Debates of May 2nd, 2003

Points of Order

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I was asked earlier about a report of an RCMP investigation: that the RCMP had been requested by a foreign government's court and ordered to table this report. I was not able at that time to speak to this question from the hon. member of the Canadian Alliance. I have been given some information. I wish to make it available to the member and to the House.

While this government and the Solicitor General cannot comment on court proceedings taking place in a foreign country, we are aware of the issuance of a court order in relation to the RCMP in the matter that was raised by the hon. member of the Alliance. The matter is presently being examined by officials with the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade in concert with officials from our Department of Justice.

I can assure the House and the member that the RCMP will take appropriate action based on the recommendations of officials within these Canadian government departments. That will as well conform to Canadian legal standards and practice.

[The Deputy Speaker]

There is another matter outstanding from the previous day, a matter of a question of privilege. I will now hear a submission from the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, the hon. member for Halifax West.

Privilege

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday there was a question of privilege from the hon. member for Yorkton--Melville. I responded at the time indicating that I would like to have the opportunity to respond further after doing some more research, which I have now done.

The member asked how it was possible to transfer ministerial responsibility for the firearms centre from the Minister of Justice to the Solicitor General when the firearms legislation passed by Parliament specified that the Minister of Justice was the responsible minister.

The member quoted from research prepared by the Library of Parliament that the authority to make this transfer was provided under the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act. The government had the authority to make this transfer because Parliament, as I said yesterday, has provided the authority in that act.

The act provides a mechanism for the efficient reorganization of government and it has been used in the following recent cases. It has been used in the creation of new departments and related changes in ministerial responsibility in 1993, which included the Departments of Human Resources Development, Canadian Heritage, Industry, and Public Works and Government Services. All those departments were included. Another example is the transfer of responsibility for the Pest Control Products Act from the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to the Minister of Health in 2000. Transfer of responsibilities to the Minister of Transport from the Minister of Public Works for the Royal Canadian Mint in 2002 is the third case.

In each of these cases, the minister actually responsible for the organization is not the same minister found in the statutes. As the Library of parliament's research indicates, and as a reading of statutes confirms, this is not a matter of privilege. It is a request for a legal opinion by the Speaker, which of course is quite another issue.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for his intervention. Of course, the matter of the question is already under advisement and the Speaker will be ruling on the matter very shortly.

Government Response to Petitions

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 24 petitions.

Petitions

[Jim Gouk, Canadian Alliance, Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have two petitions today.

In the first one, the petitioners draw to the attention of the House that the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman is being challenged and that this hon. House passed a motion in June 1999 that called for marriage to continue to be defined as a union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. Therefore, the petitioners call on Parliament to pass legislation to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as being the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

[Jim Gouk, Canadian Alliance, Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, BC]

Madam Speaker, the second petition deals with child pornography. The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that the creation and use of child pornography is condemned by a clear majority of Canadians and that the courts have not applied the current child pornography laws in a way which makes it clear that the exploitation of children will always be met with swift punishment. Therefore, the petitioners call on Parliament to protect our children by taking all necessary steps to ensure that materials which promote or glorify pedophilia or sado-masochistic activities involving children are outlawed.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I ask that all the questions be allowed to stand.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Parliament of Canada Act

[Reed Elley, Canadian Alliance, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Madam Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise and be able to speak on behalf of my constituents to Bill C-34, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act, specifically regarding the ethics commissioner and the Senate ethics officer.

As well all know, the current Prime Minister has been searching for his legacy, something that Canadians will remember him by after his years of public service. While I greatly respect his years of service, I do not have to endorse what he has done during those years. The bill is a prime example of the Liberal legacy, saying that it will do something but only doing it in half measures.

If the purpose of the bill is to fulfill a 1993 Liberal red book election promise and provide for the appointment of a truly independent ethics officer that would report directly to the House Commons regarding the conduct of its members, then we would be able to proceed quickly with the bill. Unfortunately, as my colleagues before me have stated and as I will mention in the next few moments, this is really is not the case.

The bill is part of the Prime Minister's ethics initiative that he first announced in May 2002. As is often the case with the Prime Minister, his cabinet and his government, they use the right words but the meaning and implementation are shifted in such a way that the results are confusing. In other words, they simply do not walk the talk.

I believe if any one of us asked our constituents what they thought the term “independent ethics commissioner for the House of Commons” actually meant, there would be a fairly consistent response. Canadians who I have spoken with over the past number of years on this issue take the view that an independent ethics commissioner means exactly that, independent, free of influence and restrictions from anyone else.

