Debates of Sept. 22nd, 2003

Parliament of Canada Act

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Terrebonne—Blainville, employment Insurance; and the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, The Environment.

[James Rajotte, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to address Bill C-34, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Ethics Commissioner and Senate Ethics Officer) and other acts in consequence.

At the outset of my speech, I would like to explain the purpose of the bill as stated.

It has a twofold purpose. The first is to provide for the appointment of an ethics commissioner whose duties and functions would be 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 officer holders.

The second purpose is to provide for the appointment of a Senate ethics officer whose duties and functions would be assigned by the Senate regarding the conduct of its members.

Of course I do not have to tell members this but I always like to remind the House that we on this side of the House would prefer to have a Senate which is fully elected and fully accountable to the people of Canada. We think it is time for the upper chamber to be elected, to be a fully democratic body, so both of our legislatures within our bicameral system are fully elected. Free elections should take place and I think we all realize and recognize that.

In terms of the ethics commissioner for the House of Commons, I want to make some substantive comments, particularly with regard to the consultation process that is apparently supposed to take place between the prime minister, after the prime minister designates such an individual, and the other opposition parties.

We should recognize that if we did have a genuine independent ethics commissioner, this could do a lot toward revitalizing the public support for such institutions as noble as the House of Commons. However we have to ensure then that the manner in which they are appointed, the manner in which they are selected, is above reproach and is unquestioned. Unfortunately, this bill fails to do so.

The bill does call for consultation between the prime minister and the various leaders of parties represented in the House, but the decision as to who shall be appointed is ultimately the prime minister's alone. This single-handedly bestows control onto the prime minister.

It was interesting to hear the government House leader this morning say that this was a process that an opposition member within the Canadian Alliance had suggested. Apparently that is not true.

What happened, and he should know this better than anyone, was there was no process set up for the government appointing people, and one such example was the Commissioner of Official Language. Our government House leader at the time, the member for Langley—Abbotsford, suggested a process such as this take place. That was not a legislative guidance. It was guidance for a committee and for Parliament as to how it should appoint people.

However the government House leader still failed to answer my direct question which was this. If the prime minister selects an individual and if the Leader of the Opposition disagrees with that selection, it does not matter because the prime minister in the situation now holds a majority. It does not matter if the Leader of the Opposition, or the leader of the NDP or the Bloc or the Conservative agrees because the prime minister ultimately controls the majority of the House of Commons, controls the majority of the members and can therefore, at his or her selection, deem who is the ethics commissioner.

This is a fundamental problem. We do need genuine consultation.

It is interesting that with the present ethics counsellor, members of the government side will insist that there was consultation. We heard this at the industry committee, when Howard Wilson was before our committee because the ethics commissioner reports to the industry committee, that Howard Wilson was appointed after consultations with the opposition leaders. I then asked Preston Manning, who was the opposition leader when Howard Wilson was appointed, if the Prime Minister ever called him and asked whether this was a good appointment. He said that the only call he got was a notification that Howard Wilson would be the ethics counsellor. Now if this is consultation, it is just not appropriate and it is not acceptable.

If there is to be genuine consultation, one possible suggestion I will make is we follow the B.C. model. A parliamentary committee would put forward names, the committee would then discuss these names and make a unanimous recommendation to Parliament as to who should be the ethics commissioner. That certainly seems to be a much better system than to have the prime minister designate who shall be the ethics commissioner.

A lot of people talk about clouds of scandals and corruption. I know members opposite will ask for examples to substantiate our claims. I do not want to go through a whole laundry list but I want to go through what happened at the industry committee with the current ethics counsellor because I think it really describes very well how the ethics counsellor's hands are tied right now. I do not know him that well personally. I do not know what kind of a person he is. I assume he is an honourable gentleman. The fact is his hands are tied. He is not an independent ethics commissioner.

It was very interesting when he appeared before the industry committee. Three essential points were made from our side of the committee. This was when he was bringing in his new rules and regulations, arguing with some of what the government is doing in this bill today. I think it explains to people why there is this legislation before us today. The member for Macleod summarized the position to the ethics counsellor.

I will read it directly. He said, “Firstly, you and your office have no legislative or sanctioning authority or power”. That is no authority provided by legislation to summon, whether it is a cabinet minister or a member of parliament to compel evidence. This really limits the power of the current ethics counsellor.

He went on to say, “Secondly, the Prime Minister would have broken these new guidelines if he had contacted the BDC today”, under the guideline that were being proposed. I want to touch on that point later in my speech.

Then he said, “Thirdly, these guidelines”, the guidelines that were being proposed, “do not address any of the ethical problems, the morass, that we've been involved in over the last two months or so”. This was last year, so this would obviously be at that time period.

I will then go on to what the ethics counsellor was saying at that time with respect to the fact that the Prime Minister would have broken these guidelines that were being proposed if he had indeed contacted the head of the Business Development Bank, which he did in the Shawinigan case.

I quote a discussion between my colleague, the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke and Mr. Wilson. The question from our member was:

I'd like to clarify this evolution of the guidelines that you're talking about. If the guidelines for the ministry and crown corporations had been in place, would the Prime Minister have violated these rules—the first rule, in fact—by making representations to the president of the Business Development Bank of Canada on behalf of the constituent?

This is obviously what happened in the Grand-Mère case.

The response from Mr. Howard Wilson was:

If they had been in place? They were not. No rules were in place, but there are now rules. Therefore, as the Prime Minister himself said the other day at his press conference, I will not make such a call.

The member, our colleague, pressed it further. She asked:

If the same incident were to occur today that occurred in the past with this crown corporation, would there be a breach of these guidelines?

Mr. Wilson responded:

There would be, yes. That's correct.

It is quite an admission from the ethics counsellor that had these guidelines been in place when he lobbied the head of the Business Development Bank, the Prime Minister himself would have broken the guidelines.

The whole issue points to the fact that the ethics counsellor realized he broke the guidelines. However even when we challenged the ethics counsellor and asked him how he would enforce it, he defended the Westminster system of Parliament and said that it should actually rest with Parliament, the Prime Minister and the whole view of responsible government, that he himself could not intervene in that and therefore he did not want to overrule it.

We asked him further if that ultimately left the whole question of impropriety or ethics within the view of the Prime Minister. He said yes, that was true. It did not leave it within Parliament or within an ethics counsellor such as himself or an ethics commissioner, it left it within the view of Prime Minister.

Then he admitted at the same hearings that in fact the Prime Minister would have broken these guidelines. Therefore, the person who broke these guidelines is now the one who will enforce all these guidelines and who will now appoint a so-called independent ethics commissioner, which in our view will not be independent because the necessary appointment process is not in place.

