Debates of May 1st, 1995

Code Of Conduct

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very attentively to the comments of the hon. member for Bellechasse.

I have some difficulty with the reluctance of his party to include the upper house in the debate. It concerns me because I think it concerns the people of Canada. There is a lot of reflection on what is happening in the Senate and if taxpayers' money is being properly spent.

One of the areas of expenditure is the Senate, the senators and their staffs. I have some misgivings about the Senate. It appears

to me that at the present time we are not going to be able to deal with reconstituting that place. However, this provides us with an opportunity to revisit possibly the attendance of senators and how they are carrying out their affairs.

The proposal the government presented today provides us with an avenue to revisit that. Could the member reflect on the fact that there may be a high degree of merit in including the senators in this legislation?

[François Langlois, Bloc, Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in responding to the hon. member for Durham, I would like to remind him of what I said earlier. If the government had wanted the senators to be involved, it would have tabled a bill that would necessarily have been considered in this House and then have gone to the Senate. That was the best way to involve both Houses.

When the government does not want a bill but simply wants to create one more task force, one too many, my position is: Let us create a committee of members of this House, a committee of elected representatives. We should not mix elected representatives with those who are not elected, people who have to go before the electorate every four or five years with those who never have to run on their record. In a democracy, Mr. Speaker, and I say this through you to the hon. member for Durham, in the kind of system we have, a non-elected House where no one is accountable to anyone except to the provisions of the Criminal Code is an anomaly. And that was my message just now.

I realize the hon. member for Durham put a question mark after his comment. He said: Perhaps I did not quite understand? Perhaps I did not get it? I hope that, with this additional information, he will understand that we should not mix elected representatives with non-elected individuals. I am not saying that the Senate should not examine these issues if it wants to. However, the Senate has its own rules, its own board of internal economy which operates differently from ours. Although it does have a budget to administer, it has different rules. We, through our own Board of Internal Economy, set much stricter rules than the Senate does through its board.

My point is, we are constantly putting our seat on the line. Every day, we are accountable to our constituents for what we do. Mixing ingredients that are not terribly compatible to start with, what with Liberal members, members of the Bloc and the Reform Party, and adding a dash of Tory senators to boot, is not really a recipe for success.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Mercier-job creation.

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to speak to Motion No. 23, that a parliamentary committee draft a code of conduct for MPs and lobbyists, and also support the Bloc amendment.

The intention of the motion to reconcile official responsibility with personal interests, including all dealings with lobbyists, is the responsibility of parliamentarians only. Senators, as appointed officials and not elected, should develop their own code of conduct, giving consideration to their current activities with lobbyists.

It is about time. The government ran on a platform that said: "The most important asset of government is the confidence it enjoys of the citizens to whom it is accountable. If government is to play a positive role in society as it must, honesty and integrity in our political institutions must be restored". That is right out of the Liberal red book.

The record shows that the activities of the government's ministers and departments subsequent to the election of 1993 have been inconsistent, indecisive and confused, resulting in serious flip-flops in terms of outcome. For a culture to endure and prosper it must safeguard its principles and procedures. Ethics in action will cause that to occur.

I want to focus in particular on the Minister of Canadian Heritage and his record of conduct beginning in March 1994. I do this because it tracks a saga of questionable judgment and inappropriate interference involving four separate incidents. Ethical guidelines provided to him quite likely would have offset the many concerns that have arisen over the grave errors in judgment that have occurred. However, before I do that, consider the following as a frame on which to build an ethical structure.

Public office holders must act with honesty and uphold the highest ethical standards so that public confidence and trust in the integrity, objectivity and impartiality of government are conserved and enhanced. As well, anyone holding public office should not step out of their official roles to assist private entities or persons in their dealings with the government where this would result in preferential treatment to any person.

The issue here is not whether ethical guidelines should become a requirement or wondering if elected federal officials even have a choice any longer in this matter because Canadians expect honesty, integrity and accountability from their politicians.

Clearly the issue is a search for broad, lasting, moral guidelines gleaned from the complex real life ethical situations in politics that are at once imaginative, meaningful and legislatively sound.

Anyone who would be ethical has the problem of knowing what his or her standards are. People tend to think of themselves as moral. That they tend to overrate their ethical competence becomes apparent when they find themselves doing the same thing of which they disapprove. Often a substantial gap separates the ethical norms people verbalize and those they use in making their decisions, which tells us more about how ethical a person is.

