Bill Gilmour

[Canadian Bill Of Rights, November 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my Motion No. M-205 proposes to amend the Canadian bill of rights by adding two new sections. The first section would allow citizens the right to their property unless the person receives a fair hearing in accordance with principles of fundamental justice. The second section gives the individual property owner the right to fair compensation for the property within a reasonable amount of time.

At present the Canadian bill of rights includes property rights yet the guarantee of protection is minimal at best. At present there is no requirement in Canadian constitutional law that the removal of private property is covered by a fair procedure to deal with compensation to the owner and there is no guarantee of fair treatment by the courts, tribunals or officials who have the power over individuals or corporations.

Individual property rights is a fundamental freedom which must be protected. Motion No. M-205 considers giving Canadians security that their homes and possessions are theirs and theirs alone. This motion is about giving Canadians the right to the protection of their own property. I would hope there would be broad support within this House.

[Canadian Bill Of Rights, November 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as it is my motion I wonder if I might be allowed a minute to make a brief summation.

[Speech From The Throne, November 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the member said that we only come to this area to grab something for our own province. I would point out that three provinces are have provinces. One of them is British Columbia. We are very much at the bottom of the stick when it comes to receiving from the other end.

All we are asking for is a level playing field with equal give and take. British Columbians are tired of give, give, give. As my colleague for Skeena said, in the coastal communities it has been lighthouses, coast guard, fisheries. It is an on and on list of abandoning British Columbian coastal communities. This is not the

way a government should be operating, particularly toward a province like British Columbia that contributes more in transfer payments than it gets.

[Speech From The Throne, November 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to finally address the throne speech. Only in the Canadian system could we be addressing a speech where all the goals and finances were established six months ago. In fact, half the programs have already been spent.

I will address my area as critic which is public works which deals with a number of areas within government and with government contracts.

One of the first areas we dealt with in the government operations committee was the Senate. The finances of the Senate can come before our committee. I moved a resolution to have one of the Senate financial people come before our committee to explain how the Senate was going to spend its $40 million allocation plus another $11 million in expenses. It went through this House. It was the first time in Canadian history I might add that the Senate was asked to come before a committee to account for its expenses. Guess what? The people from the Senate did not show up. They felt that they did not have to. This brings us to the crux of the Canadian system.

Here we have a group of senators-I will call them a double U Senate, unelected and unaccountable-refusing to come before this House to justify their expenses. That is absolutely wrong. This is why we need a triple E Senate, elected, effective and equal. A lot of the legislation that went through this House-the GST is a good example, and gun control-would not have gone through if there had been an elected Senate, an effective Senate.

It happens in the United States and the Australian governments. They have Senates that work. Unfortunately we do not. It is fundamental to our system that this government right across the board voted to give the Senate its allocation of $40 million plus $11 million in expenses without questioning where it was going to spend that money.

Another area within public works is contracts. My colleague from Skeena commented on Bombardier. Why in heaven should Bombardier receive millions of dollars? It is one of the most profitable corporations in Canada yet it went to the Liberal government and got that money. Why? Because it donated $174,000 over the past three years to the Liberal Party.

Another one is the mine sweeper contract that went finally to SNC-Lavalin. This is a $35 million contract. Halifax Shipyards submitted the lowest bid and the best technical bid. It was the outfit that was recommended by the Department of National Defence but did Halifax Shipyards get that contract? No. It went to SNC-Lavalin in Quebec which is a very large Liberal supporter.

Is this the kind of government Canadians want? Canadians want a straight up, level playing field so that when contracts are given out, they are given out to the best possible competitor. That does not happen. I have seen contracts that have been rewritten. A contract on the east coast is written one way and when the contract goes to a west coast firm, the contract is rewritten so that the west coast firm cannot compete. That is absolutely wrong.

There has to be a level playing field in all contracts. That simply is not happening right now. The government is playing favourites like Bombardier, like SNC-Lavalin. This is clearly the old style politics. This is the Mulroney style politics. We know what happened to the Mulroney gang. The same thing is going to happen to this gang because Canadians simply will not put up with it.

We are in a debt and deficit hole. We need to spend our money wisely. We Canadians do not really like paying our taxes, but if we paid our taxes knowing full well that they were going to go to the right cause with efficiency, with economy, Canadians would be quite happy to come forward with their taxes. Right now they have absolutely no confidence in this government when it comes to spending their money. This will change come the next election.

