Larry Bagnell

[Budget Implementation Act, 2004, May 4th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise today to talk about this budget that has proposed so much that is good for the country. It will be very delightful to see in the end which members of the opposition actually will vote against all these good provisions.

What is most exciting for me is that this really is--

[Fisheries Act, May 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, my interest is with the aboriginal people and I want to ensure that I am on record. The NDP spoke about the consultations and suggested that two groups were being pitted against each other. I want everyone to know that all aboriginal groups across the country were consulted. They understand the situation will be better after this bill because certain regulations that would help them would have been disavowed. Now the exemptions will be in the act. It is a chance for the minister and cabinet to put into licences those things resulting from court cases.

Does the member want to add anything on the aboriginal front? I just wanted to ensure that was clarified.

[Criminal Code, May 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak today to sending Bill C-32 to committee. I am delighted to hear all the other parties supporting it although I was a bit astounded by the Bloc's suggestion about rudderlessness. As we know, the government has a lot of bills on the list today. We are going to a fisheries bill next. We have had many bills related to self-government and first nations financial institutions and a huge agenda in the budget and the throne speech.

When reporters review question period since Christmas, they will find out that it is the Bloc members that are rudderless. What proposals have they provided to us for the betterment of Canada, for the betterment of and better programs for Canadians? If we were to look through the Bloc's questions in question period, we would see that there really are no proposals there. There are no questions on the very dramatic program we have in the throne speech and the budget for rebuilding the social foundations and reinvigorating Canada's educational system, to be prepared for the modern economy and to reinvigorate Canada's place in the world. There is nothing to that effect in the Bloc's agenda or the questions during question period. I do not think that Bloc members should suggest that others are rudderless.

Bill C-32, related to driving while impaired by alcohol or a drug, is a complex health, road safety and justice problem. Addressing it requires combined efforts of governments, police, schools, public and private organizations, families and individuals. Where legislation, whether provincial, territorial or federal, can contribute to fighting impaired driving, it should contribute.

Is there a gap in the impaired driving offences provided for in the Criminal Code? The answer is no. In fact, the Criminal Code has had an offence for driving under the effects of alcohol since 1921. The code also has an offence relating to drugs and driving since 1925. Driving while impaired by alcohol or a drug is already a serious Criminal Code offence with serious penalties, including a maximum of life imprisonment for impaired driving that causes death.

The offence of driving while impaired by alcohol or a drug includes driving while impaired by a combination of alcohol and drugs. The offence covers all kinds of drugs: illicit, prescription, and over-the-counter drugs. In order to prove the offence of driving while impaired by a drug, there is no requirement to show what the drug concentration level was while impaired by that drug. This is not as easy as it sounds, because it may be difficult for the untrained officer to recognize the physical effects of each drug found within the vast range of drugs other than alcohol.

Is there a difficulty in investigating drug-impaired driving incidents? The answer is clearly yes. Currently, where police officers do have training to administer roadside physical sobriety tests, or the more involved tests at the station, they can only seek the voluntary participation of a driver in these tests when conducting an investigation of a drug-impaired driving offence under the Criminal Code. If the driver refuses, there is no criminal law sanction.

Bill C-32 will give the police the authority they need to better investigate drug-impaired driving offences. It provides that a peace officer may demand physical sobriety tests at the roadside, more involved tests at the station, and a sample of urine, saliva or blood in order to test for the presence of drugs. Refusal of the demands would be a Criminal Code offence.

Since 1995, British Columbia has trained many police officers in standardized field sobriety tests that are used at the roadside and in drug recognition expert evaluations that are used at the police station. Several other provinces now have trained officers.

Some might ask what the federal government is doing. Some of the opposition members were asking questions about the money. Already to date, the government has committed more than $5 million toward drug recognition expert training. Training in standardized field sobriety tests and drug recognition expertise is already being rolled out nationally through a national coordinator who is an RCMP officer.

The national drug recognition expert coordinator works with instructors from the RCMP and provincial, regional and municipal forces in an approach that will “train the trainers” in order to build the capacity to develop standardized field sobriety tests and drug recognition expert officers across the country. A mid-term evaluation that incorporates a national needs assessment for training is to be undertaken in the 2005-06 fiscal year.

