Debates of May 23rd, 2002

Supply

[Carole-Marie Allard, Liberal, Laval East, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see the hon. member from the NDP calling for accountability in government. I wonder where their moral indignation was when the former NDP premier of B.C. was getting his back porch built in exchange for a casino licence.

Is it not the truth that the federal government is more transparent and accountable than ever before, thanks to the Liberal government?

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, although I think again the tactic is pretty transparent, let us look at some other jurisdiction. The very same member from the Liberal benches attempted to use the same tactic vis-à-vis the leader of the Bloc in asking him to account for what goes on in Quebec.

Let me make a couple of points. One is that the premier of British Columbia, in the swirl of controversy, understood the notion of ministerial responsibility, particularly prime ministerial responsibility, and he resigned from office.

Second, the member knows and every member on the government benches knows that the matter is before the courts at this very time. We have just heard a Liberal member from the backbench do exactly what the first intervener from the Liberals who stood here today said was completely unacceptable in the House, that is, to presume guilt before one's innocence has been proven. I cannot believe what I have just heard from that member from the backbench. The first Liberal who stood in the House today said that the Liberals were accusing the opposition of violating the fundamental principle of innocence when guilt has not been proven. I think it just serves to underscore once again the cheap tactics of Liberal members and also the depths to which they will stoop to try to distract from the real issues and, let the record show, also violate the presumption of innocence.

[Chuck Strahl, Canadian Alliance, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have a good debate going today. It perhaps is going to get more exciting as the day wears on.

I would urge the leader of the NDP not to mix her messages. On one hand she says that we cannot let the Liberals off the hook, that they have to answer for what they have done and shoulder their responsibility, and that they cannot shirk it or blame it on the opposition parties. Then she goes on to say that the Alliance is to blame for the problems in the Liberal Party. She has to get her story straight.

It is a Liberal problem that we are discussing here today. The Liberals have a problem. As our leader said, even if we leave the corruption angle out of it, we have a gross problem with mismanagement, with misplaced priorities and with just complete incompetence on the governing part, the management part, of the people's purse. The member can blame us if she wants, but the problem is on the Liberals' side of the benches.

Furthermore, I would point out that there is a legitimate debate, and a good one, about the proper role for government. How much government is good government? What programs are good? The member does a good job of presenting her party's position on what she thinks is the proper role for government, but that is not what we are debating here today. We are debating whether whatever government is proper is handled right and ethically, and it is not, because the Liberals have botched it in every single identifiable way. The auditor general says so. The people across the country know it--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I have to give the hon. member for Halifax an opportunity to respond.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to resist following rabbit tracks here. Let me repeat: The responsibility is squarely on the Liberal government to bring in the kind of legislation that is needed and has long been promised. On that I agree with the member who just rose.

It is also true, and I think Canadians have seen it, that it is understood for what it reflects: that the official opposition has absolutely feasted--

[An hon. member]

Gorged itself.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, gorged itself, pigged out, on the kinds of problems that the government has created in terms of public confidence.

For that reason I disagree with the member when he says that this is a Liberal problem, a government problem. This is a problem for the Parliament of Canada. More important, this is a problem for the people of Canada, who continue to be frustrated because this House, to which we were elected to do our duty and discharge our responsibilities, does not deal with the real issues of the day that affect their lives.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the first thing I want to say is that I regret very much that my leader is splitting her time with me because I think she was on a roll there and I was sorry to see it end.

I think she was speaking to the underlying question that is of concern to anyone who is concerned about the state of democracy in this country and that is the way in which the preoccupation of the House with scandal and corruption, both real and alleged, has a tendency to call into disrepute the whole democratic process. I think she made a good point when she said that to some extent this serves political parties well, at least those political parties between whom there are not a lot of fundamental differences, in the sense that they like to focus on each other's ethical and administrative behaviour because there are not a lot of policy differences between them. Certainly this has been a condition of Canadian politics for many years.

