Rob Anders

[Municipal Grants Act, November 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, municipalities across our great land are paying in terms of employment insurance. As a result of that and the huge overpayments this government is amassing, municipal governments across the country are transferring municipal tax dollars to the federal government.

One level of government is taxing another with municipal taxes going into the federal coffers. What does the hon. member have to say about that?

[The Senate, November 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Alberta government is preparing a referendum to mandate Senate elections.

Last year the supreme court ruled that the federal government must negotiate with a province that votes in favour of a clear constitutional question. We should keep in mind that the Prime Minister needs no constitutional amendment to appoint an elected senator.

When Alberta holds its referendum, will the Prime Minister respect Albertans and the supreme court by appointing our elected senator?

[China, November 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, early in the morning of July 20, security forces in China began arresting hundreds of their sleeping citizens. These were people who meditate. Two days later, the government outlawed the practice entirely.

The group the Government of China is picking on is known as Falun Gong. Several thousand have been arrested or detained. Twisting the rule of law, China amended legislation allowing sweeping powers to silence a peaceful movement. The solution to the problem lies at home in China.

Denied the ability to gather or even speak about their beliefs, this group is now forbidden any legal defence. The government has actually ordered Chinese lawyers not to plead cases for Falun Gong. This is poor conduct from a government that claims to be a representative of a people's republic.

[Canada Elections Act, October 19th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I have to admit that this is one of those days when I am actually sick to my stomach to be a member of parliament. It is obscene and unconscionable that the government brings through, to serve its own ends, some of the restrictions on the freedom of speech that it is doing today.

The idea that a ruling party seeks to restrict the ability of any other person or group to counter government propaganda during an election is frankly evil. The government currently uses its advertising to an unfair advantage. It uses unbridled partisan activities. I could come up with numerous examples but I do not think I need to. The population of the country knows them well.

I do not understand why a government is allowed to use taxpayer funding to get themselves re-elected. I think that is wrong.

Citizens should be able to enforce provisions by filing complaints with Elections Canada to prevent governments from doing those types of things with taxpayer funds.

Another aspect I would like to touch on is the whole idea of patronage. Elections Canada as an instrument of democracy is rife with people who are chosen by the government to do its bidding during elections. I cannot think of a better example in government of a totally patronage ridden system. Other countries would be wise never to copy such a thing.

With regard to spending limits, two separate court decisions in Alberta have struck down spending limits as unconstitutional. It is not the place of the government to limit the right of an individual Canadian or a group of Canadians to spend their own money in support of an idea. There is a saying that nothing is so important as an idea whose time has come, but you can bet that this government will toss as many roadblocks and obstacles at the success of an idea as it possibly can.

I cite just one example among many, the Charlottetown accord. Those people who call others enemies of Canada outspent the other side by a ratio of 13:1, yet the people's voice still came through.

Spending limits only really serve the interests of the governing party. I will elaborate on that later.

Regarding registered party status, in March an Ontario court struck down requirements that would force a party to run 50 candidates in order to have its candidates listed with party affiliation on the ballot. By what rationale are two candidates or more not sufficient to be recognized as a political party? This is why. It is because the governing party likes big parties.

The Liberals like the idea that you cannot start up small and expand and it does not like competition. That is the reason these rules have been put in. It goes so far as to require the liquidation of a party's assets and to send the money to the receiver general for failure to run 50 candidates in an election. How dare they. Why not let the voters rather than the government decide who they want to represent them?

It is nothing but a clear attempt to stifle the formation and growth of new parties and to limit competition on the ballot. In other countries that have proportionate representation they make selections between 35 parties or more on a given ballot, yet the Liberals, the ruling party across the way, tell Canadians by this legislation that they are too stupid to make the same types of distinctions on ballots. That is exactly what the Liberals are saying by this legislation.

A small issue which one of the other members touched on is the idea of party mergers. This legislation will disallow local decisions for parties to run a single candidate between them. Instead it centralizes power and requires the signature of party leaders in order to perform some sort of local merger. It disallows the idea of local decisions and local self-determination.

