The Golden Age of Parliamentary Oratory

Your elected representatives at work, with apologies to Burke, Pitt, Fox, Disraeli, Gladstone, Macdonald, Laurier etc. etc....

    Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, before the Prime Minister runs out of town once again, I would like to observe what a disappointment his government has been.     He promised Canadians an ambitious agenda but all we have is empty plans and recycled legislation. Now he wants to bury all the important issues until after the next election, whether it is the judicial inquiry into sponsorship, the Arar inquiry, the gun registry review or his own plans for health care.     After more than a decade of coveting this job, how can the Prime Minister explain his total failure to offer an agenda?     Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, speaking of disappointment, given the fact that the democratic deficit has been so important and that this government has brought in ground-breaking measures time and time again, I would like to ask the Leader of the Opposition if his definition of the way to respond to the democratic need is by asking the chairman of the public accounts committee to systematically obstruct its work.     If it is his idea that the chairman of the public accounts committee should refuse to call witnesses, if the public accounts committee should stall on every major issue, it is not our view.     Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I will tell the Prime Minister that in a few weeks he will be asking the questions and I will be sitting where he is.     Some hon. members: Oh, oh.     The Speaker: Order, please....     Mr. Stephen Harper: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised to get to the bottom of the sponsorship scandal and instead we see today that he is undermining the chairman while he has been blocking the release of documents, hurrying to get a whitewashed, premature report, and his own public inquiry has not even started yet.     How can the Prime Minister explain his total failure to accept accountability for the sponsorship scandal?     Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with regard to the release of documents, why has the chairman of the public accounts committee refused to allow the testimony of Mr. Guité to be made public? Why did they vote against it yesterday? Why has he refused to call witnesses who are prepared to come? Why has he ridiculed witnesses who have been there? Why has he trampled on civil liberties? Is he doing it on the Leader of the Opposition's instructions?     Mr. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the public accounts committee would not have to do it all itself if the Prime Minister were trying to get to the bottom of this scandal.     Let me ask about another failure, the failure to fix the democratic deficit. No real reform at committees, instead the same old games the government is playing with public accounts. The government invoked closure in the House after only six days. There is no reform or election of Senators. He is driving opponents out of his party, appointing candidates and playing with the election date as a personal political football.     How does the Prime Minister explain his total failure to implement even a single, meaningful democratic reform?     Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is right, the chairman of the public accounts committee is not doing it on his own. He is doing it with the connivance of every other single member of the Alliance Conservatives and sitting in that seat.     The fact is that Canadians want to get to the bottom of this. Liberals want to get to the bottom of the matter but they are being obstructed by the Alliance Conservatives who are afraid of the truth. The fact is we want the parliamentary system to work. We want Parliament and committees to work and the one committee that is being headed up by the Alliance is turning into a farce because its leader will not allow it to function.     Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou-Antigonish-Guysborough, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is feeling a little testy today. He has failed miserably to deliver on his previous promises, and yet he is heading full bore into an election.     Full steam ahead for the good ship corruption under this captain. The captain of CSL was active in his own interest, yet the steerage of the ship of state seems to take a back seat.     There is a litany of broken promises under this Prime Minister: no more free votes, no independent ethics counsellor, a widening democratic deficit. Why would Canadians believe a single promise from this Prime Minister today?     Some hon. members: Oh, oh.     The Speaker: Order, please. We have to have a little order in the chamber. I do not know how the Prime Minister can hear the question. I cannot. I hope we will have a little order so we can hear the questions and the answers. It is question period, not yelling period.     Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, broken promises; let us take a look at the record in the promise in terms of free votes. The fact is on free votes members of the Liberal Party have voted against Liberal motions. The fact is that if we look at the opposition, they have all voted like robots.     What is really ironic is that member dares to stand up in the House and talk about broken promises --     Some hon. members: Oh, oh.     The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Pictou-Antigonish-Guysborough has the floor.     Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou-Antigonish-Guysborough, CPC): Mr. Speaker, it must be springtime. It sounds like there are a lot of bulls in rutting season over there.     The Prime Minister is not going to stand there and lecture me about broken promises, the author of the red book, the man who promised to get rid of the GST, the man who promised --     Some hon. members: Oh, oh.     The Speaker: Order, please. The caucus meetings this morning must have been very exciting.... We will forget the rest of the preamble and go to the question.     Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, the captain of CSL seems a bit testy here in the House today about his own record. Talking about broken promises, this is the author of the red book, imagine that.     Canadians have to be asking themselves today: the sultan of Shawinigan or the captain of CSL corruption. I cannot tell the difference. Can you see the difference, Mr. Speaker?     Right Hon. Paul Martin (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is not necessary for me to lecture the hon. member on broken promises. The fact is there is a former Prime Minister of Canada who is relegated off to the corner, whose heart is broken because the great party of Sir John A. Macdonald has had its heart ripped out of it because that hon. member broke his word.     Members do not need my word for it. Ask the Conservative senators in the Senate. Ask the former Prime Minister of Canada why he is sitting over there. He is doing it because that member has no principles.     Some hon. members: Sheila, Sheila.     Some hon. members: Oh, oh...

