Peter MacKay

[Criminal Code, November 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to take part in this debate. I congratulate the Bloc Quebecois member for his very intelligent comments. These are remarks that present many important perspectives.

I also want to congratulate the parliamentary secretary who has delved into this issue in detail and has made the informed comment that we should engage and encourage our provincial colleagues to take this issue up.

I want to turn now to the mover of the motion who has been, in my view, relentless in his pursuit of this issue and who takes the issue very seriously. He comes to this place with a perspective that is important, as a frontline police officer having dealt with child victims I suspect, having heard that in his commentary. I have great respect for what he is trying to accomplish here.

The bill has been before the House in the past, which is again a tribute to the member's persistence. As was stated previously in the debate, whenever we look at the Criminal Code of Canada we have to look at all the implications. It is somewhat like a game of dominoes. It can have implications that may not have been completely anticipated. I know that is not the desire of the mover of the motion.

I want to make a brief comment on the subject of private members' bills. We have repeatedly seen, throughout the history of this place, private members' bills that come forward that have a great idea, that are intended purely for the improvement of society or for the improvement of a certain situation and the government will tear those ideas limb from limb and dismiss them. Then a short time later we will see the bill come back under the name of the government where the mover might then be a minister and it suddenly becomes a great idea.

I am not suggesting that will happen here but the commentary from the parliamentary secretary at least indicates that there is a willingness to examine this issue.

I also want to address a situation that was referred to by the mover of the motion from Calgary, Bill C-15, which was passed in 1989, and delved into the subject matter of the age of consent. Under the Progressive Conservative government that bill replaced prior unsuitable legislation. What was left out of the commentary by the member from Calgary was that the bill in essence prohibited adults from engaging in virtually any act or any kind of sexual contact with boys or girls under the age of 14.

The bill also made it illegal for adults in positions of trust or authority to have sexual contact with minors between--and here are the key words--the ages of 14 to 18. It did not raise the age of consent.

Therefore, by simply stamping the age 16 in place in all those sections of the Criminal Code there is a danger that a very naive, unworldly and vulnerable youth age 17 might fall outside the parameters of the hon. member's bill.

We have heard the sad tales, and there are many, of people in positions of trust, those involved in the church or in the school system, foster parents and, sadly, even family members and parents, who take advantage of youth who are now under the age of 18, not 16.

We want to be very careful when we look at changing sections of the Criminal Code not to narrow further the ability of the prosecution to proceed with charges when positions of trust are involved. It is always important to look at the whole perspective here.

I again commend the emotion and the diligence with which the mover of the motion has brought to this debate. It is tragic beyond belief that there are sexual predators out there.

Sexual predators can be found in any province, any community, any corner of this country. We have all heard of many infamous cases such as at Mount Cashel in Newfoundland and at the school for boys in Shelburne in my home province of Nova Scotia. We know there are sad cases involving native schools where young people were preyed upon. Maple Leaf Gardens is another institution in which horrible instances of abuse took place. Those are terrible cases where individuals were preyed upon, sadly, by persons who they should have been able to rely upon for protection. However the opposite occurred.

The Goler case in Nova Scotia is one that motivated me to bring forward a private member's bill which would in fact expand the parameters of the Criminal Code to allow a judge to put in place prohibitions about attending dwelling houses. Currently it specifically mentions schools, pools, places where children frequent, but it does not include dwelling houses where the majority of sexual assault cases occur.

The life altering and lasting implications and the damage that results to young people being abused is shocking and abhorrent to all Canadians and all members of Parliament. We have heard time and time again the horrible events that can occur in a child's life. What better place is there than the Parliament of Canada to address those issues and address any shortcomings that might exist? What higher calling, what higher place could there be to protect children from this fate than the House of Commons?

Sexual predators I submit very firmly are not always interested in sex but are interested in power, control and severe violence. That reinforces the worry that parents have each and every time their children leave home.

Another sad phenomenon that occurs is where victims, in some instances in attempt to regain power over their own lives, go out and become perpetrators. That is a very sad implication from the effects of having been abused as a child.

