will be a legislative requirement from now on. This obligation, which the Prime Minister committed to, was not included in the draft legislation introduced in the House of Commons on October 23.

Furthermore, the House will also be asked to approve the appointment of the ethics commissioner through a resolution. This is also a new provision in this bill. In its most recent report, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs had recommended that these provisions be included.

We also are pleased that a complaints process for parliamentarians concerning ministers, ministers of state and parliamentary secretaries will be formally in place from now on.

As well, the commissioner will be required to provide an activity report to the House of Commons, and not just the Prime Minister. These provisions were included in the draft bill and are being maintained, and we are pleased with this.

As the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell has pointed out, this is not a new bill, or not the first time this important matter has been raised in the House of Commons.

Pleased as we are to have this opportunity to discuss this bill and this matter in the House today, we are somewhat disappointed that it has taken 10 years to be able to do so. We might say it is high time the Liberal government decided to keep its 1993 red book promise to appoint an independent ethics commissioner.

The red book made the following commitment:

A Liberal Government will appoint an independent Ethics Counsellor--

This was expressed in the future tense. There are various kinds of futures, and this is a very distant future.

The Ethics Counsellor will be appointed after consultation with the leaders of all the parties in the House of Commons and will report directly to Parliament.

That was, I might again point out, back in 1993.

Strangely enough, today we are accepting the appointment of an ethics commissioner after consultation, whereas the Canadian Alliance had, on an official opposition day, tabled a motion with exactly the same wording, if I recall correctly. It had had the finesse to copy the red book promise word for word, which was, I repeat:

A Liberal Government will appoint an independent Ethics Counsellor ...appointed after consultation with the leaders of all the parties ...and will report directly to Parliament.

At that time, the Liberals voted against it. Today, however, they are presenting a bill to keep that promise, for which we are grateful, particularly having seen the ineffectuality of the present ethics commissioner, who answers only to the Prime Minister, reports only to the Prime Minister, is appointed only by the Prime Minister, and whose only friend, I believe, is the Prime Minister. That alone is a clear indication that there is a problem.

What happened during those 10 years to convince the Liberals to change their mind and honour their promises? I will tell you what. There were scandals at the Auberge Grand-Mère. There were scandals at HRDC. There was a scandal in the sponsorship program. There was a scandal in the firearms program. There were scandals in many departments, National Defence being one I happen to be thinking about. During all that time, we had an ethics counsellor reporting to the prime minister, accountable to the prime minister and dealing only with the prime minister.

We think it important that this ethics commissioner will have a code to enforce and to abide by for members, ministers, parliamentary secretaries and everybody else, and that he will report to the House of Commons and not to the Prime Minister.

Although we agree entirely with the bill or with the principles of a code of ethics, we think that we should not be sending out the message that we are regulating ourselves in this way because we are dishonest.

If improper actions have been taken, we have to correct the perception. Unfortunately, in our society, politicians are not perceived as being very good at respecting rules. I fear that if things are not made properly in the design process of this study - and not in the application - and if we play politics, then all the politicians in the House will suffer from an even worse perception in the eyes of our fellow citizens.

I urge us all to proceed with the utmost caution in our study at second reading stage of this bill dealing with the position of ethics counsellor and the ethical guidelines in general.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

--but the problem is exactly the same in that the power is all exercised by the Prime Minister.

The hon. member opposite who just spoke indicated that government members would like this passed really quickly. He is hoping that he can send it back to committee.

Having been one of the members on that committee, I would like to report here that it has been a really great experience. I have really come to respect the people from all parties who have worked on the procedure and House affairs subcommittee where we studied this bill and put together this report and the recommendations.

However, when the government House leader indicates that it was all unanimous, it was not without a lot of convulsions. It was not without a whole bunch of really deep concerns and the largest concern is undoubtedly the method of appointment of the ethics commissioner for the House of Commons.

It is true that the report was unanimous in the sense that we chose not to file a dissenting report. However, the reason for doing so was that we were told our requirement to have a super majority or a double majority to approve that ethics commissioner for the House of Commons would have required a change in the Constitution since the Constitution says that all votes in the House of Commons are decided by a simple majority.

We would really like to see the ethics commissioner have a higher level of approval because of the fact that this officer of Parliament would be unique in the sense that he or she is going to have jurisdiction over individual members of Parliament from all political parties. It is absolutely mandatory that the ethics commissioner have the support of all members in the House, not just the Liberal government.

Let us review what Bill C-34 does in terms of the appointment process and the ratification process on reappointment. It has a serious flaw. If everybody were wonderful and getting along with each other, there would not be a problem. People are congenial and they are kind and nice, and we would like to think that where it requires that the Prime Minister consult with leaders of other parties in the House prior to putting forward a name, that is in essence all very well. But all the bill says is that there shall be consultation with the leaders of the other parties in the House. There is absolutely no requirement in the bill that those leaders agree or that the majority agrees on the appointee being put forward. All it states is that there shall be consultation.

