Debates of Sept. 21st, 2006

Presence in Gallery

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

It is Thursday and I believe the opposition House leader has a question he would want to ask at this time.

Business of the House

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the government House leader would be kind enough today, in our first week back in the fall sitting, to provide an outline of the business that he proposes to call for the balance of this week and for all of next week.

Specifically, I would ask him when we might expect in the House the environmental plan that has been promised by the government. When will the government table the annual financial report for the Government of Canada for the 2005-06 fiscal year, including the final surplus figures for that year? When will the government come forward with its proposals, whatever they may be, with respect to same-sex marriage? And, will the minister today designate a specific date for a take-note debate on the terrible tragedy in Sudan and Darfur, certainly before the end of September?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer the hon. member. Today and tomorrow we will continue with Bill C-12, the emergency management act, which will be followed by Bill S-2 for hazardous materials and Bill C-6, the Aeronautics Act.

Pursuant to an order made on Monday, September 18, there will be an address by the President of Afghanistan to be delivered in the chamber of the House of Commons at 9 a.m. on Friday, September 22, 2006.

On Monday we will begin debate on the bill to implement the softwood lumber agreement. We have designated Thursday, September 28, as an allotted day, which, of course, will be allotted to the Liberal Party and it can debate any subject that it would like.

With respect to the member's other questions, this fall we will be proceeding in those areas that we have indicated to Canadians are important. If the hon. member wants a more complete blueprint of what we intend to do all he has to do is have a look at what we said in the last general election.

Government Operations and Estimates

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I should point out that there is an agreement not to have any further debate on the motion to concur in the second report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. Therefore, I would seek unanimous consent of the House for the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practices of the House, at the appointed time today for the debate on the motion to concur in the second report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates is to resume, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion shall be deemed put, a recorded division be deemed requested, and the vote deferred to Wednesday, September 27 at the conclusion of Government Orders.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Does the hon. government House leader have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt it?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

(Motion agreed to)

Private Member's Bill C-269

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, on May 31, 2006, you invited members to comment on whether Bill C-269 would require a royal recommendation. Without commenting on the merits of this private member's bill, it is the government's view that this bill does in fact require a royal recommendation. This is because the bill would increase spending beyond that authorized by the current Employment Insurance Act and the royal recommendation which accompanied it.

In particular, the bill would change the authorization in the royal recommendation for the act by: one, reducing the qualifying period regardless of the regional rate of unemployment; two, increasing the weekly benefits rate from 55% to 60%, which would increase the costs of the program; three, repealing the two week waiting period, which would result in additional costs due to an increasing number of very short claims; four, increasing maximum yearly insurable earnings. Removing the link to the industrial wage increase in the original statute in favour of a flat rate, would increase government spending in a manner that is different than provided for by the original royal recommendation. Finally, it would add coverage for the self-employed who are not automatically insured against job loss under the EI program.

The financial issues for Bill C-269 are the same as for Bill C-278 from the 38th Parliament for which the Speaker ruled on December 14, 2004 that a royal recommendation was required. The Speaker ruled:

The improvements to the employment insurance program envisioned by this bill include the required minimum number of hours worked in order to qualify, lengthening the period that one can receive benefits, and, as well, increasing those benefits.

It is clear that such changes to the employment insurance program would have the effect of authorizing increased expenditures of public revenue. Inasmuch as section 54 of the Constitution, 1867, and Standing Order 79 prohibit the adoption of any bill appropriating public revenues without a royal recommendation, the same must apply to bills authorizing increased spending of public revenues. Bills mandating new or additional public spending must be seen as the equivalent of bills effecting an appropriation.

These arguments apply to Bill C-269 with respect to the provisions I noted earlier. Accordingly, I would similarly urge you, Mr. Speaker, to find that Bill C-269 also requires a royal recommendation.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, regarding Bill C-269, one hopes that when you are taking this into consideration you would keep in mind that the money being talked about here is not the government's money. It may well be that Bill C-269 would constitute spending more of the EI fund in terms of benefits, but that money is solely money from employers and employees. The federal government stopped paying into the EI fund back in the 1980s under the old Tory government as it used to be. It is not the government's money that will be spent under Bill C-269.

