Debates of Feb. 12th, 1999

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-61, an act to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act, the Pension Act, the Merchant Navy Veteran and Civilian War-related Benefits Act, the Department of Veterans Affairs Act, the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act and the Halifax Relief Commission Pension Continuation Act and to amend certain other acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

War Veterans Allowance Act

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to have the opportunity today to speak to Bill C-61.

I rise in support of Bill C-61 on behalf of the federal New Democratic Party caucus.

While this bill does have some shortcomings, and a very serious one which I will get to a bit later, the legislation does represent a step forward.

This bill, as has been mentioned, is an omnibus bill which touches upon many aspects of veterans affairs. It touches upon benefits for prisoners of war and benefits for widows of pensioners. It touches upon the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, the Halifax Relief Commission and so forth.

One very important aspect of this bill is that it seeks to put merchant marine veterans on an equal footing with regular forces veterans.

I was quite interested in hearing the hon. member opposite referring to that aspect of the bill as being symbolic only. It is a very important aspect of this bill. Perhaps because of the omission concerning compensation for past grievances it does become symbolic within the framework of this legislation.

However, I want to commend the merchant marine veterans, their organizations, families, activists and supporters for bringing this bill into being. It is only through their efforts and hard work that we are able to discuss this bill today.

At the outset, let me make it very clear that my comments and this bill in itself do not in any way take away from regular forces veterans, but seek to bring the merchant marine veterans up to an equal footing.

The monster Adolph Hitler issued a directive in 1941 which included the following: “Attack shipping, especially when homeward bound, by all methods. The sinking of merchantmen is more important than attacking enemy warships”.

These brave Canadians who sailed the corridors of hell played a central role in our war effort, as central a role as the regular forces.

As the Halifax-Dartmouth branch of the Merchant Navy Veterans Association for my region put it in a submission to the provincial legislature in July 1998, “The ships carried explosives, fuel, food, oil, gasoline, tanks, airplanes, iron ore for the hungry British smelters, butter and flour, bacon and beans”. Yet they were fitted with often obsolete breech guns, castoffs, antiquities better suited for military museums than defending the lives of Canadians at sea. In short, these Canadians risked their lives and often gave their lives to support our war efforts.

The tragedy of the matter is that when I say they often gave their lives, the figures speak for themselves. It has been estimated that a full 13% of merchant mariners who played an active role in our war effort were killed.

Last fall I went on a pilgrimage of remembrance to honour our war dead in Belgium and France. I was struck deeply and irrevocably by what I saw and what I learned. To have had the opportunity to see the trenches and the remnants of artillery and war equipment, and having felt the cold and damp biting winds blowing across the fields of Flanders, eating into one's very bones, certainly gave me an appreciation in part of what our Canadian young men who fought and died experienced.

Having stood in cemeteries where there were tombstones, row upon row, as far as the eye could see and knowing that thousands of bodies lay in those graves and many more lay unaccounted for in the surrounding farms and fields left me with the haunting image of man's inhumanity to man. The question still rings in my mind as to how we can do this to one another. Even worse is the knowledge that we are still doing it today throughout various parts of our world. As human beings, all of us must do our part to bring an end to the senseless slaughter of war.

As a start we must remember those who fought and died for freedom, those who sacrificed themselves so that succeeding generations might live in peace and harmony, free from oppression and tyranny. While many of those who we remember and honour today are those who served in the regular military, we must not forget the many others who served their country in an unique yet important way as special construction battalions or merchant marines. That is why the Liberal government's apparent unwillingness to negotiate a fair compensation package for Canadian merchant marine veterans is so unacceptable.

The current treatment of merchant mariner veterans is one that I personally and as the federal NDP spokesperson for veterans affairs find deeply disheartening. When it came time to serve their country Canada's merchant marines did so with dedication and courage equal to their military comrades. Why then are the merchant marines not receiving equal treatment in terms of compensation?

While the bill seeks to establish current equality, which my caucus colleagues and I support, it does nothing to compensate for all the lost opportunities suffered as a result this discrimination. There is no reason to continue to deny merchant marines the full compensation due them. I urge the government to let the second reading of Bill C-61, which in words grants full equality, be a springboard to action, negotiation, compensation and hence real reparation.

The Liberal government has a choice. The government has the capacity to choose to set matters right and get negotiations for just compensation back on track. While the federal government was finally prodded into introducing the bill, others acted sooner, in some cases much sooner. Britain accorded full veteran status to merchant mariners in 1940. In the United States these veterans were realized as having the same status as regular forces veterans in 1988. Australia recognized full equality in 1995.

How many merchant mariners have passed away in Canada who would have appreciated this gesture from the government at an earlier stage?

In a letter I received from George Conway-Brown in January of this year he quotes Canada's Rear Admiral Leonard W. Murray, who served as commander in chief, northwest Atlantic, from 1943 to 1945: “The battle of the Atlantic was not won by any navy or air force. It was won by the courage, fortitude and determination of the British and allied merchant navy”.

These mariners often encountered the Nazi Donitz U-boats, the grey wolves that deprived so many Canadian families of their loved ones. Closer to Europe merchant mariners were attacked by Germany's FW-200 Condor air force.

But what happened to Canadian merchant mariners upon their return to Canada? In Britain they returned as full and equal veterans with equal access to post-war programs, services and benefits.

In Canada they returned to virtually no support. They were denied upgrading courses at technical, vocational and high schools offered to regular force veterans. There were denied health support and employment opportunities available to army, navy and air force personnel.

This discrimination weighed heavily on so many merchant marine veterans. I mentioned earlier that I am glad to see the bill being brought forward, even though it is too late for many deceased merchant marine veterans. That is what makes the actions of this government concerning compensation for these brave Canadians all the more odious.

The government saw fit to provide an ex gratia payment to Hong Kong veterans who were Japanese prisoners of war of $23,950 each. This payment was promised just this past December.

It is unconscionable and meanspirited that this government has betrayed Canada's merchant marines by refusing to compensate them for the discrimination they faced upon their return home from serving in Canada's war effort.

It has been estimated that merchant mariners are dying at the rate of about 12 per month. A St. Albert veteran said in an interview earlier this month in the Edmonton Sun : “The whole thing is a run around. We figure [the federal government] is waiting for us to die of old age”.

On November 24, 1998 in response to a question I put to him, the minister said concerning compensation negotiations for merchant mariners: “I am there to listen”.

