Geoff Regan

[Privilege, April 22nd, 2002]

That is what he said.

[Committees of the House, April 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you were to seek it you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, in relation to its study on the Examination of the Free Trade Area of the Americas in view of strengthening economic relations between Canada and the Americas, the Subcommittee on International Trade, Trade Disputes and Investment of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade be authorized to travel to Sao Paulo, Brazil, Santiago, Chile, San José, Costa Rica, Lima, Peru, Bogata, Colombia, from April 28 to May 12, and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee.

(Motion agreed to)

[Committees of the House, April 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I think that if you were to seek it you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That the motion of Wednesday, April 17 permitting the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans to travel to Vancouver and Port McNeil, B.C., be amended by striking the words “from April 20 to 26” and inserting therefore the words “from May 6 to 10”.

(Motion agreed to)

[Committees of the House, April 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That the House proceed to orders of the day.

[Government Response to Petitions, April 18th, 2002]

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

[Air Travel Complaints Commissioner, April 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the report of the Air Travel Complaints Commissioner from July 2000 to December 2001.

[Code of Ethics for Ministers Act, April 17th, 2002]

I hear the House leader for the Conservatives commenting on my comments. We have not forgotten, nor has the public, the depths to which the confidence in government fell when his party was in government some years ago.

Under this government the Prime Minister and his ministers have been and remain accountable to parliament for their policies and their ethical behaviour. However beyond undermining the Prime Minister's personal responsibility for his ministers, the bill would also undermine accountability and our system of responsible government in general.

As I mentioned earlier, we must congratulate the member for Verchères--Les-Patriotes on raising the issue of the integrity of public office holders in the House. As everyone knows, public office is a matter of trust. In 1994, the Prime Minister told the House that “the trust in institutions... is as vital to a democracy as the air we breathe”.

The standards the government has kept since 1993 have raised the bar for ethical conduct and Canadians have placed their continued trust in the government by re-electing it in 1997 and 2000. The bill would work against the progress we have made since 1993 and would undermine the principles of democratic government.

The bill is also contrary to the United Kingdom's approach to ministerial ethics, which is what the bill claims to be based on.

For these reasons I cannot support the bill. I urge all hon. members to do likewise.

[Code of Ethics for Ministers Act, April 17th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to the bill introduced by the member for Verchères--Les Patriotes on a code of ethics for ministers. I would first like to congratulate him for having raised this important and serious matter of values and ethics in the House.

This is an important matter for all members of the House. We all have a responsibility to this House and to Canadians for maintaining the highest standards of conduct. The government has made values and ethics a top priority since its 1993 election. In my view the bill before us would have the effect of undermining the progress we have made in restoring values and ethics in the last decade. The summary of the bill states:

It is primarily based on the Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders and the Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament of the United Kingdom.

On the one hand the bill is based on something we already have in place for ministers in Canada, a code the Prime Minister revised and strengthened in 1994. These revisions clarified existing obligations and added new guidelines for government decision making. Preferential treatment to persons or groups based on the individuals hired to represent them was prohibited. Public office holders now must provide reports on the assets and outside activities of their spouses and dependants. The Prime Minister tabled this code in parliament. We do not need a law to bring this code into effect, it is already part of the way government works.

On the other hand the bill says it is based on the Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament of the United Kingdom. In fact the bill only deals with ministers and not all members of parliament. The U.K. code is just that, a code, not an act of parliament. There is nothing in it that is legally enforceable. It derives its authority from resolutions of the house, not statute or common law.

Bill C-388 would override the Prime Minister's responsibilities for ministerial ethics. All members of this House should be proud of our traditions as a parliamentary democracy. Parliamentary democracy means the Prime Minister and ministers are accountable to parliament, as we see every day during question period. This includes the ethical behaviour of ministers.

In our system of responsible government the Prime Minister is accountable for the conduct of ministers. He sets the standards of conduct and makes sure they are met. As the Prime Minister has said, the buck stops with him. Bill C-388 would take that responsibility away and make the House responsible for the conduct of the ministry, which is not the practice in the U.K. and other countries.

