Debates of Oct. 28th, 1996

Committee Of The Whole

[John Duncan, Reform, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad one of my colleagues was listening so closely to the way in which something may have been interpreted by someone reading Hansard .Yes, indeed, I fully concur with my colleague's statements that we are not talking about the calibre or qualifications of the member from the Liberal Party who has been nominated. We are talking about the issue of deputy speaker appointments.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we are debating two things simultaneously today. Primarily and foremost of course is the matter of the appointment of the Deputy Chairman of Committee of the Whole, but we are also discussing and have discussed at some length the failure of the government to support and live up to a promise which is contained in the famous red book.

There are some members opposite who have read it. There are some who, we found by their own admission today, have not. Nevertheless, this is the holy bible of the Government of Canada, Le petit livre rouge du président, s'il vous plaît. I would refer to it as the red book of musings, a list of promises to be kept if convenient and ignored if inconvenient.

The other day we heard that 78 per cent of the promises in this infamous document have been kept.

I had a rather interesting conversation on the day the announcement was made with a very devout Liberal. I use the word devout advisedly because every time the Prime Minister's name is mentioned in this lady's presence she genuflects. Her exact words were: "My, but it must be nice to be able to write your own report card". That statement was made by a Liberal.

Let us forget about this fraudulent red book for a moment and consider the public position of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. He wrote a very scholarly report in which he recommended, without reservation, that two of the deputy speakers be chosen from among members of the opposition. There is no equivocation about that. That was his professional opinion. I would submit that it was a very sound opinion.

I have seen the hon. member sitting opposite. When this particular matter is raised he laughs quite openly. His head is rolled back and his hands are out. He finds it hilarious. I would submit that rather than taking this as a big joke, perhaps he should be reconsidering his contradictory position and withdrawing his name for consideration for this appointment.

It has been suggested by members opposite that if the government did accept the recommendations of the member for Kingston and the Islands and appointed someone from this side of the House that they would be duty bound to appoint a separatist because they form the official opposition. I do not know where that idea comes from. Certainly there is nothing in the standing orders which would suggest that it would have to be done that way. As a matter of fact, they have already bestowed an awful lot of positions, benefits, goodies, whatever you want to call them, on their dear friends in the official opposition by appointing every single committee vice-chair from that particular caucus.

Rather than get into a cat fight over that particular issue, I have a modest proposal, which is made on the assumption that the amendment we are now debating will be defeated. The government can do anything it wishes in the House. If our amendment is defeated and if the member for Kingston and the Islands will reconsider his contradictory position, my proposal is that this appointment should be from one of the smaller groups in the House. My modest proposal-and I hope it is not out of order-is that consideration be given to the member for Yukon. I think that

would be acceptable to all and sundry, certainly on this side of the House.

That is not a motion. If it were it would be out of order. However, if we did that it would eliminate the taint of blatant patronage.

Speaking of patronage, since we have veered rather steeply into that area in this debate, I find it rather interesting that both my Liberal opponent in the 1993 election and his campaign manager have received very lucrative appointments to federal boards. How does that square with the red book of maybes, or the red book of possibilities?

I hope the government and particularly the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands will give some thought to what I have said today. My proposal is made in all sincerity. If lightning strikes and the heavens fall and our amendment is actually accepted by this House, then my proposal will become redundant and will be of no importance. Since I do not expect that to happen, I wish that in order to instil a little more democracy in this place and a little more respect-

[Doug Peters, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wish to give notice that with respect to the consideration of the motion now before the House, at the next sitting I shall move, pursuant to Standing Order 57, that debate be not further adjourned.

[The Speaker]

The notice of motion is in order. I notice on my clock that 60 seconds have elapsed. The member will have those extra 60 seconds. The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia on debate.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the 60 seconds do not matter because I was just winding up my speech.

In all sincerity I hope the government will give some consideration to my suggestion that someone who is totally neutral be appointed to the position and that that someone be an independent. Perhaps it would be the person I suggested or perhaps someone else. If such a procedure were followed, it would at least do away with the acrimony and would give greater respect to the office of deputy chairman.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, during the presentation of my hon. colleague from Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia, the hon. minister made an intervention which called for the extension of this debate at the next sitting of the House. This intervention is quite interesting in that there are no Liberal members presently debating the issue.

It is interesting because we on this side of the House view this as a matter of principle, that the Liberal government would bring forward an appointment at this time after three years in office without even paying any attention to its own promise. Then it turns around and tries to convince the Canadian electorate that it has done everything humanly possible to live up to the expectations of the Canadian public, the expectations that the Canadian public had following the Liberal government's election in October 1993.

