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

12:40 p.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

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.

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.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

Reform

Randy White Reform Fraser Valley West, BC

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.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

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".

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

An hon. member

They were back door Liberal hack meetings.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

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.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

Reform

Philip Mayfield Reform Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC

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.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Is there unanimous consent of the House for the member to speak?

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

Reform

Philip Mayfield Reform Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC

Mr. Speaker, I will read the full text of the note. It states:

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.

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.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

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.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

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.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Bloc

Maurice Godin Bloc Châteauguay, QC

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?

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

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.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Reform

Jay Hill Reform Prince George—Peace River, BC

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.

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.

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.

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.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

Liberal

Anna Terrana Liberal Vancouver East, BC

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.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

Reform

Jay Hill Reform Prince George—Peace River, BC

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.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

Reform

Randy White Reform Fraser Valley West, BC

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.

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

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".

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

Reform

Diane Ablonczy Reform Calgary North, AB

They moved fast all right, right toward it.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

Reform

Randy White Reform Fraser Valley West, BC

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.

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.

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.

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.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Kingston and the Islands Ontario

Liberal

Peter Milliken LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

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?

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Reform

Randy White Reform Fraser Valley West, BC

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.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Reform

Jay Hill Reform Prince George—Peace River, BC

It is just coincidence.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Reform

Randy White Reform Fraser Valley West, BC

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.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Reform

Randy White Reform Fraser Valley West, BC

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.