We see that as a fundamental problem and that is why we have proposed the amendment. We would hope that the government House leader would see the wisdom in returning the bill back to the committee so members, like the member for Elk Island, can further reform the bill to ensure there is an appointment process in place, similar to what happens in B.C., where it is generated from a parliamentary committee by unanimous consent and a name is submitted to parliament.

I suspect that if we could get a parliamentary committee to agree unanimously to a name, Parliament would certainly agree to that name.

That is our hope in putting forward the amendment and it really is incumbent upon all of us because all of us are considered politicians and public figures. Whether Liberal, Alliance or PC, there is a perception of politicians that is frankly not acceptable. If we look at the positions that mothers and fathers want their children to fulfill, politicians almost end up at the bottom of the list. That is not how it should be.

There are many fine men and women in Parliament and there are many fine men and women who should seek to sit in Parliament. It should be, as the Greeks described it many years ago, a place where people who are noble seek to serve. We need to reform our institutions and the perception of our institutions.

We need to do things like appointing an independent ethics commissioner so we can reassure the public that their interests are being looked after, that taxpayer dollars are being respected, and that they as citizens have parliamentarians of which they can be proud. In many cases they do so now, but this would certainly go to address a lot of the cynicism and apathy we currently have in Canada.

I call on government members opposite to seriously consider the amendment of returning the bill to committee so that we can rework it and truly have an independent ethics commissioner here in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I value the intervention that my colleague has made today especially because he sits on the industry committee which is the overseer committee that the ethics commissioner presently answers to. He made allusion to the fact that he did not know Mr. Wilson. I would probably put myself into that same classification even though I have been around longer and have probably had more direct contacts with Mr. Wilson.

I must share with the House that I often genuinely felt sorry for the man because I had, and to a degree still have, a lot of respect for the individual. I can say that honestly because even though we felt that there was a real shortcoming in the way some of the investigations were conducted, he honourably conducted himself as required by the Prime Minister. In that sense, he need not hang his head in shame.

As my colleague has indicated, under the present system, the ethics commissioner has his hands tied. He is appointed by the Prime Minister, he answers to the Prime Minister, and even though he may table a report to Parliament in all instances, it is not a requirement to fully divulge the issue that is at hand. This is a very serious flaw.

The thing that I am concerned about in Bill C-34 is that with respect to dealing with charges of conflict of interest of cabinet ministers, it appears to me that nothing has changed and that is regrettable. I have said before in my speech that, if a charge is laid and if in fact the person is guilty, the public has a right to know on what grounds the individual was found guilty and there ought to be penalties. If the individual having been charged is judged to be not guilty, then that person should be fully and totally exonerated. If that were to occur, then it almost would require public disclosure of the facts on which the conclusion was based in order that the public would fully trust the judgment that was been made.

I know there would be some cases where one could say that we were treading into grounds of personal privacy and that some things ought not to be disclosed. I do not know, but it seems to me that if I were a cabinet minister being unjustly charged and part of the investigation went into some of my personal affairs, I would gladly give permission for those personal affairs to be made public if it were to help clear my name. I made mention of that, for example, when we were dealing with the government credit cards being used by a cabinet minister. All these things were whited out and the reason given was that this was private.

I argued that if the individual put charges on a government card, it has moved out of the range of being called private. It is now public. I said at that time, and I would still say the same thing if it were to clear my name and show that everything was done properly. At the present time at least I would have no problem showing my private credit card statements. I have nothing there to hide if people want to know that I went to Pizza Hut. There is other evidence that supports that, too; there is just nothing there to hide.

We need to carefully rethink how important all these privacy issues are and whether or not the ethics counsellor, now the ethics commissioner, should make all of the hearings public and that the amount of stuff that is withheld due to privacy considerations be minimized. I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that.

[James Rajotte, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his comments. He has been our leader on all of these ethics issues and is an excellent example of a member of Parliament with integrity.

I appreciate his comments about Mr. Wilson. I frankly felt the same way. There were a few members in committee who went after him and I thought it was inappropriate. He is in a difficult position.

I want to read further from the committee evidence because it highlights how difficult a position Mr. Wilson was in. This is from the industry committee of June 13, 2002. I went through what powers the ethics counsellor had and I think it is really instructive:

With regard to allegations against cabinet ministers, do you not have the legislative power to subpoena witnesses?

The response was:

No, I do not.

My other question was:

If someone does not want to produce evidence, you do not have the legislative power?

The answer was:

That is correct.

Another question was:

--do you have the legislative power to compel evidence?

Mr. Wilson's response was:

I think you have to appreciate, sir, that this is a code and not a piece of legislation. It sets up the principles under which ministers conduct themselves, and some rules pertaining to disclosure.

I went on to question:

So if you determined that an infraction was committed by a certain cabinet minister, you would provide that advice to the Prime Minister, but it's basically up to the Prime Minister himself as to whether or not he decides to follow through on that infraction and dismiss that person from cabinet.

Mr. Wilson stated:

That is exactly correct. It's his responsibility.

He went on to state:

I have insisted that my role is that of a counsellor who provides advice to the Prime Minister and administers the Conflict of Interest Code.

That shows the difficult the position Mr. Wilson was in. He was appointed and he was under the purview of the Prime Minister. Then he had to report any ethical infractions, in his view, to the Prime Minister who then, as he admitted himself, would have broken the new guidelines that were being proposed.

It just sets up a system frankly where a person who is judging conflict of interest is almost put in a conflict of interest himself and his hands are tied. We do not want that situation repeated which is why we want the bill changed. It is to have a better appointment process.

In terms of Bill C-34 and cabinet ministers, and whether or not they would want to have full transparency and airing of views, I fully agree with the member. I would think that it would be Liberal members of Parliament, who have a high standard themselves, who would be the people calling loudest for transparency, openness and reform. If there is one bad apple in a bunch, if a cabinet minister is bad, it impacts on the entire cabinet. It has a reflection on the entire cabinet. We would think that the rest of cabinet would stand up and say that this is impacting on their ability to do their job and impacting on their perception by the Canadian public. They would want it stopped along with a full airing of the investigation and the facts. Therefore, it seems to me that it should be government members themselves who should be the strongest proponents of transparency.

I strongly encourage those members opposite to vote for the amendment, to send the bill back to committee so that we can have a good process at appointing a truly independent ethics commissioner.

[Lynne Yelich, Canadian Alliance, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the member who is on the industry committee. I too have wondered what it must be like to be under the scrutiny that the ethics commissioner must be under. What would be an ideal way in which to appoint an ethics commissioner? The member mentioned the B.C. model as being a good one. Could he mention briefly what he would see in the federal realm?

[James Rajotte, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

I think the B.C. model is one that should be seriously considered. That is where we would have a parliamentary committee made up of members from all parties. Members could submit names to the committee. It would consider those names. Then there would be a unanimous recommendation from the committee or a consensus from the committee to submit a name to Parliament for full approval. That would certainly be a much better way than what is proposed in Bill C-34.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central to participate in the debate on Bill C-34, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Ethics Commissioner and Senate Ethics Officer) and other acts in consequence.