On the idea of voter identification, currently an electoral official may ask for proof of identification but a voter can take an oath instead. Imagine the strange and bizarre scenario where a homeless friend of the prime minister could arrive at a voting station and say “I do not have any proof of my eligibility to vote or proof of residence”. “What is your name, sir?” “John Crouton”. “Where do you live, sir?” “24 Sucks Us Drive, Ottawa, Ontario”. And that person may be eligible to vote. That is a travesty in our democracy.

That type of abuse could go on at our polling stations. Identification should be shown to prove eligibility and residence. That is only fair. It substantiates our right to vote and gives it some validity.

I will talk about taxpayer subsidies. We should oppose any assistance to political parties and political lobbies from public funds. Taxpayers should not be expected to fund activities designed to persuade them how to vote. There should be no reimbursement for those types of things.

On the issue of byelections, the legislation reads now that byelections must be called within six months but not held within six months. The distinction is it allows the ruling party to time byelections according to its own circumstances which it does all too well. With new computerized voters lists there is no problem with holding elections within six months and indeed that has been done.

I will quote a few different sources which I think eloquently back up some of the things I have been talking about today, some of the travesties which I think are being done to our elections act and to democracy.

Dave Rutherford writes a column in the province of Alberta and also runs a local talk radio show. He pointed out that one of our former prime ministers actually once said during an election campaign that it was not the time nor the place to discuss complex issues. A person who says that kind of thing is probably the type of person who wants to bring forward legislation that would restrict freedom of speech and restrict competition on the ballot. I do not doubt that for a second.

These people want to control the election agenda. They want to ensure that political parties themselves, particularly the government party, can establish the agenda of an election.

Unfortunately I note that I only have one minute left in my time. I would like to quickly read into the record the type of subsidies that go on and who they benefit.

The upshot of this is that the Liberals had a spending limit of over $30 million in 1997 but surprise, $22 million of that was in direct and indirect subsidies from the Canadian taxpayer in terms of spending rebates and political tax credits.

I think it is wrong. People should do what they can to fight this legislation. I urge those who challenge it in the courts to please do so. I hope that even though legislation like this was brought forward by Trudeau in 1983, again by the Conservative government when it was in office and by the NDP in British Columbia, that it once again will be thrown out as unconstitutional by the courts of this land.

[Main Estimates, 1999-2000, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister of the land had abided by his promises when he was running for Liberal leader in 1990 and if he had abided by the mandate that was given him when he won the election in 1993, the Senate would be a 34% different place than it is today. It would be well on the way to being an elected and effective place, which he said he wanted to see in the country.

[Main Estimates, 1999-2000, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Langley—Abbotsford.

The person I was talking about and those copious quotes I just read in favour of Senate reform were from none other than the one who sits across the way from us, the Right Hon. the Prime Minister.

There are substantive, clear, demonstrable reasons that once the Prime Minister won the Liberal leadership in 1990 and was elected in 1993 he changed his mind.

One reason was Lorna Milne, a former Liberal riding president and a Liberal Party worker who was appointed on September 9, 1995 and is now sitting as a senator. I think another reason was Joseph Landry, a former Liberal member of the legislative assembly who was appointed on February 26, 1996. I also think another reason was Joan Cook, a provincial Liberal candidate and loyal Liberal worker who was appointed on March 6, 1998.

Another reason was Sharon Carstairs, a former Manitoba Liberal leader and long time ally of the Prime Minister who was appointed on September 5, 1994. Another reason was Ross Fitzpatrick, a prominent B.C. Liberal organizer, golfing and business buddy who was appointed on March 6, 1998. We seem to notice a trend in recent days with golfing buddies of the Prime Minister.

Another reason was Nick Taylor, the former Alberta Liberal leader who was appointed on March 7, 1996. Another reason was Landon Pearson who is married to the son of former Liberal Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson and was appointed on September 15, 1994. The list goes on.

Another reason was William Rompkey, who refused to appear before members of the House of Commons that wanted to look at the Senate estimates. He was a former Liberal member of parliament and a Liberal cabinet minister in the Trudeau government appointed who was in 1995.

Another reason was Catherine Callbeck, former Liberal premier of Prince Edward Island who was appointed in 1997. Another reason was John Bryden, a candidate for Liberal leader in New Brunswick and someone who managed the Prime Minister's leadership campaign in New Brunswick in 1990 and was appointed in 1994. Another reason was Serge Joyal who had a prominent backroom role in the federal Liberal Party since he lost his Commons seat in 1984 and was appointed in 1997.

