Mr. Speaker, I am almost honoured to be one of the last speakers of the week. It is interesting to address Motion No. 24 which arises out of the provision contained in Bill C-43, the Lobbyist Registration Act.
This motion is for the creation of a joint House and Senate committee to establish a code of conduct for MPs, senators and lobbyists and I have to say that an ethics code is a worthwhile effort which must be pursued.
Let us look at the pursuit of that. I have a very interesting pile, not a prop, of parliamentary documents on my desk which show that there has been interest in this subject for years and years and where is it getting us? I have here "New Conflict of Interest Rules for Canadian Parliamentarians", by the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. Good show.
I have here Bill C-116, which was first read in the House of Commons in March 1993.
I have here Bill C-43, conflict of interest guidelines for parliamentarians, dated June 1992, the Hon. Senator Stanbury and Don Blenkarn joint chairmen.
Here is another one from the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell entitled "Public Sector Ethics and Morals: A Discussion Paper" dated October 1991.
Then there is Bill C-43, dated November 1991, an act to provide for greater certainty in the reconciliation of the personal interests and duties of members of the Senate and the House of Commons, to establish a conflict of interest commission and to make consequential amendments to other acts.
These show real interest on the part of the House over the years to say let us do something about the ethics around here.
There was Bill C-46 in 1989, Bill C-114 in 1988, and "Ethical Conduct in the Public Sector" by the Hon. Michael Starr and Hon. Mitchell Sharp, a book written in May 1984.
Then there was Bill C-6 in 1978. How far back do we need to go to show that there has been real bona fide interest by both Houses on the subject matter of ethics?
There is the little green book by the Hon. Allan J. MacEachen, which was written in July 1973.
There it is. Years of evidence saying that something must be done. Here we are in 1995 and again we are hearing declarations of great intent. We really must get at it now. This is the time to get at it.
I will compliment the government for the initiative which says: "Let us do something about ethics". However, my note of caution concerns the recent actions of the government. The words are fine. What are its actions? I do not think the actions of the government meet the lofty rhetoric.
Since the government came into power, which is now approaching two years, we have had many examples of what I would call less than ethical behaviour. We had the Minister of Canadian Heritage interfering with the CRTC in the matter of a radio licence application for a constituent. We had the same minister lunching with movie moguls in Hollywood at the same time the Seagram takeover of MCA was being negotiated. Now we have that same minister engaged in a dinner for dollars affair, which has clearly placed him in an apparent conflict of interest.
If these ethical breaches were confined to just this one minister one could conclude that he was simply misguided, ill-informed or just plain incompetent. However, the Minister of Canadian Heritage is not alone in this fall from the ethics bandwagon.
We are all aware that currently the auditor general is investigating a situation involving the diverting of $26 million in highway funds. In this instance the Minister of Public Works and Government Services has benefited politically, not financially I am sure, by seeing the money go from a busy and deadly stretch of the Trans-Canada highway to a seldom used tourist trail in his Nova Scotia riding.
We have also seen the justice minister awarding contracts for crown prosecutors to highly placed Liberals, some of whom have connections to the revenue minister. While it is commonly accepted that the awarding of such legal contracts is based on partisan politics or downright patronage. The government promised it would do business differently. It promised to break with politics as usual in favour of a more open and honest process. Has that promise been kept?
These are a few examples of some of the less than ethical behaviour of government ministers. I could go on at length but time is limited and it might be of more use at this time to review exactly what the government had to say on the issue of ethics during the election campaign and look at the promises it made.
The now infamous red book, dead book, states: "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". These are wonderful words.
Similarly, the red book promised to appoint an independent ethics counsellor who will report directly to Parliament. Has the government met this promise or its overall commitment to restore honesty and integrity? On the issue of the promise of an independent ethics counsellor reporting to Parliament, the answer is very clearly no. The counsellor is not truly independent, as he is beholden to the Prime Minister and he is certainly not free to report directly to Parliament.
On the general issue of restoring honesty and integrity, I also submit the government has failed. A quick look at the newspapers these days will provide evidence of this fact. The Ottawa Sun on June 13 in an editorial entitled arrogance'' slams the Prime Minister over his handling of the latest debacle involving the heritage minister:For a party that campaigned on the premise of restoring ethics and integrity-the Grits sure have a funny way of going about it''.
Ottawa Citizen columnist Greg Weston summarized the government's code of conduct on June 11 in the following manner: "Thou shalt do nothing that lands thee in jail. Other than that, boys and girls, have fun at the trough".
Columnist Sean Durkin has also questioned the integrity of the government: "Day by day, the Liberal government is acting and sounding more like the Mulroney government of old". Hardly a ringing endorsement of the red book pledge to restore honesty in government.
From today's Ottawa Sun , Robert Fife, page 12, talking about the ethics councillor:
Wilson has been silenced and the role of the ethics counsellor has turned into a farce. The sole reason that Chretien has stubbornly refused to fire Dupuy is to show that he is different from Mulroney. He wants to be able to boast that he hasn't had to fire a single minister to scandal unlike the dastardly Tories.
Instead, what he is doing by defending Dupuy is demonstrating that he is every bit as bad as Mulroney when it comes to ethics.
In fact, he is worse.
At least Mulroney would do the right thing and remove ministers who did wrong from the cabinet table, albeit only after concerted pressure from the opposition benches.
Clearly these examples show the government has neither the will nor the intestinal fortitude to truly divert from its politics as usual policy. This is one of my big concerns about this motion. It may look good on paper but it is obvious the government is not serious about the issue of ethics.
Maybe I should be fair and clarify the statement. It is obvious the Prime Minister is not serious about the issue of ethics. I add this clarification because the member for York South-Weston has publicly urged the Prime Minister to ban the type of fundraisers that have landed the heritage minister in hot water.
The hon. member says this would be an important move to restore integrity to politics. He is quoted in the Ottawa Sun , June 12, as making the following comments about such practices: ``They are buying access. There are always IOUs attached. You have to be pretty naive and deaf, dumb and blind to think otherwise''.
The Prime Minister's top personal adviser is quoted in the same paper: "Cabinet ministers must separate business from fundraisers. Some cabinet ministers are not following conflict of interest rules".
I stated at the start of my address that I believe this motion has some merit. As I have illustrated, allowing the government to control this process is like allowing the fox to guard the henhouse. Surely it is not in the best interests of restoring public faith in the integrity of politicians to appoint politicians and lobbyists to draft a serious code of conduct. To me such a process would be an immediate conflict of interest.
I also question the value of involving unelected, politically appointed patronage hacks in the process. Appointed senators have little if any legitimacy in the democratic process and therefore should not participate in what we are trying to do here. The public must have full access to and involvement in this process. This is the only way to restore integrity and ethics in government.
To accept this motion is to accept the Prime Minister's ethical code of hear no evil, see no evil. Surely no one in the House can find that acceptable.
The overall intent of the motion is good. I support the intent but I have lots of reservations with the process. We must find a way to include the public. We must severely limit or eliminate the role of politicians and lobbyists in the process and we must insist that the ethics counsellor be free to report directly to Parliament.