I hope you can keep this very clear point as your primary consideration when you rule on this matter, Mr. Speaker. If it were government money, I would agree royal assent would be necessary, but in this matter the EI fund has no government money in it. It is 100% employer and employee money. Therefore, it should not need the type of royal recommendation being talked about.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on May 31 when we started the private members' cycle, you had flagged this particular bill for a royal recommendation. I have had an opportunity to discuss it with the Clerk's officials to determine questions such as that. My understanding is that consideration has been fully taken into account and I would tend to agree with the government House leader that this matter would require a royal recommendation.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a bill introduced by the Bloc members of Parliament for the purpose of returning to people who lose their jobs, or the unemployed, the employment insurance benefits to which they are entitled. I say “to which they are entitled” because, under the Employment Insurance Act, benefits come basically from contributions from workers and employers. Not a penny in the employment insurance fund comes from the federal government. The federal government used to contribute to it in the past, but now and for the last several years, there has been over a $47 billion surplus in the fund.

Consider the following, Mr. Speaker. How can they claim that they need a recommendation from Her Majesty in order to spend money that belongs to working people, money that can be traced back, money that comes directly from the pockets of working people and their employers?

The government should be ashamed to use these surpluses for its own benefit. It should at least let the House allow citizens who lose their jobs to use the money that is theirs, their contributions and their protection.

Mr. Speaker, I want to draw this to your attention. I know that you are an honourable man in private life and have insurance on your home and car. You would take a dim view of someone who wanted to appropriate your insurance premiums and your surpluses when you do not make any claims. When you need them, you would not want someone who had illegally appropriated your insurance premiums to prevent you from receiving the benefits to which you were entitled, which you had purchased and paid for. That is what is happening here.

Please make an amazing overture to the unemployed, to people who are counting on you, Mr. Speaker, who are counting on us and this entire House. Please pay special attention to this. Our money is our money. The government is already very lucky not to be taken to task more openly for regularly seizing these funds.

We do not need any royal recommendations and we do not need Her Majesty. We need our contributions. That is what we want.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is sad to note that the Conservative government is asking for royal assent to ratify the Bloc Québécois’ employment insurance bill. Especially since, when the Conservatives were in opposition, they said that the government had taken $50 billion that belonged to companies and workers and that this money should be put back in an independent fund to make sure the government did not appropriate it for itself again.

The government helped itself to $50 billion to pay down the deficit and balance its budget at workers’ expense. This money belongs to those who pay into the employment insurance plan and not to taxpayers. There is a difference between the two. When we work, we pay income tax, we pay into the Canada pension plan and we pay EI premiums.The employment insurance fund belongs to the workers. The government is in the wrong.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the workers who need the money in the employment insurance fund, I ask that you rule that this motion be voted on by the elected representatives of Canadians so that we can make a decision here, in the House of Commons, to give this money back to those to whom it belongs.

It is shameful, the way the money has been taken from the workers for all this time. Today, we finally have a chance to vote on this subject. This is not income taxes. Mr. Speaker, you must rule on this point: is this the government’s money or is it an insurance fund that people have paid into? This money cannot be taken to pay down the deficit, as the Liberals did to balance the budget. Is it the Conservatives’ turn to take this money now?

Mr. Speaker, I ask you to make a different ruling than the one you made in the past, because I think that the arguments were not conclusive as to whom this money belongs to. It belongs to those who paid into the employment insurance fund, namely the workers and their employers, not to the Conservatives or the Liberals.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I thank all the hon. members who contributed to this discussion concerning the rules of this House, especially the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons , the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre, the hon. member for Mississauga South, the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst and the hon. House leader of the Bloc Québécois.

