House of Commons Hansard #206 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was reform.

Topics

Division No. 375Government Orders

6:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Division No. 375Government Orders

6:30 p.m.

Reform

Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members present vote no to this motion unless instructed otherwise by our constituents.

Division No. 375Government Orders

6:30 p.m.

Bloc

Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Verchères, QC

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Quebecois support this motion.

Division No. 375Government Orders

6:30 p.m.

NDP

John Solomon NDP Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

Mr. Speaker, NDP members present vote yes one more time.

Division No. 375Government Orders

6:30 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Norman E. Doyle Progressive Conservative St. John's East, NL

Mr. Speaker, Conservative Party members vote yes to this motion.

Division No. 375Government Orders

6:30 p.m.

Independent

John Nunziata Independent York South—Weston, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have been convinced by my friends in the Reform Party to vote no to this motion.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Division No. 376Government Orders

6:30 p.m.

The Speaker

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from March 25 consideration of the motion that Bill S-11, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act in order to add social condition as a prohibited ground of discrimination, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Canadian Human Rights ActPrivate Members' Business

April 13th, 1999 / 6:30 p.m.

The Speaker

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, March 25, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill S-11 under Private Members' Business.

Since this is a private member's bill we will vote as we usually do. The mover of the motion will be the first to vote and then we will proceed from my left to the last row coming down and then go to my right.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 377Private Members' Business

6:40 p.m.

The Speaker

I declare the motion defeated.

It being 6.45 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from February 12 consideration of the motion.

Code Of EthicsPrivate Members' Business

6:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

When debate was suspended the hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain had five minutes remaining.

Code Of EthicsPrivate Members' Business

6:45 p.m.

Reform

Roy H. Bailey Reform Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House, as we finish this debate tonight, that my colleague and I are not holding any malice or prejudice. We want something that Canadians are asking for.

All of us in this House were elected to represent the people. If I did not go back often to my constituency and report to my constituents, I can imagine what their reaction would be.

When somebody has the honour of not only being elected but being appointed to the cabinet, which is an additional responsibility, we want and Canadians want that person to not only follow the code of ethics as an MP, as a cabinet minister and as someone serving in Her Majesty's government, but to also be more accountable to the people they serve.

All members of parliament are here to adhere to a code of ethics, a code that should be and is available to the public. However, the code of ethics which belongs to the executive branch, or the cabinet, is not made public. We believe that to be a disgrace.

There is a national trend around the country. School boards and businesses are publishing a code of ethics. We believe that it would be in the interest of not only the government but all Canadians to have a public code of ethics.

In the last two weeks my office was able to obtain a ministerial code of ethics from the following countries: Brazil, Germany, Israel, Japan, the United Kingdom, the United States and the European Union.

We have been asking the Prime Minister for over five years for a ministerial code of ethics. Some great democracies have made their codes of ethics public. As a matter of interest to members, many of these codes of ethics from our fellow democracies are on the Internet. However, our country is keeping company with countries like China and North Korea who do not release any information.

I suppose the question that Canadians are most often asked is the question I want to ask the Prime Minister. What about openness? If he does not want his personal ethics and honesty called into account, why does he not just release the ministerial code of ethics to the public?

In today's world one not only has to be honest but one has to appear as honest. We could do a lot of good in this country and have a better image of this institution, parliament, if indeed we had this code.

I want to quote from an article in which the Prime Minister said the following:

I respect those who disagree with decisions I have made as Prime Minister. I welcome honest debate about the policy directions set by my government. But I will never countenance unwarranted attacks upon my personal ethics and honesty.

We believe that to be a fair statement. However, in the same article the Prime Minister goes on to say:

For 36 years I have conducted myself in an honest and ethical fashion and have tried to do my best for the people of my riding.

That is an admirable statement. This Prime Minister could go down in glory. The Prime Minister could leave with real credibility when he retires by introducing a code of ethics. It would be to his honour, to the honour of Canadians and certainly to the honour of all elected officials, including myself.

He is now in the position of not only being a Prime Minister who is responsible to his constituency, but he and his government is also in a position to make a significant change in how Canadians view their government. He is in a position to make a significant change in how Canadians should want to see their cabinet.

There are two basic questions which must be asked. First, is there a separate code of ethics for the cabinet? Second, like other democracies, will the Prime Minister make that document public?

