House of Commons Hansard #210 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was report.

Topics

Code of ConductGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Liberal

Pierre Pettigrew Liberal Papineau—Saint-Denis, QC

In 2040.

Code of ConductGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Bloc

Pierre Brien Bloc Témiscamingue, QC

I hear the Minister for International Trade, who is a candidate in a possible Quebec Liberal Party leadership campaign, tell us 2040.

I remember that when I first joined the Parti Quebecois, at the age of 17 or 18, they were predicting that the referendum held in 1995 would never take place. But it did take place, and much sooner than anticipated.

So, let us leave Quebecers go at their own pace and make their own decisions at the appropriate time. They will make this decision when they want to. I respect this. We will go at the same pace as them and follow their aspirations. However, I am convinced that they are not headed toward less autonomy, but greater autonomy in the future.

That being said, in order to fight this movement, Ottawa chose to invest in its sponsorship programs. It took this opportunity to reward all the friends who helped set up campaigns for the referendum and for various candidates, and who supported defeated candidates between elections.

All these friends of the government found two objectives. They thought “We are going to promote Canada and at the same time we will line our own pockets. We will justify it to the Canadian public by claiming it is good because it is being done for the benefit of Canadian unity. Everything done in the name of Canadian unity will be accepted”.

I am happy to see that people outside of Quebec are waking up and condemning this situation because it is unhealthy, in a true democracy, to work this way. It is also unhealthy, in a true democracy, to pass a law telling Quebecers how to practice democracy when they already have extremely high standards in this respect.

This same logic is behind the clarity bill, the sponsorship programs and others. This logic was brought here by the Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs; his vision is shared by the Prime Minister. We could talk about this for a long time.

However, I do not believe that what is before us now will deal with this fundamental problem, namely that the government does not understand what is going on in Quebec. It may be boasting now but the wake-up call will be all the more difficult to take. Their little Liberal cousins in Quebec are not doing too well. If I were them, I would avoid spitting up in the air because, as they say, what goes up must come down.

In the same vein, I would add that if the government wants people to believe it when it talks about ethics standards, it will have to be a lot less shallow than it has been of late.

I have a problem with the fact that only two days before we are scheduled to adjourn and a week before the end of the session which, as we know, will very likely be prorogued this fall, the government is all of a sudden announcing its great plans regarding a code of ethics.

We question its real motives, all the more as in the background there are major internal struggles among our opponents across the way, which explains why some of them are behaving the way they are.

In short, I would tell my colleague from Trois-Rivières that, unfortunately, what is there will not assuage his concerns. I do not think there is any major motivation for the government to do so, because it has explained that losing a few millions here and there, for the cause, could be justified.

Now it is up to the voters of Canada to judge. I am sure that they will find this increasingly unacceptable in future, especially if the other opposition parties do their homework and speak out against practices like these.

It is one thing for them to go about boasting the merits of what they consider a good system, but it is quite another to mess with public funds in order to buy off people or to pay back friends for political support and co-operation with party activities. Ultimately, unlike the Prime Minister, I am not convinced this will serve their cause.

To put it succinctly, all this will also be affected by the motivations of each of us as far as this bill is concerned. There is one thing for sure, however: we will be extremely vigilant.

Something has just come to mind now that I had neglected to mention. The sponsorship program is one of the rare programs in which Quebec got more than its share from Ottawa. I have listened to my colleague from the NDP asking how it was that there were no sponsorships in his riding, in his region. Quebec was heavily advantaged in this $40 million program, whereas we would have liked to have been equally advantaged for programs relating to real problems such as health care funding and post-secondary education.

If they really want to give people tangible assistance, let them inject funds into these programs, rather than sponsorship goodies—

Code of ConductGovernment Orders

1 p.m.

An hon. member

In transportation as well.

Code of ConductGovernment Orders

1 p.m.

Bloc

Pierre Brien Bloc Témiscamingue, QC

In transportation as well, where they had made a multitude of commitments but where results have been slow in coming. Let them get busy addressing real issues. Our deepest convictions are not going to be influenced by a few million dollars worth of sponsorships to buddies.

Code of ConductGovernment Orders

1 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in the debate today regarding the creation of a special joint committee to develop the much awaited and called for code of conduct for parliamentarians, MPs and senators.

The debate we are having today stems from recent events. On May 23 the Prime Minister announced a plan to introduce eight measures for ethical conduct he said would make parliamentarians more accountable. We welcome some of the initiatives although we challenge the language used in the introduction of the plan. It was called a bold eight point plan of action. We reject the very premise of that, to borrow an expression from the former hon. member for Windsor West. There is nothing bold about the plan. If anything it is rather lame in scope and magnitude. If the government had a real burning desire to make meaningful changes it could look to its own red book which was cited by other speakers today.