While that would be the Canadian norm, the Liberal version of the world is always just a little bit different. Under the bill the term “independent ethics commissioner” is misleading. Under Bill C-34 the Prime Minister will make the choice of ethics commissioner. There will be a consultation process with the leaders of the parties in the House and then there will be a confirming vote in the House.

This may sound like it meets the needs of an independent ethics commission. However, we must consider that the consultation process with the leaders does not mandate that the Prime Minister change his mind if they all disagree.

Consider that the confirming vote in the House will undoubtedly be a vote in which all Liberals will mysteriously vote in favour of the Prime Minister's choice. This will not be a secret ballot where every member of the House can vote according to his or her independent view of the proposed ethics commissioner. Is it not ironic that an independent ethics commissioner will not be voted on by independent minded members of Parliament?

As we all very well know, there is a very strong precedent for secret ballots in the House. The Speaker of the House of Commons has been voted on in this fashion for the past several times and it has worked extremely well. The wishes of the members are clearly heard and they in turn are well served by that democratic choice.

I note that the House of Commons ethics commissioner is appointed for an initial five year term and is eligible for reappointment for one or more terms of up to five years each. Furthermore, Bill C-34 states that the House of Commons ethics commissioner will work under the general direction of a committee of the House of Commons, presumably the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. While this seems all quite logical, I believe we need to look at the working details of the bill more closely. Unfortunately again, Liberal logic and Canadian logic often do not match with each other.

When speaking out in opposition to Bill C-34, let me quote directly from Canadian Alliance policy and what I firmly believe should be involved in the bill. It states:

We will facilitate the appointment of an independent Ethics Counsellor by the House of Commons. The Ethics Counsellor will report directly to the House of Commons and be given the mandate to investigate, and where applicable, recommend prosecution for conflict-of-interest infractions by a Member of Parliament, and/or his/her staff.

I am fully in favour of setting and maintaining a high standard of ethical conduct by government and parliamentarians. As public servants, we must ensure that a high standard is maintained. In this case it is this Liberal version of ethics to which I am opposed. By its very nature ethics are not something that can or should be subject to internal definitions.

I have no doubt that the Liberals will try to characterize my fellow opposition members as being against a code of ethics but let me emphatically state again that I fully support the premise and the need for an independent ethics commissioner. Unfortunately, after reading the details of the bill, while the position may be for an ethics commissioner, the position is certainly not independent. It is on this basis that I disagree with this bill.

I ask the obvious question of how an ethics commissioner appointed by and answerable solely to the Prime Minister can have any legitimate jurisdiction over backbench and opposition MPs. I urge all hon. members of Parliament to carefully consider these implications. This is nothing more than one more Liberal wolf dressed in sheep's clothing. How can an ethics commissioner for all members of the House of Commons have any validity when he or she would be appointed by the Prime Minister without an endorsement by the rank and file members of Parliament?

As we have seen in the past, situations arise where an investigation by an independent ethics commissioner is required. If an investigation of a minister is requested by a senator or an MP, the ethics counsellor is obliged to investigate. However under Bill C-34, any public report arising from the investigation can be suitably sanitized by withholding any information considered confidential.

An independent ethics commissioner must report to the House of Commons ideally through one of the committees, not through the Prime Minister's office. Without this provision there is no independence and the position continues as a lapdog to the Prime Minister.

I know the government House leader has indicated that Bill C-34 meets all the recommendations of the standing committee in its report tabled just before Easter. However that is not necessarily the case. The method of recruitment and the appointment of the ethics commissioner is key to guaranteeing his or her independence. Unlike all other officers of Parliament, the ethics commissioner reports on the conduct of members of Parliament and not the government. Therefore, faith in his total independence is essential.

I note the standing committee made favourable reference to the practice in the provinces where there is direct involvement by their members in the selection of their commissioners.

In my home province of British Columbia he is selected by an all party committee, which makes a recommendation to the premier, who must then obtain a two-thirds confirming vote by the legislative assembly to make the appointment. Alberta uses a similar method without the two-thirds requirement. In this package the House will have, arguably, no real involvement in recruitment and appointment, and in the end the government majority will simply prevail.

There are many other issues that arise out of this bill that time prevents me from addressing. I know that opposition parties and many backbench government members have grave concerns over this bill.

Some of the issues I have had the opportunity to speak to but there are many others. I am concerned over the confidential advising to the Prime Minister and the ability of the PMO to clean up the report over confidential issues between the Prime Minister and his ministers. The bill provides no real role for the House in the selection of the ethics commissioner, therefore arguably not really truly independent.

