House of Commons Hansard #220 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was ethics.

Topics

Alternative Fuels ActPrivate Members' Business

2:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Alternative Fuels ActPrivate Members' Business

2:15 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The question is on Motion No. 2.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Alternative Fuels ActPrivate Members' Business

2:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Alternative Fuels ActPrivate Members' Business

2:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Alternative Fuels ActPrivate Members' Business

2:15 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

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

Alternative Fuels ActPrivate Members' Business

2:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Alternative Fuels ActPrivate Members' Business

2:15 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

All those opposed will please say nay.

Alternative Fuels ActPrivate Members' Business

2:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Alternative Fuels ActPrivate Members' Business

2:15 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Alternative Fuels ActPrivate Members' Business

2:15 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Pursuant to Standing Order 76, the recorded division on the motion stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 3, 5 and 6.

Normally at this time the House would proceed to the taking of deferred divisions for the report stage of the bill now before the House. However, pursuant to Standing Order 45, the divisions stand deferred until Monday, June 19 at 11.30 p.m.

Shall we call it 2.30 p.m. and call for orders of the day?

Alternative Fuels ActPrivate Members' Business

2:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

The House resumed from May 2 consideration of the motion:

That a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons be appointed to develop a Code of Conduct to guide Senators and Members of the House of Commons in reconciling their official responsibilities with their personal interests, including their dealings with lobbyists;

That seven Members of the Senate and fourteen Members of the House of Commons be the Members of the Committee, and the Members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be appointed to act on behalf of the House as Members of the said Committee;

That changes in the membership, on the part of the House of Commons of the Committee be effective immediately after a notification signed by the member acting as the chief Whip of any recognized party has been filed with the clerk of the Committee;

That the Committee be directed to consult broadly and to review the approaches taken with respect to these issues in Canada and in other jurisdictions with comparable systems of government;

That the Committee have the power to sit during sittings and adjournments of the House;

That the Committee have the power to report from time to time to send for persons, papers and records, and to print such papers and evidence as may be ordered by the Committee;

That the Committee have the power to retain the services of expert, professional, technical and clerical staff;

That a quorum of the Committee be 11 Members whenever a vote, resolution or other decision is taken, so long, as both Houses are represented and that the Joint Chairpersons be authorized to hold meetings, to receive evidence and authorize the printing thereof, whenever six Members are present, so long as both Houses are represented;

That the Committee be empowered to appoint, from among its Members, such sub-committees as may be deemed advisable, and to delegate to such sub-committees, all or any of its power except the power to report to the Senate and House of Commons;

That the Committee be empowered to authorize television and radio broadcasting of any or all of its proceedings;

That the Committee make its final report no later than October 31, 1995;

That, notwithstanding usual practices, if the Senate is not sitting when the final report of the Committee is completed, the report may be deposited with the Clerk of the Senate and it shall thereupon be deemed to have been presented to that House; and

That a Message be sent to the Senate requesting that House to unite with this House for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deem advisable, Members to act on the proposed Special Joint Committee.

Code Of ConductGovernment Orders

2:15 p.m.

Bloc

Gaston Leroux Bloc Richmond—Wolfe, QC

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.

Code Of ConductGovernment Orders

2:35 p.m.

Reform

Jim Silye Reform Calgary Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, the rules governing the conduct of members of Parliament are as outdated as they are widespread.

The Parliament of Canada Act, the conflict of interest code, Beauchesne's, the standing orders and House procedures all contain guidelines for the appropriate conduct of MPs. For years governments have talked about consolidating all these different rules into one code of conduct while at the same time bringing them up to speed with the realities of governing in the nineties, realities that could not have been imagined at the time when these rules were written.

Since 1973 consecutive governments have championed the issue of a code of conduct, yet not one significant piece of legislation has ever been passed. From Trudeau to Mulroney task forces were set up, special committees were struck, and reports and bills were written, all in the name of establishing ethics guidelines for MPs.

