Debates of Dec. 16th, 1999

Standing Committee On Finance

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the prebudget debate. As a member of the finance committee since 1997 I have had the honour to travel across Canada to listen to what Canadians from all walks of life have to say.

I can carefully say that the mood of the Canadian people is that they are quite relieved that the fiscal house of Canada is in order. They are looking forward to more good news. To put it in context, when I became a member of parliament in 1993 and the government took office unemployment in Canada was 11.2%. In addition, we were faced with a $42 billion deficit.

There is no doubt that each and every Canadian was called on to bear a share of the burden of getting our fiscal house in order. It was an imperative. Not only was unemployment high, not only did we have this deficit, but the debt to GDP was rising. It meant that there was pressure on interest rates. It was a scenario that was not sustainable.

As a result of the sacrifices that Canadians have made, as a result of the prudence that the government has exercised and as a result of the good fiscal management and fiscal responsibility demonstrated by the government, there is good news.

Let me give a few key points. The real gross domestic product advanced 4.7% in the third quarter of this year, its fourth consecutive quarter. The real consumer spending posted its third consecutive quarter of strong growth with an increase of 4.8%. Real business investment has grown at an average rate of 11.3%. Real goods and services exports surged 15% in the third quarter. The current account balance improved dramatically from a $7 billion deficit to a second quarter surplus of $2.6 billion in the third quarter.

The healthy economic growth has translated as well into robust job creation. Since December 1997 over 760,000 jobs were created and 199,000 of those new jobs were for young Canadians. The unemployment rate has declined. It is now at a rate of 6.9%. That is its lowest level in Canada since August 1981, virtually a generation ago. Both the International Monetary Fund and the OECD expect Canada to lead G-7 countries in employment growth in 1999 and 2000. Inflationary pressures remain subdued. The consumer price inflation was 2.3% and excluding food and energy the inflation was only 1.6%. Those are technical points but they paint a picture which indicates to Canadians that we have our fiscal house in order.

On November 2 the Minister of Finance took the opportunity to address Canadians in his annual fiscal update. During that update he laid out the scenario as he saw it, using prudent assumptions and responsible fiscal management, looking at the fundamentals, and accepting the advice of the experts in business and industry and the economists of our country.

I will quote from the closing of his speech which should give Canadians the confidence that the next budget will reflect a step in the right direction of addressing the fact that Canadians have taken a great deal of the burden over all the years we have taken to balance the budget and finally get into a surplus position.

The finance minister said:

We will strengthen our economy. We will bring down taxes. We will recast the foundations of individual security. We will forge a culture of innovation. We will build upon our traditional industries and we will build a society that nurtures its children like no other.

Canadians should be very encouraged by the state of the fiscal house of Canada. It is time for Canadians to start discussing the strategies they would like to see in terms of how we put these things in place.

As the finance committee travelled across Canada and consulted with Canadians, it will come as no surprise to members and to Canadians at large that depending on whom we were talking to at the time the interest areas were certainly different.

Young people in university talked to us about the cost of education. They asked us if they could get lower tuitions, if they could get better assistance for post-secondary education, a very important and noble request that has to be looked at. At the other end of the spectrum, a growing segment of the Canadian population, our seniors, told us their concerns were the health care system and the social security benefits that allow them to live in the dignity they have earned and to which they are entitled.

Small businessmen told us that they wanted to see changes in the corporate tax structure for small businesses, the business sector that generates the most jobs in Canada. They wanted to know if they could get an increase in the small business limit from $200,000 to $400,000.

People spoke on behalf of families and children before the finance committee. They talked about the fairness and equity of our tax system, the taxation of families with children and the issue of one income versus two. They talked about the EI system. They talked about debt reduction. Large business groups and organizations talked about the need to improve benefits under our registered retirement savings plans because they want to be able to provide for their retirement down the road.

Virtually every segment of society had representation. The disabled had an excellent representation by Community Living which came before us and talked about how important it was to address the needs of the disabled of our country. Disabled persons often do not get an opportunity to enjoy the dignity and quality of life of other Canadians because so much of their time, energies and resources are dedicated to meeting their basic needs of health and dignity of life. It is a very important issue.

Members would agree, no matter what party they may come from, that the needs of Canadians are diverse. It is incumbent upon the government to balance those needs on a priority basis and to ensure that when the budget comes forward we maintain fiscal prudence. The finance minister reminded us that we will not go back to a deficit ever again. Canadians can bank on that. The application of fiscal prudence and fiscal responsibility will ensure the sustained growth of our economy, which means more people will have jobs, have the dignity of those jobs, and enjoy Canadian life as every other Canadian.

It really gets down to productivity. We had a study last year in the finance committee on productivity. In that study there was some disagreement among the experts about what it really meant, but I think they all concurred that at the end of the day it was really an issue of how we improve the quality of life for all Canadians.

In some ways we can do that by delivering benefits directly to Canadians. In other ways it can be done through stimulating the economy or through the economic sector so that we increase the size of the pie and there is more to share with all Canadians. There are many decisions to be made and they should not be taken lightly. We have to acknowledge the important needs of all Canadians regardless of their state in life. I will be splitting my time with the member for Wentworth—Burlington.

My final comments will be with regard to the report of the subcommittee of the finance committee that dealt with the taxation of families. In that report there were four recommendations. The first was to extend parental leave under the employment insurance system to a full year for maternity benefits. It is a very important initiative. I am very pleased that the government has embraced it and will be pursuing it in the next budget.

We recommended that the government look at how to amend the Canada pension plan system to assist Canadians who withdrew from the paid labour force to raise a family so that they do not get penalized in the CPP structure. We also recommended that a new benefit be introduced under the Canada child tax benefit to assist families with children. Finally, we asked the government to look at the child care expense deduction under the Income Tax Act to ensure that it continues to meet with policy objectives.

