Elwin Hermanson

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 4th, 1995]

That is why they sent us here. You guys are never here.

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 4th, 1995]

It is true.

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 4th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the comments of the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden. He expressed his concern about double dipping which of course I share.

Examples of double dipping cross many party lines. The three old parties are all guilty. One person who comes to mind is Ed Broadbent, former leader of the federal NDP who is double dipping at this very moment.

However, the member talked about those who have served in the military or in other levels of government and then come to Parliament as also being double dippers.

I would like to give an example. Someone has served in the military for 25 or 30 years, or someone has served at a lower level of government for 20 or 30 years, has made it a career, paid into an actuarially sound pension, not like the MPs pension which is funded four to one, five to one by the taxpayers for every dollar that we contribute. I am talking about actuarially sound pensions. Is he suggesting that these people should not collect their pensions after a long and distinguished career of service in these areas?

[Petitions, May 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present a petition which has been signed by 48 Canadians.

Part of their request is that the government not overburden Canadians with higher taxation. I believe this was signed prior to the budget and it may not be relevant because taxes did increase. However, there is a portion which is relevant, which states that the petitioners pray and request that Parliament reduce government spending instead of increasing taxes and implement a taxpayer protection act to limit federal spending.

[Liberal Party, May 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the governing Liberals are proving once again that they are no friend of Saskatchewan. The last federal budget hit Saskatchewan with cutbacks in agriculture, the Crow rate and an increase in fuel tax.

In the face of this sacrifice in Saskatchewan the minister of public works has the nerve to announce that the government is giving $4 million to the Harbourfront Centre in Toronto.

The government cannot find money for farm support, but it can fund cultural centres. It says it no longer has money for grain transportation but it will continue to fund fat, gold plated MP pension plans.

The Liberals have no cash to stop booze and gun running into my province from the United States but it can find millions of dollars for gun control registration that will have no effect on crime.

The Liberal government can borrow billions of dollars to fund its own pet projects at the expense of hard working, taxpaying farmers.

It is clear that this government is no friend of Saskatchewan and her future generations.

[Code Of Conduct, May 1st, 1995]

The Hon. Pierre Claude Nolin was appointed. I think it was in June 1993 that he accepted his appointment.

Do we want somebody, a friend of a government Canadians considered to be villainous to be sitting on the committee for the code of conduct, to be determining the code of ethics we should be living by? I am shocked. I can hardly believe it.

There is someone else who might happen to be involved in the committee and who happens to be a Liberal, the Hon. Allan J. MacEachen. He is considered to be the godfather of the Liberals in Atlantic Canada. He has a reputation that one member on the front bench is trying to emulate.

There is an article in Maclean's which says: Then comes the minister of public works, a show stopper. The incantatory, drawn out delivery of Allan J. MacEachen, the long time federal Liberal minister from Cape Breton who now sits in the Senate.Close your eyes'', says one of the acquaintances of both men, ``and you will swear Allan J. is right there in the room''. There is only one Allan J, the minister explains with an annoying chuckle.

Then it goes on to talk about how Hon. Allan J. MacEachen was a godfather in Atlantic Canada and certainly someone involved in patronage. Certainly, he is someone that we would not want on a committee to discuss and draft a code of ethics for parliamentarians, but this is what the Liberals are intending to do.

There is another problem with this committee. Right now the Senate is controlled by the Tories. I understand that the Prime Minister is working overtime to install his own hacks. The Minister of Transport knows that the Senate is controlled by the Tories. He is having some problems with the Pearson airport affair.

The Tories are also worried. A few hundred of them met across the river over the weekend. They were planning strategy. Their strategy was: "How do we get back on the gravy train? We are not getting many appointments to the Senate anymore and we miss that". They are strategizing how to get back into government so they can get back on the gravy train and see some of their own appointed to the Senate.

Too many of the old Mulroney gang had their eyes on a red covered chair in the Senate. And these are the people we want to be involved in drafting a code of ethics for us, for the elected members of the House of Commons? I think not. Some code of conduct that might be.

