Skip to main content

DISSENTING REPORT OF THE BLOC QUÉBÉCOIS ON THE PARLIAMENTARY CODE OF ETHICS

The Bloc Québécois disassociates itself from the Committee's majority report. It does not focus on the important elements, which we think make up an integral part of a more balanced approach to the problem of parliamentary ethics. The fragmented, piece-meal approach only serves to confuse MPs and voters, and has no real impact on the public's perception of politicians. It seems that the government MPs have preferred to keep, at whatever cost, the Liberal Red Book's election promise on setting up a parliamentary Code of Ethics, rather than taking the necessary steps in order to reach a consensus from among all of the political parties on the question and to put that in to effect. The government will once again loudly proclaim that it has kept another election promise, while in fact it has done nothing.

The Bloc Québécois is disappointed with this report and strongly denounces it, convinced that only an all-encompassing approach would have enabled the development of solutions leading not only to a code of ethics but to changes to the Act of Parliament which would have curbed the power of « money » on the daily activities of government and parliamentarians.

Our critique is summarised in three key element:

TWO CODES OF ETHICS: A DOUBLE STANDARD

The Committee is proposing the creation of a parliamentary JuristeCounsel post, which would be responsible for over-seeing and applying the Code of Ethics. It would be vested with certain investigative powers. Being an appointment made by unanimous consent of all parties represented in the House of Commons and the Senate, this person would be completely independent of all political influence. His authority would apply to all MPs except the prime minister, ministers, secretaries of State and parliamentary secretaries. While we have every right to expect these people's ethics to be above suspicion, they will still be subject to the prime minister's present code of ethics, which still remains a matter of criticism.

The Bloc Québécois has denounced, and still denounces the prime minister's Code of Ethics. This Code, established following the Conservative government's sombre years, should be an example of transparency. On the contrary, the prime minister has been content with small measures:

Parliament is sovereign in its functions. Cabinet is accountable before the elected members of Parliament, who represent the legitimate expression of the popular will. As a point of principle, the Bloc Québécois maintains that all elected representatives, without exception, must be accountable to a single, independent ethics advisor, appointed after consultations and with the approval of all political parties recognised in the House. He especially has the right to hold independent powers of inquiry.

The Bloc Québécois can not in any way, and especially not by supporting the Committee's report, legitimise a parallel system of parliamentary ethics under the prime minister's exclusive responsibility.

The Prime minister must not have a discretionary power over ministerial ethics. While the Bloc Québécois in no way questions the personal integrity of Commissioner Wilson, we are however concerned with that of his present or future political masters... Only transparency, independence, sufficiently coercive powers and a code applied equally to all elected representatives, more severely in the case of ministers, secretaries of State and parliamentary secretaries, but administered by the same person, would be satisfactory to the Bloc Québécois. We see that as the only way to restore public confidence in parliamentary institutions and in elected representatives.

Unfortunately, the Committee did not receive the mandate to widen the scope of its study in order to hold hearings on subjects other than the Code of Ethics. We feel that a more encompassing approach is needed to address all of the problems directly or indirectly related to the functioning of parliament.

DEMOCRATIC FUNDING OF POLITICAL PARTIES

Parliamentary ethics for elected representatives is much more than a simple Code. Certainly, it requires their good faith, but also the implementation of other measures, whether by legislation, changes to the House Rules or additional disciplinary rules for each of the political parties' caucus.

The Bloc Québécois considers that the Code of Ethics would be better applied in conjunction with legislation on the democratic funding of political parties. These two elements are indivisible. The growth in the cost of democracy in Canada and the important part held by the intervention of public sector or its agencies constitutes a phenomenon which encourages political monetary contributions, to the detriment of ideological monetary contributions. The entire federal political system is based on the spending of enormous amounts of money for the daily spending generated by the daily operations of political parties and election campaigns. As it is easier to turn to « big donators » in order to fill traditional political parties' coffers, the former hold considerable influence compared to the ordinary political party member or to the voters. This situation brings us to conclude that the political contributions made by the « big donators » are the principal seed of the corruption that is rotting the entire federal political system.

The democratic funding of political parties would enable the latter to free themselves of the influence of big business and big donators and would enable political parties, their members and voters to become closer. In this regard, we suggest that our colleagues in Canada observe, study and learn from the Québec political culture, which clearly stands out from the Canadian norm, among others, in terms of the financing of political parties.

From its very beginning, the Bloc Québécois has denounced this state of affairs and firmly believes that as long as large sums of money are paid into political parties' election funds, it will be impossible for elected representatives to escape from the influence of their main financial backers. By maintaining the present and archaic form of funding, the parties that will succeed to government will have to respond to the expectations of these privileged groups who own them. This type of democracy scorns the voters, who are themselves the guarantee of democracy.

LOBBYISTS REGISTRATION ACT

On page 94, of the Liberal Party of Canada's Red Book, it is mentioned that « 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 the public eye. » Unfortunately, between electoral commitments and real legislation, we are forced to conclude that the lobbyists dictated, without any doubt, the final version of the legislation C-43 on lobbyists registration.

During the Spring 1995 House debate, a dozen major faults were raised by the Bloc Québécois:

The prime minister's ethics counsellor; the categories of lobbyists; disclosure requirements regarding contracts; lobbyists' fees; arranging meetings with ministers and senior public servants; lobbyists' political ties; coalitions; contingency fees; tax exemptions for lobbying costs; the absence of anti-avoidance provisions; the code regulating the conduct of public office-holders and finally, a code of ethics impossible to apply.
The Bloc Québécois presented 60 substantive amendments to the bill. The Liberal government rejected them all, thereby saying no 60 times to government integrity. The Bloc Québécois believes that the government must re-do its homework in the matter and recall that the Holtmann and Cooper committees had proposed measures which went much further than those proposed in C-43.

Another Liberal promise made on the fly.

IN CONCLUSION

The Bloc Québécois believes that the Code of Ethics proposed by the Committee majority is imperfect. Only a global and integral approach would have enabled the real problems of parliamentary ethics to be raised. By proceeding as it is, the committee is removing all credibility in the parliamentary process and is recognising the ever more important role of executive power and that of lobbyists, to the detriment of legislative power, and is consigning Parliament itself to oblivion.

François Langlois
MP for Bellechasse

;