Some provinces, including I believe the province of the hon. member who moved the motion, have taken initiatives in terms of protecting our most vulnerable. The Ontario government, for example, needs to be commended for its decision to launch the first ever sex offender registry of its kind in Canada. Each sex offender in Ontario must register within 15 days of being released from custody. The same applies to those serving sentences in the community. The file will contain the offender's address, phone number, physical description, aliases and list of offences. Such information is critical to policemen if they are to be able to afford the protection for the children who might become victims.

Chief Fantino was mentioned in the remarks by the mover of the motion and the good work that he is doing on behalf of protecting children in the province of Ontario and specifically in Toronto.

Offenders sentenced to less than 10 years must report their whereabouts for 10 years under the Ontario registry, and offenders sentenced to periods of incarceration longer than 10 years will remain on the registry for life. This is the type of bold, proactive and, in some instances, harsh legislation that we might need to protect children.

The Ontario government cares about public safety and is reacting to the concerns of communities in that province. Its law was passed in honour of Christopher Stephenson, and the law is often referred to as Christopher's law. Fourteen years ago young Christopher was abducted at knife point in a Brampton mall, sexually assaulted and murdered by repeat sex offender Joseph Fredericks.

That is the type of case that sadly is the motivation for this type of change in the law, and I know the type of motivation that is behind the mover.

It is absolutely gut-wrenching that something like that must happen before politicians, present company included, and legislators take notice. However these examples illustrate how important it is to take these initiatives that can prevent lifelong suffering, murder, exploitation and the terrible instances of sexual assault and intrusion into young people's lives.

We talk about making sentences longer. These sentences are life sentences for young people when they have been victimized.

I mentioned the anomaly of adopting the bill in its current form. I know that the hon. member might be open to making certain amendments to it. I am glad to see that this debate is taking place. I look forward to seeing the bill proceed through the chamber and being taken to the justice committee where it could be discussed further.

The hon. member for Calgary Northeast has brought forward the legislation with the best of motivations, and I congratulate him for that.

He knows and I know that more can be done. As a police officer, he already has done a great deal in this area and I have nothing but respect for what he is trying to do. I am pleased that the bill is back before Parliament. Let us make the necessary changes that we need to ensure that there are real consequences for those who break the law and those who prey upon children.

[Supply, October 31st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the remarks that were made by the hon. government House leader. I too enjoyed my time as House leader and dealing with him on a daily basis. He taught me much. What he taught me in particular was to watch what he did on many occasions. It also reminded me of how people change and the process of erosion sometimes of being around here too long.

I do not say that disrespectfully. Time and time again we have seen attempts by the government and the member to hearken back and to dredge up what happened one, two or three decades ago. The fact is there is now an opportunity. When these issues come forward, let us not forget where the control and the power rests. It rests in the hands of the member's party. His party has the power to make the decisions. It can point out things that were wrong in the past. It has the ability to change them.

What the member ceases to recognize time and time again is he may get a lot of play out of pointing out what was wrong in the past, but what is he doing about it and where has he been for a decade to make some change?

[Supply, October 31st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased in some ways to take part in this debate and share the time with my colleague from New Brunswick Southwest.

Clearly what has been discussed I think many Canadians would deem to be somewhat of a insider baseball type of debate as to how committees are structured and how chairmanships are arrived at. Yet what is most significant about the debate still comes back to fundamental principles of democracy, issues that I think are very basic to many Canadians, and perhaps the larger issue of how Parliament is functioning or not functioning in a way that serves its constituents, which are clearly the people of Canada, the people who elect each and every member of Parliament in this place.

Mr. Speaker, you chaired a very important committee, a modernization committee that bears your name, the Kilger report. Within that report is some of the same pith and substance that has been the formation of this debate, that has been bandied about here today. Coupled with that and the rhetoric that often accompanies these types of debates, the partisanship and the toing and froing, I believe that at the very least we have exposed and shed light on some of these important issues that need to be discussed. Clearly the commentary by my colleagues and others does bear some repetition. There is almost a Nixonian feel to what has been taking place in recent years.

