Mr. Speaker, I could talk about what the member for West Vancouver--Sunshine Coast said, but Lester B. Pearson said that one day the ones who threw mud would lose ground.
I have known this member for a long time and I visited him when he was the speaker in the legislature in B.C. I always considered him to be a great gentleman. I even raised money for him in his riding. However I do not know what happens to a member of parliament who becomes a reformist or an Alliance member. He is not the gentleman that I knew before, but I will not add anything more.
I am pleased to take part in this important debate because it is necessary to bring some context to issues which rightly concern members of this House and all Canadians and because of the need to tone down the rhetoric, to deal with the facts and to show mutual respect. Public life is a difficult calling, and I have been a public person for 39 years, but it is a noble life.
I am certain that we all agree that none of us are in this House of Commons for reasons other than a desire to serve our country and our constituents to the best of our ability. We are certainly not here for the perks, unless very long working hours and working weeks are considered perks. We are not here for the money. Most of us could make more in the private sector with less work and a lot more family time. I believe that what I just said about members of parliament applies in the same way to the Public Service of Canada.
Having said that, none of us are perfect. We all make mistakes. Our electors know that. In my case my wife knows that and reminds me of it once in a while. I believe that we all make our mistakes in good faith. Our motives on all sides of the House are the right ones. All of us are committed to the public interest and to the public good. We can disagree and we can debate. However let us do that in ways that increase respect for our democratic institutions, not in ways that call them into disrepute.
In an organization as large as the Government of Canada, mistakes are made every day. They always have been and always will be. Governments should be judged not on whether mistakes are made but on how problems and mistakes are identified and how they are corrected.
We on this side of the House have every reason to be proud of our record. I am proud that we gave the auditor general the ability to issue four reports a year rather than one. I am proud that we expanded the role of internal departmental audits, that we publicize them and put them on web sites. I am proud that we publicly identify and correct administrative errors.
Because I have been around a long time, I knew that increasing the amount of audit activity would make question period a lot more interesting for the opposition and for the media. This is what a government of integrity does. It publicly identifies problems and fixes them. This is not the essence of scandal. It is the essence of good government. We have raised the bar and I am proud of it.
Integrity and public trust are the foundation of democratic government. Since we took office in 1993, we have introduced a conflict of interest code for public office holders. We have introduced the post of ethics counsellor, the first such office to be created in any Commonwealth country. And we have made substantial reforms to the Lobbyists Registration Act, increasing transparency and casting the light of day onto the lobby industry.
I have spoken to this House many times with pride about the record of ministerial probity and high standards of integrity of our government. The world has also taken notice. Since issuing its first report in 1995, Transparency International, the world's leading international organization dedicated to rooting out corruption in government and business, has ranked Canada as the G-8 nation with the lowest level of perceived corruption. And among the seven best in the world.
But I will not be satisfied until we are at the very top. Am I proud of our record? Without a doubt. Is it perfect? Of course not. Have we done enough? No. We must do better. And we will do better.
Indeed, two weeks from now, I will set out a bold eight-point plan of action. Today, let me set out the key elements of the plan we have been working on.
First, for the first time ever, we will make public the guide for ministers and secretaries of state, which outlines the standards of ethical conduct that should guide them. This guide has been around since 1993.
Second, we will be releasing revised rules for ministerial dealings with crown corporations. They will clarify the relationship between ministers, MPs and crown corporations when dealing with constituency matters.
Third, I will be making public guidelines to govern ministerial fundraising for personal political purposes. These will establish rules and procedures that will ensure that such fundraising causes no real or apparent conflict of interest.
Fourth, beginning, this fall, I will table the first annual report of the ethics counsellor to parliament on the range of his duties and activities. And the ethics counsellor will be available to a parliamentary committee to be examined on his report.
For the fifth point in our action plan, in consultation with the opposition parties and drawing inspiration from the Milliken-Oliver report, it is our intention to proceed in the fall with a stand-alone code of conduct for members of parliament and senators.
Sixth, following up on the work of the industry committee of the House, in the fall we will table changes to the Lobbyists Registration Act to enhance clarity, transparency and enforcement.
Seventh, in the fall we will propose fundamental changes to the legislation governing the financing of political parties and candidates for office.
Eighth, we will introduce measures that will strengthen the ability and responsibility of senior public servants to exercise propriety and due diligence in the management of public funds.
The reason for the action plan is to better serve the public, but let us put some of this into perspective. We spent weeks and months in the House early in the year 2000 debating an internal audit of Human Resources Development Canada. Yes, we found some bad record keeping and some poor administration, but we also found deep philosophical disagreements, as we remember, as to the role of government in promoting literacy, in helping the disadvantaged and people with disabilities, in helping students to find summer jobs, et cetera. The opposition was opposing this. We were doing that for the poor and the weak in this society.
Despite the excess of rhetoric, there was no scandal, there was no “shovelgate”. There were administrative mistakes, which have been fixed. Public money went to good purpose.
Today we are debating a sponsorship program. If mistakes were made, we will correct them. If money was improperly spent, we will try to recover it. If anyone broke the law, that person will have to face the courts.
Indeed, I have asked the President of the Treasury Board, even before the auditor general reports on the past, to make recommendations for the future on how sponsorship, advertising and polling could be better managed to ensure value for money and to make these recommendations before the House returns in September.
Let me speak about the motives behind the program. Quite frankly, we had a close call in the referendum of 1995. Right after the referendum we took urgent action on many fronts. We passed a resolution on distinct society. We passed a law concerning constitutional vetoes. We transferred control of labour market training to most of the provinces. I brought in new ministers from Quebec. We made reference to the supreme court on the issue of secession. We passed the Clarity Act.
Yes, we undertook to raise the visibility of the Government of Canada in Quebec.
It was an urgent situation, we acted with a sense of urgency, and with urgent actions mistakes can happen. It appears that some mistakes were made and we are determined to correct them, but all in all I think it is fair to say that thanks to the range of actions we took Canada is a much more united country today than it was in October 1995 and of course a much stronger country economically. Just ask Moody's of New York, which has given us the best overall rating because of the strength of our economy and it noted that it is precisely because of the strength of our unity.
Canadians take great pride in our standing in the world. We are known throughout the world for having governments of integrity, for having a private sector of integrity and for being a people of integrity. Clearly we have raised the bar. Canadians expect and demand the very best we can give them. Let us now work together to raise the bar even higher.
Winston Churchill once said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others. I have been in the House since 1963. I love debate, I welcome challenges and I am very proud to defend our record, but I am humble enough to admit that mistakes have been made and I am determined enough to correct them.
However, I ask of everyone, opposition, government and the media, let us tone down our rhetoric. Let us acknowledge our differences but respect the people and respect the motives. In this way we can all get on with what really counts: the business of Canadians, building a strong economy, an inclusive society, safe and secure communities, a distinctive Canadian place in the world and a very strong and very united country.
