House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2015, with 39% of the vote.
Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act September 15th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the NDP ideological disdain for free trade, would the member for Kildonan—St. Paul agree that free trade creates economic opportunity for people right across the socio-economic spectrum and does that not improve chances for freedom, democracy and human dignity?
Cracking Down on Tobacco Marketing Aimed at Youth Act June 17th, 2009
moved that Bill C-32, An Act to amend the Tobacco Act, be read the third time and passed.
Canada Elections Act June 12th, 2009
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-40, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Senate Ethics Act May 28th, 2009
Madam Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's comments carefully. I noticed that we have something in common. He was a member of Parliament in the 1970s, and I was born in the 1970s.
I also noticed that the member does not seem to be fully informed about the bill. He talks about unilateral action by the House of Commons. I do not know where this is coming from. The bill is going to go through, assuming it passes this chamber, both Houses of Parliament, and we are looking for the Senate to support this bill.
The Liberal Party just announced that they were opposing this bill, but in April 2006 they supported a bill with this provision in it. So they support it and they do not support it. The member opposite seems to be a bit of an anti-Senate reformist, defeatist.
He wants to open up the Constitution during an economic crisis. I do not think that is appropriate. What we are asking Parliament to do is to work together to improve the upper chamber. This bill does that, along with other pieces of legislation. It is absolutely constitutional and within the realm.
Instead of the Liberal Party opposing the government, it should support the government in its mandate that it received during the last several elections. I know the member has been around for a very long time, and he will know that the people of Canada want Senate reform. As a youngish person, I know young people want the Senate to reflect the realities of the 21st century. Why will the Liberal Party not reflect the realities of the 21st century?
Senate Ethics Act May 28th, 2009
Madam Speaker, it is amazing how BlackBerries get in the way sometimes.
As I was saying, in this way, the other place will have no less of a say in the direction of the officer responsible for administering its code under the Senate ethics act than it currently does.
However, this bill goes further to address concerns of the upper house with respect to its independence. Since senators had no role in selecting the current Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, who will now assume the responsibilities for its ethics regime, the Senate ethics act provides an important transitional provision.
The current commissioner will remain in office for no more than six months unless the upper house confirms the appointment by resolution. If the other place prefers another commissioner, the bill also provides that the upper house and the House of Commons may approve the appointment of a different officer. In this important way, the upper house will maintain its role in selecting, directing and appointing the officer responsible for its ethics code.
Another important fact to note is that nothing in the Senate ethics act affects the Conflict of Interest Code for Senators. That code is an internal document and can only be amended by the other place. The upper house remains responsible for regulating its internal affairs, including the power to discipline its members, consistent with parliamentary privilege. The House of Commons is no less independent a chamber than the upper house in our Parliament. Yet, nobody in this chamber believes that we are less independent because our ethics officer is also responsible for administering the ethics standards for public office holders.
Similarly, in provincial legislatures most ethics commissioners are also responsible for administering the ethics standards that apply to ministers. In some cases, ethics commissioners have also been given responsibilities for the ethics governing the public service and for the regulation of lobbyists. How, then, can the upper house argue a loss of independence where no loss of independence exists for the House of Commons?
Ultimately, I do not agree with the upper house argument or some of the members of the upper house. For this reason, I hope others can see that the Senate ethics act has been carefully designed to respect the independence of both houses. We may question what happens when the bill is referred to the other place. The expectation of Canadians is clear. Any concerns with the independence of the upper house have been addressed. We in this place have expressed our desire to proceed with the reform and I hope we will do so again.
The upper house has indicated its resistance to this reform in the past. Yet, the advantages are obvious and our desire to proceed with this legislation signals that the will of the democratically elected Commons should prevail. I hope members of the other place will hear the elected members of this chamber and give sober second thought to their previous position on this bill.
Since taking office, our government has emphasized through our Senate reform agenda that Canada's representative institutions must evolve with the principles of modern democracy and the expectations of Canadians. This includes the expectation that the highest ethics standards will apply to those honoured with the public trust. The institution that should be at the forefront of Senate reform is the upper house itself. Yet, time and time again, the Liberal dominated Senate has resisted changes proposed by the democratically elected members of the Commons.
Whether it is the creation of a single ethics officer or the establishment of term limits, the Liberal dominated upper house has obstructed and delayed our efforts. Indeed, the Liberal opposition senators spoke out against this bill even before they read it.
I urge our colleagues in the other place to embrace Senate reform, starting with the adoption of the Senate Ethics Act.
I would encourage our colleagues in the other place to embrace the Senate reform, beginning with adoption of the Senate ethics act. I encourage the members of this House to support the legislation. Together I hope we can make major reforms toward ensuring the upper house is a house that reflects the modern institutions that Canadians expect.
The Senate is a house that can do, and does do, work that is helpful to Canadians. However, Canadians expect that all members of Parliament adhere to the highest ethical standards. The bill helps move us in that direction. I hope the opposition party will support this important government initiative. Not to do so is not only undemocratic, it is simply wrong.
May God keep our land glorious and free.
Senate Ethics Act May 28th, 2009
moved that Bill C-30, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to move second reading of Bill C-30, the Senate ethics act.
Bill C-30 proposes to make a single officer responsible for administering all the ethical standards for parliamentarians.
Many Canadians are surprised to learn that despite the overlap in ethics standards for ministers, members of Parliament and senators, senators have their own ethics officer while ministers and members of Parliament have another.
