Carol Skelton

[Committees of the Whole, September 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker,

The member for Etobicoke North and the member for London West, I was called out by one of the staff of the chief government whip to see the chief government whip, at which time she asked me how I was voting. I told her I would be supporting the member for Etobicoke North. She told me that was not the government's choice, that the government's choice was the member for London West. I implied I had made up my mind to support the member for Etobicoke North. She said to me at that time “if that happens--

[Committees of the Whole, September 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, while we accept discipline in political parties, we cannot accept it being deployed to influence an election. We expect that companies would exercise discipline with their employees, but it is wrong for a company to try and influence the outcome of an election by threatening its employees. One would think that the basic principle would apply to a political caucus, but it does not.

On February 20, 2002, a number of members rose in this House and complained of the behaviour of the Liberal whip in regard to the election of the chairman of the finance committee. The member for Regina--Qu'Appelle complained, and I quote from Hansard where he said:

I too was involved in the finance committee yesterday. At one stage before the committee meeting started, when there were going to be two candidates for the chairmanship of that committee--

[Committees of the Whole, September 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the motion to elect the Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole. I would like to point out that this method to select the Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole is controlled by the Prime Minister as is the selection of the Deputy Speaker at the beginning of parliament and the selection of the Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole, which the Prime Minister will be moving next.

In addition, every chairman and vice-chairman position on standing committees is controlled by the Prime Minister through his whip. There are many appointments that are required for the Prime Minister to make in a system such as ours, but there are others, like the ones I just mentioned that are inconsistent with democratic principles. Outside of this place appointments and elections are clearly distinguishable, but inside parliament the lines are blurred.

I take no issue with the candidate that the Prime Minister is proposing today, but rather the process of his appointment. This position as well as the position of chairman and vice-chairman of standing committees should not be controlled by the Prime Minister. At a minimum, the Speaker should propose the candidates for the junior chair occupants, not the Prime Minister. The chairmen and vice-chairmen of committees should be elected by secret ballot, and I will explain briefly why.

The Legislative Council of the State of Victoria, Australia passed the world's first secret ballot in March 1856. It was British Columbia that enacted the Dominion's first secret ballot legislation in February 1873. The secret ballot method of voting spread to other provinces and jurisdictions and the aim was always to secure and protect the rights of the voter. It took until the mid-1980s for it to finally arrive here. The only election by secret ballot in the Parliament of Canada is the election of our Speaker. The last open ballot in Canada was in 1872 in Hamilton, Ontario.

This method of open voting was very intimidating because it was common for parties to hire bullies to influence the vote. All kinds of methods of coercion were used back then such as blackmail, bribery and violence. There were cases where employers threatened to reduce wages or even fire those who did not vote for the right candidate. I am sure that sounds familiar to some across the way.

The March 10, 1896, edition of La Patrie published the text of a notice posted on the wall of a Montreal manufacturing company. It read:

We feel it is only fair to notify employees that, in case a change in government, we will be unable to guarantee the wages you are now being paid; neither will we be able to guarantee work of any kind to all the employees employed by us at this time.

Back in the 19th century it was common for parish priests to threaten their parishioners with the fires of hell to influence the outcome of an election. The tactics used by the Liberal whip during the election of chairmen and vice-chairmen of committees are not that different. Instead of the fires of hell--

[Business of the House, June 13th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, today being Thursday it is my duty at this time to ask the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons what business he has for the remainder of today, tomorrow and the following week.

[Ethics, June 13th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, let me quote the Prime Minister's toothless suggestions on ethics: “public office holders have an obligation to perform their official duties and arrange their private affairs in a manner that will bear the closest public scrutiny, an obligation that is not fully discharged by simply acting within the law”.

The Minister of Natural Resources is not meeting that standard by doing business with his own department. Does the newest contract with his own department not violate the Prime Minister's own rules?

[Ethics, June 13th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, for the record, that consultation was a phone call telling us who the ethics counsellor was.

In March of this year, a B.C. firm, Dynamic Maintenance Ltd., won a $77,000 contract to provide cleaning services to the Natural Resources Canada building in Calgary.

On the face of it, this would seem like an ordinary matter. However, the Minister of Natural Resources owns Dynamic Maintenance and his company is now making money from his department.

Does the Prime Minister agree that it is wrong for a minister to do business with his own department?

[Government Contracts, June 13th, 2002]

The Shawinigan sidewinder strikes again.

Early in 2000 when decent Canadians were embracing the new millennium and their promises of self improvement it was bad business as usual for the Liberals. An internal audit of public works revealed the next 1,000 years would be like the last 100 with Liberals bilking taxpayers to enrich cronies and supporters.

Red flags went up and the Prime Minister sent his most trusted advisers to bury it. A sanitized version went on the Internet and the Prime Minister breathed easy knowing he could campaign with no worry about a scandal with his fingerprints all over it. He could have put an end to that terrible waste of public money. He could have said “Stop, because it stinks to high heaven”. Instead he scuttled for cover and let the torrent of dollars continue to flow to cronies and supporters.

What are we witnessing today? A government in meltdown led by a Prime Minister who had plenty of opportunity to do the right thing but chose not to.

[Ethics, June 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, that is very interesting. Every time these people get caught doing something wrong they make up excuses, create diversions or make an announcement of some sort. They claim to have paid for residences. Officials say that they did not. Canadians deserve better.

I simply want the proof that the Liberal Party did as it claimed. Will the Prime Minister give us a document that supports the claim of his party?

[Ethics, June 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is wrong to use an official residence as a backdrop for Liberal election ads. It is worse to claim, as a Liberal operative does in the book, that the party paid to rent the residence when it did not. Talk about getting kicked.

The Prime Minister is already in trouble for misusing 24 Sussex Drive. Now we see he has misused Harrington Lake, too. When will he stop?

[Government of Canada, June 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker,

In a far away land known as Ottawa An old party ruled over all that they saw They had friends in high places Who received many perks Like cash for ad contracts and shows that don't work.

The leader grew bold and wanted to know “I want more power, how far can I go? Raise me up higher I really must see My empire that extends from sea to sea”.

His followers piled up, one on top of another To establish a throne, higher than any other From this vantage he saw Much to his great dismay The auditor general, with reviews underway.

“I've been caught!” he cried loudly to his followers there “Let's put on brave faces and pretend we don't care It's only tax dollars Who's going to complain? They'll keep sending me cash--I need a new plane!”

But his opponents saw through his bluster And gathering all the strength they could muster They stood and shouted “Enough is enough! the truth has been outed”

“The empire is wise to all of your tricks Get down from your throne, there are problems to fix.

Canadians deserve much better than this!”