House of Commons Hansard #44 of the 37th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was drugs.
Roger Gallaway LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the government's response to two petitions.
Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, two reports from the Canadian branch of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie, as well as the related financial report.
The first report deals with the meeting of the parliamentary affairs commission held in Vientiane, Laos, April 7 to 10, 2004.
The second report deals with the meeting of the education, communication and cultural affairs commission held in Bucharest, Romania, April 15 to 18, 2004.
Leon Benoit Canadian Alliance Lakeland, AB
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-521, an act to amend the Criminal Code (search and seizure).
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this private member's bill on search and seizure. This bill is meant to correct something that was improperly inserted in Bill C-68, the gun control act. That bill allows for search and seizure without a warrant, which is something that is very unusual. This bill would correct that and require a warrant for search, and also restitution for unnecessary damage done as a result of that search.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Leon Benoit Canadian Alliance Lakeland, AB
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-522, an act respecting the replacement of agricultural pest control products.
Mr. Speaker, this private member's bill is meant to protect farmers in particular against the removal of a product that is very important to them in protecting their livestock and crops. A product may be taken away without scientific evidence to indicate why it should be taken away.
I have seen this several times over the 10 years I have been in the House, in particular the use of strychnine to control gophers. The scientific evidence to remove that product was not there. This would simply protect against that and require that a committee of the House actually examine the removal of a product which is very important to farmers or others.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Andy Burton Canadian Alliance Skeena, BC
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-523, an act to amend the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations (Queen Charlotte Islands).
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this private member's bill. The intent of the bill is to amend the Income Tax Act to make the Queen Charlotte Islands a prescribed northern zone for the purpose of section 110.7 of that act in recognition of the high costs associated with living in such a very remote area of Canada.
It would also amend the income tax regulations so that the Queen Charlotte Islands would no longer be a prescribed as an intermediate zone for the purpose of section 110.7 of that act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Jacques Saada LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister responsible for Democratic Reform
Mr. Speaker, I move:
That, pursuant to section 72.01(1) of the Act of Parliament of Canada, chapter P-1 of the Revised Statutes of Canada (1985), the House approve the appointment of Bernard Shapiro, from Montréal (Québec), as ethics commissioner for a five-year term.
Ethics CommissionerRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Roger Gallaway LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I move that the 25th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented on Tuesday, April 27, 2004, be concurred in.
I am pleased to speak to the motion which calls for the adoption of the 25th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The report contains three recommendations.
The first recommendation, being the most important in my view, recommends that the conflict of interest code, which is appended to the report, for members of the House of Commons become part of the Standing Orders of this House and that the code would come into force and effect at the beginning of the 38th Parliament.
This matter has been discussed and debated in committees in both this place and in the other place for some time. In fact, in 1996 both this Chamber and the other place adopted resolutions, which I will read in part:
That a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons be appointed to develop a Code of Conduct to guide Senators and Members of the House of Commons in reconciling their official responsibilities with their personal interests, including their dealings with lobbyists.
Part of that mandate was that the committee would consult broadly and review the approaches taken with respect to these issues both in Canada and in other jurisdictions with comparable systems of government. Out of that process, which began in 1996, came a code of conduct which came about after a great deal of discussion both with members of this place at the time and with others who were from other legislatures in this country and in other jurisdictions.
The 25th report has certain guiding principles that lay out the principles that should guide members of Parliament. It notes that “service in Parliament is a public trust and the House of Commons recognizes that its members are expected to serve the public interest and represent constituents to the best of their abilities”.
That is an important principle because it recognizes and upholds the representative capacity, indeed the constitutional role of members of Parliament, which is always to represent constituents. In fact, it is an acknowledgement of the principle that we, as members of the House, come from those we represent and from nowhere else. That is the first principle.
The second principle with respect to the code of conduct is that members are expected to fulfill their public duties with honesty and uphold the highest standards so as to avoid real or apparent conflict of interest and to maintain and enhance public confidence and trust in the integrity of each member of the House of Commons.
The third principle is to perform their official duties and functions and to arrange their private affairs in a manner that bears the closest public scrutiny, an obligation that may not be fully discharged by simply acting within the law.
Those are some of the principles that are laid out.
Let me move on to recommendation 2 because the committee's 25th report contains three recommendations.
