Rob Anders

[Petitions, February 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I stand today on behalf of the citizens of Ottawa and the riding of Ottawa South.

I submit a petition in the House of Commons, in parliament assembled, that we the undersigned citizens of Canada draw the attention of the House to the following, that Canadians deserve an accountable Senate.

Therefore your petitioners call on parliament to request that the Prime Minister accept the results of a Senate election once again on behalf of the citizens of Ottawa South.

[The Prime Minister, February 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it would be nice to say that the Prime Minister has extraordinary vision for the country, but ironically the PM only sees 20-20 when it involves his blind trust.

While it is in the Prime Minister's best interest to keep Canadians in the dark, he should come clean before the House about his conflict of interest. The Prime Minister is required by law to put his business in a blind trust so Canadians know he is not abusing power. But the Prime Minister ignores the law and gropes around in the not-so-blind trust anyway.

This raises two questions: What kind of ethics commissioner would have an open discussion with a public office holder about holdings in a blind trust? Only one appointed by and dependent upon the Prime Minister for his job.

What else has the Prime Minister not told us about his business dealings? Bombardier gets a lot of lucrative, untendered contracts. Maybe the PM has stock. We do not really know. Canadians deserve to know.

This is a case of three blind mice: the Prime Minister, the ethics commissioner and the public, but only the public is in the dark.

[Corruption Of Foreign Public Officials Act, December 7th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I demand to know something from my hon. colleague on the subject of some of these other things that have come from the other place, Bill S-3, Bill S-4, Bill S-5, Bill S-9, Bill S-16. One of them has to do with senators voting themselves a pay increase. One of them is the Canada Shipping Act and how that relates to Canada Steamship Line. One has to do with the Evidence Act, persons and human rights. A young fellow in Ottawa, Michael O'Connor, is assembling a class action law suit in terms of his not getting fair value for his money with regard to the Senate.

Bill S-9 had to do with financial administration. The Senate did something useful in its lifetime with the GST and saving us $10 billion by blocking it and dropping it from 11% to 9% to 7%. Bill S-16 implemented an agreement between Canada and the socialist republic of Vietnam.

I wonder whether my hon. colleague could address some of the other things that have happened and originated in the other place and how they relate to Bill S-21, the whole idea of foreign corruption.

[Corruption Of Foreign Public Officials Act, December 7th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Peace River.

For the folks back home, late last Friday afternoon the government decided that it had dawdled a little too long on a piece of legislation and thought that it would bring it before the House to try to get it passed as soon as possible. We all smell a whiff of proroguing in the air, and that is the reason it did that.

I will tell a few stories in the time I have today. First I will start with a number of quotes and let everybody in the House in on a little game. They can try to guess who I am quoting. The first person said: “I on the other hand support Senate reform. If it is done properly, a restructured and revitalized 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 spoken at the Liberal leadership convention on June 23, 1990. I will drop a little hint. This person is currently the Liberal leader of Canada.

I will go on in case people do not have the drift. The second quote is: “The regions of Canada need to be more involved in decision making and policy making at the national level. To meet the hopes and dreams of those who live in the west and the Atlantic, a reformed Senate is essential. It must be a Senate that is elected, effective and equitable”. This was taken from the Hansard of September 24, 1991. For those who do not have a clue, the person I am quoting was once upon a time a finance minister under Pierre Elliot Trudeau.

Referring to the Senate, I go on: “The Liberal government in two years will make it elected. As Prime Minister I can take steps to make it happen”. This person was speaking to 400 delegates at the annual general meeting of the Alberta branch of the federal Liberal Party. Once again it was the same individual, the one we know so well to always say “ya know”.

I offer a fourth quote: “You want the triple E Senate and I want one too”. This was given to the Toronto Star on February 2, 1990.

I will not leave members in the dark and guessing. I will share it with the folks back home. All four quotes were from our current Prime Minister who continues to appoint people to the Senate of Canada despite all these promises.

I will touch on several issues we are dealing with today in Bill S-21 as it relates to Canada's international obligations under the OECD convention on combating bribery of foreign public officials in international business transactions. First I will talk about the foreign component.

Until recently we had foreigners who helped serve the House. I remember a gentleman down the way by the name of Andrew Thompson. He was a foreigner, indeed, for he only spent one day in the spring and one day in the fall in the chamber we call the other place. As a result he only spent 2.6% of his time. What time is that, some may ask. The sentence he served in the Senate which was only 65 to 68 days a year. It was not a tough or arduous sentence by a long stretch but he only served 2.6% of it. It left him with 97.4% of his time down in Mexico, a luxury many Canadians would like to enjoy.

I will touch on a few things in this regard. Our Prime Minister, whom I quoted four times in terms of his commitment to an elected Senate, wrote about Andrew Thompson in a letter: “The absence from the sittings of the Senate and the record of non-participation in the work of the caucus over many years are totally unacceptable”. Our Prime Minister brought attention to the fact of the non-participation and the absence of a senator from the Liberal caucus. Even the Prime Minister agrees that we had foreigners operating as legislators in our land.