I certainly remember that this was the case between Liberals and Tories and then between Tories and Liberals and then between Liberals and Tories, or did I get it the wrong way around? They did not want to focus on policy matters because there was not a lot that separated them. We certainly saw that after 1993 when the Liberals came in and carried on with all the policies that had been established by the Conservative government prior to that time. However, when they were in opposition, for the same reason that my leader outlined, they were very fond of scandal-mongering. Unfortunately the minister of public works may have created a little bit of bad karma for himself when he was so good at scandal-mongering himself when he was a member of the so-called rat pack.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Could you give us an example?

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

My leader has asked for an example. I just happen to have one here.

On June 3, 1985, the minister of public works got up and referred to the fact that sons of the minister of justice at that time, Mr. Crosbie, were involved in working as legal agents for the government. He said “This whole incident gives new meaning to the theory of relativity”. I am not sure what he meant, but maybe he meant that there is a certain moral relativity, that is to say when somebody else is doing it, it is wrong, but when he is doing it, it is not wrong, it is just a mistake that has been cleared up.

What did the minister of public works say at that time? I say this with regret because I have worked with the minister of public works in his capacity as government House leader and I found him to be one of the best government House leaders I have ever dealt with. That unfortunately does not absolve him of having to answer for the things he has done in the other capacities he has for this government. What the minister of public works said when he was a member of the opposition on June 3, 1985, was that “The Prime Minister...ought to relieve the Minister of Justice of his responsibilities until this whole mess can be cleared up and corrected”.

This is all we are asking of this government: that the minister of public works, if he feels that ultimately he has done nothing wrong and that ultimately he has nothing to hide, simply do what he asked of the Conservative minister of justice on June 3, 1985, and resign until such time as this whole matter can be cleared up.

It may well be that the minister of public works would be able to return to the front benches of the government, as other ministers over the years have done in provincial cabinets and federal cabinets. It is not a permanent departure if in fact one is vindicated. I would urge the minister of public works to consider and the Prime Minister to consider taking the advice that was offered at that time.

I do not want to spend a lot of time on that because I think that in fact there is something corrupt in or corrupting of our political culture in the way that we deal with corruption here in the House, in the way that we deal with patronage and in the way that we deal with these ethical questions on the floor of the House of Commons. We had hoped for some redemption from this sandbox mentality that we get into where everyone is saying “You did this” or “You did that”. This hardly enhances people's perceptions of parliament or of democracy and it contributes to the kind of disrepute that my leader spoke of, which serves the corporate agenda very well and serves the privatizing agenda very well. If Canadians were to watch parliament for a day would they want their country or anything else to be run by people who are engaged in this kind of constant mudslinging and bickering? No.

Back in 1993 we had hoped that the Prime Minister was serious about trying to redeem that situation by appointing an ethics commissioner, not a counsellor or an extra spin doctor for the government, but an ethics commissioner just as he promised, a truly independent ethics commissioner who would report to parliament. Here we are, it is nine years later and the government is mired in various forms of accusations about patronage and corruption. The Prime Minister said he is going to do something about it and the appointment of an independent ethics commissioner is not even on that list. It is nine years later and he still insists on not keeping that promise.

The Prime Minister has a lot to answer for. He likes to say that he does not want people to act in a way that brings the institution into disrepute. Fair enough. Those of us in the NDP particularly are leery about that. We do not like to do that. We do not want to bring a democracy into disrepute. On the other hand we cannot allow glaring errors of ethical judgment to go uncriticized. We participate but at the same time we want to keep other issues before the House so that the whole political culture does not become obsessed with this and is corrupted by it.

The Prime Minister likes to hide behind not just keeping the reputation of democracy up, but he likes to hide behind national unity. Not everything that is done in the name of national unity is appropriate. Just because something is being done in the name of national unity does not make it right. National unity does not make gross patronage right. National unity does not make all the things the government is being accused of right.