I enjoyed the eloquent speech by my hon. colleague before me. Even the Q and A showed how much the official opposition is interested in raising the bar and restoring honesty, integrity and confidence in the government and in politicians.

I want to talk about integrity in government. The infamous 1993 Liberal red book has a chapter entitled “Governing with Integrity”. The Liberals used that chapter, opportunistically, to get elected to the House and form the government. The chapter talks about integrity, confidence and honesty, but since coming to power the Liberals have been governing with hypocrisy. The government has been consumed by ethical controversy, patronage scandals and even allegations of fraud. Cabinet ministers have been demoted or forced to resign.

The Prime Minister himself was caught up in a controversy over his handling of personal investments in Shawinigan. The Prime Minister maintained that pressuring the president of the crown corporation, over whom he has the power of appointment, to give a loan to a friend in no way violated ethical guidelines. The rest of us, perhaps with the exception of the member for Cardigan, know better.

The current ethics counsellor has no independence or investigative powers, is completely controlled by the Prime Minister and reports in private and in confidence to the Prime Minister, not to Parliament, about conflicts involving the Prime Minister and his cabinet ministers. The lapdog counsellor simply rubber stamps almost everything the Liberals do as ethical.

The proposed new ethics commissioner will not be as independent as he or she should be. We are also getting an independent ethics officer to oversee the conduct of senators in the other House. The Prime Minister retains the power to appoint both of them but each choice must be ratified by a vote in the respective chamber.

The Commons commissioner will be appointed for a five year renewable term and the Senate commissioner or officer for a seven year renewable term. The new commissioners, or officers, will not be truly independent if only a majority vote by a majority government is required to ratify the appointment made by its leader, the Prime Minister. We believe the opposition's approval should be mandatory.

Later on I will talk about some of the provincial jurisdictions and how they have resolved this appointment.

The Prime Minister probably hopes that this bill will end accusations that the current ethics counsellor is simply the Prime Minister's lapdog and cannot be trusted to objectively investigate potential breaches. He probably also hopes that now, by finally carrying though with the party's decade-old promise, the Canadian electorate will overlook the ethics malaise that has afflicted the Liberals. Perhaps he is introducing the legislation to distract Canadians from the systemic corruption on the Liberal front benches as well as in the Liberal Party. We know 13 investigations are currently going on. Perhaps he is introducing this legislation to fool Canadians, that the promise he made 10 years ago, and after a horrible record in the government, will be forgotten by Canadians when the time comes to vote.

Yes, the Prime Minister's ethics package is primarily a public relations exercise. The Liberals want to be able to go into next spring's election saying that they have done something about it. It is all a whitewash and it will not work.

We have to consider why we need an ethics commissioner in the first place. It is because we cannot trust the government to police its own members for it does not have any ethical standards. If the Liberals had proposed the bill after their election in 1993 could the scandals and corruption of the last decade been avoided?

Would the bill have prevented the questionable contracting activities of former public works minister Alfonso Gagliano? Would it have prevented his successor from accepting personal favours from a departmental contractor?

Would the bill have prevented the former defence minister from giving an untendered contract to his girlfriend or the former solicitor general from lobbying his own officials to award millions in grants to a college led by his own brother?

Would the bill have prevented the Liberals from ignoring the Auditor General's charge that they had mis-stated the government's financial position by $800 million in 1996 and $2.5 billion in 1997?

When I was a member of the public accounts committee I remember that the Auditor General refused to sign the government's books simply because the government had paid for a foundation that was not even in existence on the day the government's books closed. If this were done in private business people would be put in jail.

Would the bill have prevented the government from interfering with the Somalia inquiry when its efforts to get to the bottom of document destruction at National Defence threatened to expose people at the top?

Would the bill have prevented the government from attempting to obstruct the Krever inquiry into the tainted blood scandal when it threatened to expose culpability on the part of the Liberals at high levels?

Would the bill have prevented the systematic misuse of taxpayer dollars for partisan purposes in the billion dollar boondoggle at HRDC?

Let us consider a member of the current cabinet, the industry minister. I do not want to be personal but let us look at his record. As justice minister he indicated that the gun registry would cost $119 million and would collect $117 million in fees. The Auditor General told us that the justice department failed to provide sufficient information to Parliament, or probably misled Parliament, to allow it to effectively scrutinize the Canadian firearms program.

As early as November 1996, the justice department was aware that its earlier cost profiles were widely inaccurate. As justice minister he also bungled the Airbus inquiry. As health minister he mismanaged the hepatitis C, tainted blood, Cipro and cigarette smuggling files. Despite all these failures, he continues to sit happily in cabinet in the front row. That is how low Liberal ethic standards have fallen. Is it any wonder that the Canadian public is losing faith in their politicians? Those are the root causes of why Canadians are losing faith in their politicians.

Back in 1992, when testifying before a parliamentary committee considering proposed ethics rules for members of Parliament and senators, the member for LaSalle—Émard, the unofficial prime minister elect, supported a fully independent, fully empowered ethics watchdog, and I quote, “to provide the public with the assurance that individual transactions which might be in conflict have been handled in a fair and legitimate manner”.

After 1992 here he is, the former finance minister and the prime minister in waiting, saying that he has a special privilege for his blind trust. I call that the blind trust for the public but not for him. It has become a see-through blind trust for him. We know a conflict of interest is there. How he made that statement and how we find out goes afterward.

The member for LaSalle—Émard, of course, was the co-author of the infamous Liberal red book, the red book that promised an independent ethics counsellor who would be appointed after consultation with the leaders of all parties, not only appointed by the Prime Minister, but in consultation with the leaders of all parties, and who would report, not to the Prime Minister in confidence or in private, but to Parliament.

Two years ago the former finance minister, along with the rest of the Liberal caucus, voted against a Canadian Alliance motion to establish an independent ethics counsellor who would report to Parliament. It is the height of hypocrisy for members who asked for an independent ethics commissioner or counsellor to then get elected and thereafter vote against such a motion.

The prime minister elect now claims that strong, independently enforced ethics rules will discourage people like him from becoming politicians. What a difference a decade can make. He more than happily relied on the Prime Minister's ethics lapdog to clear him of past conflicts involving Canada Steamship Lines. Even though the former finance minister has given up control of Canada Steamship Lines to his sons or family members, he still has to exclude himself from cabinet talks relating to shipping and the St. Lawrence Seaway and so forth because family control still represents a potential for conflict of interest. I see something wrong with this picture that I have shown.

The ethics commissioner will determine the precise issues from which the member for LaSalle—Émard must step away. However he would not report to Parliament on that since he only reports, in confidence and in private, to the Prime Minister. The integrity of the new commissioner hinges on total, not partial, independence. The precursor to having an efficient independent ethics commissioner is that the ethics commissioner would not report to the person who appoints the ethics commissioner. By extension, the integrity of the former finance minister's divestment requires that it be overseen by a truly independent commissioner, not a subordinate.