It is very disturbing to me that the Liberals consider this issue to have no importance, that they will not even rise in this place to debate this issue with Reformers. It is very disturbing. One of my hon. colleagues points out, probably correctly, that it is simply because there are no arguments. There is nothing they can say to defend their position which runs so contrary to their own red book promise.

My hon. colleague put forward as an alternative a proposal that should our amendment to this motion for an appointment to the deputy chair's position be defeated, as I am quite sure it will be, perhaps the government would look beyond the partisanship of appointing someone from the official opposition, from the Bloc Quebecois, or from the Reform Party of Canada, and look at the option of appointing one of the independent members.

It is certainly a very generous gesture on the part of my colleague to call for that consideration. However would the member consider the suggestion, in light of what the hon. member for Calgary Centre suggested earlier, that if our amendment were to fail, the government's first option be to have an open, honest and clear election for that position with the only candidates coming from the opposition ranks? Of course that would include the independents as well. They could submit names and have an election for that position rather than an appointment. Would he consider that as the first option, with a fall back position of the government appointing someone from the ranks of the independents?

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

Madam Speaker, my generosity is exceeded only by my eloquence and I do appreciate the comments.

I have to accept what has been said by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River. Certainly, the ideal would be to have an election, as has been suggested by several members during this debate. However I deal with realities. I know the government does not like elections for anything. In this instance, if it could make an appointment that would be more palatable on the basis of non-partisanship, it would be a compromise. Certainly, if I had my

druthers, I would like to see the position filled by an honest free election, preferably by secret ballot.

With respect to the matter of the parliamentary secretary and the request to extend debate, I hope he did that so that the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands will have the opportunity to stand and explain at great length and in great detail the contradictions between his position while in opposition and his current position.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, I wanted to double check with the member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia to make certain that he agrees this debate is not about the qualifications or the standing of the member for Kingston and the Islands. This debate is not about his ability to fill the chair in place of the Speaker. We all know he is a very decent chap.

During the summertime, he took a ride on the Rocky Mountaineer Railway on the west coast from Vancouver to Kamloops and beyond. He probably thinks he understands the west now as a result of that trip. We all know he is a very decent chap. He gives wonderfully enthralling speeches here in the House. We really do like him.

I would like the member to actually confirm that this is not an attack on that member but that this is really a strike-out for the fulfilment of a promise made by the government and a strike-out for democracy.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would never dream of attacking the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. In fact if he does reconsider his contradictory position on this issue, we would continue to enjoy his presence on the other side of the House. If he does accept the position in the end, we will miss him terribly. He is a man who adds a little bit of spice-I might say frivolity but I will not-but I am not attacking the member for Kingston and the Islands in any guise.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, today's debate arose from a situation the government created. It was the straw that broke the camel's back when the government failed to give the customary 48 hours notice of the motion it brought forward regarding the junior chair. If the government had not done that today, we would probably not have had this opportunity to talk about the broken promise that we have on the other side.

I would reiterate that this is definitely not an attack on the member for Kingston and the Islands, although by his own admission in this House he does not read the bills. Perhaps if he were the Speaker it would be an opportunity for him to read the bills, to follow every debate in great detail and to assist us with his knowledge of the rules.

If it had not been for the fact that the government had failed to keep a promise and then exacerbated the situation by not giving 48 hours notice, we would not be discussing this situation today.

The plain fact is it is a real mystery to the majority of Canadians why this government continually supports or seems to act in ways that support the official opposition instead of recognizing the contribution that is made by the Reform Party of Canada which represents a greater number of provinces and a greater number of interests across the country. There is a good case to be made for having a member from the Reform Party as one of the deputy speakers. It would be a good idea to put it to a vote in this House.

I know it is not the motion before us, but support seems to be gathering as we go through this debate today to have an election as we did for the Speaker. Because it was done by a secret ballot, whoever was elected through that process would have no idea who cast the ballots that elected him or her and it would be guaranteed to be impartial. Because of that, he or she would rely upon a good relationship with the members in this House to retain that position in to the future. I strongly support the idea of an election and I hope we will move to that, if not in the short term, certainly in the long term.

I refer to the report "Reviving Parliamentary Democracy: The Liberal Plan for House of Commons and Electoral Reform". In fact, the member for Kingston and the Islands was one of the authors of the report. I have it here and I know I cannot use props so I cannot hold it up. I quote from a passage on page 9 which is headed "The Independence of the Chair":

1. In order to enhance the independence of the Chair and in an effort to reduce the level of partisanship, when the Speaker is from the government party, two of the junior Chair officers should be from the opposition, so that the four presiding officer positions are shared equally by government and opposition.

