Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure, as official opposition critic for parliamentary reform, to speak on Motion No. 24 regarding the appointment of a special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons to develop a code of conduct for parliamentarians. I will address three points.
I will start with the issue of committee membership, as it seems very important to me. Second, I will give the whole historical background to this effort on the part of governments to try to introduce a code of conduct for parliamentarians, an effort going back over almost 20 years. Finally, I will touch on the present context in terms of ethics, which obviously leads us to believe that all this is nothing but window dressing.
In fact, the motion put forward by the government House leader regarding a Canadian parliamentarian code of conduct is nothing new in the history of parliamentary government and even democracy in the western world.
The fact that this government wants to appoint a special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons to develop a code of conduct is another manifestation of the Liberal tradition of giving the appearance of having a clear conscience publicly, while continuing to scheme behind the scene.
Before getting into what this Liberal code of conduct is really about, I would like to call the attention of the House to a specific point. The fact that eight senators and 14 members of Parliament would be appointed to this committee is sheer nonsense to me.
How can the government have the nerve, the gall to table in this House of elected representatives of the people, a motion to appoint a joint committee, which would include senators, to develop a code of conduct for parliamentarians of this Canadian democratic institution?
The Liberal government's attitude is revolting. To appoint a committee on parliamentary ethics which would include non-elected senators violates the most elementary principle of western democracy. The public knows that the Senate is an archaic and useless institution whose sole purpose is to reward friends of the regime, whether Liberal or Conservative, so that they will do some partisan work for the government or for the interests which they represent.
I will simply say that senators can continue to work and practise their profession or calling. As you know, a senator recently joined a prestigious law firm.
We deplore the fact that the Bloc amendments, which oppose the presence of senators on the committee, are bluntly rejected by the government. Again, senators are not elected representatives. The government's attitude shows once again that its motion is just a joke and that the Liberal Party of Canada is antidemocratic and does not care about the public.
The Bloc has always been opposed to the existence of the Senate, a position which is supported by a large number of Canadians. Given the extremely hard economic context, a debt exceeding $550 billion, as well as the current unemployment and poverty problems in Quebec and in Canada, the amount of $42.6 million allocated to that committee could be used to stimulate the economy and create jobs.
The Fathers of Canadian Confederation defended the appointment of senators on the ground that members of the Upper House had to be independent. Indeed, considering that they do not have to be elected by the public, that they are appointed until the age of 75, which is no small job security given how precarious jobs are these days, and given that unemployment is so high in Quebec and in Canada, one would think that senators deal more or less at arm's length with the government. On the contrary, the members of the upper Chamber have always been more interested in playing party politics than in fulfilling their more proper role as impartial legislators.
It bears repeating that senators are appointed on a strictly partisan basis and that the party in power is itself trying to take over control of the Senate by appointing a greater number of senators. A large number, close to 50 per cent, of the senators recruited by the Prime Minister have political experience, and most of the rest have performed valuable services for the party in power. Everyone knows that it is a snug retirement haven for politicians and others who have always supported the interests of the Liberals and Conservatives in the House of Commons and who were always there to serve Canadian big business.
And the Liberal Party of Canada talks about parliamentary ethics; it is a disgrace to democracy and the Parliament of Canada.
Having said that, I would like to look at another aspect of the question of a parliamentary code of conduct, and that is conflict of interest. There is no obligation to divulge the pecuniary interests of a member of the House of Commons. However, section 21 of the Standing Orders of this democratic institution provides that no member is entitled to vote upon any question in which he or she has a pecuniary interest, and the vote of any member so interested will be disallowed.
If I am reminding this House of this basic rule of conduct governing the conduct of Canadian parliamentarians, it is because the events of the past few years, in particular those involving the conduct of this government, have raised serious doubts about the Liberal government's political will to establish a code of conduct which would really bring total transparency to the management of public affairs.
This is a very important issue. The waffling done over the past 30 years by the two parties in power regarding the implementation of a law really governing the conduct of elected representatives would indicate that there is no real political will to change things. For example, in 1973, the federal government published a green paper, "Members of Parliament and Conflict of Interest", in which it proposed to group and extend the scope of the rules which existed at the time. This green paper was studied by a committee of the House of Commons and by a committee of the Senate and both made many recommendations.
Two years later, on June 10, 1975, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections tabled its report on the green paper. In general, it approved the provisions and recommended a few amendments. Two years later, on June 26, 1978, Bill C-62, the Independence of Parliament Act, was tabled in the House of Commons complete with new regulations for the House of Commons and the Senate. It died on the Order Paper when Parliament was dissolved on October 10, 1978.
However, there was a new beginning. On October 16, 1978, a slightly changed Independence of Parliament Act was reintroduced as Bill C-6. The accompanying Rules of the House and of the Senate were tabled in the House on October 30, 1978. The bill was referred to committee on March 8, 1979, but there was no ensuing action and the bill died on the Order Paper when Parliament was dissolved on March 26, 1979.
At the end of the Liberals' term of office, on July 7, 1983, a federal study group was set up to examine the principles and rules governing conflict of interest and their evolution and to decide whether the issue should be dealt with differently.
The report did not appear until May 1984. These people are unbelievable Mr. Speaker; they are constantly carrying out the same studies over and over! That report was entitled: "Ethical Conduct in the Public Sector", and was known as the Starr-Sharp report.