Debating Bill C-61 before the House surely signals the time to act, not just listen.

Justice delayed is justice denied, particularly when the death rate among these veterans who served Canada so nobly is so high.

As merchant navy Captain Hill Wilson wrote in a letter in January of this year, other countries have made reparations for these veterans. He refers to a veteran living on Vancouver Island who sailed on Norwegian ships during World War II and receives a pension of over $2,000 a month from Norway for his merchant navy service. He also cites examples from the French government and the United States government for Vietnam war merchant navy veterans.

While on the issues implied in Bill C-61, it is essential to refer to another atrocious act of negligence and outright scandal perpetrated by this Liberal government on Canadian veterans who were sent to concentration camps by the Nazi government. These men, survivors of the horrors of Buchenwald, were recently sent cheques in the amount of $1,098 to supposedly compensate them for the horrors faced in Buchenwald.

My constituent, William Gibson, returned the cheque, a comment on this government's sad failure to successfully negotiate reparations from the German government.

The U.S.A. has recently negotiated an enviable settlement from the German government. This Liberal government has failed so miserably where others have succeeded and may be trying to hide its shame by offering these paltry sums to Canadian forces survivors of the Buchenwald concentration camp.

I will conclude my comments on the second reading of Bill C-61 with an anonymous poem which pays homage to Canadian merchant navy veterans:

All hail to our soldiers, our airmen, our tars, Who in these dark days are the victims of War, All hail to these heroes who flash on the screen, But what of the men of the Merchant Marine?

No halo, no glimmer, just duty that's all, Day in and day out through the heat or a squall Grit, courage, endurance and bearing serene, These are the men of the Merchant Marine.

How much do we need them, these sons of the sea, Without their devotion, how could we be free? For one vital cog in the great machine Is filled by the men of the Merchant Marine.

And so if the cares of these days dark and clear, Weigh down your spirits and cause you to fear, Remember the hardships and dangers unseen, And pray for the men of the Merchant Marine.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of Bill C-61, but I feel there is something left out with regard to Bill C-61 and I wish to address that.

Bill C-61 will allow more veterans to qualify for benefits and it will place them under the War Veterans Allowance Act. We all know that in 1992 the PC party put the merchant navy men under the Civilian War Veterans Allowance Act. However, many things were left out for them over the years.

Look at what the men and women of our army, navy and air force received when they came home from the war, and rightfully so. They received a clothing allowance, rehabilitation grants, transportation to place of enlistment, war service gratuities, re-establishment credit, reinstatement or preference in civilian employment estimate, out of work allowance, education assistance, treatment for pension disability including appliances, Veterans Land Act or housing assistance, business or professional loans and waiting returns allowance. All that at that time would total $30,590.

In addition, veterans were entitled to a number of other benefits, including veterans independence program, prisoner of war benefits, education assistance for children of the war dead, legal assistance for preparation of pension claims and counselling and referrals, and rightfully so.

The above figures are based on the fact that a former member of the merchant navy would be in receipt of either a war disability pension or a war veterans allowance if he did not receive both.

I have met regularly in my riding office with the merchant navy veterans. As members know, many of them were here on the Hill on a hunger strike. I have never seen that happen in Canada with any veterans who felt they had to go to that degree to get the attention of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

After World War II the Canadian government had the task of demobilizing over one million troops. Some of these troops were offered positions within the military, but not the merchant navy men. Others were offered many advantageous opportunities that were not offered to the merchant navy men.

Merchant seaman Ossie MacLean informed me of how he went to the local veterans office to inquire about a business start-up loan after World War II when he was no longer with the merchant navy. He thought he could receive a loan to start his business like the loans being offered to other veterans. When he arrived he was asked for his service number. He gave them his merchant marine number and he was told that he did not qualify for any of the programs.

Mr. MacLean was there when this country needed him yet we failed him when he needed us. Mr. MacLean was one of the merchant navy veterans who stood outside this House on two separate occasions last year on that hunger strike. He was joined by other fine gentlemen, Randy Hope, Ward Duke, Willis Marsolais and Doug McMartin. Together these five brave men drew more attention to their cause in a few weeks than ever before. Now we are at a second reading and these men feel along with their 2,300 surviving shipmates that they deserve a payment from the government once again. Is is possible to do this? Yes, it is.

I know the minister says that we cannot deal with retroactivity. We are saying he does not have to deal with retroactivity but he can deal with these men in manner in which he can give them a grant. With the formula in the Cliff Chadderton report some would get $5,000 for putting their lives on the line and taking over all the goods, ammunition and equipment needed by our men. If they only went on one trip the report said give them $5,000 but some were in the merchant navy during the whole war. All of us know the number of lives lost. One in eight of our merchant navy men lost their lives.

As I was putting my notes together I was thinking about what it must have been like to be on one of those boats. The Germans knew exactly what they were carrying so the Germans were steadily looking for them. Those were the boats the Germans wanted to torpedo. Those were the boats the Germans wanted to get. They knew if we did not get the ammunition and materials over to our forces our forces could not do anything.

It is time for us to take the necessary steps to completely make them equal. Bill C-61 puts them under the War Veterans Allowance Act but this is 1999. What about in 1945? What about in 1939? They were not equal in those days.

In 1992 when the PC government of the day brought in omnibus Bill C-84, it allocated $100 million to be used for benefits to serve our merchant navy veterans. That total was later reduced to $88 million which would still be ample money to cover and offer sufficient benefits to these veterans. But when this government took office for some reason it put that money in general revenue. It was never set aside for what it was intended to do for our merchant navy men. After being put into general revenues the money could never be allocated specifically for the merchant navy. When the minister was at one of the meetings I asked if they could please tell me where the $88 million went. Nobody seems to know.

However, the Department of Veterans Affairs has had surpluses every year between 1992 and 1997. These surpluses have ranged anywhere from $20 million to $154 million. We received this information from the Public Accounts of Canada. The money was there and it is still there today.

Recently the Minister of Veterans Affairs himself has recognized the role of the merchant navy in World War II. Each merchant navy veteran has been forwarded a copy of Valour at Sea . This is a book that was commissioned by veterans affairs to recognize the role of Canada's merchant navy in both world wars and in Korea. The letter that accompanies the book states “It describes the role of Canada's merchant navy in the defence of freedom and democracy”. It also states “The armed forces and the merchant navy helped secure supply routes that sustained Canada's allies in their darkest hours and made possible the liberation of Europe”.

