Jim Silye

[Committee Of The Whole, October 28th, 1996]

That is hypocrisy.

We know about that infamous promise on the GST. The Deputy Prime Minister even quit saying that she had failed to keep her promise. She ran again and got re-elected. It is an admission that the government failed on that promise. But the Prime Minister will not admit that. The Liberals have not got rid of the GST or scrapped the GST.

I do not want to go on talking about broken promises because I could debate that for another two hours. I will spend a little more time on this motion.

The preface of Beauchesne's sixth edition states:

The election of the Speaker-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.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. The member for Kingston and the Islands as the gander-to-be would not have a problem with this notion. He is a parliamentarian, as I said earlier, and one of the authors of the Liberal report for reviving parliamentary democracy where they promised to elect two of the chair positions from the opposition benches, two of the junior member positions.

This nomination was moved by a cabinet minister, the deputy House leader. A chair officer is not the puppet of the government but an officer of this House. The person sitting in that chair, regardless of party and regardless of stripe, is not working for the government side. The position is to be neutral. The position involves the application to the best of his or her ability the rules of the House which are found in the standing orders, and they are no longer a Liberal member or a Reform member or a Bloc member.

However, we do not have the opportunity to have a Bloc member or a Reform member in the Chair. It is all from that side, which is what we are trying to debate today. We should endorse the recommendations of the Liberals when they were in opposition.

How does it look to have this nomination coming from the government side, from the Prime Minister's office, just like a patronage appointment to some government board, just like a patronage appointment to the Senate where we have had 18 Liberals appointed?

How obvious is it when the Prime Minister appoints someone to the Senate and says: "I will select and I will appoint a person who defends our party". Is the purpose of the Senate, to defend the Liberal government? He admitted that, he said that. That is a paraphrased quote but it is pretty close to what he said.

We want competent people on all the 3,000 boards and quasi-judicial boards. And yes, a lot of those people will be Liberals. There is no question about it. But do they all have to be Liberals? Are there no former Conservatives or Conservative supporters who could serve on one of those 3,000 boards? Are there no people who voted for Reform who could serve on one of those boards?

I agree with the principle of putting those people into positions on boards who have an identification or who have a rapport or who understand the government's intent. I do not have a problem with that. When the Prime Minister says that a lot of people voted for Liberals, so therefore there should be a lot of people on those boards who are Liberal, I agree.

However, at the very same time when he says that, the logic inherent in that is what about those people who did not vote for Liberals who are also competent and who also have the right to run? Therefore the composition should not be 99.9 per cent Liberal and .1 per cent other parties.

They mentioned names like the current president of the CBC and a former Prime Minister who is living in a $3 million mansion in Beverley Hills protecting Canadians down there. They take two or three appointments to lift it to a level of integrity and to say "see, we do pick members from other parties".

This government and this Prime Minister are guilty of duplicity and hypocrisy. I would hate to have to add the member for Kingston and the Islands to that list because he will have to sit with cabinet ministers and make recommendations for democratic reform.

They are in power. They have the right and the opportunity. There are no ifs, ands or buts. Nobody is going to complain. In fact, they have the encouragement and the endorsement of members to do this. There would be unanimous consent to have an opposition member as one of the junior speakers. That would be supported. Will the government do that? I do not think so. Will it keep that promise? I do not think so.

Now that I see my favourite cabinet minister opposite shaking his head, the new minister of defence, saying "you are right, Jim, we are not going to change", I know it will not happen. This man is a man of his word. He is one person who has kept his promises. He is one person who has done what he said he would do. I know that he can hold his head up high as a cabinet minister. I have so much respect for him that if he ever ran for leader, rather than the current finance minister, I might support him.

There is a solution to this problem. I cannot do it in the form of a motion, an amendment or an amendment to an amendment to a motion. I do not want to waste the time of the House in doing that. However, I would like to recommend for the government's consideration after this subamendment is voted on and defeated, after the amendment is voted on and defeated, and before we vote on the motion, that the member for Kingston and the Islands actually request that the government to do this. This is his moment in history. This is his chance to bring about systemic change on principles which I know the Liberals believe in. I do not understand

why they will not follow through with it. It is not something major. It will not shake the earth. It is a step forward.

