Philip Mayfield

[Administrative Tribunals (Remedial And Disciplinary Measures) Act, October 31st, 1996]

Madam Speaker, the blatant patronage we see today that has no reference to the qualifications of the person involved but simply the loyalty of the person to the party is what I am speaking about.

It would be unfortunate if the qualifications did not list the needs, the intention of the governing party and the direction it is going so that the person appointed can properly act out government policy.

I am speaking against are people who are not qualified and are being appointed primarily, if not only, on the basis of their party relationship. That has to come second. The needs of the nation must come first.

Just to emphasize what I have said to my hon. colleague, it would be unfortunate if the government selected or appointed a person who was not in tune with the direction the government had in mind in changing programs. It would be unfortunate if a person was appointed to maintain the status quo when change was needed.

The government making the selections must do it very carefully. It must be open. The qualifications must be listed so that the general public knows what they are and can find out if they are interested. The appointment should be made with the government's needs in mind and ratified by the appropriate body.

[Administrative Tribunals (Remedial And Disciplinary Measures) Act, October 31st, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I am dismayed the hon. member paid so little attention to what I was saying. I backed up what I said with concrete illustrations.

With regard to the matter of competency, I pointed out the serious problem in our justice system with the appointment of prosecuting attorneys who are not qualified and who are not doing their jobs well. Judges have problems dealing with evidence that is not properly presented and are unable to hold people to account for serious criminal activity. That is a very serious situation. It points directly to the patronage appointments of lawyers who are not qualified to do their jobs.

I also mentioned the situation in my constituency where the job of electoral returning officer was not advertised. We only found out about the appointment by accident. I talked to the previous returning officer and learned he had been fired although he had done an admirable job through two previous elections.

He was not a Reformer. He was not politically motivated but he was not a Liberal either. He does not have the job, which he regrets. He did the job very conscientiously. He took it very seriously. He entered into the program of witnessing elections in other parts of the world on behalf of the government. He did an outstanding job. I do not speak about him as a Reformer because he is not one. He was a credible returning officer who no longer has the job.

I am sorry that in asking the question the member is not aware of what is happening within his own party. It is a serious situation in terms of the results of appointing people who are not qualified. It is also serious because it feeds the cynicism of people toward their political leaders. Many of us are trying to change this reputation but we cannot do so until the government with the power to change begins to act in that way.

[Administrative Tribunals (Remedial And Disciplinary Measures) Act, October 31st, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate today on Bill C-49, the Administrative Tribunals (Remedial and Disciplinary Measures) Act.

Wherever I travel in my constituency or throughout the country I speak to people who are terribly cynical. They are not cynical about life necessarily, but they are definitely cynical about the political process.

For example, a couple of weeks ago I met a lady who told me in very plain language her estimation of politicians. I was a bit surprised at the vociferous nature of her attacks. She said: "They say one thing and do another". We all know this is not necessarily true, or it is not altogether true, but it gives an idea of the cynical attitude that exists in our country.

The pervasiveness of the cynical attitude begs a major question: Why is this so? Why are so many Canadians so cynical about their political leaders and the political system? Why are they so angry?

One of the biggest reasons I have heard why politicians have such a bad reputation is the lavish patronage this government, like governments before it, has dished out and still dishes out to its party friends.

As members of Parliament we want Canadians to have faith in their leaders, to feel confident that politicians will do what they say they will do fairly and honestly. We need a measure of this trust to do our jobs properly in representing our constituents and the nation. As legislators we have a role in establishing this positive reputation for ourselves simply by doing our jobs well.

For example, we could pass legislation which would eliminate partisan appointments to key government positions. That would ensure that key appointments would be ratified by an appropriate body.

Unfortunately Bill C-49 is not that kind of legislation. For that reason it should not pass the House of Commons. Bill C-49 allows the shameless abuse of patronage to continue. This bill will only perpetuate and reinforce the cynical attitude that Canadians already have toward their leaders.

How does patronage relate to Bill C-49? This bill is supposed to be the second legislative step in the government's program to streamline the operations of federal agencies, boards and commissions. It is also supposed to change the appointment process,

reduce the number of governor in council or cabinet appointments, more closely manage some agencies and eliminate redundant bodies.

This bill has an enormous flaw. It does not ensure that employment positions to government agencies, tribunals and boards are awarded strictly on the merit principle. It allows the government to continue to build its legacy of patronage abuse.

A moment ago I mentioned that partisan appointments made by this government and former governments helped to create the cynical attitude Canadians have toward politicians. Patronage causes people to think this way for two distinct reasons. First, the government broke its word to Canadians regarding patronage appointments. The Liberal red book, now called by many Canadians the Liberal dead book, promised that a Liberal government would make appointments to boards, commissions and agencies on the basis of competence, but that has not happened. These positions are still granted to the Liberal Party faithful.

When Canadians are not told the truth, who can blame them for being cynical? Just to give an idea of how blatant the Liberals have been in breaking their word, let me read a bit of their patronage record.

