Werner Schmidt

[Committees Of The House, March 14th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations.

[Judges Act, March 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I was rather taken by the last couple of sentences the member expressed about the business of judicial independence.

I wonder if there could be any sort of connection between judicial independence and judicial imperialism. We have a specific attempt by the Supreme Court of Canada to actually interpret legislation, not in the form of an executive branch but rather in the form of a legislative branch.

Could the hon. member say something about that part of it and whether there is a deficiency on the part of legislation that is passed in the House? It is so broad and so general that it is almost as if parliament is saying it does not wish to deal with it and is asking the supreme court to deal with it. Are there two parts to the issue?

[Canada Shipping Act, 2001, March 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I was very impressed with the detailed knowledge the hon. member demonstrated in his remarks with respect to the bill before the House, Bill C-14. The demonstration of his knowledge of the shipping industry, shipbuilding and marine life on the east coast was beneficial for all of us, particularly his advice for the Minister of Transport. I congratulate him for that.

I would like to ask him about a particular part of the bill which apparently now includes an amendment that was not there when the bill was presented sometime last year, I believe. I am referring to the Shipping Conferences Exemption Act. I notice that this particular addition to the bill is really an add-on. It looks almost as if it is sort of tacked on, as if somebody had a bright idea and thought that maybe the government had better put this in there because it wanted to get this thing done.

I would like to ask him if he could address some remarks to that particular part of the bill, which really suggests that some of the amendments do not in fact meet the concerns and wishes of the stakeholders involved in the shipping industry. In fact, some of them are suggesting that many of those controls now being suggested in that particular part of the bill should in fact be reviewed so that they could have greater freedom to enter into contracts directly with shipping companies and also with shipping.

Could the hon. member refer to that part of the bill and give us some advice?

[Standing Orders, February 27th, 2001]

The hon. member cries that it is the Liberal way. That is not the Liberal way. I just gave the House an example that said clearly that a promise was given to appoint an ethics counsellor. He would be appointed by parliament and report to parliament. The Liberals denied that. They voted against it. That is what the Liberals did.

The ethics counsellor should have been appointed by parliament. He should have been given that kind of power. If they did not want to do it then, they should do it now. It would have been far better for the government in power today to have put that kind of motion before us. We could all have supported that motion, not this kind of motion which does not get to the heart of the issue and which deals with peripheral duties. The real frustration comes from these other issues. That is what we need to keep in place and recognize that it is the case.

The point has come for us to realize that many of us in the House, and I have spoken to several members on various committees, whether it is from this side of the House or from the government side are asking what in the world they are here for? They feel they are wasting their time. They say the minister tells them the bill they will be voting on or the legislation they will be dealing with. They cannot make any amendments to it. They cannot determine who the witnesses will be. To some degree there is some flexibility but by and large, if the minister does not want, or if the Prime Minister does not want, certain witnesses to appear, they will not appear, notwithstanding the committee has the power under legislation to subpoena people. However, what happens? Nothing.

There is the frustration. We need to come to grips with the realities of giving to the parliamentarians meaningful work, inside and outside committees. We need to allow them to vote the way they want to vote and allow them to express what needs to be done. That is consistent with what the people want them to do. That is at the heart of the issue. I am pleading for the House to reform parliament to make that possible.

[Standing Orders, February 27th, 2001]

I would like to address the hon. member for Winnipeg South because he understands this university very well. He probably knows many of the people who teach there. I would like to refer to this particular study entitled, “Searching for Good Governance”. I am going to quote a couple of paragraphs from this particular study. Bill Stanbury in 1994 concluded that the present system of cabinet government was seriously flawed with respect to one of its most widely cited virtues, accountability.

We have just talked about exactly that. Accountability is the issue. It is not vexatious or frivolous motions that come to us. Those are byproducts of a much bigger problem which is accountability.

Mr. Stanbury went on to say “Little useful information is disclosed that would permit the voters to properly assess the performance of the government. The ability of parliament and voters to hold accountable the cabinet and the rest of the executive is highly limited”.

That is what we are talking about today and it is very significant. The issue is the accountability of parliament and the accountability of the Prime Minister and ministers of the crown. He argued that between elections a majority government was ultimately constrained only by self-restraint, a form of self-regulation.

Members know that self-regulation that is talked about here is nothing more and nothing less than the self-regulation of the Prime Minister himself. It is the Prime Minister's office that decides what will or will not happen. Mr. Stanbury went on to say “The government often controls the means of monitoring its performance. It controls much of the quantity, quality and type of information available. It is unlikely to admit non-performance and will do its best to conceal bad performance”.

In his book Checks Unbalanced: The Quiet Side of Public Spending , Herman Leonard wrote: “Civilized people go to great lengths to avoid having to confront unpleasant news and uncomfortable feeling. But when we practice avoidance and obfuscation in public affairs, the consequences reach us all. A civilized penchant to look away. The willingness of some to hide and of others to tolerate the hiding of the public's business is on its face antithetical to our society. Society's fundamental governing precept, governing by the informed consent of the governed”.

