CONTENTS
Tuesday, May 28, 1996
Mr. Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul) 3045
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 3052
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 3060
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 3066
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 3072
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 3072
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 3077
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 3079
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 3079
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 3080
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3082
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3082
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3082
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3083
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3083
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3083
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3084
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3084
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 3085
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 3085
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 3086
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 3086
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 3086
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 3087
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 3088
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 3088
Consideration resumed of motion 3090
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 3095
Consideration resumed of motion 3110
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 3112
Mr. O'Brien (Labrador) 3118
3045
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, May 28, 1996
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to 14 petitions.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the committee, I have the honour
of tabling the first report of the Standing Committee on Public
Accounts.
This report deals with Chapter 12 of the auditor general's report
of October 1995, entitled ``Systems under Development: Managing
the Risks''. This report contains three key recommendations.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee is asking the
government to table a comprehensive response to this report.
* * *
Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to table in this House a petition signed by a
number of my constituents, who are asking the government to
protect their right to self-determination as a people; they want to
live together in Canada and not in a sovereign Quebec.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): I rise on a point of
order, Mr. Speaker. On March 11, I placed on the Notice Paper four
questions addressed to the Minister of Human Resources
Development, which dealt with the advisability of relocating the
regional Canada Human Resources Centre in Shawinigan rather
than Trois-Rivières.
This is the second time I raise this point. According to the
Standing Orders, these questions should be answered within 45
days. The 45 day period ended April 27; we are now at the end of
May and I still have not received answers to my four questions,
answers that would shed some light on this very nebulous matter.
I am counting on the Chair to make the necessary
representations. It is a simple matter of respect for elected
members, who have a right to question the executive.
The Deputy Speaker: Perhaps the parliamentary secretary to
the government House leader could answer his colleague from
Trois-Rivières.
[English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Question No. 47 will be answered today.
[Text]
Question No. 47-Mr. Easter:
What agreements, operating or otherwise, exist between the federal
government, Canadian National (CN) and Canadian Pacific (CP) with respect to
the railways' right of first refusal in terms of any sale of the government's grain
hopper car fleet, including but not limited to the agreement signed between the
federal government and the railways in 1993?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Transport Canada advises as follows: The only agreement that
exists is the operating agreement between the federal government,
Canadian National, CN, and Canadian Pacific, CP, dated April 1,
1993. As the railways have indicated, they share our interest in
moving to a more efficient grain transportation and handling
system. The government does not expect that the existing operating
agreement will be an obstacle to an open bidding process for the
sale of the cars. Officials are beginning discussions with the
railways on possible changes to the operating agreement. Based on
these
3046
discussions, the government will determine the appropriate way of
modifying or terminating the current agreement.
[English]
Mr. Zed: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be
allowed to stand.
I have heard my hon. colleague. I thank him for his patience with
regard to the particular questions he has raised. The expectation is
that very soon the questions concerning the issues he has raised
will be addressed.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed that the remaining questions
be allowed to stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
3046
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.) moved:
That, given that the Senate has failed to respond to a message from this House
requesting that a representative of the Senate Standing Committee on Internal
Economy, Budgets and Administration appear before the Standing Committee
of Government Operations to account for $40,000,000 of taxpayers' money,
this House express its dissatisfaction with the Senate for disregarding modern
democratic principles of accountability and, as a consequence, notice is hereby
given of opposition to Vote 1 under Parliament in the Main Estimates for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 1997.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Reform
supply day motion for debate today. I will repeat the motion.
Given that the Senate has failed to respond to a message from this House
requesting that a representative of the Senate Standing Committee on Internal
Economy, Budgets and Administration appear before the Standing Committee
of Government Operations to account for $40,000,000 of taxpayers' money,
this House express its dissatisfaction with the Senate for disregarding modern
democratic principles of accountability and, as a consequence, notice is hereby
given of opposition to Vote 1 under Parliament in the Main Estimates for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 1997.
(1010 )
One of the functions of the House of Commons Standing
Committee on Government Operations is to examine the main
estimates of the Senate. As a member of this committee I moved a
motion to send a message to the other place requesting that the
chair of the Senate's board of internal economy appear before the
Standing Committee on Government Operations to account for
Senate expenses. My motion was approved by a majority of the
committee and following unanimous consent in this House a
message was delivered to the other place on May 9. However, to
this date members of the House have heard nothing from the other
place.
Main estimates can only be examined in committee until June 21
and the committee agenda is quickly filling up. I subsequently sent
a follow-up letter on May 21, again requesting a commitment from
the upper House by Monday, May 27, but I have not received a
response. We must have a firm commitment immediately, yet the
other House refuses to respond to this request.
Accountability in public institutions is the most basic and
fundamental requirement which Canadians demand from their
representatives. No body, particularly an unelected body, should be
exempt from this basic requirement. Canadians are demanding
greater accountability to determine how their hard earned dollars
are spent and during these times of extreme fiscal restraint when
Canadians are forced to make difficult financial decisions, they
expect the same from their institutions.
Canadian taxpayers pay out over $40 million a year to fund the
Senate. This is public money and the expenditures of these funds
must be accounted for to the Canadian public. Many Canadians are
concerned about how their tax dollars are spent in the upper House.
According to the auditor general's report of the Senate written in
1991, it appears many of their concerns are completely justified.
The Senate proposes to spend over $28 million on personnel,
$4.5 million on transportation and communication, over $5 million
on professional and special services and another $3 million on
miscellaneous expenses. This is an enormous sum of money and it
is little wonder that Canadians are concerned. It is time for the
upper House to come clean and justify these expenses.
Although the total budget for the other place is listed as $40
million in the main estimates, in fact it will be spending more. The
auditor general estimated that on top of the $40 million in the main
estimates another $11.5 million will be spent on government
entities to supply services for the Senate. These additional funds
are not separately identified in the estimates or in the public
accounts.
This public institution spends over $51 million a year and no
accountability is attached to these funds. The Senate makes and
enforces its own rules and is not subject to the same laws as
government. The Financial Administration Act and the usual
accountability mechanisms simply do not apply to the Senate.
Perhaps this made sense in the 1890s, but it sure does not make any
sense in the 1990s.
The auditor general reported that Senate accountability is
inadequate. He stated the upper House does not adequately report
on its administrative, financial or human resource management
perfor-
3047
mance and does not possess sufficient information to enable it to do
so systematically.
How can Canadians be satisfied that Senate expenses are
managed with sufficient concern for economics and efficiency
when none of the usual accountability mechanisms apply? When it
comes to accountability I wholeheartedly agree with the auditor
general that there is nothing to hold that place accountable to the
public as it presently stands.
In the event we find something terribly wrong or something is
way out of whack, the members do not face re-election. They are
not subject even to minimal reporting requirements and this is
completely wrong. Accountability in public institutions is not only
vital, it is clearly essential. It assures those who provide the
institution with authority and funds either directly or through their
representatives in Parliament that the goals required are achieved
and that funds are well spent with due regard to economy and
efficiency.
(1015)
There are many reasons Canadians are concerned about
accountability in the upper House and concerns of the auditor
general make it absolutely necessary that the other place hold itself
accountable. The fact that members in the other place are taking
liberties with tax dollars should be of great concern to Canadians,
in particular when the auditor general has brought into question the
use of the non-taxable allowance by members of the Senate.
According to the auditor general, Senate administrators cannot
distinguish operating expenses from personal expenses and there is
no way to determine that amounts received for such expenses are
expended in the manner they were expected to be.
Fiscal accountability is clearly a problem when according to the
auditor general there seems to be no limit on personal non-Senate
expenses particularly for travel and telecommunications incurred
either by senators or by members of their families.
In addition the auditor general also noted that there is no
assurance that travel expenses are incurred for the service of the
Senate. To make matters worse, restrictions on Canadian
destinations or origins of trips either for senators or their families
were eliminated and researchers were added to the list of permitted
travellers. Rather than tightening up on restrictions, the other
House is relaxing restrictions and allowing more junkets.
For example, last year the upper House spent almost $3 million
in travel expenses and the year before that, it spent a similar
amount. What is absolutely astounding is that there are some
outlandish travel bills from members of the other place who
represent and reside in Ontario. For example, one member from the
other place who represents Markham, Ontario spent over $74,000
in the past two years on travel. A senator from Toronto Centre, a
one hour plane ride from Ottawa, spent over $71,000. Another
senator who represents Rideau here in Ottawa spent over $64,000
over the past two years.
There is simply no excuse that members in the other House
whose ridings are right here in Ontario should have travel bills over
$70,000. Furthermore, travel points given to members in the other
place do not include travel on behalf of committees, parliamentary
associations or parliamentary exchanges. The utter waste of
taxpayers' money in this area is unbelievable and unforgivable.
The auditor general found many discrepancies within the system
and noted that one senator travelled three times to the third world,
twice to Europe, once to the U.S. and three times to various
locations within Canada for a total of 55 days. Clearly, more
accountability is required on travel expenditures in the other place.
I agree with the auditor general's recommendation that the upper
House periodically publish information on all Senate funded travel
for each senator.
The auditor general also noted that members in the other place
have insufficient incentives to manage their office expenses with
due regard for economy and efficiency particularly with respect to
secretarial services and telecommunications. He recommended that
details of senators' office expenses be publicly reported.
Office expenses in the other place have jumped from over $2.5
million to $3 million in the past two years. The member for
Terrebonne here in this House referred to one senator who had his
office remodelled for $100,000.
The upper House must follow the auditor general's advice and
publish at least annually details of senators' research and
discretionary office expenditures including names of suppliers and
purchases in excess of amounts determined by the committee on
internal economy.
Also the auditor general noted that one of the problems with the
gross overspending in the upper House lies in the fact that staff
generally accept a senator's signature as sufficient evidence that
the funds are requested for the service of the Senate. The auditor
general did not feel this was adequate. He came to the conclusion
that given the unique nature of the upper House, such difficult
decisions cannot be made appropriately by officials alone and
therefore should be open to public scrutiny.
I certainly agree. It is time we opened the books to Canadians so
they can see exactly what is going on. Opening the books to public
scrutiny is the simplest and most efficient and cost effective way of
achieving accountability.
3048
(1020 )
In addition, committee expenses in the other place have also run
up huge bills only to have the subsequent reports shelved or
ignored. For example, the Senate Pearson airport committee ran up
a $210,000 bill after failing to find anything clearly wrong with the
airport bill. Last year, $153,000 was also approved for a special
study by the Senate Special Standing Committee on Foreign
Affairs. Of that, $123,000 was allocated for transportation and
communications alone. On it goes, all without any accountability.
According to the chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on
Banking and Commerce, the budget for $8,000 was ``a token
budget for a few lunches and some possible outside professional
services''. A token budget for a few lunches. I wonder what they
eat for lunch that is going to run up an $8,000 tab. Try to explain
that to the long suffering Canadian taxpayers.
On it goes. The committees went $100,000 over budget last year.
When they ran out of money they began to look at funds that were
saved from the previous years' budgets.
What concerns me is the fact that the auditor general found that
amounts reported in the public accounts were incomplete and did
not give sufficient information to determine whether the expenses
were incurred for the service of the Senate or otherwise.
Administrators could not identify what was or was not official
business.
The time has come for the other place to improve reporting of
expenditures and to account for the performance of their
administration. The main purpose of the upper House is to provide
checks and balances for the House of Commons. However, how can
it function in this role when its actions are called into question
because of lack of accountability?
Many Canadians view the upper House as having no more
authority than to rubber stamp legislation. They have no
confidence that members in the other House defend their interests.
This must change.
I will turn to another facet. When job insecurity is a fact of life
for many Canadians, it is difficult to justify blatant patronage
appointments that last until age 75, particularly when most people
are forced to retire at 65 years of age.
In the infamous red book the Liberals criticized the
Conservatives for their ``practice of choosing political friends
when making thousands of appointments to boards, commissions
and agencies that cabinet is required by law to carry out''.
However, the continued practice of patronage appointments and
lack of accountability in the other place clearly break this promise.
On the issue of patronage, Premier Klein of Alberta stated his
intention to hold an election to fill the recent vacant Senate seat.
Despite the fact that Alberta has a Senate election act and that
Albertans were in support of an elected Senate representative, the
Prime Minister chose to appoint a senator to fill the vacant seat.
It is most apparent that as it stands, seats in the upper House are
nothing more than an opportunity for the ruling party to pay off
their political friends. Members in the other place are appointed for
their political connections and longstanding service to the Liberal
Party of Canada, nothing more, nothing less. Whatever happened to
the principle of ability to do the job?
Clearly this institution lacks the credibility and accountability
necessary to make it an effective body of government. Former
Prime Minister Brian Mulroney stacked the upper House to pass
the GST. Now the present Prime Minister is doing the same thing to
ram through Liberal legislation.
We clearly need a strong and effective national government to
protect Canadian interests which means that both Houses need to
be effective. The House of Commons is dominated by
representatives from central Canada because of representation by
population. The upper House is in place in order to balance
representation from Atlantic and western Canada.
Canada is one of the few democratic countries that do not have
an elected upper House to represent regional interests. According
to a Gallup poll in 1989, majorities in all regions except Quebec
support the principle of an elected upper House. Many members on
the other side of this House have voiced support for Senate reform
in the past. Now is the time to take the steps necessary to give
Canadians the democratic accountability they have been
demanding.
(1025 )
To illustrate, the member for Winnipeg South Centre, the present
Minister of Foreign Affairs, said:
It is crucial to find a formula which would provide for a more equal
representation, by region and by province. Clearly there must be Senate reform.
It is the only way of correcting the imbalances, the inequities and inequalities
that have existed in federalism since its inception. There is not one federal state
in the world that does not have a second chamber which works effectively to
represent regional interests.
Our Senate is not an elected body. It does not have the credibility or the
legitimacy of being democratically elected by the people. Therefore its ability
to provide a check and balance upon the role of the executive which is dictated
by the majority of members from the heavily populated provinces is constantly
undermined. We see it repeated time and time again in many decisions.
The member for Davenport surveyed his constituency and found
that 85 per cent of his constituents were in favour of an elected
Senate. The member for St. Boniface surveyed his constituents and
found 87 per cent support for a triple E Senate. The member went
on to say that he hoped all provinces and territories would decide to
elect their senators. Obviously the support is there.
3049
The Reform Party proposal for a triple E Senate, a Senate which
is elected by the people with equal representation from each
province and which is fully effective in safeguarding regional
interests would make the upper House accountable to Canadians.
Implementing changes to the Constitution to provide for a triple
E Senate, an extension of Alberta's Senatorial Selection Act into
other provinces, is the best means to proceed in permitting
Canada's regions to have a greater say in Ottawa and bring
democratic accountability to government.
Accountability is obviously the key to good government. As
elected representatives, members in the House of Commons must
take seriously their responsibility of holding public institutions
accountable. Ultimately members of the House of Commons will
be held accountable to the public by the public. As a member of
Parliament I regard this responsibility as one of my key functions.
Reform members cannot and will not approve spending for the
other House unless members of the other place can account for
their spending. To do otherwise would simply be irresponsible.
Any member in this House who approves this budget without
representation from the other House to account for its spending is
doing Canadians and this House a great disservice.
The other House must respect the modern democratic principle
of accountability and justify its spending. Vote 1 in the main
estimates must be rejected by this House until such time as the
upper House takes the necessary steps to hold itself accountable to
the taxpaying public.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have in
hand the Senate Debates for May 9, 1996. There is a rather
interesting exchange. It relates to the $50,000 and $20,000, the
so-called accountability of its Standing Committee on Internal
Economy, Budgets and Administration.
Senator Lynch-Staunton, the leader of the opposition, is asking
questions. He asked: ``As I understand it, the amounts that can be
allocated to research run up to $50,000. Is that correct? There are
also guidelines for office expenses, what used to be called the
discretionary budget which was $20,000, where are the guidelines
for those?'' He asked questions back and forth about this $50,000
and $20,000, which was rather interesting.
Senator Kenny said: ``Hon. senators we have before us the only
guidelines that the Senate has dealt with or approved of. There are
no further guidelines that have ever come to this Chamber for
approval''.
The leader of the opposition returned to the $20,000 and $50,000
and Kenny replied: ``You really are confused. That is true hon.
senators, the limit for sharing would still be $20,000. If you are of
the view that it should be raised to $50,000-''. Then Senator
Lynch-Staunton said: ``No, contrary to what people might expect, I
am trying to be helpful to the chairman of the committee. I would
like to know if the senators are still allowed up to $20,000 for
office expenses''.
(1030)
Mr. Kenny said: ``No, sir. As the report read, there would be full
flexibility in the two previous budgets''. Senator Doyle asked:
``What are the guidelines''.
The leader of the opposition said: ``Just when I thought I had it, I
fall back into confusion. Does that mean there is a complete
discretion to spend the $50,000 exclusively of office expenses?''
Then Mr. Kenny tried to explain it. This keeps on going. It would
be laughable if it were not Canadian taxpayer money.
The leader of the opposition said: ``Hon. Senators, I thought the
question period had ended. I find this whole thing extraordinary.
We are being told by the chairman of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy Budgets and Administration that because a
report is before the Senate regarding research expenditures, the
system that has been in place for years has now been abandoned''.
Mr. Kenny said: ``No, on the contrary''. The leader said: ``Yes,
we are being told we cannot use our research fund to pay our
researchers and that we must use our discretionary funds''.
Mr. Kenny said: ``No, that is not so''. Then the other guy said:
``That is exactly what we just heard''. This one really caps it.
Another senators said: ``No, that is not what you just heard''. The
leader said: ``That is exactly what we have been told''. The first
guy said: ``Have you been sleeping?''
Senator Lynch-Staunton said: ``We have just been told that every
senator can dip into his or her $20,000''. It goes on and on.
This must be exactly the kind of thing being talked about where
$20,000 or $50,000 is taxpayer money.
Mr. Gilmour: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his
interjection. This points out particularly well why we would like to
get the Senate in front of the operations committee. The guidelines,
the rules, appear to be extremely flexible. Why should an
unelected, unaccountable body not account for its spending?
