Author:
PETER MacKAY per jfh
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 13:30:09 03/09/03 Sun
Author Host/IP: d150-99-156.home.cgocable.net/24.150.99.156
Notes For A Speech By Peter MacKay M.P.
On Democratic Leadership
Lethbridge, Alberta
March 6, 2003
I am seeking the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. As a Canadian involved in federal politics, I believe our Party can be a vehicle for positive change.
I believe the P.C. Party, and indeed, this country are at a crossroads. Canadians have been subject to the rule of this arrogant, out of touch Martin, Chretien Liberal government for almost a decade now. A decade of doubt, a decade of duplicity. Their legacy is one of cynicism, low participation in our political process and growing voter apathy. Unless we rebuild this Progressive Conservative Party of ours, there will be no end to this Liberal regime.
How do we do this?
I believe we can do it by charting a new conservative course based on sound democratic and economic principles which reach out to all Canadians.
What are the principles that form the foundation of the new conservative course? They are principles which are familiar to us as conservatives, but it is now time to express them, time to get the word out, that a principled party, is ready to show Canadians it is ready to govern- ready to take on the Liberals, ready to win seats across this country and form government, just as we did in the 80’s. Form government to get rid of the National Energy Program, and then to sign an historic free trade agreement as well as environmental agreements, to privatize, deregulate and modernize our country.
We can do this again, and this time it would be to get rid of the long gun registry, the negative effects of Kyoto, streamline government, lower taxes, make an honest commitment to debt repayment, revitalize and reinvestigate our military, healthcare and Canada’s international reputation. Just as the Country needed us to undo the harm of the Liberal reign of arrogance of the Trudeau years, the Chretien/Martin government must be swept from office.
As conservatives, Canada’s interests have always come before narrow partisan interests. We have fought to unite the country, first by steel rails, then building a nation through provincial consensus. We have dedicated ourselves to overcoming racial and language division, addressed regional disparity, and our relationship with the United States and other Nations of the world
We have always recognized that the Liberal Party is our political foe. Only conservatives have replaced Liberal governments across the country. How have they done this? They have done this by reaching out to all those who share our view of the role of government. This is what I will do.
Persons seeking the leadership of this party must stand for something. That’s what conservative leaders have done. They need to display a broad overarching vision of where they want to lead this country. Our great conservative leaders have done this. Sir John A., Diefenbaker, Clark, Mulroney and Lougheed all knew what they wanted to accomplish, stood for something and put a team together to make it happen.
Leadership, standing for conservative values and principles and uniting conservatives in the fight for the country against the Liberals. This is what I pledge to do as leader of this great party.
And that is why I want to talk to you about today- leadership and a platform for democratic leadership.
I was elected to the House of Common in 1997 and re-elected in the 2000 general election. I have witnessed the decline of Parliament as an effective voice for the people of Canada, first hand. I have witnessed an arrogant government, tightly controlled by the Prime Minister and his closest advisors, strip backbench Liberals of any authority or any opportunity they may have to represent their constituents by speaking up in the House of Commons, by agreeing with initiatives brought forward from the opposition, by debating contentious issues. Instead they are saddled with gag orders, whipped votes, coupled with rewards and punishments given out by the Prime Minister’s office.
Why- it was with great rejoicing that House of Common committees actually gained power to elect their own choices for chair- free from interference of the Prime Minister’s Office. The irony, of course, is that it was the Prime Minister’s Office that gave the green light to Liberals to actually exercise their own judgement on this issue.
Now, some may say that the Liberals have seen the light- they have changed their attitudes towards Parliament. Paul Martin, the heir apparent has been converted to democracy. He has even talked publicly about Canada’s democratic deficit. He has spoken about the power of the PMO and the need to give relevance through democratic reform to backbench Liberals.
Does anyone take these latest conversions of Paul Martin seriously? This is the author of the Red Book. The man who held the smoking pen, who sat on Treasury Board -complicit or complacent as this government wasted millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money. He is even now stating that he is in favour of increased spending on the military- after he single handily eviscerated our armed forces through budget cut after budget cut.