That position is actually supported by the member for Kingston and the Islands.

It is a shame that this government has not put itself in the position of keeping this promise. It is very disturbing and if the government had not irritated us by failing to keep this promise, we would not be in this debate today.

Perhaps in the long run it will turn out for the best because it has brought attention to the issue. The government side has been unable to put up any speakers to counter the arguments. It has been incapable of defending its position and it has now done the disgusting thing of moving notice of closure on this discussion. The government is going to close us down so that we cannot have a decent debate on the issue. Frankly, the government members do not want to discuss it.

We have heard about the terrible reputation of the Mulroney government in moving closure and closing down debate in this place. This government that talked about more free votes, talked about appointing junior chairs from the opposition, has moved

closure four times as often as the Mulroney government. It is striking out for new records in that respect.

The Prime Minister loves to claim during question period that he is only adhering to the well established traditions of parliamentary democracy. Maybe he has not bothered to take a look at what is happening in other parliamentary democracies in the 30 years he has been here. He is still working under the same rules he learned 30 years ago.

If he had bothered to take a little look when he was on one of his trips to the U.K., he would have noticed that it is quite common in the mother of Parliaments for members to vote with members on the opposite side. It happens a couple of hundred times a year. There are no penalties for that. People do not get tossed out of caucus. It is one of those things that has developed as Parliament matured.

Unfortunately the Canadian Parliament is mired in the old ways of doing things. It has not caught up with the information age. It really is one of the most backward institutions in the world today.

As many members know, I am from New Zealand and there have been dramatic changes there in the parliamentary system. It would not be faced with a debate about filling junior chair positions from the opposition benches. In New Zealand the government introduced the initiative and referendum. It has a mixed member proportional system of electing members and it has really shown creativity in adapting the parliamentary system to the information age.

Meanwhile, here in Canada we remain mired in the ways of the past, in what the Prime Minister likes to call tradition. "More free votes" he said. I guess if we had one he could say that he had fulfilled his promise of more free votes. I do not think that is what the Canadian people thought he meant by more free votes. Certainly it has been a major disappointment.

I write a weekly column for a newspaper in my riding, the North Shore News . I had already put together the material for next week's report. It is just by pure coincidence that it dealt with promises that had been made by this government. It is very appropriate that I raise it today.

The promise that has been broken today by refusing to allow the appointment of a junior chair from the opposition benches is just one of a long list of broken promises. My colleague for Kootenay East actually put together a list of the top 10 broken promises. I think it is probably appropriate that there be some exposure of those right here in this Chamber.

Obviously number one on the top of the list would be the jobs, jobs, jobs promise which is in chapter 1 of the red book. Instead of jobs, jobs, jobs we are stuck with 1.4 million unemployed, 500,000 Canadians looking for work, youth unemployment at 18 per cent or higher, and polls showing one in four Canadians to be worried about the security of their jobs.

Second on the list from the member for Kootenay East is preserving and protecting medicare. We have already heard some discussion in the debate today about the tremendous cutbacks there have been in the transfers in support of medicare across the country. Meanwhile, members of the government stride around the country saying what a wonderful job they have done, paying lip service to the protection of medicare while they busily cut the funding, creating longer wait lists, probably creating the possibility that people die while on those waiting lists.

If we look at the figures, by the 1998-99 fiscal year the present government will have cut $7 billion from social transfers to the provinces, completely contradictory to the promises made on page 74 of the red book.

It is just like the promise made about appointing deputy or junior chairs-broken promises. As much as the Liberals try to say they have kept their promises, even the ones we can kind of give them some credit for keeping, are only kept in a sort of halfway manner.

When they talk about keeping their promises on the debt and deficit, if we really look deeply we would find that they have cut the heart out of some programs in order to give the appearance of making progress, while at the same time increasing our total debt by almost $100 billion in three years.

[An hon. member]

Shameful.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

That, frankly, as one of my colleagues says, is shameful. They are trying to deceive the public into thinking that things have been achieved and promises have been kept when they really have not.

One of the favourite promises was to scrap, kill and abolish the GST. The Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister made good use of that on the campaign trail. Boy, did they whoop that one up. When they were asked how would they do it, they just said: "Wait till after the election. Do not ask me now. Ask me after the election". My goodness they did not take long to break that promise.