Some of the interesting answers we have been getting are we
really do not think Senators should appear before committee
because it has never been done before. This is the first time in the
history of the Canadian Parliament that a request has been sent for
the Senate to justify its expenses. It is perfectly rational, perfectly
normal and it is absolutely necessary.
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate the motion
which I will not repeat because of its verbosity. This is a motion
brought forward by the Reform Party which clearly demonstrates
3050
yet again how out of touch that party is with the issues of concern
to Canadians.
Today we could be lending our collective wisdom to find a
solution to the issues of concern to the women of this country,
violence, economic independence for them and their children,
access to work. Then I forget the Reform Party considers women to
be a special interest group and not worthy of its attention.
Today when the government is meeting with groups across the
country to discuss pension reform which would secure the
retirement of Canadian seniors, the House could be lending its
wisdom to that discussion from the perspective of our constituents,
we are wasting our time with arcana.
Instead of discussing issues related to the economy and the
concerns of youth and safety of homes and communities, we have
before us a motion which demonstrates a profound ignorance of
one of the basic principles of our Constitution, that the two Houses
of Parliament are independent of one another and self-regulating
within their own sphere of authority.
I intend to speak further to these issues, but I must ask why this
motion and why today. Where are the priorities of the Reform
Party? I suspect we could spend the day listening to speeches
extolling the virtues of Senate renewal, Reform style. A worthy
enough topic. Let us get our priorities straight. Why not talk of
employment equity issues, especially when Canadians are still in a
state of anxiety that some may have to work at the back of the
shop?
Today's motion reminds me of the distinction lawyers make
frequently between the law as it is and the law as it should be.
Everyone in Canada agrees Senate reform would be a worthwhile
undertaking. Yet when Senate reform was proposed in the
Charlottetown accord years ago, that party was adamantly opposed
to it. Why? It was unable to deal with multiple issues at the same
time. It was unable to prioritise or find common ground. I guess
this motion today shows it still has not learned.
(1035)
For the present, however, we have a Senate, we have a
Constitution and we have the benefit of centuries of precedents
governing relations between upper and lower houses in
parliamentary democracies. As we know, the parliamentary
tradition has helped to build one of the best countries in the world.
While there is need for reform, there are other issues which should
have priority, issues that go to the heart of the social and economic
union and concerns which affect all Canadians, issues which touch
Canadians where they live.
Reform instead would have us focus on the academic
dissertation of the relationship between the two Houses of our
bicameral legislature. It almost puts me to sleep just to talk about
it.
The motion has the potential to disrupt the relationship of mutual
respect and co-operation which exists between our two Houses at
this time, which is supported by centuries of precedents in Canada
and the mother of parliaments. What is that relationship?
Today's motion is about the operation of the other place. Learned
scholars of Parliament and constitutional law refer frequently to the
right of each House to regulate its own internal affairs and
procedures free from interference. That is one of the basic truths of
our Constitution. The House of Commons and the Senate are equal
within our parliamentary system. Convention and practices temper
interaction between the Senate and this House. In law our two
Houses are largely equal.
For example, the approval of the Senate is required to enact any
bill. In the same vein, our Constitution cannot be amended without
the involvement of the Senate.
Part V of the Canada Act, 1982, the amending formula, states the
powers of the Senate and the method of selecting senators cannot
be amended without Senate participation, not to mention the
approval of the provincial legislatures.
There are exceptions to this principle, for example section 53 of
the Constitution Act, 1867, and section 47 of the Canada Act, 1982,
dealing with money bills and the suspension veto. However, I will
not go into those details.
I will now turn from powers to the privileges of Parliament. We
find that the privileges of the Senate correspond completely with
those we enjoy. One can see this merely by examining section 18 of
the Constitution Act, 1867, which states that the privileges of the
Senate and the House of Commons flow from the ancient lineage of
the mother of parliaments, the British parliamentary system. The
party opposite always seems to confuse the parliamentary system
with that of the system to the south.
The principle of independence, equality and autonomy of each
House can easily be ascertained by examining the works of the
most respected students of Parliament. For example, page 141 of
the 21st edition of Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice states:
Since the two Houses are wholly independent of each other, neither House
can claim, much less exercise, any authority over a member or officer of the
other, and thus cannot punish any breach of privilege or contempt offered to it
by such member or officer.
This is not a new principle. Members opposite have been here
long enough to understand the relationship. Or maybe it is beyond
them.
It is therefore difficult to understand the basis of this motion
today, which is to take up a whole day of discussion, when there are
so many issues of concern to Canadians.
3051
I have spoken on the law of Parliament and its privilege, but
I would be remiss if I did not draw to the attention of the House
the conventions which animate our Constitution, and I will do so
now.
The subtle but most important convention which governs the
Senate in exercising its authority is based on the very same
principle of democratic accountability referred to in the motion
under debate. This convention recognizes that in its key legislative
role, the role of the Senate is secondary to that of the elected House
of Commons.
Professor Peter Hogg, a leading scholar of the Canadian
Constitution, illustrated this point in the second edition of his text
``Constitutional Law of Canada''. It is accepted by opposition as
well as government senators that the appointed nature of the Senate
must necessarily make its role subordinate to the elected House.
The result is that very few government bills are rejected or
substantially amended by the Senate. This convention clearly
limits how the authority of the Senate may be exercised but through
oversight or misunderstanding did not restrain Reform members
from encouraging the Senate to reject the firearms bill after it had
been approved by this House. There is a double standard already at
work here.
(1040)
However, the issue before us today is much narrower than Senate
reform or even the present role of the Senate. The issue is whether
the Senate is the master of its own internal affairs, and that is
undeniable. This result is dictated by the constitutional law of
Canada and the conventions governing its application. Once again,
we are wasting a whole day discussing issues we can not in any way
hope to change in this debate today.
What do these principles mean? Do they affirm that the Senate
shares the privileges of this House and the autonomy enjoyed by
this House? Yes, they do. Do they provide definitive answers to
resolve disputes which may arise between the Houses? No, they do
not, but we are not faced with a dispute, not yet at least. Were we to
endorse today's motion, however, we might be.
We have been asked to consider a hypothetical motion and we all
know that hypothetical debates can be very unproductive. Does this
matter to the Reform Party? I do not think so. What is not
hypothetical are the bedrock principles of the Constitution which
provide for two independent self-regulating Houses of Parliament.
The government is not prepared to jettison this principle today.
This is not to say the status quo cannot be approved. We supported
the ambitious package of changes, including Senate reform,
contained in the Charlottetown accord.
As stated in the speech from the throne in February, the
government believes the desire for change is broadly shared across
Canada. The government intends to focus priority issues and
positive issues to prepare Canadians for the 21st century, initiatives
that will improve the lives of Canadians and which would bring
them economic prosperity, jobs, equality, social justice, security in
their retirement and safe communities.
When I debate this motion and we talk about the issues of
concern here, instead of debating a motion that is negative and very
poorly prioritized, akin to decorating the living room while the roof
needs repair, what we want to deal with are issues that are of real
concern to Canadians, issues that would change their lives and
make the country move forward into the 21st century and prosper.
That of course is too much for the Reform Party to deal with
because it does not have any answers to those problems.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
not sure what the member across has been reading but I get her
point that this is a hypothetically debate. We are to vote on the
estimates. It is the first vote in the House on the estimates. It is the
money for the Senate. There is nothing hypothetical about this at
all. It is a $40 million vote for the other place. What we are talking
about is accountability.
Does the member across disagree that the Senate should be
accountable to the taxpayers of Canada? That is a pretty basic
premise.
Ms. Fry: Mr. Speaker, no one, least of all the government,
disagrees with accountability. We have practised it ever since we
came into power.
What we speak to is that the other place is accountable within its
own right and within its own jurisdiction. This House is also
accountable within its own rights and within its own jurisdiction.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I find it
passing strange the parliamentary secretary would stand up when it
is her government that is in the process of cutting funding to
women's programs. I had people come in from the Women's
Resource Centre in Cranbrook who spoke to me about this issue.
They wanted to know what her government would do about it.
Yet she is standing up in the House of Commons saying it is fine
that the other place is not accountable for spending over $40
million. How in the world can she have it or try to have it both
ways? The hon. member in her self-righteousness is standing there
as supposedly the defender of women's programs when her own
government is cutting women's programs, saying the Senate is
unaccountable for the millions of dollars it wastes.
(1045 )
Ms. Fry: Mr. Speaker, the concept of accountability is obviously
very foreign to the Reform Party. In discussing the issue of
women's programs we have been meeting as a department with
women around the country for the last two months to discuss how
3052
we can change our programs so that they will meet the real needs of
women in their real lives.
This is something that is called accountability. It means starting
from the bottom up. Talk about hypocrisy. When we talk about a
party that has said that women's issues are special interest groups,
it is really unbelievable to have this question asked by the member
of the Reform Party.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
arrogance across the way is astounding to me. I cannot believe
some of the things this member said in her speech.
This is a country where a member stands up and says that all
people who vote for a certain party are bigots or racists. That is the
kind of country this member would like to see and talk about. That
is truly unfortunate.
In my opinion this member is poorly informed and does not
represent the views of many people across the country, in particular
those in her riding, about the Senate. How can the hon. member
feel she can separate the responsibilities of the House of Commons
from the Senate when the House must approve a vote relative to the
Senate? How can she say it is none of our business when this House
must vote on it and yet the Senate spends the money?
Ms. Fry: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I did not speak clearly enough or
perhaps I did not enunciate the principles well enough. I thought
that is exactly what I just answered in my speech, that the two
Houses are separate and that they are accountable and autonomous
within their own right.
I suppose that if one repeats that statement over the course of
today it might finally sink in.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak on the motion put forward by my hon. colleague
for Comox-Alberni. The motion before us today, which calls for
control-I will not say greater control, just control-to be
exercised over how public money is spent at the Senate, is a timely
topic.
In fact, the Senate of Canada, as we have known it since 1867
and whose functions have changed very little since, but I will come
back to this later, has already become something of an anachronism
in a democratic society such as ours. For all intents and purposes,
there is no longer any institution similar to the Canadian Senate in
the western world. The House of Lords has seen its powers
drastically reduced by the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949;
today, all it has left is protocolar powers, as it only has a suspensive
veto.
We are in a situation where, in all matters except constitutional
matters, the Canadian Senate has powers identical to those of the
House of Commons. Several books has been written about the
rights and privileges of the Canadian Senate, and the powers in
question are enormous. The only difference between the Senate and
the House of Commons, aside from the 180-day constitutional
suspensive veto acquired in 1982, is the fact that money bills
cannot originate from the Senate, but they still have to be approved
by the upper House, which has the same powers as this House, at
least in theory, in terms of legislation.
The members of the other place are appointed and therefore are
not accountable. On the other hand, every five years, if not more
frequently, all of us members of the House of Commons must
account to our voters for our management of public funds and our
individual budgets. People can ask us: ``What did you do with the
money you collected in taxes?'' While they have, in law, the same
powers as us as far as managing public funds and passing
legislation are concerned, the members of the other place are not
accountable.
(1050)
There is a serious anomaly here, and our party has always been
opposed to this way of doing things. A motion that will be a votable
item will even be debated in this House, on Monday. I am referring
to the motion of the hon. member for
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, asking this House to support the
principle of abolishing the Senate in its present form.
For the sake of history, let me quote a text prepared by the late
Jean-Charles Bonenfant, a librarian for the Quebec legislature and
an emeritus professor at Laval University's faculty of law, where I
had the pleasure of being one of his students during a few years.
This was written in the sixties, but his opinion about the Senate
never changed much throughout his career. It is a well known fact
that Mr. Bonenfant turned down several offers to sit in the
Canadian Senate, because of what he thought of that august place.
I will read excerpts from an article published by professor
Jean-Charles Bonenfant from Laval University. He wrote the
following, and I basically agree with his views: ``Rightly or
wrongly, the Canadian Senate is the legislative body that seems to
have the worst reputation in the whole world''.
In 1942, journalist Grattan O'Leary wrote that the position of
senator was not a job and that the Senate was not a place where one
was supposed to work. Mr. O'Leary became a senator in 1962.
In 1961, Jean-Luc Pepin, who became the member of Parliament
for Drummond and a cabinet member, passed a number of
judgments on the Senate. He described it as ``a political hospice, a
sepulchre, the pound of flesh demanded by the parties, the most
exclusive retirement club in the world, the fifth wheel of govern-
3053
ment, the hollow echo of an optimistic past, the only sure weakness
in the Constitution Act, 1867, a divorce mill, a tourist attraction,
and the list goes on''.
Finally, Marcel Faribault and Robert Fowler, imagining a new
Constitution with a revamped Senate, in their book Dix pour un,
wrote: ``Whether you judge it by its achievements or its reputation,
the Canadian Senate has not been a particularly auspicious
institution''. That is putting it mildly.
And yet, in a federation such as ours, the Upper House could
have played a very important role. Representation in the Lower
House is usually determined on the basis of population.
Representation in the Upper House attempts to create a certain
equality between the constituent parties.
This is why each of the fifty states in the United States,
regardless of its size or population, has two senators representing it
in the Senate.
In Australia, each of the six states sends 10 senators to the
Senate, and in Switzerland the 46 members of the Council of States
are divided equally among the 23 cantons.
The Canadian Senate has never played the true role of an Upper
House in a federation type country. From the beginning, its
composition has been along regional rather than provincial lines. In
1867, membership was 72: 24 for Ontario, 24 for Quebec, 24 for
the maritimes, that is Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, which,
when Prince Edward Island joined, had to give up 4 seats.
As new provinces appeared, the Senate added new members,
finally settling, in 1915, at four divisions of 24 members. Quebec
and Ontario remained unchanged; the maritimes division had 10
senators for New Brunswick, 10 for Nova Scotia, and 4 for Prince
Edward Island; and the western division had 6 senators for each of
the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British
Columbia.
These 96 senators were joined, in 1949, by the six senators from
Newfoundland, and later by 2 senators for the territories, raising
the maximum to 104.
(1055)
Under the administration that was in place during the 33rd and
34th Parliaments, a Conservative administration, we saw the
hitherto unused clauses of the Constitution allowing the number of
senators to be raised to a maximum of 110 or 112 put into
application in order to push through the GST legislation.
Senators are appointed by the Governor General, and thus to all
intents and purposes by the government, the Prime Minister even if
he controls his government properly. Although a few examples of
appointments outside political considerations can be found, we can
state that one of the primary prerequisites for a senator is
membership in the party in power.
The British North America Act requires certain qualities of
senators, qualities in the sense of eligibility requirements. They
must possess $4,000 in real and personal property, a quite
exceptional amount in 1987. The Senate was therefore reserved for
a quite specific category of person. Nowadays, it is quite easy to
qualify. You can take your MasterCard or Visa, get a cash advance,
and buy some property quite quickly, which was not the case in
1867.
In Quebec, theoretically, the senators represent 24 senatorial
divisions. These correspond to the 24 divisions of the legislative
council elected between 1856 and 1867. The territorial divisions
act gives the divisions represented by senators. It is worth pointing
out that, according to my personal research, not one Quebec
senator has a division office.
One might wonder what is the point of dividing Quebec up into
senatorial divisions if the people serviced, if I may use that
expression, cannot track down their senators.
Moreover, if you carry out a survey of no scientific value
whatsoever, asking passers-by to name their senator, it is rare to
find anybody who can do so. This is far different from the situation
with their MP. Whether they like the person representing them in
the House of Commons or not, they are generally able to identify
that person and to say: ``So and so is my representative in the
House of Commons and I will vote (or not vote) for him or her in
the next election''. Generally, members of the House of Commons
are recognized, while the members of the other House do not enjoy
the same high profile. This does not mean that there are not some
fine people there. It is not my aim to judge the members of the
other House, but rather the institution, which, as I said earlier, is
completely outmoded.
We must remember that, until 1965, senators were appointed for
life, and a number admirably benefited from the privilege. There
was the Hon. David Wark, from Fredericton, for example, who was
appointed in 1867, at the time of Confederation, and died in 1905 at
the age of 102. The Hon. Georges Dessaules of Saint-Hyacinthe
died in 1907 at the age of 103.
Under Bill C-98 introduced on April 27, 1965 by Prime Minister
Pearson, which was passed by both Houses, a senator appointed
after the bill became law would remain in the position until he
reached the age of 75.
I have always wondered whether the Governor General could
reappoint someone to the Senate, who had retired at the mandatory
retirement age of 75, once they turned 76, since the 1965
legislation contains no such prohibition. Perhaps we might see
people like Senator Wark or Senator Dessaules come back to sit in
the Senate if such an interpretation were possible. A senator can
always resign,
3054
of course, and risks losing his seat in the Senate if he no longer
fulfils the requisites of his appointment.
(1100)
As with what happens in an elite club, the Constitution provides
that the decision rests with the Senate in the case of a vacancy in
the Senate or on the matter of a senator's ability to sit there.
This is sort of the way it was in the United Kingdom in the
1940s. At that time, the House of Lords had the power to judge any
of its members accused of a crime. That practice continues today
here, even though it was abolished nearly 50 years ago in the
United Kingdom.
Yesterday, my hon. colleague from Vancouver Quadra made a
brilliant speech before the Standing Committee on Procedure and
House Affairs on the powers of upper houses in British type
parliaments. My hon. colleagues should refer to the proceedings of
this committee.
I can therefore say that the Senate is an upper chamber similar to
the British House of Lords, on which the Fathers of Confederation
modeled the Senate to some extent when they established it. But
contrary to popular belief, its powers are not as limited as those of
the British Upper Chamber following the Asquith Bill of 1911.
This first Parliament Act to be passed was complemented by the
1949 Labour bill. These two bills considerably reduced the powers
of the House of Lords, which is now left with only a suspensive
veto.
On the other hand, the Canadian Senate has all the powers of the
House of Commons except, as I mentioned earlier, that it cannot
introduce a bill providing for a tax or an expenditure.
