Dennis Mills

[Supply, November 21st, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on a sentence that the member delivered in his speech when he said: "Any help we"-being the Reform Party-"can give to the traditional family this party supports". I believe that is an accurate phrase from the member's speech. I see the member nodding in agreement.

I would like to suggest humbly that the Reform Party can talk about its commitment to the traditional family. I believe the member is sincere when he talks about that. However, at the same time, I do not think the Reform Party realizes that its campaign that has gone on in this House for the last three years plus on cuts in every sector of government, the lean, mean machine type of approach to government, in fact not only directly but indirectly causes a tremendous assault on the traditional family.

It is important, when we have the opportunity to debate some of these issues, that we realize we have to look not just at the micro issues but at the macro effect. The Reform Party has not been sensitive to traditional family values. It would be interesting to see if the member would say that maybe this is a conversion as we are heading into an election year or something.

Maybe the member could clarify why the Reform Party now believes that its campaign on cuts over the last three years has been an assault on the traditional family and that it is prepared to reconsider that approach and start looking at a more generous approach in using government agencies and departments to look out for the needs of families?

[Committee Of The Whole, October 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying it is really sad on an evening like this when we will be voting to ask someone to be the deputy chair of the House that we have not had more time discussing the background and the qualities that the member for Kingston and the Islands has exhibited in this House over the last eight years.

With respect to many of the members of the Reform Party, had they been here when we were in opposition when the Conservative government was operating this place they would have witnessed a man who showed a tremendous amount of love for this Chamber. He practically lived in here for his first term.

He developed a keen sense of understanding about the technical aspects of the House. He committed himself to becoming a master of the House, understanding the rules and making sure that there was fair play and accountability on the government side of the House.

I think the members of the Reform Party are at a bit of a disadvantage when it comes to assessing the member for Kingston and the Islands because they did not witness that experience. He has served a tremendous apprenticeship which suits him to take over this assignment.

It is too bad that tonight, what should be a total acclamation of a great member of Parliament, is being stained and clouded by a diversionary tactic of the opposition to prevent this member who has such merit from being appointed.

For the last little while I have listened to the members of the Reform Party. I want to go back to the very first time that the leader of the Reform Party stood in this House. He said the members of the Reform Party over this term would only stand and criticize the government if they had constructive alternatives to the government pathway and that they would do it in a way that was not like the traditional jousting and bickering that tends to go on during question period.

We can see that after three or four months in this Chamber Reform Party members have fallen into the traditional partisan habits of opposition parties. I find that sad because there were many good thoughts put on the table tonight and many good observations about what really does happen in this House of Commons and in committees. Many of their observations are about the fact that effectiveness of the utilization of committee recommendations is not really high. There is a lot of good talent and good ideas which go on in those committees which really never see the light of day. I thought that some of the Reform members who brought that point up made a good observation.

However, we know that the real root of the problem for this Chamber is not what goes on in the committees and in debate here on bills as they come through the House. The real root evolves from question period. The members of the Reform Party over the last three years had a chance to do something different.

I do not think many Canadians realize how question period operates in this country. I do not think many Canadians realize that most of it is sort of a rigged deal. In other words, every morning we all know that the tacticians from both sides of the House meet in their offices and the opposition members sit there and say "okay, let us see what the media is saying about issues all across the country and let us see how we can sort of find one or two things to embarrass the government". These are not ideas coming from the members from their own committee experiences. By and large they tend to design their questions from what they see in the media.

Lo and behold, on the other side of the House we have tacticians sitting there for the government almost having a contest as to what questions opposition members are going to ask today. They wonder how many questions they can anticipate are going to be asked and how accurate are they going to be. What do we have here? We have a phony joust every day in question period. There is not a member of Parliament in this House who will say that this is anything other than an almost predictable exercise every day.

This is what Canadians are fed up with. They are not fed up with what goes on in committee because they see very little of committee. The members are right, that is where a lot of good work goes on. However, what is the face that we put to Canadians in this Chamber? It is the face of that 30 second little joust clip that goes on in question period. In the last three and a half years Reform members had a chance to try to change that and make question period a more meaningful exercise. That is what the leader of the Reform Party said he would do the first time he spoke in the House.

I want to be specific. I am not criticizing the Reform Party just to criticize. I am trying to convey the genuineness they are trying to show with regard to making the Chamber more meaningful. I say question period could be different. Reform members or the members of the opposition should not govern themselves or design their questions based on the media. They should base them on their own committee experience and what they personally believe is the issue of the day. They should control the agenda rather than letting the media control it.

That is one of the sicknesses around here. By and large the media controls the agenda of most members of Parliament, and it should be the reverse. Members of Parliament should be controlling the agenda.

I give a specific example. Members have stood in the past few hours to talk about the flawed health care system as it is evolving and about some of the shortcomings of government.

I could make the case the Reform Party has caused most of the flaws. I should not say flaws. If the Liberal government has been a little less liberal than what it has been traditionally, it is primarily because of the Reform Party which has an obsession with deficit and debt. How can it be so obsessed with deficit and debt and expect the health care system to be anything other than what it is?

We have a pathway of deficit and debt reduction around here that is crazy. We are cutting off our nose to spite our face. We are destroying national institutions because of the deep cuts that are going on.

The Reform Party has taken some credit for the heavy duty focus on deficit and debt. We in the Chamber are supposed to be here not for the advantaged but to speak for the disadvantaged. Traditionally the opposition party is supposed to make sure government is accountable and there is some balance.

I humbly say those members of Parliament have not been a factor in ensuring a balance as we go through reconstruction or modernization. They have been too extreme and that extremism does not help the quality of life. It exacerbates the breakdown of some institutions going through a very difficult period.

I have a great respect for the Chamber. I continue to enjoy my experience in the House of Commons. I have a deep understanding and respect for where the Reform Party is coming from. However, if Reformers want to make this work, they have to carve out a new pathway or a different approach which should start at question period. Until we clean up the House at question period to make it real and not a gimmick, nothing will change. It will go on.

There is not a kid or a serious person in Canada who will tell us to our face that they love what goes on in question period, that they think what goes on there is great, that they admire what happens there. I have never found the person, anyway. If the Reform Party were serious about making the House more meaningful it would focus on the root problem.

I end by saying that I came to the House of Commons with the member for Kingston and the Islands who is a fabulous Chamber member. He loves the Chamber. He has worked his buns off to ensure that fair play is part of the rules and the different sorts of things that go on here. It is part of his being.

If the members of the Reform Party believe in change, they should not stain an evening like tonight when such a fine member will be appointed in any event. We should all get behind him and

put trust that he and the Speaker over the next few months can perhaps make a few changes.

[Committee Of The Whole, October 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I thought that this evening's debate was to deal with the qualifications, the worthiness and the appropriateness of an eight-year veteran of the House of Commons who is being considered for a deputy chair position.

I have listened carefully in the last six or seven minutes. I believe that the litany of all the things which we have or have not done as a Liberal government is not relevant to the issue of this debate.

[Administrative Tribunals (Remedial And Disciplinary Measures) Act, October 21st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to my colleague from Oshawa. He mentioned something that I want to ensure I understood correctly.

He talked about the notion that the pharmaceutical industry felt that the inefficiencies related to getting their drug systems approved were costing it a lot of money, and the fact that it had to go through all these regions was a negative situation.

Is the member promoting a more reinforced Government of Canada national standards for these program approvals? Is that what I understood him to say?

[Administrative Tribunals (Remedial And Disciplinary Measures) Act, October 21st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by saying to the member for Fraser Valley East that I believe in patronage. I have always believed in it and I am not going to change.

The whole notion by the member from the Reform Party is gimmick politics. He was quoting Jeffrey Simpson. Can anyone imagine Jeffrey Simpson writing for the Toronto Star ?

We have to understand that the member is suggesting to Canadians that when someone is hired in business or the media that there is no sensitivity as to whether or not that person shares the same values, the same vision, the same policy objectives. The notion that when an employer is hiring someone who is anything other than sensitive to the direction the employer is heading is just crazy. It is like that in life.

This is a beautiful opportunity to talk about issues in a substantive way. In my earlier remarks I tried to engage the member in a debate on the whole notion of a program review of what goes on with the Bank of Canada. Members of the Reform Party are always talking about a billion dollars here and a billion dollars there. There are a few of us who still believe that we should spend this money to hold the country together.

Why not have a debate on who prints the money. What is money? Who is managing it? Who decides how much is printed? Who decides on its distribution? I wish the Reform Party members would get involved in that debate, then we could really have some excitement around here.

The whole notion of patronage is going to go on as long as man is living, as long as we are social beings.

Does the member not think it would be a worthwhile exercise for all members in the House to engage in a total program review on how the Bank of Canada operates and its links to the financial institutions of this country and the way it controls the flow of currency which is so badly needed in the marketplace today? How about that as a way of reforming or reinventing government?

[Administrative Tribunals (Remedial And Disciplinary Measures) Act, October 21st, 1996]

That is disgusting.

[Administrative Tribunals (Remedial And Disciplinary Measures) Act, October 21st, 1996]

What is wrong with that?

[Administrative Tribunals (Remedial And Disciplinary Measures) Act, October 21st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Mississauga South for his question.

I have a problem with the appointment to the CBC. I do not have a problem with the individual. I have known Perrin Beatty for many years. He has served Parliament and this country well. I am one of his biggest fans. However, I have a problem with the fact that he would be more sympathetic with the general pathway of cuts that we are on with the CBC. For me, as someone who has been a traditional supporter of the CBC, especially in the outlying regions of Canada, I probably would have lobbied to put somebody in charge of the corporation who held a more traditional view of what the CBC is all about.

I applaud Perrin Beatty as an individual. I believe that as someone who would be sensitive, of course, but sympathetic to a reduction in the presence of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the government could not have chosen a better person.

That is the balancing act that it has to go through. I wish my colleague from Mississauga South had not mentioned the CBC. That is an example of the point which I was trying to make in my remarks.