One of the oldest maxims in justice talks about delay being the deadliest form of denial. What is happening here is very much about delay. What we have seen is the hon. member for Mississauga Centre who had the courage to stand up and vote against her government, which is a rarity in the past nine and a half years, and much of what she said was true. We can lose sight of the bigger issue here. The bigger issue here is that all members, I would suggest, want to see a better functioning Parliament. All members want to participate in an institution that they can be proud of, an institution that they feel is representative of the very ideals of democracy and those principles that we hold so dear. Yet what has been happening in recent days and in the last 24 hours is that we have seen once again the iron hand of the Prime Minister and his office intervening in the direction in which this issue was headed, and that was to make Parliament function better by virtue of having committees elect their chairs, by greater participation in that process, I would suggest.

I hasten to add, and I am glad my colleague from Fredericton is present, that were this process to go through as recommended by the report and as recommended by the motion before the House, many of the same chairs would remain in place. Many of the chairs who are currently serving those posts are doing so competently and admirably. They are doing good work and that work would be recognized by the existing or new membership of these committees.

I say that about the member opposite who chairs the justice committee. I suggest, and I have told him, I would support him in that post. I want to back up that point by saying that what is going to happen if we adopt this motion, if we adopt this report, is that Liberals, the governing party, will still hold the chairmanship of each and every committee in the House. It is not as if they are forfeiting power to the opposition. What they are forfeiting, I would suggest, is some control over that process. That process is still subject to manipulation. It is still subject to attempts, at least, to have those hand-picked individuals in place. Remuneration is there, and I am not disagreeing with that, but it is still seen as a reward. It is still much of the carrot and stick approach that is brought to play by the Prime Minister. That is simply something that has to change.

We have to be prepared to put some faith in the common sense, the inner fortitude and the strength of members of Parliament to exercise discretion. I suggest that the cracks in the foundation of this place would not open and the Parliament buildings themselves, these great buildings, would not fall if we were to have elected chairs.

Some of the alarmist talk coming from the government side suggests that democracy would be at risk, that the opposition would somehow form an insurrection and the seas would boil and the skies would fall. That is simply not the case. What we would have is greater credibility. What we would have is a better functioning committee.

We would have demonstrated at the committee level that members of Parliament can get along. As the Speaker himself is elected, there would be an attempt by government to actually work in an open-handed way with members of Parliament to do good things at the committee level, to pass legislation that is perhaps better functioning and better in its application.

This debate is very apropos to what is taking place. I feel there is a sea of change afoot. We see it in the province of Quebec and in provinces around the country where we could have as many as six or seven provincial elections in the next 10 to 14 months. We will see the leadership change in federal parties.

I met with students today representing CASA. In meeting with these young people they are looking for a sign of faith. They are looking for credibility and substance. They are looking for a sign that Parliament itself can modernize itself, and that members of Parliament can show an open mind. We know this is a partisan atmosphere, but at times we can strive for the greater good. I believe we are capable of that. I believe that if and when we do that we will see a greater interest and relevance of this place.

We will also see perhaps, and I say this with the greatest respect to members present and present company included, a greater participation in elections, participation in nominations to put names forward, and a direct involvement in a process that is fundamental to the functioning of this country. We have had an opportunity in each party to examine these issues in depth and to reflect upon our own policies.

We had a report on democratic reform that was adopted at our convention in Edmonton this summer. It spoke to this issue specifically and to many other issues. It spoke of the need, for example, to have greater free votes, fewer confidence votes, and to have this code of ethics that has been wanting adopted by the House of Commons so that it would apply to the ethics of members of Parliament and how they conduct themselves, not only here, but around the country.

We talked about the power of the purse and the ability to have greater examination of how public money would be spent and how we should have fulsome examinations of that at the committee level. Much of what we do, the inner workings, the engine of how legislation is crafted and how legislation is adopted, is done by those committees so it comes back time and time again.

It would be advisable not to have parliamentary secretaries on those committees because they are the ever-present guiding hand of the Prime Minister. It is about this control and endless need of this particular Prime Minister to never relinquish the control that he has.

