Bill Gilmour

[Public Service, February 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Motion No. M-263 brought forward by the member from Brampton. Motion No. M-263 asks:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should introduce legislation to protect public servants who report wasteful spending, illegal activities or any other incidents which threaten the integrity of the government of Canada.

Clearly Canadians want and expect their government to conduct their business openly and honestly and that is what this motion is about.

The principles of this motion are similar to the principles of the Reform Party. The Reform Party has always advocated transparency in the federal government and the elimination of waste in public funds. As a result, Reform members have asked this government to introduce whistle blowing legislation in the past. For example, the Reform member for St. Albert asked the President of the Treasury Board to introduce legislation to protect whistle blowers. We have yet to see this legislation introduced in the House.

Public servants must not only be allowed but also encouraged to report practices that would cause a specific and substantial danger or prejudice to the public health, safety or welfare, or entail wasteful or unjustified public spending. Employers should not be allowed to discourage, suspend or impose financial penalties on any employee who makes a disclosure. Public servants must be protected against employer reprisals in retaliation for disclosures that are made in good faith.

These measures were forward in the House before, as mentioned by my colleagues both on the Liberal side and the Bloc side, by the Bloc member for Portneuf as Bill C-248. The fact that this issue has not been deemed votable both times it has been brought forward before the House makes it rather clear that the government does not want to see whistle blowing legislation before this House.

Before the last election the Liberals promised to introduce whistle blowing legislation. In their approach to the public service the Liberals promised: "Public servants who blow the whistle on illegal or unethical behaviour should be protected". That is pretty clear. "A Liberal government will introduce whistle blowing legislation in the first session of the new Parliament". Well guess what. The first session has past, we are into the second session and there is still no whistle blowing legislation.

Many other countries are far ahead of Canada in this area. For example in the United States they have the false claims act. Under it whistle blowers receive 25 per cent of the savings of any whistle blowing event that they unearth. Over the first six years of operation of that act 407 lawsuits were filed and 37 were settled for a total of about $147 million in savings. The average whistle blower received $400,000. England has similar legislation. I believe this is the crux of what we are talking about here, protection at the same time as incentive.

The Americans saved $147 million by people within their departments saying there was waste and showing that there was waste. The incentive was there. Twenty-five per cent of the savings that they identified went into their own pockets. It works very well. The government saves on the one hand, the employee picks up on the other hand and the protection is there. It would be worthwhile to look at some of the practices followed in other countries to draft a plan of our own.

We also have on the books existing legislation that makes it necessary for this government to introduce whistle blowing legislation. Such an act is necessary because at the same time that our Financial Administration Act states that a public servant who fails to report suspected fraud can be fined up to $5,000 or sent to prison for up to five years, there is no corresponding protection for whistle

blowers who act in accordance with the law. Clearly we require a balance.

The government knows full well that there is waste and abuse in the public service and the introduction of such an act will bring many of these wasteful practices under control. This type of bill would help restore the credibility of the government and the politicians who are, to a certain extent, responsible for public service waste and abuse.

As my colleagues have mentioned before, the auditor general has covered this. He emphasized the need for action on this issue in his 1995 report. The auditor general wrote: "Canadians are concerned about integrity in government and they have the right to expect the highest ethical standards in their governments. Leadership by members of Parliament, ministers and deputy ministers is critical to maintaining ethical standards and performance in government".

The auditor general went on to say: "If Canadians do not trust their governments to act ethically, governments will find that their actions have less and less legitimacy and effectiveness. Thus we believe that it is important to discuss the ethics in government and to take action to maintain and promote ethics within government".

The Liberals promised in their red book to restore honesty and integrity to government yet their actions speak otherwise. If we had honesty and integrity, we would not need Motion No. M-263. We would not need to waste this House's time asking the government to follow through on its election promise. However as it is, there is a need to protect public servants whose efforts to ensure honesty and integrity in our institutions are threatened by their government. Thus we need this legislation.

It is ironic that on the one hand we have a Liberal backbencher pushing to fulfil a Liberal promise yet on the other hand cabinet is acting to undermine the Liberal member's efforts. This is not a partisan issue. It is simply common sense. It is in the best interests of Canadians and the federal government to introduce this legislation.