Scientists are much more familiar with the effects of alcohol on driving than they are in relation to other drugs. Similarly, researchers are more familiar with alcohol in relation to driver fatality data because they have been at it far longer and coroners have a higher rate for alcohol testing of fatally injured drivers. What is interesting is that even without complete testing of fatally injured drivers for drugs in all provinces and territories and even without vast numbers of studies on the effects of each of many drugs upon the skills used for driving, there is broad agreement that drug-impaired driving presents a serious problem and that drug-impaired driving is appropriately among offences within the Criminal Code.

Over the coming years, I am sure that we will see more research that will help us to broaden our understanding of the problem of drug-related impaired driving. That understanding could help to focus other parts of the prevention puzzle, such as education and public information, along with rehabilitative measures.

Over the past two decades there has been an increasing awareness of the dangers of driving while impaired by alcohol and drugs. There is far less tolerance today for such alcohol-impaired driving than there was in the past. Undoubtedly this progress also has an effect on the twin problems of drug-impaired driving and driving while impaired by a drug-alcohol cocktail. Canadians are not willing to put up with the dangers posed by drug-impaired driving.

I am aware some would argue that we should have legal limits for each of the many drugs, just as we have a legal limit in the Criminal Code for alcohol. Alcohol has a steady rate of absorption and elimination. Scientists are readily agreed that a significant increase of crash risk occurs above .08 for drivers, regardless of age. For the vast majority of other drugs, it is not so easy to find agreement on the threshold at which crash risk assessment is significantly increased. That is why the support from the drugs and driving committee of the Canadian Society of Forensic Science has come for drug recognition expert programs rather than for drug legal limits.

Bill C-32 has benefited from feedback provided on a public consultation paper on drug-impaired driving, released last fall. Several provinces have provided comments. Some individual Canadians have commented, as have many organizations, including the Canadian Bar Association, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, the Canada Safety Council, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the Canadian Association of Police Chiefs, the Canadian Association of Police Boards, the Canadian Professional Police Association, and the Canadian Medical Association. Bill C-32 incorporates a number of their suggestions.

I am aware that the legislation may be tested in the courts. In several ways it parallels the breath-testing legislation, which has withstood scrutiny. For example, reasonable suspicion is required prior to demands for roadside sobriety tests just as it is prior to demanding breath tests on an approved screening device. Police must have reasonable grounds to believe an offence is being committed before demanding DRE tests at the police station, just as they must have reasonable grounds before demanding a breath test on an approved instrument. I am confident that the bill is solid and that the limits it imposes are justifiable.

Bill C-32 will aid police in the investigation of drug-impaired driving offences. By itself it is not a panacea for the problem of drug-impaired driving. It is, however, a very important piece in the solution. I am asking all members to support the motion to send Bill C-32 to committee for review.

[Canada National Parks Act, May 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to see the opposition is finally coming around to support parks in such a strong way. I wish that support had been there so strongly with the major additions we were making to national parks across the country and to new marine parks.

The Government of Canada, under our party, has made some major additions to national parks and just put in this new policy of ecological integrity. I am delighted that the member supports that.

In regard to the rest of his question, in his speech he spoke about the lack of negotiations and consultation. There was definitely significant negotiation between stakeholders, first nations, the mayors, NGOs and the provinces. It is not true that there was a lack of consultation. He talked about ramming it through in a two week period. However, he said that the bill was presented and briefed on in March. That was a lot longer than two weeks ago. We are in May.

He asked about the Canadian public. I have just discussed all the ways that the Canadian public was consulted. I certainly hope he is not removing the first nations, who are so affected and with whom this partnership is being made, from the Canadian public.

[Canada National Parks Act, May 3rd, 2004]

I look forward to hearing the discussion on it by the member for Medicine Hat.

These land removals can only be done by amending the National Parks Act, which is what we are discussing today.

There has been broad public support, including support from affected first nations, provincial first nation groups, provincial, regional and district governments, including environmental NGOs.

The environmental assessment suggests impacts can be mitigated and the removal of lands will not unduly compromise the ecological integrity of Pacific Rim. There will be no impact on Riding Mountain.

No additional funding is required by Parks Canada or DIAND, and a $2.5 million mitigation fund will be provided to Parks Canada by DIAND.

The outcome of these minor amendments will be that the removal of lands from Pacific Rim will resolve the critical housing problems in Esowista and improve the quality of life of its residents. The removal of lands from Riding Mountain Park will fulfil Canada's obligation to re-establish an Indian reserve. Of course, it will strengthen our relationships with those aboriginal communities.