I will consider all of the arguments and get back to the House shortly with a ruling.

The Chair has notice of a question of privilege from the hon. member for Labrador and I will hear him now.

Meeting held by Minister of National Defence

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise on a point of personal privilege. On July 15, 2006 at approximately 11 a.m. local time, the Minister of National Defence attended a meeting at 5 Wing Goose Bay which is in my riding of Labrador. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss with local representatives, municipal and other government representatives matters of public policy pertaining to this military base.

This meeting was held on Government of Canada property, that is, on the base itself in a restricted area where access was provided only at the minister's discretion. Despite being the duly elected member of Parliament for this riding, the minister did not invite or ask that I attend this session, nor when I approached his office on four separate occasions, including one in writing, to request that I be given the opportunity to attend, was this opportunity forthcoming.

However, it is an open and notorious fact that the defeated Conservative Party candidate in this riding from the general election campaign of this past January was invited and did attend this meeting. The defeated Conservative candidate does not, to the best of my knowledge, hold any public office, volunteer position or committee role which would in any way justify his presence at this important meeting on a matter of government policy. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, his only qualification is that he is a member of, and was a candidate for, the Conservative Party of Canada.

It is my contention that the minister's conduct in this regard was aimed solely at impeding the duties expected of me as a member of Parliament and at obstructing me in the discharge of those duties. The Minister of National Defence's deliberate intention to obstruct me from performing what is very obviously an important part of my duty as a parliamentarian has serious implications for every member of the House and for the authority of the House itself.

I am prepared, should you find a prima facie case of privilege, to move the appropriate motion.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I listened very patiently to the arguments put forward by the hon. member for Labrador to see if there was in fact a point of privilege in what he said, but I am afraid while he may have a complaint, I fail to understand how his privileges as a member of the House have been in any way impaired or impeded by the fact that he was not invited to this particular meeting with the minister, however much he might have wanted to be there.

Ministers and other members are free to travel around the country and indeed go to other members' constituencies. They do not have to have the local member travelling with them when they do that, and indeed they can have meetings with people without the other member present. Even Speakers are liable to do that; I must say it is much less likely, but it is possible. So, while I can sympathize with the hon. member's complaint, I am afraid it is a complaint and not a question of privilege.

The hon. member for Mississauga—Brampton South has a point of order as well. There are several here we are going to deal with.

Comment by member for Charleswood--St. James--Assiniboia

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the point of order reflects the comment made by the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia with respect to my question during question period yesterday.

I clearly in my question said “accountability deficit disorder” and did not pertain to any particular acronym or illness that would be deemed to be inappropriate. I did talk about accountability and deficit when it comes to accountability. I was alluding to the $1.7 million in delegate fees not disclosed by the Conservative Party. I was referring to the fact that they did not provide the information to the Chief Electoral Officer. I was talking about the violation of privacy laws, third party financing and so forth. Therefore, I am absolutely shocked and appalled that the member opposite would make this kind of accusation.

Replies from the Minister of Canadian Heritage

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, something happened yesterday during Question Period and it happened again today. Yesterday, a question was directed to the Minister of Canadian Heritage regarding funding for homelessness programs and it was the Minister of Natural Resources who answered. Today we asked the Minister of Canadian Heritage a question regarding funding for culture and she replied by citing facts regarding funding for women's groups.

I would like to know what the problem is. Is it the equipment in this House, the interpretation services, or the minister?

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Clearly, the hon. member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord wanted to address a question to one of the ministers, since this is not a question that the Chair can answer. However, the time for questions addressed to ministers has passed. The hon. member could perhaps direct the question to the minister responsible and obtain a reply tomorrow. This is therefore not a point of order.

The hon. member for Wascana.

Access to Information

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, if I could direct my point to you, sir, and then through you to the government House leader.

During the course of question period today, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister made reference to certain policies of the Privy Council Office with respect to the procedures that apply to the access to information process. The parliamentary secretary indicated that the procedures had existed under the previous government and they continued under the current government.