First, there have been 18 partisan appointments to the Senate, the institution the Prime Minister said in 1991 should be elected, equal and effective. Second, Richard Campbell, a former campaign manager, was appointed a director of Marine Atlantic. Third, Richard Cashin, a longstanding member of the Liberal Party and MP from 1962 to 1965, was appointed a member of the Canadian Transport Harvesting Adjustment Board. Fourth, Dorothy Davey, wife of former Liberal Senator Keith Davey, was appointed to the Immigration and Refugee Board. Fifth, Fred Drummie, the executive assistant to the Minister of National Defence, was appointed to the International Park Commission Board. Sixth, Raymond Guay, Liberal MP from 1963 to 1980, was appointed to the International Trade Tribunal. Seventh, Roy Heenan, partner in former Prime Minister Trudeau's law firm, was appointed to the CBC board of directors. Eighth, Ethel Teitelbaum, Pierre Trudeau's former executive assistant, was appointed to the Immigration and Refugee Board. It goes on and on.

This Liberal government, after saying it was going to be above board with Canadians, after saying it was not going to be like the Tories and after saying it was going to make appointments to boards and commissions based on merit, not based on loyalty to the Liberal Party, has made over 200 patronage appointments. What a shame.

What is even more shameful is that some Liberal members, point blank, support these practices. Last week the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood said: "I believe in patronage. I have always believed in patronage. I am not going to change". It is no wonder Canadians are cynical when there are members of Parliament who have this kind of attitude.

Patronage appointments create cynical attitudes for a second reason. It says to people that the government is more interested in scratching its friends' backs than in protecting the interests of our nation and treating every Canadian fairly.

For example, there is a serious problem in our justice system. Since coming to power the Liberals have appointed lawyers who are not competent crown prosecutors. When a judge must depend only on the evidence brought to the courtroom by the lawyers and the prosecution's presentation of evidence is lacking or faulty, the judge still must adjudicate on the basis of the evidence and the law. No wonder justice is not done. No wonder the justice system is not protecting our citizens from criminals. No wonder people are cynical, when the evidence is not properly presented and the judge is forced to let people go free without facing the consequences of serious criminal activity.

Patronage jeopardizes the interests of Canadians when political appointments are made to governing bodies like the National Parole Board and the Immigration and Refugee Board. Now even these boards are left without the credibility they need to properly serve their purposes.

By all the criminals released from jail on some form of early release in 1995-96, a total of 165 serious crimes were committed. These included 15 murders, 15 attempted murders, 22 sexual assaults, 21 major assaults and 71 armed robberies.

We were told when the National Parole Board released these individuals they were not considered risks. Boy, was it wrong. Historically people who sit on parole boards have been well paid patronage appointees with little or no knowledge of criminal justice. Parole board members now must have some background in criminology or corrections. But the point is still the same. When Liberal cronies with very limited knowledge of the criminal justice system are appointed to the National Parole Board, the chance of poor decision making increases. Canadians need and deserve certainty of safety before the Liberal government looks after its party needs.

The same case can be made for the Immigration and Refugee Board. Many of the 215 appointees to this board are political appointees. For example, I found a list printed in the Vancouver Sun , October 5, 1995. The list outlines the British Columbia Immigration and Refugee Board members and when they were appointed. Only nine of the nineteen appointees have any formal training or education in immigration law. Immigration and Refugee Board members are responsible for hearing the oral testimony of a asylum seekers and for determining whether claimants qualify for refugee status. When the government appoints its cynical buddies and bagmen to the IRB, incompetent decisions are a certainty.

In March last year the citizenship and immigration committee heard from two former members of the IRB. These men stated that

at least half their former colleagues did not have the educational expertise needed to do their jobs. Let me quote from the testimony of one of those witnesses, Mr. Bauer. He said:

I would say, and I think most of my colleagues would have agreed with me, that about a quarter of the members of the IRB are incapable of even properly conducting a meeting. Even as second members, some of them are a bit embarrassing. I say that rather reluctantly, and I do not say it lightly, but I can assure you that it is true. Approximately another quarter, with a tremendous amount of training, education, coaching and monitoring, might be able to barely get through the process single-handedly, although I would think there would be a number of legal and procedural problems arising that would cause a great deal of difficulty with the board.

We have seen the incompetence described by Mr. Bauer in action. For example, on November 12, 1995 the Federal Court of Canada had to throw out a refugee board decision that denied a woman asylum. This woman was first ordered by her boss to submit to sexual assault and then convicted of prostitution. Mr. Justice Frederick Gibson who overturned the decision said "there should be a new hearing because the board made legal mistakes and overlooked key evidences".

This is a classic example of what happens when patronage appointments are made to government boards. We cannot blame people for being cynical when we have a government that takes care of its friends better than it takes care of the people of our refugee and immigration process and those seeking safety of Canadians.

Patronage not only endangers the safety and interests of Canadians, but it treats people unfairly. For example, the electoral returning officer in my riding is now a Liberal appointee. The person may be able to do the job competently but that is not the point. The person who had the job was competent, had done it through two elections but was fired to make room for this person. The job was not advertised. There was no open competition. How do the people in Cariboo-Chilcotin know that the most qualified person got this job? In fact, they do not know. What they know for sure, however, is that the Liberal government is more interested in doing favours for its friends than in treating Canadians fairly.

