Debates of Sept. 22nd, 2003

Parliament of Canada Act

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member will agree, however, that when it comes to the bureaucracy and the way they comport themselves, this really should be covered by the public service code of conduct.

The public service code of conduct, the House should know, thanks to the President of the Treasury Board, has been overhauled and has been implemented. I would agree that it is long overdue.

However this is not to take away from the member's point. It is extremely important that members of Parliament and senators be models for the public service. I might add that it is not just a matter of being a model. It is also very necessary to have high level transparency because it is very difficult to do the things that the member described, which essentially is to give out contracts as a form of favour, when that type of deed is going to become public knowledge.

We have a balance there. We must have the transparency that allows the deed to appear before the public, before the media, and we must have the model established by the members of Parliament and the government. I believe we are moving in that direction very strongly, not just because of this legislation, not just because of Bill C-34, but I refer the House to legislation we have already passed and that is the political financing bill.

What that did is that separated, as best we could, this time around at any rate, the receipt of money from corporations vis-à-vis the perception of those corporations that would be receiving favours.

That is the way we have to go. It is not so much what may be done wrong so much as how things are perceived. I really do believe that belatedly, absolutely belatedly, I would agree that it should have been done years ago. As someone who has been campaigning for opening up the Access to Information Act, this is of course very close to my heart.

However, in the last year or so, I think the government has moved significantly forward with legislation that improves accountability, that sets benchmarks of good behaviour. I hope Bill C-34 will pass the House within the next couple of months and I think we will all be the better for it.

[Dave Chatters, Canadian Alliance, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always refreshing to hear the bubbling enthusiasm of the member's endorsement of a government initiative, no matter how thinly it is disguised as being genuine.

However I certainly agree with the member that we all would like to see public confidence in elected members of Parliament and appointed members of the Senate to be beyond reproach. However I do not know how the member can muster this kind of enthusiasm after the 10 year record of the government, when there were allegations against the Prime Minister and the golf course and the hotel loan; a defence minister resigning; a couple of solicitors general resigning; advertising contracts given to friends; and the list goes on and on. All of this is happening at the same time as the Prime Minister tells us that his current ethics counsellor would do the job and would restore the confidence of the Canadian public in the government and in elected members.

After all we have heard all day long in this debate, with everyone pointing out its shortcomings, what is it in Bill C-34 that gives the member that kind of enthusiasm in his support of the bill?

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Mr. Speaker, simply put, the creation of a Senate ethics commissioner is an enormous step forward. As I said in my own remarks, it was an enormous step forward to bringing judges under the purview of an ethics commissioner.

Let me emphasize that it is so important to look forward and not to look back. Yes, it has been a long time coming. We should have done this years back but we do not condemn legislation because it did not come two, three or four years ago.

I remind the member that it was four years ago that I had before the House a bill to reform the Access to Information Act. I have to remind the member that he was one of the key members of the opposition who ensured that the bill would be defeated.

We have to be all on the same side on this issue. We want transparency. We want accountability. We want good behaviour. I hope the member this time around on this bill, especially as it is a government bill and not merely the bill of a backbench MP who is trying to bring transparency and accountability to all of government, while seeing that it is a good government bill I hope the member will support it.

[Paul Forseth, Canadian Alliance, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my constituents have long desired ethics and honesty in government and I think I have been able to give it to them through my leadership by example with honest representation as an opposition MP. However the government certainly has not set a good example.

I am motivated by the hope of most Canadians that some day Canada will have an ethical political culture. Some day I hope that any parliamentarian who is tempted to behave wrongly will be quickly found out and denounced. That illusive hope is the backdrop to the bill before us today.

Historically, both the Liberal and Conservative governments of the past have been too easily tempted to break or bend the rules for what they thought was in their political interest or to their advantage. The long term record is that Canadians have been inadequately served by ethically challenged governments. In contrast to what the Canadian Alliance has emphasized, local accountability and grassroots democracy, the Liberals: greased palm bureaucracy.

The recent revelations in the media of the dark inner workings of the Liberal Party are just the latest manifestation of its ethical deficit. The Liberals approach to the public service integrity office for whistleblowing is similar to the way they handled the ethics counsellor position. The promise had been made to create an ethics commissioner reporting directly to Parliament. The Prime Minister opted instead for a counsellor who reports directly to him, an act in itself that was not ethical. It took a series of scandals and ongoing pressure from our party to get some movement on that policy.

The way the current inadequate position operates, the ethics counsellor seems to go out of his way to try and interpret the rules as liberally, pardon the pun, as he possibly can. This is not any real surprise but is a continuation of the marginal usefulness of the ethics counsellor function under the current set up.

Patronage and special favour have been the boastful stock practices of every federal and provincial party that has ever taken office and, even to a very small degree, in regimes of such sanitary former premiers as W.A.C. Bennett of B.C. and E.C. Manning of Alberta.

Rule bending is considered more a Liberal trait or sin because such rewards for the faithful are very predictably given and could be counted upon without shame from Liberal governments. Mulroney rightly said to Turner in the 1993 TV election debate that he had an option not to deliver the long list of Liberal favours. Sadly, it did not take the new incoming Prime Minister long to stoop to the very same thing.

Parliamentary reformers always talk about open competition for posts with hiring choices made on merit, not on partisan standing, but the pleas have not diminished the practice, even for diplomatic posts where a neutral record might seem advantageous. We remember Mr. Gagliano.

The old line parties simply cannot seem to do without such rewards. Why should they? Patronage and favouritism have their roots in human nature and they have been evident in the governance of society since recorded history. It is so human to help one's relatives, friends and fellows in a common cause, and the practice is not confined to partisan politics.

No one has been making a big deal of it, but the Treasury Board policy, entitled “Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service”, is supposed to be in the hands of every federal official, great and small. Treasury Board rules and guidelines fill the shelves but seem to be routinely ignored by the government.

Repeatedly over the years, acquaintances within the bureaucracy have told me that there is patronage in filling jobs and awarding promotions in the public service as the Prime Minister's Office sets the tone at the behest of ministers and insider MPs.

When participating in any decision making related to a staffing process, public servants should ensure that they do not grant preferential treatment or assistance to family or friends. When making decisions that will result in a financial reward to an external party, public servants should not grant preferential treatment or assistance to insiders or entities who were not selected purely on objective merit. The problem of awarding purchasing contracts only on merit in an ethical manner remains a big stumbling block for the government.

The scale of public service appointments and promotions runs into the tens of thousands each year, whereas the so-called political posts monitored by the ethics counsellor only numbered several thousand. Therefore we need a culture change for the whole public service as well as a new tone in the House of Commons.