Code Of EthicsPrivate Members' Business

6:50 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS

Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain for his motion and his remarks.

There has been much talk of ethics in politics of late, particularly in the United States, and I think it is something that bears discussion. We know that when it comes to transparency and openness, these are just empty words to this government, and particularly to the Prime Minister. They are about as worthless as red books No. 1 and No. 2.

The arrogance of this government truly knows no bounds. The Liberals cried foul toward the previous Conservative government for years. The howls rained out from the Liberals, when they were in opposition, about patronage, conflict of interest and unethical behaviour. Now that they are in government they continue to act in a completely irresponsible manner. They continually distract the public's mind from their own public record by further perpetrating previously unoriginal untruths. They also continually make concerted efforts to soil the good names of their former political adversaries.

I only need make reference as truth to this of the continuing national and international embarrassment known only as the Airbus affair. This ill-conceived and maliciously politically motivated witch hunt continues and costs Canadians millions of dollars. We know that the acts of omission or commission perpetrated by members of the government will eventually be exposed. That is the only solace we have.

Given the actions of the Prime Minister and his minister, it is absolutely hilarious that we are in the House today debating a code of ethics that would apply to them. However, if we consider it ethical to maliciously attack a former prime minister with unsubstantiated legal accusations, or if we consider it ethical to shut down a democratically elected House when it is trying to have a debate to decide whether to upgrade or continue our country's participation in a foreign conflict, that perhaps might be ethical.

Please pardon my sarcasm, but it seems to me that it is an oxymoron when we even try to mention the word “ethics” in respect to the Prime Minister and this government.

The fact is the code of ethics that does exist, if it does exist, is not made public. I will repeat that. A public code of ethics does not exist when it comes to the Prime Minister. What are some examples of strict ethical guidelines that would govern the conduct of our esteemed ministers? Nobody knows. I suppose Canadians could simply listen and watch the government and decide if their ministers and the Prime Minister are acting ethically.

Upon looking at the action of the ministers, I guess one could say once again that for the Liberals an incident such as their decision on the Kosovo debate, or inaction on the Kosovo debate, might be deemed ethical, or perhaps we could look at the Prime Minister's own actions. I think a leader should lead by example and allow his party members to follow in his footsteps.

I wonder if, for example, Liberals would follow in the footsteps of their leader when it came to purchasing a money losing hotel in the Shawinigan area and then unloading it to convicted criminals who then receive hundreds of thousands of dollars from taxpayers? I wonder if that would be an example.

Perhaps there would be a chapter in this code of ethics that says it is morally and ethically acceptable to skip the funeral of a beloved and respected world leader. Perhaps the Liberal supporters could tell us about Pierre Corbeil. Maybe he could come in and lecture the cabinet about business ethics when it came to fundraising in the Quebec area.

Last, but not least, the Prime Minister could give an ethics class on the proper and ethical manner to use the national police force when it comes to furthering personal political vendettas. These moral and ethical standards that are not reached by the Prime Minister and the government are truly to the country's detriment.

All sarcasm aside, it is obvious that a code of ethics for ministers should exist and it should be open and transparent to public scrutiny. I humbly submit that if, in fact, the Liberal code of ethics does exist, then why would it not want to make it public? As the previous speaker mentioned, why would it not want to benefit from the support the public would find in knowing this document does in fact exist?

Why would the Liberals not want to try to increase the level of public confidence? Why would they not want to bolster somehow the public confidence, or try to do away with some of the cynicism that in fact exists? That is truly the situation in the country right now when it comes, unfortunately, to most politicians.

Canadians might then begin to have faith in their government and they could hold governments accountable for their actions by weighing in against the government on their own ethical conduct that they hold out as an example.

I commend the hon. member again for bringing this motion forward. It is high time that we started discussing things like this when it seems apparent that the public has lost so much faith in its elected representatives. Once again, I support the hon. member in his efforts thus far.

Code Of EthicsPrivate Members' Business

6:55 p.m.

Reform

Dick Harris Reform Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I understand that my speaking position on this motion actually closes the debate. Are there no other members to speak?

Code Of EthicsPrivate Members' Business

6:55 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

Since we just had a Reform Party member, and since we still have a fair amount of time left in debate, we will go to the Liberal side and then to the hon. member for Elk Island.