Now we have this unsuccessful attempt to have every province buy into a scheme to harmonize the GST with the PST and create all sorts of new distortions and dissatisfactions like the tax on books. We are faced now with all manner of new problems instead of curing the basic problems that are there with the most hated tax

in Canada, the GST. That just came from yet another broken promise of this government.

I know there is one here that strikes a cord with a number of people in my riding. One of the broken promises is stable multi-year funding for the CBC. What a joke.

The Reform Party was attacked during the 1993 election for telling the truth about the subsidies to the CBC and the need to cut some of the fat out of that organization. What happens? The government says it will never cut a thing, and cuts much more than the Reform had ever said it would cut. How the government gets away with breaking these promises I do not know.

Promise number six was to renegotiate NAFTA, red book, page 24. Two months after taking power the Prime Minister signed NAFTA. Thank goodness he did. If we had not had free trade helping this country stay afloat we would be in deep trouble today. However, the Liberals made a promise and they did not keep it.

Then we have-my goodness, this is a hot one that we have had fun with the last couple of weeks-a code of conduct for politicians, red book, page 95. There has not been a new code. The Prime Minister only uses his secret ministerial guidelines when it suits him to do so. In the U.K. the guidelines are made public. In fact the whip of the Reform Party had a copy of the guidelines from the U.K. in the House just a week or so ago. It is a large book that sets out all of the rules to which ministers of the crown have to adhere in order to be ethical. What a change it would be here if we had something like that.

If the Prime Minister wants to claim that he is keeping with the traditions of parliamentary democracy, let him produce his ethical guidelines for ministers. Let the public read them so that everyone can understand what is happening on that side of the House.

Then we have number eight, appointments based on competence, red book, page 92. I do not want to embarrass anybody by naming names in the House. I know there are a lot of people can identify a couple of hundred Liberal patronage appointments. I know the member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia mentioned this amazing thing that happened in his riding. Two people who were Liberal supporters suddenly were qualified to take up amazing jobs on parole boards and receive wonderful rewards for their loyalty to the Liberal Party. We see that happening right across the country. It happens in my riding. Liberal supporters are being rewarded with blatant patronage appointments.

The number nine promise was more free votes with which I already dealt earlier. I should mention the red book page number in case there is anybody out there who has not used the red book for firewood yet. They can read it on page 92. The Prime Minister has only permitted one free vote in three years-

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

That was prearranged.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

That was prearranged, yes, thank you very much to my colleague for reminding me.

The number ten promise was that the Liberals would eliminate trade barriers between the provinces, red book, page 22. We know that those have not been eliminated. In fact, those trade barriers are still costing the economy between $6 billion and $10 billion a year.

We are back at the beginning again. A situation developed today because the government did not keep its promise. Despite all the hoopla at its convention during the weekend, despite all the resolutions that were rammed through so fast that we all got wind burn, as mentioned by the whip, we are debating an issue that is very important. It is related to democracy in this House.

We really should object to this closure motion that has been moved. We should request that the government stand up and support democracy and allow a member of an opposition party to be appointed as a junior Chair.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, I found the member's comments in reference to this amendment quite enlightening. It is always good to hear the performance of the government.

[An hon. member]

Non-performance.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Or the non-performance, as pointed out. I think the member for Vancouver North expressed it quite well in outlining all the broken promises.

I too had an opportunity to look at point No. 10 which was the reason for this debate today. Point No. 10 deals with the independence of the Chair and the reduction in the level of partisanship. Those are certainly worthy statements to make.

I also looked a little further. As the member for Vancouver North mentioned, in the early part of the Liberal red book it states that mounting criticism of the House of Commons and its proceedings reflect the frustration of citizens and parliamentarians alike with the continuing failure of Parliament to address effectively the problems that face us.

Here we have a statement in the red book with some definite outlines which the Liberals say they are going to change. Unfortunately, as the member for Vancouver North outlined, they are not going to do that. They have already fallen short on their promises and it has only been three years.

In the Reform Party's platform we outline two visions of Canada, an old vision and a new vision. The old vision is about the Liberals and the Conservatives and how they like big government, how they like to spend, how they like to increase taxes and how they like to feed the big spending machine that was created by them.

I would like the member for Vancouver North to outline the new vision of Canada that Reformers would like to see. I would encourage him to give in as much detail as possible the new vision that we see for Canada.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

The hon. member for North Vancouver has one minute left.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, I wish I could do this in one minute. The fresh start platform of the Reform Party of Canada is worthy of at least a 20 minute speech. It is really unfortunate that I am not going to have enough time to do that. If I can relate it to one thing the member mentioned, it is this whole issue of partisanship and the need to get rid of that. Part of the Reform vision of Canada is getting rid of the partisanship. We want to appoint people based on their skills and competence with open tendering and a much more open style of government.