The Prime Minister is leaving so, true to form, last week or so some 50 plum appointments were made. In this transition phase we will see a lot of this Liberal unfairness for some of the most cherished appointments, including, of course, the usual dumping ground of the Senate.

Liberal MPs, bagmen, and Prime Minister cronies salivate at the prospect of a Senate place where the pace is easy and without electoral risk until the age of 75. Despite this, there are some good people there who do good things, but it is how one gets there that is the big problem.

Long ago I lost my surprise at encountering MPs and party apparatchiks on Parliament Hill who dreamed of quietly pressing for a place in the red chamber. Most aspirants rank it ahead of all other gifts at the Prime Minister's command. Since Confederation, the Senate bonanza has been a prime lure into partisan activity, encouraging continuous party loyalty.

Our party, and certainly most of the folk in my constituency, abhor political partisan and bureaucratic patronage. Unfortunately, people, being people will be tempted. The real power in federal Ottawa is now wielded by a presidential kind of Prime Minister and a Supreme Court that, since the recent charter's advent, has superceded Parliament as the highest court in the land.

In view of this wrong trend, I hope Canadians will vote in the next election as much on the ethics question as much as other things. When we talk about ethics in a public office holder context, it is more than just appearing to be honest. The object of a code is to enhance public confidence in the integrity of public office holders and the decision making process of government. The rules should encourage experienced and competent persons to seek public office. The rules should facilitate interchange between the private and public sector, and establish clarity respecting conflict of interest for post-employment practices, applicable to all public office holders. The rules should minimize the possibility of conflicts arising between private interests and public duties of public office holders, and provide for the resolution of conflicts for the public interest should they arise.

Every public office holder should conform to the following principles. Public office holders should act with honesty and uphold the highest ethical standards so that public confidence and trust in the integrity, objectivity and impartiality of government are conserved and enhanced.

Public office holders have an obligation to perform their official duties and arrange their private affairs in a manner that will bear the closest public scrutiny, an obligation that is not fully discharged by simply acting within the law. Public office holders, in fulfilling their official duties, should make decisions in the public interest with regard to the merits of each case without consideration for advantage to themselves or their political party.

Public office holders should not have private interests, other than those permitted pursuant to the code, that would be affected particularly or significantly by government actions in which they participate. On coming into office, public office holders should arrange their private affairs in a manner that will prevent real or apparent conflicts of interest from arising, but if such a conflict does arise between private interests and official duties, the conflict must be resolved in favour of the Canadian public interest.

Public office holders should not solicit or accept transfers of economic benefit, other than incidental gifts, customary hospitality or other benefits of nominal value, unless the transfer is pursuant to an enforceable contract or property right of the public office-holder.

Public office holders should not step out of their official roles to assist private entities or persons in their dealings with the government where this would result in preferential treatment to any person.

Public office holders should not knowingly take advantage or benefit from information that is obtained in the course of their official duties that is not generally available to the public. It is the so-called insider trading principle.

Public office holders should not directly or indirectly use or allow the use of government property of any kind, including property leased to the government for anything other than officially approved activities.

Finally, public office holders should not act after they leave public office in such a manner as to take improper advantage of their previous office.

We must look at these standards that I have outlined and then examine the Liberal record. The Liberals have all too often talked about ethical rules, but mostly for show. They have not had a deep commitment to transparency of activity that would naturally arise from a belief in self-control and ethical self-governance.

Sadly, it has taken years to get even this somewhat and inadequate bill entitled, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Ethics Commissioner and Senate Ethics Officers).

The Liberals promised back in the 1993 red book. However when we quoted from that book in the form a votable motion, incredibly the Liberals voted in the House against their own published red book policy.

That smiling Liberal fellow who was collecting leadership delegates this past week did that insincere flip back then by voting against the very policy that he wrote. Therefore, how can we trust anything that he may say in the future?

Briefly, the bill claims to amend the Parliament of Canada Act to provide for the appointment of a Senate ethics officer. It also requires the Senate ethics officer to perform the duties and functions assigned by the Senate regarding the conduct of its members. However the bill also amends the act to provide for the appointment of an ethics commissioner for the House of Commons. It provides for this commissioner to perform the duties and functions assigned by the House of Commons regarding the conduct of its members and to administer any ethical principles, rules or obligations established by the Prime Minister for public office holders.

The imperfections are already evident, as it is an independent Parliament as a whole that should establish the rules for self-governance, not the Prime Minister.

Bill C-34 talks about independent ethics commissioner but the term is misleading since the Prime Minister will make the choice and there will only be consultation with the leaders of the parties in the House with a confirming vote in the House.

As far as I can tell, there will be no standing committee examinations or official committee report to the House. Sadly, consultation with the other party leaders does not mandate that the Prime Minister must change his mind if they disagree. The operative word is only “consult”, rather than “obtain approval”.

The confirming vote in the House will undoubtedly be a vote in which all government MPs will be required, by their leader and party membership, to vote in favour of the Prime Minister's choice. The whip will be on.

The Senate ethics officer is appointed for an initial seven year term and is eligible for reappointment for one or more terms of up to seven years each. It is not clear to me if the senators themselves get to nominate, examine in committee and vote on their own House officer. They currently cannot even vote to select their own Speaker of their chamber.

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. 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.

This commissioner will perform the duties and functions assigned by the House of Commons for governing the conduct of its members when carrying out their duties and functions of the office as members of that House. This means that a separate code will be established and will become part of the standing orders which the commissioner will enforce.

The commissioner's supervision of cabinet ministers will be about the same as it is now. No news there. This is private, confidential advice to them and to the Prime Minister.

However, the new fact that an investigation of a minister can be triggered by a formal complaint by a member of Parliament or senator is positive. The results of such investigations will be made public. Nevertheless, the public report, unfortunately, can be sanitized by removing information.

It is not sufficiently clear that a minister of the Crown, a minister of state or a parliamentary secretary can be held accountable under the same rules as those that apply to a regular member of Parliament. It may be assumed but it is not specifically clear in the bill.

In addition the ethics commissioner or his staff cannot be compelled to be a witness in an ordinary court about evidence that arises in the course of their duties. I support this though that this should serve for greater trust in the relationship when seeking advice from the commissioner.

Our party has had a longstanding blue book policy which 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.

That is the longstanding position of our party.

It is not clear if this bill meets that standard. Our caucus members always strive for a high standard of ethical conduct by both government and parliamentarians. It is this deluded Liberal version of ethics in this bill which we find difficult to support.

I just find it hard to understand why it has taken so long to get so little from the government, concerning ethics. The Liberals would try, as usual, to characterize us as being against a code of ethics, and we must remind that we object only to a Liberal, diluted interpretation.