Does anyone really believe a Prime Minister’s Office run by Paul Martin would be any different from the Jean Chretien PMO? Where is the evidence? This is a man whose business affairs are in a blind trust with peripheral vision, aided by Howard Wilson, the Liberal corruption approval officer. But Martin is only following the example of his boss, the Prime Minister, who invites the president of a government owned bank to 24 Sussex to discuss giving a loan to the Auberge Grand-Mere in Shawinigan in which the Prime Minister still has a financial share.
There is not a shaft of light between these two men on any policy matter and on any ethical issue.
The only difference between them is that Martin wants to get his hands on the levers of power and right now Chretien stands in his way.
These two added to Canada’s democratic deficit, more than any other government in Canadian history - and neither one has any credibility to bring in reforms. This is not only my view but the view of Professor Donald Savoie and former Clerk of the Privy Council under Prime Minister Pearson and Trudeau, Gordon Robertson -that power has been concentrated in the PMO under Chretien as never before.
The power is real and is exercised in a ruthless fashion. The Prime Minister has power that makes him the envy of other heads of government.
Unfettered, unchallenged, he chooses the Cabinet; he chooses the Parliamentary Secretaries. He chooses every deputy minister of every department who is responsible to the Clerk of the Privy Council who reports directly to the Prime Minister. And guess who appoints the Clerk! He appoints all Supreme Court and other federal judges; He heads of Crown corporations, directors of these corporations and all other government agencies, head of the RCMP, Chief of Defense Staff and immediate associates, ambassadors and other senior representatives abroad, and, of course, he appoints members of the Senate, mostly on a whim.
While many of these appointments are made in the name of individual ministers they are done so only after the Prime Minister’s Office had given its approval. Parliament at no time has any say in them.
Any government member who wants to become a Cabinet Minister, Parliamentary Secretary, committee chair or even get approval for the passage of a private members bill has to keep the favour of the Prime Minister and his Officials
Various measures have been proposed over the years to give members freedom- freedom to speak, freedom to express ideas, freedom to disagree with party policy. What has to happen is really, a change in attitude, a willingness to devolve this stranglehold on power.
We have talked of free votes, or even freer voting. But to my mind such measures which may be laudable on their own, do not address the real issue. The real issue is accountable leadership. Party Leadership that is accountable to the party members in the House of Commons- not the other way around- they way it is today- where fear resides in the backbenches, fear of upsetting the leader, fear of upsetting the PMO- backbenchers accountable to the leader. I believe in reversing the flow in the accountability pipeline
How to give members power, how to free them from this fear of the absolute authority of the leader especially if that leader is the Prime Minister? There must be a devolution of power from the PMO.
I have looked at other jurisdictions. For example in some jurisdictions those who would be President or Prime Minister are elected in country wide elections- all electors would have a say in electing the leader. In Great Britain, in our Party, the Conservative Party, the leader can be deposed by a majority vote in caucus.
It is a fundamental tenet of our parliamentary system that the executive is to be accountable to the legislature. It follows that that the leader should be accountable to caucus. It is the inability of caucus to effectively challenge the leadership which has lead to the parliamentary impotence of members of the House of Commons.
If party leaders were accountable to their caucuses, individual MPs would be empowered to act on behalf of their constituents, according to their conscience, according to their interpretation of the national good.
Therefore I propose, should I be elected leader, that a vote of two-thirds of the members of my caucus, could trigger a leadership review by the party membership.
It is my personal commitment to serve as leader only with the support of caucus.
This will give MPs real power, real authority. The leader will become accountable to caucus.
Looking at it another way- when the leader leads- he or she will have the support of caucus. Such a 2/3s rule will not hang over the head of those who are real leaders, leaders who know what they want to accomplish- leaders who have a vision for the future of this country. It would put in play the power of real compromise and negotiation within the party structure.
Real leadership requires courage- by empowering caucus- this shows the courage of leadership.