While in opposition members of the Liberal government were highly critical of the Tories for their legislative inaction. The following question by the Liberal whip in 1993 is clearly a case in point:

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and it concerns the government's so-called commitment to ethics in government. In February 1988 the Tory government introduced a conflict of interest bill and has allowed it to die twice on the Order Paper. Given that nearly five years has past since then, is the government, in its dying days in office, ready to commit itself again to conflict of interest legislation?

The Liberal whip was criticizing the Mulroney government for its failure to pass legislation regarding its 1985 throne speech promise to create a parliamentary ethics package.

Today, 10 years after this Mulroney promise, members of the House are again addressing the issue of parliamentary ethics, this time in the name of a Liberal motion; not a bill, not a discussion paper, not a white paper, but a motion that calls on members of the House of Commons to appoint a special joint committee of the Senate and the House to study and develop a code of conduct for politicians. The committee composed of seven members of the Senate and fourteen members of the House of Commons will travel across Canada and once again hear how the government should hold its representatives accountable.

The 22-year history of the development of ethics guidelines for members of Parliament is as long as it is uneventful. In 1973 the President of the Treasury Board, Allan MacEachen, a Liberal, tabled a green paper entitled "Members of Parliament and Conflict of Interest". Among the issues addressed in the 69-page report were problems associated with conflicts of interest, corrupt practices and government contracts. Potential solutions and sanctions for these problems were also proposed. The document was studied in the committee of the House of Commons as well as in a Senate committee but was never debated in the House.

In 1978 legislation relating to the green paper, Bill C-6, was tabled but was left to die on the Order Paper. Five years later, in 1983, Prime Minister Trudeau set up a task force to study conflicts of interest for MPs as well as public sector ethics. A comprehensive report was produced but like so many reports commissioned by the House nothing became of it.

In 1987 the Ontario Supreme Court found that former cabinet minister Sinclair Stevens had breached the Canadian conflict of interest rules on 14 different occasions prior to his resignation in 1986. As a direct result the Mulroney government introduced conflict of interest Bill C-46 for MPs, which unfortunately once again died on the Order Paper at the end of the parliamentary session. A similar conflict of interest Bill C-112 was introduced in the next session. It too died on the Order Paper. Again the Tories introduced legislation, this time Bill C-43 which was along the same lines as its predecessor. It too died on the Order Paper.

The pattern which has developed is incredible. A code of conduct is studied, legislation is drafted, introduced in the House, and after months of sitting idle it is finally dropped. Study, introduce, drop; study, introduce, drop.

None of the bills was ever really debated. They went from first reading to the Order Paper and that was it. It was as though the Tories kept the bills around to point at in case one of their MPs got caught with their hands in the public cookie jar.

As a result of their failed attempts, and I use the word attempts loosely, the Mulroney government created a special

joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate to study the issue of conflict of interest. Does it sound familiar? It should. That is exactly what the Liberal government now wants to do.

A lengthy study of ethical issues confronting politicians was conducted by the committee. Witnesses were heard, testimony was given, and a 60-page report was submitted to the House and Senate. The report made 14 principal recommendations for a code of conduct and among them listed compliance obligations for politicians, post employment restrictions, criteria for negotiating government contracts, the need to create an independent jurisconsult or ethics counsellor, disclosure obligations for politicians, conduct for inquiries and possible sanctions, and Criminal Code provisions in relation to bribery, influence peddling and breach of trust.

These are just some of the 60 pages of recommendations made by the special joint committee to Mulroney's government in 1992. At the time the Liberal whip was a member of the committee. His official title was government operations critic but in commenting on the special joint committee report he wrote:

The challenge for Canadian legislators-is to ensure that such reports as this are not allowed merely to gather dust on a bookshelf.

Needless to say, like all previous ethics initiatives and despite what the Liberal whip said the report gathered more than just dust as it was completely buried. At the time the Liberal whip was obviously frustrated by that fact and on February 17, 1993 he moved a lengthy supply day motion which read:

That this House condemns the government for its continued failure to establish and to adhere to a clear and high standard of public sector ethics, for its incessant inability to function within the framework of existing legislation, guidelines and standards, and for its reluctance to bring forward strict new codes and legislation with regard to conflicts and other public ethic matters.

That motion applies today to the government.