I am strongly in favour of a code of ethics by which all members of the House can abide. I affirm the need for a truly independent ethics commissioner to uphold this standard. Unfortunately, the Liberal government thrust its own definitions on the role and position and in so doing, have circumvented the legitimacy of a truly independent ethics commissioner.

[Gerry Ritz, Canadian Alliance, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, what we debate here briefly today and what the committee will study indepth is more Liberal smoke and mirrors, touchy-feely stuff that is supposed to make some public relations spin very positive out there and it is not going to happen.

We have studied this proposed legislation very carefully and it is more Liberal litter scattered down a very long and twisted trail of broken promises, right back to the first red book in 1993.

The problem seems to be that the Liberals have no grasp of the meaning of the word ethics or any understanding of what constitutes ethical behaviour, bottom basic stuff in politics. If they knew the meaning of the word ethics or practised ethical behaviour, there would be no GST today and there would not have been $1 billion lost in the HRDC boondoggle or another $1 billion flushed down the gun registry.

If Liberals had a grasp of what ethics means to ethical people, there would not be a long page filled with the names of disgraced cabinet ministers who had to be fired for unethical behaviour and there would be no new ambassador to Denmark who was sent into hiding in that country.

We know the Liberals hate to be reminded of all their scandalous betrayals of Canadians' trust. We know there are even some over there who profess to be embarrassed by the antics of their frontbench colleagues. However professing embarrassment and resigning in disgust are two different matters. The former is smoke and mirrors. The latter is what Canadians expect of hon. members, especially frontbench government members.

When the Liberals in the 1993 election made the promise of an ethics commissioner, Canadians took that to mean Parliament would have an independent overseer of the ethics of members of Parliament, including those frontbench cabinet ministers. What they got was a dependent business counsellor answerable only to the Prime Minister and serving at the pleasure of that same Prime Minister. If Canadians who care about the ethical behaviour of members of Parliament, including the Prime Minister and his cabinet, were disappointed, we on this side can certainly understand why.

The bill is part of the Prime Minister's so-called ethics initiative first announced a year ago, right in the middle of a lot of his trials and tribulations. As is the case so often with Liberals, the right words are used but in such a way as to confuse Canadians and lull them into believing that the Liberals have finally seen the light; a false sense of security.

There will be no “independent ethics commissioner” because the Prime Minister will make the appointment. As many Liberal backbenchers will attest, this Prime Minister might consult but he does not listen and does not take advice, nor does he ever change his mind.

We know when the Prime Minister's choice for another lapdog ethics consultant is announced, no matter what other party leaders say, the whip will be cracked and the majority Liberal government will vote in favour of the Prime Minister's chosen candidate. This is the Liberal track record and that is how the Liberals operate.

Surely if the promise of last year and the promise of 1993 are to be honoured, the Liberals would grant the House the authority to seek out and nominate a truly independent ethics commissioner. The ethics commissioner would report to the House as a whole either through a select committee or an appropriate standing committee. That would remove the influence of the Prime Minister and his office.

We know that British Columbia has the best process for selecting an ethics commissioner and cannot understand why the Liberals would not use the same process. They profess that they are picking this up from the provinces, but we do not see that mirrored in what they are proposing.

In that ethically advanced legislature members are directly involved in the selection process. An all party committee makes the selection and the recommendation to the premier. The premier, in turn, must obtain a two-thirds confirming vote in the assembly to make the appointment. Alberta is also an ethically advanced province, except the two-thirds majority is not a requirement there.

It should be noted that in British Columbia everyone knows that any person considering accepting the ethics commissioner position would not likely accept the appointment with a mere two-thirds vote of confidence. Here in this House members will have no real involvement in seeking out an appointment of that ethics commissioner. In the end the will of the Prime Minister and the government majority will prevail.

One has to wonder if an ethical person would accept such an appointment by the Prime Minister if all parties in opposition voted against that particular appointment. It really puts that person between a rock and a hard place. The bill, without amendment, does not meet the concerns of the standing committee because it does not provide for a meaningful role or involvement of all of the members in the selection process.

As it stands, the bill allows the ethics commissioner to wear two hats. He or she will continue to serve as a confidential adviser to the Prime Minister on the conduct of cabinet ministers. It would probably be more accurate to call this individual an ethics consultant. Much like the person holding the position now, the new candidate could very well wind up serving as a consultant to the member for LaSalle—Émard.