The recommendation I have is this. Prior to the vote on the final motion, why not allow the two opposition parties to each put forward a name and have an election? We can have an election on the two names put forward by the two opposition parties, one from the Bloc and one from Reform. The House could vote for the junior deputy chair position. It is, after all, a junior position. It is, after all, following the principles of democracy. We want to retain the independence of the Chair.

If we follow the model we used to elect the current Speaker of the House, we are helping to endorse that independence. We are helping to encourage and foster systemic reform and systemic change which is of benefit to everybody. It is an opportunity for the current Minister of Labour, the current Minister of Health, the current Minister for International Co-operation and the Minister responsible for Francophonie, and the member for Kingston and the Islands to hold their heads up high, to boast, to brag and to tell their constituents that they actually brought about a change in the House of Commons which shows that it is independent, that it is fair, that the form of debate we have is healthy and that the Chair is not prejudiced, even though all the appointments after the election of the Speaker are made by the government side.

It is very important for the government to think about what it is doing. This is an opportunity for it to do something correct. It would restore honesty and integrity. It would allow us to help the government keep a promise and to show that it is not always partisan and that sometimes we can work together to bring about positive and constructive change for the good of everybody.

[Committee Of The Whole, October 28th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, before I begin my comments on this issue, which I think the members on the government side are slowly starting to forget, the member for Waterloo talked about intellectual honesty. If he wanted to be intellectually honest he would have answered the question of my colleague from Macleod when he asked whether the member for Waterloo would or would not support a member from the Bloc Quebecois as a deputy chair. He refused to answer and squirmed around it.

When someone talks about intellectual honesty and expects it, why would that person not simply answer a question yes or no? That was not a question that required a five minute conversation off topic.

The essence of this motion moved by the House leader of the government is the independence of the Chair. The person whose name has been put forward is also a person who has impeccable qualifications, is extremely qualified to sit in the position of a chair and who has worked for years in understanding the standing orders which are the rules of this House that speakers in the chair must apply when rendering decisions.

A lot of times, because of a lot of issues and the partisan nature of politics in this country, there are divisive issues and ideas and people need to have rules. The standing orders are there for us to follow. When we step out of line the Chair must rule.

This individual is the member for Kingston and the Islands. It is his name that was put forward by the House leader of the government. However, the issue is linking the two, the individual himself and the independence of the Chair.

The member for Kingston and the Islands has said that he believes in secret ballots for the election of Speakers because in that way all the members of the House can then enhance the respect and any of the rulings by the Speaker of the House.

Furthermore, the member for Kingston and the Islands was on a committee when in opposition which wrote the Liberal plan for the House of Commons and electoral reform that was titled "Reviving Parliamentary Democracy". The opposition members of that committee were the current Minister of Health, the Minister of Labour, the member for Kingston and the Islands whose name has been put forward to be the deputy chair, and the former party whip, the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell who is now also a cabinet minister of francophonie and intergovernmental affairs. These people have worked hard to earn their positions. They had ideas in opposition and even though politics is part of that sometimes we can find agreement.

In this case the Reform Party agrees with a lot of the democratic reforms that have been put forward by the Liberal members when they were in opposition. They now have an opportunity to do the things they fought for and believed in so hard in opposition.

While in opposition the Liberals said that this House was dysfunctional. They came forward with 18 recommendations, all the way from committees, taxation, new rules for question period so that it would have some meaning. They suggested things like limiting the questions and the answers, telling the government side to answer questions. The joke around here is that this is not answer

period. It is question period, so they do not answer. There are a lot of good ideas in this document.

Reformers are not bringing this forward to put the member for Kingston and the Islands down. It is brought forward to compliment the member for Kingston and the Islands and to say that his ideas and his suggestions, especially this one, have a lot of merit.

He is pushing for the independence of the Chair. That is important. When the battle is heated we do not want any partiality to be a part of the decision of the Chair. Therefore it is very important. The fact that the McGrath round of procedural reforms decided that the Speaker should be elected by secret ballot has gone a long way toward assuring members of the independence of the presiding officer. Here is the important point. We are talking about deputy chairs.

"The three deputy speakers, however, remain in effect government appointees as a consequence. When one of the junior officers is in the Chair his or her independence and authority is less well established. Their authority would be greatly enhanced and the non-partisan nature of the Chair greatly augmented if the British practice of alternating Chair positions between government and opposition were adopted". It does not say official opposition. It says opposition, as my colleague from Prince George-Peace River mentioned.

Thus if the Speaker were from the government party, the Deputy Speaker would be from the opposition, the next officer from the government and so forth, back and forth like that.