The following is how the Liberals operate. They get into cabinet. They have tremendous influence over how tax dollars are spent and grants are doled out. They take full advantage of it. The Prime Minister has always said that MPs, in cabinet or out, should fight for as much largesse as possible for their ridings. He has demonstrated that by examples. Shawinigan now has a wonderful water fountain in the middle of a river, a high priced national gallery art exhibit and $1.6 million in federal funding for a horse show, and so on.

Conflicts of interest are integral to this Liberal regime. Taxpayers do not want ministers lobbying or bullying officials, or agencies answering to them.

Ministers should be working, not only for Liberal friends but for all Canadians all of the time. Government officials and institutions must be absolutely free to act in the interests of the public at large and not the cabinet ministers nor their Liberal friends.

In 1996 the Supreme Court of Canada set out a principled government ethics standard, writing that:

...given the heavy trust and responsibility taken on by the holding of a public office or employ, it is appropriate that government officials are correspondingly held to codes of conduct which, for an ordinary person, would be quite severe.

It is not necessary for a corrupt practice to take place in order for the appearance of integrity to be harmed.

This is one time that the Liberals have failed to heed the words of the Supreme Court.

Until the resignation of the former minister of national defence, nobody had been forced to resign. Does that mean the Prime Minister actually dealt with the problems that would lead to resignations? Absolutely not; it just meant his standard was that no one ever had to resign. He has a code of conduct that is completely different from that of past Canadian prime ministers, one that is an historic low. If ministers engage in misconduct or gross incompetence or outrageous statements, they are backed to the hilt by the Prime Minister. All of this of course just generates cynicism. After talking about ethics and opportunistically getting elected on this issue, the Liberals have turned around and done nothing about it. It is a shame.

Bill C-34 is flawed. This is a government that believes in half measures. That is what we are debating today: a half measure full of loopholes. With Bill C-34, the Liberals have ensured that a new ethics watchdog for ministers will be an unaccountable, government controlled lap dog.

The ethics commissioner will not be completely independent. He or she will be appointed by the prime minister and will report privately and in confidence to the prime minister. This appointee will simply be rubber-stamped by the majority government; there will not be a free vote in the House, as we know from the record. There should be an ethical system of high standards in place to appoint, select or choose an ethics commissioner.

In British Columbia, for example, an ethics commissioner is chosen by an all party committee which makes a recommendation to the premier, who must then obtain two-thirds of the votes in the legislature to confirm the appointment. A similar process also exists in Alberta, but a two-thirds majority is not required there; all parties are consulted and there is a free vote on it.

This commissioner will continue to be a confidential adviser to the prime minister and that is not what the mandate should be. The prime minister can continue to maintain secrecy by having an ethics commissioner who will report only to him. Bill C-34 is just a damage control exercise, just a cover-up to cover up the horrible record of the Liberal government in the past decade.

We know that members of Parliament, their spouses or backbenchers are not the source of government scandals. We know what the source of government scandals is and we know who is responsible for all these mishaps. This is where a watchdog is required. We do not have any objection to it not being for everyone, but at least that is where the focus should be. I believe that the ethics commissioner should be totally neutral politically. He or she should not have any incentive to serve government members or cabinet members. We know that presently the term is renewable, but who renews that term? It is the prime minister who will renew that term, so in whose interests will the commissioner serve? The prime minister's, naturally. That is wrong and it is unethical. I believe the ethics commissioner should be ethically appointed, not unethically appointed.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me say in responding to the speech given by my colleague from British Columbia that I always appreciate his speeches. He is a great speech maker. We have heard many of his talks in the House and he has a lot of insight into many different issues.

On the issue of the ethics commissioner, the appointment process and the jobs and duties of both the ethics commissioner and the ethics officer for the Senate, it seems to me that the government is, to use an old phrase, barking up the wrong tree.

My colleague alluded to that in his speech, but I would like to enlarge on it. To my knowledge there has not been a single case in the last 10 years of a member of Parliament actually being called on the carpet because of misspending. That is because the only money the member of Parliament has control over, of course, is basically the office budget and travel expenses. I think we have good checks and balances with a good financial officer in the House of Commons who keeps us honest in this regard. Everything is done well.

There has been no reason for Canadians to judge Parliament or government based on backbench and opposition members of Parliament and yet the government seems to be consumed with setting up, at considerable expense, the office of the ethics commissioner. Then it goes a step further and says, “But the ethics commissioner will not be dealing directly on issues with respect to cabinet problems in the same way”. There is a whole different set of rules and basically it is exactly the same as what we have now, with the ethics counsellor investigating on request and basically reporting to the Prime Minister.

I would like to ask my colleague what he thinks about that kind of scheme and why he thinks the government is so interested in solving a problem that actually does not exist.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate the remarks of the hon. member, who happens to be our critic on ethics. He has shown a high standard of ethics himself, sitting in the House and participating in the debates so vigorously all the time. I want to compliment him for the hard work he does in delivering so many speeches, particularly so passionately all the time and the amount of knowledge on various issues.

All of us, and I am sure even the members on the backbenches of the Liberal government, are disappointed by this decade of ministerial mishaps. I have spoken personally to many members on the government side. They are disappointed with the scandals and corruption that have haunted the Liberals again and again.

When the Prime Minister appoints a lap dog where the motivation is that the interests of his government will be served, that is absolutely wrong. It sets the bar very low, by any standard, for the ethical standards of the government. I think that is wrong. The member has rightly pointed out that the ethics commissioner should be completely independent and should report to Parliament rather than the prime minister. I think this exercise is wrong.

As has been stated already in the debate, the official opposition is not against the appointment of the ethics commissioner, but we are against the Liberal version of ethics. We are opposed to that. The ethics commissioner should be truly independent if we want the commissioner's role to be a meaningful one.

If the Liberals want to fool the Canadian public and just appoint one, then I think this serves the purpose for the government members to do whatever they want to do and to fool the public that there is an ethics commissioner or counsellor or whatever. It is very disappointing. I am highly disappointed that 10 years ago the members on the government side, as members of the opposition, jumped up and down and demanded that the ethics commissioner should be independent and report to Parliament, but when they came to power and had the full opportunity, not only did they not appoint an independent ethics commissioner but they voted shamelessly against a motion of the official opposition to appoint an independent commissioner. That is really shameful. It is a disgrace in this House.

[Lynne Yelich, Canadian Alliance, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the hon. member's speech. He talked about British Columbia and how it chooses its ethics commissioner through a committee.

I just wanted to know if you wanted to expand on--

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order. I just want to remind the House that it is imperative that our interventions be made through the Chair. This exchange might be on a friendlier side, but sometimes, believe you me, it can be very useful and most helpful if we do it through the Chair. This practice is always good.