If Canada Steamship Lines dumps some bunker oil in the Canadian harbour, will it be the responsibility of the newly appointed ethics consultant to call the member for LaSalle—Émard with a heads-up to a potentially embarrassing business problem?

Let me reiterate. The method of recruitment and appointment of a truly independent ethics commissioner is the key to a guarantee of dependence. This is important because unlike other officers of Parliament, the ethics commissioner reports on the conduct of members, not the government.

Total faith in the total independence of the commissioner is critically important if Canadians are to truly believe that their Parliament takes the matter of ethical behaviour seriously. Canadians will have the right to be disappointed and cynical if Parliament's ethics watchdog turns out to be just another Liberal lapdog.

Members should also be wary of the fact that it is not clear in the bill that a minister of the crown or state can be held accountable under the same rules that apply to ordinary members of Parliament. That is a double standard. There is the possibility of two sets of standards, which is not surprising considering this is coming from the Liberals. That party is, after all, widely known as the party of double standards, the party that says, “Don't ever do as we do, just do as we say”.

The possibility of two sets of standards is assumed but not specific. The bill should be amended to make it specific. It is simply not safe to assume anything when Liberals hold a majority in Canada's Parliament.

Canadians made an assumption in 1993 when they hard the Liberals promise to scrap, kill and abolish the GST. They assumed the Liberals were telling the truth at that time.

They made an assumption when the member for LaSalle—Émard said that registering guns would only cost a couple of million dollars. They assumed he was a straight shooter and telling the truth.

They made another assumption when the Liberals promised them that the only highest ethical behaviour of cabinet ministers would be accepted in the Liberal government. Does the name Alfonso Gagliano ring any bells? How about that long list of ethically challenged cabinet ministers perched off like crows to the right and left of the frontbench ministers?

It is unwise, dangerous and always costly to assume the Liberals mean what they say and will do what they had promised.

Parliament and the committee should be prepared to approach this bill with healthy cynicism. History shows us again and again that if we accept what Liberals say at face value, we are in for a major disappointment.

If they promise a program will not cost much, the best advice is to put our money in a vault, lock it and throw any the key. Then we should bury the vault 20 feet underground and put tons of cement on the surface. They will still get our money, it will just simply take them a little longer to find it.

What I say makes Liberals wince. I understand that our grannies always told us the truth hurts.

In conclusion, the bill is a disappointment. It is a cynical attempt to use smoke and mirrors to convince Canadians that the Liberals finally looked up and understood the definition of ethics. They did not because why waste time on such trivia, they decided.

Instead, they give us a bill that is so full of holes it makes a joke of the Liberals promises of independent ethics commissioners from 10 years ago. It does not deserve support as much as it deserves critical study and thoughtful amendments. Hopefully those will happen at committee.

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Madam Speaker, my party has raised this issue at length, as have members from all political parties because it goes to the heart of our job. We obviously oppose what the government is doing because the ethics commissioner will not be truly independent as the government has mentioned.

The ethics commissioner will be chosen by the Prime Minister and ratified by the House. On the surface one may think that would be appropriate. The Prime Minister certainly has the right to appoint individuals, but the ethics commissioner is someone entirely different. The ethics commissioner will be a watchdog over all of us, including the Prime Minister.

The reason this came about is the number of debacles that have occurred with respect to cabinet ministers, some of whom have been forced to leave because of a breach in ethics.

The fact is that this institution needs firm guidelines on what we can and cannot do. All MPs would like that. If we know what the rules are, then we know what we can and cannot do. Intuitively we already know that. All of us on this side of the House are asking for an independent ethics commissioner, one not appointed by the Prime Minister, but one perhaps chosen from outside or a group of people chosen by cabinet who would then be ratified by the House in a secret ballot. In that way we could prevent the application of the Westminster type system, the whip system, which presently occurs in the House and which prevents individuals from voting their conscience and doing the right thing. I would like to expand on that thought.

Notwithstanding health care, the economy, the job losses that people have endured, the lack of support for education, the lack of support for our seniors, the lack of opportunity we have compared to other countries, notwithstanding all of those issues, the biggest problem we have is that we have an elected dictatorship in Canada. With so much power centred in the Prime Minister's Office, it prevents members across party lines from doing their job.

All of us in the House have talents, passions and desires. They are why we came to the House and what we wanted to do when we arrived here. We wanted to accomplish things for our constituents and for all Canadians. That is what Canadians want. They have asked us to come here. They pay our salaries to do their bidding. We are their public servants, but when we get here can we actually do what they ask? Can we fulfill that expectation? The tragic answer is no.