Another area within public works is Canada Post. What has happened to our postal system? Over the past 10 or 12 years we cannot get a letter across a city in the same day or between cities in two days and anywhere in the country in three days. That is what the Radwanski report is saying. This should be the goal of Canada Post. Get of the courier business. Get out of Purolator Courier and get out of the ad mail business.

I will describe exactly what has happened in Canada Post. Canada Post owns half of Purolator. It is the biggest player in the courier business. By allowing Canada Post to falter, not to be able to get a letter across town for 45 cents, we then have to go to Purolator and pay $9 to get it across town. This is really good business, is it not? But they are playing with Canadian tax dollars. Canada Post absolutely refuses to show the cross-subsidization that is happening, where the 45-cent stamp is going. It undercuts ad mail. It undercuts it so that it is then the best player in town. It undercuts Purolator so that the other players, the private sector, are at a disadvantage.

Canada Post has to get out of that altogether and get back to its real mandate of efficient and economical delivery of mail. That is what the Reform Party believes. Canada Post should have the mandate to get back to the basics. If it cannot do that after being given a perfect chance, then the Reform Party will consider privatizing it. If that is the only way we can get mail delivered in this country, then we will do it.

The United States and Australia have similar distances, similar problems within their postal systems yet they can do it. Why can Canada Post not do it? Canada Post cannot do it because it is embroiled in trying to get into the public sector, which is absolutely wrong.

Canada Post has forgotten its absolute beginning mandate and this is where the Radwanski report is absolutely bang on. Allow Canada Post to be opened to access to information. Allow the auditor general into Canada Post to deal with it. Right now we cannot get any information from Canada Post on its finances or on what is going on. This is absolutely wrong.

In summary in the contract area and in the big corporate areas such as Canada Post and CMHC, the government has a dismal record. We must get government out of the faces of Canadians, get back to the basics and have contracts awarded on a real, effective, level playing field. In that way Canadians will be getting the best bang for their buck.

[Canada Post, November 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Canada Post mandate review recommends that Canada Post be made subject to the Freedom of Information Act and to annual audits by the auditor general. To date the minister responsible has ignored these recommendations.

Canadians have a stake in how their crown corporations are run. They have a right to know what is going on and the Radwanski report makes it clear that Canadians have legitimate concerns regarding Canada Post.

My question is for the minister responsible for Canada Post. The Liberal government promised Canadians more open and transparent government. Will the minister deliver on that promise and make Canada Post open and transparent by making it subject to the Freedom of Information Act and to the scrutiny of the auditor general?

[Veterans Week, November 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is Veterans Week. On Monday, November 11 Canadians will mark a minute of silence for those who gave up their lives for the freedom, democracy and peace we enjoy in this country today. That minute of silence is only a reminder to us all of what many young men and women gave for us in the two world wars and the Korean war.

My father was one of those men. He was a navigator in the RCAF and never returned from the second world war. As a result, I grew up with only a photograph and the stories and memories passed on by my mother to tell me what a wonderful man my father was.

Many of us can only imagine what it was like for those men like my father. Their sacrifice was so great and so meaningful that we must never forget the contributions made during the wars. No words can convey that to anyone.

Therefore, in honour of Veterans Week, I ask that we take the time to remember that November 11 is not a holiday. It is a day to remember those who fought and died for this great country, a country we are all proud of, a country rated as the best in the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-49, the administrative tribunals act. Bill C-49 seeks to make administrative changes to boards, agencies and tribunals. I join my colleagues in opposing this bill. It should be scrapped and rewritten with meaningful changes to patronage and improved accountability.

Bill C-49 does not make substantive changes to public accountability. It does not go far enough to eliminate or reduce patronage. In fact Bill C-49 does practically nothing to change what is already going on today.

Many Canadians will disagree with Bill C-49's proposal to eliminate the Canadian citizenship requirement for appointments to nine organizations which include CMHC, Canada Labour Relations Board, CRTC and the CBC. Bill C-49 also proposes to make changes to the Immigration and Refugee Board to allow for a one-person panel. It is doubtful whether this will make the board more accountable and in fact it may do the reverse.

Bill C-49 proposes to increase, not decrease, the role of the governor in council and ministers in a number of appointments. This Liberal government can continue to appoint all its friends to high places with no regard to accountability, competence or quality in the appointees.