The issue is whether those procedures include or do not include the disclosure of the names of the applicants for information under the access to information process.

It is our contention that whatever the procedure may be, it does not include the disclosure of the names. I think it would be useful to the House if the parliamentary secretary could table that policy, so that all members could see whether or not it includes the disclosure of names.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to comment on that. I thought the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister was very clear.

The hon. member for Wascana said that the government had continued the practice. No. When the government discovered the practice, the government put an end to the practice. I think that is what the parliamentary secretary said very clearly.

What he said very clearly was that when the government found out about it, it was discontinued. I think that is what he said. I will be glad to check the blues on that. I thought he was very clear on that point.

I think the hon. member is in the best position to confirm the practice that was in place in the previous administration. It seems to me this is probably a question that we will be hearing about tomorrow in question period. I think the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister will be just as forthcoming tomorrow as he was today.

Ethics Commissioner Report in Relation to Member for Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Pursuant to subsection 28(9) of the Conflict of Interest Code, the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke who is the subject of a report of the Ethics Commissioner, previously tabled in the House, has the right to make a statement.

The member shall not speak for more than 20 minutes and there will be no period of questions and comments.

I now invite the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke to address the House.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to exercise my right to speak, pursuant to subsection 28(9) of the appendix to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons.

On June 21 of this year a report by Ethics Commissioner Bernard Shapiro on an inquiry precipitated by the member for Ottawa—Vanier was presented to the House. This report offends all manner of natural justice and fairness, and out of respect for the House and our democratic institution I am obligated to respond.

If anything demonstrates the need for swift passage of Bill C-2, the federal accountability act, it has to be the decision of the current Ethics Commissioner to willingly get involved in partisan political activity in the aftermath of a federal election campaign.

The inquiry was a blatant waste of taxpayers' dollars, the cost of which should be borne by the Liberal Party as an election expense.

In order to understand the proper sequence of events, it is important to correct the version presented by Mr. Shapiro.

The member for Ottawa—Vanier made his partisan allegations in a letter to the Ethics Commissioner dated January 11, 2006 during the last federal election. The February 9 letter referred to by Mr. Shapiro was the second request after the initial turndown, the reasons for which Mr. Shapiro has refused to disclose, even though he is obligated to report his reasons as per subsections 27(6) and 28(1) of the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons.

It was brought to my attention by a member of the media that on January 12, 2006, the day after the member for Ottawa—Vanier wrote to Mr. Shapiro, a member of the Liberal Party, Stephen Heckbert, issued a partisan press release disclosing the actions of the member for Ottawa—Vanier and his partisan allegations.

As I would be unaware of a letter being written and it would not be expected that the Ethics Commissioner would release the contents of private correspondence, it would appear that the information came directly from the individual making the allegation to be used in a partisan political manner during the last federal election.

This public disclosure is in direct violation of subsection 27(5) of the members' code. The code expressly states:

--Members should respect the process established by this Code and permit it to take place without commenting further on the matter.

Furthermore, subsection 27(6) states the following:

If the Ethics Commissioner is of the opinion that a request for an inquiry is frivolous or vexatious or was not made in good faith, or that there are no or insufficient grounds to warrant an inquiry or the continuation of an inquiry, the Ethics Commissioner shall so state in dismissing the request. The Ethics Commissioner shall report the dismissal in accordance with section 28 and may recommend that further action be considered against the Member who made the request.

Subsection 28(1) states:

Forthwith following an inquiry, the Ethics Commissioner shall report to the Speaker, who shall present the report to the House when it next sits.

This is an apparent failure of the Ethics Commissioner to respect subsection 27(6) and subsection 28(1) of the members' code. As of today's date no report, as required by the members' code, has been presented to the House.