The Westminster system has been bastardized in Canada. We have a system where the Prime Minister's Office has so much power that even the Prime Minister's own cabinet members are unable to fulfill what they think needs to be done and what their respective departments think needs to be done. Cabinet takes its marching orders from people in the Prime Minister's Office, most of whom are unelected. Power is being wielded by unelected people. That is not a democracy. We have an executive with virtually unrestrained power. We have the worst of the presidential system and the worst of the Westminster system. An uncontrolled executive is not good for the country, it is not good for the House and it is not good for the executive itself.

The problems the Prime Minister and his cabinet are facing are in many ways a result of the structure created by the Prime Minister. He has uncontrolled power. The ability to encourage different viewpoints and have those viewpoints fleshed out in a manner that enables the best ideas to percolate to the top is absent. When there is an uncontrolled executive where contrary views do not act as a check and balance on what the Prime Minister and his people want to do, it creates not only an unhealthy situation but an entirely damaging situation for our nation, for the House and for the executive. If we look back in history, any time there was power centralized to such a degree among so few people, it created a situation rife with problems.

Many of our country's problems have not been dealt with in a meaningful fashion. There has also been an erosion of our country's democratic institutions and potential. Rather than doing what we are capable of and aiming high, we as a nation are shooting low. That is a violation of ourselves as individuals and worse, it is a violation of the people of our country.

We have not tapped into the potential in the House and the potential of our nation and indeed the potential of our public service to bring all those good minds together, to apply those minds to the problems of our nation. If all members of the House looked into their hearts, they would have to agree with that analysis. However, things can be done.

The prime minister in waiting, if I can call him that, has spoken about the democratic deficit. The democratic deficit must be dealt with. If it is not, then we will not see action on health care to ensure that Canadians get access to better health care. We will not decrease our unemployment. We will not increase salaries. We will not release the potential of our private sector. We will not improve the education system in Canada. We will not have better relations between the feds and the provinces. We will not have more efficient government. We will not see the reform of the public sector that is so desperately needed. None of that is going to happen because the great minds in our country cannot apply their ideas to those pressing problems.

If whoever takes the helm of this country chooses to deal with that democratic deficit, that person would leave a mark and a legacy that would be remembered for many, many years to come. It would be the most significant change our country has seen in decades. That is something that whoever takes over the helm in the future may give pause for thought.

It will not be good enough to merely pay lip service to this in the time up to when that person is chosen. It will not be good enough to speak about it in generalities. The only thing that will be good enough is if that person gives specific solutions to deal with the democratic deficit of our country so that we will reform our system and change it from an elected dictatorship to a true democracy. That is our duty as individuals and it is the duty of the Prime Minister.

Think of what we could do if that changed. Think of what we would have if we had free votes in the House of Commons, true free votes done in an electronic system like it is done in many other countries. Developing countries have an electronic voting system that is efficient, timely, cost saving, effective and democratic. A person's voting record could be released when a writ is dropped. The person's constituents would know how that person voted on various bills.

Reform of the committee system is needed. It is no longer acceptable for committees merely to be make work projects for MPs. No longer is it acceptable for the government to use taxpayers' money to merely keep MPs running around and around in circles doing studies that nobody listens to. No longer is it effective and worthy for the government to tolerate a system that merely makes the vast majority of the people in this House run around like chickens with their heads cut off, and do not use the good work that they have done.

There is tremendous potential in the House. Much of it is drawn from the constituents who brought us here. All of us use the ideas that our constituents give us. We bring them to the House. What if those ideas were able to have life? What if those ideas were employed as public policy, even as a pilot project? Imagine what we could do as a nation domestically. Imagine what we could do internationally.

I have given some suggestions that my party and members from across party lines have put forward. We can only hope that the government listens for the collective good of all of us.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will be brief on this particular debate. My good friend from Acadie—Bathurst has a private member's bill which I know he is champing at the bit to get on the floor of the House and legitimately so because it is a relevant bill that deals with the employment insurance issue.

On Bill C-34, I have a lot of respect for the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. He speaks from the heart. The issues he put forward with respect to the democratic deficiency and certainly with respect to ethics in the House were very appropriate.

Madam Speaker, as you and I and other members of the House know, one of the worst things we have to deal with as members of Parliament is the impression that we have in the community. I think we are our own worst enemies. Too often people will approach us and say “The House is dysfunctional. The democracy that we have is dysfunctional. In most cases members of Parliament are there for all the wrong reasons. They are selfish and they are crooked”.