We object to an ethics commissioner appointed by and answerable to the Prime Minister who will have jurisdiction over backbench and opposition MPs. That dynamic is an inappropriate blurring of the independence of Parliament from the government. Parliament is not the government. It is the special place where the government comes to obtain permission to tax and spend the people's money and get its legislation passed. The officers of the House of Commons, like for example the Auditor General, are not part of the government.

Certainly a basic flaw to this bill is that the Prime Minister will appoint the ethics commissioner without a meaningful role by rank and file members of Parliament. There is provision for consultation with party leaders but no requirement that the agreement be reached. The Prime Minister does not appoint the Speaker of the House and he should not really be involved with the commissioner's appointment or any of the officers of Parliament.

It brings to mind the flawed basis of how the Auditor General is appointed, as well as the other independent officers of Parliament, like the infamous Liberal insider Radwanski, the pugnacious former privacy commissioner. The independence of all House officers must start at the very beginning concerning how all of them are nominated, examined, confirmed and continue in tenure.

The bill does not apparently change the relationship of ministers with the ethics counsellor. He will administer the prime minister's code and will provide confidential advice to the prime minister and to ministers. If an investigation of a minister is requested by a senator or MP, the ethics counsellor is obliged to investigate but any public report arising from the investigation can be sanitized. The scandals that have plagued the Liberals will not likely be preventable or subject to much exposure under this form of legislation.

Some may say that half a loaf is better than none at all but I hope that the few MPs within the Liberal caucus who have had these kinds of matters on their minds for some time will speak up and support all parliamentarians who want a better bill. Canadians deserve a powerful and fully independent ethics commissioner. It actually may take the Canadian Alliance to deliver upon the red book promise which it copied from our blue book, the ideal that has been sought by parliamentarians for so many years. The country deserves and needs a truly independent ethics commissioner for Parliament.

To conclude, I move the following amendment:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following therefor:

Bill C-24, An Act respecting the Parliament of Canada Act (Ethics Commissioner and Senate Ethics Officer) and other Acts in consequence, be not now read a third time but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for the purpose of reconsidering Clause 4 with the view to ensure that:

(a) a standing or “an all party” committee of the House of Commons search for those persons who would be most suitably qualified and fit to hold the office of Ethics Commissioner; and

(b) the said committee recommend to the House of Commons the name of a person to hold such office.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The amendment is in order. Questions and comments.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Madam Speaker, in my remarks a little earlier I gave my own government a little too much credit, which will interest the member opposite who just spoke. I alluded to the fact that I thought the act governed judges under the Judges Act and that they would be under the purview of the ethics commissioner. In fact I misread the clause. The judges are exempt from this legislation and from the purview of the ethics commissioner, but I would say the reason I made the mistake is that it made so much logic to have judges under the scrutiny of the ethics commissioner.

I would ask the member opposite, would he join me in making representations to the Senate that it considers this particular clause and bring judges under the purview of the ethics commissioner? I remind the member that in Canada as opposed to the United States the judiciary is under Parliament. It is created by an act of Parliament. It is in my view fitting and proper for the behaviour of judges to be subject to the same type of scrutiny as the behaviour of the other high officials cited in this legislation.

I wonder if the member opposite would comment on what turns out in my mind to be an accidental but very good idea.

[Paul Forseth, Canadian Alliance, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Canadian system as we have inherited from the mother parliament at Westminster is quite unlike the American system where it has the three major segments of governments, and the courts are recognized as such. We do not have that here. We could discuss that and could perhaps join hands in that spirit because I believe all parliamentarians when they come here have a desire to be honourable, are honest and respectfully desire to carry out their duties without favour. That is common for all MPs who come and go from this place.

However something happens somewhere in the inner regions of government when legislation is delivered or the administration of governance is given where we translate so-called public policy and the rubber hits the road, whether it is with contracts or appointments. We see the various complaints and sometimes the police investigations that follow.

It must be disturbing to members on all sides of the House when they see these inconsistencies, especially when they are not part of the government and backbench MPs, to find that this is so inconsistent with the hopes, dreams, aspirations and sense of self that they came to Parliament with, the ethics and honesty in representation.

I want to join with the member opposite in trying to provide an element of accountability.

I use the simple analogy perhaps when I talk to school children about limits. We have speed limit signs everywhere but if there never is enforcement of those speed limit signs, they very soon just become another piece of advertisement on the roadside. However because from time to time someone does get caught for speeding and has to pay a fine, the speed limit signs do have some meaning. It is the same thing with the Treasury Board guidelines and rules for ethics.

Now we are bringing in a new bill to improve the ethics of the House with a commissioner. It has to work but there has to be consequences. We have to know what the rules are. If the government is selling us short by trying to have something in name but not in substance, then we all have a concern about that.

The judiciary sometimes is in the same position. Its decisions are appealable. Because of cost factors and access to court in some respects, it is becoming more accountable, especially for the average citizen.

[Lynne Yelich, Canadian Alliance, Blackstrap, SK]

Madam Speaker, if the hon. member goes over some of the scandals in the Liberal government over the last year, if the legislation had been in place, would it have prevented some of them? Would these scandals have been exposed under this new legislation?

[Paul Forseth, Canadian Alliance, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would say first that change begins with the recognition that a problem exists. What we have heard in general tone from 1993 that everything is fine, that all mandates are being fulfilled and that there is no problem.

There has been an element of denial and a stiff upper lip. I will quote the Auditor General who said:

Even the best codes of conduct or conflict-of-interest guidelines could not protect Canadians from a government that was not fundamentally honest.

I think this is what gives parliamentarians pause, especially on the Liberal backbench when they are somewhat sometimes embarrassed by revelations from the opposition, and that is our role here. They do not see themselves as part of that either and they are not in the government. Yet they wonder, when they have come to the House with all the best of intentions and when Parliament is supposed to be the oversight of government, why these things continue to happen. We have to look for an inner or deeper ideology.

What is common in the news media of course is that the deepest principles of the Liberal Party are the latest poll rather than deep values which instruct future government policy and legislation.

We have to look deeply at what it means to be a Liberal as far as the inner cabinet is concerned and how it has delivered administration to the country. We have to look at whether that meets the high ethical standards which are the average sentiment of members of Parliament who come here believing they are going to serve the country truthfully and honestly.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am sensitive to the remarks the member made and there is a certain element of partisanship there. And this is a partisan place and there is nothing wrong with that.

I would still like to pursue the comment that I made earlier because I had not realized that this section was here. We are now at third reading and we can do very little to change the bill that is before us. But I point out to him that excluded from the purview of the ethics commissioner is a lieutenant-governor, officers and staff of the Senate, the House of Commons and the Library of Parliament. That latter is an echo of the exclusion that exists in the Access to Information Act. He will agree that there are many of us who feel that the Senate, the House of Commons and the Library of Parliament should be under the Access to Information Act and then coming back to the judiciary again.