National unity cannot be used as some kind of umbrella or mask for otherwise unacceptable activities. Yet that has been the habit of the Liberal Party for years, not just the Liberal Party but primarily the Liberal Party. That has been the last refuge of scoundrels, as someone said. A lot of scoundrels have hidden under the umbrella of promoting national unity, as if the end justified the means. As someone suggested, how creating the impression of a corrupt federal government in Quebec helps to promote national unity is something we might want to think about a bit more.

The Prime Minister said there is a debate about the role of government. The Liberals believe the role of government is to help the poor, et cetera and members of the official opposition do not and that is why they spend so much time attacking HRDC. That is why in some ways we did not spend as much time on HRDC, because we do not want to be part of an attack on the role of government.

The role of government is being jeopardized not just by the ideology of the official opposition but by the behaviour of the government. It is the government that gives the role of government a bad name. It is the Liberals who for decades have given the role of government a bad name through patronage and all the other kinds of activities it has been accused of here.

We need to look at getting rid of the role of money in our political system. Some innovating has been going on over the years in Quebec and recently in Manitoba. Many people have come to the conclusion that we need more extensive public funding of elections so that we do not have this kind of dependence on corporate money, which presumably has a lot to do with the relationships the Liberal government has established with advertising companies. One of the things we could look at is reducing the role of money in our democratic culture because it does have a corrupting influence.

Finally, I would like to go back to the whole issue of accusation and counteraccusation. One of the things we learned when we were kids, and I am sure your mother said it to you, Mr. Speaker, as my mother said it to me many times, was that two wrongs do not make a right.

The Liberal government gets up and says “You lived in Stornoway and you said you would not, and you took pensions and you said you would not”. There was a lot of political dishonesty on the part of the official opposition with respect to a whole lot of things, all of which were part and parcel of the democratic process falling into disrepute. That does not for a minute and should not for a minute obscure the gravity of what is going on on the other side of the House.

For the Prime Minister and others to engage in that kind of counteraccusation does exactly what the Prime Minister says he is concerned about. It calls the whole process into disrepute and should not be engaged in.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations]

Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to acknowledge that the member is one of the most highly respected members in parliament. He has been here a long time. He has seen governments come and go. He represents a minority party where he singularly seems to find ways to be re-elected. That is a compliment to the work he must do in his constituency.

Since he has seen all different types of governments, all different types of members in this place, would he agree that these accusations are tantamount to a hijacking of parliament? We do not hear questions or debate on issues around health care or Kyoto. With the odd exception of a question or two from the NDP, we are not hearing about any of those issues. We do not hear about agriculture. We do not hear about Afghanistan.

We do not hear about the things that matter to Canadians when members get outside of the beltway. I wonder if the hon. member would have a comment that when members are outside of the beltway this kind of nonsense does not play with Canadians. It simply serves to deflect the real business of parliament, the real business of government.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps you could ask the members to calm down. I would ask the member to comment.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. It gives me another opportunity to extend the point that he is making. He is making the point that somehow it is the official opposition that does not want to deal with the real issues of the day.

We are making the point that this also serves the government's interest. I am sure the government is much happier to have the House seized of this, although there is a certain point at which the Liberals might get fed up with it and they might feel it is getting a little too close and they might try and deal with it. Today is one of those days.

It is not often that the Prime Minister speaks on an opposition day. I wish it were more the habit of the Prime Minister to come in here and try and deal with issues, although I wish he had a habit of dealing with them better than he did today.

My party's point is that a government which behaves in a way that makes itself open to these kind of accusations is the one that is primarily at fault.

An official opposition that does not really want to talk about policy either and talks about corruption and scandal, both real and alleged, to the exclusion of everything else is not serving the country well either.

It is not an opportunity for a member on the government side to stand up and be self-righteous about the Liberal Party or the Liberal government or about Kyoto. Kyoto is an issue where Liberal cabinet ministers it appears, and I was talking about the role of money earlier in our political culture and it is a Liberal senator who made the accusation that Liberal leadership contenders who happen to be in key positions on the front bench are the ones who may be inappropriately influenced when it comes to the government's position on the Kyoto accord.