BY WAY OF CONTRAST: To see what a real Parliament looks like, check out C-SPAN's broadcasts of Prime Minister's Question Period from the British House of Commons, collected here. Or better yet, leaf through the Westminster version of Hansard. Here is the exchange between Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition from last Wednesday's session, the same day as the barnyard fracas described above. I am going to reprint it at length, because the contrast is so remarkable. It is combative, yet polite. The questions are (for the most part) actual questions; the answers are actual answers; there is real give and take, as if they were genuinely listening to each other. And this on the most sensitive of subjects, immigration, in the very week when the minister in charge of that portfolio was forced to resign for having "misled the public." (Another thing that never happens here). Yet listen to these two pros have at each other. Facts are marshalled. Arguments are advanced. The questioner is allowed to mount a sustained line of interrogation. And the Prime Minister must answer: he cannot fob it off on a junior minister when it suits him. Why is it not the same here?

Mr. Michael Howard (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con): ... During the last month, the Government have imposed an emergency stop on immigration from Bulgaria and Romania. They have launched an in-house investigation and had to extend its remit twice. They have suspended two whistleblowers, one of whom is the British consul in Bucharest, and they have had to set up a special hotline for all other whistleblowers who want to alert the public to what is going on. Is it any wonder that everyone thinks the Government's immigration policy is in chaos? The Prime Minister: The allegations that are now being looked into by Mr. Sutton, these most recent allegations, are a different aspect but relate to the same people who were covered in the earlier investigation. It is important, obviously, that he look at both, and at all the issues concerned, including any decisions or involvement by Ministers. He will report back and then we will publish his report. Mr. Howard: If the Prime Minister were serious about getting to the bottom of what has happened, would he not have an independent inquiry? Does he not see that having an inquiry carried out by an official in the immigration department who reports to the Immigration Minister is not likely to inspire confidence in what is happening in our immigration system? Let us take one aspect of this shambles. Sixteen months ago Sir John Ramsden, the head of the Foreign Office's central Europe department, wrote to the Home Office telling it that immigration procedures from Bulgaria and Romania had

"developed into an organised scam that completely undermines our Entry Control procedures" --

16 months ago! Why was no effective action taken until yesterday? The Prime Minister: These are precisely the issues that will be covered by Ken Sutton's inquiry. I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should cast aspersions on Ken Sutton's ability to do this. It allows us to do this quickly, it allows us to get to the truth of what has happened, and it allows us to take any action that is necessary. I would however like to set this matter in context, because I think that is important. It is important to recognise that, according to the labour force survey, of the 1 million people who are working in this country, both self-employed and employed, who are migrants from abroad -- of the top 10 categories of those people, none is from Romania or Bulgaria. The vast majority of people who are migrants here are from countries such as the United States, South Africa, France and Germany and the largest proportion by a long way are from the Republic of Ireland. I simply say that to set this in context. A specific allegation has been made in respect of people from Romania and Bulgaria; that has to be looked into, and thoroughly. It will be, and then we will report back, and until that time we should await the judgment of Mr. Sutton. Mr. Howard: If the Prime Minister cannot tell us of a single action that his Government took after the receipt of that letter from Sir John Ramsden, let me see if I can help him, because there was one thing that they did, after they had received the letter from Sir John. The very same month they received that letter, they relaxed the immigration procedures even further. That is what they did. If everything was under control, why does not the Prime Minister explain to us why it was necessary yesterday for the Government, in panic, to put an emergency stop to all immigration from Bulgaria and Romania? The Prime Minister: I did not say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that no action had been taken; I simply said that all these issues should be covered by Mr. Sutton. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has called for an inquiry; he does not like the nature of the inquiry, but he agrees with me that there should obviously be an inquiry into these issues. It is surely sensible therefore not to speculate on what has happened but to allow Mr. Sutton to conduct the inquiry properly. Of course action has been taken. For example, just a short time ago, there were people arrested in respect of people-smuggling specifically from Romania. There is also an operation that has been in place for a couple of years, one part of which is specifically referable to Romania and Bulgaria. That is Operation Reflex, which has actually uncovered many smuggling gangs and brought people to prosecution. However, all these things should be looked at and then a full report should be given to the House and to the country so that people know the full extent and scale of the problem and of the action that has been taken. That, in my view, is the sensible way to proceed, and if the right hon. and learned Gentleman truly wants a proper inquiry, he should surely not prejudge it. Mr. Howard: I am not asking for any speculation: I am just asking for some straight answers to some straight questions. They are questions that the Prime Minister could and should have asked of Ministers. He does not need an inquiry. We know that that letter was sent and he should have found out what action was taken. Let us take another example. James Cameron, our consul in Bucharest, wrote to the Home Office 17 months ago. He said:

"The applicants rarely know what is in their business plan, cannot speak English, and have absolutely no knowledge or experience of the type of skills needed for their respective businesses. We have to date a one-legged roof tiler . . . and a number of builders and electricians who know nothing about bricks, mortar or electrical details . . . Unfortunately against our strongest recommendations these applications continue to be approved."