But I would not stop there. There is a perception now that Cabinet Ministers are not held to the same performance standard as other Canadians. This Liberal government had set the bar on ministerial accountability so low as to be virtually non-existent.
I would restore the convention of accountability whereby Ministers must take responsibility for the actions of their departments. I am told that the departments are so large, a Minister cannot possibly know what is going on- Well, I don’t buy that-
The public knows scandal when it sees it. The public knows when being at the public trough-means more to cabinet ministers than serving the public in a diligent and effective manner.
It is my proposal to hold the cabinet that I would form to the highest standards.
By making the leader responsible to caucus and by empowering MPs, Cabinet Ministers will be brought under intense scrutiny.
I believe Ministers who are subject to a rigorous standard will be more likely to exercise effective oversight in relation to their departments. In turn, greater ministerial oversight should cause the bureaucracy to be more accountable to the minister, answerable for its actions.
It is my hope such standards will help to restore public confidence in the governing of our country. Hopefully, we can move to smaller, more streamlined departments - which should move us to greater accountability.
We also need to address the issue of ethics in government as this goes hand in hand with the notion of accountability.
It is my proposal that there should be an independent Ethics Commissioner- an independent officer of Parliament, chosen through a free vote of MPs from a list of candidates provided by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. Yes, the Chief Justice. This would be a new duty for the court. Because I believe we need absolutely the highest standards in such an Ethics Commissioner.
This is why I would involve the Supreme Court in this activity.
No longer would the issue of ethical behaviour of a Minister of the Crown be subject to the lapdog antics of the present ethics commissioner. We have seen time and again in this Parliament, reports sought by the Prime Minister regarding the ethics of his cabinet colleagues. The Reports are suspect immediately because the Commissioner serves the Prime Minister.
I also propose to limit the prerogative of the Prime Minister regarding appointments to senior government jobs. Right now there is no transparency in the appointment process. This again is a demonstration of the enormous power of the Prime Minister.
I also believe that the legislature, the elected members of Parliament are the right people to bring transparency and legitimacy to the appointment process.
I propose that for certain senior government appointments, the executive would be required to bring forward at least two nominees. These names would be referred to the relevant Commons Committee- the committee would hold hearings into the appropriateness of these nominees and make recommendations to the Executive.
The Executive would accept or ignore the advice of the Commons, but I believe it would ignore the advice at its peril.
This process would certainly expose the worst abuses of the appointment process such as the embarrassing appointment of Gagliano as ambassador to Denmark. The diplomatic service has become the Liberal’s witness protection program. The requirement of putting forward at least two nominees would serve to counteract this crassest example of abuse.
What positions would be affected? Let’s start with Supreme Court Judges, the Governor of the Bank of Canada, the appointment of Ambassadors or High Commissioners to certain countries, CEO’s of Crown Corporations, the RCMP Commissioner and the Chief of Defense Staff.
Finally, and this is just a public musing, I believe a PM should serve no more than two terms or I guess a maximum of eight years to ten years in our Parliamentary system. If you haven’t accomplished what you want to do in two terms it is time to turn over the levers of power to someone else.
Such a move, I believe, would ensure fresh ideas and initiatives at the top. A vital dedication to serve the country- rather than hanging on to serve political ego.
I would remiss, if in Western Canada, I did not mention Senate Reform. Realistically, constitutional reform of the Senate is still far off in the distance. But realistic, pragmatic change could occur. The method of appointment could be more consultative. The Prime Minister could undertake to consider lists submitted by provincial premiers - much as Prime Minister Mulroney did when he appointed Stan Watters to the Senate after a Senate election in Alberta.
This is not meant to be an exhaustive list of reforms, but the beginning of an extensive, substantive list. All of these reforms are suggested to rein in the influence of the PMO - so that political influence such as in the awarding of contracts, or the cancellation of helicopter contracts is finally curbed.
The changes I have suggested would turn Parliament around- make the role of the MP meaningful. Leadership would be accountable to caucus- the representatives of Canadians would finally be heard.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 