A moment ago I mentioned that the Canadian public is cynical toward politicians. The main reason for this cynicism is the patronage appointments that this government and the Tory government before it dished out and still dish out to their party friends. Just as the government is to blame for the problem, it could be part of the solution if it chose to do so.

The way for the government to give Canadians confidence and earn their trust is by giving them a fresh start. This means taking the Reform platform and putting it into action. We have an entire section on how to make politicians accountable.

Reform's fresh start to Canadians, guaranteed, will do the following. First, it will give Canadians the tools to ensure politicians keep their promises by bringing in the means to recall MPs who do not keep their word. Second, it will provide Canadians with a better representation, more direct input into the democratic process, and the ability to hold politicians accountable for their decisions. Third, it will allow freer voting in the House of Commons. Fourth, it will replace the current undemocratic, unrepresentative Senate with a Senate that is elected, equal and effective. Fifth, it will give voters direct input into the decision making process through referendums and citizens' initiatives on important issues. Sixth, it will involve citizens directly in amending our most basic law, the Constitution.

Most important in relation to this debate, Reform's fresh start guarantee will end patronage appointments by ensuring that employment positions and contracts are awarded on the merit principle and subject to open scrutiny by parliamentary committees.

If the government amended Bill C-49 to include this kind of provision, it would be taking an important step toward earning the trust of Canadians and putting the needs and concerns of the Canadian people over the interests of its Liberal friends.

In closing, I reiterate that a cynical mood exists in Canada toward politicians and their public institutions. Patronage is one of the root causes of this mindset. As members of Parliament we want Canadians to have faith in their leaders, to feel confident in their politicians, that their leaders will have the interests of the people first in mind and that we will act fairly and honestly in representing Canada and our constituents.

As legislators we have a role in establishing this positive reputation for ourselves. For example, we could pass legislation that would eliminate partisan appointments to key government positions. Unfortunately Bill C-49 is not this kind of legislation. For this reason it should not pass the House of Commons. Bill C-49 allows the shameless abuse of patronage to continue. It will only perpetuate and reinforce the cynical attitude Canadians already have toward their leaders.

Patronage creates a cynical mindset for two reasons: first, the government broke its word to Canadians regarding patronage appointments and, second, patronage says to people that the government is more interested in scratching its friends' backs than in protecting the interests and needs of society and treating every Canadian fairly.

Therefore I urge the government to pass legislation not only to end patronage appointments but to ensure that employment positions and contracts are awarded on the merit principle. This is one way we can earn the trust and confidence of people. It would also be the fresh start Canadians are asking of their political leaders and political institutions. It would be a fresh start that Canadians truly deserve.

[The Role Of Government, October 31st, 1996]

Madam Speaker, the work described by the minister stems from the recommendations of the sixth report of the public accounts committee tabled in March 1994.

There is no doubt that the President of the Treasury Board has taken his responsibility to report to Parliament very seriously. We now have several detailed documents from Treasury Board which include the main estimates, the annual report on review and these new performance reports.

It is now up to parliamentarians to do their job and review these documents to see what is missing and what can be improved. The Treasury Board Secretariat, along with the public accounts and the auditor general, have also recognized the need to improve measurement of results and to improve accountability in the public sector.

I applaud the recognition but in reviewing these documents I note that we still have a long way to go. There is one question to ask at the end of the day after reading these reports. Has the system been improved and will these reports assist in reviewing and improving government policy? I do not feel this question has been answered.

Last year Treasury Board reviewed 19 priorities or key government programs. I do not dispute the fact that all 19 programs were reviewed. Many of them were reviewed by standing or special committees. After the review, have the necessary steps been taken to improve the programs or to change the way the services are delivered? Let me offer four examples.

Last year Treasury Board said that the government reviewed the GST, family trusts, the infrastructure program and TAGS, the Atlantic groundfish strategy. What has happened as a result of the review? With the GST we note that the government has initiated harmonization which includes four provinces, but not abolition. The answer is to hide the GST in the sticker price which is not a very creative solution.

The review has taken place on family trusts but the loophole is still open. Infrastructure: $85,000 per job has been spent and the unemployment rate is still 9.9 per cent. The youth unemployment rate is still double that. There has not been a very creative response.

What have we learned about the TAGS program? It is in as bad if not worse shape. Even those who have received the benefits of this program are extremely unhappy and the Pacific fishery is still in a terrible situation.

I do not believe we have made progress in these programs. The review has been interesting but the outcomes have not illustrated any improvements in the government's decision making process. Please do not get me wrong. I can understand that quantum leaps are virtually impossible. However, one critical attribute of a well performing government organization is that it seeks optimum performance. It will not settle for second best.

In the review of the GST, family trusts, infrastructure and TAGS there are no descriptions of optimum performance. We have no benchmarks to tell us whether or not the programs are performing well or meeting the needs they were created to meet. Let me illustrate my concerns with something more concrete.

