House of Commons Hansard #190 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was corruption.

Topics

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

Ted White Canadian Alliance North Vancouver, BC

Mr. Speaker, I listened very intently to the speech of my colleague, the member for West Vancouver--Sunshine Coast. I noticed at the end of it that the industry minister was breathing a sigh of relief because he was not mentioned in the speech. I wonder if my colleague might recall that the industry minister had an assistant who was sent off to Winnipeg on unexplained business and the cost of the airfares was paid for but for some reason the assistant never made a single expense claim.

When we tried to get to the bottom of it a few days ago in question period, the industry minister just kept saying that only the valid expenses were claimed. Yet he could not explain why an assistant on government business would go all the way to Winnipeg with his airfare paid for but not make a single other expense claim. There was nothing for hotels, meals nor paperwork, nothing at all.

Would my colleague for West Vancouver--Sunshine Coast place that sort of situation in the same list of corruption that he was talking about earlier today?

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

John Reynolds Canadian Alliance West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for North Vancouver for bringing up a very good point. As he knows we only have 20 minutes to make a speech on supply days. If I had two hours, I could have brought up the Minister of Industry and other issues in the House. I could have brought up the Prime Minister's approval of the purchase of two jets for he and his cabinet while the armed forces in this country are going without helicopters. We cannot even keep troops in Afghanistan because we do not have enough people in the armed forces. I could have brought up a lot more issues, but time only allows so much so we picked out the most obvious cases.

I thank the hon. member for bringing up that issue. There are a lot of other issues we could talk about in the House. The motion will go on all day. I am sure that colleagues of mine in other parties will talk about some of these issues during that time.

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

Saint-Maurice Québec

Liberal

Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister

Mr. Speaker, I could talk about what the member for West Vancouver--Sunshine Coast said, but Lester B. Pearson said that one day the ones who threw mud would lose ground.

I have known this member for a long time and I visited him when he was the speaker in the legislature in B.C. I always considered him to be a great gentleman. I even raised money for him in his riding. However I do not know what happens to a member of parliament who becomes a reformist or an Alliance member. He is not the gentleman that I knew before, but I will not add anything more.

I am pleased to take part in this important debate because it is necessary to bring some context to issues which rightly concern members of this House and all Canadians and because of the need to tone down the rhetoric, to deal with the facts and to show mutual respect. Public life is a difficult calling, and I have been a public person for 39 years, but it is a noble life.

I am certain that we all agree that none of us are in this House of Commons for reasons other than a desire to serve our country and our constituents to the best of our ability. We are certainly not here for the perks, unless very long working hours and working weeks are considered perks. We are not here for the money. Most of us could make more in the private sector with less work and a lot more family time. I believe that what I just said about members of parliament applies in the same way to the Public Service of Canada.

Having said that, none of us are perfect. We all make mistakes. Our electors know that. In my case my wife knows that and reminds me of it once in a while. I believe that we all make our mistakes in good faith. Our motives on all sides of the House are the right ones. All of us are committed to the public interest and to the public good. We can disagree and we can debate. However let us do that in ways that increase respect for our democratic institutions, not in ways that call them into disrepute.

In an organization as large as the Government of Canada, mistakes are made every day. They always have been and always will be. Governments should be judged not on whether mistakes are made but on how problems and mistakes are identified and how they are corrected.

We on this side of the House have every reason to be proud of our record. I am proud that we gave the auditor general the ability to issue four reports a year rather than one. I am proud that we expanded the role of internal departmental audits, that we publicize them and put them on web sites. I am proud that we publicly identify and correct administrative errors.

Because I have been around a long time, I knew that increasing the amount of audit activity would make question period a lot more interesting for the opposition and for the media. This is what a government of integrity does. It publicly identifies problems and fixes them. This is not the essence of scandal. It is the essence of good government. We have raised the bar and I am proud of it.

Integrity and public trust are the foundation of democratic government. Since we took office in 1993, we have introduced a conflict of interest code for public office holders. We have introduced the post of ethics counsellor, the first such office to be created in any Commonwealth country. And we have made substantial reforms to the Lobbyists Registration Act, increasing transparency and casting the light of day onto the lobby industry.

I have spoken to this House many times with pride about the record of ministerial probity and high standards of integrity of our government. The world has also taken notice. Since issuing its first report in 1995, Transparency International, the world's leading international organization dedicated to rooting out corruption in government and business, has ranked Canada as the G-8 nation with the lowest level of perceived corruption. And among the seven best in the world.

But I will not be satisfied until we are at the very top. Am I proud of our record? Without a doubt. Is it perfect? Of course not. Have we done enough? No. We must do better. And we will do better.

Indeed, two weeks from now, I will set out a bold eight-point plan of action. Today, let me set out the key elements of the plan we have been working on.

