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.