The report was commented on by many witnesses before the finance committee. I can tell Canadians and all members that its recommendations were well received.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to this prebudget debate all day, and frankly I cannot believe how shortsighted and irresponsible the Liberals are.

The government is prepared, if we listen to its comments, to sit idly by and oversee the death of medicare. I thought we were here today to talk about the future, and for sure one of the important issues of the future is to take medicare into the new millennium.

This is the government that cut $6.2 billion out of transfer payments in 1995. In the last budget it put back in half of what it took out and stretched it out over five years. It has taken 50:50 cost shared arrangements down to, if we really stretch it, a 15% federal share of health care spending in the country. No wonder we have Ralph Klein in Alberta threatening to privatize the system and destroy our universal health care system because the government has nothing with which to stand up in the face of that.

I ask the member very specifically whether the government will have the responsibility to put back at least $1.5 billion into transfer payments for health care. Will it have the integrity to keep to its promises of the last election and the election before that for national home care and pharmacare? Will it have some vision to ensure that we can carry medicare into the new millennium?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will not be able to address all those points in the time allotted, but I will point out to the member that the cuts to the province of Ontario and the CHST, which includes health, post-secondary and social services, were about $800 million. The Government of Ontario at the same time decided to reduce income taxes by $4.3 billion.

There are joint responsibilities with regard to health care. The member will well know that the provinces have to deal with that. Indeed the National Forum on Health identified that there was at least $11 billion of waste in the system. It is very important that the system be managed properly.

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was very interested to hear the member from across the way talk about having the fiscal house in order. Let us see how much order it is in.

The last time I noticed we were $560 billion in debt. We have a 67 cent Canadian dollar. We pay about $40 billion to $50 billion in interest depending on what rate we are paying at the time. The member calls that getting his fiscal house in order. All of this is despite the fact that revenues have increased since 1993 by about some $40 billion or $45 billion.

I recall in 1993 when the Liberal candidate in my riding said that a perfectly acceptable level of deficit financing would be about 3% of the GDP. I would like the member to comment on whether he has changed his mind about that level of deficit.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when the government was formed in 1993 the annual deficit was $42 billion. Obviously we cannot just make that disappear by flipping a switch. It obviously added to the accumulated national debt. The record shows very clearly that the government not only eliminated that deficit but it has also balanced the budget and delivered surpluses to Canadians as a result of its fiscal responsibility.

The member cannot deny the fact that we are on the right track. The debt to GDP is going down, down, down and in fact it should be below 50% before the next fiscal year is finished.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Mississauga South for his speech.

I was surprised to hear him speak so enthusiastically, praising the government for its fiscal management. As I listened to him, I wondered whether he was fully aware of what is really going on.

Yes, the government has eliminated the deficit. Yes, it has accumulated surpluses, but we must look at how it was done. This government acted in the most cowardly fashion to eliminate its deficit. Only 11% of savings, if I can use that word, came from its own programs. All the rest was achieved at the expense of the provinces, through cuts in their transfer payments for health, post-secondary education and social programs, and at the expense of workers and employers who contribute to the employment insurance fund.

This approach did allow the government to accumulate surpluses, with the result that, for example, the provinces had to make drastic cuts in health and education to the point where 80% of cuts affecting the Quebec health care system today are the direct result of this government's cuts in transfers to the provinces.

It is the federal government's fault if it has become so difficult for people to get medical care today. And we hear the members opposite blow their own horn and say how good they were at managing public finances. It is outreageous.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member had some pretty strong words.

Let me review it for the member. The year ended March 31, 1998 was the first year we had a balanced budget of some $1 billion. In the last fiscal year reported on it was $2.9 billion. In the current fiscal year ending March 31, 2000 we are looking at a budget surplus of some $2 billion.

When we consider the modest surpluses the government has, I wonder what the member has in mind when he suggests that billions and billions of dollars should not have been cut from the spending of governments. We would have still been in deficit. Unemployment would have remained high. Inflation would have increased. Long term debt interest rates would have increased. Canadians' mortgages would have increased. Car loans would have increased.

There is a balance and I will not deny that all Canadians have to share part of that burden. But let us be clear. When in government it is very important that prudence and fiscal responsibility are exercised to make sure that the changes we have made are sustainable, to ensure we are on a positive track to have continued surpluses, so Canadians can get the tax breaks they have earned, so Canadians can have the health care system they deserve, so that students can be taken care of, so that seniors can be taken care of and so that families with children can be taken care of.

Those are the objectives of a responsible government. I suggest to the member that the Liberal government has been a very responsible government.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

We added two minutes to the question and comment period so that the next speaker, who would be the hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington, would not be interrupted in his discourse.

It being 6.07 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Mr. Speaker, you did something on your own initiative and I know unintentionally that deprived me of an opportunity to speak at what I thought was a crucial time. I point out to you this is possibly the last debate for the end of the millennium. I wanted, Mr. Speaker, to make a couple of comments. Is this going on tomorrow?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

If the hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington is asking for the unanimous consent of the House to extend for two or three minutes, I think we have already crossed that bridge. We have already passed the special motion that we would not be doing things that were special. We cannot revert, having crossed that bridge. Hopefully the hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington will be able to get his comments in tomorrow. If not, I sincerely apologize.

We will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.

Parliamentarians' Code Of Conduct

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

moved that Bill C-226, parliamentarians' code of conduct, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to address my Bill C-226 which sets out to establish a code of official conduct for parliamentarians.