That cuts me to the core. Quite frankly I consider myself to be a very honest person, someone who has been a public servant and who has represented not only my community but my constituency for well over 20 years.

When people tell me this of other members, they always say “but that does not mean you; this is about other people that we see in the House of Commons”. It hurts and I know that we are our own worst enemies.

We have to put in place not only legislation that we have to deal with but also consider the ethics bill that we are talking about today. We as members of Parliament must be seen to be as pure as the driven snow. In our own operations we have to recognize that we have to set a higher example, a better example not only of our own selves in the House but certainly of our colleagues in the House, so that people will respect us more as politicians than they have in the past.

I sit on the procedure and House affairs committee and I look forward to having this piece of legislation referred to it. I have had the opportunity to deal with the ethics package and to debate the issue of the ethics commissioner over the past number of months. I can assure the House that provincial jurisdictions are far ahead of the federal jurisdiction.

My own jurisdiction of Manitoba had the opportunity to deal with the issue of an ethics commissioner. I assure the House that just having the rules in place is absolutely vital. It is not so much even for the public to say that there are some rules to gauge and see what politicians are following but it is a preventative measure also for the members of the jurisdictions. It is easy for us to get wrapped up in our own lives and not see the shades of grey between the black and white of ethics.

What I see as part of the job function of the ethics commissioner here is as a preventative action for members of Parliament. When we have some difficulty as to where we are heading in our own lives with our own investments and our own constituencies, we now have somebody to go to and ask whether or not we are on the right track. None of us has all the answers. Anyone here who thinks he or she has all the answers obviously would be much better than the opposition side or for that matter even the Prime Minister because even he does not have all the answers. It is good to be able to share and ask other people what it is we should or should not be doing.

There are two issues. One which I could not get over is the squeamish acceptance by the government at committee when we talked about spousal disclosure with respect to the ethics bill. The regulations will be drawn up. As part of the regulations it should be required that not only should the member of Parliament disclose his or her assets but we are saying that in order to make this up front and to make it totally transparent and believable, spousal disclosure has to accompany that of the member. That is just open, honest common sense.

Every other jurisdiction has it but the Liberal members had some difficulty with that. They thought perhaps there should be a backdoor way of getting around the regulations or the ethics. I do not see it that way.

In another life I had the requirement to disclose and declare what my assets and interests were. My spouse and also my dependants at that point in time were part of that declaration also.

It is only fair that we look seriously at that spousal disclosure when we go to the regulation. I think we finally convinced the Liberals that they should be seen to be above that and go with spousal disclosure.

The other thing is the ethics commissioner. I am absolutely astounded that it took the Prime Minister 10 years to embrace the idea of ethics. In his original red book of 1993, it talked about open government, open Parliament and open ethics. Now, 10 years later, when he is leaving, when he has his foot out the door and the door is about to hit him on the way out, he has embraced this wonderful concept of ethics. I do not know why it was not necessary for the last 10 years that he follow his own rules, that in fact he be more ethical in his position as Prime Minister, but I guess sometimes it is better late than never.

One of the things with the ethics commissioner, as part of the jurisdictions we talked to, is that the individual, he or she, must have the respect of either the legislature or the Parliament. It is difficult to have that individual give us advice, as members, when we do not have respect for him or her, or vice versa.

In order to achieve that, not only do we need to have, and should have, all the leaders of every party in the House to be part of that process of appointment, I honestly believe that the House must have a very serious part in that process of appointment. We must have the ability to vote, not unlike what we do with the Speaker. When every Parliament is opened, we have the opportunity to put forward the name of an individual who we believe will best represent our rights in the House. I think it is necessary that we do the same thing with the ethics commissioner.

Should it be 50 plus 1? We have had that argument. We have that argument in referendums all the time, I think. Quite frankly, I believe it should be more than that. I think it should be more than simple majority. In fact I would love to see unanimity but we will never get that. However I would hate to see just simply the majority government of the day being able to tell me who my ethics counsellor or commissioner will be. There should be more than just simple majority. Perhaps two-thirds or three-quarters. Let us pick a number. However I think we can do that at committee.

I do not want to take up any more time at this point but I will take up a substantial amount of time at the committee when this bill comes forward. I can assure all hon. members that when it comes back to the House it will be in a much better fashion, with some changes made to it. I know we can do it with the help of the government in the committee.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

In my opinion the nays definitely have it.

And more than five members having risen: