Rob Anders

[Canada Post Corporation Act, February 11th, 1999]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-474, an act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act.

Madam Speaker, the operations of Canada Post have been somewhat suspect for a number of years. There is suspicion among people that it is using the money it brings in from regular mail to subsidize other aspects of its operation, for example its courier service and electronic mail, and to drive its private market competitors out. In Calgary we had people who went ahead and had their own mail delivery service called T2P overnight. I think we can deliver better service with Canada Post by allowing competition so people can see what other options there are out there.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Competition Act, February 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, time and time again people in this country raise a cry for changes. They raise a cry for changes to the Young Offenders Act and they raise a cry for changes to the Senate. We look at polls across the country for the last several decades there have been cries for a return to capital punishment.

I look at all these issues. Yet even though there have been free votes in the House of Commons on these issues, the will of the people has not been reflected.

There is a profound problem with our democracy when the will of the people, the will of the clear majority in this land, cannot bring forward law and have it enacted. There is a profound sickness and problem with what we have as an institution. That is why we need to see more free votes.

We are talking about real free votes. That means we do not have the government whips and the Prime Minister's office come down on the backs of the backbenchers in the governing party, the Liberal Party of today, and tell them that the government will fall because of having a free vote, because they cast their ballot, they vote nay or yea as their constituents would want them to vote.

That is why it is important that we bring forward a formal vote of non-confidence. That way if a money bill or any other bill falls, the government does not fall. There would have to be a formal vote of non-confidence in order for the government to fall.

That would free up backbenchers not only on the government side but in every party to vote the wishes of their constituents. That little change would help advance democracy.

Another one would be for us to have initiative so that taxpayers, citizens, constituents could go ahead with a petition and sign up their neighbours door to door. With that process they would be able to put on the ballot in the next election, to save taxpayer money because people have brought up the costs of democracy, a question of whether they want to see a return to capital punishment, whether they want to see an elected Senate, whether they want to see substantive changes to the Young Offenders Act or the faint hope clause, section 745. On all these types of things there has been vast public outcry.

With more free votes, with a formal vote of non-confidence, with recall legislation to get rid of a member of parliament who does not represent their will, with initiative all these things can be accomplished. We need also to reform the Senate.

[Competition Act, February 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct something the member said, that the Reform Party quashed the Charlottetown accord. It was not the Reform Party. We were merely the vessel for people who had concerns across this land with regard to Charlottetown and the provinces.

There were people across this land who got out to the polls in that October. I remember it well. I remember there were people in provinces right across this land, including Quebec, who voted against Charlottetown. It was the people of Canada, the people of the respective provinces of Canada, who got out to the polls in October 1992 and rejected Charlottetown because they rejected the process. That was the problem.

The Reform Party served as a vessel for those people who saw problems with the quotas inherent in Charlottetown and who saw problems with the special deals that were part and parcel of Charlottetown. It was the people of this country from coast to coast to coast who rejected Charlottetown, not just the Reform Party.

Thank goodness the Reform Party was there to serve as a conduit for all those who saw the problems, the fallacies and the inherent contradictions in Charlottetown. If the Reform Party had not been there I do not think we would have had a public referendum. I think Brian Mulroney would have gone ahead and simply imposed that law without having consent.

One of the reasons I stand in my place today is as a youngster of 10 years old in grade five I remember well the patriation of the constitution in 1982. My father and I and many others had problems with the idea that the charter of rights and freedoms was based on collective group rights rather than the rights of the individual. As a result of that I understood at that tender age that it was important to be active in politics because my father and many others like him, the people of this country, never had a chance to vote on the patriation of the constitution and the structuring of the charter of rights and freedoms.

In 1992, 10 years later, we did have a vote and I am going to argue that were it not for the Reform Party the people of this country would never have been able to cast a ballot and make their own decisions for their own constitution.

[Competition Act, February 5th, 1999]

That is right, Mr. Speaker, even from Liberal members, those who benefit wholesale from having the appointment process right now, those who hope to be able to wind up in the favoured books of the Prime Minister and to sit in the other place.

The reason there is such contempt, the reason there are such calls for abolition is that we do not have accountability. Individuals are not accountable to the people who elect them. They are not accountable to the regional interests as was set out in 1867. They are not accountable to the interests of the provinces. These are serious problems.