This bill is realistic. It is reflected in provincial legislatures and other nations' national assemblies. This code of conduct would raise the level of integrity of our parliament. This bill is rooted in very practical and legitimate concerns Canadians hold about their parliament.

I believe the decision not to have this bill votable was a betrayal of the Canadian public. The clauses I have set out in this code of conduct would have been practical and would have raised the whole tenor of this House and of the Senate.

My first comments to this House of Commons in response to the government's first throne speech were made over two years ago. I quote from that speech:

So many of our citizens have become so discouraged with our politicians and our political system that they have chosen not to exercise the basic rights for which our forefathers fought and died. But the sad reality is, and it came across loudly and clearly to me during the election campaign, that many citizens have lost faith in their politicians. Politicians were described to me as not really caring, being in it only for themselves or for the money, being dishonest or full of empty promises.... As I stand here today I pledge that I will do my best to put a new face on politics.

Those were my words in 1997.

This code of conduct sets out to address this very real problem. This bill is being brought forward out of my personal desire to see parliamentarians carry out their responsibilities with honesty, integrity, transparency and in a manner that dignifies the trust placed in them by the electorate.

Unfortunately over the years there has been too much opportunity for people to become cynical, skeptical and pessimistic concerning elected officials. I firmly believe that those entrusted with public office must not only conduct themselves in a manner befitting of that trust, but must also be seen to be carrying out their responsibilities beyond reproach and free from conflict of interest.

This parliament should have and needs a clear and objective complaint and resolution mechanism available to the public. This private member's bill addresses these issues. My bill is based upon the following principles.

Parliamentarians should have the highest ethical standards so as to maintain and enhance public confidence and trust in the integrity of parliamentarians and parliament.

Parliamentarians should perform their official duties and arrange their private affairs in a manner that will bear the closest public scrutiny.

Parliamentarians should avoid placing themselves under any financial or other obligation that might influence them in the performance of their official duties.

Parliamentarians upon entering office should arrange their private affairs to prevent real or apparent conflict of interest. If such does arise, it should be resolved in a way that protects the public interest.

Parliamentarians should not accept any gifts or personal benefit in connection with their office that may reasonably be seen to compromise their personal judgment or integrity. Parliamentarians would not accept any gift other than those received as a normal expression of courtesy or protocol.

As well, all parliamentarians under this bill would have to disclose all official travel when the cost exceeds $250 in cases where the trip is not completely paid for by parliament or one of the few officially recognized sponsors.

No parliamentarian would be permitted to be a party to a contract with the Government of Canada under which the parliamentarian receives a benefit.

Parliamentarians would be required to make a disclosure of all assets once every calendar year and would be required to make public disclosure of the nature, although not the value, of all assets each year.

Finally, to ensure that public interest and the highest standards are upheld, there would be an ethics counsellor to advise parliamentarians on any question relating to conduct. The ethics counsellor would enforce the application of the code of conduct. There would also be the creation of a new standing joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on official conduct to review the code and to monitor the ethics counsellor.

I should point out that there are codes of conduct in various forms in other jurisdictions, such as the United Kingdom and Australia as well as in some provinces in Canada. For example, in B.C. there is the conflict of interest commissioner. In Alberta there is the ethics commissioner. In Saskatchewan there is the conflict of interest commissioner. In Ontario there is the integrity commissioner.

There are many obvious reasons why having a code of official conduct would benefit all parliamentarians and all Canadians. In terms of the public, I am sure that everyone here would agree that the majority of Canadians has lost confidence in politicians and many hold a negative opinion of the political system. This code would address public cynicism. It would satisfy the expectations of the public and encourage a sense of security in the system.

The values that this bill promotes are central to rebuilding respect in this institution by Canadians. That is why this code would include a statement of principles that parliamentarians are expected to uphold. The values inherent in this code of conduct are that service in parliament is a public trust. Public interest must be placed ahead of private interest and conflicts of interest must be avoided or resolved.

This code is not only a disciplinary measure but it also provides an important educational function. The public would like to see such a function instilled in this House and the code sets forth a framework for that kind of education. This code would make it clear what parliamentarians are expected to do in certain situations and would provide an educational function for the guidance of parliamentarians.

I said at the outset that I was disappointed this bill was not deemed votable. There are several criteria to determine whether a bill is votable.

Bills and motions if they are to be votable should be drafted in a clear, complete and effective way. This 18 page bill has gone through many drafts and redrafts with the assistance of legislative staff. The bill not only stands the scrutiny of being potentially effective and an operable piece of legislation, but it is one that clearly outlines its goals.

Also, bills and motions must be constitutional and concern areas of federal jurisdiction. The bill fully meets that criteria.

Bills and motions must deal with matters of significant public interest. The conduct of parliamentarians is obviously of considerable public interest.

Bills and motions must also deal with matters that are not part of the government's legislative agenda and on which the House of Commons has not had the opportunity to vote during the session under way. As far as I know, Bill C-226 meets these criteria.

In terms of bills being votable, all other things being equal, higher priorities should be given to items which transcend purely local interests, are not couched in partisan terms or cannot be address by the House in other ways.

Clearly Bill C-226 has no given local interest and is fully in the national interest. It would also apply to all parliamentarians, including myself. There is nothing partisan about this particular effort. Members from all parties signed my petition accompanying the bill. I believe strongly that anything we can do to raise the dignity of parliament and parliamentarians in the eyes of the public benefits all of us, both collectively and individually.

Similar legislation exists in provincial legislatures and other national legislatures. It is neither fanciful nor onerous in its construction and in its potential application. I sincerely believe that the bill meets all the tests of being something that is worthy of being voted on by this honourable body.