To me, Madam Speaker, it is a no-brainer. It is a cliché, I am sorry, I take it back, Madam Speaker, it is a terrible cliché. But nevertheless, I do not see how a lieutenant-governor or the officers of the Library of Parliament or this House or the judiciary could be adversely affected because they had some kind of oversight from this place by an officer of Parliament on their standards of behaviour.

And I come back to the judiciary. We are all so darn afraid of saying anything about the judiciary as though judges were some kind of gods. They may be gods in their own mind but they are human. They do make mistakes and they can be in conflicts of interest. And as I said earlier, it is true that we hear in our constituency offices of judges who have problems and those judges are unreachable.

I would ask the member, should we not be considering deeply how we can get a mechanism going where we can extend the reach of good behaviour to these other areas that appear to be untouchable?

[Paul Forseth, Canadian Alliance, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, without undermining the independence of the judiciary, there are review mechanisms for removing senior judges and there is a kind of an old boy's network. I have been involved in the removing of judges at the provincial level because of alcohol problems and so on. It is often done privately through supervisory judges and so on. There are systems, but certainly it is something to look at and we do have the formal procedure, of course, of bringing judges and their record before this House and that does exist.

However, as far as the general access to information, the leadership comes from the Prime Minister. Everything should be open unless the case could be made for national security reasons or traditional cabinet secrecy or whatever that something should be private. In fact, the Access to Information Act, if things were running correctly, should rarely ever have to be used because by policy, by the direction of the government and the Prime Minister, everything is on the public record and one would have to make the case in order to keep it private. That is how the public service should operate.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is certainly true that we live in a time warp world. It is difficult for me to believe that at 10 o'clock I was at the Edmonton airport and now I am here rising to speak on this important bill.

Because of the fact that I could not get away earlier, I would like to thank all of my colleagues in my party for carrying the debate. I knew that things were in good hands even though I am supposed to be the chief critic on this particular issue.

The question of ethics is one that has permeated discussion about Parliament and our government for as long as I can remember. Long before I had any interest directly in politics, I remember there being charges and countercharges of scandals, misdoings and misbehaviour. As a matter of fact, it was a general conception in the minds of people about the misconduct of certain members of the previous government that gave the Liberals the government in 1993. Perhaps some of those perceptions were misplaced. According to the records now, when we look at the court decisions and the appeals that were made, it looks as if some of that was ill-founded and that is sort of a bright light.

Yet, it is true that as leaders in our country--right now 301 of us, soon to be 308 members of Parliament, and over 100 senators--Canadians deserve to receive from us a highly decent, ethical behaviour. The member for Edmonton North was here before 1993, but most of us arrived in 1993 and many of us have continued to be re-elected because we still stand for the same things.

Our message over those years has been that we want to contribute as much as we can to improving the ethical behaviour of parliamentarians, certainly of the government, that is, the Prime Minister and cabinet, and also of members in the other place, as well as bureaucrats and civil servants. Very frankly, it has been my observation that most people in those different categories that I have named do want to do what is right. I know I do.

I sat beside a young lady in the airplane today and we talked just briefly about this issue. She was surprised to find me in the economy section of the plane. I said that in 1993, when I was first elected, I pledged to the electors in the riding of Elk Island that I would spend the taxpayers' money as if it were my own. I made perhaps a rash statement. I had no idea I was going to gain 30 pounds on this job, but I made the rash statement that I would never spend $1,000 of my own money to sit in front of the curtain. Now, of course, it is sometimes a little uncomfortable for the people who are right beside me and some people have encouraged me to get into the wider seats, but I have held my ground on it and I intend to continue to do so as long as that is physically possible.

I am going to do a little free advertising for WestJet. Last week I travelled with WestJet and saved the taxpayers well over $1,000 just by going with WestJet instead of Air Canada. It was a perfectly fine flight with almost a new airplane, and a wonderful and exuberant staff happy in their work. It was really a joy to fly with WestJet. The only difficulty is that the scheduling is still a little thin because it is a smaller company, so to get the connections at exactly the time when it is most suitable is a difficulty, but I thought that if I could earn the taxpayers $150 an hour, maybe I should consider doing that. Actually it would be quite a bit more than $150, I just pulled that number off the top of my head.

It is something we should all have, first as a guiding principle so we will do what is right and what is fair to the taxpayers, voters, and citizens of our country irrespective of any rules or regulations or codes that are put our way and irrespective of people who are appointed, like an ethics commissioner or ethics counsellor, or ethics officer, as the position is referred to in the Senate.

I believe one should do what is right irrespective of whether or not there are regulations that say it and irrespective of whether or not there are people out there who are going to catch individuals if they do not do what is right.

Speaking of that, I had a very interesting interview with some of the media last week. They talked about the government operations and estimates committee, of which I am a part. One of the reporters asked me if I did not feel that this committee was feeling its oats; we got Radwanski and now we were going after the Governor General. I said no, they had it wrong. I could not speak for all the members of the committee, but I was greatly saddened by what we found when we investigated Mr. Radwanski's expense sheets.

It is so sad when people who should have the trust of Canadians breach that trust. I said that to the reporters. Of course they chose not to use that particular clip on television. When they interview someone for five or eight minutes, they get to choose the six seconds they use and that particular cut did not make it. However it is very critical. We should never, ever feel happy when we find somebody doing wrong. We should always feel sad and remorseful that that actually happens.

My whole perspective in working in the ethics portfolio over the last 10 years, first in the reform party and now Canadian Alliance, is that we need to do basically two things. First, we need to ensure that those who are ethically challenged, that is, they do not have a strong built-in moral compass, know what the rules are. Most of us rely on our common sense, but every once in a while there is something that is a little marginal and people will ask if that is wrong and what is wrong with it? Let us spell it out then so that it is clear, so that an individual who is working on behalf of Canadians knows what is expected.

The second thing, and this is equally important, is that there ought to be a method of accountability. One of the great strengths of a democracy is that there is a continual chain of accountability.

I regret that I cannot use a board here. I was a teacher and an instructor for some 31 years and I like blackboards, chalkboards, whiteboards, overhead projectors, and nowadays, PowerPoint presentations and all these things. I like visual aids, so I will have to draw this in the air.

When I meet with students, as I guess all of us do frequently as members of Parliament, I like to draw a big circle on the board. I tell them this is how democracy ought to work. The electors elect the member of Parliament. Whoever gets the most seats forms the government and chooses the Prime Minister and the cabinet, indirectly of course. We have all the people in government who are responsible to the cabinet and then through the minister. That is called ministerial responsibility. It is a great responsibility that ministers have and, again, it is regrettable that in their departments things happen that ought not to happen.