That is a major insight but very important for us to realize. That is at the heart of what we are debating here today, that we make parliament relevant so that every Canadian can say it is a place where their representatives can tell the people what it is that they want done in a democratic form. They will take their view from the majority position but they want their voice heard there.

This is the point that he is making. He is saying that if information is not given or if it is somehow obfuscated or it is adulterated in some way, electors no longer make an informed decision about who can represent them. That is what that is all about.

He goes on to the accountability of expenditures. This is probably even more significant than anything else I have said so far. The authors of the study concluded:

Most of the “bottom line” focus of accountability in the media is the general budget presentation of the deficit by the Minister of Finance.

We do not have a budget right now but we do have the rest of this which does apply. It is a well established practice that the media takes the bottom line from the budget presentation by the minister. It provides an incentive to manipulate the presentation of the general accounts to give the impression of better performance in this regard.

The study further stated:

For example, spending might be shifted “off-budget” to an independent agency such as a Crown corporation, or into a loan guarantee as opposed to a direct subsidy, to reduce the “deficit” registered in the general accounts. Alternatively, accounts might even be made to look worse in order to make more dramatic an expected improvement. It is well-known that new governments tend to attribute as much responsibility for deficits as possible to the previous political managers.

How many times have we seen that in the House? We have seen it over and over again.

It goes on to state that preliminary work done by Postner emphasized the need for a consolidated budget, a budget that would provide a unified presentation of all government activities, including general government activities, trust fund activities such as public sector pension plans and enterprise type activities such as crown corporations.

By doing so it would help to illuminate the complete financial picture of the government and diminish the potential to shift activities off budget to conceal politically embarrassing information.

There is the heart of the issue. We are unable to assess accurately whether the information we are getting in the budget document is an accurate description of where the government has spent its money and how much it has spent. We do not know and we cannot know because the accounting system is such that it does not accrue the total expenditures. They are expenditures that take place off budget. They are still a liability to the government. It has spent the money but it does not appear in the budget that as presented to the media and the public. It is not an accurate reflection of the real financial position of the government.

This is at the heart of the frustration which we are experiencing. We can argue about free votes. We can talk about the role of committees and amendments. If we do not deal with the fundamental issue of representation of our constituents, of our consciences in this place, we are denying the fundamental principle of democracy. That is what we need to address.

I would like to say one more thing with regard to the whole business of reforming parliament. We must first of all recognize that we are Canadians, that we are here as a democracy, a democracy that has stood the test of time, a democracy that is in a crisis situation right now and a democracy where many people are saying it is no longer relevant and they really do not care. That is a serious indictment. We must care because the iron law of politics applies to us and to every Canadian. Those who choose not to get involved are bound to be governed by those who do.

The time has come for each of us to work together and to work through the principles of true democracy. This is where people are elected on the merits, platform and philosophies they present. They are elected on the basic principles and policies that they stand for, that they will implement when given the reins of power and that we can depend on those people to do what they said they would do.

[Standing Orders, February 27th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege, actually, to be able to join in this debate, because I think what we are dealing with here is probably one of the most significant elements that has hit this House for some time. That element is parliamentary reform.

The particular issue I will raise is the quotation that I believe the member for Winnipeg South used. I think he took it from an office placard that he saw. I believe it went like this: “For every complex problem there is a simple solution”. It is wrong.

I suggest that with parliamentary reform we have a very complex issue. It is not something that is going to be resolved simply. It will require a major review of a number of things and I believe the hon. member for Winnipeg South said as much. This is a complicated issue.

I wanted to ask him a question and unfortunately the rules of the House did not allow us to ask questions. The question I was going to ask him was this: is this not a very simple solution to a very complex question? I think it is.

It is good that the Speaker would have the right not to allow vexatious and frivolous kinds of amendments. I have no problem with that. We agree with that.

However, there is a difficulty, which is why the Canadian Alliance put forward an amendment. Our amendment reads as follows:

and, for even greater clarity, the Speaker may select for debate all motions, regardless of their nature, if in his or her opinion the rights of the minority have been infringed upon in any way.

At that point lies the very heart of the issue. The essence of parliament is to give a voice to the people of Canada.

I see the hon. member for Winnipeg South back in the House and it is great to see him nodding his head.

That is our purpose here. It is to make this place relevant. A number of speakers here this afternoon said that parliament, for many people, has become irrelevant. That is a serious indictment on every one of us here. We should be able to debate in such a way that it is relevant to virtually everyone in Canada, whether we are on the opposition side of the House or the government side of the House.

I will address my remarks in that regard. I will refer to the hon. Minister of Finance. Not too long ago the Minister of Finance made a comment in a speech. I will read the exact paragraph that he used. The Minister of Finance said:

We have been discussing the role of Parliament in enshrining the values of the nation and its response to change. This is an empty debate unless it recognizes the role of the parliamentarians themselves—in our case the 301 members of the current House of Commons...MPs must have the opportunity to truly represent both their consciences and constituencies.

