Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to Bill C-66 and put a few things straight on the record.
First, as members may recall, the Minister of Labour at least twice this week has accused the Reform Party of filibustering this bill. I do not know whether it is because spring is coming or an election is coming, but the accusation by the government that Reformers are filibustering the bill is absolutely false and cannot be justified under any circumstances whatsoever.
This bill has been around for a long time. The hours of the House were extended one day so that the bill could be debated. The minister twists the record, falsifies the record of the Reform Party which has been willing to work with the government to ensure that legislation is passed.
The House did not start until two o'clock this afternoon. We have a short day on Wednesdays because the House is only open in the afternoon but under the House rules. This is deemed to be a whole day's debate even though it is only an afternoon's debate.
The government, for about the 38th or 39th time or whatever number of times it is, introduced time allocation and shut down debate on the bill. Not only that, but it had the gall to bypass part of routine proceedings so that the member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley could not present her petitions.
Canadians cannot be heard. Private Members' Business, if there was any to be presented, was bypassed so that other members, apart from government members, could not be heard.
The minister of state for financial institutions got his motions on the books. He was able to refer his ways and means motions to committee. From that point on, when it came to the opportunity for the rest of the members, indeed the rest of the people in the country, to be heard the Liberals moved to government orders of the day, wasting time and preventing the Reform Party and the other parties from debating this bill.
Where are they? They are sitting quietly hoping that we will walk away and let this issue die. Then they can get on with the business and get it through the House. They can be off to an election a year and a half before they are supposed to go.
These are rather unusual times. The Minister of Labour is making these types of accusations. Today during question period, the Minister of Finance was up making a ministerial statement, taking away time from question period.
The Prime Minister is in Washington visiting our neighbours. When he was asked a question on illegal drugs, he thought it was good for trade. He has to pay attention. Not only should he be paying attention down there, he should start paying attention to what is going on in here. If he is out talking to the people around the country pretty soon at election time, he may find out what he thinks he is going to hear is going to be totally different to what he actually will hear on election day.
Bill C-66 deals with the labour code and the Canada Labour Relations Board. I have been having a debate with the Minister of
Labour during question period about the chairman of that board who I have said, on more than two occasions in the House this week, has to go. The Minister of Labour has said we should pass Bill C-66 in order for him to do his job and get rid of this fellow as the chairman of the board.
I cannot imagine why the minister would want to wait until Bill C-66 is passed. As we know, it is going to pass today because time allocation states "that is it, it is a done deal, stop, no more, vote". Since the Liberals have a majority it is a done deal.
I do not know what his excuse is going to be tomorrow when Bill C-66 is passed, because they have used the government majority, and Mr. Ted Weatherill is still chairman of the board. The minister will not be able to stand up in this House and tell us: "If we pass Bill C-66 I will be able to get rid of the chairman". By that time Bill C-66 will be passed.
I was reading in the Ottawa Citizen today on the front page ``Weatherill accused of bias in dispute. Reform charge comes on top of expenses saga''. As members know, this person who has gone into the public trough in excess. He is in over his head. He has jumped in all the way. He is swimming in it. This is a guy who spent $148,000 wining and dining around the world the last eight years. This is a guy who spent $440,000 of Canadians' money on an expense account because he did not really have to account for it.
He was given the privilege of having an open-ended expense account and said: "Boy, am I going to have a good time". He did have a good time: $733 dinners for two in Paris. That is more than the average family spends on groceries and more than many Canadians earn in a month. That person has the gall to think that he can justify spending that kind of money on dinner for two because he happens to meet somebody who he is impressed by, some professor from the Sorbonne University in Paris. Well, see if I am impressed. I am not.
This guy is the chairman of the Canadian Labour Relations Board. Members may find a hint of contempt in my voice when I talk about this gentleman because the Canada Labour Relations Board is a quasi-judicial body. It is governed by the rules of the courts. Mr. Speaker, you were a lawyer in a past life and you know about the courts. The rules of the courts state that you are impartial. Not only are you impartial but you must be seen as being impartial.
Let me quote from page A2 of today's Ottawa Citizen :
At least three members of the board, including the chairman, must be present at hearings. The chairman is, in effect, the chief judge of any dispute.
Although he is not called a judge, the chairman, because of the powers conferred upon him, is bound by judicial protocol, including the bias rule.
I thought this was an intelligent fellow. The article goes on to state:
An arbitrator or a board chair or a judge in the middle of a case should never, ever go out with one of the parties without the other being there.
This was said by Mr. Levitt. We are not talking about something that is controversial. It is very basic. It is not controversial and it is that obvious.
"Going out for dinner with one side and not the other isn't right," said Mr. Levitt. "Bias, in the judicial context, is not just a fact of bias-it is a reasonable apprehension of bias."
And a reasonable apprehension of bias would occur, he added, even if a quasi-judicial board chair takes out one side of a dispute on one occasion and follows it up the very next day with a meeting with the other side.
Have you ever heard of a judge doing something like that,Mr. Speaker? I have not.
He continues: "Even that is totally improper". Reading on, we find out that:
Mr. Weatherill presided over the hearings and deliberations. During that period he held the following meetings in Montreal:
This was a dispute between CN and CP on one hand and the unions on the other. I am going to start quoting again:
Nov. 7, 1990, Mr. Weatherill and CN's senior counsel John Coleman share a $213 dinner.