From the perspective of the House of Commons, there has been long-standing support to establish a single ethics officer for all parliamentarians. Several attempts have been made to correct this inconsistency.
In 1997, a special joint committee chaired by our current Speaker and Senator Oliver recommended that a single ethics officer should administer a common code of conduct.
In 2002, the federal government introduced a draft bill on appointing a single ethics officer in the wake of the recommendations made by the special joint committee in its 1997 report.
However, the upper house ultimately opposed the initiative, insisting that it should have its own ethics officer. As a result, the government introduced a bill that created two separate ethics officers: an ethics commissioner for the House of Commons and public office holders, and a Senate ethics officer.
In 2006, the House of Commons passed the Federal Accountability Act, which provided for the appointment of a single ethics officer.
However, the upper house again opposed this political accountability measure and deleted the relevant clauses from the bill. In the interest of passing the many other important accountability measures in our government's flagship legislation, the House of Commons agreed, with a promise to return to the issue.
Today, we are doing just that.
I hope that the House of Commons will again pass the measure it supported previously. I also hope that the other place will recognize the democratic will of the people of Canada as expressed in this House.
The upper house has blocked our efforts in the past on this issue. Let us pass the bill as a signal to Canadians that their voice cannot be stifled by unelected members in the other place.
The main provision in the Senate ethics act would eliminate the office of the Senate ethics officer and transfer all of its responsibilities to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.
There are many advantages to bringing the administration of the ethics standards for members of Parliament, ministers, parliamentary secretaries and other public office holders under a single officer. For one, it reflects the expectation of Canadians that ethics standards should be applied consistently for all public officials, rather than having a special process for a special class of people.
In 2004, the Parliament of Canada Act was amended to create two positions: the office of the ethics officer and the office of the ethics commissioner. While the Senate ethics officer's mandate was to oversee the ethics code for senators, the ethics commissioner was given a broader mandate that included members of Parliament and public office holders: ministers and parliamentary secretaries, ministerial staff and governor-in-council appointees, for example.
This mandate was continued in 2006 in the Federal Accountability Act. When it was established, it included the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to replace the aforementioned ethics commissioner. The Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner has considerable expertise in the administration of ethical standards.
The commissioner oversees ethical standards not only for the 308 members of Parliament, but also for Governor in Council appointees.
Moreover, the commissioner currently administers two codes: the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons, and the ethical rules for public office holders in the Conflict of Interest Act.
While there are some differences between the rules for a member of Parliament and for public office holders, where the rules do overlap, there is a stronger accountability through a common approach applied by a single officer. Indeed, it makes little sense for two ethics codes to prescribe the same conduct and yet be administered differently.
The Conflict of Interest Code for Senators is similar in many respects to the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons, yet there is no way to promote a consistent approach to administering similar rules under our current system.
The Senate ethics act would correct this by enabling the commissioner to administer the ethics standards for all parliamentarians. To maintain the expertise of the commissioner and allow for his or her office to access the necessary funds to pursue a new mandate, the resources and staff of the ethics officer will be transferred to the office of the commissioner to assist in these new responsibilities.
On several occasions senators have expressed their own concerns that this change would undermine their independence as a chamber of sober second thought. They fear that a single ethics officers would undermine their independent status in Parliament.
Some also feel that a single ethics officer would undermine their privileges as a chamber to regulate their internal affairs, including the power to discipline its members.
In response, I would like to point out that the Senate ethics act has been designed to respect every aspect of the upper house's independence. Currently, the Senate ethics officer is appointed by the governor-in-council after the approval of the appointment by the upper house.
The Senate ethics act preserves the upper house's role in approving the appointment of the officer responsible for its ethics code. The conflict of interest and ethics commissioner will have to be approved by both the House of Commons and the upper house before being appointed by the governor-in-council.
Our colleagues in the other place would have no less of a say in approving the officer responsible for administering their ethics code under the Senate ethics act than they do currently. Moreover, the Senate ethics officer currently carries out his duties and functions under the general direction of the conflict of interest committee.
The Senate ethics act maintains the committee's role in providing general direction, but simply specifies that the direction would be provided to the conflict of interest and ethics commissioner.
The act also allows for the House of Commons and the upper house to establish a joint committee to provide general direction to the commissioner, but in no way obliges either chamber to do so.
In this way the other place will have no less of a say in the direction of the officer responsible for administering its ethics code under the Senate ethics act than it currently does--
Democratic Reform May 28th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, we all know that the new 18 senators are bringing a fresh perspective to the Senate, and they are working hard with their Conservative colleagues who are already there to reform the Senate. We also know that Liberal senators will do everything they can to block our Senate reform legislation.
The fact that senators can serve for 45 years is not consistent with Canadian democratic ideals. That is why we have introduced legislation that would limit Senate terms to one term of eight years.
Democratic Reform May 7th, 2009
Mr. Speaker, our government remains committed to reforming the Senate to reflect the ideals of a 21st century democracy. The bill introduced today would bring the Senate ethics code under the jurisdiction of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, eliminating the separate ethics officer for the Senate and ensuring that ethical standards are constantly applied to all parliamentarians.
Why do the Liberals say that it is a non-starter before reading it? Why are the Liberals so defensive? Why are the Liberals portraying themselves as being against Senate reform and Senate ethical standards? Why are the Liberals acting guilty? It would be much more helpful if they would support this government's Senate reform agenda.
Senate Ethics Act May 7th, 2009
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-30, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Energy Efficiency Act May 6th, 2009
moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.