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.