Paul Forseth

[Financial Administration Act, October 26th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the nice sounding phrases of the minister today. He outlines great intent but the public service also has to understand that the Conservatives are the friends of the public servants, unlike the stories they are often told at the water cooler.

We certainly believe in a non-partisan, very professional and dedicated public service that serves all Canadians beyond politics. It also has been a commitment of our party historically to compliment the government when it appears to go in the right direction. However, if we complain we then have to come up with a constructive alternative.

Although at first blush I enjoyed what the minister had to say, we must look at the record of political interference where the issue of the Public Service Commission and proper oversight has been intervened by Liberal bad habits.

In view of all of the great things the minister has said today, will he be prepared to defend the non-partisan basis of the public service, especially in view of some of the past behaviour of some of the scandals that have been uncovered? We would attribute that not to a bad public service, but from higher up political interference. Will he defend the public service from that political interference?

[Speech from the Throne, October 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard the throne speech. Where are the big ideas to inspire a nation? Where is the vision to elevate this country to new levels of citizen involvement?

My former high school teacher and political mentor, Mr. Morrison McVea in New Westminster, still warms to the vision of a more democratic Canada. Some day Canada might become mature enough to have a full participatory democracy. These are concepts that he has worked for since the earliest days of his teaching career and for which he had special, brief hope during the reform party days of this chamber.

Mrs. Dorothy Tompson at 88 years, in New Westminster, British Columbia watches the parliamentary channel and hopes for a full accountable democracy for the next generation.

Canada needs a springtime of ideas as democracy should not be a distant season.

In view of the collaborative vote yesterday, we will help the Liberals in their winter of discontent with empowering possibilities of a Conservative springtime of ideas.

[Supply, May 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, does the member have any comments on the current court case winding through various levels of the courts? The case has to do with a charter challenge on the basis of discrimination and equality that attacks the principle that denies me purchasing services from a clinic in Vancouver where Canadians are being serviced by ICBC, accident victims or workman's compensation, and says that I cannot do that, which means I would have to drive to Bellingham, an hour south, and buy that service.

[Business of the House, April 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, how many times have we risen in the House and asked the government what it would have on its legislative calendar for the coming week and into the next week?

I think all Canadians desire to know if the government has any legislative agenda at all.

[Workplace Psychological Harassment Prevention Act, April 28th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-451 is an act to prevent psychological harassment in the workplace and to amend the Canada Labour Code. Bill C-451 addresses something very real. Harassment in the workplace is an aspect of wrongdoing in the workplace and/or an aspect of violence in the workplace or its precursor.

The sentiments of the bill are correct. That is why there has been a public service policy for over 20 years that guides the conduct of public employees about harassment between workers, or within a hierarchy, or in a supervisory relationship. The problem comes from assessing whether in the public service the current policies are working or if a formal regime of reporting, examination and remediation is necessary as a distinct system beyond and separate from the range of normal activity of a supervisor and employee relationship.

It is the normal duty of management to create and maintain a safe, reasonable work environment, not only physically but also in the psychological sense. The workplace should not be toxic or dangerous in real terms of physical harm or in a psychological sense. This is the business of personnel administration and the wise management of human resources, but the employer and the employee must both have obligations.

Currently, the situation is that the department deputy head or deputy minister has the main responsibility to deal with the matter of harassment in the workplace. The deputy head may call upon the Public Service Commission to investigate or suggest solutions, or the deputy head may go outside to psychological specialists as contractors who are completely independent. These reports then come back to the deputy head and it is management's responsibility for remediation.

The present private member's bill is within the spirit of the present government policy, but it also sets out a formal regime and makes the Public Service Commission the recipient of reports, the investigator and the one to direct remediation. That particular part may be a mistake and I did try to speak to the Public Service Commission today about that.

However, I like other aspects of the bill that spell out what harassment is and the penalties involved if it is not dealt with. The private member's bill raises the issue of the importance of the subject. The problem around harassment in the workplace, which is most often between co-workers, is likely much more common than the matter that we are dealing with in Bill C-25, which is a regime for reporting an administrative wrongdoing. We are developing a proper regime for reporting wrongdoing. The government's Bill C-25 is currently before the House.

That is where there may be a synergy here. This private member's bill is not going pass, we know that, but the topic is correct. Perhaps what could be done is to expand the definition of wrongdoing within Bill C-25.

Clause 8 of Bill C-25 defines wrongdoing. Of course it talks about the misuse of public funds or a public asset, but it also talks about an act or omission that creates a substantial and specific danger to the life, health or safety of persons or to the environment, or a serious breach of a code of conduct established under clauses 5 and 6 of the bill and the taking of a reprisal. That really involves what we are talking about, which is harassment in the workplace.

