CONTENTS
Monday, May 1, 1995
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11.06 a.m.) 11965
(The House resumed at 12 p.m.) 11965
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 11977
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 11982
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 11982
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 11984
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 11985
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 11985
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 11985
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 11986
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 11986
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 11986
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 11986
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 11987
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 11989
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 11989
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 11989
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 11990
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 11990
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 11991
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 11991
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 11992
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 11994
Bill C-87. Motions for introduction and first reading deemed adopted 11995
Bill C-88. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted 11995
Bill C-323. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted. 11995
Motion for concurrence in 74th Report 11996
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 11996
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 11996
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 11997
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 11997
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 11997
Consideration resumed of motion and amendment 11998
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 12009
Division on amendment deferred 12015
Bill C-43. Consideration resumed of motionfor third reading 12015
11965
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, May 1, 1995
The House met at 11 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
The Speaker: The hon. member for Ontario is not present to
move the order as announced in today's Notice Paper.
Accordingly, the motion will be dropped to the bottom of the
order of precedence for Private Members' Business, pursuant to
Standing Order 42(2).
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find consent to
suspend until noon, at which time the House could resume its
business with Government Orders.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, is there unanimous consent for
members present to stay and debate MP pensions for the hour
normally otherwise set aside?
Some hon. members: No.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11.06 a.m.)
_______________
(The House resumed at 12 p.m.)
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.) moved:
That a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons
be appointed to develop a Code of Conduct to guide Senators and Members of
the House of Commons in reconciling their official responsibilities with their
personal interests, including their dealings with lobbyists;
That seven Members of the Senate and fourteen Members of the House of
Commons be the Members of the Committee, and the Members of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be appointed to act on
behalf of the House as Members of the said Committee;
That changes in the membership, on the part of the House of Commons of
the Committee be effective immediately after a notification signed by the
member acting as the chief Whip of any recognized party has been filed with
the clerk of the Committee;
That the Committee be directed to consult broadly and to review the
approaches taken with respect to these issues in Canada and in other
jurisdictions with comparable systems of government;
That the Committee have the power to sit during sittings and adjournments
of the House;
That the Committee have the power to report from time to time to send for
persons, papers and records, and to print such papers and evidence as may be
ordered by the Committee;
That the Committee have the power to retain the services of expert,
professional, technical and clerical staff;
That a quorum of the Committee be 11 Members whenever a vote,
resolution or other decision is taken, so long, as both Houses are represented
and that the Joint Chairpersons be authorized to hold meetings, to receive
evidence and authorize the printing thereof, whenever six Members are
present, so long as both Houses are represented;
That the Committee be empowered to appoint, from among its Members,
such sub-committees as may be deemed advisable, and to delegate to such
sub-committees, all or any of its power except the power to report to the
Senate and House of Commons;
That the Committee be empowered to authorize television and radio
broadcasting of any or all of its proceedings;
That the Committee make its final report no later than October 31, 1995;
That, notwithstanding usual practices, if the Senate is not sitting when the
final report of the Committee is completed, the report may be deposited with
the Clerk of the Senate and it shall thereupon be deemed to have been
presented to that House; and
That a Message be sent to the Senate requesting that House to unite with
this House for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deem advisable,
Members to act on the proposed Special Joint Committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in presenting this motion the
government is continuing to fulfil its commitment to strengthen
public confidence in the institutions of government.
Earlier in this Parliament we revised and strengthened the
conflict of interest code for public office holders and buttressed
that new code through the appointment of an ethics counsellor
for cabinet ministers and order in council appointees. We also
proposed amendments to the Lobbyists Registration Act de-
11966
signed to move the lobby industry out of the shadows and
backrooms and into the light of public scrutiny.
[Translation]
Having done this, we will now concentrate on adopting a code
of ethics for members of the House of Commons and senators.
We hope that the process triggered by this motion will be based
on consensus and co-operation, because this issue affects all
parliamentarians in both the House of Commons and the Senate,
whatever their political allegiance. That is why this government
proposes that this important task be assigned to senators and
members of the House of Commons rather than to the
government itself. This is further evidence that the government
really cares about strengthening the role and effectiveness of
Parliament.
[English]
We look forward to the deliberations of the committee and we
hope that in these deliberations all parties will work together
toward preserving the integrity of Parliament. We all have a role
to play, a responsibility for ensuring that Parliament, this most
fundamental instrument of our democracy, remains an
expression of the collective values of all Canadians and one in
which they can justly take pride.
What Canadians have made clear is that they want
parliamentarians to institute clear rules consistently applied
governing their standards of behaviour.
[Translation]
The public's political expectations and values have undergone
enormous changes over the years.
[English]
For example, in the 1950s there was little concern about
conflicts between private business and public responsibilities of
elected officials. I understand that at that time many ministers
directly owned securities and shares of all kinds, without
concern about things like blind trusts and so forth, and even held
corporate directorships without causing any public concern.
Today that would be out of the question.
Over the years the public has developed much higher
expectations. As the art of governance has become more and
more complex and intermediaries, advocates, and lobbyists of
varying stripes have become increasingly present, successive
federal, provincial, and even municipal governments have
enacted increasingly rigorous measures to meet evolving public
expectations about integrity.
Depending on their province of residence, Canadians have
witnessed the development of everything from informal
guidelines to formal codes of conduct for elected officials and
other public office holders. They have seen the appointment of
myriad ethics committees or commissioners with varying
degrees of impartiality, independence, and powers of
investigation. They have seen politicians subjected to new
requirements for disclosure and divestiture. They have seen
enacted numerous access to information regimes designed to
provide the transparency required for citizens to better examine
the activities of public officials.
While the emphasis of these measures has tended to focus
primarily on rules of acceptable conduct for the executive,
recent trends suggest a growing interest in extending the
application of such measures to all public office holders,
including those parliamentarians who are not ministers.
(1205 )
At our national level, here in the House of Commons alone,
over the past eight years no fewer than four conflict of interest
bills for members and senators were introduced and died on the
Order Paper. That they met such a fate is instructive. It
underlines just how difficult the task is of effectively
reconciling the right of individual parliamentarians and their
families to privacy and to private life with the public's right to
expect the highest standards of conduct from those they elect.
The balance will not be an easy one to achieve.
Today we are proposing that there be a special joint
committee on a code of conduct for parliamentarians structured
along the same lines as the highly successful special joint
committees that reviewed Canada's foreign and defence
policies. That is, we are proposing that fourteen members of the
House of Commons and seven members of the Senate form this
committee. In addition, we are proposing that the present
members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs be appointed to act on behalf of the House as members of
the new special joint committee.
The special joint committee's task will be a challenging one:
to propose a code of conduct to guide senators and members of
the House of Commons in reconciling their official
responsibilities with their personal interests, including their
dealings with lobbyists. The special joint committee will be
directed to consult broadly and to review the approaches taken
with respect to these issues in Canada and in other jurisdictions
with comparable systems of government.
I alluded earlier to the fate of the past four attempts to develop
a code of conduct of this sort. Those bills did not die on the
Order Paper because there was serious doubt of the need for such
measures; they died because there were fundamental
disagreements on the specific measures being proposed.
As parliamentarians, we all know how difficult public life can
be. Ministers in particular already undergo a daily scrutiny that
most Canadians would find unacceptable if it were applied to
them. It is important that the new special joint committee be
sensitive to this fact throughout its deliberations. I say this
because if our democracy is to flourish we must all be concerned
11967
about attracting the best people to public life. I believe that an
effective code of conduct can and must take this into account.
For example, as public office holders all members of this
House are potentially exposed to allegations that in carrying out
their public responsibilities they could be improperly furthering
their private interests. Not just ministers, but all
parliamentarians must confront this in light of recent changes
we have put forward to reinforce the role of both standing
committees and private members.
As long as parliamentarians have private interests and have
responsibilities to consider, review, or propose legislation that
may eventually further those interests, this is a reality we have
to face. That is why the challenges facing the new special joint
committee promise to be daunting.
Consider the principle of transparency. Few could dispute that
accountability without transparency is of dubious value. It is
therefore scarcely surprising that disclosure has been one of the
common threads running through each of the four previous
attempts to define a code of conduct and that the disagreement
over the scope of disclosure that would be required contributed
to their foundering.
Are the disclosure provisions in the conflict of interest code
for ministers, which the present government updated in June
1994, a good model for all members and senators, including
those who are not ministers? There is a difference in
responsibilities.
(1210)
What differences should there be, as a result, in the rules? Just
how rigorous should disclosure requirements be for members
and senators who are not ministers? Should they apply to them
alone? To their spouses as well? To their immediate family
members? To whom should disclosures be made and when? At
what point does disclosure become intrusive? In short, where
should the balance be placed?
Similarly, a revised conflict of interest code for ministers
specifies what ministers can and cannot hold by way of assets. It
provides clear rules concerning divestiture, either through arm's
length sales or by setting up blind trusts. There are also rules in
place in cases where assets are not tradable, such as ownership
of a private company.
Should some or all of these rules also apply to members and
senators who are not ministers? Should these rules apply
retroactively or should they be grandfathered? Again, where
does the right balance lie?
All members would doubtless agree that principles, no matter
how resounding or how inspiring, must be grounded in concrete
requirements and must apply clearly to day to day activities if
they are to be meaningful and effective.
If the committee eventually recommends a set of principles
for parliamentarians regarding potential conflicts of interest
that are similar to those in the conflict of interest code for
ministers, then several questions would arise. Should the system
be based on a self-assessment peer review or scrutinized by an
independent third party? How far can or should power to
investigate be extended? Should there be an ethics counsellor
similar to the one established for ministers? How should this
regime mesh with the Criminal Code and the Parliament of
Canada Act? Should sanctions be included in a new code for
parliamentarians? If so, who should be responsible for their
enforcement? Indeed, what legal standing should those
sanctions have, if any?
Ultimately, public accountability of elected officials is
achieved through the electoral process, through elections. What
happens to those who abuse the system or inflict damage to its
credibility between elections? What of senators who are not
subject to the discipline of the ballot box? How are they to be
held accountable on an ongoing basis?
Yet again, the issue comes down to one of balance.
[Translation]
At the end of the day, the committee will have to assess the
degree to which the public has the right to be informed about the
private business of elected officials and appointed senators.
These issues will not be easy to settle.
[English]
I say to all Canadians that by adopting this motion, members
of the House of Commons will be signalling their determination
to establish standards for ethical conduct for parliamentarians
that are second to none, standards in which all Canadians can
take pride.
Therefore, I ask the House to give early and full approval to
this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
motion presented by the government House leader with respect
to a code of conduct for Canadian parliamentarians is not
something new in the history of parliamentary government, let
alone democracy in the West. This government's proposal to
appoint a special joint committee of the Senate and the House of
Commons to develop a code of conduct is in keeping with the
Liberals' habit of acting as if they had a clear conscience in front
of the people while at the same time continuing to scheme
behind their backs.
(1215)
Before looking at what this Liberal code of conduct is really
about, I would like to draw the attention of the House to specific
points of the government motion presented by the government
11968
House leader. This motion provides for a committee made up of
eight members of the Senate and fourteen members of the House
of Commons, as well as the members of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. This is absurd, in
my opinion.
We, Bloc members, suggest that the membership of this
committee be reduced to three members of the Bloc Quebecois,
two members of the Reform Party and seven Liberal members of
Parliament. Twelve elected representatives should be plenty to
examine the professional ethics of the members of this House.
Mr. Boudria: What about the senators?
Mr. Bélisle: I was getting to them, if the hon. member will let
me continue. As for the senators, they are living proof of the fact
that, historically, the Liberal and Conservative commitment to
developing a code of conduct that would truly be enforced is
really lip service. We suggest that senators not sit on this
committee but set up a Senate committee to develop their own
code of conduct.
Another concern is quorum. We object to a quorum which, as
the notice of motion stands, does not ensure participation from
the official opposition. This principle is not reflected in the
wording of the government motion, which states that a quorum
of the committee be 12 members. In our view, this wording
needs to be changed.
Time and time again over the past 30 years, through all kinds
of committee reports and bills that died on the Order Paper, one
government after another tried to regulate the conduct of
parliamentarians to prevent conflict between private interests
and democratic duties. The conflict of interests issue is the most
important aspect of parliamentary ethics. I will therefore focus
on this aspect and show that there is no real political will behind
this government motion.
In theory, the purpose of a code of conduct for elected
representatives is of paramount importance. The public expects
these people to be able, to the extent that it is possible, do as they
please as concerns their economic interests. However, it also
expects that, in the performance of their duties, public office
holders will not become involved in business in which they have
a personal economic interest. It goes without saying that
conflict of interest rules must be based on the principles of
impartiality and integrity.
Decision makers cannot be deemed impartial and honest if
they personally profit, or can profit, from decisions. Most
conflict of interest rules governing parliamentarians are
incorporated in three acts of Parliament, namely: the Criminal
Code, the Parliament of Canada Act and the Canada Elections
Act. For example, the Parliament of Canada Act prohibits a
parliamentarian from receiving any outside payment for
services performed regarding any issue reviewed by the House,
the Senate, or the committees of the House or of the Senate.
The same act also provides that a person cannot be elected to
the House of Commons if this person has, directly or indirectly,
a contract with the government which involves public money.
The case of a parliamentarian who does not receive public
money but is entitled to other benefits under a contract, is
probably not covered by that provision, but this issue is far from
being clear.
Moreover, if a parliamentarian is a shareholder of a
corporation which was awarded a government contract, the ban
only applies if the contract concerns the performance of public
works. Consequently, a parliamentarian could invest in a
corporation and thus avoid the ban. This, you will agree, is quite
a loophole.
There is of course no obligation to divulge one's financial
interests. However, Standing Order 21 of the House of
Commons provides that no member is entitled to vote on any
question in which he or she has a direct pecuniary interest, and
the vote of any member so interested will be disallowed.
(1220)
I am only reminding the House of these rules of conduct for
Canadian parliamentarians because the events of the past few
years, and in particular this government's conduct, have made
people rather sceptical about the Liberal government's political
will to set a code of ethics to make public affairs fully
transparent.
The two parties which have been in power over the past 30
years have pussyfooted around this crucial issue and have
lacked the political will to introduce a serious law strictly
governing their own conduct as parliamentarians.
In 1973, the federal government published a green paper
called ``Members of Parliament and Conflict of Interest''. A
brief summary of what has transpired over the last 30 years is
that the two parties which have held power, the Liberals and the
Conservatives, have never really had the political will to set a
code of ethics for the elected.
The document I just mentioned proposed consolidating and
widening the scope out the rules already in effect. The House of
Commons Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections and
a Senate committee reviewed the green paper and made many
recommendations. On June 10, 1975, the standing committee
introduced its report on the green paper, which, in general,
approved its contents and recommended a few changes.
Two years later, on June 26, 1978, Bill C-62, the
Independence of Parliament Act, along with new Rules for the
House and the Senate, was introduced in the House of
Commons. This bill died on the Order Paper when the session
ended on October 10, 1978.
11969
However, on October 16, 1978, a slightly modified version of
the same act was introduced as Bill C-6. The accompanying
Rules for the House and the Senate were tabled in the House on
October 30, 1978. The bill was referred to committee on March
8, 1979, but there was no ensuing action and the bill died on the
Order Paper when Parliament was dissolved on March 26, 1979.
At the end of the Liberal's term of office, on July 7, 1983, a
federal study group was set up to examine the principles and
rules governing conflict of interest and their evolution and to
decide whether the issue should be dealt with differently. The
report did not appear until May 1984. It was entitled ``Ethical
Conduct in the Public Sector'' and was known as the
Starr-Sharp report.
With a new government, there were new political practices.
On November 15, 1985, the Conservative government asked the
Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services to
consider the appropriateness of setting up a register of
members' interests. As part of its work, the committee was to
decide whether it was appropriate to disclose the remuneration
members received for sitting on the boards of directors of public
or private firms or for performing other duties or occupying
other positions in various organizations.
After consulting the members of all parties, the committee
concluded that there was no need to set up such a register and
that existing legislation on members' conflicts of interest was
sufficient. And the saga continues. In February 1988, Bill
C-114, Members of the Senate and House of Commons Conflict
of Interest Act, was given first reading.
In September 1988, the legislative committee on Bill C-114
met three times, but was unable to finish considering the bill
before Parliament was dissolved, on October 1, 1988.
In November 1989, the scenario was repeated with the first
reading of Bill C-46, Members of the Senate and House of
Commons Conflict of Interest Act. This bill was essentially the
same as Bill C-114, with a few minor changes.
This bill died on the Order Paper when Parliament was
prorogued on May 12, 1991. November 1991 marked the first
reading of Bill C-43, Members of the Senate and House of
Commons Conflict of Interest Act. This bill was almost
identical to the bills I have already mentioned: Bill C-114 and
Bill C-46.
(1225)
Incidentally, the bill was immediately referred to a Special
Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons.
In March 1993, first reading of Bill C-116, the Conflict of
Interests of Public Office Holders Act, which included
amendments to the Parliament of Canada Act. Finally, in June
1993, a report from the Special Joint Committee of the House of
Commons and the Senate recommended that Bill C-116 be set
aside. The same day, a similar report was tabled in the Senate.
Bills C-43 and C-116 died on the Order Paper, upon dissolution
of the 34th Parliament on September 8, 1993.
This whole process, illustrating how the issue of a code of
ethics for Canadian parliamentarians has been dealt with, is a
political masquerade. All to make the Liberals feel good about
themselves and rationalize the federal view of democracy in
Canada.
Throughout the election campaign in the fall of 1993, the
Liberal Party of Canada maintained that ethics would be an
important aspect of its mandate. In the Speech from the Throne
in January 1994, the government said that integrity and public
trust in the institutions of government were essential. It would
therefore appoint an ethics counsellor who, it was hoped, would
be a symbol of government integrity and a guarantee of public
trust.
However, as far as the most important aspect of the code of
ethics-conflict of interest-is concerned, the ethics counsellor
appointed by the federal government continues to report to the
Privy Council and has no independent powers of investigation.
He continues to report to the Prime Minister himself.
The Liberal Party's red book pointed out, and I quote; ``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''.
Recent events have shown that the whole Liberal strategy of a
code of ethics for parliamentarians, as confirmed in the
government motion before the House today, is just another way
to deceive the public.
For instance, the provisions of the Broadcasting Act, which is
the responsibility of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, do not
mean much when faced by the powerful lobby of Power
DirecTv, headed by André Desmarais, the Prime Minister's
son-in-law. The Liberal government has even stooped to defend
concepts dear to the hearts of Mulroney Conservatives and is
now singing the praises of competition on a North American
scale.
Reading the orders from the Minister of Canadian Heritage,
we get the impression that Power Corporation is calling the
shots and we can kiss democracy goodbye, in a federal system
where capital is still king. We should be concerned about the
narrow view taken by our institutions and our political
representatives in this case. The government not only ignored its
own legislation and the CRTC, which is responsible for
implementing that legislation, it also introduced retroactive
measures that will prevent Expressvu from launching its service
next September. And all this in the name of competition.
Meanwhile, the red book's ethics counsellor is camping in the
Prime Minister's waiting room.
11970
And what about a recent trip to Los Angeles by this same
minister of Canadian Heritage, to meet the leaders of the US
film industry, at the very moment that the Seagram consortium
was acquiring MCA. At issue is the fact that MCA had a
Canadian subsidiary, Cineplex Odeon. Investment Canada,
which reports to the Minister of Industry, will have to determine
the nationality of Seagram. If this company turned out not to be
Canadian, the Department of Canadian Heritage would then
have to issue a notice of validity for the takeover. Obviously, the
real reason the Minister of Canadian Heritage travelled to Los
Angeles was to assure the Liberals' friends at Seagram that
Ottawa would give favourable consideration to the deal.
While the Government House Leader is tabling a motion
calling for the establishment of a special committee responsible
for developing a code of conduct for parliamentarians, behind
the scenes this very government is flouting the most basic rules
of democracy by favouring the friends of the Liberal Party and
governing on behalf of the financial establishment and those
with big money in Canada.
(1230)
Before closing, I would like to go over in this House some
elements of the Bloc Quebecois's dissenting report on Bill C-43
to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act.
As I said, conflicts of interest and lobbyists' activities are the
main issues to be addressed in developing a code of ethics
governing the activities of parliamentarians in modern
democracies.
Western democratic institutions are currently facing a public
credibility gap, as you will agree. A good example is the
percentage of people who voted in the last presidential election
in the U.S. Clearly, it has now become necessary to restore the
public's confidence in government. If this goal is to be achieved,
public policies must be discussed, debated, amended and, above
all, set openly and publicly. This concern is at the heart of the
society we plan to build in Quebec. Among other things, we
want to leave the federal political scene because it has been
dominated for too long by the Liberals' political scheming.
As we have seen, once in office, this government considerably
watered down the commitments it had made in its red book
during the fall 1993 election campaign. This about-face has
raised in the people's minds legitimate questions regarding the
Liberal government's real desire to develop a code of ethics for
parliamentarians. Given the gap between election promises and
concrete legislative measures, we can only conclude that the
final version of Bill C-43 was probably dictated by lobbyists.
The Bloc Quebecois feels that, to restore the integrity of our
democratic institutions, we must first do away with the futile
commitments of the last 30 years, which mislead voters. We
must also ensure that the administration of government business
is as open as possible, in order to eliminate grey areas and assure
the people that policy decisions are consistent with the general
interests of the population and not those of powerful lobby
groups.
After only 17 months in office, this government already has a
long record attesting to its lack of openness. In addition to the
examples mentioned earlier and to the damning legislative
record with respect to a parliamentary code of conduct, we will
recall that, on September 26, 1994, Canadian Press reported
that, according to documents obtained under the Access to
Information Act, lobbyists had met repeatedly with government
members in the months leading to the tabling of the current Bill
C-43 and others had threatened to take their case to court if the
legislation required them to disclose their political ties. That
takes some doing, Mr. Speaker.
In that case, as in many others, lack of transparency made it
impossible for the public to know the nature and extent of
lobbyists' efforts regarding Bill C-43. Ironically, lobbyists have
managed to influence the development of legislation designed to
limit their influence. Let us face it, as it stands, Bill C-43 is of
no use to prevent the kind of troubling events surrounding the
privatization of Pearson Airport or the matter involving the
heritage minister himself.
What is worse, according to Mitchell Sharp himself, the
Prime Minister's senior counsellor on matters of ethics, even if
Bill C-43 had been in force at the time the discussions
concerning the privatization of terminals 1 and 2 at Pearson
Airport took place, the public would not have been better
informed. The majority report on Bill C-43 tabled by the
government members on the committee is a timid attempt to
regulate the activities of lobbyists and ensure transparency in
the management of government.
Again, the government's attitude in this matter shows that
what the Liberals say about ethics has no foundation. They are
only trying to soothe their consciences and look good in front of
the electorate.
The business of the letter in support of an application for a
licence that the Minister of Canadian Heritage wrote to the
CRTC, a supposedly independent agency under his authority,
brought to light the flaws of Bill C-43 with respect to the role of
the ethics counsellor himself. We will recall that the Prime
Minister delayed seeking the counsellor's advice on this thorny
matter for more than three weeks.
(1235)
By waiting so long and consulting the ethics counsellor only
at the last minute, after he had made his decision, the Prime
11971
Minister showed his lack of consideration for the ethics
counsellor. The head of the Liberal government simply wanted
to add another adviser to his staff. The appointment of an ethics
counsellor, following a commitment made by the Liberals
during the election campaign, was only a ploy designed to give
to the public the impression that the government was taking
concrete measures to ensure the integrity of Canadian
institutions. The Bloc Quebecois believes that the issues of
ethics, transparency and public confidence in democratic
institutions and management of government business are not the
prerogative of a political party, a government or a Prime
Minister but, rather, of democratic institutions as a whole.
This is why, in its dissenting report, the Bloc recommended
that the ethics counsellor be appointed by Parliament for a
period of seven years, during good behaviour.
The Pearson airport scandal, in Toronto, provided a clear
example of the laxness of the current disclosure rules
concerning the activities and dealings of lobbyists. In its report,
the Bloc insisted that lobbyists must disclose the
representations they make to federal officials regarding
legislative proposals. The Bloc essentially recommended that
all lobbyists be forced to disclose the contracts for which they
try to influence the federal administration.
We tabled over 20 amendments in committee regarding Bill
C-43. All were rejected by government members who, in
several cases, were not present when testimonies were given,
and who did not take part in the discussions in recent months.
We were hoping that the new rules, or at least the direction and
commitments of the Liberal Party of Canada, would ensure full
dress debate of such a vital issue for a democracy. The motion
tabled by the Liberal government to appoint a special joint
committee of the Senate and the House of Commons to develop
a code of conduct is just another measure following many others
which never helped change political habits in this country.
The Liberals' intentions regarding the development of a code
of conduct, which reflect those of the Seagram family and Power
Corporation, are only intended to fool the public and give the
government good political conscience.
In conclusion, I would like to table an amendment to the
government's motion. I propose, seconded by the hon. member
for Bellechasse:
That the motion be amended:
(a) by deleting, in the first paragraph, the words ``Special Joint'', ``of the Senate''
and ``Senators and'';
(b) by deleting, in the second paragraph, the words ``seven Members of the
Senate and'';
(c) by replacing, in the eight paragraph,
(i) the figure ``11'' with the following: ``8'';
(ii) the words ``Houses'' with the following: ``opposition parties'';
(iii) the words ``Joint Chairpersons'' with the following: ``Chairperson'';
(d) by deleting, in the ninth paragraph, the words ``Senate and'';
(e) by deleting the twelfth paragraph;
(f) by deleting the thirteenth paragraph.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair will take this amendment
under advisement and rule accordingly later today. Resuming
debate. The hon. member for Elk Island.
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a delight
to be here this morning to address the motion before us. The
question of ethics and conduct of members of Parliament and the
Senate is a very important issue to Canadians.
I regret that almost immediately after I became a member of
Parliament people began attributing to me characteristics I did
not possess. Immediately they said because I was now in politics
I must be such and such. They made all sorts of allegations and
accusations which are not true. I like to think that having
become a member of Parliament has not immediately blighted
my character. The question of how we deal with perception of
Canadians on ethical matters is of great importance.
(1240)
I applaud the government for at least having the courage to
begin the debate. I also have a fear that in this debate as in others
we may have more smoke and mirrors, more symbolism than
substance. We must have a mechanism which will satisfy the
anxieties of Canadians when they feel their politicians are not
behaving correctly.
The Order Paper indicated the committee producing this code
of conduct is comprised of eight members of the Senate and
fourteen members of the House of Commons. The solicitor
general indicated there were to be seven members of the Senate.
I presume seven is the correct number since that is what he said
and the Order Paper must have been changed. Perhaps we could
get clarification on that in the future. Whether there are seven or
eight is irrelevant to my debate, and so I do not need that answer
immediately. We will want to get that clarified.
In my previous profession I was a mathematics teacher in high
school for four years and then at a technical institute for 27
years. Very early in my teaching career at high school some 30
years ago I had a debate with my students. The question was why
should they respect me.
I still remember the essence of that debate. It helped me then
to solidify a principle which I have kept all my life up to this
point. I appealed to my students. I said let us start off with the
premise that because of my position I am worthy of respect,
instead of the one that I am not worthy of respect.
11972
Then I said: ``Let us not leave it there. As you get to know me
better as I work as your teacher I hope I will be able to earn your
respect. You will find I know my subject well, am able to
communicate it and that I am fair in my marking''. In all these
different aspects of a teacher's life there would be a
development of a respect which was earned.
With all due respect to the government's intention of having a
joint committee to form a code of conduct the bottom line is, has
been and will continue to be that those of us elected to public
office will have to earn that respect. To a large degree that is an
individual effort.
Some people, whether there is a code of conduct and/or a code
of ethics which is greatly detailed, will not live up to it. They
will lose the respect of the voters in their constituencies and
probably throughout the country. Others, whether there is a code
of conduct or a code of ethics or not, will generally behave in an
honourable way. I like to think that will be the majority of us.
Allegations of dishonesty and others against politicians are
the attribution I believe of the characteristics of very few to the
greater number. In a way that is most regrettable, but it is an
opportunity for us to take some action to correct the
misperceptions and incorrect behaviour.
(1245)
The purpose of the committee is to produce a code of conduct
to guide senators and members of the House of Commons in
reconciling their official responsibilities with their personal
interests, including their dealings with lobbyists. The motion
has come out of Bill C-43 to amend the Lobbyists Registration
Act. These items are tied together.
I have a substantial question. How did it ever happen that we
need to address this question? Most lobbyists do not waste too
much time with members of Parliament; they go to the the loop
of power. They will go to deputy ministers and cabinet
ministers. They will try to influence the Prime Minister. They
will probably try to influence anybody who has the power or the
authority to make decisions.
We now have need for a code of conduct that will address the
question of what kind of activity or what kind of dialogue is
morally acceptable between a lobbyist and a person in a position
of power.
Our democracy has gone awry. If these matters were working
correctly we would have each member of Parliament faithfully
and dutifully representing the wishes of his or her constituents.
There would be open debate in this place and in committees.
There would be freedom from coercion from the party. As a
member of Parliament I would have freedom to express in both
the debate and in the vote the wishes and aspirations of my
constituents.
We have lobbyists who try to influence public policy, which is
an aberration of the democratic process. I applaud the process. It
is necessary given the way things work around here. It should be
unnecessary because we would not even contemplate permitting
special interest groups and lobby groups to be the sole
determiners of public policy.
We also have the question of procurement, which is probably
the larger one. The government is the largest doer of business in
the country. To be successful in an enterprise often means being
successful in gaining government contracts. In some instances
individuals basically get set up for life because they were
successful in that regard. To be able to get a government contract
we have the scenario of lobbyists affecting the decision maker.
It seems there are two levels of lobbying. I may be wrong. I
am relatively new here but I have done some study of it and I
have kept my eyes and ears open. There are two levels on a
continuum. At one end end of the spectrum we have totally
legitimate representation of what a firm or company can do. We
have its track record in producing what it contracted to produce
and the quality of the product or the service. It is straight
information gathering. If procurement in government were
handled correctly, they would be part of the conditions of
contracts when bids are let, and I believe they are. That
information goes on the public record as part of the decision
making in letting a contract.
(1250)
Another kind of lobbying is the one we need to address. It has
people, and rightly so, greatly upset. I am referring to the
mechanism whereby the subtle pressure or influence is probably
not deep enough to warrant a judicial investigation: ``You are
my friend'' or a friend of a friend ``and we would like to be given
special consideration because of that''.
I do not think it happens a great deal, but there are certainly a
lot of suspicions about it happening too often when we consider
the reaction of Canadians and talk about the issues with them. I
cannot help but think of some specific instances in the area for
which I am critic. It is very negative that allegations are even
made.
We always get the message that the situation has been
misunderstood, that we do not have the facts and that the
allegations are false. We have not had it in the past and I regret
that with the changes in Bill C-43 and with the motion we are
not likely to have a mechanism with the authenticity to satisfy
the questions Canadians have.
As I said in my speech on Bill C-43, we have two kinds of
problems. One is where there are allegations of wrongdoing and
the allegations are accurate. We need to have a mechanism to
identify the allegations and bring the responsible people to
accountability. I do not believe Bill C-43, the present Lobbyists
11973
Registration Act or the motion and the possible outcome of the
committee's work will actually answer that question. It should
but I do not think it will. I ask the House to pardon my
scepticism.
Then we have the other problem which is just as important. It
has to do with the basic principles of law. I have had a lot of
opportunity to discuss matters of government and related issues
with students, especially with respect to the Young Offenders
Act. We often get quite distinct overreactions to how harsh the
law should be.
I had a discussion with some students not long ago. We came
to the conclusion that the law had two functions in which it must
be very accurate. It must accurately declare innocent the people
who are truly innocent. It is not acceptable in our legal system to
declare people guilty who are truly innocent. We must declare
them innocent if they are. That is mostly done and is an aspect of
the motion that I think is being missed. If an allegation is made
that has no basis in fact, we do not have the mechanism to
declare in a persuasive way that things are well. That is the
missing element.
I have already mentioned the other part: if an allegation is
made and there is guilt, the process of law, if it is court or this
process here, should accurately declare guilty the guilty people.
I am more concerned about allegations toward innocent people.
There have been cries from the government in the last several
weeks on the issues we have brought forward. Allegations are
being made and the government keeps saying there is nothing
wrong and that nothing has gone bad. Can we believe that? We
do not have an independent person, an independent ethics
counsellor who can be trusted because he is at a reasonable
distance from the government.
(1255 )
I would like to say something peripherally. Last weekend I
was talking to some constituents back home. Their concerns
have to do with much broader issues than even the points I have
been making so far. The Solicitor General mentioned one of the
concerns in his intervention. He wants to remove from people's
perception that public office holders are able to use their offices
for their own advantage.
With great concern several people in my constituency raised
the issue of the MP pension plan. That is probably the greatest
private interest exercised by members of the government. It is
an instance where every one of them benefits from his or her
position. They are in positions as members of Parliament to vote
themselves an outrageously excessive pension plan compared to
private industry. It is outrageously excessive compared to what
is allowed in the Income Tax Act for private citizens. If that is
not conflict of interest I do not know what is, but we have no
mechanism to deal with it. That is a little aside from the main
thrust of what I am speaking about today.
I have another concern with regard to the committee. It has a
fair number of members. It is directed to consult broadly and
review the approaches taken with respect to the issues in Canada
and in other jurisdictions with comparable systems of
government.
I am to be asked by my party to be one of the representatives
on the committee. Frankly I have a bit of fear that for some 20
members plus staff this spells travel all over the world. The
committee will probably want to go to Australia to see how it is
done there. Maybe it will want to go to Singapore to see how it is
done there. Maybe it will want to go to Thailand, England,
Germany, France, Spain and Italy. It will go on and on; it will
have to travel to a number of the states of the United States to
investigate fully and consult broadly.
I am prejudging but it has happened so often that when a
committee is struck its travel and expenses escalate right out of
sight. I do not think Canadian taxpayers have the stomach to foot
$20 million or $30 million for the study of something so
self-evident that it should not be necessary. Here we are doing it
and giving broad ranging rights or commitments to the
committee that it have all these powers.
I urge the government at some stage before we are asked to
vote to say that it will limit the expenditures of the committee to
a stated figure. Why do committees not have a budget they have
to live within? That is a missing element.
Other clerical points are stated. I would comment on them but
I am running out of time. I want to state one more issue with
respect to whom we will hear from. I am afraid the committee
will listen primarily to us, that is we shall listen to ourselves.
Once again we will have the fox proclaiming he did not eat the
chicken. We need to ensure the witnesses at the committee
present broad points of view and not just listen to MPs and
senators who are primarily affected by the rules and the code to
be produced.
(1300 )
We need to listen to Canadians. We need to listen to the
taxpayers and wage earners. For example, this past weekend I
talked to one young couple who are on UI. They have no
reasonable hopes for a job. They are paying the bills. Those are
the people we should be listening to on this matter, to see what
expectations they have of public office holders.
It is mandatory that we have input from ordinary Canadians
on issues such as this. They are continually left out of having
influence on these decisions. They are not asked. They are given
11974
no choice. They are told to pay the bills and are coerced to do it
through taxation.
I strongly recommend that if the committee does its work and
does it well and there could be an independent ethics counsellor
to enforce it, then there would be some gains. This committee
should do its work very thoroughly. Because of the lack of an
independent ethics counsellor, the work of this committee is
ever so much more important.
It is pivotal that this committee do good work to come up with
a very clear, well defined code of conduct. I would like to see it
get into some of the ethical matters as well. It helps to
deteriorate the respect of government when members of
Parliament and senators break laws which are part of the
Criminal Code with increasing frequency. That issue is not
being addressed. We need to address it in a very emphatic and
strong way.
Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I too have a few words to say in support of the motion
put forward by my friend and colleague, the government House
leader and solicitor general. It is a very good government
initiative. I want to respond ever so briefly to my two colleagues
who just preceded me, the gentleman from Elk Island and the
gentleman from La Prairie.
I heard my good friend the former high school teacher, as I
am, talk about stereotyping politicians. I could not agree with
him more. As an educator, like him I am sure, I had some
standing in education before coming into politics. I found that
the morning after, all the people who had previously sought my
opinion on education matters had no interest at all in my opinion
even on education matters.
There was a stereotyping, as he said. There was the suggestion
that he had acquired some new characteristics simply because he
had been labelled as an elected politician. I identify very much
with what he said on that issue.
I say to him kindly that he should not fall into his own trap. He
should not do what he, in the previous mouthful, condemned
others of doing. I identify with him that the stereotyping is
unfortunate. In his very next sentence he proceeded to say: ``I
hope this government does not do what all the other
governments have done''.
I ask him to allow the same suspension of judgment on this
issue that he asked people to accord him as a newly elected
politician. This is a newly elected government. It was elected
the same day he was elected. I think he understands exactly what
I am saying.
I identify also with the comment he made about no code. A
code cannot be written tightly enough or properly enough to
address the situation in its fullness. Finally one comes back to
the respect that people must earn. I would like to elaborate on
that a little later.
(1305)
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for La Prairie expressed some
concerns about the quorum of the special joint committee. I am
sure the hon. member knows perfectly well that what he is
suggesting does not even exist in the case of the House, and for
good reason.
[English]
My friend from La Prairie suggested that the proposed
committee ought to have the provision that the opposition would
have to be present for a quorum to be in effect. He should think
about that for a moment. I am sure he means well, but he should
really think about it. He is asking that the committee have an
authority that no other committee of the House has, nor does the
Chamber, and for very good reason. Just think about it for a
moment.
Let us apply it to the Chamber. If the Chamber had the
requirement that we could do not do business unless there was a
member of the opposition present, we would then give to the
opposition, the minority in normal times, the right to boycott
business. Therefore, it could prevent business from taking
place.
The framers of the provisions that make this place function,
and in Westminister and elsewhere, wisely saw the trap of that
kind of proposal. That is why in the Chamber technically we can
do business with only the government party present, provided
there is a sufficient number of people in the House, that a
quorum is present. That is the way it ought to be. Technically
that is the way it can happen, but it very rarely happens that way.
As my friend from Elk Island is anticipating by his comment a
moment ago, committees are the masters of their own rules.
There is nothing in this resolution before us now to prevent the
committee from setting out certain ground rules as to how it
operates, who shall be present for taking of evidence, what
members should be present for making decisions and so on. In
that context, the committee itself can address the issue my
friend from La Prairie has raised.
Let me appeal to members of the House to first demolish the
very prevalent myth that what is seen on the television news
every evening and what is heard on the radio news every day is
typical of what happens in this House. That is a very big myth.
I will put it into terms for the people who do not sit here.
Imagine for a moment that you had a camera on you for every
hour of your eight or ten hour working day in your own life as a
housewife, carpenter or teacher. Suppose you had a camera on
you for every moment of the day. Would you be deadly serious
for all of those eight hours? Would there be times when you
would be less committed to your immediate objectives than at
11975
other times during the day? Would there not be times when you
might show a little fatigue or a little annoyance if you had a
camera on you every minute of your working day? That is the
way it is in the Chamber.
(1310)
Couple that fact with another. Members of the news media are
not paid to report the mundane. Something they see here may be
quite effective and quite productive, but if in their
characterization it is mundane or run of the mill and ordinary,
they are not going to report it.
What makes the evening news is the atypical, the stuff that
does not represent the cross section of what goes on here. What
goes on here to the outsider is by and large fairly boring, I have
to admit. It is fairly mundane. If they were to report that as a
matter of course, the news media may well lose their positions in
the ratings. I understand why certain things are reported on the
evening news. I understand that well and I do not debate it. Do
not be hoodwinked by the myth that what is seen on the evening
news is representative of what goes on here. Anyone who sits
here knows it is not representative.
Let us deal with the myth that histrionics and theatrics are
somehow evil tools in the conduct of public business. Mr.
Speaker, you and I in our family situations, in our social
situations, in our church situations use theatrics and histrionics.
It is part of our stock and trade. How mundane would life be if
we felt the need to speak in unmodulated monotones all the
time?
The idea that somehow to make a point here we should not get
the fellow's attention first is an idea that runs contrary to the
way we operate when we go into the salesroom to buy a car, to
make a purchase or to deal with our neighbour about where his
fence should not be. It is part of our nature to use histrionics. Do
not ask me to shake off my basic nature when I come in here.
The 90,000 people in Burin-St. George's who elected me
elected me for a number of reasons. I say me. We can extrapolate
that and say any member in the Chamber. I assume they elected
me because of what I am and who I am, warts and all. Maybe
they saw some assets in some of the warts in terms of their
capacity to be represented, for me to be their voice here. They
did not tell me to become a robot, a voting machine. They told
me: ``Go up and show them some of your guts. Tell them what
you feel about rural Newfoundland''. That is called theatrics.
That is called expressing it from the gut. Take that out of
Parliament and we can write all the codes of conduct we want
but we will not have a very effective Parliament.
Accountability is central to the functioning of this place.
Accountability to the people of Canada. I will fill in the blanks
for the member for Elk Island if he is not sure of what I am
saying.
Mr. Epp: Why?
Mr. Simmons: I say in fairness to my good friend from Elk
Island that we can do this one of two ways: question and answer,
or the way I did with him which was to listen to what he had to
say. If he has some questions, there is a 10-minute period after
and he can ask me all the questions he wants to ask. I do not mind
the other way because I like the thrust of spontaneous debate. I
have a certain train of thought going and I would like to keep it
going for at least one minute. My attention span is not very long.
It gets even shorter when I get intelligent fellows like the
member for Elk for Island picking on me.
(1315)
Accountability to the people of Canada is central to the
functioning of Parliament. If the histrionics and theatrics are
removed, we lessen the chance of accountability. Any prime
minister or minister, of whatever party stripe, can craft a good
neat answer that will cover his or her rear end if there is time to
do it. But use the element of surprise, use some theatrics and
histrionics during question period and we will get the
unvarnished truth sometimes. That is why we have question
period, so we can have some of that unvarnished, unrehearsed
accountability.
Members may ask what this has to do with the motion that
there be a committee to look at a code of conduct. It has
everything to do with it. I have a particular fear about this
committee. I support the motion wholeheartedly. It is a good
idea, but I fear that when the committee sits down to do its work,
it might get over-anxious about its mandate or misinterpret its
mandate or go beyond its mandate altogether.
The committee should keep in mind it is not dealing with a
bunch of angels here, nor should it be. It is dealing with people
who represent a cross section of Canada. Canadians for all their
goodness by and large are not angels. Do not try to write a code
of conduct that would do credit to the angels.
As my friend from Elk Island said, using other words a little
earlier, the ultimate functioning of this place is predicated, as it
ought to be, on the integrity of those elected to serve here. Those
who abuse the trust given to them by the electorate will be dealt
with not by any committee, not by any code of conduct. They
will be dealt with by the electorate as they ought to be.
At the same time the proposed code of conduct is needed and
must have teeth. I do not want a lot of flowery expressions,
however laudable, from this committee about what I ought to be
doing here. I have a fairly good idea of what I ought to be doing
here. I would rather have some provisions that would help me to
ensure that I do the right things and if I stray from the narrow
path, will discipline me for doing so.
The practice of parliamentary immunity is one that we need.
We want to allow freedom of expression in the Chamber. I want
to be able to say everything I need to say on behalf of the people
who sent me here without fear of being dragged into a court of
law. That is why we have parliamentary immunity. The flip side
11976
of the coin is that the irresponsible person can use parliamentary
immunity as a shield for irresponsible behaviour. It has been
done.
(1320 )
In the context of this proposed code of conduct here is what I
suggest. This is just by way of example. I suggest that the code
include a provision that if a member stands in his or her place
and makes an allegation which is subsequently established to be
unfounded, that the member be disciplined, with the caveat that
if the person did it unwittingly and it could be demonstrated that
he or she did it unwittingly, then it is a different issue.
There are many examples. I have seen in the Chamber, and in
the other chamber in which I had the privilege of sitting in
Newfoundland, members rise to espouse positions, to make
allegations and to enter into character assassinations and smear
jobs using information which they knew to be blatantly false.
They had it both ways. They said it in the chamber and,
therefore, they could not be taken into a court of law to prove the
allegation. It would be reported by a press person in the gallery
what was alleged and the damage was done.
Therefore, I appeal to the committee to ensure that whatever
code of conduct it crafts it be one that has some teeth in its
enforcement.
I have had much pleasure in supporting the motion, not as my
hon. friend from Elk Island implied because I have been told to,
but because I have great faith and a great belief that it is the way
to go.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I really
enjoyed the intervention of the hon. member for Burin-St.
George's, as I always do. He speaks with eloquence and with
humour, which is a very good mixture.
He talked about how often allegations are made which are
unfounded. That is the point we are failing to address. When
someone in the government is accused of something, rightly or
wrongly, it is the mechanism of government that comes to his or
her defence. We must have the independence of the auditor
general in the body of the ethics counsellor so that he or she is
seen to be totally independent of any influence and can put the
right spin on the investigation. That is the missing link. I believe
that is the Achilles' heel of Bill C-43 and this motion.
I ask the hon. member to expand on his remarks on
accountability to the Canadian people. I know what he will say,
so I will anticipate that and ask the second question.
He will probably say that every time there is an election the
people of his constituency and every constituency across the
country have the right to turf out their MP in favour of another
MP, another party or whatever. That is the usual stock answer we
receive. How does the Canadian voter ever get to vote on issues
which were not a part of the election campaign? They have no
input.
I observe there is a great deal of party discipline. People vote
not the way their constituents tell them to vote but the way they
are told to vote. It is obvious to me and I wonder whether it is not
also obvious to the hon. member.
Mr. Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend from Elk
Island.
Without instructing the committee on what it should do, I am
hoping that it will look very hard at the idea of an independent
ethics counsellor. It should be an ethics counsellor separate
from the one that advises the government. In my view they are
two distinct entities. A person trying to do both would be in a
conflict of interest. I would like to see an independent ethics
counsellor under the aegis of the mandate of this committee.
(1325 )
The member is in danger of getting into circular arguments
about consulting the electorate. I consulted the electorate in
October 1993 when I was elected. It just so happened we did not
have in front of us the 1,017 items we are going to deal with.
Therefore I could not ask them to vote 1,017 times for this and
against this. I am glad we did not because that is not the way
Parliament operates.
They did not elect me to come to Ottawa to vote for or against
gun control or anything else. They elected me on the basis of my
being able to use my best judgment and being accessible to them
to ensure that my judgment is influenced by what they think on
particular issues. That means I have to be accessible.
I was in my riding in Newfoundland this past weekend, the
weekend before and I will be there four days from now. I cannot
do any more unless I spend all my time there and no time here. I
have to speak for me only. I am very accessible to the people I
represent. I know their points of view and I believe I relay them
faithfully.
If we carry this idea to the extreme we will not need members,
we will just need 27 million buttons where everybody pushes a
button next to where they operate the electric can opener or
microwave. It will be a parliamentary button saying how they
will vote. Today they will vote on taxes, tomorrow on paved
11977
roads and the next day on something else. It might be a workable
system in some ways but the system we have is also workable. I
advocate continuing with the one we have rather than the push
button next to the microwave.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with a great deal of interest to what the hon. member for
Burin-St. George's had to say. Nevertheless, I want him to
know that when I decided to go into politics at the federal level, I
faced even more resistance from members of my immediate
family, especially my eldest son, when he came home with a
copy of the Journal de Montréal that contained certain polling
results.
People were asked to rate various professions according to the
degree of confidence they had in these professions.
Unfortunately for me and for all here present, we ranked 27 out
of 28, just ahead of used-car dealers. So my son told me: ``Dad,
if you go into politics, if you are ever elected, I am afraid you
will become a-'', and I will let you fill in the word my 22-year
old son used.
If I am not mistaken, the hon. member for Burin-St.
George's voted against the motion moved by the hon. member
for Richelieu-if I am wrong, I am sure he will say so-since the
major problem for politicians is money. Remember what
happened to Pearson airport in Toronto. The Bloc Quebecois
forced a major debate on the issue in this House, and it is not
over yet. The matter is still before the Senate.
So wherever money is concerned, people often tend to cheat.
The Bloc Quebecois, through the hon. member for Richelieu,
presented a motion in the House proposing that, like the system
in the Quebec legislature, party fundraising would be a very
democratic process, in which only individual voters would be
able to donate funds to political parties. So ``Power steering''
Seagram and the banks would not be able to donate a single
penny to political parties. And making fun of this very common
sense approach suggested by the hon. member for Richelieu, a
Liberal backbencher moved that no voter be allowed to donate
more than one dollar, and government members voted in favour
of that.
(1330)
When the hon. member for Burin-St. George's said
parliamentary immunity should be maintained and that his
constituents voted for him because of his qualifications-he had
some faults but they were negligible-he never mentioned the
need for above-board fundraising. I think it is nice to visit our
constituents and ask them for financial support so that we can
continue our work. And then when they put a hand on our
shoulder and say: ``Chrétien, you are doing a good job, keep up
the good work and here is $25'', that is encouraging. I would
rather get $25 from one of my constituents than $25,000 from
the Royal Bank of Canada, which would make me totally
dependent on the bank.
In this House I am a free man, and when I feel like criticizing,
I go right ahead and do it.
So I would ask the hon. member for Burin-St. George's what
he would suggest in the way of no strings attached fundraising to
his colleagues in caucus. You know, when a party is in power, it
may develop some very good ideas, as the Parti Quebecois did,
but often they are put on the backburner.
Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I can identify with the comments of my colleague for
Frontenac about the survey on the level of people's trust in
politicians. At the same time, however, I believe that the
impressions were created by the politicians themselves. This
morning, in the House, for example, we heard comments and
allegations about politicians' reputations.
[English]
If we as politicians spend all our time telling the public what a
terrible bunch of people we are, we should not be surprised if
they begin believing us. We can only change that by example.
In my last election campaign the largest contribution I
received from anybody was $1,000. I have refused large
amounts of money over the years for leadership campaigns. I
refused a $15,000 contribution on one occasion for a leadership
campaign, and that refusal I have documented if members would
like to see it.
I believe, as the member does, that if persons and companies
give you large sums of money it is not because they like you, it is
because they would like to rent you. I do not think we should be
in that business.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Before we go on, I must inform the
House that the motion of the hon. member for La Prairie is
admissible.
We will therefore now continue the debate on the amendment
to the motion with the hon. member for Chicoutimi.
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I thank
you for having allowed the motion of my colleague for La
Prairie. The Bloc Quebecois will support the motion.
For as long as the members opposite have been in power,
Canadians and Quebecers alike have helplessly watched as
political scandals teeming with conflicts of interest have
unfolded with every passing week and month right before our
eyes, without the government, currently sitting on its majority,
revealing any pangs of conscience.
11978
By stating on the weekend in Trois-Rivières that he had
succeeded in restoring honesty and integrity in Ottawa, after
only 18 months in power, the Prime Minister simply added fuel
to the fire. Did he not have to defend his own actions last week?
Did he not come to the defence of his Minister of Canadian
Heritage, who, for the second time in recent months, found
himself in a conflict of interest situation by attending a dinner
given by an American film giant? Integrity and honesty here
border on scandal.
(1335)
I would like, if I may, to refer to the red book, which the
Liberals were forever brandishing about during the last election
campaign. I note in passing, however, that we hear less and less
about it, since the government is unable to deliver the goods,
that is, jobs. This government deserves its title of government of
unemployment and poverty. The red book refers to integrity in
chapter 6, on page 90, in the following terms:
The most important asset of government is the confidence it enjoys of the
citizens to whom it is accountable. If government is to play a positive role in
society, as it must, honesty and integrity in our political institutions must be
restored-
A little further on, at page 91, we have the following:
If government is to play a positive role in society, as it must, honesty and
integrity in our political institutions must be restored.
Once again, this is wishful thinking, but it is no longer enough
these days.
Let us be realistic about these things. Conflicts of interest are
not new, they have always been with us. However, in recent
years, such conflicts involving those in public office have
caused a lot of concern in the public. Not surprising, then, that
the public gives politicians the lowest approval rating.
Clearly, even the slightest hint of a conflict of interest causes
the public to lose confidence in the integrity of public office
holders. Need I even mention the cavalier and scandalous
behaviour of certain ministers and of those working closest with
them, most often relatives, which has made the need for this
code of conduct greater now than ever before.
The code of conduct we are demanding would distinguish
between MPs, Cabinet members and their staffs. The Bloc
Quebecois is against creating a joint committee of senators and
MPs. In our opinion, only the elected should be able to
deliberate on this issue. Members of the other place do not
represent the population and, hence, cannot take part in
decisions which are the sole responsibility of those who must
answer to the electorate. Furthermore, their reputation has been
more than tainted recently, by their own actions, behaviour,
words and the high-budget foreign trips which some members
of the other place have taken. I will not name any names. And, in
reality, the issue that interests us is ethics in Parliament, so, let
us directly address it.
According to Mr. Justice Parker, who presided over the
inquiry into the alleged conflict of interest in the case of the hon.
Sinclair Stevens a few years ago, there are several kinds of
conflicts of interest. For example, a real conflict of interest
occurs when a minister is aware that a personal financial interest
is great enough to influence the exercise of his or her official
functions and responsibilities. This definition should be noted.
In addition, according to Mr. Justice Parker, a potential
conflict of interest always exists when a minister ends up in a
situation in which a personal financial interest could influence
the exercise of official functions and responsibilities which
were not yet exercised. A potential conflict of interest becomes
a real conflict when the minister does not dispose of the holdings
in question or does not resign from public office. These are the
issues which the committee should be examining.
Mr. Justice Parker also stated that an apparent conflict of
interest occurs when a reasonably well informed person has a
reasonable doubt that a conflict of interest exists. This happens
almost daily in this House.
(1340)
Impartiality and integrity underlie any conflict of interest
rules. Decision-makers cannot be regarded as impartial and
upright if they benefit or might benefit personally from their
decisions. The members opposite have learned this the hard
way.
Government's actions over the past 18 months have seriously
shaken public confidence in government institutions. We need a
code of conduct to restore public confidence and improve the
government's image, especially as certain types of conflict of
interest are unavoidable. This is the case of inherent conflicts of
interest, which are due to the fact that parliamentarians are also
members of society, and as such are either landlords, parents or
consumers.
Also, there are unavoidable sources of conflict because
parliamentarians represent constituents with whom they share
common private interests, be it farming, fishing or natural
resources development.
Family business raise a particular issue as this category
generally covers a whole array of assets, debts and financial
interests. It is usually at such interests that the conflict of
interest legislation is aimed as they may have a significant
impact on the independence of lawmakers.
The most common interests that may put lawmakers in a
conflict of interest situation are the following. First of all,
investments; then, debts which can be a source of conflict; also,
11979
as managers, they must act in the best interests of their
companies, whereas, as members of Parliament, they have an
obligation to the public; offices held in companies may be a
source of conflict.
Another potential source of conflict is other positions or
professional activities. Let me give you a definition. To what
extent should parliamentarians be allowed to practise law, act as
consultants or hold any other kind of position? A lawmaker
might attract more clients if they believed the lawmaker could
increase their influence on the federal government.
There is also lobbying. It is absolutely normal for legislators
to deal with government officials on behalf of their constituents,
but what about MPs who take advantage of their positions to
promote their own interests, or one who is paid to act for a third
party? Conflicts of interest can also arise, in the case of
government contracts. To what extent should members of
Parliament have the right to own shares in companies that get
government contracts?
Gifts and fees are another element. Should a member of
Parliament be authorized to accept free trips, vacations and
other gifts from acquaintances or foreign governments? Can
fees be considered as gifts in disguise?
Information obtained in the performance of one's official
duties can also cause conflicts of interest. Must we implement
control measures to prevent legislators from using such
information for personal purposes?
Finally, what about spouses and children? To what extent
should the interests mentioned earlier be controlled if they
belong to relatives of a member of Parliament? This is no small
issue. MPs could be influenced just as much by interests owned
by their families as by their own. Out of politeness, I will not
insist on that point; it would simply be too easy to do so.
As you know, all of us here are governed by statutory and
parliamentary rules. However, there are some contradictions in
the legislation. It prevents some public office holders from
being candidates but does not prevent members of Parliament
from accepting those same offices once they have been elected.
(1345)
Another example comes from the fact that the Parliament of
Canada Act states that a person cannot be elected to the House of
Commons if he or she holds a government contract providing for
the expenditure of public moneys. However if a member of
Parliament does not receive public money, but benefits
otherwise from such a contract, he probably will not fall under
this provision, but that is far from being clear, and this is the part
that hurts the most. That is far from being clear.
Finally, a parliamentarian who is a shareholder in any
company having a contract with the government is covered by
this provision only when the contract is for the building of
public works, which seems to allow the parliamentarian to
invest in a company and thus avoid this requirement, which, you
will agree, constitutes a huge loophole.
In 1973, the federal government released a green book
entitled: ``Members of Parliament and conflict of interest''. In
1978, once again, the government moved the bill on the
independence of Parliament, which would have expanded the
measures proposed in the green book. In 1979, after its second
reading, the bill died on the Order Paper. In November 1985, the
House Standing Committee on Management and Members'
Services was to examine the appropriateness of establishing a
register of members' interests. Four bills aimed at governing
federal legislator conflicts of interest were tabled during the
33th and 34th Parliaments.
In 1991, it went on. The government tabled its third bill on
conflicts of interest, Bill C-43. In 1992, the Special Joint
Committee on Conflict of Interest tabled its report. The
committee members' views differed in many respects from the
policies reflected in Bill C-43. In March 1993, the government
tabled its fourth bill on the same subject, Bill C-116, and again,
in June 1993, the Speaker of the House of Commons reported to
the House, recommending that Bill C-116 be put aside. And in
1993, once again, the Liberal government stated that ethics was
a significant part of its mandate. It still has not done anything.
This is of great importance since we know that in the last 20
years, millions of dollars were spent on consideration of these
bills, on the establishment of parliamentary commissions or
joint committees on conflicts of interest, or on the development
of ethics codes for members of Parliament. Yes, millions and
millions of dollars were taken from the pockets of taxpayers
from Canada and Quebec. This has to stop. I want action on this,
once and for all. We must stop fooling the people and act on the
problem.
Government leaders must do everything they can to change
the public's perception of parliamentarians. They must stop all
this protecting each other, stop trying to dazzle us with all this
fancy footwork to cover things up, and simply be ready to admit
that some government member is in conflict of interest. It is
often said, and rightly so, that it is up to leaders to set a good
example. That is why I support the amendment of my colleague
for La Prairie.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I found the remarks we just heard from the hon.
member opposite very disappointing. He has made assertions
without giving any proof, and he has stated things that, to remain
within the bounds of courtesy and parliamentary language, I
would describe as rather far removed from the truth.
(1350)
An hon. member said that bills introduced in the House have
cost millions of dollars in tax money. Taking a bill and printing
it in a subsequent session under a new number-one does not
need to be a great expert in parliamentary procedure to realize
that it is easy to renumber a bill and reintroduce it-may be an
indication of some weakness on the part of the previous
11980
government. I would not deny that, because we all know the
former government was not convinced of the need for such a
bill.
Some members opposite have been Conservative members
and supporters of a former prime minister. Some of them even
sat on the executive of a former prime minister's riding
association. They must be offended by those remarks about their
former boss and mentor, Brian Mulroney.
Mr. Sauvageau: He was not a liar.
Mr. Boudria: I did not say that.
We have before us today a very good bill introduced by the
present government to fulfil another promise in the red book. It
will be one of the many achievements flowing from the red
book. Last Friday, the House discussed Bill C-43 on lobbyists
registration. Unfortunately, that debate was not completed. That
is another commitment of the Liberal government, among many
others. Today, we keep another promise. This time, it is about
setting up a parliamentary committee to prepare a code of
conduct for members of the House and members in the other
place.
[English]
I want to take a moment to talk about the issue of why we need
a code of conduct for both Houses, as opposed to just one.
For the life of me, I have some difficulty understanding the
amendment that is now before the House, the amendment by
which senators will not be subject to a conflict of interest code
that will apply to MPs. Why not? Why do some members across
the way not want senators to have to live with the conflict of
interest rules like we do? What is the objective of that?
[Translation]
The reasoning put forward by the mover of the amendment is
more or less the following: since only members of Parliament
are elected, they should be the only ones subjected to these
rules. There is something wrong with that logic. Electors put
pressure on their members of Parliament to remain honest; all of
us feel this pressure and need it; this is what democracy is all
about. If even with such democratic pressure, we still need a
conflict of interest code, I think that a chamber not under this
kind of pressure needs such a code at least as much as us and
maybe even more. Yet, the Bloc members want to see to it that
senators are not subject to conflict of interest legislation.
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): They are honest.
Mr. Boudria: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, how can one explain
such reasoning. The member opposite just said that senators are
honest. I believe that parliamentarians in both chambers are all
basically honest and that all of us who have been sent here by the
Canadian people have an interest in doing what is best for our
electors.
[English]
The member who spoke before me made certain accusations
and he referred to the powers at the top and the family of those at
the top. It was quite obvious that although he perhaps did not
have what I would qualify as the fortitude of naming him, he
wanted to describe the Prime Minister. He wanted to make-and
he did, albeit in a less than totally courageous way, which he did
not have the wherewithal to raise-accusations against the
Prime Minister.
I want to bring to the attention of members an editorial in
today's Toronto Star. The Toronto Star states: ``Phoney scandal
over satellite TV''. This is the issue the member wanted to bring
across.
(1355)
In Ottawa, the opposition parties, with an almost audible cry
of ``gotcha'', think they finally have a winning issue, one that
will stick to the Prime Minister's teflon hide. It is not gun
control, deficit, social spending cutbacks or Quebec. No, it is
direct-to-home satellite TV.
The Liberals overturned the CRTC decision last summer
granting an effective monopoly to one company, Expressvu, to
bring satellite TV to people's homes. The commission decision,
made without a public hearing, had prompted howls, not only
from the competition, Power DirecTv, a subsidiary of Power
Corp., but also from consumers and editorialists.
In response, the Liberals established a panel of three people of
impeccable credentials, all former deputy ministers, to review
the CRTC decision. They concluded that the CRTC had goofed,
and called for an opening up of direct-to-home satellite TV to
competition. The cabinet concurred.
The opposition complaint is not with the substance of the
government's decision; rather, it is that Power Corporation's
president, André Desmarais, is the Prime Minister's
son-in-law.
I will read the last line as we approach question period. It
states: ``The cabinet's authority to overturn CRTC rulings in
cases such as this was specifically envisioned by this legislation
introduced by the Conservative government, of which Bouchard
was a member. As for the Prime Minister's own role, he declared
a conflict and stayed out of the decision.'' Case closed.
There have been no fewer than four such editorials. Did
members across outline this? No. They continued today to make
what I would qualify as less than honest comments impugning
the integrity of the Prime Minister.
11981
The Speaker: It being 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order
30(5) the House will proceed to statements by members.
_____________________________________________
11981
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise in the House today to acknowledge a special
undertaking in my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka.
The community of Bala, which is well known for its annual
Cranberry Festival, is once again proving that its citizens have
what it takes to launch worthwhile community initiatives.
This year marks the 50th anniversary of the Bala and District
Lions Club, an organization that time and time again has
contributed to the positive development of this close-knit
community.
Now, to commemorate its 50th anniversary, the Lions Club
intends to build an open-sided community pavilion at Jaspen
Park in Bala for use by families and groups who spend time
enjoying the park. Fundraising has begun in earnest and a
concept drawing has been prepared by local artist and historian
Lorne Jewitt.
I congratulate the Bala and District Lions Club for this
welcome and generous initiative. I applaud the Lions members
for the warmth and spirit behind this move, because when it
comes right down to it these are the gestures that truly define our
communities.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, after a
week-long wait, Ms. Hafsa Zinaï Koudil, an Algerian
filmmaker, finally set foot in Montreal. Ms. Koudil will now be
able to attend the festival ``Vues d'Afrique'' and present her
movie ``Le Démon au féminin'' in which she decries the
intolerance and abuses of fundamentalism in Algeria.
The Minister of Immigration initially refused to grant an
entry visa to Ms. Koudil despite having approved a special visa
for a right-wing American activist one week earlier. Following
vigorous pressure exerted by cultural and women's groups,
supported by the official opposition, the minister finally granted
the required visa.
Please be assured, Ms. Koudil, that despite the deplorable
insensitivity some of our politicians have shown you, there is a
lot of support here for the fight you have taken up.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this statement is inspired by the passionate and entirely justified
complaint of Bruno Epp of Calgary.
Bruno, along with thousands and thousands of other
Albertans, is fed up with decades of federal tax unfairness that
has resulted in the following inequity. From 1961 to 1992
Albertans per capita and per year paid out over $2,000 more tax
to the federal government than they received in services. The
only other province whose citizens got less than they paid was
Ontario.
This trend will only worsen now that the finance minister
decided in his last budget to disproportionately punish Alberta
for its fiscal responsibility. There is a basic injustice here that is
not being ignored in Alberta.
Why should the citizens of one province pay out for three
decades running billions more than they received? The country
has taken Alberta for granted. Bruno Epp and thousands of other
Albertans want Ottawa to know they have had enough.
* * *
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin-Norfolk, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to wish all candidates the best of luck in the upcoming
provincial election. Their province and their country need them.
A Liberal government led by Lyn McLeod at Queen's Park
will help get Ontario back on track. The performance of the
current NDP government, including its obstructionist,
unco-operative dismissal of federal-provincial relations, has
left Ontario with uncontrolled government spending, rising
debt, a stalled economy and one in nine Ontarians on welfare.
Clearly the time for a change in government is now.
I wish Mr. Rudy Stikl and Mr. Barry Fitzgerald, the Liberal
candidates in Norfolk and Elgin, all the best. Their own
communities and all Ontario need their contribution at Queen's
Park. Good luck to all Ontario Liberals.
* * *
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, April 23 to the 29 marked provincial volunteer
week in Nova Scotia, and throughout my riding numerous
receptions were held to honour the wonderful people who
volunteer in our communities.
11982
There can be no dollar value placed on the selfless
commitment of time and hard work by thousands of volunteers
who make our communities better places to live.
Many seniors groups throughout Cumberland-Colchester
have asked me to publicly thank the Ministry of Health for
sponsoring the new horizons grants which help volunteers in so
many communities to assist seniors projects helping seniors.
Volunteerism is alive and well. I thank the thousands of
volunteers in Cumberland-Colchester who serve our
communities which make Canada the number one country in
which to live.
* * *
Mrs. Jane Stewart (Brant, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, running
through the centre of my riding is the beautiful Grand. On the
shores of this heritage river is the flora associated with a rare
and exotic Carolinian ecosystem.
Determined to sustain and improve our understanding of this
ecosystem, the Grand Valley Trails Association applied to the
federal government for support under the environmental
partners fund so it could plant restorative vegetation and build
pathways along the river front.
The Brantford environmental education project was approved
and as a result we now have a remarkable partnership. The Brant
Waterways Foundation, the Grand River Conservation
Authority and the city of Brantford have all joined together to
help manage this spectacular project in our community.
Last Thursday we all came together to celebrate the official
opening of the pathways. They are marvellous. I congratulate
the five partners in the project and invite everyone to come to
Brantford to enjoy our Carolinian ecosystem along the Grand
River.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I attended
a celebration marking International Workers Day yesterday, in
Granby. A representative of the former workers of the Simonds
plant reminded me of our collective responsibility to defend
workers' rights.
Simonds, a Granby tool manufacturing company which has
now closed down, took over its employees' pension plan. Since
1988, Simonds' ex-employees have been pleading in court to
recover the surplus from their pension plan. Last week, the
company decided to challenge the unanimous Appeal Court
decision to distribute the surplus among the workers.
It is time to expose this kind of fraud. We have a duty to let
companies know that they have to fulfil their moral and legal
responsibilities towards their employees.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has been hailed as
the hero of the east coast. At the other end of the country the
B.C. fishery has taken a beating and, according to British
Columbia's fisheries minister, 1995 will be no different.
Along the Quesnel River the chinook salmon run of 1994 was
down 75 per cent. The Quesnel River hatchery released over
200,000 fish to support these levels but it is threatened with
imminent closure.
Its last release scheduled for this month will consist of
200,000 one-gram chinook babies who only have a one in
one-thousand chance of surviving because of their age and size.
They are being released a whole year early. These fish are not
crying out, ``someone reach out and save us'', like the minister
quoted the turbot as saying in New York. After all, these chinook
are not old enough to talk.
(1405)
It is time for the minister to take his commitment to
conservation seriously. It is time for him to show his
commitment to protecting the chinook salmon. Preserve the
salmon for our children and grandchildren by keeping this
hatchery open.
* * *
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the National Capital Commission has a proposed
master plan for the development of a high tech park in the
greenbelt area in Nepean. There already exists a high tech
district in Kanata which is under utilized and ready for business.
Is it necessary to build when the infrastructure already exists?
Is it necessary to destroy a green area when other areas are
already serviced and desperate for business? Would more stable
employment not be generated faster if the existing infrastructure
were used?
Furthermore, the NCC's plans are bitterly opposed by the
neighbourhood. Most residents of Crystal Bay have signed
letters protesting the proposal. Earlier in March a public
meeting was held and the residents clearly stated they wanted
the greenbelt green, not paved.
The government repeatedly promises to be responsible and
frugal in its spending. The Liberals say they are committed to
11983
reducing the public debt and encouraging private sector growth
in the areas of high technology and employment.
Therefore is it not time to shelve the NCC's master plan for a
high tech park?
* * *
Mr. Bill Graham (Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last week
was national physiotherapy week. This year also marks the
Canadian Physiotherapy Association's diamond jubilee.
National physiotherapy week is an annual campaign
sponsored by the Canadian Physiotherapy Association to
increase awareness of physiotherapy. This year's theme was:
``Physiotherapy: Celebrating the Past, Shaping the Future''. The
theme related to the evolving role of physiotherapists in
Canada's health care system.
[Translation]
For over 75 years, physiotherapists have helped Canadians
get into top physical shape. In addition to this important role,
they are now increasingly involved in promoting good health.
[English]
I join Canada's 12,000 physiotherapists in reminding
Canadians of the important role physiotherapists play as
members of our important health care system.
* * *
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, people
around the world have been deeply affected by the images of the
recent and terrifying bombing of an Oklahoma government
building.
One of the most vivid images of this decade and the most
haunting is one that we have seen on the covers our our national
newspapers and magazines, that of an Oklahoma firefighter
holding a young child in his arms.
In Canada, as in the United States, we are proud of our
firefighters, full time and volunteer, who put their lives on the
line every time they go to work. Firefighting is one of the
nation's most dangerous occupations, and the men and women
who enter this profession do so in service to all Canadians
everywhere. They are also the largest providers of field
emergency medical care for Canadians.
This week the International Association of Firefighters is
holding its fourth annual legislative conference in Ottawa.
Please join me, colleagues, in welcoming firefighters from
across Canada to our nation's capital. Let us also thank them for
their courage, bravery and altruism which they so readily share
with our families and neighbours. Thank you for all your hard
work.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
was recently saddened to learn about the death of a young boy,
Iqbal Masib, who was campaigning against the use of children in
Pakistani carpet factories. Although his protest campaign
resulted in the closure of several factories, it also led to his death
at the hands of killers.
Children are hired as factory workers in several countries not
only because they have small fingers but also because they do
not complain about abuse and constitute a source of cheap
labour for employers. That is very, very sad.
[English]
Canada must be vocal in its denunciation of child labour in all
its forms. We must convince governments with existing
legislation to enforce their laws with respect to the bonding of
children as labourers. Those without existing laws must be
singled out and denounced. Abuse of children is unacceptable. It
is barbaric and it must not be tolerated.
The children of the world must be given a chance. Canada has
a responsibility to help them.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
sure that workers are not in the mood to celebrate this day, May
1, with members of the federal government. For the past 18
months, the government has been considering the possibility of
introducing antiscab legislation. Yet, nothing has been done and
we have learned that this is no longer a priority for the labour
minister. Meanwhile, the 116 Ogilvie Mills workers on strike
for the past 11 months see scabs crossing the picket line every
day.
(1410)
In two months, two special back-to-work bills were rammed
through Parliament, ignoring the workers' right to negotiate and
encouraging employers to remain inflexible.
One cannot serve Power Corporation and CN on the one hand
and care about workers' needs and concerns on the other hand.
The government chose between the two and it did not choose the
workers.
11984
[English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, organ donors
and recipients held an informal meeting in Ottawa last week
hosted by the Deputy Speaker. They were particularly pleased
when the Speaker of the House took time to address them in
person.
These men and women embody the best in human endeavour.
Donations of organs are often contemplated in times of sorrow
so that a fuller life will be offered to someone else.
I encourage every MP in the House to open their driver's
licence and sign the universal donor card. By this altruistic act
we politicians can show compassionate leadership. Organ
donation can provide hope to someone quietly slipping away.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the biennial convention of the Quebec wing of the
federal Liberal Party was held in Trois-Rivières last weekend.
This convention allowed the federalist troops to review various
issues of national importance and get ready for the referendum
to be held this fall.
Those in attendance participated in some very interesting
workshops and discussions. The convention was a total success.
That is why I wish to congratulate all the organizers who
contributed in varying degrees to the success of this event. The
welcome we received from the people of Trois-Rivières also
helped make it a success.
I am sure that all the participants left the Trois-Rivières
region with a feeling of accomplishment. We are more ready
than ever to face the separatist forces during the referendum
campaign.
* * *
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the people in my riding of London-Middlesex are very
concerned about Quebec's possible secession from Canada.
Like most Canadians, they understand that Quebec is a very
important member of the Canadian family.
They believe, however, that common sense will prevail in
Quebec and that, faced with the choice, Quebecers will opt for a
united Canada. Despite occasional difficulties, Quebec and
Canada have always been good partners.
All concerned citizens should work to preserve national unity.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this past weekend I attended a gun owners' rally in my
riding organized by the Reform Party. The two featured speakers
were myself and the member for Crowfoot. Not surprisingly, I
found myself on the defensive for my support of the
government's gun control bill.
However, it was most interesting to hear the Reform Party
member for Crowfoot state he considers ownership of a firearm
to be a right, not a privilege, and that every person should be
entitled to use the threat of deadly force to protect his personal
possessions, for example his television or VCR.
He told people in the audience that if someone steals from
them or attempts to do so they should be able to reach for their
guns. This is not the view of most Canadians or most gun
owners. It is a view surely only of a few, a minority. The Reform
Party needs to search its conscience and listen on this issue to
the majority of Canadians.
* * *
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Pearson
airport, the current hub of Canada's transportation system, is
falling behind the competition in its bid to become North
America's gateway to the world. Partisan politics is obscuring
the main task at hand. Pearson must prepare for the 21st century
and increase its capacity.
Ninety-seven Liberal MPs represent Ontario in the current
government; 97 MPs whose constituents would benefit from
Pearson emerging as a viable force on the international scene.
Yet no solution to the current log jam is in sight.
(1415 )
Why is the government delaying the inevitable? Let us hold an
impartial judicial inquiry into the contracting process with a
specific deadline. If evidence of wrongdoing is found let us
move to punish those responsible. If no evidence of wrongdoing
is found let us renew, renegotiate or re-tender the contract.
This is no rocket science but the old saying about safety in
numbers obviously does not apply to Ontario's voice in Ottawa.
11985
11985
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, in his speech to the Liberal party faithful in
Trois-Rivières yesterday, the Prime Minister accused the
Government of Quebec of ignoring poverty, adding that Quebec
had more poor people than anywhere else in Canada.
My question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister, and I
imagine it will be the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
Would the minister agree that it takes a lot of nerve to accuse
the Government of Quebec of neglecting the poor, when his own
government, in its first two budgets, launched an attack on the
poor and the disadvantaged in Quebec and Canada, thus putting
thousands of people on welfare?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I certainly share the
public's concern about poverty, and especially child poverty.
However, our government has taken a number of steps to
respond to these serious problems. For instance, we created
thousands of jobs across Canada, and especially in Quebec,
where we created 110,000 permanent jobs, including 73,000 in
Montreal alone during the past year.
The best way to deal with poverty is to help people get a job.
This year, the government's record on job creation has certainly
been the best of any western country.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, 40 per cent of new welfare recipients in Quebec are
unemployed workers who have exhausted their unemployment
insurance benefits. Who is to blame? Blame the man who
launched those tirades on the weekend.
How can the federal government accuse the Government of
Quebec of ignoring poverty, when the federal government,
through cuts in unemployment insurance under Bill C-17 and
reductions in federal transfer payments for social assistance, has
aggravated the circumstances of thousands of people who, in
Quebec, are already living below the poverty line?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is important to point out
two very important figures. During the past year 86,000 fewer
people applied for unemployment insurance as a direct
consequence of improved job creation and employment
development. In other words, the number of people applying for
unemployment insurance has fallen drastically. The number of
people who have exhausted their benefits has fallen by almost
25 per cent.
To say, as the hon. Leader of the Opposition tried to do in his
statement yesterday, that the consequence of the problem is
because of people exhausting UI benefits is simply not borne out
by the facts.
We understand and certainly share a very strong concern
about long term unemployment problems. They are faced by
every country. There are major changes in the workplace. That is
why we want to bring in reforms to our social, training and
development programs. To go around pointing the finger, as the
hon. member did, and saying that is the problem simply is not
borne out by the reality of the facts.
(1420)
[Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, job creation is the best way to fight poverty.
That being the case, the federal government is hardly in a
position to blame Quebec, when that same government refuses
to get involved in the conversion of Quebec's defence industry,
refuses to help MIL Davie, cuts off regional development
assistance and manages to chop $200 million from the
infrastructures program, the only tangible job creation measure
announced by this government since it came to power.
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have been through the
discussion on MIL Davie. My colleague, the Minister of
Industry, has dealt with it many times, pointing out that the
major shareholder in MIL Davie is the Government of Quebec.
If they are directly concerned about job creation then they have
an opportunity to produce.
I point out a further observation for the hon. Leader of the
Opposition. Because of the direct efforts and initiative of the
government, in addition to setting a different climate throughout
the country for the 430,000 jobs that have been created, over
120,000 jobs were created last year. There were infrastructure,
new programs in internships and new developments dealing
with applied programs for apprenticeships. Various kinds of
direct initiatives have provided an additional 120,000 jobs for
Canadians.
That demonstrates we are taking our responsibilities
seriously. We are doing what we can to respond. We simply ask
that other governments take their responsibilities as well.
11986
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Industry stated last Friday in the House that he had
kept the Prime Minister's senior policy adviser, Eddie
Goldenberg, abreast of developments on the Power DirecTv file,
in which the rather large Liberal family, including the Prime
Minister's son-in-law, has a stake.
My question is for the Minister of Industry. How can he claim
that the Prime Minister remained at arm's length of the Power
DirecTv issue, which has implications for his son-in-law, when
his senior policy adviser was kept apprised of developments and
intervened at every step of the process, until it culminated in the
adoption of an order custom-made for Power DirecTv?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I explained in detail Thursday and Friday, I believe,
the satellite broadcasting issue was handled transparently and
was accepted by all independent parties concerned. I have yet to
hear how the Bloc Quebecois would handle the satellite
broadcasting issue, perhaps because they lack a policy on it. Our
approach was to table a directive in the House of Commons, as
provided for under the Broadcasting Act, which was tabled in
the House when the leader of the Bloc Quebecois was a member
of the Mulroney Cabinet.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what
gall! When the minister talks about transparency on this issue,
the only thing that is clear is that the Prime Minister's
son-in-law lucked out when this extraordinary, unprecedented,
exceptional measure was implemented. That is the one thing
that is clear.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
An hon. member: That is what I call clear. That is
transparent.
An hon. member: That is family spirit.
Mr. Gauthier: Can the Minister of Industry actually be
serious when he claims that Mr. Goldenberg was not involved in
the Power DirecTv deal, when Cabinet made its first move in the
company's favour, deciding to review the CRTC's order and to
create a working group led by Mr. Goldenberg's former
associate just days after the Prime Minister's senior policy
adviser and the president of Power DirecTv met?
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think the report of the committee speaks for itself.
The committee proceeded in a transparent fashion. It received
submissions from across Canada. It made them available
publicly. The report of the committee has not been criticized in
its logic or its substance by any member of the House, including
the hon. member who posed the question.
There is no basis upon which the government should fail to act
to carry out its responsibilities in a way that responds to the
interests of consumers and ensures a competitive structure for
satellite broadcasting in Canada.
(1425 )
If there is any basis upon which the hon. member can suggest
the government should not act or should refuse to act in the best
interest of Canadians, let him explain it. He has the opportunity
to do that during the course of review of the direction in the
House of Commons.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
throughout the direct to home satellite debate the government
has attempted to deflect criticism by portraying the Reform
Party as anti-competition, and nothing could be further from the
truth.
The government has also said that we could not criticize the
process. Wrong again. Not one part of the tainted DTH process
was above board. Expressvu is loaded with CRTC insiders and
Power DirecTv has stronger Liberal ties than Mackenzie King.
The only thing that has been clear in all of it is that Canadians
are paying the price for the government's lack of coherent
cultural policy that favours true competition.
My question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. If the
government truly wants competition, why will it not live up to
its commitment to release a comprehensive cultural policy?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are making policy and this is what seems
to be so irritating to the opposition. It is important to make
policy for the information highway and the bottom line of it is
Canadian content. The bottom line of Canadian content is the
production of Canadian content. This is what we are doing.
We are bringing the policy before the House through the
direction. There will be opportunity for members of both
opposition parties to express their views. This is also the reason
why I have been investing time in the film industry, in order to
make sure there is Canadian content.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
did not get a response to my question regarding competition.
Policy is required but not the ad hoc weathervane approach of
the government.
One day the government is restricting choice and competition
in the country music industry. The next day it is opening the
doors for its Liberal friends in Power Corp and their American
buddies to set up their satellite networks across the country. It is
11987
no wonder the Minister of Canadian Heritage does not know
whether he is coming or going.
I have a supplementary question. Where does the government
really stand on competition in cultural industries? Is the
government for it or against it?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is very important to understand one thing. In
pursuing the issue of how to move forward the satellite
broadcasting file, the government has repeatedly restated its
commitment to a competitive environment.
I do not understand. Last Thursday quite properly Mr. Rick
Anderson disclosed on national television that he had an interest
in Expressvu. I would like to know, and I think Canadians have a
right to know, whether the senior political adviser for the leader
of the Reform Party has played a role in deciding what strategy
members of that party were going to follow in pursuing this file
because they are against competition and they are against
consumers in the way they are conducting this file.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
that is the most ridiculous spin I have heard yet in the House of
Commons.
My question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. The
government's ad hoc approach to cultural competition cannot
continue. Eventually the Liberals will have to get off the fence.
The CBC is in disarray for the lack of a cultural policy. The
Canada Council is in disarray for the lack of a cultural policy.
We are crawling along the information highway at a snail's pace
because of the lack of cultural policy.
What is the holdup? Is the government waiting for the
approval of Mr. Goldenberg, Mr. Desmarais or Mr. Bronfman?
I ask again: When will the government release its long
awaited cultural policy? We have been waiting for 18 months.
(1430 )
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, before asking about Canadian cultural
policy, our colleague should know about Canadian culture.
The hon. member seems to have been fighting to bring
American culture here by supporting some American interest in
the Country Music Network rather than supporting Canadian
interests. It is no wonder that through a lot of accusations which
have nothing to do with policy she gets a wonderful quote in the
Globe and Mail. The Saturday editorial in the Globe and Mail
said: ``The public has a pretty good nose for a rat and this time it
is not on government benches''.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
Friday, the Minister of Industry acknowledged that Eddie
Goldenberg, the Prime Minister's senior adviser, had
communicated two things to him, and I quote: ``-that the Prime
Minister did not want to be involved in any way in the matter,
and neither did he''. Not long before, however, the Minister of
Industry had said he had kept Mr. Goldenberg informed of all
developments concerning Power DirecTv.
How does the Prime Minister explain the Minister of
Industry's regularly informing his senior adviser, Eddie
Goldenberg, of decisions concerning Power DirecTv, after Mr.
Goldenberg had said he did not want to be involved in the matter
in any way?
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I find it peculiar that opposition members seem to think
there is something wrong here when they cannot point to
anything wrong either with the report or its implementation.
I will restate that of course it is normal in important files that
the Prime Minister's office would be informed of what was
happening. However, I would also like to state as I have
repeatedly that with respect to this file decisions were taken by
the Minister of Canadian Heritage and myself. We were neither
instructed nor requested either by the Prime Minister or by his
principal secretary to do anything in particular on these files.
The decisions we took were our own. As far as I am concerned, I
have yet to hear any substantive criticism of any of them.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in view
of the direct involvement of the Prime Minister's son-in-law, in
view of the millions of dollars at stake and in view of the serious
allegations as to the role of the Prime Minister's office in the
Power DirecTv matter, will the Prime Minister agree to table in
this House the memorandum in which he insisted he not be
involved in this matter in order to avoid any conflict of interest
given his son-in-law's interests in Power DirecTv?
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this same question was put on Friday. There is no
question of something being tabled. The Prime Minister made it
clear in his only comment on this file in my hearing that he
wanted nothing to do with it. He removed himself from cabinet
when it was discussed at that time. There is really nothing there
for the hon. member to ask for.
It is more important to ask what exactly this is all about. I
think that is a complete bankruptcy of policy in both of the
opposition parties, neither of which has the faintest idea what
should be done with respect to satellite broadcasting policy in
this country.
11988
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
government appears particularly sneaky. First it told Canadians
that MP pension reform would save taxpayers over $3 million. It
did not mention the fact that Canadian taxpayers would have to
top up the trough annually to the tune of $7 million.
The government told Reformers that we could opt out if we
found the pension scheme a little too rich for our blood. What it
did not say was that future MPs will be forced to join this
obscene pension plan.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Why has the
government limited the opting out provision to current MPs
only? How deep is this cabinet's commitment to real pension
reform?
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it was on
February 22 that the President of the Treasury Board made the
announcement with respect to MP pensions. A backgrounder
was also available on that day indicating very clearly the
conditions under which the legislation would come forth. It is an
opportunity for people to opt in once the legislation is in.
Everybody will be treated in a very similar way.
(1435)
I might add that the member for Calgary West and the leader
of the Reform Party were in attendance at the meeting. I do not
know why there are any particular surprises. If there are
suggestions to be made, they can be made in this House when the
legislation is debated. They can also be made in committee.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
surprise stems from the fact that this government had the gall to
actually introduce that legislation without making some kind of
statement.
Nothing has really changed. The MP pension plan is still
astronomically rich. We will still receive twice the national
limit. Those benefits are still indexed against inflation and there
is no cap on ministerial pensions.
Maybe the class of 1988 and the others who will choose to join
me in opting out of this pension plan could change things from
the inside. The legislation that was tabled is not acceptable.
Why did the government rule out replacing the entire MP
pension scheme with a more realistic private plan such as other
Canadians receive, one dollar for one dollar?
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
particular question shows very clearly the opportunism sought
by the Reform Party. The red book made two promises. It said
that the age of eligibility would be raised and that has been done.
The red book also said there would be no double dipping and that
has also been done.
However, the government decided to go further. It said that it
would contribute one-third less to MP pensions than it had in the
past. It also said that MPs did not need to participate. It also said
there would be 20 per cent less accrual rate for MPs. It went
beyond what was promised. The Reform Party is trying to
exploit this issue for its advantage.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the heritage minister claims that he learned of the
takeover of MCA by Seagram only after getting off the plane in
Los Angeles, adding that the transaction was highly secretive,
when there had been reports about the imminent takeover of
MCA by Seagram for weeks.
How can the Minister of Canadian Heritage explain his
travelling incognito to Los Angeles accompanied only by his
chief of staff, without being given the usual pre-trip briefing
that department officials always give their ministers before a
trip abroad?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, such trips, this one in particular, are
carefully planned. As I told the House before, I had taken the
time to consult with several representatives of the Canadian film
industry. That qualifies as preparation.
Second, to keep travel expenses to a minimum, I do not travel
abroad with an entourage of government officials unless I have
to, and I dare anyone to come out and disprove it. I would also
point out to our colleagues opposite that the our consul general
in Los Angeles was with me at every meeting I attended. So,
every single one of the allegations we have heard over the past
few days is false.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the minister maintains that this visit had been carefully
organized. If that is the case, could he tell us how he can
continue to maintain in earnest that he knew nothing about this
transaction until he got off the plane in Los angeles, when every
major daily newspaper in Canada was reporting that a deal was
imminent, as was confirmed by Mr. Bronfman himself the day
before the minister arrived incognito in Los Angeles?
(1440)
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, not surprisingly, our colleague is not
listening to me. Of course, rumours had been going around for a
few days and I am on record in Hansard as saying on April 28
that I had heard a rumour to that effect a couple of days prior to
the takeover.
11989
So, the hon. member's story shows not only that he does not
listen but that he does not read Hansard. Only a wizard could
have predicted exactly when the transaction would take place. In
order to know, I would have had to be informed of what was
going on. I did not learn about the transaction on the day it took
place because, as I have been telling you repeatedly, no one kept
me fully informed of this whole matter.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
When the finance minister brought down his budget in
February he said that all Canadians and regions would share the
pain equally, every region except metro Toronto apparently.
Canadians were stunned to hear that under pressure from Liberal
MPs, the federal government is restoring $4 million of federal
funding to Harbourfront.
How can the Prime Minister justify giving Harbourfront $4
million at a time when Canadians are being asked to tighten their
belts even further?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am happy that the
Reform Party has raised this issue. It underlines its fundamental
support for cultural activities in this country.
I am rather surprised that Reform members would be against
Harbourfront receiving moneys in order that it can carry on its
activities and contribute substantially to tourism in the province
of Ontario.
The hon. member should also know that the money which has
been allotted to Harbourfront is not new money. It is a
reallocation of moneys from the existing department, which
goes a long way to providing much needed jobs in the city of
Toronto.
* * *
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
obviously there is no overall plan.
As if Harbourfront were not bad enough, now we learn that the
Minister of Human Resources Development will be meeting
with the Prime Minister today to secure a $16 million loan for
the Winnipeg Jets. If the minister thinks that the taxpayers will
stand for this kind of expenditure, he has been playing without
his helmet for too long.
Will the Prime Minister assure this House that no public
money will be used to prop up the Winnipeg Jets?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again the hon.
member demonstrates how weak a case can be gained by the
Reform Party using the somewhat flimsy source of resources
that are provided by the media from time to time.
All we can report to members is that whatever initiative is
taken in terms of the Winnipeg Jets and the arena is being
initiated by the private sector in that city. Applications for
grants have been made under the infrastructure program, as
several other cities have already done. That is the kind of
proposal that would be considered, if requested.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
The truce in Bosnia officially expires today, May 1.
Yesterday, the UN special envoy in the former Yugoslavia, Mr.
Akashi, failed in an ultimate attempt to extend the truce,
following the refusal of Bosnian Serb belligerents.
Can the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell us about the current
situation in Bosnia with the expiration of the truce and does he
agree that fighting could intensify in the next few days and
jeopardize the safety of Canadian peacekeepers?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for giving me this
opportunity to say, on behalf of the Canadian government, that
we support the efforts of the UN envoy, Mr. Akashi.
The developments which occurred over the last few hours
give us reason to believe that, although the truce will not be
extended, fighting will not intensify. We, of course, made
representations to the parties involved in the conflict, asking
them to use some elementary restraint so that the situation does
not deteriorate any further.
(1445)
The position of UN peacekeeping forces is such that they can
save lives among the population affected by the conflict. This is
why Canada continues to support the UN's efforts to restore
peace.
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
can the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell us if the UN made new
representations to the Bosnian government and to Bosnian Serbs
to ensure the following: first, an extension of the truce; second,
the maintenance of the humanitarian assistance provided; and
11990
third, the pursuit of the negotiation process between the
belligerents? Are there any new agreements?
[English]
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the answer to the three points is yes.
I know that some members of the Reform Party were not too
happy because I was trying to give as elaborate an answer as
possible. The situation in ex-Yugoslavia is extremely serious. I
do not know if they feel we should not be participating in trying
to maintain peace and security in Europe. However, it certainly
is important and I commend the hon. member for raising a
question of such importance in the House of Commons.
* * *
Mrs. Jean Payne (St. John's West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
As all Canadians are aware, and I am very proud to say,
Canada has been successful in negotiating a settlement with the
European Union with regard to the recent dispute over
Greenland halibut. It is a settlement which will ensure
conservation of fragile fish stocks as well as strict enforcement
of NAFO fishing regulations.
Can the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans inform the House
what the government is doing to ensure implementation of the
terms of this agreement?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for St.
John's West for her question.
I am pleased to inform all members of the House, especially
my friends in the Reform Party who are waiting with bated
breath, no pun intended, that 35 European Union observers will
be arriving in St. John's, Newfoundland today and tomorrow.
The EU observers will be taken aboard EU support vessels and
by Friday placed on all Spanish and Portuguese vessels fishing
within the NAFO regulation zone.
* * *
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I want to
assure the House that we are very interested in what is
happening in the former Yugoslavia. As we are deploying troops
in Bosnia and Croatia, UN troops are being blockaded in their
barracks and their positions are being mined.
In Croatia a new military offensive has begun and several UN
soldiers have been wounded.
With the situation deteriorating, just as the Reform Party
predicted, when will the government finally realize that it
should pull our troops out of Bosnia and Croatia?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we know
it is a very dangerous situation in the former Yugoslavia.
Canadian soldiers are making a heroic effort to continue to
discharge their mission.
With respect to the question of the mandate, that was debated
in the House some weeks ago. We re-engaged for a further six
months and nothing has caused the Government to Canada to
change its mind since that time.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we all know
that the government would pull out of Bosnia and Croatia if the
whole UN contingent was withdrawn.
Are there any cases, and what would those specific conditions
be, in which we might take unilateral action to pull our troops
out?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister has made it known a number of times, as well as
all of us in the government, that if the arms embargo was lifted it
would precipitate Canada to take its soldiers out of
ex-Yugoslavia.
In principle, we do not favour doing anything unilaterally. We
are working with our allies on the ground. A concerted effort
will be made to deal with all the problems there. Should those
forces have to leave, it will be done in co-operation with those
with whom we are serving.
* * *
(1450)
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development. At the Liberal convention in Trois-Rivières last
weekend, the Minister of Labour said that including antiscab
provisions in the Canada Labour Code was no longer a priority
for the government. The minister has clearly chosen to devote
herself full time to the Quebec referendum, thus neglecting her
responsibilities as federal Minister of Labour.
How does the minister justify the about-face of his colleague,
the Minister of Labour, who now refuses to table a bill that
would add antiscab provisions to the Canada Labour Code after
promising to do so upon taking office?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, consultations on this issue are under way between
the Minister of Labour, the unions and the employers. At the
minister's request, the Director General of the Federal
Mediation and Conciliation Service is meeting with the parties.
We
11991
are not yet in a position to answer this question. We will give the
hon. member an answer as soon as it becomes available.
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan, BQ): How can the
minister justify the fact that his colleague, the Minister of
Labour, who was so eager to bludgeon rail workers upon taking
office, no longer finds the time to include antiscab provisions in
the Canada Labour Code?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, just as we did during the rail strikes, we acted in the
national interest. We also think that we must now take the time
to consult with the parties and try to reach a compromise.
I know that the opposition would prefer to take immediate
action, without taking all necessary measures and without
analyzing the situation. This government, however, wants to do
the right thing for Canadians and Quebecers and will therefore
make every effort required to achieve this goal.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
last Monday we were advised that the province of Nova Scotia,
not the federal government, had decided to divert $26 million
from the Wentworth bypass project in Nova Scotia to the riding
of the minister of public works in Cape Breton.
Richie Mann, an MLA in Cape Breton whose riding will also
benefit from this diversion of funds has stated: ``Mr. Dingwall's
role in this is that he talked to us about it and we talked to him
about it and we all agreed it is a worthwhile project to do''.
My question is for the Minister of Public Works and
Government Services. Why did the minister put himself in a
conflict of interest position when he talked to Mr. Mann about
diverting the $26 million to a tourist road in his riding from a
road that has claimed over 40 lives between 1986 and 1992, a
road that will now have to be a toll road?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is an unusual situation when members of Parliament,
and for that matter because of a previous incarnation when I was
in the New Brunswick legislature, not to have politicians talk
about roads, especially in Atlantic Canada.
I can assure the hon. member that the discussion of the
allocation of highway funds for Nova Scotia took place with the
minister of transport for Nova Scotia. Those consultations are
ongoing with Nova Scotia and other provinces.
I am sure the hon. member recognizes that when members of
the House have an opportunity to discuss with their provincial
colleagues matters of mutual interest, it is certainly not a matter
of conflict of interest, but a matter of doing their jobs. It is
something of which the hon. member is not too aware,
obviously, by the interest he has brought to this matter over the
last couple of weeks.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this is the fourth time I have stood in the House and asked the
question of the minister of public works, and I keep getting an
answer from this fellow.
Members on both sides of the House say misappropriation of
funds has taken place. This is a classic case of conflict of
interest. The Auditor General of Nova Scotia says that this is a
serious case.
Will the Prime Minister call for an investigation by the ethics
counsellor? If possible, I would like to ask either the Prime
Minister to answer or the fellow who will not stand up here.
(1455 )
The Speaker: Usually, but not always, questions should be
directed to a minister rather than this fellow because it confuses
the Chair sometimes. The hon. Minister of Transport.
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is very unfortunate that the hon. member does not
understand that when agreements are made with provinces there
is an ongoing process of consultation.
The moneys that are going to be spent in Nova Scotia, as is the
case with any other funds expended on behalf of the Canadian
taxpayers, are subject to very stringent review both by the
Auditor General of Canada as well as our department when we
are reviewing those expenditures.
I know the hon. member is new to the House. It is true he has
been up three or four times-and it shows-but the problem he
has is in addressing questions like this using words like
misappropriation of funds. If the hon. member were a little bit
more careful he would understand that misappropriation of
funds has implications that go far beyond a simple renegotiation
of a contract to allocate funds for highway construction in any
province.
Therefore, I ask the hon. member to reconsider that kind of
insinuation.
* * *
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the
President of the Treasury Board.
11992
My colleague is familiar with recent reports from the
Commissioner of Official Languages. Those reports single out
problems that some Canadians are having in getting service in
the two official languages from federal offices.
Could the parliamentary secretary tell the House what the
government is doing to get at these problems to ensure that
Canadians receive federal services in either official language
where that is entitled?
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
commitment and the resolve to ensure quality services in federal
buildings under the Official Languages Act continues.
The Secretary of the Treasury Board will be requesting action
plans from all of those departments where performance was
weak or where they were not investigated. Those plans will be
brought forward by the end of September, will be put together
and brought to the parliamentary committee on official
languages for discussion. The degree to which the
implementation has occurred will be reviewed in March 1996
and every six months thereafter.
Finally, a list of all of the buildings requiring those services
have been updated and circulated. There have been over 700
consultations in the regions to try to ensure that the service is
improved.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Quebec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
The minister recently published a brochure promoting
National Volunteer Week. This brochure emphasizes the
importance of volunteer work in our communities and pays
tribute to the 13 million volunteers in Quebec and Canada who
give their time to the disadvantaged, the needy and the
neglected.
How can the minister stress the merits of and need for
volunteer work when the funds allotted to voluntary
organizations have fallen from $1,066,000 in 1993-94 to
$65,000 in 1995-96, a 94 per cent cut?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have yet to announce the amounts that will
go to volunteer organizations. I support their work because it is
eminently commendable and because it furthers the
development of Canadian society.
[English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a
recently published study on the economics of immigration has
confirmed that the Reform Party has been right all along. It
found, among other things, that the skill and language levels and
ability to integrate of today's immigrants has declined as a result
of the short-sighted family reunification and refugee policies of
the government.
In light of this study, will the minister of immigration
immediately reconsider his 1995-96 do nothing immigration
plan, a plan that makes no significant changes to the policies of
the last decade?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the levels document we
presented to the House of Commons was not only the work of the
caucus and the government. For the first time we reached out,
talked and discussed with over 10,000 Canadians the kind of
immigration policy that the country wants to have and what were
their views on our position in the international community. The
answer is, no, we will not reconsider.
* * *
(1500 )
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Recently the government announced the total elimination of
funding for global education groups and youth organizations,
from the Queen Charlotte Islands Global Link Society in B.C. to
the St. John's Oxfam office in Newfoundland, as well as the total
elimination of $8 million for the International Planned
Parenthood Federation.
I want to ask the minister this question: In view of the
government's earlier promises in the foreign policy statement
and in Cairo to strengthen these programs, will the government
now reconsider this slashing? And will it explain why it has
abandoned the promises it made to the people of Canada and to
the poor women of the world?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I want to reassure the hon. member that indeed we
are not abandoning our commitment. We are going to do it
differently. We will privilege bilateral relations and programs
with non-governmental organizations that are operating in
those countries where the need is the greatest.
11993
We are certainly determined, as our red book has said and as
our policy enunciations reiterate, to play an active role in this
regard.
* * *
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Defence. As the minister
is aware, the efforts of the competition bureau to increase
competition in household moving have been thwarted by the
IDC.
The first two new suppliers in the past 20 years have been
eliminated in the first 30 days of the contract. As a result of IDC
action, the only wholly Canadian owned suppliers were forced
to withdraw.
Can the minister explain to this House how this came about
and what action the government proposes to take in this regard?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I know my
colleague has shown a great interest in this matter and I
commend him for it. He will remember that the bureau of
competition did conduct an exhaustive review of this particular
issue. The interdepartmental committees worked on contracting
procedures and found that all of these procedures did comply
with all aspects of competition law.
A number of recommendations were made for increasing the
competition and encouraging new companies to bid for this
business. A number of measures were implemented in the past
year, and as a result of the changes there were four new
companies that did engage in the bidding process. It now turns
out that both of the successful companies that won are run by the
same person and for unknown reasons have withdrawn from the
competition.
There will be further information coming on this file a little
later. I want to assure the hon. member that we have taken his
suggestions into consideration in the formulation of our new
policy.
_____________________________________________
11993
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, the government's response to
no fewer than 90 petitions.
Hon. Raymond Chan (Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a few days from now representatives of 175
nations, including Canada, will gather in New York to decide the
fate of the most important international arms control agreement
in force today, the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, NPT. Few
agreements are as important to Canadian security as this key
international agreement.
Today I want to outline briefly why Canada supports the
indefinite and unconditional extension of the NPT and the
reasons we will be encouraging others to do the same at this
important conference.
(1505 )
The nuclear non-proliferation treaty, of which Canada was an
original signatory, entered into force in 1970. The NPT is
important to Canada for three essential reasons. First, the NPT
establishes a barrier to the further proliferation of nuclear
weapons. This is the NPT's most fundamental purpose and its
most outstanding success. By limiting the spread of nuclear
weapons, Canada and the world are more secure as a result.
Second, the treaty provides the framework for the peaceful
uses of nuclear energy by establishing a system of effective
international safeguards. These safeguards, implemented by the
International Atomic Energy Agency, ensure that nuclear
material is not being diverted to weapon programs. Canada will
not sell nuclear technology to any nation that does not have a
safeguard agreement with IAEA and has not signed the NPT or a
regional equivalent. Our exports of nuclear technology under
safeguard agreements have helped to sustain an industry that
employs 20,000 people directly and another 10,000 indirectly.
Third, the treaty commits all states to work toward
disarmament, including nuclear disarmament. This unique
binding legal obligation, particularly as it falls on the nuclear
weapons states, firmly establishes our long term goal: the
elimination of nuclear weapons.
The decision we members of the NPT must make is whether to
extend the treaty indefinitely or for a more limited duration. Our
position is quite clear: we believe that Canadians and people
around the world deserve an enduring commitment by their
governments to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons
and to pursue nuclear disarmament.
Those who argue that the NPT should not be made permanent
keep open the possibility of its disappearance at some future
point. This is not in anyone's interest. We must once and for all
close the door on that possibility.
With the end of the cold war came an end to the nuclear arms
race. It came to an end because of greater trust, openness, and
cooperation between Russia and the west. That is the path to
11994
disarmament: greater security. The NPT is essential to work
toward greater security and cooperation between nations.
We cannot forget that 1995 also marks the tragic 50th
anniversary of the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki. The great American statesman Adlai Stevenson once
said that evil is not in the atom but in the souls of men. Do we
need a better reason to co-operate, establish and defend
international laws that curb the madness of those who would act
to undermine international peace and security?
The nuclear non-proliferation treaty has served Canada well
for 25 years. It is now time to enshrine those benefits for future
generations.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I am pleased to discuss the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, whose future is currently
being decided in New York. The NPT is the most important
international treaty on arms control.
Last fall, the Bloc Quebecois had the opportunity to state its
position on the issue of nuclear disarmament, when the joint
committee conducted its review of Canada's defence policy. The
emergence of new confirmed and unconfirmed nuclear powers
makes the issue of nuclear disarmament more complex than
ever.
This is why the Bloc Quebecois strongly supports the
indefinite and unconditional extension of the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty. We hope that its very wide
membership will be extended even more. While more than 160
nations have ratified the treaty so far, some countries which
could conceivably develop such mass destruction weapons
refuse to sign the treaty, thus jeopardizing the current
foundations of international peace. It is important to ensure the
continuity of the treaty and to improve its efficiency.
(1510)
It is possible to convince countries to do without nuclear
weapons. In the past, at least four countries, namely Canada,
South Africa, Brazil, and Argentina, made efforts to that end.
Would it not be more efficient, and a lot more attractive for the
world, to work on a multilateral agreement to eliminate such
weapons, as was recently done for chemical weapons?
While the Secretary of State, Asia-Pacific, was raving about
the NPT and Canada, which was one of the first two signatories
to that treaty, I could not help but wonder about this
government's inconsistency in the conduct of its foreign affairs.
It is a well known fact that the Canadian government is now
only interested in its own commercial interests, at the expense
of human rights, democracy, as well as international security.
Indeed, how can the government explain the fact that it is
about to authorize and to finance, to the tune of $2 billion, the
sale of CANDU nuclear reactors to China? The Bloc Quebecois
feels that the government should at least demand that China
comply with the NPT, rather than violate the moratorium on
testing agreed to by other nuclear nations.
The sale of these reactors could undermine the international
community's efforts to end nuclear proliferation.
The Canadian government's behaviour is not any better, nor
any more consistent, as regards the sale of CF-5 fighter bombers
to Turkey. We know that Turkey is pursuing a military offensive
in northern Iraq, against Kurds. We repeatedly, but vainly, asked
the government to stop negotiating that sale with Turkey.
I think you will all agree that this government is not very
consistent in the conduct of its foreign affairs.
The fact that it now supports the indefinite and unconditional
extension of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty gives us
some hope. But we urge the government to show more
consistency. For example, Canada could adopt a much stricter
policy on co-operation in the nuclear sector. As written, the
present non-proliferation policy allows nuclear exports to
non-treaty countries, as long as these countries promise not to
use any material to produce nuclear weapons. There must be a
stricter policy in this area, if Canada wants to be consistent with
its interpretation of the nuclear threat and the outbreak of
military conflicts all over the world.
Canada could also innovate by suggesting strategies
consistent with its interest in international peace. In this regard,
for example, concrete measures could be taken. One, concerning
the export of fissile materials on which Canada has a say,
notably because of its radioactive material resources and its
nuclear technology expertise.
Two, Canada should submit to the international court a
judicial analysis establishing the illegality of nuclear arms.
[English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this year marks
the 50th anniversary of the invention of the nuclear bomb and its
first use on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as we have
mentioned.
These weapons created a new horror for humanity, the scope
of which we have never known before. Upon witnessing the
detonation of the first nuclear test explosion, Dr. Robert
Oppenheimer, the director of the Manhattan project, in his shock
and amazement at the devastation quoted an ancient Hindu
scripture that read ``I am become death, the destroyer of
worlds''.
11995
It was true that for the first time in history man could destroy
the earth, and nothing has been the same since. Not only did the
atomic bomb magnify the horror of war, but it changed it
fundamentally.
Throughout the centuries, civilian populations were largely
left beyond the battlefield. At the very least, a conqueror or
destroyer would be forced to fight its way through a country's
defences before they could do significant harm to civilians. In
other words, there was always a defence and hope.
With the creation of nuclear weapons, two things changed.
First, civilians were no longer unintended victims; they were the
primary targets, and they could be incinerated by the millions.
Second, no matter how strong the country's defences were or
how tough its army was it was still completely vulnerable to
nuclear destruction.
(1515)
Responding to the threat that nuclear weapons would spread
across the world, the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, the NPT,
was negotiated in 1970 and has been strongly supported by
Canada ever since.
As the Minister of Foreign Affairs has already described its
key features and advantages, I will not repeat them. However, I
will say that the Reform Party will give 100 per cent support to
the government in its efforts to negotiate an indefinite and
unconditional extension of the NPT.
For the future of our citizens and all the people of the world
Canada must be a leading voice in the UN, calling for the total
elimination of nuclear weapons. No good can come from such
weapons of mass destruction, and their ownership should be
negotiated away by all governments in good conscience.
The Reform Party sincerely hopes that the NPT can be
renewed indefinitely; however, if certain countries withdraw or
fail to sign on we believe the government should take into
consideration whatever action it can use to promote bilateral
action against those countries.
The time has come for the world to take a few large and rapid
steps away from nuclear annihilation. The end of the cold war
has made this possible, and now the unconditional and indefinite
renewal of the NPT is the next logical step. For our collective
future we must not fail in this task.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present the 74th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding
the list of the standing committee associate members.
With the consent of the House, I intend to propose adoption of
the 74th report later today.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Roy MacLaren (for the Minister of Foreign Affairs,
Lib) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-87, an act to
implement the convention on the prohibition of the
development, production, stockpiling and use of chemical
weapons and on their destruction.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Douglas Young (on behalf of Minister of Industry,
Lib.) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-88, an act to
implement the Agreement on Internal Trade.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-323, an act to amend the
Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (order of discharge).
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to introduce this private
member's bill today and I thank my hon. colleague for
seconding introduction and first reading.
Earlier this year I was approached by a Vancouver area lawyer
who told me of a concern he had with the Bankruptcy and
Insolvency Act. The concern is that an offender can be released
from having to pay any damages arising from assault awarded in
a civil law suit if they claim bankruptcy.
(1520)
The plight of the victim should take precedence over the
rights of the offender. The victim in this country has suffered
enough, and then to be hit with a blow that no payment for
damages will be received because of a loophole in the
bankruptcy act is completely unacceptable.
Many have been victimized by abusive relationships only to
learn that later they will not receive the awarded damages
because of a loophole in the federal statute. Fines, alimony and
11996
fraud debt are not exempted; civil damages from criminal
assault should not be exempted either. Action must be taken now
to amend the flawed act.
The bill I am introducing will add to the list currently in the
act under section 178. The addition will be civil damages in
respect of an assault or battery on a victim. The changes will
give the victim more rights. Every member in the House knows
the victim certainly deserves more consideration than the
convicted offender.
It is an honour as a private member to have the opportunity to
introduce a bill. However, I want the government to take a close
look at the legislation. I know the Minister of Industry and the
Minister of Justice are interested in this. I encourage the
government to take it over exactly as it is.
Canadians want Parliament to be comprised of effective
policy making. The way this can be done is to support any
legislation that will truly benefit the country as a whole.
Since victims of crime have no party label, I invite
non-partisan support for the bill from all corners of the House.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I move that the 74th report of the Standing Committee
on Procedure and House Affairs presented to the House earlier
this day be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today I will be presenting petitions under
two categories.
First, the undersigned citizens draw to the attention of the
House that because of the inclusion of sexual orientation in Bill
C-41 it will provide those engaging in homosexual practice with
special rights and privileges.
Because these special rights and privileges will be granted
solely on the basis of sexual behaviour and because inclusion
will infringe on the historic rights of Canadians such as freedom
of religion, conscience and expression, therefore the petitioners
call on Parliament to oppose any amendments to the federal
Criminal Code which would provide for the inclusion of the
phrase sexual orientation.
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the second petition on behalf of my
constituents deals with another subject.
The undersigned draw to the attention of the House that the
Supreme Court of Canada has allowed extreme intoxication as a
defence for sexual assault and that this ruling has also been used
recently as a defence for wife assault. This ruling is regressive to
women's rights and consequently provides men with additional
justification to abuse women and their children.
Therefore the petitioners call on Parliament to reverse the
decision of the Supreme Court of Canada to allow extreme
intoxication as a defence for sexual assault or physical assault.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise to present another petition in the course of action
undertaken on behalf of constituents who wish to halt the early
release from prison of Robert Paul Thompson.
(1525 )
The petitioners I represent are concerned about making our
streets safer for our citizens and are opposed to the current
practice of early release of violent offenders prior to serving the
full extent of their sentences.
The petitioners pray our streets will be made safer for
law-abiding citizens and the families of the victims of
convicted murderers.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing
Order 36, I have been requested to table a petition signed by 63
Canadians, of whom 9 are residents in my riding.
The petitioners call on Parliament to desist from passing
legislation legalizing the use of BST/rbGH in Canada. They
further request legislation be passed requiring all imports
produced from BST/rbGH treated cows to be so identified.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to present four petitions today.
The first petition is on the subject of official languages. The
petitioners claim the majority of Canadians are opposed to this
policy and demand a referendum to determine whether Canada
should continue with its current policy.
11997
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition is on the subject of the family. The petitioners
request Parliament oppose any legislation that would directly or
indirectly redefine family, including the provision of marriage
and family benefits to those who are not related by ties of blood,
marriage or adoption where marriage is defined as the legal
union between a man and a woman.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
third petition is on the undefined phrase sexual orientation.
The petitioners request that the Government of Canada not
amend the human rights act to include the phrase sexual
orientation. The petitions fear that such an inclusion could lead
to homosexuals receiving the same benefits and societal
privileges as married people.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the final
petition deals with section 718.2 of Bill C-41.
The petitioners are concerned that naming specific groups in
legislation will exclude other groups from protection and that
sentencing based on the concept of hatred is very subjective and
will undermine our justice system.
I agree with those petitions.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have two petitions, both on the same subject, signed
by over 200 residents of Canada.
These residents support the lawful and responsible use of
firearms and ammunition. They state many Canadian citizens
oppose laws to put more restrictions or prohibitions on legal
firearms ownership rather than addressing violent criminal
misuse of firearms.
Therefore the petitioners call on Parliament not to enact any
further firearms control legislation, regulations or orders in
council.
Mr. Ron Fewchuk (Selkirk-Red River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have the honour to present two petitions on behalf of
constituents of my riding of Selkirk-Red River.
My constituents pray that Parliament continues to reject
euthanasia and physician assisted suicide in Canada.
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present four petitions from
my constituency of Annapolis Valley-Hants.
The first two petitions call on Parliament to ensure the
Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be
vigorously enforced. The petitioners also call on Parliament to
make changes in the law which would allow the aiding or
abetting of suicide or euthanasia.
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the third petition calls on Parliament not to amend the
Canadian Human Rights Act or the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms to indicate societal approval of same sex
relationships or homosexuality, including amending the
Canadian Human Rights Act to include in the prohibited
grounds of discrimination the phrase sexual orientation.
The final petition calls on Parliament to amend the Canadian
Human Rights Act to protect individuals from discrimination
based on sexual orientation.
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin-Norfolk, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
my pleasure today to present three petitions. The first petition
has close to 500 names on it from constituents of my riding.
The petitioners are asking that Parliament support only gun
legislation which severely punishes any violent criminal who
uses a weapon including a weapon other than a firearm, protects
the rights and freedoms of law-abiding recreational firearms
users to own and use firearms responsibly and repeals firearms
control legislation which features tortuous language and has
been characterized as one of the most horrifying examples of
bad draftsmanship.
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin-Norfolk, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition has 36 names on it.
The petitioners are calling on Parliament to put an end to
discriminatory treatment in Canada of gay and lesbian citizens
and their familiar relationships by amending federal legislation
which currently allows unequal treatment, including an
amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit
discrimination based on sexual orientation.
(1530 )
Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin-Norfolk, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
third petition contains over 150 names.
The petitioners are requesting that the Criminal Code of
Canada and any other relevant acts be amended so that extreme
drunkenness as a defence in any criminal case cannot be used.
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to
present a petition today signed by British Columbians, the
majority of whom are from my riding of New
Westminster-Burnaby.
11998
The petitioners beginning with Peggy MacDonald of New
Westminster pray that Parliament not amend the Canadian
Human Rights Act or the charter of rights and freedoms in any
way that would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex
relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the
human rights act to include in the prohibitive grounds of
discrimination the undefined phrase of sexual orientation.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Question No. 171 will be answered today.
[Text]
Question No. 171-Mr. Harper (Calgary West):
With regard to the closure of Canadian Forces Base Calgary, (a) how much
will it cost to clean up the entire base, including both barracks, training
grounds, etc., to a state where the grounds could be resold or returned to the
lessor, and how are those costs allocated, (b) what other similar clean-ups
have been done, and how much did they cost, (c) what renovations and
improvements were done to CFB Calgary in the last year, and how much did
they cost, (d) what costs will be incurred to move all equipment and personnel
from CFB Calgary to Edmonton, (e) what changes will be needed at CFB
Edmonton to accommodate the personnel and equipment transferred from
CFB Calgary, and what are the associated cost estimates, and (f) what
additional renovations/maintenance costs are anticipated over the next 10
years for CFB Edmonton?
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.):
The following table addresses parts (a) to (f) of the question
posed:
[English]
Mr. Milliken: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before proceeding to
orders of the day I wish to inform the House that pursuant to
Standing Order 33(2) Government Orders will be extended by
13 minutes because of the ministerial statement.
_____________________________________________
11998
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion and the
amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Resuming debate. I give
the floor to the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell,
who had approximately 12 minutes left.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude the remarks I had started a
little earlier today regarding the whole issue of public morality.
It has to be pointed out in this debate that the whole issue had
been left lying around for a few years under the previous
administration. Of course, as the old saying goes, what is left
lying around gets dirty. It is true.
Legislation was introduced in 1987 as Bill C-114. It was then
reprinted as Bill C-46, reprinted again as Bill C-43 and
referred-in 1991-to a parliamentary committee. The
committee put forward, in its report dated June 1992, a new draft
bill. The government used that draft, together with our
recommendations, to introduce new legislation, i.e. Bill C-116.
The new bill introduced in the House by the government was
found lacking, but the minister responsible, Harvie Andre,
refused to amend
11999
the bill to make it acceptable, with the result that the whole issue
was dropped. No wonder some people think that legislators did
drag their feet on this issue. It is true.
I do not intend to deny what happened. I took part in the
discussion and sat on the committee examining Bill C-116, and
I realized that so much time had gone by that some documents
were becoming badly outdated. For example, the report of the
Parker Commission on the dealings of Sinclair and Noreen
Stevens was just about forgotten and we did not have a clear
recollection of its recommendations. It was not easy to examine
the whole issue.
However, the issue has not lost any of its importance and we
must deal with it. That is why I congratulate the House leader on
this motion. Hon. members will remember that the red book
stated quite clearly that this issue and that of lobbying would be
discussed.
We have dealt first with the lobbying issue. I congratulate all
members who contributed. They did a great job. The bill has
now reached the third reading stage in the House, and I am sure
it will be passed in the next few days. We are now ready to move
to the next issue, that of a code of conduct and a conflict of
interest code for members of both Houses.
(1535)
It is important to examine that issue right after concluding
committee hearings on lobbying because both issues are related
to a certain extent, which is a good reason to proceed right away.
Also, it is important for the government to act now in order to
show the public that it definitely intends to settle these issues
and not to drag things out, as we saw under previous
governments.
By introducing this bill, the government is acting with good
intentions. As our House leader said earlier, all kinds of
questions will be raised. I remember Bill C-116 and all the
errors it contained. It was so badly drafted that people under one
set of rules were subject to another set and vice versa.
You have to remember that this whole conflict of interest
issue really affects three groups. First, there are the members of
Parliament and the senators, the so-called ordinary
parliamentarians. Then, there are the parliamentarians who are
also public office holders; in other words, the ministers and
parliamentary secretaries. Finally, there are the order in council
appointees, or the top brass of the public service.
So, you have these three groups and then you have a very
interesting area, the one where some parliamentarians are also
public office holders, because under the Westminster
parliamentary system in use in Canada and in several other
countries, members of the executive branch of government sit in
the House. They are both ministers and parliamentarians. Under
such circumstances, you have to determine which system they
will be subject to. Will they be subject to the rules applying to
public servants and other public office holders or to the code
developed for parliamentarians? This was an interesting
question which was examined by the committee studying Bill
C-43 and then Bill C-116.
We concluded, or rather the government at the time
concluded, since our recommandations were slightly different,
that the system applying to public servants had to apply at the
same time to ministers and other public office holders who are
also parliamentarians, but that for backbenchers there should be
a separate system. The reason for this type of distinction is
simple; it is because a system administered by the government
cannot bind members of Parliament.
I find it difficult to imagine that the hon. member for
Bellechasse, for example, would agree to be judged by a system
reporting to the Prime Minister. Indeed, I would not blame him
for refusing. I would not agree to it myself if I were a member of
the opposition. Consequently, what we need is a committee
reporting to the House to judge conflict of interest cases for
parliamentarians.
But, of course, at the same time, we must establish a system
by which the member for Bellechasse or another member may
ask questions of the Prime Minister concerning the conduct of
ministers, questions like the following: ``Mr. Prime Minister,
since you are the boss, how can you tolerate such and such an
action by one of your colleagues and what measures will you
take?''
(1540)
Of course, in a case like that, we would not expect the Prime
Minister to say: ``No, I am not in charge of these cases, an
officer of the House is''. The Prime Minister must have the
authority to take the necessary disciplinary measures and he
must also be responsible in order to be in a position to answer the
questions asked by all those who want to make our Parliament
accountable, as they have the duty to do.
We will examine issues such as these in our committee. We
already know that, in this House, it will be the committee on
procedure, of which my colleague opposite, the hon. member for
Bellechasse, is a member. Since he is a law professor, I know
that he will be able to bring significant input to the work of that
committee, as will several other parliamentarians. They will all
help us produce a code of conduct that is both acceptable, so that
people are not discouraged from running for public office, and
strict enough to ensure good conduct and public morality.
I recognize that it is not always easy to rule in this area. I had
to deal with such cases for several years when I was the
opposition critic for government administration. I look forward
to the proceedings of the committee.
But I disagree with some hon. members from the opposition
who want to exclude from the committee members from the
other place.
12000
I must tell you that the code of conduct has to apply not only to
members of the House, but to senators as well. I said it at the
beginning of my speech and I will say it again, I ask members
who propose that senators not be included in this exercise to
reconsider their position because we may be talking about
amending the Criminal Code, the Standing Orders of the House,
the Rules of the Senate and the Parliament of Canada Act. These
laws and some of these rules need to be amended by both houses
of Parliament. I am sure that members opposite know that, as
does the member for Bellechasse.
So we have to work together to be able to make the necessary
changes to the rules in this place and in the other place. Why
would we want to adopt a code of conduct regarding conflicts of
interest for the members of this House and exempt the members
of the other place? I have to tell you that I do not understand why
people would want to do such a thing. As a matter of fact, just
recently, some members opposite asked questions about a
member of the other place who allegedly found himself in a
conflict of interest situation or something like that. We know
that it was not true, that the allegation came from the media and
that the reporter who made the allegation had to retract, but the
fact remains that such questions were asked.
That proves that both houses of Parliament must work
together to make better rules. That is what I intend to do
personally as a parliamentarian who is interested in this issue.
Therefore, I urge the official opposition to withdraw its
motion to exempt the Senate from the rules that we want to adopt
for parliamentarians.
[English]
I hope we work together to arrive at a good code of conduct for
members of both Houses of Parliament. In so doing I hope,
because it is not the whole picture, that in part we will contribute
toward a better acceptance and a better view by Canadians of
what we do to govern the country honestly and appropriately. I
am sure that is the intention of all members of both Houses.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is extremely important that members of Parliament
have some clearly defined rules for dealing with lobbyists. It is
important that the Senate have this as well but perhaps it is not
incumbent upon this House to enact rules for the unelected
Senate. It first has to clean its own house and then develop its
own rules.
(1545)
Lobbying has long been one of those grey areas where the
concept has been accepted but frowned upon depending upon
who was actually doing it. If organizations such as firefighters
lobby to make Parliament aware of problems within their
profession, it is considered to be quite acceptable. If business
lobbies for a particular advantage, then it becomes less clear. If
that business lobbies using its own existing personnel, it is
generally considered more acceptable than if it hires somebody
to lobby on its behalf.
There is a bit of hypocrisy in this attitude. Lobbying is either
right or wrong. We should not be making judgments based solely
on who is doing the lobbying. This is one of the first issues that
Motion No. 23 should address.
Another area of lobbying that needs to be addressed by
Motion No. 23 is what constitutes excessive lobbying. If
lobbying is a legal activity with no definition as to who can do it
or how much can be done, how can any level of activity be
considered excessive under the current unregulated structure?
A lack of specific guidelines for elected members and for that
matter the lobbyists themselves have caused many problems for
both. It is appropriate to spend some time reviewing one of those
problems.
During the 1993 election the Liberals took aim at the Pearson
Development Corporation contract to redevelop terminals 1 and
2 at Pearson International Airport. The main hue and cry that
they raised was that of excessive lobbying which led to a largely
patronage deal which should be cancelled.
Was this contract an example of excessive lobbying? Did that
lobbying lead to a patronage deal? To determine this, let us start
at the beginning.
Terminal 3 had already been privatized and there was no
particular objection to this. In September 1989 the Matthews
group submitted an unsolicited bid for the privatization of
terminals 1 and 2. The proposal was not accepted. Two and
one-half years later in March 1992, the government issued a
request for proposal for the privatization of terminals 1 and 2.
One of the Liberals' claims was that the original bid was a
form of lobbying and that the original proposal gave the
proposers an unfair advantage in their bidding in 1992. If the
request for a proposal had followed on the heels of the
unsolicited bid, there may have been some justification for such
an argument.
Two and one-half years later, a claim such as that is totally
invalid. Although there were and still are no guidelines for
lobbying, the Liberals pushed forward with their claim that
lobbying in the Pearson contract was excessive. This brings me
back to my earlier question, how can lobbying be considered
excessive to the point of justifying the cancellation of a contract
if there are no guidelines to compare it to?
A motorist was driving down the street at the legal speed limit
on a clear day when another driver pulled out in front of the
motorist and a collision occurred. At the inquiry after the
accident it was determined that the speed limit followed by the
12001
first driver was too high given the limited visibility for vehicles
entering the street in that area.
The inquiry recommended that the speed be reduced. This
does not make the first driver guilty of speeding. The speed limit
cannot be retroactively reduced. This, however, is exactly what
the Liberals were trying to do with regard to lobbying in the
Pearson contract.
There is no definition of excessive and no evidence that there
was any abnormal amount of lobbying in the pursuit of the
contract. The Liberals, who by this time had formed the
government, cancelled the contract citing excessive lobbying
and resultant patronage.
At the time of the last election the Pearson contract was very
controversial. Allegations of excessive lobbying and patronage
flowed freely. Prime reasons for these accusations were not
those directly involved in the contract. Rather, it was the fact
that it was put together by the Mulroney government which was
by then looked upon as unscrupulous and possibly corrupt.
The Pearson contract was a victim of election rhetoric, which
I was caught up in as well. I was one of the voices that
questioned whether or not the contract holders were entitled to
any compensation if the accusations levelled against them were
true.
The leader of the Liberal Party stated that if the Liberals
formed the government, they would review the contract process
and cancel that contract if they found problems in the process.
So far so good as far as I was concerned.
As promised, the new Prime Minister set out to review the
contract. For that purpose he appointed Robert Nixon as the sole
person responsible for carrying out the 30-day review. Nixon
was a long time Liberal Party supporter, father of a sitting
Liberal MP and was rewarded for his $80,000 report by being
appointed chairman of Atomic Energy of Canada, not exactly an
auspicious beginning for a party decrying claims of patronage
regarding the signing of the Pearson contract. The Nixon review
did not interview under oath, talked only to certain people
excluding some of the principals involved, and did not allow an
opportunity for any of the testimony to be rebutted.
(1550)
The report stated that the deal was bad and should be
cancelled but did not produce one word of evidence to support
that claim. Again the general allegation of excessive lobbying
was raised as one of the major justifications.
The Nixon report was the rationale for the Liberal's Bill C-22
which not only cancelled the contract but allowed the
government to decide for itself who got compensated and how
much they got. It also allowed the government to insinuate the
deal was crooked because of tactics such as lobbying without
allowing the accused to clear their names and reputations in a
court of law.
This is a very interesting strategy for the Liberals and it would
have worked was if not for all the evidence to the contrary that
started to surface. At that point they tried to expand their
rhetoric to suggest that it was not a good deal financially but the
evidence does not support this either.
The legislation was subject to a debate in the House of
Commons. When it reached the committee stage, I started to
realize that the flaw in the process may not have been in the
awarding of the contract but rather the way in which the contract
was cancelled. Many of the witnesses requested by either me or
the Bloc representative did not appear and the Liberal
dominated committee refused to press those people to attend.
The most significant person to be requested and not appear
was Robert Nixon. In his case it was not a matter of not showing
up but rather a refusal of the majority of the committee to invite
him. The committee response to the request was: You have his
report, what do you need him for?
One witness of note who did appear was Sandy Morrison of
Air Canada who was the main anchor tenant in the contract. Air
Canada spoke strongly in favour of the contract and requested
that it proceed as quickly as possible.
By this time it had been decided by the government to set up
another Liberal long time supporter and former law partner of
the Prime Minister, Robert Wright, to review the compensation
claims and to make a report to the minister. From this report the
minister would decide who got paid and how much they would
receive. Compensation was to be limited to out of pocket claims
only with no consideration of any further request including
lobbying costs and third party claims against the Pearson
Development Corporation.
The report and the decision would be confidential and would
be protected from access to information by making it a cabinet
document which is protected for 20 years. I questioned why this
process was bypassing the transport committee and cloaking
itself in secrecy. I did not receive a satisfactory answer.
I believe it is proper that we examine the results of the
Liberals' false vendetta against the Pearson group so that we can
fully understand the importance of lobbying guidelines and
what happens when no such guidelines exist.
As I earlier stated, when it appeared the accusation of
excessive lobbying alone would not be enough to justify the
cancelling of the contract, the Liberals then tried to suggest it
was not a good financial deal to cover up the fact that the real
12002
reason for cancelling the deal was political gain. As evidence
later showed, the Liberals knew from the very beginning that it
was not a bad financial deal but they had painted themselves into
a political corner and they did not know how to get out.
Through access to information, I came into the possession of a
secret government document dated October 29, 1993, supplied
to Robert Nixon for his review of the Pearson contract. This
document was supplied by William Rowat, associate deputy
minister of transport. In that document it is clearly stated that
the rate of return to the crown from the contract is considerably
better than the crown construction option and that the Pearson
Development Corporation return on investment was endorsed as
reasonable by both the Department of Finance and an
independent financial consultant hired by the government.
A second government document dated November 4, 1993
later appeared through court disclosure which further elaborates
on the financial feasibility of the contract. This second
document was also used to give direction to Nixon. It pointed
out that in order for the crown construction option to generate
revenues equivalent to the private sector deal, a real revenue
growth factor of 10 per cent per year until cost recovery was
completed would be necessary.
Historically speaking, the government management growth in
revenues has been at or below inflation, projected for the
purpose of the analysis at 3 per cent per annum. Using a more
realistic real revenue growth rate of 3.5 per cent per year, the
crown construction option would have realized $250 million
less over the term of the contract than through the privatization
method.
(1555 )
The second government document also discusses the possible
cost of cancelling the contract. The options identified are:
negotiate or expropriate, which leave the government open to
damages ranging from $500 million to $2 billion; or legislate,
which could limit the government's liability but leave it open to
many more potential problems including severe capacity and
congestion problems, increased costs and the undermining of
government leasing and contracting processes if it is seen as a
precedent.
The document also discusses the possibility of renegotiating
or restructuring the contract, but it makes it very clear that this is
not a desirable option. Nowhere in that document does it suggest
that Nixon should examine the deal to see if it is clean and if so,
to recommend that it proceed. From this it seems very obvious to
conclude that Nixon was directed toward a very specific
outcome.
I have never questioned the government's right to cancel the
Pearson airport contract. In light of all the information that is
now available, I might question the wisdom of the cancellation,
but not the right to do so. With that right goes an obligation to
see that justice is done, which does not appear to be happening in
the handling of this contract.
All of this has been initiated by the Liberal government which
was looking for an election issue and seized upon Pearson
airport as a viable victim. It utilized a lack of any lobbying
guidelines as a way to try to justify its actions. What is the
impact of this flagrant attempt to utilize the lack of lobbying
guidelines? It can be looked at by a complete factual and
documented review of the impact on Pearson airport.
I will pass over commenting on that part because I will be
short of time. There is so much evidence on this contract, but I
have to move along.
Allow me to mention another aspect of this whole process in
which the fact that the Pearson International Airport is involved
at all is wholly coincidental. That aspect is the rule of law.
Under Bill C-22 the government is allowed to cancel a signed
contract and decide for itself who gets what compensation. It
also allows it to insinuate that the deal and those involved in it
were crooked without allowing the accused to clear their names
and reputations in a court of law.
What that government action does is pronounce a group of
Canadians guilty until proven innocent and then removes their
right to prove their innocence. This action relates much more to
a dictatorship than it does to a democracy.
All of this started as a result of an opportunity for the Liberals
to seek political gain by utilizing the fact that there were no
guidelines for dealing with lobbyists or lobbying activities.
Motion No. 23 will not only provide clear and long overdue
guidelines for all MPs when dealing with lobbyists, it will
protect the public from unscrupulous action by a political party.
It may even protect the Liberals from their own tendency toward
election rhetoric.
[Translation]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the goal of the motion before
us today is to strike a special joint committee of the House and
the Senate to review the weighty issue of parliamentary ethics.
We are counting on this committee to establish a practical and
realistic code of conduct which will help balance the official
responsibilities and personal interests of MPs and Senators.
This issue obviously affects each member of this House
personally while having a wider, much more fundamental scope:
it also affects all Canadians. Our conduct as individuals and as a
group, in fact, determines the level of confidence that Canadians
have in parliamentarians. The way we carry out our daily tasks
as parliamentarians molds our institution's image. The trust of
12003
those who elected us to this noble House is either earned or lost
by our conduct from day to day.
The important issues of trust, credibility and ethics are at the
heart of the agenda we presented to Canadians during the last
election campaign.
In fact, we devoted an entire chapter of our red book to
parliamentary integrity. We clearly stated the principles
whereby we recognize the following: ``The most important asset
of government is the confidence it enjoys of the citizens to
whom it is accountable''. We also recognized that the Canadian
government would be unable to play the constructive role which
it must unless, first and foremost, it restores the integrity of our
political institutions.
(1600)
Since being elected 18 months ago, we have made
considerable progress in this area. We reinforced the code of
conduct for cabinet members and senior officials. We also
appointed an ethics counsellor to help our officials apply these
rules correctly. We drastically reduced the range of political
appointments.
My colleague, the President of the Privy Council, examined
the role and operations of 120 agencies, commissions, councils
and advisory committees. At the end of this exercise, on
February 16 he announced that 665 positions filled by order in
council appointments would be abolished. He ordered 73
agencies to be closed down and 47 others to be restructured.
This initiative alone will save the government as much as $10
million annually. However, it is more than just a matter of
efficiency and saving money. It is also an indication that the
government does not intend to use political appointments as a
way to reward its supporters.
We also reformed the pension plan of members of Parliament
which for too long has been a source of controversy. Last week,
there was a debate in this House on a bill that will provide a
framework for the activities of lobbyists, and today, we are
about to create a committee to develop a code of conduct to
guide senators and members of the House of Commons.
It is this systematic, methodical and orderly approach to
questions that touch on ethical issues that is now helping to
restore public confidence in our political institutions.
In an impressive speech yesterday to a meeting of Liberal
militants in Trois-Rivières, our Prime Minister once again
stressed the importance of integrity and ethical conduct. He
pointed out that after 18 months in government, no member of
cabinet had resigned or been dismissed for ethical reasons.
During a comparable period, the previous government saw at
least six resignations from cabinet.
I am not saying we are perfect. To err is human, and errors of
judgment do occur, but by acting prudently, according to
clearcut rules, we will, both individually and collectively,
manage to restore the trust of our fellow citizens.
The role of parliamentarians is difficult and often complex.
Society expects all individuals to be as free as possible to
manage their economic interests. It also expects that those in
public office will not, in the exercise of their duties, be involved
in matters in which they have personal financial interests. Some
feel that Parliament should enact stiffer laws, others fear that
stricter rules will discourage competent individuals from
becoming involved in public affairs.
We are looking for a balance. We want rules strict enough to
prevent practices contravening the code of ethics and to
maintain the reputation of Parliament and parliamentarians
among the public. However, we do not want rules that
discourage competent individuals from entering public life and
serving their fellow citizens. We must strike a balance that
allows us to attract the people who are best prepared and most
able to lead the country and have them governed by a set of rules
that will keep them above all suspicion.
Conflicts of interest are not new. They have always existed.
What has changed are people's and taxpayers' attitudes and
levels of tolerance.
(1605)
We have a practical and precise code of ethics governing
members of Cabinet and their staff, parliamentary secretaries
and senior public servants. We have nothing, however, for
members of Parliament and senators. Traditionally, the public
has felt they had little importance, individually, in the decision
making process. I must disagree.
Members of Parliament have increasing influence on the
process. Their role in the various parliamentary committees is
growing in importance. Their influence in their individual
caucuses is expanding, and their votes on bills before the House
is always decisive.
On each issue, in each debate, members of Parliament must
reflect, analyze the effect of their decisions on the lives of their
constituents and decide on their individual approaches. They are
entirely free to defend their viewpoint in the legislative process.
They may propose changes and amendments, they may
influence their colleagues' thinking. This process of analysis
and choice is repeated hundreds of times during the mandate of a
member of Parliament. This is why we have a Parliament and
this is why members are elected.
However, throughout our term of office, we remain full
fledged citizens. We are all taxpayers and consumers. Most of us
are parents and many own property. In this regard, we are very
much like Canadians as a whole. We may therefore assume that
12004
these essentially undistinguishing characteristics have very
little influence on our behaviour as legislators. Some criteria
are more regional or specific in nature.
Some parliamentarians share the concerns of their
constituents, in areas such as agriculture, fisheries or natural
resources for example. Family businesses raise some problems
because they encompass a whole range of assets, profits or debts
and financial interests. It is usually interests such as these which
are covered by conflict of interest legislation.
Maybe we should first of all agree on what constitutes a
conflict of interest. There are several definitions. Mr. Justice
Parker defined the real conflict of interest as a situation where a
minister-or a member of Parliament or a senator-is aware of
private financial interests sufficient to exert some influence on
the performance of his other official duties and responsibilities.
Therefore, rules must be defined in order to prevent the
financial interests of parliamentarians from exerting an
influence on the decisions they make while exercising their
duties. Several control methods have been tested over the years.
Some have proven to be efficient. The first one is disclosure,
that is the disclosure of one's assets to a designated person. This
information can then be recorded for reference purposes or be
made public. When their private interests are known, the holders
of public office are less tempted to act in their own interest.
Prevention forces parliamentarians to divest themselves of
interests or associations which may distort their judgment,
either by selling the interests to third parties with whom they are
at arm's length, or by placing them in blind trusts. Finally,
relinquishing these interests will prevent parliamentarians from
intervening in matters involving personal gain.
Any code of ethics contains a number of such controls. It will
be up to the special joint committee members to review these
mechanisms and to decide whether they should apply to MPs
and senators or whether it would be more desirable to resort to
some other kind of control. The committee has all the latitude it
needs to consult experts, and to consult with those to whom the
code of conduct will apply, in order to come up with a firm, clear
and realistic code. The committee will have to take into account
the fact that parliamentarians carry on other activities in parallel
with their legislative work.
(1610)
Members from all parties manage significant budgets, their
budget as MPs. They must use this money wisely and prudently.
MPs represent the citizens of their riding. It is an important part
of their mandate. This requires regular attendance and the
necessary amount of time. Finally, MPs are often required to
represent Canada and Parliament abroad.
These many facets of an MP's mandate raise a number of
questions which the committee will probably want to review in
detail. First, the committee will certainly want to set rules to
avoid conflicts of interest. It will certainly want to question the
judiciousness of allowing MPs and senators to pursue other
professional activities during their mandate. It will also want to
analyze the conditions surrounding our parliamentarians' public
or private visits abroad. We want to make sure that these
activities are entirely compatible with the Parliament's
objectives of transparency and integrity.
The committee will certainly want to review all the rules we
are subjected to at the present time. They need to be evaluated to
see if they are sufficiently clear, strict and practical for every
parliamentarian to be able to abide by them. Finally, the
committee has been given the specific mandate to study the
relationship between parliamentarians and lobbyists. I believe
all members want lobbying activities to be well defined and they
will be happy to implement the rules established by the
committee.
The committee's task will not be an easy one. Several
attempts have been made to give Parliament a code of conduct
and they all failed along the way. This time however, there is a
political will. This government has said its administration
would focus on ethics. This time, all members of all political
parties want to restore confidence in Parliament. We have all
chosen to serve the public. We want to do it honestly, freely and
openly. Even though they might be restrictive, the present rules
of ethics governing many of us are precious tools that help us
carry out our mandate in a transparent and effective manner.
Quite often, we question the pertinence of an action, the
necessity of an intervention, the timeliness of an initiative. In
such instances of doubt and questioning, the rules of ethics give
us the information and support we need to make the right
decisions.
So I ask all members of this House to support and help those
who must develop that new code of conduct. Their work and
wisdom will profit not only each and every one of us in
Parliament, but also Canadians as a whole.
I know that the Bloc Quebecois, the official opposition,
proposed an amendment to exclude the Senate from this
exercise. I know very well that the position of the Bloc is to
ignore the Senate, but this is not the problem today. The Senate
is part of our parliamentary institutions, it completes
Parliament. If we want to establish a code of conduct which will
make Quebecers and Canadians look upon their politicians with
confidence in all their activities, and if we want to proceed
according to the rules, can we disregard the other place? We
have a two chamber Parliament and until that is changed I do not
believe that we can give ourselves a set of rules and leave the
other place without such rules, if we want to settle this question
once and for all. For the last decade or so, I think each
Parliament has studied this difficult, but important issue.
12005
(1615)
As I said earlier, I believe that this time the government and
the other political parties are willing to adopt a code of conduct.
Such a code should not be an half-baked affair. It should be
complete and we should support the motion of the government
House leader so the Special Joint Committee of the House and
the Senate can start its work as soon as possible, with a view to
making recommendations that will provide members and
senators with a tool which will allow them to represent the
people of Canada with pride and dignity. That is why we are
here.
[English]
I hope that by the end of the day, or whenever this debate is
finished, the House can give a clear mandate to the special joint
committee, supported by all parties, all members of Parliament,
and the Senate, so that the committee can begin its mandate and
can come back to both Houses with a full report and
recommendations once and for all, after so many years.
I tried before I prepared my speech to go back as far as I could
to see how many reports have been made. There are many. I
know the previous government tried four bills and never
succeeded.
I believe this time the government, the opposition parties, and
all members of Parliament are clearly interested in solving this
problem and giving a clear code of ethics. We can succeed. In
order to succeed we must be united so that we can give a clear
mandate to the committee. I hope when the question is put we
are united in creating this special joint committee as soon as
possible.
[Translation]
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have
some questions for the hon. member who just spoke. He told us
that in the red book and throughout the election campaign, the
Liberals had called for openness and proposed the appointment
of an independent ethics counsellor directly accountable to the
Prime Minister. He added that the House was now considering a
bill which could allow it to have a code of conduct.
My question for the hon. member who just spoke is this:
Would a code of conduct have had precedence over the ethics
counsellor appointed by the Prime Minister in the matter
involving, on the one hand, the Prime Minister's son-in-law
and, on the other hand, the decision made by the CRTC?
Would the ethics counsellor have had more power with a code
of conduct to take the Minister of Canadian Heritage to task
concerning the letter that he passed on to the CRTC on behalf of
one applicant? He himself sent a letter to the CRTC.
With a code of conduct, would the ethics counsellor allow the
government, when it calls for tenders, to accept the lowest
acceptable bid?
Also, what would have happened in the case of Pearson
airport if we had had a code of conduct and an ethics counsellor?
Would the ethics counsellor, with a code of conduct, have
prevented the Liberal government from organizing brunches at
$1,000 a plate which allow the lobbyists, the following day, to
knock on the doors of Liberal members?
I must say also that, compared to the red book, the Liberals are
now doing the exact opposite of what they were preaching when
they were in the opposition and the Conservatives formed the
government.
Now that we have an ethics counsellor, with a code of conduct
what happened, and what is going to happen to the 30 Liberal
members who stayed in their offices because they opposed the
Justice minister's firearms bill? And what is going to happen to
the three Liberal members who voted against their own
government and who lost their seats on various committees and
commissions?
(1620)
The main questions are: Where are the openness and the
credibility of the Liberal government as far as the code of
conduct is concerned? And, is the code of conduct going to
prevent the members of the Bloc Quebecois from speaking about
sovereignty?
Mr. Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I will start by using the word
used by the honourable member, and that is transparency. I
believe that in all the points he raised and which I will try to deal
with one by one, there is a question of transparency.
Let us take the decision of the CRTC which has been raised
repeatedly during oral question period, over the past few days.
The government established a committee which examined this
issue and asked all the stakeholders to make representations.
The work of the committee was made public and its decision was
also made public, so that it could be discussed in the House.
Second, as the Prime Minister said, he did not take part in the
discussions and decision in Cabinet. I raise this issue because it
affects the members of our families. Does the fact that I have
been elected to Parliament or received an appointment as
minister mean that my son cannot pursue his career as an
accountant?
Therefore transparency is important because it allows
disclosure. The same thing applies to the famous letter sent by
the Minister of Canadian Heritage to the CRTC. The Prime
Minister was immediately informed of the problem. He made
the letter public in this very House, and the whole issue was
made public.
As I said earlier, we are all humans and a code of ethics or an
ethics counsellor will never solve every problem entirely. The
12006
important thing, however, is the will to ensure that things are
done with transparency and honesty.
That is what this government promised to do in its red book
and this is what it has done since its election on October 23 or
since the day the government was formed on November 4.
The disclosure of information on politicians is very important
because it will ensure that nothing is kept hidden and that
transparency becomes a fact. We will thus avoid criticism and
we will make our decisions in accordance with the rules of
disclosure and transparency.
It is not easy. Our task today is very difficult. We have to make
decisions and pass judgments. People will watch us and will also
pass judgments. Therefore we must be logical and transparent in
our actions.
Therefore I can say to the hon. member that I am proud of the
18 months of Liberal government under Jean Chrétien.
Furthermore, despite the list mentioned by my colleague, this
government enjoys the highest rate of popular support recorded
since polls were begun in Canada.
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
once again, the government is hiding behind a motion. Does it
ever like to delay proceedings in the House! A motion to create a
committee to conduct another study. For more than 20 years,
almost 25 years, various attempts by successive governments
have met with repeated failure.
Had the government even the slightest political will to find a
solution to the issue of conflict of interest, it would not have
been satisfied with a vague motion to create a committee, but
would have tabled a public bill improving on the ones that failed
in the House.
(1625)
The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell
mentioned Bill C-116 earlier, which finally died on the Order
Paper during the previous 34th Parliament. It would probably
have been possible to rewrite and refine Bill C-116 with the
government policy, while taking into account the views of the
opposition. But no. We are being proposed today a motion to
create a joint committee made up of eight senators and 14
members of Parliament.
Fortunately, the amendment moved by the hon. member for
La Prairie proposes that the committee no longer be a joint
committee, but a House committee made up only of members of
Parliament. The member for La Prairie even changes the
membership; there would be 12 members of Parliament: seven
Liberals, three members from the official opposition and two
from the second opposition party, which seems fair and
reasonable at first glance.
We do not need a joint committee. This House, which is made
up of elected people, has its own rules and its own vision of
things, while the Senate, which is made up of non elected people
who are in office until the age of 75, also has its own different
way of seeing things, a way with which we are not always
comfortable working. Had the government wanted to involve
both Houses in the development of a code of conduct, the best
way of doing it would have been to table a bill. Of course, both
this House and the Senate would have had to pass this bill before
it could receive Royal Assent.
Instead, the government decided to create a working
committee, another one. If we are to create such a committee, we
should at least let the elected members study, by themselves,
what constitutes a conflict of interest in their case. After all,
after a maximum of five years, these people must go back to
their constituents. They are accountable for their actions; they
must explain why they took such and such political decisions.
We should have this right, since our colleagues in the Senate do
not have this sensitive test to pass. All they need is the Governor
General's signature to be in office until the respectable age of
75.
Perhaps it could be interesting to get the other place's point of
view, but certainly not in a joint committee. Moreover, such a
committee would probably resurrect five Conservative senators
whose party was literally eliminated by the Canadians in the
October 1993 election and does not have official party status
anymore in this House. It would be a way to give back a voice to
people that want to be heard, these days. Last week-end, they
stated their case in Hull, and with this motion, they would do so
in a joint committee made up of members of Parliament and
senators.
If nothing but to respect the will of the people, we should
reject the creation of a joint committee. The referendum on the
Charlottetown accord showed that the people rejected the Senate
reforms, particularly in Quebec. The idea of a triple E Senate,
that is equal, elected and efficient, was certainly not endorsed.
The proposal was for six senators per province, regardless of the
size of the province, and it was rejected.
Now, the government party wants an elected Senate, while the
Reform Party wants a triple E Senate, which means that there is
disagreement on the number of Es. For our part, we want a triple
A Senate, that is to say abolished, abolished and abolished. No
other institution in the world is denounced by as many people as
is this other place we have in the Canadian Parliament. There is
no reason for a non-elected house to continue to exist in 1995.
Perhaps there was a need for it in 1867, but before 1867, the two
Houses we had in the Province of Canada were elected. The
legislative assembly of the Province of Canada was an elected
assembly. Starting in 1854, the legislative council, which had
been an appointed institution since 1840, became an elected one.
This means that until 1867, we had two elected Houses. What
12007
happened in 1867 that caused this split, with one house, the
House of Commons, being elected, and the other, the Senate of
Canada, not?
(1630)
The preamble of the British North America Act, or BNA Act,
1867, can shed some light on this. In 1867, it was stated in this
preamble that the Dominion of Canada wanted to have
institutions similar to those of the United Kingdom. What were
these institutions in 1867, and what are they still today? The
House of Commons, like in Canada, and the House of Lords,
made up of peers. Because we did not and still do not have an
aristocracy in Canada, we invented our own lords, whom were
called senators. Originally, they were appointed for life. But in
1965, the Canadian Constitution was amended so that a
senator's tenure of office ends at age 75, while grandfathering
the rights of those who were already sitting in the Senate at the
time but had not yet reached the age of 75.
Since then, as we can see clearly, the role of the other House
has become less important. The Senate now sits some 40 days a
year and cannot introduce money bills under section 53 of the
1867 British North America Act. The house of sober second
thought likes to drag things out, as demonstrated by the electoral
boundaries readjustment bill, the GST legislation introduced by
the previous government and other bills that may be filibustered
by the other house in the future. Given the cost to Canadian
society, I think that we could do without it.
If we asked Canadians, ``Do you agree that the Senate should
be abolished?'', a very high percentage of them would say yes.
The problem is, what should we replace it with and how should it
be done? Responses vary. There is no consensus on replacement.
I, of course, am eager to support the amendment tabled by the
hon. member for La Prairie to restrict committee membership to
members of the House of Commons. If the Senate wants to strike
its own committee, it will do so.
The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell said a
little earlier this afternoon that our institutions, including
Parliament, were based on the Westminster model, while the
hon. member for Saint-Léonard made some comments to that
effect.
I heard earlier today our colleague, the hon. member for Elk
Island, point out that we ranked 36th in the public's esteem, just
before used car salesmen. It is probably because we have to
defend a used system that should be refurbished, a system that,
in the past 50 years, has seen a virtual takeover of the legislative
power by the executive power. That was not the case previously,
as we can see by looking at history. When our parliamentary
ancestors fought to abolish or appropriate royal powers, they
insisted that these powers should be held by the House of
Commons.
(1635)
Over time, royal powers shifted from the palace not to the
House of Commons but to the Prime Minister's Office. It is there
that important decisions are made.
In our constitutional system, which consists of three powers:
the legislative, the judiciary and the executive, the legislative
branch is, for all practical purposes, under the control of the
executive, which in turn is under the control of the Prime
Minister's Office.
We have the advantage, and sometimes the disadvantage, of
having a neighbour that has inspired us to reform. Our American
neighbours have inspired us to carry out some institutional
reforms that may not be in our best interests. In a system in
which the executive is elected and accountable to the population
and not to the American Congress, a system in which members
of the House of Representatives and the Senate are elected and
not accountable to the executive, the situation is quite different.
In the U.S., what did the political parties decide to do? They
decided to choose their party leaders, their candidates for the
presidential election, at an all-members convention. We
adopted this idea in Canada, so that some of our party leaders are
elected by delegates at a general convention while others are
elected by all party members.
In principle, this is great, but when we want to apply this to
our parliamentary institutions, we face a big problem. The
problem is that, when the party leader is also the Prime Minister,
the party leader has practically unlimited power. First, to his
cabinet colleagues, he can say: ``Look, if you are here, it is
because I appointed you''. To his caucus, he can say: ``I do not
feel very accountable to you. After all, you are not the ones who
elected me party leader. I am accountable to the party members
who elected me''. The problem is that supporters have no
control over what the government party does.
You will see self-congratulatory conventions like the one
held in Trois-Rivières, of course, but no real debate on party
policies. The intent of the Constitution Act, 1867, was to have
institutions similar to those of the United Kingdom. In Great
Britain, the Prime Minister is elected by his or her peers. This
means that the party leader is elected from within the caucus,
primus inter pares, as the Latin saying goes. This was a much
more subtle way of governing and a much more equitable one,
since the Prime Minister was accountable first and
foremost-and in Great Britain this is still the case-to his
colleagues or peers.
The role of member of Parliament is all the more important,
since members can ask and expect to obtain from their leader the
answers they need to continue to support that leader. The Prime
Minister's seat is probably more precarious, more of a hot seat
in the British system than in ours, where one can wash one's
12008
hands by telling the caucus: ``You did not elect me''. In fact,
under our election law, the Prime Minister can even designate
candidates himself, over-ruling the electoral conventions in the
various ridings.
Imagine all the power in the hands of just one person. That
person appoints cabinet members, ultimately decides who gets
the top jobs in the public service, decides who is appointed to the
bench, as well as who can run under the party's banner. That is a
lot of power in the hands of just one person.
The time has come for a major review. I am not sure if the hon.
member for Saint-Léonard was being ironic earlier when he
referred to the important role of parliamentarians. Let us not
forget that never before was Parliament controlled to such an
extent by the executive level.
(1640)
When we voted on Bill C-68, three Liberal members opposed
the legislation, thus breaking ranks with their government
colleagues. All three lost the positions which they held in
parliamentary committees. And the member for Saint-Léonard
has the nerve to tell us that we must respect the parliamentary
institution. Was that institution respected then? We have to
wonder.
True control is not exercised by MPs. If the government wants
to give some control to members, it must first get rid of the
executive level in this House. We do not need it here; let it go to
Rideau Hall or on Sussex Drive, if there is room. It is quite
possible to change the system so that a member's ultimate goal,
his or her greatest ambition, will be to be the best possible
member. There should be no incentive to eventually become a
parliamentary secretary or a minister. Members in this House
should have no ambition other than to be able to say: I was the
best possible member for my riding. The prospect of future
promotions should not be a factor.
Those who want to serve at the executive level can certainly
do so. However, let us be careful not to mix the two levels,
particularly in this House. We all know the perverse effects of
this confusion between the legislative and the executive levels.
It is high time we distanced ourselves and shifted more toward a
congressional type of decision, adapting it, of course, to our way
of thinking, to our practices and to our traditions by regulating
the activities of lobbyists, the influence peddlars, in order to
control them.
The real issue is not members' powers or conflict of interest.
We already have Standing Order 21, which provides the
following, and, with your permission, I will quote it:
No member is entitled to vote upon any question in which he or she has a
direct pecuniary interest, and the vote of any Member so interested will be
disallowed.
The criterion is there; it is basic. When problems arise, we
have the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs,
previously the committee on privileges and elections, which is
empowered to hear all matters that may arise pertaining to a
member's status or conflict of interest.
The committee has only to exercise its powers. Nothing is
stopping it. If problems are brought to the attention of
colleagues in the House, they may be raised, and the Speaker
may determine prima facie that there is justification for their
referral to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs.
The mechanisms are already in place. Why create more? It
would probably be enough to have something more flexible at
the level of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs so we could have our committee on the rules of ethics in
order to improve our operations. It would be much wiser and
better advised to control the goings-on in the Prime Minister's
office.
The government is currently behaving like Nero. Legend has
it that Nero played his fiddle while Rome burned down.
Similarly, while the government fails to follow its own policies
on ethical conduct, while the Prime Minister himself tells us that
he did not consult his ethics counsellor before taking certain
decisions, we are being told that parliamentarians must be
watched.
But let us avoid diversion. Diversion may be a very useful
tactic in a hockey game during the last few minutes of third
period, in order to stop the opponent from scoring a goal. In
politics though, diversion tactics should not be overused. I think
that we have gone a little too far. Recent cases like that of
DirecTv show that mere parliamentarians are not the ones
intervening to change decisions. Obviously, people from outside
the House are making direct representations to either the Prime
Minister's office or to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Let us start by really enforcing a code of conduct throughout
government, at the ministerial and the executive level. Then it
will undoubtedly be time to examine the ethics of the members
of this House, the legislative branch of our constitution.
(1645)
[English]
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened
very attentively to the comments of the hon. member for
Bellechasse.
I have some difficulty with the reluctance of his party to
include the upper house in the debate. It concerns me because I
think it concerns the people of Canada. There is a lot of
reflection on what is happening in the Senate and if taxpayers'
money is being properly spent.
One of the areas of expenditure is the Senate, the senators and
their staffs. I have some misgivings about the Senate. It appears
12009
to me that at the present time we are not going to be able to deal
with reconstituting that place. However, this provides us with an
opportunity to revisit possibly the attendance of senators and
how they are carrying out their affairs.
The proposal the government presented today provides us
with an avenue to revisit that. Could the member reflect on the
fact that there may be a high degree of merit in including the
senators in this legislation?
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, in responding to the hon. member
for Durham, I would like to remind him of what I said earlier. If
the government had wanted the senators to be involved, it would
have tabled a bill that would necessarily have been considered in
this House and then have gone to the Senate. That was the best
way to involve both Houses.
When the government does not want a bill but simply wants to
create one more task force, one too many, my position is: Let us
create a committee of members of this House, a committee of
elected representatives. We should not mix elected
representatives with those who are not elected, people who have
to go before the electorate every four or five years with those
who never have to run on their record. In a democracy, Mr.
Speaker, and I say this through you to the hon. member for
Durham, in the kind of system we have, a non-elected House
where no one is accountable to anyone except to the provisions
of the Criminal Code is an anomaly. And that was my message
just now.
I realize the hon. member for Durham put a question mark
after his comment. He said: Perhaps I did not quite understand?
Perhaps I did not get it? I hope that, with this additional
information, he will understand that we should not mix elected
representatives with non-elected individuals. I am not saying
that the Senate should not examine these issues if it wants to.
However, the Senate has its own rules, its own board of internal
economy which operates differently from ours. Although it does
have a budget to administer, it has different rules. We, through
our own Board of Internal Economy, set much stricter rules than
the Senate does through its board.
My point is, we are constantly putting our seat on the line.
Every day, we are accountable to our constituents for what we
do. Mixing ingredients that are not terribly compatible to start
with, what with Liberal members, members of the Bloc and the
Reform Party, and adding a dash of Tory senators to boot, is not
really a recipe for success.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon.
member for Mercier-job creation.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is with pleasure that I rise today to speak to Motion No. 23, that a
parliamentary committee draft a code of conduct for MPs and
lobbyists, and also support the Bloc amendment.
(1650 )
The intention of the motion to reconcile official responsibility
with personal interests, including all dealings with lobbyists, is
the responsibility of parliamentarians only. Senators, as
appointed officials and not elected, should develop their own
code of conduct, giving consideration to their current activities
with lobbyists.
It is about time. The government ran on a platform that said:
``The most important asset of government is the confidence it
enjoys of the citizens to whom it is accountable. If government
is to play a positive role in society as it must, honesty and
integrity in our political institutions must be restored''. That is
right out of the Liberal red book.
The record shows that the activities of the government's
ministers and departments subsequent to the election of 1993
have been inconsistent, indecisive and confused, resulting in
serious flip-flops in terms of outcome. For a culture to endure
and prosper it must safeguard its principles and procedures.
Ethics in action will cause that to occur.
I want to focus in particular on the Minister of Canadian
Heritage and his record of conduct beginning in March 1994. I
do this because it tracks a saga of questionable judgment and
inappropriate interference involving four separate incidents.
Ethical guidelines provided to him quite likely would have
offset the many concerns that have arisen over the grave errors
in judgment that have occurred. However, before I do that,
consider the following as a frame on which to build an ethical
structure.
Public office holders must act with honesty and uphold the
highest ethical standards so that public confidence and trust in
the integrity, objectivity and impartiality of government are
conserved and enhanced. As well, anyone holding public office
should not step out of their official roles to assist private entities
or persons in their dealings with the government where this
would result in preferential treatment to any person.
The issue here is not whether ethical guidelines should
become a requirement or wondering if elected federal officials
even have a choice any longer in this matter because Canadians
expect honesty, integrity and accountability from their
politicians.
Clearly the issue is a search for broad, lasting, moral
guidelines gleaned from the complex real life ethical situations
in politics that are at once imaginative, meaningful and
legislatively sound.
12010
Anyone who would be ethical has the problem of knowing
what his or her standards are. People tend to think of themselves
as moral. That they tend to overrate their ethical competence
becomes apparent when they find themselves doing the same
thing of which they disapprove. Often a substantial gap
separates the ethical norms people verbalize and those they use
in making their decisions, which tells us more about how ethical
a person is.
Verbalization or action? This is a question that Canadians
should be asking every time the government makes a decision.
Even the Prime Minister has said this is the case, in particular, of
ministers who must remain above reproach at all times and in all
of their activities, whether it be as ministers, members of
Parliament or private citizens. That is the burden of public
office and one that we all gladly accept.
I turn my focus to the questionable actions undertaken by the
Minister of Canadian Heritage, once again to exemplify this
issue of guidelines and standards of ethical behaviour. As I
mentioned, four incidents haunt the minister, questioning not
only his integrity but also that of the government.
In March 1994 the sale of Ginn Publishing Inc. to American
interests evoked outrage on this side of the House. That
transaction was the litmus test of the government's commitment
to parliamentary reform and to open parliamentary process. The
sale should have been investigated but was not. A review should
have been undertaken by a parliamentary standing committee
but was not. No ethical guidelines were in place at the time to
resolve this.
(1655 )
I sent a letter to the Prime Minister asking five questions. That
letter with those five questions was never acknowledged. I
conclude from this that either no one knew how to answer my
questions, or if known, there was no desire for full disclosure.
Whatever the case, the only way to get clear answers was for a
public investigation because we had no ethical guidelines. Such
an investigation would have answered the preceding questions
and the five I put to the Prime Minister. I want to repeat these
again, because they are important in a discussion of clearly
established ethical guidelines.
First, how can the government explain the contradictions
evident in the sale with the red book policy on the protection of
Canadian art and culture? This is a simple question but there was
no response.
Second, how does the government explain the offers to
purchase Ginn by several members of the Canadian business
community during the period from 1989 to 1994?
Third, what happens to the Canadian publishing industry after
February 15, 1999 when Paramount's investment agreement
ceases? These are important questions concerning the
guidelines we are going to establish hopefully with this
parliamentary standing committee.
Fourth, why was a specific job loss figure not included in the
press release of February 18, 1994? That is also important, given
the considerations that will be coming later. Canadians are still
asking questions relating to the Ginn affair because none of this
was put to rest.
Fifth, how can the government ignore the provisions of the
Investment Canada Act and undertake a private agreement
which precludes the sale of a Canadian firm to a foreign
company except in extraordinary circumstances?
Over the last couple of weeks we have seen the Investment
Canada Act creep up into our problems in the House of
Commons. There is no delineation with respect to clearly
defined ethical guidelines. How are we going to deal with these
matters?
Reform supported the notion of an investigation to allow for
freer competition in the Canadian cultural marketplace. The
issue was not about protecting Canadian culture from within or
from being co-opted by foreign cultural influences from
without. It was ethics of procedure, allowing the market to run
its due course without needless and harmful protection or undue
government regulation. The government should have asked
them whether it was the rhetoric or the action that would be
remembered.
The ensuing debate should have clarified the minister's
involvement but did not. Rather the government invoked closure
and thus began to grow a blight on the minister's judgment.
What was the ethical criteria on which he made his decisions?
In October 1994 the matter of undue influence from the
minister arose over his intervention in a CRTC licence
application. Even the Prime Minister at that time admitted his
error not only in action but also judgment. This is another
example where had ethical guidelines been in place they would
have saved us a lot of unnecessary grief.
His actions compromise the integrity of government as well
as the CRTC decision making process. As a quasi-judicial body,
the CRTC's role remains quite independent of government. The
Prime Minister said on October 31, 1994: ``When a
representation is sent to the CRTC, it is a public document''.
From September 1993 to October 1994 the CRTC held 18
public hearings. It received 15,422 letters in support of licence
applicants. Seventy-two were from members of Parliament,
from all parties in the House. Representations were made by
many Liberal members, including ministers, members of the
Bloc Quebecois, the Reform Party, the NDP, the Conservatives
and one independent. I raise that as an issue because nobody had
any guidelines. Of the 15,422 letters that were in support of
licence applicants there were no guidelines with which to deal
with the matter.
12011
The Prime Minister went on to say: ``Clearly we are not
confronted with anything like calling a judge. What we are
dealing with is the dilemma of ministers who also must fulfil
their duties as members of Parliament who were elected to
represent their constituents. That makes this whole area of
relationships with administrative tribunals much more complex
than with the courts''. The Prime Minister also said: ``I have
learned a lesson too. This government has done a lot to give
our ministers clear guidelines to do their jobs and avoid conflict
of interest, including the historical ethics package we
introduced in June. It is now plain to me that the guidelines for
dealing with administrative tribunals were not clear or
complete enough''.
(1700)
Even back then the Prime Minister recognized the need for
ethical guidelines. This was in response to the questionable
actions of the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Although we have an ethics counsellor to assist the Prime
Minister in ethical matters, there has been little to suggest
guidelines of any consequence are providing complete direction
to the Minister of Canadian Heritage or any of the cabinet for
that matter.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage obviously and flagrantly
breached judicial principles in this instance. The blight on the
minister's ethical record continued to grow. Again, what was the
ethical criteria on which he made his decision?
The third fiasco involving the minister saw the resignation of
the president of the CBC. No longer able to accept the lack of
full disclosure regarding the CBC's future, Tony Manera left his
post. A secret meeting between CBC and the heritage ministry,
denied many times by the minister, revealed financial
information which had not appeared in the government's just
released budget or in the estimates. The minister's waspish
reply to questions in the House became mired in personal cheap
shots and innuendo.
In question period on March 1, 1995 I said: ``The minister had
a secret agenda about the future of the CBC which he had failed
to disclose. Why has the minister failed to provide this
information to Canadians?'' In his response he said: ``Mr.
