Peter MacKay

[James Granville Johnson, March 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, on February 28, 2001, at Loch Katrine United Church in Guysborough county, a community turned out to mourn a native son, James Granville Johnson. His wife Carole and children Dana, Diane and Debbie were joined by family and friends to mourn and pay tribute to this remarkable man and his life well lived.

The former warden of St. Mary's district had a heart as big as Guysborough and an intellect as deep as the waters off Sable. Jim found great joy in befriending and helping others. He loved his family, the land and its politics and of course the sea and its creatures such as wayward whales. His big callused hands were always busy, reaching out, fixing, holding, creating for the good of all. Unselfish random acts of kindness were his trademark.

He was a robust man of action who loved and lived life to the fullest. Nautical adventurer, crewman on the Bounty , photographer, storyteller, artisan and scuba diver are but some of the hats he wore on his imposing brow.

The words of Rudyard Kipling's If describe him well:

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,

Or walk with kings—nor lose the common touch;

It was my good fortune to know Jim. He will be missed by all who knew him and even by those who did not, because for Jim there were never strangers, just friends he had never met.

[Parliamentarians' Code Of Conduct, March 15th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I will govern myself accordingly.

Canadians want to have faith in their elected representatives. They very much want to believe that their politicians are here for a strong purpose and are behaving within a higher standard.

It takes a long time to build trust, and that faith is particularly shaken by the performance of the government. If we are to even start to move toward having a higher standard we should have a tangible place to go when we examine the conduct of members of parliament.

It is unfortunate that the government House leader's parliamentary secretary did not at least take the opportunity to put forward some other alternative. He made an oblique, vague reference to the fact that we could not do it because it would be legislated.

He should put forward some other alternatives or bring forward some original ideas. We would be more than happy to wrap our arms around them because this is an issue of non-partisan importance in the Chamber. If Canadians could see a demonstrated effort on the part of all members of parliament they would appreciate it.

I will end by asking that there be unanimous consent that the matter be made votable. I know this is once again a leap of faith and that it will not happen, but I would ask that the motion be made votable. I know we will get a resounding no from the government side.

[Parliamentarians' Code Of Conduct, March 15th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank all hon. members on this side of the House who spoke so favourably and eloquently with respect to the motion.

I also want to acknowledge Gordon Earle and his attempts to bring forward a similar motion.

I take some umbrage with the unprovoked attack on the leader of the Conservative Party. I do not think there is anybody in the Chamber who has set a higher ethical standard. He is a man of pristine ethical performance in this Chamber with unchallenged ethical standards.

Yet when I look back again over the words of the parliamentary secretary, on February 8, we see the melting of that moral outrage like the snow outside. There is not even placid consideration of his own words based on what he said in the House today. There is not even a consideration that this might be a good idea, even though just a few short weeks ago he called for this very motion. It is very disappointing that a member with his length of service in the House would back away from his words so artfully. The devil is in the details.

I would suggest that no honest politician could ever be hurt by the implementation of a code of conduct, nor, for that matter, the appointment of an independent ethics counsellor to report to parliament.

I hear a lot of chirping from the chipmunks across the way.

I want to refer again to the joint committee's report which was authored by the current Speaker, a member of the governing party. It touches on some important principles. It speaks of ethical standards, public scrutiny, independence, public interest, gifts and benefits, something the hon. member said just moments ago that he was concerned about. Again those words ring hollow. Why would we not want to delve into issues of furthering private interest, using influence, insider information, declaration of interest, gifts and benefits?

These are all the subject matter of the report that was tabled and put forward by the current Speaker and Senator Oliver in the other place. Why would we not want to try to improve the tarnished image of this place? Why would we not want to try to raise the bar somehow of what has occurred over the past number of years under the current government?

The legacy of the Prime Minister is that he has lowered the ethical standards. I do not say that personally. I am referring to the comments that were made by Gordon Robertson, a retired clerk of the Privy Council and the head of the Public Service of Canada, who served under Prime Ministers King, St. Laurent, Pearson and Trudeau. In the Toronto Star on January 6, speaking of the current ethical standards of the Prime Minister, Mr. Robertson said:

What happened in Shawinigan never would have met the standard set in Pearson's code of ethics. I should know—I drafted it. This Prime Minister has lowered the bar.

The legacy of this Prime Minister is that he has lowered the bar, the erosion of public confidence.

Canadians want to have faith. They very much want to have faith in the ethical standards.

[Parliamentarians' Code Of Conduct, March 15th, 2001]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should introduce legislation establishing a code of conduct for Members of Parliament and Senators, based on the March 1997 final report of the Special Joint Committee on a Code of Conduct of the Senate and the House of Commons.

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise to put forward a motion that I believe is very important and relevant, not only in its timing but in its long-term implications for the Parliament of Canada.

This is a motion that would bring forward a code of conduct for members of parliament and senators. I would suggest with the greatest respect and deference to the report that was tabled by the current Speaker, the distinguished member for Kingston and the Islands, as well as the senator from Nova Scotia, Senator Oliver, the reference in this motion speaks of the Milliken-Oliver report which very much forms the basis of my motion.

The issue on which all parties during the committee process were united was that we should try to strive for and aspire to a higher standard of conduct for members of parliament. It seems to have fallen by the wayside and has been put to one side. This is not an effort to reinvent the wheel. This is something that currently does not exist. This is a void in the way in which this place operates.

My submission is that this would very much enhance and protect the integrity of members of parliament. It would be a direct benefit to not only members of parliament, but to all Canadians by signalling our own desire to keep higher standards for all members. The failure to address the issue leaves us with lower standards than other jurisdictions. This includes other Canadian jurisdictions and international ones.

That is why one is left to wonder why we would not act or take the opportunity to put in place guidelines which would govern the behaviour of members of the Chamber. This is the sort of debate I would put to the House that if it was put to a vote it would allow all members of the House to express their support for such an exercise.

I say quite earnestly that this is not a motion that would tie us to any particular standard at this point. It is an exercise to engage all members in the drafting of such a code of conduct.

From that point, I again refer to the Milliken-Oliver report that would be the premise and a good starting point. There was significant research. There was a great deal of effort. With the greatest respect to the two drafters of that report, their efforts would be the jumping point to put forward a code of conduct for members of parliament.

Unfortunately, we will not have the ability to vote on this particular item. I suggest this sends a very wrong message. When the motion was presented to the committee, there was the usual practice in the process of trying to make this votable, and it was unfortunately turned down by the Liberal dominated committee. Why? As in the case with many issues, it would be politically damaging to the government. Surely it would rather just ignore the problems that exist. This, I suggest, deflects the cynicism. It further undermines public confidence in this place. It is an attitude, sadly, that we have become quite familiar with.

There is a recent example in the parliament of Great Britain where some senior members of parliament did not want the contract renewed for Miss Elizabeth Filkin, who is the British parliament's so-called sleaze watchdog. Her contract is to run out next year. Some feel that the movement by some senior members of parliament in Westminster to not have her contract renewed was very much tied to the fact that because she was doing such a good job in her capacity it was very threatening to some members of parliament.

It demonstrates that when an individual is there with proper powers and the respect of all members of parliament, there is an incredible ability to watch over all members of the House. There is the Damocles sword that hangs over the members. The attempt by some members in that legislature to ensure that this particular individual was not renewed demonstrates that in some instances members of parliament would prefer not to have that deterrent.

One can only wonder if that is in fact the case presently before us, the effort by the government not to have this code of conduct that would apply to all members. Never before have Canadians seen such a blatant disregard for parliamentary rules, than we have during the past seven and a half years of Liberal administration.

The most recent example was yesterday when the Minister of Justice's department provided a briefing and copies of a large omnibus piece of legislation to members of the media before members of parliament were given the opportunity to review that legislation. Sadly, we have seen and have become accustomed to the practice of legislation being announced in the parliamentary press gallery prior to members of parliament, who have been elected by the Canadian public, having the opportunity to review and comment fully on that legislation.

The practice to test initiatives in the media, I would suggest, is a long-standing practice. However, it has fallen further and further afield, and very much undermines the way in which the Chamber holds the respect of not only members but Canadians at large.

On February 8, 2001, and I know the Chair will recall this infamous date in this short parliament, there was a Reform opposition day in which the House was asked to adopt the policy that came directly from the Liberal red book and called for the implementation of it by the government. It policy states:

—a Liberal government will appoint an independent ethics counsellor to advise both public officials and lobbyists in the day to day application of the code of conduct for public officials. The ethics counsellor will be appointed after consultation with the leaders of all parties in the House of Commons and will report directly to Parliament.

In that instance, there was a motion debated here which essentially called upon the government to keep its word to fulfill a promise it had made. We have seen time and time again that the government has never shirked or shied away from saying one thing in a pre-election platform and after very quickly abandoning its promise to the Canadian public.

Speaking of credible members and leaving positions, we have the member opposite saying one thing while in opposition and another while in government. I am hearing an echoing over there.

During the supply day debate, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader stated:

Let me put it another issue to the hon. member. All of us in the House are busily holding forth on the issue of compliance with a code of conduct which would exist for ministers, for officeholders and for parliamentary secretaries. There is no code of conduct. For all of those here who are holding forth, there is no code of conduct for members of parliament. They are very willing to hoist upon the other officeholders a code of conduct, but not one element of a code of conduct applies to members in the House. That is business that we have to do.

Before we wax eloquent on what is missing in all of the other codes of conduct, I suggest we get our own House in order. I ask the hon. member to comment on that.

This was the parliamentary secretary's fine words on that sad day in parliament when he was chastising members of the opposition because they were calling on the government to do something that the opposition members themselves would not have to comply with.

I suspect the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader would do a perfect Olympic style, pike position backflip if he were given an opportunity to speak on this today. He would reverse himself and explain away and slink away from the statement if given the opportunity to speak. That, sadly, has become a common practice here. Liberal members, confronted with words that they said earlier in campaign mode, like saying that they would repeal free trade and get rid of the GST, are common words now that ring around the country when we examine the ethics of campaigning.

The red book promise has been shredded in terms of its credibility, but there is an opportunity to salvage some of that by supporting a motion that would hold members of parliament to a higher ethical standard than currently exists. For years parliamentarians have been trying in vain to address this issue.

On March 15, 1999, Bill C-488, a private member's bill to establish a parliamentarians' code of conduct was introduced. Like many pieces of useful legislation, it died on the order paper. It was reintroduced as a bill in the next session but again it died on the order paper when the pre-emptive election was called. Even the auditor general, an impartial servant of the House outside the Chamber, has expressed concern over the ethics of the government.

The auditor general, in Canada's most recent 2000 report, had one chapter entitled “Values and Ethics in the Federal Public Sector”. In that chapter the auditor general summarized the history of unsuccessful attempts to develop a code of conduct for parliamentarians. He recommended that parliamentarians try again, arguing that it was very important to show ethical leadership for the public sector as a whole.

In 1994 the Prime Minister appointed the ethics counsellor insisting that in end that the buck would stop with him. I will quote the Prime Minister from a speech he made on June 16, 1994, in which he stated:

There can be no substitute for responsibility at the top. The Prime Minister sets the moral tone for the government and must make the ultimate decisions when issues of trust or integrity are raised. That is what leadership is all about.

They are pretty powerful words but my how times have changed. The Prime Minister does not feel that he did anything wrong when he invited the president of the Business Development Bank to 24 Sussex to twist his arm to get a loan for a gentleman in his constituency. He does not feel there was anything wrong with lobbying the Business Development Bank by phone and in his living room to approve a $615,000 loan for his good friend, Yvon Duhaime.

If this is the type of moral tone being set by the Prime Minister by backroom deals, government interference and trying to speed up or ensure the approval of questionable loans that are not based on merit, then it is not setting a good example. We need a higher code of conduct.

We need a completely independent ethics counsellor for a start, someone who would not report directly to the Prime Minister. However there has always been a focus on ethics with this Prime Minister and this government. They have always brought this issue into debate, yet they have never lived up to their words, not even close.

I will quote again from the red book, where it said:

We will follow the basic principle that government decisions must be made on the merits of a case rather than according to the political influence of those making the case.

That was from red book one, fairy book one, 1993.

The BDC rejected the $615,000 loan application. After a couple of phone calls and visit from the Prime Minister, all of a sudden the lack of merit of the case was overlooked.

We understand this is an unprecedented constant guidance and involvement from the Prime Minister's office. There is no question about that. It has been borne out repeatedly by the evidence produced in the House.

At one point the Prime Minister said:

Since our election in October 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.

This is laughable, given the conduct of the Prime Minister over the past number of years. Since trust could be restored through a code of conduct, why would members on the government bench resist such a genuine attempt to try to restore some of the confidence that Canadians once held in members of parliament?

I can also quote the Prime Minister, from red book one, when he said:

The integrity of government is put into question when there is a perception that the public agenda is set by lobbyists exercising undue influence away from public view.

Yet a recent court decision echoes similar concerns over political influence in the awarding of helicopter projects to replace the aging Sea Kings. We all recall the cancellation of the EH-101 project at a cost of $500 million to taxpayers. It was all done with the simple stroke of a pen. The Prime Minister said he would take his pen and write zero, and that is what he did. It cost Canadian taxpayers $500 million.

Yet the Prime Minister continues to maintain that he did nothing wrong in securing a loan for Mr. Duhaime in his constituency. The ethics counsellor was appointed by the Prime Minister and reports only to the Prime Minister, in private. We know of the recent revelations that there were problems in terms of locating just where those pesky shares went when they were sold to Mr. Prince. They somehow went off into the abyss. They were floating around out there and no one seems to be taking any kind of ownership of that.

Yet the most recent opportunity that the government had to clarify that was met with, yes, wait for it, who are they going to put in place to answer some of these pesky questions? Yes, it is going to be the Prime Minister's protector, the Prime Minister wannabe, Mini-Me, the Minister of Industry, who will be the person who will clear the Prime Minister again of any wrongdoing.

Canadians are going to be comforted. They are going to be able to sleep at night knowing that the Minister of Industry is going to clear the Prime Minister of any wrongdoing.

The Minister of Industry will similarly examine and, I am sure, instantaneously explore the circumstances surrounding this. Yes, the man who would be king will no doubt clear the emperor and his new clothes and find that there is nothing wrong.

It all demonstrates the need for a code of conduct in this place. I hope that all members would support the motion.

[Business Of The House, March 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, what a shocking disappointment. On the Thursday question, I am just wondering if the government House leader would confirm his undertaking that ministers will be readily available for a full indepth examination of the estimates in committee.

[Privilege, March 14th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will take that advice to heart and try to stay more directly on the point. To that point, Mr. Speaker, you would be very aware of the range of actions, the way in which you can respond, that is available to the Chair.

I again refer to Montpetit and Marleau at page 69 where it states:

The reluctance to invoke the House's authority to reprimand, admonish or imprison anyone found to have trampled its dignity or authority and that of its Members appears to have become a near constant feature of the Canadian approach to privilege.

This goes to another point. There has to be a line drawn in the sand. There obviously has to be another message sent. There has to be another shot across the bow of the government, similar to what happened in the last parliament.

This is the second occasion in two days. In fact, there were two occasions yesterday, not one, where the government chose to make announcements outside the House and then come in and parrot those same remarks, which shows nothing but contempt for the members present. We know that this is a partisan administration, but this has to be the Chamber where this information is exchanged, first and foremost.

In your authority and your wisdom, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to look at this serious breach of privilege and to act, to at the very least respond to the government, to take it under advisement, to look at precedent, because this slippery slope we are on is clearly adding to the impression of the Canadian population that this Chamber is becoming irrelevant. That should be cause for all members to sit up and take notice. If this Chamber is further diminished in its usefulness, we are all in serious trouble.

I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to take the hon. member for Provencher's question of privilege very seriously. I know that you will. I know you have great respect for this Chamber and for the privileges of members present. You, Mr. Speaker, are the protector of all members. I would suggest that quite clearly some members, mainly members of the opposition and possibly members of the backbench of the Liberal government, have been completely denied their rights and privileges by virtue of what has occurred out of the Department of Justice.

[Privilege, March 14th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my voice and my dismay to what has occurred here as well.

The hon. member for Provencher has outlined quite clearly what has happened but I would add something. I believe it goes back even further than this morning's briefings. I left the House of Commons yesterday after question period and was asked very specific questions about this omnibus legislation by a CBC reporter from Radio-Canada.

This highlights again the absolute contempt and disregard the government has for this place as being the forum, the speaking point and the stepping off point from which legislation is announced. Major announcements should be made in this chamber. As the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona has clearly set out, that should not be so unattainable. That should not be so beyond the realm of possibility.

Opposition members in this parliament, the last parliament and the previous parliament have become all too familiar with receiving the back of the cabinet's hand, particularly from the Department of Justice which has an army of administrators and obviously some very effective spin doctors who like to float these ideas out to gauge public opinion. We know that is in keeping with the Liberal way, to govern by polls and make sure everything is okay before they step in any direction.

This takes it to another level. It takes it to the direct contempt the government has for opposition members to be involved in the process at all. By engaging with the media first it is able to have the clear advantage of getting its message out first. By not informing members at all until 24 hours later, even 5 or 6 hours later, it obviously has the upper hand.

The government knows and is familiar with the information in any event. It does not need this advantage. To refer to the comments of the House leader for the New Democratic Party, if the announcements are made in the House the media will come.