As I said at the beginning, there will be a minimum impact on the ecological integrity of Pacific Rim Park. That is the one aspect I want to talk about today.

The excising of land from Pacific Rim National Park Reserve to provide for the expansion of the Esowista Indian Reserve has raised a question of whether this has implications for the ecological integrity of Pacific Rim. I am pleased to address this question directly.

Pacific Rim National Park Reserve is located on the beautiful western coast of Vancouver Island. It is a narrow strip of lush rain forest buffeted by Pacific winds and waves. It is a landscape intertwined with first nations' history and culture. This reality is embedded in the art of the west coast first nations. The representation of ecological elements of the forests as well as the adjoining waters is a characteristic of this art. One has only to recall the marvellous works at the hands of the late Bill Reid.

This is the culture that will dominate the management of the future Indian reserve lands currently within the park. It is a culture that matches with the primary purpose of all national parks, the maintenance or restoration of ecological integrity of national parks.

As was intended, the report was very frank in pointing out the challenges that face our national parks. It confirms that most of Canada's national parks have been progressively losing precisely those important natural components which they are dedicated to protect. Accordingly, the panel has called for a fundamental reaffirmation of the legislative framework that protects the parks, together with policies to conserve these places and the appropriation of funds necessary to support these efforts.

Parks Canada committed itself to implementing the report and the recommendations fully insofar as it was legislatively and fiscally possible. It is now being done with full dialogue with all affected parties and is helped tremendously by the funding announced in the budget of 2003.

Parks Canada's first priority is to maintain or restore the ecological integrity of our national parks. This was prescribed by the governing legislation, the Canada National Parks Act, proclaimed in February 2001. Clause 8 states:

--the maintenance or restoration of ecological integrity through the protection of natural resources and processes, shall be the first priority when considering all aspects of the management of parks.

Why is ecological integrity so important? It is important because the loss of natural features and processes deprives Canadians of the opportunity to use and enjoy these places for the purposes for which they were intended. Loss of ecological integrity contradicts the very purposes for which our parks were set aside and constitutes an irreversible loss of heritage to both current and future generations.

Thus, by making ecological integrity our priority, we are also making people our priority by protecting our precious heritage places, now and forever.

Achieving the maintenance or restoration of ecological integrity also means putting science first. Parks Canada is committed to become a science-based organization. This includes traditional ecological knowledge.

Our parks and our national historic sites are very important symbols of Canada. Canadians, through personal visits and other learning mechanisms, can use these places to enhance their pride and knowledge of Canada and Canadians.

Parks Canada is committed to an expanded outreach program to convey accurate, interesting and up to date information to Canadians. I am sure many people have seen the tremendous visitor sites at Canada's national parks and the various interpretative programs for those visiting the parks. The provision of information by the Internet is a priority for Parks Canada. This approach is paying off, as millions are visiting the Parks Canada website on a monthly basis from not only Canada but also from countries such as Australia, Japan, Italy and Germany.

This type of proactive outreach continues to intensify and is aimed at our urban areas. The objective is, in effect, to bring our national parks and their values to people who may not otherwise have the opportunity to visit them or may visit them only infrequently.

Our marketing programs emphasize the primary conservation purposes of our national parks. Accordingly, visitors are encouraged to understand and respect these purposes and to plan their activities and visits to align with them.

Parks Canada is committed to improving ecological integrity in a number of ways: first, through communication, specifically, enhanced interpretation and educational activities; second, in reducing facility impacts; and third, by implementing up to date environmental management practices and technologies.

Within our tourism and marketing planning, it is important that we are fully aware of the huge economic value and significant social contribution of our parks, both on the local and the national levels.

I would stress that one cannot sustain economic benefits without enhancing both the natural environment of the parks and the visitors' enjoyment of them. It is only common sense that we must maintain or restore the ecological integrity of our parks. People will simply refuse to visit parks that are unacceptably degraded.

I would equally stress that any changes must and will be implemented in full consultation with partners, including provinces and territories, national and regional tourism, non-governmental bodies and of course first nations.

A priority area of the panel's report concerns the impact developments that have their origin in places external to park boundaries. To deal with such factors, the panel has called for renewed and extended partnerships. The proposed transfer of lands is one such partnership.

In this respect the panel was coming from a place of which we are all familiar, the notion that what I do in my own backyard can have significant effects in my neighbour's backyard. It is difficult to overestimate the importance of these issues. As we know, our national parks have many concerns which are shared in common by partners such as territories, provinces, aboriginal peoples, private landowners and various other interests.

In particular, I have never known nature to recognize or respect a human boundary. One day a grizzly bear may be in a national park and the next day in another jurisdiction. Rivers likewise flow through various jurisdictions. Acid rain from many kilometres away becomes a park problem when it impacts national park resources, and the list goes on.

Fundamentally, renewed and extended cooperation among neighbours who share common concerns is the only option toward maintaining ecological integrity. It is in this spirit that first nations and Parks Canada intend to work together to ensure that the ecological integrity of Pacific Rim is indeed a priority.

The bottom line is that we must improve the ways we work together if we are to safeguard the future of national parks. The nature of programs we devise will be so established in cooperation and consultation with interested partners. It is very important to keep good relations with those people on all sides of the park. They indeed are very important in helping to build the success of the park and to maintain its ecological integrity because of the effects they have on the park even though they are outside the borders.

Throughout this process the prerogatives of constitutionally defined jurisdictions, as well as the rights of private property owners, will be respected.

I will sketch a very broad overview of where Parks Canada is coming from and where it hopes to go. I am well aware of these types of considerations. In my own riding of Yukon we have some beautiful national parks, the last bastions of certain ecological protection of species. Therefore, it is very important that our partnerships with the adjacent people are good so we can protect that ecological integrity and some species that may not otherwise exist, right from the Arctic coast to Kluane National Park in the south.

In summary, first, the panel report on ecological integrity was an important milestone for the future of national parks in Canada. Parks Canada is taking it seriously and is moving forward implementing the directions it recommended. Its implementation in a purposeful yet sensitive way is bringing benefits to us all. Its neglect would have meant untold costs to all Canadians forever.

The provinces, territories and aboriginal peoples are and will be significant partners in achieving the protection of our national parks. Of course, because of the various interests and demands on those interests, this has to be done diplomatically and cooperatively with all stakeholders.

Viewed narrowly in terms of jurisdiction alone, Canada's national parks and other federally protected places, fall under the stewardship of the federal government, but they really belong to all of us. They are a legacy of each and every Canadian.

Let us enable future historians to say that on our watch we protected this precious legacy and even left it in better condition than we found it.

Let me assure members of the House that Bill C-28 would strengthen the relationship between Parks Canada and the first nations. In doing so, it would lead to the development of a model housing community living in harmony within the Pacific Rim National Park reserve.

I therefore urge all members to support passage of this bill. It would not only protect the ecological integrity of the parks involved but perform very important functions for adjoining first nations that need this very small amount of land so that they can be successful.

[Canada National Parks Act, May 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak to the amendment to the Canada National Parks Act to remove lands from the Pacific Rim National Park Reserve and Riding Mountain National Park for the purposes of Indian reserves.

I want to give an overview for people so they know what we are debating today. Then I want to concentrate my speech on one topic: the ecological integrity of the Pacific Rim National Park.

Basically, the context for this is the removal of lands. These are very small portions of lands in comparison to the size of these parks. In Pacific Rim National Park, 86.37 hectares would be removed to expand the Esowista Indian Reserve. It responds to an acute housing shortage on the reserve adjacent. A removal of lands of 4.57 hectares from Riding Mountain National Park of Canada would rectify an error in implementing the 1994 specific land claim settlement agreement.

[First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act, April 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am committed to getting on the record some of the opposition to the bill so I will try to go through the amendments quickly so I will have time to do that.

Motion No. 3 regarding clause 30 clarifies that clause 30 would apply only to borrowing laws for long term loans. Clause 30 would establish a rigorous process for the review by the Tax Commission of first nation borrowing laws. This was put in place for the review of laws relating to individual long term borrowing projects. This rigorous process is required to protect the joint liability of the borrowing members of the finance authority in respect of a default on the repayment of a long term loan by an individual member.

Under the bill, the finance authority would also provide short term loans to borrowing members on the basis of a borrowing law which would merely establish global limits to the council's authority to enter into such borrowing. Furthermore, there is no joint liability associated with these short term loans. It was never intended that the more rigorous process outlined in clause 30 would apply to these short term loans.

The amendment would clarify that clause 30 would apply only to borrowing laws respecting long term loans for capital infrastructure for the provision of services on reserve.

Motion No. 4 relates to clause 31 and corrects a grammatical error in the French version of subclause (2). Clause 31 of the bill deals with the process by which individuals can request that the Tax Commission review a local revenue law to determine whether it complies with the requirements of the act or whether it is being applied properly and fairly. This amendment corrects a grammatical error in the French version of subclause 31(2).

Motion No. 5 would amend subclause 34(3) to permit the Tax Commission to delegate certain powers to individual commissioners. Subclause 34(3) of the bill is being proposed as an amendment in the report of the House committee.

Subsequent to that amendment, a further amendment is being sought to provide a means for the commission to delegate its powers to approve property tax laws and to adjudicate complaints to one or more commissioners. This will ensure that property tax laws are approved and hearings held in a timely manner. Without this amendment, if a large number of complaints were filed, the commission might find it impossible to adjudicate them within a reasonable time frame.

This amendment would also provide the commission with the ability to separate the commission's investigative and prosecutorial functions under subsection 31(2). This would avoid the possibility of bias in commission initiated hearings under that subclause.

Motion No. 6 clarifies that capital in the credit enhancement fund can be used to support the debt reserve fund or for a purpose prescribed by regulations.

Clause 83 of the bill deals with the establishment of a credit enhancement fund designed to provide extra support for the credit rating of the securities issued by the finance authority in its early days.

This amendment clarifies that the capital in the credit enhancement fund may be used to temporarily offset a shortfall in the debt reserve fund or for another purpose prescribed by regulations.

The debt reserve fund and the credit enhancement fund established by the finance authority are both required to support a marketable credit rating for securities issued by the authority. It is standard practice for both the capital and interest component of such funds to be available for bridge financing, as required.

The current wording of clause 83 is not sufficiently clear as to the use of the capital in the credit enhancement fund and this could result in first nation bonds attracting a lower credit rating than they otherwise might.

Motion No. 7 provides regulation authority to prescribe other purposes for the use of capital in the credit enhancement fund.

I have just discussed the proposed amendment to clause 83 which clarifies that the capital in the credit enhancement fund may be used to temporarily offset a shortfall in the debt reserve fund, also established by the finance authority or for any other purpose prescribed by regulations.

The purpose of this amendment to clause 87 is to the required regulation making authority.

Motion No. 8 amends French to match English in clause 103.

Clause 103 establishes the scope of data which will be collected, compiled, analysed and distributed by the Statistical Institute. In order to meet its mandate, the institute must deal not only with that data which is specifically tagged aboriginal, but also data which, though not specifically identified as aboriginal data, nonetheless relates to first nations and other aboriginal groups, their members and other Indians, their lands and the resident of their lands. While the English version is clear in respect of this intent, the French version appears to limit the scope of data to that specifically tagged aboriginal.

This amendment corrects the French version of subclause 103(2) so that it matches the English version.

Motion No. 9 relating to clause 105 amends French to match English.

Clause 105 establishes the scope of federal data to which the statistical institute would have access. As was the case for clause 103, in order to meet its mandate, the institute must deal not only with that data which is specifically tagged aboriginal but also data which, though not specifically identified as aboriginal data, nonetheless relates to first nations and other aboriginal groups, their members and other Indians, their lands and the residents of their lands. While the English version in clause 105 is clear with respect to this intent, the French version appears to limit the scope of the data specifically tagged aboriginal.

This amendment corrects the French version in subclause 105(1) so that it matches the English version.

Motion No. 10, amends the French to match the English in Clause 105.

Subclause 105(2) clarifies that the department is not required to provide the statistical institute with access to data which must or may be withheld under any federal law or under any privilege at law. The French version, however, states that the department can only provide access to such data as it is permitted to share under the federal law or privilege at law. As most federal laws deal with prohibitions on the sharing of data rather than permissions for the sharing of data, the French version of subclause 105(2) would be impossible to apply.

This amendment corrects the French version of subclause 105(2) so that it matches the English version.

Motion No. 17, which is the last motion, deals with clause 154. It would delete the coordinating amendments with first nation governance and would add new coordinating amendments with the Public Service Modernization Act. This amendment makes two changes to the bill. First, it deletes the current wording of clause 154 which contained provisions which coordinated the coming into effect of this bill and the proposed first nations governance act which will not be reintroduced. These provisions are no longer needed.

Second, it adds new provisions to clause 154 which provide for the coordination of coming into force of the bill and the Public Service Modernization Act which received royal assent last November.