Code Of EthicsPrivate Members' Business

6:55 p.m.

Liberal

John Maloney Liberal Erie—Lincoln, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Motion No. P-31, presented by the hon. member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley. It requests that the Prime Minister table in the House his ethics code for ministers.

We have made integrity and ethics a top priority for our government, as we promised in the 1993 and 1997 election campaigns. We have done this by keeping our promises for new policies and legislation and for new standards of ethical behaviour. We have delivered on our election commitments to meet the needs of Canadians through new policies and programs. Allow me to point out a few.

We promised to improve prosperity for Canadians and the unemployment rate is now at the lowest level since 1990. In fact, in my area of Niagara, it is less than the national average.

We promised to reduce the budget deficit and we did. In fact, it is the first time this has occurred in almost three decades that we have a surplus. It speaks to the commitment this government has to Canadians.

The recent budget also contained important initiatives to develop Canada's international competitiveness in a knowledge-based global economy. These are promises made and delivered on by the government.

The integrity demonstrated by the government toward Canadians is not a paper exercise. It is a reality. It is an ongoing commitment we show Canadians each and every day.

The leadership the government has shown in creating a government Canadians are proud of sets an example of what integrity in government really means. We have kept our election promises about specific actions on integrity. Allow me to elaborate.

The Prime Minister tabled a new conflict of interest code for public office holders in the House on June 16, 1994, early in our first mandate. It sets out principles and clear rules for all public office holders, ministers, secretaries of state, parliamentary secretaries, ministerial staff and full time governor in council appointees.

We also strengthened the Lobbyists Registration Act and a new ethics councillor was appointed in 1994 with responsibilities for administering the code and investigating complaints about lobbying activities.

We have kept our election promises about new standards of ethical behaviour. The conflict of interest code has clear rules for public office holders, including ministers, and the government is committed to upholding it.

I oppose Motion No. P-31 which requests that the Prime Minister table his ethics code for ministers in the House. As noted, the Prime Minister has already tabled the conflict of interest code in parliament. It sets out principles and clear rules which apply to all public office holders, including ministers.

All parliamentarians have a responsibility to gain and keep the trust of Canadians in government institutions. This is an obligation that we take seriously. It is an obligation that I know my colleagues across the way also believe is a pillar of our democracy.

Let us cut through the smoke. This motion is really about access to the Prime Minister's personal advice to ministers on government issues. The Prime Minister provides personal instructions to his ministers on a wide range of governance issues. Communications between the Prime Minister and the ministers by the nature of our system are confidential. This type of advice is protected as a cabinet confidence under section 69 of the Access to Information Act. Parliament itself, in passing the Access to Information Act, decided that documents which constitute advice from the Prime Minister to his ministers are cabinet confidences and would be protected under the act.

The heart of the Canadian system of government centres around collective responsibility. This means that the government is responsible to parliament. The government must maintain the confidences 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 to take good policy decisions for the benefit of Canadians.

The government has already responded to the motion that we are debating by stating that information sought by the hon. member is considered a confidence of the Queen's Privy Council and in keeping with Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 446(2)(i) and section 69 of the Access to Information Act, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.

Code Of EthicsPrivate Members' Business

7 p.m.

Reform

Dick Harris Reform Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to clarify the remaining time left in this debate because my colleague from Elk Island, as I understand it, wants to speak.

Code Of EthicsPrivate Members' Business

7 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

We have exactly 12 minutes left in debate. After 12 minutes have expired the member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley will have five minutes. So exactly at 7.15 p.m. the member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley should be ready to spring to his feet.

Code Of EthicsPrivate Members' Business

7 p.m.

Reform

Dick Harris Reform Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, just out of curiosity, if the member for Elk Island takes only seven minutes, can he share another five minutes with me so that I may have 10 minutes in total for closing?

Code Of EthicsPrivate Members' Business

7 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

No.

Code Of EthicsPrivate Members' Business

7 p.m.

An hon. member

By unanimous consent?

Code Of EthicsPrivate Members' Business

7 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

We can do anything we want by unanimous consent, but there could very well be other members who would wish to participate in the debate and the sands of time are running through the clock.

I want to make it clear that the hon. member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley will have the last five minutes of debate; no more, no less. I will make sure that I call him at the appropriate time.