Another government, other political practices. On November 25, 1985, the Conservative government asked the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services to consider the appropriateness of setting up a register of members' interests. As part of its work, the committee was to decide whether it was appropriate to disclose the remuneration members received for sitting on the board of directors of a public or private firm or for performing other duties or occupying other positions in various organizations. After consulting the members of all parties, the Liberals, the Tories and the NDP-the committee concluded that there was no need to set up such a register and that existing legislation on members' conflicts of interest was sufficient.
And the saga continues. In February 1988, Bill C-114, Members of the Senate and the House of Commons Conflict of Interest Act, was given first reading.
In September 1988, the legislative committee on Bill C-114 met three times, but was unable to finish considering the bill before Parliament was dissolved, on October 1, 1988.
In November 1989, the scenario was repeated with the first reading of Bill C-46, Members of the Senate and House of Commons Conflict of Interest Act. This bill was essentially the same as Bill C-114, with a few minor changes. This bill died on the Order Paper when Parliament was prorogued on May 12, 1991.
November 1991 marked the first reading of Bill C-43, Members of the Senate and the House of Commons Conflict of Interest Act. This bill was almost identical to the bills I have already mentioned: Bill C-114 and Bill C-46. And then, the same old story, the bill was immediately referred to a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons.
In March 1993, first reading of Bill C-116, the Conflict of Interests of Public Office Holders Act, which included amendments to the Parliament of Canada Act. Finally, in June 1993, a report from the Special Joint Committee of the House of Commons and the Senate recommended that Bill C-116 be set aside. You can hardly take this process seriously! The same day, a similar report was tabled in the Senate. Bills C-43 and C-116 died on the Order Paper, upon dissolution of the 34th Parliament on September 8, 1993.
The process is a political masquerade and shows the controversy that exists around a code of ethics for Canadian parliamentarians. All this is necessary to make the Liberals feel good about themselves and as a sop to democracy in the Canadian federal system.
Now what? We start over. Throughout the 1993 electoral campaign, the Liberal Party of Canada was saying that ethics should figure strongly in its mandate. It also said that in 1973. In the January 1994 speech from the throne, the government said it attached the greatest importance to integrity and wanted the people's trust. What a dream.
However, as regards conflicts of interest, the most important element in a code of conduct and ethics, the ethics counsellor, appointed by the Liberal government, still reports to the Privy Council, has no independent investigative powers and continues to report to the Prime Minister.
The Liberal Party's red book provided that, and I quote: "The integrity of the government is put into question when there is a perception that the public agenda is set by lobbyists exercising undue influence away from public view". Recent events have shown that the entire Liberal strategy on a parliamentary code of ethics, confirmed by the government motion before us, is simply window dressing.
Thus, the Broadcasting Act, which comes under the Minister of Canadian Heritage, carries no weight in the face of the powerful lobby of Power DirecTv, headed by André Desmarais, son-in-law of the Prime Minister. The Liberal government has even reached the point of defending ideas dear to the hearts of Brian Mulroney's Conservatives and is becoming the advocate of North America wide competition. In reading the releases from the Minister of Canadian Heritage one can only bow to the strength of the Power lobby and kiss federal democracy goodbye, because money is king.
We should be concerned by the pettiness of our institutions and some of our political representatives. Not only does the government mock its own legislation and renounce the CRTC, which is responsible for implementing it, but it takes measures retroactively, preventing Expressvu from starting up its service in September. All this in the name of competition. Meanwhile, the ethics counsellor of red book fame is sleeping in the Prime Minister's waiting room. After only 17 months in power, this government already has a long track record attesting to its lack of openness.
In addition to the previous examples and the government's mediocre record for introducing legislation establishing a code of ethics for parliamentarians, you will recall that, on September 26, 1994, Canadian Press reported that, according to documents obtained under the Access to Information Act, lobbyists arranged more meetings in the months prior to the tabling of Bill C-43, which was passed on May 8, while others vowed to go to court should the law force them to disclose their public and political relations.
In this case as in many others, the lack of transparency prevented the public from learning the extent and nature of lobbyists' representations with regard to Bill C-43. Ironically enough, lobbyists managed to influence the law aimed at limiting their influence. That takes some doing.
Worse yet, according to Mitchell Sharp himself, the Prime Minister's senior consultant on ethics matters, even if Bill C-43 had already become law at the time talks were held on privatizing Terminals 1 and 2 at Pearson airport, the public would have been none the wiser.
The majority report on Bill C-43 tabled by the Liberals reflects a faint willingness to oversee lobbying activities and ensure that the management of government is as open as possible. The government's attitude in that regard shows that, once again, the Liberals are using double talk on the issue of ethics. They are only trying to make themselves feel good and to score points with the electorate.
While the Government House Leader is tabling a motion calling for the establishment of a special committee responsible for developing a code of conduct for parliamentarians, behind the scene, this very government is flouting the most basic rules of democracy by favouring friends of the Liberal party and governing on behalf of the financial establishment and big business in Canada. How could we not want to leave this place of political scheming?
The Bloc Quebecois, as the official opposition, feels that, to restore the integrity of our democratic institutions, we must first do away with the futile commitments of the past 20 years, which mislead voters. We must also ensure that the management of government is as open as possible, in order to eliminate grey areas and assure the people that public policy decisions are consistent with their general interests and not those of the lobbyist friends of this Liberal federal government.