[Larry Spencer, Canadian Alliance, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I also want to applaud the member who just spoke for actually addressing the government.

I thought this side of the House was the opposition. I thought our place was to call the government to account. I am really confused as to what is the priority down there because the hon. leader with whom the member split time spent the time dressing down the official opposition. It seems that she has not got it clear in her mind who she is. It appears that she has taken on the position of being the official opposition to the official opposition.

Where is the NDP's priority? Will we hold the government not only to good policy, but carrying out the policy and keeping its promises in a good administration? What is the hon. member's feeling on that?

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thought my leader did such a good job of mopping up the official opposition that I did not need to spend much time on it. I am glad to see it had the desired effect. I think it was Mr. Diefenbaker who said that when a stone is thrown into a pack of dogs and they start to yelp, the person knows he or she has hit something.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my friend from Winnipeg--Transcona, a fellow House leader, for his usual ferocious and fastidious comments. I always love hearing him quote Progressive Conservative prime ministers' remarks.

Let us be very frank about why we are having this debate. It is an official opposition supply day. However, what we see happening here is the attempt by the government to table some sort of rebuttal or response to what has been swirling around it. The timing is interesting. The timing is that the Liberals were caught doing something. They were caught outright with their hands in the proverbial cookie jar and handing cookies out to their friends. This is the reason this is happening now.

The Prime Minister in his remarks stated no less than five times that they have raised the bar. He used that expression repeatedly. I want to draw attention to a quote that is very relevant to this commentary by the Prime Minister. It comes from a very distinguished and decorated individual in the public service, a man by the name of Gordon Robertson. On top of being a privy council officer, Gordon Robertson was clerk of the privy council for prime ministers Diefenbaker, Pearson and Trudeau and spent a very historic career within the public service.

We all recall the Shawinigate scandal when the Prime Minister made inappropriate approaches, called the president of the Business Development Bank to lobby for a government loan for a friend, a businessman and former business partner in a golf course that he used to own in his riding. There was an RCMP review of the circumstances. There were substantiated allegations that someone from the Prime Minister's Office, Jean Carle, was dispatched to the Business Development Bank to sanitize files and mop up to ensure that Mr. Clean was able to take away all of the evidence that could be found.

This is what Gordon Robertson had to say in response to that particular scandal, which is one of many:

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.

That is a fairly damning condemnation from a person in the know, a person who spent his career working in the Parliament of Canada, working in service of Canadians.

This particular issue of corruption has seized the House of Commons. Members opposite and members of the official opposition might like to suggest that the opposition is not focusing on the real issues. We are not talking about health care or the softwood lumber issue and the trade disputes that are jeopardizing Canada's workforce and productivity. We are talking about that but it has become clouded. It has become a distraction when we see the level of corruption, the level of conflict of interest, the level and extent the government is willing to go to perpetrate power, to hold on to and concentrate its power by rewarding individuals who are loyal to it and who in turn make contributions to the Liberals.

This is a very simple issue. It is an issue of competence, but it is an issue of corruption. It is an issue of confidence. It is an issue of Canadians having faith in what their government is doing and believing what the government is going to do. Promises were made prior to elections about what the Liberals were going to do to clean up government, to be more transparent, those famous red book promises that should lead all Liberals to be red in the face when one looks at them in retrospect.

This issue of corruption will not go away with a simple swipe of the hand and the Prime Minister simply stating that the government is going to look into it, that it has a five point or six point plan. We have seen that routine before. It is getting tired. We saw it with the HRDC scandal. We saw it just last week with the public works minister suggesting that all is fine, that the fiefdom will be whole again, that he can clean it up with a five point plan. Now the Prime Minister is trying the same tired routine. It is simply not going to work. This is a problem for which the government has to take account and for which it has to take responsibility.

There was very little apology and responsibility in the remarks made by the Prime Minister in the House today. Let us be clear on one thing. It is the Prime Minister who must set the standard. He is the one who all members of his government should look to to set that standard. What a low standard that is.

