Debates of March 15th, 2001

Supply

[Joe Comuzzi, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question, but it really is counterproductive to what the House is trying to accomplish today.

If there is one issue that comes out of this debate, it is that Canada deals with other countries as a whole, that we do not become parochial in our negotiations and look after the interests of one section of the country over another section of the country.

I understand full well what the member has talked about in the area from which he comes, that is, his area has had free trade because of its ability to convince its American counterparts that it has private timber limits, as do many of the Americans. However, at the end of the day I hope that what he and his provinces, the maritimes and Newfoundland, have been enjoying for the last five years under the trade agreement would start to be enjoyed by every other province in Canada, by all of the provinces, that is, free access to the United States market without any threat of countervail, without any threat of anti-dumping.

Let us operate in the marketplace in the United States. Let us operate freely, openly and competitively and we will show what we can do as a country with respect to selling our product in the United States.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Superior North and congratulate him on the good work that he has done as the co-chairman of the Canada-U.S. Interparliamentary Group. This issue has come up from time to time because we both joined that group in 1988. Of course he has risen higher through the ranks than I have because he is now co-chairman.

I do have a question for the member. I have with me an article from the St. Croix Courier which is written by John Baldacci because of the international interest in this matter. As a congressman from the U.S. he is trying to lobby the United States to take harsh and punitive actions against Canada. The statistics and logic he uses are totally out of line in terms of what we have been telling Americans.

Can the member enlighten us in terms of what our minister has done and the information that he has used to lobby for our interests in the United States? In other words, how could the information become so distorted by an American congressman in defence of the American case versus ours and—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

I am sorry to interrupt, but the time for questions and comments has elapsed. I will allow the member to give a very brief answer.

[Joe Comuzzi, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Madam Speaker, let me thank my colleague across the aisle for his question. It is amazing and I do not know how the U.S. can get away with this.

I have here a letter written to the president of the United States which is signed by 51 senators. I have gone through the letter and without a lot of thought have underlined several areas where they are absolutely wrong in the accusations they make about the Canadian forestry industry. The information being disseminated by our friends in the United States is by and large incorrect.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to use my time to assert the importance of the forest as a resource and of its harvesting by the softwood lumber industry for an area like the riding of Matapédia—Matane.

Considering the makeup of my riding, I will divide my speech into two parts and talk about the situation and the issues for two separate regions, namely the lower St. Lawrence area and the Gaspé peninsula. These are two huge areas that I represent, along with one of my colleagues on the other side of the House.

On April Fool's Day, we stand to be made fools of by the Americans.

The softwood lumber agreement which has been in force since 1996, will expire on March 31. I think we should consider our past, present and future situation in order to avoid the problems we have had before with the United States.

For the next few minutes I will try to illustrate the situation in areas similar to my riding. The hon. member for Beauce stated earlier that 1,000 residents in his riding will be affected by the softwood lumber agreement. In my riding, I have 2,000 people working in the industry.

This goes to show that any action taken in an industry like the forest industry must be well targeted, because it can have a serious impact on communities like mine that have already been hard hit, for instance, by the downturn in the fishery.

We in the Bloc Quebecois have realized how detrimental the current softwood lumber agreement is and, as a famous politician recently put it, how harmful it is to the Quebec industry. Some might say barbaric, but I think that word has not been properly used in the last little while.

Let me review the current situation as seen by the forest industry commission of the Gaspé Peninsula—Îles-de-la-Madeleine regional consultation and development council, a group of stakeholders who truly believe in the development of our forest industry.

Our forests, a natural resource once thought to be inexhaustible, are and remain very vulnerable from many points of view.

Nature itself and human activity did play a role and still do. They are very important change factors. We should use good judgment and foresight. In other words, we should be very careful, because the forest industry is just as vulnerable as the natural resource is.

We find two bioclimatic zones in the Gaspé peninsula. The peninsula is surrounded by fir forests with a mixed stand of yellow birch and softwood trees like the balsam fir, white spruce and white cedar.

The two main harmful elements are spruce budworm infestations and fire. They obviously have an impact on the lumber industry.

The other bioclimatic zone is the middle of the peninsula. It is made of fir forests with white birch stands. Here, we have stands of balsam fir, white spruce and white birch. The ground is usually very rugged.

Therefore it is quite false to suggest that the lumber industry in my area has an advantage compared to the American industry, because of our harsh climate and rough land.

My region is almost totally covered with forests: they take up 96% of the land. People in my area say things like: “I was raised in the woods”. Some 87% of this forest is publicly owned. It is mostly made up of softwood stands, 48%, or mixed stands, 33%. Standing volumes mostly contain the following species: fir, spruce, birch and trembling aspen. Obviously these are all species that are affected by the softwood lumber agreement.

Nearly two-thirds of the stands are considered young, being 50 years old or less, even though more than 17% of the forest is made up of stands over 90 years old.

As for the privately owned forest, it covers a 383,000 hectare area 95% of which is made up of small private properties, meaning properties of about 800 hectares or less, the other 5% being made up of large private properties. This area occupies a very narrow stretch of land on the periphery of the peninsula, the width of which varies between 2 and 20 kilometres.

The main benefits from the forest in the Gaspé area come from the management and harvesting of the forest biomass, which, as we know, is affected by the softwood lumber agreement. The largest part of the region's publicly owned forest is subdivided into management units, and available timber volumes are allocated to processors through harvesting and forest management contracts.

Despite this industrial use of the forest, other users such as hunters, fishers and vacationers can also enjoy the forest and its various resources. All this to show that the logging industry is very important to a riding like Matapédia—Matane.

This industry employs nearly 2,000 people, as I was saying earlier, which accounts for more than 45% of primary sector jobs in the region. This means that any change to the softwood lumber agreement will have disastrous consequences on a region such as mine. The four logging co-operatives in the Gaspé Peninsula are concentrated in the Baie-des-Chaleurs area. They employ nearly 500 people.

As for the five logging groups, they are spread out throughout the peninsula and employ more than 600 people. Add to that some 15 logging contractors, two nurseries, four consultants and seven forestry advisors.

Management activities on publicly owned woodlots are financed through timber royalties, contrary to claims made by the Americans, and paid by individual operators based on their allotted volumes. These royalties are also used to fund activities related to the forest resource development program.

For example, in 1996-97 close to $22 million were paid in timber royalties, stumpage fees, et cetera. in our region alone. Of this amount, $8 million were used to fund regular forest management activities.

Over 80 wood processing companies employ nearly 2,000 people, which represents 26% of jobs in the manufacturing sector.

There are two cardboard and paper mills, one of which, Gaspésia in Chandler, is currently shut down. There is a recovery plan in the works and, if I may say so, federal aid is still not forthcoming. In the Gaspé there are also 19 sawmills covered by timber supply and forest management agreements and more than 60 sawmills in operation.

According to the forest sectoral commission of the regional consultation and development council, which is made up of various stakeholders from the forestry sector, there are three main issues at stake: to preserve and create direct and indirect forest sector jobs, which is almost impossible without a free trade agreement; to improve the skills needed in the Gaspé forest sector to ensure full and comprehensive economic and social development; and to promote integrated management of all our forest resources in order to protect our resources.

The regional consultation and development council has also prepared a brief on the situation in the lower St. Lawrence area, which I would like to briefly review for the House since my time is running out.