In 1918, the subject of Senate powers was thoroughly examined
by two great Canadian legal scholars: Aimé Geoffrion and Eugène
Lafleur. They submitted a conclusive and momentous opinion in
writing supporting the Senate's omnipotence, which the Lower
House, the House of Commons, still does not recognize,
particularly as regards financial matters.
Note that, since 1982, the powers of the Senate regarding
constitutional amendments were slightly curtailed, as this House
now has only an 180-day suspensive veto, as I indicated earlier.
It is strange, to say the least, for a House where appointed
members sit until they turn 75 not to have any public accounting
procedure and to hide behind its privileges and some pretty
outdated traditions to justify itself.
I think that, in requesting that representatives of the Senate
appear before the Standing Committee of Government Operations
to review annual expenditures of approximately $40 million, the
committee was acting not only in good faith, but also in response to
the public's wish to know how their money is being spent. To try to
see how the money is spent is, of course, a first step.
In every riding I travelled to, but I will focus on my own riding,
the majority of people do not see the use of an upper house like the
one we have at present. It should be either abolished or reformed.
In the present circumstances, as desirable as it may be to
everybody, a reform is clearly not possible.
Seventy years ago, and even at the Charlottetown conference and
the Quebec conference, such a reform was discussed before the
Senate was even established. Some advocated an elected Senate,
based on the model of the united Canada legislative council, while
others wanted an appointed house. The decision to establish the
Senate in 1867 was not a unanimous one. Some wanted to reform
this institution before it was even set up, which was definitely a bad
start. They never could reform it. Given the constitutional yoke
created by the 1982 amending formula, we can wonder whether
such a reform will ever take place.
All the parties in this House have taken a stand regarding the
Senate. The Prime Minister and member for Saint-Maurice clearly
indicated that he is in favour of having an elected upper house. His
position is clear. As for the Reform Party, it is in favour of a triple E
Senate, even though some Es are disappearing. A Senate that is
equal, effective-there is also another E-oh yes, a Senate that is
elected, equal and effective.
(1105)
Some E's are disappearing right now, including the E for equal,
because we realized it did not really make sense to have the same
number of senators representing a small province and a larger one
such as Quebec or Ontario.
As for us, we say that, in its present form, the Senate must be
abolished. If it must be brought back to life to reflect a different
Canada, then it should have another structure. It is unacceptable to
keep a non-elected house with such large powers. If it were an
advisory body, and if we could afford it, it might be helpful, but it is
no longer acceptable, in 1996, to have a house with powers equal to
those of the House of Commons.
This is why the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of a single house
system of government whose members are elected by the
population as a whole. This is an issue that we should tackle at the
earliest opportunity.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I must commend the
hon. member for his in-depth study of our Senate's origins and the
influence of the Mother of Parliaments, Great Britain, and
especially its 1911 legislation, the Parliament Act.
I would like to ask the following question: Since our Senate has
already caused endless delays in dealing with several bills passed
3055
by this House, does the hon. member consider this a violation of
customary constitutional law inherited from Great Britain? Is this
an established fact, yes or no?
Mr. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend from
Vancouver Quadra for his question. In my opinion, the Senate's
attitude, especially in relation to Bill C-69, the Electoral
Boundaries Readjustment Act, is usually a prerogative of the
people's elected representatives. By not only considering but
unduly delaying consideration of this bill so that it died on the
Order Paper between the two sessions of this Parliament, the
Senate has hijacked the powers of this House and shown contempt
for this House as well as for traditions that have been clearly
established for decades.
This is a literal interpretation of the Constitution Act, 1867,
which is totally unacceptable. I think this must be the last action
taken by the Senate, especially on an issue so central to the
privileges of this House as the readjustment of electoral
boundaries.
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this is a
very interesting debate because it brings up the entire issue of
accountability, an issue that seems to be very foreign to the
Liberals and particularly to the member for Vancouver Centre in
her comments earlier. She spoke about the issue of being
accountable for taxpayer dollars as being an academic dissertation.
Nothing could be further from the truth. This House must be
accountable for the expenditure of Canadian taxpayer dollars. We
are talking about the expenditure by the Senate of $40 million. She
is correct to a great extent when she says the Houses are equals.
However, she is absolutely incorrect when she comes to the issue of
their being equal if she is saying this Chamber, elected members, is
equal to the other Chamber, appointed members. This simply
cannot be the case.
It has been shown by the member from the Bloc who pointed out
the House of Commons is the place where expenditures of
Canadian dollars are controlled or should be controlled. In that
respect the two Chambers are not equal and never could be equal.
The difficulty we are experiencing at this juncture is we have an
unelected, unaccountable body that is nonetheless functioning as
part of the parliamentary process.
(1110 )
I received a communiqué on May 22, as I am sure did many of
the members from the Senate, stating the Senate Committee on
Social Affairs, Science and Technology will be beginning hearings
on the employment insurance bill, Bill C-12, the employment
insurance bill which passed from this Chamber to that Chamber.
That it is before that Chamber is the clearest possible indication
and the most current example I can give of the Senate's being
responsible for the ultimate passage of government legislation,
which is why the Prime Minister goes out of his way to make sure
his Senate is stacked the way he wants it to be stacked, the same
thing the Conservatives have done. All the traditional parties have
done it and continue to do it.
The Senate is supposed to be a chamber of sober second thought.
Considering it is supposed to be a chamber representative of the
regions, it is very interesting to see the composition of the Senate
committee on social affairs which is discussing the employment
insurance Bill C-12. There is one member from Newfoundland,
two members from Quebec, three members from Ontario, three
members from New Brunswick, three members from Prince
Edward Island but none from western Canada.
It is particularly interesting that of the four senators, the four
Senate seats given to the province of Prince Edward Island, three
out of four of those members are sitting on this pan-Canadian bill
on the Senate committee. How many of the 24 Senate seats from
western Canada are represented? Zero, none, zip. Western Canada
is cut out.
That kind of thing simply would not ever happen in an
accountable body. It would never happen where the members
would have to go back to western Canada and say ``I am sorry but
you guys do not count, you do not matter, your point of view is not
to be represented in this committee hearing''.
They have set up some meetings. Every now and then a little
serendipity happens. It is very interesting. Potential meeting times
for the standing Senate committee on social affairs for Bill C-12,
employment insurance, are to be held in room 256-S in the Centre
Block, Thursday, May 30, and this is the serendipity, when the
Senate rises but not earlier than 4 p.m. I thought that was a rather
neat bit of serendipity because as we saw during the delivery of the
governor general's speech from the throne, perhaps some of the
senators had not risen before 4 p.m. They had just been carried to
the Chamber to continue their snoozing.
What is wrong with the Senate at this point? While senators are
effective, or at least have the potential to be effective, they are not
elected and therefore not accountable. We have gone through the
issue of it not being equal. There is not equal balance, regional
representation on this committee or in the Senate Chamber itself.
That the province of Ontario has 24 senators, that the province of
Quebec has 24 senators and that the four provinces in western
Canada between them have 24 senators clearly shows there is a
very distinct regional imbalance.
What is the first step? The first step in Reform's process of
making this an important part of the parliamentary process, a full
functioning body, elected, effective and equal, the triple E Senate,
the first step that can happen outside of the Constitution is that we
3056
see the next Senate appointments be elected. The first step is to
make it accountable through election.
It is interesting we have had one elected senator. Reform Senator
Stan Waters, who passed away unfortunately a few years ago, was
the first and only elected member to that body. We have precedent.
The Alberta government through its Alberta Senate selection law
elected Senator Stan Waters and he was appointed after his
election.
(1115)
When there was a vacancy in the Alberta lieutenant-governor
position, the Prime Minister simply reached into the Senate and
said: ``Okay Bud Olson, you are no longer a senator. You are now
the lieutenant-governor''. That is fine, but within 10 minutes the
announcement was made that Senator Nick Taylor would be the
next senator. It should be noted that Senator Taylor did run against
Stan Waters. I guess if you cannot get into the Senate one way, you
will get in another.
In a statement made in the House by my colleague from Calgary
West, he made note of this fact: ``It may take 10 years to balance a
budget, 10 years to lower taxes, 10 years to reform people's
pensions, but it only takes 10 minutes to reward friends with Senate
appointments''. That is the shame of the Senate.
There are people who would accept these positions when in
Alberta the Senate selection act is in place. I have been
encouraging the province of British Columbia, and with the new
government that will be elected today I will be encouraging it, to
re-enact the B.C. senate selection act. This can happen outside of
the Constitution.
The Prime Minister appointed Bud Olson as lieutenant-governor.
Then he appointed Nick Taylor. Then what? I went back and came
up with the adopted resolutions of the biannual convention of the
Liberal Party of Canada in 1992. I would think this was a good
document. These were the adopted resolutions of the Liberal Party
of Canada from 1992.
Resolution 20 is on Senate reform. After it goes through all the
whereases it resolves that the Liberal Party would commit itself
``to an elected and effective Senate comprised of, but not limited
to, equal representation from each of the 10 provinces of Canada''.
This resolution was brought forward to the Liberal Party of Canada
by the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador and adopted by
the Liberal Party of Canada.
It is interesting that Senator Rompkey, out of the goodness of his
heart, following the adoption of the resolution of the Liberal
constituency organizations in Newfoundland and Labrador,
accepted an appointment to the Senate. I guess that is having it two
ways, is it not?
This is a matter of accountability. This is a matter of what our
legislative process is, where it should go and how it should get
there. But what of the most recent Liberal appointment? First, the
leader of the Reform Party asked the Prime Minister in this House
what he was going to do.
I had a conversation with Premier Klein who indicated that he
was very distressed-unhappy, we will say-about the fact that the
Prime Minister had moved with such obscene haste to make sure
that Nick Taylor got his just reward. After the unfortunate passing
of Senator Hastings, the premier was going to write to the Prime
Minister asking that the people of Alberta be permitted to go ahead
with the senatorial selection act.
I believe I spoke to him on the Wednesday, which was only a day
or two following the passing of Senator Hastings. He felt
constrained because the funeral would be on the Friday. Premier
Klein naturally and justifiably felt constrained in writing to the
Prime Minister and saying: ``I know you went with unseemly haste
to get your friend Nick Taylor appointed, but I would like people in
Alberta to be able to exercise their democratic right''. He did not
want to do it at least until the funeral of the senator.
(1120 )
The funeral of the senator was on Friday and in the first part of
the week what did the Prime Minister do? He knew from the
questions of the leader of the third party what our party wanted. He
knew from the reports in the newspaper what Premier Klein
wanted. He knew from comments that I had been making in the
news media what was going on. What did he do? The Prime
Minister of Canada pre-empted democracy and denied the people
of Alberta the ability to vote on who they wanted to represent them
in that chamber.
I wrote this letter to the editor:
The arrogance of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien in appointing a Senator from
Alberta, is only overshadowed by the hypocrisy of the appointee Jean Forest.
Jean Chrétien proved that he doesn't give a hoot what Albertans want and what
they are legally entitled to through the Province's Senatorial Selection Act. He
told the leader of the Reform Party in the House of Commons, ``I will name a
Senator who I will choose and who will represent my party in the House of
Commons''. What about someone to represent Albertans?
The last time I checked, the Senate was supposed to represent Canadians not the
Prime Minister's Liberal Party.
As if that wasn't bad enough, the Prime Minister's Senate appointee Jean
Forest has proven that the Senate is out of touch and unaccountable. She is
either ignorant or hypocritical. On her first day in Ottawa she said, ``if it could
all be worked out, I would be in favour of an elected Senate''.
It has been worked out. It was worked out when Senator Stan
Waters was elected and appointed to the Senate. What does she
3057
mean when she says: ``If it could all be worked out, I would be in
favour of an elected Senate?''
Considering her credentials, it is doubtful she is ignorant. She must know
about Alberta's Senatorial Elections Act and the written request from Premier
Ralph Klein to Prime Minister Chrétien. The new Senator was grossly insincere
when she went on to say, ``it doesn't seem to be in the works now. I accepted the
appointment thinking I could, perhaps, make a contribution in the meantime''.
Albertans have shown they support an elected Senate. Jean Forest has lost the
small fragment of integrity she may have had by accepting her appointment to
the Senate with her stated support of an elected Senate.
If she truly believed her own words she would not have accepted her own
appointment. She has only one honourable course of action and that is to resign
and give Albertans what is rightfully theirs-the ability to elect a senator to
represent the wishes of the electorate.
We must speak with respect of the other place. I do so, but
nonetheless I must say this. If those people really believed in the
democratic process, if those people really believed that the people
should be represented by a legitimate house of sober second
thought, if those people in that chamber really believed that the
people should hold them accountable, every one of them would
resign and stand for election.
This can be done outside the Constitution. I am not talking about
constitutional reform at this time. I will restate that the purpose of
the Reform Party is to ultimately get a triple E Senate: effective,
elected and equal. That is our goal. That is our objective. That is a
foundation stone of our party.
In the meantime, without tinkering with the Constitution, I say to
all the senators: Do the honourable thing. Resign.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, not
surprisingly, the opposition motion tabled by the Reform Party
brought back to me on my way here this morning how much I was
opposed to the very existence of the other House, given the present
state of affairs in Canada. Furthermore, with what I have heard so
far, I cannot help but have more questions.
(1125)
What were the Fathers of Confederation thinking when they
created the Senate? Were they not hoping for some sort of
safeguard, a watchdog over democratic constitutional guarantees,
all the guarantees that could be included in the Constitution,
particularly the distribution of legislative powers and all that?
With the emergence of regional parties, when there is talk of an
elected Senate. What worries me is that a senator elected in a given
division will be a clone of a member elected to the House of
Commons, an exact replica of an MP representing a riding, in my
case, for example, the riding of Chambly. There is a good chance
that a senator elected in the riding of Chambly would be pretty
much my duplicate. For democracy, this would definitely
constitute a risk.
The problem, when you come right down to it, is that, with the
emergence of these regional parties, with the responsibility of
elected senators to get elected, they are open to compromise, they
have to bend, a bit like certain judges in the United States who are
elected. We have seen the abuses that led to.
When we look at the budgets, I agree with members of the
Reform Party that the amounts spent are astronomical, but before
handing the Senate a death sentence, I would like someone to
suggest an alternative to us, and I am not entirely convinced that an
elected Senate is the best one.
What I wanted to ask the member who has just spoken is, if he is
not worried about abuses, and I know about abuses, I know them as
well as he does, I know that Bill C-22 on Pearson Airport is still
languishing in the other place, and is not ready to be sent back to
us, giving rise to costs, of course, for the Department of Transport
or for the department concerned, in the form of additional
compensation for those who invested in Pearson, except that two
wrongs do not make a right.
I am not sure where the Reform Party is headed with its motion.
Are they criticizing the very foundation of our British
parliamentary system? Do they have better solutions to offer than
saying that a senator must be elected to be effective? I know that in
my case, with respect to the regulatory question, for example, I
needed the senators at one point and they did their job of
representing the regional interests they are there to represent. I
would therefore ask the hon. member if he could edify me. Is he in
the process of reviewing the Canadian parliamentary system?
[English]
Mr. Abbott: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect to my
colleague, he has a very elitist perspective on how people in
Canada should be governed.
Members of Parliament should be representative of the
viewpoint of the people in their constituencies. The fact that
senators may have to bend to the will of the people, in my
judgment, is a very positive thing as opposed to an elitist approach
where one person, the Prime Minister of Canada, has taken it upon
himself to appoint those who would represent his point of view
only and represent his party only in the other chamber.
At the outset of his intervention the hon. member asked what I
thought the Fathers of Confederation had in mind. It is well
documented that the Fathers of Confederation had two things on
their minds: regional representation and a house of sober second
thought.
3058
The reason Prince Edward Island delayed coming into
Confederation for four years was the fact that it did not like the
idea of entering into Confederation in 1867 with an appointed
Senate. That was the delay.
There was a desire on the part of the Fathers of Confederation to
have an elected Senate, an elected second chamber. However, after
not coming to an agreement, they decided to move forward.
Perhaps my colleague from Vancouver Quadra could enlighten me
on this as I believe he is an expert on these matters.
In 1871 the politicians of Prince Edward Island wanted to
become part of Confederation. They finally agreed in spite of the
fact that there was an appointed Senate. Perhaps the hon. member
will be able to enlighten me on that.
(1130)
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I compliment
members opposite for the thoughtful contributions they have made
in their several ways to the debate on this subject.
It is axiomatic today that the Constitutional legitimacy of a
legislative chamber comes from election and only from election,
although there may be argument whether the election in the case of
the upper House should be by indirect or direct process.
Nevertheless, legitimacy comes from election. There is therefore
a standing anachronism in a body that exercises legislative powers
under the Constitution virtually equal to those of the House of
Commons but which no longer can claim constitutional legitimacy.
Granted the evolution of thinking on democratic
constitutionalism since the mid-19th century, our problem always
is that since the reforms of 1982, we are in a much more rigid
constitutional system than we were before. For all intents and
purposes, it is impossible to change the Constitution.
We have seen this in the recent experiments in the late-1980s
with Meech and Charlottetown irrespective of the substantive
merits or the contestable merits, depending on one's point of view,
of those proposals. The thing emerging is how difficult it is to
change the Constitution.
I was impressed with the address by the hon. member for
Bellechasse and the research he had done very thoughtfully on the
origins of the modern House of Lords dating back to Mr. Asquith's
Parliament Act, 1911, which replaced the complete veto of the
House of Lords by a suspensive of veto of two years, knocked
down in 1949 to virtually nothing.
One of the interesting things is the House of Lords has a high
quality of debate that comes from the fact that its powers have been
whittled away. It has accepted that. Members devote time when
they debate to issues of substance that the lower House is too busy
to be occupied with.
The problem I see in our country is that although we pride
ourselves on receiving our institutions from Great Britain, we tend
to apply them much more mechanically and with less sense of
humour than the British themselves. One can become more British
than the British. One of the interesting things we have not picked
up from the Parliament in Westminster is the concepts of
self-restraint of an unelected house which were at the core of the
thrust of Prime Minister Asquith in 1911 and which really explain
the Parliament Act of 1911 and the subsequent amendment of 1949.
There is a principle of conventional law of Parliament
concerning an unelected upper House, granted there may be
nothing it can do itself even if it wants to end its non-elected status.
There is the principle of constitutional self-restraint in relation to
measures currently voted by the lower House and passed on.
I regret the interminable delays we have seen in this Parliament
the Senate apply to measures adopted by the lower House but I also
agree with the hon. member for Bellechasse that it is a violation of
the constitutional conventions that this has been so.
What I regret is that perhaps there has not been more attention in
this House to exercising the machinery already in place for
resolving conflicts between the two Houses and a conflict that
comes from a really colourable studying of measures passed by the
lower House on the pretence or the assertion that more time is
needed to reflection.
This amounts in my view to a rejection effectively of measures
passed by the lower House. I regret therefore that one did not
pursue the machinery already available under our constitutional
system to explore jointly between the Speaker of the Commons and
the President of the Senate the issue of whether the privileges of the
House of Commons as understood in a contemporary sense were
being fully respected.
(1135 )
I say that with some regret and I put forward the suggestion that
in the future this House should be more vigilant in assuring a
prompt follow-up by the Senate to measures passed by the lower
House where they have been fully debated. That is to say, either
reject and take the political consequences of that as an unelected
upper House or pass or send back to the House with suggestions for
change that the House reserves primary powers to consider and in
its own good judgment as an elected body to reject those measures.
I note the comments, again a very thoughtful case, by the
member for Kootenay East. This generation of Canadians has a
rendezvous with the Constitution Act. Eventually and perhaps not
too far away we will have to do something about fundamental
reform of institutions.
3059
The five region conception of Canada, which is very dear to
electors in my home province, was recognized by the Prime
Minister in December by the grant of the regional veto to British
Columbia and in measure the regional veto to the three prairie
provinces. It is an important step forward.
The principle of an elected upper House is again, I think, very
clear. It is also intimately related to other changes in institutional
structures, the nature of the court, the nature of judicial legislation
and the nature of the supreme court which now de facto and not
necessarily with its own will is becoming a constitutional court
very much like the European courts and the United States Supreme
Court in the sort of responsibilities it has been asked to exercise.
We have before us in the House at this very time measures that in
Europe would be decided by a constitutional court that are ending
up with the House of Commons and Parliament. It may well be that
the best approach to institutional change is to consider all the
institutions together in the light of this larger optic, the evolution of
democratic constitutionalism of which the respect of a non-elected
upper House or an elected lower House is one of the core
principles.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I was very
interested in the comments of the member for Vancouver Quadra.
However, I note he did not speak specifically to the motion.
The motion gives notice of opposition to the Senate estimates.
The purpose of this is to put pressure on the Senate to make it
account for the $40 million of taxpayer money it will be spending.
In this House we need a majority to indicate they are prepared to
vote down the Senate funds if Senators refuse to appear before the
Standing Committee on Government Operations.
What is the Liberal position on this? Should the people of the
upper Chamber be held accountable to the people of Canada, to the
Canadian taxpayers, yes or no?
Mr. McWhinney: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is addressing
issues of substantive constitutional change on which he has spoken
most learnedly and thoughtfully under the rubric of a vote on
estimates. While this is customary in American constitutional law
and with the United States Congress, there are more direct arenas
available.
For example, it has been indicated by the opposition party that
the issue of institutional change and Senate reform will be
introduced by it on its merits next week. I suggest a more direct
route would be better for approaching the substantive
constitutional changes he desires. I do not think we need the device
which the Americans for want of a similar opportunity of a direct
debate have done; that is to say, tacking substantive constitutional
change issues on to a motion on estimates or the budget.
(1140 )
Mr. Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I can be very incisive with
a very precise rifle shot question. The question is should the Senate
be accountable to the Canadian taxpayer for the $40 million it is to
spend, yes or no?
Mr. McWhinney: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is
avoiding the response that I did give which was the key one.
However, it seems the answer to this rifle shot question, as he calls
it, was already given by my hon. colleague, the Secretary of State
for Multiculturalism.
Granted that the anachronism of a non-elected Senate exists and
that the existing law of Parliament gives autonomy to each House
for its proper expenditures, it seems it is properly an issue for the
Senate, much as one may regret it.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
member is being hypothetical. We have an actual instance here
where we will vote on the estimates for the Senate. Therefore to say
something else, that this would be preferable going in another
direction, is fine in the future. Right now in fact we have to vote on
the estimates.
Will the member vote for or against accountability of the
Senate?
Mr. McWhinney: Mr. Speaker, while the Senate exists one must
respect its autonomy. The principle of parliamentary comity
requires that. The issue of fundamental change in the Senate is
another issue that should be addressed in its own proper context.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since the
House of Commons, the Lower House, is responsible to the
Canadian electorate for the funds it commits here, while the other
House has to answer to no one for the sums allocated to it, there is
one part of the federal government's budget that cannot be justified
to the public. This is the primary concern of Reform Party
members.
Since we are holding the cheque book, we ought to at least be
told what the cheque they are writing over there will be used for.
That is the primary purpose of today's motion.
Mr. McWhinney: Mr. Speaker, I must respond to the hon.
member by pointing out that we owe the Senate the same respect
we demand it show the House of Commons. That is the principle of
reciprocity, parliamentary courtesy between the two Houses. The
Senate, as it is at present, is an institution of our Parliament.
3060
[English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
when the House gives $40 million, for instance, for road building
in Nova Scotia the government would expect some accountability.
Would the government not expect the same amount of
accountability for $40 million spent for any other organization out
of its estimates, including the Senate?
Mr. McWhinney: Mr. Speaker, let us forget the road building.
We are discussing something else.
As far as the Senate is concerned, I thought I had made it very
clear in my address that we expect the Senate to extend to us, as the
House of Commons, the courtesy respecting our majority
decisions. The Senate exists as an institution of our Parliament and
we have to respect its autonomy too. It works both ways. We cannot
have it on both counts.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I think it important to put the the motion brought forward
by the Reform Party in its true context. The Standing Committee on
Government Operations asked representatives of the Senate to
come and defend the upper House's budget requirements.
(1145)
The Senate did not respond to this request. We are talking about
a budget of $43 million. It is defensible in terms of the principles
prevalent at the time the two Houses and Canada's parliamentary
system were created, but today we have to ask ourselves whether
we can afford to pay the cost of principles and situations of this
sort.
Today, $43 million is still a fairly significant sum. It covers a
whole lot of things. If we were certain the spending of the Senate
were exemplary, we might have fewer questions. I would refer to
the report of the Auditor General of Canada.
In the Senate in 1991, a number of anomalies and questionable
practices were reported. In the case of the messenger service, for
example, the senators decided that there was no limit and that they
could spend however they liked so long as there was a need.
The report of the auditor general also drew attention to the
matter of attendance. A lot of senators are absent much of the time,
thereby not generating a lot of expenditures. There are, however, a
minority who generate a lot of expenditures.
These things are perhaps justifiable. This is the aim of the
motion by the Reform Party, further to the recommendation of the
Standing Committee on Government Operations.
The Senate's response is all the more surprising because, when
our fellow citizens learn that there is a House of unelected people
who are accountable to no one or just about, they are shocked. Any
comparison may be flawed, but you have, on the one hand, the
requirements imposed on the public, for example, how UI
recipients may use their benefits-they are required to understand
some very complex laws-and, on the other hand, a House of
unelected people, most of whom were recommended for
appointment for having contributed to the activities of a political
party such as the Liberal Party of Canada and the Conservative
Party. Most senators were appointed because of their involvement
in political organizations.
Is it still appropriate on the eve of the 21st century to have a
House that can spend $43 million without being in any way
accountable for how this money is spent? Is it appropriate that we
cannot ask questions to find out, for example, if the money to be
spent on salaries is justified in light of the Senate's activities?
Is there any justification for the way Senate committees operate
and unelected senators' travelling expenses, in today's Canada?
This calls for a short history lesson. The Senate was modelled after
the British House of Lords. The Senate was first created as an
unelected body because it was said that elected members did not
have all the abilities required to properly manage the affairs of
state, that wiser people were needed, people with special training,
and so on.
The situation has changed since then. Today, the House of
Commons includes people with experience in various sectors,
people who have the technical skills required. We also have support
teams of assistants and researchers who do a very good job. They
must help elected members, because of the fundamental notion that
elected members of Parliament are accountable for the
effectiveness of their work if they want to be re-elected when their
mandate expires.
It is quite a different matter for senators, who are appointed
practically for life without being accountable for their
effectiveness.
To illustrate this, I would like to ask a question; I think I could
even put it to the members of Parliament here in this House. Do
you know who is the senator responsible for the general area of
your riding?
(1150)
How many people can identify the senator representing the
Senate divisions of Lauzon, De la Vallière, De Lorimier,
Wellington, De Salaberry, Grandville, Rougemont, Mille Isles or
Motarville for example? I think it would be quite a challenge to ask
Canadians which senator represents what division.
This is an exaggerated example to show that the Senate does not
meet an essential criterion for management of public funds, the
accountability criterion. Senators are not accountable, neither
individually nor collectively. Senators are not required to account
to the people for their performance and we cannot get them to
appear before a House committee to account for the way the
3061
Senate's budget is spent and for its operational effectiveness. This
goes to show how archaic an institution the Senate is.
We could even go as far as to say that the Senate is somewhat of
an anachronism. By refusing to do as requested in the motion and
accounting before the committee for the use made of its
appropriations, it may add fuel to arguments in favour of the
motion, soon to be debated in this House, to abolish the Senate as
we know it.
A full debate could be held across Canada on this issue. I think
we will have an opportunity to have such a debate when my motion
to abolish the Senate is considered. We will be able to discuss what
kind of upper House we want. Do we want an elected upper House?
Would we rather not have any upper House at all? Should
proportional representation by region be introduced? There are
many options to consider.
I am deeply convinced however that, as it stands today, the upper
House does not meet in any real way democratic requirements for
the turn of the century.
Coming back to the auditor general's report for 1991, which
contained 27 recommendations regarding various aspects of
day-to-day administration, it would be very interesting to see to
what extent the Senate has taken these recommendations into
account. For example, if a committee could ask how budgets are
allocated and divided regarding messenger services, salaries, trips,
including those in the senators' divisions and in the rest of Canada,
we would get answers to all sorts of questions that are of interest to
us.
Members of Parliament are accountable to the public. If we do
something wrong or if we make bad decisions, the public decides
whether or not to give us a new mandate. The Reform Party motion
is nothing but a request for a minimum of respect for our role as
members of this House. Will we tolerate the fact that senators can
spend with impunity, without being accountable?
Does the principle upheld by the hon. member for Vancouver
Quadra, namely that the two houses are independent from each
other, still apply today? If we asked Canadians whether the Senate
should be accountable for its spending, I think they would be
unanimous in saying that it should be. Canadians would say that the
Senate must be accountable for its activity and its work in the same
way members of Parliament are accountable to them through the
election process.
The fact that we have an obsolete rule does not mean we cannot
change it.
(1155)
When we visit our ridings, we are asked a lot of questions such
as: ``How are you going to ensure that the federal system reaches
an adequate level of efficiency, so as to put an end to the list of
horrors related to a lack of control over spending?'' People give
examples. They mention losses such as forgone tax revenues from
family trusts. They refer to what is going on at the Department of
National Defence. And then there is the Senate.
We saw it very clearly when the last speech from the throne was
delivered. Do you think Canadians were impressed when they saw
a few senators having a little nap during the speech? This situation
is truly unacceptable from a democratic point of view, and it must
change.
When you think of it, the request made to the Standing
Committee on Government Operations is a healthy initiative. The
Senate is not an elected house. It is important to always remember
that senators in Canada are not elected. Our system is not at all like
the one in the United States or in other countries where senators are
elected. When people are elected, they knowsthat it is for a given
period of time, for a mandate.
If they do not do their job properly, the public has the last word.
This is not the case with senators in Canada: they face no sanction.
Whether they are effective or not does not change anything. It
makes no difference in the way they are treated. You are not
accountable to the public for the position you adopt.
I therefore think the motion is entirely justified. I urge the
government to vote in favour. I even think that a message could be
sent. If the senators truly wanted to avoid this sort of
non-confidence motion, they have all day today to come and tell us
that they have changed their position and that they would be ready
to appear before the committee. If that happens, the motion would
at least have provided an opportunity, through the resulting public
debate, to bring home to all Canadians the need for the Senate to be
accountable, the need to be able to know to what use the money
people pay through their taxes is being put, and whether this money
is being spent on the right things. At the same time, it is a perfect
opportunity to launch a debate on whether we should continue to
pay for a House of non-elected representatives and whether we can
afford to have a House that operates like this.
If I were a senator today, I would have jumped at the opportunity
to come and defend the manner in which the money was allocated.
By refusing to appear before the Standing Committee on
Government Operations, the senators are leaving themselves even
more open to criticism of their activities, because those who do not
defend themselves must often bow to their critics' version of
events.
In the present situation, it is very clear and very obvious that the
senators appear to have a great deal of difficulty in defending the
way they use their budget. It is a very bad sign, and a very poor
message to be sending to the Canadian people, a message which
encourages us to ask other questions, and to question the very idea
3062
of the Senate. The members of this House will have the opportunity
to do so, thanks to the vote there will be on a motion, and to decide
whether or not they are in favour of abolishing the Senate.
The motion, which will be discussed next week, will go still
further into the problem. It will raise basic questions such as: Do
we need a House whose members are not elected? Do we need a
second House?
Finally, this is one way of updating the parliamentary process.
Just because an institution has been in place for 125 years is not
necessarily a reason for maintaining it. This is but a small example,
but in a way the very structure of the country is somewhat the
same.
It is not true that, just because Canada was created in 1867, the
relationship between the various communities of which it is
composed, between the people of Quebec and the people of
Canada, must remain the same in future. Populations create their
own structures; the structures are not there to be a hindrance and to
create inefficiency.
In conclusion, I will state that the Reform Party motion is a valid
one. It is too bad that this motion is not votable. I would have liked
us to have been able to send a message to the Senate, through a vote
in the House, that we here are really frustrated, dissatisfied, and
somewhat insulted, by the fact that the senators have not deigned to
come before the committee on government operations to defend
their votes. As a result, we could tell them: ``You do not wish to be
held responsible, so we will not make the money available''.
(1200)
If the government were to take such a position, we would really
have an opportunity to see which House has the upper hand, since
this is an important issue. Which one ought to have the final say, in
Canada?
Now I understand from the debate on the motion and from the
government's position that the government is ignoring the Senate's
inefficiency. It is saying: ``This can go on the way it has for several
years''. Senators representing Senate divisions can carry on this
way.
I would say to the people of the Senate divisions of Grandville,
La Salle, Repentigny or Thousand Islands: ``Call your senator and
ask him what he is doing with the money he is responsible for. I
know very well, however, that there is a basic problem: Canadians
do not know which senator is responsible for their area, because no
representations are ever made.
Do you remember seeing senators touring your area to discuss
local issues? Never, because they lack the basic credibility of being
elected by the people. I think, today, that the Senate is archaic,
somewhat of an anachronism. The fact that the senators are
refusing to come and defend their budgets is even clearer evidence
of this anachronism.
I think the Senate's and senators' behaviour needs correcting.
The government must take note of today's debate and require the
Senate to provide an accounting. If the Senate refuses, we have one
more argument for its abolition.
[English]
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to join in this debate on the accountability of
the Senate of Canada.
I first want to congratulate my colleagues who have spoken
before me on this subject, especially the member for
Comox-Alberni from my home province of British Columbia. I
wish to associate myself with his comments and the fact that the
Senate Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and
Administration has refused to send a representative to justify
Senate expenditures. Rather, the other House chooses to disregard
modern democratic principles of accountability.
My colleague's motion actually reads:
Given that the Senate has failed to respond to a message from the House
requesting that a representative of the Senate Standing Committee on Internal
Economy, Budgets and Administration appear before the Standing Committee
on Government Operations to account for $40,000,000 of taxpayers' money,
this House express its dissatisfaction with the Senate for disregarding modern
democratic principles of accountability and, as a consequence, notice is hereby
given of the opposition to Vote 1 under Parliament in the Main Estimates for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 1997.
As my colleague has explained, the House of Commons
Standing Committee on Government Operations has made such a
request and we have only had the Senate's refusal to appear as a
response. A year ago I was Senate critic for the Reform Party. I
wish I could say the Senate is changing or showing signs of change,
but the same arrogance is still there. The Senate does not feel it is
accountable to Canadians. This is unacceptable to my colleagues, it
is unacceptable to me and it is unacceptable to Canadians.
There is enough disillusionment in this country with accountable
elected politicians. Surely the members of the Senate of Canada do
not need to add to it by arbitrarily increasing their own budget.
(1205 )
The question today is: Should the Senate be accountable to the
Canadian taxpayers for the $40 million plus in taxpayer dollars that
it wants to spend? The Canadian people can do nothing about
making senators accountable if the government's will is not there.
The only answer is an elected Senate.
We as Canadians have watched many parts of the world move
toward more democratic forms of government. Will any of us ever
forget our feelings of disbelief followed by joy when the Berlin
wall was destroyed? It opened the eastern bloc to the fresh spring
3063
breezes of democracy. Right now the media is full of complete
reports of the democratic election for the president in Russia. The
people of the former Soviet Union can now look forward to
electing their political leaders and also holding them accountable.
Why then do we in Canada have to put up with an unelected
second chamber of our central Parliament? The answer is that if we
had a government that had the political will to make the Senate
elected and accountable, then it would happen.
As the former Reform critic of the Senate I introduced a motion
for a triple E Senate. It was selected by the House committee to be
debated for one hour. The motion stated: ``That in the opinion of
this House, representation in the Senate should be equal from each
province, elected by the people and have sufficient power to make
it effective in order to better represent the people of the less
populous provinces''. Advocating a triple E Senate has been part of
the platform of the Reform Party of Canada virtually from its
inception.
As past Senate critic I had the opportunity to research the Senate.
Senate reform, for the Reform Party and for all of us from the less
populous provinces, addresses a feeling of alienation from central
Canada and the central government which has grown through the
last two decades. We believe that equality of representation of
provinces in the second chamber of Canada's central Parliament
would give the people of the less populous provinces real clout
over the policy agenda of the federal government.
This feeling of alienation stems from the reality that
governments will respond positively to pressure exerted by the
provinces or the regions that contain the largest portion of our
population. We know where that is: in Ontario and Quebec.
Sometimes these policy responses are at the expense of the desires
of the smaller provinces.
The Senate was designed to perform two main functions. It is a
safety check, the review of legislation emanating from the Lower
House. It must also provide a forum wherein the regions would
have a voice in the central Parliament's law making process. It was
intended to provide an institutional voice to small governments and
perhaps to minority groups against the popular majority of the
lower House. One could say that it was designed to act as a political
bridge between the component parts of the federation and the
central government.
The work of the Senate as presently constituted in the scrutiny of
legislation has been praised by most political commentators.
Senate committees have carried out useful investigative studies
over the years which have added new information to policy
development.
Yet criticism has been levelled against senators who have stayed
in the post regardless of the fact that they may show up only once a
year, some less than that. An elected Senate would get rid of this
practice. This criticism stems from the fact that senators used to be
in for life. Also because of undeserving patronage appointments,
Canadians have lost respect for the Senate, so much so that it has
resulted in uncomplimentary terms of reference such as the old
boys club.
The main criticism of the role played by the Senate in our
country concentrates on the inability of the institution to represent
the regions. This has led to great frustration predominantly in
western Canada. There is a definite perception that because of
sheer numbers central Canada sets and controls the public policy
agenda.
Following this argument is the feeling that because they are not
elected, Senators have no legitimacy to act. Therefore even if
senators decided to start voting in regional or provincial blocks,
they would not have the ultimate legitimacy to do so since they are
not elected by the people of Canada. This is a strong reason for an
elected Senate.
Bear in mind as well that our present Senate's powers are
virtually equal to those of the House of Commons except that while
it can initiate legislation, except money bills, it cannot hold up
constitutional amendments for longer than 180 days. With these
two exceptions, it is important to note that it can defeat, amend or
indeed stall all legislation coming from the House of Commons.
However, because of its lack of legitimacy its exercise of these
powers is constantly subject to criticism. Therefore, this lack of
equality of representation and legitimacy to act to either defend or
promote the interests of the smaller provinces has given great
impetus to the movement of Senate reform.
(1210)
While the impetus to a triple E Senate seems to have grown out
of actions by the previous Liberal government to implement the
national energy program, there have been other proposals for
reform. In fact, I have a Canadian Press release which speaks of the
idea for an elected Senate. It is dated July 1992, before many of us
were in this House. The Canadian Press release states:
At least 19 senators are interested in running for a seat in an elected Senate, a
survey of the upper House shows. But 34 of the existing 99 appointed senators
told the Canadian Press they would not run if an election were called under the
current plan for a revamped Senate-.But even if the plan is ratified by the
federal government and the provinces, the first Senate election is not expected
before 1997.
Most of us are aware that we have already had an elected senator in
Stan Waters from Alberta. So this prophesy did not hold true.
Quebec Tory Gerald Beaudoin, who was co-chairman of a Commons-Senate
committee on constitutional reform, was initially critical of the Senate proposal,
3064
saying it would mark an unacceptable loss of power for Quebec. But now he thinks
the proposed Senate will be interesting and he will probably be a candidate.
Other prominent Senators interested in running include: Conservative Pat
Carney of B.C., a former Tory cabinet minister, and Liberals Joyce Fairbairn of
Alberta, and Michael Kirby, Jerry Grafstein and Royce Frith, all of Ontario. Gil
Molgat a Liberal from Manitoba says he is interested but wants more details on
the proposed Senate. ``Our system needs checks and balances and that is what an
elected Senate would provide'', he said.
Even at that time it was recognized that the Senate is not
accountable.
Then there is Nova Scotia's John Macdonald, one of two lifetime appointees
left in the Senate. At age 86 he said he is ready to take on all comers. ``I would be
prepared. I like being a Senator. I have been there a long time. I would like to
complete it''.
It is not an unacceptable position for some senators to be elected.
Obviously, the idea has been discussed at length. In actual fact, the
idea of an elected Senate attained prominence in 1981 with the
publication by the Canada West Foundation of ``Regional
Representation: The Canadian Partnership''. It was based on work
done by Dr. David Elton of the foundation and Mr. Burt Brown of
Alberta. In 1982 Senator Duff Roblin, former Premier of Manitoba,
proposed that senators be elected on a basis similar to that in
Australia.
The first federal parliamentary report to espouse an elected
Senate was written by the Special Joint Committee on Senate
Reform and released in 1983. It is noteworthy that the Senate
co-chair of the committee is now the Speaker of the Senate, Senator
Gil Molgat of Manitoba. More recently the Meech Lake accord in
1987 proposed a hybrid type of appointment procedure for Senate
vacancies. In 1992 we are all aware that the Charlottetown accord
proposed an elected Senator.
I remember how this was interpreted in British Columbia by our
present NDP government. As a matter of fact it was the B.C.
provincial government's interpretation of proposals for Senate
change in the recent Charlottetown accord that helped to precipitate
my entry into politics. At that time there was some suggestion that
the provincial government would control the format of how the
elections by the people would proceed. In B.C. statements were
made by elected government MLAs and the premier that we would
have equal men and women and that the government would look
after the candidate selection for Senate seats. Hardly democratic.
The first statement flies in the face of Canadian tradition.
Canadians have long been committed to a system of merit for job
applications, that is, those who can do the job best should do it.
Any potential candidates for a Senate position must come from all
spectrums of the province, not from government's patronage lists.
We in the House know that during the 1980s a unique event in
the history of the Senate occurred in Alberta. Alberta enacted
legislation to enable persons to stand for election on a
province-wide basis to contest a vacant Senate seat. The election
was held and Reform Party member Stan Waters topped the polls.
He was subsequently summoned to the Senate by the Governor
General on the advice of the Prime Minister. Unfortunately we lost
Stan Waters before he had the opportunity to show Canadians just
how valuable an accountable senator could be.
(1215)
However, the election of Senator Stan Waters is a valuable
precedent. Unfortunately it was not followed with later Senate
appointments from Alberta. The recent Senate appointment of
Senator Jean Forest is a travesty against the recent democratic
election process in Alberta which elected Stan Waters.
Very briefly, that is the history of how we got to where we are
now. One would conclude that the Reform Party of Canada
definitely reflects the will of Canadians with its policy of an
elected triple E Senate. However, until we have a government that
believes in democracy, rather than rewarding old party faithfuls,
we will have no change in the Senate.
It is not just in our dealings with the other place. Democracy
seems to be a rare commodity with the government in committees
as well. When the members of the House give unanimous consent
at second reading to a private member's bill and refer it to a
committee, under this government, government members of the
committee can disregard all expert testimony by witnesses;
witnesses who were brought in by the committee and paid for by
the Canadian taxpayer. Government members of the committee can
vote down the bill without giving any reason for doing so. Even
judges must give reasons for their judgments.
Do we assume that these elected members of the committee are
to be held in higher esteem than judges? Are they not accountable
to the members of the House for the business of the House? They
can go one step further than voting down a bill. They can vote down
returning a private member's bill to the House.
How can this be in a democratic country? How can 7, 8 or 9
government members tell 295 elected members that a bill which
unanimously passed second reading can disappear? Democracy? I
think not.
I am told that a committee is a master of its own fate. That is an
interesting phrase. Is it an excuse wherein committee members can
act with arrogance, which is so typical of this government which
promises one thing on election day, yet does quite the opposite in
practice? They promised open, honest government. Shame. De-
3065
mocracy? Certainly not. I forget, as Mark Antony was heard to say
``that these are all honourable men. So were they all honourable
men''.
I believe the government is as arrogant as members of the other
House. The one reality, however, is that this small group of elected
MPs, who arrogantly made fun of the very real grief and pain
suffered by our senior citizens who, for no legitimate reason, no
longer are able to see their grandchildren, is that they will be held
accountable for their actions by the Canadian electorate. That time
is coming soon.
This government is a master of deceit. In the preamble of Bill
C-33 it preached protection of the family. Then it gave special
rights to special interest groups and in the same breath destroyed
the very foundation of our families, our grandparents, the Canadian
citizens who gave us all our present social programs through their
many years of hard work and contributed tax dollars.
Is it possible that the Prime Minister can change the present
system of appointment and patronage in the Senate? It is a simple
matter for the Prime Minister, in conjunction with the government
of a province where there is a vacancy, to hold an election. It was
done in Alberta quite successfully, as we have heard, resulting in
the election of the late Stan Waters.
We recently received direct support from the premier of Alberta
to hold an election to fill Alberta's vacant Senate seat. However,
the government has convinced itself that it can ignore the wishes of
the people and still remain popular. It might be successful for a
while, but in the long term ignoring the wishes of Canadians is a
fateful political game.
It may take 10 years to balance the budget, 10 years to lower
taxes and 10 years to reform the Canada pension plan, but with the
Liberals in power it only takes 10 minutes to reward friends with
Senate appointments.
In this era in which democracy is sweeping eastern Europe it is
shameful that the government continues to treat Canadians with
such disrespect. When we are trying as desperately as we can to
restore the faith of Canadians in our public institutions, how can we
sit by and allow members of an appointed body to ignore their duty
to be accountable?
We are in a time of fiscal restraint. All Canadians are being
asked to bear some of the burden of reducing the deficit so we may
get to a balanced budget. All Canadians seem willing to accept part
of the burden, except of course those in the Senate. It seems that
Senators are immune from deficit reduction, immune from
accountability and immune from the reactions of the people of
Canada. The more they defy democracy, the more they make the
case for Senate reform.
(1220)
I am proud to be a member of the Reform Party of Canada. It is
the only political party that believes in true Senate reform, the
triple E Senate, a Senate which is characterized by equality,
effectiveness and above all elected by the people of Canada.
It is a fundamental belief of members of the Reform Party that
all Canadians are equal before the law. All Canadians are equal and
all Canadian provinces are equal. The Senate's membership should
reflect this equality. Let the House of Commons reflect the
population differences in Canada's provinces but let the second
chamber reflect equality and accountability.
When the Senate is considering legislation let it be said that no
one province is above or better than another. The second chamber
visualized by Reform would have sufficient power to ensure it is
effective. At present the Senate has powers virtually equal to that of
the House of Commons. Except for the introduction of money bills
and the possible veto the Senate holds over constitutional changes,
its powers equal those of the House of Commons. However, its
powers are rarely exercised. But when it is elected I would hope
that with legitimacy would come the exercise of power.
Therefore, in order to make Senate reform meaningful the result
must be a Senate with real significant powers that can be exercised
should the government fail to take into consideration the wishes of
those in Canada's less populous provinces. How many times have
we seen the government fail to heed the wishes of Canadians?
In order for Senate reform to be successful, the end product must
be elected senators. The second chamber must become a truly
democratic chamber. The people of Canada must have a direct say
in who will represent them in the Senate.
As I said at the outset, this could be done now. In fact my
colleagues and I are appalled that it has not been done. Perhaps if
the Prime Minister had moved in this direction we would not be
dealing with a situation where the Senate is defying the House of
Commons on budgetary matters.
I deplore the actions of the Senate and I urge all members of the
House to support the motion before us today. I would like to echo
the question that was asked by my colleague. What is the Liberal
position on our motion? Should the members of the government be
held accountable to Canadians for spending taxpayers' dollars?
Following that line, should the Senate be accountable to the
Canadian taxpayer for the $40 million plus of the taxpayers' money
it is going to spend? The reality is that this is a part of the federal
government's plan to spend the taxpayers' money which is not
accountable. From what I have heard from the few people speaking
on the opposite side of the House today, there is nothing to suggest
that they intend answering our question and dealing in a satisfacto-
3066
ry way with the wishes of all Canadians on spending money which
we do not yet know what it is for.
I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House that this
motion be made votable.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is there
unanimous consent of the House to have this motion votable?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): We do not
have unanimous consent.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
wonder if my colleague would like to make a comment about a
short speech made by the hon. Senator Edward M. Lawson in the
Senate within the last week or two. He was referring to myself and I
thought the House might find this interesting.
He said:
Honourable senators, I am sure that honourable senators are as sick and tired
as I am of hearing statements made by Reform Party members-
One statement that is troubling me presently is a recent remark from one of
our Reform MPs from British Columbia, Jim Abbott. He ventured the opinion
that, of B.C.'s six senators, only one is making a visible contribution, and that is
Senator Pat Carney. However, I am sure that if you asked him on what basis this
statement was made, or if he had researched it, his answer would probably be,
``Research? In the Reform Party we do not need research. We are encouraged to
make spontaneous statements without benefit of research.'' Did he interview
any senators as to their record of service? Did he interview Senator Perrault,
who has a lifetime of service inside and outside the Senate, or Senator Austin, or
Senator Marchand, or Senator St. Germain across the way? No. Did he check it
out?
Any British Columbian can look in any direction, from Canada Place to the
new airport, and see the fingerprints and stamp of B.C. senators who made some
of those things possible.
(1225)
Some hon. senators went hear, hear. I guess they woke up.
Senator Lawson continues:
I, for one, am a little tired of hearing these statements by Reform Party
members. I do not know if they are on a quota system, under which they are
encouraged to make so many dumb statements per week or per month. In any
event, these attacks come like waves-
I think I should draw to Preston Manning's attention that it is-wrong for MP
Jim Abbott to be making false accusations against heterosexual senators from
British Columbia.
What a speech. What does my colleague think?
Mrs. Jennings: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague
for his comments and his question regarding Senator Lawson's
comments. On the one point, members of the Senate in the past
have worked well on individual issues.
We are all aware of Pat Carney of course because of the hard
work she has done to save our light stations, which we really have
to maintain on the B.C. coast.
I must point out that Senator Lawson has a lot of fallacies in
what he said. First of all, I would like to make it known right now
that when Reform members get up, our material is researched and
we know what we are talking about. We speak as a direct response
of the Canadian people. I think we do a fairly good job of that.
Senator Lawson is speaking about something that is the problem
with the Senate. It is not good enough to say that in the past Senator
Perrault did such and such, or in the past, another senator did such
and such. If senators are going to be effective and accountable to
the Canadian people, they have to do something all the time, the
same way that elected members of Parliament must maintain their
vigilance and respond constantly to issues that are in front of the
Canadian electorate.
I would say to Senator Lawson that my colleague's comments
were quite accurate. To my knowledge and according to what I
have read, the only Senator I have heard from B.C. in the last two
years has been Senator Pat Carney who has done an excellent job. I
have heard of the other senators in past years before I was elected
but very little now. I would have to ask Senator Lawson to please
update his material a bit and do a little research to speak from
knowledge.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
the Senate was asked to respond to a message requesting it to send
a representative to a House of Commons committee to justify the
$40 million it spends of Canadian public money.
The senators disregarded the request so the Reform Party put a
motion forward for debate that says: ``Since you do not want to
come and justify any of your $40 million, then we would like to see
the House of Commons vote down or be in opposition to vote 1
which is the $40 million budget of the Senate''.
In this day and age in Canada, if you cannot appear before a
committee to justify the expenditure of $40 million, do you deserve
it? Should you have it? Are you accountable? When are you going
to be accountable? Why not?
If we are not going to be accountable for Senate expenditures in
this House, then where? If we are not going to be accountable in
1996 or in any other year, then when?
(1230 )
We heard the member for Vancouver Quadra talk about the lack
of restraint of an unelected House, which the Senate is. It is a bunch
of appointed Liberal and Conservative party hacks. Where is the
accountability? Do we just throw the senators $40 million every
year and tell them to spend it the way they like and go do their job,
3067
whatever it is? Or, do we tell them to appear before a committee to
tell us what is going to happen?
The member for Vancouver Centre spoke this morning and these
are some of the things she said about this issue. She said that they
are separate Houses, the House of Commons and the Senate, so it is
none of our business. She said we are wasting time on this issue. I
am going to address each one of these in a moment.
The member gave numerous innuendoes of things like bigotry
and so on. I am going to address that. She then said that the the
Reform Party is digging up another issue and let us get on to more
important issues. I sure as heck am going to address that.
The Senate spends over $40 million a year but hey that is okay, it
is only our tax money, folks, so do not worry about it. We can see
the interest over there in the $40 million. The people in the gallery
can see from the attendance just what the interest is.
Let us talk about the separate Houses. If the House of Commons
is responsible for approving $40 million of taxpayers' money of
another House down the hall, then it cannot be all that separate. Is it
mutually exclusive? If it is so mutually exclusive then why does the
Senate not approve its own $40 million? This is taxpayers' money
we are talking about. I really do not care who it is spent on, it is
taxpayers' money and we are responsible in this House for it.
Senators should appear before a committee and justify it just like
anybody else in this country.
The Houses are separate. Okay. If they are separate Houses there
should be no linkage between political parties. If they are separate
Houses then they must somehow get into the Senate by some
separate elected process, right? No. They are not separate Houses
at all. The people who are put into the Senate are appointed by the
Prime Minister of each government. They are very objective
appointments, right? All good Canadians have a shot at getting a
Senate position, right? Yeah, right.
Let us look at a couple of appointments from the list. One was a
former Manitoba MLA, a former provincial Liberal leader in
Manitoba. I guess that is not too objective. Another one was a
former provincial cabinet minister. That is not too objective. He
was from the right party, though.