The U.K. parliament has a guide to the rules relating to the conduct of members to accompany its code. This guide states explicitly that additional guidelines and requirements for ministers are given by the prime minister and are not enforced by the British house of commons. That is because in the U.K., as in Canada, the prime minister not the house of commons is responsible for the conduct of his or her ministers as the case may be.

Clause 3 refers to the fact that the purpose of this bill is to bolster public confidence. I congratulate the hon. member who, like the government, wants to enhance public trust in elected representatives.

In 1994, the Prime Minister declared before this House that, since the 1993 election, “no goal has been more important to this government, or to me personally as Prime Minister, than restoring the trust of Canadians in their institutions”.

The government is accountable to parliament on integrity in government and has taken action. The Prime Minister tabled a revised and strengthened conflict of interest and post-employment code for public office holders, and appointed an independent ethics counsellor to administer the code following consultation with the opposition on the selection of that ethics counsellor.

The role of the ethics counsellor on ministerial conduct is clear. He acts independently and he is the Prime Minister's adviser on matters related to conflict of interest and the ethical conduct of government officials including ministers.

The government brought forward amendments to increase transparency and strengthen the Lobbyists Registration Act. We moved the lobby industry out of the shadows and into the light. We gave the job of ethics counsellor real teeth and strong investigative powers and made sure that his reports under the act were tabled in parliament. The ethics counsellor can also be asked to appear before parliamentary committees and has done so.

Under the leadership and direction of the Prime Minister the government has an excellent record of promoting openness and integrity in government. In fact one of the amendments to the Lobbyists Registration Act when it was before the House was made by an opposition member, the member for Elk Island.

We made it possible for there to be more opportunity for policy debates in the House and have innovated with pre-budget consultations. The auditor general used to report only once a year, as we all know. The government made it possible for there to be four reports in a year. We saw one of those four reports yesterday.

In 1995 we created a special joint committee to establish a code of conduct for members of parliament and senators. Unfortunately, we were unable to get the support of opposition parties to make the code a reality. The government took measures to reform the pension plan for members of parliament and senators and stop double dipping.

In 1999, the government established guidelines on donations made by crown corporations to political parties. We improved the Canada Elections Act so that the influence of third parties would not be disproportionately greater than other stakeholders in the electoral process. The guidelines on ministers' dealings with quasi-judicial bodies were strengthened.

Ensuring public confidence in government remains a guiding concern for us today. Now in 2002 the government is developing new guidelines with respect to ministers' dealings with crown corporations. The government has also taken steps to strengthen integrity at all levels of government.

Under the leadership of this government, the public service has taken a number of tangible measures, including the following: in 1996, there was a study and a report on public service values and ethics; an Office of Values and Ethics was created in the Treasury Board Secretariat; the deputy ministers, co-champions of values and ethics, undertook a sustained dialogue in order to enlist the co-operation of all public servants; employee training and information modules were developed.

Today consultations are under way on a draft statement of principles for the public service to help set out and enshrine its values and ethics.

The government is committed to restoring integrity and public confidence in government. I am confident that our comprehensive program of initiatives has served and continues to serve Canadians.

We have not forgotten the depth to which public confidence in government sank during the government of the Conservatives.

[Points of Order, April 17th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. With all due respect to my hon. colleague, it is clear that once members of the House come here to vote they have an opportunity and the responsibility to stay and vote. Hon. members who decided to leave the House this evening in protest or for whatever reason had the opportunity to stay. They all knew there would be a vote after the first one. They decided not to be here for it. That was their choice. If they did not wish to stay for the vote it was their choice.

The hon. member suggests we have to sit here and waste the House's time by ringing the bells for half an hour for no reason other than some members want to play games. That is certainly not a valid objection.

[Committees of the House, April 17th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, again if you would seek it, I think you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, in relation to its study on the Canadian broadcasting system, the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage be authorized to travel to Iqaluit, Whitehorse and Yellowknife from May 26 to 31, 2002 and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee.