to a House
of Commons debate on ethics in government
May 23, 2002
Ottawa, Ontario
Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased to be able to take part in this important debate. Because it is
necessary to bring some context to issues which rightly concern members of this
House and all Canadians. Because of the need to tone down the rhetoric. To deal
with facts. To show mutual respect.
Public life is a difficult calling, but a noble one. Mr. Speaker, I am
certain that we can all agree that none of us is in the House of Commons for
reasons other than a desire to serve our country and our constituents to the
best of our ability.
We are certainly not here for the perks, unless very, very long working hours
and working weeks are considered to be perks. We are not here for the money.
Most of us could make more in the private sector. For less work and more family
time. And I believe that what I have just said about Members of Parliament
applies in the same way to the Public Service of Canada.
Having said this, none of us is perfect. We all make mistakes. Our electors
know that. And in my case my wife knows that and reminds me of it every day. But
I believe that we all make our mistakes in good faith. Our motives, on all sides
of this House, are the right ones. All of us are committed to the public
interest, to the public good.
We can disagree. We can debate. But let us do that in ways that increase
respect for our democratic institutions, not in ways that call them into
disrepute.
In an organization as large as the Government of Canada mistakes are made,
every day. Always have been. Always will be. Governments should be judged not on
whether mistakes are made. But on how problems and mistakes are identified and
how they are corrected.
We on this side of the House have every reason to be proud of our record. I
am proud that we gave the Auditor General the ability to issue four reports a
year, rather than one. I am proud that we expanded the role of internal
departmental audits. That we publicize them. That we put them on web sites. That
we publicly identify and correct administrative errors.
I knew that increasing the amount of audit activity would make Question
Period a lot more interesting for the Opposition and for the media. But this is
what a government of integrity does: Publicly identify problems and fix them.
This is not the essence of scandal. It is the essence of good government.
We have raised the bar. And I am proud of it.
Mr. Speaker, integrity and public trust are the foundation of democratic
government. Since we took office, we introduced a more comprehensive Conflict of
Interest Code for public office holders. We introduced the post of Ethics
Counsellor, the first such office to be created in any Commonwealth country. And
we made substantial reforms to the Lobbyists Registration Act. Increasing
transparency and casting the light of day onto the lobby industry.
I have spoken to this House many times with pride about the record of
ministerial probity and high standards of integrity of our government. Mr.
Speaker, the world has also taken notice. Since issuing its first report in
1995, Transparency International, the world's leading international organization
dedicated to rooting out corruption in government and business, has ranked
Canada as the G7 nation with the lowest level of perceived corruption. And among
the best in the world.
But, Mr. Speaker, I will not be satisfied until we are at the very top.
Am I proud of our record? Without a doubt. Is it perfect? Of course not. Have
we done enough? No. We must do better. And we will do better.
Indeed, two weeks from now, I will set out a bold 8-point plan of action.
Today, let me set out the key elements of the plan we have been working on.
- For the first time ever, we will make public the Guide for Ministers
and Secretaries of State, which outlines the standards of ethical conduct
that should guide them.
- We will be releasing revised rules for ministerial dealings with Crown
corporations. They will clarify the relationship between ministers and Crown
corporation when dealing with constituency matters.
- I will be making public guidelines to govern ministerial fundraising
for personal political purposes. These will establish rules and procedures
that will ensure that such fundraising causes no real or apparent conflict
of interest.
- Beginning this Fall, Mr. Speaker, I will table the first annual
report of the Ethics Counsellor to Parliament on the range of his duties and
activities. And the Ethics Counsellor will be available to a parliamentary
committee to be examined on his report.
- In consultation with the Opposition parties, and drawing inspiration
from the Milliken-Oliver Report, it is our intention to proceed in the Fall
with a stand alone Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament and Senators.
- Building on the work of the Industry Committee of this House, we
will table in the Fall changes to the Lobbyists Registration Act, to enhance
clarity, transparency and enforcement.
- In the Fall, we will propose fundamental changes to the legislation
governing the financing of political parties and candidates for office.
- We will introduce measures that will strengthen the ability and
responsibility of senior public servants to exercise propriety and due
diligence in the management of public funds.
The reason for the action plan is to better serve the public. But let’s put
some of this into perspective.
We spent weeks and months in this House, early in the year 2000, debating an
internal audit of Human Resources Development Canada. Yes, we found some bad
record-keeping and poor administration. But we also found deep philosophical
disagreements as to the role of government in promoting literacy, in helping the
disadvantaged and people with disabilities, in helping students find summer
employment.
But despite the excess of rhetoric, there was no scandal. There was no "Shovel-gate."
There were administrative mistakes, which have been fixed. Public money went to
good purpose.
Today, we are debating a sponsorship program.
If mistakes were made, we will correct them. If money was improperly spent,
we will try to recover it. If anyone broke the law, or the rules, appropriate
measures will be taken.
Indeed, I have asked the President of the Treasury Board, even before the
Auditor General reports on the past, to make recommendations for the future, on
how sponsorship, advertising and polling could be better managed to ensure value
for money. And to make these recommendations before the House returns in
September.
But let me speak about the motives behind the program.
Quite frankly, we had a close call in the referendum of 1995. And right after
the referendum we took urgent action on many fronts. We passed a resolution on
Distinct Society. We passed a law concerning constitutional vetoes. We
transferred control of labour market training to the provinces. I brought in new
ministers from Quebec. We made a reference to the Supreme Court on the issue of
secession. We passed the Clarity Act.
And, yes, Mr. Speaker, we undertook to raise the visibility of the Government
of Canada in Quebec.
It was a urgent situation. We acted with a sense of urgency. And with urgent
action mistakes can happen. It appears that some mistakes were made. And we are
determined to correct them.
But all in all, Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to say that thanks to the
range of actions we took, Canada is a much more united country today than it was
in October of 1995. And a much stronger country economically. Just ask Moody’s.
Which has given us its best overall rating because of the strength of our unity
and our economy.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians take great pride in our standing in the world. We are
known throughout the world for having governments of integrity, for having a
private sector of integrity, for being a people of integrity. Clearly we have
raised the bar. Canadians expect and demand the very best we can give them. Let
us now work together to raise the bar even higher.
Winston Churchill once said that democracy is the worst form of
government..except for all the others. I welcome debate. I welcome challenge. I
am proud to defend our record. I am humble enough to admit that mistakes have
been made and determined enough to correct them.
But I ask of everyone -- opposition, government and the media -- let us tone
down our rhetoric. Let us acknowledge our differences but respect our motives.
In this way, we can all get on with what really counts: the business of
Canadians. Building a strong economy, an inclusive society, safe and secure
communities, a distinctive Canadian place in the place in the world, and a
strong, united country.
-30-