One of the so-called faults of a public institution is that there is no bottom line, no hard data, but in some cases this is not true. Last month the auditor general reported on the quality of service in the

public sector. He found that 30 million phone calls to government departments went unanswered, 20 million in Revenue Canada alone. This figure seems like a concrete starting point. Revenue Canada is largely a service department. Finance sets most of our tax policy.

In looking at the performance report submitted by Revenue Canada, the problem is mentioned which is a start. However, no concrete plans are put forward to solve the problem. No benchmarks are given to Parliament to help us eventually measure the success or failure to deal with the problem.

The department says that Revenue Canada is aware that some clients have had difficulty getting through by telephone. The first step is to address the problem, which has been done. But where is the progress? Where is the improvement? Meanwhile the department continues to explore further opportunities for redesigning and improving telephone systems.

This explanation would not fly at a board of directors meeting. The CEO would ask for goals, plans and back-up plans. Once again the Reform Party has asked the government to clarify its goals. Are we trying to improve our programs or are we trying to explain away our problems?

[The Senate, October 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here to address you in the chair this afternoon, sir. I am pleased to take part in the debate on Motion No. 221 put forward by the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup.

As I travel throughout my constituency and performing my duties as a member in other parts of the country, I am amazed at how distrustful and concerned people are at the way politics are being carried out. One of the popular topics of discussion is integrity. People are determined that their leaders and their institutions be responsive to their needs and to their wishes. Presently Canadians are very distrustful. There is an air of cynicism that I find disheartening. People put little or no faith in the promises of politicians or the activities of political institutions.

Every time an election comes around so do the politicians, making all kinds of promises that are sure to be broken when no longer convenient. That is the attitude that people express. People want their leaders and their political institutions to represent themselves accurately and to be accountable to the people they represent.

That is why the debate today on the Senate is such an important one. The Senate is a political institution that has for far too long neglected the needs and the interests of Canadians. It is an institution that is accountable to political parties, nothing else and no one else. That must change. Our country needs servants of the people, not servants of political parties.

The solution to the Senate accountability problem is not Senate abolition. The solution is Senate reform. For this reason, the Reform Party and I cannot support Motion No. 221, although we understand the frustration that motivates the presentation of this motion.

Before I discuss the reason Reform cannot support this motion, let me give a brief background, if I may, about the Senate. Every large nation, such as Canada, with an uneven population distribution, must find a way to balance and effectively represent the interests of both the thinly populated and the heavily populated regions of the country in national decision making. To meet this challenge, the architects of Canada chose the classic federal system of government, that is, they established two levels of government, one national and the other provincial, with a division of powers between the two.

A democratic bicameral national Parliament was also formed in which the composition of the lower house, the House of Commons, is based on representation by population. The composition of the upper house, the Senate, is based on representation by region. Legislative proposals do not become law until they are approved by both houses.

The purpose of the Senate is to represent the regions of the country, especially those sparsely populated regions which have fewer seats in the House of Commons than the more heavily populated regions such as southern Ontario and southern Quebec. Therefore if the Senate were abolished there would be absolutely no way of safeguarding the interests of the thinly populated areas of the country. That is the major reason that we cannot support Motion No. 221.

I know the argument will be raised that the Senate does not represent the interests of the regions as it now stands anyway, so let us just abolish the Senate. I understand that frustration. The people who argue this point are absolutely correct about one thing: the status quo is not good enough.

The Senate exists today as an ineffective and unaccountable institution. It does not balance the interests of the thinly populated resource producing regions of the country such as the west, central and northern B.C., the north, Atlantic Canada, rural and northern Ontario and Quebec. It does not balance these areas with those heavily populated regions of southern Ontario and southern Quebec.

There are two reasons for the Senate's ineffectiveness and lack of accountability. First, the Senate is undemocratic. Its members are appointed by the Prime Minister and it has become the patronage heaven for old and tired politicians and political fundraisers. Senators are accountable to no one except their political party.

Second, the Senate is regionally unbalanced. That is, almost 50 per cent of senators come from the already more heavily populated regions of the country. How with our present Senate can the thinly populated areas of Canada like rural British Columbia have balanced representation with Ontario and Quebec? It is impossible.

We have seen over the years many examples where decisions have been made by Parliament that have weighed heavily in favour of central Canada. Last year the federal government secured parliamentary approval for Bill C-68 on universal gun registration and the distinct society clause for Quebec. In the 1980s the national energy program, the Meech Lake constitutional proposals, official languages legislation and the CF-18 decision all received parliamentary approval. These policies and decisions completely ignored

the interests and desires of many Canadians living in the thinly populated regions of Canada.

The Senate is an ineffective body. However, as I mentioned a moment ago, the solution to the Senate's ineffectiveness is not abolition. Abolishing the Senate would leave no means of balancing and effectively representing the interests of both the thinly populated and the heavily populated regions of the country in the national decision making process.

Most important, however, abolition of the Senate is not what Canadians want. I sent out a questionnaire in my riding earlier this year about the Senate. I asked people whether all future senators should be elected before being appointed by the Prime Minister. Eighty-four per cent of those who responded said yes. Let me read some of the comments which accompanied these responses.