In a major market like Toronto one could argue that there are so many options in terms of private sector radio and television, et cetera, that maybe we could let the private sector do it. However, remember how this country was built. This country was built by ensuring that the outer regions had a shot at the same quality of service, in all sectors of the economy, as the people in major

markets. One area where the CBC has done a terrific job is in the outlying regions.

I do not know how the CBC will be dismantled. However, we must ensure that we do not begin the process of weakening the galvanizing forces which held all regions of the country together.

[Administrative Tribunals (Remedial And Disciplinary Measures) Act, October 21st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in the House of Commons this afternoon on this bill.

I would like to begin by acknowledging the work that my colleague from Dartmouth has been doing over the last few months as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade. Most Canadians will realize that our export numbers have never been this high in Canadian history in terms of percentage increases. All too often Canadians do not realize that members, such as the member for Dartmouth, when they are not here sitting in the House of Commons doing their work, are busy working with small, medium and large industries in all regions of the country, assisting them and signing contracts that lead to the export of Canadian goods and services. The member should be celebrated for the work he has been doing on international trade.

When I listened to the President of the Treasury Board speak earlier in the debate today, I could not argue with him when he spoke about the notion that we must have a smaller, modernized government, and that we must make sure that the overall financial objectives are kept in mind when we are going through the whole program review, or as some people have described it, reinventing government.

In principle, I support all of those objectives. I certainly would support the bill today which is tidying up some agencies and reducing orders in council which will make government more efficient.

However, I am concerned that the pathway of reinventing government is going too fast and in many cases is too dramatic. First is the overall objective of trying to reduce the deficit in a rapid fashion. I have a concern that in the process of doing this we will be dismantling aspects of the Government of Canada that we will live to regret in the not too distant future.

The member for Dartmouth talked about the port of Halifax. In my city of Toronto, the port of Toronto is something that not only serves as an agent for industrial building and policy making, but is also a large symbol of the presence of the Government of Canada in the major market of Toronto.

Fortunately, the bill relating to the harbours of Canada has the flexibility that if in certain regions you want to exempt certain harbours and still have them in the jurisdiction of the Government of Canada, then with enough support it can be done. But my concern is the fact that as we cut, dismantle and offload, we will eventually get to a point where the levers that the government needs from time to time to activate industrial policy will be weakened to a point where they will not be effective.

Even though we are on the right pathway, we had better make sure that we do not cut off our nose to spite our face because some of these instruments are going to be very important for us in the future, especially in the whole area of national unity. The presence of the Government of Canada in every province is something that I

personally believe should be maintained in a very vibrant and active way.

There is another thing I want to mention when we are talking about this bill of reinventing or renewing government. I would like to see the government as it goes through its program review take on the challenge of reviewing the work of the Governor of the Bank of Canada. That was a governor in council agency that many years ago was offloaded from the Government of Canada. It is almost an independent body, other than the fact that the Governor of the Bank of Canada is appointed by the governor in council, the Prime Minister. Of course the Governor of the Bank of Canada routinely meets with the Minister of Finance.

For all intents and purposes the Bank of Canada works almost in an independent fashion from this Parliament. I believe as we are going through program review it would be an interesting exercise if we took a look at just how the Bank of Canada operates.

I for one believe that the relationship between the Bank of Canada and the chartered banks of Canada, the financial institutions of Canada, is an area that needs intense scrutiny, intense review. As we move forward on this pathway of deficit and ultimately debt reduction, if we are not careful we are going to have a repeat of what happened from 1987 to 1988 and the first part of 1992 where the governor, John Crow, essentially put a ratchet on inflation to the point where he just broke the confidence of Canadians. He broke the confidence of small and medium sized businessmen and women in this country. He created a factor of fear that essentially tilted the economy. It is very important that this agency of government be put under the microscope of program review by the Government of Canada.

I want to conclude by saying, as the member for Dartmouth said, there are many good men and women who over the years have served these crown corporations, these agencies of government in a very productive way. When the Conservatives are in power it is a normal natural process that they would promote the friends that helped them get their government elected. It is not any different for a Liberal government or a Reform government or whoever it might be that is given the trust of the people.

Obviously you choose the people to put into strategic and sensitive positions who reflect the views that you have been mandated to implement. It would be a pretty silly experience to put somebody in that did not share your views. With the nature of the human being these people might be tempted from time to time to sabotage your policy objectives.

By and large these people have served these agencies well. I do not think anyone in the community or in the country should feel that these reductions in orders in council or the dismantling of these agencies have anything to do with the quality of service that these men and women have provided on behalf of Canadians over the last number of years.

I am happy to conclude on this note. It is very important, as we continue to go through this program review, because we have been going so hard and so fast, that we not dismantle this place to the point where the national government no longer has instruments that allow it to serve, produce, create or provide the type of role that it needs to make sure of the economy and service to the public that this place has to provide from time to time. Do not shut it down to the point where we lose our effectiveness.

[The Constitution, June 3rd, 1996]

There is the member for Halifax once again.

It is important for the students, the educators and the leaders of the whole educational system in Newfoundland that we be careful. I do not support denigrating their system. It has moved forward dramatically and constructively and we should not knock it.