Peter Milliken

[Supply, May 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I will deal with the questions in the order in which they were put.

The first question suggested promises in the red book were being foisted on Canadians who did not vote for the Liberal Party and that because we have a majority in Parliament we should not foist the red book on members of the public.

The hon. member, and I know he is one of the few reasonable members of his party, would agree we are at least operating on a blueprint. The red book was not just a series of election promises, it was a blueprint for action when we took office and it was advertised as such by the party. In putting it into place in government we are doing exactly what we said we would do with the 177 members elected as Liberals because they were relying on the red book and putting it forward as their policy.

The problem the hon. member raises is not one he put in his question, but his colleagues would know this is the case. They want us to put in place the policies in the blue book and the policies they are espousing in the House which had the support of far fewer Canadians.

In the circumstances we are probably doing the right thing in the context of the democratic system under which we have operated in Canada for the more than 130 years we have been in existence. I will leave it at that.

With respect to the Minister of Justice and the phoney allegation of arrogance, the Minister of Justice is far from arrogant. We would be hardpressed to find a Minister of Justice who has done more consulting in respect of this bill and who has a firmer grip of the facts on which he bases his acts than the present Minister of Justice.

The hon. member in his question is showing considerable contempt for his electors when he indicates to the House he is not supporting the gun control bill.

I quote from an article written-

[Supply, May 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member misunderstood the circumstances. First of all, I must say that the Minister for International Trade is here and that he is the one who made the necessary changes to NAFTA so that we could support it. That is why the Prime Minister promised during the election campaign that the agreement would be changed. The Minister for International Trade, an excellent minister, made all sorts of changes to the agreement so that it could be passed in this place. That is my first point.

Regarding Bill C-43, I must tell the hon. member that this bill was introduced in this House June 16 1994. So, this is not brand new. If we had problems with this bill, getting it passed in this House and all, it was because of the hon. members opposite filibustering, talking endlessly and showing such a keen interest in this bill.

I say to the hon. member do not criticize the government for being slow and bringing it in 18 months after we took office. We introduced it six or seven months after we took office. It has taken almost a year to get it passed because of the obstruction primarily of members on the other side of the House, because we have not put up an inordinate number of speakers on the bill.

Since the hon. member touched on something else the Prime Minister promised, which was transfer payments to the provinces, the Prime Minister indicated there would be ample notice of changes in those transfer payments. He never promised they would remain the same or always increase, and he has lived up to that promise fully.

[Supply, May 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, honestly, the braying on the other side is excessive. I believe my time is about to run out.

The government has lived up to its commitment to provide more open and accountable government by setting up the ethics counsellor and introducing the lobbyists registration bill. The government also has proposed a special joint committee to develop a code of conduct for members, which motion has been opposed by the Reform Party and stalled in the House by the actions of the Reform Party. Obviously, they do not want the House to come up with this set of criteria of ethics guidelines for members, which I think is important and I would like to get on with.

We have to look at the record of the government overall. I think it has been excellent.

The member for Kindersley-Lloydminister in his speech this morning complained about the government's use of time allocation. Honestly, if the hon. member had been here in the last Parliament he would have learned a lot about time allocation and closure. There are two rules, which the hon. member should know. We have not used the closure rule recently. I do not know whether we have used it all in this Parliament. We have used time allocation. I can only say that if the members had been here the last time, they would think life in this Parliament is bed of roses. It was used by the government on repeated occasions against the opposition at that time. It has hardly ever been used in this Parliament.

Members opposite have got off very, very lightly in respect of the government's approach to the House. We have deliberately tried to allow members to express their views on all these things. Hon. members opposite have had ample opportunity to make their views known, not just on government bills but in other debates.

I would love to go on about some of the other aspects of legislation, but unfortunately I see my time has expired. There are questions and comments and I will be glad to answer questions from the hon. members opposite.

[Supply, May 11th, 1995]

We tell them our views. I am not afraid to discuss my views. I tell people what my views are.

When they learn that the public supports a government bill, Reform members make excuses, ignore the wishes of their constituents, and vote against the bill just for the sake of opposition. I thought we were going to see a change.

I cannot quote chapter and verse from the blue book because I cannot find a copy. The hon. member keeps waving it, but I do not have a copy. Perhaps he could send me one another day.

One thing I recall from the blue book was that we were not to do things in Parliament the way we used to. My goodness, I am having trouble telling the difference between the party in opposition and the New Democratic Party when they occupied a similar position.

One only has to look at the record of the Reform Party in its consultations, particularly with aboriginal groups. We have seen the spectacle of its meetings in British Columbia recently where it was discussing aboriginal land settlement issues and it did not invite any aboriginal people to come to the meetings. I think it is a poor way to carry on consultations.

