Carol Skelton

[Agriculture, October 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said that our productive Canadian farmers cannot compete against massive agriculture subsidies provided to farmers in the United States and Europe.

Now that the Prime Minister recognizes that fact, why does the government refuse to implement a trade injury compensation program for struggling farm families?

[Agriculture, October 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday's throne speech talked about putting Canadian families and children first. I have news for the Liberals: Farm families include children. Yet the throne speech, in its 15 seconds about agriculture, failed to address the agriculture crisis.

Why are the Liberals ignoring the needs of farm families at a time when severe drought and massive agriculture subsidies in the U.S. farm bill threaten the very existence of the Canadian family farm?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my hon. colleague for his question. I too have sat through committee meetings and have watched whipped votes. I find it uncomfortable. During committee we express our views. When members feel that they want to vote against something that the government is forcing on them it is their right and privilege as Canadian citizens to do that.

As we sit at our desks we have the right to openly vote our feelings and our constituents realize what we are doing. We are held accountable at home in our ridings for what we do in the House. My constituents know my feelings and respect them. If I voted in a whipped vote they would not appreciate it and I might not be here next time.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Langley--Abbotsford.

The throne speech reminds me of something Albert Einstein once said. He said “The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them”.

This throne speech is an attempt by the Prime Minister to solve problems he created for himself and to solve problems created by his corrupt government. However, as Einstein said, he cannot do that at the same level of thinking he was at when he created those problems.

He will never solve problems we face if he continues with the same style of governing, continues to use patronage to reward his friends, continues to abuse the authority of his office to punish his opponents for personal gain, continues to waste taxpayer money, continues to divide Canadians and continues to demean parliament and its members.

On Tuesday, September 24 the Prime Minister and his cabinet leaked most of what was in the Speech from the Throne. At a time when members were seriously questioning the concentration of power in the Prime Minister's Office and the lack of freedom and respect afforded to them, the Prime Minister sidesteps and blindsides them with the shameless leak of the throne speech.

This debate was supposed to start today but because of the Prime Minister's lack of respect for parliament, it started last week in the media with an address in reply to the leak from the throne.

It was only a few days before the cabinet revealed the contents of the throne speech that members of the Liberal caucus were complaining in the media that the Speech from the Throne would be written by a handful of bureaucrats. While I shared their outrage, we cannot be surprised by the Prime Minister's latest insult since this Speech from the Throne is about his loyalty to his legacy and not to his country, parliament, party or colleagues.

Last week the Alliance released its parliamentary reform package, Building Trust II. The Prime Minister's recent dismissal of the role of Parliament has highlighted the urgency to begin the process of curbing the power of the Prime Minister's Office and curtailing its actions that disrespect this institution.

Building Trust II aims to enhance the pre-eminence of Parliament and the role of its members.

In my Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, I will focus on the need for parliamentary reform, with an emphasis on advancing the idea of electing our Speaker by secret ballot to the committees of the House of Commons. The Reform Party began suggesting change in 1994 and passed the baton on to the Canadian Alliance.

The policy of providing for all private members' business to be votable shares the same history as the initiative to provide for secret ballot elections in committee. In the course of three parliaments the Liberal government ridiculed us over that proposal and after nine years the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs finally has adopted it. The next hurdle is to convince the cabinet to do it. In a Parliament with a Liberal government, the cabinet controls the House and the rules that govern it. We need to look at the Liberal track record to give us an idea of our success probability.

When it comes to parliamentary reform the government likes to talk the talk but has to be shoved up against the wall before it is willing to walk the walk.

Appended to the first Liberal red book was a document entitled “Reviving Parliamentary Democracy: the Liberal Plan for House of Commons and Electoral Reform”. This document contained the Liberal promises for parliamentary reform. Upon taking office, the Prime Minister proceeded to ignore most of the recommendations in that document.

The ones that he did adopt were quickly controlled and abused. For example, the procedure to refer bills to committee before second reading. The reasons to refer a bill to committee before second reading is to allow for a wider scope of amendments and allow a committee to redraft a bill as it sees fit. In practice we ended up with the same old cabinet control over any changes to legislation. The Liberal committee members performed as they had always done, as puppets for the Prime Minister and his cabinet. Without free votes, the new procedure became useless.

In addition, the Liberals exploited the new rule as another means to invoke closure without notice. The new procedure has a limit of 180 minutes at the first stage. The trade off for this built in closure was supposed to be the admissibility for a wider scope of amendments.

However, when the government began referring bills that were based on ways and means motions to committee before second reading in the 35th Parliament, it clearly showed its hand. These sorts of bills cannot be substantially amended so committee members could not take advantage of the new process. Instead of enhancing the role of members, the government used the new procedure in such a way that it actually impeded private members by curtailing debate at the first stage.