First, for the first time ever, we will make public the guide for ministers and secretaries of state, which outlines the standards of ethical conduct that should guide them. This guide has been around since 1993.

Second, we will be releasing revised rules for ministerial dealings with crown corporations. They will clarify the relationship between ministers, MPs and crown corporations when dealing with constituency matters.

Third, I will be making public guidelines to govern ministerial fundraising for personal political purposes. These will establish rules and procedures that will ensure that such fundraising causes no real or apparent conflict of interest.

Fourth, beginning, this fall, I will table the first annual report of the ethics counsellor to parliament on the range of his duties and activities. And the ethics counsellor will be available to a parliamentary committee to be examined on his report.

For the fifth point in our action plan, in consultation with the opposition parties and drawing inspiration from the Milliken-Oliver report, it is our intention to proceed in the fall with a stand-alone code of conduct for members of parliament and senators.

Sixth, following up on the work of the industry committee of the House, in the fall we will table changes to the Lobbyists Registration Act to enhance clarity, transparency and enforcement.

Seventh, in the fall we will propose fundamental changes to the legislation governing the financing of political parties and candidates for office.

Eighth, we will introduce measures that will strengthen the ability and responsibility of senior public servants to exercise propriety and due diligence in the management of public funds.

The reason for the action plan is to better serve the public, but let us put some of this into perspective. We spent weeks and months in the House early in the year 2000 debating an internal audit of Human Resources Development Canada. Yes, we found some bad record keeping and some poor administration, but we also found deep philosophical disagreements, as we remember, as to the role of government in promoting literacy, in helping the disadvantaged and people with disabilities, in helping students to find summer jobs, et cetera. The opposition was opposing this. We were doing that for the poor and the weak in this society.

Despite the excess of rhetoric, there was no scandal, there was no “shovelgate”. There were administrative mistakes, which have been fixed. Public money went to good purpose.

Today we are debating a sponsorship program. If mistakes were made, we will correct them. If money was improperly spent, we will try to recover it. If anyone broke the law, that person will have to face the courts.

Indeed, I have asked the President of the Treasury Board, even before the auditor general reports on the past, to make recommendations for the future on how sponsorship, advertising and polling could be better managed to ensure value for money and to make these recommendations before the House returns in September.

Let me speak about the motives behind the program. Quite frankly, we had a close call in the referendum of 1995. Right after the referendum we took urgent action on many fronts. We passed a resolution on distinct society. We passed a law concerning constitutional vetoes. We transferred control of labour market training to most of the provinces. I brought in new ministers from Quebec. We made reference to the supreme court on the issue of secession. We passed the Clarity Act.

Yes, we undertook to raise the visibility of the Government of Canada in Quebec.

It was an urgent situation, we acted with a sense of urgency, and with urgent actions mistakes can happen. It appears that some mistakes were made and we are determined to correct them, but all in all I think it is fair to say that thanks to the range of actions we took Canada is a much more united country today than it was in October 1995 and of course a much stronger country economically. Just ask Moody's of New York, which has given us the best overall rating because of the strength of our economy and it noted that it is precisely because of the strength of our unity.

Canadians take great pride in our standing in the world. We are known throughout the world for having governments of integrity, for having a private sector of integrity and for being a people of integrity. Clearly we have raised the bar. Canadians expect and demand the very best we can give them. Let us now work together to raise the bar even higher.

Winston Churchill once said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others. I have been in the House since 1963. I love debate, I welcome challenges and I am very proud to defend our record, but I am humble enough to admit that mistakes have been made and I am determined enough to correct them.

However, I ask of everyone, opposition, government and the media, let us tone down our rhetoric. Let us acknowledge our differences but respect the people and respect the motives. In this way we can all get on with what really counts: the business of Canadians, building a strong economy, an inclusive society, safe and secure communities, a distinctive Canadian place in the world and a very strong and very united country.

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

Calgary Southwest Alberta

Canadian Alliance

Stephen Harper Canadian AllianceLeader of the Opposition

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister got up today and made passing reference to mistakes. He then proceeded to give us 20 minutes of self congratulation backed by virtually the whole cabinet. We have some 20 ministers here. We have problems with trade, agriculture, the Canadian dollar and the health care system but most of the cabinet is engaging in a self congratulatory rallying around the ethical dilemmas of the government.

Let us be clear what about we did not get from the Prime Minister. We did not get any kind of ministerial statement or ethics package. He talked about his plans. What we got is typical. It was not a solid policy or plan to deal with the problem. It was the beginning of a month long communication exercise. It began today with the speech, the leaks in the papers of the various content, and the floating of the trial balloons. There is one thing we in our party are looking forward to. When the package finally gets released and promoted we will want to see who gets the advertising contract.