Verbalization or action? This is a question that Canadians should be asking every time the government makes a decision. Even the Prime Minister has said this is the case, in particular, of ministers who must remain above reproach at all times and in all of their activities, whether it be as ministers, members of Parliament or private citizens. That is the burden of public office and one that we all gladly accept.

I turn my focus to the questionable actions undertaken by the Minister of Canadian Heritage, once again to exemplify this issue of guidelines and standards of ethical behaviour. As I mentioned, four incidents haunt the minister, questioning not only his integrity but also that of the government.

In March 1994 the sale of Ginn Publishing Inc. to American interests evoked outrage on this side of the House. That transaction was the litmus test of the government's commitment to parliamentary reform and to open parliamentary process. The sale should have been investigated but was not. A review should have been undertaken by a parliamentary standing committee but was not. No ethical guidelines were in place at the time to resolve this.

I sent a letter to the Prime Minister asking five questions. That letter with those five questions was never acknowledged. I conclude from this that either no one knew how to answer my questions, or if known, there was no desire for full disclosure.

Whatever the case, the only way to get clear answers was for a public investigation because we had no ethical guidelines. Such an investigation would have answered the preceding questions and the five I put to the Prime Minister. I want to repeat these again, because they are important in a discussion of clearly established ethical guidelines.

First, how can the government explain the contradictions evident in the sale with the red book policy on the protection of Canadian art and culture? This is a simple question but there was no response.

Second, how does the government explain the offers to purchase Ginn by several members of the Canadian business community during the period from 1989 to 1994?

Third, what happens to the Canadian publishing industry after February 15, 1999 when Paramount's investment agreement ceases? These are important questions concerning the guidelines we are going to establish hopefully with this parliamentary standing committee.

Fourth, why was a specific job loss figure not included in the press release of February 18, 1994? That is also important, given the considerations that will be coming later. Canadians are still asking questions relating to the Ginn affair because none of this was put to rest.

Fifth, how can the government ignore the provisions of the Investment Canada Act and undertake a private agreement which precludes the sale of a Canadian firm to a foreign company except in extraordinary circumstances?

Over the last couple of weeks we have seen the Investment Canada Act creep up into our problems in the House of Commons. There is no delineation with respect to clearly defined ethical guidelines. How are we going to deal with these matters?

Reform supported the notion of an investigation to allow for freer competition in the Canadian cultural marketplace. The issue was not about protecting Canadian culture from within or from being co-opted by foreign cultural influences from without. It was ethics of procedure, allowing the market to run its due course without needless and harmful protection or undue government regulation. The government should have asked them whether it was the rhetoric or the action that would be remembered.

The ensuing debate should have clarified the minister's involvement but did not. Rather the government invoked closure and thus began to grow a blight on the minister's judgment. What was the ethical criteria on which he made his decisions?

In October 1994 the matter of undue influence from the minister arose over his intervention in a CRTC licence application. Even the Prime Minister at that time admitted his error not only in action but also judgment. This is another example where had ethical guidelines been in place they would have saved us a lot of unnecessary grief.

His actions compromise the integrity of government as well as the CRTC decision making process. As a quasi-judicial body, the CRTC's role remains quite independent of government. The Prime Minister said on October 31, 1994: "When a representation is sent to the CRTC, it is a public document".

From September 1993 to October 1994 the CRTC held 18 public hearings. It received 15,422 letters in support of licence applicants. Seventy-two were from members of Parliament, from all parties in the House. Representations were made by many Liberal members, including ministers, members of the Bloc Quebecois, the Reform Party, the NDP, the Conservatives and one independent. I raise that as an issue because nobody had any guidelines. Of the 15,422 letters that were in support of licence applicants there were no guidelines with which to deal with the matter.

The Prime Minister went on to say: "Clearly we are not confronted with anything like calling a judge. What we are dealing with is the dilemma of ministers who also must fulfil their duties as members of Parliament who were elected to represent their constituents. That makes this whole area of relationships with administrative tribunals much more complex than with the courts". The Prime Minister also said: "I have learned a lesson too. This government has done a lot to give our ministers clear guidelines to do their jobs and avoid conflict of interest, including the historical ethics package we introduced in June. It is now plain to me that the guidelines for dealing with administrative tribunals were not clear or complete enough".