Imagine. The minister has put out a book called Valour at Sea which is beautiful. It really is. And he is stating to our merchant navy men that they helped secure the supply routes that sustained Canada's allies in their darkest hours and made possible the liberation of Europe. Our merchant navy men did that. This letter, as I have stated, was sent by our Minister of Veterans Affairs.

The Canadian merchant navy was considered to be the fourth arm of the armed forces. The odds of dying in the second world war was greater for the merchant navy than for any of our other troops. These men were some of the bravest. They kept our troops supplied on the front lines and they braved the intolerable elements of nature to do so. How many of us today would know what it was like to stand on the bow of a boat loaded with explosives in the middle of winter on the North Atlantic pushing back the ice and the mines and wondering if a German U-boat had us in its sights?

These men know what it was like. They lived it. Mr. Speaker, they lived it for you and for me. We would not be in this House of Commons today, not one of us, not one of the 301 members of parliament and not any of the others that are here, if it was not for those men.

When this bill is referred back to committee for further study, there will be a motion that I put before the committee on November 26 last year. It deals with the issue of a one-time grant payment for the men and women of the merchant navy in lieu of benefits not received after duty to their country.

I put forward the motion, as I stated, on November 26 asking “that the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs recommend that the merchant navy veterans be recognized as war veterans,”—and they are being recognized under Bill C-61—“that they receive prisoner of war benefits”—and that will happen under Bill C-61—“that they receive a one-time payment in lieu of benefits afforded to other veterans of World War II and that they be recognized as veterans on ceremonial days”.

When this bill is referred back, we will once again be dealing with my suspended motion. I trust that all of my colleagues on both sides of the House will agree with it.

It is time to act on behalf of our veterans. Bill C-61 is a piece of legislation that should be passed and we will support it. I know many of our veterans and their widows want to see it passed. Many of these veterans are in their mid to late 70s and approximately 13 die each month in Canada.

I want this House to know that this bill and the motion that I have before the committee should not be deemed as partisan and should not be considered along partisan lines. We should not be partisan when it comes to our veterans.

I join many of my colleagues in congratulating the government in its recent decision to compensate the Hong Kong war veterans for their service to their country. I felt that we should have pressed harder to have the Japanese government recognize these veterans and the unacceptable merciless treatment they endured. But the bottom line is when it came to doing the right thing for the Hong Kong veterans, it was done and I am pleased. The government and the House did the right thing.

There is one other thing I would like to bring to the attention of the House with regard to our veterans.

A lady came to see me. Her husband, a veteran, had died. She thought that we would be paying to bury him. It was not until after the burial that she found out the means test used to be $24,000 just for the veteran but then in 1996 it was reduced to $12,000. That was $12,000 for husband and wife; it used to be $24,000 just for the veteran. They thought that she had too much money. She had $6,000.

I looked at all of her expenses again. I went over to the Department of Veterans Affairs and asked “Do you not take into consideration the expense of the coffin and the funeral and take that from what she had and then tell me she still has $6,000?” In the end the department said that it was wrong and it would pay for his funeral.

I feel very strongly about this. There are so few of them left. For us to lower the means test to $12,000 is an insult to our veterans. We are forgetting the role they played. I sometimes wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that some of the younger people on the Hill do not understand the role the veterans played to save Canada and bring it to what it is today.

I say to the minister that yes my party and I will be supporting Bill C-61. But I am also telling him, and I want it on the record, that I will not go away until the merchant navy men receive some form of recognition through a grant.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Based on previous discussions I think you will find that there is unanimous consent to see the clock as 1.30 p.m.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Are there any questions or comments on the member's speech? I think there are. I assume that if we are calling it 1.30 p.m. it would mean that Government Orders are at a conclusion.

The hon. member for South Shore.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have both a question and a comment on the speech of the hon. member for Saint John.

Sometimes I think Canadian citizens and members of the House forget the lesson that was taught to all of us by World War II. Quite simply, we were taught in the history books that this war was fought on European soil and in European waters, in Asian waters and in Japanese waters when as a matter of fact much of that war was fought in our waters.

During World War II we captured prisoners of war. We captured German spies in Halifax with theatre tickets in their pockets. They knew what boats were going out in convoy. There was a submarine net across Halifax harbour which had to be raised in order for our troops, soldiers and supplies to get to Europe.

A comment I remember well was from my father who was a veteran of World War II. He never saw action. He was a military policeman stationed in St. John's, Newfoundland. There were dozens and dozens of dead merchant marine sailors floating in the waters from torpedoed ships off Newfoundland, in Canadian water, black with coal oil. This was the very essence of war and the part of war none of us wants to think about.

I ask the hon. member, is that a lesson which we should all remember, that the war was not fought all on European soil and in European water, that the war started on our doorstep when we had a 12 mile limit in Canadian waters?

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member from Nova Scotia is absolutely correct.

I want to tell him that one in eight of all merchant navy men were killed during the war. He was commenting about his father in Newfoundland. In Saint John, New Brunswick on Partridge Island we are the most Irish city there is in Canada and there were bunkers there. Our men were in those bunkers because those German ships were right outside Saint John, New Brunswick. They were looking for the merchant navy men and were ordered to get them before they could get overseas to Europe with the supplies that were needed.

It has been estimated that a Canadian merchant ship with 10,000 tonnes could carry enough foodstuff to feed 225,000 people for a week. Cargo could also include clothing, fuel, steel, aluminum, lumber, aircraft, tanks, jeeps, trucks, guns, munitions and whatever else was required for the war effort. Not surprisingly they became the prize targets for enemy surface raiders and U-boats. That is exactly what they were. That is the reason for it.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it agreed that we call it 1.30 p.m. in accordance with the suggestion made by the hon. parliamentary secretary earlier?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being officially 1.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.

Code Of Ethics

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

moved:

Motion No. 31

That a humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of the Prime Minister's ethics code for ministers.

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to see so many of the government members in the House today. I know they are here because they want to have a bit of enlightenment about what it means to run an ethical government. Members from all parts of Canada are here today.

I am really pleased to speak today during Private Members' Hour on a votable motion which I put before the House. This motion goes to the very heart of what an open and transparent government should be and the way it should operate.