We have a minister of public works and, as we all know, some ethical dilemmas and scandals. We have no answers. There was not even a mention of it in the statement by the Prime Minister today. I and others have made demands for information concerning the problems in public works and in advertising and sponsorship. The government claims it is dealing with the issue, yet it will only be forthcoming with the information through access to information requests, auditor general's reports and police investigations. Otherwise it will not be made available.

What we have seen, particularly in the speech and in the last few days, is an incredible attempt to justify all this. The Prime Minister stood today and defended it in the interest of national unity. The Prime Minister is the only person in the country who believes federalist corruption in Quebec somehow enhances the image of Canada in that province. Wrapping himself in the flag is not enough.

I was here Tuesday when the government discovered a great defence in the issue of family values and all the great family relations of the Boudria clan were discovering family values. Now the government has moved on to discovering traditional religion and religious authorities as its sanctuary. It is only a matter of time before these guys become full fledged social conservatives.

I will get to my specific question. The Prime Minister said--

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

Liberal

Bob Nault Liberal Kenora—Rainy River, ON

Where is the question?

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

Stephen Harper Canadian Alliance Calgary Southwest, AB

I have a question, but I have important information to bring to the attention of the House to enhance the Prime Minister's ability to answer the question. On June 16, 1994 the Prime Minister said in the House:

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.

My question is simple. What has happened over the past few days to lead the Prime Minister to come here today in this great ministerial rally? What specific ethical problems is the Prime Minister here to take responsibility for today?

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

Liberal

Jean Chrétien Liberal Saint-Maurice, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition just said that we are not debating trade, the economy or agriculture. In the last 14 days in the House of Commons the Leader of the Opposition, this one and the previous one, used question period 11 times to try to throw mud rather than deal with the real problems of the nation.

I do not know what has happened on the other side after only a few days. I referred to the member who is the previous leader and how he has changed since being a reformist or in the Alliance. We heard the new Leader of the Opposition today. He is already corrupted by his party. Two days ago he was quoted in the Globe and Mail as saying:

I don't throw words around...The issue at this point is not corruption. The issue at this point is incompetence--

We should not use that word. It is a very important word and it is irresponsible to use it. I have been travelling in Europe. It is because of this irresponsibility that we have people like Le Pen who move into a vacuum. All members of parliament here are honest people. Not one member of parliament in the last nine years has been charged with anything. Alliance members talk about corruption. It is an act of destruction of democracy. It does not serve parliament.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Bloc

Michel Gauthier Bloc Roberval, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister may try as he will to create a diversion, but absolutely nothing that he announced this morning has helped shed any light on the series of scandals that have plagued his government and that go back, in a well organized system, to well before the current minister of public works, to the former minister of public works and possibly even to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who started the sponsorship program with the Canada Information Office.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Instead of shouting at the official opposition, should he not allow for a public inquiry that would enable citizens to understand what has happened under his government?

He is creating a diversion for a reason. Instead of diverting attention, he should do some explaining. This will allow us to see what has happened. If indeed, as he claims, nothing has happened, why is he so afraid of a public inquiry?

He is afraid that we will find out what happened before the current minister.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Liberal

Jean Chrétien Liberal Saint-Maurice, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer this question.

First of all, it is the opposition that asked that we refer this matter to the auditor general. Second, if there were a commission that lasted two years, we could be here in the House refusing to answer.

We are not afraid to answer. We welcome the opposition's questions. We do not want to wash our hands of it, create a commission for two years, and then say “We will see”.

We are able to face our problems right away. We are not hiding. We are here in the House of Commons answering all of the questions everyday.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

NDP

Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS

Mr. Speaker, we have just heard the Prime Minister give a defence against the repeated call for an independent inquiry. The defence was that it could take up to two years.

We are entering the 10th year since the Prime Minister made specific promises and commitments on the campaign trail in 1993. He promised to enshrine the principle of political non-interference in public decisions, ensure free access to public office holders, introduce a code of conduct for public officials, and appoint an independent ethics counsellor who would report directly to parliament.

The Prime Minister has the nerve to stand here today and introduce a warmed over, regurgitated, eight point so-called action plan to finally begin to deal with these things a decade later. Why has it taken the Prime Minister so long? Is it not because the heat is getting way too great in the Liberal kitchen these days?

SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Liberal

Jean Chrétien Liberal Saint-Maurice, QC

Mr. Speaker, on the question of crown corporations we said that we were to have guidelines by this time of the year. On the question of the ministers who are involved in future ambitions, we have to make sure it is done in the proper fashion.