A lady from Eagle Creek, British Columbia wrote: "The Senate should be much more regional in its make-up". A person from Clinton, British Columbia wrote: "The Senate has been stacked with people used to further the agenda of the government of the day, which has not always been good for the country".

A man from Williams Lake, British Columbia wrote: "The Senate has proven to be ineffective". Another person from Williams Lake wrote: "An elected Senate would mean that. The Senate vote would be a truer vote than the one taken by the Prime Minister's cronies".

A couple from the 106 Mile Ranch in British Columbia wrote: "Stop political patronage". A man from 100 Mile House, B.C., wrote: "I feel that an elected, more equal, more effective Senate would be a good thing".

The Reform Party of Canada has been listening to these voices and the voices of many other Canadians who want their political leaders and institutions to be more accountable, who want the Senate to truly represent regional interests and who want the Senate reformed, not abolished.

The Reform Party of Canada has developed a plan to help Canadians. This plan is detailed in our fresh start program. It is called a fresh start guarantee. This guarantee will give Canadians the tools to ensure that politicians and political institutions will be accountable to the Canadian people. These tools include recall, freer votes, referendums and citizens' initiatives. Most important, our fresh start guarantee will include a commitment to achieve Senate reform, not Senate abolition.

Senate reform means a triple-E Senate, a Senate that is elected with equal representation per province and with effective power to

represent regional interests. To my Liberal colleagues, the Prime Minister even supports the triple-E Senate reform. He said in his speech to the House of Commons in 1991: "To meet the hopes and dreams of those who live in the west and in the Atlantic, a reformed Senate is essential. It must be a Senate that is elected, effective and equal".

[Supply, October 29th, 1996]

No, Mr. Speaker. Editor's Note: See List under Division No. 147 .]

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be a part of this debate this evening.

When I sought the nomination to run for the Reform Party in Cariboo-Chilcotin I was reminded by some people who had been a part of the political scene there that I would get used to Cariboo-Chilcotin's not being a high profile constituency.

Cariboo-Chilcotin has not been a terribly high profile part of the country. Most of them have gone to that part of the country because it is that way. It is a place where people can go. We are used to sending a lot of our money to the city. We are used to politicians coming and telling us how things should be.

People have become very independent there. I can tell an interesting little story. There is a place there called Rudy's Bridge, put up by an entrepreneur. It crosses the Fraser River, just north of Williams Lake.

There is a need for a bridge there but there has not always been a bridge there. The people of Cariboo-Chilcotin petitioned the government for a long time for a bridge there. What we were told it is impossible to do it. The ground is not right. The location is not right.

One of our people, Rudy Johnson, went and looked it over. He needed a bridge there and therefore he scouted the country and found a bridge. He bought it, he hauled it there, built the approaches and he put the bridge across.

"If you have a commercial vehicle, it will cost you $5 to cross, but everybody else can use it for free". Today, of course, it is possible to have a bridge there. Rudy was glad, finally, to turn that over to the government which maintains it. It is not improved it but it is maintained.

I can tell another story about what is impossible. At the coast is a community called Bella Coola. For years the people in the Bella Coola valley were told they are so far away, so far below the high country of the Chilcotin that they cannot have a bridge there and will have to depend on boats and aircraft.

Quite a few years ago two people said they thought they could put a road in there. One started at the bottom of the hill with a bulldozer and another started at the top with a bulldozer. What the government could not do because it was impossible to build a road there this community did by itself.

We are used to having to do things ourselves. We are used to the government telling us what is impossible and what we must do as well.

We may be used to it but we do not very much like it. The biggest difficulty I had as a budding politician was dealing with the cynicism people hold in their hearts and their minds toward government. It is a cynicism out of years of excuses why things cannot be done, years of why it costs so much for the government to do what it does, years of government now more and more being in the face of people without really providing the services people need and years of government simply not performing as politicians have said it would when they come to seek people's votes.

I got into politics because I perceive a great need for reform, for change of direction of politics in our political system, the way we do our business. We need to have a system of politics in which we talk about the issues, in which we do not hammer each other because of the colour we are, the way we talk. If we like their policies and we like the proposals that they have, we want to vote for them.

In dealing with this cynicism, what I often had to do was look the person in the eye and say: "Look, I have been as cynical as you have been. I know what governments have done to us but I see what they are doing to our children, to our young people. Unless we face them and look them in the eye and stare them down, we are not going to change the system". Are you going to revel in your cynicism about the way politicians do their business or are you going to try to change the system? Will you help me to do that? Will you join me in trying to do that?" That is what I am about in this Reform Party, trying to bring a political system into being that will serve people's needs.

The cynicism is still there, alive and well. A couple of weeks ago I was at a meeting at 100 Mile House. The whole question period after the speech on government spending was to do with politicians and the way they do not keep their promises. Canadians are terribly frustrated and are sick and tired of politicians that make promises and then do not keep them. A great deal of their frustration is now directed toward the Liberal government. The Liberals have broken so many promises we can hardly count them. If there is one thing that is said to me with regularity as I leave the Cariboo-Chilcotin to come to Ottawa, it is: "Phil, give them hell. They deserve it".