There is an old expression that the fish stinks from the head. Clearly, the Prime Minister is the head of the government and what a smell. This standard has never been lower.

The Prime Minister likes to make the claim that no one in his cabinet has ever resigned or has had to leave in the midst of scandal and allegation. That is not true. His transport minister resigned over allegations of inappropriate letter writing campaigns. His deputy prime minister at the time resigned over the broken promise of the GST. Do members not remember that? The government was going to abolish it, get rid of it, and rescind it. That did not happen. She ran again of course and was re-elected at a great cost to taxpayers. She at least showed a flicker, a glimmer of accountability. However, she is back in full force. There are other ministers. There was a solicitor general in the government that resigned over loose lips on an airline.

It is not true to say that there was never a resignation. Clearly, there should have been more. The Prime Minister, by setting such a low standard for himself, cannot expect his members to take account or be responsible. We cannot claim that the standards are there if there are no standards. If there are no standards, there are no resignations. That is the formula.

[An hon. member]

You get to go to Denmark.

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

Liberal members are rewarded, actually, as I am reminded. Mr. Gagliano, who was embroiled in this entire affair, was the previous minister of public works. What happened when the allegations emerged? The usual denials, distractions and accusations were thrown at the accusers, but he is dispatched to Denmark as a reward.

To simply reward and put out of reach that minister is not accountability. That is not the standard Canadians expect. Canadians deserve better. They should expect the government and the Prime Minister to at least stand up and take responsibility for their actions.

Allegations of rewarding friends came repeatedly from members of the government when they were in opposition. The Prime Minister says there should be a standalone code of conduct. He says he will introduce one. He refers with great claim to the report that was tabled by Senator Oliver and the current Speaker of the House of Commons in 1997. Why has it taken the Prime Minister and the government so long to come to the conclusion that an ethical standard is needed, that a code of conduct is necessary?

I should have indicated at the outset that I will be splitting my time with the very ethical member for Cumberland—Colchester.

Let us look at some of the promises and references that the Prime Minister repeatedly made when in opposition. I have already mentioned the red book. He promised to have an independent ethics counsellor appointed. That did not happen. That promise was broken. He spoke about open government being the watchword of the Liberal program. That is not true. In the 1993 red book it states:

A Liberal government will restore public trust and confidence in government.

The Prime Minister, in appointing Mr. Wilson, spoke of the ethics code that would apply. He said that it would appear that unethical or improper conduct that is fundamental of poor political judgment must in the end reside with the Prime Minister. These are lofty words that were never fulfilled.

Instead the ethics counsellor reports directly to the Prime Minister. This is a farce. This further undermines any sense of accountability and public confidence. The immediate reaction of the government when accused, when confronted with its own actions is to deny, distract and reflect away any kind of criticism.

The Prime Minister used to take great glee in throwing mud. Now he trots out this trite old expression about when we throw dirt we lose ground. He used to say:

So far as this government is concerned, integrity is more than just nice words or photo ops. It's a way of life.

He stated in 1994:

It is because the government is committed to honesty and integrity in the public eye...There can be no substitute for responsibility at the top. The Prime Minister sets the moral tone...

What happened to those words and those promises? Just like the promises for the GST to be rescinded and free trade to be renegotiated, they are gone with the wind. It was a claim that was never fulfilled. It was complete rhetoric. That is now coming back to haunt the government and the Prime Minister as it should. Yes, the opposition will be raising other issues, but this will not go away. There has to be some accounting.

We are hopeful that this is the beginning at least of the government's reflection and inward looking attempt to clean up the mess it has made.

[Myron Thompson, Canadian Alliance, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member a couple of questions. However I would rather make a statement than ask a question and ask him to respond to it.

I moved to this country in 1967. In 1968 I chose this place to spend the rest of my life. I applied for citizenship and received it in the early seventies. I have always been interested in politics and paid attention to what was going on. One of the things that surprised me over and over again was the objection that the people at large had to certain decisions that were being made by the government. Yet the government made those decisions anyway.

