Derek Lee

[Questions On The Order Paper, March 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[Government Response To Petitions, March 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to five petitions.

[Privilege, March 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be seen or in any way derogate from the rather complete and forthright way in which this matter has been dealt with by the hon. member, but it occurs to me that in the facts as I have heard them there was a decision and an act by another individual, the staffer of the hon. member, who made a decision to do something which I believe would be contrary to the rules of the House and could constitute and be seen as contempt.

I would suggest that although there is probably a will to put closure to this, it having been addressed well by the hon. member, it seems to me that the staffer involved should be providing a written apology to the House for the actions or decisions that he made, if I have understood the facts properly.

It would be my view that the matter should not close until that individual has acknowledged the error that he appears to have made. I would like to suggest that an apology should come from that person.

In any event, I wanted that to show on the record, having heard all of the facts. Again I do not want it to derogate at all from the rather fulsome and complete way that the hon. member has dealt with this today.

[Starred Questions, March 16th, 2001]

The distribution of 2000-01 summer career placements funding for the Quebec region was based on an allocation formula which used, among other variables, the full time student population aged 15 to 24. This variable uses Statistics Canada data and is calculated based upon a four month average for the period of May to August. The survey question from which this data is derived asks the location of permanent residency defined as residency for 30 days or more during the course of the year.

The allocation formula for summer career placements 2001-02 and the funding allocations are presently being finalized.

Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[Starred Questions, March 16th, 2001]

For the month of January 2001, the youth unemployment rate, students and non-students, was 21.1% in Abitibi-Témiscamingue. All the estimates are based on a three month moving average using non-seasonally adjusted data.

For data reliability reasons, Statistics Canada does not release the unemployment rate for students by region on a monthly basis.

*Question No. 7—

[Starred Questions, March 16th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Starred Questions Nos. 6 and 7.

The government has answers to both of these questions and I ask that those answers be printed in Hansard as if read. .[Text]

*Question No. 6—

[Government Response To Petitions, March 16th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to five petitions.

[Parliamentarians' Code Of Conduct, March 15th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister of Canada has explained to the House on numerous occasions that he sold his shares in the golf course prior to becoming Prime Minister and that they have never returned to his possession.

All relevant documentation has been reviewed by the ethics counsellor who told the industry committee, on May 6, 1999, that he had reviewed the agreement of sale. He described that agreement as follows:

—it is unambiguous in language; it's fairly simple. There is no basis for anybody trying to...say that there was an option aspect to it...It was a sale, and it was an unsecured sale.

He added to this statement by saying:

I know the Prime Minister doesn't own the shares and has not owned the shares since November 1, 1993, which, from my point of view, is the only issue.

Both the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Conservative Party asked the ethics counsellor for further clarification of the matter during the recent election campaign. Once again, the ethics counsellor confirmed that the Prime Minister had absolutely no financial interest in the golf course or in a nearby hotel when he assumed office.

Perhaps I should remind members that what is at the core of this issue is a hotel expansion project in the Prime Minister's riding which received the support of the local caisse populaire as well as the Fonds de solidarité des travailleurs du Québec.

The project created 19 new jobs. The hotel is open for business and employs over 60 people in an area of high unemployment.

Maybe it is time the opposition dropped this fishing expedition and started dealing with matters of real importance to Canadians.

[Parliamentarians' Code Of Conduct, March 15th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on Motion No. 200 presented by the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, which requests that the government introduce legislation establishing a code of conduct for members of parliament and senators.

I note that my hon. colleague has drawn on the work accomplished by the special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on a code of conduct, which was established by the government in 1995. Specifically my hon. colleague refers to the committee's final report, which proposed a code to be administered by the House and the Senate that drew on many of the common elements raised during the testimony of its witnesses over the course of a two year indepth study.