Speaker, our colleague is out of luck. Her assistant is no better as
a researcher than he was as a candidate in Ottawa-Vanier''.
Clearly initiated by the pressure he felt, he resorted to tactics
counter to the red book promise of openness and fair play in
order for Canadians to regain their trust in the parliamentary
system and in their politicians. Cheap shots, no ethical
guidelines to provide assistance to the minister. The blight now
was of odious proportions.
We now come to the minister's current disasters: the
challenge mounted by cabinet to overturn the CRTC's decision
to give a licensing exemption to open up satellite distribution in
Canada using a Canadian satellite system; and the perception of
undue influence and interference regarding the approval of
Investment Canada for the purpose of MCA by the Bronfmans,
who own Seagram.
Lunching with the players in Los Angeles represents yet
another grave error in judgment by the minister. There is no one
who can tell me an invitation to the executive suites of MCA is
not as a result of considerable effort, not just a little R and R for
the minister at spring break as has been suggested.
Of an even more critical nature is government interference
under the guise of competition playing business favouritism. As
the cabinet sat around the table making a decision that favoured
Power Corp. no one seemed conscious of the confrontation that
would develop with the direct to home Canadian consortium of
Expressvu Inc. which also just happens to have a close
relationship with the CRTC.
What I am trying to point out here is the absolute imperative
need for ethical guidelines for all of us in the House in order to
operate professionally, ethically and morally as representatives
of the Canadian people.
Both the reputation and credibility of the Minister of
Canadian Heritage are in shreds. It is remarkable that the
rhetoric of the Liberal red book has become meaningless and
trite babble.
The people of Canada demonstrated their irritation with
politicians in government in the last election. They threw out
those who did not consult them, who disregarded their views and
who tried to conduct key parts of public business behind closed
doors.
Let us ensure the deliberations of this standing committee
include ordinary Canadians in the process. We need to create a
truly representative government in which the wisdom of the
people is respected and protected. No one would be well served
if the constituents we serve are not included. We all risk a
further loss of public regard.
(1705 )
Ethical standards emerge from the value we place on
ourselves. If the government begins to proactively organize and
execute around our priorities, politicians will become known for
making and keeping meaningful promises and commitments.
Canadians are waiting for that.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member. In her speech
she indicated she was supporting the Bloc amendment which
would delete any reference to the Senate in the motion. She
appears to treat senators as non-parliamentarians by saying only
12012
elected members of Parliament are entitled to participate in this
process and only they should be subject to guidelines.
Is she suggesting the members of the other place ought to have
no guidelines if the House of Commons adopts guidelines?
Therefore does she feel it is fair that members of the House
should be subject to certain guidelines where members of the
other place are free to carry on businesses, trades or do whatever
they wish? Is that the position of her party?
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, I believe I
qualified that in the first sentences of my presentation when I
expressed that senators are appointed officials. They are not
elected and as a result should develop their own code of conduct.
We ran on the platform that we wanted to see incredible
change to the Senate. We believe in a Senate that is equal,
effective but elected. It is on the position of being elected that
the senators as appointed officials need to develop their own
guidelines because they involve their activities in a different
way with lobbyists compared with parliamentarians. At least
one would hope with the result of these new guidelines that will
happen.
That is a question almost irrelevant when we are looking at
comparisons between parliamentarians who are elected by the
people of Canada and senatorial positions, most of which are
patronage appointments with very strong links to the
government of the day.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member in her remarks
indicated there were no guidelines in place. Is she aware that
there is a set of conflict of interest guidelines that apply to
ministers of the crown and to parliamentary secretaries in the
House? Has she seen the document? If not, I would be pleased to
send her a copy.
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, I would be
delighted to receive the document, but to date the actions of the
government show it also has not read the document.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened
very intently to the member for Calgary Southeast.
I thought her party, which seems to be so interested in
government financing and the cost of government, would want
to have the opportunity to focus on the area of how individual
senators perform and whether Canadians are getting value for
their money. I am mystified by that stand.
The member went on to discuss ethics and so forth. A great
halo comes from that side of the room. I wonder if she could say
how ethical it was to be discussing Motion No. 24 which deals
with a very specific aspect of ethics and conduct for members of
Parliament and senators while using the time almost entirely to
develop a political speech to chastise the government? In my
mind she has not added anything very positive to the debate.
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, with all due
respect to the hon. member, I do not believe he heard me very
well if he did not think I had anything very positive to add to the
debate. I was trying to establish a basis on which ethical criteria
are established.
There are four things I believe that go through the mind of an
individual when they are looking at an issue of an ethical nature.
When people come to a make a decision on a problem they know
what people say they should do to resolve the issue. They know
there are people who do things as they say they will. Actually
when it comes right down to it, the actions of people sometimes
are not really what they said they would do. Oftentimes people
would like to take an action but do not or cannot for whatever
reason. Those were the elements which I tried to bring to the
speech.
(1710)
As far as the issue of the Senate, I have stated already the
Senate is a house of patronage. It is a house that deals quite
specifically with lobbyists in a different way from the House of
Commons. Senators are not elected officials and therefore I
believe should stand on their own merit and develop their own
code of conduct. They are all big boys and girls over there and
they should be able to take due consideration with respect to
their own activities without our telling them what they should
do.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to speak to this motion. I
congratulate the government for initiating action with regard to
a code of conduct for parliamentarians. If history teaches us
anything it is that the House needs to be aware of the need for a
code of conduct. It needs to be aware that Canadians expect
ethical behaviour from us. My hope is a code will be developed
and that it will be effective. I hope it will have some real teeth,
not like the ethics counsellor who we saw the Prime Minister
appoint, and not some watered down list of suggestions which
will have as its only purpose a public relations exercise of
so-called government action on ethics.
I am concerned because of the government's failure to carry
through on any of its red book promises for a more open and
ethical government. While the concept of a code of conduct to
guide members in their dealings with lobbyists is a good idea, I
have some serious doubts as to the government's willingness to
follow through with effective guidelines.
Let us take, for example, the position of the ethics counsellor.
Rather than having an independent counsellor accountable to
Parliament, as the red book said, the Prime Minister has decided
to keep the issue of ethics in house, behind closed doors. By only
12013
reporting to the Prime Minister the ethics counsellor has lost the
appearance of independence and objectivity. This restriction
was underscored during the debacle over the Minister of
Canadian Heritage's interference with the CRTC.
There are precendents for positions such as the ethics
counsellor to be officers of the House of Commons. The human
rights commissioner, the chief electoral officer, the auditor
general and the privacy commissioner are all answerable to the
House, not to the government. They are not answerable to
cabinet or to the Prime Minister; they are answerable to the
House. That is important.
In each case it is clear an arm's length relationship with the
government is required for those officers to objectively and
adequately discharge their responsibilities. The same is true for
the ethics counsellor and for any type of code of conduct for
parliamentarians.
My concern is that the government wanted to give the
impression of ethics without actually changing anything. That is
the only reason I can see for not making the ethics counsellor an
officer of Parliament. It is a very select group. It is not as though
there is no room for change any more. Being an independent
officer of the House would allow the ethics counsellor to
promote the ethical conduct of members of the House instead of
its current position of being a political lap-dog of the Prime
Minister.
Despite all the rhetoric about open government and more
independence for backbenchers the government has continued
the tradition of secrecy and whipping members into line. I have
seen many government members speak in favour of some of the
ideas expressed on this side of the House only to withdraw and
toe the party line when their voice really counted, when they
stood up in the House to vote, when they voted in committee or
when they had to sign on to committee reports. That is not active
and quality democracy and that is not representative democracy.
Our debates in the Chamber on gun control are a good
example of how the government really feels about open
government. When some of its members chose out of good
conscience to represent their constituents rather than do the
bidding of the party hierarchy they were reprimanded. Imagine
that. They were reprimanded for daring to do the bidding of the
constituents who sent us here, who pay the bills, who pay our
salaries and who even pay for our pensions.
(1715 )
These are the reasons I am concerned that this code of conduct
must be carefully and properly crafted. This government does
not have a good track record of being proactive on ethical
matters. If we can draft a good code of conduct, it may add some
much needed legitimacy to the ethics counsellor.
The importance of having this kind of code of conduct cannot
be overemphasized. This government obviously needs some
guidelines when it comes to ethical dealings with lobbyists. The
whole Pearson scandal is the best example of closed door
unethical activity. This deal was started by the previous Tory
government and the closed door antics have been continued by
this government.
There is the whole issue of José Perez and his dealings with
Senator De Bané and Canada Post. As well, the Minister of
Canadian Heritage has had questionable dealings with the CRTC
in the past and is under a cloud of suspicion once again.
The need for this kind of a code of conduct is self-evident. I
only hope the Liberals have the political courage to put aside
their self-interests and the interests of their well-connected
friends and family members to draft an effective and complete
code.
While having a committee draft this code is an improvement
over the usual closed door cabinet process, I have some concerns
about the make-up of the committee. I do not believe that
senators should be included on a House of Commons committee.
Let me take a few minutes to tell this House why I have some
concerns.
Having senators involved with drafting a code of conduct
dealing with issues like conflict of interest is a bit like having
the inmates running the asylum. It is a bit like putting violent
offenders on the parole board. It just does not make sense. I do
not understand why this Liberal government would promote
such a ridiculous idea.
I will not make these suggestions without backing them up
with facts. Not very many years ago, a Prime Minister by the
name of Mulroney stacked the Senate with eight senators. Why
did he do that? To put through the GST.
What would happen if some of those senators who agreed to
accept those extra positions above the 104 senators ended up on
this ethics committee? I am a bit concerned about that. What if
the Hon. Eric Berntson from Saskatchewan, one of the stacked
senators, ended up on this ethics committee? He was the one
who said: ``I will never accept a government appointment. I
refuse any government appointments''. A week or two later
when Brian Mulroney asked if he would take a Senate seat to
help him get the GST through, he said: ``Yes, I would love to sit
in the Senate. The rest of my life will be cushy. I will do that for
you''. The Liberal government defends that type of action and I
am shocked.
There was another member in that group of select senators.
They had to put stacking chairs in the Senate to accommodate
these extra senators. His name was the Hon. John Buchanan. He
was considered to be the most efficient bagmen in all of Atlantic
Canada. Is this the type of person we want to allow to sit on a
committee to discuss a code of conduct and to consider conflict
of interest? I am shocked that the Liberals would suggest and
promote such an idea.
12014
There are a couple of other people who sit over in the other
place: the Hon. Guy Charbonneau and the Hon. Michel Cogger.
Their names were in the news for a long time. I remember
reading about them in almost every chapter of Stevie
Cameron's book On the Take.
Are these the kinds of people the hon. member for Kingston
and the Islands wants to see sitting on a committee to draft a
code of conduct for parliamentarians? Perhaps they may be the
result of an investigation rather than the ones who are drafting
the code. The Liberals are putting forward a motion in this
House which would allow them to sit on this committee. I am
shocked. I would ask the Liberals to withdraw the motion, come
to their senses and realize what they are doing.
There is another potential candidate for this committee. Her
name is Marjory LeBreton. She was the director of Tory
patronage, the one who decided which Tories got put in which
position of patronage. She probably even had a hand in
determining who Brian Mulroney would place in the Senate.
Perhaps she had a hand in choosing the six senators to sit on
those six stacking stools that the Minister of Transport has
correctly identified. Would the Minister of Transport agree to
have Marjory LeBreton sitting on a code of conduct committee?
This motion would allow that to happen. I am shocked.
There is another one over there, Pierre Claude Nolin. He was
Brian Mulroney's crony in Quebec, his principal adviser in the
province of Quebec. He accepted his appointment right at the
tail end of the Mulroney era, when the whole country was angry
at Brian Mulroney and his government and the people wanted to
kick them out.
(1720)
An hon. member: Who was that?
Mr. Hermanson: The Hon. Pierre Claude Nolin was
appointed. I think it was in June 1993 that he accepted his
appointment.
Do we want somebody, a friend of a government Canadians
considered to be villainous to be sitting on the committee for the
code of conduct, to be determining the code of ethics we should
be living by? I am shocked. I can hardly believe it.
There is someone else who might happen to be involved in the
committee and who happens to be a Liberal, the Hon. Allan J.
MacEachen. He is considered to be the godfather of the Liberals
in Atlantic Canada. He has a reputation that one member on the
front bench is trying to emulate.
There is an article in Maclean's which says: ``Then comes the
minister of public works, a show stopper. The incantatory,
drawn out delivery of Allan J. MacEachen, the long time federal
Liberal minister from Cape Breton who now sits in the Senate.
``Close your eyes'', says one of the acquaintances of both men,
``and you will swear Allan J. is right there in the room''. There is
only one Allan J, the minister explains with an annoying
chuckle.
Then it goes on to talk about how Hon. Allan J. MacEachen
was a godfather in Atlantic Canada and certainly someone
involved in patronage. Certainly, he is someone that we would
not want on a committee to discuss and draft a code of ethics for
parliamentarians, but this is what the Liberals are intending to
do.
There is another problem with this committee. Right now the
Senate is controlled by the Tories. I understand that the Prime
Minister is working overtime to install his own hacks. The
Minister of Transport knows that the Senate is controlled by the
Tories. He is having some problems with the Pearson airport
affair.
The Tories are also worried. A few hundred of them met
across the river over the weekend. They were planning strategy.
Their strategy was: ``How do we get back on the gravy train? We
are not getting many appointments to the Senate anymore and
we miss that''. They are strategizing how to get back into
government so they can get back on the gravy train and see some
of their own appointed to the Senate.
Too many of the old Mulroney gang had their eyes on a red
covered chair in the Senate. And these are the people we want to
be involved in drafting a code of ethics for us, for the elected
members of the House of Commons? I think not. Some code of
conduct that might be.
The group of Tories that met in Hull over the weekend did not
apologize to Canadians for the despicable things they did when
they were in power. They should have. They did not apologize to
Canadians for increasing our debt from about $200 billion to
over $400 billion. They never said they were sorry. And these
are the kind of people the Liberals want to put on an ethics
committee? I think not.
The Tories imposed the GST on Canadians against their will
and they had to stack the Senate to do it. These are the kinds of
people we want to put on an ethics committee?
The Tories, along with the Liberals, were involved in drafting
the Charlottetown accord, the infamous accord that had some
terrible things in it. One item in the Charlottetown accord called
for a double majority in the Senate regarding votes on matters
respecting language and culture. That meant that if there was an
issue that addressed language or culture, not only did the
majority of senators have to vote in favour of the measure, but a
majority of francophone senators had to vote in favour it. That is
not democratic.
12015
It is not democratic that they are unelected, but then they get a
double majority based on language and ethnic origin? That is
disgusting. Yet the people over there want these types of people
to sit on an ethics committee. I am astounded. I cannot believe it.
The Charlottetown accord said that this new Senate would be
elected. Members on the other side brought that to our attention.
Of course we knew it would be elected, but who wants that type
of an elected Senate? What decent person would run for election
to that kind of a Senate? I do not think we would find very many
good candidates that would agree to sit in a body that would use
a double majority on votes relating to language and culture. That
is disgusting. It is not Canadian and it is not true democracy. Yet
the Liberals want these kinds of people to sit on a committee to
draft a code of conduct for parliamentarians.
(1725 )
The Tories never apologized for doing these things. The
Liberals have not apologized for their role in the Charlottetown
accord, although there were two or three of them who I think did
see the light and spoke against the accord. The majority as usual
followed like sheep to the slaughter and lost the Charlottetown
accord.
Canadians are not as thoughtless as many members on the
other side might think. They see through these things and were
appalled at the Charlottetown accord. They were appalled at the
debt the Tories built up. They said it was immoral, that it was
wrong. Because of that they only elected two Tory members to
the House in the last election. They said that the GST was wrong
as well. When two or three Tories stood up and said they would
not vote for the GST, they were disciplined just like the Liberals
were who voted against the gun control measure. Nothing is
different between the Liberals and the Tories. They stand for the
same principles. Did I say principles? I do not think they stand
for any principles. It is disgusting.
These people want to draft a code of conduct, a code of ethics
for parliamentarians? I think not.
The Senate certainly needs a code of conduct. The member for
Kingston and the Islands has talked about it. Do they not want
senators to have a code of conduct? Do they not want them to be
accountable? The first thing is that they need to be accountable
to the people of Canada. Until we change the Constitution that
will not happen. Perhaps rather than abolishing the Senate we
should be talking about abolishing the appointed senators. That
might be a move in the right direction.
I have spoken at some length on this matter and will conclude
before my time runs out. I want to clearly say to the House that
we do need a code of conduct. We do need to know how to deal
with lobbyists. That is important. However, we certainly do not
want direction from the old Tory gang. That would be a disaster.
That is far less than Canadians deserve in this place. We must
not support a joint committee to deal with the issue of ethics and
a code of conduct.
Perhaps the Liberals have seen the error of their ways. I know
they did quite a bit of yelling over there because they have been
told they have to support this motion. It is government policy
and they have no choice. However, they should just step back for
a minute and think logically about what they are doing. They are
supporting the old Tory ways. They are not being any different.
There are several new MPs over on the other side who have
not been tainted with that Tory-Liberal past of previous
Parliaments. Perhaps this is the time for them to stand up and be
counted and vote against something that is not right. Let them do
something right for a change, not just for themselves, not just
for the Liberal Party, not just for the House of Commons, but for
Canadians.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The question is on the
amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45, the division on the question now before the House
stands deferred until tomorrow at 5.30 p.m., at which time the
bells to call in the members will be sounded for not more than 15
minutes.
* * *
(1730 )
The House resumed from April 28 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-43, an act to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act
and to make related amendments to other acts, be read the third
time and passed.
12016
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it gives me a
great deal of pleasure to speak today in opposition to the
Lobbyists Registration Act.
When American President Calvin Coolidge was governor of
Massachusetts prior to becoming president, the local Polish
community wanted him to appoint one of theirs as a judge. There
was one lady in particular, a lobbyist, who came to see the
president on a regular basis. She pestered him again and again
but she could not get him to make the appointment. She showed
up at his office on a regular basis and could not get him to make
this appointment. Finally an entire delegation of notables
descended on him in his office. They came to see him to try to
persuade Mr. Coolidge to make this appointment.
When they arrived at his office, Mr. Coolidge sat and stared at
the floor. After an uncomfortable silence he said ``New carpet''.
The whole delegation hastily agreed it was a wonderfully new
carpet and that he had gotten his money's worth. After a while he
said ``It cost a lot of money''. The delegation again assured him
that it was a very beautiful carpet and that indeed he had gotten
his money's worth. Finally he looked up at them and said ``She
wore out the old one trying to get you that judge''. They left.
The same Calvin Coolidge wrote in his memoirs that when
one is in politics, nine out of ten people who come to lobby you
want something they ought not to have. ``If you just ignore
them'', he said, ``after three or four minutes they will run out of
things to say and they will leave''.
If Mr. Coolidge were still in office, we might not need to
register lobbyists. We might not need this act. If Mr. Coolidge
were still in office, we might not need an ethics counsellor. Old
Silent Cal was his own ethics counsellor, and he sure knew how
to deal with lobbyists.
Calvin Coolidge did not think that it was the business of
government to seize property from the average citizen and
redistribute it to the shrill. Unfortunately-I say that
judiciously-we have made much progress since then. Now our
governments dispose of huge sums of money. Our federal
government spends $160 billion a year, and that means that
anyone can get very rich on even a small amount of it if they
manage to persuade government to dole out the favours.
There are a lot more plums to be shaken from the tree of
government. Our governments now relentlessly regulate the
economy. If you can get a regulation changed in your favour it
means more to you than making a better mouse trap, hiring a
better employee, or finding a new and better way of doing an old
task. We have seen that with the recent changes to TV
regulations. Even when the policy change is a good one, we have
to worry about how it was done. Government simply has too
many favours at its disposal.
When people lobby government, they almost invariably want
something they can get by going to Canadians and asking them
for it. They can come to my house and ask me for donations for
the various enterprises for which they are looking for funding.
They can go to other Canadians, but most Canadians probably
would tell them to go play in traffic. What do they do? They
come to Ottawa to lobby government for the funds they are
looking for.
If we substitute the word ``force'' for the word
``government'', we can see how government can achieve what
these people are looking for, because government has the means
and the power to force people to give up part of their incomes
through taxation and take that money and redistribute it to these
people who come lobbying in Ottawa.
We have swarms of lobbyists trying to influence government.
That means we need laws to regulate them. Unfortunately, this
bill does not do the job. This bill does not define lobbying
strictly enough and enables people to lobby in everything but
name.
It is even worse when we come to ethics counsellors. It is a
shame that we need them. I would much rather have politicians
who know right from wrong. I lament the day that we went from
morals to ethics. It has all been downhill ever since.
(1735)
If we are to have an ethics counsellor, let us have one with
some independence. Let us have the ethics counsellor who is
described in the red book, who reports directly to Parliament.
Let us have an ethics counsellor who can tell the Prime Minister
``No, you are wrong'', without fear of getting fired from his job.
Let us try to swat the swarm of flies buzzing around Parliament
Hill picking up scraps off a bloated budget and carrying them
off.
Let us not forget that the reason we have people seeking
unseemly favours from government in unseemly ways is that
government has become too big. Let us not forget that
government has the power to reward friends and supplicants in a
way it simply should not. Let us work on putting government
back in its box.
Let us remember that if men were devils government would
not be possible, but if they were angels it would not be
necessary. Let us remember that political philosophy should be
occupied not with the question ``Who gets to the front of the
trough?'', but with the question ``How can government be strong
enough to protect the lives, liberties, and property of its citizens
without being strong enough to menace them?'' Then we would
not have to worry about who the cabinet is meeting with today,
who the Prime Minister is related to, or any other questions.
That would be real lobbying and ethics reform.
Let us defeat Bill C-43 and get on with that.
12017
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise to speak in support of
Bill C-43, as amended.
The Lobbyists Registration Act is one more initiative of the
government to help ensure honesty and integrity in the politics
of governance, a key plank in the Liberal platform as laid out in
our red book. I am glad to note that members opposite have also
found this book to be a valuable reference.
At this juncture allow me to congratulate the members of the
Standing Committee on Industry, under the able leadership of its
chairman, the hon. member for Fundy-Royal, for its excellent
and timely report, appropriately entitled ``Rebuilding Trust''.
It was my privilege to have contributed in some small
measure to the deliberations of this committee. It was evident
then, and my initial impression has since been reinforced by the
report, that the committee, composed of members from all
political parties, would leave no stone unturned in its effort to
report a bill that would ensure that present and future
governments will remain honest, open, and accountable.
Citizens expect no less.
I indicated earlier that the report's title, ``Rebuilding Trust'',
is most appropriate and timely. Until the last federal election
there was an unprecedented level of public cynicism about our
national institutions and the political process, about Parliament
itself. Citizens saw their system eroded, serving the servants and
not the public. That is why integrity in government was a major
Liberal platform in 1993.
Keeping his promise, the Prime Minister restated in leading
the debate in this House on Bill C-43 that his highest priority
was restoring Canadians' faith in their institutions. He reasoned
that cynicism ultimately undermines the proper functioning of
Canada, eroding our national resolve to work for a better nation.
The Prime Minister with these remarks was acknowledging the
central role public trust plays in the success of any government,
and we all share in this.
Canadians will recall that early in the mandate of this
government the EH helicopter contract was cancelled at once, as
promised. A $6 billion national infrastructure works program, in
concert with the provinces and municipalities, was immediately
put in place, as promised. The preceding and the last budgets are
on track to reduce Canada's deficit to 3 per cent of the gross
domestic product, as promised. Overfishing by foreign fleets,
which threatened our already scarce domestic stocks, has been
stopped, as promised.
(1740 )
Last but not least, a new Canada health and social transfer
program to govern future provincial-federal transfers has been
announced to ensure the preservation and strengthening of
medicare, as promised.
We have shown Canadians that integrity cannot be preserved
simply by paying it lip service. It must take the form of clear,
decisive action. Integrity must become a way of public service, a
habit of the heart on the part of any government. The Liberal
government since assuming office has sent out a strong and clear
message that the integrity of our country's institutions is not for
sale.
The government and Parliament will serve all Canadians. Bill
C-43 is one more indisputable proof of that resolve on the part
of this government.
How will Bill C-43 restore and reaffirm public trust in the
integrity of our national institutions? There are several ways. By
appointing an ethics counsellor, by empowering the ethics
counsellor to develop a code of conduct for lobbyists, and by
ensuring that lobbyists will have a legal obligation to comply
with the code, we can assure Canadians of integrity in our
national institutions and therefore regain their trust.
By insisting that a code of conduct will have to be reviewed by
a parliamentary committee before it comes into full effect, we
can ensure that all political perspectives will have input into the
substance of the code. By requiring that the ethics counsellor
must investigate breaches of the code and submit a detailed
report of each investigation to Parliament, we can ensure there
will not be a whitewash. By ensuring that the ethics counsellor
reports to Parliament annually, we can ensure there will be
ongoing vigilance.
Some members opposite have argued that the code of conduct
as proposed is not a regulatory text and not enforceable in law.
There is a far greater document than law. Codes of conduct of
various professional societies and trades have proven to be
effective tools in ensuring exemplary conduct on the part of
their members. I am confident that elected officials will rise to
the challenge called for by the new code of conduct.
Some members opposite have also argued that appointment of
the ethics counsellor by the governor in council is not too
independent a process. I remind the members opposite have far
greater faith in the integrity of our citizens, in the integrity of
our appointees, in the integrity of our officials who assume
office through the appointment process. One classic example is
that of our judiciary system. Our Supreme Court is one such
shining example.
The process of assuming office is not as critical as the
integrity of the people who have assumed office. Let us not
prejudge the integrity of our ethics counsellor.
Other colleagues from the government side have already
spoken on the many other positive aspects of Bill C-43, includ-
12018
ing the area of disclosure. There will be disclosure of fees and
disclosure of government funding for associations.
Allow me to recall once more for my colleagues opposite and
for all colleagues in the House that we have gone a long way
since 1993 in terms of the rebuilding of public trust. The mood
of Canadians has greatly changed, from cynicism in 1993 to
optimism today.
The Canadian people have placed their trust in the Liberal
government. I am honoured to serve with the government. Not
only has it restored economic life, not only has it reduced the
federal deficit, not only has it created jobs, not only has it
restored public institutions and infrastructures, this government
has also restored integrity in governance.
Integrity is once again a way of public service, and we have all
benefited from this change. Parliament is the highest court in the
land where the voices of Canadians, rich and poor, men and
women, young and old, are heard and given equal strength.
(1745)
It is said that members of Parliament should reflect the fears
and hopes of their constituents today and in the future. I agree
and we agree. I also say that we must reflect the hopes of our
constituents of yesterday whose time honoured values include
integrity, which continues to guide decisions we make today.
I am delighted to support Bill C-43 which marks the dawn of a
renewed era in Canadian politics, integrity in governance, and
thereby restore the nobility of our chosen profession in the
House.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
intervention will be more a comment than a question, although I
am sure the member will want to respond to it.
He indicated that we have spoken about the lack of
independence of the counsellor. Then he went on to say that he
had more faith in these people than that. So do we. That is why I
think the process, as defined, is so very unfortunate.
The person in the position right now is an honourable person.
It certainly is not a goal of mine to see if I can find where
someone has made an error. That is not my goal. I have not found
anything on him. I do not think there is anything of a serious
nature or anything at all.
He is a man of integrity. He is a man that can be trusted.
Unfortunately, because he is appointed by the Prime Minister,
because he answers to the Prime Minister and because there is
no independence from that particular role, the individual can be
as honest and as clean as the day is long but he will not be able
authentically to convince Canadian people of it. Try as he might,
because of that close relationship there will always be people
who have not forgotten the previous government, even on the
assumption that there is nothing wrong with the government. I
do not buy that, by the way. Everyone has problems from time to
time.
When we form the government next time I am sure there will
be allegations made about us. That is when I want the ethics
counsellor to be independent. When false allegations are made
the person who makes an investigation and reports on them must
be truly seen to be independent so that he is trusted. Then when
he says there is nothing wrong it will be taken as a true statement
instead of one that is manipulated. That is why we are saying
that the ethics counsellor should be totally independent from
cabinet and from the Prime Minister.