I know the HRDC minister went through the wringer when she tried to correct errors that occurred in her department. She was responsible for those serious problems in her department even though she inherited them from a previous minister. However in our kind of government it is the ministers who bear the responsibility for the whole department.

The voters elect us and then we are accountable for the people we select to work for us and in our departments. In the end we make a bunch of rules and laws so that the very citizens who have elected us now become subject to those rules and laws. Therefore they cannot do whatever they want either.

I would like to indulge in a little aside here. I am concerned when our society loses the decency of good debate. I was at a pro-marriage rally yesterday and some of the young people who were there did not even like the fact that we were discussing it. I had a young lady standing next to me. I think if I had had a dB meter her screams in my ears would have been up over 100 decibels. It literally physically hurt. I asked her to please be quiet so that we could have the respect of listening to the person who was speaking. She would not stop. She looked right at me and she kept screaming in the loudest of her voice, “Stop preaching hate. Stop preaching hate”.

Anyone who knows me knows that I do not have any hatred for anyone, including her, but she would not stop long enough for me to even express it. If we do not have those elements in our democracy, that mutual respect, that care for one another and certainly the honesty to deal with financial and other matters forthrightly and honestly, then our democracy is at risk and we will trade it for anarchy and a system of government that will be much less effective.

I would like to say that over the 10 years that I have been working here, those are the premises and the circle of accountability on which I have worked, that we are responsible to the taxpayers and the citizens, and they in turn are responsible to obey the rules and laws of the land.

In every area, because of the nature of people, we have to build in some checks and balances. There are rules. If people collect employment insurance and receive benefits to which they are not entitled, the rules require them to pay the money back. That is how it has to be.

I would venture to say that most people who find themselves in a position where they need to collect some of these benefits would do so honestly. They would do the paperwork correctly to the best of their knowledge. They are not interested in ripping off the system. However, for those few people in our society, and I suppose in the House of Commons, who do not have the standards that are accepted and expected, we need rules and we need enforcement.

One of my colleagues, in his earlier speech, said that if there was never any enforcement the rules become ineffective. I sort of think that is what has happened in Ontario with the speed laws. It is incredible how blatantly people break those rules and a whole bunch of other rules. However it certainly is true that rules have to be enforced in order to be meaningful, just because there is some proportion of our population that needs that restraint.

The ethics measure that the government is now promoting is, I believe, a response to that expectation. Unfortunately, it is a little too late and it is being done in a way that really causes me a lot of concern. The real authority of government is on the front benches of the government. The Prime Minister, whether we like it or not, has a virtual clear say on whatever he wishes to have a say. He appoints the members of the Senate. He appoints the judges. He appoints over 2,000 top level bureaucrats. He has a lot of influence and a lot of control.

As we all know, there have been a number of breaches of ethical behaviour on the part of different individuals, but all of them have involved those people who have the power to give a government contract.

I know that individual members of Parliament on a very small scale do the same. We rent office space, we hire staff and we buy certain amounts of equipment. We have room on a very small scale to fail the ethical tests. However, compared to the billions of dollars that fall under the responsibility of cabinet ministers, it really is minuscule.

What does Bill C-34 do? It sets out to establish an ethics commissioner for the House of Commons. I am distressed by the fact that the ethics commissioner would be appointed by the Prime Minister. The bill explicitly states that if there is a conflict between the rules as applied in our internal code of conduct for members of Parliament and the code that is set out by the Prime Minister for cabinet ministers, then the latter shall prevail. I have concerns about that.

Any investigations that we have called for have pretty well been stonewalled. I do not want to go into the list. I find it repugnant that the number of different questions that have legitimately been asked by Canadians and, on their behalf, by the opposition and all the parties here, that those investigations lead nowhere or do not get off the ground.

Even the involvement of the Prime Minister and the fact that there was interference with the Business Development Bank, there was never any answer given to that. It was just dropped. We do not know the answer to that. Records were taken that were never accounted for. We need system of accountability.

This code and this commissioner will be consumed with, I believe too often, petty little complaints about individual members of Parliament, which often could be politically motivated. There is concern of what would happen during election time when there is no time to get out all the facts and defend oneself against a false charge. To have that commissioner appointed by the Prime Minister is an item of great concern to us in the official opposition.

I tried so hard in committee to persuade my colleagues, namely the Liberals who have the majority on that committee as elsewhere, that in order to make this work so that all members would have an absolute clear faith in the ability of the commissioner to do his or her job that there should be all party involvement in the selection of that commissioner. In their wisdom or, in my view, their lack of it, they decided to not go that route.

Instead, the legislation simply states that the Prime Minister will choose a name. It is required that he consult with the leaders of the parties but consultation is not defined. It could be just a phone call that says, “We have decided to appoint so and so as the ethics commissioner. What do you think?”. There is nothing that says that if the opposition leader says, “We do not think that is a good person to choose” or if the opposition leader objects, the Prime Minister is under no obligation to change his mind and look for someone else.

We would like to see an all party committee that would make that selection. There would be agreement of all parties. There are people who have the confidence of all members in the House. All we have to do is find them. We need to make sure that the individual has a proven track record of absolutely non-partisan fairness. If that is left simply in the hands of the Prime Minister, in investigations involving cabinet ministers, the commissioner would still report to the Prime Minister.

We have not progressed at all on the problems that have plagued us. All we are doing is engaging in a little side activity which, unfortunately, from time to time will be used to deflect valid criticism from the government at a time when it should be held accountable.

I have much more to say but I am sure some members in the House will have some questions for me. I certainly urge members to support our amendment.

[Rob Merrifield, Canadian Alliance, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I was impressed by my hon. colleague's good deliberation. He sits on the committee and has great knowledge about what is actually happening. He also has great insight into this issue. I respect his opinions as a member of Parliament on a number of issues. Having been here awhile he has a good discerning ability to understand what is going on.

This is an important piece of legislation which goes to the heart of democracy and would add some credibility to the House. At the end of the Prime Minister's legacy, it brings forward a promise that was broken to many Canadians. I wonder if the member could comment on the timing of this legislation.

When I see legislation coming forward at this time, I am concerned about why now and why at all. I am also concerned that the bill is being done half-heartedly. I wonder if my hon. colleague could give us some insight from his perspective on the timing of the legislation and its inability to address the problem.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Madam Speaker, the answer to that first of all derives directly from the controversy which erupted with the then minister of public works and government services. It was a scandal in which contracts in Quebec were being let which obviously were not done properly. They were not properly tendered. Money was paid for work that was not done. That was subsequently documented and proven.