The track record of broken Liberal promises is the topic of this entire debate today. As members of Parliament we want Canadians

to have faith in their leaders, to feel confident that politicians will do what they say they will do and will do it fairly and honestly.

As legislators we have a role in establishing this positive reputation for ourselves. The Liberal government has an opportunity to begin to repair its tarnished record today by appointing an opposition member as deputy chair, which is no more than keeping a promise it made during the election campaign of 1993. If that was done that action would begin to instil some small measure of confidence in its sagging reputation.

The debate today is not about the member for Kingston and the Islands and his ability. I hope that the member for Broadview-Greenwood understands that. In fact, the member for Kingston and the Islands very likely would be a very good deputy chair. His abilities to do this are sound, so I am told. The member for Calgary Centre attested to this yesterday. We all agree he has the qualifications.

However, that is not the issue. The issue is the integrity of the government and its willingness to not simply seek more and more power, but to do what it says and to have as its first priority serving the people of the nation, the welfare of the nation. The issue today is about politicians doing what they say they will do. It is about honesty and principle.

As we all know, in 1993 the Liberals came out with their list of campaign promises, the Liberal red book, which might also be called Creative Opportunism, I suppose. Others refer to it as the Liberal dead book. In the book, listed in appendix B at the back entitled Platform Papers is a document; "Reviving Parliamentary Democracy-The Liberal Plan for House of Commons and Electoral Reform". On page 9 of the document can be found something very interesting which relates to the debate today.

"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 the four presiding officer positions are shared equally by government and by opposition".

This document was co-authored by none other than the member for Kingston and the Islands. It is the member for Kingston and the Islands the Liberals want to appoint to the deputy chair position, not an opposition member as the document states would be the best idea.

The Liberal decision to appoint the member for Kingston and the Islands violates the integrity of the government because the document I just quoted from is part of their red book, the list of promises. The Liberal decision also violates the integrity of the member for Kingston and the Islands. How can a person say one thing at one time and then turn around and do the opposite at another time and still keep his or her integrity? That is exactly what the people of Canada object to. That is exactly what their cynicism is rooted in.

I say to the member for Kingston and the Islands that he has an important decision to make. He has the opportunity to do something that his colleagues are not used to doing. He could begin to clean up his party's tarnished image on integrity. Most importantly, he could preserve his own integrity. I know he is a person of integrity.

I urge the member for Kingston and the Islands to do what he said he would do in 1993 and show real leadership. I urge him to help his party keep at least one of its promises which it made in the red book. I urge him to encourage his party to appoint a member from the opposition benches to the position of deputy chair.

If he made this bold move he would take an important step for the people of Canada. He would show Canadians that the Liberals can be trusted to keep their word at least once.

I know his colleagues want to discourage him from taking the high road. They do not think their record is tarnished. They boasted at the Liberal love-in last weekend that they kept 78 per cent of the red book's promises. We heard that repeated here a minute ago. The Prime Minister even boasted that any student would be happy with this score. I suppose any student would be happy to keep a score of his own test results, too, like the Liberals do.

The reality is that the Liberal record is tarnished. Liberals made all kinds of promises during the last election campaign and, according to a very honest and accurate analysis, the Liberals only kept about 30 per cent of the pledges they made to the Canadian people. It is no wonder Canadians are cynical about their government.

That is why the motion which we are debating today is so important. It is why we are not prepared to sit down and let the government roll over this matter. The Liberals and the member for Kingston and the Islands could take this opportunity to be different than their record of the past. They could show Canadians that they are a party of their word, that they can be trusted, that their promises mean something and are not imaginary. Such a step would go a long way in instilling public confidence and trust in our political institutions.

Let me give the House a little more detail on the Liberal record of broken promises.

The Liberals could add to this list today or they could start down a new road, a fresh path toward integrity and honesty by appointing a member from the opposition benches to the position of deputy chair.

During the last election campaign the Prime Minister promised Canadians jobs, jobs, job. On October 15 the Prime Minister said

that Canadians did not have to read his lips, that they could read their record. Let us read that record today.

First, 1.4 million Canadians are unemployed. Second, two million to three million Canadians are under employed. Third, four million workers are worried about losing their jobs. Fourth, this is the longest stretch of unemployment above 9 per cent since the great depression of the 1930s. That is the record. Where are the jobs, jobs, jobs? What we have, sir, is another Liberal broken promise.

The Liberals would want us to believe that they are still working on fulfilling this promise, that they have a plan to create jobs. We have not seen it. The finance minister's message to Canadians is that low interest rates are the best medicine for the economy. Despite the lowest interest rates in many years, unemployment increased last month from 9.4 per cent to 9.9 per cent. That is half a percentage point.

