CONTENTS
Thursday, May 11, 1995
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 12461
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 12461
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 12463
Mr. Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry) 12465
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 12469
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 12470
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 12471
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 12473
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 12479
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 12484
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 12484
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 12484
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 12487
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 12487
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 12491
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 12491
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 12492
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 12492
Consideration resumed of motion 12492
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 12492
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 12511
12445
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, May 11, 1995
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy 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 31 petitions.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 123, I have the pleasure and honour to table
the third report of the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of
Regulations.
Your committee recommends that a House order be issued to
repeal certain provisions of the National Capital Commission
Traffic and Property Regulations.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this morning I have a few petitions to present from
constituents around British Columbia.
The first petition requests that Parliament revise the
prohibited weapons order to exclude item (t), namely the Swiss
target rifle. Some are used for competition and the petitioners
would like to see them excluded.
The second petition is on behalf of British Columbians. They
request that Parliament reject Bill C-68 on firearms.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the third petition requests that Parliament protect the
present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada by not
allowing assisted suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the fourth petition requests that Parliament protect the
unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the same
protection enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human
beings.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the last petition requests that Parliament not amend the
human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the
charter of rights and freedoms to include the phrase sexual
orientation.
Ms. Roseanne Skoke (Central Nova, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have six petitions respecting
the issue of gun control.
The petitioners pray that Parliament not enact any new
firearm registration fees, costs or any further restrictions on the
ownership, sale, use, transportation or storage of firearms.
Ms. Roseanne Skoke (Central Nova, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
also have four petitions containing 322 signatures requesting
Parliament to delete entirely section 718.2 from the Criminal
Code of Canada pursuant to Bill C-41.
Ms. Roseanne Skoke (Central Nova, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
also have two petitions with respect to the issue of amending
human rights legislation to include the words sexual orientation.
This petition contains 155 signatures.
12446
Mr. Ron Fewchuk (Selkirk-Red River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have the honour to present three petitions on behalf of the
constituents of my riding of Selkirk-Red River, Manitoba.
In the first petition, my constituents pray that Parliament
extend protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal
Code.
Mr. Ron Fewchuk (Selkirk-Red River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in the second petition my constituents pray that Parliament
continue to reject euthanasia and assisted suicides in Canada.
Mr. Ron Fewchuk (Selkirk-Red River, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in the third petition my constituents pray that Parliament not
amend the human rights code using the undefined phrase sexual
orientation.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the following questions will
be answered today: Nos. 161 and 169.
[Text]
Question No. 161-Mr. Scott (Skeena):
With respect to the Young Offenders act, (a) what are the objectives of the
Act, (b) by what criteria is the attainment of these objectives measured, (c)
what efforts has the Department of Justice made to evaluate the success of the
act in terms of these criteria, and (d) to what extent have the objectives of the
act been met?
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.):
One of the primary objectives of the Young Offenders Act is to
fashion dispositions which provide adequate public protection
while maximizing the opportunities for the rehabilitation of
young offenders. While Canadians may have different views on
how this objective can be met, it seems clear that our
fundamental goal is to ensure that as many youth as possible
become fully participating and contributing members of our
society as adults, in accordance with the values of our society.
The changes which the government has introduced to the
act in Bill C-37, which is currently before the Senate, attempt
to clarify the distinction between appropriate responses for
non-violent versus violent offences. The bill further states
that young persons who are not convicted of crimes involving
serious offences can be held accountable for their actions
through non-custodial dispositions. There is an opportunity,
in our view, for greater use of more constructive dispositions
such as compensation, restitution, and community service in
situations where public safety is not at issue.
With regard to offences of violence, Bill C-37 is clear that
public protection must be given priority in assessing the nature
and length of dispositions appropriate for these offences. The
maximum sentences for youth charged with murder who remain
within the youth justice system have been lengthened to ensure
that public confidence in the system is not undermined by
responses which seem disproportionate to the gravity of the
crime. Bill C-37 provides that 16 and 17-year old offenders
charged with very serious offences, such as murder,
manslaughter and aggravated sexual assault, will be presumed
to be dealt with in adult court unless they can satisfy the court
that the competing interests of public protection and their
rehabilitation can be reconciled within the youth justice system.
A review of actual sentencing practices and the rate of
recidivism is one criterion by which attainment of the objectives
of the act can be measured. Are offenders charged with serious
crimes of violence receiving sentences which provide adequate
protection to the public while affording them opportunities for
rehabilitation? We know that only 19 per cent of crime
committed by young persons involves violence, Youth Court
Statistics 1993-94, in Juristat, January 1995, Vol. 15, No. 3, p.
7. Some suggest, in fact, that young offenders are more likely to
receive dispositions which are more onerous than adults.
Another criterion for assessing whether the objectives of the
act have been realized is the degree of public confidence in the
youth justice system. In part, this is also a public information
issue as there appears to be some misconceptions about the
nature and length of sentences given in respect of crimes
involving youth. There are statistics which indicate that there
appears to be a gradual increase in the use of custody in respect
of young offender dispositions and that much of this custody is
used in respect of property offenders. Not many Canadians
appear to know how the youth system actually operates and how
successful it has been. Public legal education is an important
initiative with which the Department of Justice is involved in
conjunction with other government departments.
In terms of the efforts the Department of Justice has made
to evaluate the success of the act, this work is already under
way. The Department of Justice, in collaboration with the
provinces, set up a Federal-Provincial-Territorial Youth
Justice Task Force to prepare a report by the fall for ministers
and deputy ministers respecting various pertinent issues
relevant to youth justice. Some of the issues being canvassed
are appropriate mechanisms to deal with serious offenders, a
determination of the interrelationship between the justice
system and other services, such as health and child welfare,
and the role of diversion in responding to criminal behaviour.
12447
Informing all of this work is recognition of the need to
formulate a scheme which is responsive to public conerns
about the youth justice system, while at the same time
maximizing opportunities for constructive responses to youth
crime. That process will give us a very comprehensive
assessment about the ability of the Young Offenders Act to
meet its objectives.
The Department of Justice is also in constant contact with
legal experts and practitioners in the youth justice system during
the formulation of policy which affects young offenders. These
inter-actions provide the department with ongoing feedback
about the effectiveness of the Young Offenders Act.
Current public discussion about the Young Offenders Act has
also alerted law makers to the limitations of legislation. We are
quite convinced that legislation alone will not eliminate youth
crime. Poverty, unemployment, family violence, racism,
illiteracy, alcoholism and drug abuse and many other factors
may contribute to criminal acts by young people and adults
alike. In this regard, Bill C-37 expressly recognizes that crime
prevention is essential to the long term protection of society and
requires addressing the underlying causes of crime by young
persons. In turn, this mandates the need to develop
multi-disciplinary approaches to identifying and effectively
responding to children and young persons at risk of committing
offending behaviour in the future.
Question No. 169-Mr. Pomerleau:
Concerning old age pensions to how many recipients are benefits paid
outside Canada and how do we ascertain that these recipients are still living?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): In 1994 old age security, OAS, pensions
were paid to 66,531 individuals outside Canada.
Notification of the death of a recipient may come from a
variety of sources, such as: family members, a trustee, a local
authority, a returned benefit cheque, or an application for a
Canada pension plan death or survivor benefit. As well, controls
program unit within income security programs conducts
verification checks on an ongoing basis.
There are currently no specific procedures which apply to
pensioners outside Canada as compared to pensioners inside
Canada. However, the February 1995 budget stated: ``Effective
July 1, 1996 OAS recipients who are no longer resident in
Canada will have to file a statement of their worldwide income
in order to continue to receive OAS benefits.'' This requirement
effectively provides a specific verification process.
[Translation]
Mr. Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
The Speaker: My colleagues, I would like to make a brief
statement about the point of order raised on Monday, May 8,
1995, by the hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm.
(1010)
The member stated that the Minister of Transport had
challenged his integrity during Question Period on May 5.
Specifically, the member objected to the minister's remarks that
he had betrayed a confidence of the House by revealing
information learned in a lock-up.
Lock-ups are information sessions which operate
independently from the House. Disagreements about lock-ups
therefore are political matters best dealt with at the political
level. Further, the member indicated that he had in fact obtained
the information in question from press reports.
When the matter was brought to my attention in the House on
Monday, I stated that the interpretation of what was said was a
matter for debate, but nonetheless promised to take it under
advisement, I am still of the view that the words used were not
unparliamentary.
That said, let me turn to a related matter which is of great
concern to me. When opinions are strongly held, the cut and
thrust of debate can go beyond the realm of what may be
considered acceptable. It is true that the Speaker must look at
the context in which a word is uttered, and the tone used when a
word is said, when considering whether a particular word or
remark is unparliamentary. As I noted on Monday, members
have every right to request that language, when ruled to be
unparliamentary by the Chair, be withdrawn.
Standing Order 18 requires members to refrain from using
offensive words.
There exist certain words, which, regardless of the tone
used or the intention of the user, have, by their very
connotation, a tendency to elicit negative reactions from other
members. We saw an example of this yesterday when the word
``traître'' was used in the House. Objections are raised each
time this or similar words are uttered. These serve no
constructive purpose and, more often than not, deflect the
12448
House's attention away from the serious matters before it. I
strongly urge all members to ponder the potential impact of
such words before using them.
I hope that members will seriously consider what I have said
today and I thank all members for their attention.
_____________________________________________
12448
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.)
moved:
That this House condemn the government for its failure to keep its red book
promise to make the government more open and permitting members of
Parliament to be more accountable to their constituents.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I want to inform the House that pursuant
to Standing Order 43(2), I and following Reform speakers will
be splitting our time.
I am pleased to rise today to debate the Reform motion that
condemns the government for its failure to keep its red book
promise to make the government more open and permitting MPs
to be more accountable to their constituents.
I thumbed through the red book the other day for the first time
in a long while. I read the chapter on parliamentary reform and
integrity in government. The rhetoric was wonderful. However
looking at the history of this Parliament to date, the promises
have not been kept and the government needs to be held
accountable for that breach of trust with the Canadian public.
The government has failed so miserably in the area of open
and honest government that it is starting to make Brian
Mulroney's Tories look like saints. Believe me, the Tories
certainly are not saints.
The government has been secretive, hierarchical and top
down. It has hidden behind every excuse to avoid changing the
structure and practices of this place and to avoid divulging
information that the public has a right to know.
(1015 )
My reform colleagues and I will demonstrate through debate
in the House today that the government has failed the Canadian
people through not delivering on the following promises. They
failed on their commitment to not use time allocation and
closure. They failed on the issue of an independent ethics
counsellor. They punish their own backbenchers for putting
their constituents first.
The process of sending bills to committee prior to second
reading is becoming a sham and the government has reneged on
its commitment for more free votes in the House. This
government has overused the order in council mechanism to
slide through its own agenda. Its members have continued the
proud Tory tradition of patronage, both in appointments and in
the rewarding of party friends with government contracts
without open tender. And the committee structure has made a
mockery of democracy because of the overly zealous whipping
of Liberal members.
The government has gone out of its way to block and refuse
requests for access to information. Interestingly enough, in
yesterday's Financial Post there was an article on the gag law,
Bill C-114-``the infamous law that would send Canadians to
jail for up to five years if they individually or as a group spend
more than $1,000 to support or oppose political parties or
candidates during a federal election''. The Liberals are
supporting this. The article indicates that they may even appeal
to the Supreme Court to continue to gag Canadians. They are
breaking their promise of not being an open, responsible, and
accountable government.
This government has made a number of promises in the red
book about openness, democracy, parliamentary reform, and the
freedom of members of Parliament to represent their
constituents. I along with my Reform colleagues will go page by
page through the red book and show how their promises were
broken.
We are starting to rip pages out of the red book because they
are irrelevant. All we will have left pretty soon is the cover, a
hollow shell of what was a grandiose scheme that they presented
to the electorate in the last election campaign.
We would all agree that the House of Commons is supposed to
be a place of free and open debate, a place where every member
should have the opportunity to give the pros and cons to each
piece of legislation, particularly to explain to other members
how any bill or motion will affect their own constituents. There
is a procedural device that puts all that at risk, and the procedure
is time allocation, used so many times by this government. Time
allocation, or closure, is the most undemocratic of
parliamentary procedures. Its only purpose is to stifle debate,
robbing members of an opportunity to speak so that the
government can ram through its agenda without scrutiny by all
members of this House and without every member having an
opportunity to place their position on the record if they so
choose.
When the Liberals were in opposition they agreed that time
allocation was undemocratic and unfair. They howled at the
Conservative government whenever time allocation was used.
They cried foul, they whined to the media, and they vowed never
to use such an evil procedure if they ever got into government.
The previous member for Ottawa-Vanier, now
undemocratically ushered into the Senate, said that closure
was far from democratic. The member for Winnipeg St. James
called it draconian. The member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce,
an
12449
experienced parliamentarian who is also the chair of the
justice committee, said that it was a hijacking of democracy.
The member for Kingston and the Islands, whose opinion I
respect, said it was morally wicked. Those are strong words.
The Conservative government used closure fifteen times
during the last Parliament-fifteen times in five years. It sounds
pretty bad, and it is. The government has already used closure
and time allocation ten times in only two years. This is despite a
promise by the Liberal government House leader to use this
blunt instrument far less than the Tories did. At this rate, they
will pass their old record of 25 uses of time allocation set by the
Liberal government in 1980 to 1984.
Despite all the damage the Liberals did to Canada during the
1970s and 1980s, they are in government again today and they
are making frequent use of the time allocation measure. They
have used time allocation ten times in this Parliament, so they
have already made it into double digits, ten times in the short
time we have been here since the election. The most
undemocratic of parliamentary procedures has never been used
so much and so shamelessly.
They brought in time allocation on Bill C-18, an act to
interrupt the redistribution of electoral boundaries, at second
reading. They brought it in on Bill C-32, the Excise Tax Act, at
third reading. They time allocated third reading of Bill C-35,
the Department of Citizenship Act. It sounds like a real national
crisis.
(1020 )
This was done at both report stage and third reading of Bill
C-33 and C-34, dealing with self-government in Yukon. On Bill
C-68, currently being debated in committee, they implemented
time allocation at second reading. The government time
allocated the second reading debate on Bill C-76, the Budget
Implementation Act.
Only in one case was the use of time allocation justified. That
was in the case of a national emergency, an act to end the
national rail strike. In this justifiable case, Reformers
cooperated fully with the government.
It is well worth looking at the nature of the bills the
government pushed through the House without full debate. The
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act is itself an
undemocratic measure and was rushed through. Obviously the
government was showing little shame in what it was doing. It
was trying to limit the amount of public discussion on the bill.
Other bills show a similar pattern: the Excise Act,
self-government acts, gun control acts, budget implementation,
all bills that try to pull a fast one on the taxpayers or on Canadian
citizens.
It is clear the Liberals feel that if they do not like the nature of
a debate, if they get uncomfortable over on the other side about
the attention the opposition is focusing on some of their
initiatives, they simply want to cut off the debate; they will not
talk about it. This is unacceptable. This is undemocratic, and the
government went out of its way to profess it would never do such
a thing.
The Liberals have gone back on their word ten times already
on this issue of closure alone. When they break their word so
often and so easily, how can they expect anyone to believe them
at all? It is no wonder the Canadian public is beginning to tire of
the unethical and politics as usual actions of the government.
Another great promise of the government was that it was to
open up the legislative process and allow more MPs the
opportunity to have input into the creation of bills. The
government announced it would allow certain bills to go to
committee before second reading so members could have some
input before the bill was written in stone. We have seen with Bill
C-45, an inadequate correction of the Parole Act, and with Bill
C-64, an act dealing with employment equity regarding the
public service, which is currently before committee, that the
government has kept and is keeping a short leash on its members
in committee to ensure that no significant changes will be made
to these bills while they are in committee.
It is a done deal. The government knew these bills were out of
touch with common sense Canadians, so it was vigilant not to let
public opinion or reasoned debate from the opposition sway
their members. All the talk and bluster from the government
benches has been a sham. There has never been any intent to
accept any advice or input from their own backbenchers, let
alone someone from the opposition side.
I wonder how my friends on the government back benches feel
about the amount of input they do not have in the legislative
process. On Bill C-68 and Bill C-41 we have heard that the
members on the other side are very concerned about these
measures. These and the budget are all good examples of how
the cabinet views the opinions of rank and file Liberal members.
They are told to toe the line; they must be team players and back
the party on this one. The trouble is that every single vote comes
up as another ``this one''. Get in line, folks.
I want to bring up the issue of the position of the Speaker. This
is a very interesting promise made by the Liberals while they
were in opposition. They produced a document entitled
``Reviewing Parliamentary Democracy''. It sounds really good.
They always pick such nice words. It sounds really nice. What
are the actions involved?
I quote from that document from the section dealing with the
Chair:
12450
In order to enhance the independence of the Chair and in an effort to reduce the
level of partisanship, when the Speaker is from the Government party, two of the
junior Chair Officers should be from the opposition, so that the four presiding
officer positions are shared equally by Government and Opposition.
That was Liberal policy. That is what they took into the
election. They broke that promise. It is just one of many
promises they have blatantly broken, with no intention to keep
them whatsoever. That is wrong. Canadians need to know about
it. Whenever we start talking about these issues we are cut off in
debate. That is brutally unfair and brutally undemocratic.
The document was authorized by the Parliamentary Secretary
to the Government House Leader, the member for Kingston and
the Islands. It was authored by the current government whip, by
the Secretary of State for Parliamentary Affairs, who I see
sitting in his seat across the way, and the minister of public
works. These people signed their names to this promise and they
did not keep it.
I wonder why it was not done. Is the government trying to set a
record for the number of promises it can break, for the number of
times it can go back on its word in one Parliament? What a sad
case this is.
(1025 )
The government has failed completely on the issue of ethics,
accountability to constituents, parliamentary reform,
commitment to fairness, and equality of all members of the
House.
I appreciate the chance to explain to the House why we are so
concerned about our rights and freedoms as members of
Parliament to function in an atmosphere where we can be
effective, truly represent our constituents, and truly add to the
dignity of this place in a manner Canadians deserve.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
today is a very important debate for Canadian people because it
goes right to the root of our democratic rights. It is very
important in this country that we recognize that democracy is
something that has to be looked after. It has to be protected. We
have to be vigilant in the protection of our democratic rights.
Democracy means rule by the people. It is not an exaggeration
to say that in this country we have far from rule by the people.
We have rule by the party. That is an abuse of democracy, which
must be fought vigorously. Every single citizen is responsible to
make sure that our country remains a democracy. The people
whose money is being spent, whose future is being decided, and
whose country is at stake must take a responsibility to be
vigilant in this area.
We have 295 members of Parliament who represent the
people. The people have put us in this place on their behalf to
examine the laws that are being proposed, to look after their
money that is being spent, to make sure that their long term
interests are protected in advance.
What do we have? The government has never lost a single
vote on a government bill. Why? Because the government has
the most members in the Chamber. Is it really the wishes of all
the government members that carry the day in this place? The
answer is clearly no. If government members dare to listen to
their constituents who have concerns about the effect of certain
legislation they are punished as severely as possible. If they are
punished publicly, can you imagine what goes on behind closed
doors, the threats? They are told to get into line or they will be
sorry. That is a sad way to run a country, and it must be attacked.
It must be corrected.
I read the document my hon. friend referred to that was put out
by the Liberals before the last election, and I thought this is
good, this is what I have been thinking should be done: more
freedom for bills in committees, more free votes, more
independence for the Speaker of the House. All those things that
were talked about are so badly needed in Parliament. Yet as soon
as they were elected the Liberals turned their backs on their own
document, on their own promises.
This cannot be tolerated by the Canadian people. They have a
right to expect that when people put their name to a document,
when they stand and campaign on promises that real reforms and
real democracy will come into the House, there will be a real
commitment to follow through, not a cynical abrogation of those
promises as quickly as possible.
We have to look facts in the face in this country. The people
who really call the shots are the Prime Minister, his advisers,
and some members of the cabinet. The country is run by a very
small group of people. That cannot be tolerated.
Our own mother government of Britain, which our Canadian
Parliament is modelled after, has had free votes where members
are free to vote the wishes of their constituents and the members
are not whipped into line by their parties. They have had that for
over 20 years in Great Britain. Yet in this country we tolerate a
small group of people who force their will, their agenda, their
viewpoint on a whole country without proper and open debate.
(1030 )
In a year and a half on critical bills, on bills that have long
term consequences for the country, we have had debate stifled
and cut off 10 times with many more to come. Why do we
stand still as citizens for this sort of thing? Why do we not
send a message to the Liberals who are governing the country
that we simply will not tolerate this any more, that we will
have open debate, that our elected representatives will have a
chance to address the issues and get them out before the
12451
public and will be free to then vote the way they know their
constituents' interests are best fulfilled, best responded to and
best served?
It is absolutely critical we get serious about this whole area of
how our democracy works. We all know the saying, and
sometimes these sayings are so profound they have simply
become trivial and commonplace to us, the price of freedom is
constant vigilance.
It is absolutely critical that in the rules of the House, the way
we conduct ourselves and interact as parliamentarians upholds
those high standards of democracy and representation are so
much at the heart of what we hold dear.
It is very important that Canadians listen to the debate today,
recognize what we are trying to say, need to move toward more
democratic measures. Many of my colleagues will be outlining
exactly how these democratic measures will work in practice
and in reality.
Other stable mature democracies have many of the measures
we have proposed for several years. Those democracies give so
much more scope and respect to the real wishes of the people
being served. It is important to recognize we do not want to be
governed by a small group of people. We do not want to be
governed by people who then force, coerce and impose their will
on the rest of the country. Their viewpoint is often not anywhere
close to what common sense people in the real world think and
feel about issues.
The foundations of the values and ethics that underlie much of
what we have done in the country are being questioned, attacked
and changed in ways we have to look at and debate.
In Bill C-68 individual liberties we have held dear in the
country for decades, since the founding of our country, are being
abrogated. In debate this does not come out. This is not
something we should take lightly.
There are many things in the bills that come before Parliament
that Canadians have a right to have brought out by the
parliamentarians they have elected to represent their interests.
They have a right to have those views endorsed in the votes in
the House.
When Canadians see a party or a government telling its
members to vote the way they are told to by the top people in the
organization or they will be sorry, punished and deprived of
their right to have input into the proceedings of the House, it is
time for Canadians to stand up and say: ``I don't think so. We
will not have our country run that way. We will not vote for a
party that will do these things. We will not support this way of
running our affairs''.
I appeal to Canadians today to watch this debate, listen to this
debate, to do what has to be done to put their will forward so our
country is run in a fair, open and democratic way, a way that
serves our best interests both now and in the long term.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it seems
members at this end of the Chamber have very short memories.
I have been very impressed with the concept of private
members' bills. I have noticed even one of our members has
been able to proceed with a private member's bill from its
inception all the way through to legislation. I do not think that
has happened for a long time in the House.
(1035)
Once again, our memory is a little short. The member for
Mission-Coquitlan recently had her own private members' bill
referred to a committee.
I have spoken to some of our legislative counsel and I have
discovered that in Britain, the model of our Parliament, this
system is very much undemocratic. The members do not have a
lottery system like we have in the House. The individual
member is picked and then formulates a bill.
In that country the government uses its members to introduce
government legislation rather than reaffirming the rights and
independence of individual members.
I would like the member to comment on the relationship of
introducing their own private members' bills and referring them
to committee as part of our democratic and legislative process
which is very real in the House.
Mrs. Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, the country is not run on private
members' bills. It is run by governments by their own
legislation, by their own programs. Private members' bills have
a minuscule impact on what happens in the country. It is good
that we have the freedom to bring forward private members'
bills. It is also to the credit of the House that sometimes common
sense, workable proposals get through the House.
Nobody ever said the system had no good things to it. Clearly
it has many good things. However, it is important to remember
there are critical areas in which this place is very undemocratic.
I know the Liberals will point to the small things they see as
being workable in the House, and well they should. What we
really need to address are the big, gaping holes in the democratic
workings which have to be fixed. I urge the member to look at
what can be fixed, made better and what could be more
democratic, rather than clinging to the very small pieces of
wood in the ocean.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. The member for Calgary
North serves on the human resources development committee.
It travelled extensively across Canada to look at reforms to
12452
Canada's social programs and safety nets. This was with the
support of the Minister of Human Resources Development.
My understanding is that while there may have been some
flaws in the process, the committee worked very hard travelling
across Canada. Its work was totally ignored by the government.
I would like to find out whether whether the member for
Calgary North could confirm my suspicions.
Mrs. Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, the process of consulting with
Canadians whose interests are being served in these exercises is
very important. Not only were ordinary Canadians virtually
closed out of the consultation process, but even the
recommendations from parliamentarians on the committee have
yet to do anything but occupy a dusty shelf somewhere.
It is a disgrace to pretend we are really seeking the best
solutions when even recommendations from the government
side and our own dissenting opinion on that report simply went
nowhere.
There is a long way to go before committees of the House
really act like committees and deal with substantive issues and
the recommendations are vigorously respected and put into
place.
[Translation]
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am proud and honoured to
participate in this debate, since our government's achievements
in the last 18 months in terms of parliamentary reform, integrity,
openness and fulfilment of our election promises are
unprecedented in Canadian history.
I think that the motion put forward by the Reform Party is
rather contradictory with regard to our red book commitments to
Canadians, which the Reform Party has been doing its utmost to
oppose and derail without success day after day.
(1040)
In fact, there is nothing surprising about this, as the Reform
Party is not afraid of contradictions. It has even become a kind
of expert in this area. In the next few minutes, I will be pleased
to list some of our achievements that have been instrumental in
restoring Canadians' confidence in their national government.
Since the motion refers to our red book, you will not be
surprised, Mr. Speaker, to hear me refer to it throughout my
speech in order to evaluate our government's performance.
What did the red book say about parliamentary reform? Allow
me to quote from page 92 of the red book: ``In the House of
Commons, a Liberal government will give MPs a greater role in
drafting legislation, through House of Commons committees.
These committees will also be given greater influence over
government expenditures. More free votes will be allowed in the
House of Commons, and individual members of Parliament will
be involved in an effective pre-budget consultation process''.
What did we do in this regard? We introduced two new
processes in addition to the one already in place allowing MPs to
consider bills, so that members can become directly involved in
drafting legislation and enjoy greater autonomy in amending
government bills through the committee system.
The first process consists in the government tabling a bill at
first reading and then, after a maximum three hour debate
followed by a vote if necessary, referring it to a committee
before second reading instead of after, and before agreement in
principle. This allows the committees to hold extensive hearings
and to amend bills without being restricted by the need for an
agreement in principle following debate at second reading.
As a result, the committees can propose major amendments to
the bills. Our government used this new process four times,
including for the lobbyists registration bill. The second process
consists in allowing a minister or a member of Parliament to
table a motion directing a committee to draft a bill on an issue
concerning private members' business. That process was used in
the case of Bill C-69, the legislation dealing with the
readjustment of electoral boundaries.
The government, through the Standing Committee on
Finance, also conducted the largest prebudget consultation ever
held in Canada, something which will be done before every
budget. Thanks to this consultation exercise, the government
was able to not only involve MPs, but all Canadians in the
federal budgetary process. Members of Parliament, through the
standing committees, now review, on a yearly basis, the
government's future spending priorities, in addition to
examining the main estimates for the current year.
A number of debates also take place in the House of
Commons, during which MPs can freely express their views on
major issues, before the government makes a final decision. For
example, I can mention the debates on Canada's peacekeepers in
the former Yugoslavia, sustainable development, the social
program reform, small and medium size businesses, fiscal
policy, violence against women, and many other upcoming
topics.
Through our committees, we also reviewed the major reforms
to Canada's foreign and defence policies, immigration and
social programs.
(1045)
What was the Reform Party's position regarding these
parliamentary reforms? The hon. member for Lethbridge
actually thanked the government, on behalf of his party, for
providing such a wide scale program.
He went even farther. Indeed, he added that the Reform
Party was also pleased that the proposals to be submitted to
the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs will
12453
deal with a large number of issues which his party feels are
important to ensure a reform of the parliamentary process.
These comments are not from me; they were made by the
Reform member for Lethbridge.
To fully understand the position adopted by the Reform Party
during the debate on parliamentary reform, let us take a look at
what the leader of that party, the hon. member for Calgary
Southwest had to say about our proposals. He said that,
generally speaking, these changes seek to allow MPs to play a
major role in the development of private members' public bills
and the government's fiscal policy, adding that this was a
definite improvement. Again, these comments were made by the
Reform Party leader.
Members of the Liberal caucus vote freely as regards private
members' business. For example, last night, a private member's
bill was referred to a committee, after going through second
reading in the House.
As for government business, the Reform Party would like to
see more free votes. Yet, as the NDP member for Winnipeg
Transcona said, in the final analysis, there is not one single
member in this House who cannot vote freely and differently
than his or her party or leader, any time he or she chooses to do
so.
It is therefore surprising to hear the Reform Party-
[English]
Mr. Hermanson: If they do not want to lose their positions in
committee.
Mr. Gagliano: The Reform Party came to this place to restore
decorum and when its members do not like what they hear they
heckle. That is the decorum they bring.
Mr. Hermanson: You had better read that to the three
members you kicked off the committee.
Mr. Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I am listening to the House
leader of the Reform Party. He does not seem to want to listen to
my speech. That is what he calls decorum.
[Translation]
It is astonishing that the Reform Party, where block voting by
members is the rule in most votes in the House, should demand
more free votes and at the same time, as we see in the motion
before the House today, demand that we honour our
commitments to the electorate as set out in the red book.
If Reform Party members were consistent, they would support
our proposals to reform the pension plan for members of
Parliament, since they go much further than what we promised
in the red book.
What was promised in the red book? We promised to set a
minimum age at which pensions will begin to be paid, and I will
quote what it says in the red book: ``A Liberal government will
reform the pension plan of members of Parliament to end
``double dipping''. That is what it says in the red book.
So what did we do? The President of the Treasury Board
tabled a bill in the House that would not only set the minimum
eligible age at 55 but would also stop double dipping and, on top
of that, cut the government's contribution by 33 per cent, which
means a saving of $3.3 million.
We went well beyond our commitments, so what was the
Reform Party's contribution? Yesterday, it used the very same
strategy it condemned this morning, and did so every five
minutes. Every five minutes, Reform Party members asked for a
quorum. They stayed behind the curtains before prayers to
prevent the House from sitting, since there were not enough
members to start the debate. Is that what they want to talk about?
In any case, that is their strategy.
They have repeatedly wasted the time of the House by moving
an adjournment motion that was unnecessary. If they want to
speak, if they want to have a debate, let them use the time of the
House by speaking to the subject at hand instead of moving
dilatory motions.
(1050)
That is the new decorum Reform Party members have brought
to the House of Commons. They criticized and are still
criticizing our position on pension reform for parliamentarians.
And what did the whip suggest? Or should I say caucus
coordinator, as we used to call them. A 130 per cent increase in
members' salaries. This is embarrassing, and it certainly takes a
lot of nerve. Trust the Reform Party to make that kind of
proposal! Now that is poor judgment, although not surprising,
coming from a party that speaks for organizations like the
National Citizens' Coalition.
Since we are on the subject of cutting costs, I may recall,
through you, Mr. Speaker, that in the red book we promised, and
I quote; ``A Liberal government will reduce the size and budgets
of ministers' offices and the Prime Minister's office by at least
$10 million a year''. This was done, and it was the first thing the
Prime Minister did when he was elected.
We went even further. We proposed cuts in spending by
members. In the process, we saved another $6 million annually.
This was not even in the red book. Everyone remembers the plan
to cut members' expense allowances and benefits. We tightened
up the way parliamentary associations operate and the rules for
domestic travel by parliamentarians. We also have a plan for
reducing the deficit of parliamentary restaurant services, and
there are several more examples of cost cutting.
In the red book, we also discussed integrity and openness in
government. That is why last June, the Prime Minister
proceeded with the appointment of an ethics counsellor. This
was accompanied by further clarification and stricter
implemen-
12454
tation of the conflict of interest code for public office holders,
which for the first time will extend to activities by family
members.
We tabled a bill to reinforce the Lobbyists Registration Act,
which would include the authority to order disclosure of fees
paid to lobbyists to obtain government contracts and banning the
inclusion of conditional fees in contracts with the government.
Last week, my colleague, the Leader of the Government in the
House of Commons, moved to create a joint committee to work
on establishing a code of conduct. After one day of debate, this
motion could have been adopted and, today, the committee
could already be at work examining the issue. But what
prevented his motion from being adopted after that debate?
Once again, the Reform Party, and, this morning, it is they who
are trying to preach to us about public ethics.
What did the red book say on this issue? I quote: ``To enshrine
these principles and commitments, we will develop a Code of
Conduct for Public Officials to guide Cabinet ministers,
members of Parliament, senators, political staff, and public
servants in their dealings with lobbyists. We will also take
measures to better regulate the activities of lobbyists,
particularly in the awarding of government contracts''. Once
again, to the detriment of the Reformers, we kept our promise.
