Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-34, concerning the appointment of ethics commissioners, and on the possibility of referring the bill to committee before second reading. Bill C-34 seeks to amend the Parliament of Canada Act and to create two distinct positions.
I am going to describe this bill briefly, for the people listening now and those who, we hope, will be reading these debates in the future.
These are the two positions. There is an ethics commissioner, responsible for administering a House of Commons code of conflict of interest—which does not yet exist, but which is being discussed and studied in committee—and for assisting the Prime Minister in administering the code of conduct for public office holders with respect to post-term conflicts of interest. There will also be a separate Senate ethics officer to administer the code of ethical conduct for the Senate.
As I was saying, the Senate code of ethical conduct and the House of Commons code of conduct governing conflicts of interest are now being developed within the two appropriate committees.
The Senate ethics officer will be appointed for a seven-year renewable term. The House ethics commissioner will be appointed for a five-year renewable term. This follows the pattern for the appointment of other officials, such as the Commissioner of Official Languages, or the Auditor General, or those who act as independent representatives before Parliament.
However, the unanimous report of a House of Commons committee, presented early in April, recommended that both these terms be renewable in order to reduce the loss of institutional memory. If it appears necessary to renew the term of someone in such a position, it is important to be able to do so, in order to preserve institutional memory.
The ethics commissioner will be appointed by the governor in council, after consultation with the leaders of recognized parties in the House. My colleague from the Canadian Alliance was wondering whether the appointment would be subject to consultation or to approval. That remains to be defined, but in this we recognize the wording of a promise from the 1993 red book. Ten years later, an old Liberal promise has almost been fulfilled. In fact, during second reading or in the committee stage, the top priority should be to make this point clear.
The draft bill tabled in the fall did not contain any provisions guaranteeing that the party leaders would be consulted. This is already a step forward. The government has committed to doing this, and we recognize this today.
Nor did the draft bill provide for a resolution by the House of Commons. Today, there is a possibility for a resolution in the House of Commons before these two commissioners are appointed.
We are also pleased that the bill will be sent to committee before second reading. This bill must undergo very serious analysis, which can only be done by concurrently considering the House of Common's conflict of interest code being drafted as we speak by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
It is impossible to discuss the appointment of an ethics commissioner, either separately or concurrently, without knowing all the ramifications of this code for members, ministers and parliamentary secretaries. Only by comparing the two documents will we be able to evaluate the overall process, in terms of whether there are possible ethics loopholes for elected representatives in the House of Commons. A serious analysis must be undertaken to understand what rules apply to public office holders, ministers and parliamentary secretaries. We intend to consider these issues very carefully, and we will continue this consideration in committee.
However, it is clear already that several aspects of the bill are very intriguing. We now have the assurance that the leaders of recognized parties in the House of Commons will be consulted about the appointment of the ethics commissioner since this will be a legislative requirement from now on. This obligation, which the Prime Minister committed to, was not included in the draft legislation introduced in the House of Commons on October 23.
Furthermore, the House will also be asked to approve the appointment of the ethics commissioner through a resolution. This is also a new provision in this bill. In its most recent report, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs had recommended that these provisions be included.
We also are pleased that a complaints process for parliamentarians concerning ministers, ministers of state and parliamentary secretaries will be formally in place from now on.
As well, the commissioner will be required to provide an activity report to the House of Commons, and not just the Prime Minister. These provisions were included in the draft bill and are being maintained, and we are pleased with this.
As the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell has pointed out, this is not a new bill, or not the first time this important matter has been raised in the House of Commons.
Pleased as we are to have this opportunity to discuss this bill and this matter in the House today, we are somewhat disappointed that it has taken 10 years to be able to do so. We might say it is high time the Liberal government decided to keep its 1993 red book promise to appoint an independent ethics commissioner.
The red book made the following commitment:
A Liberal Government will appoint an independent Ethics Counsellor--
This was expressed in the future tense. There are various kinds of futures, and this is a very distant future.
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 was, I might again point out, back in 1993.
Strangely enough, today we are accepting the appointment of an ethics commissioner after consultation, whereas the Canadian Alliance had, on an official opposition day, tabled a motion with exactly the same wording, if I recall correctly. It had had the finesse to copy the red book promise word for word, which was, I repeat:
A Liberal Government will appoint an independent Ethics Counsellor ...appointed after consultation with the leaders of all the parties ...and will report directly to Parliament.
At that time, the Liberals voted against it. Today, however, they are presenting a bill to keep that promise, for which we are grateful, particularly having seen the ineffectuality of the present ethics commissioner, who answers only to the Prime Minister, reports only to the Prime Minister, is appointed only by the Prime Minister, and whose only friend, I believe, is the Prime Minister. That alone is a clear indication that there is a problem.
What happened during those 10 years to convince the Liberals to change their mind and honour their promises? I will tell you what. There were scandals at the Auberge Grand-Mère. There were scandals at HRDC. There was a scandal in the sponsorship program. There was a scandal in the firearms program. There were scandals in many departments, National Defence being one I happen to be thinking about. During all that time, we had an ethics counsellor reporting to the prime minister, accountable to the prime minister and dealing only with the prime minister.
We think it important that this ethics commissioner will have a code to enforce and to abide by for members, ministers, parliamentary secretaries and everybody else, and that he will report to the House of Commons and not to the Prime Minister.
Although we agree entirely with the bill or with the principles of a code of ethics, we think that we should not be sending out the message that we are regulating ourselves in this way because we are dishonest.
If improper actions have been taken, we have to correct the perception. Unfortunately, in our society, politicians are not perceived as being very good at respecting rules. I fear that if things are not made properly in the design process of this study - and not in the application - and if we play politics, then all the politicians in the House will suffer from an even worse perception in the eyes of our fellow citizens.
I urge us all to proceed with the utmost caution in our study at second reading stage of this bill dealing with the position of ethics counsellor and the ethical guidelines in general.