I think Canadian taxpayers have the right, in fact even the obligation, to rise up in protest and revolt when their hard-earned money is spent for some unknown reason in such a frivolous and unaccountable way. We have many taxpayers in this country who are struggling to make ends meet, yet they are obliged to pay their taxes month after month or every two weeks, whatever their pay schedule is, and they deserve to have full accountability.

When the minister was involved in giving money that for all intents and purposes could be said to be a straight funnelling of money to the Liberal Party the way it appeared, I think the government actually admitted that this is what happened. Otherwise, the behaviour of the government in sending the minister off to Denmark is really bizarre. He was a sitting member of Parliament. He was a cabinet minister. Why was he suddenly pulled out? Not only was he pulled out of cabinet, he was pulled out of Parliament and pulled out of the country. Why that urgency to get him way over there in Denmark? I think it was that the government did not want him easily available for investigation because when the facts became known it would be very damning to the government. That of course is a supposition we make, but we come to conclusions based on the behaviour of people. I have said the same thing about O.J. Simpson. His bizarre behaviour in that Ford Bronco is unexplainable if we assume he is innocent.

That is what happened. The government, taking quite a bit of flak on this issue, then decided, “Now is the time to make it look as if we are doing something”. I really almost hesitate to draw this charge, but I cannot help but be suspicious that it is just a considerable amount of smoke and mirrors designed to give the perception to the public that this is a government that has a much higher standard of ethics than it actually has.

Now, that puts me into a little bit of a dilemma. Do I want ethics to be improved? The answer is yes, absolutely. There should be a code. The Prime Minister's code for cabinet ministers should be public. The inquiries with respect to complaints on that should be made public. If the person charged is guilty, Canadians have the right to know. If the person charged is shown to be innocent, Canadians have the right to see the evidence and the basis on which the conclusion of the evidence was reached. It is not sufficient for the Prime Minister to stand up in the House here on questions and simply say that nothing has ever been proven, because of the fact that the investigation has been stonewalled or whatever, but that is what happens. The investigation is not concluded and then in fact it is accurate to say there were never any charges that actually stood.

I believe that the timing is tied in with damage control for that specific instance to try to give the appearance of doing something tangible to improve ethical behaviour in government. Of course it is also leading up to the next election, which the Liberals will of course use. This is one thing that really frightens me. They have made such a mess of the bill that even though it uses the word ethics, it is way too weak, so we are obliged to not support it because it is all a façade. It does not go deep enough, it is not solid enough, and the commissioner is not independent. Unless those things are fixed, we have to vote against it.

I can just see these Liberals in the next federal election campaign saying, “We are the ethical ones. We brought in the ethics package. We have the ethics commissioner now, a 10 year old promise, and the Canadian Alliance voted against it”. It is going to be a real challenge for us to communicate to Canadians that the reason we voted against it is due to the fact that it was not adequately handled.

[Lynne Yelich, Canadian Alliance, Blackstrap, SK]

Madam Speaker, the member sits on the committee and has watched the bill evolve. I would like to know about the eligibility terms for reappointment and how they came upon the five year term for the House of Commons ethics commissioner and how it was that the term of the Senate ethics officer was seven years. I ask this as a point of information.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is actually fairly interesting. In committee, we had a good debate on this particular question of how long the appointment should be for and whether the person should be eligible for reappointment.

I think I actually had some influence on this decision. I will claim, as I have always done, that I personally do not believe in limitations on how long a person can serve in office or how many terms they are eligible for re-election; hence I feel the same about this particular position.

I believe there should be a review. In the case of members of Parliament, of course, there is an election from time to time and that is when we are accountable to our electors. I believe that the position of ethics commissioner should be reviewed, just as he is selected in the first instance, I would hope, by an all party committee and with approval of the House and a very strong majority, showing the approval of the person's work. Then, after a minimum amount of time, the person would go through that again. If that individual is doing a good job, we should not be disqualified from reappointing him or her simply because they have been doing a good job too long. I do not care whether it has been for two or three terms. If he or she is doing a good job and people trust that individual, then let us reappoint the person.

That is why the legislation states that the ethics commissioner will be appointed for five years. The committee came to the conclusion that a five year term is adequate to get everything in place and have a smoothly running organization to handle the portfolio, yet to have a re-accountability every five years without limitation says that if the person is doing a good job we can ask the individual to continue. If not, the all party committee would then be in a position to search for someone else.

With respect to the Senate, it has basically given us notice that it will not have any commoners telling it what to do. That is basically the executive summary of the message from the Senate. The Senate has said it does not want to have any part or parcel of either the ethics commissioner from the House of Commons or our own code of ethics. The senators say they will have their own. When the codes of ethics finally are written into the Standing Orders of both Houses, it really will be quite interesting to see what the differences are and which standards are perhaps a little more strenuous and more rigorous.

The Senate has chosen to have a Senate officer of ethics for a seven year term. I guess probably it is because the average age over there is a little longer, so seven years to them seems like five to us. That was a little bit of a joke there, Madam Speaker.

[Rob Merrifield, Canadian Alliance, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege and a pleasure to stand and speak on behalf of our party and the people of Yellowhead on Bill C-34. This is a very important piece of legislation that is long overdue, but there are a lot of problems with it.

We have to ask ourselves what the point of this legislation is and what it is all about. To do that, we have to define what a conflict of interest is. Quite simply, a conflict of interest occurs when an individual puts his own interest ahead of the interests of the public. This is especially true in a public trust situation like that which every member of this House is entrusted with.

The bill goes right to the heart of the Liberal government's integrity. The bill is not about damage control, which is honestly what the government is trying to do. The bill is not about openness or accountability, no matter how much the members from across the way have tried to make us believe that as we have listened to the debate here today.

Bill C-34 is only a half-baked measure. The bill is a response to Canadians losing confidence in their members of Parliament. We saw that in the last election when 40% of the electorate refused to come out and vote. The electorate has lost a lot of confidence in the House.

There are obligations that all members of Parliament should take very seriously. What can members of Parliament do to freshen up the image of Parliament across Canada as the Canadian electorate looks at us? We must ask ourselves what makes the electorate say that politicians look so slippery and sleazy and why politicians are so low in popularity at the ballot box when individuals look at the credibility of politicians.

This is happening because of some of the things we see occurring and it happens when we see the government trying to bring in a piece of legislation to defend itself from some of the things we have seen.

It has certainly been an interesting response that we have had from the Liberal government. It is not that we are seeing a denial of wrongdoing or ministers sent off to the chopping block. There has been no apology to Canadians for the abuse of power entrusted to the government, which is what we should have seen. We have seen half measures in regard to what the Liberals promised Canadians back in 1993 in regard to how they would do things differently.