A noted political author, Donald Savoie of New Brunswick, spoke of the concentration of power. This individual, who has studied this subject matter extensively, echoes the sentiments of many. The former Prime Minister, the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, said in the House today that democracy loses its strength gradually, by increments, and it takes vigilance and a concerted political will to stem the erosion of democracy by those who would seek to concentrate power in the hands of a few. He added that never before in the history of Canada has power been so concentrated in the hands of a few, a small handful of unelected political flacks in the Prime Minister's Office.

It is a sad commentary coming from a man who has served in the highest office in the land. He is echoing the sentiment of many members who have spoken today, many political commentators, editorialists, and persons at the Tim Hortons drive-through.

Canadians know things must change. They are looking to us to do it. They are looking to the government which has the power to do it. Members like the member for LaSalle—Émard have expressed the will but it is clear that when push comes to shove, it is like the new remix of the Elvis song “A little less conversation, a little more action please” is what has to happen. It must be demonstrated, played out here and around the country.

We have an opportunity to do that. There will be an opportunity for members to show that willingness next week when this matter comes to a vote. Much of the antagonism and much of the apathy will disappear when we see that happen. I look forward to seeing that next week.

[Supply, October 31st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's remarks and he has given voice and credence to many of the concerns that have been expressed today. Many of the concerns that Canadians feel right now are about the dysfunctional atmosphere that seems to have evolved in Parliament. Today was perhaps a dark day for this place.

It was certainly a dark day for members of the government, some of whom embraced this idea of throwing back the blinds and allowing individual members of Parliament to be greater participants in the process, particularly the committee process. The committee process is where much of the non-partisan heavy slugging and sledding of this place is done on important pieces of legislation, on issues that involve participation by Canadians who can come forward as witnesses. We are seeing that now with the finance committee that is travelling.

An independently elected chair, at least independent in the sense that the government or the Prime Minister's Office would not hand pick that person, would demystify and give greater credibility to the process. What we are talking about is not the election of opposition members to fill those important positions of chair, but government members.

Rather than have the PMO choose that person, we are saying to let the majority Liberals, coupled with the opposition, have a hand in who that person should be at the committee level. It would make those committees function better. It would provide for a greater deal of credibility of the chair. It would do away with the perception and the reality that the person is serving at the pleasure of the Prime Minister, as we know the ethics counsellor is, for example.

The hon. member has touched upon a number of important points. We hear the commentary coming from the government side and from the former finance minister. He speaks of the democratic deficit of which we can all agree. There is a growing democratic deficit. I would suggest there is a growing credibility deficit on the part of the former finance minister and on the part of members who say publicly that they want to see greater participation, greater relevance, and greater democracy working in this place. They have a made in Parliament opportunity to stand up and support that by voting for the adoption of the report, for the opposition motion which mirrors the intent of the report of the standing committee.

Is it not high time that Canadians were given a demonstration rather than the rhetoric and non-credible remarks that we have heard today from the government side? Is it not time that Canadians were given an opportunity to see this place work in a positive fashion? Would the hon. member not agree with that?

[Diabetes, October 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to add our voice of support for the more than 200,000 Canadians who live with juvenile diabetes, a disease that requires them to take insulin. As a nation we need to facilitate the efforts of medical practitioners and researchers in their efforts to find a cure. The pain and suffering of patients with both Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes cannot be overstated. The work of the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation as well as the Canadian Diabetes Foundation puts a human face on these statistics.

Today, along with the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation, over 40 children from across the country are here in Ottawa to meet with MPs, sharing their experiences of living with this disease. The foundation's Kids for a Cure will help encourage members of all parties to engage in this cause and work collectively. The Edmonton protocol, from the University of Alberta, as well as the work being done at McGill University, has provided hope for medical breakthroughs.

On behalf of my colleagues in the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada and all members, I wish to express a welcome and our support for the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation.

[Supply, October 29th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the member opposite. I am not sure I completely follow his line of thinking. If it is followed to the natural extension, I guess he is saying his government was elected like negative option billing; that the Liberals were elected because people did not vote. That is a sad admission in a democratic state.