The group of Tories that met in Hull over the weekend did not apologize to Canadians for the despicable things they did when they were in power. They should have. They did not apologize to Canadians for increasing our debt from about $200 billion to over $400 billion. They never said they were sorry. And these are the kind of people the Liberals want to put on an ethics committee? I think not.

The Tories imposed the GST on Canadians against their will and they had to stack the Senate to do it. These are the kinds of people we want to put on an ethics committee?

The Tories, along with the Liberals, were involved in drafting the Charlottetown accord, the infamous accord that had some terrible things in it. One item in the Charlottetown accord called for a double majority in the Senate regarding votes on matters respecting language and culture. That meant that if there was an issue that addressed language or culture, not only did the majority of senators have to vote in favour of the measure, but a majority of francophone senators had to vote in favour it. That is not democratic.

It is not democratic that they are unelected, but then they get a double majority based on language and ethnic origin? That is disgusting. Yet the people over there want these types of people to sit on an ethics committee. I am astounded. I cannot believe it.

The Charlottetown accord said that this new Senate would be elected. Members on the other side brought that to our attention. Of course we knew it would be elected, but who wants that type of an elected Senate? What decent person would run for election to that kind of a Senate? I do not think we would find very many good candidates that would agree to sit in a body that would use a double majority on votes relating to language and culture. That is disgusting. It is not Canadian and it is not true democracy. Yet the Liberals want these kinds of people to sit on a committee to draft a code of conduct for parliamentarians.

The Tories never apologized for doing these things. The Liberals have not apologized for their role in the Charlottetown accord, although there were two or three of them who I think did see the light and spoke against the accord. The majority as usual followed like sheep to the slaughter and lost the Charlottetown accord.

Canadians are not as thoughtless as many members on the other side might think. They see through these things and were appalled at the Charlottetown accord. They were appalled at the debt the Tories built up. They said it was immoral, that it was wrong. Because of that they only elected two Tory members to the House in the last election. They said that the GST was wrong as well. When two or three Tories stood up and said they would not vote for the GST, they were disciplined just like the Liberals were who voted against the gun control measure. Nothing is different between the Liberals and the Tories. They stand for the same principles. Did I say principles? I do not think they stand for any principles. It is disgusting.

These people want to draft a code of conduct, a code of ethics for parliamentarians? I think not.

The Senate certainly needs a code of conduct. The member for Kingston and the Islands has talked about it. Do they not want senators to have a code of conduct? Do they not want them to be accountable? The first thing is that they need to be accountable to the people of Canada. Until we change the Constitution that will not happen. Perhaps rather than abolishing the Senate we should be talking about abolishing the appointed senators. That might be a move in the right direction.

I have spoken at some length on this matter and will conclude before my time runs out. I want to clearly say to the House that we do need a code of conduct. We do need to know how to deal with lobbyists. That is important. However, we certainly do not want direction from the old Tory gang. That would be a disaster. That is far less than Canadians deserve in this place. We must not support a joint committee to deal with the issue of ethics and a code of conduct.

Perhaps the Liberals have seen the error of their ways. I know they did quite a bit of yelling over there because they have been told they have to support this motion. It is government policy and they have no choice. However, they should just step back for a minute and think logically about what they are doing. They are supporting the old Tory ways. They are not being any different.

There are several new MPs over on the other side who have not been tainted with that Tory-Liberal past of previous Parliaments. Perhaps this is the time for them to stand up and be counted and vote against something that is not right. Let them do something right for a change, not just for themselves, not just for the Liberal Party, not just for the House of Commons, but for Canadians.

[Code Of Conduct, May 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to speak to this motion. I congratulate the government for initiating action with regard to a code of conduct for parliamentarians. If history teaches us anything it is that the House needs to be aware of the need for a code of conduct. It needs to be aware that Canadians expect ethical behaviour from us. My hope is a code will be developed and that it will be effective. I hope it will have some real teeth, not like the ethics counsellor who we saw the Prime Minister appoint, and not some watered down list of suggestions which will have as its only purpose a public relations exercise of so-called government action on ethics.