In conclusion, I support Motion No. M-263. I believe that there is broad support for this motion within the House. We have heard it from the Liberal side, we have heard it from the Bloc and Reform. As such I would ask for unanimous consent in this House that this motion be deemed votable.

[Impaired Driving, February 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Motion No. M-78 introduced by my colleague from Prince George-Bulkley Valley.

Motion No. M-78 asks that the government consider strengthening penalties in those sections in the Criminal Code which deal with impaired driving offences in order to enhance deterrence and bring the penalties into line with the seriousness of the offence.

When we look at the facts they simply tell us that the problem is not being addressed or resolved. Drinking and driving is the largest single criminal cause of death and injury in Canada. I am going to repeat that because of the seriousness. Drinking and driving is the largest single criminal cause of death and injury in Canada.

The death rate from impaired driving is three to four times the national murder rate. To put this into perspective, in 1992 there were 732 homicides in Canada. During that same time there were 2,500 deaths resulting from impaired driving.

Clearly we have a problem and clearly we are not addressing that problem. It is in perceptions, I would suggest, that people seem to think that if they cause death or injury using a tonne of metal and plastic they are not capable of driving, that somehow it is okay, it is

not really their fault. I would suggest that it is their fault and that our law enforcement system and our court system in many ways are set up to shield these people. Again, it is goes back to what about the victim in these cases.

I would like to go through a number of facts to bring things into perspective. In 1994 alcohol was involved in 47 per cent of motor vehicle fatalities in Ontario and almost half of the traffic fatalities in British Columbia. In Ontario of the 176 pedestrians killed in 1994, 57 per cent involved the use of alcohol by either the victim or the driver of the vehicle.

We often forget to think about the passengers. We think about someone else being in another vehicle, but in the case of passengers in the vehicle with the impaired driver 25 per cent of fatalities are passengers.

Another terrible figure is 88 per cent of all persons killed in marine vehicle accidents involved alcohol. We tend to think of driving simply motor vehicles on the road. What about boats? In my province of British Columbia the police have cracked down, and rightfully so, on drinking while operating a boat because it has been terrible. People tend to say they do not want to drink and drive on the road but as soon as they get into their boat on the lake they think having a beer or many beers is okay. It is not okay because they are still driving a vehicle, and 88 per cent of all persons killed in marine accidents involved alcohol. That is a terrible statistic. How many more people have to die before something is done?

Clearly my colleague has addressed the situation. He said that we have a problem. All Canadians, every member of this House and all parties should say yes to this motion.

In 1995 Justice Peter Cory of the Supreme Court of Canada remarked: "Every year drunk driving leaves a terrible trail of death, injury, heartbreak and destruction. In terms of deaths and serious injury resulting in hospitalization, drunk driving is clearly the crime which causes the most significant social loss in this country".

Sixty-five per cent of all suspensions issued for impaired driving were issued for a second offence. What does this second offence tell us? Why in the world should we have to speak to the second offence or subsequent offences in drunk driving? There should not be a second offence.

The reason I say that is I was in Sweden a number of years ago. The Swedes enjoy having a drink and going out to have a good time. However, they would not dream of drinking and driving. Why? The penalties are there. I believe it was five years automatic at that time. The second time they are gone, no licence.

This is the type of penalty that we require. We have to get the attention of the drinking driver. That clearly has not happened.

An analogy was photo radar where part of the problem was political will. Let us remember the last election in Ontario and the antics the electorate went through about photo radar. I would suggest that the attitude on drinking and driving is similar. The public said it did not want photo radar. Speeding cars were killing people but the political pressure was enough for the Ontario government to pull out its photo radar. In fact, Ontario sold it to my province of British Columbia where it is being used and speeding has decreased.

I use that analogy because I believe it is the same mindset we are seeing with drunk driving: "While it is a problem, politically we do not think we should address it. Perhaps the next administration or the provincial government or someone else will deal with it". That simply is not happening.

What have we set up? We have set up a system where a good lawyer, as my colleague says, can get most people off. The court system is clogged. Most of the cases in court now deal with impaired driving and the penalties are simply not there. It is a mindset and an attitude that goes through our whole system. Clearly a wake-up call is required.