Here is another example. The Liberals also promised to appoint two opposition members to the Speaker's chair. That promise came from the Liberal plan to reform the House. On page 9 of the document it states:

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 four presiding officer positions are shared equally by Government and Opposition.

Once in power they totally ignored the idea. In the next session when they had to re-appoint the junior Chair officers, the Reform Party moved an amendment to the appointment motion, the adoption of which would have resulted in the appointment of an opposition member to the Chair. The House debated the amendment for three days and under closure the government voted the Reform amendment down securing all Chair occupants for government members and breaking another Liberal red book promise.

When the opportunity to appoint Chair officers presented itself again in the future, the Prime Minister implemented half of his promise by appointing one opposition member to the Chair. Ian McClelland was appointed Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole. The Prime Minister was quick to attach a condition to that appointment. Ian was not allowed to vote, giving the government a permanent pair.

In this Parliament we chose not to put forward a name because it was not worth making the same deal with the devil. Besides, the Liberals should implement their policies because they promised them, not because the opposition forced them to or because they saw an unintended self-serving opportunity.

Having said that, we did try once again to force the Liberal government to implement another one of its promised parliamentary reforms. In February 2001, my party introduced a motion to appoint an independent ethics commissioner who would report directly to Parliament. We lifted the policy word for word from the Liberal red book, introduced it as a motion and after debate the government voted it down, just like it did with its promise to appoint opposition members to the Chair.

Recently the member for LaSalle—Émard has been very vocal about the topic of parliamentary reform and he would like us to believe that he is sincere about positive change but his parliamentary record tells a different story. He too voted against his party's own parliamentary reform policies. The one promise I mentioned earlier that his government did implement, and subsequently abuse, was tailored to be the most demeaning to members when it was used for finance bills. I am talking about referring bills to committee before second reading. As you know, Mr. Speaker, he was the finance minister when these bills were being referred to committee before second reading and as a result the legislative role of members was hampered significantly.

I am puzzled why the member sat silent for nine years as his own supporters were forced to vote for policies that they did not believe in and vote against policies that they did believe in.

The Reform motion to compensate hepatitis C victims comes to mind. I remember seeing Liberal members in tears after being forced to vote against the motion. Now, after nine years of silence, when the member is revving up his leadership efforts, he hints at allowing for free votes. I urge all members to question his sincerity and examine the motivation behind his recent reform promises.

I will now move on to the secret ballot elections at committee. The secret ballot method of voting which was introduced to secure and protect the rights of the voter. I think it is essential that it be used.

One of the most remarkable reforms that came out of the McGrath recommendations was the reform that gave freedom to committees to set their own agendas without recourse to the House. However what good is that freedom when the Prime Minister controls it. We only have freedom when we can exercise it. Voting without secret ballot at committee clearly robs members of this freedom because they cannot exercise their free vote without fear of consequence. This has been the experience of open voting for hundreds of years.

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

Mr. Speaker, on pages 256 and 257 of Marleau and Montpetit there is an historical perspective on the Speaker. It states that in England the Crown lost its influence over the Speaker in 1642 when Charles I, accompanied by an armed escort, crossed the Bar of the House of Commons, sat in the Speaker's chair and demanded the surrender of five parliamentary leaders on a charge of treason. Falling to his knees, Speaker William Lenthall replied with the famous words:

May it please Your Majesty, I have neither eyes to see, nor tongue to speak in this place, but as the House is pleased to direct me, whose servant I am here; and I humbly beg Your Majesty's pardon that I cannot give any other answer than this to what Your Majesty is pleased to demand of me.

Marleau and Montpetit goes on to explain that while Speaker Lenthall's words heralded the end of the Crown's influence over the speakership, it was the beginning of the government's authority over the Chair. The speakership then became an appointment much coveted by members of the party in power.

In Canada, prior to 1986, the Speaker was appointed by a motion moved by the Prime Minister. The candidate was decided by the Prime Minister, as is the case today with the appointments of the Deputy Speaker, the Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole and the Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole.

The sixth edition of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms is dedicated to the first Speaker elected by secret ballot, Speaker Fraser. It says in its preface:

The election of the Speaker by secret ballot has given the Members their own Speaker in a process that was designed to take the choice of Speaker away from the Prime Minister and give it to the entire House.

We must expand upon this idea and take the choice of all chair occupants and all chairmen of committees away from the Prime Minister. If it makes sense for our Speaker then it makes sense for all of those who preside over the proceedings of this House and its committees. The one duly elected Speaker cannot preside over everything. I said earlier there are appointments that make sense for the Prime Minister to make and there are others that clearly do not.

It is time members vying for these positions send a message to the Prime Minister, stating that they have neither eyes to see, nor tongues to speak to him, but as their committees are pleased to direct them, whose servants they are; and they beg the Prime Minister's pardon that they cannot give any other answer than this to what the Prime Minister may demand of them.

[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?