I would like to say something at this moment to the leader of the New Democratic Party. She is the one in the House who has shown the greatest responsibility. During the last 14 days that I checked, she was the one who was talking and asking questions about the real problems of the nation rather than being like the Alliance and just throwing mud all the time.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

Stephen Harper Canadian Alliance Calgary Southwest, AB

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is a very important issue. The Prime Minister has come here to address the House. A representative of the Progressive Conservative Party has not had an opportunity to ask a question of the Prime Minister. I would ask for unanimous consent, and ask for the Prime Minister to instruct his people to allow that unanimous consent, to take questions from all quarters.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

The Speaker

Is there unanimous consent to permit another question?

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

Some hon. members

No.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

Bloc

Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, today's debate deals with a fundamental issue in a democracy, namely ethical rules and the respect of these rules. This debate takes place as we find ourselves in real turmoil, in a true political crisis.

Today, the Prime Minister presented an eight point plan that includes totally inadequate new rules, and I will get back to this. The Prime Minister is primarily trying to create a diversion, so that matters embarrassing to the government and his ministers are no longer raised, and to ensure that we only discuss the rules which, incidentally, will be presented in two weeks.

The Prime Minister would like to erase the past. He keeps telling us “We made mistakes”. But every time we raise an issue, he never acknowledges it. He always justifies the mistake.

The Liberals are so bent on erasing the past that they are opposed to a true public inquiry. The Prime Minister tells us about respect. I should point out to him that respect is primarily based on clarity, truth and transparency. These three elements are missing in this government, they are not reflected in the government's actions.

The Prime Minister is telling us about respect for the institution. Well, respect for the institution begins with the establishment of clear rules, and particularly with compliance with the rules put in place by parliament.

I will say a few words about the rules to be introduced in two weeks. We are told that a number of rules will be introduced, but we do not know what these will be. The government may tell us that they will be effective, but we will see once they have been implemented and we also have to see what is included in these rules. Still, I want to discuss two of them.

We are told that the issue of political party funding will be clarified. Is this to say that, from now on, trusts will no longer be set up for members of parliament and ministers? Contributions are given to riding associations by trusts; we do not know who gives money to these trusts. There is a trust in place, but we do not know who gives it money. If there is one area that lacks clarity and transparency, this is it. I am anxious to see if the government will tackle this issue. I doubt it, as we speak.

What is really unfortunate and unacceptable is that the Prime Minister is not making any changes to the role of the ethics counsellor. This ethics counsellor is appointed by the Prime Minister. He investigates matters for the Prime Minister; he even prepares answers for the Prime Minister and he is only accountable to the Prime Minister. This is a joke. The ethics counsellor has not independence whatsoever.

During the last election campaign we called for a true ethics commissioner who would report to parliament, and who would have the same independence as the auditor general. There is much boasting about the auditor general's work and her ability to intervene, yet there is a refusal to give the ethics counsellor the same status.

That being the case, these rules are clearly inadequate. They are, I repeat, mainly diversionary tactics to forget the past, for this is nothing new. We need only recall all the Human Resources Development Canada scandals. We have been waiting more than two years for the outcome of the HRDC investigation.

To raise just one case, Placeteco, a friend of the Prime Minister, Gilles Champagne, who was the lawyer of the owner of Placeteco and at the same time trustee for the Department of Human Resources Development. Mr. Champagne was therefore negotiating with himself. It is, let us face it, rather odd to see someone talking to himself. We have also seen this with the Groupaction contracts. The contract was recommended by senior public servant Charles Guité and approved by—guess who—senior public servant Charles Guité.

There are a multitude of similar examples in each government department. We are still awaiting the results of the investigation at HRDC. They have not yet been revealed; we do not know what happened. We are told that mistakes were made, but there has been no recognition of those mistakes.

I am thinking of the Shawinigan golf club. Here we have a head of state—for the Prime Minister of Canada is a head of state—who settles a financial problem on the corner of a restaurant table cloth and submits that as evidence.

There has been no public inquiry into what went on in Shawinigan. The government would like us to swallow this and say, “It is not serious. Perhaps there were some mistakes”. But it is not admitting to any. It is saying that there are some in general, but none in particular, and it definitely does not want to do anything to find out what went on.

Another example is CINAR. When this came up, we were told, “That is an urban myth. It is not true. It does not exist”. The government should have admitted that there really was a problem. The president of CINAR, Ms. Charest, was also the chair ex officio for the Liberal Party of Canada's fundraising dinners. There was an investigation. At the time, however, the Minister of National Revenue refused to co-operate with the RCMP, which complained, with the result that no charges were laid and no public inquiry was held either.

This is how the Prime Minister can say to us that no one was charged. Of course not—there has been no inquiry. The government does everything possible to keep from knowing what went on. Then it says that people are innocent.

