Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to address the following Reform opposition day motion:
That this House condemn the government for its failure to keep its red book promise to make the government more open and permitting members of Parliament to be more accountable to their constituents.
I am sharing my time with the hon. member for Fraser Valley West.
I will not spend much of my 10 minutes replying or trying to rebut the nonsense we just heard from the hon. government whip. However I should like to reply to a point that was not adequately addressed by him. He called the blue book of the Reform Party a cheap imitation of the red book. Then he stood in his place and said that the first date he could recall the red book being formulated was 1992. The blue book was originally formulated in 1987 and published in 1988 for the election. He should stand to retract the statement as an outright breach of trust.
In my limited time I would like to discuss why I became involved in politics because it has a bearing on the subject of accountability of MPs to their constituents that we are discussing today.
The majority of western Canadians and the majority of the constituents of the riding of Prince George-Peace River that I am proud and pleased to represent predominantly supported the Progressive Conservative Party for years. I was one of its supporters although I never belonged to the party. I voted for the Conservatives hoping to see an end to the reign of terror thrust on Canada by Pierre Elliott Trudeau. The incumbent at that time was Mr. Oberle. He was very well supported. At one time he was known as landslide Oberle. That is the level of support and loyalty the Progressive Conservatives and Mr. Oberle had in the riding of Prince George-Peace River.
Gradually, after the Conservative sweep of 1984, the people of my riding and of much of Canada, certainly western Canada, began to feel a sense of betrayal. The first Mulroney government was plagued by scandal, almost from the time it took the reins of power in 1984 in the most massive mandate a governing party has ever had in the country.
I could go on and on about the scandals but I will just refer to a few: the Oerlikon land flip, the tainted tuna or what was described in the press as Tunagate, the Sinclair Stevens affair, and the infamous CF-18 decision when the reigning Conservatives took the contract for the maintenance of the CF-18 fighter aircraft away from Bristol Aerospace in Winnipeg that should have had the successful bid and awarded it to Canadair in Montreal. That created a sense of betrayal certainly all across western Canada.
That was the flashpoint, the trigger point, when I became so disenchanted and disillusioned with the political system and with the Conservatives that I said something had to be done to change the system.
I became involved in the fledgling Reform Party. When I first heard about it, it was not even a party. It was just a reform association, a group of Canadians from across western Canada who had decided that enough was enough.
I was attracted by its policies on those dreaded double d words: the deficit and the debt. It believed in the government living within its means and justice reforms, that criminals should be held responsible for their actions and real punishment was needed to provide deterrents for criminal activities. A cornerstone of the Reform Party was the democratic reforms we advocate. We have advocated them all along as was shown today in our blue book.
Because of the sense of betrayal we realized the fault did not really lie with individual politicians but with the system of government in Canada. We advocated a number of democratic reforms, referenda and citizens initiatives. The Charlottetown accord is a shining example of what can happen when the people become involved in the democratic process.
It is interesting to note that the Liberal Party did not get the message from the Charlottetown accord. The Reform Party was the only federal political party to come out against it.
Everyone said we were crazy, we had committed political suicide. We saw that as people became more informed they started to see the flaws in the accord and ultimately the polls reversed themselves and it was defeated in the referendum.
Another reform advocated was recall whereby constituents could actually hold their elected officials accountable. We fixed election dates so the reigning party could not play with the election date according to the polls and the support it was getting.
On a true triple E Senate which we have never given up on and never will give up on, we want to see a true, elected, efficient and equal Senate rather than the patronage heaven it has become under the reigning old parties.
Above all else, what attracted me to the Reform Party was its stand on MP accountability. MPs should truly represent the wishes of the majority of their constituents, not once in a while when it happens to coincide with their party's position or perhaps their own deeply held views, but all the time, where the majority of opinion of constituents is readily evident and can be determined.
I ran in the 1988 election and I never had any desire to become a politician. There are still some days when I debate with myself the decision of becoming a politician. I decided to run for Reform because I realized something had to happen to change the way government operated.
I was attacked back then by the old line parties. At that time the Conservative incumbent in open candidate forums said: "Mr. Hill said he would run government by polling. MPs would simply become polling machines".
It is interesting to note that on Bill C-68 that is exactly what the Liberals are doing after the old line parties have accused us and criticized us for wanting MP accountability. They are ruling by polls.
I contend and I have always maintained those polls are erroneous if the majority of Canadians became better informed about the gun issue and how difficult it already is to own a firearm in Canada.
As some of my colleagues have already said, I cannot believe the arrogance starting to show through with the government. That is one of the big reasons Mulroney was turfed out and why the Conservatives were reduced to only two seats in the House.
One of the worst possible examples-it is seared into my mind, that is how upset I was when I watched it on television one night-was when Mulroney kicked two of his caucus colleagues out of caucus because they dared to vote their constituents' wishes on the GST.
One of those members currently sitting, interestingly enough, is the Liberal member from Edmonton-Southeast; you, Mr. Speaker. I commend your stand that day and I am sure your constituents do and that is why you were re-elected. You represented the people. That is the type of leadership we want to see in the House from all MPs from all parties.
I will read some red book promises in the short time I have left, from the section "Governing with Integrity". It says: "The most important asset of government is the confidence it enjoys of the citizens to whom it is accountable. This erosion of confidence seems to have many causes. Some have to do with the behaviour of certain elected politicians, others with an arrogant style of political leadership. In the House of Commons a Liberal government will give MPs a greater role in drafting legislation through House of Commons committees. More free votes will be allowed in the House of Commons".
Yet we see on Bill C-68, as has been revealed today already, a total disregard for the right of MPs to currently accurately represent their people when the three Liberal members from Kent, Timiskaming-French River and Huron-Bruce were removed from committees.
Rumours always abound on Parliament Hill. We have heard rumours the Liberal Party and the whip will adopt three strikes and you are out. If a member votes three times against their party, they are out of there.
That is a very real threat for members from old parties. We have seen where the leaders will not sign their nomination papers. The threat is they will lose their job and that is deplorable.