Populated areas and the physical environment join together in great surroundings where nature is everywhere and influences every aspect of daily life. Nature dominates in several different ways. One quarter of our municipalities are along the St. Lawrence estuary. Various crops are cultivated on cutover marine terraces and the gentle slopes of the valleys. On the north-east side, mixed forests can still be found on the Appalachian plateau.

The region's development relies therefore on the development and sustainability of our natural resources. Public expectations are very high. It urges us to strive for excellence, as we have done in the past and will continue to do so, for instance, with our high performance sawmills. This is probably what irks the Americans the most. Despite our climate and our situation, we are still able to perform and compete with them on their own turf.

However, the need to take into account national and international concerns about sustainable development further reinforces this idea. The challenge to excel that we must pursue forces us in a way to raise the bar of our ambitions and to aspire to become a reference in the area of natural resources protection and use. And that we have already achieved to a great extent.

The forest environment includes the land, the resources it contains, the multiple uses that are made of it and the relationship between the human beings and the natural environment in which they live. From now on, the values and aspirations of the people of the lower St. Lawrence, combined with the national and international concerns, must govern the protection and use of the local forest environment.

Sustainable development and biodiversity are at the heart of the forest resources protection goal.

Our area has to become a model. It already is one. We now have to promote the great potential of those sites while aiming at optimum production. As I was saying at the very beginning of my remarks, 2,000 jobs are affected in the Matapédia—Matane riding. I wonder what the Americans will do when the time comes to negotiate a lumber agreement after the free trade area of the Americas has become a reality.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, first of all, with all due respect, I will address my comments to you, because the rules require so, and I will also address them to workers in the lumber industry, to the thousands of workers who, as we speak, have lost their jobs, temporarily, we hope.

In Quebec in the last six months 20 businesses all related to the lumber industry have shut their doors temporarily, we hope.

There may be talking and pussyfooting in the House, but in the field, there is a lumber crisis. This crisis is obviously the result of the 1996 agreement, but it is also fuelled by the economic recession that is forthcoming in the United States. Consequently lumber prices have dropped by 17% in the last six months while stumpage fees imposed on businesses have not been reduced accordingly.

Since 1992 stumpage fees in Quebec have gone up 117%. Since 1996 these same fees have increased by 53%. In 1992 the U.S. department of commerce, a venerable institution, said that if stumpage fees were calculated as subsidies the benefit gained by Quebec producers would be only 0.01% compared to American producers.

Therefore I will let the workers in the lumber industry be the judge of Canada's efforts.

Today in the House the minister and a bevy of members on the government side said they agree to support the motion put forward by the Bloc Quebecois, which has been fighting for months for a good outcome for the softwood lumber agreement, due to expire on March 31, 2001, for the implementation of free trade as of April 1, 2001.

We have been telling the government for many months that the agreement will expire on March 31, 2001, and that the transition for that industry is provided for since 1996. The softwood lumber agreement was a transitional agreement that was supposed to expire on March 31, 2001 and free trade was supposed to apply as of April 1. Sadly, that is not what is going to happen.

Here we are just a few days away from the expiry of the agreement and although free trade is supposed to come into effect as of April 1, the minister responsible and the Prime Minister still cannot assure us that, in spite of the implementation of free trade, there will not be any retaliation by the U.S. government.

This is the main cause of concern for workers who are currently jobless. This is cause for concern because, in my opinion, it will demonstrate that Canada is no longer effective.

If the Canadian government cannot get our American neighbours to agree on an issue that has been ongoing for 20 years, we will no longer have any reason to stay within this country because its only strength is its negotiating power. We will see what happens on March 31. We will have proof that the Canadian government has failed on the issue of softwood lumber.

As one of my colleagues said, Canada is in the process of showing its ineffectiveness in an economic field of utmost importance for Canada from coast to coast to coast. The agreement expires on March 31, 2001, but over the last 20 years, and more specifically over the last five years, the Canadian government has been unable to find a satisfactory solution for the softwood lumber industry.

I will say it again, 20 plants have closed and thousands of workers still do not know if these plants will reopen one day. We cannot be absolutely sure that reprisals will not keep these workers from getting their jobs back. The economic climate is clouding over in the United States and free trade is the true solution. We have given proof of that here in this House.

My eminent colleagues have established today that the Canadian softwood lumber industry can compete with any other around the world, in all categories. If Canada cannot protect its own position in a field where it is one of the best in the world, it is showing its weakness. We will let them go ahead, but I am convinced that they will, once again, prove that Canada cannot protect the interests of Quebecers.

I have heard several comments in this House these past few weeks. The Prime Minister spoke to President Bush to discuss the lumber issue and was told to talk about energy.

As an hon. member said earlier, I hope they will not put all of Canada's natural resources on the table to negotiate the lumber agreement. The lumber issue has been discussed for 20 years now and it must be settled by March 31 in the evening. It must be solved.

If Canada cannot do it, I hope they will not tell us that they intend to use other natural resources, for example our energy or water, as leverage in the lumber negotiations.

It would be a catastrophic error. Given the lumber agreement signed by Canada in 1996, it would be a disaster for the energy industry and the hydro industry that Quebecers are doing their very best to protect. The government must not be allowed to use natural resources as leverage to negotiate the lumber agreement. We have had a problem for 20 years now and it is time for Canada to prove that it is strong and powerful enough to protect the interests of Quebecers and of all Canadians.

After listening to the Prime Minister and the Minister for International Trade these last few weeks, I am convinced that Canada will not be able to reach an agreement by March 31. Once again, it will show that it is not the power it says it is and that it does not have the respect of the Americans.

Obviously, the workers of Quebec will once again pay the price. I am talking about the thousands of workers in Quebec who, as we speak, no longer have jobs in the softwood lumber industry. Even though, since 1992, the industry has increased countervailing duties by 117% as the Americans requested, even though 53% of countervailing duties have been increased since 1992, and even though there has been a drop of 17% in the selling price of softwood lumber, countervailing duties have barely dropped by 3%. Obviously, this industry will once again be abandoned by the Canadian government.

That is why I am proud to support the motion by the member for Joliette. I hope that members of all political parties in the House will be unanimous when it comes time to vote on such an important position for an industry that is one of the most important in Canada today.

Obviously, Canada is facing a considerable challenge. Pardon me, but I am not confident that our minister and our Prime Minister have the political strength to be able to defend the interests of Quebecers. I am certain that, the day after March 31, we will see the U.S. government once again imposing duties, tariff barriers, and quotas on our industry.

We will have to put up with what we are putting up with now, which is to say drastic job cuts and factory closures in an industry which is one of the most prosperous and in which we are the most highly competitive in the world. And all because our government does not have the political strength to be able to negotiate with its neighbours.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time.

I had the opportunity over the Christmas break to go to Australia with my family. I have the good fortune to be married to an Australian. She has been away from her country for 18 years so we thought the Christmas break would be a great time to visit her homeland.

While there we were at a place called Heron Island which is on the Great Barrier Reef. Madam Speaker, if you ever have an opportunity to visit an absolutely idyllic setting I recommend it to you.

It was quite idyllic unless of course one had the misfortune to be seated next to a lumberman from Montana. I had a rather unpleasant lunch with an American lumberman and his wife. I will distinguish between the two by saying that his wife was really quite pleasant but he was not.

Needless to say, I got quite an earful about rapacious Canadians and how we engage in unfair trading practices and have subsidies and stumpage fees, et cetera. I do not claim any great expertise in this area, but I thought I gave about as good as I got. I expressed to him my views as a parliamentarian that we were as fed up as fed up could be with the gross hypocrisy of American interests in that area.