We remember in 1993 and 1997 in the famous failed red books of the Liberal Party how the Liberals talked continually about openness, transparency, integrity, honesty, straightforwardness and being in touch with the people. In general, they promised the people that they would operate in an ethical and responsible manner. Canadians across the country heard that promise in 1993 and they heard it again in 1997.

The problem is that Canadians first have not seen much openness, transparency, ethics and honesty from this government. But the most important thing is that no one seems to know exactly what kind of an ethics code this government wants us to believe it operates by. We have never seen the so-called ethics code which is parked away somewhere in some forgotten drawer.

One would think that in this great country of Canada, where the people embrace such values and such integrity in their lives, that any government that is looked upon for leadership would want to pride itself in being open and accountable to the people that it has sworn to serve.

But this concept, this incredible thought, has never focused with the Liberal government of Canada. Liberals are very familiar with expressions such as secrecy, behind closed doors, under the table, cooking the books, cutting corners and pulling the wool over the voters' eyes. These are all words and phrases that are very familiar and near and dear to the hearts and minds of the government.

It is these words and phrases that sort of highlight the Liberal way of governing which can be roughly translated as do not let anyone know what the government is up to or there will be a revolution, or it may have to be explained. That is what compelled me to prepare today's motion, that a humble address be made to his excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of the Prime Minister's ethics code for his ministers.

Is that such an unreasonable request to come from me, the members of my party and members of the opposition parties, from the people of Canada? Is that such an unreasonable request to ask the Prime Minister to put before the country the code of ethics that he expects his ministers to be bound by? I do not think so.

What I am getting at is quite simple and I will try to say it in language the Liberals can understand and that you can understand, Mr. Speaker. I know you are a very learned gentleman so I could probably talk lawyer talk and you would understand it but for the sake of the Liberals who have been having a hard time getting their heads around this ethics code, we will try to keep it simple.

The private sector, banks, businesses, major industries, charitable organizations, associations and service clubs all hold dear to their hearts some sort of a code that their members, employees, managers and volunteers should be operating under for day to day activities.

They believe in that. They believe that if they cannot be accountable to some code of conduct then they can be accountable to nothing. The Liberals do not see it quite that way. They have not allowed their ethics code to see the light of day.

I will take a moment to explain to the Liberals just what an ethics code is. I will explain it at a level that these members here today, and there are lots of them from across the country, can understand.

An ethics code is a system that sets out proper conduct and behaviour, just like at home. In our own homes we try to set out a code of conduct and behaviour for our family, for our kids, so that they can have role models to look up to and that they can understand the right and wrong way of doing things.

If the Government of Canada cannot have a code of ethics that is clearly demonstrated, that is clearly visible to the Canadian people, what kind of leadership is that? What kind of message are the Canadian people to take from that? Is it that the supreme governing body of this country refuses or maybe does not even have some sort of code that directs and gives it sort of a guideline for proper behaviour and conduct? What is more important about this so-called code of ethics that we have not seen yet is that the average Canadians would think that the person administering the ethics code of Canada, and I find this absolutely disparaging, would think that he or she would be required to report to the Parliament of Canada so that we all know what is going on, so we all know how the ministers are conducting their jobs and to ensure their jobs are not interfering with or conflicting with or enhancing their private lives in some way, their private well-being.

One would think that would be just the natural thing to do, that this ethics counsellor would report to all MPs and therefore to all Canadians. But no, the ethics commissioner reports to only one person, the Prime Minister of Canada. He tells him whether his ministers are, we expect, doing their jobs in an upright and honest manner and with great integrity. If they are not, how is anyone else to know if the Prime Minister will not tell us?

For this Liberal government, when it comes to a taxpayer funded institution, zero accountability is simply the order of the day. Why does one have to tell Canadians what one's ministers are doing, how they are spending their money, how they are using their budgets or how they are using their government credit cards? Is there any reason? I can think of only one. Maybe they would like to know. Maybe they would like to be in a position to judge how the cabinet ministers of this highest government in the land are operating. Maybe they would simply like to know so that they could form some opinion. Maybe they would like to hold them accountable. Is that not a strange concept?

The longer Canadians are in the dark about what this Liberal government is doing the better the government likes it. That is just the order of the day. I bet if they thought they could get away with it, the Liberals would pass a bill to make Canadians wear blindfolds and put in earplugs so that in addition to not knowing what the code of ethics was they could neither see nor hear what the government is doing.

This is the kind of thing we simply have to change in the House. This is what Reformers came to Ottawa to do. This is why the Liberal Party of Canada and the Conservative Party of Canada and the New Democratic Party of Canada do not like Reformers, because we came here to break up the very comfortable country club they had here where they hear no evil, see no evil and speak no evil. Any of the evil going on is all within the country club members.

We told them we did not want a membership to that country club and that is why they just despise our being here. The more they despise us the better we like it because we know that we are getting to them. We know that we are bringing things out in the public sector that people are beginning to get upset about and that really upsets the government, the Tories and the NDP.

That is what we are trying to do once again with this motion, to force the Liberals to show us their ethics code. Put it before the House for not only us to see but for all Canadians. If they are so proud of it and if there really is one, let us have a look at it.

So far the Liberals have been unwilling to fulfil this very basic and straightforward request. We have asked them in the House. We have asked them in committees. We have asked them at every possible opportunity. The answer has always been no. It is absolutely unbelievable and appalling for a supposedly democratic country having a supposedly democratic government within a supposedly democratic parliament that time and time again the government, which is the keeper of this code of ethics, has been asked to put it forward so we can see it and has simply said no. The Liberals never told us whether there really is one or not but they certainly have not been able to let us see if there is one. If there is one we could not see it anyway.

These guidelines have never been made public. They are locked away inside the Prime Minister's desk. The Liberals have swallowed the key. They are keeping their mouths tightly shut and their lips tightly sealed so the key does not get out.

The Liberals have been demanding and we will continue to demand that the Prime Minister cough up the key to the drawer and show us and Canadians this so-called ethics code.

For example, my colleagues and I have been calling in committee and in the House in question period for this ethics code. It has not come. Every time we have made a motion in the House it has been ruled out of order. But not today, because this is a votable motion. It is clearly written. Even the Liberals can understand it and they are going to be forced to vote on it. If they say no they will have to back to their ridings and tell their constituents why they voted against making public the code of ethics that the government is supposed to be operating by.