People talked today about Bill C-20. The Bloc Quebecois industry critic talked about public interest advocacy and weakening competition. I share the member's concerns with regard to these two issues. I believe that having a change in the Senate will advance this idea of strengthened competition and will advance public interest advocacy.

Senators have a difficult time speaking on behalf of the public and advocating on behalf of the public interest when they do not represent or have not been elected by the public. When they are appointed by the Prime Minister, the process by which they are appointed, that very deed itself taints what they otherwise would do.

Today I heard the Tory industry critic talk about Bill C-20. He said that the intent of whistleblowing legislation is good. Beyond just intents the member also talked about proper scrutiny, more consultation and wanting to have an active Senate. Nobody more than I would like to see an active Senate.

The Senate sits 68 days a year. I would like to see the senators do more scrutiny but in order to do that, I need them to attend. When there are people who attend only two days of the year and senators who only show up for 10% of their meetings, I raise these concerns because I want to see an active Senate. I want to see an effective Senate. I would like to have all of the people in the other place in attendance every single one of those 68 days of the year. I would like to see them there more than that but if we could at least see them all there for the days they are required to show as it stands right now, I would feel we had a more active and effective Senate.

I believe in consistency. My Tory colleague talked about consistency in the law. I want to see consistency. I remember the Liberal campaign promises in 1968. They were before my time but I read about them. Pierre Elliot Trudeau campaigned across the land that he wanted to see changes to the Senate, but in 1968 the election came and went and we did not see changes to the Senate. The Liberal leadership in 1990 promised to see changes in the Senate. We did not see them then.

I want to see consistency as much as anybody. So for all these reasons I agree with my colleagues. I want to see more scrutiny. I want to see more accountability. I want to see a better whistleblowing institution. The Senate must be reformed.

[Competition Act, February 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that you have raised this whole issue of offence because there are people who are offended. They are taxpayers and they are citizens.

We talk about offence and we talk about contempt. There is so much offence and so much contempt in this land that there are those in this very chamber, in our House of Commons, who are advocating for the abolition of the other place.

I do not advocate for the abolition of the other place. I recognize that there are things part and parcel of this House of Commons that are present today that are in a sense a sickness and a disease upon our body politic in this country because we do not have an effective other place.

The reason there is contempt, the reason there is offence, the reason there are cries for abolition of the Senate—

[Competition Act, February 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, today we are talking about accountability. Today we are talking about people who have been victims of deception, the citizens and the taxpayers of this country and particularly those people in the province of Newfoundland who are going to the polls on February 9.

A previous premier of that province, Clyde Wells, recognized that a Senate election would allow for people to stand and represent the interests of Newfoundland and Labrador in the Senate and not be beholden to the Prime Minister and not be appointed by the Prime Minister.

A strong voice for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador is needed in the Senate. They need somebody who is going to point out the problems with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans not giving them the straight goods. They need somebody who is going to say that the federal mismanagement of the fisheries has been a travesty and has resulted in the elimination and the wipeout of the cod stocks and the groundfish in Newfoundland and Labrador. They need somebody who is going to say that provincial rights should be paramount with regard to the fishery and that the province should have a say.

They do not need more bellyaching from a premier who has not been able to demonstrate much or come through with much, despite the fact that he sat in the federal cabinet, despite the fact that he is a good buddy and chum of the Prime Minister. They need somebody who is going to be accountable to the people of Newfoundland and not the Prime Minister of Canada.

That is what we are talking about regarding victims of deception with regard to the Senate, with regard to Bill C-20, with regard to whistleblowing. They need somebody who is going to be an effective whistleblower for the people of Newfoundland, not just a bellyacher.

Today we have also heard people talk about advertising and pricing. Recently we have heard the Senate go on about how the senators want to have cameras in their committees because people are not seeing them do their work. No surprise as they only sit 68 days of the year. It is pretty tough to see them when they are only there 68 days. And some of them only sit for two days of the year. It is pretty tough to notice somebody if they are only there two out of 365 days a year. It is pretty tough to notice.

It would be a good idea to bring cameras into the Senate committees and advertise their proceedings so people can see what goes on in that chamber. In terms of pricing it is going to cost a few million dollars. The Senate would love it for those committees that operate. They would love to get their mugs on TV and try to justify their $64,000 a year salaries. That is what I say to advertising and pricing.

We have also heard people talk today about competition. I am a big fan of competition as are a lot of people in the country. They want to see public choice. That is why they want to get rid of the system of appointments.