[Lynne Yelich, Canadian Alliance, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my apologies. I wonder if the member would care to expand on the committee and on the way the ethics commissioner is chosen in British Columbia. Has he has seen a clear example that has worked very well? Does he think it would be a good model for us to use in this Parliament?

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that thought by the member about having a similar practice here. The practice in British Columbia, where I am from, is that the ethics commissioner is chosen by an all party committee, which makes a recommendation to the premier who then must obtain a two-thirds confirming vote by the legislature. That is how the appointment is made. I think it is a very good idea. At least the prime minister's interference would not be there.

But again, that is not the only component of the appointment. There is also the role and to whom he reports. The way he reports, where he reports and what kind of reporting the ethics commissioner does are also important issues. I highly appreciate the thought of the member that the practice could also be used here. Maybe the procedure and House affairs committee could look into that and could make similar recommendations to the Prime Minister. As well, there is the procedure of having a free vote in the House whereby the appointment, the suggestion or selection can be endorsed by a free vote in Parliament. I think that is a very good idea.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today a number of speakers have raised the issue of a vote of Parliament being not just a simple majority but a two-thirds majority to ratify the appointment of a new ethics commissioner. It strikes me, and I would be interested if the member could comment on it, that this might set us up in a situation where about one-third of the House of Commons would be put in a position where it would determine who the privacy commissioner would be.

Would the reverse also be true? If thirty-three and a third plus one did not want it, which could be in fact two opposition parties getting together simply to frustrate an appointment, would there be a situation where it would be extremely difficult to fill a position? It might in fact be fraught with a conflict on behalf of even those members or those parties deciding that they wanted to frustrate an appointment.

It does work the other way; this is the difficulty we have. Maybe the member could comment. Is it that the minority of this place in fact should determine what the decisions of this place should be?

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comment. I would like to respond that the members on this side only gave an example. The practice in the British Columbia legislature is that a two-thirds majority is required.

Of course, since it is coming from a Liberal member, I am sure he would feel that there should be a free vote in Parliament on the issue. We should not get stuck on two-thirds or the remaining one-third.

Ideally, it would be appropriate to have unanimous consent in the House to have an ethics commissioner who would be completely independent, but members know that it is not possible. We have to set it somewhere. Maybe if there is a free vote I would not be stuck on whether it should be one-third or two-thirds. I am simply saying that the practice followed in British Columbia is an example. But as for this House, a free vote will do.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to follow a substantial amount of the debate today and I wanted to comment on a number of themes that have been raised.

First of all, I will declare that I support Bill C-34. It moves us in important directions to the extent that is possible given some of the pragmatic difficulties that members may have raised. There is no simple solution to finding the perfect candidate that is acceptable to all and even after that, if the decisions were not acceptable or not viewed to be acceptable, there would be some sort of allegations of bias, et cetera. This is a very difficult position to fill for both the Senate and the House.

Following up on this last dialogue with regard to the appointment process and whether there is an election, the members will know that under the act this is an order in council appointment. The position of the ethics commissioner is the equivalent to the level of a deputy minister. It is not an officer of Parliament. It is not an appointment of Parliament the same way that the Auditor General would be or the privacy commissioner or the information commissioner or the official languages commissioner. It raises the question about whether or not this position is in fact properly positioned in terms of the authority and the responsibility that the House would like to see.

As members will know, officers of Parliament are very independent. They have their own offices and, as we know from the Auditor General's office, have the mandate to discharge certain responsibilities. As we learned from the issue of the case of the former privacy commissioner, Mr. Radwanski, even Mr. Radwanski could not be removed from office by Parliament without a vote of Parliament. It is a whole different situation.

I raise the question about whether or not some members are saying that this position in fact should be an officer. Is that what it is going to take for that position to have the respect of the House?

Members should recall that when we vote on an officer of Parliament, the appointment of the Auditor General or the appointment of a new privacy commissioner when we have that interim position filled, under our rules always has been a straight vote of Parliament. If we are going to start having a special voting arrangement for the ethics commissioner, should that not also apply to the officers of Parliament? There should be some consistency in terms of the importance that we place on it. Maybe the question should be, why is this position not an officer of Parliament? I am not sure of the answer. I hope that we might be able to get the answer to that.

The other aspect as I saw throughout the debate has to do with who is covered and why. In having an ethics commissioner together with a code of conduct for members of Parliament is going to certainly enhance the transparency and the accountability of all members of Parliament and that is important. I think everybody agrees with the principle that it is important that we do whatever we can to build the confidence of the Canadian public in the profession of being a member of Parliament.

If we discuss this in a more frank sense, and many members have raised this, the issue or the risk area has never been members of Parliament at large. Members of Parliament have a budget to conduct their work, probably about 75% of which is the cost of employees and a very small amount is actually discretionary once all of the office bills, the rental of equipment and all the other things are paid. We have very little discretionary money. Effectively the influence that we would have is certainly not related to our ability to deliver grants or funding for any program that we have sole responsibility for. We do not.

Historically, the interest has been mostly related to the cabinet. Based on the debate that has gone on today, it is even further than that. Many of the examples that have been raised by members have to do with the Prime Minister's position itself and the ethics of the activity of a sitting Prime Minister.

It is very interesting that probably the genesis of the need for this kind of bill has less to do with members of Parliament at large and more to do with the cabinet and indeed the Prime Minister's Office.

The question then has to be asked, have we created in the bill a position which is going to squarely hit the target? I am not so sure that members are convinced that we have done all we could within the bill in terms of crafting the position of the ethics commissioner.

There is no question that members of Parliament would be under the umbrella of the responsibilities this person would have under our code of ethics, et cetera, and accessible and certainly transparent with regard to Parliament. The cabinet I am not so sure.

I know that in 1994 when I first came to Parliament the whole issue of the appointment of an ethics counsellor, not a commissioner but an ethics counsellor, and having that person report directly to Parliament was problematic. It was raised by the designate himself, Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson raised the whole issue about how could he discharge the responsibilities of his position and still protect the confidentiality of cabinet and those matters that would in fact be subject to cabinet confidentiality. It leaves a gaping hole.

That does not mean that everything a cabinet minister does is subject to cabinet confidentiality. In fact many of their actions and their programs are all very transparent and subject to the scrutiny of all, not only parliamentarians but the Canadian public at large. The question does become, how do we get at those items, how do we have that accountability, that ethical scrutiny, of those matters which fall under cabinet confidentiality?

To put an even finer point on it, the issue comes down to the person who is in the Prime Minister's Office. This is the most senior person in our political democratic system in Parliament. It is the Prime Minister.