I want to turn to the ethics counsellor and the whole question of ethics, which is indirectly raised-

[Supply, May 11th, 1995]

I see, it is pay your own way. I am delighted they pay. Even if Reformers went at the public expense, all they want to do is meet with people who agree with them. I am sorry that is true, because I think part of the job of members of Parliament is to listen to all views. It is something that we on this side of the House try to do whenever we visit our constituencies. We meet with constituents whose views are not the same as ours. We talk to them, share their views and hear what they have to say.

[Supply, May 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, that is fine. I appreciate the opportunity to have a chance to check for the right chapter.

This book is also entitled "The Gospel According to Preston Manning and the Reform Party". I quote the hon. member for Cariboo-Chilcotin. This is openness in government: "For goodness sake, Jack, don't say things like that. We have a reporter in the car." That is a good quote. I suggest that reflects the Reform notion of openness in government. He was in the House a little while ago explaining a mistake he had made in debate earlier this morning to the hon. whip, who caught him up on some facts he had got completely wrong about some appointment. I suspect if there had been a reporter nearby he might have been more careful in his remarks.

I want to turn to the one other thing that happened with respect to free votes. We adopted a motion in the House about free votes. The hon. member may have forgotten. It was a motion proposed by the hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam. I quote the motion, because it was adopted unanimously, if I am not mistaken, in June 1994, in compliance again with the red book and our notion of free votes:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should continue increasingly to permit members of the House of Commons to fully represent their constituents' views on the government's legislative program and spending plans by adopting the position that the defeat of any government measure, including a spending measure, shall not automatically mean the defeat of the government unless followed by the adoption of a formal motion.

That was all agreed to. There is no doubt that free votes are permitted and that they happen. The hon. member should be relieved by the fact that they happen on a daily basis.

Now I will turn to public consultation, because it is another area where the government has excelled. It has undertaken the most comprehensive consultative exercises to ensure that the views of the Canadian people are represented in legislation that is brought forward in the House. There have been broad national consultations on immigration policy, social policy review, gun control, and on two federal budgets. The result is policies that Canadians support and a government that Canadians respect in record numbers.

This is far from the Reform idea of consultation. We witnessed something of its idea when one of its members travelled to Washington to consult with Americans who agreed with him. That is its idea of consultation. It opposes is trips where you might get exposed to somebody with ideas that are different from your own. When it can take a trip and meet with people who think exactly the way it does it goes. That is the Reform approach to travel.

[Supply, May 11th, 1995]

The hon. member should get the attorney general of Saskatchewan to do a poll like the attorney general of Alberta did. The poor old attorney general of Alberta came to Ottawa to complain about the bill, having conducted a poll that discovered 64 per cent of the electors of his province do not agree with him.

The poor soul must be gravely misguided, if not something worse. I can only suggest to the hon. member that he take a good look at what is happening in his constituency and conduct a proper scientific poll, not one of the pay as you phone in polls for which the Reform Party is so well known.

I want to turn to the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest, who is here, I am delighted to say. I know he is a caring person. He conducted a poll in his riding and I understand he may have recanted his heresy at second reading and will now support the government on the bill. I congratulate him for showing a little independence of judgment. It is very rare on that side.

The hon. member who is doing all the hooting and hollering over there should talk to the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest and conduct a poll in his riding and he might find himself constrained to vote with the government as well.

The Reform Party is well aware-as is the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster, of all members to have moved this motion, because he is on the procedure and House affairs committee-that we looked into all these things like free votes, recall, initiative, and referenda. We called witnesses and heard experts on all these subjects in the committee. We considered the matter and the committee tabled a report in the House. The majority of members of the committee disagreed with the Reform Party position and thought that referenda were unnecessary on a massive scale in Canada, that recall was not an idea worthy of importing into the political climate of the country at this time, and that initiative was unneeded. Reform members disagreed, but it does not mean we were wrong. It certainly was not something we promised in the red book.

I encourage hon. members of the Reform Party to live up to the promise they made on their little blue book to publish the results of their caucus meetings and the votes in caucus. I see the hon. member for Calgary Centre has one. Those things are rare as hens' teeth. When we consider how many of the promises have been broken, I can understand why.

I have a book here that I would be glad to share with the hon. member, and Canadians would love to read it, "The Little Book of Reform"; it is a green book. I will quote from it. I know this may not be popular with the hon. members opposite, but I will find a quote in here as I continue speaking.

[Supply, May 11th, 1995]

Of course they do. What do you set up a committee for but to come back with its own recommendations? At least they listen, which is more than I can say for the hon. members opposite.

I want to turn to the question of free votes because hon. members are suggesting that somehow we have very few free votes. I note it was a red book promise. I just want to talk about how well we have delivered on that promise. Every private members' bill and motion has been a free vote. We have had dozens of them and they have all been free votes.