Another person recently appointed was the former MP for
Ottawa-Vanier. He was pulled out of a job he had actually
campaigned for. He left the people who had elected him. These
people were never given a choice as to whether he stayed in the
House of Commons or went to the Senate. He was plucked right out
of the riding and someone else ran in his place. That is really
objective.
Another appointment is of a former New Brunswick Liberal
campaign manager for a leadership bid. And the member over there
has the gall to try and tell the rest of Canada that these are separate
Houses? These are not separate Houses. Yes, you can look for the
rest of your members. They are not around, are they? These are not
separate houses at all. The people in one House have been put there
as a result of personal selection of the head of government, the
Prime Minister.
(1235)
Is that wrong? The opposition the last time around, which was
the Liberal Party, said this:
``The issue is not whether he has had some good appointments'', Deputy
Liberal Leader Sheila Copps said, ``this issue is that once again Brian Mulroney
is manipulating the system for his own ends, all the while publicly claiming to
be holier than thou''.
That was when the Conservatives made Senate appointments,
but hey, it is okay now that the Liberals are in government. That
makes a difference. Here is another quote:
``He is building a huge millstone which is going to be hanging on the neck of
Jean Charest or Kim Campbell'', said Boudria. ``They have to go into the next
election with that around their necks''.
That comment on an appointment to the Senate was made while
the individual was in opposition. He happens to be in government
now. ``This one just boggles the mind'', said a Liberal in
opposition. She has been almost everybody's favourite cabinet
minister but that was over here. That is not now.
The member for Vancouver Centre is wrong when she says these
are separate Houses. Unfortunately they are not separate Houses. If
they were, the Senate would be elected, it would be equal and it
would be effective.
``We are wasting our time on this issue'', says the member for
Vancouver Quadra. ``It is only $40 million. Heck, it is only
taxpayers' money''. That is a sad commentary for $40 million, $1
million, $40,000 or $400. A lot of people have to work and pay
taxes for that. For a Liberal to stand up and say we are wasting time
on this issue is irresponsible.
Some of the innuendo that was put-hi, George, it is nice to see
you.
Mr. Proud: I just came in to see you.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): It is nice to see another
Liberal.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): They are heckling. All four
are heckling. This is hard to take. It is worse than question period.
With respect to some of the innuendo by the member for
Vancouver Centre, there is something wrong with a government
that says a person or a party which disagrees with something like
immigration policy is racist or when a party, groups or individuals
disagree with the gay rights legislation that they are homophobic.
There is something wrong with the message the government is
3068
sending out across this land. The innuendo by the member that was
said earlier is strongly resented.
(1240 )
The most important comment we have to look at is: ``Let us get
on to more important issues''. Well, let us do that. Let us deal with
the Young Offenders Act. Yes, the Liberals looked after that one,
did they not? They did a good job on that one except for virtually
every victim across the country who says: ``You did not do what we
asked''. So let us get on with more important issues. Just when is
the Liberal government going to do that? The government has had
ample opportunity to deal with that issue and has not done so.
There are a number of useless bills coming through the House of
Commons. For anybody who has the time to look at the list of bills
that have been put through this place in two and one-half years,
bills that do not matter at all to the average Canadian outside of this
House, it is astounding.
For a Liberal member to say: ``Let us get on with more important
issues'', I would agree. Just when is that going to happen? Those
folks over there are three years into their mandate. Hello, is anyone
home?
Mr. Proud: The lights are on.
Mr. Abbott: Not too brightly.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): George, you stop heckling
me. My mother is watching this.
It took three years for the Reform Party to bring victims rights
into the House and we had to stuff them at the members opposite, to
get them to do something. And the member says: ``Let us get on
with more important issues''. When will that come?
Of course this year we are only overspending $35 billion or close
to that. What does it matter to them? It is only $35 billion, over
$100 million since the Liberals were elected, $100 billion, a
million billion. I do not think they know the difference anyway.
There is the problem. The Liberals are overspending to the tune in
excess of $100 billion over three years and the member says: ``Let
us get on to more important issues''. Give me a break.
There are kids up there in the gallery wondering just exactly
when the government will get on to more important issues. Whilst
we are overspending $35 billion and with a debt load in excess of
$570 billion, where does the motion we have today fit in with this?
``It is not much; it is only $40 million. Heck, we overspend by $35
billion a year''. It is petty cash to you guys, is it not?
So do not bring the Senate in here. Do not ask the senators how
they are spending their money. Do not ask them about their jaunts
around the country. Do not ask them about where they are splurging
or how they can cut back. That does not appear to be important.
The member for Vancouver Quadra said it all. What we have
here, he said, is a lack of restraint of a non-elected House. That is
okay. It reminds me of the minister of immigration's policy with
the Immigration and Refugee Board: ``It can make mistakes. It is
autonomous. That is another place. It has nothing to do with us. I
cannot have any input into that''.
If the government makes enough of these organizations
autonomous, then we will not have to have anybody appear at all,
do we? We will just overspend every year, raise the debt and we
will go on our merry way. It is only the next generation that is
sitting up there who will have to worry about that.
(1245 )
I do not know. We give $30,000 or $40,000 away here and there
on grants. We are only talking about $40 million to an organization
which does what exactly?
An hon. member: Sober second thought.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Sober second thought. I
would say second thought.
This motion is serious. We have no speakers over there because
they have been told by the boss, I am sure, not to speak to this
because it is about their friends over there. Forty million dollars is
being spent and the people who spend it are not accountable. We
owe more than that to the people who are paying the bills.
Regardless of whether it is the Senate, the RCMP, Correctional
Service Canada, MP salaries, MP pensions or whatever else, one
must be held accountable. For the Liberal Party to say or do
otherwise is irresponsible.
It is no wonder a large segment of society today is concerned
about politicians and governments or any group of people that
would whisk the money from their pockets to an unaccountable
group. It is a very sad commentary.
I suppose I cannot ask for unanimous consent again. They will
not give me unanimous consent, so I will not ask. I wish these folks
were not so much like sheep. It would be a really nice place to
come to and talk about accountability, about spending money and
even about trying to get a Senate elected, effective or equal.
However, we are dealing with traditional party mentality where you
do as you are told and you do as we say. It will not change until we
move this government out.
There are only 52 of us here. Every time we stand up to speak
about something they put their PR people on it and they fight us as
best they can. However, we will not go away on this issue or on any
other issue because of lack of performance, because of lack of
caring or because of plain arrogance. That is the best way I can
put it.
I am sure my time is up. I have made my point. It is very difficult
and frustrating to come from British Columbia or any other
province into the House knowing full well a majority government
will not change. It will continue to put its friends and party hacks
in a place it calls a chamber of sober second thought. Those people
3069
will continue to be unaccountable. They will spend money the way
they wish. The government will continue to ignore the wishes of
many Canadians until it gets booted out of office, just like the other
party from jurassic park.
(1250 )
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Madam Speaker, the
member for Vancouver Centre got up and displayed her ignorance
of this issue. Then the member for Vancouver Quadra got up and
expressed his knowledge of this issue. The reason the Liberals are
not putting anyone up is the difficulty the member for Vancouver
Quadra got into.
Because this motion gives notice of opposition to the Senate
estimates we pointed out the purpose of this was to put pressure on
the Senate to make it account for the $40 million or so of spending.
We do need a majority in this House to approve spending. We asked
the member for Vancouver Quadra for his perspective.
It was very instructive that he was not prepared to the state the
obvious, that the people of Canada should have some kind of
control over the amount of money being spent by the upper
Chamber, that the people of Canada have a right to know these
things. He would not admit it.
I take the member for Vancouver Quadra as being an honourable
gentleman. He waffled and he side stepped and he gave all sorts of
soft answers. Even when we tried putting a very precise question to
him, as did a member from the Bloc, the member would not answer
the question.
Would the member for Fraser Valley West agree that the real
reason the members of the Liberal Party, the people who are in
control of the government, will not put up any speakers is they are
afraid they will be seen in the hypocritical position they are taking
on this issue? Would he agree they are not prepared to stand up and
be counted in this House to answer whether this House as the
elected people of Canada, responsible to the people of Canada, not
also exercise responsibility for the $40 million currently being
spent by the Senate. I suggest to my colleague the Liberals have no
backbone, no courage and will not stand up again in this House on
this issue.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Madam Speaker, no I do not
agree with that, right?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
An hon. member: The answer is yes, Randy.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): The answer is yes, and I was
told to say that by my party, just like the Liberals.
There is a problem over here, is there not? This place is full of
people. Why do they not all get up? Why does one of them not get
up, talk to this issue and explain why a member of the Senate
cannot come forward and justify spending $40 million in taxpayer
bucks? Let us have at them in the questions after their speeches.
What is wrong? It is embarrassing. I hope people watching and
listening are asking why the Liberals will not stand up and justify,
why they will not support the Senate's coming forward to a
committee of the House of Commons to justify how it spends $40
million of taxpayer money.
Perhaps we should stop paying $40 million in taxes. Perhaps we
should say if you do not want your money you will not operate.
That takes backbone, something the Liberals do not have.
An hon. member: You are getting personal.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Getting personal? You have
not seen personal yet.
This is serious, and we do not know how to make the government
see it is serious, and it is sad. It is sad that my kids have to pay the
taxes they do. It is sad that my kids my not have jobs like us baby
boomers. It is sad that perhaps my mother's pension will be a lot
less than what she thought. It is so sad that a government cannot
even look at $40 million and why it is spent. The real reason I
suppose is it is like firing your sister, is it not? We do not want to
question these folks over here, after all we did put them in. They
did work for us on the campaign trail, did they not? They are in
touch with everything today even though Mr. Trudeau appointed a
few and lord knows who else.
(1255)
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, the member for Fraser Valley West is a hard act to
follow.
Do we need a Senate? Many Canadians do not think so. They
think it is irrelevant, it is held in contempt or it is the butt of jokes,
and the polls would indicate that is the case as well.
We do not hear this about other senates in the democratic free
world where we have elected senates. We do not hear that about the
senate to the south of us. What is the main reason? It is very clear
the main difference and the main reason why they are credible and
accepted is they are elected and very often they are the prime
people who are responsible for regional interests. They are
accountable and that follows from being democratically elected.
There are times in Canada when our Senate has been very
relevant. Primarily this is when it is not a rubber stamp. There are a
few times when the Senate is not nominated by the government of
the day. We saw this in this Parliament for the first couple of years
and there were some issues on which the other place did some very
responsible things. Of course, that is not convenient or comfortable
for the government of the day.
3070
There are two kinds of senators. There are many ways we could
categorize senators. There are those who were previously elected
officials, such as members of Parliament, who know what
democratic accountability is. From my province of British
Columbia there are a couple of members who leap to mind as
being in that category. Generally speaking, if we were to ask the
public in British Columbia who were the B.C. senators, those two
individuals would be most recognizable. If we were to ask for a
credibility quotient those two individuals would once again have
the highest credibility quotient. Very often they are head and
shoulders above the rest.
There is a reason for this. They carry the tradition, the
responsibilities and the accountability that had to go with
everything an elected official has in their terms of reference. They
have carried that into that other place.
The Senate has left itself wide open for criticism on so many
fronts. All of our institutions are challenged if they do not change
with the times. We need look only at royalty in Great Britain and
other places.
(1300 )
The old political institutions, the old political parties, the whole
party discipline system, these practices are changing. There is a
new found interest in direct democracy. The Reform Party is a
reflection of direct democracy coming to the House of Commons.
Some of the party discipline that has been traditional in the
House of Commons is starting to change in the governing parties in
my view as a consequence of the Reform Party's presence in the
House of Commons. We saw that on the sexual orientation bill, Bill
C-33, with the backbench Liberals wanting to express a
non-government point of view. We understand the same thing is to
express itself with regard to Newfoundland schools coming up.
This will not go away. It is the thin edge of a very fat wedge. The
old political parties will have to reinvent themselves, as will the
Senate. The more the House of Commons changes and the more the
Senate entrenches itself in its non-elected and non-accountable
ways, the more irrelevant it will become. This is a shot across the
bow for the other place. If the Senate were elected it would follow
that this would create accountability and we would not need to be
having this debate in all likelihood.
Once again, by bringing this motion to the House, Reform is
rocking the boat on the status quo. I was delighted to hear the
comments from our Bloc colleague who sees our point. Once again
we find the Liberal government defending the status quo. It has
exploited the current system to its advantage for decades. It is not
difficult to understand why it wants to defend the status quo even
though it is indefensible in the public's mind. What a sad spectacle
this is.
The senators will stand on principle, so the speculation goes, and
not appear before the House committee to defend their estimates.
This is not a House of Lords. This is Canada where our young
country should be creative, constructive and invigorated by fresh
challenges, not cloistered and defensive in every way and
entrenched in historical irrelevance.
No senator has appeared before a committee of the House of
Commons since 1888. This would be the first time since 1869 that
any senator has ever appeared before a House committee to defend
expenditures. Does this precedent mean this should be the case?
No, quite the contrary.
This is a very important reinventing of a very important
institution. There is symbolism that in the main estimates this is
vote one. One could hardly say this has simply been overlooked
through all the years, nor could one say that this time. By virtue of
its mere placement, it is impossible to overlook.
Canada has had in its history one elected senator, Stan Waters
from Alberta. Stan Waters from Alberta ended every speech in the
Senate with, I believe: ``And besides all that, the Senate should be
reformed''. I understand he did that every time. A wake up call is
needed. It is unfortunate the late Stan Waters is not here to witness
what we are going through today, which appears to be of such little
interest to the government.
(1305)
The Senate has always tended to be the home for those of
privilege, accustomed to perks, travel and expense accounts.
Audits generally turn a blind eye to those individuals who enjoy
such prestige. It was only in the 1980s that the House of Commons
got control of its operations and procedures. Until that time it also
was enjoying very loose control procedures. Now it is time for the
Senate to get under the microscope and face those same
expectations of the taxpayers if it wishes to be something that was
once revered and not held in contempt.
I co-operated with a senator from British Columbia and a senator
from Nova Scotia to carry on an ad hoc parliamentary committee,
joint committee hearings in British Columbia on the light station
issue. This was a good and valuable exercise. It was good for
British Columbians, it was good for me, it was good for the
senators, it was good for these institutions and in my mind
displayed some of the things that could occur and would occur on a
regular basis if we had two institutions reformed in some minor and
in some major ways.
It took creativity on our part. In a sense we were battling the
status quo in order to get this ad hoc parliamentary committee on
the road. We did not get help from very many people. When we
made the final report, which I think was a valuable report, the
House denied me the unanimous consent to table it in the House. I
think it was a loss to the House, and there should be a provision for
doing things differently. If members want to participate in these
kinds of things the House should encourage them and the product
3071
of those hearings or procedures should automatically be tabled in
the House.
The two senators with whom I participated are previous
members of Parliament of long standing. They understood the
system, accountability and their responsibility to the people and the
taxpayers. One senator was in cabinet for an extended period of
time and has a very high credibility index, in particular in British
Columbia which is where she is from.
I do not want to see an end to the Senate. We get a taste of how
useful the Senate could be from time to time, especially when
representing regional interests. Let us join the 21st century before
we leave the 20th century.
A 1991 auditor general's report was referred to in earlier
speeches by other members. It is useful to look at what is being
said. This is important stuff. I have gone through the executive
summary. I do not think very much has changed since 1991 in this
regard. If it has changed, let us hear about it. The only way we will
hear about it is if we have vote one of the estimates defended by the
very people who prepared those estimates, the senators from the
appropriate committee.
(1310)
We found the Senate has neither formally nor informally
delegated clear responsibility to management, nor has it made clear
for what it will hold management accountable. That is a pretty
straightforward recommendation from the auditor general.
The Senate does not adequately report on its administrative,
financial or human resource management performance and does
not possess sufficient information to enable it to do so
systematically. That is pretty straightforward.
To improve accountability the Senate should periodically
publish details of travel, telecommunications and office
expenditures of senators. It is amazing what public disclosure will
do for accountability.
Senators have insufficient incentives to manage their office
expenses with due regard for economy and efficiency. The details
of the expenditures should be publicly reported.
There are lots of reports in every bureaucracy that sit on shelves
and gather dust. When we are talking about expenditures of
taxpayer funds, there is no more important single role for members
of Parliament and for the House of Commons than to be watchdogs
and to be calling for accountability for the expenditures of taxpayer
funds.
When we get vote one on the estimates and an organization, the
other place virtually thumbing its nose at the House of Commons
standing committee responsible for going over the estimates, there
is something very wrong. The public deserves better.
The final statement in the auditor general's report recommends
that where appropriate the operational mandate should be clarified,
costs ascertained, opportunities for productivity improvement
seized and the types and levels of service provided should be
re-examined to see if other less costly levels of service might also
be acceptable to senators.
I felt very blessed to talk to this item today. I was beginning to
wonder if there were any way as members of Parliament we could
talk in a substantive way about the functioning of the other place.
I understand there is historical reticence to do so but I also
understand that historical reticence is leading us nowhere. It is
leading to the abolition of the Senate. I do not endorse the abolition
of the Senate. I would like to see the Senate reformed.
Organizations that dig in their heels are setting themselves up for
a much bigger fall than institutions that embrace change, that smell
the winds of change and decide they want to seek a fresh mandate,
new systems, that they want to be in step with or ahead of the times.
It is long overdue in this longstanding Canadian institution that we
are speaking about today. That is my strongest recommendation.
(1315)
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Madam Speaker, there
must be some reason that not only this Prime Minister, but Brian
Mulroney, Pierre Trudeau and all of the prime ministers before
them from the traditional parties have gone out of their way to
ensure that their selected people go to the Senate.
I wonder if the hon. member would agree with me that perhaps it
has something to do with the fact that many of these people are put
there to be bagmen for the tradition parties. In other words, these
people are given taxpayers' dollars to travel around the
countryside, to wine and dine people to get contributions for the
Liberals and Conservatives.
