Debates of April 13th, 1999

Code Of Ethics

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

Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak to this motion. It is just happenstance that I happen to be here. However, I will say that I always like to support any motions or legislation which call for greater transparency.

However I do have to make a comment here because the flaw in the motive behind this motion, is basically that there is no code of conduct for MPs.

I was amazed when I came to this House from a background in journalism to find that there was no written code of conduct for MPs, in the same sense that there is for journalists. At the Toronto Star , for example, there is a binder which contains page after page of descriptions on how expensive is an acceptable gift, how expensive is an unacceptable gift.

I have been incredibly surprised that there is no questioning whatsoever when MPs go on very expensive trips around the world which are financed by corporations. It is one thing to travel with a parliamentary committee when one is supported by one's whip, but when one accepts freebies on the part of corporations one has to question the ethics of the individuals who are accepting those freebies. Yet many in this House would see nothing wrong with accepting those freebies. I can assure members that when it comes to gifts in the world of journalism there are very strict rules.

I think the problem with the reluctance to disclose a prime ministerial code of ethics is that we do not have a minimum standard of ethics that applies to MPs in general. If we had that minimum standard I would suggest to the hon. member who is proposing the motion, whose intentions are very good, that there would be no need for the motion because then we could appreciate that the prime minister, any prime minister, might have a different level of ethics that he applies to his cabinet that pertain to the political ethics of the way members of cabinet conduct themselves both within this parliament and in the community.

I would never like to find myself on the side of not supporting a request for transparency, but the reality is that we cannot put any prime minister in the position where his code of ethics, which deals with politics rather than fundamental ethics, would put him in the situation where he would be disclosing what indeed are potential cabinet confidences. I think there is a real issue which pertains to the Access to Information Act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am impressed that the hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington has demonstrated that he can think for himself. I appreciate that.

I know that in his heart of hearts he sees merit in this motion. I also know that in his heart of hearts he does not truly believe the argument which he just put forward because it does not hold water. The fact that there apparently is no code of ethics for regular MPs has no bearing on the responsibility of our Prime Minister, the leading political figure of Canada. It does not exempt him in any way from showing leadership and producing a code of ethics which would apply to the most powerful decision makers in the country. We cannot compare the cabinet member's decision making powers with those of other MPs in this House. There is no comparison.

This motion is all about putting in place a code of ethics that would give Canadians confidence that the most powerful decision makers in this country, which are the cabinet members, have a code of conduct or guideline which they must adhere to in the performance of their duties and in their decision making exercise. This code of ethics should be transparent so that on a daily basis Canadians can observe whether these powerful decision makers are operating in a manner which is respective and indicative of their jobs. That is not rocket science to understand.

The first reaction of most people who hear the opposition to Motion P-31 might be that the reason Liberal members of parliament and other MPs would oppose it is that they themselves lack a little trust in how the government's cabinet members conduct their jobs and how they conduct themselves in the performance of their duties. If they had full confidence in the ethics and integrity of their cabinet members, then what on earth would they have to fear about having a very public code of ethics? They would have no fear of their members breaking that code.

Liberal members are standing up to oppose the public presentation of a code of ethics for their cabinet ministers. For what reason? One has to assume they fear that their cabinet ministers may not be operating in an ethical manner. That is the only conclusion Canadians who are watching this debate tonight can draw. If they have nothing to hide, then put it out in the public. That is what Canadians understand.

The flaw is not that there is no common code of ethics for MPs. The Prime Minister has stood in the House and told us time and time again that there did exist a special code of ethics for his cabinet members, that his cabinet ministers have read it and they understand it. The big flaw in the government is that the Prime Minister is not going to let the public know exactly what that code of ethics is. How can the Canadian people have any trust in a Prime Minister who would withhold a code of ethics for his cabinet ministers?

I urge all members to support this motion, including the Liberal members who will want to show the Canadian people that the government has an ethical cabinet.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

It is my duty to inform the House that the time provided for the debate has expired.

Pursuant to an order made earlier this day, all the questions necessary to dispose of the motion are deemed put and the recorded division is deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, April 20, 1999, at the end of Government Orders.

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

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, on February 11, 1999, I asked a question in the House about the situation in Montreal, where people had to wait 48 hours before getting a hospital bed. In Toronto, authorities were thinking about transferring sick children to the United States. In British Columbia, $10 million were allocated to improve the situation. In Quebec, the figure was $20 million.

The Minister of Health said that we had to be patient, that the budget was coming, that funds would be available, because health was a priority for the Prime Minister. We did as the minister suggested and waited patiently.

In 1969, it will be remembered, the federal government paid up to 50% of hospital expenditures in the provinces. This year, before the budget was brought down, the federal contribution for hospital costs was down to 11%. With the new budget, it has now gone up to about 15%.

The situation is becoming difficult for the provinces. Since health is such a priority for Canadians, it is important to put the emphasis on this issue and to review the cost sharing formula between the federal government and the provinces.

I am sure the federal government will say that it has invested x number of billions of dollars. Yet, at the same time, there are people waiting in the hospital corridors for care. People go to the hospital and have to wait until there is a cancellation to get an operation. Sometimes they have to wait as long as nine months for heart surgery, for example. This is inhumane. It is totally unacceptable.

This is why I put the question on February 11 on behalf of Canadians throughout the country, so the government would invest a lot more and find solutions so that people—our parents, our grandparents, children needing health care—can get a hospital bed and are not put in the corridor. We must have proper care. We must make sure people with heart problems, cancer, or any other health problem, are treated as humans.

It is hard to see people waiting as long as 48 hours in a hospital to be seen by a doctor and receive appropriate care. This should be given high priority.

Government members themselves said that health was a priority for Canadians. I wish to remind the House again that, in 1969, the federal government paid 50% of each province's hospital care costs. Today, it pays around 15%. This is unacceptable. It is difficult for the provinces to administer health care systems if they do not receive the transfer payments from the federal government to which they are entitled and which they need in order to be able to help people.

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the member for Acadie—Bathurst.

Let me remind the hon. member that health is a shared jurisdiction. The federal government is responsible for the Canada Health Act, health protection and promotion, and the safety of Canadians when it comes to health. The provinces design and deliver health services to the people of their provinces.

When the Minister of Health answered the member's question in the House, he gave him a very good answer. He said that in the budget we will be making a very important significant investment because health and health care is a priority to this government.

In the budget we saw the biggest single investment this government has ever made. It went to increased transfers to the provinces and to the territories for health care very specifically. Other large investments as well went into many areas within the federal government's jurisdiction, our own programs which support the health of Canadians.

The budget demonstrated the government's commitment to defending medicare in the country. We are defending access to quality care, ensuring that care is available to all who need it regardless of their ability to pay. We have listened to the concerns of the people and to the provinces, and to the many groups who share as we do the concerns about the future directions of health care in the country.

Canadians have told their governments they are concerned about health care and it is a priority to them. We have responded. We have listened. We have acted because health care and the health of Canadians is a priority to the government.

We listened and increased the Canada health and social transfer payment by $11.5 billion over the next five years. The hon. member neglected to mention the important tax points that have been transferred to the provinces which generate growing income every year. There are now billions of dollars available from the tax points that have been transferred to the provinces for health care.

This budget is—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I am sorry. I did not realize the hon. parliamentary secretary was just winding up. I thought there was another page to go and it seemed like a good time to interrupt.

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7.26 p.m.)