These days, the Reformers are raising a ruckus regarding two
bills: the bill on gun control and Bill C-41, regarding
sentencing, especially for hate crimes.
Since the Reformers demand that we meet our red book
commitments, why are they against these two bills? This is what
their logic boils down to: They accuse us of not meeting our
commitments, yet, when we draft bills in order to meet them,
they oppose them. Furthermore, they use all of the
parliamentary antics in the book to obstruct their passage. These
are red book promises.
(1055)
On page 84 of the red book, it says: ``To strengthen gun
control, a Liberal government will, among other measures,
counter the illegal importation of banned and restricted firearms
into Canada and prohibit anyone convicted of an indictable
drug-related offence, a stalking offence, or any violent offence
from owning or possessing a gun''. Once again, we, ourselves,
have respected our commitments.
What about what is said in the red book, and I quote: ``Every
person has a right to personal security, and a Liberal government
will move to protect that right. Particular attention must be paid
to those who today, by virtue of gender, race, religion, age, or
sexual orientation, are more likely to be targets of violent
crime''. Yet again, they are opposed.
Of course, I could go on for hours listing all the
commitments we have already fulfilled after only 18 months
in government, but I think we have hit at the heart of the
matter right now. Why have Canadians regained confidence in
themselves, in the country and in their government? It is very
simple. We got down to work, we honoured our commitments
and we showed Canadians how things were, without trying to
hide the truth for short term political gains.
Unlike the Reform Party, we believe in democratic
institutions and in the devotion of members elected to serve
their constituents and their country. Although we feel that our
institutions must change and improve at some point, we have
faith in our democratic institutions, unlike the Reform Party,
which never stops denigrating and mocking the work of
members.
Furthermore, when the members of the Reform Party arrived
in Ottawa, they thought all they had to do was sweet talk
Canadians, who would simply allow themselves to be lulled to
sleep. Who can forget the dramatic moment staged by the leader
of the Reform Party, with great pomp, when he called a news
conference in front of the doors of Parliament and handed the car
keys to the driver telling him to return them to wherever he got
them, as he himself had no need for them. The cynicism, does
not stop here, however, because, following this public
demonstration of disdain, we discover that the leader of the
Reform Party has a car and a driver paid for by the Reform Party
through a funding campaign, which, with tax reductions, is still
paid for by taxpayers' money, once again by the back door.
I will never forget that the word, during the election
campaign, was that practices here had to be changed. The hon.
members were going to come and show us how to do things.
They were coming here to establish order. Yet, the first thing the
leader of the Reform Party did when they got here was complain
about the size of his office, he wanted an office bigger than the
one allotted to the leader of a third party. He felt that members
got a lot for nothing. Suddenly they discovered that the
sandwiches in the parliamentary cafeteria cost more than in
their ridings. That was the bottom line. Those who want to
lecture us today have got it all backwards-it is total hypocrisy.
I could go on, but I see, Mr. Speaker, that my time is running
out. In closing, what can I say about the motion by the hon.
member of the Reform Party for Kindersley-Lloydminster
today?
The Deputy Speaker: Unfortunately, the minister's time is
up. The hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm, on questions or
comments.
I beg your pardon. I must now give the floor to a member of
the Reform Party.
[English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there were several errors in the member's
speech. In fact most of it was a total inaccuracy.
12455
I will very quickly respond to the fact that the leader of the
Reform Party refused the car and the chauffeur and still refuses
them. His party allowance is not paid by taxpayers. It is the
same allowance he received prior to the election. Nothing has
changed. It was much more responsible than the fat allowances
the Prime Minister receives from his party outside of caucus
funds.
(1100)
The member has been around here a long time and should be
more responsible than to make such foolish, ridiculous
statements in the House. Some of the comments he made with
regard to our leader are degrading to this House.
The hon. member commented on the dilatory motions made
yesterday. Yesterday we were debating our own compensation
package in the way of MPs pensions. On many occasions there
were only two Liberals sitting in the Chamber while Reformers
were debating the issue on legislation the Liberals had put
forward. I believe it is beneath the dignity of members of
Parliament to come to this House to debate and challenge the
government on its own legislation and the Liberals do not even
have their people here to respond to the debate. They do not care.
I think they were embarrassed about the legislation. They were
not here to defend it.
We thought it was beneath the dignity of this House to speak
to an empty Chamber. We called quorum to try get the members
from the government side to come in and hear what we were
saying. They continually refused. Eventually we asked that the
debate be adjourned on the government orders of the day
because they simply were not interested in defending their
blatant fat MP pension plan.
I wonder if the minister would deal directly with the facts on
this issue rather than these meaningless platitudes that have no
relation to what is actually happening in the House.
Mr. Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, it shows that the truth hurts when
it is brought forth.
Let me address the question about yesterday. I am surprised.
The member is the Reform House leader. He should know
exactly where the members are when they are not in the
Chamber. There are a number of committees.
Mr. Hermanson: They were hiding back there.
Mr. Gagliano: He is heckling. That is the new decorum. That
is what they came here for. They came here for the decorum.
Again, the member impugns that I am not telling the truth. That
is the new decorum they have brought to the House.
Members who are not in the House are in committee and doing
other work. The House leader for Reform should say that when
that motion was moved to adjourn the debate yesterday Reform
had no more speakers. It was just half an hour before the time
allocated for government orders of the day would have ended.
Instead of allowing the normal process for passage of
legislation, Reform moved a dilatory motion which took a
30-minute bell. When the vote was finished we moved to other
business. It was not to pass the bill. It was to send the bill to
committee. They did not want witnesses to come before the
committee and express their views. That is how they see
parliamentary democracy.
There is something that I did not have time to say in my
speech and this gives me the opportunity. It concerns time
allocation. Reformers forget that the last time the government
moved time allocation it was during the labour strike and it was
supported by the Reform Party. They cannot have it both ways.
They want to have their cake and eat it too.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the issue that was raised is a very serious one, but I will
expand on it later on. However, the Secretary of State for
Parliamentary Affairs mentioned a number of things the
government is supposed to have done.
I think you really have to be as bold as brass to make certain
statements. I will not consider each and everyone because I
would not have enough time, but I must say I was struck by a
reference to the so-called new procedure for expanding the role
played by members in this House and in committee, and my
comments will be based on my own experience.
You referred to Bill C-43, to amend the Lobbyists
Registration Act. I was a diligent representative of the Bloc on
this committee, so I think I can speak from experience.
It is all very well to introduce new procedures in the House,
give the impression that the government is more open and refer
the bill, after first reading, to committee so that it can be
amended on the basis of information obtained by members in
committee, but in practice it does not work out that way. In
practice, the minister responsible for this question or the bill
comes and tell the committee what to do. In this committee on
Bill C-43, the opposition presented 20 amendments to provide
more transparency. All 20 were rejected. So what is the
difference? The difference is that the minister told us what to do
before the hearings began.
(1105)
Is that the new procedure? Is that what the Liberals are
bragging about? I think it takes a lot of nerve to come and say
that this morning, and what is worse, say it with a straight face.
I think that if the hon. member bothered to look at what is
really happening he would realize that basically nothing has
changed. And that is why people are so upset. He said
12456
something very significant to the Reform Party. He said that
you cannot change people's impressions with window
dressing. And as member of the Bloc Quebecois, I am
certainly not the one to tell the hon. member for
Saint-Léonard and Secretary of State how to do this. They are
past masters at the art of giving the impression they are doing
something.
That was only about this particular question, but I could
repeat all the examples he gave and prove that he was not talking
about the real situation. I wish that in other cases he would
reconcile what was done with what they promised in the red
book, which said that as part of parliamentary reform, they
would expand the role of members in developing legislation,
through-
Yes, that is what they did, that is what they gave the
impression of doing, but basically, nothing has changed. The
minister controls government members in committee, although
the membership keeps changing, but in any case, this is an insult
to the public's intelligence. I would appreciate the hon.
member's comments.
Mr. Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I will let this pass because I
realize that in the past few weeks the Bloc and its head office in
Quebec City have changed course so abruptly that people say
they are suffering from whiplash, but enough.
My comments will only concern Bill C-43, and I want to
thank the hon. member for bringing it up. Obviously, he could
not present 20 amendments and expect the government to accept
every single opposition amendment. If the hon. member would
listen, he would get an answer to his question. We approved two
opposition amendments in this bill, the first time this ever
happened in the 11 years I have been here. And he tells me it is
just window dressing, Mr. Speaker.
As for the rest of what it says in the red book, if he listened
carefully to my speech, I explained exactly how we improved
and changed the members' role and gave it particular
significance since the 1983 election. And I think that as for
changing one's position and being able to say something with a
straight face, we have a lot to learn from the Bloc because they
do it every day.
[English]
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Considering the Secretary of State for Parliamentary Affairs is
the only member of the cabinet here, could we extend the time
for questions and comments for another five minutes?
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. House leader will know that
he is not to make comments about the presence or absence of
members. All members are bound by that rule.
Is there unanimous consent to permit this period of questions
and comments to continue for five minutes?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: The whip should know that whenever it
is possible, the Chair will recognize members from other parties
in questions or comments.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to comment simply on this debate. I am very much in
agreement with what my colleague for Berthier-Montcalm had
to say about the role of members.
(1110)
When we are told that members have been given more
responsibilities on committees, we must not lose sight of the
fact that committees are led by the majority and are simply
advisory. On the Standing Committee on National Defence and
Veterans Affairs, of which I am a member, we made motions at
one point for the very purpose of transparency. We simply
proposed that, in the future, the provinces be consulted about
appointments to the board. The motion was defeated by
government members.
There was talk earlier of free votes. However, recently again,
during the debate on gun control at second reading, the two or
three Liberals who dared to vote against were expelled from
their committee. So, I would like to know what will happen to
these members if they vote against their government again, at
third reading?
Mr. Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, as regards the hon. member's
first question, his complaint that the committee comprises a
majority of government members, he should know, after 18
months, that the committees reflect the make-up of the House.
Accordingly, since the government has a majority of seats in the
House, it has a majority on the committees.
The member said that committees have an advisory role. On
the contrary, committees almost always have amendments to the
bills the House sends them. After consideration, these bills
return to the House with a number of amendments. I have just
answered his colleague on the particular matter of a bill he spoke
to me about, and which we even accepted. Not only did we agree
to amendments by government members, but we agreed to
amendments by opposition members.
Therefore, I think that parliamentary reform is not only on
paper, but in the day to day work we do. There are members'
bills that have received royal assent and become law. So I think
we are clearly making an effort. We have been in government for
only 18 months and we have implemented many of our
parliamentary reforms. Other reforms are required and a
committee of the House is looking into procedure and House
affairs.
12457
All of the parties are represented on it, and if the hon. member
has some suggestions to make, let him make them instead of
simply criticizing.
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
we are supposed to be debating the government's promise to be
more open, to have more open government, and to allow MPs to
be more accountable to their constituents. Is it not sad that we
have to use the word allow?
What we have from the hon. minister are simply diversionary
tactics. We have a real attempt to divert attention from the real
issue which Canadians are concerned about. The biggest
diversionary tactic is to attack the messenger, to say things
about the Reform Party which dared to bring the subject up.
They are the most pejorative and outright fabrications to distort
our position on a number of issues and suggest that we have no
reason to even bring up the issue in the House.
I appeal to the minister to at least stick to the facts when he is
talking about these kinds of issues. Some of the things which he
said about our party and about our positions are just not true.
Canadians are going to find out one of these days that this is a
tactic of this government and it will lose its credibility
altogether.
We heard from the minister a highly edited version of the
Liberal record. We disagreed with a lot of the promises which
the Liberals made. If we agreed with them we would not be here,
we would all be on the other side. During the election these
people took certain positions and promised to do certain things.
They have totally reversed themselves. They are totally
untrustworthy in a whole number of areas.
(1115)
I want to ask the member about the document he authored and
signed reviving parliamentary democracy. This document was
so good, it would put in so many measures that would have been
to the benefit of Canadians, to the democratic system that we are
trying to operate under.
The member holds a senior position in the government. He is
one of the decision makers. He said that in order to enhance the
independence of the Chair and in an effort to reduce the level of
partisanship when the speakers are from the government party,
two of the junior chair officers should be from the opposition so
that the four presiding officer positions are shared equally by
government and opposition. I would like to ask the minister to
explain why he has not implemented his own recommendation
in that regard.
Mr. Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised with the
member's statement.
Reform Party members come to the House and accuse the
government of not keeping its promises, of turning face and
everything.
When we try to respond and if they do not like the response, it
is a question of debate. Naturally as members of the Reform or
any other members in the House, they can point to the
government for what they do not like. We also we have a right as
government members to point out what they said during the
election.
In case there are any specific things that I said that are not
true, that the Reform Party did not do, whatever I said is on the
public record. Those she can point out to me in specific terms.
Concerning the document that I co-authored with the hon.
member for Kingston and the Islands and two other members, if
she had listened to my speech, she would have heard me say that
most of the reforms we made came from that document.
In only 18 months, 90 per cent of the commitments in that
document have been kept. A term of government is four or five
years. Maybe the member should place some hope in this
institution. Maybe she could wait and in due time see the other
10 per cent of that document.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am certain that my colleagues opposite are very
happy to see me rise to speak on this motion. But, to understand
the turn of events today, I think that we have to clearly define
what we mean by all this, so I am going to refer to the motion of
the third party in this House.
The motion is the following:
That this House condemn the government for its failure to keep its Red
Book promise to make the government more open and permitting Members of
Parliament to be more accountable to their constituents.
So, there are two parts to this motion. The second is to permit
Members of Parliament to be more accountable to their
constituents. I will now say a few words on the subject.
Accountability depends on each Member of Parliament. We
have enough means these days to write to our constituents, to let
them know the government's positions and to transmit
information. We all have the necessary tools. I think that, as the
representatives of a riding, we could do a better job of informing
our electorate of the work we are doing.
I can say, for my part anyway, that I write to my constituents
regularly to keep them up to date on the decisions made by the
Bloc Quebecois or to comment on, among other things,
decisions made by the government. We already have the means
to do this. There is no need, regarding this point, to heap more
blame on the government.
12458
However, regarding the first point, which condemns the
government for not having kept its famous red book promise to
make the administration more transparent, we would like to say
the following: The Liberals are crafty. They saw, during their
nine years in opposition, that integrity struck a chord with the
public. Therefore, they brought certain campaign promises
contained in the red book to the public's attention. Fortunately
they are written down, because words fade away but written
statements endure-we can still read them today.
(1120)
Indeed, the famous red book did contain a nice, little chapter,
entitled ``Governing with Integrity''. I would like to say that I
am fortunate to be speaking after the secretary of state. I can see
what he thinks was done to restore integrity in government,
because, otherwise, I would not have known what to say on that
topic in my speech. What the government just said is
incomplete, almost exaggerated. They did not tell the whole
truth.
As I was saying, they greatly stressed integrity during the
election campaign. I think that they put their finger on the
problem, they saw that people want their parliamentarians to be
more accountable, that they want Parliament to be more
transparent, so that they can know what is going on here.
After 19 months-because they have already been in office
that long-I would like to summarize their administration's
actions. And you will see that there is a clear difference between
what they think they have achieved and what we think they have
achieved. It is funny how outlooks change, depending on
whether one is seated to the left or the right of the Chair. That is
the truth, sad, but true.
The secretary of state for parliamentary affairs stressed one
point because, it would seem that it is a revelation of the
government, the discovery of the century: the famous ethics
counsellor. That is just peachy. How much more open can you
get? An ethics counsellor appointed by the Prime Minister, an
ethics counsellor who will investigate matters involving
ministers behind closed doors, which directly contradicts what
the red book said about ensuring openness. An ethics counsellor
who will only comment on the conclusions of his investigation.
This is openness? This is how this government plans to restore
confidence and ensure openness? What a crock!
They also wanted people to think more highly of the role of
MPs. As I commented on this earlier, I will not spend any more
time on this but the fact remains that it is an utter failure.
Nothing has changed. The minister is still the boss, telling
Liberal committee chairs what to do. The more things change,
the more they stay the same.
They also say that there will eventually be a code of conduct
for MPs, ministers, senior officials, etc. If one can tell the future
by looking at the past, we can expect more of the same. We will
continue to hear nice promises, wishful thinking and
rose-coloured rhetoric. In the end, the objective of openness
will not be achieved.
Another even more subtle approach of this government is to
table bills in which the powers are increasingly centralized at
the minister's level. More and more, the minister must be the
absolute master in his department. More and more-but quietly
so that the public is kept in the dark-, they are changing the
rules of the game through complicated laws and regulations, but
it is the minister who will have the final say. It is the minister
who will make the appointments and allocate the funds. What
openness! In my opinion, this opens the door to patronage, to
political appointments.
Speaking of political appointments, what has this Liberal
government done in the last 18 months to change the situation
that existed under the Tories? Absolutely nothing.
I remember that, in 1984, the Tories defeated the Liberals
because of a rash of appointments. During the famous leaders'
debate, John Turner looked rather foolish indeed. Yet, the Tories
did exactly the same thing for nine years. Today, after the 1993
election, what are the Liberals doing? Exactly the same thing as
the Tories did and the Liberals had done before them. The more
things change, the more they stay the same. ``Partisan
appointments, partisan appointments, partisan appointments''
has replaced ``jobs, jobs, jobs''. This contradicts the red book
but do the Liberals care?
(1125)
As we have seen, the news is full of similar situations in which
members of the Liberal ``family'' have received preferential
treatment. That is Liberal openness for you. Let me give you a
few examples of political appointments. I am not saying that
none of these people is qualified, but when we see that everyone
appointed by this openness-seeking government is a Liberal, we
may well ask ourselves if only Liberals are considered as
qualified. Perhaps according to the hon. members across the
way, but I do not think so.
Here are a few examples: Jean-Robert Gauthier, a former
Liberal MP, was appointed to the Senate; John Bryden was
also appointed to the Senate, and what did this gentleman use
to do? He was one of Mr. Chrétien's campaign organizers in
the leadership race, another good Liberal. Robert Nixon,
Liberal Party president also on the Chrétien campaign team.
He was appointed to a department. Here is another one:
Michel Robert, past president of the Liberal Party of Canada.
We know he was acting president of the SIRC, dealing with
the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. As we all know,
as a sideline he was involved in negotiations with aboriginal
people. He has apparently billed the government
approximately $300,000 for his services so far and, today, we
learn that he was appointed appellate judge. He is no doubt
qualified, but
12459
he has one quality in common with the others: he is a Liberal.
Another well-known Liberal according to the press, Pierre
Dalphond, was also appointed judge.
There is a whole list of individuals who ran in the 1993
campaign who were appointed to various positions. Is that the
way to ensure transparency? Is that it, when, every time we dig
somewhere, we find party ties? When a government claims to
seek openness and to enhance politicians' credibility, should its
ultimate goal be to appoint ``chums''?
Just in case we do not get reelected, we better treat our friends
now, while we are riding the gravy train. Is that the way to
restore the confidence of Canadian and Quebec taxpayers? I
think not. We are aware of very recent cases. Liberals,
Conservatives, it is all the same damn thing. Oops, my
apologies, that word is unparliamentary. It is all one and the
same. The Liberals are doing the exact same thing as the
Conservatives did.
Take the Pearson deal. I can understand that the Liberals who
are listening would be embarrassed. In the Pearson deal, as we
found out, there were as many Liberal lobbyists as Conservative
lobbyists. No wonder that the Liberals do not want to raise too
much dust around this issue. Then there was the Dupuy matter. It
had several stages, but I will focus on the first two. The first one
was the minister's interference in CRTC business, and the
second, his little trip on the sly to Los Angeles. Upon looking
into it more closely, one realizes that this may be a family thing,
that the Prime Minister's son-in-law may be involved, that
subsidiaries were involved, and so on.
In the Power Direct TV deal, direct ties can be made to the
Liberal clique. One could even say the Liberal ``famiglia'' in
this case, where an order was made specifically to benefit a
company run by the Prime Minister's son-in-law. It takes some
doing. Billions of dollars are involved. Is that what this
government means by openness?
Here is another example: the bovine somatotropin issue. The
Minister of Health is implicated in this and she never knows
what is going on in her own department. Mr. Ritter, an official of
this department took a leave of absence to lobby his colleagues
and have the BST approved.
This does not strike the minister as odd. She sees nothing
wrong with this. This must be what Liberals call openness. She
must be right, so there is no problem. No problem.
(1130)
We can never get the facts about the tainted blood scandal. We
have been asking questions for months regarding this issue.
Canadians and Quebecers are dying because blood supplies were
not properly handled. These are very important issues. We ask
questions, but we do not get answers. We are told: ``Do not
worry; a commissioner will make a decision and then we will
take action''. In the meantime, people are dying. Is this what we
call transparency, Mr. Speaker? Is that what this government
had to offer to Canadians and Quebecers? I do not think so.
Earlier, the secretary of state alluded to the CN strike. We
spent a whole weekend saying that the minister was using
strong-arm tactics on workers to eventually be able to privatize
CN. We were told: ``No, no. You are wrong. The government is
not trying to break the union''. Fine. But then, what do we learn
a few weeks later? We learn that the government wants to
privatize CN. We learn that it wants to sell part of Canada's
heritage, because CN is truly a part of our heritage. Yet, we were
told that we were mistaken. This is probably what the
government calls transparency.
I will give one last example, but there are many more. The
Charles R. Bronfman Foundation. We just learned, thanks to the
Access to Information Act, that this great foundation, which
extols the virtues of Canada by promoting Canadian heritage in
its ``heritage minutes'' on TV, and which received a $200,000
government subsidy for the year 1992-93, will get $2 million
this year. If you look a little more closely, you discover that one
party involved is a person by the name of Tom Axworthy. That
person must be a good lobbyist to get a tenfold, or 1,000 per
cent, increase in the government subsidy. This is either a good
lobbyist, or else the brother of the Minister of Human Resources
Development. We checked and discovered that it is the latter.
When people look at all this, they realize that things have not
changed. This is why we want transparency. We want to improve
the credibility of MPs and their work. All the parties should set
aside their political differences and work together to come up
with a good bill. This is what the Bloc tried to do on several
occasions. However, the amendments we proposed were always
rejected by the government. Are we always in the wrong? I think
not. We too hear from our constituents. Then, why is that
happening? Simply because this government is no better than
the previous one. It is only somewhat more discreet. It uses a
thicker smoke screen than the Conservatives did. However, if
you dig a little, you see exactly the same things.
I will close by saying that I think the Liberal Party should take
a hard look at the transparency of its administration. It should
really reread its elections promises and its famous red book and
look at what it has actually done. I think it will draw useful
conclusions that will enable it to take better aim, because it
needs to take better aim.
In conclusion, therefore, if I had to decide or vote on this
motion, I would be for the first part and against the second.
Finally, with a message for government perhaps as well-I
almost forgot this point-I wanted to say that we in the Bloc
Quebecois, the official opposition, wanted to introduce a bill
here to increase transparency with regard to the funding of
political parties, and it would have been given the same
unanimous support across Canada it is now being given in
Quebec. I think Parliament must acquire such a tool to
provide for transparency in its administration. You know,
each year, when we look at the list of individuals contributing
to one or other political party, we realize that there are
12460
individuals and companies-at the federal level, companies
may make contributions-making contributions of $15,000 or
$25,000. Immediately, the question comes to mind: ``What do
they want in return?''
(1135)
I think that, if we had legislation governing party funding, a
law on the public funding of parties, we would avoid
governments having their hands and feet tied once they are
elected. We would thus limit contributions, as in Quebec, to
$5,000 and we would limit contributions only to voters,
constituents. We would avoid having companies taking power
and control, as is the case currently with the Liberal Party,
whose head office is Power Corporation. We just have to look at
the legislation being passed here to see that everything is done in
terms of this company. This would really prevent the kind of
business currently going on.
This is what we introduced. The government often tells us that
the opposition is always criticizing, but never comes up with
anything. We presented a bill from the Bloc Quebecois, from the
member for Richelieu. What did the Liberals do? They voted
against it-go figure-even though it was directly related to a
very large part of the red book on the subject of integrity. We
were giving them the opportunity to achieve something they
were not achieving, something they were sidestepping. But, no,
they voted against it.
All this is to say that nothing has changed since the
Conservatives left. The same thing is going on. I think the
secretary of state is deceiving us when he says that voters'
confidence has increased. Quite sincerely, I think that the
Liberal Party and each of its members here in this House have
broken a large number of their election promises. Quite
sincerely, I think that these Liberals have betrayed the
confidence of this House in this regard and I find it most
regrettable.
[English]
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have listened with strong interest to the
debate of the official opposition and the third party. A number of
good points were brought forward by them. A lot of them were
idealistic in nature.
I will deal first with the last speaker. Certainly the party that
wins on a platform and presents to the public a platform which is
general in nature sets a direction. Like everything else in the
world directions are not always achieved. Some are beyond the
capability of government. Some reassess and set other priorities
in their place. The world is always changing; that is the only
constant we know.
It is disappointing when some things are not done which we
want to see done. Governments of all types are not perfect. At
the same time there is an intrinsic nature on the part of the
government to try to do the best it can for the country. It is
difficult. I have wrestled with it myself as a member. When do
we represent our constituents and when do we really know that
we are representing our constituents?
I held six town hall meetings every six months in my riding. I
get turnouts of 70 to 500 people. However I do not get a
consistent message at each one of the meetings. I believe the
only time we would ever get some reality is if we had a little
buzzer in every home to vote for or against. Then we would truly
know how the constituents felt.
We can understand at some stage the reality of the situation.
We can understand at some stage the reality that there are large
lobby groups and there are small lobby groups. This is the
reality we face. Those of us who are new come in with a tabula
rasa. We feel we can make great changes. It is like trying to turn
the Queen Mary with a 10-horsepower motor boat. It is very
difficult to change the inertia because the country is so complex
and the machinery of government is so massive.
(1140)
We try to bring back what we hear through our caucuses. The
reality is we are not always hearing the same thing in every
riding across Canada. It disturbs me to hear the senior member
of the Bloc Quebecois lecture the government on appointments.
We have just seen perhaps the most wholesale changing, kicking
out, firing and replacement of people in the history of
government in Quebec when the Parti Quebecois took over.
We can speak with credibility if we have an example, but if we
do not have an example we have to apologize in some cases for
errors made in government. There will be many errors in years
to come, but we cannot stop trying to make it better. We cannot
stop trying to pick up on the good ideas presented in the House
and putting them into action.
I believe sincerely that we should try our best. Adjustments
are always made to a platform. There has never been a
government elected that could live by every nail in its platform.
Sometimes some of the planks have to be taken out of the
platform and be repriorized.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, first off, I would like to
say to my colleague that we are members of the Bloc
Quebecois, not the Parti Quebecois as he incorrectly said.
There is a difference. Second, just because other parties make
mistakes does not mean that the government should repeat
12461
them. I think that goes without saying. We must improve the
situation, and sometimes that requires drawing up a balance
sheet.
I do not want to compare one government to another. I am a
member of the Bloc Quebecois, a federal party, and my role is to
criticize what the federal government, the Liberal government
does. I can understand, however, certain points made by the
Liberal member. It is true that promises can be made in the heat
of an election campaign which a government will realize, once it
gets into office, that it cannot fulfil because certain things have
changed in the meanwhile.
Therefore, why not simply say, in all honesty: ``We are sorry,
we cannot attain the goal we set regarding parliamentary reform,
for x number of reasons''? And not do what the Liberals are
currently doing: Clinging desperately to the goal they set in the
red book, inventing a story to give people the impression that
they have done something. This lacks integrity and perpetuates
the lack of transparency in this House.
As I was saying earlier, the Liberals reign supreme in the art
of making it look like they are doing something, while, in
reality, they are doing absolutely nothing. I have said it once and
will say it again, there is room for improvement in the area of
transparency and also in the area of listening to the opposition,
because we are right on several issues.
[English]
Mr. Mills (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous
consent to delete Standing Order 78 from the Standing Orders.
The Deputy Speaker: I am only hesitating because I am not
sure we can do that. I am told we can do anything by unanimous
consent but let me consult.
The member is correct that by unanimous consent the House
can do anything. The House can delete a standing order. Is there
unanimous consent to delete the standing order mentioned by
the hon. member for Red Deer?
An hon. member: No.
(1145 )
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the point has
been made regarding this issue. We are hearing today the
involvement in the House, the frustration of being in this place
and trying to present an honest point of view from constituents;
the total frustration I am sure the backbench on the government
side and the opposition side have with representing what people
stand for and what they tell us when no one is listening. That is
what the electorate feels as well.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, virtue is undeniably a great
thing. I agree with my hon. colleague to some extent. I agree that
the government should listen more carefully to the
representations made by members of this House on major issues,
such as the ones the secretary of state listed as part of the
so-called positive record of the government for the first 18 or 19
months of its mandate.
We agreed in principle with certain bills introduced by the
Liberals. It is just that we wanted to improve them. It is most
unfortunate that the government did not listen more closely to
the representations and remarks made by the hon. member.
[English]
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, a former member of the House of Commons, Dr. Lorne
Greenaway, had great respect in his constituency of
Cariboo-Chilcotin. He ran into some difficulties with his party
and out of conscience resigned his seat.
Subsequently he was appointed to the B.C. treaty
commission. With his understanding of aboriginal issues and his
concern for just settlements for all, he performed outstanding
service in that capacity as one of the original commissioners of
the B.C. treaty commission.
I am sorry to say Dr. Greenaway was fired. This is the darker
side of patronage appointments. Dr. Greenaway was fired so
there would be room for someone else. I make no comment
about the person who took his place. However, a valuable
member who had great respect in the community has been set
aside so patronage appointments can be made in his place.
I regret this has happened. This is an indication to me and to
many of my constituents and the people of British Columbia of
the tone of government the Liberals are setting. We are deeply
dismayed by this.
I ask the hon. member if he can recall incidents such as this,
the darker side of patronage, from his experience in Quebec.
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, I think that this was more a
comment than a question. The hon. member stated facts of
which I had no knowledge. I am therefore unable to reply to his
comment.
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak on our Reform motion.
Today we are speaking about the failure of the government
to keep its red book promises. When we were elected in
October 1993 the much touted red book was supposed to be a
12462
new tone for the people of the country, a new tone for the
people in Parliament to work with. It was supposed to be a
tone full of honesty that would engender public trust, that
would bring more effectiveness to the House. What we have
seen is a book not of hope, not of promises kept, but a book
of promises that have been broken.
That is an insult to the House. It is an insult to democratic
principles. Most of all it is an insult to the people of the country.
I will give some examples and then move on to constructive
solutions. When I and many of my colleagues in the House were
elected a year and a half ago there was great hope. With 205 new
members there was great hope there would be a different
mindset of doing things in the House. As individuals we would
be more effective in representing the wishes of our constituents
and bringing our expertise to the House, more effective in
presenting our ideas and more effective in bringing members of
the public who have expertise to the House to present the most
constructive solutions for Canada.
(1150)
Unfortunately we have fallen back into the same quagmire of
business as usual-what a shame.
In the House there is great hope and potential. Many members
of the House possess great skills, particularly the backbenchers.
In the backbenches of the Liberal caucus there are great skills
which are not being tapped deliberately because of business as
usual.
When we came to the House the Prime Minister said he would
give greater power to the members of the House to better
represent the people of the country. Again, we see business as
usual.
Instead of committees acting independently and having more
power, in many cases they are merely an arm of the government,
an arm of the insidious movement of order in council.
We in the House know but the people may not recognize the
power structures in the country are extremely pyramidal, with
power centred in the hands of perhaps a dozen individuals in the
House while the rest, by and large, are under the control of the
government.
We in opposition try to act in a different way to bring forth
constructive solutions. However, time and again we are merely
shut down, not on the basis of merit, but on the basis of politics.
This does a great deal of disservice to members of the House.
I will raise one specific example which is close to my heart
and one which I feel is a great shame. It is the example of the
health committee, which deals with one of the most important
aspects in the country, the health and welfare of Canadians.
There are good people from all parties on the committee.
Unfortunately the committee is merely a functioning arm under
the policies of the government, rather than dealing with the big
problems that affect the health of Canadians or being able to
have the power to function and manoeuvre to address the
problems in a construction fashion.
All one needs to do is look at the nature of what the committee
is studying to find out it is not addressing the big problems. That
not only applies to the health committee but to other committees
also.
I implore the government to give members of the committee
the power to use their expertise, to mine the talents in the
country and use them to bring forth the most constructive
solutions and address the biggest problems of the country today.
Unfortunately that is not happening because we are dealing with
politics and not with problems.
Another example is order in council decisions by very few.
People are advanced to positions not on the basis of merit but on
the basis of who they know in many cases; not in all cases, but in
many cases. This does a great disservice to the people of the
country who could do great things.
I go back to one aspect of the function of the government.
When there is a problem in the House, what do we do? We do not
deal with the problem. We deal with what I call studyitis, a
disease pervasive not only in Parliament but also in other
parliaments and governments of the world. It is an infectious
disease that has infected most members of Parliament. That is
very sad.