I do not envy Liberals in that task. We are certainly treading on taboo ground when we request a code of ethics. That is the ground we came here to Ottawa to shake up. Now Reformers are demanding in parliament that the code be released at long last. What is different this time is we are all going to have a chance to vote on it. Let us see them show their colours.

This government does not want taxpayers to know what is going on. It does not want taxpayers to know all the dealings it does on a daily basis. It does not want taxpayers to know what the ministers are doing and how the contracts are let and how hotels are sold in this country, how grants are handed out, how loans are given from government crown corporations. The Liberals do not want taxpayers to know that.

Canadians want to know. Whether it is the current government or our party after the next election, they want to know the guidelines the government operates on. If the government is not prepared to bring it forward we can bet after the election the Reform government will be prepared to bring it forward. Is that not what democracy is all about?

I know we all know about democracy and is that not what democracy is all about, being open and accountable to the citizens of your country? Canadians are tired of being held in the dark. They want and deserve to know what the government of the day is doing, especially considering some of the things that have gone on recently such as the APEC issue, the golf club, the hotel and the list goes on and on.

What is the Liberal version of ethics? Why are Canadians not allowed to see the ethics code? If Canadians know this much about what is going on with the government in APEC, the tainted blood, the anthrax vaccinations, the hotel sales, the golf course stuff, they must ask what else is going on that they do not know about.

How are government members and especially cabinet ministers supposed to operating? Are they not supposed to be telling us all this stuff? Canadians are asking is this Liberal secrecy a sign of more funny business going on and is there more to come. How are Canadians to know?

The real question is, how are Canadians to know they can trust this government if they do not know the guidelines and the proper conduct they are supposed to be operating under? How are they ever to know? We just have to look in the newspapers. When it comes to ethics, it is most likely about Bill Clinton and the Olympic committee.

Is this the kind of image that we as Canadians and parliamentarians want to show to the rest of the world? I say not. I say let us put a code of ethics front and centre so that when Canadians look at parliament, at this House of Commons, at the government and at the ministers, they can say they are proud because this country's politicians have a standard by which they operate and they like that standard.

Will they ever get that chance? Never. Not as long as this government is in power. That is why we have to get rid of this government, which would be the most ethical thing the Reform Party could ever do.

This motion is all about ethics, openness and transparency. This motion is simply asking the Liberals to present their ethics code. That ethics code has to be backed up with an independent ethics commissioner who is answerable to parliament, not just the Prime Minister. That is what is known as open government. It is a basic political concept that the Liberals are going to have to learn because today Canadians expect and deserve open government. That is what they want.

I challenge the Liberals, when it is time to vote on this motion, to stand and vote on behalf of their constituents. If they do they will have no other choice than to vote yes for this motion.

[Gar Knutson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, let me say a few things in response to my hon. colleague, the member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley.

First, the hon. member said that we Liberals despise Reformers. I actually have a great deal of respect for this motion. I think it is quite legitimate for the opposition to put the government's feet to the fire, as was said, about the whole issue of ethics, accountability and openness. I commend the member for bringing this motion forward. However, I do not agree with it. I will be quite happy to vote against it and I will be quite happy to explain to my constituents why I am going to vote against it.

Let me make another point about Liberals generally despising the Reform Party. We do not despise the Reform Party because we know that as long as the Reform Party exists we can look forward to governing for a long time.

[An hon. member]

You wait.

[Gar Knutson, Liberal, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Yes, I look forward to the next election and the election after that. I say that in all humility and with the greatest amount of respect for the Reform Party.

I am proud to be a member of a government which has made integrity a top priority. All that my laughing colleagues in the opposition need to do is look at how this government is viewed by Canadians today and compare it with previous governments. How many cabinet ministers have we had resign because of conflict of interest violations or ethical implications? Zero. We have a great record and that is why Canadians will re-elect us again and again.

Our promise about integrity goes back to the 1993 red book commitment to restore honesty and public trust to our political institutions and regain the confidence of Canadians in their government. Canadians wanted a fundamentally different approach to politics than they had experienced in the nine years before this government took office.

Once elected, this government acted decisively to deliver on its commitment. We have put in place many initiatives. First, we introduced amendments to strengthen the Lobbyist Registration Act by increasing the transparency of lobbying activities and by giving the ethics counsellor the power to investigate complaints about lobbying. All lobbyists now have to reveal more about their projects. Not only must they disclose their fees, but they are prohibited from including contingency fees in their contracts. There are also stiff penalties for lobbyists who do not adhere to the rules, up to and including prison sentences.

Second, the Prime Minister tabled a new conflict of interest code for public officeholders in the House on June 16, 1994. Perhaps hon. members opposite might take the time to read this very public document.

The code is a public document and is available to the public. The code demonstrates that this government recognizes that restoring public trust involves strengthening the system from both the public office and lobbying side. Cabinet ministers are bound by it. All public officeholders are bound by it.

The code sets out key principles that apply to all public officeholders: ministers, secretaries of state, parliamentary secretaries, ministerial staff and full time governor in council appointees.

Canadians would be pleased to see that this code of conduct clarified old obligations and added new guidelines for government decision making. It also requires that ministers, secretaries of state and parliamentary secretaries disclose the assets and the activities of their spouses and dependants.

The new code has clear rules and the government is committed to upholding them.

I am sure that all members would agree that we have a responsibility for maintaining the trust of Canadians in their political institutions. As the Prime Minister said in the House in 1994, “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”. We all have a responsibility to serve Canadians with integrity and to be accountable to them.

Third, a new ethics counsellor was appointed with responsibilities in two related areas, conflict of interest and lobbying. This office administers the code of public officeholders.

The ethics counsellor investigates allegations against ministers and senior officials and reports his findings to the prime minister. The ethics counsellor also provides guidance to lobbyists on their dealings with government and may investigate complaints about lobbying activities. As hon. members will know, the ethics counsellor provides an annual report to parliament on matters related to lobbying.

As we promised in the red book, we have worked to restore trust and relevance to the House of Commons. For example, members of parliament now have greater influence in the legislative process. This government has supported increasing the opportunity for policy debates in the House on issues such as peacekeeping, and MPs are engaged in the budget planning process before the budget is presented.

We also promised to change the pension plan for members of parliament to end double dipping, establish a minimum age for entitlement to benefits and cut the cost of the plan by one-third. With all-party support, including my hon. friends in the Reform Party, changes were made last June to maintain the plan's fairness.

I have just mentioned that the government has already made the conflict of interest code public, and I would be happy to send hon. members a copy.