Mr. Speaker, you have sat in the chair and you have heard our questions over the last month or two. The government was self-righteous when it was on this side of the House. Now look at what is happening. Look at the Minister for Canadian Heritage: dollars for contracts dinner and personal intervention on radio licence renewal. Look at the minister of public works and the highway 104 diversion of funds. Look at the Minister of National Revenue in cahoots with the Minister of Justice who helped fire a law firm with years of drug prosecution experience in favour of an inexperienced firm that contributed heavily to his campaign. Those matters are all well documented and were brought out during the last three weeks in question period.

What about the ethics counsellor, the Maytag repairman? He reports directly to the Prime Minister rather than to Parliament as promised in the red book.

If a code of conduct said that you make an election promise in writing, signed by everybody and everybody campaigns to get here to do that, what would happen if they broke their promises? I just wonder how they would handle that in this joint committee. This ethics counsellor is never asked to look into anything, from the Perez affair to the Liberal family compact.

The appearance of conflict of interest is overwhelming, and there are definitely sufficient grounds for actions on what I have pointed out. If the Liberals do not apply the rules that we have now, then why in heaven's name create more rules under the guise of a special joint committee? They will not follow them anyway. It is a sham on the Canadian public.

In his usual verbosity, the Liberal whip criticized the Mulroney government for its failure to establish an ethics code during its mandate. During debate he chastised members of the government because "six years of waiting for conflict of interest rules is long enough, and that shows a complete lack of interest in the ethics on the part of the Tory government". He has been in the government now for two years and we do not even have anything on the floor except a motion to form a joint committee once again, doing the same old thing as the previous governments.

On that day, the Liberals did more than just criticize the government. They offered some ideas and solutions that they felt could be implemented right away. This government, when it was in opposition, had some good ideas, some concrete suggestions. One of these ideas was the establishment of non-partisan nomination and confirmation procedures for order in council appointments such as the officers of the House, deputy ministers, heads of crown corporations, citizenship court judges. Have they done this? No.

A second idea was the establishment of a central registry of awarded government contracts under which the details of any government contract awarded should be open to public scrutiny. Have they done this? No.

A third idea was the elimination of registration fees for tier one and tier two lobbyists and that they should be required to disclose in a public register major expenses and fees with description of the lobbying activity and most importantly what political body they are lobbying for. Have they done this? No. Could they do it? Yes. They could do this, but no, let us set up another expensive, exciting, expletive joint committee.

These are just a few of the recommendations the Liberal members made for an improved code of conduct for MPs. It is quite clear that these were not off the cuff ideas but well thought out initiatives made by a party that had witnessed eight years of Tory corruption. I hope we do not have to sit here for eight years of Liberal corruption.

With this special joint committee, the Liberals are now saying that everything that was said in the past, all the ideas and initiatives that were to be followed through on, if only they had the chance, are all history. Kaput. They say one thing on this side of the House and once they get over there they do the other.

Why is it that we cannot just sit down in this House and write out a code of conduct that is acceptable to all parties? Why must we spend thousands of dollars for another series of committee meetings and setting up the overhead to send senators and MPs all over to listen to witnesses, only to find out what we already know? We already have it done.

We have two previous Liberal ethics initiatives-they are now government-four Tory bills, countless discussion papers, and a 60-page report on the conduct for MPs. Why do we not just dust some of these off, and look in the book, find out what they said and pass something?

Again I quote the Liberal whip from 1993, when he attacked the Tory government for its failure to pass an ethics bill: "Does the member actually think that it is reasonable after five and a half years of delay to have had nothing happen yet? It has been six months since the unanimous report of the committee, and nothing has happened yet."

If this joint committee ever does file a report, how many years will the government let it sit on the shelf collecting dust? Does the Liberal whip think it is reasonable for the Government of Canada to examine the issue of political ethics for 23 years with no results and then ask the taxpayers to fork out for yet another group to study the issue?

Heck, he can write the bill himself for all the work he has done. But do you know what, Mr. Speaker? The Prime Minister is no longer listening to him. Give us a break. Ring the bell and ask everyone to bring a pen and a paper and we can have this thing written in a day.