This is the principle we believe in. This is a concept that will further and help guarantee the independence of the Chair. The fact that the person who made this recommendation, who signed this proposal, is now the person being put forward it seems to me that we should have an election for that position. We should put his recommendation into practice. Rather than having the deputy chair we should have one member from an opposition party as deputy chair and not all of them from the government side.

This is the government's last opportunity to implement this recommendation, to keep one of its red book promises so that it becomes part of the glowing statistics about which the Prime Minister has been telling us. Now is the opportunity to do this. It is probably the best thing that a politician can do and accomplish in his or her career in politics. It is to bring about systemic change, to bring about changes in the system rather than just changing the faces.

How can people respect politicians and the functions of this House if nothing really changes but only the faces are changed? Here are the very people who are recommending something that we would support given the opportunity to actually make one of the deputy chairs come from the opposition parties and the government does not do it.

I would like to recommend to the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands that he now has the opportunity, as my colleague from St. Albert put forward, to say to his government because he authored this, because he is a man of conviction, because he has integrity, this is an opportunity. I know he would like to be in the Chair. I know he would like to have the experience. I know that it would be a great sacrifice on his part. The suggestion is why does he not withdraw his name. Why does he not give a speech on this issue? He has not spoken yet. Why does he not address this issue and say that he believes in that report. To help the Prime Minister keep one more promise why does he not recommend that a name from the opposition be put forward? That is the way to decide this issue.

That would be a way to help the government keep a promise. It would be a way to help restore integrity and honesty to the system of politics. It would be a way for this member to bow out of a very embarrassing situation.

The excuse from the current deputy House leader is that the government has 24 months left to keep its promises. Does that not fly in the face of credibility when everybody knows that there is going to be an election as early as possible in the spring or by June or as late as October of next year? That is not 24 months.

Talk about intellectual honesty which the member for Waterloo so proudly defends. There are a lot of discredited comments coming from the government side.

This is what is wrong with what is happening here. Once again we are continuing the form of patronage which does not take into consideration commitments and principles that the government believed in when in opposition.

The opportunity to change the system which is before the government is also before this individual. There is nothing worse than to see the government side hide behind excuses, to see the government side flip-flop on issues. The list of broken promises is pathetic on its part but a benefit to us.

We are happy and proud of the fact that the government stole a lot of our ideas which are part of our platform. We are proud and happy with the fact that when in opposition the Liberals were against NAFTA and free trade. We told them, we argued and we even had to vote holding our noses for another Conservative government just to get free trade for Canada because their former leader, John Turner, was against it. Now they sing and praise the virtues of it. The very last vote the government had when in opposition was on NAFTA and all the front benches voted against it. All of them voted against it; not one voted for it and now all they do is praise the virtues of it.

[Committee Of The Whole, October 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, there are two issues I would like to touch on.

First, I would like to reiterate what my colleague for Fraser Valley East mentioned. Not once in his speech did he say anything derogatory about the member for Kingston and the Islands. The member for Fundy-Royal should be aware of that and he should acknowledge that we are not casting aspersions on the member. I

worked with the member on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. He was chair of that committee and I did find him to be fair. Should he become deputy chair, I would not have any problems with that.

Second, for all the glowing comments the hon. member for Fundy-Royal made, he should clear up this issue that we are not picking on the individual's character and integrity. It is impeccable and he would be a fine deputy chair. There is no question.

However with all those glowing compliments, with all those glowing remarks and all the experience that the member has-and those are the grounds upon which the Liberal government wishes to put his name forward-why does the member not go one step further and accept the advice of the member for Kingston and the Islands, to accept the high degree of intelligence, accept the high degree of thought and effort that he put into this idea as to who should be deputy chair? Should it or should it not be a member from the opposition parties? Should it not be a member from the official opposition? Should there not be a second deputy chair from the third party?

That is what the member for Kingston and the Islands put forward. With all his years of experience, with all his knowledge and integrity and honesty, he said that was what the government should do. It is signed with the signatures of the Prime Minister, of the House leader and of the former whip. All of these people have recommended that the two deputy chairs be appointed from the opposition benches.

Why does the member from New Brunswick not recognize that comment? Why does the member from New Brunswick not acknowledge that it is a promise which was made? It is a promise that should be kept. He knows it is a cop out to say that we still have 24 months left. Why does he not just admit it?