It is quite clear that the economy cannot be pushed uphill with interest rates. There has to be growth. There has to be job growth. To create jobs in the country the government must reduce taxes. Reduced taxes will mean more money in the pockets of consumers, small business people and investors. Consumers who spend more money will create permanent, well-paying jobs that the Liberals promised and that Canadians desperately need. What consumers need is a tax cut, not another interest rate cut.

On top of going back on their word and giving Canadians high unemployment, the Liberals have dished out more pain for Canadians through social program cuts. The Liberal red book states: "It is essential to provide financial certainty and predictability for our health care planning". The Liberals have not done this at all.

What they have done is cut transfers to the provinces by 40 per cent. They have cut health care payments by $3 billion a year. They are dismantling social programs to pay the interest on the ballooning $600 billion federal debt.

All Canadians have received from the Liberals is pain, pain, pain. In many communities if people knew the truth about Liberal slashing of health care transfers there would a sign in front of many closed hospitals saying: "This hospital closed by the Liberal Party of Canada" and I quote my leader on that.

To repair this gaping hole in the social safety net a Reform government will commit $4 billion a year to increasing federal transfers to the provinces for health and education. These funds will come from the savings generated by our refocusing and downsizing of the federal government and not from increased taxes.

I urge the Liberals to keep their commitment to sustain health care. I urge them today to begin to rebuild their tarnished reputation. They can begin by keeping their promise to appoint an opposition member as deputy chair.

There are so many Liberal broken promises that I could mention. I could take all night listing them. What about the GST? The Liberals promised Canadians they would scrap, kill and abolish the GST but the tax is still here, blamed on acts of God and loose lips and a $1 billion bribe paid to the Atlantic provinces to shore up the government's image after harmonizing the GST and the PST, hiding the taxes in the sticker price. Where is the integrity? Where is the promise kept?

No wonder Canadians feel cynical toward the government. The Liberals promised stable multi-year financing of the CBC, but when they became the government the Liberals slashed more than $400 million from the national broadcaster. The Liberals promised to renegotiate the American free trade agreement to obtain codes on subsidies and dumping and a more effective dispute resolution mechanism. But when they came to power the Liberal signed NAFTA without renegotiation. The list goes on and on and on.

Just to give you an idea, Mr. Speaker, of how blatant the Liberals have been breaking their word, let me read a bit more of their patronage record: 18 partisan appointments to the Senate; Richard Campbell, former campaign manager for Lawrence MacAulay appointed director of Marine Atlantic; Richard Cashin, long standing member of the Liberal Party and MP from 1962-65 appointed member of the Canadian Transport Harvesting Adjusting Board; Dorothy Davey, wife of former Liberal Keith Davey appointed to the Immigration and Refugee Board; Fred Drummie, executive assistant to minister Doug Young, appointed to the International Park Commission Board; Raymond Guay, Liberal member from 1963-68 appointed to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal.

The list goes on and on and on.

[Bell Canada Act, October 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his intervention. It is interesting. There are some points that I would like to comment on and perhaps ask questions of.

The Bloc Quebecois has been at pains to point out the difficulties that change brings on people. There is an element of truth in what it says.

However, it seems to me that unless we open the field that these big companies have dominated for so long and allow new technologies to have their place, to have new entries into the marketplace make their play, then we are simply going to be bound by the status quo.

I have heard my hon. colleague mention the number of communities he has in his constituency. I share many of the same concerns that he has. I have rural communities that do not have telephone service or they have the old telephone service that they cannot use for fax communication and for Internet communication. These people are waiting for the lines to bring in the technology that is available to people on modern telecommunications systems and they do not have them. This is not a matter that I am unfamiliar with.

It seems to me, however, that the means for dealing with this is not simply to maintain the status quo, that it must be opened up to the new technologies, that it is not going to be for a very long time that the most distant and most remote parts of our country have the benefit of a land line, a telephone company putting in polls,

stringing wires and doing all the things we have seen done for the last 50 years. That is not going to happen. What we have to do is open up the marketplace so that the new technologies can bring the modern services that will put these points in communication with the rest of the world.

I also listened to the member speak about the difficulties with people not having 911 numbers. This too must be available for people in the same way with the communication means that are possible.

I would like to ask the member if he does not see the new technology and new avenues of competition as really being a blessing that will bring to people in the remote frontiers of our country the means of communication that they have not had in the past? If he does not see that, how does he intend to see these people who are without communication means get them under the present system?

[Translation]

[Bell Canada Act, October 29th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to make a few remarks today with respect to Bill C-57, the amendment to the Bell Canada Act.

Right off the top it is clear that this legislation is a housekeeping amendment and Reform supports its speedy passage. Bill C-57 simply removes the restriction preventing Bell Canada from holding a broadcasting licence, thereby allowing it to get into the cable business at some point down the road.

Bill C-57 flows from the government's convergence policy announced in August. Convergence has become one of those words that is bandied about a lot. People sometimes use it to sound impressive, but convergence simply means the coming together of different technologies and industries into a new competitive environment. In this case we are talking about cable companies getting into the business of providing telephone services and telephone companies becoming cable providers, both in direct competition with each other.

