Debates of April 21st, 1999

Committees Of The House

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I move that the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Finance presented on Friday, June 12, 1998, be concurred in.

I will be sharing my time with the member for Souris—Moose Mountain.

This report from the finance committee deals with the issue of tied selling in the banking industry. I think it is important to note that the banks have long been regarded as captains of the financial industry in Canada. They are heavily regulated by requirement of the government. As well, they are required to operate in a most transparent and ethical manner by the consumers of their business.

Private industry is willing to present to the public a code of ethics or a code of conduct by which it operates so that the people looking to put their trust in their institutions can plainly see the guidelines the banks are going to operate by. The public, the consumers of those services, is able to clearly judge whether those institutions are in fact operating within the guidelines of their code of ethics or code of conduct.

No one will argue that the banking industry is a powerful decision maker in the financial sector and in the economy. It makes very powerful decisions that affect the economy. However, those decisions are less powerful than the Liberal cabinet which sits on the front benches of the government.

While the banks are prepared voluntarily to lay out their code of conduct, their code of ethics, their principles for all to see and to judge them by, the Liberal government has refused, for a number of years now, to make public the code of ethics that the Prime Minister himself says exists, the special code of ethics that he has for his ministers. He has been telling us since 1994 that indeed he has a special code of ethics that his ministers must adhere to and be judged by.

As the Canadian public, the consumers of banking services, ask the banking institutions to have their code of ethics made public—and which they have no problem in complying—we in the Reform Party have been asking the Prime Minister himself to make public the code of ethics, that supposedly exists, that his cabinet members, the most powerful decision makers in the country, are bound to adhere to. Yet he has refused every single request for the public presentation of that code of ethics.

We also understand that he has an ethics counsellor who helped draft the code of ethics. We have requested from the ethics counsellor a copy of this code of ethics but he has told us to speak to the Prime Minister. We have been talking and pleading with the Prime Minister to table in the House this mysterious code of ethics, if it actually exists, so that not only opposition members of parliament but even his own backbench members of parliament would be able to see this code of ethics. As well, the Canadian public would be able to see this mysterious code of ethics that the Prime Minister has maintained over the years actually exists.

Despite the numerous requests to the Prime Minister to table this code of ethics, he has refused to do so a number of times. To date, we have not seen it. He says he has it. We have asked for it but he has not presented it.

One can only draw one of two conclusions: Either the Prime Minister has not been totally honest with us in saying that he has—

[Paul Bonwick, Liberal, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I believe the language the hon. member is using is not parliamentary in nature. He is suggesting that a member of the House is not telling the truth. I would ask perhaps that the hon. member retract his statement.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I listened to the comment by the hon. member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley and his exact words were “not totally”, so that there was that inference.

I accept the point made by the member for Simcoe—Grey. I have allowed a certain discretion when the inference was not directed at a specific individual, but in this particular case, although it was oblique, it was directed at a specific individual. I believe the member for Simcoe—Grey is quite correct.

I would therefore ask the member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley to withdraw that remark.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, of course I withdraw that. Let me rephrase that. I see you are anticipating this new phrase.

The Prime Minister has told us that this code of ethics exists and that it is a real thing but he has been reluctant or has refused to deliver it.

Either this code of ethics does not in fact exist—and the Canadian public, the opposition and even the government's own backbenchers can draw whatever conclusion they want from that—or this code of ethics does in fact exist and the Prime Minister, in his refusal to present it in the House, is doing it because he does not want his own cabinet members, the most powerful decision makers in the country, to be subject by the Canadian people to the close scrutiny that would be available if that code of ethics was made public.

One has to then draw the conclusion that either it does not exist, even though the Prime Minister has said it does, or it does exist and the Prime Minister feels that he may just possibly be embarrassed by the conduct of his ministers. Given that those must be the only two conclusions we can draw, I say in the House that both of them, either one of them, are totally unacceptable in parliament.

When the Canadian people look at the House of Commons and see the Prime Minister, the cabinet, the government and the opposition benches, I think we would all want them to have as much confidence as possible in the decision making that goes on in the House.

Incidentally, the Prime Minister, in both of his red books, promised over and over again openness, transparency, honesty and straightforwardness in how the government would run the country. We see no example of that.

This is a very simple request. If the Prime Minister has a code of ethics for his ministers, which he says he holds them responsible to, he should just simply present it to Canadians so they can benefit from it and be able look at it and say “This is fantastic. I can see now that every cabinet minister in this government must hold themselves to the highest standards in the operation of their jobs and in the performance of their duties”.