This is what happed during the 2000 election campaign. In full campaign swing, the government brought in its puppet ethics counsellor, Mr. Wilson, to say, “There is no problem. As ethics counsellor, I support what the government has done.

The public, which probably thinks that an ethics counsellor has a certain degree of independence, believed it. They said, “There is no problem; the ethics counsellor said so”. But the ethics counsellor is the Prime Minister's puppet. The Prime Minister writes his answers for him. When the Prime Minister is asked questions in the House, he has prepared the answers. Mr. Wilson is not independent at all. Nothing will be any different in the proposed rules.

So, right from the beginning of the election campaign and all through it, the spin was on denying what had gone on in Shawinigan and at the Department of Human Resources Development. We are still waiting for the results of these investigations. The government wants to forget the past.

This comes right in the middle of this incredible Groupe Everest affair that we raised here in the House. We were told, “The minister of public works was with his children”. That would be fine if his children were not ministers' assistants; his daughter is an assistant to the Minister of National Revenue and his son is an assistant to the Minister of Canadian Heritage. They too have violated the rules set out by parliament because, at the very least, they appear to be in a conflict of interest.

So off they go to the house of Ms. Deslaurier and Mr. Boulay, the president of Groupe Everest, which has been given many contracts by this very same minister, often in a unusual manner and sometimes without a competitive bid process. And here is what we are told, “Maybe we made a mistake in going”. The Prime Minister said, “If he had not paid, it would have been serious”.

We were told that he paid. A cheque supposedly written on March 18 was made public around March 21, yet at the same time reporters were revealing that Groupe Everest would be investigated by the auditor general. This is indeed a strange coincidence. We were told that the cheque was cashed. Yesterday—thanks to an affidavit issued by a priest, a friend of the family—we learned that he never did cash the cheque that he said he had cashed last Thursday. So, it was not paid for, but it is no big deal. It was a mistake. It has all been justified. No need for an inquiry. All in good faith.

Those who are listening know that they may be of good faith. The Prime Minister said so. They are interested in what is best for the population. Yes, they are interested; they take what belongs to the population, and then pass it on to their cronies. That is what is happening here. It is unbelievable. They have no credibility.

Let us look at the case of Groupaction. This government paid half a million dollars three times for the same contract. I will admit that they have a good photocopying machine. However, to pay for the same contract repeatedly is somewhat disturbing. We were told “This company will no longer get contracts”. This statement was made by the minister of public works.

Yet, the company continued to get contracts, so much so that it even gave some to another friend of the government who publishes L'Almanach du peuple . The Quebec government paid $250 per page in that publication, while the federal government paid $6,500 for each page. But there is no problem. Everything was done in good faith.

Of course it was done in good faith. The government acts in good faith with its friends who, in turn, act in good faith with the government. Everyone is acting in good faith, but it is the taxpayer who is footing the bill. This is exactly what is going on.

The government even went so far as to make a travesty of a state's most important duties, those of an ambassador. An ambassador represents his or her country. Yet, someone who was under investigation—because this is the case; since Groupaction is being investigated, I imagine that the minister will also be the target of an investigation at some point—was appointed ambassador to Denmark.

In this way, the government is ensuring that he is not here to answer questions. The Prime Minister said “Yes, we can answer questions every day of the week”. But when someone is in hot water, he is appointed to Denmark. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark, and I would add that something is also rotten on the other side of the House of Commons, and only on that side. This is what is going on right now.

A public inquiry is needed, because we want to know what happened in the past, and because there are considerable limits to what the RCMP can do. For one thing, as was seen in the CINAR case, when the government's co-operation is asked for, it is not forthcoming. This gives people a chance to sidestep the issue, and we will never know what went on without a public inquiry.

The RCMP investigation is addressing the three Groupaction contracts, nothing else. Just that, and it is clearly not enough. We are still waiting for the results of the investigation at HRDC.

The auditor general looks at management, not political interference. For example, it will not be possible to know who has contributed to MPs trusts, which then go to the riding associations.

We are, of course, told that everything is transparent. Mr. X 's trust fund gave $20,000 to the riding association in Mr. X 's riding. But where did that $20,000 come from? That we do not know, and they want us to swallow that. That is why a public inquiry is necessary, so that we can investigate, find out the date of the affidavits, how there happens to be a contradiction, who can be questioned and who can come and give evidence.

That is what a public inquiry is all about. This is also the reason we want an ethics commissioner. Because what we have is, I repeat, a master at camouflage—which would probably be useful for the Canadian Forces, but not in any way for ensuring that ethical standards are respected by this government. For that, an independent commissioner is necessary.

The best part of all this, however, is that today the Prime Minister is justifying these mistakes. That is what he has done. Now he is acknowledging them without identifying them. He does not want any inquiry because he does not want too much probing. Yet he is acknowledging them in general and justifying them regardless.

