Scott Reid

[Modernization Of House Of Commons Procedure, March 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a good point. I do not think that the exact method is necessarily the important thing. It is some form of review prior to, as opposed to after, appointments have been made, some form of questioning, that would be profitable. Committees are certainly a good place to start.

There is always a problem with these things when the votes take place openly because then we get, effectively, some kind of party discipline or pressure being applied to the decisions that are made and to the questions that come up. However, I am afraid this is probably all that is available to us and it is a good starting point.

I have struggled with the question of how we deal with patronage appointments, ensuring that they are in fact based on merit. Absent the presence of a philosopher king who always chooses exclusively on merit and who is virtually omniscient in being able to choose the best people, we need to have some form of delegation. I would think that the nominations going forward to whoever is doing the review ought to as well be coming from a bit broader source than merely the Prime Minister's Office.

I say this with some reservation, because there may be problems with this, but I think that perhaps we should consider the possibility of excluding certain classes of people from patronage appointments, such as people who are defeated candidates for a party in the prior election until a period of time has passed, or people who have perhaps donated more than a certain amount of money to a governing party, or people who have served in some other capacity that would make them obvious candidates, unless they go through some sort of special further review to ensure that they really are being chosen on their merits and that their political allegiance is purely coincidental.

[Modernization Of House Of Commons Procedure, March 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member who has just spoken for bringing a very serious matter to the attention of the House.

It will be a very interesting test when Bill C-9 comes before the House. The hon. government House leader is also the minister sponsoring Bill C-9. It will be the first bill back which will apply the recently adopted motion. We will see him occupying several roles I guess. We will watch with great interest to see how enthusiastic he is about allowing for a full range of debate in this place on potential amendments that were not brought forward in committee.

We will also be able to get a sense of the sincerity with which he is intending to apply the motion we are currently debating. To what degree is the motion sincere as opposed to the degree to which it is meant as window dressing, merely to divert attention from the ongoing erosion of democracy. That erosion is contained in Bill C-9 and the series of rather pernicious laws, of which it is merely the latest, designed to limit access of third parties during an election.

Bill C-9 is intended to restrict the ability of Canadians to participate fully in referendum campaigns, which can only be called at any rate at the behest of the government, and to limit the ability in the case of this law of small parties to participate in election campaigns on an equal footing with those larger parties represented in the Chamber. I hope we will discover that the government House leader is very sincere. I fear we may find the opposite, but we will find out and we will be watching with great attention.

The last member to speak did so on a very narrow but important topic. It is my intention to draw from some of the same themes but to speak in a very broad sense. I will also dwell upon some of the broad themes of democracy that the motion addresses or hopes to address.

I am thinking here of the spirit that motivates the 1867 Constitution of Canada and the words found in its preamble. It begins “...with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom—”. The Constitution of Canada is a written constitution, whereas that of Britain is not. The Constitution of Canada is federal and Britain is a quasi-unitary state and was entirely unitary in 1867. There were no regional assemblies in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales.

The essence that was being captured in that preamble was the notion that Canada would be similar to the United Kingdom in having certain understandings as to how Canadians would be treated by their government. It was an idea conceptualized in the imperial parliament at that time in a law called the Colonial Laws Validity Act, which attempted to make clear limitations on what colonial assemblies, including Canada at the time, could do in terms of restricting the rights of their citizens.

Any law that was repugnant would be repugnant to the laws of England as applied in England and would also be invalid in a colonial legislature. That was used with limited success as an argument against racist laws in Australia that were meant to exclude non-whites from immigration from other parts of what was then the British Empire.

The preamble was also meant to make it clear that Canada would be adopting many of the conventions that existed in Britain. The most important of those conventions was the party system which at that time was starting to gel in Britain. The convention that the ministry was responsible to, its House of Commons, and this had already taken place to some degree in Canada in the form of responsible governments. We are being true to our own independently developed traditions which paralleled those which developed in Britain.

This empiricist tradition is at the base of our political system and is the basis of the great success of our democracy or, as I like to say and have said on other occasions in this place, of our republic. I mean republic in the traditional Aristotelian sense; a mixed government in which there is a monarchial element, an aristocratic element and a democratic element. This is the basis of the success of our system and I worry when I see it eroding.

