Debates of Oct. 31st, 1996

Administrative Tribunals (Remedial And Disciplinary Measures) Act

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I did not really want to raise this because I did not want to disparage in any way, shape or form our honourable defence forces. The rank and file work hard in a courageous way to bring honour not only to Canada but to our international peacekeeping forces.

However, one need not look any further than the former chief of defence staff, General Jean Boyle, who was appointed over and above other more highly competent and experienced individuals. That appointment was a disaster. It demonstrates what can happen when an individual who is in some way connected to this party is appointed to a position at their greatest level of incompetence.

The hon. member could look at that as a prime example, if his memory goes back that far.

[Ovid Jackson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what gives a politician the authority to denigrate any person. The hon. member should make that comment outside. I think that would be a more appropriate place to do it.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, history bears out the level of incompetence of the individual. Otherwise the sorry state of affairs that took place at the highest levels of our military would not have occurred. The facts speak for themselves.

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Lisgar—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to address Bill C-49. We have recently seen an increase in attention paid to Liberal patronage practices so it is appropriate to look at the bill at this time.

The Reform Party opposes the bill because it does not go far enough to reduce patronage. It does not affect cabinet's power to make appointments. It can still appoint whomever it wants.

There are still 2,225 appointments available to the cabinet. Considering the way the Liberal government does business, that is probably a guarantee that patronage will continue until the end of the session.

The Liberals claim the bill will standardize remedial and disciplinary measures for administrative tribunals. The power of this minister to interfere with the measures is increased. The minister will decide whether or not a member should be disciplined. As a member of the agriculture and agri-food committee I have seen the Liberals draft bills with provisions that allow them to continue patronage.

Bill C-60, currently before the House, will create a new food inspection agency. Provisions in that bill create an environment for empire building and patronage. It states that the governor in council shall appoint a president and an executive vice-president to the new agency. These individuals will be responsible for the day to day operations of the agency and will provide advice to the minister on matters relating to the mandate of the agency. There is no mention of the qualifications required by these people. This type of situation opens itself up to more pork barrel politics.

Bill C-60 states that the president and the executive vice-president shall be paid such remuneration as fixed by the governor in council. We do not even know the salaries of these two positions. I wonder why there is not an advertising program for positions like these. It requires expertise to take over these boards and tribunals.

In the private sector usually advertisements go out and qualifications have to be presented. Not only that, usually the remuneration or wages are said to be negotiable. This seems to be the direction in which the government should go to get more accountability into these boards and tribunals.

First, we could become more efficient by negotiating better wages or wages that represent the qualifications. Second, if we could by advertising encourage the expertise to come forward and run the boards, it would be more efficient and accountable in the long run.

The bill also states that each member of the advisory board shall be paid such fees for his or her services as are required by the minister. Again we cannot tell Canadian taxpayers how much that will be because we have not seen the amount. This shows the Liberal way of doing business. There is no accountability and only Liberals need apply.

The Liberals have had a busy summer filling patronage appointments. We have seen the reorganization of the National Transportation Agency with the appointments of several well connected Liberals. Recent appointments to the bench include a cabinet minister's sister, a former Liberal Party president and an ex-Ontario MPP. They must have been carrying Liberal cards. If they did not, they were very fortunate.

The government has named Liberals to appointments within Petro-Canada, the Bank of Canada, the Federal Court of Canada and the Senate. The brand new Canada information office will be staffed with some Liberal cronies or political people and will be cranking out Liberal propaganda at taxpayers' expense.

The main criterion these individuals must have is some sort of Liberal tie. No other factor seems to be important. Probably the most cited example of Liberal patronage is the National Parole Board where incompetence and outright blunders have resulted in

dangerous criminals going free to commit their horrible crimes all over again.

I have spoken a number of times on the issue of crime. It is sad to see that political interference can have an effect on how the parole system or the justice system is working. The Liberals would rather put rewarding political friends ahead of ensuring the safety of Canadians.

This is the party that promised to take steps to ensure that the confidence of Canadians in their government institutions would be restored. The last couple of days we have been involved in a debate concerning the appointment of a deputy chair. This was a promise that could have been kept so easily without any financial burden to the taxpayers. It would have improved the independence of the Chair and shown the country that we are determined to increase democracy on the Hill.

The Liberal Party promised in the red book to take steps to ensure that Canadians' confidence in government institutions would be restored. The red book promise stated that open government would be the watchword of the Liberal program. These words ring very hollow now, contrary to the promise on the campaign trail.