I hope my colleagues on all sides of the House will clearly consider this motion and pass it when it is voted on. Although it is a motion and not a bill, it will send a clear message to all governments to deal with this problem in a significant way and put deterrents and educational programs in place so that the deaths on our highways are put to an end.

[Excise Tax Act, February 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, yes I did say that the Prime Minister lied and I will withdraw that comment.

[Excise Tax Act, February 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating Bill C-70, the harmonized sales tax bill or, as many have called it, the blended sales tax bill. I gather that is what the Liberals were going to call it, but shortened down it became the BS tax as opposed to the harmonized sales tax. I believe the term BS tax came a little close to the truth, so the Liberals decided to call it the harmonized tax instead. However, the BS tax is how Atlantic Canadians and many other Canadians are beginning to view this tax.

I would like to examine where this tax came from. It came from the GST. The government lacked the ability to deal with and deliver on its GST promise. The GST is the most hated tax the country has ever seen.

The Mulroney government pushed through the GST. We can recall the days when the Conservatives dragged forward an obscure part of the Constitution in order to stack the Senate to get the GST through. What about all the Liberal senators? What did the Liberal senators do at that time? They screamed that the bill proposing the GST was horrible and had to be axed.

It will be most interesting to see what those same Liberal senators do when the HST goes to the Senate. It is a very similar tax in that it is hated. I hope the Liberal senators will examine the HST and deal with the terrible parts of the bill, parts which Atlantic Canadians are saying will not fly.

What happened to the Mulroney government over the GST? It went from being a majority government to a party which can hold a caucus in the front seat of an imported pick-up truck. That is what happens to a government which does not listen to the people.

The Liberals promised to kill, abolish, eliminate the GST, not blend it. They promised to get rid of it. The Prime Minister said it on television, as well as the Deputy Prime Minister and the finance minister. They are all on tape and on film saying that is what they would do. Where are we today? We are dealing with the HST, the BS tax, and trying to fulfil a Liberal promise and what is it going to do?

It establishes a 15 per cent tax in the Atlantic provinces. To some of the Atlantic provinces this is just fine because they take the 7 per cent general sales tax and the federal tax and add that to the provincial tax. In most cases in the Atlantic provinces it is over 15 per cent, so this is a deal. This is a deal because Atlantic Canadians can now say this is a lower tax than they would be paying originally. In some cases it was 17 or 18 per cent, so they dropped it to 15 per cent. This is just fine. The administration of it is a horrendous nightmare, but from a political point of view this was just fine and the Atlantic premiers bought into it.

However, there is a loss in revenue. Where is this revenue going to come from? Naturally it comes from the rest of Canada. Alberta will not buy into it. B.C. will not buy into it. Ontario will not buy into it. They have categorically said there was no way that these provinces were going to buy into a blended sales tax. If we look at Alberta, that is the classic example. It does not have a provincial sales tax but it has the 7 per cent GST. Why in the world would it possibly settle for a 15 per cent tax? It would be ludicrous. B.C. is the same and Ontario is the same, only to a lesser degree. It is absolutely a no sell for the rest of the country.

The Ontario finance minister has said "just blending in Ontario would cost the province of Ontario $3 billion". That is the type of lunacy that we are talking about in this bill to try to sell it to the rest of the country.

What does this do? It is a transfer of wealth. It is a transfer of money from the rest of Canada into Atlantic Canada. If this were for a good reason nobody would complain. However, the ludicrous reason we have here is it is a political sell-off to Atlantic Canada. It is the way the Liberals are trying to say this is the way they will solve the problem. Again, here they go manipulating Canadians.

Besides transferring this wealth around, the administration is a nightmare. All the businesses and consumers are up in arms saying good lord, this will not work. Where are the Liberals? We have about 28 Liberals from the Atlantic provinces but they would not even allow open hearings with Atlantic Canadians. They are saying "you cannot do that, why would we want to have people in front of us telling us what might be wrong with this bill?"

This is the type of legislation that the Liberals are forcing through that is simply not going to fly.

However, there is a bigger picture. This bill deals with what this government has or has not dealt with and where it is not going. The bigger issue is integrity. Where is the integrity of a Prime Minister who, on national television, said one thing about a tax and then said "I didn't say that", when in fact he lied to Canadians? He is just saying that the integrity of the whole government is okay. It is not okay. What about trust? Canadians want to trust their politicians. They want to be able to trust their politicians. This is just another example of Liberal lunacy.

