Debates of March 15th, 2001

Parliamentarians' Code Of Conduct

[Wendy Lill, NDP, Dartmouth, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak in favour of Motion No. 200, tabled by the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, which reads:

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.

The House of Commons, this exquisite Chamber of vaulted ceilings, carved wood and coloured glass, is the heart of our democratic system. Yet, when Canadians watch us in question period on TV they see us caterwauling and jeering. They see our junior high antics and some very low grade behaviour. We all know that does not serve us well.

If they see this place as a sideshow, as a zoo, by extension they see us, their representatives and their members of parliament, as objects of scorn and derision. That is something we have to clean up. We have to clean up our act, real or perceived. We have to make sure that this place does not suffer from the shame of bad behaviour.

That brings us back to the motion and the idea of a code of conduct. It is not the first time that the House has grappled with the issue over the years. On December 16, 1999, the House debated Bill C-226, an act to establish a parliamentarian's code of conduct, brought in by Gordon Earle, the former NDP member for Halifax West. That bill would have gone a long way to move this item along on the agenda.

In that debate Gordon Earle stated that the bill would in fact be realistic and would reflect in the provincial legislatures and in other nations' assemblies. This code of conduct would raise the level of integrity of our parliament. The bill was rooted in very practical and legitimate concerns that Canadians hold about their parliament.

His bill was based on the following principles. Parliamentarians should have the highest ethical standards so as to maintain and enhance public confidence and trust in the integrity of parliamentarians and parliament. Parliamentarians should perform their official duties and arrange their private affairs in a manner that would bear the closest public scrutiny. Parliamentarians should avoid placing themselves under any financial or other obligation that may influence them in the performance of their official duties. Parliamentarians upon entering office should arrange their private affairs to prevent real or apparent conflict of interest. If such do arise, it should be resolved in a way that protects the public interest.

As well, under that bill all parliamentarians would have to disclose all official travel when the cost exceeded $250 in cases where the trip was not completely paid for by parliament or by one of the few officially recognized sponsors.

No parliamentarians would be permitted to be a party to a contract with the Government of Canada under which the parliamentarian received a benefit. Parliamentarians would be required to make a disclosure of all assets once every calendar year and would be required to make public disclosure of the nature although not the value of all assets each year. Finally, to ensure that the public interest and the highest standards were upheld, there would be an ethics counsellor to advise parliamentarians on any question relating to conduct.

I am pleased to say that Gordon Earle's private member's bill was reintroduced yesterday by our leader, the member for Halifax. She reintroduced legislation to establish a code of conduct for MPs and an ethics counsellor who would report on an annual basis directly to parliament, not to the Prime Minister's Office.

If such a code already existed, Canadians might have been spared the unseemly spectacle of the Shawinigan situation and the whole controversy surrounding the opposition leader's defamation suit and how it was handled financially.

In closing I would say that it is time we re-addressed the erosion of public confidence in parliament and in parliamentarians. It is time to help MPs deal with complicated ethical issues, to restore their faith in the institution of parliament and to provide them with a clear rule book on issues of ethics and conflict of interest.

I thank the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for moving the motion and providing me with the opportunity to speak this evening on this important issue.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would begin by expressing my sadness that private members' hour has been turned into a partisan debate and an attack on the governing party, and the Prime Minister in particular.

I mention that because in the last parliament it was understood by both sides of the House, by all parties and all backbenchers, that private members' business would be dedicated to private members' issues and bills in a non-partisan way. I am very distressed that this rule has been broken.

I would observe first that the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough began his remarks by saying that his motion was made non-votable because of the Liberal dominated subcommittee on private members' business. Liberal dominated were the exact words he used.

Well, Madam Speaker, I will tell you that there is only one Liberal on that subcommittee and four opposition members. If he has a problem in making his motion votable, it is a problem on the opposition side, not on the Liberal side.

Having said that, what disappoints me is the issue of a code of conduct for MPs, which is an important issue. The report of the senate joint committee was an excellent report. It dealt with gifts. It set a ceiling on gifts which was very important because not every member comes from communities where they realize that it is not right to take expensive gifts from other people in the context of their duties. The ceiling was set at $250, and I thought that was a little high actually.

There were provisions for travel by corporations and companies that were offering what is known in the newspaper trade as freebies. All of this was very good but it was not something that had to be in legislation. It not only could have been dealt with by resolution, but I say to the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, that if he really believes in the principles expressed by the senate joint committee, then he should get his leader to stand and say that he supports those principles and that they should serve as guidelines in his own caucus.

It could be done. It does not require legislation. All it requires is the various leaders of the parties simply saying that they agree in principle and then individual MPs could act according to their consciences. It would be an enormous step forward.

I would hope that the leader of the fifth party would actually address that, not only in spirit but in the practical sense. Maybe he would be required to disclose not only his assets and his salaries but the salaries of his wife. I wonder whether his wife would even agree with it. I do not know. It would be a very interesting test.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Motion No. 200 put forward by the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough because it is very close to my heart.

I was shocked to hear the hon. member from the Liberal side say that the motion had no relevance. It is very relevant and there is a need for the government to introduce legislation establishing a code of conduct for members of parliament and senators. This is the highest Chamber in the nation.

On the other hand, even professionals, like doctors, lawyers, insurance agents and real estate agents, have a code of conduct for their members.

No wonder voter turnout has been falling. We need to restore the public's trust in the reputation, credibility and integrity of members of parliament in this House. There is a need to restore the reputation, credibility, integrity and faith in politicians. There is a need to set a higher bar for members of parliament and set an example for Canadians.