I vividly remember when the Conservatives defeated the Liberals in the 1984 election and Mr. Mulroney pointed a finger at the then prime minister, Mr. Turner, as he said: "You did not have to make those appointments. You had an option. We will be different".

What happened once the Conservatives took over in 1984? Patronage appointments continued to escalate. It became even more important at that time. The Senate was stacked with Conservatives so the GST legislation could be passed. We know how controversial the GST legislation has become. It could not have passed if the Conservatives had not had the power to stack the Senate with eight extra Senators.

It is important that this system be changed and that it be changed very shortly. This country cannot afford these appointments, programs or the decisions that have been made by this type of politics.

When we look at the $600 billion debt it is easy to see some very unwise decisions have been made and future generations will have to absorb and correct them. I do not think it will be done by politicians. It will take men and women in this House with superb intelligence, character and honesty. The first place we can improve is with the disbandment of political patronage appointments.

It scares me sometimes to think that we have come so close, not just to bankruptcy, but to splitting the country and dividing us to such an extent that we cannot co-exist.

When I look at the news of the last day or two and I see what is happening in Zaire and Rwanda, it is scary to see brothers fighting brothers. That is something I do not think we ever want to see in this country. We would rather give up politics than become so divisive that we have to take stronger action than just at the voting box or the ballot.

If we do not try to change the system within this Parliament how can we be sure that we can do it in the next one? Clearly the Liberals are trying to cash in on the disgust that Canadians had for the Mulroney Tories. I sure do not blame the government for addressing that issue with some vehemence. There was tremendous abuse heaped on this Parliament by that government.

We know political appointments reached new heights during that period of government. We do not have to believe that two wrongs will make a right. We have to start addressing the issues that are facing us and that are-

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his 10 minutes have expired. After five hours, we are in 10-minute speeches.

Committees Of The House

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe if you ask, you will receive unanimous consent so that the finance committee might table its fourth report. This involves the examination of the legislation affecting Canada's financial institutions.

In tabling this report, I would like to thank, first of all, the employees of the House of Commons, particularly our clerks, who have done such a fantastic job of getting this ready in such record time. They had very little time.

I also want to thank all Mps, committee members and particularly, from the official opposition, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot. I did not give him much time to reply to the majority report, but his co-operation was greatly appreciated.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent to accept the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the official opposition tabled a dissenting opinion, as an annex to the report of the Liberal majority. There are three basic

arguments supporting this dissenting opinion. The first one is that the official opposition refuses to let the federal government get involved in securities, an area that comes under the exclusive jurisdiction of provincial governments, including the Quebec government.

The Liberal majority report proposes the establishment of a national securities commission. We absolutely oppose such a measure, because it contravenes the Canadian constitution, the 1982 Constitution. The second argument is that it would deal a blow to Montreal's economy, since its most competent people in the fields of securities, management consulting, etc., would be transferred to Toronto, with all the financial consequences that could follow, particularly from an economic point of view.

We also oppose the recommendation to the effect that foreign banks interested in getting involved in the area of securities would have to ask the federal Minister of Finance to do so, even though this area comes under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces.

Finally, we oppose the Liberal majority recommendation to the effect that a federal consumer protection office should be established. We are certainly not opposed to consumer protection, but the government would create more overlap, duplication and inefficient schemes, since consumer protection initiatives such as the consumer protection bureau, privacy legislation, the Insurance Act, trust companies in Quebec, etc., already fulfil the mandate that would be given to a federal consumer protection office.

For all these reasons, the official opposition is asking the government to give up its project to create a national securities commission, to let the provinces look after consumer protection, since this area comes under their jurisdiction, and to let them decide whether to allow foreign broking subsidiaries to do business on their territory, since this also comes under their exclusive jurisdiction.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-49, an act to authorize remedial and disciplinary measures in relation to members of certain administrative tribunals, to reorganize and dissolve certain federal agencies and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee; and of the amendment.

Administrative Tribunals (Remedial And Disciplinary Measures) Act

[Bill Gilmour, Reform, Comox—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-49, the administrative tribunals act. Bill C-49 seeks to make administrative changes to boards, agencies and tribunals. I join my colleagues in opposing this bill. It should be scrapped and rewritten with meaningful changes to patronage and improved accountability.

Bill C-49 does not make substantive changes to public accountability. It does not go far enough to eliminate or reduce patronage. In fact Bill C-49 does practically nothing to change what is already going on today.