Clause 8(d) is of special interest, where the health is mentioned and where harassment affects both mental and physical health. It may now already be covered by Bill C-25. Perhaps the definition in this clause could include an expanded definition taken from Bill C-451 so that there is a broader aspect of wrongdoing to be dealt with appropriately within the formal regime of reporting, investigating, remediating and providing a fair process and appropriate confidentiality that is envisioned in Bill C-25.

Bill C-451 on page 2 defines for its purposes psychological harassment. I want to briefly put that into the record. It states:

--any vexatious behaviour in the form of hostile, inappropriate and unwanted conduct, verbal comments, actions or gestures that affects an employee’s dignity or psychological or physical integrity and that results in a harmful workplace for the employee; and

(b) any abuse of authority, including intimidation, threats--

It defines that even a single incident of such behaviour that has a lasting and harmful effect on an employee also constitutes psychological harassment.

There is an extensive definition and I am sure there has been some research on that. It may also parallel some legislation in Quebec.

I could envision that elements of this definition perhaps could be included in Bill C-25 where it talks in the definition in clause 8(d) about an act or omission that creates a substantial or specific danger to the life, health or safety of persons or to the environment; or, in clause 8(e) where it talks about the code of conduct which in the public service we already have this code of conduct; or clause 8(f), taking reprisal against a public servant.

There is a parallel here. There is an opportunity for the bill's sponsor to do the necessary background research and prepare a convincing brief. She could bring it to the government operations and estimates committee to see if the members now seized with that topic can be convinced to expand Bill C-25 to give effect to the spirit of Bill C-451.

The government had a policy about reporting wrongdoing which I called a memo policy out of the Treasury Board. It really did not work very well because few public employees had confidence in it. The government brought forward stand-alone legislation to create a defined regime of reporting wrongdoing called Bill C-25. Similarly, we have a 20 year old policy now on harassment in the workplace which is in effect as a memo policy. The member, through her private member's bill, is saying that this harassment policy is not good enough and it also needs a formal regime.

I do not think we should have two separate formal regimes, one for administrative wrongdoing and another for harassment of psychological wrongdoing. It could even be argued that Bill C-25 fully accommodates already the intents of private member's Bill C-451. I say to bring the two together. Maybe that is the way to go, and have the government examine the additions within Bill C-451 and incorporate them into Bill C-25.

There is a precedent for this. I had this done with my own private member's bill relating to the Bankruptcy Act. My private member's bill went through all of the barriers and it was made a votable bill. It amended the discharged list section of the Bankruptcy Act. Later on the government brought in a comprehensive system-wide bill to revamp the whole thick piece of legislation which was a much broader, comprehensive piece of legislation.

I immediately checked the government bill in the specific part that related to my private member's bill. My private member's bill, because it had been thoroughly researched and discussed in that narrow area, was much better than the government version of that particular section. I began to negotiate with the minister. The minister of the day agreed and incorporated my private member's bill as the government provision. I withdrew my bill and went to committee and moved the motion as if it were a government motion. Therefore, the law of the land today in the Bankruptcy Act is my private member's bill as part of the government bill. Synergy can happen where we bring things together.

Perhaps there is something here as well. The committee has been charged with looking at Bill C-25 before second reading. Therefore, it is certainly within the latitude and purview of the government operations and estimates committee to make those kinds of adjustments if it sees fit.

Certainly psychological harassment in the workplace is wrong. Unfortunately, it is all too common, perhaps most often between workers rather than from management in a supervised relationship. Harassment is wrongdoing. There may be an opportunity here to bring matters together.

Everyone seems to agree on the legitimacy of the subject. It is indeed part of the public service policy now. If Bill C-25 can be expanded in a way to actually have the spirit of Bill C-451 put into the law, then I am certainly willing to explore it and give it a most sympathetic ear if it comes to committee.

It is up to the member to do the homework and try to have Bill C-25 meet as much of what is in the spirit of Bill C-451. The member should make the brief, do the homework and come to committee. As the vice-chair of the government operations and estimates committee, I will encourage the member to do so. I promise that the member will have a sympathetic ear from our side.

[Supply, April 27th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, we know the axiom that change begins with the recognition that a problem exists. The fundamental problem with the Liberal government is it is in denial. That is why it resists change and it resists modernization unless it is dragged there. That is why in concert we have heard all these specious arguments today.

Within our fixed election proposal, it is still possible for the Prime Minister and the government on their own initiative to consult the people and call an election because of a national controversy where perhaps they need a mandate, for example, to change the Constitution or deal with a separating province, and they are looking for a national resolve on a particular problem. The government on its own can decide to call an election on an issue, or the opposite, it may lose the confidence of the House and may be defeated.

That still would not interfere with our proposal for fixed election dates. The clock simply would be reset and by resolution of the House we could again come up with a predetermined date through consultation of the parties.

It is very important to provide continuity, sameness and predictability in this process. It is not just for parliamentarians to deal among themselves. The fundamental point that I have made is it sends a very strong signal to the economy upon which everything else runs.

[Supply, April 27th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I have advocated in the House some version of three strikes and you are out, but that is related to criminal offences. However, it is nice to know that someone thinks we hit a home run.

We must be very serious about looking at the academic literature. We must seriously consider an issue that is deceptively simple, yet has broad support and really is within the temper of the times, that a fixed election date within our Canadian Parliament is the right thing to do. We are very concerned about our economy and the rapid pace of the turnover of plans and the stock market. If anything, beyond the variances of this House, the stability that it could provide to the Canadian economy would be immeasurable. It would be a tremendous benefit.

We know that tax policy and policy around not having a deficit budget, what surpluses are and all the rules and regulations around corporate taxation are all related to the electoral cycle and the mandate of the government. The welfare of individual Canadians in their pocketbook is directly tied and can be seen as a ripple effect on having fixed election dates in our country.

There is a very real direct economic consideration for every Canadian. It is not just an academic exercise for the House to consider on its own. The economic consequences are tremendous. That is why among many other reasons, I am recommending and our party is fundamentally committed to imposing fixed election dates.

[Supply, April 27th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the motion before us today reads:

That, in the opinion of this House, there being a serious democratic deficit in Canada, particularly in the domination of the executive over the House of Commons by providing to the Prime Minister the sole political prerogative to determine when Parliament should be dissolved for the purposes of a general election;

That, unless the Government loses the confidence of the House, general elections should be held on fixed dates; and

That the Government should bring in measures to establish fixed election dates to be held on the third Monday of the month that is four years after the month in which the polling day for the most recently held general election fell.

The motion was then amended.

A fixed election date modification to the Canadian parliamentary system is a good step to take. It is simple to implement and has no high cost implications. It certainly would help everyone, including the private sector, to plan our national activities, and help bring respect to the process of Canadian governance. The present unseemly guessing game is unworthy of our great country.

For the third time in less than seven years, Canadians are facing the prospect of another federal election, just because the Prime Minister has mused about it. The Liberals say that the people are entitled to vote because the party has changed leaders. My Conservative Party of Canada, which recently elected our leader by a national democratic vote rather than by a process of insider takeover, Liberal style, prefers a vote in the fall for a more professional approach. My preferred date for voting is perhaps we could say the third Monday in June every four years.

We have been harsh in our criticisms of the prospect of an election less than four years into the Liberals' mandate as a cynical ploy to win another election. It is unacceptable for the Prime Minister to play with the country in this fashion for his personal advantage. This is not the kingly reign of his majesty Martin the first.

Voters rightly question why we continue to have a system that allows, what are clearly political considerations, to dictate the setting of the date of federal elections.

The Prime Minister may prefer a new mandate but under our system of government he does not need one. Canadians voted in November 2000 for a political party, not for a particular prime minister.

The Constitution requires that no House of Commons or legislature continue for longer than five years after the return of the writ from the previous election.

The Prime Minister may even genuinely believe that Canadians want an election, although this seems unlikely given that most people head to the polls with real enthusiasm only when they are on a mission to throw the bums out.

The only real push for an election comes from the Liberals who want an opportunity to continue their choke hold on government for another term. Now that the polls have changed, the whole business of the country in Liberal eyes may change, and this should not be so.

In the past, other government have seized on the same discretion on when to call an election to stay in power, long after they have worn out their welcome with the voters.

I say, enough. Certainly we can demand better and expect a higher standard of democracy for Canada.

There is no good reason why political parties should not be able to plan their affairs around a pre-determined calendar. The macro-economy would also benefit from the ability to plan around government budgets and fiscal predictability.

Over the past elections there has been a steady decline in the voter turnout in Canada. Setting a fixed election date would be a simple start to the important process of reforming our electoral system so more Canadians can feel there is a reason to vote.

Nevertheless, the Prime Minister's preference for the status quo is hardly surprising. Any incumbent leader would be loath to give up his right to call an election at a time that best suits the party. Any head of government would be reluctant to part with one of the longstanding perks of power, and we know the Liberals will do anything for power. Nevertheless, for the sake of the nation, a change would be a good thing to do.

If Canada were on a four year election cycle, the Prime Minister would not be dithering over whether to drop the writ this spring. His government would not be marking time, with no significant legislation before the House of Commons. His ministers would not be testing the political winds, recycling old spending announcements and making tentative, short term plans. MPs would not be making their tearful farewell speeches in the House.

He should not be parachuting candidates, like he plans in my riding, for that is an insult to party members and the democratic process.

It should have been clear when the Prime Minister was sworn in last December that he had a short set limit of months to govern before seeking a new mandate. He could have set his agenda accordingly and the nation could have developed a better mindset about the future vision for the country.

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time.

The Liberals would still be on a pre-election footing of course. They would still be nervously watching the polls. They would still be struggling to extricate themselves from the ad scam scandal but they would also have the pressure to chalk up a few solid accomplishments before facing the voters and Canadians would have a better record upon which to judge.

Defenders of the British parliamentary tradition insist that flexible terms up to five years give a government the latitude it needs to cope with changing circumstances. It allows a government to consult the electorate at any time and it ensures that a government that loses the confidence of the legislature does not remain in power. However critics of the old Westminster model argue that it reduces public accountability by letting a government choose when to answer to the voters. It concentrates too much power in the hands of the Prime Minister. It bestows an unfair advantage to the governing party and it breeds national cynicism.

Until Reformers came to Parliament in strength in 1993, the traditionalists were unmoved. They could always count on prime ministers and premiers to follow election rules that worked in their favour. They could assume that the opposition would have trouble mustering sufficient interest in modernization.

However Reformers began to argue for improvements and it is now a change whose time has come. In British Columbia one of the first reforms brought in by Premier Gordon Campbell's government was the establishment of fixed provincial election dates every four years. To his credit, he willingly gave away the political advantage that comes with incumbency, the ability to manipulate the date of an election, in favour of the greater good of the people. The Prime Minister should do the same but he likely will not as he is inadequate.

The country must understand that it needs to elect a Conservative government to achieve this electoral improvement.

Dalton McGuinty may be next. The Ontario Liberal leader has promised to strip the premier of his divine right to set election dates. He said “It's time to put the silly guessing game behind us once and for all”.

Should our party become government, one of the first items of business would be to bring in a bill setting fixed election dates.

The NDP leader, Jack Layton, has publicly endorsed a private member's bill on the very same topic.

At first glance, the Prime Minister would seem to have little to gain by standardizing the election calendar, but it is just as possible that he dislikes playing the election date roulette as much as Canadians dislike watching it. It certainly seems that he has not been very good at it. He cannot seem to gather himself on this one, let alone if he ever had to make a decision on a more serious national crisis. This simple slam-dunk of an issue reveals just how inadequate he is for the job.

I also could surmise that the Liberal campaign team would be helped more than it would be hurt by a clear timetable. There would be no more costly false starts, no more guesswork and no more pressure to be ready at any moment. All parties could prepare in an orderly manner.

The Prime Minister would win some respect from voters for levelling the electoral playing field. If he is serious about narrowing Canada's democratic deficit, this is an easy first step to do it.

No politician in recent memory has been more full of the arcane game of picking election dates than Jean Chrétien. The former prime minister was wily and fiercely partisan. The nation does not fondly remember him for that particular point. The present Prime Minister is unlikely to beat his predecessor at that old style of politics but he could outclass him at fair play if he just could find himself and do the right thing.

Today he should announce that he would bring in more democracy to the House by perhaps just telling us that voting day will be June 21, 2004, and every four years thereafter on the third Monday in June, come what may. Canada would be forever better for it.

[Points of Order, April 27th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, further to a matter that came up yesterday and to a conversation that I had with you in chambers, I wish first of all to apologize for expanding the envelope of the rules of this House and going against them.

Second, I would like to say I will make a commitment about cooperation with our rules. As parliamentarians we make those rules and then we elect you to enforce those rules, Mr. Speaker, so there should be cooperation and not any appearance of unilateralism to change those rules.

Third, I had some images on a digital camera and I wish to assure the House that I have erased those images.

In summary, I would say there is an apology, there is a commitment to cooperation, and I have described the subsequent action.

[Public Service, April 27th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, performance bonuses should be a reward for improved management. The present system has deteriorated into things like ad scam, HRDC, public works and so on.

Could the minister promise that he will put real evaluation in place so that the results show that pay is truly earned instead of granted, and where we have real incentives instead of just expected reward?