Debates of May 11th, 1995

Supply

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

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.

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.

We promised more free votes and we delivered.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

You have not.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

When?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

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.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Government business.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

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.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

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?

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

We know that that is what we intend to do, are doing, will continue to do and will succeed in doing.

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.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

They are going to get you.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

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-

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

To dupe the electors of Alberta.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

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

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.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

You were not here yesterday.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

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.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

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.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

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?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have been in office now for some time-

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Are you lost for words?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

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.

Translat ion ]

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.

I am sure that the hon. member knows that the whip does not invent discipline. What kind of nonsense is that?

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

He just enforces it.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

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.

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.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

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

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.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

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.