Partisanship leads to waste and to the sort of situation that we saw last week with an $87 million interest free loan being given to a company like Bombardier with billions of dollars in assets and quite capable of funding itself. Eighty-seven million is a tiny drop in the bucket to Bombardier. It is totally ridiculous to have a situation like that going on. It is being done clearly for partisanship reasons. Everybody in the country can see that is the reason. There simply is no need for it. Reform would put an end to that.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Dianne Brushett, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, the United States through the Helms-Burton bill is seeking to expand its embargo against Cuba to other countries, including Canada, by alleging so-called rights to United States property in Cuba. The United States is holding itself up as the censor of potential foreign investment in sectors which may include former United States property.

The United States believes that the property formerly owned by United States citizens cannot be freely used in Cuba and that it truly belongs to those who live in the United States and is not and will not be the property of the present Cuban government and will at some time be renegotiated back to the American people.

It claims, moreover, that international law requires the Government of Cuba to pay top, adequate and effective compensation.

A constituent of mine, Dr. Tarjei Tennessen, has done some very extensive research for me and this is why I have brought this question before the House.

There is no United States property in Cuba as far as international law is concerned. Ownership of such property was transferred to the Cuban people through a process of nationalization in conformity with international law, which was carried out through expropriation by exercising the power of article 24 of the Cuban constitution of 1940 and the corresponding articles of the fundamental law of February 7, 1959.

Moreover, the property of the United States in Cuba was liquidated under the International Claims Settlement Act of 1964 of the Cuba program of the United States Foreign Claims Settlement Commission and converted into bonds.

We have been criticized unduly for coddling Cuba and for being soft on the Cuban communist regime.

The document in this research indicates that the Americans are bullying countries for trading, openly and fairly, with Cuba, that they are using external legislation over extraterritorial matters which were settled very legitimately some years ago through international law.

In the months following the triumph of the revolution of 1959 the United States government began harassing the country in open opposition. The nationalization of United States property began again in 1960 in response to continuous attacks on Cuban economic targets, combined with United States domination of all basic sectors of activity in the country and the need, as the Americans suggested, to consolidate the new economic, political and social process in Cuba.

In 1960 the president of the republic and the Prime Minister acted to provide jointly, through resolutions, the nationalization by expropriation of property in Cuba belonging to natural or juridical persons having the status of United States nationals.

The transparency of the procedure instituted by the Cuban authorities is not only recognized by international law courts in the United States itself, but it has been confirmed by the validity under international legislation of the Cuban nationalization process in law suits brought forward by United States nationals.

I would suggest that Cuba negotiated in a transparent and open fashion the very timely payment of compensation through lump sum agreements concluded and implemented with Canada, France, Spain and Switzerland. Also, agreements were reached with other countries.

This open, transparent nationalization of property by Cuba is what the question is today. I ask the Minister for International Trade are we soft on Cuba. Are we condoning a communist regime in Cuba or are we trading in an open and competitive fashion?

[Ron MacDonald, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade]

Madam Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I rise to address this question on behalf of the Minister for International Trade.

The question of the Helms-Burton legislation has been before Parliament and indeed before the court of world opinion for the last number of months. It is clearly the position of the Canadian government, supported by the European Union, the Mexican government and a number of international forums that this is an extraterritorial application of U.S. law, that it is inappropriate and a fundamental breach of international conventions and international law.

The member raised some very interesting points and the government would agree with the points she has raised. Number one is that it is up to an individual state whether it expropriates or nationalizes property. Indeed in the past and in the present day even in Canada we have cases where the Canadian government or the provinces or their creatures, the municipalities, can expropriate under the Expropriation Act.

What is at issue here is not whether expropriation is legal and should be undertaken, it is whether proper compensation has been done.

The issues the hon. member raised are correct. The United States government has followed a 30 year path of isolation with Cuba. That simply has not worked. We have gone a different path.

In 1980 the Canadian government settled on behalf of Canadians any outstanding issues of compensation for expropriation. Most countries have done that. The U.S. has simply refused to do it.

At the end of the day, it introduced legislation which is in and of itself a violation of international law. I would agree with the hon. member opposite and would say to her that the actions that the Canadian government has taken are to protect the interests of Canadian companies which find themselves challenged or potentially threatened by this extraterritorial application of U.S. law.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

The motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.35 p.m.)