Many Canadians will disagree with Bill C-49's proposal to eliminate the Canadian citizenship requirement for appointments to nine organizations which include CMHC, Canada Labour Relations Board, CRTC and the CBC. Bill C-49 also proposes to make changes to the Immigration and Refugee Board to allow for a one-person panel. It is doubtful whether this will make the board more accountable and in fact it may do the reverse.

Bill C-49 proposes to increase, not decrease, the role of the governor in council and ministers in a number of appointments. This Liberal government can continue to appoint all its friends to high places with no regard to accountability, competence or quality in the appointees.

When the Liberals were in opposition they were very vocal in criticizing patronage appointments made during the Mulroney government. At that time they completely forgot their own party's overwhelming use of this political tool during the Trudeau administration.

Page 92 of the Liberal red book says: "The Conservatives made a practice of choosing political friends when making thousands of appointments to boards, commissions and agencies. A Liberal government will," take note across the way, "take a series of initiatives to restore confidence in the institutions of government and make competence and diversity the criteria for federal appointments. Open government will be the watchword of the Liberal program". I suggest that will be just after pigs start to fly.

The list of patronage appointments is so large I could not read all the names of appointments during the limited time I have today but it is important that some of these appointments be read into the record, the Liberal record of shame.

Patronage appointments go right to the very top with the appointment of Romeo LeBlanc, a lifetime servant of the Liberal Party to be Governor General of Canada. LeBlanc was a press secretary, speech writer, organizer, member of Parliament and senator for the federal Liberals.

This summer the National Transportation Agency was reorganized to make room for several well-connected Liberals such as the former member of Parliament for St. John's, Newfoundland, Richard Cashin and the former member of Parliament for Kapuskasing, Ontario, Keith Penner.

Recently the Liberal cabinet appointed Roger Legare, the former director general of the Liberal Party of Canada and defeated 1993 candidate to the most senior management position at the National Capital Commission.

The list of patronage appointments to the bench, paying about $140,000 a year, is long. Some of the recent appointments include the new minister of defence's sister, former Liberal Party president Michael Robert; ex-Ontario MPP Albert Roy; Thomas Lofchik, a Liberal organizer in Hamilton was appointed to the Court of Appeal of Ontario; John Richard, the former partner of the Prime Minister and son of the former Liberal MP Jean T. Richard was appointed to the bench; Bryan Williams, a long time Liberal supporter courted as a possible Liberal candidate appointed as judge to the B.C. Supreme Court; and Gerald Albright, another well know Liberal supporter was appointed judge to the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench.

A few of the patronage appointments to the Immigration and Refugee Board include Gary McCauley, the defeated Liberal member of Parliament and Pierre Trudeau's former executive assistant; Dorothy Davey, the wife of former senator Keith Davey; Elke Homsi, a campaign worker for the Minister of the Environment and long time aid to Ontario MPP Tony Ruprecht and assistant to various Ontario Liberal MPs.

The list of patronage appoints to crown corporations such as Canada Post is also long. Patronage appointments to Canada Post have been so political that the recent Canada Post mandate review recommended that Canada Post board of directors be composed solely of individuals with expertise and ability to effectively make an optimal contribution to the governance of a corporation of that size. What does this say about the quality of appointments? Surely, competence should be a factor when making appointments, yet the Liberals do not seem to see that.

Ironically, George Radwanski who was appointed to chair the Canada Post review himself was a former speech writer for the Prime Minister and an active participant in the 1990 Liberal leadership campaign. He obtained his position clearly through patronage.

Former Minister Andre Ouellet was appointed chairman of Canada Post, to receive an additional $160,000 a year in addition to his already lucrative MP pension.

More recently Gilles Champagne, a long term Liberal fundraiser for the Prime Minister, was appointed to the Canada Post Corporation board of directors.

These kinds of patronage appointments have very negative implications regarding the ability of government to have the highest quality people serving it. Unfortunately, this is only the very tip of the patronage list.

Lawrence Freeman, a well-known Liberal and friend of the Minister of Health, was appointed to the Canada Communication Group advisory committee.

Roy MacLaren, the former Liberal Minister for International Trade, stepped down from his seat in the House and took the cushy position of high commissioner in Britain.