It seems to me that free trade for the Americans is only free trade if it works for the Americans. If it stops working for the Americans it then ceases to be free trade.

I pointed out to that individual that in pretty well every free trade dispute with our colleagues to the south over NAFTA-like issues, most disputes had been resolved in Canada's favour and that we were heartily sick of being dragged into the courts and proven right.

Needless to say, my views did not endear myself to this Montana lumberman and he and I parted ways. He then saw his way clear to leave the island the following day, by private helicopter may I say.

My little vignette is in some measure a reflection of what goes on in Canada's relationship with the Americans on a daily basis. We trade about $1 billion a day. Clearly the U.S. is our most significant trading partner and clearly we are its most significant trading partner.

Canada is a trading nation, has been a trading nation and, for the foreseeable future, will always be a trading nation. Something in the order of 40% to 45% of our gross domestic product is dependent upon trade. The comparable figure, which is quite an interesting figure, is that it is about half for the Americans. About 20% of their gross domestic product is dependent on trade.

In the last election four out of the five parties essentially ran on free trade platforms. The one party that did not run on a free trade platform got around 10% of the vote and barely hung onto official party status.

Free trade enjoys pretty broad support among Canadians, something in the order of 65% to 70%, but, as I said, we are heartily sick of being dragged into court. Fortunately, we seem to be winning most of the disputes.

Americans trade and we, on the other hand, trade freely. We are not a colonial power. We cannot and do not use threats of military intervention to get our way. We need agreements and therefore we need rules. Rules based trade is better than gunboat trade. The resolution therefore is timely because it gives Canadians another opportunity to reaffirm their commitment to free trade.

Is it difficult? Of course it is difficult. Does it take up a lot of time? Yes. Do we have an endless number of lawyers? Yes we do, but let us look at the alternative. Are we to become an isolationist nation? I do not think so. Are we to somehow or other become a colonial power? I do not think so. For the foreseeable future what we are doing is the way we will go.

The softwood lumber agreement expires this month. Canada's position is pretty darn clear on this one: Trade in softwood lumber should be governed by the WTO rules or the NAFTA agreement, period, end of sentence.

The motion reads:

That this House support the government's will in its efforts to restore free trade agreement rules for lumber and inform the United States that it rejects any obstacle to that free trade process.

It is a pretty difficult proposition on which to argue.

The negotiations will be difficult as the U.S. congress and president are clearly captives of the lumber lobby. It is a powerful and well-financed lobby. To give members some perspective on the role of lobbyists in the U.S. system I will treat them to another vignette.

I had occasion to be in Chile representing Canada at a conference on tobacco reduction strategies. I along with the American senators were the only English speakers at the conference. As we are wont to do, politicians being politicians, we chatted. I asked the U.S. state senators why they did not run for congress. I asked them why they did not move up and run federally. Their response was, money. I asked what the problem was with money.

The problem is that to be a congressman in the United States one needs $1 million every two years. That means that a person would need to have $10,000 a week. It would mean that every Monday morning a congressman would need to find 10,000 bucks somewhere, and if he or she is from Montana, Idaho or one of the large lumber states, his or her $10,000 would most likely come from one of the lumber lobbies.

I began to understand, in my own little naive Canadian way, the intersection of money and politics in the U.S. On another occasion I could possibly reflect on how it is distorting democracy in our neighbour to the south. It certainly gave me a new perspective on how lobbies interact with congress in the U.S.

Canada is in tough here. The entire political machinery of the U.S. congress and the executive branches are lined up against Canada on this issue because they are captives of the lumber lobby.

The position taken by my separatist colleagues opposite would be laughable if it were not so pathetic. Quebec wants to go it alone with the Americans. Good luck to it. I am sure George Bush lies awake at night wondering what that wily Landry will think of next. If Canada has to muscle up, so to speak, just to get the Americans to deal in the area of WTO and NAFTA-like rules, what will poor little pathetic Quebec do to get its fair share?

Quebec wants it both ways, as if that were news. It wants to negotiate for itself but have an economic partnership with the rest of Canada. Of course if the economic partnership does not work in any particular sector then it will gas the economic partnership and go on its own.

I was in my riding, as you probably were, Madam Speaker, during our break week. Frankly, I got a pretty good earful from my constituents about transfers to Quebec. They were a little irritated with the gross up in equalization. That was immediately following the gratuitous insult concerning the chiffon rouge but before being told we have no real culture.

It is about time Mr. Landry looked at where his bread is buttered and realized that Quebec, in spite of its government, has prospered in Canada. It has done very well, thank you very much, under the softwood lumber agreement. It has increased its share from 20% to 25%.

It would be a novel idea if Mr. Landry paid a tad more attention to the model and business realities of a large provincial economy rather than hurling gratuitous insults at the rest of the country.

The real reason the lumber lobby is spending its money on lawyers and politicians is that the industry has not modernized. The American industry is in the dark ages. It has not modernized like Canadian mills and therefore it cannot compete with Canadian mills.

In summary, this is all about power. This is all about lumber power. This is about Canadians hanging together. If we do not hang together we will certainly hang separately.

[Dick Harris, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed the member's comments. I will refer first to what the minister said when he was in the House. In answer to a question I had asked, he said that his department had been working on the looming deadline for softwood lumber for quite some time.

I was correct in my comments when I said that may be true, but the fact is that the government has not been revealing that to the Canadian public or to workers in the forest industry, which has caused a lot of consternation and apprehension. It is only within the last several weeks, subsequent to the United States starting its sabre rattling, that the minister said that the government has been working on this and that it has started to take a tough stand on behalf of Canada.

I wonder what progress has been made, for example, in dealing with the other large lobby groups in the United States, such as the American coalition for affordable housing and the lobby group that represents lumber retailers and builders in the United States. What has Canada done to try to draw on their strength as lobbyists to help us with the U.S. government and the senate? Where do we stand?

We cannot get into negotiations per se on softwood lumber because once we get into negotiations it commits us to negotiating another agreement. That is an important point. We could have high level discussions, but we would like to know, as would thousands of Canadian forestry workers, where we are in these talks. They see a looming deadline three weeks from now. They hear sabre rattling from both sides. Where are we in these talks?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member opposite is an experienced politician. He knows that negotiations carry on all the time at a variety of levels over a period of time. Everyone knows that there is a March 31 deadline. The pressure to arrive at an agreement is certainly there.

I would certainly expect, although I cannot say because I am not involved in the negotiations directly, that Canadian lobbyists as such would be approaching the affordable home builders association and the consumers of these products and saying that their industry causes a great deal of expense to American consumers because it is an inefficient industry. We could supply the product they want which is as good as, if not better than, what they get at cheaper prices.

That is what free trade is all about. I would expect that our government would try to make them hang separately instead of hanging together.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a question for the government member who just spoke. Free trade works fine when there is lots of demand, but right now we do not have the same demand.

All kinds of products can be shipped out of Canadian mills but there is a lessened demand on the American side. At the same time there is a downturn in the American industry. Its sawmills are shut down. Our government has said all along that it intends to let this go under free trade and that it does not have to negotiate anything.

We are guaranteed on Monday, April 2, that the Americans will either have countervail duties or anti-dumping charges, or our government will have some type of export tax in place.

Where is the plan? What is the government doing about it? When does it plan to have it in place? It is as simple as that.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would use the phrase of a certain hon. member, namely, I reject the premise of the question.