I believe there is a need to address the issue of conflict of interest, particularly in light of the shadow hanging over the Prime Minister over the ethics issue. Look at the government's record on patronage and its record of handing out grants and contributions and tying them to the donations given to the political party.

All these issues make it so important for us to have this code of conduct. It cannot be confidential, as the government states. I emphasize the need to establish a code of conduct for parliamentarians.

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

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.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

I know it is at the end of the day, but I would caution the hon. members to be careful of the language they use in the House, including the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.

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

Madam Speaker, I will govern myself accordingly.

Canadians want to have faith in their elected representatives. They very much want to believe that their politicians are here for a strong purpose and are behaving within a higher standard.

It takes a long time to build trust, and that faith is particularly shaken by the performance of the government. If we are to even start to move toward having a higher standard we should have a tangible place to go when we examine the conduct of members of parliament.

It is unfortunate that the government House leader's parliamentary secretary did not at least take the opportunity to put forward some other alternative. He made an oblique, vague reference to the fact that we could not do it because it would be legislated.

He should put forward some other alternatives or bring forward some original ideas. We would be more than happy to wrap our arms around them because this is an issue of non-partisan importance in the Chamber. If Canadians could see a demonstrated effort on the part of all members of parliament they would appreciate it.

I will end by asking that there be unanimous consent that the matter be made votable. I know this is once again a leap of faith and that it will not happen, but I would ask that the motion be made votable. I know we will get a resounding no from the government side.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. As the motion has not been designated as a votable item, the order is dropped from the order paper.

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

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

Madam Speaker, on February 19 I asked two questions about the ongoing Shawinigan scandal involving the Prime Minister in the Grand-Mère Golf Club. The answers provided by the Deputy Prime Minister were simply unsatisfactory.

Let us examine the facts around the Prime Minister's ownership of the golf course. He apparently sold his shares in 1993 upon becoming Prime Minister. However that deal fell through and the Prime Minister did not receive payment. He contacted the ethics counsellor to inform him of this and the ethics counsellor has admitted the Prime Minister could have lost money on his investment had the value of the golf course property decreased.

One way to ensure the value of the golf course property did not decrease was by ensuring the neighbouring Grand-Mère Inn remained afloat financially. This is where the Prime Minister became involved and how taxpayer dollars started to flow.

Here are the facts. First, a $164,000 TJF grant was given for expansion of the inn. By the way, the owner who took the inn off the Prime Minister's hands, a friend of the Prime Minister named Yvon Duhaime, had been convicted of drunk driving, assault and uttering threats. Unfortunately he forgot to mention those details when applying for the grant. I wonder why.

We have since learned that he was involved in a high speed chase through Shawinigan going 127 kilometres an hour in a 50 kilometre an hour zone and was again charged with drunk driving. This is the person who was apparently just a constituent of the Prime Minister's. He was a friend of the Prime Minister, a fairly unsavoury character who had been involved in all kinds of things.

Second, there is the famous loan for $615,000 from the Business Development Bank to the inn which the Prime Minister helped arrange via personal phone calls to the president of the bank. The Prime Minister in a 1999 letter to the National Post , said he had no direct or indirect personal connection with the hotel. Revelations to the contrary have since become common knowledge. By the way, the president, Mr. Beaudoin, was fired shortly after the bank called in the loan.

Third, $2.3 million was put into the inn via the immigrant investor fund. The Prime Minister met with Louis Leblanc, a broker who organized where the funds were directed. The next day, March 1, 1996, the money started to flow. By the way, the Prime Minister originally denied that immigrant investor funds had been sunk into the inn. It has become crystal clear that the Prime Minister has been very involved in the Grand-Mère Inn.

The Prime Minister helped secure funds for his friend and owner of the inn. As a byproduct it can be argued that he helped ensure that he did not lose on the value of the golf course shares for which he was not paid until 1999. It is clear to Canadians that the shenanigans in Shawinigan involving the Prime Minister remain unanswered.

Why has the Prime Minister told so many different versions about his involvement with the shares of his golf course and about his involvement with the BDC loan for his friend?

Why will the Prime Minister not clear the air by undertaking an independent inquiry into all the details in his own backyard? What is it that the Prime Minister does not want Canadians to know in regard to his dealings with these shaky situations in Shawinigan?

Canadians want answers to these very serious questions. When will they be answered by the Prime Minister?

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

Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister of Canada has explained to the House on numerous occasions that he sold his shares in the golf course prior to becoming Prime Minister and that they have never returned to his possession.

All relevant documentation has been reviewed by the ethics counsellor who told the industry committee, on May 6, 1999, that he had reviewed the agreement of sale. He described that agreement as follows:

—it is unambiguous in language; it's fairly simple. There is no basis for anybody trying to...say that there was an option aspect to it...It was a sale, and it was an unsecured sale.

He added to this statement by saying:

I know the Prime Minister doesn't own the shares and has not owned the shares since November 1, 1993, which, from my point of view, is the only issue.

Both the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Conservative Party asked the ethics counsellor for further clarification of the matter during the recent election campaign. Once again, the ethics counsellor confirmed that the Prime Minister had absolutely no financial interest in the golf course or in a nearby hotel when he assumed office.

Perhaps I should remind members that what is at the core of this issue is a hotel expansion project in the Prime Minister's riding which received the support of the local caisse populaire as well as the Fonds de solidarité des travailleurs du Québec.

The project created 19 new jobs. The hotel is open for business and employs over 60 people in an area of high unemployment.

Maybe it is time the opposition dropped this fishing expedition and started dealing with matters of real importance to Canadians.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.22 p.m.)