Since the Senate began keeping attendance sheets in June 1990, Andrew Thompson attended 12 sittings out of a total of 459 in the past two parliaments, a foreigner by any stretch of the imagination. He was absent so often that, with the $519,550 he collected for attending his 14 days in the Senate, this absentee foreign senator earned $37,110 per day that he sat in that chamber, a handsome salary for a one day sitting. Who in the land earns over $37,000 a day for merely sitting down in a chair? I cannot think of anyone, but Andy Thompson did. He is not the only one.

I recently debated a senator who had to defend Andy's record, a senator who has a 100% attendance record but is few and far between. There are 17 senators who miss more days than they actually attend. Can we imagine having a job and missing more days that we actually attend? They are supposed to be docked $120 for every day missed. However there is an honour system that allows them to miss for illness or business. Some honour system, indeed.

That addresses, as I said, the foreign aspects of Bill C-21, foreign bribery, foreign corruption. Let us now talk more specifically about just the word corruption, this bribery. I do not have to look very far. I can look into the other place and see Michel Cogger. What have we there?

Cogger, as of June 2 this year, was convicted of influence peddling, indeed some form of bribery. He was convicted of peddling his influence between 1986 and 1988 to businessman Guy Montpetit for $212,000. He was said to have plied his influence in Mr. Montpetit's bid to land government subsidies to set up a computer chip foundry in Vaudreuil and for his assistance in the computer translation project that benefited from $4 million from the Saskatchewan government.

Fitting with the term of corruption, Cogger's defence was that he did not have a corrupt state of mind, and there was some debate over whether or not his state of mind was corrupt, touching on the whole idea of corruption. He was convicted of an indictable offence. He was convicted of a felony or certainly an infamous crime.

Did the Senate actually go ahead and request his resignation? No. Senators were too busy coming forward with Bill S-21, were they not? That seemed to be a higher priority to our senators than to go ahead and get a resignation from one of their colleagues who was convicted of influence peddling. That conviction has brought the Canadian Senate into further disrepute. Senator Cogger should be the one who submits his resignation. Otherwise he brings further disrepute over time to that institution.

I had a debate this weekend in Montreal. I was debating one of the senators from that other place. He was one of the senators who has a 100% attendance record. My compliments go out to him for he is few and far between in that place. I have heard from some people that the whole point there is to kind of reward loyal party followers. I was told something that I found interesting.

Even though Iona Campagnolo, whom I also met this weekend, is a very loyal party worker for the Liberal Party and many would suspect should be sitting in the Senate, she did not cosy up to the right prime minister or to the right candidate. As everyone knows, she was a floor worker for Paul Martin at the Liberal leadership convention. As a result, even though she is very competent and is a well respected Liberal MP, she was never appointed to the Senate.

I would like to touch on my fifth point with regard to Bill S-21 as it relates to bribery of foreign public officials and the idea that our Senate is full of bagmen, party fundraisers and people who have vested political interests with various parties. I could go on. I was going to refer to some of the things that have gone on in the Senate and a list of some of the bills that originated there, but I digress.

[Petitions, December 7th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, today I am honoured on behalf of citizens of Orleans, in the riding of Glengarry—Prescott—Russell to submit a petition to the House of Commons in parliament assembled.

These citizens of Canada draw the attention of the House to the following. Canadians deserve an accountable Senate and therefore, the petitioners call upon parliament to request that the Prime Minister accept the results of a Senate election.

Once again I present this petition on behalf of constituents in the city of Orleans and in the riding of Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, the riding of the government House leader.

[Special Import Measures Act, December 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to rise on this occasion. I would like first to tell a very short story and then ask a question.

In 1993 I remember the NDP running ads talking about how free trade would kill jobs and devastate the Canadian economy, that it would be a colossal failure and that the whole nation would weep in the wake of the signing of a free trade agreement. I am glad to hear the member's party has changed its position on free trade. I remember as well the commercials that were run in the 1993 election campaign were actually made in the United States. It was rather ironic since they were running ads that were negative to free trade.

Is the member aware of other flip-flops the Liberal Party has made with regard to issues like free trade since they won election in 1993?

[Railway Safety Act, December 4th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, one more time we have the case of the government wanting other people to pick up its costs for its regulation and for the things that it wants to see done, but the government does not want to pick up the responsibilities and the costs. It is only willing to share the costs, the expenditures and burden others with its problems.

I want to wrap up with a couple of simple questions I wish the government would apply to every piece of legislation it brought into this House. One, who wants it? Two, who wants to pay for it or who is going to pay for it?