As for his attempt to draw me into a partisan commentary on the previous government being more corrupt than his government and that patronage appointments somehow in the previous administration could even hold a candle to his Prime Minister, I am going to avoid that commentary. Suffice it to say that I was in high school when that previous administration was in place.

The hon. member is a hardworking member of Parliament and I respect that about him. I think he is right to point out that all members of Parliament are not corrupt.

I think he and I could agree that this Parliament and politics generally are falling into disrepute. We have to make efforts to modernize Parliament to make it more relevant, to make it something that Canadians feel works for them. There is a disconnect that is growing. That is what in my view is accounting for the low voter turnout. Young people in particular do not feel that politics and politicians are relevant in their lives and they are looking for other options.

We can reinvigorate and revive the sense of efficiency in Parliament if we work smarter, if we speak directly to people and if we pass laws that will have an immediate impact on their lives. Currently the country is slipping. His administration has the--

[Supply, October 29th, 2002]

You are going to retire.

[Supply, October 29th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question. Motivation and attitude are very important issues. In fact, they are crucial for Parliament.

I believe much of what the member speaks, as to how it will evolve, will come from the election of new members of Parliament who come here perhaps with the belief that the work to be done can be done in such a way that the government will not just focus in on their actions, but will allow them to work with greater freedom and greater independence.

This is a very simple example that demonstrates a change in attitude. When was the last time we saw a minister of the crown get up and acknowledge that perhaps the government had done something inappropriate or that it could have done things differently, if different information was available to them? A simple acknowledgment or a simple offering of apology would mark a great departure from the government's practice.

How do we do so in a way that changes the system and how do we legislate change is a tougher question. I believe much of it, and I believe what the hon. member is referring to, comes from the spirit, l'esprit des nouveaux députés.

We are increasingly seeing a desire for change in Canada. We are at a critical point where if that change does not take place we will see further apathy and cynicism throughout the country, in his province and mine. We are seeing young Canadians switching off and taking a pass on political involvement. They are looking for other political vehicles, whether it be a protest movement or a special interest group, rather than involving themselves in the most democratic process of all, and that is seeking election and making change through actions, words and the ability to motivate people.

I believe that can only come in some ways with new ideas that people are prepared to stick to and prepared to start working on the day after they become elected. They must not simply look at ways to avoid difficult issues and pass on important issues. They must participate in the democratic process.

I look forward to working with him and other members of the House of Commons in pursuit of that change. If we do nothing and if we take the approach that we have seen from the government, where it actively seeks out the status quo and continually looks for ways to do nothing, we do so at our peril. The cost is too high to this great country and to the many people who live here and who want concrete action on issues that matter in their back yards and in their back pockets.

[Supply, October 29th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question, which is a hard one to answer. I think that Liberal members live in constant fear.

There is constant fear: fear of re-election; fear of being taken off committees; fear of their inability to advance through the ranks; and fear of re-election. That sentiment has been advanced because of the actions of the Prime Minister. That concentration of power in the PMO has resulted in members being pulled out of cabinet and being removed from committees. There is every reason for them to have that fear.

Also there is the process itself. The member quite clearly pointed out that much of the environment that Liberal backbenchers are living in is enhanced by the system itself. It has curtailed their activities. It has indicated that should they break from the ranks, should they show some initiative or independence, they will be knocked down for it. There is very much an attitude that is very pervasive in the government. Attitudes can only change over time. They can only change through a change in leadership and a change in government.

[Supply, October 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by congratulating my friend, the member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier. His motion is very important, very substantive and very practical. I know that he works hard on this issue. This is not new to him.

Last week, with respect to much of the subject matter that we see before us, there was a great deal of media attention paid to a speech given by the member for LaSalle—Émard. His speech was titled “Proposal for Reform of the House of Commons”. Unlike that of my colleague from the Bloc, this is a bit of a revelation coming from that particular member.

This speech was made by the former finance minister, co-author of the red book. This man was a member of cabinet for nine years and he now describes himself as the architect of the democratic deficit.