The Public Service Modernization Act changed the term “public service” to “public administration”. The term “public service” is used in the English version of clauses 58 and 113 of the bill. The new provisions of clause 154 would amend this reference once the Public Service Modernization Act comes into effect.

The French version of clauses 58 and 113 do not require this change.

I would now like to discuss and put on the record some of the concerns people have had about the bill. I first wish to make sure that people know that land claims remain a priority. For me, land claims and self-government are the final and best result. We are working on two bills in the House of Commons right now and we are moving forward in those areas.

Some land claim agreements will take decades because of the various conditions. A number of first nations people have approached the government asking that it set up these institutions in order to help them while the process on self-government and land claims continues.

Therefore this is basically a tool they found out they needed in their financial management that would help them when they are approaching banks and financial institutions and to be able to buy bonds with lower interest rates.

During the discussions on the bill we heard a number of worries from people about having to be involved with this bill. However the amendments to the bill make it quite clear that it is totally optional. People can enter it if they want and they do not have to pay property taxes. They do not have to do anything with the bill unless they so choose. It is there because a group of first nations approached the government and ask to be involved.

A number of first nations want to use the bill and a number that already collect property taxes of course are in rural areas.

People wonder about other options. There are many other options. People do not have to be involved in the bill. They do not have to collect property taxes if they do not want to. They do not have to take loans if they do not want to. First nations can make institutions themselves. They can go ahead and make their own institutions but they found out that the ones they had made did not work in the financial sector to get them the loan rates that they wanted. Therefore they have asked to have this bill.

The following is Justice Lamer's decision:

--it is important that we not lose sight of Parliament's objective in creating the new Indian taxation powers. The regime which came into force in 1988 is intended to facilitate the development of Aboriginal self-government by allowing bands to exercise the inherently governmental power of taxation on their reserves.

It does not affect the Constitution. It does not affect self-government and in fact enhances it. Is my time up, Mr. Speaker? No? Okay.

Aboriginal people have been approaching us on this for years. We should not be holding them up for years and years when we have the ability to put into effect what they are suggesting.

I have one last final point in relation to the cost. I think the estimate was $25 million, which will eventually be self-sustaining, but we will guarantee that we will be putting in $400 million more, either into land claims negotiations or into helping those first nations that need water and basic services as opposed to these particular institutions, which only some first nations are asking for.

[Committees of the House, April 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the point the member brought up about the opposition. It is the opposition's job to bring forward amendments to bills and to perform constructive work in that respect. I asked someone to research the number of times the opposition had wasted our time in the past on some of these motions. Unfortunately, it has not been done yet, but maybe it will be done now so I can have a longer speech when I reply to these types of questions.

The member said the opposition's job was also to bring forward constructive amendments. I would agree with that if that was actually what the opposition was doing. Speeches were given on a number of excellent bills and a number of people on all sides of the House voted for those bills. However, the opposition did not put forward any constructive amendments. There was just mindless debate to stop us from getting on with the business of the House.

I have no problem with discussion going on forever if new points are brought forward. However, when no new points are brought forward, I will bring opposition members to task.

[Committees of the House, April 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the member of the situation with the member for Saskatoon--Humboldt. What is the difference?

I am delighted he brought up the issue of closure motions because it gives me a chance to talk for a while about how the Conservative Party has really performed a disservice in the House by wasting time earlier in this session. Closure motions are used when the opposition puts up endless speakers with irrelevant information and repeating the same type of speeches.

A perfect example of that was when a number of motions that were on the Order Paper from the last session were brought forward for debate and opposition members filibustered for days and wasted the time of the House. Thank goodness there is a provision for closure because the opposition can be stopped from wasting taxpayers' money in such debate. If this issue comes up in the next question asked of me, I have some other examples that I can provide.

In relation to the member's comment on the democratic deficit, he was perfectly right to point out the tremendous change in the House because of the Prime Minister's new initiatives. I can think of three items, the first being free votes. Another initiative was more freedom in parliamentary committees and that has already occurred. All committees chairs have received correspondence on that and it is moving forward. The third initiative was in regard to appointments.

I appreciate the fact that the member is in the House a lot more than many other members and I give him credit for that. What is surprising is his total lack of understanding of how the system has changed. In the previous system, Liberal members voted the same way on many bills because we did not have the three line system. It is a totally different system now.

I voted against the government a number of times under this new system and the whole atmosphere of the House has changed because of it. This is really an historical step in the evolution of the House. This Prime Minister should be given a great deal of credit for bringing it forward and implementing it.

