Debates of May 23rd, 2002

Supply

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the test that the hon. member just handed me, and I will do my best to pass it.

If the government abided by the present rules we would not need any changes but unfortunately it is not doing that. We have seen that by just reading the newspapers over the last little while.

There are other democracies that have committees that deal with ethics issues and which report back to their parliaments and legislatures. This one does not have that. We have an ethics counsellor who is not an ethics counsellor but rather the first line of defence for the government. Whenever the government has a problem or gets into a bind, it calls the ethics counsellor and the ethics counsellor writes a report saying that everything is squeaky clean. That is the government's first line of defence and that is a bad mistake.

I will mention to the member three changes I would like to see made.

First, I would like to see committees of the House allowed to elect their own chairs in a proper way. Second, I would like to see committees allowed to choose their agendas, not be driven by ministers who tell it to do this or that. Third, is the same one I mentioned in the first place and that is an ethics counsellor who reports to parliament.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Prime Minister's speech this morning with total disgust quite honestly. I could not believe the Prime Minister of Canada said some of the things he did, trying to find excuses for the inexcusable.

Never mind the reports of the ethics counsellor and the ethics counsellor himself, which is a very serious issue. We have a report from the auditor general, Sheila Fraser, on the Groupaction contracts. I find what the government is attempting to do very troubling and problematic. We have to do a better job at picking up on this.

In the report she said:

Our audit found that senior public servants responsible for managing the contracts demonstrated an appalling disregard for the Financial Administration Act, the Government Contracts Regulations, Treasury Board policy, and rules designed to ensure prudence and probity in government procurement.

This is not a problem of senior public servants. Senior public servants answer to the minister--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I am sorry to interrupt but I have to give an opportunity to the member for Cumberland--Colchester to respond.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, the member said that he listened in disgust to the Prime Minister this morning. My reaction was different. It was more amazement and bewilderment that the Prime Minister could stand and say that we had to maintain the decorum or that we could not let these questions bring parliament into disrepute. When the Liberals were in opposition, their full time job was to bring parliament into disrepute and they left no stone unturned doing it.

Anyway to answer the question, I have a quote here from the Prime Minister who said:

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

No one should blame the bureaucrats for this. There is a tradition and a precedent for accountability by ministers and that is completely disregarded by the government.

[John Williams, Canadian Alliance, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, normally I rise and say I am pleased to engage in the debate but the subject today unfortunately is not one that pleases anybody in the House, I hope. Fighting corruption and acknowledging that corruption is among us is a difficult situation. I remember the Prime Minister saying this morning that we should all be honourable people in the House but honourable people do not engage in corruption. I would like to see us live up to a title of honourable members.

The Ottawa Citizen today had an article about a committee meeting yesterday where I appeared as a witness. It was about an organization of parliamentarians that was trying to create an organization around the world called “global organization of parliamentarians against corruption”. This is being spearheaded by Canada and I am glad to say that the Minister for International Cooperation, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Finance all support this initiative.

I hope we can hold our heads high as a beacon to the world as we bringing parliamentarians together to put this organization in place and to strengthen parliament so that the issue of corruption is at least controlled, if it cannot be eliminated. Unfortunately human nature when not held accountable, is prone to dipping its fingers into taxpayer money and other opportunities to help itself.

I want to quote a couple of items from the Ottawa Citizen article. It says:

--parliamentarians are a critical link in stopping corruption because their job is to hold the government of the day to account...

The whole idea is to strengthen the role of Parliament so it is more effective in holding its executive to account and, by doing so, curb corruption and help the economy...

It also talks about coming up with codes of conduct and best practices for accountability that are key tools to fighting corruption. That is what I said yesterday before committee, and today we have the Prime Minister giving a great speech about how open and transparent his government is.

Let us examine how open and transparent the government really is. Allegations are surrounding the Minister of Industry that his senior staff members, his political staff members, have been travelling the country at government expense doing what perhaps may be his own leadership bid for the party.

The Prime Minister said that he had to open up the expense account statements but we still cannot get them. Funny thing is, three days after the Winnipeg Free Press asked for the information, the political staff member reimbursed the government for one of the airplane tickets to Winnipeg. Why does it take a request through the access to information for the government to say “Oh, let us be open and transparent, but let us fix it first”.