That is what we in the Reform Party want for Canadians and what I want for Canadians. However, that is obviously not what the Prime Minister and every single one of his Liberal members want for Canadians. That is a shameful display of arrogance in this House.

I have received many letters from constituents all across the country asking me why the Prime Minister will not table this code of ethics. They what to know what he is afraid of. Only the Prime Minister knows what he is afraid of. Only the Prime Minister knows the danger that might be present if he were to table that code of ethics for his ministers. Not only could we judge and scrutinize the way cabinet ministers carry out their duties, but indeed all Canadians could do that. Maybe then the Teflon jacket on our Prime Minister would start to fray.

The vote last night by all the Liberal members in unison was an absolute shame. It was a black mark on democracy. It was a slap in the face of Canadians who want to trust the government. The Liberals should be ashamed of themselves. I hope the people of Canada will hold each and every one of them responsible for it. I would ask them to check out their local newspapers when they get back to their ridings.

[Paul Bonwick, Liberal, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member speaks of ethics, of his request and of the defeat of his bill last night. The very fact that he is making suggestions in the House that either individuals or the government itself are not abiding by a strict rule of ethics, whether it be on paper or whether it be in the heart, is profoundly sad.

My question falls in line with the word “ethics”, which he has been tossing around in the House. Would he stand up in the House today and clearly state that he feels all the members within his Reform caucus act in a very ethical manner when they provide the services they were elected to provide, keeping in mind the commitments of his leader on things like Stornoway, chauffeur driven cars, clothing expenses and so on? I wonder if he would take a moment to reflect on his own party's ethics or lack thereof.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on the wall of my constituency office is a code of ethics that I signed in front of over 100 witnesses when I was first elected in 1993. I had no hesitation in making that code of ethics public. It hangs in my office for all my constituents to see. It outlines all the promises I made to my riding and how I would conduct my duties as a member of parliament, their elected representative.

I ask nothing less than that of the government. Let it put forward its code of ethics. Let the Prime Minister tell the Canadian people exactly how he expects his ministers to do their job. The Prime Minister has not done that. Every single Liberal member of that government voted against it last night. This was a shameful thing for them to do and they should be ashamed of themselves. They have once again betrayed the trust of the Canadian people.

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the code of ethics is a very important issue. I thank the hon. member for bringing forward the issue and for demanding that the code of ethics be tabled by the Prime Minister and his cabinet in the House.

Yesterday, we saw that not even one Liberal member voted for it. They seem to have some sort of fear, or, as the hon. member pointed out, maybe the code of ethics does not exist, or maybe they just do not want to present it. What is the hon. member's opinion—

[Paul Bonwick, Liberal, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was under the impression that the hon. member was bringing forward a motion with respect to finance. I am curious—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

That is a point of debate and not a point of order.

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to find out from the hon. member what conclusion he draws when he sees there is hesitation in tabling the code of ethics document in parliament.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the only conclusion I can draw is that either there is not a code of ethics, as he says there is, or he has some fear that his cabinet ministers might breach that code of ethics.

He has not only refused to produce the so-called code of ethics. He failed on another promise that he made in May 1994. He was asked if there would be a code of ethics and he said yes. He said “As a matter of fact I will consult with the leader of the opposition and the leader of the Reform Party before making that appointment”.

[An hon. member]

Who said that?

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

The Prime Minister said that in May 1994. He said that he would search out an ethics commissioner who would create the code of ethics.

He did not confer with the leader of the opposition or the leader of the Reform Party. We were the third party then. We are now the official opposition. Not only did he not fulfil that promise, but now he says that there is a code of ethics he is unable or unwilling to present to the House.

In short, the conclusion I draw is that there must be something the Prime Minister is not telling us about this code of ethics.

[Roy H. Bailey, Reform, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, today both sides of the House stood and welcomed a new duly elected member. I am rising to debate the motion by my colleague from Prince George. I bring to the attention of the House that what I have to say is more important than just one MP. It is more important than the Liberals. It it is more important than any party in the opposition. I am talking about what is important to Canadians.

Just a few days ago a group of grade six students from Kanata came to visit me. It was strange that they would come in from an Ontario city but I enjoyed them. One thing I said to them was “You are more important as individuals today than I am because you are the future of Canada”.

I will not be talking in these brief few minutes about the issue of tied selling. I will be talking about what is important to the House and every member of the House. We have to get into a selling program.