For example, the committee mentioned the following: that a list of principles should precede such a code; that a commissioner or a body be appointed to provide advice, take disclosures and enforce the code, as does the ethics counsellor for ministers and parliamentary secretaries now; the need for general rules against parliamentarians improperly using influence and insider information to further their private interests; the importance of dealing with disclosure of assets and interests; the need to address gifts, personal benefits and sponsored travel; the importance of clarifying the area of government contracting; and recognizing the distinction between the legislature and the executive by recommending that a permanent committee be established to administer such a code.

The special joint committee heard from many witnesses, including the federal ethics counsellor, the privacy commissioner, academics in the field, political scientists, respected members of the media and several provincial commissioners of ethics. At the time, both sides of the House and the other place could not agree on this report or on the proposal.

The motion before us here today is very different. It calls for a legislated parliamentary code rather than a code adopted and administered by the House and the other place itself. Indeed, the final report of that special committee, referred to in my hon. friend's motion, recommended against such a legislated parliamentary code. It was felt that such an approach would make any code too rigid to administer and difficult to adapt to evolving circumstances.

Special joint committee members expressed further concern that a legislated code might invite judicial interference in internal parliamentary procedures. Consequently, the committee recommended that a code be implemented by resolutions in each Chamber. That of course is different from a legislated statutory code of ethics.

As I mentioned earlier, the special joint committee's report was not adopted because members of parliament themselves could not agree to adopt the report. I recall as an individual member at the time being generally in support of having a code but asking if such a code would necessarily have to involve spouses of parliamentarians. There were one or two spouses of parliamentarians at the time who essentially told us to go to hell, saying that they would not have their personal lives interfered with because of the fact that their spouses happened to be members of parliament and that their personal business dealings would not be made part of the public record.

That was just one of the obstacles members had to encounter at that time. That was for ordinary members of parliament, not for cabinet ministers, recalling, of course, that cabinet ministers and parliamentary secretaries in this place are already subject to a code of ethics.

The challenge lies in the lack of agreement in the House, including the lack of agreement within parties in the House. For its part, the government has taken specific actions on integrity and ethics, including the appointment of the first ever ethics counsellor in the history of Canada, who provides advice on issues relating to matters of conflict of interest and the ethical conduct of government officials, including ministers and parliamentary secretaries, and who reports to parliament on his duties and investigations under the Lobbyists Registration Act.

There is a new conflict of interest code for public office holders, which sets out principles and clear rules for all public office holders. That includes ministers, secretaries of state, parliamentary secretaries, ministerial staff and full time governor in council appointees. It was tabled in the House in 1994. That code of ethics has been functioning well for seven years, notwithstanding the jaded view of the opposition in the House.

In addition, the Lobbyists Registration Act amendments increase the transparency of lobbying activities. All lobbyists now have to reveal more about their projects and their fees and are prohibited from including contingency fees in their contracts.

The government has delivered on commitments to improve the standards of ethical behaviour in government, but the issue of ethics and a code of conduct for parliamentarians is not one for the government alone. It is an issue for all members of parliament and for senators. A code of conduct is a matter which all parliamentarians have and must have an interest in. It is a matter that should have the support and agreement of all members of the House and the other Chamber.

Until now, members have decided to rely on informal mechanisms rather than adopt a formal code administered by the House and Senate. That is for ordinary members of parliament and does not refer to ministers and parliamentary secretaries. A legislated code would appear to run counter to that view, as well as counter to the advice in 1997 of the joint committee's report.

For these reasons, I urge members to reconsider this and, in fact, not support this motion, which would in the end impose a piece of legislation, a statute codifying a code of ethics. Rather, I urge members to consider the template and mechanism of having a code of ethics adopted and administered by the House and a similar, if not identical, code of ethics adopted and administered by senators, members of parliament in the other place.

[Supply, March 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in connection with today's debate I think you would find consent for the following motion. I move:

That at the conclusion of the present debate on today's Opposition Motion, all questions necessary to dispose of this motion be deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested and deferred to the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on Tuesday, March 20, 2001.