Even back then the Prime Minister recognized the need for ethical guidelines. This was in response to the questionable actions of the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

Although we have an ethics counsellor to assist the Prime Minister in ethical matters, there has been little to suggest guidelines of any consequence are providing complete direction to the Minister of Canadian Heritage or any of the cabinet for that matter.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage obviously and flagrantly breached judicial principles in this instance. The blight on the minister's ethical record continued to grow. Again, what was the ethical criteria on which he made his decision?

The third fiasco involving the minister saw the resignation of the president of the CBC. No longer able to accept the lack of full disclosure regarding the CBC's future, Tony Manera left his post. A secret meeting between CBC and the heritage ministry, denied many times by the minister, revealed financial information which had not appeared in the government's just released budget or in the estimates. The minister's waspish reply to questions in the House became mired in personal cheap shots and innuendo.

In question period on March 1, 1995 I said: "The minister had a secret agenda about the future of the CBC which he had failed to disclose. Why has the minister failed to provide this information to Canadians?" In his response he said: "Mr. Speaker, our colleague is out of luck. Her assistant is no better as a researcher than he was as a candidate in Ottawa-Vanier".

Clearly initiated by the pressure he felt, he resorted to tactics counter to the red book promise of openness and fair play in order for Canadians to regain their trust in the parliamentary system and in their politicians. Cheap shots, no ethical guidelines to provide assistance to the minister. The blight now was of odious proportions.

We now come to the minister's current disasters: the challenge mounted by cabinet to overturn the CRTC's decision to give a licensing exemption to open up satellite distribution in Canada using a Canadian satellite system; and the perception of undue influence and interference regarding the approval of Investment Canada for the purpose of MCA by the Bronfmans, who own Seagram.

Lunching with the players in Los Angeles represents yet another grave error in judgment by the minister. There is no one who can tell me an invitation to the executive suites of MCA is not as a result of considerable effort, not just a little R and R for the minister at spring break as has been suggested.

Of an even more critical nature is government interference under the guise of competition playing business favouritism. As the cabinet sat around the table making a decision that favoured Power Corp. no one seemed conscious of the confrontation that would develop with the direct to home Canadian consortium of Expressvu Inc. which also just happens to have a close relationship with the CRTC.

What I am trying to point out here is the absolute imperative need for ethical guidelines for all of us in the House in order to operate professionally, ethically and morally as representatives of the Canadian people.

Both the reputation and credibility of the Minister of Canadian Heritage are in shreds. It is remarkable that the rhetoric of the Liberal red book has become meaningless and trite babble.

The people of Canada demonstrated their irritation with politicians in government in the last election. They threw out those who did not consult them, who disregarded their views and who tried to conduct key parts of public business behind closed doors.

Let us ensure the deliberations of this standing committee include ordinary Canadians in the process. We need to create a truly representative government in which the wisdom of the people is respected and protected. No one would be well served if the constituents we serve are not included. We all risk a further loss of public regard.

Ethical standards emerge from the value we place on ourselves. If the government begins to proactively organize and execute around our priorities, politicians will become known for making and keeping meaningful promises and commitments. Canadians are waiting for that.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member. In her speech she indicated she was supporting the Bloc amendment which would delete any reference to the Senate in the motion. She appears to treat senators as non-parliamentarians by saying only

elected members of Parliament are entitled to participate in this process and only they should be subject to guidelines.

Is she suggesting the members of the other place ought to have no guidelines if the House of Commons adopts guidelines? Therefore does she feel it is fair that members of the House should be subject to certain guidelines where members of the other place are free to carry on businesses, trades or do whatever they wish? Is that the position of her party?

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe I qualified that in the first sentences of my presentation when I expressed that senators are appointed officials. They are not elected and as a result should develop their own code of conduct.

We ran on the platform that we wanted to see incredible change to the Senate. We believe in a Senate that is equal, effective but elected. It is on the position of being elected that the senators as appointed officials need to develop their own guidelines because they involve their activities in a different way with lobbyists compared with parliamentarians. At least one would hope with the result of these new guidelines that will happen.

That is a question almost irrelevant when we are looking at comparisons between parliamentarians who are elected by the people of Canada and senatorial positions, most of which are patronage appointments with very strong links to the government of the day.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member in her remarks indicated there were no guidelines in place. Is she aware that there is a set of conflict of interest guidelines that apply to ministers of the crown and to parliamentary secretaries in the House? Has she seen the document? If not, I would be pleased to send her a copy.

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to receive the document, but to date the actions of the government show it also has not read the document.

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very intently to the member for Calgary Southeast.