If on April 2 there are countervail duties or anti-dumping charges then on April 3 we will have a lawsuit. If that is the way it is, that is the way it is. I cannot simply extract a negotiated agreement because I wish to extract a negotiated agreement.

As I said in the thrust of my speech, for Canadians free trade means free trade. It does not mean anything else other than free trade.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this topic. As a former director of international trade in Yukon it is a topic dear to my heart.

In particular, I am very happy when more free trade leads to the reduction of expensive tariffs for all Canadian consumers, but particularly for the poor. When we would otherwise add 10%, 20% or 30% to the price of goods for no good reason, it does not help the poor or any consumers. I am pleased to talk about and support free trade in general.

That is not the purpose of my speech. I will not debate any of the details. Our opposition critics, the good negotiators in the government, the minister and the parliamentary secretary can get into that.

I would like during my intervention to commend all members of the House on their co-operation on the issue. I also commend the Bloc for what is a courageous and very productive use of an opposition day under these circumstances.

As a new member I wanted to do this before I became public enemy number one in the House. Obviously I will get into many tough debates with my comrades opposite because I strongly disagree with the visions of the parties opposite. If I did not believe strongly in the Liberal vision, it would have been fraudulent of me to run under the Liberal banner.

Although I disagree with the visions and some of the positions of the other parties, I never once doubted the intentions of all member of the House to work and help Canadians. They all believe in what they are putting forward and they are all working very hard to help their constituents and all of Canada.

Today's motion exemplifies that. Efforts like this one where the whole House is working together is one way of showing Canadians the hard work that all members do for their constituents and the courageous decisions they make in their interest. It does not neglect the fact that we will do heavy battle to advance our visions because that is what we believe in. It also shows that when there is a common enemy or common problem we can all work together. We need that when we are threatened by such an external force.

In commending the official opposition today, members will probably notice that I have not done this too much since I have been here. I should like to tell a couple of other stories related to commending members of parliament.

Last night I was at a dinner. A private sector person of a major Canadian company spoke. He said that earlier this week all parliamentarians in the House of Commons voted on a common front to approve a motion on an issue that was very important for Canada. The message that got across was that we were all co-operating on an issue that was very important to Canadians. Parliament and everyone here obtained a lot of respect for doing that. Today's motion is not dissimilar.

On a more minor point, I was also proud as a new member when Tony Blair, the leader from Great Britain was here. We all stood in appreciation and with decorum to recognize a leader of a country that was a partner with us. In particular, I commend Bloc members because due to some of their positions in history it may have been very difficult for some them. They showed the greatest degree of decorum along with other members of the House. I was touched by the degree of decorum that day.

Being from Yukon I have an interest in today's debate. As the rest of Canada, we want to avoid countervail duties such as the one of 6.51% which the department of commerce tried to levy against Yukon exports in 1992. That would have been very difficult for us. Members can imagine with winters at minus 40 degrees the transportation costs and the increased wages. Yukon is totally uncompetitive as it is. Obviously we are no threat to anyone because our production costs are so high. We do not need any more disadvantages.

Our wood, because it is so dry and so cold, takes a long time to grow. It is a very high quality wood. It has the same name, white spruce or lodgepole pine, but it is a different type of wood. It is very strong and it is fine for exporting for furniture exports but it is no threat to anyone. We do not want to be caught as innocent bystanders in this dispute.

Getting back to my main point about commending the House for co-operation, it is essential that we stand together when we have 51 senators of both parties in the United States standing against us. Those are 51 senators of the most powerful nation in the world.

I should like to address Americans, especially American anti-poverty groups and consumer groups that I am sure are watching CPAC. I cannot imagine they would not be. Consumers, anti-poverty fighters or consumer groups in the United States should take a message back to their senators who have been raising tariffs and increasing house prices over the years.

Can poor people in the United States afford the increased cost of houses which would result from increased tariffs? Do their consumer groups really want Americans to continually pay more money for housing because of a few senators who are trying to increase tariffs? Do all poor people in the United States really have houses? Can they afford their being artificially expensive because of the tariffs a few senators are trying to impose? They should tell these senators that they want free trade in lumber so that they have the lowest priced housing for the people who really need them.

What would happen to American companies if they did this? The lumber companies where some of their family members work would become more competitive and would sell more with fewer tariffs. When they become more competitive they will sell more of their products and be able to better compete in world markets. This would ultimately lead to those companies becoming more efficient, providing more sales of American goods and more employment for Americans. That would help their families as well.

It is a win-win situation. They have to take these senators or anyone who tries to lobby for increased tariffs to task. Continuing softwood lumber tariffs do not make sense from their perspective.

In closing, I respect and appreciate all members of the House for co-operating for the common good of Canadians. Any victory is not a victory of one partisan party but is a victory of our entire parliament. Any loss is a loss for all Canadians.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Dewdney—Alouette, Ethics Counsellor.

[Dick Harris, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, as a member from British Columbia I appreciate the time to ask some questions and make some comments.

It is important to reiterate to the member and the government the reason this is such an exceedingly important issue to Canada and in particular to my province of British Columbia. It is probably not known by the member that on a balance of trade net benefit basis the forest industry outperforms every other sector of export in Canada. It has a net benefit of some $39 million to Canada on the balance of trade. That is important. It employs about 130,000 people in Canada and as a high as 50,000 or 60,000 in the province of B.C. in work related to the forest industry.

The province of British Columbia has seen the complete devastation of the forest industry caused by to a very large degree the softwood lumber agreement we have had to work through over the last five years. It sounded pretty good in the beginning. We were to find a way to deal with the constant threats of countervail.

In fact, what has happened is that we have had a market distortion which has been disastrous to our economy in British Columbia. We have had the creation of mills that have quota and mills that have not. It is not a level playing field. Because of their obligation to the ministry of forests and to their timber licences to cut the wood and process it, they have had to in effect literally dump the wood in the domestic market at prices far below their costs to produce it.

It is having a disastrous effect and the government has to realize that. In the city of Prince George, which is almost wholly dependent upon the forest industry, the unemployment rate is somewhere around 17%. In my riding it is somewhere around 15% overall because of the softwood lumber agreement.

Our mills have simply used their quotas. They are into their expensive penalty wood. They have had to lay off people because they cannot afford to carry on business that way, so when I ask the government where the public display of good stewardship of our lumber industry has been, I am very serious.

There has not been a public display. The government has admitted that it has been working on it for the last year, but there has not been an expression to the people in the forest industry in British Columbia that the the government is working on this and understands the crisis and the severity of the situation. The government has left the forest industry and workers in British Columbia wondering whether on March 31 the world is going to come to an end for them. It is going to get considerably worse. They do not know that the government has been working on it, if indeed it has, but we will take the government at its word.

I would like to ask the member for Yukon if he understands that on March 31 the lifeblood of the forest industry in British Columbia will be at the highest crisis point it has been at in decades. If so, has he and will he, along with other members of the Liberal government, continue to impress upon the Minister for International Trade that we must not allow the Americans, by way of this large lobby group, to push us around on this like they have traditionally done?

Canada cannot buckle under on this one. The member from Thunder Bay said earlier that we cannot now move to another natural resource and start to rattle sabres at the U.S. That is exactly what the U.S. has done to us. It has singled out the lumber industry and wants to go to war on it. Why should it be fair for them when it is not fair for us? That is my question. How can we allow the Americans to zero in on lumber and say we are unfair when we are not prepared to say that if that is the way they want to play we are going to zero in on something that they really need? What does the member have to say about that?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Yes, Madam Speaker.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis-Et-Chutes-De-La-Chaudière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise now at the end of the day to speak to the Bloc Quebecois motion on softwood lumber.