Recommendation 2 states:
The Committee further recommends that the Standing Orders of the House of Commons be amended
a) by deleting Standing Orders 21 and 22;
It is technical in the sense that it refers to the specific standings orders that need to be either deleted or amended.
Recommendation 3 is also technical in nature in that it recommends that the Clerk of the House be authorized to make any editorial changes required by the adoption of these amendments to the Standing Orders.
This is important in terms of the Standing Orders because what we have seen in the House over the past several years has been a number of attempts, and very good attempts, at creating a code of conduct. On March 15, 2001, the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough had a motion on the Order Paper under private members' business asking the government to introduce legislation to establish a code of conduct for members of Parliament. It too was based on the final report of the Special Joint Committee on a Code of Conduct for the House of Commons.
The member for Halifax had a private member's bill, Bill C-417, in the second session of the 37th Parliament which was much the same. The purpose of that bill was to establish a code of conduct for members of the House and to provide for an officer of Parliament to be known as the ethics counsellor.
If one looks at the joint committee report, a committee established by resolution of both this Chamber and of the other place in 1996, it carefully considered whether in fact we should have a code that would be placed in the Standing Orders or, alternatively, whether we should move on a statutory front, which is what the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough recommended by his private member's motion of 2001, and also what was attempted to be done by Bill C-417, which had first reading on March 20, 2003.
In its report of 1997, the special joint committee recommended against a statute, that is putting it into a law passed by this place and the other place and given royal assent. There was good reason for that. We have to understand that the Standing Orders are procedural in nature. They apply in this place and are not intended to allow, in any way, outsiders to come in here, outsiders in the sense that the courts can move into this place and pass judgment on what is an internal matter.
In my view it is important that we not move on that front because the privileges of the House and indeed the privileges of the Senate are a special body of law, the law of Parliament. The law of Parliament has nothing to do with the courts. The law of Parliament is the evolutionary body of jurisprudence which evolved under our system and has never been touched by the courts. There are still court decisions where judges have said that the law of Parliament should not be considered or touched by the courts. We are a constitutional body, unlike the courts, and we control our own proceedings.
That is why it is important that this code of conduct be included in the Standing Orders and not in a statute. A statute would very clearly allow for someone at some point, under some circumstances, to seek redress or adjudication in the courts and that ought never be done. This code gives a framework for members and guidance.
This has been a long process. It has been discussed in this place. In embarking on such a process it is important that there be due consideration, due debate and there certainly has been due discussion, if I can put it that way, in terms of how this should be set up.
This is not new in similar jurisdictions. British Columbia has had a code for a number of years. British Columbia has a commissioner who works and reports on possible conflicts of interest. Ontario has a similar regime to give advice, to monitor and to assist members of the provincial legislature in how they might best act in a way that avoids conflict of interest, that upholds high ethical standards and in fact is a form of protection of members. It may not be perfect or foolproof but it is an important framework within Standing Orders to assist and guide members.
More interesting, in the United States, all state legislatures have state ethics committees or commissions, it varies, within one or both of their chambers, because in certain U.S. states there are senate chambers. In fact 39 of the 50 U.S. states have external ethics committees.
I do not purport to suggest that we are moving on the vanguard here but I think it is very clear that this code of conduct is something that is widespread throughout parliaments, throughout legislative assemblies and throughout state assemblies. Knowing that the world has become a much more complex place, that governments have become more complex in their operations and members can find themselves in situations where allegations may be made against them in which, under and through entirely innocent circumstances, they find that they are the brunt or the subject of suggestions that they are in conflict of interest.
It is important to note that the principles, which I put on the record earlier, form the framework and the basis but this code of conduct lays out specific rules because it is within the Standing Orders and, more important, it affords a level of protection for members who I would say 99.99% of the time act in good faith but, notwithstanding all that, may find themselves in a situation which, in some cases, they were unaware of or in some cases over which they had no control.
The code of conduct that we are considering here today is an important new benchmark, not only for members but for the public.
Once again I will say that this code of conduct may not have foreseen all contingencies that may arise but it is a good beginning. The important thing is that the proposal to include it in the Standing Orders means that it would stay under the control of the Chamber. It can be updated or it can be amended if parts of it are found to be too onerous or are not workable, as opposed to statutory law, which would end up making it more difficult to change, both from a legislative point of view and from a public perception point of view in the sense that legislation being changed or amended is much more difficult to deal with.