Since 1993 there are 34 reasons the Prime Minister has gone ahead with what he has done with the Senate and not carried forward on his 1990 promises when he was elected Liberal leader and when he was elected Prime Minister in 1993. There are currently four vacancies. If the government holds term until the year 2001, this mandate would allow it another 14 reasons, for a total of 52 reasons the Prime Minister has gone back on his word with regard to Senate elections. Senators are obsessed but the truth shall be known.

I wanted to put those reasons on the record because they are very important. I ask all hon. members to keep in mind that no one in the country can get away with only working one day in the spring and one day in the fall and getting a 16% budget increase in two years, for a total of $50 million plus.

I ask members in good conscience to apply their own good judgment when voting on the Senate estimates.

[Main Estimates, 1999-2000, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to lead into my question with a quote, which states:

I...support Senate reform. If it is done properly, a restructured and revitalised Upper Chamber can give Albertans a voice in the governance of Canada. If elected Liberal leader, I pledge to work for a Senate that is elected, that has legislative powers of its own, and contains strong representation from all regions of Canada.

That was said on June 23, 1990 at the Liberal leadership convention. It gets better.

The same individual said on September 24, 1991, as reported in Hansard : “A reformed Senate is essential. It must be a Senate that is elected, effective and equitable”.

The same individual, speaking to 400 delegates at the annual general meeting of the Alberta branch of the federal Liberal Party in 1990, said: “The Liberal Government in two years will make it (the Senate) elected. As Prime Minister I can take steps to make it happen”.

The same individual went on to say to the Toronto Star on February 2, 1990: “You want the triple E Senate and I want one too”.

The same individual, who I will reveal to the House, went on to say once again, as reported in Hansard on May 14, 1991: “As I said before, and repeat, reform of the Senate is extremely important. I believe in it”.

The same individual said on February 1, 1997 to the Calgary Herald : “If he names him”, referring to Senator Stan Waters, “that's the end of appointed senators who are not elected”.

The same individual, speaking to Prime Time News on the CBC on December 29, 1992, said: “I know that in western Canada they were disappointed that there was not, there's the Senate, because they wanted to have an equal Senate and an elected Senate and I thought it was a good thing to do”.

Only one man could make that type of speech. Only man could make that quote. It is the same individual who also said “I'm not interested in patronage because I'm a Liberal” to 600 people in Edmonton, which was reported in the Windsor Star on February 2, 1990.

I leave members with one last quote: “I didn't want to be trapped into making decisions on patronage, local contracts, and appointments that cause so much friction and bad blood”. That is found at page 196 of a book which he wrote in 1985 called Straight from the Heart .

I put it to my hon. colleague: Who could that person be?

[Main Estimates, 1999-2000, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I ask the hon. member of the Progressive Conservative Party, was the number 1-800-267-7362 to call senators? There was a question about the Prime Minister as well.

[Main Estimates, 1999-2000, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I and other members of this place, some of whom are in the House today, went through a fairly exhaustive process of gathering petitions from across the land. Media outlets, such as the Sun newspaper chain and QR77 radio, put out their own forms of Senate petitions. I collected petitions on the whole idea of Senate reform and Senate election. Other members of the House collected petitions on the issue of Senate abolition. I do not think that those people felt as though they were heard. They did not get responses from senators or from the Prime Minister's office.

The hon. member talked about phoning senators and the Prime Minister's office. The member of the NDP mentioned the number. I have a note here that if somebody wants to call the Senate I believe the number is 1-800-267-7362. I ask the hon. member if—

[Main Estimates, 1999-2000, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I pose another question to my hon. colleague. Can he think of another job, any job, where one would be able to work 66 half days a year and get a salary in excess of $64,000 plus $12,000 in an expense account and then over $10,000 in a non-receiptable expense account, which basically amounts to a payout because no receipts have to be given for it? I would like my hon. colleague to let us know if he can think of any other job where somebody could enjoy for 66 half days a year those types of benefits, and more than that that someone could serve for one day—