Upon investigation, I have been informed that it has been indicated to the Table Clerks of the House by the Ethics Commissioner that Mr. Shapiro is of the opinion that if a request for an inquiry falls outside the commissioner's mandate, he is not required to report the dismissal for such a request to the House even though the code clearly directs Mr. Shapiro to issue a report in that circumstance.

This action then begs the question: If the January 11 request was outside the mandate of the Ethics Commissioner, what changed between January 11 and February 9, other than the government, to cause Mr. Shapiro to pursue this frivolous request?

My next concerns are as follows. It is important for all members of Parliament to know what we can and cannot do under the members' code. If the Ethics Commissioner has decided that he is not going to respond to a request and then decides he is not going to inform anyone, how are members supposed to know what our obligations are under the members' code?

Another very serious concern is the way the Ethics Commissioner has decided when to report to the House. In the case of the inquiry regarding the cabinet selection, Mr. Shapiro states that there was no contravention of the members' code and then proceeded to issue a report on the crossing of the floor that was clearly outside his mandate. The Ethics Commissioner cannot have it both ways.

In my case, by refusing to report on a non-meritorious request as per subsection 27(6) of the members' code, I am being denied the right for further action to be taken against the member for Ottawa—Vanier for breaching the members' code.

From the outset it was clear that the office of the Ethics Commissioner was being used for partisan political reasons, which further demonstrates the lack of consistency that was used to pursue this frivolous request.

After Mr. Shapiro wrote to my office informing me of his decision to participate in partisan harassment arising from an election campaign, my office responded with the following letter:

This letter is in response to your letter of March 27th, 2006, in which you advise of your intention to carry out an investigation into certain alleged violations by the member for Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke of the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons.

I note that the “incidents” allegedly giving rise to the complaint occurred when the Parliament was dissolved.

I draw to your attention the following quote from your report regarding the Inquiry involving the Prime Minister.

“Upon dissolution of the 38th Parliament, the House as an Assembly ceased to exist...In addition, members of the House cease to exist constitutionally...It logically follows from this that the member making the request must have the capacity to do so”.

As one must be a member of the House of Commons for the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons to apply, by your own finding, the members' Code has no effect on persons when they are not Members (i.e., between the date of dissolution and the return of the election writs).

The allegations made by the Member for Ottawa--Vanier against the Member for Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke were made at a time when neither individual was subject to the members' Code.

If someone is not able to bring forward a complaint during this period, by the same logic, one cannot be a target of a complaint during the same period, for the same reason.

For the reasons stated, you are without jurisdiction to conduct your inquiry.

I would request that you immediately cease all further inquiry into these allegations.

In a letter January 23, 2006, in response to the member for Calgary Southeast, Mr. Shapiro had this to say, and I quote directly from Mr. Shapiro's own words to the member for Calgary Southeast:

Aside from the consideration above, your request raises another issue related to my authority to initiate an inquiry at the request of a member of the House of Commons after Parliament has been dissolved.

After dissolution of Parliament there are no longer any members of the House of Commons.

While this does not appear to be clearly stated in the Parliament of Canada Act, I note that section 69 indicates:

“For the purposes of the allowances payable under sections 55 and 63, a person who, immediately before a dissolution of the House of Commons, was a member thereof shall be deemed to continue to be a member of the House until the date of the next following general election”.

Between the dissolution of the 38th Parliament and the commencement of the 39th Parliament, members of the House of Commons constitutionally cease to be members.

As well, with the dissolution of Parliament, the House of Commons as an Assembly, as well as its activities, cease.

As a consequence, the Standing Orders of the House of Commons have no effect.

As the members' code is Appendix I to the Standing Orders, it too has no effect during dissolution.

As a result, I am therefore not in a position to consider a request by a member for an inquiry against another member on the basis of the members' Code.

Incredibly, Mr. Shapiro totally flip-flopped from the position he took when he responded to the member for Calgary Southeast when he made the decision to pursue partisan attacks on who a prime minister could appoint to his cabinet.