With a lack of definition of what consultation means, and without actually specifying that there be some degree of agreement on it, this really could turn out to be quite a sham. The Prime Minister could pick someone he wants and then talk to each of the House leaders and ask them what they think. It would not matter what they think or say about that person in response, the Prime Minister could say he has consulted, that he met the requirements of the act.

Further, Bill C-34 states that there is to be a ratifying vote in the House of Commons. Here again, we have observed that in a majority government, like the Liberals we have had here for the last nine and a half years, these Liberals tend to vote pretty well the way the Prime Minister wants them to, as directed by the party whip. So there is the possible scenario of the Prime Minister choosing someone objectionable, then talking about that individual with the other House leaders, and that would be as far as that goes; then he could then come in here and tell his members, “Hey, if you want to get out early, vote in favour of the appointee I am putting forward”. So either by persuasion, by hanging out a carrot, or by some whipping by the whip, the Liberals would get their majority vote and the commissioner would be in place.

Yesterday I talked to somebody about what would happen if I were offered this position, although I do not think it will happen because of other disqualifications, namely in the area of language, so I am disqualified from most of these positions in our country. But if I were offered this position and in a vote in the House of Commons the majority government voted in favour of my appointment but all other parties voted against it, I would feel obliged to thank the Prime Minister for his offer but decline the position. I hope the person offered the position will have that same degree of honour in accepting it. It is absolutely mandatory when this person is going to delve into our personal lives as members of Parliament on both sides of the House that the person have integrity and the trust of all members of Parliament.

Even though the actual double vote is probably impossible because it would require a change in the Constitution, I would hopefully expect that there would be a very high degree of support for this person upon appointment.

Now here is the dilemma, Mr. Speaker: My time is up and of course I would like to speak for another hour or so on this topic because I have covered only one of about eighteen objections. However, it will go to committee and hopefully we will have some good work there.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-34, the proposed changes to the Parliament of Canada Act, an act of Parliament for which I have ministerial responsibility. The bill would establish an ethics commissioner and a Senate ethics officer.

On October 23, 2002, the government tabled a draft bill to establish the independent ethics commissioner reporting to Parliament, as well as a draft code of conduct of parliamentarians. The documents were tabled in draft form to give members the maximum flexibility in considering these documents.

The two draft documents have been the subject of extensive parliamentary consultation and study since last fall. The procedure and House affairs committee heard from numerous witnesses between November and April 2003.

On November 19, 2002, the committee circulated to all members a working document, outlining its findings up until that time. On March 21, 2003, the committee again released a draft report to all members seeking their input before finalizing its recommendations to the House. The committee held three round tables with MPs to seek their views.

The committee tabled its report in the House on April 10. It approves the appointment of an independent ethics commissioner, as provided in the bill, and it recommends several changes.

I want to thank the chair and all other members of the committee for their excellent work. I also want to thank members on both sides of the House, since the committee has tabled a unanimous report.

I am pleased to inform the House today that the government has accepted all the recommendations in the unanimous report. It remains to be seen whether the hon. members, who gave unanimous support to the report, will still be unanimous when it is time to vote on a bill they unanimously supported a short time ago.

It also remains to be seen how serious the hon. members opposite were in wanting a bill or saying they wanted a bill. It is not always the same thing.

There are key changes to the bill from the draft of last October. As recommended by the committee, the appointment of an ethics commissioner would be subject to consultation with leaders of recognized parties in the House. That was unanimously recommended and adopted by the committee. And of course, there was a subsequent resolution of the House.

The committee recommended that Standing Order 111.1 be amended. That is the Standing Order that we adopted after the equally unanimous modernization committee phase I where we set in that procedure for all other House officers. The committee unanimously recommended that the ethics commissioner be appointed pursuant to that rule. We agreed and are putting it in the bill.

The committee considered the length of the term of the ethics commissioner, which in the draft bill was set at a single five-year term. The committee recommended a term of five years or more and that it be renewable. I am pleased to advise the House that we have provided for a five year term and that it be renewable, but if it is renewable there would be another vote in the House of Commons pursuant to Standing Order 111.

The committee requested that the wording of the tenure provisions in the bill be clarified so that its meaning is clear when discussing the process for removing an ethics commissioner. Accordingly, proposed subsection 72.02(1) of Bill C-34 has been redrafted to do just that. We have agreed again with every recommendation of the unanimous committee report.

The committee recommended that the mechanism for parliamentarians to request that the ethics commissioner examine the actions of a minister or secretary of state under the Prime Minister's code be extended to parliamentary secretaries to ensure that they would have as much coverage or accountability under the bill. We agreed.