Mr. Speaker, you have been around long enough to know that the media will come. They will report on what takes place here. The Department of Justice does not have to go to them. It does not need to seek out the media to ensure its message is heard. It has ample opportunity to do so in the foyer. It can go to the press gallery after it has shown the proper respect for members of the House.

The minister shrugs her shoulders and says that they tried, that they did their best. That is not good enough.

I know you are most familiar and most attached to the Marleau and Montpetit publication, Mr. Speaker. With reference to breaches of privilege, I refer the Chair to page 67 where it talks about the range of contempt that can exist. It states:

Just as it is not possible to categorize or to delineate what may fall under the definition of contempt, it is not even possible to categorize the “severity” of contempt. Contempts may vary greatly in their gravity; matters ranging from minor breaches of decorum to grave attacks against the authority of Parliament may be considered as contempts.

That is footnoted at 91 on page 67. On the previous page again it refers to the types of contempt and the privileges of the Chamber. Mr. Speaker, you have been a long serving member of the House. You know that members want to engage directly with ministers. They want to have an opportunity to partake in what is their duty, what they have been sent here to do. That is on occasion to criticize the government. That is on occasion to improve legislation. That is also on occasion, a perhaps more modern responsibility, to engage with the media on the message, on the legislation or on the issue of the day.

With what has happened here, members have been denied that right. Members have been denied the ability to speak directly to information. I was asked specifics about a bill that I had not seen. Clearly that reporter had received some specifics.

It does not take Sherlock Holmes and a fleet of detectives to figure out that the information came from one source, the Department of Justice. That is wrong. It is absolutely inexcusable that information is leaked out of the department and given to reporters who can then assail members of the opposition as they leave the Chamber and ask them to comment on something they have not seen.

The minister must take responsibility for this. It goes to the broader issue of the absolute melting away of ministerial responsibility that we have seen in the government's administration. Heaven forbid that a minister would stand to apologize to all members for what happened in the department, to agree to find out what happened, or to give assurances that it will not happen again and to try harder. It has never happened. The government refuses to take responsibility.

[Immigration, March 14th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Amodeo family had applied for permanent status a year and a half earlier. The minister told the House that her department needed evidence and warrants before it could arrest and deport someone.

It is clear the Italian authorities contacted the RCMP, the Department of Justice and Interpol requiring warrants, extradition, information about the whereabouts of Gaetano Amodeo. This information is available to her department.

Is the minister suggesting that all these efforts by the Italians, the Canadian justice authorities and the RCMP were insufficient to get her department to act for a year and a half?

[Immigration, March 14th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Documents in the possession of the minister's department confirm that the Amodeo family application for permanent residence status was filed with her department in June 1999. Six months earlier the Italians had requested Canadian assistance.

Is the minister telling the House that she was totally unaware of a man wanted in connection with three murders. He was listed on Interpol and CPIC for a year and a half, and she did nothing. When did she know and when did her department know?

[Points Of Order, March 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order arising out of today's question period. There was an announcement made by the minister of agriculture on a very important issue involving a package of aid to Prince Edward Island potato farmers. This was essentially a duplication of effort since the announcement had already been made at the press gallery earlier today.

This is a practice that the government has undertaken time and time again. It has been put on record that the government House leader intends to address the situation and remedy it, but it has not happened yet. In fact, the minister responsible for amateur sport similarly chose question period as the forum to make his ministerial announcement.

The Speaker would be well aware that there is a place in time to do so. There is a designated period during routine business in which a minister of the crown can rise to make an announcement, honour the House with his or her presence, and display an important respect for the Chamber in making these announcements through the Chamber to the Canadian people. Instead the government repeatedly, for reasons that cannot be explained, chooses to honour the media as its forum.

I say with the greatest respect that the media will be here. If there are important announcements that are to be made and relayed to the Canadian people, it can be done more effectively and purposefully through the Chamber.

In his efforts to modernize and to put more relevance and importance in the Chamber, the government House leader mouths those words. Yet the evidence is clear. The government chooses to use the press gallery rather than the Parliament of Canada to make these important announcements.

We would like some direction from the Chair because this is becoming a repeated problem. I respectfully suggest that it further undermines the importance of the Chamber, it adds to this level of cynicism and marginalizes us again.

I urge the Chair to send at least some admonition of this practice so that the government will heed these words, respect the Chamber and put greater emphasis on this practice of making announcements outside the Chamber.