Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today to the motion by the right hon. member for Calgary Centre that was originally introduced in October of 2000. For the benefit of the people who are not aware of what this debate is about, the motion reads:
That an Order of the House do issue for the production of copies of all reports of the Ethics Counsellor concerning the former Solicitor General.
I find it rather ironic, however, that twice now since this House has resumed sitting I have been called to speak in this place on issues of ethics relating to the terrible record of the current government on and with respect to ethics. It seems no matter how fast the government attempts to force through a highly debatable ethics bill, one incident after another continues to stain and tarnish the old reputation of the current Liberal regime.
A comparison could be made to that carny game or midway game where one tries to hit fake groundhogs with a hammer faster than they can pop up, except in this case the hammer is poor government legislation and the groundhogs are ethical disasters.
This government has faced a long list of debacles and ethical blunders that has caused the resignation of four members of the Crown and, in addition, some questions regarding ethical conduct remain unanswered.
Prime minister number one faces unresolved questions regarding the now infamous Shawinigate affair. Prime minister number two faces unresolved questions regarding his blind trust over a multi-million dollar shipping empire, a blind trust that allowed several sneak peeks through venetian blinds when the million dollar deals were on the table, kind of like having a chance to look at one's own quarterly reports.
Most recently a long list of government overspending on travel and hospitality expenses has made it clear that the former privacy commissioner was not alone in his zest for fancy meals and exotic trips.
The motion I am discussing today relates to one particular ethical groundhog that the Liberals keep wishing will just go away. This is the case, obviously, of the former solicitor general.
The motion refers to the finding of the ethics counsellor that the former solicitor general was innocent of any wrongdoing shortly before the member resigned from cabinet. The obvious question that has yet to be answered is this. If the member had done nothing wrong, why would he be forced to resign? There is a real paradox here to which somehow or another I am not quite seeing the answer.
In a court of law it would be unheard of for a man or a woman to stand accused of a crime where the evidence was hidden from the jury and for the judge to proclaim him innocent before sending him to prison anyway. The former solicitor general stands accused, yet the evidence is hidden from the jury of the Canadian public. The ethics counsellor has proclaimed him innocent, yet he was sent to the backbenches of the Liberal Party as punishment.
By comparison, if both prime minister number one and prime minister number two were as innocent as the former solicitor general, then the precedent would be they would resign as well. I realize that does not seem logical, but following the logic that the government has already put into place, that is exactly what would happen.
For those who do not recall the main incident in question today, a brief refresher course might be in order.
In the fall of 2002 it was revealed that the member for Cardigan, Prince Edward Island had been involved in the granting of several contracts that benefited his friends, his supporters and his family. These contracts were awarded to the member's brother, to the president of the P.E.I. Liberal Association and to his personal friend and official agent, Everett Roche. It was obvious that these contracts were not remotely in the spirit of the conflict of interest guidelines as, while they did not benefit the member directly, they did benefit his friends and family. The member in question, despite the evidence, continued to believe that he was serving the interests of his riding rather than conducting a blatant act of political patronage.
Prime minister number one's loyal ethics counsellor has assured us that the former solicitor general did nothing wrong, but refuses to produce the evidence that proves that he did nothing wrong. If the government has not earned the trust of Canadians on ethical issues, why should the people believe the ethics counsellor?
A man who is required only to report to the Prime Minister presents an opportunity for the government to round up all the loose ethical groundhogs and hide them behind the barn on Sussex Drive. Given this record of covering up ethical debacles, it is no surprise that the stonewall of silence has yet again been lowered to defend against the right hon. member's motion for the production of papers. If there is nothing to hide, produce the papers.
But wait, what is this? The government has introduced a new ethics bill that will make the ethics commissioner more accountable to Parliament. The proposed ethics commissioner will have powers to investigate ethical issues, analyze facts and draw conclusions. That information will be released to the prime minister, to the person making the complaint and to the minister under investigation.
Canadians should note, however, that although the bill calls for information to be released simultaneously to the public, the commissioner will also provide the prime minister with confidential information that will not be included in the public report. In other words, the government is reserving the right to edit the public record and hold back any damaging or unethical findings.
To resort once again to my groundhog analogy, and we would call them woodchucks usually in the east coast, the government wants to reserve the right to hide the evil and malicious groundhogs out behind the barn and let the nice, cute innocent ones hop around in the House of Commons. Rural Canadians know how to look after groundhogs.
That being said, those members who have broken the code of ethics should not be protected if they are guilty of crimes of which they stand accused. Further, the electorate needs to know if its representative has broken its trust.
Therefore the Progressive Conservative Party is pleased that after many years of deplorable ethical conduct, prime minister number one's last gift to Canada is to impose a stricter code of conduct on his successor.
Canadians will wonder however whether the timing of the bill is for the good of the country or is it one last joke at the expense of prime minister number two? Perhaps so. It is the hope of the Progressive Conservatives that it will not be lame duck legislation and that it will be a first step in leading to improved ethical standards and parliamentary reform in Canada.
With respect to the motion in question today, the Liberals will likely hide once again behind Beauchesne's citation 446 as an excuse not to disclose information citing papers that may reflect negatively on the personal competence or character of an individual or papers that should remain within cabinet confidence should be hidden from the public. The Liberals have pulled the manoeuvre consistently since October 2002, citing that protection of an ethical groundhog's personal character is more important than the fact that they are eating every crop in sight.
Having said that, Beauchesne's citation 446 also cites that in 1973 the Liberal government tabled in the House of Commons its views on the principles and exemptions governing motions for the production of papers. The House of Commons never accepted these principles and exemptions, which is kind of remarkable actually, outlined in Beauchesne's and the House has never agreed to the government's self-preserving restrictions and has always reserved the right to call for the production of any necessary documentation, as it should.
Therefore, I would urge the government to stop hiding its ethical disasters and instead deal with them in a manner that is open, forthright and final. A good place for the government to start addressing these ethical questions would be to produce the papers of the ethics counsellor regarding the member for Cardigan, the former solicitor general.