In fairly strong language the Liberals' 1993 red book called for the introduction of an ethics counsellor who would report directly to parliament and not just to the Prime Minister. Page 95 of “Creating Opportunity: The Liberal Plan for Canada” said a Liberal government would:

--appoint an independent Ethics Counsellor to advise both public officials and lobbyists in the day-to-day application of the Code of Conduct for Public Officials. The Ethics Counsellor will be appointed after consultation with the leaders of all the parties in the House of Commons and will report directly to Parliament.

That is pretty clear. A promise was made in 1993 to the Canadian people in legitimate reaction to a terrible era of corruption. Tory cabinet ministers were dropping like flies and getting caught with their hands in the till. However at least the Tories did something about their ministers. They brought them into line, disciplined them or kicked them out of cabinet. There were lots of them but there has been a lot of mismanagement here too. Rather than being upfront, honest and transparent about the process the Liberals have fostered a culture of cover up and denial. They have not introduced meaningful changes or shown any well meaning spirit.

The New Democratic Party is no stranger to calling for a code of conduct for legislators. NDP MPs have put forward legislation in three consecutive sessions of parliament to create an independent ethics counsellor and a code of conduct for parliamentarians. One of the bills came up for debate. It was introduced as a private member's bill which, as we know, must go through the process. However it came to the floor of the House and the Liberals voted against it.

It was a well thought out bill. The hon. member who brought it in, the former member for Halifax West, was the ombudsman for the province of Manitoba for 10 years and has a great deal of background in this type of thing. He put together a thoughtful, comprehensive and well researched piece of legislation that called for an independent ethics counsellor and a detailed code of conduct. When it came up for debate the Liberals not only spoke against it. They voted it down. It died after second reading.

That is the Liberal government's level of commitment. The Liberals have had ample opportunities since 1993 to follow their own red book or at least favourably view the efforts MPs from other parties have brought forward to the House.

We question whether the government's so-called bold eight point plan of action is that meaningful. We also question the timing of its introduction. At least a couple of the points, two and three, seem geared more toward thwarting leadership aspirations than cleaning up practices in the House of Commons.

If that was the intention it has backfired. Although mandatory disclosure of campaign financing for the leadership would be retroactive it would only apply to ministers. The former minister of finance is no longer a minister. He is a regular member of parliament so it would not apply to him. That was either sloppily done or plain bad luck on someone's part.

I will walk members through some of the historical context I have alluded to. The Liberal Party has had opportunities to introduce meaningful changes. In a 1973 green paper entitled “Members of Parliament and Conflict of Interest” the then Liberal government proposed a code of conduct for parliamentarians as a first step toward adopting a regime of ethics throughout the public service.

In 1984 the Tory government of the day appointed the hon. Michael Starr and the hon. Mitchell Sharp to head a task force on conflict of interest. The task force was charged with devising a comprehensive conflict of interest regime for public office holders. It recommended rules to deal with nine forms of activity that could lead to conflict of interest and suggested penalties for non-compliance. The recommendations were detailed and comprehensive but concerned only with cabinet ministers and parliamentary secretaries.

In June, 1992 a joint committee on conflicts of interest recommended the adoption of clear rules to guide members of parliament. In March, 1993 the Prime Minister sent conflict of interest legislation to the committee. The committee decided it would not be implemented. We got as far as bringing the rules to committee and the committee struck them down.

Shortly after that a third Special Joint Committee on a Code of Conduct was struck in 1995 and was jointly chaired by Senator Donald Oliver and the current Speaker of the House of Commons. Its March, 1997 report was quickly buried by the 1997 election but it recommended specific rules that would apply to all parliamentarians. That is why we are pleased that the fifth point of the government's eight point plan makes reference to the committee's report. In May the Prime Minister stated in the House of Commons:

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...with a stand-alone code of conduct for members of parliament and senators.

Let us look at other jurisdictions. The NDP is no stranger to this concept. It was an NDP government in B.C. that introduced the Members' Conflict of Interest Act that applied to all MLAs and ministers. It provided for a conflict of interest commissioner who would report to the whole legislative assembly. That is right on track. It is pretty much the standard the general public demands.

It was an NDP government in Saskatchewan in 1979 that introduced the Members of the Legislative Assembly Conflict of Interest Act which was similar to the B.C. act. It was an NDP government in Manitoba in 1987 that introduced the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Conflict of Interest Act, one of the most rigid and binding pieces of conflict of interest legislation anywhere in the country. It was an NDP government in Ontario in 1994 that brought in the Members' Integrity Act under which an integrity commissioner would report directly to the legislative assembly.

Unfortunately, the other provinces have not had the pleasure of having NDP governments so they do not have worthwhile conflict of interest legislation although they have some semblance of it.

Australia has a strong ethics system for its public service and elected officials. In his speech in Australia our ethics counsellor Howard Wilson said:

--we are not as advanced as Australia in introducing strong ethical systems into the public service. And our Parliament has yet to introduce a conflict of interest regime applying to backbench MPs and Senators--

It is a little embarrassing that we send our ethics watchdog to Australia to admit that we have fallen far behind our other Commonwealth colleagues in that regard.

We look forward and welcome this joint committee that may finally lead us to a mature and evolved code of conduct and code of practice for all members of parliament. The timing is such that it does not take a person with a jaded view to realize that this was introduced as a smokescreen to take the public's attention away from the real issue of the growing body of evidence associated with scandal after scandal that is coming forward every day now at the public accounts committee.

The government has finally realized that what looked like isolated incidents of mismanagement and wrongdoing have been threaded together and can safely be viewed as a comprehensive, elaborate, and illegal criminal scheme to defraud Canadians and to defraud parliament in fact.

Let me explain. As a member of the public accounts committee I receive a lot brown envelopes and confidential phone calls from current and former civil servants. I wish to describe what is happening with these Groupaction scandals.

This is not a kickback scheme. This is not nearly as primitive and as crude as a customary kickback scheme. In the old days, in a less sophisticated time, the government would give a juicy contract to a company. The company would then kick back a little campaign donation to the party. That would be the extent of it, and that has been going on too much in previous years.

This is far more elaborate and comprehensive than that. What we have here is not a kickback scheme. It is a kick forward scheme. When Groupaction charges $500,000 for a contract where no work gets done and nothing gets produced, it banks that as a credit so that when the Liberal Party of Canada comes to Groupaction at election time to buy a small communications contract, it gets $500,000 worth of work done. The same applies to Lafleur, Everest, and to that whole group of Liberal advertising contracting companies. They are holding taxpayer money.

Taxpayers paid good money for a service. The service was never delivered and the company pads the billing hours, et cetera, to look like $300,000 or $400,000 of work was done and it was not. It is like a credit being held in store. This is what has come to light.

I believe the government is nervous that we are that close to having civil servants come forward to testify that is what is happening. People within public works were being asked to sign cheques for work that was never performed. They knew full well it would not be performed because it was a way to shelter taxpayers' money in these companies until such time as the Liberal Party could come and pull it out.

I would like to outline some of the other things that we have been learning. It will be interesting on July 9 when Pierre Tremblay and Chuck Guité finally appear before the public accounts committee. That is what we have been waiting for. A lot of the things that we have theorized and speculated about will be borne out. We look forward to calling other witnesses too.

There is one name that keeps coming up in a lot of the information. It is a man named Roger Collet, who was the executive director of the old Canada information office. He was the first executive director. He used to brag to his co-workers and colleagues that he did not take directions from anyone but the PMO and that Jean Pelletier was in regular communication with him, giving him direction as to how to get this money into Quebec and how to get this scheme going there.

We have a great deal of information about Mr. Collet. It is interesting that he has taken sanctuary under a contract for the current minister of immigration. He seems to have an incredible capacity to land on his feet when he moves along.

He first became infamous because he delivered the $5 million from Heritage Canada to the no campaign during the Quebec referendum. There was the scandalous idea that Heritage Canada could find $5 million to deliver to the no campaign to try to influence the Quebec referendum. It was Mr. Collet's job to be the bagman for that and to make that happen.

There are a dozen questions we would like to ask Mr. Collet if we can ever get him to appear before us but Mr. Guité will be revealing too. This is why, as we approach that July 9 date, it became important for the government to get the public seeing the government dealing with codes of conduct and conflict of interest legislation when this information was about to blow at the committee stage. I can sympathize and understand why government members are in such a rush to get this started now when they were not in any rush from 1993 on.

Mr. Guité was unwilling to come to the committee until it was made clear to him that the information given in committee could not be used against him in a court of law. One of the unfortunate byproducts to the evidence given and what we will learn in committee is that guilty men may walk free. Frankly, those of us on the committee do not care if Mr. Guité ever goes to prison even if it would be well deserved. Once that information is given as testimony it has the same privilege as if it was testimony given in the House of Commons. The RCMP could not use that information against Mr. Guité in subsequent charges unless it can prove the same thing by a completely separate body of evidence.

That is an unfortunate byproduct but the truth must come out. We must know what motivated these senior civil servants to break every rule in the book which is what the auditor general said. I do not believe that senior civil servants or senior bureaucrats would jeopardize their job by breaking every rule in the book unless they were told to do so from somebody higher up. Did the former minister of public works direct these guys to break every rule in the book? Did the PMO contact Chuck Guité the way he was contacting Roger Collet when he was running the former Canada information office to break every rule in the book?

All of those questions will come to light on July 9. This why we are seeing the government scrambling to paint itself in a more positive light when it comes to issues surrounding codes of practice and codes of conduct. If the government was serious about implementing these changes it would implement fundamental changes. If the government is going to talk about the financing of elections and codes of conduct around that, why do we not go one step further and take an example from the province of Manitoba and ban all union and corporate donations for all elections? Why not make it so that only a person on the registered voters list can make a contribution for a political campaign?

Then we would not have all these Liberal dominated contractors getting handouts because they would not be allowed to reward the government or to pay back the government with campaign donations. It would be barred, outlawed and cleaned up. The public would appreciate that.

The only people who screamed about it in the province of Manitoba were the National Citizens' Coalition. The head of that organization was jumping up and down, and ranting and raving that we were trying to silence it by taking away its political voice and stifling debate. It was ironic that it was not the unions that raised the protest. They said if their money was not wanted, fair enough. However, the National Citizens' Coalition went ballistic because it felt it was being silenced by the bad government.

I would be interested to know how the current Leader of the Opposition would react to a proposal like that from the federal government. I would be interested to see how he might respond. That would be true reform. That is not to be found in this eight point mushy document. This is not a bold plan of action. This is a wishy-washy, lame plan of action that is designed to take away the spotlight from the terrible scandals that are boiling over and will be coming to a peak on July 9 in the public accounts committee.

I am glad to have had this opportunity to share some of our views. There are good models out there. I hope the government borrows heavily from the Milliken-Oliver report. I hope it borrows heavily from some of the private member's bills that have been brought forward and debated with good recommendations as to how we can have an ethics counsellor who would be independent and a code of conduct that we can all be proud of that would elevate the standards of the House of Commons.

Code of ConductGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Bill Casey Progressive Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS

Mr. Speaker, I was going to say that it is a pleasure to rise and talk about this issue today but it is not a pleasure. Talking about the ethics of the House and parliamentarians is not something any of us wish to talk about.

I must say this whole concept is smoke and mirrors in an attempt to diffuse the spotlight on Liberal cabinet ministers who have come under such spotlights these days for questionable activities and what has been called corruption and scandals. This attempt to spread this to government backbench members of parliament and opposition members and senators is absolutely pointless. No one can name anyone on this side of the House who has been the subject of one of these investigations by the media or the opposition for scandal or questionable activities or anything else. In order to diffuse the spotlight we are included in this great debate about ethics.

Forming a committee to discuss a committee report when only one simple thing has to be done and only one thing matters is an incredible approach to take. All of the other proposals and ideas contained in the bold eight point plan proposed by the Liberals mean nothing unless the ethics counsellor reports to parliament. All speakers have mentioned this at one time or another in their remarks today. The bottom line is that it is the essential part of an ethics package.

I often think that if the auditor general reported only to the Prime Minister we would never have known anything about many of the issues brought up recently in a variety of departments. In the last report that the auditor general brought up we would never have know about certain issues that were referred to the RCMP.

I contend that if the auditor general answered only to the Prime Minister those issues would never have been sent to the RCMP for investigation. They would never have gone any further, and in fact would have been swept under the rug until someone in the opposition or the media pried open a crack in the door shedding some light on the issue. That is the difference between the auditor general reporting to parliament and the ethics counsellor reporting only to the Prime Minister.

In my view the ethics counsellor is no longer an ethics counsellor. He is like a minister of defence in charge of defending ministers. Instead of advising them and bringing their offences to light, it is his job to defend them. This is not complicated but rather quite simple. If somebody is responsible for criticizing the boss and the boss's associates, who will do that, particularly when it is a good job with a large pay package, lots of fringe benefits, and lots of accoutrements that come with the position? There is a built in conflict of interest right from the beginning with the ethics counsellor. The way it is set up now is totally wrong.

There are two reasons as far as I am concerned why the ethics counsellor should report to parliament. The first reason is simple. The foundation of ethics is telling the truth and keeping one's word. In the 1993 red book on page 95 the Prime Minister said:

The Ethics Counsellor... will report directly to Parliament.

That was the Prime Minister's promise to Canadians. That was his word. If he cannot keep his promise about ethics, how, if a promise is broken right at the very beginning, will the ethics counsellor be effective? The promise was broken in step one.

Second, it makes sense to have the ethics counsellor report to parliament for the same reasons I mentioned earlier when I compared this position to that of the auditor general. The auditor general is effective and respected by everybody in the country for the great job she does. We are fortunate to have her. She is one of the last institutions in this place that provides an objective view on issues. Can members imagine the difference in her reputation and the reputation of the ethics counsellor. The ethics counsellor does not fool anybody. He works for the Prime Minister and is there to defend the Prime Minister and get his government. That is what he does.

This morning when I was rereading an article in the Ottawa Citizen written by Graham Greene, entitled “Double Standard Part 1”, which I think is the Prime Minister's favourite article, it stated “This week Jean Chrétien fired one minister and demoted another for ethical”--

Code of ConductGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Order, please. I just want to remind the House that everyone here has a riding name, a ministry or a portfolio but are otherwise non-distinguishable.

Code of ConductGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Bill Casey Progressive Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS

I apologize, Mr. Speaker. In my haste I just read the name off the newspaper article.

Basically it is an article entitled “Double Standard Part 1”. I will not go into details on the headline but it goes on to detail how the ethics counsellor cleared the Prime Minister of an accusation of a conflict under the Ethics Act brought in by Brian Mulroney, the Conservative prime minister who introduced the ethics package that the current Prime Minister did not even honour when he did not declare a $300,000 debt, which he was supposed to do.

None of the other arguments we deal with here in my opinion mean anything. None of the other parts of the eight point plan mean anything unless the ethics counsellor reports to the House in the same way that the auditor general does.

That will be our point through the committee. We look forward to presenting our case to the committee and listening to the presentations at committee. We will participate as actively as we can and we hope at the end we will have an ethics counsellor who does report to parliament, because that is the only way these issues will be resolved.

Code of ConductGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Val Meredith Canadian Alliance South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Cumberland--Colchester mentioned that the auditor general is an independent officer of parliament and reports to parliament. I believe the information commissioner and the privacy commissioner also report directly to parliament. How easy would it be for the government to change the way it does business with the ethics counsellor? How easy would it be for that ethics counsellor to be changed to an ethics commissioner who reports to parliament?

Code of ConductGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Bill Casey Progressive Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure about the exact details but I can assure the hon. member that it would happen with the snap of a finger, because from what I have heard today every opposition member would support that act. The only reason it would not pass is if Liberal members voted against it. However every single person who has spoken on this, except for the Liberal member, said that the ethics counsellor must report to parliament and must become an ethics commissioner.

Code of ConductGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

John Duncan Canadian Alliance Vancouver Island North, BC

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to ask the member for Cumberland--Colchester if the question of an ethics commissioner is one that has led him at any point to look into the provincial administrations across Canada? Has he looked at the overnight transition that occurred in British Columbia and Alberta when they put ethics commissioners in place and how that actually affects the culture of political governance in what I think is a very positive way to put some checks and balances in place that are really in the public interest? Maybe he could comment on the merits of all of that.

Code of ConductGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Bill Casey Progressive Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS

Mr. Speaker, I actually cannot comment knowledgeably about those provinces. However I can say that I was involved in an instance where a federal minister of transport signed a contract with the province of New Brunswick with a particular person, the minister of transport of New Brunswick. When the federal minister of transport was defeated and lost his job, he immediately signed another contract as a private operator of a company to take over the very same Trans-Canada Highway sector that he had paid for as a minister of the federal crown.

We took that to the ethics commissioner in New Brunswick and it was not effective at all. The same thing happened in Ottawa, even though the same two people signed the contract originally who signed it later on. Again, the federal minister of transport signed the contract with the provincial minister of transport. Then when the federal minister was defeated, he signed a contract as the president of Maritime Highways Corporation with the same minister of transport to take over that highway and all the funding the federal government put into it. I thought that was contrary to the post-employment ethics criteria in the ethics commission report, but again the ethics counsellor is there to protect the ministers and not to get to the truth and to ensure ethics.

Code of ConductGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

John Duncan Canadian Alliance Vancouver Island North, BC

Mr. Speaker, my next question relates to the fact that there has been a lot of focus in the debate on an ethics commissioner, but would the member not agree that in actual fact the major determinant is leadership from the top or lack thereof, ethics flowing from the top or a lack of ethics flowing from the top?

The way to guarantee that in the long term and to change the culture is an ethics commissioner, but in actual fact we need that kind of check and balance, especially when we do not have that kind of leadership from the top.

Code of ConductGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Bill Casey Progressive Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member makes my point exactly that the leadership at the top is the problem. In 1993 the leadership at the top, the Prime Minister, said to the Canadian people “vote for me and the ethics counsellor will report directly to parliament”. That was a promise by the current Prime Minister to the Canadian people. The deal was, the way I see it, that if they voted for him he would give them an ethics counsellor who reported to parliament. That has never happened and it has not happened now in this bold eight point plan which just goes all around the concept and avoids it.

All of these issues could be put to bed with one single stroke, making the ethics counsellor an ethics commissioner who reports to parliament. That person would then have the respect, I believe, of the Canadian public as the auditor general has. However now the ethics counsellor does not have any respect as far as I am concerned from the media, the opposition or the Canadian public. Again it comes down from the leadership of the party. The leader promised the Canadian people he would do this but failed on that promise and continues to refuse to do it.

Code of ConductGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Stockwell Day Canadian Alliance Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am interested in the response from the member. I appreciated his comments so far.

I am just curious. In terms of the amendment to the motion which our leader presented, does the member think this would have handled situations faced by his party, when it was in government at the time, more effectively? Does he anticipate full support from his party members now in terms of our amendment?

Code of ConductGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Bill Casey Progressive Conservative Cumberland—Colchester, NS

Mr. Speaker, I believe the amendment would address questions like this now, in the future and would have in the past had it been there. I have not seen the words to the amendment but based on what I have heard, it sounds like it would address and resolve the issue we have raised and continue to raise. Again it would move toward honouring the Prime Minister's promise that he made back in 1993 but which he has never honoured.

Code of ConductGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

Glengarry—Prescott—Russell Ontario

Liberal

Don Boudria LiberalMinister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the motion that is before the House today.

Perhaps we should remind ourselves what it is we are speaking to. It has very little to do with some of the issues that have been raised in the last little while.

We are being asked to speak to the following proposition: That the report of the Special Joint Committee on a Code of Conduct, the Milliken-Oliver report, be brought back to the attention of members to be updated and, hopefully, as updated, changed, modified or improved, to be approved by the House and the other place as a code of conduct for all of us. That is the motion that is before us today.

Later on today the question that will be asked of all of us is whether we are in favour of or against having a code of conduct for members of parliament in principle. If we delay this by using manoeuvres to stop it from moving ahead, Canadians will know the truth. They will know that those who have trust funds and other things do not want them reported. They will know that those who receive funds for running their campaigns from sources undisclosed to all of us do not want it reported. They will know that some of the money that comes in to keep them in operation will go unreported because they do not want a code of conduct for themselves and others in the House.

We will find that out some time later today if either the members across do not want this item voted on or if they use methods in order to avoid us voting on the principal issue that is before us this afternoon.

The moment of truth will come to the attention of all hon. members in the House later today. I am anxiously waiting to see whether all members will say, yes, that we need to review the report that was made, and yes, we want to use that as a base for having a code of conduct for all of us, the way our Prime Minister wants us to have one, or whether we want something that is something else, like not disclosing anything because it suits our own selfish ends.

A little earlier today we had a rather curious amendment proposed on the floor of the House. I am technically speaking to the amendment right now. It says that the Leader of the Opposition refuses to study having a code of conduct because he wants the Prime Minister to implement the code of conduct before we study the details of how we should make it work.

Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition could explain to all of us why he feels it is appropriate that we would implement that which we should do and consult him later.

If that was not confusing enough for most of us, let me get to the next proposition. He said that the committee should not have until October 31, that it should have 30 days.

This is the second last or last sitting day, depending on how we look at it, before we have the summer recess. When we come back on September 18, 30 days from then would give us until October 18. We are offering October 31. He is offering an amendment to avoid debating it on the pretext that he would save five sitting days. That is the phoniness of the amendment that is before us. He is pretending that he wants to report five days ahead but what he really wants is to cause a second division vote on this item to occur only next fall therefore preventing us from proceeding with the issue that is before the House today.

The Leader of the Opposition has a choice. He can withdraw that amendment and vote on the main motion to create this committee to report on October 31 or he can pretend that he wants 30 days, which really means that the committee would be reporting earlier, so that he would not have to disclose any other source of outside income, if he has any, any other source of outside financing for his leadership or other such finances.

Code of ConductGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

An hon. member

Does he have something to hide?

Code of ConductGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

I have no idea whether he has anything to hide. That is not for me to say. However let us vote on the motion and start with the process.

An opposition member says that there should be an ethics counsellor who reports to the House. Well, that is fine.

I have here a news release dated June 11, 2002 from the Right Hon. Prime Minister which says, and I quote:

New Appointment Procedure for the Ethics Counsellor

The Prime Minister announced today that the Ethics Counsellor will be appointed after consultation with the leaders of the opposition parties, serving for a term of 5 years. Further, dismissal could only take place with the concurrence of Parliament.

So it is not just this House but both Houses which will have to do it. This is even more prudent of the Prime Minister.

The release goes on to say:

In addition, the Ethics Counsellor will inquire into complaints, or other matters related to a Minister of the Crown, referred to his Office by any member of Parliament. As promised by the Prime Minister on May 23, 2002, there will now be an annual report on the activities of the Office of the Ethics Counsellor that will be presented to the Speaker of the House.

Code of ConductGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

An hon. member

He does report to parliament.