I look at these things time and again and the list goes on. Whether it is health care, jobs programs, or whatever it happens to be, even the minutiae in the railway safety act, we see time and again that the government likes to get its way but wants other people to pay for what it wants done. The government does not like taking the costs itself. It likes sharing the burden with others. This is a classic case of that.

I wish the government would have been willing to listen to some of the amendments from the opposition. I wish it would have notified the stakeholders and given them appropriate time. I wish it would have asked itself some of these crucial questions when proposing legislation like this. The government failed on all of those accounts. However, the government will get its way because it has a majority.

[Railway Safety Act, December 4th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, in my brief time in the House rarely have I seen something rushed through as quickly as Bill C-58.

I had the joy of sitting on the transportation committee. The bill was as quickly considered as a bill could be considered in committee. For the information of the folks at home, the Liberals across the way have decided that prorogation of the House is a good idea. I see members shaking their hands, some one way and some the other, but that is basically what is going on.

The Liberals have been dragging their feet on changes to the Railway Safety Act for a very long time. Each time they talk about it they decide they did not do it right the first time and have to make a couple of amendments. That is what is going on here.

They went ahead and brought the bill to committee. They did not take a lot of time, energy or effort to go ahead and notify stakeholders with regard to Bill C-58. In one session on one day all the people who had an interest—and I have copies of their briefs—were rushed through very quickly, one after another, rapid fire, so the government could get its changes to the bill. Now it is before us at report stage.

Let us look at some of the interesting scenarios we have with regard to Bill C-58. The Reform Party put forward some amendments to the bill in committee. Just like in all other committees we recognize the government will not have its ears open in this regard. It does not want any changes or any improvements to the legislation.

In committee the Reform Party recognized that government members were trying to go for very broad and encompassing definitions of what would be considered a combustion emission or pollutant. In the past they have included very broad definitions which were as expansive as possible so that if any problems arise they are able to address them.

This was not the first time this type of thing happened. We recognized that if we strictly defined pollutants as combustion emissions it would be very clear what the government was intending in this regard. It would not be talking about noise pollution, for example, which is referred to in other pieces of legislation. It would be fairly specific. It would address exactly what we were trying to regulate.

It is very important to be precise in terms of what we are trying to regulate. If we allow the government too broad a definition, it sometimes takes too great a liberty. Who gets hurt by that? It is the railways and the other stakeholders. We tried to make that small amendment.

I am just raising this as an example. This is not the first time we have brought forth amendments to a piece of legislation to try to improve it. Government members turned it down because they wanted as broad a definition as possible. They did not want to discuss it. As a result, somewhere down the line somebody will have to pay the price for that.

The government does not want to accept responsibility with regard to provinces and municipalities in terms of any costs that will come about as a result of the regulation. It does not have any problem with hoisting all types of costs on people, whether it be the railways in terms of precise definitions like combustion emissions versus pollutants, or whether it be the provinces and the municipalities as a result of the regulations. It does not have a problem with other people internalizing the costs of its regulations.

When the government does these types of things it forces others to pick up and internalize their costs. We learned in economics in university the whole concept of either internalizing or externalizing costs. If people do not want to internalize a cost, they spread it to others.

That is when government members like to talk about sharing. They love the concept of sharing when they can share costs or expenditures with others. That is when they like to share. That is exactly what we have in this government legislation. That is exactly what we see with the Liberals all the time. They love to share the misery. They love to share the costs.

This is not just with regard to Bill C-58. I can look at a whole bunch of other pieces of government legislation to see that the Liberals love to share misery. They blame Mike Harris and Ralph Klein when they make cuts to health care. Indeed it is the Liberals who are offloading those costs and responsibilities.

It is exactly the same in this case. It is more minute but nonetheless we have members of a Liberal administration who love to share the misery. They love to share the cost with others, but they do not like picking up the responsibilities for what they do.

I have given a couple of examples in Bill C-58 where that type of top down arrogant philosophy continues on big issues like health care which impact on every Canadian. It has spread to other things, even the minutia in the Railway Safety Act. That is the type of problem we have.

I will apply a couple of the tests which I said the government should have applied before to other pieces of legislation. Who wants it? Who wants some of the changes? The Liberals did not even have the gratitude or openmindedness to notify ahead of time the stakeholders who were to be intimately affected by some of these things. They were rushed through the committee very quickly.

[Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, December 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the list of ACOA failures grows. Taxpayers can kiss another cool million of their hard earned dollars goodbye because the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency has failed again.

Now Planta Dei, a herbal remedy company in New Brunswick, is closing its doors after announcing it cannot pay its bills. Marthe Boissonnault, an ACOA employee, says that writing off bad loans is the nature of ACOA's business. Will the minister for ACOA admit that he is going to write off the money and he is going to write off the jobs?

[Petitions, December 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to present a petition today on behalf of the citizens of Gloucester from the riding of Carleton—Gloucester.

The petitioners say Canadians deserve an accountable Senate and the Prime Minister should accept the results of a Senate election.