[Bombardier Inc., October 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister of this land said two weeks ago that he was not going to buy votes. The very next day, he gave an $87 million interest free loan to a corporation with assets of $6 billion, cash in the bank of $290 million, and profits of $107 million for the previous year. And he said he was not going to buy votes.

Because this is other people's money, taxpayers' money, I would like to know which minister approved this loan. What criteria were used to make this loan?

[Tobacco Addiction, October 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, a national neighbourhood tobacco recovery network has taken root and is growing in communities across this country.

This network is dedicated to helping smokers recover from tobacco addiction with a proven track record of providing low cost effective products and services to smokers who wish to break free.

The network is driven by smokers helping smokers and has the support of health professionals all across Canada. But, however, nevertheless, this non-institutional, non-bureaucratic, community anchored response to the number one threat to the health of Canadians requires and could use the assistance of Health Canada.

In the next federal budget, why not invest or commit a few pennies or two per pack and support this non-profit national organization to help the five million Canadians who want to quit or recover from tobacco addiction and break the chain of infection

from one generation to the next? By funding a recovery group in every province, the government would help reduce the number one drain or cost on our shrinking health budget and perhaps save taxpayers money in the long run.

[Canada Elections Act, October 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to make a few comments on Bill C-63 which is intended to develop a central electronic registry for voting purposes.

In reviewing this legislation and in being in a briefing yesterday, there are a lot of things about this bill that I would like to point out, touch on and leave a few comments with the government on this issue.

The purpose of a central registry, the overall outline and concept of it make a lot of sense. It can be used by federal, provincial and municipal governments for election purposes and also school boards. It would be a sharing or pooling of information. This does have some economic benefits and some convenience to it as well.

It requires the consent of electors. In other words, it is voluntary. If an individual voter does not wish to have his or her name in the registry they do not have to. It does not deny the individual the right to vote. The current system stays in place where if they wish to show up on voting day with the proper identification at the polling booth they will be allowed to register their vote.

Another benefit I see in this bill is the savings, which has been pointed out by a lot of people. In current dollars this is estimated to be $138 million over the next 20 years with an election every four years. However, even if we discount the present value it is still over a $100 million savings. It is definitely a plus in that category. It will, however, cost $41 million in the spring of 1997 to conduct one more door to door enumeration.

It is also a convenience because the candidates will get their voters list sooner and will be able establish their budgets and spending limits based on the size of their constituency. They will also be able to get rolling 31 days before polling day versus the current 25 days before polling day. This would give them six days more to decide how and where to spend the money in order to get themselves elected. It also allows four extra days for the revision of the electoral list for errors, mistakes and moves, which will also help with getting out the vote.

Another feature, which has been mentioned by other members, is that the voting period gets reduced from 47 days to 36 days. This is an interesting concept because it may cause concern for a lot of people. A lot of people who are interested in the political process believe that time is needed to explain issues. Let us look at what former Prime Minister Kim Campbell said during the last election campaign when she claimed that there was not enough time to discuss social policy during the election campaign and she had 47

days to do it. Therefore if 47 days is not enough time to discuss the major issue of social policy will 36 days be enough? We are reducing it by 11 days. That is an interesting concept and one that I think the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs will have to review.

It would seem to me, however, as an individual who has participated in one federal campaign that as we go along in the House issues are always percolating and being brought to the forefront. The basic platforms of parties become obvious and the party issues become relatively well known. I think most Canadian voters are aware of the issues.

When it comes time when they are ready to send representatives to Ottawa and they elect a prime minister who becomes a dictator once he is in office under the current system, they at least know what the hot issues are. I would think that five weeks would be enough time for discussion and to know whether one party favours a tax cut or whether another party wants to increase spending, or a bigger government.

I think the debate on the period we have to campaign will be sufficient and the issue will not be that complicated if arguments are positioned in a proper fashion.

Another feature of the bill is invasion of privacy. To protect the privacy factor, the privacy commissioner has been consulted. This is a very serious matter. When information is given to Revenue Canada, to federal and provincial governments about the personal lives and personal status of voters, that should remain between the people and that agency or government. Cross sharing should require permission. When permission is given, that is fine, but consent must be given.

The right to opt out of the central registry is included in the bill and the right to obtain that information for the registry is also in the bill. These are important, comfort factors that should be there.