Code Of EthicsPrivate Members' Business

7 p.m.

Liberal

John Maloney Liberal Erie—Lincoln, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have not completed my comments, but I am very close. I just made a request to the hon. member to withdraw his motion. He has not acceded to my request. Therefore I wish to advise the House that I have no choice but to call upon my hon. colleagues to oppose the motion.

Code Of EthicsPrivate Members' Business

7 p.m.

Reform

Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB

Mr. Speaker, this is a subject which is very important to Canadian people. It has been one that has consumed me in my parliamentary life since I was elected in 1993.

Some hon. members here are new, so they may not know that in the previous parliament I was the Reform Party member on the special joint committee which studied a code of ethics for senators and members of parliament. Of course, as we all know, members of parliament include senators. We are all included in the term. I had the extraordinary privilege of serving on that committee.

Needless to say, it is another of those issues which is not black and white. It is not a simple issue. It is a very complicated issue in terms of what it is that we require public officers, cabinet ministers and, indeed, even ordinary members of parliament to disclose. Generally, the principle, in my view, is that there should be no hidden features of one's life.

I remember when I was a young man and my wife and I moved into a little town in Alberta. There were some 200 people in that town and some people said to me “How can you stand to live in that little town? Everybody knows what you are doing”. I said “I don't plan on doing anything bad, so it doesn't matter”.

That really is the essence of it. Generally speaking, people only want to have secrets if they are going to do something bad.

However, I am aware that there are exceptions. When people have business dealings, for example, sometimes there are things they do not want their competitors to know. That is valid. However, we have a rule in this country that members of parliament who become cabinet ministers have a higher code. They must divest themselves of their interests. They may not directly deal with government.

We have had a couple of issues with the Liberal government since 1993 which have consumed us and have really put into question the whole integrity of it. We have had a few issues lately with the Prime Minister himself.

I remember in the previous parliament a situation where there was an inappropriate use of a credit card by a cabinet minister. That puzzled me endlessly. If a person has credit card statements which prove that what they did was not wrong, why would they not disclose them?

We asked for them under access to information and they were denied. In fact, they were not denied. We got pages and pages of blank paper. The heading was at the top and then everything was whited out. Then there was a little code that said we could not have the information because it was personal.

That was the point exactly. A public credit card was being used for personal reasons, but we could not find out the details. It was really very bad.

It seems to me that one would be eager to disclose. That is what I said to reporters at the time because I was grilled on this. I said that the easiest thing in the world would be to simply bring out all of the statements. They are all on record. Bring them out and make copies of them. Show the reporters the originals. Let them have a copy of them. Here it is. There is nothing wrong. But as long as they are not disclosed, then the suspicion remains and there are all kinds of protestations.

They went through this motion of tabling stuff in the House. When we looked at what they tabled, it had no relevance at all to the question. It was just a snow job, if you will pardon the expression.

Now we have the question about the Prime Minister's code of ethics for his ministers. This is a very important issue. We know that it exists. We know that we have not seen it. It is not the public office holders' code, which is public. The reason we know that is because in the debate with the Prime Minister over this issue at various times he has said “My ministers have seen it. They have read it. They understand it. They obey it”.

One cannot read nor understand that which does not exist. So we know that it exists. There was also a very clear indication that it was not just simply the public office holders' code.

What this motion for the production of papers calls for is simply that the code be made public. For the life of me, I do not know why anybody on this side of the House, whose job it is to hold the government accountable, would be against this motion. Of course we want to know what that code is.

I would think that every Liberal member on the other side who really believes in the Liberal red book and its promises to increase integrity in government would also want to vote in favour of this motion. Of course they would want to have openness in government. They would want the people of Canada to know what the rules of engagement are for ministers of the crown. That is an essential part of rebuilding the trust of government.

We have had some 30 years of Liberal and Conservative governments where the integrity of government has been questioned by Canadians. That is why there is so much cynicism. I think that is one of the reasons less than 50% of the people turned out in the recent byelection. They are so cynical that they say “What difference does it make?” It is time we restored to Canadians faith, trust and confidence in the integrity of the Canadian government.

I urge all members on both sides of the House to vote in favour of this most important motion. It is probably one of the most important motions that we will debate this evening.