That ethical scrutiny does not happen when someone raises an allegation. It happens each and every day, every time the Prime Minister speaks, every time the Prime Minister makes a decision. It happens every time there is an order in council, i.e., a decision of the cabinet, who sit at the pleasure of the Prime Minister and therefore, effectively it is the Prime Minister making the statement and it is attributable to him or her.

It is a very interesting question about whether or not the intent and the motivation of members who have raised some of the allegations in the House today are really trying to pass judgment on the ethical activity of a sitting Prime Minister.

That happens daily. The scrutiny is here in this place every day during question period. The scrutiny is in observing and participating in all of the things that happen in this place, whether it be in international affairs or another subject.

Certain cases have come up. Let me preface this part by saying that throughout the debate there has been some suggestion, and certainly allegations and innuendo in specific cases like Alfonso Gagliano and the sponsorship programs and the HRDC boondoggles. Floating around there also has been this insinuation of corruption and illegality.

This causes me some concern because in this place, when there are statements made to suggest that there is corruption in government, that is a reflection within the public's eyes, not just of the people who happen to be sitting on this side of the House but of the entire House.

One of the challenges we have had for many years is how to raise the level of this position in terms of public perception. We cannot just throw out the language and allow people to draw a conclusion that the government is corrupt or that a minister is corrupt. That is an illegal act. It constitutes a matter which under the law would be illegal.

Earlier a member was taken to task on whether there was one example of an illegality. There was not. There was nothing forthcoming. There certainly have been allegations and innuendo and we have to accept that.

Let me deal forthrightly with the situation of Mr. Gagliano who is now an ambassador. I was his parliamentary secretary. I was there during the period of Groupaction and the other companies, the sponsorship programs, the reports and paying for things that were not there. I had first-hand knowledge of what was transpiring and what was coming out. It was one of those situations where it was very difficult for a minister to defend himself because most of it was allegations which were plausible but were not yet dealt with by a jurisdictional authority.

The current Minister of Public Works and Government Services came in. I think the House will agree that he has been very forthright in terms of dealing with those allegations and how important it was that if there were payments that should not have been made, all attempts would be made to recover the money and that if there were any allegations of wrongdoing, they would be referred to the proper authorities. Those things have now happened to some extent and continue to unfold, even though it was over a year ago that this actually broke.

The public accounts committee has looked into this. The Auditor General in her review indicated that some employees broke virtually every rule in the book. The question now becomes, if there are department personnel who did not discharge their responsibilities, to what extent is a sitting minister of that department responsible for their failure to perform and in fact their performing in a way that breaks the basic rules of the House or of Parliament and the Financial Administration Act specifically?

Ministers have to take the flak, but the allegations do not relate now to either the current minister, the previous minister, or in fact the minister prior to that, who was Mr. Gagliano. Mr. Gagliano has not been implicated in these in any fashion. In this place because the opposition role is to try to embarrass the government, it is easy to talk about Mr. Gagliano and Groupaction and say, “Look at this paying for reports that we did not get”. However, there is no evidence whatsoever that has come out that Mr. Gagliano was a party to that.

Members will know that this action is still proceeding, but we have been operating in this place and the allegations and innuendoes have been made on the basis of guilty until proven innocent. Whatever happened to the presumption of honesty? How low do we have to go to compromise our reputations to smear everybody in this place simply for cheap political points? When does that stop? When do we start realizing that when matters go, whether it be to the RCMP or to the Auditor General, that those people are in those positions to discharge their responsibilities to get the answers that we need to know.

Once members get all the information, I do not know how many people are going to have to rise in this place and apologize for jumping the gun, for accusing or for presuming guilty until proven innocent. I think that we really have to be careful on this.

On Bill C-34, we need to have an ethics commissioner, yes. I am not so convinced we need a person to scrutinize ordinary members of Parliament. We all know cabinet probably has the highest risk position of being in situations where a potential conflict or an ethical breach might occur. Quite frankly we are all the ethics commissioner when it comes to the prime minister, as is every Canadian because they express themselves when they see things.

Mr. Wilson has made some pronouncements on certain things. There is nothing to say that opposition members have to accept his words, but he is a man of honour and integrity. Some members may not think so. I do. I know that under this act, Parliament, all parties, will have to be consulted on this. Parliament will have a vote and nominees will be appointed through order in council, subject to receiving the ratification by the House.

For me though, the question is whether it will be sufficient to have this person simply occupy a role that is equivalent to deputy minister. Maybe it should be the same level as an officer of Parliament. Is that important enough? I think it might be. I had not really thought about whether there were good reasons why it should not be, other than the fact that I do not know how one bridges this problem with having confidentiality. I am not even sure if maybe there should be two: one for cabinet and one for all other MPs or cabinet members acting in a capacity of an MP as opposed to acting in their role as a cabinet minister.

These things have been certainly discussed and thought out. We have come forward with a bill at this point. Members probably are not very convinced that it will satisfy everybody's wish list, even right down to whether two-thirds of the people have to support a nominee for it to be ratified. Are we going to a U.S. style, where people who are appointed to positions of responsibility somehow have to stand a test of scrutiny? Probably in this place one-third of the members of Parliament would be against anything the government brought forward. That is part of the parliamentary process. That is part of democracy. Disruption and delay is part of democracy. We do not do that with the appointments of Supreme Court justices.

I raise these questions, some of them rhetorical. We are at third reading. This is not where changes are made. In fact there are opportunities to recommit back to the committee, if the House feels strongly about it, or to accept this as a starting point and then consider, as we do with all pieces of legislation, whether we have squarely hit the target.

However I want to caution members, as we think about things like opening up the process so the public can also lay allegations against members of Parliament, that we risk breaching our parliamentary privileges and maybe raise more disruption and cynicism about our roles, if we are open to receive all allegations. I raise those maybe rhetorical-type questions for the consideration of the House.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the speech by the member for Mississauga South. I appreciate his intervention in the debate but I want to suggest to him that if he is concerned about the tone of the debate and if he is concerned about the focus not only in this place but in the media and among the public at large about wrongdoings, maladministration and allegations of less than ethical behaviour, then he needs to look no further than the benches around him, the benches of the government of the day.

It is absolutely clear and we all know that when there is one rotten apple, it spoils the whole barrel of apples. That is an issue with which we have to deal. That is why we are trying to have a serious debate on the proposed legislation, Bill C-34.

The member ought to recognize that parliamentarians have not always been able to pursue allegations to their fullest satisfaction. If we look at the public accounts experience with respect to Groupaction and the sponsorship ads, if that process had been carried out to everyone's satisfaction, why were there minority reports from all the opposition parties? Why did opposition members raise concerns about being shut down, about being unable to call appropriate witnesses? Why was the concept that was clearly alive and well, the money for nothing contracts concept, not allowed full debate and discussion? That is an important issue.

