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.