Why was nothing done about that letter from the British consul? The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman now says that he does not think that an inquiry is necessary. I thought that the purpose of his original question to me was to say that it was. We have asked Ken Sutton to undertake this inquiry because the same people were the subject of the original inquiry. This is to do specifically with applications from Romania and Bulgaria, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know the sheer scale of the problem of entry visa clearance. For example, some 300,000 people a year are refused entry visa clearance into the UK and some 50,000 are turned away at port. Mr. Cameron has made a specific set of allegations that have to be investigated in detail and we then have to set out clearly what was done, what action was taken and whether that action fell short of what should have been done. That is precisely what Mr. Sutton will do. I would have thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have the good grace to wait until Mr. Sutton has reported before making allegations about Ministers or others. Mr. Howard: The Prime Minister has to learn that he cannot avoid giving straight answers at the Dispatch Box by setting up an in-house inquiry every time something inconvenient to him is raised in the House. Three times officials have tried to raise concerns with Ministers about the chaos in our immigration system, and on each occasion nothing was done. Is that why the Home Secretary describes the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration as "first rate"? Why is it that in this Government civil servants who tell the truth are suspended, but Ministers who fail in their Departments are kept in place? The Prime Minister: The civil servants who have been suspended were suspended by their line managers in the civil service. Those decisions -- [Interruption.] Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the Prime Minister reply. It does no good to shout anyone down in this House. The Prime Minister: As I said, Ministers do not take the decisions to suspend civil servants: they are taken by the line management in the civil service. In respect of the matters of immigration, asylum and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration, let me point out that asylum applications are now running at half what they were 18 months ago and the majority of decisions are taken within two months. Let me contrast that with the position when the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who should know a little about such matters, was Home Secretary. When he was Home Secretary, asylum applications rose by almost 50 per cent. and it took an average of 18 months to take a decision. He is therefore well aware that there will be problems with the immigration system from time to time, and we have to deal with those problems. But I would hope that he would agree with me that those problems should be set in context and that we should always be careful about the language and approach we use when talking about immigration. Mr. Howard: And we should get the facts right. When I was Home Secretary, asylum applications were reduced by 40 per cent. The Prime Minister says that they have halved -- [Interruption.] Mr. Speaker: Order. I say to the Government side that there will be no shouting -- [Interruption.] Order. Mr. Howard: We reduced the figures from 40,000 in 1995 to 29,000 in 1996. The Prime Minister says that the figures have halved since the high watermark of asylum applications under his Government, but despite being halved, they are still almost double what they were in 1996. Now we know how they have been cut. They have been cut by telling officials to wave through other applications on the basis of forged documents. Anyone can reduce the numbers if people are told to wave through other applications on the basis of forged and fraudulent documents. On Monday, the Home Secretary said that this was all about naked politics. Yesterday, he said that it was all very serious and profound and that he was going to suspend all applications from Bulgaria and Romania. Is it not the case that the Home Secretary has lost control of his Department, that the Immigration Minister is clearly not up to her job, and that the Government's immigration system is an utter and complete shambles? The Prime Minister: First, I thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman became Home Secretary in 1993, not 1995. Mr. Howard indicated assent. The Prime Minister: Let us get that straight -- I seem to remember, because I was shadowing the right hon. and learned Gentleman at the time. Secondly, it did indeed take an average of 18 months to take a decision. Let me read out what he said at the time when probed on that. He said:

"It is absurd to suggest . . . that the problem of bogus asylum seekers is caused by the Government or by delays." [Official Report, 20 April 1995; Vol. 258, c. 329.]

Let me especially take issue with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's allegation that asylum seekers are being waved through on forged documents. As he knows perfectly well, Bulgaria, which is where most of the applications come from, has never been a major country for asylum seekers. [Interruption.] What he was trying to suggest was that as the asylum figures have come down, they have been switched into other forms of immigration. [Interruption.] If he wants to get up and deny that, I will be happy to hear him, but I thought that that was the clear implication of what he said. [Interruption.] I am happy to accept that we are both agreed that the asylum figures are genuine and have come down by more than half. The truth is that the main countries for claiming asylum, the figures for which have come down, have nothing to do with EU accession countries. Let me repeat what I told the right hon. and learned Gentleman a moment or two ago. It is important to deal with this. There has been a serious allegation of fraud in relation to the two countries. We will investigate it properly, as we should, and report back. The issue should be handled with care for very obvious reasons, as everyone in the House knows. I am not sure that today he has quite fulfilled that....

It makes one weep, does it not? POST-SCRIPT: Why do I have to go to C-SPAN to see this? Why doesn't CPAC show it? For that matter, why doesn't CPAC archive video-clips of our own Parliament online the way C-SPAN does, instead of making everyone tune in live?