When there is a big problem affecting us, do we bring forth the
most relevant studies and the most relevant and effective
solutions to the problem to show a real life example? No, of
course not. We study it. Why do we study it? It creates the
illusion we as elected members of Parliament are working on it.
We give the illusion we are actually trying to address a problem.
In effect, we are telling the Canadian people we are trying to
offset the problem and decision making processes.
As a qualifier, I am not saying we do not have to study things.
Please, when things have been studied eight, nine and ten times,
and when we literally have rooms full of studies on the same
subject, why are we studying it again?
(1155 )
This was most graphically illustrated in the health committee
when an individual from the Inuit Tapirisat society came before
us when we were deciding whether to study aboriginal health.
She was a very eloquent lady who was representing Inuit people.
She came before us with a handful of documents, put them on the
table and said: ``If you want to study aboriginal health and you
want to come and see us, don't bother. Go home. This is but a
small example of studies that have been done on us. We don't
want studies. We want action''.
That brought to mind something we do over and over again
not only in health care but in so many other committees. What
a waste of the taxpayers' money and what a disservice to the
health problems that affect Canadians and that Canadians
want action on, not two years from now, but now. The
12463
solutions are out there. Let us enact them, work toward them
and see how they work. If they do not work properly we
should modify them to ensure they do work properly.
Trying to represent our constituents' wishes is something we
were supposed to do as a democratic society and something the
Prime Minister said he would enable us to do to a greater extent.
On Bill C-68 three courageous individuals from the
government stood by what their constituents said. Their
constituents overwhelmingly told them to oppose the bill, which
we as party oppose for very good reasons. Those individuals
stood up and opposed it on second reading and within 24 hours
were removed from their committees. Why? It was a penalty for
not kowtowing to what the party wanted to do. Is that
democracy? Is that representing our constituents? I think not.
Another aspect that affects my riding in particular is the west
coast fisheries disaster. The government was supposed to do
something for fisheries all over the country, from the east coast
to the west coast. Unfortunately the west coast fishery is being
ignored.
As a precautionary measure I take this opportunity to tell the
minister of fisheries that the poachers who poached last year, the
poachers who almost caused the collapse of the west coast
fishery, we came within 12 hours of collapse, are already to go
ahead and do the same thing again. I know from the people in the
trenches the west coast fishery poachers are getting prepared
now to trash our west coast fishery. Please pay heed to that and
deal with it now. The DFO office in Sooke, which represents a
huge area, is being closed. The hatchery that releases 750,000
fry and is staffed with one person and numerous volunteers is
also being closed.
DFO officers with west coast expertise in undercover
operations are being moved to the middle of British Columbia.
Why? I warn the government to pay heed to this because this is
not very professional.
Another aspect is the ethics counsellor. This is an excellent
idea but we cannot have an ethics counsellor appointed by the
Prime Minister, answerable to an MP from the government and
again answerable to the Prime Minister. The ethics counsellor
must have the ability to operate independently, answer to an
independent group and also to have independent powers to enact
what their mandate is supposed to be.
Closure is another aspect which defies democracy. We should
not have that in the House whatsoever.
We cannot continue what we are doing in Parliament. We must
ensure Canadians have confidence in Parliament. We must allow
members of Parliament to do what they were meant to, to
represent their constituents' wishes in an effective fashion. I ask
the Prime Minister to allow us to do this. He must stop the top
down control and bring the expertise of his party to bear down on
the huge problems that affect society and the Canadian people so
we can have effective, fiscally sustainable, sound and
responsible policies for the people of the country which they so
dearly need.
(1200 )
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, opposition
days such as this give us an opportunity to list some of the
promises that have been broken from the now dead book.
The foundation of this book was set up because canadians
demanded a change. They demanded that the status quo must
change. Therefore the principles of parliamentary reform, open
government and accountability of MPs were something that all
of us knew about prior to the election.
As a platform for a political party, all of these principles
seemed extremely noble and certainly worthy of public support.
As a result, a great many Canadians voted for the Liberals in the
last election. As much as anything, it was a revolt against the PC
party. Canadians thought they were to get a fresh new
government built on the principles stated in this dead book.
A year and a half later, they are discovering that the many fine
words are not being carried out. Instead they hear old line
rhetoric, controlled by spin doctors and pumped out to react to
everything.
How does the House work? A lot of people ask that as we tour
around our constituencies. Unfortunately I have to tell them it
does not work very democratically. Decisions are made
primarily by cabinet and that cabinet has a whole set of criteria
that it uses. For the most part cabinet members do not listen to
the people.
I am often asked what backbenchers do. I tell them that
backbenchers are kept in line by the party whip. They are also
kept in line by travel, by perks, by keeping busy on committees,
by doing reports which no one looks at.
What about the opposition? What does the opposition do? The
opposition speaks in the House. Its members try to put forward
the concerns of Canadians. However a lot of frustration is
associated with that because no one is here to listen. The
government is not concerned. Therefore I question the very
democracy of this place.
Canadians demand a change. They demand free votes. They
demand that members be here and listen, respond and carry their
wishes to the government. They are sick and tired of spin
doctors, of party hacks that control everything that happens in
this place.
12464
The Liberal red book has been exposed for what it really is.
The hypocrisy of its broken promises are becoming clearer and
clearer to all Canadians. As just one example, whatever
happened to the GST?
Nothing happened to the GST, a clear broken promise from
the red book. Even worse, the Deputy Prime Minister put her
own good word on the line and said that she would resign if the
GST was not gone by 1995. It never happened. Why did it not
happen? Because the Deputy Prime Minister was unwilling to
live up to her word and her stated principles, a perfect example
of the Liberal dead book.
Let us move on to some other broken promises. How about the
one that a Liberal government would not be like the Mulroney
Tories? We know what Canadians thought of the PCs. Canadians
were promised that invoking closure on bills and enforcing strict
discipline on their MPs were the characteristics of the hated
Mulroney regime but now the truth is clear.
The Liberal Party is not really opposed to these tactics. Its
members were only playing the game. They have embraced
these tactics and use them with random abuse, with no
consideration at all for the Canadian public.
(1205 )
Even though a large number of its backbenchers could not
agree with Bill C-68, the Liberal Party used closure to force it
through second reading. It mercilessly imposed party discipline
on those members of the Liberal caucus who dared to vote the
will of their constituents. They listened to their constituents and
were handled just the way the PCs would have handled it. The
truth is out. The promises in the red book can be looked on as a
fraud. I will present to the House even more evidence of that.
I had a private member's motion on which I worked very hard.
It was to allow Parliament to be scrutinized by the Access to
Information Act. When I first began my efforts I was convinced
that I could get all party support for it. After all, greater open
government was the official policy of all parties. The red book
boldly stated that a Liberal government would take a series of
initiatives to restore confidence in the institutions of
government. Open government would be the watchword of the
Liberal program.
My Motion No. 304 was the perfect opportunity for Liberals
to put their money where their mouths were. If they did not vote
for the motion to extend the Access to Information Act to
Parliament then all Canadians would know that the Liberal
commitment to open and transparent government was a sham.
To allay any concerns which Liberal members might have, I
sent each and every one of them a notice that addressed the
specific objections they raised during the hours of debate. The
information commissioner, Mr. John Grace, was perfectly
willing to reassure any member of Parliament who wondered
about the impact of the motion.
In the days leading up to the vote I spoke to many Liberals
who indicated they supported my motion. They said it was just
what Parliament needed. However, on the day of the vote not one
single solitary Liberal, clinging by his or her fingernails to the
shattered promises of the red book, voted in favour of open
government. The order had come down from on high: ``You can
talk about open government all you want, but you will never
vote for it. You will be in big trouble if you do''. It was a sad
betrayal of the Canadian people. Everyone should remember
that it happened. They will at the next election.
What happened the day the Liberal majority voted down
M-304 prevented more open government. It is an example of
how this place does not work and how it is not democratic. What
speaks volumes is the voting record of that day. The motion was
supported by all Reform members and by all BQ members. The
BQ members were being harassed by government members to
try to change their minds. The NDP and the Tories voted for it.
Even the one Liberal independent member voted for it.
However, absolutely no one on the government side voted for
open government.
What is happening back home? Back home a lot of
communication is going on in all 295 of the ridings across the
country. Town hall meetings and all kinds of get togethers are
being held. All citizens who are concerned about taxes, gun
control and all the other problems are getting together.
The reports are filtering back to those members who are
listening. The message is as clear as it was before the last
election: ``You take our message to Ottawa. Don't bring the
message from Ottawa back to us and tell us how good it is for us.
Don't tell us that the party tells you is good for us. We will tell
you what is good for the party''. That is the message but it is not
getting across in this place.
I have a perfect example in my constituency. Six thousand
people got together one day and said: ``Do not dare vote for the
GST. Do not dare pass that kind of legislation. We are telling
that it is bad. You are telling us that the party says it is good, but
we are telling you it is bad''. I would take the results of the last
election as a pretty good example of that message. The message
was loud and clear. The message will be loud and clear again if
the government fails to listen to the people.
(1210 )
We have other examples such as the Charlottetown accord.
Members from all parties in the House said: ``We support it''.
But the people said: ``No, it is bad for us''.
12465
Consider gun control. Throughout the whole country people
are talking to their members of Parliament about gun control but
this place has put a finger down, telling them not to represent
their constituents.
What about MP pensions, about which 85 per cent of
Canadians say: ``Get rid of the gold plated pension''. What are
the people in the House doing? They are saying: ``They really
don't know what's good for them. We know what's good for
them. We know the compensation package must include this
gold plated pension''.
The people of Canada will speak. They will make it loud and
clear. That is what is wrong with the red book. The red book
speaks of all of these things but does not mean any of them. It is
a total hoax perpetrated on the people of Canada. The message is
clear and getting clearer.
It is obvious Canadians are demanding an openness, a
transparency, an accountability for government. They are being
ignored. The Liberal members of the House have no excuse.
They ran on the promises of the red book and those promises are
being systematically broken. The red book is truly a dead book.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurent Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, there are a few comments I would like to make, and I
would also like to say, as did the hon. member for the Reform
Party, that I too was disappointed in the so-called transparency
of the Liberals.
Elected in the riding of Beauharnois-Salaberry, when I came
to Ottawa I innocently asked to be a member of the Standing
Committee on National Defence. Why? Because when the
Liberals were the official opposition, the present Prime Minister
said, among other things, that defence conversion was the way
of the future and that, once he was in power, he would make
every effort to provide additional funding for defence
conversion.
I asked to be a member of the defence committee, because the
committee was responsible for dealing with this matter and
exploring new approaches to defence conversion. In my own
riding I have Expro, a company that is still waiting for federal
assistance for defence conversion, but none is forthcoming.
The first thing that happened is that one morning, we arrived
in the House and the government tabled an emergency motion
proposing that the defence committee consist not only of
members of the House of Commons but also of senators. This
took us by surprise. We discussed it in the House, a vote was
taken and subsequently, both elected members and senators
were appointed to the committee.
During the first few committee sessions with elected
members and senators, I realized that the senators wanted to
be on this committee because they wanted to travel. During
the first few days the committee was in session, each senator
suggested we go to Oslo because this year the NATO
conference would be held in Oslo. Canada being a member of
NATO, they felt they should attend this conference in Oslo.
Someone else said we had to go to Brussels. Why Brussels?
Because NATO headquarters is in Brussels. Canada being a
member of NATO, we had to go and visit NATO headquarters in
Brussels. Someone else said we had to go to New York because
the UN headquarters is in New York and Canada is a member of
the UN. Someone else claimed we had to go to Zagreb in
Yugoslavia, because Canada has peacekeepers in Yugoslavia.
I was flabbergasted to see every single senator rise with
suggestions for a trip. I wondered what I was doing there with
my plans to talk about defence conversion for Expro in
Beauharnois-Salaberry.
(1215)
I realized that basically, these people wanted to travel. The
budget for all these trips would be more than one million dollars.
There was a complaint in committee that this was truly
excessive. Finally, they agreed to a budget for $800,000. They
left, these worthy senators, accompanied by physicians, nurses
and secretaries to take notes for the marvellous report they
would make on these trips, a report that was probably shelved as
soon as they got back. Now that is transparency-I think the
public should know-that is today's Liberal government.
They tell us they work on these committees but, basically,
they go off on some lovely trips at taxpayers expense. I refused
to go on any of these trips because I thought it was outrageous.
That is part of what today's motion is all about. When we talk
about transparency, I think the public ought to know that. I am
very much disappointed because of all this.
[English]
Mr. Mills (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, I have to agree totally
with the member's comments. He brought out two key points.
The key points are that when these joint committees are set up
that is a major problem. We did exactly the same thing in foreign
affairs. We put forward a motion to keep people from that other
place out. It was supported by the Bloc and of course it was
defeated by the Liberals.
We must remember, as the member pointed out, that the
biggest carrot in this place to keep the backbenchers of the
Liberal Party happy is travel. That is the biggest carrot there is.
They would rise up against that dictatorial control if in fact they
could not be given something. Often that travel is given as a
reward.
I agree totally with the member. He is right on the money. The
Canadian people should realize that.
12466
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate
in this opposition day motion on ethics in government.
One has to wonder about the timing of this motion. This
motion on ethics comes from a party that yesterday spent the
whole time of the House with delaying tactics in a most
unethical manner. Surely something must be said about that.
How about the political party that ran out of speakers and then
proposed the adjournment of the debate in order to cause a
half-hour bell in order not to have a vote? Could it be that those
ethical people were afraid of not winning that vote at that
particular time and they did not want to proceed with the vote?
What about the ethics of that?
We are speaking of ethics. Earlier today we had an hon.
member state in this House that the government had fired Dr.
Lorne Greenaway of Williams Lake, British Columbia, who was
sitting on the British Columbia Treaty Commission. I tried to
obtain from the hon. member more details about this particular
person. When I did not get more details I sent for a copy of the
order in council appointments. I found out that Dr. Lorne
Greenaway's appointment-a former Conservative MP, and a
fine gentleman, by the way-expired on April 13. He was not
fired. It expired. I have it on page 131.01 of the order in council
book, which I have in my hand.
What about the ethics of members making statements like
that, which are diametrically opposed to the facts? Can I put it
kindly? What kinds of ethics are those? That is playing fast and
loose with things that should be true.
This is on a day on which we are supposed to be debating
ethics. Are we going to get an apology later for having made that
kind of a statement in the House? Fat chance. Fat chance from
those ethical people across the way.
Those are the same ethical people who were elected
pretending to the people of Canada that MPs were overpaid and
they were going to come here to Ottawa and straighten it out.
They were going to eat in the cafeteria because they did not want
to eat in the parliamentary restaurant. Then of course it became
obvious to most of us that the cafeteria lost more money than the
restaurant, which kind of destroyed that argument for the hon.
members in question.
(1220)
Then they said that they wanted to get rid of the limousine.
They spent government time, taxpayers' dollars, having their
limousine prepared. It was all made shiny, brought here in the
front, and a driver was hired to do it. They came here, and do you
know what they did? They put a little sign in the window
pretending they wanted the thing sold. They spent hundreds if
not thousands of taxpayers' dollars for a cheap publicity stunt.
Mr. Milliken: Then what did they do?
Mr. Boudria: Then they had someone drive in the back
laneway with another limousine, this time subsidized by the
taxpayers of Canada by way of electoral contribution to the
Reform Party. Shameful behaviour.
What about political reform à la Reform? Let us look at what
they had to say about that. During the election campaign they
produced a cheap imitation of the Liberal red book. It was a
cheap imitation, because we all know how popular the Liberal
red book was. I am sure members remember it well.
We of course are delivering on many of the promises in the red
book. We will deliver on all of them, of course, during our
mandate.
Anyway, let us get to the Reform book of promises now. Here
is what they said. It is called ``Better Representation in
Parliament''. This is a reading from the blue book of the Reform
Party. At that time, the Reform members said: ``Until
parliamentary reform is enacted, the Reform Party pledges that
having had a full opportunity to express their views and vote
freely in caucus, such caucus votes always will be made
public''.
Mr. Milliken: I remember that promise.
Mr. Boudria: I remember that promise well. I ask the hon.
members across, will they table those votes that they have made
in caucus? Why have they not made them public?
I think it is a silly idea to start with, but of course I am not the
one who promised it. They did. We had much more meaningful
promises in the red book.
Anyway, those are their promises. Those are the things they
saw as being important. Why are they not delivering on those
promises to the people of Canada? What stopped them from
tabling the minutes from their caucus meeting? They said that
they would do it. It is a pretty corny thing to do, but it does not
matter. I mean, they are the ones who said they would do it. Why
are they not doing it?
Listen to this as I read on, because it gets better. Pay attention,
because we are going to read more. It says: ``Reform MPs shall
vote with the Reform Party majority in the House unless a
member is instructed to abstain or vote otherwise by his or her
constituents. The Reform Party of Canada shall provide criteria
for proper processes to elicit the will of the constituency''. Let
us stop at that point.
Let us talk about gun control in all of this. We know that the
vast majority of Canadians are in favour of gun control. How
many Reform MPs are going to vote in favour of gun control?
We think two Reform MPs will vote in favour of gun control.
Only one did last time around.
12467
Let us talk about the province of Ontario. Insight Canada did
an extensive poll in the province of Ontario. There is not one
constituency in Ontario where people who are against gun
control would have a majority, not one. We did an extensive
poll, and that is proven.
I ask the hon. members across, what about the Reform Party
MP from Ontario? Did he not, according to this test that the
Reform members have for themselves, fail the test? Did he fail
to deliver on the little blue book of the Reform Party? Is that not
somewhat unethical?
Mr. Milliken: What about Alberta?
Mr. Boudria: What about Alberta, as the hon. parliamentary
secretary said so eloquently. He is quite right again, as he
usually is. Again the Reform members have missed the boat.
An hon. member: What did the justice minister say?
Mr. Boudria: I do not know. It is so unusual here that the
Reform Party members are buttressing their own argument by
quoting Tories. They are the ones who said that Tories were
these bad dudes when they came here to Parliament. Now that
they are here, I see a little coalition developing. They are
quoting Tories.
(1225 )
They are hanging around with those Tories too much. Yes,
yes, yes. They are way too close to those Tories. We can see them
being way too close to each other. It is rubbing off. We can tell
that it is only a question of time before we have the great
coalition of Reformers and Tories. We know it. Those are really
friends of Brian Mulroney across the way. We can recognize
those kinds of people when we see them.
Mr. Milliken: You are right. The similarities are very
apparent.
Mr. Mills (Red Deer): Your nose is growing.
Mr. Boudria: The member for Kingston and the Islands
agrees with me. My colleague has just indicated that the
similarities are very apparent.
Let us talk about parliamentary reform. We Liberals have
promised parliamentary reform, and we have delivered. Yes, we
have delivered to the people of Canada. We suggested greater
influence of MPs on committees, and we delivered on that.
Mr. Hermanson: No way.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Boudria: I hear some people disagreeing across the way.
Perhaps they were not paying close enough attention to what
goes on in committee.
Let us see what we have done here. The government has
agreed that bills could be sent to committee before second
reading. Well, we have done that in the case of the lobbyists
bill. As a matter of fact, we accepted amendments from the
opposition side. They were Reform Party amendments. They
are in the bill. When was the last time someone else did that?
Did the Tories do this when they were in government? Surely
not. Those are Liberal examples of opening up the process,
and we have done that. Perhaps the members across disagree
with the amendments proposed by their colleagues at the
committee. If so, I am almost tempted to ask why they voted
for them.
The bill on lobbyists is an excellent example. It was produced
in the House, sent to committee, the committee improved upon
it, and then at report stage we improved upon it more with the
contribution of hon. members across.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that this government is totally open to
giving parliamentarians a greater role.
Let us take a closer look at this. A bill was drafted from A to Z
by a parliamentary committee during this Parliament and was
even passed by this House. I am referring to Bill C-69, and this
committee was chaired by a very clever chairman, in the person
of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.
[English]
We promised more free votes and we delivered.
Mr. Hermanson: You have not.
Mr. Abbott: When?
Mr. Boudria: I will give a few examples. For the first time in
the history of Parliament, a bill involving government spending
and royal recommendation was proposed by a private member,
the first time since 1867.
Mr. Abbott: Government business.
Mr. Boudria: The hon. member for Restigouche-Chaleur
proposed that bill.
What about the bill with regard to parole proposed by the hon.
member for York South-Weston? The bill received support of
members from all sides of the House. There were Liberal MPs
who were for the bill and some Liberal MPs against. Liberal
MPs had a truly free vote on that. One cabinet minister voted for
the bill and other cabinet ministers voted against. Even though
the majority of cabinet voted against the bill, as the whip I voted
for it. What is a better example of a free vote than that?
An hon. member: I cannot imagine one.
Mr. Boudria: There is no better example than that. Did the
Reform Party have people voting for or against any of those
measures? No.
We have had some 170 division bells in this Parliament. Does
anyone know how many times we had Reform Party MPs
dissenting from one another? Twice. They voted unanimously
168 times. And they are preaching parliamentary reform to us?
12468
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, this is a disgrace. The members opposite should
be- I cannot understand why they would even want to stay in
this House. They should go and hide after saying the things they
said earlier.
(1230)
Another free vote promised by the government is on the
euthanasia issue; it has not been held yet. We had debates, we
consulted the House on the role of our troops serving abroad in
Bosnia. We had parliamentary debates to provide advice and
guidance to the government on the cruise missiles issue. We
have this kind of debate in this House, totally open debates for
all parliamentarians.
[English]
We promised effective prebudget consultation. We delivered
on that as well. Never before has this country had that kind of
prebudget debate.
The members across the way who voted altogether 168 times
out of 170 are preaching parliamentary reform? I say to the
members across the way, Reform, reform thyself. They sure
need it badly. I think it comes from sitting too close to the
Tories. I come back to my original point. That is what is.
[Translation]
We, in our party, made promises to the Canadian people
during the last election campaign. Those promises are in the red
book. We presented the Canadian people with a comprehensive
programme, a manifesto, describing what we intended to do for
our country. Having made these promises, we now intend to
keep them.
The red book, and I happen to have a copy of it right here, is
full of great ideas. Those are the proposals we have put to the
people of Canada. The people elected us to deliver and that is
what we intend to do.
[English]
Now let me give a couple of examples. Primarily we promised
two things in the area of ethics. First was to have a lobbyist bill.
Members across the way tried their best to delay it. Second, we
promised to have a joint parliamentary committee to change the
rules regarding the code of conduct for MPs and senators. And
who is trying to stop that process? The Reform Party. The
strange thing is that Reformers are trying to delete the senators
from that process. They do not want members of the other place
to have conflict of interest rules.
Today a member of the Reform Party stood in the House and
asked to delete by unanimous consent a section of the rule book
that applies to MPs. I wonder if my colleague from Kingston and
the Islands knows that. Reformers wanted the rule book to be
thrown out. What does that tell you about Reformers? I do not
think they like rules. I think they like a state of unruliness a lot
better.
We introduced a bill to reduce MPs pensions. What did the
Reformers do? They do not want to reduce MPs pensions. As an
alternative they propose increasing MPs salaries. They want to
increase MPs salaries.
They were elected on the pretence they wanted to have a
reduction in salaries. Some of them even took a pay cut. A little
while later they noticed there was insufficient appreciation for
that kind of nonsense and they withdrew what they were doing
and not because it was wrong.
One of them admitted publicly to the press that he had ceased
to do it because his constituents were not appreciating it enough.
In other words, he was not getting enough publicity out of it so
that particular member decided to pull out of the scheme, or
should I say, out of the scam that had originally been
perpetrated. That is not what I would call parliamentary reform.
[Translation]
So, the hon. members opposite may think they have the
monopoly of virtue, but reality is altogether different. We all
know, in this House, that this government has every intention of
delivering on its program, the red book, for the people of
Canada.
(1235)
We know that that is what we intend to do, are doing, will
continue to do and will succeed in doing.
[English]
We know on the other hand that some people were elected
having made some promises to the people of Canada. They have
failed miserably in terms of delivering on those promises.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): They are going to get you.
Mr. Boudria: I see a fresh heckler across the way. No doubt
he is getting ready to deliver an impassioned speech about
government ethics. I say to him that he should read the material
of his own party, that little blue pamphlet which it produced to-
Mr. Milliken: To dupe the electors of Alberta.
Mr. Boudria: I do not think I would say to dupe the electors.
In any case, they made promises to the people of Canada and
they were in a position to deliver on some of them and they did
nothing.
The Reform members across the way who are asking for more
free votes voted unanimously 168 times out of 170 votes. Shame
on the Reform members. Shame on what they have to say.
Those people across have nothing to say about ethics and it
is obvious. If they had something to say they could prove it by
their actions, by assisting us in proceeding with the agenda on
12469
which we were elected, by producing the legislation which we
all promised to the people of Canada, instead of delaying and
using obstructionist tactics such as we saw yesterday.
Mr. Hermanson: You were not here yesterday.
Mr. Boudria: A member opposite has said that for us to
deliver on the promises we made to the people of Canada is a
sign of arrogance. That is the view of one member. He has just
said it in the House. If doing that which the electorate expects of
us is arrogance, I plead guilty.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
always a joy and a delight to listen to the sophistry of that
particular member. He is a piece of work.
I cannot comprehend a person who has come to the House and
of all things has spoken specifically against the actions of the
former Tory government under Standing Order 78, and then
stood to say: ``Oh, my, was that not terrible?'' If we had said why
do we not do away with Standing Order 78 when he was in
opposition, he would have stood and applauded and said: ``Do
away with it''. This is really a piece of work.
An hon. member: Hypo-grits.
Mr. Abbott: Hypo-grits is right.
Talking about free votes, every time he spoke about free votes
he would talk about free votes in the context of private
members' bills. What about government voting?
I noticed when voting on Bill C-68 that there were three
members who stood up to be counted. However, there were 45
members in the hon. member's caucus who did not have the
intestinal fortitude to come to the House to stand and be counted
for their constituents. When those three members stood to be
counted, they were turfed from their committees. How in the
world as the party whip can he possibly say that he is for free
votes when he is prepared to turf these people from their
committees?
What about Bill C-41? Is he going to allow free votes on Bill
C-41?
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, we have been in office now for
some time-
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Are you lost for words?
Mr. Boudria: No. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, I am not lost
for words. That is not something that happens to me very often.
The hon. member across just asked me a question about Bill
C-41.
[Translation]
I know that our colleague has now acquired a great deal of
experience. He has been sitting in this place for a good while
and, of course, this House has matured, it is getting on.
[English]
I am sure that the hon. member knows that the whip does not
invent discipline. What kind of nonsense is that?
Mr. Abbott: He just enforces it.
Mr. Boudria: That is exactly the point. The whip is an official
of the caucus of which he is a member and that is what I am. I am
responsible for anything that has to do with administration,
discipline and so on.
(1240)
The member is asking me the position of the caucus on that
issue or on any other issue and I am not in a position to do that. If
and when that issue does come up, it will be discussed in the
caucus to which I belong and not with the hon. member.
Furthermore, the member raised the issue of Standing Order
78. The hon. member said that when I was in opposition I would
have wanted Standing Order 78 to be revoked. Before the
member makes an allegation like that, it might be prudent to
check the facts. I have no knowledge not only of myself but of
any Liberal MP in the last Parliament nor the Parliament before
who has ever asked to revoke Standing Order 78, or whatever the
equivalent number was. If he can prove that I have ever asked for
that, I will gladly rise in this House and apologize. However, I
do not think he will ever find that. If he does not find it, which he
will not, I hope he will stand and apologize.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have a couple
of questions for the member.
The first question is with regard to pensions. I do not really
think we need to debate it. I do not think there is anybody on this
side of the House who could accept that gold plated disgrace that
is called a pension plan. I believe the Canadian people also agree
with that.
Let us get to committees. The member says we will prove him
by his actions. Let me tell this House a little story about my first
meeting with the hon. member. It was in the case of our foreign
affairs standing committee: nine Liberals, three Bloc, three
Reform. We were having a democratic election of the chairman
and the two deputy chairmen. We had talked and got to know
each other. About a week later we were to have this democratic
election.
I was fairly certain at that time I would be one of the
vice-chairs because I had talked to a number of Liberals about
our backgrounds. However, the member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell came into the room, tapped the
Liberals on the
12470
shoulder and told them how to vote and that is how they voted.
That is the democracy of this place. It is a sham that the member
stands up and sounds like he is some kind of wonderful
democrat.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I will gladly respond to that. Who
sits as vice-chair of committees is something that is negotiated
between the two opposition parties in the House and not the
government.
An hon. member: It should be democratic. It should not be
negotiated.
Mr. Boudria: I did not make the constitutional conventions
under which we are governed. I have been in Parliament a long
time but not quite that long.
We have an interesting proposition here. At the time there
were negotiations between the two opposition parties. It is not
for me to bring this up but the member has opened up the can of
worms so he will have to live with the result. At that time a
number of vice-chairs were offered to the third party by the
official opposition and they were turned down.
The third party turned down the vice-chair positions that were
offered. The then whip, and at that time the hon. member called
herself a caucus co-ordinator, did not want the particular
vice-chairs that were offered. She wanted better ones. She did
not like those particular vice-chairmanships and decided to do
that for whatever reason she had in mind, which should have
been discussed inside the Reform Party caucus room. It was
supposed to have minutes in public later but it never has.
However, Reformers can decide that in their caucus room and
then make whatever decision they want. Those were decisions
made by the two opposition parties.
While we are on that topic, there were also negotiations like
that with regard to office space. I remember how they got
bogged down too. The leader of a certain political party, not the
number one or number two party, not to be too specific, decided
he wanted the better part of the whole floor in a building. He
wanted sweeter suites, if I can refer to it that way.
(1245)
Members across the way should watch how they speak on
some of these issues. They know perfectly well that it was a
representative of the hon. member's own caucus who refused to
take a number of vice-chairmanships. She decided that she
would rather have none than the ones that had been offered by
the official opposition.
That is a disagreement between the opposition parties. It has
nothing to do with the government.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
every day that goes by in the House I see more and more of the
arrogance of the Liberal Party.
I have listened to the Liberal Party whip twice in the last two
days. It is becoming clearer and clearer. It is the same arrogance
that ousted the Conservatives from office. As it continues it will
get worse. Blatantly, in the face of Canadians, we see today
patronage appointments across the land of every one of their
friends, Liberal Party hacks, failed Liberal candidates, and on
and on it goes.
The red book was produced during the last election. The
Liberals realized that Canadians wanted to see something about
what they were running on.
The member said that the blue book of the Reform Party was a
cheap imitation of the Liberal red book. I believe that is a quote.
The blue book was produced in 1988. From 1988 to today 52
members of the Reform Party came to the House because they
had principles. They documented them. They modified them by
their assembly. They do not produce cheap red book documents
during an election campaign and then subsequently ignore them.
If we can get away from arrogance for just a moment, I would
like to ask the member where and when the red book was
developed.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I also think the member across the
way is a very fine person.
The Liberal Party red book is a compilation of a number of
documents. First there were a number of meetings across the
country in 1992. That was followed by a document in January
1993 called ``Reviving Parliamentary Democracy''.
An hon. member: They were back door Liberal hack
meetings.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to answer the hon.
member's question. He is interrupting himself.
Then it was followed by another document entitled ``The
Liberal Blueprint for Defence Conversion'' in March 1993; ``A
Liberal Perspective on Crime and Justice'' in April 1993; ``Food
Security for Canadians and a Fair Return for Canadian Farmers''
on May 10, 1993; foreign policy handbook in May 1993; and the
Liberal Party program for small business. On August 16, 1993
all these documents were made public. They were combined to
produce the red book later that summer which was released
during the election campaign. That is a rough scenario.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have a note in my hand to
which I would like to respond. There were personal allegations
made about me. I would like to respond to them and to the note. I
seek unanimous consent of the House to do that.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the
House for the member to speak?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Mayfield: Mr. Speaker, I will read the full text of the
note. It states:
12471
Mr. Mayfield, who is this Dr. Greenaway? Is he the former MP? What board did
he sit on?
It is signed ``Don''. The note was delivered to me less than
half an hour after the chief government whip made the
allegations. I did not have an opportunity to respond to him and
he knows it. He took advantage of it.
Dr. Greenaway by his own admission was fired. If he was not
fired, why was he not reappointed? Why was this trusted
member of the B.C. Treaty Commission not allowed to continue
the valuable work he was doing? Why did the government shove
him aside to replace him with someone else who did not have the
experience, who did not have the same trust, who did not have
the ongoing confidence of both sides? I reject the allegations.
(1250)
It is another example of the kinds of tactics the rat pack used. I
have no idea why rat pack tactics are necessary in a government
that has the majority.
Rat pack tactics continue not only in the House but in the
committees. We see them every day. Why is there no courtesy?
Why are members not listened to? We do not ask them to agree
with everything we propose. We only ask that they listen. Many
if not most of our proposals, ideas and suggestions are not even
given the courtesy of casual consideration.