When the Liberals were in opposition they were very vocal in criticizing patronage appointments made during the Mulroney government. At that time they completely forgot their own party's overwhelming use of this political tool during the Trudeau administration.

Page 92 of the Liberal red book says: "The Conservatives made a practice of choosing political friends when making thousands of appointments to boards, commissions and agencies. A Liberal government will," take note across the way, "take a series of initiatives to restore confidence in the institutions of government and make competence and diversity the criteria for federal appointments. Open government will be the watchword of the Liberal program". I suggest that will be just after pigs start to fly.

The list of patronage appointments is so large I could not read all the names of appointments during the limited time I have today but it is important that some of these appointments be read into the record, the Liberal record of shame.

Patronage appointments go right to the very top with the appointment of Romeo LeBlanc, a lifetime servant of the Liberal Party to be Governor General of Canada. LeBlanc was a press secretary, speech writer, organizer, member of Parliament and senator for the federal Liberals.

This summer the National Transportation Agency was reorganized to make room for several well-connected Liberals such as the former member of Parliament for St. John's, Newfoundland, Richard Cashin and the former member of Parliament for Kapuskasing, Ontario, Keith Penner.

Recently the Liberal cabinet appointed Roger Legare, the former director general of the Liberal Party of Canada and defeated 1993 candidate to the most senior management position at the National Capital Commission.

The list of patronage appointments to the bench, paying about $140,000 a year, is long. Some of the recent appointments include the new minister of defence's sister, former Liberal Party president Michael Robert; ex-Ontario MPP Albert Roy; Thomas Lofchik, a Liberal organizer in Hamilton was appointed to the Court of Appeal of Ontario; John Richard, the former partner of the Prime Minister and son of the former Liberal MP Jean T. Richard was appointed to the bench; Bryan Williams, a long time Liberal supporter courted as a possible Liberal candidate appointed as judge to the B.C. Supreme Court; and Gerald Albright, another well know Liberal supporter was appointed judge to the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench.

A few of the patronage appointments to the Immigration and Refugee Board include Gary McCauley, the defeated Liberal member of Parliament and Pierre Trudeau's former executive assistant; Dorothy Davey, the wife of former senator Keith Davey; Elke Homsi, a campaign worker for the Minister of the Environment and long time aid to Ontario MPP Tony Ruprecht and assistant to various Ontario Liberal MPs.

The list of patronage appoints to crown corporations such as Canada Post is also long. Patronage appointments to Canada Post have been so political that the recent Canada Post mandate review recommended that Canada Post board of directors be composed solely of individuals with expertise and ability to effectively make an optimal contribution to the governance of a corporation of that size. What does this say about the quality of appointments? Surely, competence should be a factor when making appointments, yet the Liberals do not seem to see that.

Ironically, George Radwanski who was appointed to chair the Canada Post review himself was a former speech writer for the Prime Minister and an active participant in the 1990 Liberal leadership campaign. He obtained his position clearly through patronage.

Former Minister Andre Ouellet was appointed chairman of Canada Post, to receive an additional $160,000 a year in addition to his already lucrative MP pension.

More recently Gilles Champagne, a long term Liberal fundraiser for the Prime Minister, was appointed to the Canada Post Corporation board of directors.

These kinds of patronage appointments have very negative implications regarding the ability of government to have the highest quality people serving it. Unfortunately, this is only the very tip of the patronage list.

Lawrence Freeman, a well-known Liberal and friend of the Minister of Health, was appointed to the Canada Communication Group advisory committee.

Roy MacLaren, the former Liberal Minister for International Trade, stepped down from his seat in the House and took the cushy position of high commissioner in Britain.

Some of the appointments to the Senate chosen by the Prime Minister include: Lorna Milne, a Liberal organizer in Ontario; Leonice Mercier, a longtime Quebec Liberal strategist and organizer; Celine Hervieux-Payette, a former junior minister in the Trudeau government; John Bryden, a former New Brunswick Liberal leader and New Brunswick campaign manager for the Prime Minister's 1990 leadership campaign; Sharon Carstairs, former provincial leader and MLA of the Manitoba Liberals and daughter of a former Liberal senator; and Landon Pearson, the daughter-in-law of Lester B. Pearson. William Rompkey, a former Liberal MP; Jean-Robert Gauthier, the former Liberal MP for Ottawa-Vanier; and Shirley Maheu, a Liberal MP, all resigned their seats in the House to take their turn at the trough. Nick Taylor, a Liberal who was elected to the Alberta legislature and who ran for the provincial Liberal leadership also found his reward in Senate heaven.