The minister of public works, whom I hold in high regard, apologized to the House for accepting a consideration in kind. However we also found that the $800 cheque, which messed up the whole scenario, was cashed after it became public knowledge. There is a two month gap which is unexplained. Why wait until it becomes public knowledge before the government says that it should be fixed before it comes out in the open?

A couple of years ago we spent months in the House on the HRDC scandal. The point was that while there was no real allegations of corruption, the President of the Treasury Board tabled in the House new rules for internal audit. When it all became public that there was a just a real rat's nest of problems in that department, it said “Okay let us see if we can fix that up”.

Let us look at the Prime Minister's statement this morning. He talked about his plan to introduce an eight point plan, or I hope legislation, to fix the problems, which we are debating today. He talked about introduction of rules relating to ministerial relationships with crown corporations.

It is a good idea, but it comes after Jon Grant talked about the relationship of Mr. Gagliano, the former minister of public works, to Canada Lands Company Limited which is a crown corporation and Downsview Park Inc. which is a subsidiary of Canada Lands Company Limited. The Liberals have been caught with their fingers in the trough so the Prime Minister is saying he will now fix the problem. The Minister of Industry was caught in allegations of wrongdoing. Now the Prime Minister says he will table guidelines for ministerial fundraising.

In the red book in 1993 the Prime Minister said he would create an ethics commissioner reporting to parliament. He now tells us he will give us the first report of the ethics counsellor who, by the way, writes the Prime Minister's responses for question period. That is some ethics counsellor. It will be interesting to see what kind of report it will be. The Prime Minister had no intention of making it public until the pressure was on.

We also have changes to the Lobbyists Registration Act. We have known for a long time that people who forget to register as lobbyists and so on are lobbying the government. The ethics counsellor who writes the Prime Minister's answers for question period is in charge of the Lobbyists Registration Act. It gives me a sore head to think of the lack of transparency and accountability and the conflicts of interest that permeate the entire situation. I am glad the Prime Minister is promising to fix the situation.

The Prime Minister says he will bring in new ideas for the financing of political parties. We have been standing in the House for years saying there seemed to be a correlation between making contributions to the Liberal Party and becoming a recipient of government contracts. It is now becoming a scandal the Prime Minister cannot ignore so he says he will bring in legislation.

The Prime Minister says he will bring in responsibility for senior public officials. As the auditor general has told us, some senior public officials did not think the rules applied to them, and whatever rules they thought applied to them they broke anyway. We sure need ethics.

The Council of Europe is a wonderful organization. It has developed a wonderful code of ethics which has been on its website for a long time. It is for all members of parliament, cabinet ministers and prime ministers. It could have been adopted a long time ago but was not.

I forgot to mention that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke, so I have a couple of minutes left.

Let us get everything out in the open. Democracy means openness, transparency and accountability to the electorate. The Prime Minister said democracy was the worst kind of government we could have apart from all the others. That may be true but let us not call it the worst kind. Let us make sure it is the best kind because it is open, transparent and accountable.

Our role as elected representatives of the citizens of Canada is to hold the executive to account. We must ask where the money is being spent, if the rules are being followed, if government members are getting benefits from their friends, and if they are ensuring contracts are open to public tender.

I sincerely hope Canada can be a beacon to the world. I hope we can say corruption has no place in our society the same way racism and bigotry have no place in our society. I hope we can demonstrate to the world that we can and should be the leader of a global organization of parliamentarians against corruption.

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, during his speech, my friend and colleague, the member for St. Albert, talked about the financing of political parties. While I totally agree with him, I believe that the approach to the financing of political parties should be reviewed in depth.

I would like to hear his comments on this point. Does he agree with the method used in Quebec, where public financing is the chosen approach, or does he think we should simply limit the corporate contributions to political parties and set the ceiling at $10,000, $25,000 or something like that, instead of allowing businesses to give sums of $500,000, one million dollars or even more?

I would like to hear what the member has to say on public financing and political party financing.

[John Williams, Canadian Alliance, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, any time money is channelled through companies or some other methodology we start to wonder about the intentions. This is why I say democracy is about openness, transparency and accountability. We need to know.

Perhaps the Prime Minister will take to heart this idea when talking about changing the financing of political parties. If a person or company contributes to a political party and gets a contract it should be published. If a company gets a contract for $550,000 it should say beside it that the company contributed $75,000 to the governing party. That would let people draw their own conclusions.

Let us get it out front. If there is a correlation we will soon find it and start asking serious questions. If perchance it is proven to be legitimate after investigation I have no problem with that. However let us get it out in the open before we need to drag it out through access to information. Let us do so before we need to guess there is a smelly issue we should be looking at.