The prime minister also provides personal advice, and just as cabinet deliberations are confidential, just as the advice that bureaucrats give to their ministers and the advice that bureaucrats give to the prime minister and the advice that ministers give to the prime minister is confidential, so too is the personal advice that the prime minister gives to his ministers.

The prime minister provides personal advice on a wide range of government issues. As such, this advice is protected from release under section 69 of the Access to Information Act as a cabinet confidence. Some things in government need to be kept secret. Those that do not should be made public, but some things need to be kept secret.

In this regard, I would note that section 69 states that the Access to Information Act “does not apply to confidences of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, including records used for reflecting communications or discussions between ministers of the crown on matters relating to the making of government decisions or the formulation of government policy”.

I understand why the workings of cabinet would be foreign to members of the opposition as they have never been in cabinet and are not likely to be in cabinet for a very long time.

However, in passing the Access to Information Act parliament decided that documents which constitute advice from the prime minister to his ministers would be protected.

I would like to take a moment to discuss the important principle of cabinet confidences with my hon. colleagues.

The heart of the Canadian system of government centres around collective responsibility. This means that the government is responsible to parliament and the government must maintain the confidence of the House in order to govern.

But for ministers to fulfill their collective responsibility to parliament and Canadians they must be able to discuss their views frankly and fully.

Cabinet confidentiality allows ministers to debate issues openly among themselves and to concentrate on the objective of our system of government which is taking good policy decisions for the benefit of Canadians.

I note that Canada shares with a number of other foreign jurisdictions, for example the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, provisions similar to those in the Access to Information Act which protect cabinet confidences. That is why the government has responded to Motion No. P-31 by stating “The information sought by the hon. member is considered a confidence of the Queen's Privy Council, and in keeping with Beauchesne's 446(2)(i) and section 69 of the Access to Information Act, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw the motion”.

In conclusion, we are proud of our record on integrity in the government. We have acted to deliver on our promises on integrity and ethics, just like we have acted to deliver on our promises on economic and social issues and national unity. We have made integrity a cornerstone of our government. That is one reason why Canadians chose to re-elect our government in 1997.

The Prime Minister has already tabled a comprehensive conflict of interest code that applies to public office holders, including ministers.

I therefore call on all hon. members to oppose this motion.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as the motion of my hon. colleague from Prince George—Bulkley Valley was read, I noted the potential for confusion, as he is calling upon the Governor General to cause the Government to lay before the House a copy of the Prime Minister's ethics code for ministers.

In addition to the conflict of interest and post-employment code for public officer holders, federal government ministers are subject to a code of ethics adopted in June 1994. In addition to this code, federal government ministers are also governed by ministerial guidelines. These guidelines are only partially known, because the Prime Minister has always refused to disclose them.

In light of what the two previous speakers have had to say, we now understand that the motion refers to the Prime Minister's guidelines for his ministers.

In the wording of their motion which is being debated here in the House today, the Reform Party is calling for a copy of this ethics code to be tabled in the House. Given that the conflict of interest and post-employment code for public officer holders is already known, we understand, and I repeat, that they are referring instead to the guidelines for ministers.

If the Reform members had been referring to the code I have just mentioned, their motion would, of course, have been pointless, since that document already exists. Now we know this point has been settled.

The guidelines for ministers set out a framework for ministerial conduct to ensure that they not only conduct themselves properly but are perceived to conduct themselves properly. It is not enough for them to act correctly, but they must also appear to be acting correctly.

Two of these guidelines are now known to the public. One of these guidelines deals with conflicts of interest, while the other concerns relations with quasi-judicial tribunals.

With respect to conflicts of interest, the rule is simply that a minister who believes he may be in a conflict of interest or may find himself in one in the future must phone the ethics counsellor to let him know. That is what we know about this first guideline given by the Prime Minister to his ministers.

As for the second guideline, it concerns relations with quasi-judicial tribunals. Here is what the Globe and Mail of October 10, 1996, had to say on this issue:

“Basic Principle. Ministers shall not intervene or appear to intervene on behalf of any person or entity with federal quasi-judicial tribunals or any matter before them that requires a decision in their quasi-judicial capacity unless otherwise authorized by law”.

We realize that ministers must not interfere in any way in proceedings or with the quasi-judicial tribunals.

This guideline extends to ministerial staff as well. It is also a practice that ministers and their political staff must go through the appropriate ministerial office rather than deal directly with the officials of another department.

Obviously, many criticisms and comments may be made about these guidelines for the ministers. Here are a few.

First, the guidelines should be made public immediately, because it is a matter of public interest. The government must be transparent. And if guidelines on the ministers' integrity are in effect, hiding them totally defeats the purpose of such guidelines, which is to establish a trust relationship between the government and the public.

These guidelines are seriously flawed from a democratic point of view, given that they were established in 1994 by the Prime Minister and that no one, not even the duly elected representatives in this House, has yet been able to discuss them in a fully informed manner.

Third, the trust relationship between the government and the public is further weakened because we know that, in the case of a conflict of interest, the only known directive is, for a minister, to report to the ethics commissioner, Howard Wilson. Does this mean that a minister could report to the commissioner and the conflict of interest be settled without the public knowing about it?

Similarly, given the lack of transparency concerning these guidelines, are we to understand that a minister who is at fault for whatever reason is ultimately judged only by the Prime Minister, who then becomes both judge and jury?

The Prime Minister is not prepared to release these guidelines. It is as though he is telling himself “I will decide whether I should demand that my guidelines be complied with, or whether I will tolerate that a minister does not comply with them. And since no one else will know what happened, it will be easier for me to decide if it is appropriate or not to implement my guidelines, to be more or less tolerant, to cover a mistake made by a minister or a senior public servant that could be embarrassing for the government, or to say nothing about it”.

The Prime Minister retains this prerogative, whereas if the guidelines were known, public, any member of the House of Commons could say “Prime Minister, here is a case where a minister did not follow your guidelines. What are you going to do? Will you explain these rules? What are the consequences?”

At this point, the Prime Minister would be obliged to provide an accounting. He would be obliged to tell the House why he did not apply his own directives. Transparency in such cases is vital. It is like the first principle, which states “It is not enough not to be in conflict of interest, there must also appear to be no conflict of interest”.