There are proposed changes to the Senate. The Senate committee studying the draft bill concluded that the other place should have its own separate ethics officer because its traditions are different. It has a separate Clerk. We have a Sergeant-at-Arms who we call the Usher of the Black Rod in the other place and so on. The other place has its own separate independent officers in many cases. It has provided us with a unanimous report. Having agreed with the unanimous report of the House, we gave the same courtesy to the other place and we will agree with the recommendation that it made to us in that regard.

Bill C-34 proposes that the ethics commissioner be responsible for administering a code of conduct for members of the House and the Prime Minister's code for public office holders, and that there be a separate Senate ethics officer to administer the code of conduct for the Senate. The name is different to differentiate the two people, but the responsibilities are identical in both houses.

Bill C-34 includes additional provisions to reinforce the fact that the ethics commissioner and the Senate ethics officer are covered by parliamentary privilege which is also provided for in the bill.

There are a few other changes that were made to clarify Bill C-34 and I hope colleagues agree that they would improve it. In any case, we are sending the bill to committee before second reading so that we could have even more amendments from colleagues.

The new wording clarifies that ministers, secretaries of state, and parliamentary secretaries would be subject to the House or Senate codes when carrying out their MP functions. This is so that someone does not think that ministers would be exempt from one code when dealt with by the other. They would be covered by both. We further clarified that.

When carrying out duties and functions of their office as ministers, parliamentary secretaries or secretaries of state, they too would be subject to the Prime Minister's conflict of interest and post-employment code for public office holders. There is further clarification in that regard.

Bill C-34 would require that requests to examine the actions of ministers, secretaries of state, and parliamentary secretaries under the Prime Minister's code be made in writing, and only if there would be reasonable grounds to believe that there has been a breach of the code. That is the same thing that is being asked for members and would be extended to ministers to make it more uniform. It is similar to the complaint mechanism I described before.

We have made amendments to the first draft of the bill pursuant to the unanimous committee report and we have agreed with every recommendation that was proposed in the unanimous report.

The first draft of the bill on the ethics commissioner has been the subject of broad consultations in both houses. I thank my colleagues in the House of Commons for their unanimous report, and the members of the other place, who also worked very hard.

The government has listened to the advice of parliamentarians. We have accepted all of their recommendations for improvements to the bill. Today, the bill will be referred to committee before second reading in order to make it even better, if need be.

I will conclude by saying that the first attempt to have such legislation started as early as 1976. I see two colleagues in the House today who, I think, were in the House of Commons at the time. There have been many tries at this. None of them have ever gotten as far as what we have in front of us today, but that is not far enough. Let us work together to ensure that this time this actually becomes the law, as opposed to just things that we say we are going to do in the future. We can all contribute toward that.

I invite colleagues to make this positive step by sending the bill to committee, possibly as early as today. If not, I will schedule it again on Monday. I want to send it to committee as quickly as possible, have another study of it, and hopefully pass it before June so that it will be the law of the land, not only for ourselves but for parliamentarians to come as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That Bill C-34, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Ethics Commissioner and Senate Ethics Officer) and other Acts in consequence, be immediately referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

On the Order: Government Orders

April 30, 2003—The hon. Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons—Second Reading and Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs of Bill C-34, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Ethics Commissioner and Senate Ethics Officer) and other Acts in consequence.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to note the lobby just put before us by the hon. member for Bill C-10A to be debated next week.

This afternoon, we will continue the debate on the opposition motion. Tomorrow, we will commence with Bill C-34, the long-awaited bill to amend the Parliament of Canada Act.

I have informed the House leaders of the other parties of my intention to propose, pursuant to Standing Order 73(1), that this bill be referred to committee before second reading. If this debate is completed by the end of the day, we will return to third reading of Bill C-9, which deals with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act; then we will go to Bill C-13, the reproductive technologies bill, but I would be surprised if we got that far tomorrow.

On Monday and Wednesday, we will return to the two bills that I just mentioned and we will add to that Bill C-35, regarding military judges, which I think was introduced this morning. Then we will complete, I hope, Bill C-33, dealing with the transfer of offenders.

On Tuesday, and again I am responding to the request made by my colleagues opposite, we will continue consideration of the Senate amendments to Bill C-10, respecting the Criminal Code.

Next Thursday will be an allotted day.

Ethics

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

Mr. Speaker, I am quite pleased and quite honoured to have had the opportunity of introducing Bill C-34 in the House yesterday, which appoints the independent ethics commissioner.

I want to remind the hon. member that the system for appointing the ethics commissioner is identical to the one utilized in the first modernization committee report about all officers of the House. Here is what the then House leader for the Alliance said on October 24, 2001, “The appointment of important positions like the clerk of the House and officers of parliament should be approved by parliament”. That is--

Parliament of Canada Act

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

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-34, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Ethics Commissioner and Senate Ethics Officer) and other acts in consequence.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)