I would therefore ask for the unanimous consent of members in the House to deem this bill votable.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member for Halifax West has presented a motion to the House to have his bill made votable. Does the member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-226, the parliamentarians' code of conduct.

I do not question the significance of a bill like the one being put forward by my hon. colleague from Halifax West. In fact, I can well imagine that on such a bill depends all the confidence the public may have in their institutions and in the elected representatives and politicians who are part of these parliamentarian institutions, which are the foundation of our democratic system and of our system of government.

That being said, I have questions about the surrealistic nature of the debates we are having in the House these days since, at the same time we are discussing a parliamentarians' code of conduct, which, I admit, is a very important issue, the federal government has introduced a bill that challenges the fundamental balance of the federation in which we live.

This federation was created with the voluntary consent of the provinces of which it is made up. These provinces who freely entered the federation are now being put into a straitjacket so they cannot leave the federation, or at least so the conditions allowing them to leave as freely as they entered are more difficult than ever, making it practically impossible for them to leave.

I would like to stray from the subject for a moment to make a few remarks that seem very important to me since, although I do not deny the importance of the bill introduced by our colleague, I believe there is a much more important debate that must take place, a debate on the very nature of the country in which we live, which leads us to have these kinds of debates on the parliamentarians' code of conduct, on the budget and on all the other issues that must normally be brought to the attention of parliamentarians.

Let us keep in mind that at the time Quebec joined the Canadian federation in 1867, it did not do so based on a simple vote by the legislative assembly of the day. Incidentally, that vote passed by a very slender majority of two seats, if I am not mistaken, among the francophone members. The least one can say, therefore, is that this entry was not the most unanimous possible, far from it in fact. But that is how Quebec entered the federation.

Later, when other provinces came into the federation, the founding members never had to give formal assent to their entry, even though the arrival of new provinces did have a fundamental impact on each of them.

Now they are trying to tell us that consulting the population in a democratic manner, through a referendum, would not be legitimate, would not be the right way to leave this country, whereas in 1867 the population of Quebec was never consulted about entering this federation.

I would respectfully submit that it is legitimate and democratic for Quebec to leave the Canadian federation as freely as it entered it, if that is the wish of its population, and if that wish is expressed by a majority vote, that is a 50% plus one vote.

Across the floor of this House, they are saying “But there have already been two referendums. How many of them are you going to hold before you get a yes?” That is not the point. In 1980, federalists told Quebecers “If you stay in Canada we will reform this country in such a way that you will feel comfortable in it”. A constitutional reform was indeed undertaken, but Quebec was left out. Quebec never signed the constitutional reform adopted in 1982 and no Quebec premier, whether federalist or sovereignist, was ever prepared to sign it.

The federalists got a no on the basis of misrepresentation, and the same thing happened again in 1995. On the eve of that referendum, the current Prime Minister, realizing to his great dismay that the sovereignists might win, once again made promises to Quebecers and told them “we will entrench a veto and the concept of distinct society in the constitution”. We saw what happened once again. The government passed a meaningless motion in this House and a veto was given to all the regions of Canada, making it forever all the more difficult to reform the Canadian constitution to accommodate the provinces.

Under these circumstances, I respectfully submit that it is perfectly legitimate that Quebecers who voted no in 1980 and no in 1995, by a very slim majority, be given an opportunity to vote a third time. Oddly enough, even if the no side won with only 50.4% of the votes in 1995, they seem to think that the question was clear enough.

On that basis, we must conclude that the moral contract, if I can put it that way, that had been agreed to between Quebecers and the federal governments of 1980 and 1995 was broken. This fully justifies the holding of a third referendum, so that we can tell Quebecers “Listen, they told you that they would reform a number of things to convince you to vote no. Well, there was no reform whatsoever. Do you still think we should continue to be part of that country?”

I believe that if Quebecers were to say no, they would have the option and the freedom to leave this country.

With all due respect for my hon. colleague from Halifax West who has worked very hard to prepare this bill, I want to say that although I understand why he felt the need to introduce this legislation, we will unfortunately be unable to support his bill.

We cannot support a bill that establishes a code of conduct for parliamentarians when it seems that there is already a very mysterious code of conduct for the ministers that is, however, known only to the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister appointed an ethics counsellor who reports only to the Prime Minister on a code of conduct known only to the Prime Minister, and now we are asked to set stricter rules for parliamentarians than the ones being applied to cabinet members who have access to inside information and subsidy programs.

I submit to all my colleagues in the House, and with all due respect to our colleague from Halifax West, that the priority should have been the adoption of a public code of conduct for cabinet members. After that, it would be possible to consider adopting a code of conduct for parliamentarians.

If it is appropriate to consider the adoption of a code of conduct for cabinet members and perhaps for parliamentarians, we must also examine the source of certain conflicts of interest in which parliamentarians but especially cabinet members have found themselves or could find themselves.

When one looks at the various cases of conflict of interest over the years, it is possible to see a direct relation between businesses that made contributions to campaign funds and services rendered by parliamentarians, ministers and government members afterwards.

In closing, I think we must not only look at adopting codes of conduct, but we must also carefully examine the way in which political parties get their funding. Bill C-2 will give us the opportunity to discuss this fundamental issue.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and address this item of Private Members' Business this afternoon dealing with the creation of a code of conduct.

The development of a code of conduct for members of parliament is a proposal that has been brought before the House many times over the past 20 years or so. In fact, my hon. colleague introduced this bill in the last session of parliament, which was Bill C-488.

A code of conduct is a matter in which all parliamentarians have an interest and which can only be implemented with the agreement of all members of parliament and in the other place. Obviously, every parliamentarian has a responsibility to act with honesty and integrity and to maintain the confidence that Canadians have placed in all of us.