I do not want to argue about whether the metric system was the right thing to do. That is not the point. The point is that at that particular time there was an overwhelming number of people who were against it. Yet we still got it.

There were a number of other issues that came up. The GST came in 1991 under this member's party. I think he would agree with me that there was not overwhelming support from the public, but that did not seem to matter. We got it anyway.

It just appeared to me that, over the years that I was watching, it did not matter which government was in power, whatever it wanted to do, it did it. Committees and debates in the House of Commons were going through the motions. I wonder if it leads anywhere. Does it resolve anything? Is it always what the front row on that side of the House wants, it gets? That is what the country will get, like it or not. We will enjoy one day of democracy, which is election day. Is there any hope that will ever change, in the hon. member's view?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I hope it will change. The government certainly has to change if we are to renew public confidence in democracy, as he suggests.

The fact is that he came to this country and his constituents are better for his decision to come to Alberta and to serve in the House of Commons. It is the commitment of members of parliament who come here with lofty ideals and hope to represent their constituents ethically and forcefully, to do so within some semblance of accountability.

I was at the swearing in ceremony this morning of the new member for Gander--Grand Falls. In the commitment that is made as a new member of parliament one is asked to serve faithfully Her Majesty The Queen in right of Canada. The government and the Prime Minister, through their actions, have broken that faith. They have broken that public trust.

So what hope is there, the member asks? There is an opportunity for there to be an accounting and it is on election day. Until that time it is the responsibility of the member who asked the question and members here on the opposite side to not just throw baseless allegations.

These are factual scenarios. What happened with the public works minister and his family stay at the chalet is factual. This is not a creation of the opposition. It was a decision, a very poor one, that the minister made. Instead of taking responsibility for it, instead of saying yes, it was wrong, there is an immediate attempt to justify it. To bring in a parish priest to somehow justify a minister's actions is a new low.

As far as the member's commentary on the previous government, sure, there should be some willingness to admit that it did not do everything right. It was an activist government that made big policy changes in this country and invested political capital in doing so. I will say one other thing about that government. When things happened, when decisions that were made were poor, were wrong, ministers resigned. That government had accountability. It took responsibility for its actions. That, at the very least, is within the tradition of ministerial responsibility. That is missing on that side of the House today.

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, this is not a happy debate at all. It is interesting that I am one of two members who were defeated in 1993 from the previous government because of accusations and innuendo by the Liberals, the rat pack in particular. They criticized us very effectively while we were making a lot of profound changes and as the previous speaker said, we did not do everything right.

However, because those accusations were repeated over and over we were defeated, all but two members. We went from 160 seats down to 2 and I was one of the ones defeated. I was told to go home because we had done things wrong.

In 1997 I was fortunate enough to win again. I somehow recaptured the trust and faith of people. They voted me back in and defeated the Liberal who had replaced me. I was re-elected in 2000. I am proud of that and grateful for the opportunity to be here.

As foreign affairs critic I get to visit other countries that do not have a parliament that works like this. To see our parliament downgraded and degraded, like has been happening in the last little while, is sad for me. I value this experience and appreciate the value of parliament and the role we play. I truly believe in parliament and the parliamentary system.

This morning I talked with John Christianson, a reporter for the Truro Daily News . He asked about what was going on in Ottawa. I was talking with him about a local issue. I said we have an opposition day debate about corruption that would probably go on all day. I started to tell him some of the issues and he said there is so much of it now that reporters do not pay any attention or listen to it.

That is the perception out there with the thinking public. There is just so much of this stuff going on, whether it is corruption, incompetence or whatever. People do not even pay attention to it any more.

This morning I was looking at a newspaper. It had a picture of a ski chalet. I had to look at it two or three times. This is no ski chalet. In Atlantic Canada it would be a mansion. I do not know what to call it but it is a castle. I wondered where the money came from to build the castle. Did it come from the department of public works through these millions of dollars in contracts? Then the minister of public works is in there enjoying the castle. No wonder people wonder.