People want to move toward elections because with elections there is competition. Candidate X, candidate Y and candidate Z can say what they want to do for the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, what type of things they want to institute, what policies they want to change, what status quos they want to overthrow. That is the type of thing we want to see from a Senate election.

That is the type of thing we had in Alberta in 1998 when we held the second and third Senate elections in Canadian history. We did it once before when Stan Waters was elected to the Senate. There will be others, mark my words, because it has come time for change in the Senate.

We heard people talk about contempt today. Indeed there is great contempt in the land for politicians in general, but no more contempt is there than that for the Senate. That is why we have politicians in this place—

[Competition Act, February 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, just to reiterate for the folks back home because of the interlude for members' statements and question period, what we are talking about today is Bill C-20. It has to do with direct marketing. More than that, we have had the Senate and the Canadian Bar Association, along with some other characters, say that there should not be whisteblowing. Because they do not approve of the whistleblowing provisions they have tried to strike clauses 66.1 and 66.2 of this bill.

I am going to move beyond the fact that just because it is being advocated by the Canadian Bar Association and the Senate we have to be somewhat suspect about these things. Whenever we have those types of groups getting together to say that we should not have protection of public interest with regard to whistleblowing we have to watch out.

People talk about combating crime. They say they want to see protection. They say they want to see the victims of crooked manoeuvres looked after. They also believe the House should listen. As a matter of fact, all of those four statements came from the Minister of Industry.

Let us take a look at some of those issues when it comes to the idea of whistleblowing and that other place called the Senate. I want to see protections too, just like Michael O'Connor, a lad who lives here in Ottawa. He started up a group called Taxpayers Have Had Enough. He wants protections for the average Canadian taxpayer to make sure that the Senate is living up to its duty and responsibility and that it is being accountable to him.

Michael O'Connor, just like everybody else in this country, contributes to the salaries of our people in the Senate. When he learned that Andy Thompson was only spending one day in the spring and one day in the fall in the Senate, for a total of two days every year, collecting a yearly salary of $64,000 plus $10,000 in expenses, Michael O'Connor was upset. He is a part time health care worker in the Ottawa area. He actually took time from his summer vacation to go to the Senate Chamber to research what the attendance records were. It broke his heart to learn that when the Senate only sits 68 days of the year somebody can attend only two of those 68 days and still qualify for their full salary.

Where is the protection there? We need whistleblowers and we did not have effective whisteblowing on the Senate side.

Today the Minister of Industry, in speaking to Bill C-20, said that the House is listening, and so the House should listen. A few years from now when the Prime Minister decrees an election, the writ will be dropped and I and all other members of this place will go back home to talk to our constituents. We will tell them what we represent, what mandate we want to carry forward in the election and, if we form the government, what we will undertake to do. Therefore the House does listen.

But in that other place, the Senate, there are people who have been appointed there for decades. There is no measure to ensure that they have to listen to anybody. There are those in the Senate who are diligent and do a decent job, indeed there are. But the problem is they are tainted by all those others who do not do due diligence and do not do their job, the Andy Thompsons of this world who are absent to the point of disrepute, of bringing dishonour not only upon that institution but ours as well. The whole parliament suffers as a result of those types of truancies and problems.

That is why we call upon the Prime Minister to recognize the results of Senate elections, not only in the province of Alberta but other places that have enacted legislation similar to Alberta, such as British Columbia.

We want the Prime Minister to act upon the promises he made in his 1990 Liberal leadership race. At that time he said it was possible to hold Senate elections and so he should. Had he held Senate elections and recognized Senate elections since he became Prime Minister, a vast chunk of the people who sit in the Senate today would be elected and accountable senators.

That is what we want to see. We want to see Liberals who hold dear their promises, and prime ministers who stand by their words. That is what we want to see. We want to see taxpayers who have not been burnt like Michael O'Connor and his group. Taxpayers have had enough. They want to see effective whistleblowing.

With regard to Bill C-20, the Reform industry critic talked about victims of deception. He talked about advertising and pricing. He talked about competition. He talked about contempt in individuals unaccountable to anyone. Let us talk about victims of deception.

Right now an election is going on in Newfoundland and Labrador. The premier goes around bellyaching that the federal government does not listen, and he was part of the cabinet of that government. He was part and parcel of a party that promised that it was going to make changes to the Senate.

