House of Commons Hansard #199 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was liberal.

Topics

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

Reform

Elwin Hermanson Reform Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK

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

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.

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

Reform

Diane Ablonczy Reform Calgary North, AB

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.

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

Saint-Léonard Québec

Liberal

Alfonso Gagliano LiberalSecretary of State (Parliamentary Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

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.

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.

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

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-

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Reform

Elwin Hermanson Reform Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK

If they do not want to lose their positions in committee.

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Liberal

Alfonso Gagliano Liberal Saint-Léonard, QC

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.

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Reform

Elwin Hermanson Reform Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK

You had better read that to the three members you kicked off the committee.

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Liberal

Alfonso Gagliano Liberal Saint-Léonard, QC

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.

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.

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-

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.

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?

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

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.

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

Reform

Elwin Hermanson Reform Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK

Mr. Speaker, there were several errors in the member's speech. In fact most of it was a total inaccuracy.

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.

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.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Liberal

Alfonso Gagliano Liberal Saint-Léonard, QC

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.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Reform

Elwin Hermanson Reform Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK

They were hiding back there.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Liberal

Alfonso Gagliano Liberal Saint-Léonard, QC

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.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Bloc

Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC

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.

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

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.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

Alfonso Gagliano Liberal Saint-Léonard, QC

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.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

Reform

Elwin Hermanson Reform Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK

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?

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

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?

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The whip should know that whenever it is possible, the Chair will recognize members from other parties in questions or comments.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

Bloc

Maurice Godin Bloc Châteauguay, QC

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.

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?

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

Alfonso Gagliano Liberal Saint-Léonard, QC

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.

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.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:10 a.m.

Reform

Diane Ablonczy Reform Calgary North, AB

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.

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.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

Alfonso Gagliano Liberal Saint-Léonard, QC

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.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

Bloc

Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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

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?"

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.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:35 a.m.

Liberal

John Richardson Liberal Perth—Wellington—Waterloo, ON

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.

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.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:40 a.m.

Bloc

Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC

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

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.