What about truth? What about representing constituents? What about those Liberals MPs who are out on the east coast? They do not represent their constituents. We are going into an election that is going to be very much about the integrity of politicians representing their constituents. When they go to their federal ridings representing the issues and the people who sent them there, obviously the members from Atlantic Canada who are in this place are not representing their people. What is more, they refuse to listen to those constituents to tell them what is wrong with this bill.

In summary, I would say that this bill will not fly. There are huge holes in it. It is a transfer of wealth. It is about the integrity or lack of integrity of this government and the leaders of this government. I believe that the very short part of the deal is that Canadians are going to go to polls and say that this is not what they want in the form of a government. They want integrity, truth and representation. That is what we are going to see when we go to the polls shortly.

[The Senate, February 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, on March 1 British Columbia Senator Len Marchand will step down, leaving a vacant seat in the Senate.

To fill that seat, British Columbians want to choose a senator who will represent provincial concerns and will serve British Columbians as opposed to just another Liberal hack appointed by the Prime Minister whose only loyalty is to the Liberal Party.

B.C. already has a law on the books which allows for British Columbians to elect their next senator. Before the last election, the current Prime Minister promised that the Liberal Party would establish an elected Senate within two years of its forming government.

Yet in the last three years, the Prime Minister has appointed more political hacks to the Upper House than Mulroney did in nine years in Parliament. So much for Liberal integrity.

Now is the time for the Prime Minister to put the democratic rights of the people ahead of the political interests of their party and allow British Columbians to elect their next senator.

[Petitions, February 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present the following petition which comes from my riding of Comox-Alberni.

The petitioners ask that Parliament enact Bill C-205 which proposes to prohibit any criminal from profiting from the commission of a crime.

[Petitions, December 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I pleased to present the following petitions from my constituents in Comox-Alberni.

The petition is signed by over 2,100 signatures, bringing the total number to 7,600. This represents 15 per cent of the voters in my riding.

The petitioners request that Parliament allow Canadian citizens to vote directly in a national binding referendum on the restoration of the death penalty for first degree murder convictions.

[Town Hall Meeting, December 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, tonight the Prime Minister will be holding a town hall meeting to be aired on the CBC with Peter Mansbridge.

Town hall meetings should be an opportunity for Canadians to share their concerns with their federal representative or the leader of the country. However, participants in the Prime Minister's town hall meeting will not be allowed to ask their questions or voice their concerns. Instead Liberal organizers are controlling participant questions to fit the Liberal agenda.

An individual from my riding was not allowed to ask a question on his issue of concern and instead was given a directive on what he could ask.

Obviously the Prime Minister's town hall meeting will be nothing more than a staged event, a puppet show, a pre-election announcement from the Liberal government.

Shame on the Prime Minister and the CBC for the misuse and abuse of what should be a democratic process. If the Prime Minister is so confident of his success to date, why will he not allow Canadians honest participation in this town hall meeting and open the floor to real debate?

[Softwood Lumber, December 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary continues to blame the industry for the job losses.

Industry did not negotiate the softwood deal. This government did. The minister claims that the industry set the standard for the deal. Allow me to set the record straight.

The companies agreed to a reduction of 9 per cent of the 1995 exports of softwood lumber to the U.S., yet the majority of lumber producers had their quotas reduced by not 9 per cent, but 30 to 40 per cent. That is the problem.

Lumber companies are now demanding that the government cancel the softwood lumber deal. Will the government fight for Canadian jobs and cancel the softwood lumber agreement with the United States?

[Softwood Lumber, December 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister for International Trade has been claiming that the sawmill industry is on side and that the industry is happy with the Canada-U.S. softwood lumber agreement.

However, several Quebec lumber companies are now taking the minister to court over the export quotas they have received under the agreement. They say the minister bungled the quotas. The industry claims the minister missed the boat when he set the quotas. It wants the minister to quash the present allocation and issue quotas that are more in line with reality. Thousands of jobs are being lost across the country because the minister bungled the deal.

What specific action does the minister plan to take to resolve this situation?