As the process of convergence pertains to this bill, we are referring to Bell Canada being allowed to hold a broadcast licence. In the late 1960s the Bell Canada Act was amended to prevent Bell from getting into the cable business in order to protect the fledgling cable industry.

Today with the likes of Rogers and Shaw, companies which have grown enormously since their beginning in the protected marketplace they have had, now the playing field is a bit more level. So this is really an administrative prelude to the more difficult and challenging task of actually getting convergence and the prospective competitors up and running.

The CRTC, which Terence Corcoran of the Globe and Mail has called the Canadian roadblock to telecommunications competition, is currently holding hearings with stakeholders on how best to proceed with the nuts and bolts of the government's convergence policy. I certainly do not envy it that task. Much of it will be concerned with the arcane technical details that must be worked out in order to make sure that any new system functions smoothly for both the providers of the service and for consumers alike.

What is certain however is that convergence will benefit the consumer. It is for that reason that Reform urges the government to push ahead as swiftly as possible in its implementation. Witness long distance competition as an example of consumer benefit.

In 1992 the CRTC permitted resellers to enter the long distance phone market. Competition in other words. To begin with there were many players, some big, many small. Those consumers who switched early will recall dialling multiple access codes and passwords in order to be able to call long distance with their newly chosen provider.

Slamming, or the practice of moving a consumer from one long distance provider to another without their consent, was rife. Many small companies fell by the wayside under the strength of the larger firms.

Along came 1994 and the ease of access provisions. Then we could simply pick up the phone and our long distance call was billed to the chosen company.

During all of this, intense marketing was taking place. Door to door campaigns and multimillion dollar TV blitzes with Hollywood stars were launched in order to woo our patronage. People switched because they saw that prices actually had dropped right across the board. Even the Stentor companies that own the networks were forced to become competitive, all without the due interference of the prodding CRTC. Wonder of wonders: private sector competition in an area of former monopoly control and the consumer benefits.

Well, it will be the same with competition in local phone service as well as in cable. Pricing and service packages will become more attractive and competition will keep the choices interesting. New entrants into monopoly fields will shake up the old ways of thinking and marketing and operating. Stodginess and complacency will thankfully become things of the past.

The convergence of phone and cable, which we have come to be so familiar with, will open doors to new types of service simply due to the inherent properties of the technologies. But there are new technologies coming on line by the time convergence gets up and running that will further stimulate and spur competition. I refer to PCS, personal communications service, the next generation of cellular based telephones, and LMCS, local multipoint communications system, or wireless cable.

Instead of having an 18-inch dish outside your house for direct to home satellite service, assuming it ever gets up and running that is, how about an 8-inch dish on top of your television delivering high

quality digital TV and audio services and high speed Internet access as well? It is just a couple of years away.

Industry Canada is going through the process of granting the first batch of licences right now and PCS is already hitting the market. New technologies make it a more secure and a far more flexible form of wireless telephone service than current analogue or even digital cellular. The types of things it can do make it more akin to land line phone service than anything yet available.

I recently heard an interesting quote. It said that nowadays one should not invest in companies that still employ professional ditch diggers. The inference is that wireless is the way of the future. The once mighty cable and phone companies have more to worry about than just each other with these new technologies coming on the scene. The issue is not without politics either, as if anything in this place ever is without politics.

British Columbia's telephone company, B.C. Tel, was to have been barred from entry into the cable business based upon a historical reality. That reality is the fact that 75 years or so ago, there was not enough interested Canadian capital available to build B.C. Tel's initial infrastructure so it went south of the border for the money to build the system. This was before the cultural engineers in Ottawa decided that foreign capital was a bad thing in a business like a phone company.

As a result of being 51 per cent or so foreign owned by GTE Inc. of the U.S., B.C. Tel apparently violates all sorts of culturally sensitive rules made by the Ottawa bureaucrats. In its questionable wisdom, the CRTC recommended in its convergence report in 1995 that B.C. Tel be denied entry into the cable business due to this foreign content. Let me say that much consternation ensued in B.C. and the Liberals felt some of the heat that might come if B.C. Tel's future in the cable industry was denied.

In its wisdom and in an apparent victory for the industry minister over the heritage minister and her protectionist ways, the cabinet in approving the convergence policy has decided to let B.C. Tel into the cable business after all. Perhaps the thought of a hoard of angry British Columbians was not all that appealing.

We have a bright future for Canada's telecommunications sector. We lag behind in some technologies like direct to home satellites and PCS but we are ahead in others like cable Internet access and LMCS.

Large numbers of jobs will flow from convergence, high tech jobs, and that certainly is good news. In this first legislative round over convergence, I am glad the Liberals have finally come to their senses but I also wish to urge them to move toward turning policy into reality just as quickly as they can. The benefits are simply too great to permit much delay.

[Questions On The Order Paper, October 29th, 1996]

With regard to the reinstatement of Indian status under Bill C-31 passed in 1985, from 1985 until 1995, ( a ) how many income tax returns have been reassessed, ( b ) how much income tax has been refunded, ( c ) for which year(s) did each tax return apply, ( d ) what was the total amount of each refund and ( e ) from which government department or agency was the refund money provided?