I thought her party, which seems to be so interested in government financing and the cost of government, would want to have the opportunity to focus on the area of how individual senators perform and whether Canadians are getting value for their money. I am mystified by that stand.

The member went on to discuss ethics and so forth. A great halo comes from that side of the room. I wonder if she could say how ethical it was to be discussing Motion No. 24 which deals with a very specific aspect of ethics and conduct for members of Parliament and senators while using the time almost entirely to develop a political speech to chastise the government? In my mind she has not added anything very positive to the debate.

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the hon. member, I do not believe he heard me very well if he did not think I had anything very positive to add to the debate. I was trying to establish a basis on which ethical criteria are established.

There are four things I believe that go through the mind of an individual when they are looking at an issue of an ethical nature. When people come to a make a decision on a problem they know what people say they should do to resolve the issue. They know there are people who do things as they say they will. Actually when it comes right down to it, the actions of people sometimes are not really what they said they would do. Oftentimes people would like to take an action but do not or cannot for whatever reason. Those were the elements which I tried to bring to the speech.

As far as the issue of the Senate, I have stated already the Senate is a house of patronage. It is a house that deals quite specifically with lobbyists in a different way from the House of Commons. Senators are not elected officials and therefore I believe should stand on their own merit and develop their own code of conduct. They are all big boys and girls over there and they should be able to take due consideration with respect to their own activities without our telling them what they should do.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to speak to this motion. I congratulate the government for initiating action with regard to a code of conduct for parliamentarians. If history teaches us anything it is that the House needs to be aware of the need for a code of conduct. It needs to be aware that Canadians expect ethical behaviour from us. My hope is a code will be developed and that it will be effective. I hope it will have some real teeth, not like the ethics counsellor who we saw the Prime Minister appoint, and not some watered down list of suggestions which will have as its only purpose a public relations exercise of so-called government action on ethics.

I am concerned because of the government's failure to carry through on any of its red book promises for a more open and ethical government. While the concept of a code of conduct to guide members in their dealings with lobbyists is a good idea, I have some serious doubts as to the government's willingness to follow through with effective guidelines.

Let us take, for example, the position of the ethics counsellor. Rather than having an independent counsellor accountable to Parliament, as the red book said, the Prime Minister has decided to keep the issue of ethics in house, behind closed doors. By only

reporting to the Prime Minister the ethics counsellor has lost the appearance of independence and objectivity. This restriction was underscored during the debacle over the Minister of Canadian Heritage's interference with the CRTC.

There are precendents for positions such as the ethics counsellor to be officers of the House of Commons. The human rights commissioner, the chief electoral officer, the auditor general and the privacy commissioner are all answerable to the House, not to the government. They are not answerable to cabinet or to the Prime Minister; they are answerable to the House. That is important.

In each case it is clear an arm's length relationship with the government is required for those officers to objectively and adequately discharge their responsibilities. The same is true for the ethics counsellor and for any type of code of conduct for parliamentarians.

My concern is that the government wanted to give the impression of ethics without actually changing anything. That is the only reason I can see for not making the ethics counsellor an officer of Parliament. It is a very select group. It is not as though there is no room for change any more. Being an independent officer of the House would allow the ethics counsellor to promote the ethical conduct of members of the House instead of its current position of being a political lap-dog of the Prime Minister.

Despite all the rhetoric about open government and more independence for backbenchers the government has continued the tradition of secrecy and whipping members into line. I have seen many government members speak in favour of some of the ideas expressed on this side of the House only to withdraw and toe the party line when their voice really counted, when they stood up in the House to vote, when they voted in committee or when they had to sign on to committee reports. That is not active and quality democracy and that is not representative democracy.

Our debates in the Chamber on gun control are a good example of how the government really feels about open government. When some of its members chose out of good conscience to represent their constituents rather than do the bidding of the party hierarchy they were reprimanded. Imagine that. They were reprimanded for daring to do the bidding of the constituents who sent us here, who pay the bills, who pay our salaries and who even pay for our pensions.

These are the reasons I am concerned that this code of conduct must be carefully and properly crafted. This government does not have a good track record of being proactive on ethical matters. If we can draft a good code of conduct, it may add some much needed legitimacy to the ethics counsellor.

The importance of having this kind of code of conduct cannot be overemphasized. This government obviously needs some guidelines when it comes to ethical dealings with lobbyists. The whole Pearson scandal is the best example of closed door unethical activity. This deal was started by the previous Tory government and the closed door antics have been continued by this government.