The end justifies the means. The end is to attack the sovereignist movement in Quebec, as they did with the love-in in Montreal. They trampled over all the laws of Quebec, which are far more advanced than here as far as democracy and ethics are concerned. The referendum act was not respected and now they are justifying the errors as a so-called assault on the Quebec sovereignist movement.

Yes, there is an assault going on, but using unacceptable means. We are prepared to fight out in the open, to get to the bottom of it, but here the public's funds are being used as weapons. We have been told, “We are giving money to Quebec. You should be pleased”.

Let the government take the $600 million it invested in propaganda and give it to us for research and development. We will be happy to take it.

What the government is mainly doing is getting a bigger bang for its buck. Not only is it investing money to fight sovereignty in Quebec, but it is using that money to help its cronies at the same time, to the tune of fifty times more a page. Yes, sir, we are paying. Then they get together in chalets to talk about things among friends, among Liberals.

The issue here is not one minister or another. Sending the current minister of public works to be an ambassador somewhere—Copenhagen is taken, but there are other spots, I imagine—will not solve the problem.

This is about a network. This happened at Human Resources Development Canada; it happened at the Department of National Revenue in the deals worked out with CINAR. It is happening at the department of public works. People from Everest are now working in the Department of Justice, which also employs the daughter of the minister of public works. The minister of public works' son works in the Department of Canadian Heritage, whose minister initiated all this propaganda, with all the flags she sold all over the place.

It is a network involving government ministers, a network involving friends of the party, a network involving not just friends, but family members. It is a family compact we are facing, a red family compact. That is what is going on across the way, and that is what we are up against.

That is why we are insisting that there be a public inquiry. A public inquiry would shed light on what has gone on. It would be a way of restraining the Prime Minister, who thinks he is a king, who shows a complete disregard for parliament. He even says to journalists “Today, I will answer such and such a question because it is a good one, but not the other one. Today, I am a democrat; tomorrow I may be a dictator”. He said this in public.

It is unthinkable that a Prime Minister would use such language. Of course, he will tell us that it was a joke. The other side is doing a lot of laughing. They are laughing at the public, that is what they are doing. They are playing them for fools.

Once again, when the Prime Minister says, “you are not raising any other issues”, he needs to take a closer look, many other issues have been raised, but this one is a major issue, because it speaks to the integrity of the government.

How can we trust a government when we know about certain links but remain in the dark about their ramifications? How can we have faith in a government when we know that of all of the mistakes that they have apparently admitted making, they do not recognize any one specific mistake. How can we trust this government, for which the end justifies the means, a government that has just said, “We may have made a mistake, but we will go ahead just the same”.

This is the language, the rhetoric, the attitude of this government that we have been up against since the beginning, and we will not stop fighting it, because it is our duty to ensure that there is a public inquiry to get to the bottom of this. One wonders why they are scared of such an inquiry.

When the former minister, Mr. Gagliano said, “I am prepared to appear before a committee and justify everything”, he was shipped off to Denmark. From Denmark he has told us:

“One day I will say what I want. I can't now since I am ambassador, the envoy to Denmark”.

How wonderful. What does he have to say that he cannot say right now? A public inquiry would help us get to the bottom of things. That is what we are calling for, demanding. Even though it may not please the Prime Minister, he should realize that we will not drop this demand. This is something that people expect of us, the respect of this institution and, ultimately, self-respect.

We cannot accept such behaviour and pretend that everything is fine.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

Liberal

Carole-Marie Allard Liberal Laval East, QC

Mr. Speaker, the smear campaign undertaken by opposition parties clearly reflects their despair.

To be sure, the Bloc Quebecois has reasons to be concerned. Support for sovereignty is diminishing and is now around 40%. Polls in Quebec put the PQ in third place, with 25% of the vote. We can no longer figure out how many members the Bloc Quebecois has. Is it 36, 37 or 36? This is not to mention its poor showing in the last byelections.

Indeed, the Bloc Quebecois has reasons to be concerned. It is asking for a public inquiry to evaluate the level of corruption within the Liberal government. The Bloc Quebecois had already asked for an investigation. We mandated the auditor general to conduct one. Now, the RCMP will look at the issue.

This morning, the Prime Minister referred to his government's strong performance when he announced the main features of an aggressive eight point plan to raise the bar even higher in terms of ethics and integrity, for our government.

Since the publication of its first report, in 1995, Transparency International, which is the most important international organization dedicated to eliminating corruption in government and in the business world, has recognized Canada as the country where corruption is perceived as being the lowest among all G-7 members.

Is the Bloc Quebecois prepared to admit today that its exaggerated and unfounded attacks could adversely affect hundreds of workers who earn a living honorably in Quebec's advertising industry?