[Committees of the House, April 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to be here in the House today.

I am delighted the member for Elk Island is here because I want to start out debating a particular item he brought up in reference to this motion. He said that the government has the majority and that it can ram a bill through, as if that is what occurs these days. That is a total contradiction to reality.

That has not occurred since the new Prime Minister, the member for LaSalle—Émard, took his spot. Before he even became Prime Minister, removing the democratic deficit was a tremendous part of his platform. He really has re-engaged Parliament and has made massive changes in the way Parliament runs. It came into effect the day he became Prime Minister.

We now have a Westminster system of voting, where there are three different voting options. The first option is totally free votes. The second option is where the government expresses its views and gives some background so that members can hear those views, read the reference materials and then form an opinion.

The third type of vote, which comes with the parliamentary system under which Canadians have chosen to be governed, includes votes on budgets and throne speeches, which is the platform the government has elected. In those situations members still have to show confidence in the elected government.

This new system has been in place since the very first day the member for LaSalle—Émard became Prime Minister. It has made a radical difference, as members in the House have experienced from all sides of the House, in votes on the Liberal side.

When the member says that the Liberal side can control the votes and can control the outcome, then they are controlling it both for and against government initiatives. They are also performing the role of the opposition now in the freedom of votes. If the government members and their constituents are not convinced of the benefit of a majority of bills, then they can vote that way. It is a whole new attitude in Parliament. It is amazing that a new Prime Minister can cause such a dramatic change on his first day in Parliament. It is one of a number of things that have occurred.

I will not go into the entire agenda of the throne speech and the budget, but as people in the media are beginning to realize, as they look back through all the questions in question period since January, there have hardly been any questions from any of the opposition parties on the great progress that we have outlined in both the budget and the throne speech related to social programs, Canada's place in the world and the modern economy and training. It is amazing that so much change and progress has been made in such a short time and how much is on the agenda for the future.

Therefore, that was a totally inaccurate portrayal that this motion or any bill is just being pushed through. That is not a reflection of reality and that is not what has occurred with the vast majority of the bills that have come in since the new government has taken its place.

The other thing I wanted to say about this, not only talking about this time in history, is that a number of members of Parliament on all sides support various elements of this motion, so it is not just the government. Since 1973 there have been a number of initiatives from various parties. I think there were about 20 initiatives from members of Parliament, members of governments and task forces related to this. It is not just a few members moving this forward from any particular party. I will not have time to go through the list but some of them will be reflected in my speech, if I get to it. I just wanted to make some personal comments before I went into my technical speech.

I find it distressing sometimes the amount of time we spend in Parliament concerning ourselves with the personal lives of individual parliamentarians. It is not just this Parliament, but previous parliaments under previous parties and governments. It is the nature of the institution that some 30 million Canadians spend so much time on the personal lives of the 301 Canadians here, while the business of the day and of Parliament that affects the other 30 million is not carried on in the limited time we have for legislation and debate.

Hopefully the committees, institutions and task forces that will look at how Parliament works might look at a way of moving the first round of debate on such items to another forum to maybe resolve it so that we do not take up so much time in Parliament. Perhaps we could have a first round in committee and the committee could refer it to Parliament thus allowing us to carry on with the business of the day and resolving issues.

I think a lot of them would be resolved through the ethics counsellor and this bill because the guidelines will be there. People will have good direction to follow and they will also have a non-biased and non-partisan advisor. That is one of the very strong points of this bill with which I am very much in favour.

As everyone will notice, this motion is some 20 pages long and there are a lot of details. Members of Parliament deal with all sorts of other things and may not be quite aware of those specific details. It is great if they can go to someone and ask if they are eligible for a RRSP, which members of their family can be included, what clubs or organizations could they sit on as a board of director. It is good to have someone to go to and I think that is a great strength.

It is very good that it deals not only with direct conflict of interest, but perceived conflict of interest. Anything we can do to ensure that our institutions are well thought of is important because it gives members more ability to work on the issues. Even a perception of conflict, although it may not be a conflict, deters us from those noble objectives.

I am also interested in the aspects of how, for those of us who have done a lot of work for non-profit organizations or volunteer work, this affects that type of work and whether one can still be involved or not. It would bring up a very interesting debate, unfortunately, at the moment there is not a gender balance and a majority of members are women. The question is, how much will this affect the abilities of women as they become more entrepreneurial and more involved in owning assets personally as opposed to jointly? What effect do all the declarations have on their independence and having an independent life separate from their marriage?