The government deserves this lack of confidence.
The Deputy Speaker: Unanimous consent given to the
member to speak with regard to some allegations made earlier
by the government whip.
We are now out of time for questions or comments but
presumably it makes sense to give the whip a chance to reply, if
he wishes, to the comments just made. Then I will go briefly to
the hon. member for an extended question or comment.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I reiterate what I said. I have page
131.01 of the orders in council which I will gladly table. It was
said in the House earlier this morning that Dr. Lorne Greenaway
had been fired. I have proof in front of me in this document.
Lorne E. Greenaway, commissioner for Canada of the British
Columbia Treaty Commission, is from Williams Lake, British
Columbia. He was appointed on April 14, 1993. Contrary to
what we were told his term expired-he was not fired-on April
13, 1995.
If it is the wish of the House I will gladly table a copy of the
page of the book in question. I stand by what I said. It is factually
correct. The person was not fired. There was an allegation made
by an hon. member that he was fired. That is not true. I sent a
note to the member opposite giving him a chance to correct
himself.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
think that all this talk about openness, democratic government
and the committees' influence is hilarious. Everyone is a
comedian. Earlier, I put a question to the hon. member for
Saint-Léonard but I failed to get an answer. Perhaps my
preamble on government openness was much too long, so I will
ask a very, very simple and very short question.
I repeat my question. At the second reading stage of the gun
control bill, two or three Liberal members voted against the bill
and were then expelled from their committees. I would like the
hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell to tell me what
will happen to them if they vote against the bill at third reading?
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite asks
how the whip of a particular political party does his or her job. I
am sure his whip in the House would not want me to question
him in that manner.
As whips we work together for hours in a day administering
everything from the Board of Internal Economy to the
unanimous consent sought by political parties.
The hon. member opposite surely does not expect me to
divulge caucus information. Nor would I expect him to do that.
Only one party advocated making public the results of its caucus
meetings. That was the Reform Party and even it did not do so.
(1255 )
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to address the following
Reform opposition day motion:
That this House condemn the government for its failure to keep its red book
promise to make the government more open and permitting members of
Parliament to be more accountable to their constituents.
I am sharing my time with the hon. member for Fraser Valley
West.
I will not spend much of my 10 minutes replying or trying to
rebut the nonsense we just heard from the hon. government
whip. However I should like to reply to a point that was not
adequately addressed by him. He called the blue book of the
Reform Party a cheap imitation of the red book. Then he stood in
his place and said that the first date he could recall the red book
being formulated was 1992. The blue book was originally
formulated in 1987 and published in 1988 for the election. He
should stand to retract the statement as an outright breach of
trust.
In my limited time I would like to discuss why I became
involved in politics because it has a bearing on the subject of
accountability of MPs to their constituents that we are
discussing today.
12472
The majority of western Canadians and the majority of the
constituents of the riding of Prince George-Peace River that I
am proud and pleased to represent predominantly supported the
Progressive Conservative Party for years. I was one of its
supporters although I never belonged to the party. I voted for the
Conservatives hoping to see an end to the reign of terror thrust
on Canada by Pierre Elliott Trudeau. The incumbent at that time
was Mr. Oberle. He was very well supported. At one time he was
known as landslide Oberle. That is the level of support and
loyalty the Progressive Conservatives and Mr. Oberle had in the
riding of Prince George-Peace River.
Gradually, after the Conservative sweep of 1984, the people
of my riding and of much of Canada, certainly western Canada,
began to feel a sense of betrayal. The first Mulroney government
was plagued by scandal, almost from the time it took the reins of
power in 1984 in the most massive mandate a governing party
has ever had in the country.
I could go on and on about the scandals but I will just refer to a
few: the Oerlikon land flip, the tainted tuna or what was
described in the press as Tunagate, the Sinclair Stevens affair,
and the infamous CF-18 decision when the reigning
Conservatives took the contract for the maintenance of the
CF-18 fighter aircraft away from Bristol Aerospace in
Winnipeg that should have had the successful bid and awarded it
to Canadair in Montreal. That created a sense of betrayal
certainly all across western Canada.
That was the flashpoint, the trigger point, when I became so
disenchanted and disillusioned with the political system and
with the Conservatives that I said something had to be done to
change the system.
I became involved in the fledgling Reform Party. When I first
heard about it, it was not even a party. It was just a reform
association, a group of Canadians from across western Canada
who had decided that enough was enough.
I was attracted by its policies on those dreaded double d
words: the deficit and the debt. It believed in the government
living within its means and justice reforms, that criminals
should be held responsible for their actions and real punishment
was needed to provide deterrents for criminal activities. A
cornerstone of the Reform Party was the democratic reforms we
advocate. We have advocated them all along as was shown today
in our blue book.
Because of the sense of betrayal we realized the fault did not
really lie with individual politicians but with the system of
government in Canada. We advocated a number of democratic
reforms, referenda and citizens initiatives. The Charlottetown
accord is a shining example of what can happen when the people
become involved in the democratic process.
It is interesting to note that the Liberal Party did not get the
message from the Charlottetown accord. The Reform Party was
the only federal political party to come out against it.
(1300)
Everyone said we were crazy, we had committed political
suicide. We saw that as people became more informed they
started to see the flaws in the accord and ultimately the polls
reversed themselves and it was defeated in the referendum.
Another reform advocated was recall whereby constituents
could actually hold their elected officials accountable. We fixed
election dates so the reigning party could not play with the
election date according to the polls and the support it was
getting.
On a true triple E Senate which we have never given up on and
never will give up on, we want to see a true, elected, efficient
and equal Senate rather than the patronage heaven it has become
under the reigning old parties.
Above all else, what attracted me to the Reform Party was its
stand on MP accountability. MPs should truly represent the
wishes of the majority of their constituents, not once in a while
when it happens to coincide with their party's position or
perhaps their own deeply held views, but all the time, where the
majority of opinion of constituents is readily evident and can be
determined.
I ran in the 1988 election and I never had any desire to become
a politician. There are still some days when I debate with myself
the decision of becoming a politician. I decided to run for
Reform because I realized something had to happen to change
the way government operated.
I was attacked back then by the old line parties. At that time
the Conservative incumbent in open candidate forums said:
``Mr. Hill said he would run government by polling. MPs would
simply become polling machines''.
It is interesting to note that on Bill C-68 that is exactly what
the Liberals are doing after the old line parties have accused us
and criticized us for wanting MP accountability. They are ruling
by polls.
I contend and I have always maintained those polls are
erroneous if the majority of Canadians became better informed
about the gun issue and how difficult it already is to own a
firearm in Canada.
As some of my colleagues have already said, I cannot believe
the arrogance starting to show through with the government.
That is one of the big reasons Mulroney was turfed out and why
the Conservatives were reduced to only two seats in the House.
One of the worst possible examples-it is seared into my
mind, that is how upset I was when I watched it on television one
night-was when Mulroney kicked two of his caucus colleagues
out of caucus because they dared to vote their constituents'
wishes on the GST.
12473
One of those members currently sitting, interestingly enough,
is the Liberal member from Edmonton-Southeast; you, Mr.
Speaker. I commend your stand that day and I am sure your
constituents do and that is why you were re-elected. You
represented the people. That is the type of leadership we want to
see in the House from all MPs from all parties.
I will read some red book promises in the short time I have
left, from the section ``Governing with Integrity''. It says: ``The
most important asset of government is the confidence it enjoys
of the citizens to whom it is accountable. This erosion of
confidence seems to have many causes. Some have to do with
the behaviour of certain elected politicians, others with an
arrogant style of political leadership. In the House of Commons
a Liberal government will give MPs a greater role in drafting
legislation through House of Commons committees. More free
votes will be allowed in the House of Commons''.
Yet we see on Bill C-68, as has been revealed today already, a
total disregard for the right of MPs to currently accurately
represent their people when the three Liberal members from
Kent, Timiskaming-French River and Huron-Bruce were
removed from committees.
Rumours always abound on Parliament Hill. We have heard
rumours the Liberal Party and the whip will adopt three strikes
and you are out. If a member votes three times against their
party, they are out of there.
That is a very real threat for members from old parties. We
have seen where the leaders will not sign their nomination
papers. The threat is they will lose their job and that is
deplorable.
(1305 )
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am a little disappointed at times by Reform members because
they promised more courtesy and sometimes they do not show
that. They also said they would bring to the House much better
behaviour and from this corner I do not see it. I am one of those
who try to be mindful of others. I also came into politics without
really wanting to, but I am here now and I respect everyone but I
do not seem to receive respect from everyone.
Democracy is a very strange animal. At times it is extremely
uncomfortable and at times it is not very acceptable. However, it
is the only system we know. As we know, democracy means the
majority rules. Every time we have a discussion among party
members it is held in caucus. In caucus at times we argue quite
passionately because we do not always agree. There are 177 of
us and we all have a different opinion and a different
constituency to serve. However, in the end the majority rules. As
I said, at times it is not easy.
If we did not have a party behind us I do not know how many
of us would have made it. There is only one person in the House
elected as an independent. We have to remember that.
When my three colleagues were punished I was not happy
with it. I read it in the newspaper and I did not agree with it.
However, after I thought about democracy and how the majority
rules and how it is important to understand each other, I started
to agree with it. I also realized some people in our caucus were
hurt by the action of our colleagues.
We owe much more respect to each other and I would also like
to see the better behaviour which was offered.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate her comments. They allow me to address something I
have been very concerned about all along, as have all of my
Reform colleagues.
What she says is quite accurate. When we came here we
wanted to institute a new sense of decorum in the House. We
tried quite valiantly for a number of months. I explained this to
my constituents at home on open line shows and in public
meetings. This is the only place in Canada where it is part of an
individual's job to sit here and take the nonsense we take every
day, all year round when the House is sitting. I have turned out to
be one of the worst when it comes to heckling. I am not proud of
that but it is a self-defence mechanism. We sit here day after day
and we take that from across the way.
When I was raised back home one of two things would
happen. If we were insulted the way we have been insulted in the
House we would either get up and smack someone or we would
get up and leave. Unfortunately as an elected MP trying to
represent the people of my riding I have to remain in the House.
That is why decorum has deteriorated in the House. I am not
proud of it but we are getting down to the same level as her
colleagues.
She mentioned how passionately they argue in caucus. That is
exactly what the Conservative incumbent used to say to us time
after time. The GST is a classic example. Eighty per cent of the
people were opposed to it and he would say: ``I defend your
rights. I passionately defend what the people want me to say in
caucus but when it comes to the House I am muzzled and I
cannot get up and say the things you want me to say''. The
Reform Party will be different. When the people of Prince
George-Peace River want me to say something in this House,
by golly I will say it.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to say it is a pleasure to stand in the House to talk
about broken promises but it is not.
(1310 )
It is somewhat despairing to address issues to Liberal
members of the government in the House. Sometimes we
think they are not listening. Look at them all here. If anyone
12474
thinks they are not listening just turn the cameras. It is almost
a national disgrace that we have yet another majority
government in place not listening to the people.
It came out with a document called the red book designed
explicitly for the election campaign. The government whip
stood up a short while ago and said our blue book was a cheap
imitation of the Liberal red book. He went on to say the Liberal
red book was developed in late 1992 and 1993, and the Reform
Party's blue book was developed in 1987 for the 1988 election. I
guess those are the principles and the differences.
There is a facade hanging over the government. It tells us one
thing but does a little of what it tells us to say it has completed it.
I will go through some examples of it. I cannot call that lying in
the House but I can call it about the closest thing to a facade as
anything I have seen.
When the Conservatives were in government and the Liberals
stood on this side of the House, the Liberals sanctimoniously
stood up and berated the Conservative government for all its
faults. The Liberals get elected and they do the same darn thing.
No wonder people are sick and tired of politicians.
Let me talk a bit about a promise made in the red book: ``A
Liberal government will review the appointment process to
ensure that necessary appointments are made on the basis of
competence and will move quickly and decisively in several
ways to address these concerns about conflict of interest,
influence peddling and selling access''.
Ms. Ablonczy: They moved fast all right, right toward it.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): A good point. My hon.
colleague says they did move fast on it, they moved right toward
it.
Let us discuss the Senate. In the face of the majority of
Canadians they start taking their members and friends and move
them into the Senate, even a currently elected MP. Talk about
disrupting the democratic process, this individual was elected
and all of a sudden the Prime Minister wants to put one of his
buddies in so he says: ``I will haul you out, give you a Senate job
until age 75 and I will put in one of my buddies and run him in
the race''. I think that is about as disheartening as we can get.
Let us look at a few patronage appointments. The government
stated it would review the appointment process to ensure that
necessary appointments are made on the basis of competence.
Please tell me if this is a truism after I am finished. A Liberal
candidate in Dunvegan, Alberta in 1993 was appointed assistant
commissioner to the Canadian Grains Commission. He must
have been competent, he was a Liberal candidate, right?
I wonder how many Canadians had the opportunity to get that
job. I wonder how many executives out of senior corporations
who are now out of jobs had an opportunity to get that job. None.
There were no opportunities at all. However, the Liberal Party
hacks had opportunities.
Another one started with the Prime Minister as executive
assistant at Indian affairs in 1970. He was the Prime Minister's
aide in the Quebec Liberal Party in 1992 and now a member of
the St. Lawrence seaway authority. There were lots of
qualifications there. They say they will clean it up by ensuring
necessary appointments are based on competence.
I have another one. A B.C. Liberal Party executive director in
1994 was appointed director of CMHC. We are certainly looking
after the affairs of the red book.
Let us take a couple of others. A long time supporter and
personal friend of John Savage, worked on his campaign since
1979, was made director of the Halifax Port Corporation.
(1315 )
Anther one under Pierre Trudeau was Minister of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development, Minister of Public Works,
President of the Treasury Board, appointed chairperson of the
Canadian Tourism Commission. What is going on in this
country?
These Liberals stood over here when the Conservatives were
appointing all of their friends, and now they are doing the same
thing, which they promised they would not do.
What do Canadians think about this whole process? They say:
``They are just politicians. While we are out here trying to earn a
living, we are overtaxed, overburdened with bureaucracy,
politicians are appointing their friends, giving themselves great
pension plans, appointing senators until age 75.''
Here is an interesting one I ran across. A failed Liberal
candidate in the 1993 federal election was appointed director of
the Canadian Commercial Corporation. Why should I be so
dismayed about that? It is just another political appointment. I
ran against this guy and defeated him in my riding. I wonder how
many other people in my riding who are out of work and who are
better qualified than that fellow get an opportunity to get that
job. Not one. The ones who get the jobs are Liberal Party friends
and hacks.
The list goes on and on, but there is no sense talking to a dead
tree over there. It does not work. It has been chopped down.
There is a stump there. It does not work.
There was talk about cleaning up crime by the Liberals. Many
of them probably do not live in areas where there is crime,
because I do not think they understand it all that well. Some of
their policies absolutely escape me.
12475
I have to get this on record today. I was reviewing one of the
prisons in my riding. They are so concerned about the criminals.
They are getting tougher and tougher on criminals. I must admit
that the Liberals are trying to do a job. They instituted ``Project
Bleach'' in my riding. Matsqui Prison is a medium security
prison with zero tolerance for drugs, which is commendable.
That is the Liberal policy, zero tolerance for drugs. However,
``Project Bleach'' gives one-ounce bottles of bleach to the
criminals so they can sterilize their needles for cocaine drug
intake.
This is a tough Liberal government. I think that was one of the
tougher promises in the red book. Alcohol is also tolerated in
prisons. I wonder when they are going to come out with a policy
of putting one-litre bottles of coke on the tables and a little ice
in case they sneak it through the cells.
I do not understand what is wrong with this group. I want to
talk again a little about the ethics of the government. It is
concerned about conflict of interest and influence peddling. Let
us talk about conflict of interest for a minute. The Minister of
Public Works and Government Services in Cape Breton has an
agreement and he gets involved in the SHIP agreement, the
strategic highway improvement program in Nova Scotia. This is
a federal-provincial agreement, with both funding the projects.
What does he do? First of all, the Minister of Transport is not
even involved in this. The minister of public works says to the
minister of transportation and highways in Nova Scotia: ``Why
not upgrade the Fleur-de-Lis trail in our riding''-which is not
funded by federal-provincial dollars. ``I'll take $26 million out
of one of the most dangerous highways in Canada-Wentworth
Bypass and we will move it on down to our riding. We will put
some people to work and we will get re-elected.'' That is ethics?
That is the kind of ethics a minister of this government practises.
(1320 )
The Liberals promised to move quickly and decisively in
several ways to address the concerns about conflict of interest
and influence peddling, and they did that. It only took them 18
months to move the darned money from the Wentworth bypass
over to their own riding. They are moving quickly.
I will give the Liberals credit for one thing, they sure made a
lot of promises. They sure moved fast to break them. No matter
how much they tell the Canadian people that they are making it,
they are not.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member in his speech made very slighting
references to a series of excellent appointments the government
has made in the last while to various boards and commissions.
He chose to read very selectively from the list of
accomplishments of the men and women who had been
appointed to these jobs by reading only their qualifications as
members of the Liberal Party, which of course would stand
anyone in good stead, anywhere, anytime. However, the hon.
member neglected to mention in the course of his very partisan
remarks the list of qualifications that each of these persons
possessed in addition to their membership in the Liberal Party.
I know that the hon. member and his party are moving a
motion today that has to do with broken promises. In light of
their constant promise in the blue book to come clean with
Canadians and tell the truth, would it not behove the hon.
member to get up in his answer to my question and read the very
impressive CVs of each of the candidates who were appointed to
the positions he has just indicated, indicating to the House and
all Canadians the excellent qualifications they possess, which
entitled them to be appointed to these positions?
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, it must be a
coincidence that notwithstanding all of these appointments they
were all involved in the election campaign, raising money for
the Liberals. I wonder why in this day and age, with all the good
executives and other people across the country looking for jobs,
these ones at the trough just happen to be involved with the
Liberals.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): It is just
coincidence.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Long time supporter and
personal friend of John Savage-I mentioned that; married to
former Liberal mayor of Vancouver; a former Ontario Liberal
legislative assistant; a former member of the Quebec Liberal
executive. It has to be a coincidence. It just cannot be that
notwithstanding the jobs they did, they were Liberals and they
got the job.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): I do not see anybody who
was not a card carrying member of any party, nor do I see any of
the old party from jurassic park, none of the separatists in there,
no people who just do not get involved in politics. No. The one
qualification they all have is they are Liberal Party hacks and
friends. Make no doubt about it.
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I must say at the outset that I certainly would never take
a view as pessimistic of the role of Parliament and the work of
the new Liberal government as my friend opposite has. Perhaps
we simply see things from different sides of the House.
I can assure my constituents and other colleagues in the
House who would care to listen that my experience in
Parliament is much more positive than my friend articulates.
Again, by another dimension of measurement, my experience
in Parliament is much more satisfying and fulfilling to me, to
12476
Parliament, and I hope to my constituents than was my
experience in the last Parliament.
(1325 )
Hopefully we can continue to make things better. To be sure,
things are not yet ideal. All of us in the House are working to
improve the way the House represents Canadians in debate and
in the generation of legislation and in that other area, which
often goes unnoticed in the House, the area of delegated
legislation; the field of creation of statutory instruments and
regulations.
The government has made great strides in fulfilling our red
book commitments for a more open and accountable process
based on fair play and other principles that they know Canadians
will endorse. We have made a commitment in the red book to
review the appointment process to ensure that necessary
appointments are made on the basis of competence, not political
affiliation or other criteria.
My friend opposite has listed a number of appointments and
made reference to their relationship and affiliation with the
Liberal Party. He failed in almost every instance to make
reference to the abilities of those individuals.
As the Prime Minister has said, and I support him
wholeheartedly on this, one is never going to be prejudiced from
serving in a part time or full time position for the Government of
Canada just because the person happens to be a Liberal.
We promised accessibility and transparency. I accept that
things do not necessarily happen overnight around here. One
does not simply push a button and get exactly what one wants.
But the process has been in place for over a year and we have
produced some excellent results.
We also undertook to examine the size and relevance of
existing boards and commissions to achieve cost savings and to
fill the remaining vacancies in relation to some of these
agencies, boards, and commissions by way of an improved
appointment system. The first step to establish an efficient
appointment system was by means of a thorough review of the
agencies. More than 350 agencies, boards, and commissions
were examined, which involved 500 full time positions and
2,000 part time positions.
As a result of the review, 30 per cent of federal boards,
agencies and commissions have been wound up or streamlined.
Wound up means gone. We want to eliminate overlap,
duplication, and to simplify government. Again, this is easy to
say, tougher to do. We are still working on it. We will continue to
wind up those agencies that no longer serve a purpose. This
agency review has improved the accountability regime for
governor in council appointments, and this enables the
government to manage these agencies more effectively.
The second part of this process, after streamlining the
agencies and reducing the number, was to improve the
appointment process. There also the government has done a
thorough review of the process. We want to make it more open
and accessible.
The role that boards and agencies are expected to play is clear
and appropriate. When that is the case it is possible to be more
precise in identifying the qualifications needed by appointees.
This in turn permits improvements in the recruiting process. In
this respect the government has made changes in the process for
these appointments, always keeping in mind accessibility,
transparency and confidence.
The appointment process has been made more open and
transparent through the advertisement of vacancies for full time
GIC positions in the Canada Gazette. I know a lot of Canadians
do not wake up with the Canada Gazette on their doorstep, but it
is one instrument that publicizes for the public record all these
openings and is disseminated across the country, including to all
the libraries on the list. All these openings are advertised there.
People who have an interest will be able to find out when the
vacancies come open.
(1330)
In order to place the advertisements it is necessary to develop
job profiles that contain job descriptions and selection criteria.
In those notices there are references to job descriptions and
selection criteria. All federal agencies are required to provide
job profiles and these same selection criteria for full time fixed
positions. The selection criteria are then used to find the most
competent people to fill these positions.
The advertisement of vacancies in the Canada Gazette
generates a greater pool of candidates and contributes to better
appointments. Interested individuals send their CVs either to the
agency or to the minister's office. Some people even send it to
the Prime Minister's office. At the end of the day these resumes
and CVs end up in one pile. Each CV is then evaluated in
accordance with the established selection criteria.
This particular process has been in place for nearly a year. As
I say, it was not in place when we first took over government. It
may be some time before all of the wrinkles and variations in the
process are fully dealt with. The improvements have begun. I
can testify to that.
As a Liberal member of Parliament in the last Parliament I sat
in opposition and watched the appointment process as it was.
While on the opposition benches we noted what we regarded as
deficiencies in the process. We did not have much impact on it.
In this Parliament we have made a change in the process.
What is remarkable to me is that after nine years on the
opposition benches and as a person active in Liberal politics,
having ended the nine year mandate of the previous
government, I have had more than one Liberal come to me
and
12477
question me as to why it is not possible for Liberals to get
appointed to agencies, boards and commissions.
To be sure there are many Liberals being appointed. People I
have worked with in the party have taken note of the fact that
being a Liberal and just being there is no longer the way one gets
appointed to an agency, board or commission. One has to have
the competence. I have passed that message on to many. It is a
change from what has happened in the past, going back five or
10 years.
The other part of the motion today has to do with
parliamentary reform. It is a subject I have always taken a great
interest in. I have said to my spouse and friends that I would be
willing at the appropriate point in time to lay my career on the
altar of parliamentary reform. I have not had to do that yet.
Parliament is changing. It is reforming. This government
made a commitment to be a part of the reform process. I have to
point out something that is very fundamental in understanding
what drives parliamentary reform. It is almost impossible for a
government to say that it will and that it does take full
responsibility for parliamentary reform. A government does not
own Parliament. A government does not at all times of the day
drive Parliament. Parliament belongs to its members and
through them to the electorate of Canada.
People must realize that this Parliament is a distinct branch of
government, distinct from the executive. The lay person who
has not spent time around the House of Commons or who has not
studied it in great detail in high school or university might miss
some of the more obvious distinctions between the executive
branch of government and Parliament.
(1335)
Let me record my perception that there is a huge difference. If
Parliament is to be what Canadians expect it to be, it is
important for members of Parliament and Canadians to
understand that distinction and to understand what drives
Parliament and parliamentary reform.
The government has gone on record as wanting to play a role
in the restoration of confidence in Parliament and confidence in
government. The government can take care of the government
but it is those of us in Parliament who have to take the
responsibility for Parliament.
It has to be pointed out as well that all ministers of the
government sit in Parliament. I hope that their focus when they
sit here is as much parliamentary as it is governmental, but I
accept that from time to time a minister's role is to account to
Parliament for the management of his or her portfolio. The
ministers will not, by the nature of their work, be fundamentally
involved in driving parliamentary reform.
In any event, from the point of view of the government this is
just not talk. We started with parliamentary reform very early in
our mandate. In January 1994 we introduced quite significant
rule changes to open up the parliamentary decision making
process.
The objectives of the reform were to make Parliament more
relevant and to consult and work with MPs more in the day to
day decisions of government so that MPs would have a greater
impact on those day to day decisions. We have to keep in mind
that outside of Parliament there is a vast public service which is
loyal and operates 99.9 per cent of the time within the law in
accordance with the mandate which comes to it by statute or by
policy. We also wanted to give MPs a greater role in influencing
legislation as it developed.
That is what the government said it wanted to give
Parliament. I would like to repeat that it is not as much for the
government to give than it is for MPs to take. The history of this
place includes the history of all the British Parliaments. Over
time, parliamentarians have given their lives to ensure there was
a Parliament which would work. We in this country are the
beneficiaries of that history. All of us ought to subscribe to the
philosophy where we accept the burden of making Parliament
work and take the obligation to reform it to make it vital and
responsive to Canadians.
We made four changes in the rules of this place at the behest of
the government. Committees of the House, which are a very
vital part of Parliament, may now draft bills. Those are not just
words. That was done.
Bill C-69 was drafted in committee. I sat on that committee.
It was a tedious exercise. It is one which MPs are not used to, to
actually meticulously draft a bill. We needed a lot of help but we
got it done. It was a big job and there is room for more of that in
this Parliament.
Bills can now be referred to a committee before the second
reading vote. That is the point in time when Parliament approves
a bill in principle. By referring it to a committee before the
second reading vote, before approval in principle, it provides
the committee with much more latitude to make changes or
additions to the bill. The committee is not bound by the
principles articulated in the bill which would have been adopted
at second reading.
That is a very important change. We have already seen the
benefit of it several times in this Parliament, including the
Marine Transportation Security Act, the amendments to the
Lobbyists Registration Act and the amendments to the
Corrections and Conditional Release Act. I sat on that
particular exercise and found it useful. There are a couple of
other bills coming into the House where we believe colleagues
may be so disposed as to refer them to committee before
second reading.
12478
Two of these are Bill C-62 and Bill C-84. My experience is
that this is a very useful device.
(1340)
Standing committees of the House will have the power to look
at the department's future spending priorities. If there is one
area of work in Parliament where I think Parliament and the
government has let Canadians down it is in the review of the
estimates. It is an institutional fault. The estimates procedure as
it has evolved over many years has left this House almost
functionless in carefully reviewing government's proposed
expenditures.
The new rules turn the tide and provide another area of work
for MPs. As a member of Parliament, I cannot say that MPs have
taken up the challenge. The process is just beginning and the
proof will be in the pudding. I do not know where it will end up.
However, if MPs do not take the challenge and work with the
new procedures, then we may be seen to have been as ineffective
under the new rules as we were under the old rules. That is
something which is coming down the pipeline. I for one will
watch it closely and do my best to make the system work.
The finance committee was given the power to report on the
budgetary policy of the Government of Canada. That was a
specific mandate given to a specific committee. There is some
historical precedent for that.
There used to be a committee and I think it was called the
committee of the whole but it was not the committee in the
House. It was a standing committee that used to review all of the
estimates and put its stamp of approval on it at the very end. That
ended about the time John Diefenbaker ended his career here. He
was one person who regretted the demise of that particular
committee and procedure. In any event, we are making an
attempt to get back to focusing on government expenditure
policy in the one committee. At least one committee will make
some macroeconomic comment on it, if I can put it that way.
The last thing has to do with Parliament's right and ability to
require disclosure from Canadians. In this place we call it the
power to call for persons and papers. It basically consists of
requiring people to attend, give answers to questions and
produce documents much like the power a subpoena would have.
There are a number of things developing in this Parliament
where we will have an opportunity as a House to reconfirm the
rights and authorities that we have as a Parliament to require
disclosure. Over the last decades we have not used it. We have
accepted an ill advised view of the executive branch of
government that we really do not have those powers. However,
we do. Parliament does and at the end of the day we may exercise
them at committee and on the floor the House.
I hope when these parliamentary tests both in the House and in
the other place come up this year or next, MPs will make the
right decision to confirm those powers which have been passed
on to us over a number of generations of parliamentary history.
It is a challenge and I hope my colleagues will not let us down. I
am sure they will not, but the challenge will not be here until it
gets here. I invite MPs to play a role in that vital element of
parliamentary reform when it gets here.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
was glad to listen to my hon. friend. I have had the pleasure of
sitting on at least one committee with the member and really
respect his fair mindedness, hard work and good judgment.
I wonder if the member would comment on a situation that has
been troubling me.
(1345 )
At times all members of a committee would like to see a
policy or a decision go a particular way. There is general
agreement. The hon. member in his years in Parliament
probably has seen more than one instance of this in a committee.
However, word comes down from on high, from the minister
or the department that it is not the recommendation that is
wanted from the committee. Therefore government members on
the committee tend to have to move in the direction they are
told.
I wonder if the member, even without commenting on any
instance of this, could propose or suggest a way that we could
deal with the situation so that members on a committee have a
greater ability to put their own judgment forward. Is there a
procedure he has thought about, a reform or a change that could
make the situation a little more workable?
Mr. Lee: Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure of raising this
question about two weeks ago. I asked a similar question of a
former prime minister who was prime minister here for many
years. I thought I could get a crisp answer. He gave a good
answer but it did not help us at all. It does not have the easy
answer.
Each MP sitting on a committee is part of a party. Members
realize that they got elected as part of a party in many cases.
When some direction comes from the team captain, they listen
carefully.
I have found in my experience that as one gets experience
in parliamentary work and as committees get experience and
build up a sense of cohesion, a policy base and a policy focus,
its members are more confident in the views they may take
and put forward. As to questions that have come up at
committee where there has been some tilt from the executive
12479
part of government, I can honestly say that I have seen these
things go both ways.
I remember on one committee a few years ago, I had to wait a
whole year to get through a resolution on a matter where the
government absolutely did not want that to happen. In the end
colleagues on the committee on the government side saw the
right way, acquiesced and it went through. That matter is still a
matter for this Parliament. It is in the pipeline.
It is a matter of generating the self-confidence and the
knowledge in the field. It is a matter of MPs themselves making
the right decisions in committee, taking into account their team
responsibilities and the public policy interests that may be
involved in a question. In the end, there is no simple answer.
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
in this debate on openness brought to us by the Reform Party, I
heard the hon. member speak of his desire for openness, just as
his own government dealt extensively with this issue in the red
book.
I would like the hon. member to give me his opinion on the
March 1987 report by the Standing Committee on Justice and
Solicitor General, which recommended that the Access to
Information Act apply to all federal institutions, including
administrative tribunals, the Senate and the House of Commons.
I would like the hon. member, first, to tell me whether he
endorses this committee report and, second, to explain to me
why, after 18 months in power, his own government has not
ensured openness and free access to information from the House
of Commons, the Senate, and some public officials reporting
directly to Parliament, including the Chief Electoral Officer, the
Commissioner of Official Languages, and the Auditor General.
None of these people is subject to the Access to Information Act.
How does he explain that, after 18 months of Liberal
government and especially 30 years of Liberal rhetoric on
openness, people in Canada and Quebec do not yet have access
to basic information, which would ensure openness in public
administration?
(1350)
[English]
Mr. Lee: Mr. Speaker, this country has some of the most
advanced access to information legislation in the world. I did
not arrive in this place until 1988 but I did sit on committee with
the chair of the committee who played a great role in the report
referred to by the hon. member.
I believe there is a role to expand the ambit of access to
information. By the same token I am sure the member opposite
will agree there are some areas of government that simply are
not conducive to full and complete access.
Where do we draw the line? Which agencies will be accessible
via open access to information and which will be on the schedule
as not being fully open to access? Even agencies that are on the
schedule and cannot be accessed completely and
comprehensively provide information with exclusion, for
example, the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service. Many
others will provide information with some exclusions.
Parliament has never been bound by access to information
statutes or privacy statutes. Parliament in my view never did
bind itself. Members need not feel restricted by those statutes. If
a committee of Parliament wants access to an area of
government, there are no restrictions on Parliament's ability to
access them. That is something of which all members should be
aware. These powers have been given to us historically over the
past centuries. If members want the information, they have the
ability on the floor or at committee to get that information. For
heaven's sake, use it.