Some of the appointments to the Senate chosen by the Prime Minister include: Lorna Milne, a Liberal organizer in Ontario; Leonice Mercier, a longtime Quebec Liberal strategist and organizer; Celine Hervieux-Payette, a former junior minister in the Trudeau government; John Bryden, a former New Brunswick Liberal leader and New Brunswick campaign manager for the Prime Minister's 1990 leadership campaign; Sharon Carstairs, former provincial leader and MLA of the Manitoba Liberals and daughter of a former Liberal senator; and Landon Pearson, the daughter-in-law of Lester B. Pearson. William Rompkey, a former Liberal MP; Jean-Robert Gauthier, the former Liberal MP for Ottawa-Vanier; and Shirley Maheu, a Liberal MP, all resigned their seats in the House to take their turn at the trough. Nick Taylor, a Liberal who was elected to the Alberta legislature and who ran for the provincial Liberal leadership also found his reward in Senate heaven.

The patronage list seems to be endless. This does not sound like the government which pledged in the red book that it would do things differently. The Liberals have favoured their friends when making appointments to the courts, to the Immigration and Refugee Board, to corporations, to the Bank of Canada's board of directors, from one end to the other, large and small. And the media has allowed most of these appointments to go by without so much as raising an eyebrow. Perhaps they are a bit tainted as well.

The government defends its record saying that everyone appointed is qualified. What does that mean, given the fact that there are no qualifications for these positions other than of course being a member of the Liberal Party?

Before the last election the Liberal member for Scarborough-Rouge River told Canadians that there are two bottom lines in the way appointments should be made. The first is that we demand quality; the second is that we require accountability in the appointment process. We need to ensure that when appointments are made, they are reviewed by the House of Commons or a House of Commons committee, or some other mechanism.

What happened to that promise? Who reviews Liberal appointments? Not a committee, as suggested by the Liberals before the election, but the wife of the former minister of defence, Penny Collenette, a patronage appointment herself. This speaks volumes for the Liberal act of accountability.

The patronage list speaks for itself. The Liberals have demonstrated their flagrant lack of accountability to Canadians by bringing all their friends to the trough once again. Canadians deserve more than what they are getting. It is time for Canadians to get what they deserve: competence and quality in these appointments. The government for the first time must become a leader, one that can set an example with its appointments to these very important posts. The faith of Canadians in our government and the integrity of our institutions clearly must be restored.

The Reform Party supports restrictions and limitations on the number and types of order in council appointments permitted by a government during its term of office. Individuals should be appointed on the basis of their qualifications. We must have strong, independent and effective people in these positions of leadership and influence, not political hacks tied to the purse strings of the governing party.

Rather than giving ministers more discretion and more power, it is time to make appointments accountable not to the governing party but to the people of Canada. If the government is not willing to make the necessary changes, a Reform government will.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in listening to the hon. member's remarks, I do not think I heard once any attempt by him to address the number one issue of competence for any of the individuals in his long list of appointments. I will leave one on the floor for his consideration. If he is prepared to say that His Excellency the Governor General is not qualified or competent, I dare him to put that to us today. I do not think he is prepared to say that.

I am going to suggest three reasons that the hon. member should support this legislation.

First, the legislation in partnership with another bill before the House will eliminate 88 organizations which were in existence before the last election. That involves 868 positions; 868 appointments are gone. It entails a savings of approximately $10 million per year. That is a change and I hope the member will acknowledge it.

Second, he said that there is not a credible mechanism to review the appointments. I am sure he is aware that there has been put in place an advisory committee for all federal judicial appointments which is operating well. There has also been put in place an advisory committee for Immigration and Refugee Board appointments which is operating well.

Just by way of an anecdote, within the last month a Liberal said to me: "I just got a letter from the advisory committee that said I was not qualified to serve on the IRB. How can this be?" I said: "Just because you are a Liberal does not mean you are competent to serve on the board". That person was disappointed. That is what the advisory committee is doing. It is telling people of all backgrounds if it believes they are not capable of doing the job and those people are not recommended to the minister.

Those are two examples, the federal judiciary and the IRB, where there are non-political people making recommendations for appointments.

Third, with respect to reviewing appointments, having served on the justice committee, I know that every judicial appointment stands referred to that committee. If that is not an accountability mechanism for judicial appointments I do not know what would be.

I also know that every appointment in every area of the federal government's jurisdiction can be taken up under the standing orders by any of the standing committees dealing with those departments. All that is necessary is for the members of the committee to decide at some point in time to review the appointment.

I have sat on committees when that particular agenda item has been considered. I have seen it happen with respect to the Correctional Service of Canada. I have seen it happen with respect to the National Parole Board and in numerous other areas, including the referral of judicial appointments, which because of a standing order are not agenda items for the committee, but the resumes of every judicial appointment are referred to the standing committee.

