Bill C-34 (Historical)

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

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.