I am concerned because of the government's failure to carry through on any of its red book promises for a more open and ethical government. While the concept of a code of conduct to guide members in their dealings with lobbyists is a good idea, I have some serious doubts as to the government's willingness to follow through with effective guidelines.

Let us take, for example, the position of the ethics counsellor. Rather than having an independent counsellor accountable to Parliament, as the red book said, the Prime Minister has decided to keep the issue of ethics in house, behind closed doors. By only

reporting to the Prime Minister the ethics counsellor has lost the appearance of independence and objectivity. This restriction was underscored during the debacle over the Minister of Canadian Heritage's interference with the CRTC.

There are precendents for positions such as the ethics counsellor to be officers of the House of Commons. The human rights commissioner, the chief electoral officer, the auditor general and the privacy commissioner are all answerable to the House, not to the government. They are not answerable to cabinet or to the Prime Minister; they are answerable to the House. That is important.

In each case it is clear an arm's length relationship with the government is required for those officers to objectively and adequately discharge their responsibilities. The same is true for the ethics counsellor and for any type of code of conduct for parliamentarians.

My concern is that the government wanted to give the impression of ethics without actually changing anything. That is the only reason I can see for not making the ethics counsellor an officer of Parliament. It is a very select group. It is not as though there is no room for change any more. Being an independent officer of the House would allow the ethics counsellor to promote the ethical conduct of members of the House instead of its current position of being a political lap-dog of the Prime Minister.

Despite all the rhetoric about open government and more independence for backbenchers the government has continued the tradition of secrecy and whipping members into line. I have seen many government members speak in favour of some of the ideas expressed on this side of the House only to withdraw and toe the party line when their voice really counted, when they stood up in the House to vote, when they voted in committee or when they had to sign on to committee reports. That is not active and quality democracy and that is not representative democracy.

Our debates in the Chamber on gun control are a good example of how the government really feels about open government. When some of its members chose out of good conscience to represent their constituents rather than do the bidding of the party hierarchy they were reprimanded. Imagine that. They were reprimanded for daring to do the bidding of the constituents who sent us here, who pay the bills, who pay our salaries and who even pay for our pensions.

These are the reasons I am concerned that this code of conduct must be carefully and properly crafted. This government does not have a good track record of being proactive on ethical matters. If we can draft a good code of conduct, it may add some much needed legitimacy to the ethics counsellor.

The importance of having this kind of code of conduct cannot be overemphasized. This government obviously needs some guidelines when it comes to ethical dealings with lobbyists. The whole Pearson scandal is the best example of closed door unethical activity. This deal was started by the previous Tory government and the closed door antics have been continued by this government.

There is the whole issue of José Perez and his dealings with Senator De Bané and Canada Post. As well, the Minister of Canadian Heritage has had questionable dealings with the CRTC in the past and is under a cloud of suspicion once again.

The need for this kind of a code of conduct is self-evident. I only hope the Liberals have the political courage to put aside their self-interests and the interests of their well-connected friends and family members to draft an effective and complete code.

While having a committee draft this code is an improvement over the usual closed door cabinet process, I have some concerns about the make-up of the committee. I do not believe that senators should be included on a House of Commons committee. Let me take a few minutes to tell this House why I have some concerns.

Having senators involved with drafting a code of conduct dealing with issues like conflict of interest is a bit like having the inmates running the asylum. It is a bit like putting violent offenders on the parole board. It just does not make sense. I do not understand why this Liberal government would promote such a ridiculous idea.

I will not make these suggestions without backing them up with facts. Not very many years ago, a Prime Minister by the name of Mulroney stacked the Senate with eight senators. Why did he do that? To put through the GST.

What would happen if some of those senators who agreed to accept those extra positions above the 104 senators ended up on this ethics committee? I am a bit concerned about that. What if the Hon. Eric Berntson from Saskatchewan, one of the stacked senators, ended up on this ethics committee? He was the one who said: "I will never accept a government appointment. I refuse any government appointments". A week or two later when Brian Mulroney asked if he would take a Senate seat to help him get the GST through, he said: "Yes, I would love to sit in the Senate. The rest of my life will be cushy. I will do that for you". The Liberal government defends that type of action and I am shocked.