The Prime Minister, himself, in this House has said:

—trust in the institutions of government is not a partisan issue, but something all of us elected to public office have an obligation to restore.

Clearly as parliamentarians we have individual responsibility for ethical conduct. In addition, together we have a collective responsibility to ensure that conduct. In part, this is because the legislature is a separate and distinct branch of government from the executive. Our approach to conduct can only properly be developed by us for ourselves.

My hon. colleague's initiative for a code of conduct raises issues regarding our individual and collective responsibilities here in parliament.

To put this in perspective, I will comment on what is already in place and the work that has gone on before us as it relates to the integrity and honesty of our political institutions.

First, as parliamentarians we are already governed by the laws of the country, as well as the laws of parliament.

Let me begin with the standing orders of the House of Commons, which govern us here, and the rich history of precedents and Speakers' rulings, which establish parameters for the carriage of our duties as parliamentarians. The same applies in the other place with their own rules.

For example, Standing Order 21 provides that members cannot vote on a question in which they may have a pecuniary interest. Standing Order 23 defines as a high crime and misdemeanour the act of members of the House accepting money to promote a matter which is being considered by parliament.

The criminal code specifically prohibits members of parliament from engaging in bribery and corrupt acts. However, the courts have recognized some ambiguity in the definition of the term officer of parliament, and it has been suggested that the term should be clarified by parliament.

The Parliament of Canada Act addresses conflict of interest for senators and establishes fines for contravention. There are also provisions relating to contracting governing members of the House, though it has also been proposed that these rules, long standing, now be updated.

The Elections Act also sets out guidelines for conduct during elections, for example, with respect to campaign financing. An amendment to the Elections Act currently before the House increases the level of transparency and accountability in election financing, which is consistent with the government's commitment to restore integrity to our political institutions. The penalty in some cases under the Elections Act is loss of the member's seat.

Aside from these basic building blocks for ethical behaviour, from the beginning the government has recognized the importance of restoring the appearances of honesty and integrity to the country's political institutions. We set this out as a top priority in our Liberal Party's red book during the 1993 election.

Since then, the list of initiatives we have implemented is quite long, but I am sure my colleagues will recognize the following. The government introduced amendments to the Lobbyists Registration Act to increase the transparency of lobbying activities. This included stiffer penalties for lobbyists, and has increased the transparency of their activities.

As part of this initiative, the government also appointed an ethics counsellor who has responsibilities in two areas: First, he advises ministers and government officials on their conduct in the course of carrying out their official duties; and second, the ethics counsellor can investigate complaints about lobbyists' activities pursuant to their code of conduct.

The Prime Minister tabled a new conflict of interest code for public office holders in the House in June 1994. This code is a concrete measure that shows that the government recognizes that restoring the public trust involves strengthening the system from both the public office and lobbying sides.

The code sets out key principles that apply to all public office holders: ministers, secretaries of state, parliamentary secretaries, ministerial staff and full time governor in council appointees. The code is enforced by the Prime Minister.

As we can see, the government takes very seriously its responsibilities to maintain integrity in government.

I will now address parliament's efforts in developing a code of conduct. We have been studying the issue of parliamentary ethics since the early 1970s with various government green papers, standing committee reports and a plethora of bills on the subject, although all have died on the order paper.

In fact, some of the most in depth study was conducted quite recently. Here I am thinking of the work of the special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on a code of conduct, which was established by the government in 1995.

This committee, which was chaired by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, heard from many witnesses, including the federal ethics counsellor, the privacy commissioner, academics in the field of political science, respected members of the public and several provincial commissioners of ethics.

The final report of that committee constructed a code that drew on many of the common elements raised during testimony. Some examples include: that a list of principles should be included in the code: that it was important to have a commissioner or body appointed to provide advice, take disclosures and enforce the code, as does the existing ethics commissioner for ministers and parliamentary secretaries; that it needed to deal with disclosure of assets and interests; the importance of clarifying the area of government contracting; and recognizing the distinction between the legislature and the executive by recommending that a permanent committee be established to administer the code.

From reading Bill C-226, I can see that my hon. colleague opposite has drawn on much of the previous work that has been done by parliamentarians.

However, as with the many initiatives on a code of conduct for parliamentarians, the special committee's report was not adopted because members of parliament themselves could not agree to adopt the report.

Some members of parliament have indicated that in their view a formal code could create a rigid and onerous system of rules which would not be appropriate in a parliament.

So the challenge in the House and in the other place has been in deciding the best balance to ensure that there exists and appears to be ethical behaviour on the part of parliamentarians.

As I have mentioned, we already have a range of measures in place to deal with this area.

I am not personally aware of a great interest among hon. members in making the development of a formal code a priority at this time. I am also not aware of a special need to do it at this time.

The member's efforts, the member who moved the bill, are most creditable and laudable. He continues a tradition that has been around this place for 20 or so years now. I certainly want to recognize his efforts and contribution to this and to our efforts collectively in this place to maintain high standards and the appearance of high standards of ethical conduct in the conduct of our work and responsibilities as parliamentarians.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to talk to the bill about a code of conduct and whether an official code of conduct is a good idea here in the House of Commons and for parliamentarians generally.

I have listened with interest to the member from the government side as he talked about some of the safeguards that are in the system now to ensure that conduct is above reproach.

I find this a very interesting bill. The idea that parliamentary service is a public trust is something that I think most parliamentarians hold very close to their heart. They want to do what it takes to ensure public confidence is maintained in the precincts of parliament.

A code of official conduct is an idea that I think is worth debating. We have had the example of the ethics counsellor, which the member on the government side mentioned, who is selected by the Prime Minister himself but then must often investigate the actions of the Prime Minister. That brings conflict.