[Translation]
The Speaker: I understand that the hon. member for
Richmond-Wolfe wishes to speak.
Mr. Leroux: Mr. Speaker, could I perhaps have the floor right
after Question Period? My time has not expired yet, but I would
prefer not to interrupt my remarks. I would like to deliver my
comments all at once.
The Speaker: Agreed. You will have the floor right after
Question Period.
* * *
[
English]
The Speaker: Colleagues, I have the honour to lay upon the
table the report of the Auditor General of Canada to the House of
Commons, volume 1, dated May 1995.
[Translation]
I remind hon. members that, pursuant to Standing Order
108(3)(d), this report is deemed to have been permanently
referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
Since it is almost two o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing
Order 30(5), the House will now proceed to statements by
members pursuant to Standing Order 31.
12480
12480
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the CBC has been spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in
the name of free speech to get the permission of the courts to
show tapes of the Bernardo trial.
Has it asked Canadians if they want to see these shocking
visuals? I want to know and the people of Canada want to know
what can be done to protect the families of the victims of the
Paul Bernardo case from the media.
In light the CBC's refusal to respect the rights of the victims'
families, perhaps the CRTC should be given the power to
prevent the wasting of tax dollars on this sort of tabloid
journalism. Some efforts should be made to stop the media from
its selfish and uncaring attempt to make money and boost
ratings at the expense of the privacy of the families of the
victims with total disregard for the rights of Canadian children.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members have always opposed any
attempt to abolish the Official Languages Act.
However, some Reform, Conservative, NDP and Liberal
members, including the Liberal member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, gave their support to the
Alliance for the Preservation of English in Canada, by tabling
petitions asking the House of Commons to abolish the Official
Languages Act.
The government is guilty of double talk. How else can we
explain the closure of the only French speaking military college
in Canada? How else can we explain the evasive answers to our
questions on the insignificant attention given to French as a
working language in the federal administration, in Ottawa and in
Hull?
This government wilfully contravenes the Official Languages
Act. That is confirmed by the reports of the Commissioner of
Official Languages, and also by the actions of Liberal members.
The Speaker: My colleague, I should point out here that,
when tabling a petition in this House, a member does not have to
support or reject that petition. In fact, the Chair asks members to
refrain from making comments when they table petitions.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
because of a court decision yesterday, same sex couples can now
adopt children in Ontario. Although the nuclear family is the
basic unit throughout all societies on earth and standard
throughout all ages of history, this definition can now be
quashed at the stroke of a pen by one man acting in one court.
This is a sad day for the family in Canada.
I remind the government that polls show that 67 per cent of
Canadians believe that same sex adoption is a negative
development. I would remind the government that the Liberal
Party voted solidly against changes in the definition of the
family. I remind the government that a provincial bill
authorizing same sex adoptions was resoundingly defeated not
one year ago in the Ontario legislature.
Who runs this country, one man in one court in one province,
or the people of Canada? The courts are embracing a public
policy shift far removed from the people. The federal
government bears a solemn responsibility to do whatever it can
to fight this trend, to fight to protect the institution that forms
the basis of our society. We must continue the fight for the
nuclear family.
* * *
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada is celebrating National Forest Week
from May 7 to May 14. However, there is nothing to celebrate at
the Petawawa National Forestry Institute.
This forest research laboratory, surrounded by 41 square
miles of its own recorded research forest and history, is closing.
Not only is this institute the oldest recorded research forest in
Canada, but it is known nationally and internationally by top
scientists. Tourists have come from around the world to visit it.
With its impending closure, we are witnessing a brain drain.
Some scientists have indicated their departure to other areas
outside Canada and others will be obliged to take early
retirement even though their interests and hearts are still with
the Canadian Forest Service.
It is rather ironic that trees that have come to the MPs in both
lobbies of the House over many years of celebrating National
Forest Week have come from the Petawawa National Forestry
Institute.
We are not celebrating. We are in mourning.
12481
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
today a group of students from the student body of Cedarbrae
Collegiate, located in my riding of Scarborough Centre, are
visiting Ottawa. Along with my colleague for Scarborough
West, I extend a warm welcome to them.
(1400)
Cedarbrae Collegiate evokes fond memories to me of the
occasions in the past when I visited the collegiate and
participated in citizenship ceremonies.
I also thank the collegiate publicly for previous occasions
when I and others were treated to some exceptional
performances conducted by its excellent and renowned music
department.
Congratulations to all the staff, administration and the student
body. A special note of thanks and welcome to Mr. John
Connors, also a member of the school administration.
* * *
Mr. Glen McKinnon (Brandon-Souris, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I recently returned from the UN congress on the
prevention of crime and treatment of offenders held in Cairo,
Egypt.
I am proud to report that Canada continues to be recognized as
an authority on human rights and a leader in attempting to
identify the root causes of criminal behaviour.
Justice and Corrections Canada officials as well as
participating NGOs combined their knowledge and expertise to
establish a strong Canadian presence.
Our resolution which endorses the elimination of violence
against women and children was supported by more than 55
countries. As well, during the Japanese sponsored gun control
resolution Canada was commended for its leadership in
establishing reasonable approaches to firearms legislation.
Other topical resolutions sought to discuss the
standardization of extradition proceedings, the development of
crime prevention strategies and to address juvenile and violent
criminality and Internet protocol.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, unlike
his federal counterpart, the Quebec finance minister decided
to tackle the deficit in his very first budget. In just one year,
he will reduce Quebec's deficit by one third. By comparison,
the Liberals only managed to reduce the federal deficit by 10
per cent with their first budget. The cuts in transfers to the
provinces announced in last February's federal budget will
deprive Quebec of $650 million in 1996-97 and $1.9 billion
in 1997-98. Yet, the finance minister has the nerve to criticize
Quebec's budget.
Did the federal Minister of Finance spend the first year of his
mandate trying to figure out how he was going to tackle the
federal deficit, only to come up with this idea of offloading it
onto the provinces?
* * *
[
English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
today we have leaned that an Ontario provincial court judge has
ruled that laws prohibiting adoption by homosexual couples are
contrary to the charter of rights.
The Minister of Justice has frequently insisted that including
sexual orientation in the Canadian Human Rights Act as he has
promised to do will be in accordance with the wishes of
Canadians.
The courts and not the legislatures are making the law in the
country. In the face of the Ontario court judgment, how can the
minister be so confident about how his legislation will be
interpreted?
A recent Angus Reid poll demonstrates conclusively
two-thirds of Canadians disagree with the Ontario court and do
not wish to extend adoption rights to homosexual couples. The
Ontario legislature refused to do this last year. In the same way,
Canadians overwhelmingly oppose the minister's plan to amend
the human rights act.
The Minister of Justice must reconsider his promise to add
sexual orientation to the Canadian Human Rights Act and
represent the wishes of Canadians, unlike the provincial court
has done.
* * *
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on a day
when the auditor general's report dominates the day's news let
us not forget some basic realities. Canada is being governed by
the bureaucrats, not by elected representatives.
A few examples are all I can give in one minute but there is the
Hughes contract with Transport Canada officials, a $377 million
contract that got way out of hand. Another Hughes contract is
with the defence department which even the minister has not
been able to figure out yet. External Affairs transfer costs were
identified today by the auditor general.
12482
Instead of acting as spokespersons for the bureaucracy, it is
time for ministers to stop protecting management levels. Make
deputy ministers and directors general directly responsible for
their actions.
Because termination is currently very costly, the system
keeps senior bureaucrats on even when they work at cross
purposes with elected politicians.
If cabinet is prepared to return to responsible government,
Parliament may eventually be able to do its job of protecting the
public purse.
* * *
(1405 )
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I extend my congratulations to one of Ontario's
environmental groups, Fishermen Involved in Saving Habitat,
FISH.
Environment Canada and FISH have been working together
with the support of the environmental partners fund to carry out
an environmental education project. This partnership has
resulted in the development of the bronze level of the watershed
report card, a management tool for bringing various
stakeholders and community members together and collectively
designing strategies for the protection of natural habitat. The
bronze level is a crucial foundation which will pave the way for
the silver and gold levels of the report card which will deal with
the implementation of action plans for relevant ecosystems.
This project is possible because of the support of its
community partners. These partners include the American
Fisheries Society, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources,
the Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy, many
volunteer workshop participants and of course Fishermen
Involved in Saving Habitat.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome-Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the College of Family Physicians of Canada just named
Dr. Réjean Ménard, who is from Granby, the family physician of
the year.
This is the first time that this prestigious honour, sought by
the 12,500 members of the college, is awarded to a physician
from Quebec.
Dr. Ménard's dedication to his patients, his availability, as
well as his interest in medical training and in teaching, make
him a role model. We are very proud of him.
Dr. Ménard deserves our admiration and our gratefulness for
his remarkable work, and I invite all the members of this House
to join me in conveying our most sincere congratulations.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Canadian Hearing Society
and the one in ten Canadians who are deaf, deafened and hard of
hearing, I am pleased to draw to the attention of the House that
May has been proclaimed Hearing Awareness Month.
The aging of our population and the increase in noise
pollution have made hearing loss the fastest growing disability
in North America.
For many deaf people American sign language is their first
language. We must ensure they have access to employment
opportunities, places of worship, entertainment and services of
every kind.
It is also important to remember a little informed courtesy
goes a long way in building and maintaining bridges between
hearing and deaf, deafened and hard of hearing Canadians.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, today, the auditor general released the results of an
audit by his office involving more than 300 public servants. The
results are alarming. It appears that 33 per cent of federal public
servants are afraid to lose their jobs if they blow the whistle on
cases of conflict of interest involving their boss. Even worse, 60
per cent of senior managers would take no action if the process
for awarding a contract to a single supplier was clouded in any
way.
This is intolerable, and the government must show some
leadership here. But how, when the Minister of Canadian
Heritage and the Prime Minister constantly give preferential
treatment to friends of the government? The Liberals, who said
they would defend integrity in government, still have a long way
to go to deliver what they promised in their red book. It will take
more than words to restore the public's confidence.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker:
When the last election battle
Was engaged the red book won
The promises all there to see
In plain talk they were put down
A new way to do politics
Make commitments that you'd keep
The public would be reassured
And go right back to sleep
The problem's not the deficit
Don't get hung up on the debt
Just get everyone back working
Jobs, jobs, jobs we need, you bet
We'll save our social programs
12483
And replace the G.S.T.
The infrastructure program will
Bring work for you and me
To show we're really serious
We'll give special attention
To a symbol that the public hates
We'll reform the M.P. pension
But history won't be so kind
The red book makes me choke a bit
It gave us a brand new political phrase
We now know the hypogrit
* * *
(1410 )
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, Ontarians are feeling it must be 1993 all over
again. A Liberal leader has recently presented a red book which
offers a clear vision of what can be expected from a Liberal
government along with a timeframe for a plan of action, more
than the party on the other side.
As in 1993, there is a strong Liberal leader with a great
Liberal team. Lyn McLeod has offered the voters of Ontario a
platform which reduces the deficit, offers hope and will make
Ontario strong again.
Lyn McLeod is working hard to become premier and all
Liberals are earning the trust of the people of Ontario. Liberals
know we need more than empty promises from parties offering
doom and gloom, destined for opposition like the Reform Party.
Like in 1993, a strong leader and the red book will paint this
province red.
* * *
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I welcome Lyn McLeod, leader of the Ontario Liberal
Party, to the national capital region. Lyn McLeod will be in
Ottawa tonight to support local Liberal candidates in the
provincial campaign.
The provincial Liberals unveiled their action plan recently
which contains the basis of their platform. This action plan
follows a trend set by federal Liberal red book promises which
will be kept.
The provincial Liberals have made it clear to Ontarians how
they intend to get the province back on its feet and clean up the
mess left behind by the NDP government.
I encourage all Ontarians to support Lyn McLeod and all her
supporting team in forming the next Government of Ontario.
* * *
Mr. Tony Ianno (Trinity-Spadina, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
bring to the attention of the House two research achievements
developed in my riding and in the riding of Rosedale at the
University of Toronto.
The first involves a computer interface design called EID by
industrial engineering Professor Kim Vicente. This innovation
could lead to improved safety and reduced human error in the
running of nuclear power plants of the future.
The second involves work done by a team at Mount Sinai
Hospital headed by Dr. Joseph Fisher. They have discovered that
the main airway, the trachea, can constrict and dilate
significantly during breathing, a discovery that could help in the
understanding of asthma.
I congratulate these individuals for their work. These
examples continue to prove our investment in research and
development produces tangible results.
As we mentioned in the red book, a technologically centred
industrial policy is the key to create a new economy and
accelerate growth, thus creating badly needed long term and
permanent jobs.
* * *
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, have
officials from the Minister of Justice's office called the James
Bay Cree or the Council for Yukon Indians on this gun control
thing? Has the minister attempted to respond to their letters?
The Cree say no. The Yukon Indians say no.
Have justice officials been speaking with their counterparts in
Alberta, Saskatchewan or Yukon? Has the minister attempted to
resolve the impasse between those provinces and the federal
government? The attorneys general say no.
Has the Minister of Justice met with Canadians from all
across the country in public, open meetings? Has the minister
attempted to address the thousands of Canadians who have
reservations about this legislation? The people of Dauphin,
Manitoba say absolutely not.
During the Manitoba election just held the voters of Manitoba
said no to both the Liberals and the justice minister's
legislation.
The final no ought to be said on this issue here in the House.
* * *
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to inform the
House of the outstanding successes from the hockey capital of
Canada, Thunder Bay.
The Thunder Bay Flyers were crowned Ontario Junior A
hockey champions. Not to be outdone, the Thunder Bay Senators
fought tooth and nail to capture their second straight Colonial
Cup.
12484
Lo and behold, more victories were still to come. Shortly
thereafter, the Thunder Bay Midget Kings battled on to win the
Air Canada Cup.
Following these three successes, Thunder Bay went on to
enjoy a fourth victory when it was once again acclaimed
Canada's number one hockey town.
(1415 )
One cannot imagine a more successful city at the country's
most favourite pastime. I salute the fine efforts of Thunder
Bay's hockey warriors. These athletes have outdone themselves
and stamped their mark on Canadian hockey for years to come.
_____________________________________________
12484
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Minister of Health. When the
Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada started
its proceedings, Commissioner Krever announced that he did
not intend to start a witch hunt by identifying the people
responsible for this situation but would suggest ways to correct
the deficiencies in the blood supply system.
Considering the very serious revelations made yesterday in
Toronto, does the minister intend to intervene and ask
Commissioner Krever to make recommendations for possible
legal action against those responsible for the tainted blood
scandal at the conclusion of his inquiry?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we must let Justice Krever continue his inquiry and
finish his work. I do not intend to interfere.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, you
must admit we have a problem. We have blood purchased from
prisons in the U.S. that contaminated the Canadian blood supply
system and, in the process, dozens and dozens of Canadians. We
have a commissioner who announced at the outset that he was
not there to look for the guilty parties, and we have a minister
who does not intend to take her duties seriously. We have a
problem.
Would the Minister of Health agree that she has the authority
to ask cabinet to take action and ask Justice Krever to change his
position and ensure that charges are laid in connection with what
happened, when the commission finishes its work? Does she
agree that is the case?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the purpose of this inquiry is to find out what happened
in the eighties and make sure that everything has been done to
ensure this does not happen again. That is the purpose of the
inquiry.
We asked Justice Krever to continue this inquiry. We support
this inquiry, we provided $12 million in funding, and we must
let Justice Krever do his job.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
considering the serious revelations made before the Krever
Commission and the reply we were given just now by the
minister who told us that the purpose of the inquiry was to
ensure this would not happen again, does the minister not realize
that she is supposed to be responsible for the health of
Canadians, that Canadians agree this should not happen again
but also want the guilty parties taken to court and punished for
needlessly contaminating hundreds of Canadians?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will not comment on testimony now before the Krever
Commission.
(1420)
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
All imported blood products must be systematically inspected
and approved by the Department of Health.
How does the Minister of Health explain that blood
Connaught imported into Canada from American prisons could
have entered the country without being inspected by Health
Canada? Could she explain that to us?
[English]
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will repeat it in the other official language of the
House.
We have asked Justice Krever to do an official inquiry into the
happenings of the early 1980s. We are allowing Justice Krever
to continue his work of looking into what happened to make sure
it does not happen again.
That work is continuing. We support that work. We await the
outcome of his work.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
answers like that from the minister are a disgrace.
Some hon. members: Shame!
Mrs. Picard: In the light of the serious allegations weighing
on her department's officials, is the minister prepared to initiate
an internal investigation to find out how such things could have
happened and whether present officials are involved in this
matter?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Justice Krever has full authority to examine
everything that happened. He has already examined what
happened at the provincial level. Now he is talking to the
people at the
12485
Red Cross. He is empowered to look into what happened in
those years. We support his work and will continue to support
it.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
according to the auditor general's report our public servants'
knowledge of ethics guidelines is mediocre at best.
Today's report estimates that 57 per cent of senior managers
are either unaware or could not mention any element of the
policy governing the ethical conduct of civil servants. This is
hardly a ringing endorsement of the red book promise of
restoring public confidence in government.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. How does the
government account for the fact that 57 per cent of its senior
civil servants are not aware of their own ethics guidelines?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, a limited and random sample was taken by the auditor
general in four departments of the government involving less
than 400 people.
There were some statistics as a result of that, but I am very
happy to report that 86 per cent of public servants felt the ethics
standards were very high. The auditor general said that when it
comes to comparisons with other governments or with the
private sector there is nobody that surpasses the ethics standards
of the Government of Canada.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Reform Party recognizes that the ethical conduct of the majority
of public servants is beyond reproach. Our concern is with the 25
per cent who would accept goods and services at cost for their
own personal use and the 30 per cent who would think it is
appropriate to hire their brothers-in-law. Surely the Prime
Minister would be relieved to find out that bureaucrats were not
asked about sons-in-law.
I have a supplementary question. Given the fact that a notable
proportion of the public servants would not report such
unethical behaviour, will the government introduce legislation
to protect whistleblowers?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, he points out the 30 per cent. How about the 70 per cent
that quite clearly understood the question and gave the
appropriate answer?
There are systems in place that properly protect the ethics and
the cost efficiency of operations of the government. There is an
open bidding system. There are contract review boards to help
ensure that it is all properly handled and above board. That is the
essence of this. Furthermore training is provided for our
employees. It has been subscribed to in even greater numbers
over the last few years.
I think we are in good shape and I think that is what the auditor
general is also saying.
(1425 )
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
President of the Treasury Board talks about the training and the
auditor general has proposed that we introduce training,
reporting and, more important, leadership from the top down.
The auditor general emphasized that it is the responsibility of
the Prime Minister and his cabinet to provide ethical leadership
and suggested that ethic counsellors be appointed in every
government department.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Will the
government lead by example and implement the auditor
general's recommendation for an ethical framework for public
servants, including establishing truly independent ethics
counsellors starting with the cabinet?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are doing precisely that. We have a framework for
ethics, and the red book is a great demonstration of that.
Since we formed the government, through the initiatives of
the Prime Minister an ethics counsellor has been put in place.
There is a lobbyist certification for all contracts. The Lobbyist
Registration Act has been amended. There is a conflict of
interest and post-employment code for public office holders.
A great deal has been done to ensure confidence in the
integrity of the system. I think the auditor general already
recognizes that we are building on a very strong base.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Yesterday, the auditor general released a report-to which my
colleague alluded moments ago- regarding ethics in the
government, which was based on a survey of 329 federal public
servants. It revealed that 46 per cent of those surveyed would not
intervene to prevent a member of their family from being hired
and that 33 per cent of them feel that they would be putting
themselves at risk if they were to point out a conflict of interest
implicating their boss.
12486
Will the Deputy Prime Minister admit that these figures are
unacceptable and that they are the symptoms of the very serious
problem that the public service has with ethics? Is it not the
government's responsibility to react quickly to remedy the
situation?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Yes and
the government is acting quickly, Mr. Speaker.
We have certainly brought to the attention of the deputy
ministers in all departments that they are to get the proper
information to all employees so that the policies of the
government are followed.
It is interesting to note that 91 per cent of public servants
would report a significant fraud or illegal activity and that 78
per cent of public servants recognize there are very high ethics
within their departments and within the operations of the
government.
The vast majority understands the code. They read the code.
They are given it. They all sign in writing that they have read it
and fully understand it.
We will continue to ensure that the code is followed and that
the highest ethical standards are followed both in the public
service and in the government itself.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, given
that 12 per cent of all senior officials see nothing wrong with
altering contract specifications to give a certain tenderer the
edge, a very serious act, will the Deputy Prime Minister
acknowledge that the government hierarchy is riddled with
problems with ethics and that, unfortunately, the example comes
from on high?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, many of the people who were sampled, as I indicated
before, are not in a position to make those kinds of decisions.
Nevertheless, the ethics standards are important for all people
in the public service to be aware of. The government, as I have
said already in answering the question, is making every move to
comply with what the auditor general has said. We have no
disagreement with the auditor general whatsoever and are
already taking steps to ensure that is implemented.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in news
reports released today the auditor general disclosed that 12 per
cent of senior managers believe it is appropriate to undermine
competition for a contract at the request of a supervisor.
Furthermore one in three public servants would not intervene to
stop it. Nor would they report it.
My question is for the President of the Treasury Board. How
widespread is the undermining of the open bidding process?
What checks are in place, if any, to prevent such unethical
behaviour?
(1430 )
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I hope that the opposition, particularly the Reform
Party, realizes that it has several people asking the same
question.
As I have indicated before, there are systems in place. There is
an open bidding system. There are in fact contract review
boards. There are codes of behaviour which are known to all of
our employers. The vast majority recognize the good ethical
standards which need to be followed.
The system is working well. There is always room for
improvement. We certainly agree with the auditor general.
However, the auditor general also said that in terms of
comparison with the private sector or with other governments,
the ethics standards of this government and its public service are
very high indeed.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I think it is
despicable that any senior manager would even consider
undermining the competitive process. But then whose example
are they following? We have the backroom José Perez deals, the
Power Corp. deals, the Canada Communication Group deals, the
Seagram MCA takeover.
Ministers and deputies should lead by example. The best way
to assure that they are would be to make the ethics counsellor
directly responsible to Parliament and not to the Prime Minister.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister: For the
umpteenth time, will the Prime Minister honour the explicit red
book promise and make the position of the ethics counsellor
report directly to Parliament?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this subject has been discussed previously on
numerous occasions.
We have shown leadership by example in terms of the ethics
counsellor, in terms of the Lobbyists Registration Act, the
lobbyist certification of contracts, the code of conflict of
interest and the code of post-employment. All of these things,
led by the Prime Minister, have helped to establish a very high
ethical standard for the government.
12487
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs.
In a letter to his Quebec counterpart, the minister rejected
rather casually the $333 million in claims submitted by Quebec
to the federal government. These claims include reimbursement
of the costs incurred during the Oka crisis, the federal
contribution to the education of aboriginal peoples in northern
Quebec, and stabilization payments.
Can the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs assure us that,
when he meets with his Quebec counterpart next Monday, he
will be more open to Quebec's claims than he was in the letter he
made public yesterday?
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, the claims mentioned in the letter to Minister
Beaudoin were submitted a while ago and dealt with under a
totally proper and standard procedure.
In the case of the Kanesatake claims, the federal government
has already paid a certain amount, and the remaining bills are
being audited by the auditor general, who will report back to us
within a few months. This equitable, normal procedure will
allow us to resolve the problems in this matter according to the
usual standards governing relations between the federal
government and the provinces.
The two other cases are similar, and we also expect the
process to achieve equitable results. Therefore, the letter
referred to by the opposition is totally proper and in line with
good federal-provincial relations.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, with respect to the claim relating to the education of
aboriginal peoples in northern Quebec, how can the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs wriggle out of his responsibilities
under the James Bay Agreement and argue that the matter is
progressing normally, when the first claims in this matter were
submitted in 1986-87? Is a ten year delay normal?
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, the facts are not as presented by the hon. member.
In fact, the federal government has so far spent some $450
million on native education.
(1435)
In this matter, the Province of Quebec refuses to implement
the provisions of the agreement and to submit the various
budgets to joint approval. That is why the federal government
paid an amount equal to estimated costs. We asked Quebec to
present us with its bill so that we could pay the balance.
Again, this is proper procedure, and unfortunately in this case
the Parti Quebecois is preventing us from settling this matter
once and for all.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Canadian Heritage does not understand our fiscal
situation or he does not care. Instead, he is siphoning funds out
of his programs into his ministerial slush fund, the cultural
initiatives program. He has funded the Bronfman Foundation,
Harbourfront, projects in ridings of his cabinet colleagues and
who knows what else. The minister is using departmental funds
to keep his Liberal friends happy.
Will the Minister of Canadian Heritage stop abusing his
funding powers and cancel the wasteful cultural initiatives
program?
[Translation]
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would rather our hon. colleague specify
which programs she finds so despicable. Some of these
programs are carried out in Ontario, a part of the country which
is represented by Liberals. In addition, some of the projects my
department contributes to are funded jointly by the federal
government and the provincial government, which, in this case,
cannot be mistaken for a Liberal government.
Instead of making unsubstantiated allegations, I think that she
should take a closer look at which programs are approved on
their own merits and funded through the grants and
contributions allocated to my department.
[English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
continuing on this topic of wasteful spending, the minister
toured Norway at the taxpayers' expense. He took political staff
to lunch in Los Angeles. Now he is going to the movies in
France. He is going to help 16 culturecrats spend $350,000 at the
Cannes festival. What an expensive night at the movies.
We understand this is the last year for Telefilm to have a booth
at Cannes. Given our times of fiscal restraint, when Telefilm is
laying off staff, how can the minister justify this last kick at the
Cannes?
12488
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me first dispose of the cultural initiative
program. I know where the member is coming from. She wants
the CBC to be privatized.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Dupuy: Mr. Speaker, I see that I had it right.
She also wants to get rid of programs supporting Canadian
culture and return it to the private sector in the hopes that one
day all of Canada will be under American culture.
As to her allegations concerning trips to Cannes, she does not
seem to be aware that the Cannes festival is the greatest
marketplace where films are traded. If she is for the private
sector, she should be concerned that Canadian products are
properly marketed in that most important marketplace.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
There is some confusion as to why the Prime Minister did not
attend the military parade in Moscow. The Prime Minister said
he boycotted the parade to protest against the war Russia is
currently waging against the Chechens. On the other hand, the
Prime Minister's assistants denied repeatedly that he had
refused to attend, arguing that the parade had never been on the
Prime Minister's agenda.
How can the Deputy Prime Minister explain the discrepancy
between the statements made by the Prime Minister, who said he
had boycotted the parade, and his assistants, who said that he
was never scheduled to attend?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, his assistants were
wrong.
(1440)
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the Deputy Prime Minister for her laconic answer, to say
the least.
How can the Government of Canada think that the Russian
president would take seriously this symbolic protest against
Russia's attitude in the Chechen conflict when in the same
breath, in the same interview, the Prime Minister stated that the
top priority for the Canadian government was to increase trade
with Russia?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think that the fact the
Prime Minister chose to boycott the military parade along with
all the other heads of state does not take anything away from the
message to the Russian government.
That said, it is also obvious, as the Prime Minister indicated,
that the celebrations marking V-E Day reflected the fact that 27
million Russians lost their lives in World War II. That is why he
wanted to be there, with the other heads of state, to celebrate
V-E Day, without forgetting what is going on in Chechnya. He
took up the matter with the president and that is why he
boycotted the parade.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
One hundred and seventy-five nations are now meeting in
New York to consider the extension of the 25-year old nuclear
non-proliferation treaty. While the non-nuclear states have
honoured that treaty and have not acquired nuclear weapons, the
nuclear states have not honoured article 6 to reduce and
eliminate their nuclear weapons.
In order to assure the extension of this important treaty, could
the minister say what is being done to oblige the nuclear states to
reduce their nuclear weapons in accordance with article 6?
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his question. I also compliment him on the many years that
he has been working with other nations on this topic in his
membership with the Parliamentarians for Global Action.
Today is a historical day because in New York it was agreed to
extend indefinitely the present NPT. The NPT will prevent the
spread of nuclear weapons and it is very vital to Canadian
security. All hon. members will be pleased to know that it was a
Canadian resolution that won the support of more than 100
nations which led to this consensus.
* * *
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Canada's
doctors are experts on saving lives. Bill C-68 is designed to do
the same. Today the Canadian Medical Association said that it is
``unconvinced that the registration provisions in Bill C-68 will
be effective in reducing suicides or homicides''.
The justice minister says he will consult the experts. Will he
listen to Canada's healers?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian
Medical Association presented an extraordinary brief to the
justice committee. It testified today making a solid case for
every element in Bill C-68. It is true to say that the Canadian
Medical Association representatives were not able to say they
supported registration. They said that they did not oppose it.
12489
They took no position. That is interesting. For whatever
internal reason within the CMA it made it impossible for the
CMA to arrive at the logical conclusion flowing from the
facts upon which it relied.
What is also important to note is that before the committee
this morning were not only the politicians of the profession but
also the practitioners, the emergency room physicians and the
experts on suicide. As the hon. member knows because of his
presence at the committee this morning, the emergency room
physicians and the suicide specialists strongly favour
registration as well as every other-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Macleod.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, when the
Canadian Medical Association first looked at this bill it
supported its objectives. When it went through the bill
thoroughly, it said it was unconvinced about registration.
Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and the Yukon all say the
same. It is a nice way of saying the bill will not work.
(1445)
Will the justice minister admit in the House that Bill C-68 on
gun control is unravelling?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it appears that no one
favours this bill except the Canadian people.
Some hon. members: Bravo.
Mr. Rock: The hon. member makes reference to the
extraordinary position taken by the attorney general of
Manitoba. In taking that position, in opposing registration of
guns, the attorney general of Manitoba opposes the position
taken by the police chief in Winnipeg, the police chief in
Brandon, and the Manitoba Police Association. She takes a
position that is adverse to the women's groups in Manitoba. This
is a person responsible for the status of women in the province of
Manitoba who conceded yesterday to the committee that she did
not consult with women's groups before taking the
extraordinary position that she opposes legislation that they
have supported for many years. The record speaks for itself.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
In his last budget, the Minister of Finance announced that
immigrants and refugees would have to pay a $975 tax to be able
to gain permanent resident status in Canada. We have learned
that the Mississauga processing centre alone rejected over 4,000
applications for settlement, between February 27 and April 28,
because claimants could not pay that tax.
How can the Minister of Immigration, who pledged that no
immigrant or refugee would be adversely affected by this new
tax, explain that 4,000 applications processed in Mississauga
were rejected for the sole reason that claimants did not have the
means to pay that $975?
[English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is basing his
question on an article in La Presse. The report is wrong. The
reporter was called and a clarification is forthcoming.
Let me outline for the member and the House the real
numbers. Since the budget of February, some 18,000 cases have
been processed. Of these, some 3,800 were processed without
the landing fees attached. Therefore, they were not rejected.
They were returned to the applicant for the fees to be attached.
Those fees are now being attached and the applicants are
reapplying quickly.
On top of it all, of the 18,000 applications since February,
only 3 per cent, some 400 cases out of 18,000, have requested a
loan. I cannot suggest, based on those facts, that the fee is
imposing the kind of hardship the member wants to impress
upon the House.
In addition, applications have gone up since the budget, not
down.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in spite of
the minister's denial, which we will look into, the situation is
serious and is getting worse.
How can the minister persist in denying the adverse effect of
such a tax, given that, in two thirds of the cases, his department
rejects loan applications from immigrants and refugees, on the
grounds that they are insolvent?
[English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have just outlined the facts
of the case. If the member does not want to accept the facts, that
is one thing. If he wants to look at the facts and have a
reasonable discussion, that is something else.
He says that the fee will jeopardize refugee cases. Let us look
at the situation. A claimant coming to Canada makes a refugee
claim to the best system in the world. As a result of the
government's action last year, the claimant will also be able to
work. If the claimant is accepted, he or she has the most
important priority they were seeking-protection, refuge,
sanctuary in the best country in the world. And they will get that.
12490
(1450 )
The fee only gets applied after the refugee determination. It is
a landing fee with a loan provision if they have a hardship. For
what? In order to salvage settlement. The people who use
settlement the most are refugee claimants. His proposition
would have us do away with settlement and therefore jeopardize
refugee claimants even more.
* * *
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the James
Bay Cree have stated that the justice minister did not consult
with them concerning Bill C-68 and by failing to do so has
violated section 24.4.26 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec
agreement, which forms part of the Constitution of this country.
I ask the Minister of Justice, did he or did he not consult with
the coordinating committee of the James Bay Cree on Bill C-68
in the prescribed manner and in accordance with the
Constitution of our nation?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we complied
completely with all legal requirements on the Government of
Canada with respect to consultation. In fact we went beyond
that. In the preparation of Bill C-68 we had the most intensive,
most widespread, and most prolonged consultation conducted
personally by a Minister of Justice that this country has seen.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I wonder
why the James Bay Cree are making these statements if that is
true.