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

Bloc

Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, if our attacks are unfounded, then let there be an inquiry. It is not complicated. If the member is right, she will be happy. The government will be happy, and so will you, Mr. Speaker.

That said, they refuse to do so. You cannot be any more sure than I that the attacks are unfounded. We shall see. However, they are scared of an inquiry.

The argument my colleague raised is the same one that was used in the CINAR affair. We were told “You must not do this. It will punish people”. Indeed, it punishes artists for the most part. Thousands of workers in advertising, the creative arts and film have had it, they are fed up with acting as servants for government cronies, fed up with having their talent exploited by cronies who pocket the money, and use their talents—

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

An hon. member

To make millions.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

Bloc

Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Precisely. To put millions in their pockets. That is shameful and is why an inquiry is needed. That is why they are getting scared, because people in these companies are going to come forward. They are giving us information. They see what is going on and they want an inquiry. If the government is not afraid, let it get an inquiry started. We will see that the real hands-on workers are not the ones exploiting people by awarding unjustified contracts, by using public funds shamelessly. People whose talents are being used for the aggrandizement of Quebec are fed up with the mudslinging at Quebec that the Liberal Party is engaged in, for the buddies of the Liberal Party, using the taxpayers' money.

Yes, the advertising agency people would be delighted if their work were not sidetracked, if they were not forced to bow to the buddies of the regime and those who control the taxpayers' money, such as the MPs and ministers on the other side of this House.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

Progressive Conservative

Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister mentioned about five times in his speech about having raised the bar and that this was the justification for this new contrition of having discovered the ethics that Canadians expect.

Given the current standard, which I would suggest is pretty low, the conflict of interest in the post-employment code for public office holders is pretty broad. It was brought in by the government in 1994.

Avoidance of preferential treatment. In section 23(1) it states:

A public office holder shall take care to avoid being placed or the appearance of being placed under an obligation to any person or organization, or the representative of a person or organization, that might profit from special consideration on the part of the office holder.

That is a pretty low bar and yet ministers of the government, most recently the public works minister, have clearly limboed under that bar.

Would the opposition leader agree that the standard has been repeatedly broken by the government?

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:30 a.m.

Bloc

Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. There ought to be standards and rules that are even more strict. Yet even the existing ones are not being respected. That is what is worrisome.

The ethics counsellor has said so. The Prime Minister has not changed the counsellor's role and the fact that he will remain answerable only to the Prime Minister.

Returning to the expression “to raise the bar” the Prime Minister has used, the word bar could refer to a wooden bar or a drinks bar. Perhaps the Prime Minister was referring to an “open bar”, with free drinks for all his cronies.

To raise the bar means an open bar for friends of the Liberals. It is exactly that, Mr. Speaker.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:30 a.m.

Liberal

Mac Harb Liberal Ottawa Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, frankly, I find that the opposition member is engaging in unjustified smearing.

I have a specific question for the hon. member. In a poll conducted by Léger & Léger, it was found that 53% of respondents said that provincial governments also have problems.

Could the hon. member tell me if he thinks that the Parti Quebecois in Quebec is included in this negative perception by Canadians? What does he think? Does he think that there are problems in Quebec, as in Ontario and Alberta, where the Conservatives are in office, and in other provinces?

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:30 a.m.

Bloc

Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, the problem is here. We are debating what is going on here. What my colleague is trying to do is fairly obvious. He does not want to debate this. They are saying, “Don't talk about what is going on here. We will turn the focus elsewhere”.

What they are suggesting is without foundation. Prove it with a survey. That is our challenge to this government: face the music, let the public know what has gone on. But they are doing everything they can to avoid this. They are creating diversions. They are saying, “We are here in Ottawa, but we want to talk about what is going on in Alberta, in Quebec, but not what is going on here”.

They want us to swallow this. “We have made mistakes”, says the government. What were they? “None in particular, but many in general”, they tell us. Name me one in particular. They are unable. One after another, they justify them.

Above all, they do not want any inquiries, because that would reveal, for example, whether the cheque to Ms. Deslauriers was really made out on March 18, whether the priest cashed it, or whether it was another cheque which he cashed on Thursday but which, according to his affidavit, he did not in fact cash.

Some interesting things could come out of this. We could see who is benefiting from what, but that is not what they want. So, rather than worrying about what is going on somewhere else—my colleague was not elected somewhere else; he was elected here—he should look after his own affairs before worrying about the affairs of others.

If there is no smear campaign, it is perhaps because it is hard to distinguish the offending colour and the odours wafting over from the other side. Let the government prove it. Let the government prove that there is nothing unsavoury about all this. Let the government prove it; I challenge it to do so. It cannot.