As the whole debate has come out, the son of the current minister of public works used to work for the previous minister of public works, Alfonso Gagliano. When the current minister became minister the son was moved over to another department.

There are rules in the public service. People in my riding cannot even apply for a job in Ottawa because they do not have the right postal code. Here is a minister's family member shuffled from place to place, and there are more family members in the government, as well. I do not want to drag in the family members but it is a fact. They have access to these jobs when people in my riding cannot even apply for them. No wonder people question what is going on and get tired of listening to it.

In the millions of dollars of contracts, who can figure out what $50 million in advertising went to? Are we talking about signs at arenas, pins or flags? What are we talking about? With millions and millions of dollars, no wonder people are leery. Then there are $10,000 a plate dinners to meet the Prime Minister. How many veterans will be there at the dinner? How many people with disability pensions will be at the $10,000 a plate dinner to talk with the Prime Minister about their problems of not making ends meet on $672 a month? Making $672 a month, how does one go to $10,000 a plate dinners to talk to the Prime Minister face to face? No wonder people are leery of the whole screwball outfit we have over there.

I paid particularly close attention to the Prime Minister's speech. He listed the eight points that he would change. They are probably good but they are extraneous points. He could have been so much more effective if he had just said that he would keep his promise and make the ethics counsellor answer to parliament.

He went on and on about unity which has nothing to do with this debate. He did admit some mistakes were made but he did not address the issue of the ethics counsellor.

Imagine if Sheila Fraser were the ethics counsellor and she answered to parliament. Imagine the mess that outfit would be in. This is why the government will not allow the ethics counsellor to report to parliament even though the Prime Minister promised to make the individual accountable to parliament.

The Prime Minister said that honouring the promises he made was a key part in restoring the trust of Canadians. Right off the bat he is acknowledging that he is not going to restore the trust of Canadians because he is not going to honour his promise to make the ethics counsellor accountable to parliament. That is all he had to do today to resolve a lot of the issues at hand and to stop calling parliament into disrepute, and he said that we should stop calling parliament into disrepute.

I remember a time a few years ago during 1988 to 1993 when the Prime Minister and his party had no hesitation in calling parliament into disrepute. They used every trick in the book. Some members may remember seeing the climbing over the desks, the screaming, the hollering, the accusations and innuendoes. They did not hesitate to call parliament into disrepute. Imagine an hon. member climbing over a desk to get to a minister. If that is not putting parliament into disrepute, then nothing is.

I wish only one thing. I do not care about the eight promises the Prime Minister made. I do not care about the eight points he made. This is about the integrity of this House, which I value. If we are going to have integrity in the House, it is clear that the ethics counsellor will have to be totally independent and accountable to parliament in the same way the auditor general is.

The auditor general has done this country an extreme service by the reports she has made. They are courageous and will help the country and the government to address issues that should have been addressed a long time ago. We should all be grateful for that institution. We should also be grateful for an ethics counsellor who reports to parliament in the same way the auditor general does.

All we are asking is for the Prime Minister to keep his promise. He said that it was important to keep promises. He also said another important thing and that was that the ethics counsellor should report to parliament. If the he had kept his promise requiring the ethics counsellor to report to parliament, all of this would have been dealt with.

I hope all members of the opposition as well as all members of the government will continue to put pressure on the Prime Minister to bring that about so that the ethics counsellor will report to parliament.

[Roy H. Bailey, Canadian Alliance, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member who just spoke because he dealt with the key issue.

Not only do the people in this place want to see change, but Canadians from coast to coast to coast want to see that change. Would the member agree that there are other democracies in the world that have a better system of ensuring that elected representatives behave in an ethical way rather than having just one appointed person? Would you not agree that an ethics committee--

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. I want to remind members to please make their interventions through the Chair because sometimes it can become quite problematic.

[Roy H. Bailey, Canadian Alliance, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, also I would like the member to list at least three different things whereby we on both sides of the Chamber could agree to make certain changes that would prove to the people we represent that we were improving the area of accountability. I know he can do this.