For example, let us look at a statement of seasonal expense
allowances, travel and office expenses paid in 1993-94 for Senator
Buchanan. The former premier of Nova Scotia spent $49,930 in
that year travelling around the countryside. Senator Fairbairn is
from Alberta. She spent $49,019. Senator Hays who, it is
absolutely no secret, is a Liberal bagman going around collecting
money for the Liberals, spent $42,528 on travel. One of the most
interesting cases is a senator who lives in Ottawa. It could be
assumed that this senator, who comes from Ottawa and lives in
Ottawa, would not have any expenses. Senator Kenny spent
$29,328 going around Canada collecting money for the old line
parties.
3072
There is absolutely no possible way that any Liberal will stand
up to be counted in the House today. They realize how absolutely,
totally disgusting the process is. These people were appointed by
today's Prime Minister and by Brian Mulroney. The traditional
parties have continually appointed people to the upper chamber,
given them an expense account and told them to go out and collect
money for our political party.
I am sure the member would agree with me that this is an
absolutely reprehensible practice that must be stopped. But how
can it be stopped if these people will not even be accountable for
the $40 million that the Senate is currently spending? It is quite
reprehensible.
Mr. Keyes: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Not to
cast aspersions on hon. members of this place or of the other place,
which in itself is reprehensible, I would point out that Senator
Colin Kenny went across Canada on Bill S-7 which is the alternate
fuels bill that successfully passed this place.
Mr. Duncan: Madam Speaker, one of the concerns that has been
expressed about the Senate is that the people who are appointed to
the Senate are there to provide a variety of functions, one of which
is the function mentioned by my colleague, to be bagmen. I do not
know if there is a gender neutral term. Bag people? Is that what we
call bagmen now? I am not sure. Because of the potential negative
connotation of the word bagmen maybe nobody is seeking gender
neutral terminology for it.
Mr. Volpe: A replenisher of the treasury.
Mr. Duncan: A replenisher of the treasury. That is gender
neutral. Other functions, of course, would be to act as a party
researcher and to be a part of the election readiness machine.
(1320 )
There are also other concerns about the role of Senators. Certain
senators hold corporate directorships. Senators are held to a
different set of standards than members of Parliament because they
are not elected and the Senate does not deal with legislation in a
substantive way. Well, I am afraid they do. The potential is there
and I do not think the Criminal Code should be the standard of
conduct for any government institution. That is not good enough.
I share concerns that the terms of reference in the selection by
patronage of appointment to the Senate often reflect the political
wishes of the governing party rather than the greater good of the
nation or of representing the regional interests of the region from
which the senator is appointed. I believe that is clear.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I have here the adopted resolutions of the biennial convention of
the Liberal Party of Canada 1992. I want to read a statement about
the Senate which was made at the convention.
``The members of the current House of Commons who are
suddenly advocating Senate abolition have no interest in
establishing any checks and balances on themselves, in particular,
the regional checks and balances which a reformed Senate
provides. They are simply seeking to consolidate power in their
own hands''. Basically that says that if there is a Senate then there
cannot be a consolidation of power in the House of Commons.
I would like to ask the hon. member how he feels about that,
particularly since the government makes it a point when it comes to
power to appoint a majority in the Senate of their party members. If
that is done, how can the Senate remain independent, from the
House of Commons?
Mr. Duncan: Madam Speaker, I addressed that in my speech.
The Senate does not represent regional interests except when it is
not dominated by the government of the day. The government of
the day will post haste, at full gallop, do everything in its power to
ensure that it dominates the other place. We have seen this in
Canada's history time and time again.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I listened to the debate and especially to the introductory
speech of the Liberals this morning. They said that we should be
talking about more relevant things in this place.
The theme of my speech today is, and I have said a hundred
times, that unless the system in this country is changed, nothing
much else can be changed. The system needs to be changed to bring
in democracy. I am going to say that over and over again.
When I was first elected by the people of Yorkton-Melville,
they told me two things. They said: ``We want you to speak up on
our behalf. Breitkreuz, we want you to go to Ottawa and be our
voice in Ottawa''. I have tried faithfully to do that on issues like
gun control, justice reform, reduction in the size of government,
preservation of health care, education, pensions, protection of
agricultural issues, more recently on the issue of sexual orientation,
and yesterday on the funding of abortions.
(1325)
They also asked me something else. They wanted me to tell them
what is going on in Ottawa. They wanted to know. I want to tell the
people of Yorkton-Melville and all Canadians what is going on in
the Senate today.
The Senate is not elected. How then do we get our senators? The
Prime Minister appoints them. How does he decide who goes into
the upper chamber? He chooses the people who have worked the
hardest on the Liberal Party campaign, or in the Liberal Party, or in
the case of Mr. Mulroney when he was Prime Minister, those who
worked hardest for the Conservative Party. The other place is full
3073
of faithful Liberals and Conservatives, those who have helped
those respective governments to get elected. Senators are patronage
appointments.
Patronage appointments go to the party faithful, the Liberals and
Conservatives who have helped get those parties elected. It is their
reward. It is an incentive for them to do what they are told in an
election campaign. They do not get to the Senate on merit.
Some people may ask: What is wrong with this? It gets people
involved in politics for the wrong reason. They do not get involved
to serve their country. They do what they are told to do by the
Prime Minister. If they do what they are told they get appointed to
the Senate.
The whole system stinks. There is no democracy in it. Those
senators are there because they were faithful campaign mangers,
fundraisers or whatever.
They are still faithful party workers. They are still working for
the Liberals and Conservatives raising funds and managing
campaigns. Just because they were appointed to the Senate does not
mean they begin doing the work of senators, at least not solely.
They are still campaign managers, faithful party workers and
fundraisers.
Listen to that, Canadians. That is what you are paying for. That is
happening right now. That is what is going on here in Ottawa.
I am a watchdog. I was sent here for that reason by my
constituents. I am barking loud and long about what is happening
here. Taxpayers' funds are being used to pay campaign workers and
fundraisers through the Senate of Canada. Public funds go to
senators' salaries, expense accounts and travel. Over $100,000 per
senator goes for blatant political reasons. That is wrong.
Some of the names which are coming to light are Joyce
Fairbairn, Dan Hays, Ron Ghitter. Joyce Fairbairn and Dan Hays
are faithful Liberals. Ron Ghitter was appointed by Mulroney. His
whole purpose in being in the Senate is to be the western campaign
manager for the Conservatives in order to build that party up. That
is happening today and it is wrong, plain and simple. The people
ought to know that and I am objecting.
When I came here over two and half years ago I actually thought
there was some mechanism by which Parliament was accountable
to the people between elections. I am sad to report to Canadians
that there is no accountability existing in this House or in the
Senate. Frankly, I think that the House of Commons is
masquerading as a democracy. It is pretending it is a democracy.
The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia
said it best about this time last year when he said: ``Canadians elect
295 members of Parliament to represent them in Ottawa, but with
all the decision making power resting with a dozen or so ministers
who refuse to be influenced by reasoned argument and persuasion,
I have to question the purpose of all the shenanigans that go on in
the House in the name of parliamentary debate''.
(1330)
When I was elected I told the voters of Yorkton-Melville that I
would be their voice in Ottawa. If all the members in this House
had the same attitude the entire process would be opened up so that
real democracy could express itself. The Reform Party believes in
true democracy, not democracy by cabinet decree as we have it
here.
The Liberal government reminds me of a leader of the Soviet
Union who once said: ``How can you expect me to run a country if
no one obeys my decrees?'' That was said in the Soviet Union but
what is happening here? The Liberal cabinet has nothing to worry
about because it has all the power and the full force of government
to have all of its decrees implemented.
Under a Reform government all MPs would be able to vote
freely on bills such as those concerned with gun control, sexual
orientation, immigration, the GST and MP pensions. Another topic
I wish I had time to discuss today is the obscene MP pension plan. I
hear members opposite mumbling. They do not like some of the
comments I am making as they are feeding at the trough of that MP
pension plan.
Principle number 16 of the Reform Party constitution states:
``We believe in the accountability of elected representatives to the
people who elect them, and that the duty of elected members to
their constituents should supersede their obligations to their
political parties''.
A Reform government would not only give MPs the power and
responsibility to represent their constituents but would also transfer
the power to the people by giving them the right to recall their MPs.
There would be MP recall if their member failed to represent them
properly in the House, which is a very important democratic
measure. Once put in place there would seldom be a need to
exercise it.
A Reform government would also give power to the citizens to
initiate a referendum by petitioning government to put a question
on the ballot at each federal election. That is called citizens'
initiative. It would allow people direct input into what is happening
in their country. It is very very important to have those kinds of
changes made.
I remind everyone that my theme is that unless we change the
system we will not change much else in the country. We need to
bring democracy back to Canada. Four democratic reforms will
guide government between elections when Reform forms the
government: free votes, recall, referenda and citizens' initiative.
3074
The next step in making any federation work is an elected, equal
for all provinces and effective Senate, commonly known as the
triple E Senate. This is not only essential to making Canada
operate more democratically and more effectively, but it is also
necessary to ensure that the Senate is accountable to the people,
not just the Prime Minister who appointed them in this perfect
patronage plum I just described.
Why is this called the highest court in the land? Because we
should be sitting here debating the laws that are laid before
Parliament. We should be discussing the pros and cons. We should
be deciding if it is good legislation that is before this House.
Why do we see very few people here? Because it is not a
democratic institution. The people opposite are not allowed to vote
on the legislation in a free vote to decide whether or not it is good
legislation. They are simply told how to vote. Why sit and listen?
This is not the highest court in the land. We are not debating these
things and deciding whether or not they are good laws.
Similarly, that is what should be happening in the Senate.
Elected senators would not be able to thumb their noses at a request
from the House of Commons to explain how they will spend $40.7
million a year. They would be accountable. Right now they are not
accountable to the taxpayers. If they fly across the country on the
Liberal or Tory election campaigns, there is nothing the taxpayers
can do even though it is their money. The senators are not
accountable to the taxpayers of Canada for the $40 million being
spent. ``Just give us the money and shut up'' is the attitude of the
Senate.
(1335)
The question on whether the Senate is accountable for the money
it spends would not even arise if the Senate were doing its job. And
if senators were elected, if the Senate was effective and made each
province equal in the upper chamber, this question would not even
come before this House but that is not the case. They are not doing
their job.
For a true federation to work it must have both a lower House
and an upper House. The lower House, the House of Commons,
gives voters representation by population based on the principle of
one person, one vote. The upper House, the Senate, is supposed to
represent the regions or the provinces based on the principle of
Canada being a federation of 10 equal provinces. Unfortunately
Canada's federation of equal provinces was corrupted from the
start by giving the Prime Minister the power to appoint senators
instead of letting voters in each province elect them.
There have been 16 Senate seats vacated since the election in
October 1993. The Prime Minister has appointed a Liberal 16
times. Even Brian Mulroney had a better record than that. The
blatant patronage that is going on in this place rewarding party
workers by giving them these hundred thousand dollar positions in
the Senate is unconscionable.
Another unfortunate development was when the Senate seats
were divided among the four regions of the country instead of
equally among the provinces. Because Quebec and Ontario are
defined as regions, they have 24 senators each while a province like
Saskatchewan only has six senators. There are those who are going
to complain that Ontario has more people than Saskatchewan and
should have more senators, but remember that Ontario already has
99 members of Parliament to represent its large population.
Saskatchewan only has 14 members in this House.
The state of California has two senators, as does North Dakota.
We do not hear Californians clamouring for more senators because
they know that the only way a true federation can work effectively
is if each voter is equal and each state or province is equal.
Remember that the purpose of the Senate is to provide equal
representation to each province in the federation. Until our Senate
is reformed along these lines, our federation will always suffer
from the tyranny of the majority in central Canada. That is one of
the key objections the people in my province have about what goes
on in this place.
The Prime Minister wants puppets in the Senate so he can simply
pull their strings and have them do as he wishes. That is why there
are no, or very few, Liberals present today to debate this issue. It
makes them very uncomfortable. Absence and silence make a huge
statement on this issue.
Why do the Liberals and the Conservatives not want to make
changes to the Senate? I have already explained that briefly. They
would not have a place to put their party faithful. Where would
they put there faithful fundraisers and campaign managers? How
would they reward those faithful Liberals who tirelessly worked to
get the Liberals elected to the House of Commons? Liberals and
Conservatives cannot defend an appointed Senate and that is why
they are silent on this issue today.
What is the purpose of the Senate? It is to ensure that legislation
does not pass and become law without being properly vetted and to
make sure that minorities, regions and certain provinces are
protected. The province of Quebec has some valid concerns if it is
not properly protected in the Senate. It should ensure that
minorities are properly protected and that is one of the reasons we
have the Senate. It also could be a control on government spending,
spending that is often out of control.
One of the Liberals who introduced the topic on that side of the
House asked: Are the two Houses not independent of one another?
How can they be independent when the Prime Minister appoints
those who will faithfully carry out his wishes? That cannot happen.
3075
(1340)
I heard the member complaining that Reformers tried to get the
Senate to overthrow Bill C-68. I would like to remind the House
that it was the justice minister who lobbied hardest to get his bill
through the Senate. It was the justice minister who lobbied hard
and the member talks about the need for them to be independent or
that Reformers were concerned. Reformers were responding to
what the justice minister did.
Until we change the system we will not change much else in this
place. We need democracy, not just one day out of every four or
five years.
I should also point out that when Bill C-68 on gun control went
to the Senate, the Prime Minister ensured it would get through by
appointing more senators. Is that independence between the two
Houses? Are they separate? Hardly.
One of the reasons members of the Reform Party received the
support of 2.5 million Canadians in the last election is that they
objected strongly to the elitist system of government. Traditionally
Canadians have trusted their leaders. That trust is seriously eroding
as they find out more and more how the system works, or in this
case does not work.
The government often engages in an exercise called public
consultation. It looks at public input as being nice but it never
listens to it. If the government would listen to the public input on
the Senate, this motion today would become votable. If a free vote
were held and if government members were representing their
constituents, things would drastically change in this place.
I was involved in some of the public consultations. I was on the
human resources committee in 1994 and we went across the entire
country. What happened when we were all done? There was hardly
a room big enough to hold all the papers the committee received,
but nothing ever happened. The same thing happened on the gun
control issue. Now the government is doing it on agriculture. What
a joke. These public consultations are not even taken into
consideration.
What should the Senate be doing? It should be the chamber of
sober second thought. Instead of running across the country
campaigning for the Liberals and Conservatives, senators should
be consulting Canadians in their home provinces to see if the
legislation that is being brought forward and intended to be passed
is acceptable to them.
I want to talk about one more issue while I am talking about
accountability. This issue has been raised with me by my
constituents. It is the huge issue of the Supreme Court of Canada.
We cannot just talk about the accountability of the Senate without
talking about what is also happening in the Supreme Court of
Canada.
Through our charter of rights and freedoms our country's
fundamental rights are in the hands of nine judges, judges who are
not accountable. They are appointed. They interpret laws and
determine the direction of justice taken in this country. The laws
and the rights in our country are very general and not well defined.
Their ultimate meaning is determined by these nine people who
may not represent the same views of most Canadians. They can in
fact destroy the very fabric of our country. These judges can
actually impose their views on the country with disregard for the
intent Parliament may have had when the legislation was put in
place. They even provide guidelines for legislation that Parliament
should pass.
The fear Canadians have with the recent inclusion of sexual
orientation as a category in the Canadian Human Rights Act is an
example. How do those judges get where they are? They are
appointed by the Prime Minister, just like senators are appointed.
Will they redefine marriage, the traditional family? These are all
concerns people have.
The topic we are discussing today is whether the Senate should
be accountable to the taxpayer for the $40 million it spends. Let us
ask the people of Canada. Let us do as I have done. Let us put out
an item on a people's tax form-
(1345)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I remind
members not to refer to the presence or absence of members in the
House since we all know they are now working in committee or
doing constituency work.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Madam Speaker, again
I make note, even in the light of your comments, that I doubt very
much that we will get any Liberals on their feet in the House today
to defend that they are not prepared to hold the Senate accountable
for spending $40 million without accountability to the Canadian
people.
It is quite shameful that there is no accountability to the
Canadian people. I lay it completely at the doorstep of the Liberal
majority government. There will not be one more member of the
Liberal Party who will stand up because they know it is
indefensible.
We also know they will not permit a vote on this. They will not
give unanimous consent to make this motion votable because it
would be too embarrassing to them and too embarrassing to their
friends.
On the issue of accountability, I notice in today's Maclean's the
following brief comment: ``In 1920 the Senate protective services
took over security for the Senate side of the Parliament buildings.
At that time there were only three guards, each working eight hours
a day, seven days a week''.
3076
Today there are 78 personnel, although remaining unarmed, who
rely heavily on modern technology. We can understand there might
have to be guards in the Senate considering its obscene
performance recently over the GST where senators were yelling
and ranting and raving and carrying on with kazoos. Maybe that
was why we needed the number of guards there.
The point is from 1920 when we had three guards working seven
days a week, eight hours a day, and yet today there are 78 personnel
in security over there, this increase has never been accounted for. It
has never been justified to the Canadians who pay the bills.
I am sure my colleague would agree with me. The people on the
opposite side, the Liberals and their predecessors, the
Conservatives, same thing, Liberal-Tory, same old story, are not
prepared to make the other chamber accountable to the Canadian
taxpayer. It is shameful.
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Madam Speaker, at the
end of my speech I touched on the fact that Canadian taxpayers do
not have a direct say into what is happening in the Senate.
If they were asked whether they want to spend $40.6 million on
the Senate, the answer would be very clear. They want to see some
bang for their buck. They want to know if these huge increases in
security, the huge increases in the spending that have taken place in
the Senate over these many years, are actually necessary.
Are there results for the money they are spending? Taxpayers
want to know that. They are entitled to have an answer to that.
When the Senate refuses to come and give account of how that
money is being spent, there is something seriously wrong with our
system.
The worst thing in a democracy is an unaccountable system.
That is an oxymoron. There cannot be a democracy where there is
unaccountability. There needs to be both.
