House of Commons Hansard #97 of the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was airports.

Topics

Parliament of Canada ActAdjournment Proceedings

6:30 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Rick Borotsik Progressive Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

No, I said ethics and the government are unusual.

Parliament of Canada ActAdjournment Proceedings

6:30 p.m.

Liberal

Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS

Let me finish. I am not going to suggest that is so unusual. I would enjoy having fun with that, but it would be unwise to suggest anything about the ethics of any member of the House that is anything less than outstanding.

The commission of inquiry headed by Justice Parker examined the allegations of conflict of interest concerning Sinclair Stevens, a minister in the previous government.

Mr. Stevens owned a family business that had been converted to a blind trust, the only mechanism used at the time.

In his report, Justice Parker indicated that blind trusts were not realistic for family firms owned by a minister. This led to the creation of instruments that exist to this day, namely blind management agreements.

Blind trusts no longer cover anything other than such assets as publicly listed securities, shares in particular. The trustee can do what he deems best with his assets, in compliance with the obligation to look after the interests of a holder of public office. He may purchase, negotiate or sell individual assets. The incumbent of a public office is provided with enough general information to file his income tax return, but knows no details of his assets.

However, blind administration agreements are now used for totally different situations, generally when a private company doing business with the federal government is involved.

Blind management agreements do not pretend that the ownership does not exist, but they do ensure the public office holder is not involved in the business decisions of that company. That is the key. There has been specific interest in how this process worked in the case of the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard when he was finance minister. That information is on the public record, so it provides a good example.

First, a blind management agreement was set up so that the minister would no longer be involved in his company's decisions and operations.

Second, those assets were publicly disclosed and the information was posted on the ethics counsellor's website. As Mr. Justice Parker said, “public disclosure should be the cornerstone of a modern conflict of interest code”. The key is the disclosure.

Third, the hon. member made sure that he was not to be involved in any discussion on policy issues that would have any impact on those assets. He did so by telling his staff not to involve him or inform him on any dealings that his companies might have with the government.

Parliament of Canada ActAdjournment Proceedings

6:30 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Rick Borotsik Progressive Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the parliamentary secretary has not used any viable arguments to suggest that there has not been a conflict. I go back to the same decision that he is using as an example, and that is the definition of conflict which states that “A conflict does not require acting on the knowledge. Simple possession creates the conflict”. The minister at that time, the member for LaSalle—Émard, had that simple knowledge.

The parliamentary secretary said that the key is disclosure. He is wrong. One of the keys is disclosure. When one discloses, that does not mean that person can now have any active part in that private sector corporation.

We as members of Parliament come to the House and must be above reproach. Above reproach means we get rid of all of our private interests and those that we do not get rid of we put into the blind trust particularly when one is a minister of the Crown. That is the key, not simply the disclosure. The fact is that we will be seen as being above reproach however this member was not seen as being above reproach.

Parliament of Canada ActAdjournment Proceedings

6:35 p.m.

Liberal

Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS

Mr. Speaker, it would seem to me that the attack of my hon. colleague and his party, particularly his leader, on this question is beneath them. They should be better than this and they know better. It seems to me that this is a real act of desperation. It can only be called an act of desperation out of fear over this.

We know full well that when a minister is required to declare assets to the ethics counsellor, he cannot declare those assets if he is not informed of major changes in those assets.

When there are major changes, the best way for that to happen is for the trustee to inform the ethics counsellor who calls a meeting of the three of them and therefore the counsellor is informed in the presence of the minister of those major changes in his assets.

How else is he supposed to inform the ethics counsellor if he is not informed of those major changes? This is a ridiculous argument, but I really think it is beneath my hon. colleague. He is better than that and he knows better than that.

Parliament of Canada ActAdjournment Proceedings

6:35 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:37 p.m.)