This was a speech in which the member for LaSalle—Émard said:

We have allowed power to become too centralized. Too concentrated in the hands of a few and too remote from the influence of the many.

We have permitted a culture to arise that has been some thirty years in the making. One that can be best summarized by the one question that everyone in Ottawa believes has become the key to getting things done: “Who do you know in the PMO?”

As the Prime Minister himself was quick to point out, the former finance minister knew him and served him in the cabinet. He was part and parcel of any of the decisions the government has made and in fact led and clearly was the architect behind many of the decisions to reduce transfer payments to the provinces by billions, which obviously devastated health care and education as a direct result. During his time in cabinet, he hypocritically reaped the benefits of the GST to claim victory over the deficit. He absconded with $30 billion from the EI fund to put against the debt, and that is confirming that it was all collected under false pretences.

That speech given by the member for LaSalle—Émard would have been greater in its credibility had the member chosen to deliver it in the House of Commons, for example, which he could have done during his part in the throne speech. Instead, he followed the old pattern of ignoring the House of Commons. He delivered it when he knew there would be no rigorous questioning before he could escape back into the cocoon of his campaign spinners.

I want to spend a few minutes looking at the “who do you know?” speech and then discuss some of the proposals of my own party. I will also relate both of these to the motion brought forward by my friend from the Bloc.

Very little of what the member for LaSalle—Émard proposed had anything to do with Parliament or the House of Commons. He spoke first of party discipline and free votes. That is a matter for each party, I would suggest. What was really being said is that as Prime Minister the member for LaSalle—Émard would tell his caucus how far he was prepared to tolerate dissent. The real day of freedom will come when members of Parliament, members of the Liberal caucus, themselves decide the degree to which they are prepared to support the government on issues. This will be the test: what caucus tells the cabinet, not what the Prime Minister tells the caucus to do.

Then he advocated referral of bills to committees before second reading. It is hardly a revolutionary concept. It was enacted in the Standing Orders of the House of Commons in 1994 while the member was in cabinet. Why is he only discovering this procedure now?

His third area of reform is to call for a rewrite of rules governing private members' business. We all know that there needs to be change there. His proposal is to permit the government to throttle bills in a large number of committees instead of throttling them in one committee.

The fourth item of the great reformer from LaSalle—Émard deals with the committees and touches on the motion before the House. I will return to this in a moment, as I will to the fifth item concerning government appointments, but the last of the six items is the best of all, for the member for LaSalle—Émard has discovered the merits of an independent ethics counsellor who would report directly to Parliament. Yet he stood in the House of Commons twice voting against his own words that were plucked verbatim from the red book that he co-authored. The member went on to Toronto to announce his recantation. Nobody there would point out this double standard. Had he done so in the House of Commons, I suggest he would have received a little more scrutiny.The first year law students of constitutional law where he made his announcement were simply too polite.

Let us go back to the fourth and fifth items: first, committee chairs being elected by secret ballot. That would be revolutionary and is an item that I think all members of the House of Commons would embrace, but let me remind the House of Commons that the secret ballot election of the Speaker of the House of Commons was in fact brought into effect by the Mulroney government, the same government that gave wide ranging mandates to the standing committees of the House.

What of committees in the world of the member for LaSalle—Émard? The membership would be determined by caucus and the chairs by secret ballot. The underlying assumption is that the government caucus would still hold all of these offices.

Nowhere does the member for LaSalle—Émard see that the role of members of Parliament who do not sit in the Liberal caucus would really be nil. Perhaps he is not aware that at Westminster, where he discovered the three-line whip, committee chairs are shared across the floor. One does not have to be a government supporter to chair a committee.

A final word on committees does deserve to be read into Hansard. This is again a direct quote from the member for LaSalle—Émard. He speaks of this issue:

There is a final issue I would raise on the subject. All Ministers should be compelled to appear more routinely before committee. This, to the government's credit, is a move that has been undertaken in recent years. For instance, the House Leader's Office has urged ministers to appear annually before their relevant standing committees on the subject of their departments' estimates.