Feb. 7, 1991, Mr. Weatherill attends a reception for Don Fraleigh, CN's assistance vice-president, human resources.
Feb. 21, 1991, Mr. Weatherill and CP vice-president Robert Colosimo share a $227 dinner.
May 22, 1991, Mr. Weatherill shares a $164 lunch with CN's senior counsel John Coleman.
Nov. 14, 1991, Mr. Weatherill spends $264 to dine with CN's Coleman again-
In July 1992, the labour board ruled that the unions be disbanded and replaced with the CAW.
The minister has the gall to stand up and say today during question period: "I see it in the papers, but I was not aware of what is going on". Treasury Board knew what was going on. He, as the minister in charge, should have known what was going on. The government has been paying the bills and the minister says he does not know what is going on and he has to check it out because he has read it in the newspaper. This is the government that says it is in control. Have you every heard anything like that, Mr. Speaker?
What do the people think? I turn now to page A15 of the Ottawa Citizen :
The depredations of the notorious English highwayman, Dick Turpin, pale by comparison to the plunder of the public purse by Ted Weatherill. If ever the expression "Swilling at the public trough" has literal application, this is it.
Leo M. Bereza, Ottawa
How about another little short one? The whole page is of letters related to Mr. Weatherill.
Congratulations to the Citizen staff. You caught the "rat" in the food trap; this is good "gut" instinct reporting. With an election coming up, the taxpayers are soon going to be sold the fiscal restraint bill again. Public servant double-dipper Ted Weatherill positively sickens me. Out-of-control bureaucrats should all be given a season's pass to McDonalds's where the rest of us have to eat.
Robert Beck, Carp
How about this one entitled "I am not amused".
In common with thousands of other Canadians this is the time of year that I have to rework my finances to ensure I have funds available to pay my income tax. How appropriate then that we are all treated to the smiling face of Ted Weatherill along with his evasive responses to any questions that might justify his personal expense claims over the last number of years.
As I look at his photos one more time I am convinced that this man is not smiling at all. He is laughing at me-and I am not amused.
Don Ferguson, Nepean
The whole page is full of articles on this fellow who happens to be sitting in a high position with a $120,000 to $140,000 a year salary. He ran up $440,000 of expenses in eight years. He spent $148,000 on meals in eight years. He compromised himself. He compromised the board. He compromised the rulings of the board. He stays there and I wonder why.
The Minister of Labour says that he just read about it in the paper and he has to check it out. His department has been overviewing these expenses and paying the bill. It is absolutely shocking.
Is that all? I publish the waste report. It gets a bit of press around the countryside periodically. Last January when I brought out a waste report I pointed out the illegal tax scams carried on by political patronage appointments.
While the government would not give me the names, I was able to find out that a board member-and as far as I can tell it was not Mr. Weatherill but another board member-was getting a tax free allowance on top of his salary which is not covered off in the Income Tax Act. It is illegal that he should be getting that money tax free. I reported the information to the Minister of National Revenue.
That was not the only one. I listed eight or ten different people, all patronage appointments, who were participating in the illegal tax scam where they are claiming travel allowances, moving allowances, transitional allowances and apartments in a different town.
The Commissioner of Official Languages gets an apartment in town courtesy of the taxpayer. Everybody else has to pay tax. He seems to be exempted because the government says it does not to play by the rules it writes because it is above them.
The Minister of Labour is prepared to tolerate a chairman who thinks he is above the rules and has compromised himself in every which way. He sits there smiling in a photo on the front page of the paper and saying: "I m not going to quit". He is challenging the Minister of Labour and saying "fire me". I hope the minister fires him. It is long overdue and we have only known about it for three days.
The minister sweeps it under the table by referring it to the auditor general. He stands pleased as punch and says that when he found out about it he immediately referred it to the auditor general. The auditor general reports to the House. He will not be able to report back until the fall. If the rumour mill is right the election will be long over by then.
It is just like the Somalia inquiry. Let us bury it during the election time. Let us bury Mr. Weatherill during the election time and see what happens in the fall. That is not the way to govern.
The Liberals want to go to the people of Canada during an election and say they deserve their vote to continue. How could they look people in the eye? They have swept the garbage under the table so that Canadians cannot smell it. They will bring it out like dirty linen in the fall after they have been comfortably voted us back into office. How can they do it? It beats me.
We know the Liberals. They have been around for a long time. They seem to be able to do that with a smile. I am quite confident they will try to do it again. The point is that they can only deceive some of the people all the time and all the people some of the time. Perhaps this time they will find out they did not deceive very many people.
I cannot imagine why the Minister of Labour is hanging on to Mr. Weatherill. I have been on talk shows across the country regarding this man. No one is prepared to stand up and defend him.
The expenses are bad enough. However he cannot understand the situation of compromising his position, compromising his rulings, compromising his colleagues or compromising the government. It is documented. When we phoned CN and CP all they would say is no comment. They did not deny it. The minister stands by him and says that they have to wait until the auditor general reports some time in the future and at that time perhaps they will take action.
They have all the documentation at their fingertips now. They have had the information at their fingertips all along. They have known for years this guy went way overboard all the time, every time. He has never forgotten to claim even a two-bit cup of coffee.
He takes his common law wife with him and thinks we will pay for that as well. There seems to be no limit to what he will do. There seems to be no limit to the way he has compromised his position. Yet the Minister of Labour stands by him.
If this fellow is not gone in the next couple of days, at election time I will be asking why he is still there.