I hope the member will accept that there are mechanisms in place. Maybe they are not comprehensive, but mechanisms have been put in place. Changes have been made since the last election and 88 separate organizations have been liquidated. The volume of appointments has decreased by 10 per cent, 20 per cent or 25 per cent under program review. There is a provision to ensure competence, not comprehensively across the board but we are making great headway in that regard. I hope he will acknowledge at least some of what I have put to him now.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River may not have realized it, but we are not into questions and comments. In any event, that will be taken as an intervention on behalf of the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River.

[Cliff Breitkreuz, Reform, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I feel it is incumbent upon me to rise in this House to address Bill C-49, an act dealing with appointments and designations or in short, patronage.

I was happy to hear the member from the government side who just spoke say that there are steps being taken, even though they are small and hesitant, to change this abuse of power. Everyone knows that there is an over-abundance of patronage promoted by this government. Perhaps no greater example of patronage or abuse of power exists than what can be found in the other chamber, the Senate.

Yesterday a motion to abolish the Senate was voted down by this Liberal government. Reform does not want to abolish the red chamber. We want to change it and reform it. What this country really needs is a Senate that reflects the views of Canadians right across the country and a chamber that provides a balance in Parliament.

The model we are advocating is the triple E model: a Senate that is elected, effective and equal. That is the model of the upper house which is the cornerstone of Reform's parliamentary reforms.

I think most Canadians would agree with me that in its present form the sleepy Senate is pretty much a rubber stamp for the ruling government. However, after the next election a Reform government will initiate change to the slumbering chamber of sober second thought which would provide for a measure of much needed accountability.

Having senators elected rather than appointed would be our first step in reforming the Senate. That can be done and it can be done without cracking the Constitution wide open. Recent history proves that Senate reform can be done without full-blown constitutional change, debate and negotiation.

My home province of Alberta, which leads the way in a number of ways in this country, has already paved the way for Senate reform. In 1989 the provincial government passed the senatorial election act. In the fall of that year Albertans voted on the first elected senator in this country. They overwhelmingly elected Stan Waters, a Reformer. He was the first elected senator in the history of Canada.

Do Albertans still want to elect their senator? I will read a letter dated May 9, 1996 addressed to my colleague from Kootenay East:

This is to confirm I intend to write to the Prime Minister asking him for a commitment to appoint a senator from Alberta to replace the late Senator Earl Hastings. Such an appointment is to be given to the successful candidate in a senatorial election in accordance with the Senatorial Elections Act of Alberta, 1989.

Yours truly,

Ralph Klein, Premier of the Province of Alberta.

Of course, Albertans still want to elect their senators.

It is a sad commentary that during the dying days of the Mulroney government and during this current administration, no elected senator has been appointed to the upper House. This government, in fact this Prime Minister, chooses to appoint non-elected people to the Senate in spite of the fact that the Prime Minister stated that the Senate is in need of reform, that it needs to undergo a major transformation.

Here is what the Prime Minister said when in opposition on September 24, 1991: "A reformed Senate is essential. It must be a Senate which is elected, effective and equitable". A logical subsequent observation would be: What action has the Prime Minister taken? Has he acted on his own recommendation, on his own advice? What has the Prime Minister done? Has he kept his promise or is it another broken Liberal promise?

Here is a sample of the Prime Minister's attempt to reform the Senate since his party assumed the mantle of power in 1993: Lise Bacon, the former president of the Quebec Liberal Party and a supporter of the Prime Minister was appointed by him to the Senate.

Sharon Carstairs, the daughter of a former Liberal senator, was chosen by the Prime Minister to sit in the upper Chamber. Not only does the Prime Minister keep it within the party, he also keeps it within the family. How about the appointment of Céline Hervieux-Payette who was a junior minister in the Trudeau government? They were all appointed by the Prime Minister. They are all Liberals.

Time prohibits me from naming all the obvious patronage Senate appointments. In short, a Senate seat has become available 17 times under the current Prime Minister, and you guessed it, 17 times Liberals have been appointed to the Senate.

What happened to the Prime Minister's commitment to support the Reform initiative of a triple E Senate? He certainly did not live up to it, that is for sure.

This is what the Prime Minister said on May 9, the same day that the premier of Alberta wrote his letter regarding patronage appointments: "I will name a senator who I will choose and who will represent my party in the House of Commons". This leftist Liberal arrogant attitude is a far cry from the Liberals' previous promise of a reformed Senate.

We are not supporting this bill. It does nothing much to curb patronage appointments and it is not worthy of consideration in this House.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to the order made earlier today, the recorded division stands deferred until Tuesday, November 5 at 5.30 p.m.