I was here this morning when the hon. member for Joliette introduced his motion. Afterwards I listened to what the first speakers for the various parties had to say, and all parties except for the New Democratic Party indicated that they would be voting in favour of the motion.

Therefore this must be a very positive motion. Some parties, especially the one opposite, often say that the Bloc never has anything positive to offer. This time members have to agree that this is a good motion. Even the government has come to this realization since it has indicated it will be supporting the motion. What is surprising is that an opposition party had to bring forward such a motion. Time is of the essence.

The softwood lumber agreement with the United States will expire at the end of the month, on March 31, just two short weeks from now. It was urgent that we addressed this very important issue because it will affect a large number of jobs in Quebec and throughout Canada. Even the member for Yukon, who just stepped out, seemed interested in this issue. I know I am not supposed to make such a comment, but the Speaker has already been very kind to me, as she always is.

I think it is important to remind the House of the terms of the motion:

That this House support the government's will in its efforts to restore free trade agreement rules for lumber and inform the United States that it rejects any obstacle to that free trade process.

Excellent. Everybody seems to agree, except the NDP, which is consistent to a point with its own past position on free trade. It has always opposed free trade.

This allows me to digress for a moment and remind the House that before 1993 and even during the election campaign, the Liberals and the Prime Minister spoke very negatively about free trade. Back in 1988 the elections were fought on free trade and the Liberals were dead against it.

This may explain in part their lack of a firm position until yesterday. When questioned the Prime Minister stood and said he was very much in favour of free trade in this industry and other industries. He may be a late convert, but that is what he said.

This raises a number of questions. How sure can we be that government members, who were against free trade in the past, will be very good negotiators of a free trade agreement on softwood lumber?

The Bloc Quebecois supports free trade. I should remind the House that in 1988 the Parti Quebecois, Quebec sovereignists and even Premier Bourassa supported free trade. There was a consensus on this in Quebec and it did have an impact on the course of events. We signed an agreement first with the United States and then with Mexico.

We are looking at extending free trade to the three Americas. It is fine and negotiations will start, but despite the fact that I have always supported free trade in principle I want to point out an area where I am not satisfied, as are many workers I might add, and that is shipbuilding.

In these negotiations we cannot blame the current government, because it was the Conservative government that was in office, but the fact remains that maritime transport and shipbuilding were excluded from free trade. This is very damaging now for the industry, which has only 2,500 employees. At the time, more than 10,000 employees and, depending on the time of the year, up to 15,000 employees were earning a living in this industry.

Why was this not included? What we have learned from people involved directly or indirectly, anonymously in some cases, is that the famous automobile pact that favoured Ontario has been used as a bargaining chip to exclude maritime transport and shipbuilding.

We see that with respect to lumber, while following the free trade spirit, the United States had asked in its negotiations to conclude with Canada an agreement that is expiring soon, with the whole issue of countervail duties that was not beneficial to the sawmill industry in Quebec; quite the contrary.

In Quebec, the product is different from the one in British Columbia. Our trees are not as tall as British Columbia pines. It seems that the product from that province is equivalent to that from western U.S. states, and that is why Americans are more reluctant.

Twenty-five per cent of all lumber comes from Quebec and over 50% is exported to the United States. I come from the Chaudière—Appalaches region, and this is an extremely urgent and important issue for that region. We have not heard from the member for Beauce, but it is an important issue for his region also. He did not think it was important enough to speak.

[An hon. member]

He did speak.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis-Et-Chutes-De-La-Chaudière, QC]

If he spoke, I apologize. I followed the debate all day, except for a couple of hours during which I was absent, so I assume he spoke during that period. He will not have to make a statement tomorrow to ask me to make amends.

This issue is extremely important for all areas alongside the eastern border, including Kamouraska, Témiscouata, Bellechasse, Matapédia, all of eastern Quebec. The member for Charlevoix underlined the importance of this industry for all of eastern Quebec, on both shores of the St. Lawrence River. It is very important since it is the main source of employment in over 250 municipalities in Quebec. It is the industry that provides the largest number of jobs, even more than agriculture.

The Bloc Quebecois has always been there and will always be there to defend Quebec's interests until we achieve sovereignty. In doing that, we see that from time to time the government realizes that the Bloc Quebecois puts forward positive ideas that are not only in the interests of Quebecers but also in the interest of other Canadians.

We respect the fact that until Quebec achieves sovereignty any discussion on exports has to be viewed in a federal framework. I fully understood the comments made by the member for Yukon, but I do not see why he was so surprised that the members from the Bloc Quebecois had properly welcomed the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair. We have always behaved properly in these kinds of circumstances. For us, Britain is an important economic partner. We also have to go back to history. Even in Quebec, in the national assembly, procedure is based on British procedure and we have always respected those rules.

I am delighted by the comments by the member for Yukon, but a little less by others aimed at recalling some negative situations due to statements by the current premier of Quebec. People seem to have taken offence. I would, however, like to remind everyone of a sad anniversary, the anniversary of passage of Bill C-20.

I thank all the members who will be supporting the Bloc Quebecois motion and all those who spoken to this motion. It would have been even better if we had obtained the support of members of the New Democratic Party, but we understand their concern for consistency, considering the position they adopted earlier on free trade.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

It being 5.15 p.m., pursuant to the order made earlier today, every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply is deemed to have been put, and the recorded division is deemed to have been demanded and deferred until Tuesday, March 20, 2001, at the end of government orders.

The Chair is seeking unanimous consent to see the clock at 5.30. Is there consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

It being 5.30 the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Parliamentarians' Code Of Conduct

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should introduce legislation establishing a code of conduct for Members of Parliament and Senators, based on the March 1997 final report of the Special Joint Committee on a Code of Conduct of the Senate and the House of Commons.

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise to put forward a motion that I believe is very important and relevant, not only in its timing but in its long-term implications for the Parliament of Canada.

This is a motion that would bring forward a code of conduct for members of parliament and senators. I would suggest with the greatest respect and deference to the report that was tabled by the current Speaker, the distinguished member for Kingston and the Islands, as well as the senator from Nova Scotia, Senator Oliver, the reference in this motion speaks of the Milliken-Oliver report which very much forms the basis of my motion.

The issue on which all parties during the committee process were united was that we should try to strive for and aspire to a higher standard of conduct for members of parliament. It seems to have fallen by the wayside and has been put to one side. This is not an effort to reinvent the wheel. This is something that currently does not exist. This is a void in the way in which this place operates.

My submission is that this would very much enhance and protect the integrity of members of parliament. It would be a direct benefit to not only members of parliament, but to all Canadians by signalling our own desire to keep higher standards for all members. The failure to address the issue leaves us with lower standards than other jurisdictions. This includes other Canadian jurisdictions and international ones.

That is why one is left to wonder why we would not act or take the opportunity to put in place guidelines which would govern the behaviour of members of the Chamber. This is the sort of debate I would put to the House that if it was put to a vote it would allow all members of the House to express their support for such an exercise.

I say quite earnestly that this is not a motion that would tie us to any particular standard at this point. It is an exercise to engage all members in the drafting of such a code of conduct.

From that point, I again refer to the Milliken-Oliver report that would be the premise and a good starting point. There was significant research. There was a great deal of effort. With the greatest respect to the two drafters of that report, their efforts would be the jumping point to put forward a code of conduct for members of parliament.