An alternative system has been used widely in the west and has done a great deal of damage over the past two centuries. This is the tradition that developed through Jean-Jacques Rousseau. This is the concept of a general will which is expressed not through institutions such as this one, not through rules of order and not mediated at all, but a will which is expressed. It is different from the mass of individual wills. It is, in some respect, a common will felt by the people which is interpreted almost intuitively by a leader who is in mystical union with the people.

We saw this developed by Rousseau and saw it actualized in France in the regime of Napoleon Bonaparte and later on by Napoleon III. We have also seen it in action in other countries. In Argentina, it was known as Peronism. We saw it develop into a cult of personality in a number of countries like fascist Italy, Portugal and Spain.

The danger is that these institutions, which have been developed so carefully in Canada and in countries like the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, and also which in a very different way were jelled and set down in constitutional stone in the United States following its revolution, will erode over time. The American founding fathers worried a great deal that the natural course of things is for power to centralize in the hands of a few or eventually of one ruler.

The tendency has been for power over time, in the absence of some sort of cataclysm which resets everything back at its republican origins, to centralize.

We see this developing in the United States, for example, in the so-called imperial presidency in which to some degree, to a minor degree but to a growing degree, we have seen effectively an elected monarch with a four year periodic election of that monarch. This is something we have seen drawn to the public attention at various times. The phrase “the imperial presidency” comes from the time of Richard Nixon.

In Canada we see the centralization of power in the Prime Minister's Office and in the hands of the Prime Minister. We even see, to some degree, members of cabinet, except for those very central members of the inner cabinet, frozen out from power. We also see the House being turned into what amounts to an electoral college in perpetual session simply reaffirming the Prime Minister, who is in a very genuine sense simply our elected king, reaffirming him in office periodically through these forced votes.

This is something which absolutely must be fought against. Of course the first step in doing this is to try to create more democracy in the House. This is of course why I feel so strongly and why I do hope that the motion here is meant sincerely, that the committee will come back with some very practical suggestions which will indeed return some autonomy to the House so that it serves as the democratic check on the monarchical power represented by the Prime Minister.

As well of course, we would like to see the Senate turned into an aristocracy as it was originally meant, that is to say a natural aristocracy, the best among us selected to represent the wisdom by which the decisions made here are mediated before they become the law of the land.

Very briefly, because I know I have just a few moments left, I want to draw the attention of the House to one possibility that I think the committee should consider as it meets to decide how it will change the way in which this place operates, and that is the secret ballot. The secret ballot, of course, is used here only for the election of the Speaker. I think all members are happy with that system. I think it works well.

I wonder if we could not broaden the system and use it as well for electing the Deputy Speaker, chairs of committees and also commissioners reporting to parliament, who are after all, at least nominally, to represent the will of parliament and to be responsible to us as opposed to the government.

I also wonder if we could not perhaps solve the problem of supreme court justices being non-representative if they were to be elected by secret ballot in parliament from perhaps a list nominated by the government or proposed by some other method.

Finally, I wonder if patronage appointments could not be ratified, perhaps in groupings, by means of secret ballot.

I would suggest that if we do this we consider using some means of voting that is a little more expeditious than the method used in the election of the Speaker, that is to say something that takes less than a day to execute. Perhaps electronic voting is appropriate. Perhaps a single transferable ballot is appropriate.

I simply present those options for your consideration, Mr. Speaker, and for the consideration of the House.

[Modernization Of House Of Commons Procedure, March 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his quite alarming comments. We will soon find out whether his concerns will be realized.

Tomorrow I will be attending the committee dealing with Bill C-9 where I will be putting forward some amendments. Report stage will be next week and I will be watching, with as much interest as he, to see whether further proposed amendments can be brought forward at that time. I do hope that his concerns are unfounded, although I fear they are not.

What is the member's proposed or preferred method of dealing with report stage?. Would it simply be a return to the status quo ante, or would he make some other suggestion for change?

[Supply, March 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, of course it is the standard procedure of the federal government on all issues to try to put moneys forward in the form of matching grants and then take credit for the entire amount as if it had in fact spent the entire amount. That would explain the largest proportion of what is going on here.