Democracy means putting information out. It means transparency. We would all be better off. I can assure the House if the government followed that rule it would not find itself in the position it is in today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I commend my hon. friend and colleague from St. Albert. He has done a lot of work in the area of cleaning up government and finding out how institutions and administrations can face head on the issue of corruption to bring about the transparent and effective government he speaks of.

I will ask him about the root causes of corruption. We know it is financially driven. It is about money. It is about the redistribution of taxpayers' money for the benefit of government. This cannot be lost in the debate.

Is corruption not really about the perpetuation of power? In awarding these contracts to individuals is the government not gathering favours so the individuals in receipt of the contracts will feel indentured and grateful enough to reciprocate financially and in terms of political favour? Is this not the root cause of the corruption we are seeing perpetuated by the government?

[John Williams, Canadian Alliance, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend from Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough is absolutely right. There is nepotism. Someone can tell government members they can use their house for the weekend and say “Thank you very much for the contract you gave me last week. By the way, I have an application for another contract this week”.

When one finds oneself in a conflict of interest in private as the minister and the chairman of the company likely did, it is strange that one can say “I am sorry, thank you for the use of your house over the weekend but I nixed your contract. I am putting it out for public tender but you can hike it by 10% to make sure there is extra gravy in it to cover your political contribution to the party I happen to represent”.

Corruption is a diversion of public funds for personal gain. Whether it is used to gain power, stay in power, have a holiday for free or put cash into one's own pocket, it is the same thing in different forms. It is corruption, something which should never happen in an open, transparent and accountable democracy.

[Cheryl Gallant, Canadian Alliance, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is with considerable sadness for the state of democracy in Canada that I find it necessary to rise and debate Liberal Party corruption.

It is a sad commentary on the deteriorated state of politics in Canada that members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition should be distracted from the deplorable state of national affairs, the chronic underfunding of health care, the softwood lumber crisis, and the unfolding crisis on the family farm resulting from inept foreign policy with our largest trading partner.

If the purpose of all the petty scandals is to distract the official opposition from the crisis in leadership the country currently faces, the government's strategy is not working. Ethical political behaviour is important to Canadians. While the government has used its friends in the media and elsewhere to slime its way out of past scandals, this time the smell of corruption is too great not to be noticed by the Canadian people.

The current tone of sleaze and corruption was set by no less than the Prime Minister when he directed members of his party during the last campaign to cry racist and try to smear opponents rather than engage in meaningful debate. The Prime Minister set the tone. There can be no doubt that the rot starts in his own office and trickles down to every nook and cranny of the Liberal Party.

There is a myth being sold by supporters of the finance minister that if only the Prime Minister would leave the corruption would leave with him and it would be all right. How wrong they are. Corruption is so deeply ingrained in anyone even remotely associated with the Liberal Party that it would take 20 years to find all the buried skeletons let alone clean up the mess.

In addition to the startling revelations of former senior staffer Jonathan Murphy, sure evidence of rot in the Prime Minister's Office is the Prime Minister's own decision to hire the defeated former candidate for Renfrew--Nipissing-Pembroke as a fetch-it in his office. This two time loser is the same person the Prime Minister condemned for making racist comments against natives at the Pembroke Outdoor Sportsman's Club. His own party supporters wrote the Prime Minister a letter to asking him to intervene so the person would not “spout his extreme positions in the name of the Liberal Party”. The Prime Minister answered the people in a letter dated March 20, 1992. He said he had looked into the issue could assure the members “that the views expressed by Mr. Clouthier at a meeting...are, frankly, unacceptable to me.”

In case there is any doubt about the sincerity of his attack against natives, the same person went on local television months later to boast about his comments. He bragged that he stood by everything he had said and would not retract his statements. Regarding the Prime Minister, he commented on the CBC that “The bottom line is, I believe he is not a leader”. Yet there he sits at the Prime Minister's right hand.

It would appear that what was unacceptable to the Prime Minister then is now all right. It looks like a lot of things are acceptable now that were not before, or are they? People in my riding say he is there because the two are so alike. However I have news for the Prime Minister. The 43 Grit supporters who signed the letter to the Prime Minister have nominated a candidate to run against the gopher. As supporters of the finance minister they are counting the days until the Prime Minister is forced from office in disgrace and takes the caucus snitch with him.