Code of ConductGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

That is the point. The Prime Minister has said that he will report to parliament. The opposition is asking that this official report to parliament. That has already been announced. The opposition is asking the government to do something that it has already doing. If it was not doing that, it would be doing what I just said, which it is.

Let us go to the 1993 red book. Let me bring this to the attention of hon. members. It states in particular that “a Liberal government will appoint an independent ethics counsellor”. He is independent. This is an individual who has consultation with both sides of the House. He has served the Canadian public for decades as a senior civil servant. He advises both public officials and lobbyists on the day to day application of the code of conduct for public officials, public officials being defined as those who hold public office; in other words cabinet ministers, secretaries of state and of course parliamentary secretaries. They hold what is known in parliamentary parlance as public office.

It states further that “the ethics counsellor will be appointed after consultation with the leaders of all parties in the House of Commons and will report directly to parliament”. He was already subject to this consultation with leaders. Everyone recognizes that and remembers it.

As a matter of fact some people are summarizing how long the conversation took place between the Prime Minister and leaders of other political parties when that was done. Now, given what I just said about the Prime Minister's press release, he will report directly to parliament. Therefore that was fully delivered once again by the Prime Minister of Canada who always delivers on the promises that he makes to Canadians as we all know.

That is not the issue before us today. One member from the New Democratic Party also raised something that is important. In the past Bloc members have also raised this.

The issue in question is reform of the Canada Elections Act. I agree with them. This has nothing to do with the motion before us, but I do agree with them. We can amend the elections act. In fact, I am the minister responsible for the act.

Just the day before yesterday, I consulted with the chief electoral officer. Next week, I will be going to Alberta and Manitoba to consult with people about reform of the elections act. I intend to do the same thing across Canada during the summer, with the goal of tightening the act up.

For example, should there be limits on the size of contributions? I think there should. Who should be allowed to contribute? The issue raised earlier by the member for Winnipeg—Transcona is an important one. I agree that there need to be rules about this.

When it comes to financing leadership campaigns, I would want to know not only who within my party is raising money—obviously, this is interesting—but also when the leader of the opposition—Lord knows there have been enough of them in recent years—will be replaced by another leader—this will no doubt happen again soon—I would like to know if the next leader's campaign will be financed by interests outside of Canada. This should not be the case. It should be done with money from Canadian taxpayers, whether it be in selecting the leader of the government party or the opposition party, it is the same thing. Only Canadians should have the right to contribute to this type of campaign. Is this the case right now? We do not know. It is an interesting matter.

There should be amendments to the elections act to deal with all of these matters. Incidentally, I would like to congratulate the member from the New Democratic Party for raising this issue, because the member is right. In the past, in response to other reports, members of the Bloc Quebecois have raised similar issues, and they were also right. I agree with them that we must make the elections act more transparent. We did so the last time we made changes to the act.

For example, there is the third party issue. I do not want to mention the National Citizens Coalition—but I would if I could—that has challenged the existing rules of transparency. I wonder who led this initiative by the National Citizens Coalition at the time to challenge the rules regarding who is spending money in an election campaign on behalf of these third parties.

I think that Canadians have the right to know. They have the right to know who is telling people to vote against a particular candidate. If, during a campaign, people have the right to know who is funding a campaign in support of a candidate, they should also have the right to know who is asking voters to vote against a candidate. This is my position, and that is what I included in the latest version of the elections act.

Who challenged it? The National Citizens Coalition. A well-known member of this House used to work for that organization. I would like to know what that member thinks of the actions of the National Citizens Coalition, which is against the rules of transparency regarding those who fund campaigns against certain candidates. Canadians have the right to know.

All this is related to the elections act, but the time will come to deal with that. It will be in the fall. It will be a bill that I will have the honour and privilege of introducing in the House of Commons, with, of course, the consent of the Prime Minister of Canada, who has appointed me—and I thank him for it—Minister of State and Leader of the Government of the House of Commons, which means that I am responsible for the Canada Elections Act.

Let us get back to the issue before us today. A report was prepared a few years back on whether there should be a code of conduct for members of this House and the other House. In opposition I worked on such a code. I remember that the spouses of government members at the time were working against me. I was supporting the government but the Parliamentary Spouses Association at the time was in disagreement with what I was saying about the registration of assets.

It is a difficult issue and I recognize that. I recognize people have a right of privacy. I recognize those issues can be very complicated and they have to go back to a parliamentary committee.

House leaders discuss issues from time to time. I will not say what one said versus another about whether we should adopt the package that is before us today. Needless to say, even some House leaders of various parties are afraid that components of the Milliken-Oliver report could go too far while others say we could do more. This nonsense that we should immediately adopt all this today and then think about how it will work later will not work.