If the Liberals want to talk about reasonable, then I suggest they acknowledge the fact that this House has more than enough information to establish a code of conduct without any road show.

Unfortunately, it is apparent from today's debate that the Liberal government, like the Tories, does not have the intestinal fortitude to enact major reforms to the code of conduct for MPs. Like the Tories, it is in their best interests to bury the issue in committee, and I will tell the House why. When political parties are in opposition in Canada one of their primary objectives is to try to limit the power and authority of the government, hold the government accountable, point out incompetence and always question the integrity of the government. That is when you are on this side of the House.

On the other hand, the government always tries to perpetuate its own power by denying and/or ignoring opposition scrutiny, as is the case in this Parliament. Any increase in scrutiny of governmental affairs means a decrease in its authority in that particular area: health, revenue and taxation, public works. What is good for the goose is not always good for the gander, as the Liberal whip likes to say. And what is good for the Liberals in opposition is no longer in their best interests in power. It is sort of a power paradox.

All members have to do is look at the facts. They speak for themselves. In opposition the Liberals harped on the Tories for their failure to establish an effective code of conduct for MPs. They made some constructive suggestions in debate, in reports, in articles and endorsed the last report of the special joint committee. Did they invoke it? Did they bring a bill forward? No. They wanted to ignore it and do the work all over again.

As the Liberal member for Edmonton Southeast stated, "I would like to see the recommendations of the special joint committee enacted". The fact is, the recommendations were never enacted and the Tories were booted out of office. All of a sudden the Liberals, the party of integrity, became the government. And what has happened? They have lowered the definition of integrity.

What happened to the ethics report they endorsed? What about all the proposals they made to increase the scrutiny on members of the House? What about all the criticism they gave the Tories for not acting immediately? Why are they not doing what they said they would do in opposition? At least when Prime Minister Mulroney was on that side and a minister got into trouble or gave the appearance of a conflict of interest, the minister stepped aside. Now we have that case and the minister is not stepping aside, nor has the Prime Minister asked him to step aside.

Like all previous governments, the Liberals realize they cannot possibly give away the kind of power that was suggested in opposition. Instead they give out small tokens and establish needless committees like the one we are debating today, which will not accomplish a darn thing.

The Liberals have done nothing to increase scrutiny over order in council appointments, an issue they were adamant about in opposition. As a matter of fact, they used an order in council to create another possible conflict of interest over the direct to home satellite TV business.

To quote the Liberal whip in 1993, my favourite witness on the topic, "The only thing we have had is an order in council review process that gives no power to a committee, not even the power to make a recommendation to the House of Commons". What has changed since then? The problem still exists. Why do they not just fix it? They have been in office for two years, and what have they done? Nothing.

The same can be said about Liberal inaction to introduce legislation that would open up the government contract process. In fact, on Wednesday, May 31, we heard that the president and vice-president of the riding association of the Minister of National Revenue were awarded contracts. Now the Liberals are going to bury all this in a special joint committee, which I guarantee will not report back anything new to the House in the area of political ethics or code of conduct initiatives. The Prime Minister will point out how great this committee is when it is nothing more than a dog and pony show and a waste of time, effort, and money.

This government is no better than the Tories when it comes to legislating a code of conduct for politicians. The creation of this committee is a déjà vu of how Mulroney kept ethics on the back burner.

The Liberal whip has been sitting there devouring each and every word I am saying here today. He wrote down his ideas in a 1991 discussion paper entitled "Public Sector Ethics and Morals". In this paper many questions are raised on the issues of government advertising, government contracts, order in council appointments, lobbyists and whistleblowing.

The Liberal whip then went on to write an article in 1992 entitled "Members' Interests-New Conflict of Interest Rules for Canadian Parliamentarians". How much more study does the Liberal whip have to do on this issue? How much more? This is getting ridiculous.

We have here the people, the skills and the information to write out a code of conduct right now. The member opposite has the ability to make a tremendous contribution to this. He has studied it to death. He has read it to death. Why in heaven's name would the Liberal whip then want to have a joint committee to do all this work all over again when he has spent years on it already? Does he want to spend another year on another joint committee to come up with the same conclusions, the same recommendations he has already made? I challenge the federal government to just do it.