The other has to do with the actions of the government in handling other allegations of corruption, other allegations of wrongdoing, for example with respect to the recent charges of high ranking officials in the Department of Health surrounding Sagkeeng Solvent Abuse Centre. It causes all of us concern when individuals are accused and are facing charges but are allowed to continue working within government, in this case within the public works department. Why for example was it so easy for Paul Cochrane, the ADM facing these serious charges, to leave the Department of Health and get a job in public works where there is direct involvement with Health Canada?

All those issues make us really wonder what the government is all about and why it is trying to hide from Parliament's scrutiny of the full extent of these allegations.

First, does the member not recognize that the actions of his own government contribute to the very problem about which he is concerned? Second, would it not have helped in the case of this proposed legislation for members on the Liberal side to have supported the idea of a different percentage in terms of the appointment of the new commissioner so that all of us would feel confident about the new ethics commissioner and none of us would feel that this person would be a lap dog for the PMO or in the hands of the Liberal Party or anything less than independent?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have already commented in my speech about the two-thirds, so let me just deal with the first part.

“One rotten apple, look at your own benches, Groupaction, blah, blah, we didn't get a chance to speak”. This is precisely what I talked about in my speech.

I am sorry that the member did not hear all of it. I do not know why. However this matter is not over yet. The member said that they did not get a chance to talk. It is hard to talk when we do not yet have the Auditor General's report on the whole issue. It is pretty hard to talk when we do not know what the disposition of all the referrals to the RCMP are.

One rotten apple, this member is referring to Alfonso Gagliano. That is what she is saying. She is wrong in making that allegation because there is absolutely no reference in any documentation whatsoever to the hon. gentleman.

I think that the member ought to stop playing games. This is what the opposition does, but I think we have to speak up--

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just want you to know that when I made the reference to rotten apples, I was not thinking of one individual. I was not referencing anyone. I was making a general statement about what all these allegations lead to in terms of this place.

I would ask the member to withdraw those comments and to be clear about what I said.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I think what we have is a difference of opinion on certain facts, a dispute of the facts. However, clearly and respectfully to the member it is not a point of order based on any rules or precedents of the House. We will return to the hon. member for Mississauga South.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not judge anyone who is the subject of an allegation. I know the Auditor General has undertaken a full review and there will be a complete report not only on Groupaction, which she mentioned specifically, but on all the sponsorship files.

As the current Minister of Public Works and Government Services has clearly stated to the House and has in fact done, matters have been referred where there are any allegations of wrongdoing. In addition initiatives have been taken to recover moneys that were overpaid. If there were administrative problems, corrective action has been taken. That is responsible action, and that is exactly what has happened.

I have nothing personal against the member but her comments have pre-judged everybody in this place because she was unable to give one example of an illegal act that anybody in cabinet or a member of Parliament have been accused of, never mind being convicted. I believe the presumption of honesty and the premise of innocent until proven guilty have to be respected in this place.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment also on this presumption of guilt and innocence. It is a dilemma we face in our whole justice system. In a sense when we look at allegations of wrongdoing or presumed wrongdoing, we are basically saying that we are suspicious.

A robbery took place not long ago in one of the towns in my riding. The person was identified by the owner of the place and he reported it to the police. The police went to the guy's house and arrested him. Are we assuming that he is guilty? No we are not. However we are saying that he is the number one suspect because he is known in the community and he has been recognized by the owner so therefore he is on the carpet. This is how the system works. It looks as if the guy is being judged guilty but at that stage the process is triggered to ferret out the truth. When an allegation is made against a person, we are saying we want to have an investigation.

I was very distressed on a number of occasions over the last number of years where we needed to have the light of truth. On one occasion involving the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister said that he would not ask the RCMP to investigate himself, and he has the ultimate authority to do that. The opposition put forward a motion asking that there be an independent investigation, and on command from the party whip over there all those members over there said that they did not want a public investigation. Therefore the light was never shed. It stays in the darkness and the suspicions remain.

I simply say to the hon. member that we should not presume guilt. However when an allegation is made and if in fact there is guilt, that guilt ought to be exposed because that is how the people of Canada will regain their trust in the process of government. If the person is innocent, only a full public inquiry, with the evidence being made public, will totally and properly exonerate an innocent person.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the debate that we have had today as it relates to the sponsorship issue, matters are going on. This matter is not over until all that information is here. If it is determined that there is some involvement other than the bureaucracy who have been identified so far, that may very well come to pass. Parliamentary committees have that right.

With regard to the Prime Minister in the matter to which I think the member is referring, substantial disclosures were made. If there had been any allegations of wrongdoing or whatever, charges could have been laid by anybody if they felt they had sufficient evidence. It is not up to Parliament to go out on fishing expeditions and witch hunts to try to prove a case, whether it is only simply allegations. Allegations are a very dangerous matter. The House has to be very careful not to slip into that thing that somehow every allegation has to be subject to a public inquiry. We have to use our best judgment in dealing with these matters, understanding that there are other jurisdictions with that responsibility and authority.

[Lynne Yelich, Canadian Alliance, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to contribute to this debate on Bill C-34. As we are aware from speeches in the House both today and earlier, there are many who have great concerns about the current state of ethics in government and how the current government proposes to address these concerns in the current legislation.

Let us remember first and foremost that we are privileged to be a multi-party democracy where there is a parliamentary opposition. The opposition serves as the conscience of government, acting in a way to curb unethical behaviours as well as to advance political perspectives other than those favoured by the government.

We see how important an opposition is to the workings of government when we reflect on comparable circumstances in single party states. The fact is that no matter how concerned the government of a single party state may be for the welfare of its people, corruption is far greater and far more institutionalized than is found in a multi-party democracy such as Canada's. That is due in no small part to the role of the opposition in bringing government unethical behaviours to public light and in seeking that justice be done concerning unethical behaviours.

Some might argue that ethical breaches in our current government are best addressed through public awareness, through the actions of the opposition and the actions of our Canadian investigative media. These people would argue that an ethics commissioner is not necessary or is acceptable in whatever flawed form is proposed. The fact is, while there is an active opposition in Canada and a degree of quality investigative coverage by media, both need the assistance of an independent oversight body in order to best curtail government ethical wrongdoing and to bring the wrongdoers to justice.

Let us remember that a majority government must effectively be shamed into acting against its own transgressions. If we have a government with no sense of shame, and I believe that to be the case with our current federal government, raising issues of ethical malfeasance in the House of Commons becomes little more than today's news. The government becomes too accustomed to simply shrugging off matters and assuming that gaps in public memory will ultimately save it from being at the mercy of enraged electors. Since when have we seen the current government act independently or as motivated by opposition criticisms to fundamentally change the cronyism that seems to be so readily associated with abuses of power?

