Dick Harris

[Committees Of The House, April 21st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I move that the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Finance presented on Friday, June 12, 1998, be concurred in.

I will be sharing my time with the member for Souris—Moose Mountain.

This report from the finance committee deals with the issue of tied selling in the banking industry. I think it is important to note that the banks have long been regarded as captains of the financial industry in Canada. They are heavily regulated by requirement of the government. As well, they are required to operate in a most transparent and ethical manner by the consumers of their business.

Private industry is willing to present to the public a code of ethics or a code of conduct by which it operates so that the people looking to put their trust in their institutions can plainly see the guidelines the banks are going to operate by. The public, the consumers of those services, is able to clearly judge whether those institutions are in fact operating within the guidelines of their code of ethics or code of conduct.

No one will argue that the banking industry is a powerful decision maker in the financial sector and in the economy. It makes very powerful decisions that affect the economy. However, those decisions are less powerful than the Liberal cabinet which sits on the front benches of the government.

While the banks are prepared voluntarily to lay out their code of conduct, their code of ethics, their principles for all to see and to judge them by, the Liberal government has refused, for a number of years now, to make public the code of ethics that the Prime Minister himself says exists, the special code of ethics that he has for his ministers. He has been telling us since 1994 that indeed he has a special code of ethics that his ministers must adhere to and be judged by.

As the Canadian public, the consumers of banking services, ask the banking institutions to have their code of ethics made public—and which they have no problem in complying—we in the Reform Party have been asking the Prime Minister himself to make public the code of ethics, that supposedly exists, that his cabinet members, the most powerful decision makers in the country, are bound to adhere to. Yet he has refused every single request for the public presentation of that code of ethics.

We also understand that he has an ethics counsellor who helped draft the code of ethics. We have requested from the ethics counsellor a copy of this code of ethics but he has told us to speak to the Prime Minister. We have been talking and pleading with the Prime Minister to table in the House this mysterious code of ethics, if it actually exists, so that not only opposition members of parliament but even his own backbench members of parliament would be able to see this code of ethics. As well, the Canadian public would be able to see this mysterious code of ethics that the Prime Minister has maintained over the years actually exists.

Despite the numerous requests to the Prime Minister to table this code of ethics, he has refused to do so a number of times. To date, we have not seen it. He says he has it. We have asked for it but he has not presented it.

One can only draw one of two conclusions: Either the Prime Minister has not been totally honest with us in saying that he has—

[Code Of Ethics, April 20th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, since 1995 the Prime Minister has told the House and all Canadians that he has a ministerial code of ethics to which his cabinet has to adhere. Unfortunately, despite all the requests, he has never made it public. We have asked him a number of times.

I would like to ask a question of the government and the cabinet members, any one of them. Does it not embarrass them that their boss has a code of ethics for them that he is afraid to make public?

Will the cabinet members ask their boss as soon as possible to table it in the House and end all the—

[Petitions, April 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my third petition is from constituents of Prince George—Bulkley Valley as well.

They are concerned about the misunderstanding of the act of marriage which is clearly defined by government acts. They pray that parliament enact Bill C-225, an act to amend the Marriage Act and the Interpretation Act, so as to define in statute that a marriage can only be entered into between a single male and a single female.

[Petitions, April 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my second petition is also from citizens of Prince George—Bulkley Valley.

They are very concerned about the practice of abortion in the country and the taking of over 105,000 innocent human lives every year. Therefore the petitioners call upon parliament to enact legislation against causing the death of an unborn human by abortion at any stage along the continuum of prenatal life.

[Petitions, April 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to present three petitions from constituents of the great riding of Prince George—Bulkley Valley.

The first one contains several hundred names of people who are very concerned about the growing trade in child pornography. They are very concerned about the lack of government action on curbing child pornography.

These petitioners plead for the federal government to do whatever is in its power to uphold the current provisions of the Criminal Code against the possession of child pornography.

[Taxation, April 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the Y2K bug has come early to the Minister of Industry.

The Liberal government's high tax regime is a threat to our current high tech industry, while the tax system in the U.S. is welcoming our brightest and best with open arms.

I ask the Prime Minister once again, before the whole industry logs off, shuts down and exits this tax program, will he bring in tax relief to keep our high tech industry in Canada, providing jobs for our brightest?

[Taxation, April 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the industry minister talks about being on track. The track that Canada's brightest and best are on is straight to the U.S., which has a tax system that welcomes them with open arms, while Canada's tax system drives them out of this country. Now Nortel has joined other captains of industry in telling the government to clean up its tax act or they are out of here.

I ask the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister, before the entire high tech industry logs off, shuts downs and exits this government's odious tax program, will they bring in some tax relief?

[Code Of Ethics, April 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am impressed that the hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington has demonstrated that he can think for himself. I appreciate that.

I know that in his heart of hearts he sees merit in this motion. I also know that in his heart of hearts he does not truly believe the argument which he just put forward because it does not hold water. The fact that there apparently is no code of ethics for regular MPs has no bearing on the responsibility of our Prime Minister, the leading political figure of Canada. It does not exempt him in any way from showing leadership and producing a code of ethics which would apply to the most powerful decision makers in the country. We cannot compare the cabinet member's decision making powers with those of other MPs in this House. There is no comparison.

This motion is all about putting in place a code of ethics that would give Canadians confidence that the most powerful decision makers in this country, which are the cabinet members, have a code of conduct or guideline which they must adhere to in the performance of their duties and in their decision making exercise. This code of ethics should be transparent so that on a daily basis Canadians can observe whether these powerful decision makers are operating in a manner which is respective and indicative of their jobs. That is not rocket science to understand.

The first reaction of most people who hear the opposition to Motion P-31 might be that the reason Liberal members of parliament and other MPs would oppose it is that they themselves lack a little trust in how the government's cabinet members conduct their jobs and how they conduct themselves in the performance of their duties. If they had full confidence in the ethics and integrity of their cabinet members, then what on earth would they have to fear about having a very public code of ethics? They would have no fear of their members breaking that code.

Liberal members are standing up to oppose the public presentation of a code of ethics for their cabinet ministers. For what reason? One has to assume they fear that their cabinet ministers may not be operating in an ethical manner. That is the only conclusion Canadians who are watching this debate tonight can draw. If they have nothing to hide, then put it out in the public. That is what Canadians understand.

The flaw is not that there is no common code of ethics for MPs. The Prime Minister has stood in the House and told us time and time again that there did exist a special code of ethics for his cabinet members, that his cabinet ministers have read it and they understand it. The big flaw in the government is that the Prime Minister is not going to let the public know exactly what that code of ethics is. How can the Canadian people have any trust in a Prime Minister who would withhold a code of ethics for his cabinet ministers?

I urge all members to support this motion, including the Liberal members who will want to show the Canadian people that the government has an ethical cabinet.

[Code Of Ethics, April 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, just out of curiosity, if the member for Elk Island takes only seven minutes, can he share another five minutes with me so that I may have 10 minutes in total for closing?

[Code Of Ethics, April 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to clarify the remaining time left in this debate because my colleague from Elk Island, as I understand it, wants to speak.