There is the whole issue of José Perez and his dealings with Senator De Bané and Canada Post. As well, the Minister of Canadian Heritage has had questionable dealings with the CRTC in the past and is under a cloud of suspicion once again.

The need for this kind of a code of conduct is self-evident. I only hope the Liberals have the political courage to put aside their self-interests and the interests of their well-connected friends and family members to draft an effective and complete code.

While having a committee draft this code is an improvement over the usual closed door cabinet process, I have some concerns about the make-up of the committee. I do not believe that senators should be included on a House of Commons committee. Let me take a few minutes to tell this House why I have some concerns.

Having senators involved with drafting a code of conduct dealing with issues like conflict of interest is a bit like having the inmates running the asylum. It is a bit like putting violent offenders on the parole board. It just does not make sense. I do not understand why this Liberal government would promote such a ridiculous idea.

I will not make these suggestions without backing them up with facts. Not very many years ago, a Prime Minister by the name of Mulroney stacked the Senate with eight senators. Why did he do that? To put through the GST.

What would happen if some of those senators who agreed to accept those extra positions above the 104 senators ended up on this ethics committee? I am a bit concerned about that. What if the Hon. Eric Berntson from Saskatchewan, one of the stacked senators, ended up on this ethics committee? He was the one who said: "I will never accept a government appointment. I refuse any government appointments". A week or two later when Brian Mulroney asked if he would take a Senate seat to help him get the GST through, he said: "Yes, I would love to sit in the Senate. The rest of my life will be cushy. I will do that for you". The Liberal government defends that type of action and I am shocked.

There was another member in that group of select senators. They had to put stacking chairs in the Senate to accommodate these extra senators. His name was the Hon. John Buchanan. He was considered to be the most efficient bagmen in all of Atlantic Canada. Is this the type of person we want to allow to sit on a committee to discuss a code of conduct and to consider conflict of interest? I am shocked that the Liberals would suggest and promote such an idea.

There are a couple of other people who sit over in the other place: the Hon. Guy Charbonneau and the Hon. Michel Cogger. Their names were in the news for a long time. I remember reading about them in almost every chapter of Stevie Cameron's book On the Take .

Are these the kinds of people the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands wants to see sitting on a committee to draft a code of conduct for parliamentarians? Perhaps they may be the result of an investigation rather than the ones who are drafting the code. The Liberals are putting forward a motion in this House which would allow them to sit on this committee. I am shocked. I would ask the Liberals to withdraw the motion, come to their senses and realize what they are doing.

There is another potential candidate for this committee. Her name is Marjory LeBreton. She was the director of Tory patronage, the one who decided which Tories got put in which position of patronage. She probably even had a hand in determining who Brian Mulroney would place in the Senate. Perhaps she had a hand in choosing the six senators to sit on those six stacking stools that the Minister of Transport has correctly identified. Would the Minister of Transport agree to have Marjory LeBreton sitting on a code of conduct committee? This motion would allow that to happen. I am shocked.

There is another one over there, Pierre Claude Nolin. He was Brian Mulroney's crony in Quebec, his principal adviser in the province of Quebec. He accepted his appointment right at the tail end of the Mulroney era, when the whole country was angry at Brian Mulroney and his government and the people wanted to kick them out.

[An hon. member]

Who was that?

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

The Hon. Pierre Claude Nolin was appointed. I think it was in June 1993 that he accepted his appointment.

Do we want somebody, a friend of a government Canadians considered to be villainous to be sitting on the committee for the code of conduct, to be determining the code of ethics we should be living by? I am shocked. I can hardly believe it.

There is someone else who might happen to be involved in the committee and who happens to be a Liberal, the Hon. Allan J. MacEachen. He is considered to be the godfather of the Liberals in Atlantic Canada. He has a reputation that one member on the front bench is trying to emulate.

There is an article in Maclean's which says: Then comes the minister of public works, a show stopper. The incantatory, drawn out delivery of Allan J. MacEachen, the long time federal Liberal minister from Cape Breton who now sits in the Senate.Close your eyes'', says one of the acquaintances of both men, ``and you will swear Allan J. is right there in the room''. There is only one Allan J, the minister explains with an annoying chuckle.

Then it goes on to talk about how Hon. Allan J. MacEachen was a godfather in Atlantic Canada and certainly someone involved in patronage. Certainly, he is someone that we would not want on a committee to discuss and draft a code of ethics for parliamentarians, but this is what the Liberals are intending to do.