This same reasoning works with the application of the Prime Minister's directives with his ministers. It is not enough for the Prime Minister to apply these directives and have them followed by his ministers, there must be the appearance that these directives are being followed. The only way for these guidelines to appear to be applied fairly is for them to be made public and the other members to be able to judge, discuss and see how the Prime Minister uses this instrument of justice and fairness for all members of parliament.

The Bloc Quebecois will support this motion, because it is an instrument of democracy. As we are in favour of transparency and of furthering democracy, we will support this motion with pleasure.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this motion. Like some of my colleagues, I was a bit confused with the motion when I read it because it reads:

That a humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of the Prime Minister's ethics code for ministers.

The code I have seen is a conflict of interest and post-employment code for public office holders. This was produced in June 1994. This document is available. If we are talking about that, I do not see a need to have it laid before the House.

I gather from the discussion and from the comments being made that one is looking for more than this document. One is looking for perhaps guidelines or directives that may have been issued by the Prime Minister specifically and apart from this document.

I will address my remarks to the document since I do not have anything else before me in terms of any other document. This document has some good points in it but there is a serious problem with it. The preamble talks about ethical standards, public scrutiny, decision making and a lot of very important issues for our democratic society. For example, under ethical standards it talks about how public office holders shall act with honesty and uphold the highest ethical standards so that public confidence and trust in the integrity of the activity and impartiality of government are conserved and enhanced. No one would disagree with that. It is a very important principle.

The difficulty with this document is the manner by which it goes about to enforce this code and to try to follow up on the principles stated in this code. It appoints an ethics counsellor. There is nothing wrong with appointing an ethics counsellor, but the difficulty is that when we real about the ethics counsellor it states that under the general direction of the clerk of the privy council the ethics counsellor is charged with the administration of this code and the application of the conflict of interest compliance measures set out in this part as they apply to public office holders.

It does not put the ethics counsellor in an independent position. The ethics counsellor in essence ends up reporting to the Prime Minister in secret, and that is wrong for our democratic system.

One of the things that is very important is openness and accountability to the public if we are to carry on the functions we are elected to on behalf of the public. It is very important that if there is any code of ethics set up or any kind of code of conduct that there be an independent ethics counsellor, someone who is accountable to parliament, to the elected representatives of the people.

This is very important. If we read further in this code we see where it talks about compliance arrangements. It states arrangements being made by public office holders to comply with the conflict of interest compliance measures set out in this part. They shall be approved in the case of ministers of the crown by the Prime Minister and in the case of all other public office holders by the ethics counsellor. We see that the ministers of the crown are above this scrutiny by the ethics counsellor. In terms of this kind of accountability, they account only to their boss, the Prime Minister.

This is something that is really deplorable when talking about openness and integrity for government. There was a release on June 16, 1994 by the Prime Minister, announcing the appointment of the first ethics counsellor.

It sounds quite admirable when listening to the words: “The Prime Minister today appointed Howard Wilson as Canada's first ethics counsellor. The Prime Minister also announced a comprehensive package of measures to help promote public trust in national institutions including tough new restrictions on lobbying”.

Yet we see a lot of the lobbying that takes place and we see a lot of things happening that cause us to wonder exactly what kind of accountability there is in the government structure and who can scrutinize when things go wrong.

We look at the APEC affair and what happened there. We see that the Prime Minister does not want to be held accountable for any role he may have played in that incident. We have seen various other incidents of things happening right across the country where people have called out for accountability and always it comes right back to the Prime Minister, but there is no independent body looking at the activities of what is taking place.

One very important principle of being an internal or external investigator, or external complaint handler, is independence. As a former ombudsman this is a principle that we as ombudsmen held very dearly, the idea that we must be independent of the system and must be able to report independently. The findings should be objective, clear and when the report is made it should be made in a manner that people know they have had a fair hearing.

Certainly if someone has a complaint against a minister and feels the minister is not operating in accordance with proper ethics that person will not be comforted by the Prime Minister saying it's okay. They might have more confidence if an independent ethics counsellor were to review the matter and report independently to parliament.

It is important that independence be there in a very real and meaningful way. Another section of the code talks about various permissible activities under the code. Where the Prime Minister or a person designated by the Prime Minister is of the opinion that it is in the public interest, full time governor in council appointees to crown corporations, as defined in the Financial Administration Act, may retain or accept directorships or offices in a financial or commercial operation and accept remuneration therefore in accordance with the compensation policies for governor in council appointees as determined from time to time.

Again, the Prime Minister can decide that his friends or whoever can have directorships in these corporations while they are still carrying on public duties which may or may not conflict.

There is a need to really go through this code, to see what it says and to see where the ultimate responsibility lies. The biggest problem with this code is that there is no real independent method to enforce it or to ensure that the noble values outlined in it are properly protected.

Another example of the same sort of thing comes from the military. We recently saw a military ombudsman appointed, but who is that person accountable to? The ombudsman is certainly not independent. That person is accountable to the minister. How can someone objectively review and make recommendations if that person is accountable to the minister responsible for the exact organization that is being investigated?

If the government is serious about accountability it would know that if something is being done right there is nothing wrong with scrutinizing it. Far too often we do our public servants a disservice by hiding things, by saying we cannot give this information, that it is secret and confidential. Far too often we do a disservice because if the information is given quite often it clarifies what is being done, why it is being done and a reasonable person will accept and understand that.

That is one of the biggest things we found in the ombudsman business. A lot of the complaints from the public were because people did not know what was being done. When an impartial investigation revealed what was being done quite often members of the public were willing to accept that the government had done right once it was clarified. It is this fear of the unknown that people are concerned about. Because there is not openness and accountability it leads to problems.

I will not dwell much longer on this code because it is in need of severe fixing. I see I only have one minute remaining and I cannot fix it in one minute. The biggest point is that there must be an independent ethics counsellor.

I appreciate the spirit of the motion and would certainly support it because it intends to get at the secrecy of the government and the fact that it will not hold itself accountable in a very real and meaningful way.

[Gilles Bernier, Progressive Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in favour of the motion for the production of papers, sponsored by the member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley.

As has been mentioned previously, the Motion No. P-31 reads as follows:

That a humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of the Prime Minister's ethics code for ministers.

I would be remiss in commenting on the motion without quoting from a great work of fiction called Creating Opportunity: The Liberal Plan For Canada . The Liberal's red book in the 1993 election stated:

A Liberal government will appoint an ethics counsellor to advise both public officials and lobbyists in the day-to-day application of the code of conduct for public officials. The ethics counsellor will be appointed after consultation with the leaders of all parties in the House of Commons and will report directly to Parliament.