The original claim of the government was that it had in fact met the farmers' demands for $1 billion, with the government saying that after all, it was putting in a good chunk of that and the provinces would put in money too but only because the federal government was, so therefore the federal government really spent the money even though provincial taxpayers paid for it.

Obviously farmers have not bought that. That is in fact why they were protesting here in Ottawa and elsewhere, including Saskatchewan. Clearly proposals similar to those made by my hon. colleague would have been precisely the right direction to go in.

[Supply, March 20th, 2001]

That is why I cited the federal forms; they went on at great length about them. I am sorry that my colleague was not listening to that and I am sorry he cannot put a sock in it and listen now.

I do want to mention that when we look at the amount of money ostensibly available under AIDA for the years 1998 and 1999 we find that fully 38% has not yet been accessed by farmers. That has not yet been handed out to farmers, despite the fact that it was meant to be disaster aid. That forces farmers to pay more for their inputs because they are unable to function as properly operated businesses.

One of the farmers in my riding told me he expects his input costs this year to be pushed up by about 15% because he cannot take advantage of various discounts such as early payment discounts, because his aid, federal aid, is not available to him in a timely fashion.

It seems to me that the federal government is as much at fault here as any provincial government. I would think a great deal more.

[Supply, March 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I guess I could have made up a story, but the farmer told me a story about this particular program so I cited it. My point was to suggest, and I think accurately, that the problem with filling out these forms and trying to apply for these forms is that they are too bureaucratic.

[Supply, March 20th, 2001]

I thank you for that, Mr. Speaker. The member obviously needs to get some wax removed from his ears because on so many occasions, and it is hard to keep track, our leader has in fact addressed this issue.

I will simply continue now to give a little information on the background of the agricultural industry. I think Canadians forget sometimes just how important this industry is to the country. Agriculture is one of the pillars of the Canadian economy, accounting for just under 9% of our gross domestic product.

The average Canadian farm produces enough food to feed 120 people. One result of this remarkable efficiency is that food prices have dropped to record lows. Canadians were able to eat better and to do so at a lower cost than at any time in our history.

Another less fortunate result of this efficiency is that the number of farmers, as a percentage of the Canadian population, continues to decline. In fact it is in steady decline. This means that increasingly governments are able to ignore farmers and the farm vote and still get elected. Heaven knows the government is proof positive of that fact.

The result of the policy of ignoring the interests of farmers can be seen everywhere. It can be seen most dramatically in the number of dollars that the Canadian government has been willing to devote to farm support. To make this point, in 1997 for every dollar the Canadian government spent on farm support, Japan spent $3.47, the European Union spent $2.14 and the U.S. spent $2.06.

These policies of our competitors have led to a worldwide glut of agricultural product and to dramatically declining prices. Corn prices have dropped from $3.60 a bushel two years ago to around $2.60 at the time of last year's harvest, and soybean prices from around $8.60 to about $6.50. Break-evens on soybeans, incidentally, are around $8.00 per bushel.

This is forcing even more farmers off the land. According to Statistics Canada, agriculture employment in my province of Ontario has dropped by 33,000, or 27%, since the Liberals first came to power in 1993. The facts clearly show that farming in Canada, and in Ontario in particular, is in crisis. It is a simple statement of fact that Canadian farmers are facing their worst income crisis since the great depression. This is made worse by the doubling of fuel costs which have driven up input costs for farmers.

Farmers need a government that is on their side. I would like to describe two of the key elements that would need to be set in place before farmers could really feel that the government believes in them and in their industry.

First, Canada claims to have a strong system of safety net programs, including emergency disaster relief, crop insurance and net income stabilization accounts for the immediate delivery of emergency compensation. Farmers need to know that these programs will be adequately funded and that the funds put into these programs will be genuinely available in a timely fashion.

Canada must launch an aggressive campaign through the WTO and through NAFTA to ensure that our trading partners reduce their subsidies for their farmers so that our farmers can compete on a level playing field. Until that happens, we have to defend fair trade, as well as free trade, and that means that we must ensure that farmers get timely compensation.

In the time I have left I want to talk a little about some of the red tape that is involved in getting access to some of these funds. A farmer in Mississippi Mills, which is a rural township in Lanark county in my riding, described the following mess to me.