I think the debate is very timely. It is timely because people, by and large, have a reduced standard of respect for this institution and for the members. It has been steadily declining for a long time.

When we look at the occupations that have the respect of Canadians, we see that doctors are near the top and that social workers have a certain standing. However, as we go down the line and we get to elected officials, we see that they are way down on the respect list, and we cannot ignore that. That is why this debate is timely, and I congratulate the member for bringing it forward.

The principles of the bill involve things such as ethical standards; the way parliamentarians will act in a fashion that will promote and preserve public confidence and open themselves up to public scrutiny, the way they will arrange their private affairs so they are in the public interest, and that they will not accept any gift or personal benefit connected with their office that could reasonably be seen to compromise their judgment or integrity.

I will dwell on the last point for a few minutes. In the House during question period today, I brought up the situation that has been evolving over the grants in the Prime Minister's riding. This is a good example of why we need an arm's length ethics counsellor, an arm's length code of conduct. I would like to see what the ethics counsellor believes in because I have never been able to get a copy of what he is trying to enforce.

What we asked in question period today is an example of why we need to have public scrutiny and openness about the actions of both ministers and parliamentarians. We asked how many coincidences in a row it takes before the alarm bells go off regarding the activities of the Prime Minister and these government grants.

I can detail, for example, that in the 1997 campaign, 33% of the total of the personal and business donations to the Prime Minister's personal campaign had some government grant or government loan association to it. In other words, the person or the company that received a federal government loan or grant gave in return large donations to the Prime Minister ranging from as low as $400 to as high as $10,000. That in and of itself is not evidence of any wrongdoing, but it goes on.

When the Prime Minister sold property to someone who had, shall we say, dubious business credentials and had gone broke in a previous hotel business, the Prime Minister sold a hotel to the same person. That person then received more government grants. Did the Prime Minister receive a benefit or not? The ethics counsellor said that he did not really think so, but that same hotel now owes taxes to the provincial government and the local Shawinigan government. It owes federal excise taxes and $100,000 to the local contractors. The inn is now up for sale again.

Why did that hotel ever get any federal money in grants and loans given the bad track record of the proprietor and the very close connection to the Prime Minister? Maybe that in and of itself is not enough to cause alarm bells, although I would argue that they are starting to jingle a little bit. It goes on from there.

René Fugère was an unpaid aide to the Prime Minister. He represented the Prime Minister at public functions and made announcements on behalf of the Prime Minister here and there. He was closely tied to the Prime Minister. This was someone who represented the Prime Minister at constituency functions. He announced a transitional jobs fund grant for the Grand-Mère Inn in the Prime Minister's riding. Ten days later, he received $11,500 from that same company for services. Maybe it is a happy coincidence for this fellow. If the bells were jingling before, now they are starting to get a little nervous because there are so many coincidences. On and on it goes.

The human resources minister has a special fund that is available for special grants only at the minister's discretion. The only grant that is given out in all of Canada goes into the Prime Minister's riding. Maybe that is another one of those coincidences, but what happens is that the grant is not spent so they have to set up a special trust fund to keep that grant money in the riding until the next fiscal year.

By the government's own admission, by the admission of the government's own documents, the trouble is that the trust fund is actually illegal. It is outside the parameters of legality. They cannot do it legally but it is set up anyway.

It is illegal. It is one of a kind. It is in the Prime Minister's riding. It follows all these other things. Maybe it is a happy coincidence. More than that, the lawyer who set up the illegal trust fund was appointed not once but twice by the Prime Minister to his role at Canada Post, the last time being in September of this year. The alarm bells have gone off now for me. There are too many happy coincidences all at once, one after the other after the other.

The Quality Inn in the Prime Minister's riding, for example, received a $600,000 grant. It was announced without any departmental paperwork. No paperwork was done whatsoever. It was advertized in the Prime Minister's householder in April 1997, the month the election was called. The approval came well after it was announced in the householder. Press releases were made. There were announcements of grand things that were coming.

Mr. Thibault is involved, a self-confessed embezzler in the Prime Minister's riding and now the subject of criminal investigation involved in legal disputes in the riding. One of the fundraisers for the Liberal Party of Canada in the last election has been convicted of influence peddling by linking the transitional jobs funds grants by saying that he will arrange a grant or arrange for someone to see the minister but the person will have to give a donation to the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party does not condone this but it happened. He has been convicted of it.

When I look at a bill like this one I am not sure it would prevent that. It would certainly point to how wrong it is. It would say that we have to conduct our affairs so that we can be seen to be at arm's length from any benefit to ourselves politically or from any benefit from any sale of property. We have to conduct ourselves in a way that brings honour to this place.

I have asked the Prime Minister repeatedly to table in the House all documents associated with this matter. We keep digging them up in access to information requests. We had some more today. We will have some more tomorrow. The Liberals can know that now.

The problem is that it is time everyone understands that an ethics councillor in this place needs to be arm's length from everyone, including the Prime Minister, to give reports to all of us in order to uphold the highest standard of public conduct and to establish faith in a very honoured institution.

[Jim Jones, Progressive Conservative, Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak this evening to the bill of the hon. member for Halifax West which seeks to establish a code of conduct for parliamentarians, a code of ethics for parliamentarians. I think that is very important.

I believe the member makes a valid point with this piece of legislation. There are countless examples of elected politicians who dangerously straddle the fence between what is right and wrong in terms of conduct.