The patronage list seems to be endless. This does not sound like the government which pledged in the red book that it would do things differently. The Liberals have favoured their friends when making appointments to the courts, to the Immigration and Refugee Board, to corporations, to the Bank of Canada's board of directors, from one end to the other, large and small. And the media has allowed most of these appointments to go by without so much as raising an eyebrow. Perhaps they are a bit tainted as well.

The government defends its record saying that everyone appointed is qualified. What does that mean, given the fact that there are no qualifications for these positions other than of course being a member of the Liberal Party?

Before the last election the Liberal member for Scarborough-Rouge River told Canadians that there are two bottom lines in the way appointments should be made. The first is that we demand quality; the second is that we require accountability in the appointment process. We need to ensure that when appointments are made, they are reviewed by the House of Commons or a House of Commons committee, or some other mechanism.

What happened to that promise? Who reviews Liberal appointments? Not a committee, as suggested by the Liberals before the election, but the wife of the former minister of defence, Penny Collenette, a patronage appointment herself. This speaks volumes for the Liberal act of accountability.

The patronage list speaks for itself. The Liberals have demonstrated their flagrant lack of accountability to Canadians by bringing all their friends to the trough once again. Canadians deserve more than what they are getting. It is time for Canadians to get what they deserve: competence and quality in these appointments. The government for the first time must become a leader, one that can set an example with its appointments to these very important posts. The faith of Canadians in our government and the integrity of our institutions clearly must be restored.

The Reform Party supports restrictions and limitations on the number and types of order in council appointments permitted by a government during its term of office. Individuals should be appointed on the basis of their qualifications. We must have strong, independent and effective people in these positions of leadership and influence, not political hacks tied to the purse strings of the governing party.

Rather than giving ministers more discretion and more power, it is time to make appointments accountable not to the governing party but to the people of Canada. If the government is not willing to make the necessary changes, a Reform government will.

[Canada Post, October 24th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Canada Post mandate review was recently made public yet when I was in Winnipeg last Tuesday, Canada Post officials refused to meet with me to discuss the Radwanski report. The Canada Post review is a public report but the Post Office refuses to discuss allegations made in the report.

This government promised more open government yet it could not even get in the doors of the Winnipeg post office. Why is this? What is this government trying to hide? The red book says that if government is to play a positive role in society, as it must, honesty and integrity in our institutions must be restored.

According to the Radwanski report on Canada Post, Canadians presently own a crown corporation which has a complete monopoly on first class mail, that is faced with serious allegations of unfair competition and cross subsidization in the courier business, and is seriously under performing in its delivery of mail. However, when I asked to meet the Winnipeg postal officials to discuss the allegations in this report, they refused.

So much for the red book promises.

[Canada Post, October 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, with the purchase of Purolator Courier, Canada Post has become the largest player in the Canadian courier industry, and allegations of cross-subsidization, overly aggressive business practices and unfair competition in the marketplace are cited throughout the Radwanski report on Canada Post.

The Radwanski report recommends that Canada Post sell Purolator Courier and get out of the courier business altogether. Yet the minister responsible refuses to follow this recommendation.

Why is the minister refusing to take Canada Post out of the courier business?

[Canada Post, October 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Canada Post mandate review report released yesterday recom-

mended that Canada Post be made subject to the Freedom of Information Act and to an annual audit by the auditor general.

It is interesting to note that last March I tabled a private members' bill to amend the Access to Information Act that would bring all crown corporations under the jurisdiction of access to information.

The Radwanski report on Canada Post made a number of recommendations that merit serious consideration, most of which have been ignored by the minister, including the recommendation to open Canada Post to public scrutiny.

Canadians have a stake in how crown corporations are run. They have a right to know what is going on, and the Radwanski report makes clear they have legitimate concerns regarding Canada Post.

The Liberals promised open government. Now is the time to deliver on that promise and to bring Canada Post under the jurisdiction of the Freedom of Information Act and under the scrutiny of the auditor general.