I listened with great interest to my colleagues across the way as the Liberal House leader commented on how he remembered the days when he was in opposition. I think many of us remember the days when the Liberals were in opposition and how they promised to do things differently once they came to power.

One thing the Liberals promised Canadians is that they would clean up this image, this idea of how we as politicians are to be more credible. This was penned by the then leader of the opposition, the member from Shawinigate, who promised Canadians that if elected he would appoint an independent ethics commissioner, one that reported directly to Parliament and not to the Prime Minister. This was a policy authored by that then prime minister in waiting, and by the member for LaSalle—Émard, and if members ask why I would mention him, it is that he is now the next prime minister in waiting.

However, once the trouble of an election was over, the Liberal government broke that promise with Canadians and appointed an ethics counsellor with limited powers, one who owed his career to the Prime Minister and one who reported secretly and directly to the Prime Minister. This is but one on a long list of broken promises, promises that were made to the Canadian people over the last 10 years.

The Liberals are, however, a government best known for wasting billions of dollars. They are best known for having expensive tastes in restaurants on the taxpayers' dime, for missing contracts, for contracts written on the backs of napkins and for the common practice of awarding untendered contracts to Liberal friends.

Why would they want a cabinet watchdog? We have to ask ourselves why the Liberals would not have honoured that promise. What is so difficult about it? Why the hedging? Why the delay of a decade? All of this really makes us sit back and wonder.

This ethical problem with the Liberal government came to a head in February 2001 when Parliament voted on a Canadian Alliance motion calling for Parliament to appoint an independent ethics counsellor. It was one of the first votes that I myself as the member for Yellowhead voted for in the House of Commons. It was a motion that was taken directly out of the 1993 red book that promised this to the people of Canada. Instead of embracing democracy and transparency, the Liberal government made the motion a confidence vote and forced Liberal backbenchers to toe the new party line. That was another abuse of democracy.

I am becoming more and more alarmed and more and more amazed at how dysfunctional the House of Commons has become. I have only been here a little over two years and am relatively a newcomer. I can say that the erosion over the last 30 years has come to the point where we cannot ignore it anymore. We have seen power shrink down into the Prime Minister's Office and the Press Gallery.

Members of Parliament must understand and discern that and be prepared to do something about it. Power must be taken out of the Prime Minister's hands and given back to the people of Canada. Members of Parliament must vote the will of the people who put them here because that ultimately is what democracy is all about. Democracy is about speaking on behalf of the people we represent. If we are not free to do that in the House of Commons, then we do not have democracy in this country.

Many of our forefathers fought in wars for the ability to differ on ideas and to debate those ideas and then to do what was in the best interests of all Canadians. Those are the fundamentals of democracy. If we are not prepared to fight for them in the House, then we have given democracy away and shame on us.

The people of Canada are rightfully judging us as individuals in the House of Commons who are not prepared to do what we say we are going to do, and not prepared to speak on their behalf as the Parliament of Canada. If Liberal MPs cannot support their own Liberal platform, that says a lot about the commitment, the promise and the ethics of the government.

While the Prime Minister was out of the country and did not vote in 2001, the prime minister in waiting, the former finance minister, was here and voted against his own election promise. He made this comment after the vote, “It never bothers me to vote with the government”.

Is that so? Does he feel that way even when the government is voting against its own promises? What about voting for the promises it made? What about voting for what is in the best interests of Canadians? What about voting for democracy? What about voting for transparency? That does not inspire confidence in me when I think about the next prime minister of this country.

Bill C-34 is a miserable half measure for dealing with the questionable ethical actions of the government. No matter how often the Liberal government says it is setting a new ethical standard with Bill C-34, it does not make it true. The purpose of setting higher ethical standards is about climbing over the bar, not slithering under it. It is important for us to understand Liberal ideology. Canadians need to understand.

Since I have been here over the last two years I have seen the Liberal playbook. I am able to discern a bit how that playbook goes. I would like to lay out a few plays that I have seen happen.

Play number one, during an election, promise Canadians policies that are in the best interests of the country. Play number two, after the election, forget the promises that were made and do what is in the best interests of the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party. Play number three, ignore opposition proof of questionable ethics and integrity and if we pretend nothing is wrong, then Canadians will then also believe nothing is wrong. Play number four, if reporters ask too many questions, send a loyal cabinet minister to Denmark. Play number five, implement legislation with a catchy title that will not actually do anything. Make sure MPs get a call from the whip.

Bill C-34 breaks Liberal promises of an independent ethics commissioner by only allowing the parliamentary ratification of the Prime Minister's appointment. It is time to end the charade of the ethical watchdog who is hand-picked by the Prime Minister.

I do not believe in criticizing the government without explaining what could be better, what could be more positive, what Canadians have come to expect and should come to expect from a government that is ethical, a government that is truly voting and working in their best interests.

The proposed Liberal model simply calls for the majority approval of the Prime Minister's own appointment. There are provinces that have the same sort of ethics commissioner. They actually look for two-thirds of the vote but not from the Prime Minister's appointment but from the legislature's appointment.

The ethics watchdog will still owe his or her job to the Prime Minister under the bill. He or she will secretly report to the Prime Minister. A truly independent commissioner must have the approval of all opposition parties as well. That ethics commissioner is one who really is working in all of our best interests on behalf of Canadians. If the commissioner does not garner the support of all members of the House, he or she certainly will not garner the support of all Canadians. Ultimately that is what this is all about because we are entrusted to work on behalf of Canadians.

If Bill C-34 is the best that the Liberals can come up with, with a decade of miserable ministerial mishaps, then we should all be very disappointed. The government has thrown in the right catchwords, so we can call it an independent ethics commissioner. I think that is what it really wanted, to get the right wording in the bill, but the reality is until the commissioner reports directly to Parliament, the government is not fooling anyone.

Liberal backbenchers should be concerned that their leaders are willing to paint all Liberals with an ethically challenged brush. I do not believe that is true. Most members of Parliament are very ethical individuals, individuals who really do want to do what is right. Bill C-34 is a direct response to the government's inability to ensure cabinet lives up to the highest ethical standards. Instead of shedding light on the workings of cabinet ministers within departments and their business holdings, the Prime Minister has cast blame on all members of Parliament, who are included in Bill C-34.

Why would we not want to hold those who have the money, those who have the power to the highest ethical standards and in the most transparent way? Under the bill all opposition and Liberal backbenchers are held to a higher standard than the people who have the power and the money. To me, that just does not make any sense at all when thinking of it on first blush.

The cabinet ministers pick the programs. That is how government works. The Prime Minister approves those projects and the finance minister cuts the cheque. That is really how it works.

I certainly do not have a problem with the transparency of members of Parliament. I think that is fine. However Bill C-34 tries to address the problems of the questionable ethical decisions by cabinet by broadening the mandate to include all members of Parliament.