We just debated the issue of the leakage of reports. What did the public see when it listened to this debate? It goes beyond this institution. It goes beyond the city of Ottawa. It goes to the farthest point west on Vancouver Island. It goes to Bonavista. Canadians are now looking at the House in a disrespectful way. As individuals, as hon. members, our responsibility is to uphold the dignity and the traditions of the House.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know the member is discussing the behaviour of members of parliament, but this is a motion that has to do with tied selling. The member just said that he would not be speaking about tied selling.

There is a great interest in this topic. My colleagues opposite have raised it. I think, Mr. Speaker, you should rule that he should address the topic of the motion.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The deputy government House leader makes a very good point. The opposition brought in a specific concurrence motion. The Chair will ensure that those who wish to speak to the subject remain focused closely on the subject.

[Roy H. Bailey, Reform, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, what I was getting at was our responsibilities as members of the House to take a look at all things which affect finance in the House and the committee report.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business deals with finance and the financial business of thousands of its members across Canada. Those same members rate politicians at the lowest end of the scale. That is exactly what I am telling the government opposite. It is time we stopped the nonsense. It is time we stopped the bickering and took a look at something which is bigger than both sides of the House.

When dealing with financial matters and with the report of the Standing Committee of Finance it should be of the greatest importance. Let me put it this way. At the present time whenever Canadians see expenditures, revenues and so on, they look upon them with a great deal of suspicion.

Members of all parties in the House need to take all possible steps within our powers from every corner of the House to re-establish with the Canadian people a basic trust in what we are doing and a basic trust that every cent of revenue which comes in and every expenditure which is made are totally accounted for including, as the hon. member said, tied selling. That is a concern.

I pass a paper around when I talk to grade 11 and 12 high school students. When I say politician I tell them to write down one word. One of the most common words they write down is the same as the Canadian public says, crooks. We have a job of selling to do not only within this finance committee report. That is true, but we need to be more accountable.

Therefore, after 42 years in public life I believe the motion of the member from Prince George should be thoroughly considered by the opposition. I hope Canadians see the purpose of what we have done today in the hon. member's motion.

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Minister for International Cooperation and Minister responsible for Francophonie]

Mr. Speaker, this is about finance. It is about tied selling. It is about a lot of latitude. When we talk about finance and some of the things we really value, we talk about honestly, integrity and ethics. We sometimes wonder why the Canadian public does not really appreciate politicians. Perhaps it is because sometimes some politicians have the habit of misinterpreting or misinforming.

Let me say something. I am a minister of the government. There is a formal code of ethics for ministers. It is a public document. We have to fill out how much we make and what we own and all the rest of it. Over and above that, the Prime Minister insists on other things from us. He names us. He decides what he wants us to do. That is his prerogative. We have access to information. Absolutely everything we do is scrutinized every day. We certainly do not fear any of that because we know it is a part of what makes the country so great.

In all honesty and integrity I remember when the Reform Party used to say that it would do things differently in Ottawa. It was to use civility. It was to treat others with respect. Have we seen that from the Reform Party? Absolutely not.

Some of the things that have gone on are absolutely unbelievable. Maybe Reformers should look to mend some of their own ways and look to what they said before they got here. Perhaps, if they followed that to the letter, we would all be better off and Canadians would respect us all a lot more.

[Roy H. Bailey, Reform, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked about some hon. members misinforming. I had no intention of doing that and I certainly did not do that. Nor have I misinformed in my whole career. I too have a code of ethics and I have about 42 years in my record to prove it.

We talked about respect. What happened after question period when the Speaker of the House and the hon. House leader wanted to look into something which does not show respect for the House? It was a leak, and that is what bothers me.

It is time the House did a better selling job, not just selling the finance report but selling ourselves, our total selves, our honesty and integrity.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I will go across the Chamber and recognize the member for Simcoe—Grey.

[Paul Bonwick, Liberal, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is refreshing to know that you are approaching this in a fair manner, unlike perhaps some of my hon. colleagues across the floor.

The topic at hand was tied selling which is of concern to Canadians across the country. We are sitting here discussing tied selling. It is a very relevant subject for the House to be discussing. However, once again when we have an issue at hand that is of concern to Canadians all across the country—

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

They support tied selling.

[Paul Bonwick, Liberal, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

By the way, they support tied selling.

When we are dealing with a topic such as this, all of a sudden they detract from the important and critical issue of the finances of Canadians and go to the ethics of cabinet and the ethics of the Prime Minister. They will not talk about their own ethics. I put a question very—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Actually the hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain will have to anticipate the question because he has exactly 25 seconds to make his point.

[Roy H. Bailey, Reform, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I take a bit of resentment from the inference that I was not being fair. Let me tell the hon. member that I am one of the fairest men he will ever take a look at, and he should take a good look at me right now. What I am talking about—