This leads us to a point of debate on the legislation before us. Regrettably, Canadians need an ethics commissioner. I say “regrettably” because one would like to think that those who hold such esteemed elected public office would shirk from being associated with any actions that in any way could be called into question ethically. Unfortunately, political leadership can be visionary and charismatic or it can lead by example into an ethical cesspool. When one reflects on the Prime Minister's reactions to so many ethical concerns raised about his behaviour with public funds in matters associated with his own riding, when one sees an attitude of virtual indifference on his part to how his behaviour would appear to any reasonable person, then one can see why there is so much ethical abuse at other levels of government.

If the leader is using his position in an unethical manner, subordinates use that as a cue to what is acceptable behaviour on their own part. Let us remember that in the disgrace of Enron in the United States, as well as that of WorldCom, what was noted in both cases was a culture of deceit extending from the most senior levels downward. I would hate to think that our current government, from a leadership perspective, may be viewed as demonstrating an Enron-like culture, but there is no escaping the analogy in my view and to my regret.

We live in a world that is very different in terms of ethical concerns from the world of even a decade ago. Even a decade ago there was still some belief that conscience and deeply held beliefs would guard from corruption those in senior positions in politics, business and the professions. In terms of the professions such as law and accounting, we placed our confidence in their self-regulatory regimes. Accountants regulated accountants. Lawyers regulated lawyers.

The idea was that the accountants were in the best position to assess and discipline the breaches of ethics of other accountants. Yet what the accountants had and what the lawyers generally still have is something approaching the ethics commissioner being proposed under Bill C-34, an oversight body that is not independent in fact or in appearance. It is only after the Enron scandal and its related impact in Canada that public accountants have realized that their self-regulatory model was inadequate. They are now instead in the process of supporting the creation of a totally independent oversight regime, independent in fact and appearance, something the current federal government could use a few lessons from in my view.

Under Bill C-34, what the Liberals have suggested is the creation of an ethics overseer who really is not independent at all. As proposed, the ethics commissioner would be appointed by the prime minister and that choice would be ratified by a vote in the House of Commons by a majority government.

It is true that the prime minister would have to consult the leaders of the other political parties, but the scope of that consultation has not been defined. Essentially, the prime minister could say to other party leaders, “This is who I have chosen. What do you think?”, and then simply ignore any feedback he receives.

The ethics commissioner would be responsible for investigating misconduct of MPs from all parties. It is therefore absolutely mandatory that the commissioner be totally neutral from a political perspective. The appointment process outlined in the bill sets the foundation for just the opposite circumstance: an individual who could be biased in favour of the ruling party that chose him or her for the job.

All parties should approve the appointment so that the commissioner may be viewed as being truly independent in fact and appearance. Otherwise, the government majority will prevail in hand-picking its so-called independent watchdog and skewing any possible perception of fairness.

I am also concerned about the appearance and presence of accountability within this system. Some time ago I sent a survey to every household in my riding. One of the questions asked constituents to rank several issues in terms of their importance. The number one issue was not health care, it was not taxes nor was it defence. The overwhelming majority of respondents identified government accountability as the most important issue facing our country today.

That is where I am coming from in making my points today. The Canadian people continue to yearn for a government that remains consistently committed to the highest standards of ethical behaviour, from the leadership downwards. The Canadian people continue to be disappointed in governments that once in power seem to forget the hope for change that brought them to power in the first place. Those who continue to believe in ethics in government may be viewed as demonstrating the triumph of optimism over experience. Since there is little cause for optimism in the context of the behaviour of the current government, one can only hope to see changes as matters evolve on Canada's political landscape over the next year.

Observations include the following. The bill is part of the Prime Minister's ethics initiative first announced in May 2002. It is often the case with this government that it uses the right words, but the meanings are shifted in such a way that the results are confusing.

The term “independent ethics commissioner” is misleading. Since the prime minister will make the choice, there will be consultation with the leaders of the parties in the House and there will be a confirming vote in the House. This sounds good, but we must consider that consultation with the leaders does not mandate that the prime minister may change his mind if they disagree, and the confirming vote in the House will undoubtedly be a vote in which all Liberals will vote in favour of the prime minister's choice.

The Senate ethics officer is appointed for an initial seven year term and is eligible for reappointment. The House of Commons commissioner's term will be an initial five year term and the commissioner is eligible for reappointment. The House of Commons ethics commissioner will work under the general direction of a committee of the House of Commons, presumably the committee on procedure and House affairs.

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

The commissioner's supervision of cabinet ministers will be about the same as now. There is private, confidential advice to them and to the Prime Minister.

The fact that an investigation of a minister can be triggered by a formal complaint from a member of Parliament or a senator is positive, as is the fact that the results of such an investigation will be made public.

It is not satisfactorily 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 applying to ordinary members of Parliament. This is assumed but it is not specific.

We are in favour of a high standard of ethical conduct by government and parliamentarians. It is the Liberal version of ethics to which we are opposed. The Liberals, undoubtedly, will try to characterize us as being against a code of ethics if we do not vote for this bill. However we must emphasize over and over again that we object to this interpretation.

We object to the fact that an ethics commissioner appointed by and answerable to the prime minister will have jurisdiction over backbench and opposition MPs. Our primary objection is that the ethics commissioner will be appointed by the prime minister without a meaningful role by rank and file members of Parliament. The bill contains a provision for consultation with party leaders but no requirement.

The bill does not change the relationship between public office holders and the ethics commissioner. He or she will continue to administer the prime minister's code and provide confidential advice to the prime minister and to the ministers. If an investigation of a minister is requested by a senator or an MP, the ethics commissioner would be obliged to investigate it but any public report arising from this investigation could be suitably sanitized by withholding any information considered confidential.

Scandals have plagued the Liberal government and this will probably not be preventable or subject to exposure under this legislation.

Coming back to my point, the Canadian people do yearn and continue to yearn for a government that remains consistently committed to the highest standards of ethical behaviours from the leadership downward. The Canadian people continue to be disappointed in governments that once in power seem to forget the hope for change that brought them to power in the first place.

Those who continue to believe in ethics in government may be viewed as demonstrating that triumph of optimism over experience. Since there is little cause for optimism in the context of the behaviours of the current government, one can only hope to see changes as matters evolve on Canada's political landscape over the next year.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Blackstrap in Saskatchewan, that wonderful province in which I was born and grew up. It is a delight to have her here in the House of Commons representing the prairie people. In many ways I think we have quite a different attitude out on the prairies from what we see in Liberal country here in Ottawa.

I fondly remember the years when I was growing up in Saskatchewan where we actually trusted people and had politicians who we respected. They were held in high esteem because they worked hard and were selfless. They served the people. They were not in it for themselves. Unfortunately, over the last number of years we have in Ottawa a growing culture of suspicion and people who are in it for themselves.

I know my colleague will not have much time but I would like her to respond to a simple question. Does she have any confidence at all that the Liberal government, by implementing this series of procedures, including the appointment of an ethics commissioner, will actually fix the problems that have occurred in the cabinet of this government?