The Prime Minister's own party is abandoning him. Why else would they run someone against his favourite? Nothing could be more telling than the startling revelations this week by the former Liberal research director Jonathan Murphy. As someone who has endured a smear campaign from the Prime Minister's office I can appreciate Mr. Murphy's description of the Prime Minister's family friend Francine Ducros as a communications director who “favoured a small group of press gallery journalists who were prepared to regurgitate PMO propaganda”.

Only one who lives the life of Riley knows if Mr. Murphy is referring to Ms. Ducros or to the civil servants who report the news at the government broadcasting corporation, the CBC, and collect paycheques thanks to the taxpayers of Canada.

As a knowledgeable party insider, Murphy refers to the “nepotism and politicization of the bureaucracy...in a manner reminiscent of a one-party state”. In Mr. Murphy's words, the secretive “Communications Co-ordination Group” is just a front for deceptive government propaganda to thwart access to information requests and formulate smear campaigns against the auditor general as that public servant performs her responsibilities.

Earlier I referred to the rot and corruption that have infiltrated every nook and cranny in the Liberal Party. Nowhere is this more evident than in my riding of Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke where the local Liberal Party association decided to set up a committee it calls the communication and strategy committee. Communication, to a Liberal, means smear. In the Prime Minister's Office, in a riding association, there is no difference: smear is smear.

Strategy consists of sending hate letters to newspapers. In fact, the riding association president bragged to his members that the so-called work of the committee would, and I quote their newsletter, “become evident throughout the riding's media outlets”.

The Prime Minister sets the tone. How many other propaganda committees has the party set up in ridings across the country? The Prime Minister's corruption has rotted the grassroots, or what is left of them, in his party. Only a cynical person looking for an appointment with a crown corporation or for some kind of handout wants to join his party now. What a sad commentary on the state of political discourse in his party.

The absolute lowest point of this session had to be the member for Vancouver Centre and her attempt to smear the entire city of Prince George with visions of crosses burning in front yards. The next lowest point was the attempt by the Liberal MPs to smear the auditor general in her role as an impartial public servant in exposing government mismanagement and waste.

If one examines corruption in this current government, it can be divided into two types: institutional and political. The first type of government corruption is political, which I have spoken about. Now I will deal with corruption that is institutional, which includes conscious mismanagement of government.

The Sea King helicopter fiasco is the most public example of this corruption. The decision to cancel the contract was totally political. How many Canadian soldiers must die because they are forced to use unsafe equipment? In the 1960s there was a jet aircraft in use that had the nickname “the widow-maker”. How many military widows will there be now because of military cutbacks?

How many other Canadians have died because of Liberal cutbacks to our health care system? In the city of Pembroke in my riding residents are denied basic health care that is taken for granted in other areas, such as MRIs, because of the Liberal cutbacks to health care.

The government's response is that it had to balance the budget, yet it can find almost a billion dollars to harass duck hunters and hundreds of millions of dollars for ad campaigns, but there is no money for health care.

On July 6, 2001, a coroner's jury clearly placed the blame for the drowning deaths of two Bruce Township Central Public School students near Tobermory, Ontario, on federal government cutbacks. Of the 61 recommendations made by the coroner's jury, forty-four were directed to Transport Canada, three to Parks Canada and one each to Environment Canada and the Transportation Safety Board. In the words of the local superintendent of education, “Over forty recommendations were directed at Transport Canada. The poor regulatory process of the Federal Government was likely the reason the boat sank”.

What has happened? The cutbacks continue. There is no accountability in the system. The federal Minister of Transport should have resigned and taken responsibility for the needless deaths of these children. Instead the Prime Minister is proud that no minister has resigned. I call the need to resign accountability in our parliamentary democracy. Failure to respect that is corruption of our political institution.

It is clear that the sequel to On the Take , crime, corruption and greed in the Prime Minister's years, is now being written. The Prime Minister has said that once there was honour in his party. He has the opportunity to leave a positive legacy. No one wants to be remembered for corruption and greed. He has an option, Sir. He can continue the old ways or he can be remembered as a statesman. The choice is his. Ethical behaviour is important to the Canadian people. He will be judged by his actions, not by the empty words of communication of the propaganda committee. The choice is clear.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am frankly very disappointed. The House was exceptionally well served by the former Liberal member for Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke. For many years that riding produced wonderful Liberals. It is quite unfortunate that we have had this hiccup over the past four years, where the constituency, for whatever reason, has decided to experiment with a new member.