The legislation which will be passed on this issue will clearly state that the central electronic registry is simply for the purpose of elections, nothing else, and should not appear anywhere else. If an advertising groups gets hold of it or if people are harassed based on the information, then they can simply opt out. It would be their right to take their names off that central registry and it does not affect their right to vote. I think that is a good balance.

Also the Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Kingsley, once the bill is passed, may enter into extensive information lectures to educate and inform the Canadian public about what this really means.

This has the somewhat conditional but more or less major support of all members of all parties in the standing committee. The Chief Electoral Officer has been communicating with authorities at the provincial and territorial levels and they show interest as well.

This will save a lot of money and it makes a lot of sense. I thought the voters may be interested in hearing some of the dynamics of change in this country: 20 per cent of the electoral information changes every year; 3.2 million people move every year. That means they live in a different electoral boundary. Through this central registry, provincial governments, Revenue Canada, municipal governments, drivers licences, and updating the information will help to keep track of those moves and the information will be at their fingertips at election time.

There are about 200,000 new 18-year olds who are qualified to vote every four or five years. Once gain, through Revenue Canada and drivers licences, this central registry can be updated and maintained.

There are roughly about 180,000 to 200,000 new citizens which of course would be tracked through citizenship and immigration. Unfortunately deaths occur; 195,000 people pass away yearly. These can be obtained through provincial vital statistics and, once again, the central registry stays somewhat current.

The central registry also would eliminate the cumbersome, expensive, door to door enumeration prior to elections. Enumerators come to our door for federal elections and they come to our door for provincial elections. I am not sure if they come to our door for municipal elections.

There will be one last enumeration prior to the next election because we have increased the size of the House of Commons from 295 to 301, so there will be 301 electoral boundaries. That is a shame in a sense. The Liberal government is once again preaching restraint. It is giving us lectures on how to reduce the deficit, but it is not attacking the real problem, which is the debt. Yet it wants to have bigger government. It is adding six more members of Parliament to the House. There will be six more backbenchers who will sit over there, or there will be six more opposition members who will sit over here, while the freely elected dictator will do what he wants. He runs the country the way he wants to with his small cabinet.

Bigger government means a higher cost. A higher cost means higher taxes. That is why the government does not favour a tax cut. That is why the government cannot afford to give a tax cut. Reformers say that if we reduced the House of Commons to 250 members and did the door to door enumeration based on 250

electoral boundaries we would be better off. There would be a lower cost. With a lower cost we could reduce taxes. The cost of running government would be lower and we could lower taxes.

Our role in opposition is to question the wisdom of government expansion and other pieces of legislation which it brings in which recommend changes in order to improve efficiency and effectiveness to save money. Yes, it will save $100 million over 20 years, at a discounted value. However, each additional member of Parliament will cost Canadians $600,000 to $800,000. The government will be adding millions and millions of dollars to the cost. It is unfortunate that the government cannot be consistent in everything it does.

[Employment Insurance, October 21st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the minister says that every hour counts. So does every dollar. The government will collect between $1 billion and $1.5 billion before it pays out any benefits with this new tax.

Taxing part time employment results in increased labour costs and with any kind of logic the net result is fewer jobs.

Given the government has a $5 billion surplus in the UI fund, why will the government not give an immediate 28 per cent to 30 per cent reduction in the UI tax rate as recommended by the Reform Party and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business so that businesses can help stimulate the economy, help stimulate job creation and help business create those jobs that the government promised?

[Employment Insurance, October 21st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the new Minister of Human Resources Development.

The government's latest billion dollar tax grab is a payroll tax on part time employment. Why has the government imposed a new tax on part time employment that will hurt those Canadians least able to afford it: small business, working mothers and university students working their way through school?

[Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, October 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, coming from Calgary, I believe in a market driven economy. I believe in free enterprise. I believe in the law of supply and demand.

However, there are a lot of provinces in our confederation that appear to favour supply management and supply management tariffs. Would the member please outline for me what the argument is by these provinces that believe in supply management tariffs and supply management in protecting and preserving these rather than eliminating these. What is the argument in keeping it and is it hurting or helping Canadians?

[Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, October 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague from Capilano-Howe Sound since he is an economist, what would some of the economic benefits be of applying the global model on free trade to interprovincial trade? In his speech, the hon. member for Vegreville mentioned protectionism from province to province, job creation and the value of eliminating barriers to interprovincial trade. Could the member enlighten me on this issue?