This motion is going to pass. Since the government wants to do another review, this time the Reform Party will be there to hold it accountable to actually bring a bill to the House and pass a code of conduct. Reformers object to this joint committee because of the senators, but we will work toward giving Canadians what they should have-politicians with integrity and a new code of conduct bill.

Code Of ConductGovernment Orders

2:55 p.m.

Reform

Dick Harris Reform Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to digest Motion No. 24 and my thoughts range from somewhat confused about the purpose of this motion to anger.

Let me talk about the confusion first, because I am a little confused about what the Liberals believe. What does this Liberal government believe? What kind of rocket science do they really think is needed to do things that are good, right, and honest? Those are fundamental characteristics of integrity. Yet this government, despite the numerous studies, commissions, inquiries, investigative bodies that have tried to determine what is the right thing to do when one becomes an MP or a government, is missing some basic points: good, right and honest. That is not rocket science. That is what we are taught by our parents when we are kids, when they are trying to groom us into becoming responsible adults: do things that are good, right, and honest.

It is unbelievable that after over a hundred years of this Parliament being in operation we have a government that wants to find out how to restore and keep the trust of the Canadian voters. Let me save the government a whole lot of time. I want to give it five very simple suggestions. It will save the committee time. It will save a lot of MPs and senators time. Here they are, and they are free. I will repeat these after and I will send each of the Liberal members a memo on this. The first one is do not lie. The second one is do not cheat. The third one is do not steal. The fourth one is do not reward your friends with taxpayers' money. The fifth one is if any member of Parliament does this, that member them out.

Therein you have a code of conduct in the first four points and the last one is a deterrent. That is not rocket science. I did not need a committee to come up with those points. This government does not need a committee to come up with ideas on how to be a good, honest member of Parliament. This government does not need a committee to know how the Canadian voters regard politicians at a slightly lower level than used car salesmen or lawyers-with all due respect, some used car salesmen and some lawyers.

In the last 15 years the level of respect for politicians and the level of trust that was felt by the Canadian voter have severely deteriorated. In this 35th Parliament we not only have a job to run the country to make sure the economy, the social programs and everything else are going to run smoothly, we also have a profound obligation to begin to restore the trust of the electorate which is missing.

I have heard it said time and time again that the only reason our current Prime Minister looks so good is that he followed the Mulroney Tories who were so bad. In my opinion our current Prime Minister has a lot of latitude but because of the way this government is running things and because of some of the things which have happened since this 35th Parliament convened, people are starting to wonder if this government is just another wolf in sheep's clothing. Some hon. members have already

talked about them but it is worth going over some of the very disparaging things which have happened.

There is the Minister of Canadian Heritage's now infamous $2,000 a plate dinner and the subsequent perception of his rewarding his friends with government contracts paid for with taxpayers' money of course. We have talked about the monopoly status awarded to Expressvu and the ties between Power Corp. and the Prime Minister. The list goes on and on.

Most recently there has been the appointment of a legal firm in Vancouver. Lawyers were engaged by the government to prosecute drug cases but they had no previous experience in dealing with the prosecution of drug cases, a very serious crime. In prosecuting a drug case in particular, a lot of factors are involved, including the gathering of evidence by the police and putting it together by the crown which is most important in order to win the case. The evidence is clear that the lawyers from the legal firms recently appointed by the Minister of Justice had no experience in this area. However they did qualify for the appointment because one happened to be the president of a Liberal riding and the other was a fundraiser for the Liberals.

The Canadian public was fresh from a Tory regime in which it completely lost trust in the leader of our country and they elected the Liberal government whose red book was trumpeted at every occasion. It promised to restore integrity, trust and honesty to government.

When Canadians think about those promises, about the way the red book was flashed around for everyone to see and then they see those things happening, they ask: "Who can we believe?" They get pretty discouraged. Even some people who did not vote for me come into my riding office and say they thought the Prime Minister was going to change things. They thought the Liberal government was going to bring back some form of honesty to government. They are very disappointed.

