Madam Speaker, I want to thank all hon. members on this side of the House who spoke so favourably and eloquently with respect to the motion.
I also want to acknowledge Gordon Earle and his attempts to bring forward a similar motion.
I take some umbrage with the unprovoked attack on the leader of the Conservative Party. I do not think there is anybody in the Chamber who has set a higher ethical standard. He is a man of pristine ethical performance in this Chamber with unchallenged ethical standards.
Yet when I look back again over the words of the parliamentary secretary, on February 8, we see the melting of that moral outrage like the snow outside. There is not even placid consideration of his own words based on what he said in the House today. There is not even a consideration that this might be a good idea, even though just a few short weeks ago he called for this very motion. It is very disappointing that a member with his length of service in the House would back away from his words so artfully. The devil is in the details.
I would suggest that no honest politician could ever be hurt by the implementation of a code of conduct, nor, for that matter, the appointment of an independent ethics counsellor to report to parliament.
I hear a lot of chirping from the chipmunks across the way.
I want to refer again to the joint committee's report which was authored by the current Speaker, a member of the governing party. It touches on some important principles. It speaks of ethical standards, public scrutiny, independence, public interest, gifts and benefits, something the hon. member said just moments ago that he was concerned about. Again those words ring hollow. Why would we not want to delve into issues of furthering private interest, using influence, insider information, declaration of interest, gifts and benefits?
These are all the subject matter of the report that was tabled and put forward by the current Speaker and Senator Oliver in the other place. Why would we not want to try to improve the tarnished image of this place? Why would we not want to try to raise the bar somehow of what has occurred over the past number of years under the current government?
The legacy of the Prime Minister is that he has lowered the ethical standards. I do not say that personally. I am referring to the comments that were made by Gordon Robertson, a retired clerk of the Privy Council and the head of the Public Service of Canada, who served under Prime Ministers King, St. Laurent, Pearson and Trudeau. In the Toronto Star on January 6, speaking of the current ethical standards of the Prime Minister, Mr. Robertson said:
What happened in Shawinigan never would have met the standard set in Pearson's code of ethics. I should know—I drafted it. This Prime Minister has lowered the bar.
The legacy of this Prime Minister is that he has lowered the bar, the erosion of public confidence.
Canadians want to have faith. They very much want to have faith in the ethical standards.