Yesterday the attorney general of Manitoba stated that the
justice minister's consultation with the province of Manitoba on
Bill C-68 was ``extremely, extremely minimal''. I ask the
Minister of Justice, did he or did he not engage in continuous
consultation with the attorney general of Manitoba on Bill
C-68, as he has claimed in the House?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the consultation
engaged in by the Department of Justice with officials from the
provincial and territorial governments across Canada was
indeed continuous. They were provided throughout this and last
year with particulars of the process as it emerged throughout the
drafting and preparation of Bill C-68.
One of the points we relied on, which directly relates to
Manitoba, was that in that province accidental firearm deaths
are two and a half times the national average. We relied upon the
fact that hospitalizations as a result of firearms in Manitoba are
more than twice the national average. These appalling statistics,
showing the need for further gun control, were very much on our
minds as we consulted with Manitoba and the other provinces on
these issues.
* * *
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is also for the Minister of Justice.
I returned to my riding just yesterday to discover the streets
strewn with hate literature. The local law enforcement people
tell me they are inhibited from laying charges by two aspects of
the Criminal Code under section 318: first, they have to get prior
consent of the attorney general; and second, only distribution,
and not simple possession, is an offence.
What does the minister offer in support of enforcement
agencies to ensure that our streets are free from this disgusting
activity?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the features of section
318 to which the hon. member has referred were intended at the
time of introduction as an effort to balance on the one hand the
need to have in the criminal law a sanction for those who spread
hatred and on the other a recognition of the freedom of
expression. That difficult balance may not be achieved perfectly
in the code and perhaps there is room for improvement.
The code is under review. Also, our campaign commitment to
create a round table on hatred chaired by a member of the
cabinet remains outstanding and will be addressed. The features
of the code to which the hon. member referred will be
considered in that context.
It is the concern of the government for this very kind of
expression of hatred that inspired the introduction of Bill C-41
to the extent to which it deals with hate. I urge all members of
this House to join with the government in supporting every
provision of Bill C-41 so we can show through the criminal law
that hatred will not be tolerated in this society.
* * *
(1455)
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
After some enquiries, we have discovered that several of
the organizations seeking to enchance the employability of
young Quebecers are still waiting for an answer from the
minister regarding the renewal of their subsidy for the current
year, which began on April 1. Moreover, others only got a
12491
three month extension, in spite of the fact that the training
they provide usually lasts an average of 16 weeks.
Why is the minister waiting to provide an answer to these
organizations, given that the agreements have already expired,
or are about to expire?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to note
that the hon. member for Lévis is in full agreement with and
supports the federal government undertaking action to support
employment of youth in the province of Quebec.
It is certainly a good expression of the willingness to work
together, federal and provincial governments and the private
sector, to help the serious problem of youth employment. If the
hon. member has specific concerns I would be glad to look at
them.
As I have said in the House previously, we are attempting to
allow our local employment centres the discretion and judgment
at the local level to make judgments about how the money
should be spent. If the hon. member would like to make direct
representations about specific projects I will look into them.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister is
trying to make me say a lot of things, but he need not look very
far since the files are on his desk.
Does the postponement of these decisions mean that the
minister has a hidden agenda, namely to cut even more deeply
than the 15 per cent reduction announced last year, or is the
minister punishing those Quebec organizations which refused to
integrate the youth service corps or the young trainee programs
into their activities?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is so
pleased with himself that he thinks he got a proper shot.
However, he made one fundamental flaw in his logic. He has not
recognized that in this fiscal year we have increased funding for
youth employment across Canada by $43 million. We have
increased it by 15 per cent, not cut it by 15 per cent.
* * *
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, an
Ontario provincial court judge has ruled that laws prohibiting
adoption by homosexual couples are contrary to the charter of
rights.
The Minister of Justice has frequently insisted that including
sexual orientation in the Canadian Human Rights Act is in
accordance with the wishes of Canadians. The courts and not the
legislatures are now making the laws in this country.
In the face of the Ontario court judgment, how can this
minister be so confident about how his legislation will be
interpreted?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's
question, if I may say so, demonstrates a lack of grasp of the
issue that was before the court in the case that was decided
yesterday.
What was at issue yesterday was the constitutional validity of
a provincial enactment dealing with the rights of adoption. That
is entirely within the provincial sphere. What is intended by this
government is to amend the federal human rights act, dealing
with discrimination based on sexual orientation.
The judgment yesterday speaks for itself. It may be subject to
appeal. I will not comment upon it. I think the distinction
between the provincial jurisdiction dealing with adoption and
the federal human rights legislation should be borne in mind.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
well understand the difference between federal and provincial.
What I am asking about is how anyone in the courts will
interpret the law, whether provincial or federal.
Poll after poll demonstrates conclusively that Canadians
disagree with the Ontario court and do not wish to extend
adoption rights to homosexual couples. The Ontario legislature
itself refused to do that last year. In the same way, Canadians
overwhelmingly oppose the minister's plan to amend the human
rights act at the federal level.
Will this minister reconsider his promise to add sexual
orientation to the human rights act and represent the wishes of
Canadians, unlike the Ontario provincial court recently did?
(1500 )
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, coming back to the
central point, no, we are committed to the change in the statute.
It is a matter of fundamental fairness and we will see it through.
There can be no connection in logic or in law between a
federal statute dealing with the prohibition of discrimination
and provincial legislation dealing with rights of adoption. One
cannot and does not affect the other.
12492
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance will know that the latest
Statistics Canada report on unemployment shows that 56,000
women gave up looking for work in the month of April, sending
the labour force participation rate for women over the age of 25
down to its lowest rate in 11 years. He will also note that the
participation rate for youth has fallen by 8 per cent since 1990,
and the small drop in the unemployment rate last month was due
entirely to people leaving the labour market.
Will the minister admit that this is a disgraceful performance
by the economy which is supposed to be in a recovery and which
needs massive job creation if there is any real hope of meeting
the problems of the deficit?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, over the course of
the last year the Canadian economy, thanks to the
competitiveness of Canadians, has produced a large number of
jobs. In the the last year it has produced a record number of jobs;
over 433,000. In the last quarter the private sector has produced
over 100,000 jobs.
As a result of the activities and the greater productivity of
Canadians, as well as the investment climate in which the
government has certainly played an important role, the job
creation capacity of the economy is stronger than it has been for
a long time.
That does not mean there are not major problems. The hon.
member has identified them in terms of women's participation,
in terms of the participation of youth, and the hangover from the
terrible recession of 1990 to 1993.
As a result, the very strenuous activities, fundamental
reforms and the vision of the Minister of Human Resources
Development are so important to the building of the country.
* * *
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce-Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
National Revenue.
In March 1994 the government introduced an anti-smuggling
initiative to combat contraband such as cigarettes, alcohol,
drugs and firearms. I ask the parliamentary secretary what
progress Canada customs has made in stopping the flow of
contraband goods at our borders.
Ms. Susan Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for his question.
I am pleased to announce that as recently as Monday, May 8 a
customs detector dog identified 25 pounds of cocaine hidden in
luggage at Pearson airport worth an estimated $5 million in
street value. On Saturday, May 6 another customs detector dog
uncovered $7.5 million worth of hashish at Mirabel airport. On
April 29 Revenue Canada seized another $4.4 million worth of
cocaine at Pearson airport.
That represents a seizure of $16.9 million of illegal drugs by
Revenue Canada in less than 10 days. The minister, the customs
officers and our fine nosed dogs, Shad and Buck, should be
congratulated.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to ask the Leader of the Government in the House to provide
details on what is in store for the next few days.
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am delighted to see that it is Thursday once again and
I have a chance to provide the weekly business statement.
Today we will continue with the opposition motion.
Tomorrow we will resume the legislative list on which we have
been working: Bill C-67, the veterans' bill; Bill C-54 regarding
pensions; Bill C-88 regarding internal trade; Bill C-87 with
respect to chemical weapons; Bill C-86 regarding the dairy
commission; Bill C-82 concerning the Mint; Bill C-85 with
respect to MPs' pensions; and Bill C-65 regarding the
reorganization of certain agencies.
(1505 )
On Monday we will begin with Bill C-89, the CNR legislation
and then return to the list just given. We will continue with this
list on Tuesday and Wednesday, adding items to it as we make
progress. In particular, we would like to proceed quickly with
the bill on the Federal Business Development Bank which the
Minister of Industry is introducing this week.
Finally, next Thursday shall be an allotted day.
_____________________________________________
12492
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, it is my pleasure to take the floor regarding the
Reform
12493
Party's motion condemning the government for its lack of
transparency and its inability to keep its red book election
promises regarding the accountability of MPs to the
electorate.
Above all, I would like to thank my Reform Party colleagues
for introducing this motion condemning the government and the
least I can say is that it is timely.
I therefore would like to take advantage of my time to bring to
the attention of this House what I think is the most important
point in this motion: the Liberals' lack of transparency. Indeed,
day in, day out, these first 18 months of the Liberal
government's mandate are far from shining examples of
transparency, both as regards political appointments-a point
which my colleague from Berthier-Montcalm irrefutably
demonstrated this morning-and contract awarding and
management. It is obvious that the promise of transparency
contained in the red book was a trick to fool the Canadian public.
Just smoke and mirrors to get elected.
Regarding the Reform Party's motion on the Liberal
government's lack of transparency, I would like to raise the
following issues in the House: firstly, the status quo regarding
access to information since the Liberals acceded to power and,
secondly, the role of lobbyists in the management of this
government's affairs.
The Access to Information Act was passed in 1982 and went
into effect the following year. It gives people the right to obtain
federal government documents. Under this act, government
institutions must give people access to their documents.
Logically, we would have expected the Liberal government to
rigorously apply the Access to Information Act, given the
promises of transparency contained in the red book which the
Liberal Party of Canada trumpeted so loudly during the election
campaign.
On the contrary, after 18 years of Liberal reign, government
bodies such as the House of Commons, the Senate and certain
positions reporting directly to Parliament, such as the Chief
Electoral Officer, the Commissioner of Official Languages and
the Auditor General of Canada are still not subject to the Access
to Information Act. Another example, that of Atomic Energy of
Canada, is particularly striking. Why has this body never come
under access to information legislation? Does such a dangerous
and polluting energy have to be developed in the utmost secrecy,
far from public scrutiny? I ask the question.
What about the transparency described in the red book? Why
not make Canada's Parliament subject to the Access to
Information Act, since it is the ultimate symbol of democracy in
the Canadian federal system? In this context, the Bloc
Quebecois, the official opposition, in the name of democratic
principles and through its desire for greater transparency in the
present system, has no choice but to support the report of the
Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General of March
1987, which recommended that the Access to Information Act
be applied to all federal institutions, including administrative
tribunals, the Senate and the House of Commons.
(1510)
The Bloc Quebecois gives particular importance to increased
transparency in the Senate, our dear Senate.
The public is entitled to be able to study in depth the wild
imaginings of this body, which is nothing more than a place for
political appointments. Given the political context in Canada
since the reign of the Liberal Party of Canada in the 1970s, we
stress the urgent need for such transparency throughout the
entire administration of federal institutions.
The events of the last few years, especially those involving
the conduct of government members, raise serious doubts as to
the Liberal government's political will to establish a code of
conduct ensuring total openness in public administration. The
red book promises are pure fantasies needed to ease the
Liberals' conscience and to make Canadian federalist
democracy look good.
Throughout the fall 1993 election campaign, the Liberal Party
of Canada maintained that ethics would be an important part of
its mandate. In the January 1994 throne speech, the government
claimed that it attached the utmost importance to integrity and
that it wanted to enjoy the people's confidence. It would
therefore appoint an ethics counsellor to watch over government
integrity and restore public confidence. So what happened? The
ethics counsellor, who was appointed by the Liberal
government, still reports to the Privy Council. He has no
independent power of investigation and continues to report to
the Prime Minister. The official opposition has often pointed out
in the House that this hurts credibility.
According to the Liberal Party's red book, government
integrity is in question every time people feel that lobbyists set
public policy by wielding undue influence behind the scenes.
Recent events show that the whole Liberal strategy regarding
a parliamentary code of ethics, confirmed by a government
motion tabled in this House some 10 days ago, is just a smoke
screen. The Broadcasting Act, which comes under the Minister
of Canadian Heritage, is no match for the powerful lobby for
PowerDirecTv, a company run by André Desmarais, the Prime
Minister's son-in-law. The Liberal government even started
defending ideas that Brian Mulroney's Conservative
government held dear, turning into the advocate of
competitiveness in North America.
Reading the ministerial orders from the Minister of Canadian
Heritage, one can only bow before the powerful lobby for
PowerDirecTv and kiss democracy goodbye at the federal level,
where money and political friends rule.
12494
The weakness of our political institutions and representatives
is cause for concern. Not only does the government flout its own
law and disown the CRTC, which is responsible for its
application, but it takes retroactive measures preventing
Expressvu, a competitor, from starting to provide service in
September. All that in the name of competitiveness. In the
meantime, the ethics counsellor promised in the red book is
cooling his heels in the Prime Minister's outer office. And what
about the recent visit of the Minister of Canadian Heritage to
Los Angeles, where he was to meet with the majors of the
American film industry.
The facts are as follows: three weeks ago, Edgar Bronfman
Junior, an American citizen, and Seagram announced the
takeover of the American giant MCA, a multi-million dollar
deal. This announcement was made from a Los Angeles hotel,
with the heritage minister in the next room. So far, no problem,
or so it seemed. But it must be pointed out that MCA holds 20
per cent of the shares of Cineplex, a Canadian company
controlled by another branch of the Bronfman empire.
(1515)
MCA also wants to control Cineplex by merging with
Cinemark USA Inc., whose head office is in Dallas. The trip
made to Los Angeles by the Minister of Canadian Heritage
makes me wonder, considering that Edgar Bronfman Junior
seems to be trying to convince the federal government that MCA
is a Canadian company, so as to avoid a review by Investment
Canada. This is the kind of transparency displayed by the
government.
Let us not forget that, according to the government's official
policy, companies actively involved in the cultural sector must
be controlled by Canadian interests. This explains why Mr.
Bronfman is trying to give a Canadian identity to MCA. Under
the circumstances, it becomes obvious that the real purpose of
the minister's trip to Los Angeles was to reassure Liberal
friends, namely Seagram, of the federal government's support.
While the government House leader is tabling a motion to
establish a special committee to develop a code of conduct for
parliamentarians, that same government violates the most basic
rules of democracy by favouring friends of the Liberal Party and
by governing on behalf of the Canadian financial establishment.
Another example which illustrates the political trickery of the
red book, and which also shows the flaws of Bill C-43 regarding
the ethics counsellor, is the letter sent by the heritage minister to
the CRTC, supposedly an independent body under his authority,
in support of a licence application.
It must be remembered that the Prime Minister waited more
than three weeks before seeking the ethics counsellor's advice
on this sensitive issue. How can we not come to the conclusion
that the Prime Minister cares little about the ethics counsellor
and, therefore, about ethics?
The Liberal leader simply wanted to save face. The
appointment of an ethics counsellor and the Liberals' campaign
promise to that effect were supposed to give the public the
impression that the government is really doing something about
restoring the integrity of our institutions.
In the West, democratic institutions are now facing a crisis in
public confidence. It is clear that in the future, it will be
necessary to restore the trust that should exist between
governments and the public they serve. This means public
policy must be discussed, debated, influenced, changed and
identified in a process that is absolutely open and transparent.
This is one of the concerns that goes to the very heart of the
kind of society we want for Quebec. The federal political scene
has for too long been dominated by the political scheming of the
Liberals and their friends. The acknowledged expert on
scheming and adumbration in the political arena is
unquestionably Pierre Elliott Trudeau.
As Professor Guy Laforest explained, this bourgeois
aristocrat, this lackey of Canada's financial establishment and
anti-Quebecer managed, during his many years in power, to
establish close ties between the Canadian financial
establishment and the Liberal Party. This political and financial
network is the engine of Canadian Liberal ideology, a political
perspective that makes every effort to isolate Quebec, to take
away its distinct identity and make it a part of Anglo-Canadian
culture.
It is easy to identify the members of this political and
financial network. They are the ones who keep referring to ``the
most beautiful country in the world to govern''. The present
Prime Minister is this network's new lieutenant. We have the
Minister of Foreign Affairs, who is responsible for Quebec. And
remember Eddie Goldenberg, the Prime Minister's trusty
adviser, who happens to be the son of Carl Goldenberg who
helped Pierre Elliott Trudeau draft his bill for patriation and a
charter of rights in the summer of 1967.
(1520)
The Senate still harbours Leo Kolber, one of the Liberal
Party's great bagmen, childhood friend of Charles Bronfman
and member of the board at Seagram. Mr. Kolber is also a friend
of Tom Axworthy, who was Mr. Trudeau's former chief of staff
and is the current Minister of Human Resources Development's
brother and the manager of The CRB Foundation, which was set
up by Mr. Bronfman. As we know, The CRB Foundation is
greatly involved in promoting Canadian nationalism. And Paul
Desmarais, Charles Bronfman's equal, is still in Montreal.
As Professor Guy Laforest wrote: ``-by boards of trustees
and collaborators, their networks are interlaced. The Liberal
planet finds everything it needs in its network. John Rae, one
12495
of the key people at Power Corporation, was one of the most
important strategists behind the campaigns of the current
Prime Minister of Canada''.
It is the financial interests of the richest Canadians which
govern Ottawa, not the elected representatives of the people.
They are all following in Pierre Elliott Trudeau's tradition, and
that is having a one track mind when it comes to Quebec: having
Quebecers assimilate anglo-Canadian values as quickly as
possible.
Before our very eyes, once this government got to office, it
considerably diluted commitments it made in its red book
during the 1993 election campaign. Such an about face raises in
the minds of the public a legitimate doubt about whether the
Liberal government truly intends to legislate ethics in
Parliament.
The Bloc Quebecois, the official opposition, believes that, to
re-establish the integrity of our democratic institutions, we
must put a stop to the empty promises of the past 30 years to
legislate parliamentary ethics.
In addition, the administration of the affairs of government
must be as transparent as possible in order to eliminate the grey
areas and to ensure Canadians that public policy decisions
reflect the general interests of the people and not those of
powerful lobbys. However, with the Liberals in power, the
reality of the matter is something else.
In the context of Bill C-43 governing the registration of
lobbyists, the lobbyists increased their meetings in the months
before the tabling of this bill. Others threatened suits if the law
forced them to disclose their political ties. In this instance, as in
others, a lack of transparency prevented the people of Canada
from knowing the extent and the nature of lobby activities with
regard to Bill C-43.
We have to admit that Bill C-43 as it stands will not likely
prevent such troubling events as those surrounding the
privatization of Pearson airport or the business involving the
Minister of Canadian Heritage. Worse yet, according to Mitchell
Sharp, the Prime Minister's principal adviser on matters of
ethics, even if the legislation arising from Bill C-43 had been in
effect at the time of the discussions on the privatization of
terminals 1 and 2 at Pearson airport, the public would have been
none the wiser.
The Bloc Quebecois, the official opposition, presented more
than twenty amendments in committee on Bill C-43. They were
rejected by government members who had not even been at the
hearings or taken part in discussions in recent months.
We were also hoping, good players that we are, that the new
rules, or at least the approach taken and the commitments made
by the Liberal Party of Canada in its red book would permit in
depth discussion of this issue, so vital to a democracy.
However, we have to admit that the Liberals' intentions with
regard to transparency and ethics are those of the Bronfman,
Seagram and Power Corporation families. These measures serve
solely to impress, with the government using all kinds of lofty
language to keep up appearances for political reasons.
Once again, the federal Liberals' version of history is written
on the backs of the country's most disadvantaged, and, just as
obviously, on the back of Quebec.
[English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I should
like to ask the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe a question
about an incident that occurred in the House a while ago.
Perhaps it is a sensitive issue for him. I pose this question with
all due respect. It is about integrity. It is about respect. It is about
his feeling of frustration.
(1525)
One day when asking questions in question period he became
frustrated with either the answers or the commentary or the
behaviour of a minister of the crown or the representative of the
minister of the crown. I wish the member would share his
experience with us of the incident in which he stuck to his guns
and was asked to leave the House. He had to go through a lot. I
think it is an example of the lack of integrity displayed by
certain ministers of the crown. If he would like to share that
incident with us and tell us his true feelings about it, I think it
would be another example of the lack of integrity of the
government.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before I give the floor to
the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe, I agree with the
member for Calgary Centre that he raises an issue of great
sensitivity, but I feel very strongly that we are on the edge.
I want to mention a fact regarding the incident being raised.
Had the member withdrawn, the Chair would have deemed the
matter closed and would not have allowed the question to
continue. I will listen attentively to the reply of the member for
Richmond-Wolfe.
[Translation]
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first of
all, I want to thank my colleague for addressing this issue
because, as I just said, today, the Reform Party launched a
debate on a fundamental exercise in democracy, that is,
openness in government, the role of MPs representing their
fellow citizens and constituents, and the possibility for each
member to do his or her job honestly and to act in accordance
with his or her principles.
As for my experience as a member of Parliament, I think I
have been guided by the desire to do my job very openly and
honestly. I have been guided by this desire, although I was
troubled for a while in this House to hear comments, opinions
12496
and answers that went this way and that way, that were
contradictory. It was obvious to me that everything was far
from clear and open in this matter.
My conduct as a member of Parliament has been guided by the
desire to be honest, to act in accordance with my principles, and
to represent my constituents in a responsible manner. To allow
MPs to do their job properly, the government must be open and
answer straightforward questions truthfully. I thank the hon.
member for his question.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Mr. Speaker, I want to add
a brief comment. Without expressing a view for or against the
opinions of either member who just had the floor, I appreciate
the way both members handled the question and the answer on a
very delicate and sensitive matter.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I
want to commend the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe for
his excellent presentation. He correctly identified all aspects of
the problem. He reminded us that the official opposition had
proposed amendments. I want to ask him a question which, in
my opinion, is related to the issue. As he said himself, many
people seem to have lost confidence in government because they
see links with large corporations.
Does the hon. member think that there is a way to change this,
if only symbolically, for example by providing that political
parties should be financed only by individuals and that
businesses should not be allowed to contribute?
(1530)
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, I thank my
hon. colleague for his question. Indeed, the hon. member for
Lévis raises a fundamental issue relating to the democratic
process and the ability of a government, opposition or third
party to intervene in public interest issues or matters with
maximum latitude and independence from lobbies, financial
networks or any form of lobbying. One approach developed by
the Quebec government and put in place following years of
extremely aggressive and stormy debate was party financing.
It is clear that when, in an effort to raise funds to pay its for
publicity, promotion and propaganda bills, a political party has
to go to large corporations and major financial concerns and that
there are no regulations as to how much money can be raised and
from whom, this party may find itself in an extremely difficult
situation or literally have its hands tied if and when it becomes
the government or the official opposition. There is no way that a
political party that gets hundreds of thousands of dollars from
institutions and corporations can act with complete freedom
once in office. It is just not true.
What happened at the federal level when it was suggested that
election campaigns and political parties be funded through
donations from the public at large and not from large
corporations or labour associations? The federal government
never had the courage to amend the provisions of the Election
Act dealing with party financing. In that context, while
governed by a federal legislation that does not contain any
restrictions, yet refusing to be attached to any financial concern,
the Bloc Quebecois decided on its own, during the last federal
election campaign, to operate under the Quebec legislation
providing for political parties to be funded solely by donations
from the public. The Bloc never accepted donations from
businesses or organizations.
With respect to my hon. colleague's question, it is obvious
that as long as this government will not take the necessary
steps-and the first one is party financing-to free itself from
the hold of Power DirecTv, the Bronfmans and the Seagrams of
this world, with or without a code of conduct, it will continue to
have its hands tied by these major financial concerns and the
lobby of backroom boys.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in the debate this
afternoon. I heard a few speeches earlier, including the one
made by the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe, whose
arguments were completely out of line.
The member made all kinds of suggestions on other bills
before the House, but not on the issue being debated today.
The motion tabled by the hon. member for
Kindersley-Lloydminster, reads:
That this House condemn the government for its failure to keep its Red
Book promise to make the government more open and permitting Members of
Parliament to be more accountable to their constituents.
[
English]
Mr. Abbott: What a great idea.
Mr. Milliken: Frankly this is one of the silliest motions we
have debated in this Parliament. It is based on a completely false
premise about what the government has done in the time it has
been in office. There has hardly ever been a government in
Canadian history that has so fulfilled the promises it outlined at
the beginning of its mandate.
(1535 )
In 30 some years of being a participant in this process I
cannot think of another document that has so affected the
lives of Canadians and so directed the operations of a govern-
12497
ment than this red book has done. It has been a guide book of
promises that the government undertook to do and it has kept
the promises.
I want to quote from the red book because it is extremely
relevant to the motion before the House. After all the motion
does mention this little tome. I will read the whole section on
parliamentary reform. I know this may be a little long for the
concentration of members opposite but I want to read it in any
event.
In the House of Commons, a Liberal government will give MPs a greater
role in drafting legislation, through House of Commons committees. These
committees will also be given greater influence over government
expenditures. More free votes will be allowed in the House of Commons, and
individual members of Parliament will be involved in an effective pre-budget
consultation process. We will establish mechanisms to permit parliamentary
review of some senior Order-in-Council appointments.
The pension regime of members of Parliament has been the focus of
considerable controversy. It is now the subject of an independent review,
which Liberals support. We believe that reform is necessary.
Mr. Abbott: So why didn't you do it?
Mr. Milliken: If the hon. member would just be patient and
listen.
Mr. Abbott: I have the same copy right here.
Mr. Milliken: I am glad to hear it. The hon. member only has
a page. He should take the whole book home and keep it under
his pillow. He might sleep better.
Whatever the results of the independent review, a Liberal government will
reform the pension plan of members of Parliament to end ``double-dipping.''
MPs should not be able to leave office and receive a pension from the federal
government if they accept a new full-time paying job from the federal
government. In addition, we will review the question of the minimum age at
which pensions will begin to be paid.
When the Conservative government came to power in 1984, while citing
the need for economy it nonetheless found the resources to increase both the
size of political staffs and the pay available to them. These expansions created
bloated political budgets and inflated salaries for members and friends of the
Conservative Party. A Liberal government will reduce the size and budgets of
ministers' offices and the Prime Minister's Office by at least $10 million a
year.
I challenge hon. members opposite to find one statement in
that whole paragraph on parliamentary reform that has not been
fulfilled by the government to date. The government has moved
on every single one of its promises and it has gone further on
most of them.
Hon. members opposite who have been bleating, whining,
blithering and crying all day should repent. Get off it, I say to
them, and face the facts. The government has lived up to its
commitments in full measure. They were all in the red book.
They were all made manifest for the public to look at and
consider in an election campaign. The public voted for the red
book in droves.
I know members in the Reform Party in particular do not like
to hear that fact. They like to hear only the facts from their own
perspective, their own friends. Their idea of consultation is to
consult their friends and then say this must be what everybody
wants. There are Canadians who are not friends of the Reform
Party. There are lots and lots of them where I come from. I know
lots and lots who think the Reform Party is quite idiotic. Still
they are not the people to whom Reformers talk when they want
a consultation.
I want to read why Canadians and particularly the poor souls
that have been following the Reform Party have been so badly
deceived. We saw this kind of deception go on in the House the
other day. I know I cannot imitate the accent but the quotation is
this. It was on April 27 in the House:
One of the reasons there is so much public cynicism about politics and
government is that governments consistently break their promises.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Milliken: You can tell that is a perpetual opposition
party, Mr. Speaker.
This Liberal government, for example, is not yet two years old but already
it has littered the political landscape with broken promises.
This is a falsehood. This is completely untrue. I have just read
the whole section of the red book on parliamentary reform and
we have complied with every single one of the promises and
then some. Yet the member for Calgary Southwest had the nerve
to get up in the House and utter this complete rubbish. I can only
imagine how much worse it is when the hon. member is off
speaking to his supporters at meetings around the country. They
have been thoroughly, totally and utterly deceived by the hon.
member. If they would simply invite me to some of their
meetings, we might straighten some of them out. I can name
about 176 other members of the House who could do a similar
straightening job on some of the members of the Reform Party.
(1540)
I want to turn to the explicit promises with which we have
complied. First, there was the promise that committees be
strengthened, that members be given a greater role. We have just
been through a procedure in the procedure and House affairs
committee where we drafted a bill. I was before the Senate
committee this morning on behalf of the committee defending
the bill. It was the one drafted in committee. It was adopted by
the government and then passed in the House.
Bills have been referred to committee under the new
procedures that we adopted in the House shortly after we took
office where the bill is referred before second reading.
Members have full scope in the changes they wish to make to
the bill. The Lobbyists Registration Act is a perfect example
and there are others. We are going to do it with the CNR bill
on
12498
Monday. This has given members of Parliament untold powers
in respect of that legislation which were not exercised or
exercisable in the last Parliament.
Hon. members in the Reform Party were not here in the last
Parliament. They do not know how bad it was. They do not know
how good this is. They do not realize how much they are getting
out of this. If they had been here before, their complaints would
be cut in half today.
The President of the Treasury Board introduced changes in the
expenditure management system so that committees can
become more involved in the spending priorities of the
government. We are about to embark on that process in the
committees very shortly.
We have opened up the process. We have given more power to
committees and I need not recite for members opposite the
changes to the budget process where the finance committee
travels Canada to hear Canadians' views on the budget.
Mr. Abbott: Then they come back with their own
recommendation.
Mr. Milliken: Of course they do. What do you set up a
committee for but to come back with its own recommendations?
At least they listen, which is more than I can say for the hon.
members opposite.
I want to turn to the question of free votes because hon.
members are suggesting that somehow we have very few free
votes. I note it was a red book promise. I just want to talk about
how well we have delivered on that promise. Every private
members' bill and motion has been a free vote. We have had
dozens of them and they have all been free votes.
The members of the House, unlike the last Parliament-hon.
members opposite were not here and do not know how bad it
was-have had an opportunity to vote on all these bills and
express their views. We will continue to do that. There may be
times when other matters will be the subject of a free vote but we
were elected on a platform, the red book. It is right here. The
promises are there.
If members were elected to serve in this Parliament based on
that platform, they are expected to vote for the things contained
in the platform. That is the way political parties work. The
Reform Party knows that is the way it works. Its members tried
to do it with their little blue book but unfortunately they have not
kept their promises, unlike the government.
It is quite hypocritical of the Reform Party to put forward this
motion. We have seen during recent debates how members of the
Reform Party perceive it to be their duty to represent their
constituents' interests. Our constituents voted for the policies in
the red book. Our constituents are getting delivered to them the
promises that were in the red book.
The complaint we are getting from the Reform Party in this
motion is that the Reform Party wants us to adopt their policies
and say that is what we promised to Canadians. It is not what we
promised. We promised something different, something a whole
lot better. What Canadians are getting is what is in the red book.
I want to turn to gun control as a perfect example because this
bill has widespread support across the country.
Mr. Abbott: Not in my constituency.
Mr. Milliken: The hon. member should get the attorney
general of Saskatchewan to do a poll like the attorney general of
Alberta did. The poor old attorney general of Alberta came to
Ottawa to complain about the bill, having conducted a poll that
discovered 64 per cent of the electors of his province do not
agree with him.
The poor soul must be gravely misguided, if not something
worse. I can only suggest to the hon. member that he take a good
look at what is happening in his constituency and conduct a
proper scientific poll, not one of the pay as you phone in polls
for which the Reform Party is so well known.
(1545 )
I want to turn to the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest,
who is here, I am delighted to say. I know he is a caring person.
He conducted a poll in his riding and I understand he may have
recanted his heresy at second reading and will now support the
government on the bill. I congratulate him for showing a little
independence of judgment. It is very rare on that side.
The hon. member who is doing all the hooting and hollering
over there should talk to the hon. member for Edmonton
Southwest and conduct a poll in his riding and he might find
himself constrained to vote with the government as well.
The Reform Party is well aware-as is the hon. member for
Kindersley-Lloydminster, of all members to have moved this
motion, because he is on the procedure and House affairs
committee-that we looked into all these things like free votes,
recall, initiative, and referenda. We called witnesses and heard
experts on all these subjects in the committee. We considered
the matter and the committee tabled a report in the House. The
majority of members of the committee disagreed with the
Reform Party position and thought that referenda were
unnecessary on a massive scale in Canada, that recall was not an
idea worthy of importing into the political climate of the country
at this time, and that initiative was unneeded. Reform members
disagreed, but it does not mean we were wrong. It certainly was
not something we promised in the red book.
12499
I encourage hon. members of the Reform Party to live up to
the promise they made on their little blue book to publish the
results of their caucus meetings and the votes in caucus. I see the
hon. member for Calgary Centre has one. Those things are rare
as hens' teeth. When we consider how many of the promises
have been broken, I can understand why.