Of far greater consequence to the privileges of all members of this House was the assertion by Mr. Shapiro that the “deemed” concurrence of the report issued to the House by his office on April 4, 2006 was somehow parliamentary approval for the absolute inconsistency that has been the hallmark of decisions made by Mr. Shapiro.

I draw attention of members to subsection 28(10) of the members' code:

A motion to concur in a report referred to in subsection (4) or (5) may be moved during Routine Proceedings. If no such motion has been moved and disposed of within 10 sitting days after the day on which the report was tabled, a motion to concur in the report shall be deemed to have been moved and adopted at the expiry of that time.

This I submit to all members is the same type of negative option that some telecoms use to get subscribers to sign onto services they do not really want.

This stealth method of changing the Standing Orders of the House of Commons by an employee of this chamber is absolutely unacceptable.

Any changes to the way this House governs its affairs should only be done with open debate and a vote by all members. Changes to the Standing Orders should never be “deemed to be adopted” as a default option.

I now read into the record my letter to Mr. Shapiro of May 1 after he stated he would issue a report with or without my cooperation:

Further to your letter of April 18th, 2006, please be assured that as a Member of Parliament I accept the obligations and demands as required of MPs by the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons (the members' code).

I welcome the opportunity to co-operate with any officer of the House of Commons in the performance of their responsibilities.

At the same time, it must be noted that in order to request information from a member relating to her functions and the way in which she carries out those functions, the person or officer must have the jurisdiction to make the request.

In order to understand the basis upon which I am being requested to co-operate with your office, it is both necessary and appropriate to ask before responding to such a request for a clear understanding of exactly what I am being required to respond to in the context of the members' code.

In the letter of February 9, 2006, the Member for Ottawa—Vanier alleges that sections 8 and 10(1) of the Members' Code may have been breached.

In both of these provisions, a conflict only occurs when a Member's “private interest” is involved.

Please identify the private interest, as defined in these two sections of the Members' Code, that it is alleged I have furthered in the performance of my public duties.

It was with particular interest I note that you cite the Board of Internal Economy and their bylaws as an authoritative source, where you “find that the alleged conduct does relate to the carrying out of duties and functions of a Member”.

I draw to your attention the relevant section of the Parliament of Canada Act whereby the Board of Internal Economy derives its statutory authority:

Sections 52.6 and 52.8 of the Parliament of Canada Act read:

“52.6(1)The Board has the exclusive authority to determine whether any previous, current or proposed use by a member of the House of Commons of any funds, goods, services or premises made available to that member for the carrying out of parliamentary functions is or was proper, given the discharge of the parliamentary functions of members of the House of Commons, including whether any such use is or was proper having regard to the intent and purpose of the by-laws made under subsection 52.5(1)”.

The same authority of the Board is specifically referenced in section 6 of the Members' Code, which provides:

“6. Nothing in this Code affects the jurisdiction of the Board of Internal Economy of the House of Commons to determine the propriety of the use of any funds, goods, services or premises made available to Members for carrying out their parliamentary duties and functions”.

As I understand the allegation put forth by the member for Ottawa—Vanier, he is questioning the manner in which I may or may not have used resources in my constituency and Ottawa offices, resources that are provided to me and all Members as part of our Members' Operation Budget.

These budgets, their purpose and use, are within the exclusive domain of the Board of Internal Economy.

This, in and of itself, is grounds for dismissing the request for an inquiry by the member for Ottawa—Vanier.

He refers to section 2(a) and (b) of the Members' Code as possible grounds to proceed.

In the principles enunciated in section 2 of the Members' Code, I categorically and absolutely reject any and all allegations contained in the correspondence, including attachments sent by the member for Ottawa—Vanier behind this partisan political attack.

I remind the Ethics Commissioner that this allegation was made during the January 23, 2006 election campaign.

What purpose can possibly be served by resurrecting a partisan slur campaign?

The campaign is over.

In spite of efforts by the member for Ottawa—Vanier and the Liberal Party, the voters of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, in their wisdom, saw right through this partisan attack, increasing my plurality.