What happens all too often? The concerns of those provinces, of those hinterlands fall on deaf ears. If that man who is running for premier in that province now, if Brian Tobin recognized Senate elections, held Senate elections in the province of Newfoundland, he would not have the prospect right after that election—and I will make a prediction for February 9 when that election has come and past.

There are five vacancies that I know of in the Senate, three for Quebec, one for Newfoundland and another for Ontario. If Brian Tobin had held an election concurrent with the provincial election for members of the House of Assembly in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Newfoundland on February 9 would have somebody who represented the interests of Newfoundland and not just those of the Prime Minister.

[Canada Labour Code, February 5th, 1999]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-469, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great honour today to introduce a bill that would allow union members not to be forced to contribute to political parties on causes against their will.

The Canada Labour Code affects over 700,000 employees. There are people within those 700,000 employees who do not believe they should be funding partisanship, who want to promote the sanctity of human life, who do not support the idea of unilateral disarmament and who do not want to advocate violence. They want to advocate freedom of choice and freedom of conscience. They do not want to be forced against their will to contribute to causes they do not believe in.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Competition Act, February 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-20. The government introduced the bill to address the issue of direct marketing fraud. The bill is intended to protect consumers as well as legitimate direct marketing businesses. It is a code of conduct for the direct marketing industry.

I would like to focus on two items in particular. The Senate has recently returned the bill deleting sections 66.1 and 66.2 which deal exclusively with the issue of whistleblowing.

On the issue of whistleblowing I think the country needs more whistleblowers. We need people who expose the abuses of government. We need people to stand up when wrongs have been committed. As a result that is why I support whistleblowers. I not only want to see whistleblowers protected with regard to Bill C-20 in the direct marketing industry. I want to see other whistleblowers as well.

I would like to see some whistleblowers in the other chamber. Right now they are beholden to the Prime Minister; they are appointed by the Prime Minister. I want to see effective whistleblowers who can blow the whistle on problems with the federal government and not fear that they hold some allegiance to the Prime Minister for their appointments. I want whistleblowers who are accountable to the people who elect them rather than to the Prime Minister who appointed them.

Other countries have effective whistleblowers. Germany with its Bundesrat has effective whistleblowers. They gather people who are representatives of the various Landers or states in Germany. They get together to determine whether or not bills that have been passed in the Bundestag are effective. They whistleblow.

In other words, if people who represent the state or the Lander of Baden-Wurttemburg or Berlin, or any of them, decide that they do not like a particular piece of legislation, that it goes against the interest of their particular state or their particular Lander, they will whistleblow. They will go ahead and blow their whistle and expose the federal document or whatever was passed by the Bundestag for being ineffective or for not dealing properly or not dealing fairly with their particular grievance, with their particular state or their Lander.

Germany is not the only country that has effective whistleblowers. The United States also has whistleblowers. That country to the south with which we do 80% of our trade has whistleblowers. It changed its laws so that it would be able to elect its whistleblowers.

The first state that actually did that via a constitutional amendment, the 17th amendment to the U.S. constitution, was Oregon. Now effective whistleblowers are recognized within the constitution of the United States, those people in its senate. Those who come from the state of Idaho can have the same representation as those that have a more populous representation in the House of Representatives.

California represents more people than all the inhabitants of Canada and has two senators. Idaho and Wyoming, small states in comparison, have two whistleblowers as well. The whistleblowers in Idaho may blow their whistle about potatoes or injustices that have happened with regard to agricultural policy in the same way that whistleblowers in the state of California may blow their whistles with regard to whatever may be troubling California in its state of the union.

I want to see whistleblower protection. I have faith in whistleblowers. They are important to the system. We need to know what the problems are and have fair criticism. I want to see fair criticism and not rubber stamps of government legislation.

Right now in the other place we have a clear majority of people who were appointed by the Prime Minister for his party, the Liberal Party of Canada. We would like to see whistleblowers elected by the people from the various provinces who fairly represent the regions in the provinces. That is what we are talking about: real whistleblowers, not rubber stamps.

The whistleblower protections proposed in Bill C-20 are opposed by the Canadian Bar Association and opposed by the Senate. For Canadians who may be watching—

[Competition Act, February 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I took note of the hon. member's speech with regard to Bill C-20. He spoke of proper scrutiny and more consultation. He spoke of wanting a more active Senate. He spoke of consistency, capability, diligence and effectiveness.

Would he apply all the things he wishes Bill C-20 had with regard to whistleblower protection to the Senate?