Unfortunately, we will not have the ability to vote on this particular item. I suggest this sends a very wrong message. When the motion was presented to the committee, there was the usual practice in the process of trying to make this votable, and it was unfortunately turned down by the Liberal dominated committee. Why? As in the case with many issues, it would be politically damaging to the government. Surely it would rather just ignore the problems that exist. This, I suggest, deflects the cynicism. It further undermines public confidence in this place. It is an attitude, sadly, that we have become quite familiar with.

There is a recent example in the parliament of Great Britain where some senior members of parliament did not want the contract renewed for Miss Elizabeth Filkin, who is the British parliament's so-called sleaze watchdog. Her contract is to run out next year. Some feel that the movement by some senior members of parliament in Westminster to not have her contract renewed was very much tied to the fact that because she was doing such a good job in her capacity it was very threatening to some members of parliament.

It demonstrates that when an individual is there with proper powers and the respect of all members of parliament, there is an incredible ability to watch over all members of the House. There is the Damocles sword that hangs over the members. The attempt by some members in that legislature to ensure that this particular individual was not renewed demonstrates that in some instances members of parliament would prefer not to have that deterrent.

One can only wonder if that is in fact the case presently before us, the effort by the government not to have this code of conduct that would apply to all members. Never before have Canadians seen such a blatant disregard for parliamentary rules, than we have during the past seven and a half years of Liberal administration.

The most recent example was yesterday when the Minister of Justice's department provided a briefing and copies of a large omnibus piece of legislation to members of the media before members of parliament were given the opportunity to review that legislation. Sadly, we have seen and have become accustomed to the practice of legislation being announced in the parliamentary press gallery prior to members of parliament, who have been elected by the Canadian public, having the opportunity to review and comment fully on that legislation.

The practice to test initiatives in the media, I would suggest, is a long-standing practice. However, it has fallen further and further afield, and very much undermines the way in which the Chamber holds the respect of not only members but Canadians at large.

On February 8, 2001, and I know the Chair will recall this infamous date in this short parliament, there was a Reform opposition day in which the House was asked to adopt the policy that came directly from the Liberal red book and called for the implementation of it by the government. It policy states:

—a Liberal government will appoint an independent 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.

In that instance, there was a motion debated here which essentially called upon the government to keep its word to fulfill a promise it had made. We have seen time and time again that the government has never shirked or shied away from saying one thing in a pre-election platform and after very quickly abandoning its promise to the Canadian public.

Speaking of credible members and leaving positions, we have the member opposite saying one thing while in opposition and another while in government. I am hearing an echoing over there.

During the supply day debate, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader stated:

Let me put it another issue to the hon. member. All of us in the House are busily holding forth on the issue of compliance with a code of conduct which would exist for ministers, for officeholders and for parliamentary secretaries. There is no code of conduct. For all of those here who are holding forth, there is no code of conduct for members of parliament. They are very willing to hoist upon the other officeholders a code of conduct, but not one element of a code of conduct applies to members in the House. That is business that we have to do.

Before we wax eloquent on what is missing in all of the other codes of conduct, I suggest we get our own House in order. I ask the hon. member to comment on that.

This was the parliamentary secretary's fine words on that sad day in parliament when he was chastising members of the opposition because they were calling on the government to do something that the opposition members themselves would not have to comply with.

I suspect the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader would do a perfect Olympic style, pike position backflip if he were given an opportunity to speak on this today. He would reverse himself and explain away and slink away from the statement if given the opportunity to speak. That, sadly, has become a common practice here. Liberal members, confronted with words that they said earlier in campaign mode, like saying that they would repeal free trade and get rid of the GST, are common words now that ring around the country when we examine the ethics of campaigning.

The red book promise has been shredded in terms of its credibility, but there is an opportunity to salvage some of that by supporting a motion that would hold members of parliament to a higher ethical standard than currently exists. For years parliamentarians have been trying in vain to address this issue.

On March 15, 1999, Bill C-488, a private member's bill to establish a parliamentarians' code of conduct was introduced. Like many pieces of useful legislation, it died on the order paper. It was reintroduced as a bill in the next session but again it died on the order paper when the pre-emptive election was called. Even the auditor general, an impartial servant of the House outside the Chamber, has expressed concern over the ethics of the government.

The auditor general, in Canada's most recent 2000 report, had one chapter entitled “Values and Ethics in the Federal Public Sector”. In that chapter the auditor general summarized the history of unsuccessful attempts to develop a code of conduct for parliamentarians. He recommended that parliamentarians try again, arguing that it was very important to show ethical leadership for the public sector as a whole.

In 1994 the Prime Minister appointed the ethics counsellor insisting that in end that the buck would stop with him. I will quote the Prime Minister from a speech he made on June 16, 1994, in which he stated:

There can be no substitute for responsibility at the top. The Prime Minister sets the moral tone for the government and must make the ultimate decisions when issues of trust or integrity are raised. That is what leadership is all about.

They are pretty powerful words but my how times have changed. The Prime Minister does not feel that he did anything wrong when he invited the president of the Business Development Bank to 24 Sussex to twist his arm to get a loan for a gentleman in his constituency. He does not feel there was anything wrong with lobbying the Business Development Bank by phone and in his living room to approve a $615,000 loan for his good friend, Yvon Duhaime.

If this is the type of moral tone being set by the Prime Minister by backroom deals, government interference and trying to speed up or ensure the approval of questionable loans that are not based on merit, then it is not setting a good example. We need a higher code of conduct.

We need a completely independent ethics counsellor for a start, someone who would not report directly to the Prime Minister. However there has always been a focus on ethics with this Prime Minister and this government. They have always brought this issue into debate, yet they have never lived up to their words, not even close.

I will quote again from the red book, where it said:

We will follow the basic principle that government decisions must be made on the merits of a case rather than according to the political influence of those making the case.

That was from red book one, fairy book one, 1993.

The BDC rejected the $615,000 loan application. After a couple of phone calls and visit from the Prime Minister, all of a sudden the lack of merit of the case was overlooked.

We understand this is an unprecedented constant guidance and involvement from the Prime Minister's office. There is no question about that. It has been borne out repeatedly by the evidence produced in the House.

At one point the Prime Minister said:

Since our election in October no goal has been more important to this government, or to me personally as Prime Minister, than restoring the trust of Canadians in their institutions.

This is laughable, given the conduct of the Prime Minister over the past number of years. Since trust could be restored through a code of conduct, why would members on the government bench resist such a genuine attempt to try to restore some of the confidence that Canadians once held in members of parliament?

I can also quote the Prime Minister, from red book one, when he said:

The integrity of government is put into question when there is a perception that the public agenda is set by lobbyists exercising undue influence away from public view.

Yet a recent court decision echoes similar concerns over political influence in the awarding of helicopter projects to replace the aging Sea Kings. We all recall the cancellation of the EH-101 project at a cost of $500 million to taxpayers. It was all done with the simple stroke of a pen. The Prime Minister said he would take his pen and write zero, and that is what he did. It cost Canadian taxpayers $500 million.

Yet the Prime Minister continues to maintain that he did nothing wrong in securing a loan for Mr. Duhaime in his constituency. The ethics counsellor was appointed by the Prime Minister and reports only to the Prime Minister, in private. We know of the recent revelations that there were problems in terms of locating just where those pesky shares went when they were sold to Mr. Prince. They somehow went off into the abyss. They were floating around out there and no one seems to be taking any kind of ownership of that.