There was another member in that group of select senators. They had to put stacking chairs in the Senate to accommodate these extra senators. His name was the Hon. John Buchanan. He was considered to be the most efficient bagmen in all of Atlantic Canada. Is this the type of person we want to allow to sit on a committee to discuss a code of conduct and to consider conflict of interest? I am shocked that the Liberals would suggest and promote such an idea.

There are a couple of other people who sit over in the other place: the Hon. Guy Charbonneau and the Hon. Michel Cogger. Their names were in the news for a long time. I remember reading about them in almost every chapter of Stevie Cameron's book On the Take .

Are these the kinds of people the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands wants to see sitting on a committee to draft a code of conduct for parliamentarians? Perhaps they may be the result of an investigation rather than the ones who are drafting the code. The Liberals are putting forward a motion in this House which would allow them to sit on this committee. I am shocked. I would ask the Liberals to withdraw the motion, come to their senses and realize what they are doing.

There is another potential candidate for this committee. Her name is Marjory LeBreton. She was the director of Tory patronage, the one who decided which Tories got put in which position of patronage. She probably even had a hand in determining who Brian Mulroney would place in the Senate. Perhaps she had a hand in choosing the six senators to sit on those six stacking stools that the Minister of Transport has correctly identified. Would the Minister of Transport agree to have Marjory LeBreton sitting on a code of conduct committee? This motion would allow that to happen. I am shocked.

There is another one over there, Pierre Claude Nolin. He was Brian Mulroney's crony in Quebec, his principal adviser in the province of Quebec. He accepted his appointment right at the tail end of the Mulroney era, when the whole country was angry at Brian Mulroney and his government and the people wanted to kick them out.

[Health Care, April 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on paper we have a health care system that sounds great. The Minister of Health and the Prime Minister are always talking about the five principles in the Canada Health Act-lots of talk with little action.

Our health care system, successfully pioneered in a regional health district in Swift Current, Saskatchewan, is crumbling. On paper health care in Canada is accessible. In reality the waiting lists for major surgery are growing. On paper health care is universal; however, different provinces cover different services and prescriptions in their health plans.

As the population ages, demand for health services is rising while the proportion of people paying for services is dropping. Debt servicing costs are rising while federal health funding is falling. How long will this have to continue before the government takes action rather than reading a paper called the Canada Health Act?

On paper Canada has a world class health care system. In reality when Canadians are sick or injured they have the right to be put immediately on a world class waiting list.

[Points Of Order, March 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring two more facts to light with regard to this point of order.

First, when the question was asked, it was asked with regard to orders in councils that had been ruled out of order by this case. The question was whether or not the Minister of Justice had the authority to continue making those decisions. It was not a reflection on the case in Alberta.

The second point I would like to make is this. The federal government did not have intervener status in the provincial court case, so the federal justice minister really had no authority to make an intervention in a case that was not under his jurisdiction.

Those are two very important points that need to be brought to your attention, Mr. Speaker.

[The Cabinet, March 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, baseball fans are worried about the calibre of play this season if replacement players take to the field. If the second stringers in the Liberal cabinet are any indication, fans should be worried.

No one has dropped the ball more than the minister of defence playing outfield. He missed the signals on the Bosnia peacekeeping play. He misjudged airborne base hits and dropped the Fowler ball. He cannot find the bases because he keeps moving them.

Let us look at some of the other players. The heritage minister writes notes during the game. The minister of Indian affairs is drafting separate rules for aboriginal players. The health minister is headed back to the minors. She swings her bat without hitting. The minister for western economic diversification hits every ball to the centre fielder, named Winnipeg. The justice minister fired a bullet over the pitcher's head and was arrested for playing with an unregistered bat. The environment minister takes too big a lead off to suit the Prime Minister. She will be tagged out.

Fans know it is time to get concerned when the star player, the Prime Minister, tells the President of the United States that Canada has won the world cup of baseball two times in a line.