Now a joint committee of MPs and senators is going to be formed to try to rediscover life in so far as honesty and integrity goes.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to speak as long as my hon. friend who just spoke. I do not have the sense of humour he has about this. It is a very serious subject.

At the end of the day and most recently when walking home at 11 or 11.30 at night we might ask ourselves: "What on earth am I doing here?" We hear about some new revelation of conflict of interest the government has and we remember why we are here. I am here because I was so disgusted with the way politics were run in this country that I wanted to come here to do something about it. I am going to try, but at the end of the day if nothing changes in this House at least I can say that I tried.

I want to go back just for a moment and review those points I made at the beginning. This government does not need a committee to understand the things that are good, right and honest. We do not need a committee because those things are fundamental in how we develop character. Any member of Parliament who does not possess those characteristics does not belong in this place.

Free of charge for the Liberal government, let me go through it again. Do not lie. Do not cheat. Do not steal. Do not reward friends with taxpayers' money. Those are the four very condensed codes. The deterrent is that if any of those are broken, they should be thrown out of this place. That is free for the Liberal government and free for every member of this House.

We do not need a joint committee of senators and members of Parliament to try to discover some nirvana being dreamed up by the government, some field of operation that is so clouded no one can understand it. Do not lie. Do not cheat. Do not steal. Do not reward friends with taxpayers' money. That is all that is needed and honesty and integrity will return to this House once that is accomplished.

Code Of ConductGovernment Orders

3:05 p.m.

Reform

Margaret Bridgman Reform Surrey North, BC

Mr. Speaker, the points I was going to make on this motion have been admirably expressed by my colleagues before me.

We are talking about Motion No. 24 which is part of the process in carrying out Bill C-43. This motion deals with the creation of another committee to study the parameters for a code of ethics for MPs. When we consider the historical activity this topic has been subjected to over the years, we cannot really commend it surfacing again even though the need is very predominant. However, we cannot say it is a step in the right direction or give congratulations that we are actually addressing this. It has been around too long. The matter has been put forward so many times with no action resulting from the process in the past. The reputation of this topic is such that one wonders if we mean business or if it is a filler that is just going to be brought in again, discussed for a bit and then allowed to die.

Considering that we come from all walks of life, ethics is a moral topic that we are dealing with. We all have different value systems. The existing rules from the various sources we receive direction from are very general so that they are subject to all kinds of interpretations depending upon one's value system. The consequences over the years of all those sorts of variables have resulted in the general public not trusting or believing in the integrity of members of Parliament and senators and it is time that we address this.

I really question whether we need to set up another joint committee. Certainly all the guidelines and actions that have happened in the past which have set precedents should be correlated. We should study the present code of ethics or conflict of interest situations to see what we have and try to tighten them up so that we have less interpretations of what the actual situation is. Then we can see if we need to take this further or at least get back to the public for input.

This has gone through a number of studies. Possibly all that is needed is to gather together what we have and with the members of the House and the other place get on with setting a code of ethics versus travelling the country spending many dollars to get input from people who have been here in the past.

We have had an example which should be considered. If this motion is passed and the committee is put together we could use the 35th Parliament as an example from the point of view that we have 204 rookies. We are all learning. When it comes to what is ethical and what is not ethical the first thing we discovered was that we were never off duty. Everything we do is viewed by the public. One is always an MP. When does our personal life begin or even come into being here? One always seems to be an MP.

When talking to learned people who have followed this through the years, it absolutely boggles the mind the kind of things that can get you into trouble. They can seem very innocent. These sorts of things should be defined. It would be very nice if we could go somewhere, look at the ethics and come up with an interpretation that would at least provide a standard or average for what MPs and senators believe. Right now it is all over the ballpark.

We work hard. We spend a lot of time working. We are very concerned about the country. Yet we get ourselves into positions of trouble and there are no guidelines to help us. We should be providing some sort of rules with tighter interpretations. If it means another committee, then that is the way to go. I certainly do not want to see it die. The reputation of this topic is poor. Let us try to do something about it.