Yet the most recent opportunity that the government had to clarify that was met with, yes, wait for it, who are they going to put in place to answer some of these pesky questions? Yes, it is going to be the Prime Minister's protector, the Prime Minister wannabe, Mini-Me, the Minister of Industry, who will be the person who will clear the Prime Minister again of any wrongdoing.

Canadians are going to be comforted. They are going to be able to sleep at night knowing that the Minister of Industry is going to clear the Prime Minister of any wrongdoing.

The Minister of Industry will similarly examine and, I am sure, instantaneously explore the circumstances surrounding this. Yes, the man who would be king will no doubt clear the emperor and his new clothes and find that there is nothing wrong.

It all demonstrates the need for a code of conduct in this place. I hope that all members would support the motion.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on Motion No. 200 presented by the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, which requests that the government introduce legislation establishing a code of conduct for members of parliament and senators.

I note that my hon. colleague has drawn on the work accomplished by the special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on a code of conduct, which was established by the government in 1995. Specifically my hon. colleague refers to the committee's final report, which proposed a code to be administered by the House and the Senate that drew on many of the common elements raised during the testimony of its witnesses over the course of a two year indepth study.

For example, the committee mentioned the following: that a list of principles should precede such a code; that a commissioner or a body be appointed to provide advice, take disclosures and enforce the code, as does the ethics counsellor for ministers and parliamentary secretaries now; the need for general rules against parliamentarians improperly using influence and insider information to further their private interests; the importance of dealing with disclosure of assets and interests; the need to address gifts, personal benefits and sponsored travel; the importance of clarifying the area of government contracting; and recognizing the distinction between the legislature and the executive by recommending that a permanent committee be established to administer such a code.

The special joint committee heard from many witnesses, including the federal ethics counsellor, the privacy commissioner, academics in the field, political scientists, respected members of the media and several provincial commissioners of ethics. At the time, both sides of the House and the other place could not agree on this report or on the proposal.

The motion before us here today is very different. It calls for a legislated parliamentary code rather than a code adopted and administered by the House and the other place itself. Indeed, the final report of that special committee, referred to in my hon. friend's motion, recommended against such a legislated parliamentary code. It was felt that such an approach would make any code too rigid to administer and difficult to adapt to evolving circumstances.

Special joint committee members expressed further concern that a legislated code might invite judicial interference in internal parliamentary procedures. Consequently, the committee recommended that a code be implemented by resolutions in each Chamber. That of course is different from a legislated statutory code of ethics.

As I mentioned earlier, the special joint committee's report was not adopted because members of parliament themselves could not agree to adopt the report. I recall as an individual member at the time being generally in support of having a code but asking if such a code would necessarily have to involve spouses of parliamentarians. There were one or two spouses of parliamentarians at the time who essentially told us to go to hell, saying that they would not have their personal lives interfered with because of the fact that their spouses happened to be members of parliament and that their personal business dealings would not be made part of the public record.

That was just one of the obstacles members had to encounter at that time. That was for ordinary members of parliament, not for cabinet ministers, recalling, of course, that cabinet ministers and parliamentary secretaries in this place are already subject to a code of ethics.

The challenge lies in the lack of agreement in the House, including the lack of agreement within parties in the House. For its part, the government has taken specific actions on integrity and ethics, including the appointment of the first ever ethics counsellor in the history of Canada, who provides advice on issues relating to matters of conflict of interest and the ethical conduct of government officials, including ministers and parliamentary secretaries, and who reports to parliament on his duties and investigations under the Lobbyists Registration Act.

There is a new conflict of interest code for public office holders, which sets out principles and clear rules for all public office holders. That includes ministers, secretaries of state, parliamentary secretaries, ministerial staff and full time governor in council appointees. It was tabled in the House in 1994. That code of ethics has been functioning well for seven years, notwithstanding the jaded view of the opposition in the House.

In addition, the Lobbyists Registration Act amendments increase the transparency of lobbying activities. All lobbyists now have to reveal more about their projects and their fees and are prohibited from including contingency fees in their contracts.

The government has delivered on commitments to improve the standards of ethical behaviour in government, but the issue of ethics and a code of conduct for parliamentarians is not one for the government alone. It is an issue for all members of parliament and for senators. A code of conduct is a matter which all parliamentarians have and must have an interest in. It is a matter that should have the support and agreement of all members of the House and the other Chamber.

Until now, members have decided to rely on informal mechanisms rather than adopt a formal code administered by the House and Senate. That is for ordinary members of parliament and does not refer to ministers and parliamentary secretaries. A legislated code would appear to run counter to that view, as well as counter to the advice in 1997 of the joint committee's report.

For these reasons, I urge members to reconsider this and, in fact, not support this motion, which would in the end impose a piece of legislation, a statute codifying a code of ethics. Rather, I urge members to consider the template and mechanism of having a code of ethics adopted and administered by the House and a similar, if not identical, code of ethics adopted and administered by senators, members of parliament in the other place.

[Grant McNally, Canadian Alliance, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague, the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, for bringing forward this important motion. This is a topic that has garnered the attention of many people across the country and obviously of all members of parliament, because as elected people in the country who are representing our constituents we want to provide leadership.

We have seen some examples of difficulties with ethical behaviour or the appearance of conflict in regard to the Prime Minister's dealings in Shawinigan, which is well documented and which I will be touching on.

I spent 10 years as a teacher before I became a member of parliament. I know that there was a very well defined code of conduct that we had as educators who are put in positions of trust working with children, parents, colleagues and different levels of the administration. If that code of conduct was compromised, of course there were some very serious consequences.

It is worth revisiting this notion of having a code of conduct for members of parliament. We would hope that there would be sound judgment used by all members at all times and that such a debate would not be necessary, but it seems as though some examples have brought this forward again and there does need to be a code of conduct.

I want to touch on a particular example that was brought to my attention regarding the actions of one of our current colleagues, that being the member for Waterloo—Wellington, in his riding during the recent federal election. He is a parliamentary secretary. He represents a minister of the crown. He wrote a letter during the campaign which was viewed as very inappropriate by members of his own community. I will not go into all of the specifics, but perhaps I will highlight some of the things the community mentioned.

The member for Waterloo—Wellington wrote a letter which residents of the Morningside Retirement Village in New Hamburg in his riding were very concerned about. In fact, they were shocked that such a provocative letter from the incumbent member would come forward. In fact, I will quote directly from a member of the community. Maryjean Brown, the director of a retirement complex within the community, said “I couldn't believe that kind of letter could be read at that kind of gathering of people”.

Basically what happened was that the member of parliament wrote a letter attacking some of the members of this retirement community for some of their alleged responses to somebody who worked for him.

I will quote from the letter the member wrote. He stated:

The reason I raise this with you is because we discreetly followed half of these men and were astounded to discover they were residents of Morningside.

He went on to say that he understands that most of the residents are “decent, law-abiding, God-fearing and kind individuals” but then said:

Next time this occurs, I will be pressing charges against these weak and hideous men under the Ontario Human Rights Code, and will be happy to make their name or names national headlines across Canada.

This was something one of our colleagues wrote in a letter on his parliamentary secretary letterhead to people in his community during the election campaign, which the people of the community viewed as very inappropriate. Obviously on the face of it, I think all of us would be surprised by such a thing. This was an issue that was brought forward during the campaign. Some of the people in the community commented on this and were quite surprised by this action. I will again quote again Ms. Brown, the director of the retirement village, who said:

If it had to be brought up, it should have been brought up by himself instead of sending somebody else to do his dirty work. Everybody here is very, very upset about it.