The other part of these Standing Orders, of course, is not that it is just a code of conduct, but it includes a reference specifically to the ethics commissioner. The ethics commissioner who has been named, Mr. Shapiro, is the contact person for members if they are looking for advice and interpretation. He is the contact person if they are looking for some form of self-satisfaction in terms of whether they are doing the right thing in a world which is very complex and in a position of the House, that is, as a member of the House, which is often not easy and is sometimes very difficult. As a result, it is important that the code of conduct be adopted and that the recommendations, number two in particular, be included in the Standing Orders as laid out by the 25th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and then moved on.
There are those who say, and I have made these suggestions myself, that there are portions of the code that could be abused, in the sense, I think, that if one wishes to make accusations against a colleague, one might do so. I have heard suggestions that this may be used for spiteful reasons or mean reasons. Having said that, if one reads more closely the code of conduct, one will see that in fact there are measures to strike back against those who would make frivolous and vexatious claims against colleagues.
Quite frankly, I think that notwithstanding our differences, both between and among individuals of the same party and individuals of other parties, there is still an enormous amount of goodwill among people in terms of personal lives and a great insight into the complexity of lives, both before people arrived here and while we are serving here in the House of Commons.
As a result, I would urge all members, not as partisans of a particular party but as members of the House, to consider the importance of this code. I would ask that they join in and endorse and support not only the code but this motion I have moved today.
On that point, because I know my time is almost up, I will conclude my remarks.
Ken Epp Canadian Alliance Elk Island, AB
Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the speech made by the hon. member who just presented the motion.
One of the things on which I would like him to comment is a certain provision in the code, this code that will hereby be adopted because we are pretty sure that the Liberals can pass this; they have a pretty good majority so it is a given that this will pass. I would like him to comment on that part of the code which has to do with disclosure of not only a member's income, assets and liabilities but also those of immediate family members, and the difficulty that may pose to some individuals in terms of actually disclosing this.
Roger Gallaway Liberal Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Yes, Mr. Speaker, my friend opposite is correct in noting that disclosure of income is a part of this code.
My understanding is that even in British Columbia this disclosure provision applies. It certainly does in Ontario, of that I am aware, and in many other American jurisdictions.
I will make an inference from the general nature of the question, and that is, what about other people under that envelope of family? What about a spouse? We often hear, and in some sense I agree, that when we come to this place we do not bring family with us. I think that families suffer from this position in some sense. Certainly members of my family are sometimes not imposed upon, I will not say that, but they are made aware that public life is not easy. I will say that in a very general way. I think we all appreciate this.
In fact, sweeping in one's wife, husband, spouse, or partner is an obligation which fails to recognize, acknowledge and uphold the fact that our spouses have other lives. Our wives and husbands have other lives which in fact are nothing to do with us. I think that is a fair comment, but I would respond to that part of it by noting that I as a parliamentary secretary am subject to another code and in fact my spouse was able to comply with it and my spouse works. In fact, it was not onerous at all. I must say it was much more simple than I presumed and anticipated. In the end, the process did not in fact unduly unsettle my wife.
However, having also said that, I can contemplate situations where someone may feel otherwise. Let us understand that this is not law, that that is a code of conduct and that this is within the Standing Orders. In my dealings when those situations have arisen, I have found that there is a sufficient flexibility and an acknowledgment of the independence of people in relationships, particularly marriages, such that the scenario that I believe is being raised by my friend opposite would not create a problem.
Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON
Mr. Speaker, I must say that unlike my friend opposite I am strongly in favour of the disclosure provisions. I think they work well, as my colleague on this side explained, in the provincial jurisdictions.
As I understand it, the disclosure is summary disclosure as far as the complete public record, the website, is concerned, and that works well in Ontario. People can look up the summary disclosures of the members of the Ontario legislature and of their families in summary on the website right now as we speak, and they disclose completely in private.
As my colleague tried to explain, if in fact a spouse or a partner does not wish to disclose, it is quite obvious that it is not possible to force a person who is not a member of the House to disclose. In that case, the way the code is written, the obligation on the member of Parliament is due diligence. In other words, he or she has to go to all possible lengths to persuade members of the family to disclose.