This story is behind us. Is this what the member for LaSalle—Émard really expects people to believe, given that in his years in cabinet he failed to appear before his committee to defend his estimates? How can he now stand and simply tell Canadians “Wash me, but don't make me wet, completely forget what I have done, listen to my words, don't look at my actions for almost a decade”. Now he has discovered the word accountability, whereby he should go before committees and answer for his actions.

It was in fact the Progressive Conservative caucus that created the fuss that led to the intervention of the government House leader and the Prime Minister. Even after all that, if we check the record we will find that for his final year in office as the great steward of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada, the former minister of finance again failed to appear at committee to defend his estimates, but he wants us to believe that he really does think it would be a good idea if we all sat down and had a nice chat about a year from now, once a year, perhaps.

Now for the last point, which speaks of reforming the process surrounding government appointments and which in fact is the very basis of the motion before the House. At the moment, as a result of the initiatives of the previous Conservative government, the committees of the House have the right on their own motion to examine any order in council appointment. We do not do it often and have not, particularly in the last 10 years, and some may say the results are unsatisfactory. Some will say that the failure of the system is best summed up in two words: Alfonso Gagliano.

It was in fact some of the supporters of the member for LaSalle—Émard who were members of that committee who moved to block a motion that would have allowed the committee to examine the appointment process that led to the departure of the former government member, Alfonso Gagliano, for Denmark. I ask again rhetorically: What did Denmark do to deserve that? We saw how the Liberals stonewalled any credible examination of that appointment. We saw how they blocked questions, how they were determined at all costs to support what was a rotten appointment and a disgrace to the Canadian diplomatic corps.

The proposals from the member for LaSalle—Émard would not have changed this result. Let us be clear: There is in reality no increase in scrutiny being proposed. What is being put forward would simply put a stamp of parliamentary scrutiny on bad appointments as well as the good ones.

Those are the vapid proposals from the front-runner of the Liberal leadership race, not to mention that in examining them in greater detail we find no mention of greater financial scrutiny, no mention of the rights of the opposition and no mention of the need to bring the cabinet back into Parliament for greater accountability on the floor of the House of Commons. These are alternate versions that in fact really amount to very little.

This summer the Progressive Conservative Party adopted a significant policy of democratic reform when it met in Edmonton. This policy is one of the fruits of the collaboration between the PC caucus and the member for Edmonton North and other members of that coalition. We favour a lessening of party discipline and less use of the corrosive and over-the-top overuse of threats of loss of confidence. In fact, I believe one of the most beneficial efforts that came from this democratic working task force was the recognition that for the greater good much of the old concepts of party discipline could be put to one side, and that individuality, with members of Parliament coming forward on behalf of their constituents and taking strong positions on issues of morality, of a regional interest or of a personal interest for those members, should not be dissuaded.

We favour the tenure for committee membership. The whip would not be able to remove a member of Parliament who was making life unpleasant for the government. What a novel concept; having independent action by members of the House of Commons who are democratically elected by their constituents, events that we favour with respect to the election of committee chairs, secret balloting and vice-chairs. These would be distributed throughout the parties in relation to party standings. Therefore we would do away with some of the partiality and politics that enter inevitably into this process in which we live and breathe.

We favour keeping parliamentary secretaries, whips and other party office-holders off committees, again enhancing their independence. We would insist that ministers attend committees while their legislation is under consideration. That would rock the member for LaSalle—Émard who never carried a single bill through all stages while acting as finance minister.

In the report by the Progressive Conservative Party, we champion the appointment of an independent ethics counsellor who would report directly to Parliament through a committee that would allow for examination of any indiscretion by ministers or members of the House of Commons.

We would insist that ministers outline government positions in the House of Commons before any federal-provincial meetings take place and report the outcome of those meetings to the House. What a novel concept again were that to have happened with respect to Kyoto, rather than this cloak and dagger exercise where it appears the government's position was decided upon in the taxi on the way to the conference, and has been in complete turmoil ever since.