Last October the farmer applied for relief under the Ontario whole farm relief program. The terms under which relief money was available was sufficiently vague that he had to acquire the services of an accountant, which of course was not free. He used these services for a full day. At the end of the day neither the accountant nor my constituent were actually sure whether he qualified. The forms were submitted anyway in October and he still does not know whether or not he is getting aid or, indeed, the amount that it would be.

I am describing a problem in an Ontario government program. However, this problem of red tape is hardly unique to provincial programs. In fact it is even worse in federal programs. I have a copy of the application forms for the year 2000 for the Canadian farm income program. There are eight spreadsheets to fill out. There are 13 pages of explanatory material as to eligibility requirements. Even the instructions on how to fill out the forms take up an additional 10 pages.

Moreover, farmers are required to have further documentation in the form of the official Canadian farm income program price list. If they dispute the prices on that list, they have to append copies of receipts. Non-participants in the net income stabilization account program must append to their applications a form called a CFIP supplementary package for non-NISA applicants, and so on.

The point to be made here is simply that when these programs are produced, if they are made so hard to get at, government can forget about promising $500 million. Why not promise $500 billion? The farmers cannot get it. It does not count. That is the situation farmers are faced with.

The money is needed now. It is needed before seeding. It is needed through a non-bureaucratic mechanism. The history of the programs offered by the government over the past seven years has been that they have been exceedingly hard to get.

[Supply, March 20th, 2001]

A member has just asked where Stockwell Day was. He has asked so many questions, it is hard to keep track. He also addressed that—

[Supply, March 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in favour of the motion put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake. I will read it for the benefit of members who have missed some of the earlier part of the debate. It states:

That this House call on the government to authorize an additional $400 million in emergency assistance for Canadian farm families (over and above all agriculture programs announced or in place to date), to be paid in 2001—

There is a little bit added on the end about not being a confidence motion to avoid giving the government an excuse to require their MPs to vote against this.

I would like to start by paying tribute to my colleague's dedication to the cause of Canadian farmers, which is admirable. He is my seat mate of course, so I get to see his passion and enthusiasm up close. It has been an education to me, to see the way in which a member can take on and responsibly advocate the interests of a community within Canada. He deserves to be applauded for that.

Almost single-handedly my colleague, the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake, has pushed the crisis in Canadian agriculture to the top of the policy agenda. The very first question that was raised in the House following the Speech from the Throne was raised by my colleague and related to agriculture. In fact, he set a bit of a precedent in asking a question in that manner at that time.

He is assured, along with a few others from this caucus, that the Canadian Alliance will lead the charge on this issue, keeping our traditional place as the most vigorous defenders and indeed as the only serious defenders of the legitimate interests of Canadian farmers in the House of Commons.

It is all too easy to forget, because of the way this has been brought to the fore of the agenda, just how far agriculture had been pushed from the mainstream agenda over the past year. It was almost completely absent from the 2000 election campaign, so much so that when a debate on the subject was finally held in my riding, five days before the election, I felt compelled to begin my remarks by saying “Tonight's debate is about agriculture, the most important issue not being discussed in this federal election”. Well that has changed, thank goodness.

This is partly due to the work of my distinguished colleague and is partly due to the remarkable efforts of farmers from across the country who have met and who have demonstrated in cities to draw attention to their situation.

Last Wednesday an enormous farm rally was held here in Ottawa. I was honoured to attend it. This was the lead item on that night's news. The surest sign that Canadians are finally turning their attention to the farm crisis is this. After having utterly ignored the agriculture issue in the election campaign and in the first three and a half months of this parliament, even the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party was finally willing to ask a question in the House of Commons last Wednesday relating to agriculture.

[Jean Besré, March 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, last evening we were saddened to learn of the death of the famous Quebec actor, Jean Besré.

A well-known figure in live theatre and television, he left an indelible mark on Quebecers' imaginations, particularly through his roles as Rémi Duval in Jamais deux sans toi and Joseph Arthur in Le temps d'une paix .

An entire generation of Quebecers adopted his untranslatable trademark expletive “hostin d'beu” as their own.

Francophones everywhere in Canada are today mourning the passing of a great and hardworking artist, a humanitarian concerned for the most disadvantaged.

The great contribution of Jean Besré will go down in the annals of Quebec television and theatre for all time.