Democracy has spoken.

The fact that the Liberal Party continues to use the office of the Ethics Commissioner for partisan political purposes should in and of itself be subject to an inquiry by your office based on this same section.

What is also clear from this exchange and by your own admission, is the contradictory position you took in the inquiry involving the cabinet selection after the Valeri decision.

There is a need to establish, in clear terms, exactly what authority the office of the Ethics Commissioner possesses to enforce the Members' Code during dissolution of Parliament. This is an issue that is most appropriately the purview of Parliament in the context of legislation now before the House.

While I am prepared to respond to all requests that are made within the scope of the jurisdiction given to you by members of the House of Commons, I am unable to respond to the present inquiry without the information and responses requested in this letter.

Like anyone asked to respond to a person in authority on an allegation as serious as breach of ethics, I am entitled to know the jurisdiction of the person requesting a response, as well as the case I have to meet.

As a result, I request a response from you prior to issuing any report to Parliament, should you insist on proceeding with this frivolous pursuit.

Pursuant to section 52.5 of the Parliament of Canada Act, Bylaw 102, I consider the final paragraph of your April 18, 2006 letter to me to be a breach of section 2(d) of that bylaw and will respond appropriately.

Incredibly, even after receiving this correspondence, Mr. Shapiro continued his misguided attack. His final comments in the subsequent report he tabled represent a partisan double standard when compared to his introduction to the inquiry into the actions of the hon. member for York West, when he had this to say:

Regardless of public perception, the mandate or authority of the Ethics Commissioner does not extend to all areas; the Ethics Commissioner cannot be considered a general ombudsperson with the authority to respond to citizens who are dissatisfied with their particular experience with a parliamentarian, minister or public office holder.

Rather than consistently applying the same standard that was applied to the member for York West, Mr. Shapiro proceeded to act in a manner which he had previously acknowledged was outside his mandate.

My closing remarks I now direct to the other place as it considers Bill C-2, the federal accountability act.

During testimony from Mr. Shapiro, it was pointed out that he had a preference for a non-legislated code of conduct, and the need for someone with a background in the law, either as a current or former member of the bench of a tribunal, was questioned as being unnecessary.

The case I put forth in front of Parliament today clearly demonstrates the absolute requirement for a legislated code of conduct and for the Ethics Commissioner to have a background in the law.

It has been recognized that Mr. Shapiro has been reading into the code things that are not there. His actions clearly demonstrate that the proposals set forth by the government in the federal accountability act are absolutely necessary to restore the credibility to the position of Ethics Commissioner.

One of the columnists for the Globe and Mail made this observation on a decision by Mr. Shapiro:

--the Ethics Commissioner, like a judge on a court or a commissioner at an inquiry, should be bound by the strict letter of his or her mandate...It was simply his job to decide whether the MPs' code of conduct had been violated. It hadn't. Case closed.

It was a lapse in judgment, another in a long list....

For the office of the Ethics Commissioner to function with any credibility, it must do so in an unbiased, non-partisan fashion. The federal accountability act seeks to make those changes.

A senator from British Columbia during hearings in the other place on Bill C-2 asked how an individual whose appointment was voted in favour could be protected from falling into disfavour amid partisan allegations. Members vote for the office. It is then up to the individual appointee to conduct his or herself in such a fashion as to bring credibility to that position.

It is my feeling that Bill C-2, the federal accountability act, will clean up the current shortcomings that now exist in the Ethics Commissioner's office. I urge the other place to pass this legislation now.

Had the federal accountability act been in place, Mr. Shapiro would have been compelled to fulfill the requirements of the position of Ethics Commissioner as intended by this House, and the frivolous, vexatious, partisan request by the controversial member for Ottawa—Vanier would have been properly dismissed, as it eventually was, without the waste of taxpayers' dollars, which was the final result.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-12, An Act to provide for emergency management and to amend and repeal certain Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.