He had this letter read at a public meeting rather than attending himself.

This is a very specific example of a member who is one of our colleagues and who used his privileges as a parliamentary secretary in a way which many would deem to be inappropriate. If members have difficulty with lack of judgment in this kind of example, then I think it is a thing we need to discuss as members, because we need to be showing leadership in this area.

I will turn from that unfortunate incident to talk a bit about the Shawinigan affair. I will also rebut a few of the comments made by my colleague, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, when he talked about the ethics counsellor.

My colleague for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough gave a good summary of the ethics counsellor debate that we had not long ago and how the government voted down a promise in its own red book. It was a motion brought forward by the Alliance and supported by all members in the House.

My colleague from the government side mentioned that the ethics counsellor does report to parliament. What he neglected to point out was that he reports to parliament at committee when called as a witness for estimates or some other thing. What my colleague did not say, because it is not the case, is that reports by the ethics counsellor are not tabled in the House of Commons. The ethics counsellor does not report directly to parliament on any investigations or provide any information, such as was brought forward with the Shawinigan case.

The Canadian Alliance had a motion before the House that would have required the ethics counsellor to report to the House and to table reports in the House so that all members could be made aware of the facts. It would have been a far greater thing for members of cabinet to be cleared of any wrongdoing. If all documents and reports were tabled before the House and there was no wrongdoing there would be no wondering about what was in the report. It would be a good thing.

We certainly could not understand why the government defeated our motion, which was, in large part I believe, some of my Conservative colleague's motivation for bringing forward his motion today. We need to have a debate about ethical conduct in the House of Commons.

It is unfortunate that the circumstances surrounding the Prime Minister on a daily basis have not gone away and continue to percolate, even today in question period. Circumstances like that are ones that bring into question the ethical behaviour of members of parliament.

British Columbia has a very strict code of conduct for members of the legislative assembly. I have talked to some members of the provincial government who have told me that their code of conduct legislation states that even if there is an appearance of a conflict of interest an investigation will be done and, from what I understand, such reports are tabled in the provincial legislature. That is far different from the ethics counsellor process we have debated here today.

We should be considering some changes. If we want to restore confidence in this place in the minds and hearts of people, then we need to work together on many issues in the House. We have done that on some occasions in this parliament already. We did so on the motion in regard to the sex offender registry, which we voted on this week. In large part, we had agreement today in the softwood lumber debate. We did not have the same agreement on the ethics counsellor motion, which was unfortunate because it was designed to restore confidence in the minds of those we govern that we are serious about ethical behaviour.

Members of the Alliance Party will continue to work together to find ways to solve important issues in this place. I commend my colleague for bringing forward this important motion.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Madam Speaker, first, I commend the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for bringing forward Motion No. 200.

The motions reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should introduce legislation establishing a code of conduct for Members of Parliament and Senators, based on the March 1997 final report of the Special Joint Committee on a Code of Conduct of the Senate and the House of Commons.

As we can see in the motion, the initiative of our colleague from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough is based on the March 1997 report by the special joint committee on a code of conduct of the Senate and the House of Commons and urges our institution to introduce a much stricter code of conduct than the current one.

We can only commend the hon. member for an initiative that would essentially provide for more openness and integrity in the governance of our nation. So it would be in order, as I said, to thank and commend the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for his motion.

However, I am always surprised when I see my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House, putting a damper on the whole issue of a so-called code of conduct, because I am sure everyone knows that it is not the first time that such an issue is put before the House.

Our former colleague, Gordon Earle, introduced two bills on this issue: Bill C-488, during the first session of the 36th parliament, and Bill C-226, during the second session. Unfortunately both bills were not made votable.

But on December 16, 1999, we had the opportunity to discuss the last version of the bill introduced by Mr. Earle, that is Bill C-226. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House came up with the same arguments as before, with lots of euphemisms, to say how important it is for members of parliament to have a code of conduct, and that parliamentary practice has over time led to the establishment of certain rules, and that it would therefore be utterly pointless to enshrine such a code of conduct in the legislation.

Instead, he asked us, as he did earlier and as he did in 1999, to take a close look at the rules that we have given ourselves over time, to make sure these rules are respected. However he remained totally vague regarding how the rules would be applied, who would be responsible for their implementation and what the sanctions would be, where appropriate.

Of course there are rules. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is right when he says that, over time, a number of rules were put in place through the various acts, rules of the House and established practices, but have these rules prevented some rather dubious things from happening here in recent years? Of course not.

We are currently in the midst of a scandal that has come to be known as Shawinigate, and the Prime Minister himself refuses to lift the shroud of suspicion by tabling documents that would prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not in a conflict of interest.

If, today, we are once again forced to discuss such issues and confronted to this kind of situation, it is obviously because the current rules do not achieve the objective pursued. We must therefore give ourselves more compelling rules. There is no doubt in my mind about that.

Yesterday the hon. member for Halifax tabled another bill, Bill C-299, to establish a code of conduct for members of parliament and senators. We will know later if this bill will be approved by the subcommittee on private members' business, so that it can eventually be put to a vote in the House after having been selected as a votable item through the luck of the draw.

The fact is that the members opposite do not seem very eager to debate this type of issue. Just recently the government defeated a motion brought forward by the Canadian Alliance, the official opposition, in which it was simply asking the government to honour a promise made by the Liberal Party in the 1993 red book, which reads as follows:

A Liberal government will appoint an independent 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.

There is another promise that has fallen by the wayside, because the government voted against the motion. It no longer agrees that the House should appoint an ethics counsellor who would oversee the application of a code of conduct adopted by the House and who would report directly to the House.

The government got itself elected in 1993 by telling Canadians that it would bring in the necessary reforms so as to restore their confidence in public institutions and in the integrity of politicians.

What has this government done since it took office? Absolutely nothing. On the contrary, it had the opportunity to bring in major changes to the Canada Elections Act. What did these important changes turn into? They turned into a large number of changes, certainly, but mostly technical and cosmetic changes. It could have undertaken major reforms to help Canadians and Quebecers find their way though our electoral system, but it has not seen fit to do so.

It could have changed the rules governing the financing of political parties. We can understand that a political party generously funded by corporations, which takes the power and finds itself in front of the pork barrel, may feel an obligation to return favours.

The present rules governing the financing of political parties are an invitation for the government to fail to respect the highest standards of integrity.

I understand the motives of the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for introducing his motion. That being said, I think I must reiterate what I said during the debate on Bill C-226 introduced by our colleague, Mr. Earle, and that is that it may be somewhat premature to consider adopting a code of conduct for members of parliament and senators.

We should start by looking into a code of conduct for people around the cabinet, the members of cabinet themselves, parliamentary secretaries, senior civil servants, people who have access on a daily basis to privileged information, people who spend taxpayers money on all kinds of subsidies and who, if we put together the refusal to reform the Canada Elections Act with respect to the financing of political parties and the refusal to adopt a code of conduct for ministers and members of cabinet, could put themselves in rather embarrassing positions.

Since my time is almost up, I will conclude by saying that we would have hoped that, contrary to what the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader suggested in his remarks, the government would be more open to such a reform. Since it has shown very little openness so far to electoral reform, parliamentary reform, the introduction of a code of conduct and the appointment by parliament of an ethics counsellor who would be accountable to parliament, we should not be surprised by the remarks made this afternoon by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.