I have a question for my colleague. I am very interested in this matter. It is being raised now. We understand that there might be an election relatively soon. We understand that an ethics commissioner is going to be appointed relatively soon. Here is what I would say to my colleague who is making this presentation. Does he not think that even though this code may be flawed and will be studied and perhaps changed in the next Parliament, it is in fact very important that it be passed now so that candidates, people who have never been in the House but are seeking to be in the House, as well as members of Parliament here who may be returned, would then know what the terms of reference of the position are? Also, it is important so that the commissioner, if he is appointed, will have something to work with when he takes over this important new position.
Roger Gallaway Liberal Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for that question and I certainly agree with him on all points.
There are many expectations, particularly for new candidates who are elected. People who arrive in this place are looking for answers on a whole bunch of fronts, but many of those fronts have to do with one's personal life and personal status and what the expectations are. It is vitally important that those who come here in the 38th Parliament, the new members in particular, be given some guidelines so that they are not in a position of uncertainty and are not caught in the situation where allegations or suggestions are made or whisper campaigns are started, from which there is sometimes little defence.
I think that a code such as this is simply a framework, because I again will agree with my friend in saying that this is not perfection. No code is. No Standing Orders can contemplate all of the contingencies that can arise in this place and, more important, in the personal life of the 308 members of the 38th Parliament. But it would give one a level of comfort and a guideline. It would give one a framework. I think that is very important.
Finally, I would note that this is not something new in terms of parliaments, legislatures and state assemblies. In North America it is widespread and I understand that in Great Britain a similar regime exists, although it is not identical.
Larry Bagnell LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Mr. Speaker, something that has bothered me for years about parliaments, not just about our Parliament but many parliaments, is that we seem to get egocentrically concentrated on our own personal activities, such as how one member has done this or how another member has done that. We seem to spend an excessive amount of parliamentary time debating and discussing these things when the affairs of the nation are ignored or not taken care of, and it is not that these things are not important.
I am wondering, because my colleague has an interest in the machinery of government, if he thinks there is a way that these issues can be dealt with or controlled so they do not interfere so much with the business of the state. I am not sure what that might be. Perhaps it should be mandatory to first raise these problems in a committee before they are allowed to come to Parliament. Then, if they have to, they can be referred to Parliament.
I do not know if the member has given any thought to some of the things we spend House time on given that it is very limited time. It takes us away from debating the major issues of the day that affect all Canadians, not just ourselves personally.
Roger Gallaway Liberal Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that question because it speaks both to the complexity of this place and to the time limitations placed not only on this place but upon all of us.
I would simply point out that Westminster has embarked upon what I think is a most interesting pilot project. It is a little more than a pilot project, because it now has a second chamber, a second House of Commons, which operates at defined hours and in which a certain type of business is debated at certain hours. This gives members a greater opportunity to speak. It is interesting to note that this second House of Commons receives equal scrutiny, both by the public and by the press, in terms of its operation.
Serge Cardin Bloc Sherbrooke, QC
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I would seek unanimous consent of the House to proceed to petitions now and to resume debate on this important issue afterwards.
Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
The Deputy Speaker
Does the hon. member for Sherbrooke have the unanimous consent of the House to proceed to petitions now and to resume this debate afterwards?
Committees of the HouseThe Royal Assent
The Deputy Speaker
I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Rideau Hall
Ottawa
April 29, 2004
Mr. Speaker,
I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 29th day of April, 2004 at 9:50 a.m.
Yours sincerely,
Barbara Uteck
Secretary to the Governor General
The schedule indicates that royal assent was given to Bill C-21, an act to amend the Customs Tariff; and Bill C-250, an act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda).
Ken Epp Canadian Alliance Elk Island, AB
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe the hon. member from the Bloc is simply asking us to move to petitions so he can present one, for whatever reason. I think it would be greatly courteous of us to do that. I would, on his behalf, ask again for unanimous consent to move to petitions.
Serge Cardin Bloc Sherbrooke, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues in the House for allowing me to table this petition and thus act as the spokesperson for the 12,558 people who signed this petition asking for the establishment of a regional passport office in Sherbrooke. This initiative is also supported by 59 municipalities from the Sherbrooke region.
The need for such an office in Sherbrooke is easy to justify. For example, the number of passport applications from the Sherbrooke region is twice that of the Saguenay region, which already has a passport office.
Many people must travel to Montreal and thus spend time and money to obtain a passport. The population of Sherbrooke has a real need for a passport office. Such an office would be financially sustainable.
This is why I am tabling this petition signed by 12,558 people.