There is another problem with this committee. Right now the Senate is controlled by the Tories. I understand that the Prime Minister is working overtime to install his own hacks. The Minister of Transport knows that the Senate is controlled by the Tories. He is having some problems with the Pearson airport affair.

The Tories are also worried. A few hundred of them met across the river over the weekend. They were planning strategy. Their strategy was: "How do we get back on the gravy train? We are not getting many appointments to the Senate anymore and we miss that". They are strategizing how to get back into government so they can get back on the gravy train and see some of their own appointed to the Senate.

Too many of the old Mulroney gang had their eyes on a red covered chair in the Senate. And these are the people we want to be involved in drafting a code of ethics for us, for the elected members of the House of Commons? I think not. Some code of conduct that might be.

The group of Tories that met in Hull over the weekend did not apologize to Canadians for the despicable things they did when they were in power. They should have. They did not apologize to Canadians for increasing our debt from about $200 billion to over $400 billion. They never said they were sorry. And these are the kind of people the Liberals want to put on an ethics committee? I think not.

The Tories imposed the GST on Canadians against their will and they had to stack the Senate to do it. These are the kinds of people we want to put on an ethics committee?

The Tories, along with the Liberals, were involved in drafting the Charlottetown accord, the infamous accord that had some terrible things in it. One item in the Charlottetown accord called for a double majority in the Senate regarding votes on matters respecting language and culture. That meant that if there was an issue that addressed language or culture, not only did the majority of senators have to vote in favour of the measure, but a majority of francophone senators had to vote in favour it. That is not democratic.

It is not democratic that they are unelected, but then they get a double majority based on language and ethnic origin? That is disgusting. Yet the people over there want these types of people to sit on an ethics committee. I am astounded. I cannot believe it.

The Charlottetown accord said that this new Senate would be elected. Members on the other side brought that to our attention. Of course we knew it would be elected, but who wants that type of an elected Senate? What decent person would run for election to that kind of a Senate? I do not think we would find very many good candidates that would agree to sit in a body that would use a double majority on votes relating to language and culture. That is disgusting. It is not Canadian and it is not true democracy. Yet the Liberals want these kinds of people to sit on a committee to draft a code of conduct for parliamentarians.

The Tories never apologized for doing these things. The Liberals have not apologized for their role in the Charlottetown accord, although there were two or three of them who I think did see the light and spoke against the accord. The majority as usual followed like sheep to the slaughter and lost the Charlottetown accord.

Canadians are not as thoughtless as many members on the other side might think. They see through these things and were appalled at the Charlottetown accord. They were appalled at the debt the Tories built up. They said it was immoral, that it was wrong. Because of that they only elected two Tory members to the House in the last election. They said that the GST was wrong as well. When two or three Tories stood up and said they would not vote for the GST, they were disciplined just like the Liberals were who voted against the gun control measure. Nothing is different between the Liberals and the Tories. They stand for the same principles. Did I say principles? I do not think they stand for any principles. It is disgusting.

These people want to draft a code of conduct, a code of ethics for parliamentarians? I think not.

The Senate certainly needs a code of conduct. The member for Kingston and the Islands has talked about it. Do they not want senators to have a code of conduct? Do they not want them to be accountable? The first thing is that they need to be accountable to the people of Canada. Until we change the Constitution that will not happen. Perhaps rather than abolishing the Senate we should be talking about abolishing the appointed senators. That might be a move in the right direction.

I have spoken at some length on this matter and will conclude before my time runs out. I want to clearly say to the House that we do need a code of conduct. We do need to know how to deal with lobbyists. That is important. However, we certainly do not want direction from the old Tory gang. That would be a disaster. That is far less than Canadians deserve in this place. We must not support a joint committee to deal with the issue of ethics and a code of conduct.

Perhaps the Liberals have seen the error of their ways. I know they did quite a bit of yelling over there because they have been told they have to support this motion. It is government policy and they have no choice. However, they should just step back for a minute and think logically about what they are doing. They are supporting the old Tory ways. They are not being any different.

There are several new MPs over on the other side who have not been tainted with that Tory-Liberal past of previous Parliaments. Perhaps this is the time for them to stand up and be counted and vote against something that is not right. Let them do something right for a change, not just for themselves, not just for the Liberal Party, not just for the House of Commons, but for Canadians.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division on the question now before the House stands deferred until tomorrow at 5.30 p.m., at which time the bells to call in the members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.