The Liberal government in fact appointed an ethics counsellor back in June 1994. Howard Wilson was assigned to take the job but his office was not independent. It was not developed in consultation with the other political parties. It was not legislated as accountable to parliament.

While the ethics counsellor reports to parliament on matters related to lobbying, he reports to one and only one person on matters related to ethics, the Prime Minister of Canada. The Prime Minister makes the decisions about the enforcement of ethics.

The question then arises, if the Prime Minister is the final judge of the ethics of his cabinet ministers, who judges the Prime Minister's ethics? That is why we need to have full transparency with respect to government ethics.

Motion No. P-31 is extremely timely in light of the efforts put forward by my caucus colleague from Markham to get answers from the Prime Minister in the Yvon Duhaime affair. I would like to review the troubling revelations that have recently come to light.

In April 1993 Les Entreprises Yvon Duhaime purchased the inventory, furnishings and ongoing business of the Auberge Grand-Mère located in the Prime Minister's riding of Saint-Maurice from 161341 Canada Inc. At the time the opposition leader of the day, now the Prime Minister, held a 25% stake in the numbered company.

In September 1997 Duhaime's company received a $615,000 loan from the Business Development Bank of Canada Tourism Investment Fund. At the same time he also received a $50,000 loan from the Canada Economic Development Fund for the Quebec regions. These loans were to be applied to a 24 room addition to the hotel. The expansion plans were expected to total $1.2 million. Duhaime said he discussed the proposed expansion with Chrétien's special riding representative and was told where to apply—

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. The hon. member knows that he must not refer to other members of the House by name; only by title or by the name of the member's constituency. I know he will want to follow the rules in that regard.

[Gilles Bernier, Progressive Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. Duhaime added that the location of the inn in the Prime Minister's Saint-Maurice riding undoubtedly helped him to get the loans for the expansion and get them fast. He further claimed that he applied for federal loans after his local caisse populaire credit union even declined to finance the expansion.

Duhaime's company already had a heavy debtload from building a previous addition to the hotel that included a large banquet hall.

The money flow from the Prime Minister's former property did not stop with Industry Canada or Canada Economic Development. According to internal Human Resources Development documents Duhaime also received $188,799 from five grant programs during the 1997-98 fiscal year. These grants included $164,000 from the transitional jobs fund program, $10,350 from local labour market partnerships, $9,293 from youth internships, $4,356 from the targeted wage subsidies program and $800 from summer career placements.

Who is Yvon Duhaime and what qualified his company to obtain so much cash? He failed to follow the Business Development Bank rules by not disclosing some of his personal records on the BDC's application form which clearly states that applicants list information about those same personal records on which his application could have been denied.

I am not saying that we should not forgive those who have made mistakes in the past. I am not saying that they should be excluded from government programs to which they are legitimately entitled. However Duhaime's past problems certainly point to someone less than credible in seeking financial support. Duhaime has since claimed the expansion to be a profitable success.

From my own professional experience I know how useful it is to check with contractors to determine a project's success. One local contractor on the Auberge Grand-Mere expansion filed a business lien against the property in July 1998, claiming that he was owed $172,000 by Duhaime's company for work completed in the spring of 1998. While Duhaime has since reduced the debt to $47,953, according to recent land registry documents the contractor filed legal notice on January 7, 1999. The contractor states that if he is not paid within 60 days he will ask the sheriff to seize the Auberge Grand-Mere property and to sell it at an auction to recover his own debt.

Mr. Duhaime, a man who does not follow application requirements, is assisted by the Prime Minister's riding office and then gets over $840,000 in loans and grants. Will the Prime Minister answer questions on this matter? No, he will not. Can the ethics counsellor investigate? Yes, he can but he reports in secret to the very person he potentially investigates. This must change.

Thankfully my colleague from Markham was successful yesterday in getting the industry committee to summon the ethics counsellor for questioning. He did so after much difficulty from the government members and indifference from Reform, NDP and Bloc members. We should not have to fight tooth and nail to get information from the ethics counsellor. He should be an independent officer of parliament, accountable to all. He should have a public code of ethics for the Prime Minister and all cabinet ministers.

On behalf of the Progressive Conservative caucus I support Motion No. P-31 and I urge all hon. member to do likewise.

[Roy H. Bailey, Reform, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I was alarmed to note that the first speaker on the government side deliberately tried to mislead the House and confuse the issue in that he claimed that they had a code of ethics. We were not talking about the general code of ethics and government members know that. We are talking about a public code of ethics and we are asking for a copy of the ethics code which the Prime Minister has for his ministers. It is two different things.

Let me put it this way. Every speaker on this side of the House knows full well the difference. They have stated so. When ethics counsellor Howard Wilson reports, he reports only to the Prime Minister.

That reporting is in secret. That is exactly the thing the Reform Party is trying to clear up before not only this House but this nation. Canadians deserve an independent ethics counsellor accountable to parliament and who will operate under the authority of a public ethics code. That is what my hon. friend from Prince George has in his motion. That is what Canadians want. That is what we will be voting on. I fail to see how the party opposite can continue to confuse a very simple issue.

I have a copy of the Ottawa Sun which states that the auditor general says that the defence department is blocking his bid to investigate buying practices. It goes on to say that almost a year after tabling detailed department questionable equipment purchasing practices the auditor general told the Commons defence committee that he is still being stonewalled. By whom? None other than the defence minister, a member of cabinet. That is the real guts of this motion. This is what Canadians want.

The private sector, the banks, the businesses, the major industries all pride themselves on having ethics codes. But not this government. When it comes to taxpayer funded institutions such as the House of Commons, what do we get? Stonewalling. This is zero accountability.

In the life of this parliament we have seen what is happening. Look at the APEC inquiry to judge the actions of the RCMP. What does the government do? It orders in a whole troop of lawyers. The government is not being investigated. When the students want lawyers, no way. That in itself is a real conflict. Canadians are seeing it as a conflict.

There is a growing trend. The last survey that I saw on the accountability of government listed professions that are respected the least. Who topped the list? Members of parliament. Who came a close second? Lawyers.

I asked a group of grade 11 students to write down what was the most common thing they had heard or what they thought about the House of Commons. The leading comment was that they were a bunch of crooks.