I call on the government to prove it, but it does not want to. When people do not want to clean up their act, or prove that they are clean, the only conclusion is that what is going on there is neither very savoury nor very clean. What is not very clean we call filth.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:30 a.m.

NDP

Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS

Mr. Speaker, I think it is a good thing today that we begin this very important debate on the rules to ensure parliamentarians' integrity and accountability.

I deeply regret the fact that, right now, there are only three Liberals here for this important debate. I think this speaks volumes.

Four years ago, the former member for Halifax West, a distinguished and very respected colleague of mine who spent his life serving the public, presented a new code of ethics.

I will interrupt myself to say that I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Winnipeg--Transcona.

I was just saying that my former colleague, Gordon Earle, presented a new official code of ethics to protect the public interest against actions taken by a parliamentarian to promote private interests.

It was at that time that the former member for Halifax West introduced this important legislation. Six years had already passed since the government came to power on the promise that it would take the initiative to establish the true independence of an ethics counsellor who would report to the House and that it would introduce the legislation that today the Prime Minister has the gall and audacity to stand in the House to talk about as part of an important action plan that even as of this moment we still have not seen and that the Prime Minister said would be forthcoming, when in fact we may not see a good deal of it until the fall.

That in itself gives a pretty clear message to the people of Canada as to what kind of priority the government gives the whole question of ethical conduct in government.

Since then, after this bill was first introduced, my party introduced it again on two occasions. As the leader of the NDP, I did so myself as recently as on March 14, 2001. I want to briefly repeat what I said on that day when I introduced this bill.

The legislation provides for an ethics counsellor who would report directly to parliament and would do so annually. Today the Prime Minister says “Well, we are actually going to introduce that as part of a future action plan”. Such legislation exists in every province and territory in the country and in many other countries that have parliamentary systems similar to that of Canada.

What in the name of heavens has kept the government from dealing with this issue when province after province and nation after nation with similar parliamentary systems have long since had such legislation in place?

As I said on March 14, 2001, when I introduced the legislation:

It is clear that we need such conflict of interest legislation and such a code of conduct to prevent the further erosion of confidence in parliament as an institution and to restore confidence that parliamentarians will act not with conflict of interest but with the public interest at heart.

I want to deal very briefly with what the Prime Minister said here this morning in response to my questions about what had taken the government so long to respond in the heat of the kind of controversy and taint that swirls around the government today. The Prime Minister stood up and used an age old tactic. He tried to deflect from the real issues that his government has refused to deal with and, in the most condescending way, congratulated me and my party for the fact that we alone in the House have continued to focus on the real problems that concern everyday working people in this country.

It is a neat tactic but it is a cheap trick. I do not know whether the Prime Minister wants to hear this, but he should know that people are fed up with him pointing again and again at the opposition to say that the erosion of public confidence in parliament and parliamentarians is the fault of the opposition because it keeps raising the issues.

It is absolutely clear for all to see that the government has failed to provide legislation that would ensure the highest standards of public conduct. It is the government that has, in a kind of ironic, perverse twist, been willing to endure the battering that it has taken from the opposition, particularly from the official opposition, because it has allowed Liberals to get off the hook from dealing with the real issues of the day.

That is why we are doubly furious at what has been going on with the government. I do not think it is too extreme or too paranoid to suggest that the government has rather enjoyed the erosion of public confidence around parliament. I also believe that the official opposition is quite pleased with that erosion of confidence because it serves its objectives, which are to erode confidence and to shrink people's expectations of what they should believe government is capable of and should be required to accomplish on behalf of the people.

What do they get? They cultivate a climate of non-confidence that then results in people being easily led to the next conclusion that if they cannot trust the government, the Prime Minister, parliamentarians or cabinet ministers then they should just remove a lot of the functions of government that are within the public domain, accountable to the public and turn them over to the private sector where they can now commercialize them, commodify them and establish them within the realm of the marketplace on a for profit basis.

That may seem like a long stretch but we have watched the systematic erosion of confidence in the parliamentary process. What is truly heartbreaking is that, in tandem, the Liberal government and the official opposition have accomplished that shared objective to an alarming degree.

Therefore, I rise today to object strenuously to the constant opportunity that the government gives to the Alliance, the official opposition, to tear down and do damage to the reputation of parliamentarians and to the confidence in government that people in a democracy need and deserve and that we mutually have a responsibility to re-establish.

In conclusion, let me say that when the Prime Minister stands in his place and outlines an action program, there is no more reason for people to go away from parliament believing or for the public to believe that the government means business and has any serious intention of delivering, any more than the Liberals did when they made promises to do the very same thing in 1993 when they sought office.

The government alone bears the responsibility for the damage that has been done and the government, by virtue of being the government, continues to bear the responsibility to clean up the mess it has created.