I have a book here that I would be glad to share with the hon.
member, and Canadians would love to read it, ``The Little Book
of Reform''; it is a green book. I will quote from it. I know this
may not be popular with the hon. members opposite, but I will
find a quote in here as I continue speaking.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): While I am on my feet the
member might find that quote.
I would not want the House to think there is any inconsistency
on the part of the Chair with regard to props. Understanding of
course that the motion today brought forward by the Reform
Party on this allotted day specifically makes mention of a
particular book, certainly I understand that it will have a greater
and wider use than it or any other book normally would. If any
other books are used, of any colour or for whatever reason,
please quote from them before you do anything else.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, that is fine. I appreciate the
opportunity to have a chance to check for the right chapter.
This book is also entitled ``The Gospel According to Preston
Manning and the Reform Party''. I quote the hon. member for
Cariboo-Chilcotin. This is openness in government: ``For
goodness sake, Jack, don't say things like that. We have a
reporter in the car.'' That is a good quote. I suggest that reflects
the Reform notion of openness in government. He was in the
House a little while ago explaining a mistake he had made in
debate earlier this morning to the hon. whip, who caught him up
on some facts he had got completely wrong about some
appointment. I suspect if there had been a reporter nearby he
might have been more careful in his remarks.
I want to turn to the one other thing that happened with respect
to free votes. We adopted a motion in the House about free votes.
The hon. member may have forgotten. It was a motion proposed
by the hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam. I quote the
motion, because it was adopted unanimously, if I am not
mistaken, in June 1994, in compliance again with the red book
and our notion of free votes:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should continue
increasingly to permit members of the House of Commons to fully represent
their constituents' views on the government's legislative program and
spending plans by adopting the position that the defeat of any government
measure, including a spending measure, shall not automatically mean the
defeat of the government unless followed by the adoption of a formal motion.
That was all agreed to. There is no doubt that free votes are
permitted and that they happen. The hon. member should be
relieved by the fact that they happen on a daily basis.
(1550 )
Now I will turn to public consultation, because it is another
area where the government has excelled. It has undertaken the
most comprehensive consultative exercises to ensure that the
views of the Canadian people are represented in legislation that
is brought forward in the House. There have been broad national
consultations on immigration policy, social policy review, gun
control, and on two federal budgets. The result is policies that
Canadians support and a government that Canadians respect in
record numbers.
This is far from the Reform idea of consultation. We
witnessed something of its idea when one of its members
travelled to Washington to consult with Americans who agreed
with him. That is its idea of consultation. It opposes is trips
where you might get exposed to somebody with ideas that are
different from your own. When it can take a trip and meet with
people who think exactly the way it does it goes. That is the
Reform approach to travel.
Mr. Morrison: If you pay your own bills.
Mr. Milliken: I see, it is pay your own way. I am delighted
they pay. Even if Reformers went at the public expense, all they
want to do is meet with people who agree with them. I am sorry
that is true, because I think part of the job of members of
Parliament is to listen to all views. It is something that we on
this side of the House try to do whenever we visit our
constituencies. We meet with constituents whose views are not
the same as ours. We talk to them, share their views and hear
what they have to say.
Mr. Morrison: Then you tell them.
Mr. Milliken: We tell them our views. I am not afraid to
discuss my views. I tell people what my views are.
When they learn that the public supports a government bill,
Reform members make excuses, ignore the wishes of their
constituents, and vote against the bill just for the sake of
opposition. I thought we were going to see a change.
I cannot quote chapter and verse from the blue book because I
cannot find a copy. The hon. member keeps waving it, but I do
not have a copy. Perhaps he could send me one another day.
One thing I recall from the blue book was that we were not to
do things in Parliament the way we used to. My goodness, I am
having trouble telling the difference between the party in
opposition and the New Democratic Party when they occupied a
similar position.
12500
One only has to look at the record of the Reform Party in its
consultations, particularly with aboriginal groups. We have seen
the spectacle of its meetings in British Columbia recently where
it was discussing aboriginal land settlement issues and it did not
invite any aboriginal people to come to the meetings. I think it is
a poor way to carry on consultations.
I want to turn to the ethics counsellor and the whole question
of ethics, which is indirectly raised-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, honestly, the braying on the other
side is excessive. I believe my time is about to run out.
The government has lived up to its commitment to provide
more open and accountable government by setting up the ethics
counsellor and introducing the lobbyists registration bill. The
government also has proposed a special joint committee to
develop a code of conduct for members, which motion has been
opposed by the Reform Party and stalled in the House by the
actions of the Reform Party. Obviously, they do not want the
House to come up with this set of criteria of ethics guidelines for
members, which I think is important and I would like to get on
with.
We have to look at the record of the government overall. I
think it has been excellent.
The member for Kindersley-Lloydminister in his speech
this morning complained about the government's use of time
allocation. Honestly, if the hon. member had been here in the
last Parliament he would have learned a lot about time allocation
and closure. There are two rules, which the hon. member should
know. We have not used the closure rule recently. I do not know
whether we have used it all in this Parliament. We have used
time allocation. I can only say that if the members had been here
the last time, they would think life in this Parliament is bed of
roses. It was used by the government on repeated occasions
against the opposition at that time. It has hardly ever been used
in this Parliament.
Members opposite have got off very, very lightly in respect of
the government's approach to the House. We have deliberately
tried to allow members to express their views on all these things.
Hon. members opposite have had ample opportunity to make
their views known, not just on government bills but in other
debates.
I would love to go on about some of the other aspects of
legislation, but unfortunately I see my time has expired. There
are questions and comments and I will be glad to answer
questions from the hon. members opposite.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened very
closely to the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. I
noticed in particular that, according to him, all the decisions
made by the Liberal government so far were in keeping with the
promises in the red book.
(1555)
I wish to remind the hon. member that, during the election
campaign, the current Prime Minister, who was then Leader of
the Opposition, was against free trade and in favour of GST
reform and said that he would not touch social programs and
transfers to the provinces. But we know what happened to all
these resolutions. The Liberal government did just the opposite.
I remember another matter that was widely discussed during
the election campaign, especially in Ontario, namely the
Pearson airport deal. It is one of the areas in which the former
Tory government had to pay for its poor performance under the
circumstances, since the Liberal Party had promised to review
the matter. Yet, once in power, the Prime Minister appointed Mr.
Nixon, a former Ontario finance minister, to look into this deal.
During the investigation, Mr. Nixon himself said that there
might have been certain irregularities due to lobbyists.
A little later, the ethics counsellor, who reports not to the
House of Commons but to the Prime Minister, admitted at
committee meetings that Bill C-43 would not have changed
anything regarding the misconduct of lobbyists in the Pearson
airport deal. He said himself that it would not have changed
anything. Yet, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands
brags about the merits of the bill.
I have two questions for him: First, how does he explain that it
took the government 18 months to table this bill with the
Pearson airport deal in the background, when the information
obtained under the Access to Information Act reveals that Bill
C-43 has been modified and is not in keeping with Liberal
promises, precisely because of lobbyists' influence? I would
like him to answer this question.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member misunderstood
the circumstances. First of all, I must say that the Minister for
International Trade is here and that he is the one who made the
necessary changes to NAFTA so that we could support it. That is
why the Prime Minister promised during the election campaign
that the agreement would be changed. The Minister for
International Trade, an excellent minister, made all sorts of
changes to the agreement so that it could be passed in this place.
That is my first point.
Regarding Bill C-43, I must tell the hon. member that this
bill was introduced in this House June 16 1994. So, this is not
brand new. If we had problems with this bill, getting it passed
in this House and all, it was because of the hon. members
opposite filibustering, talking endlessly and showing such a
keen interest in this bill.
12501
[English]
I say to the hon. member do not criticize the government for
being slow and bringing it in 18 months after we took office. We
introduced it six or seven months after we took office. It has
taken almost a year to get it passed because of the obstruction
primarily of members on the other side of the House, because we
have not put up an inordinate number of speakers on the bill.
Since the hon. member touched on something else the Prime
Minister promised, which was transfer payments to the
provinces, the Prime Minister indicated there would be ample
notice of changes in those transfer payments. He never promised
they would remain the same or always increase, and he has lived
up to that promise fully.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, as Canadians from coast to coast know by now, the holy
grail of the Liberal Party is its now infamous red book,
otherwise referred to as the dead book-cold and getting
clammier as each day goes by. I remind members opposite the
infamous red book is a two edge sword. It will also hold them
very accountable for what they have not done which they had
promised to do.
(1600)
My question to the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands,
and I ask it most seriously, has to do with the efficacy of using
the red book, primarily an election document. It was a
compilation of promises put together in a binder. It was a
method of appealing to voters and saying this is how they could
get elected.
In the last election the Liberal Party gained 177 seats, a vast
majority in the House. It did so by getting something in the order
of 41 per cent of the total votes cast.
An hon. member: It was 43 per cent.
Mr. McClelland: The hon. member opposite tells me it was
43 per cent. I am wondering if the hon. member for Kingston and
the Islands would speak about the integrity and whether it is
right, proper and appropriate to foist on Canadians holus-bolus
the Liberal election document as a mandate for change when that
party received 43 per cent of the total votes cast. It is nothing
like a majority.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Given the brevity of the
question from the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest, I will
take an equally brief question from the hon. member for
Kootenay East and the parliamentary secretary can respond to
both.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
reading from this holy grail, the red book, the chapter
``Governing with Integrity'', it says the erosion of confidence
with public servants, the members of Parliament, seems to have
many causes. Some have to do with the behaviour of certain
elected officials, others with an arrogant style of political
leadership.
I wonder if the parliamentary secretary agrees the justice
minister, particularly today, showed a tremendously arrogant
style when he completely dismissed the question of my
colleague from Macleod in saying doctors supported objectives
of the firearms legislation when he knows full well every
Canadian supports the objectives of the firearms legislation,
when he would have known that: ``The CMA, however, is
unconvinced that the registration provisions proposed in Bill
C-68 will be effective in reducing suicides or homicides
because they seem to concentrate their efforts on that group of
users which poses the least risk to society''.
Does the parliamentary secretary not agree this is a very clear
cut case of the Minister of Justice showing an absolute
arrogance on the part of the Liberal government when he
misquoted the CMA?
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I will deal with the questions in
the order in which they were put.
The first question suggested promises in the red book were
being foisted on Canadians who did not vote for the Liberal
Party and that because we have a majority in Parliament we
should not foist the red book on members of the public.
The hon. member, and I know he is one of the few reasonable
members of his party, would agree we are at least operating on a
blueprint. The red book was not just a series of election
promises, it was a blueprint for action when we took office and it
was advertised as such by the party. In putting it into place in
government we are doing exactly what we said we would do with
the 177 members elected as Liberals because they were relying
on the red book and putting it forward as their policy.
The problem the hon. member raises is not one he put in his
question, but his colleagues would know this is the case. They
want us to put in place the policies in the blue book and the
policies they are espousing in the House which had the support
of far fewer Canadians.
In the circumstances we are probably doing the right thing in
the context of the democratic system under which we have
operated in Canada for the more than 130 years we have been in
existence. I will leave it at that.
With respect to the Minister of Justice and the phoney
allegation of arrogance, the Minister of Justice is far from
arrogant. We would be hardpressed to find a Minister of Justice
who has done more consulting in respect of this bill and who has
a firmer grip of the facts on which he bases his acts than the
present Minister of Justice.
12502
(1605)
The hon. member in his question is showing considerable
contempt for his electors when he indicates to the House he is
not supporting the gun control bill.
I quote from an article written-
Mr. Abbott: I am showing contempt for my electors?
Mr. Milliken: Contempt for your voters, I say to the hon.
member.
Mr. Abbott: My voters? Right.
Mr. Milliken: I quote from a Globe and Mail column this
morning by Jeffrey Simpson. Jeffrey Simpson is not a friend of
the Liberal Party. He used to write Tory campaign tracts in his
articles in the Globe and Mail. He is certainly one of the better
known journalists in Canada:
Shoulder to shoulder with the gun lobby, Reformers spout nonsense about
gun registration being a plot to curtail liberties.
This week one of the genuinely stupid ideas of our time made its
appearance on Parliament Hill when the attorneys general of Saskatchewan
and Alberta suggested that their provinces be exempted from the gun control
legislation. Yukon joined in this madness.
Not content with one stupid idea, the provincial interveners produced
another. This harebrained idea has been offered before on other issues.
In other words, he went through a series of things he thought
were pretty stupid. Every single one of them is supported by the
Reform Party.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to rise today to address the Reform motion that the
House condemn the government for its failure to keep its red
book promises to make government more open and accountable.
The Reform Party in 1988 compiled a book of principles and
policies, which is probably one of the first political parties to
ever put its policies and principles in writing and make a
commitment to the Canadian public. On page eight it states:
We believe in the accountability of elected representatives to the people
who elect them and that the duty of elected members to their constituents
should supersede their obligations to their political parties.
I will predict that within the Liberal caucus when it votes on
Bill C-41, the sentencing bill, there will be members who will
wish to vote against the government but they will not be allowed
to for fear of being kicked out of caucus or off the standing
committees.
When it comes to Bill C-68, the gun control bill, some
members of the caucus will want to vote against the government.
They will have to toe the line or get kicked out of caucus.
Unlike Reformers, they will not be able to fulfil the wishes
of their constituents. On this side of the House on both those
bills members will vote the clear wishes of their constituents,
established in a fashion that has shown and expressed a
complete communication system with them, not a poll taken
a year and a half ago and then coming out with a law like this
gun control bill.
In my original speech I was to speak about how the Liberal
government whip has punished, castigated, disciplined,
reprimanded, reproached, scolded and penalized several Liberal
members for bucking the party line and reflecting the views of
their constituents. My colleagues have covered all that. We
know about that. The Canadian public knows all about that.
After hearing the government whip's diatribe about Liberal
ethics, which I believe is an oxymoron like Progressive
Conservative, and hearing about how Liberals are spearheading
a special joint committee to develop recommendations for a
code of conduct for politicians, I cannot resist making a few
comments directed at the Liberal whip.
In typical planet Ottawa fashion the Liberals will study the
issue of accountability and review the concept of openness
under the guise of a special joint committee. The committee will
be comprised of seven members of the Senate and fourteen
members of the House of Commons who, along with countless
support staff, will travel across Canada and the world to study
how other governments hold their representatives accountable.
It sounds very important.
Canadian taxpayers will wave goodbye as their brave
representatives, along with their entourage, sail off to foreign
lands to find out how their politicians conduct themselves.
From experience I know the Liberal members of this
committee will constantly utter cliches like ``what we need is
effective inputs for effective outputs''. My favourite is from the
Minister of Finance: ``What we are trying to do is square the
circle with this budget''.
That is how governments play up politics in Ottawa with
touchy issues like accountability and openness. They study
them. The Tories did it and now the Liberals are following suit
with their code of conduct committee. It sounds good, looks
good but does not do anything.
(1610 )
Reform wants to bring back some sanity to this process. We
can give rule number one for code of conduct without even
leaving the Chamber and without leaving the shores of this land:
do not waste Canadian taxpayers' money on needless junkets.
In 1987 the Ontario Supreme Court found the former
cabinet minister Sinclair Stevens had breached the Canadian
conflict of interest rules on 14 different occasions prior to his
12503
resignation in 1986. As a direct result the Mulroney
government introduced a conflict of interest bill for MPs
which unfortunately died on the Order Paper at the end of the
parliamentary session. A similar conflict of interest bill was
introduced in the next session. It too died on the Order Paper.
As a result of these failed attempts, the Mulroney government
created a special joint committee of the House of Commons and
Senate to study the issue. Does that sound familiar?
A lengthy study of issues like conflict of interest and
accountability was conducted. Witnesses were heard. Testimony
was given. A 60-page report was submitted to the House and the
Senate. Among the major recommendations was that an
independent office be created, the holder of which would
oversee the disclosure of assets and liabilities of both the
members of the Senate and the Commons and act as an adviser to
parliamentarians investigating possible breaches of the act.
Does this sound like an ethics counsellor?
The report also recommended clear procedures be established
requiring members not to vote on issues in which they have an
interest.
These are a few of the recommendations of the 60-page report
to the Mulroney government in 1992. Nothing has changed. The
hon. Liberal whip was a member of the committee at that time.
Now it appears we will spend more money and send another
group out to do exactly the same thing. Can he remember what
the witnesses said? Can he remember what they told him? I do
not seem to recall ``vote Liberal and we will reinvent the wheel''
in the red book.
It is obvious the Liberals have already attempted to act on a
recommendation of the 1992 report which I mentioned earlier.
They appointed an ethics counsellor. However, they did not
follow through with the full recommendation in their red book.
The ethics counsellor does not answer to Parliament. That is a
sad disgrace. That lacks integrity. That smacks of
misrepresentation.
The Liberals observed this in opposition and subsequently
incorporated the recommendations made to the Tories in their
red ink book. I have no problem with a party picking up the ball
and running with it if it has been fumbled by another party. The
Liberals are very good at borrowing ideas from other parties like
the Reform Party on the budget.
However, I do have a problem when they waste money to play
politics with an issue so they can sell it as their own idea and
initiative.
The groundwork for a code of conduct was laid in the last
Parliament. Surely the issue of ethics has not changed that
dramatically in the past three or four years. The only problem
was that the Mulroney government lacked the intestinal
fortitude to act on any of the recommendations of the code of
conduct.
[Translation]
Mr. Morrison: The more things change, the more they stay
the same.
Mr. Silye: Indeed.
[English]
The Liberals want to be able to use the creation of yet another
special joint committee as ammunition in the next election. The
Prime Minister will stand in front of voters and talk about how
Liberal ideas and initiatives have restored an integrity to the
parliamentary system in Canada as a fait accompli. He will
speak of how they established a special joint committee to study
the code of conduct for MPs and report to both federal Houses.
Finally, the Prime Minister will take great pride in the
establishment of an ethics watchdog to scrutinize the conduct of
Canada's politicians.
People in the real world will think that sounds pretty
impressive. They should think again. The Liberals still will not
concede any control over the scrutiny of their affairs, as we have
witnessed and seen with the conduct of three or four cabinet
ministers, two or three members of Parliament of the Liberal
caucus. Nothing has been done according to the usage of the
ethics counsellor in applying the rules of conduct that currently
exist at all the various levels. It is a scam, a sham and a disgrace.
The ethics watchdog they appointed is a lap-dog with no
teeth. The bottom line is you do not appoint somebody to
scrutinize your activities and those of your colleagues. Where
was the ethics watchdog during any of the three ``Dupuy-gate''
incidents? Nowhere to be found. Where was the ethics watchdog
when the CRTC decision on direct to home satellite TV was
suspiciously overturned by cabinet to the benefit of the Liberal
family compact? The watchdog was nowhere to be found. I think
the Liberals have lost their lapdog.
I truly gained some insight about how the Liberals are
justifying the expenditure of more taxpayer money to create yet
another joint committee on a code of conduct. While in
opposition all these code of conduct bills were falling by the
wayside. The Liberal government whip was on the committee
that reviewed the Tory proposals, in particular its last ditch
effort at a code of conduct, Bill C-116.
In his speech last Monday the Liberal whip referred to the
difficulty he had reviewing Bill C-116. He stated:
I realized that so much time had gone by that some documents were
becoming outdated.
For example, the report of the Parker commission on the dealings of
Sinclair 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.
12504
(1615)
Let me put this into perspective for members of the House. We
had the Liberal whip saying that it was difficult to debate the last
Tory code of conduct bill because too much time had passed
since the Sinclair Stevens fiasco, which started the ethics review
process, to remember the specifics. Reports were dated. Sources
were poor. Details were foggy.
The Sinclair Stevens report was released in 1987. In October
1992, five years later, the Liberal whip wrote an essay in the
Parliamentarian Journal entitled ``Members interests: New
conflict of interest rules for Canadian parliamentarians''. In the
essay he quite clearly referred to and built his argument around
Sinclair Stevens case, the very case he said in the House he
could not remember.
The Liberal whip is using this memory lapse to justify the
creation of a new code of conduct committee at great expense to
Canadian taxpayers. If the Liberals want to send members to
start a code of conduct review from scratch they should at least
be up front about it. They should not feed the Reform Party the
line that they cannot remember what was said in the past or that
old reports are useless when it is quite clear that the member
remembered. In fact his party used portions of the 1992 report in
some of its policies and actions to date.
The rationale used by the government whip to justify the need
for the joint committee reminds me of a child with a perfectly
good bike trying to justify the need for a new bike to his or her
parents.
They say: ``It is too old. It is not working. I do not like it
because it was not my idea. Let's steal this one from the
Conservatives. Let's steal the other one from the Reform Party
and call it ours''. That is what the Liberals are saying about all
the extensive code of conduct initiatives that have previously
been undertaken. They want a new bike. They want a new
special joint committee to show off to Canadian voters. The
speech made on Monday by the Liberal whip is testimony to the
fact.
The Reform Party is saying that in a time of fiscal restraint
there is nothing wrong with using an old bike and the Liberals do
not need to blow taxpayers money on a new one. We do not need
to send politicians across Canada and across the Atlantic to
develop ideas to make politicians more open and accountable. It
can be done right here using the information we already have
and the minds of those who were sent to Ottawa to do more than
collect frequent flyer points, those who were sent here to think,
to act and to accomplish.
If the Liberals are truly serious about scrutinizing the
conduct of MPs, senators and cabinet ministers, the Reform
Party will work with them in the House and in the procedure
and House affairs committee. More important, the
independent ethics counsellor should be able to enforce the
rules without fear of repercussion from his boss, the Prime
Minister of Canada: a watchdog that can bite and not just
bark.
I cannot understand how the government plays games with
words in the English language. It uses sophistry all the time,
sophistry in terms of the budget presentation, sophistry in terms
of Bill C-85, the MPs pension bill. Somehow because salaries
are frozen is justification for $1 million, $2 million and $3
million payouts for life after six years of service and attaining
age 65.
Why do government members not come clean with Canadian
taxpayers, talk about truth and talk about the facts? They said
that the ethics counsellor would be answerable to Parliament.
They breached that. They have not done that. They are talking
about promises in the red book. They are talking about holding
politicians more accountable. The Prime Minister clearly
breached that promise.
Nobody hears from the ethics counsellor. He never says
anything. All we ever hear is the Prime Minister saying: ``I
checked with him and he told me it was okay''. Where does an
ethics counsellor fit into the equation? He is supposed to be
there to make sure, when the minister of heritage writes a letter
to the CRTC advocating that a certain constituent be considered
as a recipient of a radio licence, that it is a breach of his
responsibilities and not in line with what he is supposed to be
doing as a minister of the crown, especially after he has sworn an
oath that he would not interfere or try to influence agencies and
boards that work for the government.
Where is the decision on that by the ethics counsellor? There
was none. Is that fair to the Canadian taxpayer who is paying for
a system that is there structurally but has no teeth to it? That is
not the way the system should work. That is not integrity.
(1620)
Is it integrity to rise in the House and continually shoot
partisan shots at each other that do not have the facts behind
them? All parties are guilty of it to some degree and we should
stop it.
Mrs. Chamberlain: I agree.
Mr. Silye: I have some support from the Liberal benches.
Members of the House of Commons are elected not only to
represent their party platform. When issues come up and they
have to consult with their constituents they should be free to
represent them and if they do not they are kicked out of standing
committees like the three Liberal members were kicked out of
the standing committee on justice because they could not
support gun control. There are lot more, but those are the
courageous ones.
12505
The biggest hoax, the biggest issue in my mind that lacks
integrity is the business of the double standard of a politician. It
disgusts me. I have been in the private sector almost all my life,
with the exception of the last 18 months. I was outside this fish
bowl. I thought I could come here and make a contribution,
make a difference, but it is very difficult.
Now I am inside the fish bowl with everyone else. I am
finding that there are little red fish, little blue fish and little
yellow fish swimming around. The national media is swimming
around with us. We cannot even make a suggestion without it
being distorted by a stupid headline and a stupid commentary.
The people who write the articles are not the ones who create the
headlines.
In question period ministers continually do not answer
questions. Why? They say that it is not answer period, that it is
question period. We are charging up about $1 million per year
per MP in the House, and this is the quality of work we are
delivering to the Canadian taxpayer. We should be ashamed that
we do not pay attention to our responsibilities and to the work
we should be doing here.
There are 200 rookies here. We have an opportunity to change
things. Unfortunately we are the third party. We have already
shown the courage and the intestinal fortitude to do what we said
we would do.
We say the MP pension plan is terrible and overly generous,
and we opted out. We are showing leadership by example. That
is not so with these people opposite. I cannot believe the
stupidity of some Liberal rookies who allow the veterans to talk
them into trough regular: ``For anybody in the previous
government we cannot change that. We have to leave that and
get a 6:1 ratio''.
Then there is trough light: ``We will cut back. We will only
take 3.5 to 1. We will wait until 55 years of age. We will only put
in 9 per cent. We will reduce our accrual rate. We will do all this
because I guess you guys know what you are doing''.
Then there is trough stout where the cabinet ministers can
continually add more to their pensions than anybody else.
Where is the intelligence of those rookie Liberals, some of
whom I have met, some of whom I respect and some of whom I
know are much more intelligent than I am? I know some of them
understand the issue much better than I do and agree with me
privately but do not have the guts to say so publicly.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I know the hon. member
for Calgary Centre has a great mastery of the English language. I
would ask him to withdraw the expression he used-I do not
think I have to repeat it-and to find another one that will be
more appropriate.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, I stand corrected. I apologize for
using the word. It is a slang expression that former football
players used. I would replace it with intestinal fortitude.
Where is the intestinal fortitude to stand up to their
convictions? Why is it that only Reform Party members are
willing to take the heat from the national media to express their
points of view? Why does the national media seem to support
and encourage the status quo when everyone across the country
wants change? They want reform. However, because everyone
in the House is worried about the media hit, they are afraid to
speak their minds. I am embarrassed. I am ashamed. It lacks
integrity.
I do not want to speak to the veterans because they are
coerced. They are finished. They have done it. They are has
beens. They are millionaires. They are ready to collect at any
time. However the rookies in the House have an opportunity to
make a difference. The rookies in the Liberal government have a
distinct opportunity to exert pressure in caucus on cabinet.
Many members of the Liberal caucus are doing so. We read
about them in the paper. They are the ones who are reprimanded
for making democracy live and making the changes that
Canadians want. They are the ones who are getting respect, not
the ones who are following the line with the status quo. We need
more of that. That is what this debate is all about. That is the
point of the motion before us.
(1625)
The Liberals said a bunch of things to get elected. The rhetoric
was up here; the promises were way up here. They issued the red
book in which the implementation of the rules was achievable.
The targets were easy but still a double standard. The pension
plan is still three times as good as those in the private sector but
very achievable. They made some improvements.
Their promises were up here, to get elected. Everybody knows
they campaigned on the pension plan. They were to make it the
same as those in the private sector. They were to address it. What
did they do? They made these little changes.
My point is that everybody in the House, especially the
rookies, can make a difference. If we are to restore integrity to
politicians then we in opposition have to hold the government
accountable. I am holding rookie Liberal members accountable
for their lack of solidarity in encouraging the government and
ministers of the crown to act in accordance with what the
Canadian public wants. They know what I am talking about.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
will comment on a couple of matters.
With respect to the ethics counsellor, the Prime Minister
made a clear statement before the House that regardless of
12506
any positions out there the one person in Canada who is
responsible for the integrity of the government is the Prime
Minister. That is our ethics counsellor and that is the person
to whom Canadians should look. We have an ethics
counsellor-that was an undertaking in the red book-whom
the Prime Minister, as the member knows well, consults.
The member commented on the matter of gun control and the
removal of members from the committee. The member will well
know that the bill at that time was only at second reading. The
purpose of the vote was to move that important bill to
committee. There has been much more consultation, much more
work, much more deliberation and much more debate.
Amendments are forthcoming, as the member also well knows.
When a position comes forth from a government it is
important that government policy be supported by its members.
That is what was asked but it was not forthcoming. I believe the
three members acknowledged that they had not given the
process the full opportunity and that it was not really necessary
for them to stop debate at that point and make a decision. There
was more to be said on behalf of all Canadians.
The essence of the comments of the member concerned the
credibility of the government and the credibility of members of
Parliament. I read with some concern reports of the Reform
Party's immigration critic who travelled to the U.S. capital on
taxpayers dollars to attend a rally for presidential candidate Pat
Buchanan. He was there and shared a platform with people who
were saying that immigrants should be controlled, that
immigrants were creating violent crime, reducing the standards
of education and murdering their children. Here was a Reform
member of Parliament, a critic of the party, sharing a platform
before the public. What would the member say about the
credibility of MPs when things like that go on?
I raise the example of the hon. member who just spoke. In the
House he recommended that members of Parliament should
receive $144,000 a year. Now he is back pedalling. If the
member is concerned about the credibility of members with
regard to their voting record, does he not think that the public
expects the actions and the words of members to reflect the
views and the interests of all Canadians?
I point out to the member that he has made calculations that
would effectively double tax free expense allowances and
somehow end up with a figure of $120,000. I understand the
mechanics. The member has failed to recognize that if expense
reimbursements on a pre tax basis are put in salaries those
expenses will also be deductible for tax purposes. Therefore on
the tax return the gross salary equivalent which the member has
said is $120,000 in fact is only $92,000.
(1630)
The member's credibility on matters of importance such as
tax matters is also in question. The member should try to explain
himself in terms of credibility.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, it sounds like we are back on a budget
debate here.
With respect to the ethics counsellor it interesting when we
point out that the Liberals failed to keep their promise in the red
book. They promised that the ethics counsellor would answer to
Parliament. The fact is he does not and it is to a registrar or
directly to the Prime Minister. The Liberals say the best ethics
counsellor is the Prime Minister and that he really is who the
ethics counsellor is. That is our point. We do not have an ethics
counsellor and the Liberal government promised one.
On the business of the Liberal caucus members who now
claim to have not allowed the process to work, the member
claims they agreed that maybe the process could work. The point
is that a lot of people are saying the gun control bill will not
reduce crime. Registration will not reduce crime. We already
have a registration system in Canada. It has proven that it works
better than the old system. Whatever level of crime we have it
will not change based on registration. Criminals will not register
their guns. A lot of people are saying that. That voice is not
being heard by the Minister of Justice.
In terms of credibility, let us take the member's intervention
here. How credible is it for a member to rise and say that one of
our members, the immigration critic, took a trip to Washington
at taxpayers' expense? That member himself knows there is no
way that a member of Parliament, outside of cabinet, gets
reimbursed for travel outside this country. It is only for travel
within Canada that we get reimbursed.
If the hon. member has facts, I leave it up to him. He made an
allegation. I would like to have him prove that our immigration
critic went to Washington at taxpayers' expense, because that is
the impression he is giving. Travel outside this country is not
reimbursed. He knows that and I know that. That is an allegation
not based on facts. It is just that type of partisan political
comment that I think hurts the House and the reputation of
politicians.
Then the hon. member went on to attack my own credibility.
He charged me with back pedalling on a suggestion I made in the
House. In terms of MP compensation and restructuring MP
compensation which everyone in the House agrees with me
privately that we should be undertaking he said that during
debate last week I suggested that an MP's salary should be
$144,000. I said that and I am not back pedalling on that. It is out
of line for that to be defended by me outside the House. I said
that in the House and I will still say in the House that we have to
restructure MP salaries.
12507
What this whole debate is about is not the amount of
remuneration. It is integrity I am talking about. It is about
honesty and the lack of the will of the government to address the
very issue of MP pensions. It shows the lack of integrity of the
government, the rookies, the veterans and everyone in the House
who supports this MP pension plan. It smacks of trying to
promote something by using the argument that our salaries are
frozen so let us overcompensate here; we are undercompensated
here, so let us overpay there.
The member who asked me the question has an accounting
background. Now that I have everyone's attention by saying
$144,000 in the House, and which went outside the House, let
me say what MPs really get.
Those people who have been here for six years or more get
$64,400. They get $27,000 tax free. If the bill goes through, they
will get three and a half times what they are contributing to their
pension now; $25,000 accrues to their account. That is their
benefit, their asset. They get it when they turn 55 years. That
represents $114,000. In the private sector no one gets $27,000
tax free. Gross that up and they are already getting $140,000.
My point is if someone wants to talk about integrity and have
an open and intelligent discussion on MPs compensation, let us
have it. If someone wants to talk integrity and have an open
discussion on MP pension plans and why they can justify this
obscene amount of money on a fat cat Cadillac pension plan,
three tier, trough regular, trough light, trough stout, then let us
have that discussion. However, to take these cheap shots smacks
exactly of what I am accusing the majority of the members of the
House, because the majority are Liberals. They are the
government. They lack integrity and they should restore it.
(1635)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): That concludes the period
of questions or comments to the hon. member for Calgary
Centre.
Before I recognize the member for North Vancouver, I am
going to take the initiative to raise I believe in part the same
issue he wishes to address, which is the following. Earlier today
I understand the House leader for the Reform Party informed the
House that all members of the Reform Party would be splitting
their time on this motion. I cannot apologize for not being here, I
simply was not here when that was introduced to the House.