I could not agree more. That is a wonderful statement from a very honourable gentleman in the House who has a major and very responsible position in the government. I really admire that he said that.

The question then is will this kind of a motion bring about a stronger and more effective voice for parliamentarians? It will if vexatious motions are not there.

One of the reasons why there are these, by some definitions frivolous or vexatious, motions is because there is frustration on the part of parliamentarians. They cannot express themselves the way they want to. They cannot give voice to the people. They cannot vote in the interests of their constituents. Why is this? The hon. members opposite know only too well what I am talking about.

I want to refer back to the position of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister stood in the House and said, “I am only an ordinary MP looking after the interests of my constituency”. The Prime Minister is not an ordinary MP. The Prime Minister is a very special person with unique powers. The Prime Minister has the power to appoint supreme court judges, senators and all the ministers of the crown. The Prime Minister also has the right to take away those appointments. He can shift around particular positions. He is not an ordinary member of parliament.

There are times when the Prime Minister exercises certain powers over members of parliament that deny them the responsibility and the opportunity to exercise their representative power of their constituencies.

I remember clearly the vote that took place in the House on the remuneration for hepatitis C victims. I am sure all members of the House know that there are people on that side of the House who voted against what they had been fighting for and what they knew was the right thing to do. Why did they do this? They were told they must toe the party line. That is wrong. That is a denial of the democratic principles of the House. That is what we are decrying.

If there was not this kind of frustration, there would be no need for all kinds of frivolous and vexatious motions. These are expressions of something else that is wrong. We cannot fix a complex problem by taking one little item and changing it and think that all the other things are going to go away. They will not go away. The problems are inherent in the system. The system has to change.

The Prime Minister has to be accountable to parliament. We had a very recent example that happened in this 37th parliament. A red book promise was given to the people of Canada about appointing an ethics counsellor by parliament and having that ethics counsellor report to parliament. The Prime Minister said that was what they were going to do it.

When it came to a vote in the House of Commons to give effect to and implement that particular promise, what did the Prime Minister do? He said his party would vote against that motion, thus denying an opportunity for the ethics counsellor to become the truly impartial, objective person who could evaluate what the Prime Minister was doing and what other ministers might do.

That is what frustrates us. That is what makes it impossible for parliamentarians to do what they were elected to do. That is serious business.

I wish to address one other issue. This comes out of a study that was done by Queen's University. I am sure there are members opposite who know only too well that particular institution, an institution of great learning and one I respect.

[Standing Orders, February 27th, 2001]

We will continue to do that.

[Immigration And Refugee Protection Act, February 27th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I commend my hon. colleague for his comments and the passion with which he addressed the question. It was excellent. He has obviously done some very serious study of the bill. He has 28 or 30 different items that should be addressed by the committee.

Understanding that he has such a complete knowledge and an intimate recognition of what is involved in the legislation, I wonder if he could address three issues. He has touched on all of them but I do not think he has gone far enough and I would like to give him the opportunity to expand further.

One of the issues has to do with the abuse of the system by people who immigrate to Canada. Another issue has to do with the abuse of the loopholes in the legislation by people in our embassies, in foreign countries or perhaps in Canada who are abusing the consulting services they provide and the good faith people place in them. They are supposed to have superior knowledge and they sort of mislead people.

The final issue, which really gets to the heart of the issue, is the question of where the accountability is in the legislation when the minister of immigration can make the kinds of statements that were made in the last election campaign. I would like the member to address those three issues.

[Immigration And Refugee Protection Act, February 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I too want to congratulate my colleague for Blackstrap. We had a representative from Blackstrap in years gone by and I never found out just exactly how Blackstrap got its name. I thank her for the illumination on exactly what Blackstrap is all about and how it got its name.

It is very interesting that the constituents of Blackstrap chose the hon. member to represent them. Not only does she look good in this place but she actually has a very strong voice. I was particularly taken by the comparison she made between Croatia, her ancestral home from way back, and Canada.

I think she said something to the effect that Croatia gave them the strength and Canada gave them the opportunity. That is an absolutely fantastic statement. I wish she could explore it a little further.

Canada is a multicultural nation made up of people from all kinds of countries of the world. Could it really be that Canada has become as strong as it is and has become the peacemaker it is because of these various nations? The nations gave the individual strength and Canada gave them the opportunity to demonstrate to the world what multiculturalism can mean to Canada and the rest of the world. Would the hon. member like to comment on that?

[Points Of Order, February 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to please clarify the reasons why you would not allow my S. O. 31 statement.

I would respectfully submit that I did not in any way intend it to be a personal attack on any member in the House but rather to take the very words that the ethics counsellor himself used about the Prime Minister, saying that he was no ordinary MP. It was within that context that these particular words were put together.

I did provide you, Mr. Speaker, with the text of what I was about to submit to the House. I would ask if you would please clarify what it is about that statement that you considered to be a personal attack on a member of the House.