The added problem in Bill C-43 is that both the ethics
counsellor and the registrar report through the minister. There
have been comments on that point: ``What is wrong with that?
Don't we trust our ministers?'' Yes, we do, but if there is a true
or false allegation against any minister, particularly the minister
who will act as registrar general, the case is totally weakened by
the fact that he would bring forward the report on himself. No
one would believe it and it might be totally true. That is what is
so unfortunate.
Mr. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, the conclusion in his comments
was that anything via the appointment process is inherently bad
and that anything by election is inherently good. Otherwise he
would not have made a comment.
Sad as it may be, even some elected members of Parliament
have been corrupt in the past so an election is no guarantee. We
need citizens who will serve the country with integrity.
(1750)
The justices of the Supreme Court have been appointed to
office but have retained their independence. The independence
of an official is not related to the process; it is related to the soul
of the individual. If the member were to be appointed by the
government to an office in the future, he would think just as
independently as anyone would.
The appointment process does not in any way take away from
the true independence of the appointed Canadian citizen. I have
faith in our citizenry.
Also in the bill is the area of public scrutiny, scrutiny by the
highest court of the land, by the House, when allegations can be
substantiated to show the disappearance of independence on the
part of the appointee. Then members of Parliament have an
obligation to point it out to the Canadian public.
I am not afraid of the appointment process. I would like my
colleagues to have more faith in our officials. Appointment as a
12019
process is not the only answer. We need officials with the
highest level of integrity. I am convinced the government with
its bill and commitment to keep its promises has already shown
the Canadian public it is serious about integrity. I would like my
colleague to have faith in us.
Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague across the way
missed the point. It is not that I do not have faith. Those of us
within these walls have a high level of faith in one another
across party lines. I do. I look at Liberal members and I do not
see any reason to accuse them wholesale of wanting somehow to
deceive the public. I do not observe that. From time to time
allegations are made. I am not the one who has to have faith; it is
the Canadian people.
Why was this section included in the red book if it was not as a
response to the lack of faith Canadians have developed over the
last number of years? I am sure they would be happiest if we said
over the previous nine years before the last election. There is no
doubt that Canadians in general have lost a lot of faith in
government officials because of things that have gone on, things
that have been exposed and things that have been wrong.
We need an ethics counsellor who is independent and is seen
to be independent by the public so that he has real credibility
when he makes the pronouncement that it is an innocent case. He
should have total freedom and not in any way be perceived to be
under any pressure from the Prime Minister or any cabinet
minister when he is conducting an investigation so that he will
be believed regardless of how he calls the investigation.
Mr. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, how can the member say he has
faith in the ethics counsellor at the same time as he says the
person could be manipulated and his report may not be believed
because he has been appointed to that office? How can we
believe the member has complete faith in the person when at the
same time he would say that the person can be manipulated?
(1755)
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, with
Bill C-43, the Liberal government has as usual ignored the real
problems.
With this bill to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act and to
make related amendments to other acts, the government has not
resolved anything. What this Parliament needs is not another
bill but above all a code of conduct for lobby groups, which
wield excessive powers in this country.
To go on and conclude that lobbyists are leading the country
seems to be the logical step. True enough. We know that
lobbying activities have always been part of the Canadian
political scene. Over the years, these activities have become an
important component of the political process. Between 1969 and 1985, some 20 private members' bills dealing with this issue were tabled in the House of Commons.
All these bills were motivated by the same reason, the same
need, the same desire, that is, to make the government more
open and democratic. The fact that we are being asked to address
this issue again today means that we have not made as much
progress as we hoped.
As I read this bill, it occurred to me that, between the time
when election promises were made and the time when they were
put into law, lobbyists probably dictated the final version of Bill
C-43, which would account for this abrupt turnaround in Liberal
policy. I would like to caution this government against
dissociating itself from these groups, as we all remember that
the Government of Canada started being influenced by lobbyists
as far back as 1969, under the Trudeau government, of which the
current Prime Minister was an active member.
Let us remember the role played by lobbyists in developing
the free trade agreement and the goods and services tax.
Remember also the role played by the Business Council on
National Issues, the most powerful and active lobby in this
country. In fact, to join, you have to be president of one
Canada's top 150 corporations. Together, members of this select
circle manage $975 billion and employ 1.5 million Canadians,
or 12 per cent of the country's labour force. It is therefore fair to
say that this group has power, or a hold, over the government.
We also know that the members of this organization make
generous donations to campaign funds, whether Conservative or
Liberal. Must I remind members of the influence this group had
on the Mulroney government when the Meech agreements were
passed in 1990? As members will recall, the Mulroney
government had hired Ronald Watts to act as the brain behind
the constitutional strategy. But what everyone here may not
know is that Mr. Watts was the expert adviser of the Business
Council on National Issues at the time. Just think of how much
influence he had and was able to bring to bear on the
government.
I would even go further and say that the kind of lobbying
practised in Canada is causing this country to become
dehumanized.
(1800)
In his memoirs, a former Quebec Premier, René Lévesque,
refers to a meeting which took place in 1982 with a Bank of
Canada official who was obsessed with the fight against
inflation, but showed very little concern about unemployment.
12020
As you can see, central bank officials change, but their
obsession remains the same. Why? Simply because of the
lobbyists, whose companies prefer to maintain unemployment
high, so as to have access to cheap manpower.
When the party in office claims to want to put people back to
work, we have to wonder, since its cannot do anything against
powerful lobbies.
This is why members opposite are not so irked by a
referendum campaign, since it provides them with an
opportunity to avoid the real problems which they cannot solve,
such as job creation.
I am only asking the government to fulfil a commitment made
last June, when the Prime Minister said that initiatives relating
to transparency, including Bill C-43, would give unprecedented
transparency to the federal administration. The events of the last
15 days give you an idea of this transparency.
There can be no doubt about the power of lobbyists.
According to an article published in a London newspaper in
December 1992, there were 149 rich men and women in Canada.
These are the people who run the country. These rich men and
women are of course the members of the Business Council on
National Issues. This is a group which, I say again, makes
financial contributions to the Conservative and Liberal parties.
The credibility of the Parliament of Canada is undermined by
such headlines. The time has come to act and this is why the Bloc
Quebecois is asking that all lobbyists be subjected to the same
disclosure rules.
Nobody in this House would be surprised to hear that, as
usual, the government, contrary to its red book commitments,
even refuses to subject all professional lobbyists, that is those
who influence the government for essentially economic reasons,
to the same disclosure rules. Why? What is the government's
interest? Who is it trying to protect? Who is it trying to please?
We hope those questions will be answered.
Obviously, clauses concerning the ethics counsellor need to
be closely scrutinized. One of the main functions of the
counsellor should be to prepare a code of conduct for lobbyists.
Properly designed, that code could increase public awareness of
lobbying and reduce improper conduct on the part of lobbyists. I
hope that code would have a greater impact than the Lobbyists
Registration Act itself.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I listened to what the member opposite had to say.
Towards the end of his speech, he indicated that he would like all
lobbyists to be subject to the same rules.
(1805)
That would mean for example that the Canadian Federation of
Agriculture, the UPA and the Red Cross would be subject to the
same onerous rules as the large lobbying firms set up here, in
Ottawa.
I do not know if the member was there when the parliamentary
committee considered the bill, but the groups I just mentioned,
the Dairy Farmers of Canada, for example, told the committee
that the rules should not be the same for them and for the large
Canadian lobbying firms.
Can the hon. member tell us why he disagrees with the
proposal which was made by the Dairy Farmers of Canada to the
parliamentary committee and which the government has
implemented?
Mr. Fillion: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to answer this
question. First of all, lobbying can be divided into two
categories. The first category is the kind of lobbying where
fundamental problems concerning basic principles are
discussed, whether they be moral principles, work principles, or
whatever. The other category is the economic lobbying
category. These lobbyists are the ones that I am talking about.
Just take as an example the events which took place over the last
few weeks. Think about Power Corporation and Power DirecTv.
These two examples are enough to give the members opposite
pause.
I want to add that when we talk about integrity and
transparency in this area, we are talking precisely about fiscal
integrity and transparency. You organize dinners at $1,000 a
plate. What ordinary citizen can afford a dinner at that price? It
is Power Corporation who will buy 10, 15, 20 or 25 tickets at
$1,000 each and give them to their friends. Is that your idea of
transparency?
The Bloc Quebecois is simply saying no to that. All we want is
to improve the integrity of parliamentarians.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before returning the floor
to the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell for a
supplementary question, I would remind you, dear colleagues,
that all remarks must be addressed to the Chair.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, judging by his response, I think
the hon. member misunderstood my question. He said in his
remarks that all lobbyists-I wrote it down as he went
along-that all lobbyists should be subject to the same rules.
In the answer he tried to give us, he acknowledged himself
that lobbyists were not all on an equal footing. He said that some
people dealing with certain types of matters should, by dint of
circumstance, come under stricter rules, if I understood
correctly.
I therefore repeat my earlier request. In the bill, the rules
governing organizations such as farm federations or similar
groups will be less strict. Why does the hon. member want the
rules to be just as strict in the case of farm federations and of the
12021
Canadian association of dairy producers, which testified before
the committee requesting more relaxed rules for its members?
Why does he oppose the position of these organizations? I am
trying to be clearer than I was the last time.
Mr. Fillion: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member opposite
understood perfectly the answer I gave earlier. He understood
every word, but he chose to interpret it in his own way. However,
I do not agree with his interpretation. I do not agree, because
once again, the rules must be the same for lobbyists involved in
the financial sector.
(1810)
I understand what he is getting at. He would like to stifle the
activities of pressure groups as well, but that is not the point. We
will not prevent lobbying on issues pertaining to unemployment
insurance, student loans and post-secondary education. We will
not prevent lobbying in those areas, except in the case of
financial lobbyists, when the time comes to pass strict laws that
will help the old-time parties, the Liberals and the
Conservatives, show a little more integrity and more
transparency in their operations.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
listened to my colleague's opinion on lobbying and I realize that
lobbying is a legitimate activity. Parties with interests at stake
have the right to heighten the awareness of others to them. What
is not right is carrying on these representations secretly,
furtively, which can in no way serve the public interest.
My colleague mentioned in his speech that the legislative
branch, the House of Commons, has a role to play. And I, as an
MP-this needs to be said-often get the feeling that outside
influences, especially from high finance, force a decision to go a
certain way, and they leave no trace leading to the truth or even
to information which would shed some light on what is being
hidden behind the masks and the empty gestures.
For two weeks, several questions have been asked in this
House regarding who is responsible for the satellite
broadcasting issue, and, overall, the issue is extremely clouded.
Therefore, we do not want to prohibit lobbying but to make it
transparent so that the House can really protect the public's
interests.
I would like my honourable colleague to respond to the
comments I have just made.
Mr. Fillion: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for giving me
the opportunity to point out that his comments show that he did
not really listen to my speech, but only grasped two or three
words from it, on which he based his incomprehensible
gibberish that he probably does not even understand himself.
I will quote exactly what I said in my speech: ``Nobody in this
House would be surprised to hear that, as usual, the
government-your Liberal government-contrary to its red
book commitments-''.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order please. I already
took a few moments earlier and I will do it again. I must remind
you that, to the greatest extent possible, all statements must be
made through the Chair.
Mr. Fillion: Mr. Speaker, I will continue quoting from my
speech: ``-the government, contrary to the red book
commitments''-I know it is shocking-``refuses that all
professional lobbyists, that is to say those who influence the
government for purely economic reasons, be made to abide by
the same disclosure rules''. This is what I said. I was referring to
lobbyists whose goals are essentially economic. I differentiate
between the two categories. So, when it comes to lobbyists
whose goals are essentially economic, their name, interests and
rules should be disclosed, just as we, in the Bloc Quebecois, are
not afraid to publish the list of taxpayers who contribute to our
election fund, since we do not accept gifts from companies.
(1815)
[English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to address Bill C-43, the Lobbyists
Registration Act, and to express some of my concerns and
frustrations with the continuing saga of the sophistry of the
Liberal Party, which is using clever but misleading arguments to
encourage and to instil confidence in the Canadian public that
what it is doing is in their best interests.
In the long run, at the end of the day and at the end of the term,
when we see the results of that party's futile efforts, finally we
will see that all the things the Reform Party and a lot of the
things the Bloc Québécois are saying about this government will
come true. We will see the facts and know that all the sophistry
has done nothing but keep the Prime Minister high in the polls.
During the next election I know there will be Liberal members
taking pride in initiatives such as this bill and the joint
committee of the House of Commons and Senate to establish a
code of ethics. They will say the government has restored
integrity to the Canadian parliamentary system. They will talk
about how they kept all their promises in the Liberal red book,
despite the fact that the Reform Party has already pointed out
about 20 broken promises.
The Liberals are against recall. They do not want recall. They
do not want to have a certain member in their party who has been
expelled from caucus; that member is representing over 100,000
people, was elected as a Liberal, and sits in the House as an
independent. That should be an embarrassment to Liberals, but
they say the best form of recall-and this will come back to
haunt them-is at election time. The Prime Minister has said
``That is the time when they can vote me out. That is the time
12022
when we will be held accountable.'' I am here to remind Liberal
members that they will be held accountable. The people of
Ontario, who voted with their feet the last time, just might vote
with their feet again in 1997.
They talk about pension reform, the relaxation of party
discipline, open and honest government. Restoring integrity to
politicians is what is in the red book. We know politicians have a
poor name, probably because of the most immediate past
government. Nevertheless, this government is starting to
develop that same arrogance, that same defiant way, where its
members feel they can do anything they want to do, when they
want to do it, how they want to do it, behind closed doors.
For instance, let us look at the incident that is being debated in
the House now, with the direct to home satellite service, and the
performance of the Minister of Canadian Heritage to date. As we
all know, we questioned his judgment and we questioned his
competence when he wrote a letter to the CRTC, an agency that
is supposed to report to him on an arm's length basis, suggesting
that a certain constituent of his receive a radio application. That
was a breach of his cabinet oath, yet nothing happened. This was
run by the ethics counsellor, who also in the red book, the Prime
Minister promised, would answer to Parliament.
I will come back to that issue in a second, because the Reform
critic has done an excellent job of pointing out things that he
feels should be repeated at this point in time.
This bill talks about elements like integrity and ethics. When
we talk about integrity and ethics we have to show transparency,
we have to show consistency, and we have to keep our promises.
An order in council came forth this past week saying that we
believe in fair and open competition, we believe that Canadians
want competition, and we are working in the best interests of
Canadians; therefore, Power Corp. should have the right to
compete for direct to home satellite services. So be it. If the
government was really consistent in its philosophy and if it
really had any integrity at all, it would have to be consistent. To
be consistent, the government must also revisit the decision of
the CRTC, which at this point was consistent in both of its
decisions, because it wanted to protect Canadian culture. Both
of those decisions were rendered in the name of Canadian
culture. One is overturned by an order in council, which is an
unprecedented use of power. It is using a sledgehammer when a
little hammer would do.
(1820)
What did the government do with the other decision, about the
monopoly granted to Rogers cable system, that only Canadian
programming would be on there, and the new stations that were
awarded? It excluded the country music cable station from the
United States.
If this government really has integrity, if this government has
any morals at all, it will be consistent with their order in council
on the direct to home television decision and it will have another
order in council ordering the CRTC to reverse its decision on
Rogers and allow CMT to compete openly with Canadians.
We now have to compete as Canadian football players with
Americans in the CFL. We now have free trade. We now have
open borders. If we are going to compete, let us compete. Let us
not just do it on the basis of keeping it all in the family.
That is what is wrong with this bill, the very thing we are
talking about this week, about the transparency of transactions
where government gets itself involved with businesses. Power
Corporation and those people who are representing the satellite
services run a business. They make a profit. They want the
government's help. They needed the government's help to come
into this picture so that they could compete with Expressvu,
which has spent $200 million. They were using Canadian
services, Canadian satellites. The CRTC was consistent, but this
government orders an order in council.
We have the right to question that. Did Power Corporation
lobby? Was there any company hired to lobby on behalf of
Power Corporation? Was there any need for a lobby? Somebody
said the Liberal Party is a lobby. I like that line.
Joking aside, if there were a need, how would the Lobbyists
Registration Act, Bill C-43, aid, benefit, and help this process
and keep it transparent so that the Canadian public does not
question the integrity and the ethics of the government
politicians?
I want to hold up my Prime Minister and that cabinet in
esteem. I want to criticize wrong policies. I never want to have
to question their ethics, their morals, or their intent. That is not
what we should be here for.
In the way it happened, an order in council, why. On the basis
of a three person committee? On that three person committee
there was a former law partner of the Prime Minister, an
individual who runs a company that is owned by Bronfman, and
another individual who was appointed deputy minister by
Liberal Prime Minister Trudeau. They were all deputy
ministers, I heard somebody say today; I believe it was the
government whip. They all were working in the bureaucracy.
They got solicitations. They got a hundred or so letters, we were
told in answer to a question in question period. Let us make
those letters public. Let us find out what those people said
before they made their recommendation. We cannot get to the
bottom of this.
12023
This bill is important. We should have lobbyists register. We
should have them register as per what was said in the red book.
They are breaking another promise. Where is the ethics and the
integrity in breaking another promise?
The positive elements of the bill are that it does increase the
disclosure requirements for lobbyists, especially for tier two, in
house. Another positive is that any lobbyists whose clients are
coalitions will have to disclose the membership for that
coalition so that we know exactly the size of the group we are
dealing with. It also adds government funding and the subject
matter of a lobbying proposal to disclosure requirements. It
allows for electronic filing of returns. It increases the statute of
limitations for investigations from six months to two years. That
is about it for the positives.
On the negatives, the bill classifies lobbyists not on what they
do but rather who they work for. They should be defined by their
activities, not their employers. All professional lobbyists should
be treated the same. Further, the red book promises that the
recommendations from the 1992 unanimous Holtmann report
will be implemented by the Liberal government. Removal of the
tiers was an explicit Holtmann report recommendation.
A lobbyist is defined as someone who lobbies as a significant
part of their duties. John Turner, who may only lobby two or
three times a year, can make a case that he is not a significant
lobbyist and therefore he does not have to register. A better
definition is someone who is paid to attempt to influence the
government.
There is nothing wrong with having lobbyists, but let us make
sure it is open and transparent and above board.
(1825)
The bill does not address the problem of using past and
current political ties to gain access and influence. Past political
positions held and political donations should be declared. The
fees paid to lobbyists are not included on the list of disclosure
requirements even though when in opposition the Liberals
insisted on it and the chief government whip wrote a report
calling for disclosure.
It would help to show when there has been a massive lobbying
campaign on any one side of an issue like the Charlottetown
accord. The bill specifies that the individual lobbyist must
register but he need not disclose the name of the government
official he is lobbying.
For the Pearson deal we would only know that the Department
of Transport was lobbied but we would not know who the
individuals were. This sends a message that specific lobbyists
must be held accountable but not specific public office holders.
Who in the Department of Transport was lobbied? That is
what we have to know. The bill has a loophole whereby any
meeting initiated by a public office holder need not be disclosed.
This is obviously a major flaw because, as Jean Chenier of The
Lobby Monitor said, ``Any lobbyist who cannot get an invitation
from a public servant is not worth his retainer''.
The bill completely ignores anti-avoidance schemes. Even
with the relatively uncomplicated act before the bill there were
anti-avoidance schemes developed. Not dealing with them is a
problem, another Holtmann report recommendation ignored.
We also suggest the registrar who administers the act be given
the power to perform random audits to better ensure lobbyists
are complying with the provisions of the act. That is a very solid
and concrete recommendation or proposal by the Reform Party.
The bill also touches on the ethics counsellor. The biggest
scam perpetrated on the House is in the red book. It is quite
clear. It is on page 95: ``The ethics counsellor will report
directly to Parliament''.
The ethics counsellor was hired. We know the gentleman's
name. We are not questioning his ability. We are questioning to
whom the ethics counsellor reports. It is to the Prime Minister,
directly to the Prime Minister.
He is not a watchdog, which is what an ethics counsellor
should be, on behalf of Parliament to restore integrity and to
restore politicians to the high standards they were held in back
in the old days. He is not a watchdog, he is a lapdog.
If the Prime Minister is involved in a situation in which there
are close family ties-and there is no accusation of wrongdoing,
none whatsoever-we want the process to be transparent and the
ethics counsellor to be able to say to the House that it is
transparent. The fact that the gentleman is the Prime Minister's
son-in-law should have no bearing on the decision rendered in
cabinet. The order in council should be above board. They
should be in the best interest of all Canadians. There is no more
to it.
We want to be able to trust and accept unequivocally the
decisions of the ethics counsellor. We cannot do that now
because the ethics counsellor answers directly to the Prime
Minister. He does not answer to Parliament. It is a direct
violation, another promise of the Liberal government in its red
book.
Ms. Augustine: Rubbish.
Mr. Silye: That is not rubbish. It is on page 95. Nod your head
if you agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that in the red book it says the
ethics counsellor is supposed to report to Parliament or to the
Prime Minister. I know you cannot nod your head. I withdraw
the request.
The ethics counsellor must investigate any time he has reason
to believe there has been a breach in the code of conduct for
lobbyists and he must report his findings. He must also file an
annual report on the operation of his office. That is a good
element.
12024
Some hon. members: That is not true.
Mr. Silye: I will say it again because I hear members opposite
saying it is not true. I would not stand here in the House and say
that the Liberal promise is not in the red book. I would not do
that. The authors of the red book promised an ethics counsellor
would report to Parliament. The ethics counsellor does not
report to Parliament and all those geniuses jabbering on the
other side better get their facts straight. It is a direct violation, a
broken promise.
Along with the government we wish to restore integrity to
politicians. We have to get there from here because there is a
long way to go. The book On the Take has cast a negative light on
all politicians.
(1830)
I am a rookie politician. I am a politician now by profession
because I get paid for it, but in my heart and in my mind I am still
a businessman. I know what I thought two years ago when I was
on the outside looking in here at what these people were doing. I
was not too happy about that. I was so frustrated that I decided to
run.
Now I am hoping that by being here and being able to express
my point of view I can now say I would like to restore integrity
to politicians. The government should be listening rather than
talking. I know some of its members are very talented and can
talk and listen at the same time, but not too many people are able
to do that.
When I accuse the government of sophistry, which is no more
than using clever but misleading arguments for a false
conclusion, sleight of hand is another good way of saying it, my
concern is it talks about the great and wonderful things it is
doing for the country when it really is not. It is letting Canadians
down.
It has bills like the Lobbyists Registration Act and the motion
today for a joint committee on a code of ethics, a joint
committee with the Senate and the House of Commons to enact a
bill that would define the code of ethics. Why is there a need for
all this?
Two months ago the Prime Minister said in the House that we
have all these things in place. Cabinet ministers must take all
sorts of oaths. We have to take oaths as members of Parliament.
We have all sorts of rules controlling what we can and cannot do.
We are into about six levels of controls to ensure we restore
respectability for parliamentarians.
We want to know what is happening in the bureaucracy. We
want to know who is in charge. The Lobbyists Registration Act
does make a lobbyist register who they are lobbying with within
the department. Are they seeing the deputy minister? Are they
seeing Mr. Dodge? The Canadian public should know that after a
meeting with Mr. Dodge he changed his mind on a certain issue
or that his recommendation changed. There is nothing wrong
with that. That is a positive. That is not a negative and yet the
government will not put that in.
We have about three or four strong recommendations for the
bill and we will continue to put them forward in the interest of
all parliamentarians and in the best interest of some lobbyists.
There may be some former politicians who after a couple of
years off could come back and be lobbyists, and they would be
darn good lobbyists, to help their reputation, to help them build
on the experience they have gained by working in government so
they can help other Canadians. Through open disclosure and the
rules working both ways, I believe the bill could help a lot of
people within government.
The bill is another example of the feel good, talk good, do
nothing government that likes to tell us everything it is doing is
wonderful and there is no room for improvement. I am sorry to
hear that. With my intervention today I hope maybe one or two
of these suggestions I have made may stick, although I rather
doubt it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before I go to questions
and comments, the hon. member for Calgary Centre in his
intervention used the word ``sophistry'' and really piqued my
curiosity. He did describe the meaning of the word but I had to
go through Webster's new dictionary of synonyms and the
concise Oxford dictionary to find out exactly the meaning of the
word.
On another note, at one point in his intervention he asked the
Chair to participate in some way in the debate by nodding. The
last time I nodded I was at a friend's farm and ended up buying
something I did not want and have never used since.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, that was a very wise ruling on your part. I will try to
remember it when I attend the next farm auction as well.
(1835 )
He indicated he favoured the removal of the tiers for the
different categories of lobbyists for the purpose of registration.
This subject came up some minutes before the member started
his speech. I have to repeat a question I asked of another hon.
member.
The Dairy Farmers of Canada and a number of other groups
testified before our committee. They indicated it was unfair to
apply rules to them. I can imagine it would be unfair to apply to
the Dairy Farmers of Canada and to the Canadian Federation of
Agriculture and the Red Cross the same kind of rules we would
apply to Earnscliffe or S.A. Murray Consulting or any one of
those consultant lobbyists. The member has advocated we
should do this.
12025
Does he not agree that for the kind of groups I have identified
the requirements should be different? If he agrees with me, why
is he making this criticism?
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question and the
intervention. It was a very good comment. I do not agree with
the member because if these groups are asked to come to the
standing committee or if they come to the House and go through
the offices of members and want to give information, that is
okay if it is strictly giving information. However, some are here
to influence MPs, to lobby MPs. A lot of people come into my
office and try to set up meetings to tell me what their problems
are, what the solutions are and to suggest what I should consider,
that maybe I should vote a certain way on a bill.
As soon as they start talking about how I should vote or how I
should look at a certain situation that basically is influence
peddling.
Mr. Boudria: That is a criminal offence.
Mr. Silye: I should not say it is influence peddling. Somebody
said it is a criminal offence to influence peddle. I take that back.
As I have said, I am a rookie. I do not know all the terminology.
When they come here to influence the Department of
Transport or the Department of Health or whatever department,
for example a pharmaceutical lobbyist or someone lobbying for
agriculture, if it is for information it is okay but if it is to
influence the department or the ministry or affects any kind of
decision before the government, they should register. What is
wrong with registering? I do not see why they would object to
that.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I as well know a bit about sophistry. Sophistry is a lot of
rhetoric, knowing how to use words that mean virtually nothing.
In this case when we are talking about lobbying it is a very
serious issue in spite of the fact that the project under study, Bill
C-43, does not have any teeth. I ask the member what he thinks
about nepotism. We have been examining over the past couple of
weeks the fact the Prime Minister would actually arrange to
favour a firm owned by his nephew. That is a clear and flagrant
case of nepotism. No one can doubt it. No one should doubt it. It
is not only apparent, it is difficult to argue otherwise being that
the whole system is filled with people closely connected to
Power Corp. or closely connected to the Prime Minister who
have actually acted in a very exceptional way overturning a
decision by the CRTC. This is the first time in history. One
really has to have a lot of power. We are not talking about the
average lobbying firm. We are talking about corruption in high
places. We are talking about a Prime Minister favouring the firm
of his nephew.
In spite of the fact it is quite obvious, high stake patronage
and corruption, the Liberal government finds this to be a subject
of humour. This is a flagrant example of the misuse and abuse of
power.
What I would like to ask the member-
Mr. Fontana: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure
on careful reflection of the blues the use of such words as
``corruption'' are unparliamentary. I think the member ought to
apologize now. If he does not have the guts to do that, he should
step outside and use those words-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. Let me take things
in reverse order. I appeal to the hon. member who just had the
floor, in the spirit of parliamentary language the word by itself is
not unparliamentary. However, some words that come to mind
which would replace the one I heard are ``courage'' and
``fortitude'' as opposed to the word used by the hon.
parliamentary secretary.
With regard to his initial appeal as to whether a word was
unparliamentary, I did not hear of any one word that was
unparliamentary, and I was listening with a great deal of
attention.
However, the time has elapsed. I have taken into
consideration the 13 minutes I had to allow for the ministerial
statement.
It being 6.43, we will now move to the adjournment motion.
_____________________________________________