For example, the Prime Minister and his suspect use of the transitional jobs fund has led to repeated stories in the press about large federal grants going to shady businessmen in the Prime Minister's riding. In an instance like this one where there is even a political staffer being quoted in the newspaper as saying the process for doling out cash in Shawinigan was outside the standard practices of the Department of Human Resources Development, one has to wonder if an appropriate watchdog body's time is not due.

There is a big difference between sending everything through the criminal route and being investigated by the RCMP versus it being investigated by an independent body that would go after the conduct or the ethics of how a person behaves.

The Minister for International Trade, who has taken some serious criticism for his election fundraising and his use of the transitional jobs fund, is another example where a committee or body overseeing ethics might be a good idea. I do not think we need to set up witch-hunt committees. I do not think this is the point of the hon. member's bill. However, in a case like this one where the minister's practices are in question an ethics committee would be a logical tool in establishing the realities of the situation.

The Minister of Human Resources Development, who has also made fine use of the TJF for propping up projects in her riding, might be in a situation where a committee would be a wise body in straightening out the issue.

Through all the endless stories of the government's questionable approach to using public funds, the government repeatedly tells us and Canadians that all is okay with this behaviour because the ethics counsellor, Mr. Wilson, acts as a watchdog for the Prime Minister and cabinet.

Mr. Wilson is not really an ethics counsellor. He is a staffer who reports to the Prime Minister. If he hears of any unfavourable conduct, his job is to straighten it out with the ministers and the Prime Minister and cover it up. A true ethics counsellor would look at it and if there were any inappropriateness his role would be to tell parliament or a committee of parliament. His role would also be to make it public.

While this position provides lovely optics for the government, the fact remains that he reports to the Prime Minister. He does not report to the House but to the individual whom he is supposed to monitor. This is absurd and completely counterproductive to the whole notion of having an ethics watchdog. What is the purpose of having somebody policing his boss? The position despite the charming title is a political one where an individual is tasked with keeping the Prime Minister and ministers out of trouble.

There is a need for an individual who reports to the House on the ethics of government. However I am not sure it is necessary to monitor every member of the House of Commons and the Senate. By the simple virtue of being elected by the citizens of Canada we are automatically asked and expected to hold a high standard of conduct.

However, if we were to look into it further, the U.S. House of Representatives model may be worth examining. Its committee on house administration is charged with overseeing and, if warranted, examining the ethical behaviour of congressmen. This might be a good approach to look at rather than the existing ethics counsellor who is really nothing more than a political fixer for the Prime Minister and his ministers.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Seeing no one rising, the hon. member for Halifax West will have five minutes to end the debate. At the termination of that five minutes debate will conclude.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to express my deep appreciation to all members who took part in the debate. This is a very important topic, and members' opinions are very useful.

I want to take a moment to try to summarize a few points that were raised with respect to the bill. My hon. colleague from the Bloc Quebecois had some reservations about the bill because he felt it created stricter rules for members than it did for ministers.

In all due respect to the hon. member I would say the bill does just the opposite. The bill would apply to all members including ministers and the Prime Minister. There would be baseline rules for everybody. If the Prime Minister wants to create stricter rules under the bill for his cabinet members for whatever reason he could do so, but the bill would apply to all members of parliament including members of the Senate. It would accomplish the purpose about which my hon. colleague has some concerns.

With respect to the comments made by the hon. government member regarding all measures that are currently in place, I guess the very fact that this issue keeps coming forth, as he indicated over and over again, indicates that perhaps all measures in place are not working the way they should, or else the issue would not constantly keep coming up. As he indicated I certainly did research the previous studies and the previous efforts that were made. The bill builds upon them and tries to codify and bring together all the loose pieces under a workable piece of legislation.

With respect to the hon. member's comments he mentioned that the Right Hon. Prime Minister said that ethics should not be a partisan issue. This is exactly why the bill has come forward. It is not a partisan issue. It is an issue that would apply to all members regardless of political stripe, regardless of whether or not they hold office. The system in place is open to suspect in terms of the ethics counsellor who currently reports to the Prime Minister and does not have in the real sense any objectivity in terms of reporting to parliament as a whole. Therefore there is even within the current structure a system that allows for a perceived conflict of interest.

I am sure all hon. members would believe and understand that even if something is being done correctly there is no harm in having it looked at because that removes any air of suspicion the public may have with respect to actions by elected members. The bill would certainly enhance the role of parliamentarians and would provide for transparency.

I have already expressed my disappointment that the bill was not made votable. I recall someone saying that I should not expect it to be made votable because nobody would really want to vote against it; it would be like voting against motherhood. I understand that, but it is time we voted for motherhood and stood up for something that would perhaps help us improve the way this institution operates on behalf of Canadians.

I did not get a degree of confidence from the people to whom I spoke as I was campaigning and still speak to. They do not have any great degree of confidence in the House and in the personal ethics of everyone in the House and the way we operate. As a matter of fact I think we are rated close to the bottom of the pile on the list of professions. We are down with used car salesmen, I believe.

Anything we can do to improve the image of parliamentarians would be helpful. I understand why the hon. member on the government side would not want to see the bill come into play because it certainly places an additional onus upon us.

I agree with one opinion expressed by the hon. member on the government side. We cannot legislate behaviour and ethics. Ultimately the law that has to apply to all of us is the law of love that comes from within and comes from the heart. I honestly urge all of us, regardless of what legislation is on the books, to examine our actions from within and continue to strive on behalf of those whom we represent from a point of view of love, integrity and respect for other people.

I was speaking with a grade five class in Basinview school in my riding the other day. It struck me that these young people were very much interested in the parliamentary system. I stressed to them the most important thing of all, that no matter what occupation they pursue they should do it with honesty, integrity and a sense of transparency and respect for other people.