Members of the House need to have that kind of structure. I believe there should be a jurisconsult, an officer of parliament. I believe it should be mandatory for the officer of parliament to be physically located inside the building so members can consult that officer at all times with such things as, “Jurisconsult, a family member of mine works for a certain corporation. I am called upon to vote tomorrow on such and such a bill. Is it okay that I do so?”

What about a member of the Senate or a member of this place, if dissatisfied with that, being able present himself or herself before their peers in a parliamentary committee called upon to review these things and to plead with colleagues about how such rules of conduct should be administered in the event of a dispute? Why not have that kind of structure? Why not have these kinds of appeal mechanisms to one's own peers? That is what we are talking about here.

Why not have these kinds of structures? Why do we not all vote today, hopefully in unanimity, about creating a parliamentary committee which will review these draft rules, which were put in place five years ago at a time when many people were not even in this Chamber? Why not let the committee say that yes, in 2002 this is reasonable or, no, such and such a proposal is not reasonable, that we have now crossed a different threshold and that we can improve upon it in the following way? We should address these issues that way and improve upon the rules.

Members can sidetrack all they like and put the kind of amendment which I see today, which suggests that we replace October 31 by October 18, which of course is bordering on nonsense. Remember we are off one of those weeks anyway, which really makes no difference at all. Then it suggests that the Prime Minister be asked to implement the code of ethics first and then consult members of parliament afterward. That is what the Leader of the Opposition said in his amendment.

I know he is paying attention to what I am saying. Therefore, I ask him to withdraw that amendment. Canadians will be forced to believe he does not want a code of conduct for members of parliament and they will ask.

Code of ConductGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

An hon. member

What is he hiding?

Code of ConductGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

I do not want to go that far.

Today, there have been consultations among political parties. A party—the Bloc—has brought forward a positive amendment. This party says that we should change this order of the House to appoint this committee so that the committee could only sit if there are parliamentarians from both houses representing the government and the opposition to form a quorum.

This is acceptable, and I am prepared to support this initiative, because it is the right thing to do, and because the report that we will be submitting should be based on consensus. If we can change the order of the House to ensure that parliamentarians can, as much as possible, contribute and be comfortable with what they will suggest, I support the type of change that has been proposed.

However, I do not support a dilatory change such as the one that was just proposed by the leader of the opposition, who refuses and wants to create a condition whereby we will never know why he wants to impose unnecessary delays.

We just saw two examples. Some members of this House said “We want to change the motion and we ask for the unanimous consent to improve it”. This is true and I support them. I would be willing to do so. Of course, the question remains: will the others also be willing to do so? This would be acceptable.

However—and I am addressing the official opposition—when they say “We want you to implement the report and to consult us afterwards”, I find this quite strange. Second, we would also be changing the Standing Orders. Do you know what they want to do through this change? They want to replace October 18 with October 31 and, in between, there is a week off, which means that it all boils down to the same thing.

What the opposition could do today is force a recorded division on one of these motions, defer the division until next fall and, for the official opposition, the job would be done.

What has the opposition done? It could ask for a recorded vote on this and delay the implementation of its own motion to accelerate the process by slowing it down until next fall. That is what we have before us. I do not pretend to be an expert on parliamentary procedure but I have been in public office for 27 years and I know a little about some of these delay tactics that are being reported to us today.

I say to members across that they should withdraw that motion. They should vote in favour or unanimously with the motion that is before us, perhaps with an amendment that was brought forward by other hon. members which I would be ready to support, and I think all members would support, that we need a quorum by having members of both Houses and both representing the opposition and the government in order to constitute this to happen. I would be willing to concede that because that is reasonable. However for us to produce these amendments which have no other purpose than to delay is wrong.

I have been consulting members for three weeks about getting this committee going and we cannot get that committee going again and that is wrong. Today we have an opportunity to make it right. I say to colleagues on all sides of the House, let us make it right.

I have been consulting them before, in the modernization committee and elsewhere, about doing this and I am doing it again today. Let us see whether today, before parliament adjourns, we could all do what is right. Let us create that committee and produce a good quality report. Let us implement the rules for all members of parliament the way that we should all want and the way the Right Hon. Prime Minister of Canada wants because he wants what is right. We know the Prime Minister has nothing to hide. He wants good and transparent rules. Let us see whether the Leader of the Opposition and others also want the same thing.

Code of ConductGovernment Orders

1:55 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

John Reynolds Canadian Alliance West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding the records of our publications of May 29.

Private Members' Bill C-415 was adopted on division yet the journals recorded it as being “agreed to”.

The members for Elk Island and Dewdney—Alouette were on duty and clearly said “no”. As well, Mr. Speaker, if you review the speech of the critic, the member for Provencher, you will see that we clearly opposed the bill. I bring this point up today to ensure that the record is clear.

Code of ConductGovernment Orders

1:55 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Is it agreed?