The member for Calgary Centre of course with great
enthusiasm and so on, used up the full 20-minute allocation.
In part, I think we would all understand, due to travel
commitments and otherwise, if the House would agree that the
member for North Vancouver would do his 10-minute
intervention now with five minutes for questions or
comments. Then I would go back to the government where we
will get at least two other interventions equally of 10 and five
and there will be a little bit of time before we have to
conclude the matter at 5.30 p.m. Would that meet the approval
of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): There being no
agreement, we will resume debate with the hon. member for
Guelph-Wellington.
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I wish to indicate to the Chair that I will be sharing
my time with the member for Vancouver Quadra.
It is a pleasure for me to rise in this House on behalf of the
people of Guelph-Wellington on the motion introduced by the
member for Kindersley-Lloydminster. I do so not to condemn
the government but to commend its actions to encourage more
openness and accountability to our constituents.
It has been a pleasure for me to have in the past 18 months
sought the advice and counsel of the people of
Guelph-Wellington at every opportunity. They have shared
with me their concerns and suggestions. Through town halls and
surveys, my constituents have expressed their appreciation for
the opportunity to participate in decision making.
I find it ironic that the member rose in this House to speak
about broken promises. The red book was our commitment to
the Canadian people during the last election. We were very much
aware that they were tired of politicians who made promises but
failed to deliver and political parties that relied on short
memories.
We want Canadians to remember what we promised them
because we have kept our promises. That is the legacy of this
government, a government that has reaffirmed the new politics
of promises kept.
The Reform Party likes to speak in the House about promises.
During the last election it offered Canadians its blue sheet, a list
of principles and policies, a list that is rarely if ever mentioned
by Reformers in the House. They like to speak about the red
book but are strangely quiet about the commitment they made to
the Canadian people during the autumn of 1993.
The Reform House leader, like many in his party, talks about
openness in government. Reformers speak of it like they have a
monopoly on consultation and accountability. When the
members of the Reform Party presented their platform to
Canadians during the last election, accountability of elected
representatives was so important that it was listed as number 15
in their statement of 21 principles. They argue that it is the duty
of elected members to override their obligations to their
political party.
12508
However, the platform also states that Reform MPs shall vote
with the Reform Party majority unless a member is instructed to
abstain or vote otherwise by his or her constituents. We have
already seen that despite majority support for gun control, only
one member has risen in support of the government's proposal.
Promises made and promises broken.
Reformers like to share their vision of accountability but do
not necessarily like to live up to it. In their own party assembly
in 1994 for example, 600 constituency resolutions prepared for
debate were reduced finally to 55.
(1640 )
Despite a promise in Reform's blue sheet to protect
law-abiding citizens, one of its members suggested publicly
that Canadians should not comply with gun registration.
Reformers suggest we should break the law.
Despite promises to support a new relationship with
aboriginal people, the very member who is sponsoring this
motion suggested that the aboriginal language should be spoken
briefly, such as the length of time it takes to yawn, pause
between sentences, or to take a drink of water.
Reformers have asked for a minimum age in the pension plan
for members of Parliament and are opposed to double dipping,
but have spoken against the legislation that does just that.
Reformers promised in their blue sheet to reduce expenditures
by lowering the pay of members of Parliament, while one of
their own suggests that salaries increase to $150,000 at a time of
restraint. More promises made and more promises broken.
I have said before that each of us elected in 1993 and our
Liberal colleagues elected in the recent byelections are here
because of circumstances of frustration and anger on behalf of
the Canadian people.
The constituents of Guelph-Wellington were concerned that
too many candidates promised one thing and then would deliver
another. They asked me to ensure they would be consulted
before decisions were made. They wanted to be informed. They
wanted us to act and they wanted to be heard. They did not want
to reach their member of Parliament by dialling and paying for a
1-900 telephone line. Their idea of accountability is their ability
to contact their member of Parliament without incurring a
service charge. For Reformers, accountability has a fee.
The success of the red book does not rest simply with its ideas
and its suggestions. Success has resulted from action by this
Liberal government that was demanded by the people of
Guelph-Wellington and people throughout Canada.
The people of my riding welcomed the red book because for
them it is a yardstick with which they can measure our
success and they remind us of our promises. We are not afraid
of that; we think this is a good thing. As much as the Reform
Party said earlier that it does not like the idea of being
reminded and having accountability, we are not afraid.
The red book is a contract made by the Liberal Party and
affirmed by the people of Canada. The red book has set a legacy
of election promises. It is a legacy in which I am proud to share.
Liberals know the old ways of governing can never be
repeated. But the difference between Liberals and Reformers is
one of substance. Liberals like success. We celebrate good news.
We attempt to uplift Canadians and bring them to the best that
they can be.
Our government was elected because the old way of doom and
gloom was rejected by the Canadian people. Reformers do not
yet know that Canadians like good news and want to share in
prosperity and happiness. In a recent edition of the Calgary
Herald writer Catherine Ford said it best. Speaking of
Reformers she said: ``These are not real cheery, happy people.
Everyone needs a spring break''.
Reformers saw the last election as a chance for change. They
were correct. Canadians demanded and received change. They
reduced the Mulroney-Charest Tories to two seats because they
saw a government that failed to represent their concerns. They
voted for the red book, for good news, for a party that has
historically protected their interests. They wanted openness and
accountability. They wanted not only a spring break but a break
from everything wrong in government.
The government has responded. We are very aware of the
commitments we made to the Canadian people. We know our
contract is fragile, that Canadians are watching and that they
demand the very best and will expect no less, nor should they.
We need no lessons from the other side on accountability. The
blue sheet represents promises made and the red book is
promises kept.
(1645 )
The blue sheet promises reform and the red book delivers a
new Canada. The blue sheet offers a narrow vision, and the red
book includes all Canadians and challenges them to return to
greatness.
Rather than condemning our government, I encourage
Reformers to join us in our efforts to rebuild Canada and to make
our country strong again. I want them to remember and to
celebrate that despite their constant reminders to the contrary,
Canada is the best place in the world to be.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member for Guelph-Wellington tried to point to contradictions
in the speeches made by Reform members.
12509
I will let Reform members take care of themselves. However,
I myself see contradictions between the Liberal Party program,
the famous red book, and some of the things which have taken
place since the election campaign, including free trade. I asked
the same question earlier to another Liberal member, and I was
told-the member's colleague will certainly be able to give me
an answer-that so many changes had been made to the free
trade agreement that, in the end, the Liberals could not follow up
on the matter.
There is also the GST. The Liberals said they would change
and even remove this bad tax on goods and services.
Unfortunately, the GST is still there. There is also the issue of
transfers to the provinces. What did the government do to these
transfers? First, it froze them and then announced, in this year's
budget, a major cut which will take effect next year.
I represent the riding of Lévis and I was told that a summit on
the future of Canada's shipyards would be held during the year.
That was 18 months ago and there is still no summit.
The government can certainly point to the contradictions of
the Reform members of the opposition, but I am talking about
commitments made by the party now in office, when it was in
opposition. There is a definite difference between the
commitments made and the actions taken.
I want to ask the hon. member about another issue. What does
she think of the power of banks as regards the monetary policy,
among other things, given that six of the ten largest contributors
in Canada are banks? I would like to hear her opinion on that
issue. Would she support federal legislation which would limit
political financing to individuals, instead of major
corporations?
[English]
Mrs. Chamberlain: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer
some of the points my hon. colleague brought up.
Number one, the member talked about something achieved. I
submit to members that in the last 18 months we have achieved a
great deal as a party. I am very proud of that. Some things we
certainly have made improvements to. I use the word
improvements because the world continually goes around; it is
not something one just does at one point and never looks at
again, never fixes it or never goes ahead on it.
I will come right out; other parties may want me to hide from
this, but I will not. We have made improvements to the pension
reform. We hope that all members will support that, because it is
the way the Canadian people want this to be, with a minimum
age and no double dipping. We certainly hope that we have
members' support on that.
We are working toward a united Canada, which is very
important to all Canadians. We know that. The member across
the way knows that too.
The member talked about free trade. Certainly that has been a
real plus for the country. That is indisputable with the figures
and facts out there.
The member spoke about the GST, and the reality of that is
that we are working on it. We hope to have a solution to that
soon. It has not been as easy as one might have hoped.
Real change is not easy, so we work toward it. We are proud to
say that we are working hard toward it. We do not hide from that.
There is no reason for us to hide from it.
(1650 )
There have been improvements to the GATT. Infrastructure
has been one of our biggest projects. Every day I am in
Guelph-Wellington I am stopped and told that the architects
have benefited from this and the mayor says that things are
going well. I see the member for
Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe is agreeing. This
infrastructure program has been wonderful; interprovincial
trade, I could go on and on.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to follow my thoughtful colleague, the
member for Guelph-Wellington, and to take part in the debate
on the proposition of the member for
Kindersley-Lloydminster, with whom I have had the pleasure
of serving in committee. He is a thoughtful member and he
usually brings forward in committee very helpful and reasoned
propositions.
He did not acknowledge the source of his motion. Openness
goes back to Mr. Gorbachev and glasnost, which he thought was
a precondition of perestroika, the open debate. Behind that was
also the larger global concept of novie mishlenie, the new
thinking, which says that you can offer hope for constitutional or
other propositions for change, but unless you have some
unifying philosophical principles, some sort of larger vision of
the sort of constitutional society you want to establish, you are
not likely to take these things very far. That was one interesting
thing in the constitutional revolution on Russia with
perestroika, that there was a larger vision.
It is interesting to note that in looking for foreign models they
looked extensively at France, Germany, the United States and
other countries but did not borrow from Canada. The largest
contributions were made through borrowing of German
institutions, which then the supreme court based essentially on
American constitutions but updated to post-war conditions.
What I think is rather sad in terms of our constitutional
development in Canada in the last 30 years has been the
12510
pre-emptiveness of the Quebec presence to the exclusion of
debate on larger constitutional ideas. If we look back to the
golden period of the quiet revolution, in a certain sense its
main ideas were achieved very early, by the 1970s, in the
languages laws, Mr. Bourassa's on the provincial side and the
federal official language law on the federal side. In essence a
large social economic revolution was achieved under the guise
of a language reform, with very profound consequences.
Beyond that the constitutional ideas seem to lapse into the
pursuit of constitutional particularity. If you do not have a larger
pluralistic conception of a constitutional development, those
ideas are not likely to go very far. Through successive failures
they have not managed to go very far.
One problem therefore is the absence of motor ideas. I find the
same problem with the Reform Party approach to constitutional
change, even though there are some reputable right wing think
tanks in the country and there has been a considerable amount of
debate in some of these institutions.
One basic flaw in the Reform approach is the failure to
analyse the contradictions in the proposals and to produce some
sort of operational synthesis. The notion of establishing the
independence of members of Parliament, of loosening the party
ranks, and of encouraging free votes goes a certain way. When
you link it to the concept of consultation and a notion that the
results of the consultation are to be binding on members, you are
riding horses running in different directions.
This is not tabula rasa. It occurs in terms of constitutional
development in the history of many countries. In that cradle of
so many of the contemporary liberal democratic ideas, the
French revolution and the post-revolutionary settlement, you do
find the antonyms-government by assembly, highlighted by
the convention, where everything was debated at great length
and where the convention made all the decisions, and the
plebiscitarian idea, which is ultimately consummated by
Napoleon and others, of submitting it to the people and getting a
legitimate nation by direct popular vote and the legislative
chambers become mere ratifying organs.
(1655 )
In this debate on questions of openness some of the
contradictions have needed to be resolved, and that has not been
done. I think that is a pity.
There has been a failure also to realize the complexities of
governmental decision making today and the constitutional
law making processes. The hon. member for Beaver River, for
whom I have a very great respect, asked a question today that
was very critical of the judiciary and the judiciary's role in
law making. The essence of law making today is the
recognition that there are many roads to Rome in terms of
making laws, that there are many players, and no one of these
has an exclusive role. They are in a very real sense
complementary. There are some aspects of social policy
making that are ripe for judicial law making, because judicial
law making, in essence, is empirically based and problem
oriented. It is a step by step process that proceeds in the
particular fact context of particular cases, solves a particular
problem in that specific context, and then moves on to the
next case. After several of those decisions you begin to get
what is called jurisprudence constante, an evolution of
principles on an empirical basis.
Some other matters clearly are ripe for full popular
consultation. I think one of the things that is very clear today is
that no substantive constitutional change can be achieved in the
future in Canada without submission to the constituent
processes, without submission to popular vote. I think this is the
irrevocable lesson of Charlottetown. However, it would be a
mistake to believe that every aspect of social policy and every
fine piece of legislation should go that way. There is a
parliamentary role.
I think it would have been helpful in terms of the opposition
motion today, of the second opposition party, to have had some
recognition of the manifold nature of the law making process.
There are some aspects that are ripe for judicial action, some for
legislative action in the pure sense, and still others that might be
left to popular consultation. Perhaps there should be some
offering of criteria for deciding which of these fronts to move
on.
In general I felt that the hon. member for Beaver River was on
the wrong track today in her particular criticism. That probably
was the sort of area where we could have the trial and error
judicial process. Every judicial decision is subject to appeal.
There is a discretionary issue for attorneys general and justice
ministers, and one can expect, with the proper exercise of the
executive process and recognizing that it does not conflict with
the legislative process, that judge and company operate
together, legislature and executive, and that decisions of this
sort, if they are regarded as retrograde by some elements of the
community, can be appealed. There are interest groups, more
developed in the United States, but some of them in Canada, that
have taken this a considerable way in terms of the investigation
and bringing cases before the courts.
I think this has been a helpful debate. I thought that one of the
questions relating to political parties, whether they should be
constitutionalized, was a timely question. I hope there will be
occasions in the present Parliament to consider that in some
detail. I thank the hon. member opposite who raised the
question.
12511
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, at the
beginning of his speech, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra
spoke of the lack of coherence in the Reformers' program. What
took me a little aback, coming from him was that, without any
prodding, he spoke of Canada's constitutional development over
the past 30 years. I realize that the riding of Vancouver Quadra is
quite distant from mine, Lévis, but I must say that one cannot
truly talk about constitutional development over the past 30
years because there has been none. All of the constitutional
conferences ended in failure and, in particular, I would like to
remind him that the first version of the Meech Lake accord,
which was signed by 11 premiers, was called into question
because, following elections in various provinces, three Liberal
premiers refused to respect the accord.
(1700)
Given that the tone of the hon. member's speech would
suggest that he is very open to consultation, relating back to the
first point he made, which was the Reformers' lack of a coherent
program, I would like him to explain to us the coherent program
being followed by the Liberal government concerning the
constitution.
Mr. McWhinney: Mr. Speaker, I agree that Vancouver
Quadra is far removed from the centre of Canada, but I myself
am certainly not far removed from this debate.
I acted as a special constitutional adviser to various premiers
of Quebec, Ontario and other players in the constitutional game,
but I repeat that in those years, the debate concentrated on
certain details, while a broader constitutional vision was
lacking. Canada probably needed a de Gaulle instead of officials
discussing the finer points of a constitutional proposal.
As for what the future holds in store, once the referendum is
behind us, and we are very optimistic that everything will be
over with before the end of this year, we can then resume
constitutional talks without the limitations of pursuing
something that was clearly rejected by the Canadian people,
including Quebec, in the referendum on the Charlottetown
accord in 1993.
[English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.) Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member for Vancouver Quadra mentioned in his speech
that he thought that I, the member for Beaver River, was off base
today in my question. In terms of openness in government and
some of the opinions that he has just shared, could he explain to
me what he was talking about earlier in his speech where he
assumed that courts and the provincial and federal governments
are the people that have these avenues?
Although provincial governments have the jurisdiction to
administer and process adoptions, as he was referring to, they
have absolutely no business, no jurisdiction and no right in
either the federal, provincial or court system to redefine family.
In the member's expert opinion, could he explain to me how I
am so off base when I asked the minister earlier about legislators
making the law and courts interpreting the law. Federally and
provincially it looks as though the courts are actually making
the laws.
Mr. McWhinney: Mr. Speaker, I did not use the phrase off
base with the hon. member. I have a great respect for the hon.
member. It seemed to me that her question neglected to include
the notion that lawmaking is not limited to legislators alone, that
in modern society the judiciary, the executive and others partake
in it.
Second, judicial lawmaking is particularly attuned to certain
types of social problems because of the case by case
development.
(1705 )
The decision the hon. member mentioned this morning is
subject to appeal. In the normal process a good justice minister
would consider that possibility.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, since
the hon. member opposite spent so much time talking about the
past, perhaps I will start my speech today with a quote from
Edmund Burke dating back to 1774. The Vancouver Sun used
this quote on May 21, 1994 to criticize the electronic
referendum on the Young Offenders Act that I ran in my riding
of North Vancouver.
Edmund Burke said:
Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and
he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
Mr. Burke made this statement more than 220 years ago, long
before the information age. The level of education then was
probably pretty low and it probably would have been doing a
disservice to constituents to take their opinions to Parliament. In
the 1990s people are well educated and well informed. A
modification of Mr. Burke's statement is in order.
I would like to see modern politicians saying: ``Your
representative owes you not his industry only, but also his
commitment to alert you to the affairs of government that affect
you so that you may become informed and so that you may
instruct him how to represent you''.
12512
The problem is that even if every member in the House agreed
that his or her first duty is to represent his or her constituents, we
would still have to overcome the hurdle of repressive party
discipline that we have already seen illustrated in recent times.
We cannot change our present, benevolent dictatorship into real
democracy until we come to grips with that situation.
When I was in my late teens and early 20s I belonged to the
Young Nationals in New Zealand. I worked at many elections,
helping really good candidates to get elected to go to Wellington
for which members can read Ottawa. I really hoped they would
make a difference.
It was disappointing to me to find that excellent candidates
got elected but as soon as they got to Wellington, they were
unable to represent their constituents' views. They had to toe the
party line. They never voted against the party under any
circumstances. At the very least, the strongest statement any of
them could make was simply to abstain.
In those olden days there were no computers or fax machines
or CNN. Governments pretty well controlled what we knew
about the world. Even then, I dreamed of a day when voters
would be able to have a much greater say in the decision making
of their governments.
We have reached a point in time now when the information
age has made it possible for my dream to become reality. We are
on the verge of a revolution in democracy, despite the
unwillingness of the Prime Minister to see the writing on the
wall.
Frankly I doubt whether our parliamentary system can survive
the information age in its present form. It must adapt and change
more quickly than it has ever done in history to cope with the
new power each of us will have as voters. Reading the
precedents from Beauchesne the way the government whip often
does is going to have less and less relevance in the future.
I can recommend to members a comedy that appears on
television on Sunday nights on The women's network. It is
called ``No Job for a Lady''. It is based on the experiences of a
rookie woman MP in England. Whilst the program is pretty
funny, it is a fairly accurate portrayal of what happens in this
place.
The writers obviously have a good knowledge of the workings
of the House of Commons. They have no difficulty showing
viewers that committee meetings and travel junkets have very
little use other than to keep MPs busy between votes. They make
no bones about the fact that the system is completely controlled
by the Prime Minister and that the wishes of the voters are
irrelevant to the process.
There is growing awareness that the present system is
becoming less and less relevant in modern times. Let me read a
segment from an article written for the Financial Post recently
by Rafe Mair, a talk show host on radio in Vancouver:
Surely we must now all agree that the system the Fathers of Confederation
devised of pasting a parliamentary government on to a federal system no
longer suits us and our present difficulties. Our system, with victory to the
``first past the post,'' means a minority becomes an official majority which
can do as it pleases for five years. It usually oppresses the majority and
certainly oppresses all minorities such as B.C. and Alberta, a clear lesson of
the election of 1993-
The main argument against changing our system is that it will result in
weak governments. If by ``weak'' it is meant that the prime minister will not
have his way unless the Commons, voting freely, agrees, then I will take weak
government. Surely the collective wisdom of all MPs and their leaders is
greater than that of a caucus which must agree or lose the perks of power-
For under our system, power is from the top down. The party in power
must, to stay in power, stay united no matter how bad things get. The party
leader becomes a dictator-for it is he who appoints cabinet ministers and
parliamentary secretaries. He controls the patronage. Every backbencher is
held in check by his own ambition to get into cabinet; each cabinet minister is
held in check by his desire to stay there.
If Chrétien proves incapable of handling our crisis how do we change
him?-He can't be relieved of office unless the majority of Liberal MPs
choose to share power, most unlikely given the track record of majority
governments in Canada.
The leader to save Canada from its perils may be sitting in the present
Parliament-it might even be the Preston Manning or Jean Charest-but we
will never know unless the centrally dominated Liberal caucus wants it to
happen. And it is an immutable political law-
(1710)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Szabo): I would remind the
member to refer to members in the House by their riding and not
by their name.
Mr. White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker, I was quoting
from a newspaper article. I assumed it was okay for me to use
names in that case, but I will avoid doing so in future.
Canada, in its time of great peril, should not be hostage to an outdated
system. Clearly, confidence in the ability of our present setup to settle the
great questions which face us is confidence badly misplaced.
That was quite a long article but I thought it was very
worthwhile reading to the House because Rafe Mair made some
very good points. The Prime Minister will have to face the fact
that the system is in the process of change.
Parliamentary democracies around the world are looking for
new ways to be more democratic. Thirty years of experience
under the old system are not going to account for anything in the
information age. In New Zealand in late 1993 the government
passed the citizens' initiative and referendum act. New
Zealand's citizens now have the right to start initiatives and
control referenda on the ballot.
In the 18 months or so since the implementation of the act a
number of initiatives have been started. However in almost
12513
every case, as soon as the initiative was registered with
sufficient signatures, the government reacted, addressed the
problem and the initiatives were subsequently taken off the
ballot.
We have always been told that initiative and referenda are
incompatible with parliamentary style democracy, but here is
New Zealand proving it works. The real reason we do not have
initiatives and referenda in Canada is because the Prime
Minister does not want to give up the power he has to control
what happens in this place.
Past governments have been no better. Twice the previous
government passed a gag law to try to keep people quiet at
election time. Twice the gag laws were struck down but the
government still chose to appeal the decision of the Court of
Queen's Bench in Alberta in an attempt to reimpose the gag law
on free speech.
On May 8 the appeal was heard in Calgary. To refresh
members' memories, the Alberta Court of Appeal reserved
judgment after only one day of hearings on the case. On June 25,
1993, Justice MacLeod of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench
struck down several sections of the Canada Elections Act which
restricted expenditures by individuals to only $1,000 and parties
could spend up to $10 million or whatever they wanted.
It was clear from the reaction of the justices, particularly
Justice Kerans, that the justices had no patience for the
government's appeal. It looks fairly certain they will overturn
the government's position and restore free speech, thank
goodness.
For the moment the Prime Minister still has power over his
MPs but sooner or later, little by little he is going to have to give
it up. I condemn the government for its failure to keep its red ink
book promise to make the government more open and to permit
MPs to be more accountable to their constituents.
Besides all of that, the Deputy Prime Minister promised to
resign if the GST was not gone within one year of the election
and she still has not done it.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
interested that he went back to Edmund Burke. He would have
Parliament reduced to nothing more than having us be voting
machines. We could have a questionnaire every night, push a
button and there would be no need for the House to exist. There
will be no need to study in detail various bills.
(1715)
When I look at the motion the inference is members of the
Liberal Party are not given more freedom. I remind the
member that if he were to examine the record in the House he
would notice there is a lot more divergence in voting among
the members of the Liberal Party, the government side, than
there is among members of the Reform Party.
Mr. Abbott: On government bills?
Mr. Telegdi: Examine the record. When we look at Reformers
for the most part they vote as a block. It is borne out by
examining the records of the House.
I point that out to the members. I think they are being
hypocritical and they do not examine the record. They try to say
they represent something they do not.
I applaud two members of the Reform Party who actually did
what they said they would do which was represent their
constituents' wishes in terms of legislation. It relates to gun
control. I applaud the actions of the member for Edmonton
Southwest as well as a member from Calgary who stood up and
represented the wishes of their constituents.
How can the Reform Party, whose central campaign was
representing the wishes of its constituents, do such a flip-flop
and ignore the wishes of its constituents when it comes to the
gun legislation or legislation supported by law enforcement
officers, by chiefs of police, and something that is needed for
law and order? Not only do its members not support that, they
are preaching civil disobedience against it.
Could the member inform me why they do not follow the
wishes of their constituents on the gun legislation?
Mr. White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker, I thank the
member for his questions.
When it is obvious to any clear thinking person that we should
vote down a bill on the other side it is not the least bit surprising
that 52 clear thinking Reformers would vote against it.
The member brings up all the usual red herrings that MPs
would become voting machines and so on. In my riding there
have been in the last year only two really controversial issues
which I have taken back to my constituents. I have done
comprehensive surveys and even a scientific survey which I am
currently undergoing with the gun control bill. I am perfectly
satisfied that within my caucus members are representing their
ridings. There is no problem with that at all.
These red herrings about how we would become voting
machines are nonsense. New Zealand has proven with its
initiative and referendum act MPs do not become voting
machines if you give people more power. I have proved it in my
riding.
Last year I overturned a grant for a women's monument
project in Vancouver. The people who were organizing that
were really upset. Two of them called me on a conference call
and said: ``We will make sure we get rid of you at the next
election''. I said: ``Please, do not wait until the next election.
If you can get 15 per cent of the voters in this riding to sign a
petition to say I am not representing the majority, I will
resign''. They asked if they could get that in writing. I said
yes. I put it in writing. To this day I have not seen one
signature.
12514
Democracy is powerful but we have to give power to the
majority. We have to give power to the people. That is what
Reform is attempting to do. It does not mean we turn into voting
machines. It simply means we give a Canada to people built
the way they want it to be instead of built the way the elite want
it to be.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to follow my hon. colleague. I agree with
what he had to say.
It is helpful to have this type of motion presented every now
and then for a reality check to see if anything has changed in
Parliament.
(1720 )
I will speak today about parliamentary reform. When we first
arrived here in the cold of the winter 1993-94, I took on the
responsibility of chairing the group in my party particularly
interested in parliamentary reform. Except for the members for
Lethbridge and Beaver River, we were all pretty new at this and
we felt that with a little change here and there and a slight move
parliamentary rules could probably be changed quite easily.
We became quick learners, realizing rules and traditions
grown up over many years were not so easily changed. I admit in
some instance we became aware of the need for these rules and
why they should be left alone.
If life is a great learning experience, parliamentary life is at
least doubly so. Two things happened very early in this
Parliament that led me to believe real change was possible. The
first was the introduction and subsequent adoption of the
government motion which directed the procedure and House
affairs committee to study a whole range of matters dealing with
reform.
The motion referred to freer voting, sending bills to
committee prior to second reading, allowing committees to draft
bills, referendums, recall and other methods by which
backbenchers or private members could become more involved
in the policy influencing process.
The second matter that gave me hope was the adoption of my
private members' Motion No. 89. During the third hour of
debate it was amended by the government to read:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should continue to
increasingly permit members of the House of Commons to fully represent
constituents' views on the government's legislative program and spending
plans by adopting the position that the defeat of any government measure,
including a spending measure, shall not automatically mean the defeat of the
government unless followed by the adoption of a formal motion.
Notice it does not specify Private Members' Business. It
was adopted unanimously. This was the setting for real
change, a committee ably chaired by the member for Kingston
and the Islands and a motion advanced by an opposition MP
from the Reform Party calling for freer voting adopted
unanimously by the House of Commons. This was the hope.
Let us look at the reality.
To be fair to the members on the government side, we have
seen some change, and one measure I proposed as a private
members' bill was the beneficiary of this changed attitude. Bill
C-232, a bill to give grandparents right of access to
grandchildren, passed through the House a week ago and was
sent to the justice committee for study.
The bill had been kicking around Parliament in one form or
another for more than 10 years and never came this far. I have a
changed attitude towards Private Members' Business to thank
for at least getting the bill through second reading and off to
committee. Private Members' Business does seem to be one
avenue where the government is attempting to make changes.
In my discussions with members opposite regarding whether
they would support the bill, I was continuously assured free
votes were allowed on private members' bills. It would seem
from the number of private members' bills now in committee
this is true.
However, this is only the first very tentative step along the
way to true freer voting in Parliament. It is almost the
government saying when it really does not matter all that much,
backbenchers are free to vote as they please. I believe it is time
we moved this beyond the first step and started to apply freer
voting to government bills as well.
We have had with Bill C-68 first hand experience with
punishment being handed out to those on the government side
who dared to vote against the party line.
It was the opinion of those involved in the writing of the
McGrath report in 1985 and those who sat on the House
management committee in 1993 that dissent should be allowed
to be expressed without fear of retaliation by the leadership of
the political party concerned. Both groups believed the
expression of dissent would make the House a healthier place.
I have to endorse that. It would be a healthier place. It would
be a place where members who felt very strongly about an issue
would not have to vote the party line and could do so without
fear of retribution.
What happened? We need only to look at the voting patterns in
other Parliaments similar to ours to realize the confidence
convention has been relaxed and the sun still rises in the east
every day and governments have not crumbled.
Some members in the House on the government side today
worked on the McGrath report. What happened? The reality of
the day seems to be while in opposition they protest loudly but
when the people of Canada give the opposition a mandate to do
everything it promised to do, suddenly it is no longer the
champion of democracy.
12515
(1725 )
As my fellow Reform member for Calgary North reminded us
all earlier, democracy has to be looked after. It has to be
protected. Sadly in the House we do not have rule by the people,
we have rule by the party. She was quite right.
It appears party discipline is as strong as ever. When
constituents clearly tell their MP how they feel on an issue that
MP is not allowed to vote to represent a democracy. Rather, he or
she is punished if they have the intestinal fortitude to rise in the
House and truly represent their constituents, just for keeping
their promises to their constituents.
Something is wrong. We have 295 MPs but we do not have
democracy. It is a sign of strength to allow dissent to be
expressed. It is not a sign of weakness or of weak leadership.
Professor Philip Morton, an academic in Great Britain who
has devoted a great deal of study to this issue of freer voting or
cross-party voting, has concluded this phenomenon, as he calls
it, has led to a growing awareness of what can be achieved by
such action by backbenchers. The lack of retribution or
punishment of members who vote against the party line in Great
Britain, Australia and New Zealand has produced a change in
attitude on the part of many MPs as they now felt their views
mattered and they were really participating in the policy
process.
The process had been expanded beyond the cabinet table. I say
to those like Professor Robert Jackson of Carleton University
who oppose freer voting on the grounds they would lead to
chaos, nonsense. We are not advocating free votes on every
piece of legislation. We are simply advocating limited
expressions of dissent from the party line be allowed to take
place without fear of repercussions from the party leadership.
What happened in the House recently on Bill C-68 showed us
very clearly on the government side-and let us be honest and
truthful about this-it is not a fact yet. It is something I hope
will come in the House but at this time it is not a fact that
members of the government can vote according to the wishes of
their constituents without severe repercussions. That is a sad
state of affairs.
All this bickering back and forth, all these smart, snide
remarks will not change the facts or the truth. Let us stop with
the silliness and start dealing with the truth. It is a fact that
happened in the House.
I spent many years teaching and I tried to tell students one
thing. When one debates one does not make smart cracks or
snide remarks to people; one deals with facts. When students
debated in competition in British Columbia, which is the only
experience I have to go on, judges and their peers sat in the
back row. If a student were to ever make a point without fact
there was a stroke right across the card. That student was
never able to win in points on debate. I am really sorry
because I thought when we reached this level we would see
people really using wisdom and experience.
I have seen some excellent debaters in the House. I am always
so sorry when I see this cheap shot being taken. I hope we can
start remembering to treat each other more with respect in the
House and debate as the House is worthy.
We would like to see the intent of Motion No. 89 adopted
unanimously by the House to be applied to government bills. I
also congratulate those on the other side who voted against the
party line on Bill C-68, but definitely not because they went
against the party line. They allowed the wishes of their
constituents to be expressed in Parliament at great personal risk
to their political futures. They are to be congratulated, not
condemned. They should remember they can always find an
ideological home right here. I think we still have some spare
seats.
Moving on to other aspects of reform, committees, two in
particular, have been allowed to draft bills. One bill deals with
electoral boundaries and the other with lobbying.
We on this side are concerned that at least with regard to the
lobbying bill it was ultimately drafted to corresponded with
instructions from either the Prime Minister's office or the privy
council office. However, it seems we have made a start in this
area, albeit tentative, and we should do much more with regard
to committees drafting legislation. No one knows better than I
how much time the drafting of legislation takes and then
securing support for the legislation, but we owe it to our
constituents to take this time.
Will legislation be coming forward to allow for referendums
to be of help on moral issues such as physician assisted suicide?
What about the recall of members of Parliament who are not
doing their jobs? What about legislation to provide for citizens
initiatives?
I hope I am not wrong, but I believe to effect these changes we
will have to change places with the political party opposite.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 5.30 p.m., it is my
duty to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 81 the
proceedings on the motion have expired.
The House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
12516