All members of Parliament should be concerned that the bill also does not turn into political intimidation. By ensuring that the ethics commissioner secretly reports to the Prime Minister, members of Parliament will be unable to defend themselves from unwarranted investigations.

Bill C-34 in my mind is a pathetic response to the ethical challenges facing the Liberal government. It is a half measure and it will do nothing to improve cabinet transparency. Bill C-34 will do nothing to restore the confidence in the government. It will do nothing to address the broken promises that the government has had over its history of the last decade.

Canadians deserve an independent ethics commissioner who reports directly to Parliament. They deserve nothing less. Until we are prepared to challenge the bill, correct it and be able to make it right on behalf of all Canadians, they will not trust us, nor should they, nor should they trust the government.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciated the intervention by my colleague from Yellowhead. It is a beautiful riding, by the way. Members should visit it sometime. It includes the wonderful mountain town of Jasper and other places. It is a nice place to visit.

I would like to ask my colleague a question with respect to something he alluded to in his speech. He said that the emphasis of the bill seems to be going after backbenchers. That means presumably even backbenchers on the government side from time to time could be under investigation by the ethics commissioner. It is in the area of speculation, but I would like to know whether, in his opinion, the government would actually put one of its own members into such a position in order to deflect attention from perhaps a more pressing issue, maybe a cabinet minister or others where there is more at stake.

[Rob Merrifield, Canadian Alliance, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague who recognizes that Yellowhead is the most beautiful riding in all of Canada. I do not think there is much argument there. It is second to his, I am sure.

Nonetheless, the question is very serious and very clear. I do not have a direct answer to it in the sense of what kind of motive might be there to be able to question any member of Parliament, whether they are backbenchers of the Liberal government or opposition members.

Absolutely, one of the things we have seen very clearly is that as soon as the government gets into trouble, it stirs up a hornet's nest someplace else to divert attention. That is the game of politics, we might say. This is a lever that could very easily be used in that way.

In seriousness, I do not think the bill should be used to play politics whatsoever. It should be fixed to deal with the lack of confidence that Canadians have in our parliamentary process and in parliamentarians. That is what this is all about. If it will not do that, then we have failed Canadians. We have not really done anything except continue to play the game, the charade.

We must work toward regaining the confidence and trust of Canadians and giving them the kind of democracy that they respect, that they deserve and that they want, which is to have their voices heard in this place, debated heartily and then voted on openly. Until we do that, we are going nowhere and the ethics commissioner and the bill will go down as an absolute joke as far as a piece of legislation that will address the problems is concerned.

[Lynne Yelich, Canadian Alliance, Blackstrap, SK]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed the message that the hon. member has given us this afternoon. If there was one thing that he thought was objectionable in the bill what would it be? If there was something he really objected to, what would be the one thing he would change first and foremost?

[Rob Merrifield, Canadian Alliance, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for that question because there is one glaring thing. We could point to a number of things in the bill. First is how the commissioner gets there. If he is appointed by the Prime Minister, then nothing changes. The commissioner should be appointed by an all party committee. It should not just be the Prime Minister's appointee elected in the House. That individual should be chosen by the House initially.

But that is not the thing that bothers me the most. The hon. member asked me for the one that stands out. The one that stands out is the one about the cabinet, the ones with the power, the ones with the money, the ones who over the last decade have been implicated in many challenges on the ethical side of government and being able to say that they have mishandled their portfolios or mishandled Canadian money, something with which they are entrusted. Under this piece of legislation they are held to a lower standard than members of Parliament who have absolutely no power and very little ability for funding.

If we are saying to Canadians to trust us because we have a commissioner who will look after this, but by the way the ones with all the power and all the money we cannot touch, then we have missed the boat and we are just putting up a smokescreen. That is the most glaring part of the legislation that is wrong.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to add something to this. The legislation is quite explicit in that it says that if there is an inquiry or a hearing which involves a cabinet minister, it is not subject to the commissioner reporting to and being answerable to the committee that oversees his or her work.

For some reason, the government in drafting the legislation has chosen deliberately to exclude cabinet ministers. It is one of the greatest flaws in the legislation as my colleague has indicated. We have to address this.

To the Liberal members opposite, all those who are listening so carefully to this debate today, our amendment asks that the bill be sent back to the committee for a little more work on the appointment of the commissioner. I would urge them to support this so the whole package can be strengthened.

If they did this, if they were to make the necessary amendments and have opposition parties join with the government side in supporting the legislation, would that not send a strong message? Right now this is such weak legislation with so many flaws and loopholes in addressing the real questions, it is not worth supporting. They should give honest consideration to doing that. They will not be losers in it by having voted for something the opposition put forward because it will strengthen the legislation. Hence they themselves may even look better in the eyes of the electorate in the next 8 or 10 months, however long it is until we go back to the people again.

Would my colleague comment a little further on the fact that the government has deliberately chosen to exclude cabinet ministers from the process?

[Rob Merrifield, Canadian Alliance, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, this goes right to the heart of the issue. It is all about credibility. It is all about trying to enhance the credibility of the House and members of Parliament who serve in the House. We serve the people of Canada.

If we cannot hold individuals who have the power and the money to transparency, to openness and to be accountable for the decisions they are entrusted to make, then we really are doing nothing. This legislation misses the boat completely by exempting them. It really is a frustrating situation.

We must ask ourselves why would that be the case. What is the problem with that, unless there is something to hide? That is why Canadians look at the government and say that the rot is getting close to the top. With that we have to think about what can we do to remove the rot or fix the blemish.

I believe the legislation is an attempt to put a band-aid on something that will become very chronic, painful and an epidemic as we move forward into the 21st century if we are not prepared to stand in the House and fix it now. We have waited a decade, a decade too long, and it is a shameful legacy of the government.

[Lynne Yelich, Canadian Alliance, Blackstrap, SK]

Madam Speaker, would it not be better to scrap the whole idea of an ethics commissioner if we are not going to make the changes the member has recommended this afternoon to the parts of the legislation with which he does not agree. In reality we will be setting up a whole new department that will be very costly to taxpayers. If it is not independent and if it is not equated to the department of the Auditor General, then we will have quite a costly department at quite a cost to the taxpayers.

Would the member agree?

[Rob Merrifield, Canadian Alliance, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, we have an ethics counsellor right now. If we are not going to fix the problem of making the ethics counsellor's job or role more open, more transparent, more encompassing, then what is the point of changing it? We might as well leave it the way it is.

If the bill is about fixing it, then let us get it right and do what needs to be done to gain credibility for the House and members of Parliament and to hold all people to higher standards, specifically cabinet as it sets an example and a model for all of us.