We would like to create federal-provincial interparliamentary relationships with policy fields, such as transportation, agriculture and justice, to name but a few, that would allow for direct input and interaction between our provincial colleagues and provincial governments, which would enhance greatly the relationship that should exist between all levels of government and yet has been extremely exacerbated by the past 10 years of the Liberal government.

We want to improve upon the scrutiny of public spending, by examining in detail the estimates of four departments selected by the opposition, not the government, for 160 hours in committee of the whole of the House of Commons. Contrast that with the silence of the member for LaSalle—Émard.

We would require independent legal advisers for the Parliament of Canada on the charter and the compatibility of the charter with legislation.

We would establish a judicial review committee of Parliament to prepare an appropriate response to those court decisions that Parliament believed should be addressed through legislation. What an opportunity that would be in the face of decisions, such as the Sharpe case, which could directly result in the intervention of Parliament and a response through legislation, rather than the convoluted process where we are left waiting for the Minister of Justice to respond.

We would have the name and the qualifications of any person proposed for the appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada to be presented to Parliament which would, after debate, make a recommendation on the suitability of that nominees candidacy. This vote would be conducted and communicated to the governor in council prior to any appointment being made. Again, it is something very simple, yet very significant for all Canadians to realize that their elected officials, the persons whom they have entrusted to go to Ottawa, would actually have a say in appointing the judges who make very important decisions, and in the final analysis make law in many cases by virtue of those decisions.

We would have direct elections for senators and would assign 24 seats to the province of British Columbia and look at how we would rebalance and bring back into the debate the issue of how we could make the Senate of Canada, the other place, more relevant to this process and to Canadians generally.

The Progressive Conservative Party would rebalance the constitutional powers of the Senate to reflect the objective of provincial, territorial and regional representation in the federal legislative process while ensuring the supremacy of the House of Commons. That is not a new concept. That has been proposed before by our party and by other parties.

The Conservative Party would also require the government to table draft regulations before the passage of any bill seeking regulation-making authority and we would put into the law the powers of Parliament to disallow regulations.

We would also strengthen the rights of Canadians to petition Parliament. Again, that form of direct interaction and contact, is something that we should be quick to embrace.

We would in some circumstances involve citizens directly in the legislative process through hybrid committees of MPs and citizens. A classic example of that are the recent changes to the Indian Act where members of first nations would like to participate directly, sit on committees, have the opportunity to question witnesses and give those very necessary perspectives on such an important issue that affects them.

The Progressive Conservative Party would conduct an examination of the electoral system. We would reform the financial disclosure requirements of the electoral system to make leadership funding transparent.

Another issue which I think is important overall is the way in which elections are currently paid for. Perhaps we should embark on publicly funded elections, given that almost 70% of the funding, because of tax write-offs, is currently picked up by the public. It would also allow for an equal starting point. If the publicly funded elections were in place, all parties would begin on the same footing. There would be complete transparency. There would be an ability to see exactly from where the money came because it would be clearly set out in a single amount that applied to all parties.

Let me return now to the motion itself that has been proposed by the member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier. He is asking that the committee of the House of Commons exercise greater scrutiny over order in council appointments. We support that wholeheartedly, but in doing so we are under no illusions that there will be any change under the Liberal administration. As I mentioned before, that pattern was clearly established by the appointment of Alfonso Gagliano. Stay tuned, there will be others.

The member for LaSalle—Émard has failed to disown that travesty. He has made great efforts to portray himself now as the leader of the sixth party, and to say that somehow he was not present at the cabinet table when all these decisions were made. He has somehow mysteriously gone off into the netherland, suggesting that he was not there, that he was not part of the government's decision making for the last 10 years.

What is clearly required is a bigger vision for what Parliament can and should be. I have outlined some of the changes that my party, the Progressive Conservative Party, offers Canadians. It demonstrates a commitment to a strong renewal of our democratic system through a stronger Parliament. I contrast that with the myopic vision of the member for LaSalle—Émard who in the end is engaging in a make work project for his Liberal caucus. There is every reason to believe, should he gain the leadership of his party, that people will still ask, “Who do you know in the PMO?”