It is a pleasure to support, for those reasons and a number of others, the motion for concurrence in the 25th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs which provides for a code of conduct for members of the House of Commons.

Ethics and integrity form the first pillar of the government's action plan for democratic reform. I know that parliamentarians are committed to serving their constituents with the highest ethical standards. That said, a healthy democracy requires that its citizens have the highest degree of public confidence in political institutions.

The adoption of the ethics commissioner by the House, as well as the code of conduct, will not only help to strengthen the confidence of Canadians in their representatives, but will encourage us to place a renewed focus on three essential ingredients for a healthy democracy: ethics, transparency and accountability. I am confident that the hard work of MPs from all parties to develop the code of conduct will allow us to achieve these goals.

It draws on the 1997 report of an all party special joint committee, the Milliken-Oliver committee, and other reports of the House. The procedure committee members worked on the code in detail. It also worked with members from all parties, holding round tables open to all members of the House, and keeping all members informed of the committee's work on the code. In short, it is an excellent example of the work of the House in the best possible sense.

The code of conduct reflects over three decades of work by members of the House, going back to the Trudeau government's tabling of the green paper in 1973. Since then, both Liberal and Conservative governments have undertaken initiatives to develop a code of conduct for parliamentarians.

In 1978 the Trudeau government introduced the independence of Parliament act. In 1988 the Mulroney government introduced the members of the Senate and House of Commons conflict of interest act. The Mulroney government introduced a similar bill in 1989 and 1991. In 1993 the Mulroney government introduced the conflict of interest of public office holders act. This is not a new concept. It has been worked on by parliamentarians from all sides of the House for some time.

In 1995 the Milliken-Oliver committee was established to develop a code of conduct. The Milliken-Oliver committee recommended a code of conduct for parliamentarians in its 1997 report.

In 2002 the previous government tabled a draft code for parliamentarians based on the Milliken-Oliver report which was referred to the procedure committee. The procedure committee examined the code, held round table meetings for all members of the House, and circulated a draft code to all members as an interim report on the code. Last fall the committee tabled a report recommending a code based on the comments of members of the committee and other members of the House. Parliament was prorogued before the House could consider this code.

On April 26 the procedure committee agreed to support the appointment of Mr. Bernard Shapiro as ethics commissioner. The House agreed to a motion for this appointment this morning. The ethics commissioner will administer the Prime Minister's code for ministers and other public office holders, as well as a code for members of the House. That is an important reason why the procedure committee agreed on April 26 to table its fall report for a code for members of the House, which is the subject of the motion now before us.

I would like to speak for a minute about experiences in other jurisdictions. We are fortunate to have the experiences of other provinces and countries which have adopted similar codes of conduct. The testimony before the procedure committee demonstrated that the experiences of other jurisdictions show that a code of conduct administered by an independent ethics officer has benefits for parliamentarians in providing an independent source of advice on conflict of interest matters and in strengthening the public's perception of ethical conduct by parliamentarians.

The code would apply to all members of the House, including ministers and parliamentary secretaries, who are also subject to the additional obligations of the Prime Minister's code.

There are rules forbidding members from: furthering private interests, using influence to improperly further private interests, using insider information improperly to further private interests, and knowingly be a party to a contract with the government.

Members must file an annual statement to the ethics commissioner disclosing the members' private interests, and the private interests of their spouse and dependent children. The ethics commissioner shall keep the statement confidential but would prepare a disclosure summary that would be available to the public.

As the code will not come into force until the beginning of the next Parliament, adopting the code now will ensure that all candidates for a possible election are aware of the potential conflict of interest obligations under which they will be placed.

As I mentioned earlier, the code of conduct was prepared with the participation of members from all parties. Indeed, opposition parties have advocated in the past a code of conduct for the House. For example, a code was supported by the Canadian Alliance in its “Building Trust II” document released in 2002 and by NDP members, including a former leader, through private members' bills between 1999 and 2002.

In conclusion, adopting this code of conduct would be a great step forward for the House. It would provide a basis for the work of the ethics commissioner with members of the House. As the procedure committee stated in its 52nd report tabled last fall:

The result of our consultations and intensive study is, we believe, a document in which all Members of the House can have confidence. We are convinced that it is a very credible step forward in the self-regulation of this House.