Frankly, it is unfortunate that she stands up in the House and attempts to attack the integrity of one of the finest prime ministers that has ever served this country, a Prime Minister who for the past 40 years has proven over and over again the kind of leadership, sincerity, vision and integrity that this country deserves so very much.

I want to ask her this: If it was so bad why would Transparency International have identified this country as one of the cleanest among all of the G-7 countries? Why would the United Nations over and over again identify this country as one of the finest countries in which to live? Are things so bad? Frankly, I think the only corrupt thing is on the other side in the brains of those opposition members who cannot even talk about issues. Rather, they bring the debate to such a low level.

[Cheryl Gallant, Canadian Alliance, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, openness, transparency and accountability are what the official opposition is demanding of government. The member asked the question of why it did this. One only has to look to the different grants that go to countries and that are unaccountable. Obviously somewhere along the line somebody has paid for that too.

Here we are again, resorting to smear tactics instead of discussing the issue.

[R. John Efford, Liberal, Bonavista—Trinity—Conception, NL]

Mr. Speaker, as you said, I am a new member in the House. I came in just a couple of days ago after sixteen and a half years of experience in the provincial house of assembly in Newfoundland and Labrador. I had the good fortune of serving in the opposition for four years and then in three different portfolios, social services, transportation and twice as fisheries minister. There was quite a different setting in the house of assembly in Newfoundland and Labrador with respect to the decorum and the way question period is carried out, so it will take me a while to get used to it.

I have been listening to the opposition members over the last three or four days. They keep using the word corruption. Before I get into what I want to talk about, which is the sensationalism of what the opposition is doing, I want to make mention of the Prime Minister and the statement that he made in the House this morning.

I must say that I have been a Liberal for quite a long time. I have served for sixteen and a half years. I was never more proud to be a Liberal and to be in the House than when I heard the Prime Minister speak this morning. I served in the role of opposition member from 1985 to 1989 and I have some information for the people in the opposition. Those people who live in glass houses should not throw stones. Using the word corruption is degrading all the ministers and all people on both sides of the House.

[Cheryl Gallant, Canadian Alliance, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome the new member to the House.

Corruption is defined as the diversion of public funds for private gain. The accusations about the opposition being corrupt are totally unfounded. The corruption is here in the government, and if the name sticks, it is going to wear it.

[John Manley, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations]

Mr. Speaker, I want to inform you that I will share my time with the member for Ottawa Centre.

I am pleased to speak to the motion on public ethics that the opposition has introduced today. This issue is quite important. I believe it should interest all parliamentarians and any institution of democratic government. The welfare of our nation and our ability to govern depend directly on the citizens' trust in the institutions that govern and represent them.

The Prime Minister spoke eloquently and extensively on this matter today. He made clear the government's commitment to the highest ethical standards, not only in repayment of the trust placed in us by Canadians but also as the best guarantor we have of effective governance, which allows our society to thrive and our economy to prosper.

Some of the important measures instituted over the last eight and a half years by the government to ensure that this high ethical standard is maintained and strengthened even further have included: the fulfillment of the pledge to appoint an ethics counsellor, which was done in consultation with the opposition leaders in this House; the tabling of a revised and strengthened code of conduct for public office holders, overseen by the ethics counsellor; the introduction of the toughest legislation in the world for regulating lobbyists; and our support for a motion that increased the frequency of reporting to parliament by Canada's auditor general. All of these are steps that have brought greater transparency and accountability into our system of government in this country.

The Prime Minister has just outlined today a new eight point plan to build on these measures and to raise the standard for government integrity and ethics even higher. For my part, I wish to underscore two key points today.

First, even while we take note of these various guidelines and measures to support probity in public governance, we have to recognize that ethics fundamentally are not about rules. They are about people making judgments and guiding their behaviour accordingly. We can always enact book loads of rules, but ultimately Canadians will judge their political representatives by their behaviour, by the moral compass that guides them and by the degree to which they uphold the dignity and standards of their office and of our parliamentary traditions.

What has allowed this government to do particularly well, and Canadians recognize this, is the fact that its actions respect and go beyond these standards.

No member of this government has deviated from the rules. No member of this government has tried to take advantage of public office for personal gain. Never.

This government takes very seriously the trust that the people has in it and that they have renewed many times.

The second point I wish to make relates very much to the first. It is important that parliament discuss issues associated with ethical behaviour, but we must do so in a manner that inspires the confidence of Canadians. Scandal-mongering and the ability to make allegations in this Chamber without legal consequence benefits no one, least of all our electors. It shames this House.

Unfounded and extreme language is the height of irresponsibility, particularly in the use of words like corruption or crime, which have very specific meanings and which clearly do not apply to anything that has been revealed in the House or outside it in recent weeks. This rhetoric reveals a bankruptcy of genuine thought and considered ideas on real questions of policy and government practice.

In the schoolyard when children have nothing better to say they may scream a curse. In parliament it seems that if the opposition has nothing of substance to criticize or to contribute it shouts corruption.

One major responsibility is renewing itself, particularly as the official opposition has now a new leader, that is, to restore some dignity and intelligence to the proceedings of the House.

I would like to encourage my colleagues to make this goal a personal priority.

The dignity of this Chamber depends upon it. Serious questions have every right to be asked and they deserve answers. Where things need to be fixed, they must be fixed. There is no question about that. It is the role of the opposition to challenge the government to do so.

However it also brings this institution into disrepute when extreme language is used, and we hear that repeatedly, without justification, without explanation and without facts.

[Howard Hilstrom, Canadian Alliance, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

You are the extreme.

[John Manley, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

The hon. member for the Alliance says that we are the extreme. However, even in today's motion its members could not state the facts in a truthful way.

We heard the former leader of the opposition get up today and complain that I had used a letter referring to his desire to receive funds under a sponsorship program claiming that his request had not been accepted when in fact it is still under consideration. Let us put that in the context in which it arose and why I raised it.

I raised it because somehow or other the members of the Alliance Party thought it was wrong for me, as the member of parliament for Ottawa South, to write a letter supporting the Ottawa Tulip Festival. Is the tulip festival a scandal? In what way did I personally benefit from that? One hon. member said that I did it for self-aggrandizement.

If the hon. members over there think it is a scandal for a member of parliament to seek self-aggrandizement, I think we had better have a pretty big dock for all the criminals to sit on after watching them outside the Chamber after question period parading around down on the market.

The time has come for us to put a bit of limitation on what people say in this place. We must respect the traditions of parliament that suggest decorum and responsibility ought to be reflected in here. This debate has gone well beyond the questions of proper governance. It has gone into questions of allegation and of guilt by association. I do not think it meets any of the minimal norms of parliamentary behaviour.

I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to listen very carefully to the language being used in here to ensure it reflects the proper values of this place.

[Jim Abbott, Canadian Alliance, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister is correct when he says that this issue deals with matters of significance. It deals with the confidence that Canadians have in this parliamentary process.

He talks about fulfilling the pledge for an ethics counsellor when he knows full well that in the Liberal red book it called for an ethics commissioner not an ethics counsellor. He talks about transparency and accountability. He talks about extreme language. What about the extreme language of the former immigration minister during the last election? What about calling us anti-Semitic? What about all the racist epithets that she put out?

What about when the current immigration minister said that we were the Le Pen franchise in Canada? That was rather extreme, was it not?

What about the fearmongering? When the heritage minister used the name Mrs. Milosevic when she called across the floor to the member for Calgary North, was that not an obvious inference? What about the extreme language that the Liberals are always putting out?

I happen to have a fairly high regard for that member of parliament so I want to put a very serious question to him.

As the former industry minister, he knows full well that when decisions are made by the CRTC with respect to broadcast licences, satellite images being put out and all these things, these are decisions that affect companies to the tune not of millions but of tens and hundreds of millions of dollars. However we also know that the CRTC rulings can be overridden or reviewed by cabinet. He would know that because he would have been approached by--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I am sorry to interrupt the member but quite a few members want to ask questions of the Deputy Prime Minister.

[Jim Abbott, Canadian Alliance, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will get to the question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The member has already taken two minutes. I am at your mercy. Is there consent to extend the member's time for questions?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I will allow the member for Kootenay--Columbia 30 seconds to put his question.

[Jim Abbott, Canadian Alliance, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, why would the hon. member and the heritage minister not be concerned about the fact that they do not have to tell anybody who is presently supporting their leadership campaigns when they are the people who are responsible for making decisions on the part of companies that stand to win or to lose tens and hundreds of millions of dollars? Why would they not want those companies' names on an open list so that we would know who is supporting the member in his potential leadership race?