We do not have to go out and be subjected to bringing more people in. We have the data here. Let us put it together and come up with something.

Code Of ConductGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Reform

Bob Ringma Reform Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

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.

Code Of ConductGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Reform

Ian McClelland Reform Edmonton Southwest, AB

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the debate unfold this afternoon and have seen five or six inches of various reports the House has done on ethics over the last few years.

I have been very blessed in my life to have more than one mother. One of my mothers is my Jewish mother. She comes up with little pearls of wisdom we refer to as chicken soup for the mind.

Once when we were talking about ethics specifically in business she said ethics is simply doing the right thing even when you know no one is looking.

Code Of ConductGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Reform

Jim Abbott Reform Kootenay East, BC

Mr. Speaker, it has been really interesting this afternoon as we have listened to this debate in talking about the whole issue of ethics, particularly the number of reports.

There has been report after report starting as far back as the report of Senator MacEachen dated July 1973. There is all of this information. As has been pointed out by my colleagues, why are we having another committee? Why are we doing this?

Why do we not simply assimilate all of the information, put it together if we need to and come forward with a plan in the next couple of weeks, instead of months or years?

Surely with all of the work put into this process thus far we do not need to have more input. Particularly instructive to me is the amount of involvement reported that the government whip has had in this process. The member has had input and input. Is he really so short of things to do as the government whip that he needs to have a make work project to have more input into this process?

This is a joint committee. I will refer with respect to the other place. I will not play games. We are talking about the other place being a place where people are appointed fundamentally on the whole basis of patronage. What has it done for the existing Prime Minister? What has it done for the party currently in power?

We have a very interesting situation at this moment as we all know. Because the Conservatives had power for a period of nine years, the Liberal government is having some difficulty getting certain pieces of legislation through the House, not the least of which is Bill C-69, and certainly when we get to the gun control bill, Bill C-41 and hopefully Bill C-85, they will be slowed down over there so Canadians can really see what the government is up to.

Nonetheless, the point is the people in the other place have been appointed on the basis of patronage and we are having a joint committee with them to figure out what is wrong with the whole parliamentary system based on patronage. It seems to me things are slightly out of order.

We came to the House with 52 members of Parliament in October 1993 whose electors at that time thought they were the best people to represent them. I think of the member for Ottawa-Vanier who used to sit across from me. What does the government do? It has a place it needs to fill. Why did it put him there? Why did David Berger suddenly resign his seat to work for the Prime Minister? It was to get the labour minister here.

There is the whole issue of manipulation of the political system by the existing party. It talks about transparency. It is very transparent. The government has absolutely no concern for the dollars of the ordinary Canadian taxpayer when it will force a byelection in order to fill the place of patronage to accomplish certain political objectives.

Furthermore, there is no direct accountability by the people in the other place to the people of Canada. Let us assume every member in the other place is honourable. Let us create that as a basic assumption. The point is still not one person in that place has direct accountability to the people of Canada. We have accountability to the people of Canada by coming here on the basis of an election. Why in the world will the government not get serious, including this whole debate? Why will it not get serious and start to do something about making the other place accountable on the basis of getting the people over there elected?

There is no question that could be done. Reform Senator Stan Waters was the first and only elected member of the other place. It can be done. The existing premier of Alberta and the Government of Alberta brought forward legislation that created a situation in which there could be an election for the Senate. Again, the Liberals could have done exactly the same thing when they got their own bag person to be appointed to the other place on the basis of patronage. Just as easily as not, they could have gone through a legitimate election process and started to

legitimize the other place rather than just having people there on the basis of sheer patronage.

I am in support of this motion on the basis of the fact that we will perhaps get some movement forward on the issue of ethics within the government, although there is some question about the existing government on that basis, nonetheless we can always hope. The point I am driving at is that when we ask people who are in a place of patronage to be involved in a process of talking about ethics and patronage, it just does not make any sense. If a commission has to be formed, I would see it as being the responsibility of those of us who are elected to this Chamber who have the confidence of our constituents.

Code Of ConductGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Is the House ready for the question?

Code Of ConductGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Code Of ConductGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Code Of ConductGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Code Of ConductGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.