As we draw close to the Christmas season I wish all my colleagues a very, very merry Christmas, happy new year, happy holiday season, and all the best in the upcoming millennium.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The motion not being designated votable and the time having expired, the order is dropped from the order paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise on a question that I first raised on November 23. It was a general question about aircraft in the Department of National Defence.

We talked about Hercules planes that could not get off the ground and could not make it from point A to point B. We talked about the Auroras which cannot fly too low and cannot fly too high. There is only one elevation they can fly at.

I would like to hone in on the Sea King question today. We all know the Sea Kings are very tired and old. They have been refurbished. They have new skins and now they have new lives but even with that, the minister of defence says that their useful life is only until 2005 before we get new helicopters to replace them.

We know that new helicopters are necessary now, especially because we have spent all this money on frigates that were designed to have these new helicopters. Without the helicopters they are really only about 50% effective. We are most anxious to see those helicopters supplied, but the problem is the new helicopter delivery time is eight years. The Sea Kings only have a useful life until 2005 and if we ordered the helicopters today, which we have not done yet, they would not be here until 2008. There is a hole between 2005 and 2008.

My question for the parliamentary secretary is, what will the department of defence do in the time period between the earliest delivery date of 2008 and the expiry of useful life of the Sea Kings in 2005? What happens in the three year hole?

[Robert Bertrand, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that all Canadians should take great pride in the work performed by the men and women of Canada's air force at home and abroad. Every day Canadian forces aircraft operate throughout the country and around the world performing a variety of demanding missions.

During their mission in East Timor, our Hercules aircraft completed some 130 operational missions carrying more than two million pounds of equipment and some 2,200 personnel. They have also airlifted humanitarian aid to various regions of the world. Canadians also appreciated the valuable contributions of the Hercules during the Manitoba flood and the great ice storm.

Our Labrador helicopters continue to conduct dangerous search and rescue operations and save thousands of lives every year. They will soon be replaced with state of the art Cormorant helicopters.

During the recent NATO air campaign in Yugoslavia, the CF-18s flew more than 670 sorties striking at a variety of military targets.

In the last few years the government has also taken significant steps to ensure the air force has the tools it needs to do its job. In addition to the Cormorant, the minister has announced the beginning of modernization of programs for both the Aurora maritime patrol aircraft and the CF-18 aircraft.

I am also very pleased to report that the Auroras, which until mid-November were restricted to unpressurized flights, are now almost all authorized to fly at a new altitude of over 10,000 feet. This comes after detailed inspections confirming that these planes can carry out pressurized flights in complete safety.

As for the Sea Kings, the minister has made it very clear, on more than one occasion, that they need to be replaced. In fact, the minister confirmed several times in the House that new maritime helicopters were the number one equipment priority. We are therefore in the process of developing an acquisition strategy.

These initiatives will help ensure that Canada's airforce can continue to serve all Canadians from one end of the country to the other and will make it possible to continue to interoperate effectively with our allies.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Just in case any of the departments happen to be watching and tuned in, the parliamentary secretaries have exactly two minutes to respond. I know it is sometimes difficult because the responses that come from the departments are substantially longer and they are so well done that it seems a shame to interrupt.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I was appalled at the President of the Treasury Board's response to my question concerning racism in society at large, and in the federal government in particular. She had a choice. On behalf of the government, she could have addressed issues of racial discrimination. Instead she chose to play partisan political games, but it gets worse. She then proceeded to say that the government is addressing the problem by setting up an advisory board.

Black Canadians and other visible minorities have been studied to death. What we need are solutions. The Canadian Human Rights Commission's analysis of the government's performance in 1998 shows an abysmal record. Out of 12,420 term staff positions filled last year, only 418 were visible minorities. That is only 3%. Out of 2,800 permanent jobs filled, only 184 were visible minorities, but with 685 visible minority positions lost, the Liberals had a net loss of 501 employees, or a decrease of 18%.

I am sure the government is well aware that it has been over two years since the commission released the study carried out by Dr. John Samuel entitled “Visible Minorities and the Public Service”. In February 1998 a forum on racial discrimination in the federal public service and federal agencies in Canada looked at the issues of systemic racism.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission states in its 1998 annual report:

The public service's record regarding the employment of visible minorities is worse than its record for the other designated groups. For 1997-98, the representation of visible minorities was 5.1 per cent, about half of what could be expected based on the number of people qualified and available for work. There were ample opportunities to remedy this situation, since more than 15,000 people were hired, but the number of visible minority candidates recruited was less than half of those qualified and available. Given the continuing difficulties that federal government departments seem to be experiencing in hiring and promoting visible minorities, it is hard to conclude that they have taken to heart the recommendations made by Dr. Samuel.

I also raised in my question to the President of the Treasury Board the government's inexcusable act of failing to appoint Judge Corrine Sparks who was passed over and ignored in a conscious decision by the government to appoint judges who have sat on the bench in Nova Scotia for less time. Judge Sparks was appointed in 1987. The government overlooked her in favour of judges appointed in 1995, 1993 and 1991, among others. As Lincoln Alexander, chairperson of the Canada Race Relations Foundation stated, this is a “major slap in the face to the black community” and he suggested the government's actions “smack of racism”.

I first raised the issue in the House of Commons on April 14. The government buried its head in the sand and hoped the problem would go away, as governments in the country have so often hoped when it comes to issues of fairness for blacks and other Canadians of colour.

The figures speak for themselves. Representation of Canada's visible minority population in the government's public service is abysmal and offensive.

I sincerely hope the government representative will not respond with platitudes, with comments of look how well they have done, and with vague references to future reports of advisory boards or task forces.

I hope the Liberal government will now respond with an action plan including targets, funding and dates.