The members of the House, unlike the last Parliament-hon. members opposite were not here and do not know how bad it was-have had an opportunity to vote on all these bills and express their views. We will continue to do that. There may be times when other matters will be the subject of a free vote but we were elected on a platform, the red book. It is right here. The promises are there.

If members were elected to serve in this Parliament based on that platform, they are expected to vote for the things contained in the platform. That is the way political parties work. The Reform Party knows that is the way it works. Its members tried to do it with their little blue book but unfortunately they have not kept their promises, unlike the government.

It is quite hypocritical of the Reform Party to put forward this motion. We have seen during recent debates how members of the Reform Party perceive it to be their duty to represent their constituents' interests. Our constituents voted for the policies in the red book. Our constituents are getting delivered to them the promises that were in the red book.

The complaint we are getting from the Reform Party in this motion is that the Reform Party wants us to adopt their policies and say that is what we promised to Canadians. It is not what we promised. We promised something different, something a whole lot better. What Canadians are getting is what is in the red book.

I want to turn to gun control as a perfect example because this bill has widespread support across the country.

[Supply, May 11th, 1995]

You can tell that is a perpetual opposition party, Mr. Speaker.

This Liberal government, for example, is not yet two years old but already it has littered the political landscape with broken promises.

This is a falsehood. This is completely untrue. I have just read the whole section of the red book on parliamentary reform and we have complied with every single one of the promises and then some. Yet the member for Calgary Southwest had the nerve to get up in the House and utter this complete rubbish. I can only imagine how much worse it is when the hon. member is off speaking to his supporters at meetings around the country. They have been thoroughly, totally and utterly deceived by the hon. member. If they would simply invite me to some of their meetings, we might straighten some of them out. I can name about 176 other members of the House who could do a similar straightening job on some of the members of the Reform Party.

I want to turn to the explicit promises with which we have complied. First, there was the promise that committees be strengthened, that members be given a greater role. We have just been through a procedure in the procedure and House affairs committee where we drafted a bill. I was before the Senate committee this morning on behalf of the committee defending the bill. It was the one drafted in committee. It was adopted by the government and then passed in the House.

Bills have been referred to committee under the new procedures that we adopted in the House shortly after we took office where the bill is referred before second reading. Members have full scope in the changes they wish to make to the bill. The Lobbyists Registration Act is a perfect example and there are others. We are going to do it with the CNR bill on

Monday. This has given members of Parliament untold powers in respect of that legislation which were not exercised or exercisable in the last Parliament.

Hon. members in the Reform Party were not here in the last Parliament. They do not know how bad it was. They do not know how good this is. They do not realize how much they are getting out of this. If they had been here before, their complaints would be cut in half today.

The President of the Treasury Board introduced changes in the expenditure management system so that committees can become more involved in the spending priorities of the government. We are about to embark on that process in the committees very shortly.

We have opened up the process. We have given more power to committees and I need not recite for members opposite the changes to the budget process where the finance committee travels Canada to hear Canadians' views on the budget.

[Supply, May 11th, 1995]

I am glad to hear it. The hon. member only has a page. He should take the whole book home and keep it under his pillow. He might sleep better.

Whatever the results of the independent review, a Liberal government will reform the pension plan of members of Parliament to end "double-dipping." MPs should not be able to leave office and receive a pension from the federal government if they accept a new full-time paying job from the federal government. In addition, we will review the question of the minimum age at which pensions will begin to be paid.

When the Conservative government came to power in 1984, while citing the need for economy it nonetheless found the resources to increase both the size of political staffs and the pay available to them. These expansions created bloated political budgets and inflated salaries for members and friends of the Conservative Party. A Liberal government will reduce the size and budgets of ministers' offices and the Prime Minister's Office by at least $10 million a year.

I challenge hon. members opposite to find one statement in that whole paragraph on parliamentary reform that has not been fulfilled by the government to date. The government has moved on every single one of its promises and it has gone further on most of them.

Hon. members opposite who have been bleating, whining, blithering and crying all day should repent. Get off it, I say to them, and face the facts. The government has lived up to its commitments in full measure. They were all in the red book. They were all made manifest for the public to look at and consider in an election campaign. The public voted for the red book in droves.

I know members in the Reform Party in particular do not like to hear that fact. They like to hear only the facts from their own perspective, their own friends. Their idea of consultation is to consult their friends and then say this must be what everybody wants. There are Canadians who are not friends of the Reform Party. There are lots and lots of them where I come from. I know lots and lots who think the Reform Party is quite idiotic. Still they are not the people to whom Reformers talk when they want a consultation.

I want to read why Canadians and particularly the poor souls that have been following the Reform Party have been so badly deceived. We saw this kind of deception go on in the House the other day. I know I cannot imitate the accent but the quotation is this. It was on April 27 in the House:

One of the reasons there is so much public cynicism about politics and government is that governments consistently break their promises.