The answer to my colleague's question is that the taxpayers
would question the spending that has taken place there. Maybe we
should ask them directly in a question what they feel about this
whole issue.
Mr. Abbott: Madam Speaker, I wonder if my colleague is also
aware that within the time of this Parliament there was actually a
move by Progressive Conservative senators to get an increase in
their research budget.
(1350 )
I do not know what they would be researching. It became very
clear that the reason Conservative senators were asking for an
increase in their research budget was they wanted to tap into the
Senate research dollars and cents so that Progressive Conservative
senators could use their budget for the benefit of a loan to
Progressive Conservatives that remain in this Chamber. The
Conservative Party had the same arrogant attitude the current
government has and it was wiped down to two seats in the last
election
Again it is a question of accountability. I am sure anybody who
would go along with the idea in this case of 40 million Canada
taxpayer dollars to be used at the whim and will of senators and
particularly to divert these research dollars form the Progressive
Conservative senators to the lonely two in the back row here, any
Canadian of right thinking, would realize this is obscenity of the
first order.
When will the Liberal government wake up to the fact that it has
a responsibility Canadians for how taxpayer dollars are spent?
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Madam Speaker, I was
not aware of this. I was aware of some of the other things going on
with regard to patronage appointments. This is a shame, an
absolute atrocity, using taxpayer money to do research for the
Liberal and Conservative parties to see how they can get re-elected.
That is a complete misuse of funds and I find it unconscionable and
totally unacceptable.
When members across laugh and joke about this issue, I think it
is something all Canadian should know about. This is absolutely
the lowest form of politics we could get, absolutely the worst. I
hope all Canadians give a loud no to the government at the next
election.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
the member for Yorkton-Melville spoke but I have not heard
anybody on this side of the House laughing, chuckling. I question
that kind of comment-
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Right over there.
Ms. Catterall: The member keeps trying to interrupt me and it is
a little difficult to concentrate. I question that kind of comment. It
casts aspersions on the members of the House who are listening to
the debate. I ask the member to show a little more respect for his
colleagues and not to suggest to the public that something is
happening in the House which is not happening.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Resuming
debate.
Ms. Catterall: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. As you
noted, members spend time in committee. I have been in
committee all morning and not in the House.
I wonder if you could clarify the procedure taking place here
today. I had understood this is an opposition motion which was
tabled late yesterday and it is the choice of the opposition party
whether it wishes it to be a votable motion. The opposition did not
choose to make it votable.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): This is not a
point of order, although I appreciate the clarification of the
situation.
3077
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Madam Speaker, on a
point of order. I want to know if I could reply to what the member
said because behind her were the people who were laughing and
joking.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The 10 minute
period allotted for questions and comments is finished. We are now
continuing debate.
(1355)
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Madam Speaker, in this
land that stretches from coast to coast called Canada, every citizen
is represented by three parliamentarians: a member of the
provincial legislature, a member of the House of Commons-there
are 295 of us playing this role-and a senator in the other House.
As you can see, this is a lot of representation. We could even talk
about redundancy, although redundancy sometimes has its merits.
For example, every airplane has two control circuits: one on the left
and one on the right; the same goes for ships. Thanks to this built-in
redundancy, if one circuit fails, the other can take over and ensure
the safety of passengers. This shows that redundancy has its uses.
We must now ask ourselves whether redundancy in our
parliamentary system, the so-called bicameral system, enhances
the safety, reliability and effectiveness of government operations?
If the other House had helped us a few years ago to avoid
plunging the country so deeply into debt, we would all undoubtedly
agree that our bicameral system, our other House of Parliament,
can be effective, but such was not the case. Despite its redundancy,
our parliamentary system does not improve government operations
or enhance public administration. In fact, the exact opposite is true.
I thank my colleagues from the Reform Party for allowing us
today to reflect on the usefulness of the other House. What I find
regrettable is that this reflection is restricted to the other House
because this House has its own operating flaws. If you consider the
obligation to toe the party line, the way the House fulfils its
responsibilities, the extent to which each member can represent his
or her constituents, you will agree with me that the problem
extends to the whole parliamentary system.
We must contemplate a comprehensive review of the
parliamentary system from coast to coast. In conclusion, let me say
that the partnership proposed by Quebec would lead us not only to a
review of the system but also to a modern system that would enable
us to face the challenges of the 21st century.
[English]
The Speaker: It being two o'clock, we will now proceed to
Statements by Members.
3077
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, across
Canada and around the world volunteerism has contributed
immensely to the well-being of our communities.
Here are a few examples of my own community of Mississauga
where volunteers play a major role: Interim Place, a shelter for
battered women; Distress Line Peel; the cancer, heart and lung
associations; the volunteers at hospitals, senior homes and others
serving the needy; the many people who have helped coach and run
youth activities; the service clubs such as Rotary, Lions and
Kinsmen; and all the other men and women who serve on boards
and committees to sustain operations, to raise money and to
promote goodwill, good health and good communities.
All of their time is given freely without reservation to contribute
to making Canada remain the best country in the world.
We all should take the time to thank volunteers for their very
special contributions. We do not need to wait for a special day of
recognition because I am sure all would agree that every day is a
good day to say thank you.
* * *
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, over three weeks
ago Reform urged the government to reverse its current policy on
the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and grant immediate
diplomatic recognition to this country.
Unfortunately the minister has not taken Reform's advice. I have
been given a recent letter, dated April 4, 1996, sent by the minister
on this topic in which he makes it clear that the government is not
prepared to grant diplomatic recognition.
The reason given for this is ``concerns regarding bilateral
disputes between FYROM and the Republic of Greece''. This is a
poor excuse, considering that Greece willingly recognized this
country on September 13, 1995 and signed an accord to this effect
over nine months ago. I have a copy of the accord if the minister
would like to read it.
The UN has also recognized the former Yugoslav republic of
Macedonia, so why cannot the Canadian government get its act
together, learn the facts and grant diplomatic recognition today?
3078
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for
several years now the month of May has been the month of the
green ribbon of hope campaign sponsored by Child Find.
It is with sadness that I draw attention to this campaign, but at
the same time I am convinced of the need to take action to combat
this problem, terrible as it is. Tens of thousands of children go
missing every year. Whether they just run away or are abducted by
a stranger or a parent, the fact remains that, in all these cases,
children are lost, which is unacceptable.
To combat this scourge, Child Find takes positive steps at
various levels, such as establishing contact and information
networks to help in the actual search for missing children and
developing public education and training programs.
This year, the month of May is dedicated to awareness as well as
fund raising. I urge everyone to support this organization.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Liberal government is apparently on the verge of announcing a
drastic reduction in coast guard services on Lake Winnipeg, the
tenth largest lake in the world. The plan to de-commission the
Numao and the
Avocet and to downsize the coast guard facility in
Selkirk demonstrates a unique combination of gall and
shortsightedness.
In public hearings held last year the government was told time
and again by the affected communities that Manitoba needs better,
not fewer, coast guard services and that the services now being
provided were both essential and appreciated.
The Liberals have caught the downsizing disease from large
corporations and the result is a decline in the quality of essential
public services and a loss of jobs that is deeply wounding to
Selkirk, Gimli and other communities all around the country.
The NDP calls on the government to reconsider its plans and
preserve this useful public service. Leave the boats in service.
Public safety and public protection should be a top priority.
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want
to pay tribute to a great Canadian, Mr. Craig Swayze.
Craig Swayze started rowing in 1939 as a coxswain in
Brockville. He competed in rowing for 13 years, winning a medal
at the Royal Canadian Henley in 1947.
With a career in journalism, he promoted rowing with the
Brockville Recorder and Times, the St. Catharines Standard and the
Canadian Press.
He represented Rowing Canada at the highest international level,
FISA, and has received a host of medals and awards for his work in
the Canadian and international rowing community and in the
media.
As an active member of the rowing community in St. Catharines
he has coached high school and club crews, and worked with the
rowing club and the Royal Canadian Henley Rowing Corporation.
In 1970 St. Catharines hosted the first world rowing
championships outside Europe. Craig Swayze was the chair of that
regatta.
The world rowing championship is coming to St. Catharines in
1999 and Mr. Swayze has played a major role in making that a
reality.
On May 4 the rowing community in St. Catharines honoured
Craig Swayze for his immeasurable contribution to rowing. His
dedication to the sport and to his community is an example to all
Canadians.
I know my colleagues in the House join me in honouring the man
known as the voice of rowing in Canada, Craig Swayze.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on May 16, the 1996 Galien Canada Prize, the highest
honour for pharmaceutical research in Canada, was awarded to
Hoechst Marion Roussel Canada, of Laval, for the research and
clinical studies the company has conducted to determine the
effectiveness and safety of the drug known as Sabril.
Research plays a leading role in our society, as it helps improve
our quality of life while at the same time increasing our life
expectancy and, just as important, reducing treatment costs.
Thanks to pharmaceutical companies, their breakthroughs and
their entrepreneurship, Canada can be said to be a leader in
pharmaceutical research.
3079
I am proud to associate myself with all Canadians and
Quebecers in congratulating the entire staff at Hoechst Marion
Roussel Canada and thanking them for their perseverance,
determination and professionalism.
* * *
(1405)
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, 50
years ago, Jackie Robinson arrived in Montreal. Today, we are
proud of his accomplishments. However, it is obvious that the Parti
Quebecois is not inspired by his example.
The very day that Montreal recognized the key role played by
Jackie Robinson in the fight against discrimination, my province of
Quebec discriminates against students wishing to pursue their
studies outside the province, most of them in English.
While Jackie Robinson overcame the colour barrier, the Parti
Quebecois is imposing a territorial barrier and, by the same token,
a linguistic barrier.
While Jean Lesage and the Liberal Party promoted freedom,
Lucien Bouchard and the Parti Quebecois are driving Quebec back
into darkness.
Quebecers no longer have the option of studying in other
provinces, amongst their fellow Canadians with whom they built
our beautiful country. They can no longer enjoy the freedom of
expression, the freedom of movement and the freedom of choice.
It is obvious the Parti Quebecois does not have-
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but her
time is up.
* * *
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, on May 16, the first issue of a much awaited publication
was released. I am referring to the daily
Le Fleuve, in the Lower St.
Lawrence. The event did not go unnoticed, since
Le Fleuve is the
first daily to be launched in Quebec in several years.
Published by a team of some 30 workers forming a co-op, Le
Fleuve has a circulation of 20,000 throughout the Lower St.
Lawrence region. The newspaper provides national and
international information, in addition to regional information on
social, economic, cultural and sporting events.
Let us salute the first daily to be published in the Lower St.
Lawrence. Thanks to this publication, people will be in daily
contact with their region and with the world.
Congratulations to the whole team of Le Fleuve and long live
this new media, which is a long awaited tool of collective
development in the Lower St. Lawrence region.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, when an 11-year-old boy commits a violent crime, the
only thing that authorities can do is send him home or to the
Children's Aid Society, nothing more.
Such was the case in Toronto this month when a 13-year-old girl
was allegedly attacked by three young boys and then raped by an
11-year-old. Apparently this boy was already known to police for
auto theft and robbery. He was and still is immune from charges
because the Young Offenders Act exempts children under age 12.
The system is failing these young people and their victims. Bill
C-228, which I introduced in March, would include children as
young as 10 under the YOA. If members are actually listening to
the outrage of Canadians over this tragic event, then I urge them to
support this change. These kids are capable of committing violent
crimes, they are certainly capable of knowing they have done
wrong and they must be held accountable for their actions.
* * *
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in my riding of Etobicoke-Lakeshore we celebrate
Colonel Sam Smith Park on the shores of Lake Ontario.
With the support of Environment Canada's Great Lakes Clean
Up Fund, this waterfront facility has developed into a regional park
which provides a diversity of aquatic and wildlife habitat and a
variety of shoreline enhancement projects.
This year visitors can learn about the environmental assets of the
park through a new trail sign system which will point out the
various projects. The rehabilitation of fish and wildlife habitat in
an urban environment is both beneficial to the environment and to
the growth of industries that will concentrate on new
environmental technologies.
I recommend and commend the work of the Metro Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority, the municipality of Toronto, the
city of Etobicoke and the community of Etobicoke-Lakeshore for
the creation of Colonel Sam Smith Park.
3080
This co-operative adventure toward sustainable development
demonstrates that when government and communities work
together we can achieve a healthy environment, economic growth,
and a better community.
* * *
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the government has renewed its commitment to the Canadian space
program by investing another $317 million this year. This
commitment will continue the proud accomplishments of Canadian
astronauts.
Marc Garneau will return to earth tomorrow from his second
mission in space, having successfully reeled in the Spartan science
satellite using the Canadarm, a creation of Spar Aerospace
headquartered, of course, in my riding of Mississauga East.
Canadians have reason to be proud of their nation's
achievements at the forefront of space exploration and especially
proud of the encore performance of our first astronaut, Marc
Garneau.
(1410)
[Translation]
Thanks to Marc Garneau and his Canadarm, Canada is now
famous even in space. Congratulations.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to thank several high school students and others in
my riding who took the time on Friday to provide their views on
youth employment initiatives. The chair of the ministerial task
force on youth was good enough to stop in Parry Sound-Muskoka
to listen to the ideas of youth representatives in my riding.
I thank Mike Sporar from Bracebridge and Muskoka Lakes
Secondary School, David Lamy and Marc Baron from Huntsville
High School and Danielle Gliddon and Lynn Kameka from
Gravenhurst High School for their insightful presentations at the
forum.
The government remains committed to improving the
environment for youth in Canada so that our younger generations
have access to the training, tools and support they need to prosper
as adults.
However, improving the process starts with feedback from the
young people themselves so I encourage young people from across
Canada to participate and to provide their input.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I
was deeply wounded by the offensive remarks directed at me by the
Minister of Human Resources Development. He suggested that I
find myself another country, if I was not happy with his
government's policies.
The minister's remarks are discriminatory towards all
immigrants and refugees. The worst is that his Liberal and Reform
colleagues applauded him.
I am proud of my Chilean background and I share the profound
aspirations of the people of Quebec. Far from intimidating me, the
minister's remarks have only served to strengthen my sovereignist
convictions and to encourage me to work even harder to build a
pluralist country that is open to differences and more tolerant.
There is only one thing a minister who makes such remarks can
do: resign.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
under this Liberal government a judge has decided to give
prisoners the right to vote.
During the next campaign let us look at what these Liberals will
offer prisoners to get their votes. Free condoms so they can have
safe sex? No, they already have that. Cultural cuisine like walrus
and caribou steaks? No, they already have that. Old age security?
No, they already have that. The right to overtime pay or to refuse
work? No, they already have that. How about a nice golf course at a
prison? No, they already have that. Maybe stereos and televisions
while they are in the hole? No, they already have that too.
I do not have to campaign in prisons because prisoners already
have more than I would offer. I am sure these Liberals will come up
with something else for them like a signing bonus after each
three-year stint.
* * *
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the minister and the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans have again demonstrated their commitment to ensuring that
Canadian resources are conserved and protected.
The minister recently announced the development of a system
that allows photographs of fishing vessels at sea to be taken at
night. This system produces high quality photos that clearly
3081
identifies the fishing vessel and can be entered into evidence if
charges are to be laid for violations of fisheries regulations.
This night photographic system, the first of its type in the world,
advances Canada's position as the world leader in civilian air
surveillance and is a clear demonstration of the use of state of the
art technology in the protection of our ocean resources.
* * *
Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I stand
today to offer my congratulations to Inco Limited for its recent
$250,000 contribution for the construction of a special needs centre
at Cambrian College. The donation adds to a longstanding tradition
of Inco supporting communities across Canada.
The special needs centre will offer 1,200 students with physical
and developmental disabilities the opportunity to develop the skills
needed in today's economy and to access cutting edge technology
that challenges the very notion of barriers.
Cambrian College, the community, Inco, all donors and the
people behind the scenes who have made the centre a reality merit
special recognition. The federal and Ontario governments also
deserve mention for their contributions to the centre through the
national infrastructure program.
_____________________________________________
3081
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
(1415)
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Human Resources
Development stated that he had had his fill of seeing a new
Canadian sitting in the House preaching separatism. This
unacceptable remark was made by a government minister and
speaks volumes about the minister's opinion on Canadians by
adoption.
Would the Prime Minister tell us whether the remarks of the
Minister of Human Resources Development reflect his
government's position on new Canadians?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday in question period,
the hon. member was criticizing the department of immigration.
What I said then and I repeat now is that it is unacceptable, in my
opinion, for someone who came to Canada, was honoured with
Canadian citizenship and entered this House as an elected
representative to the Parliament of Canada to attack policies on
refugees coming to Canada, and I stand by it.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the minister has a short memory, but the blues bear
witness. Hansard records what was said, exactly, and what was
repeated and added to today just after the cabinet meeting.
My question, and it is a serious one, is for the Prime Minister. I
would like to know how the Prime Minister can allow a member of
his government, a minister, to decide that there are two sorts of
citizens in Canada: those born and bred here, who may be either
federalists or sovereignists, and new Canadians, who may only be
federalists or find themselves another country, as he put it.
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when I made my comments
yesterday and when I made my comments today at the end of the
ministers' meeting, I was trying to explain and I will explain now
for the Leader of the Opposition that-except the people who have
been here from the start, the native peoples-everybody in Canada
comes from another country, including my ancestors.
What I said is that someone who benefited from Canada's
generosity and openmindedness and who then-because in the
blues yesterday as well there was a question by the hon. member
about the legitimacy of the situation involving the department of
immigration-
Mrs. Tremblay: That is not true; that was not the question; that
is wrong.
Mr. Young: Everything I said yesterday, I repeat today.
Someone coming to Canada-
Mrs. Tremblay: You do not even know how to read.
Mr. Young: -who is elected, who enters Parliament and who
defends separatism by attacking the system that enabled him to
become a citizen-that is unacceptable.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, clearly the Prime Minister has decided to let his Minister
of Human Resources Development compound what he said
yesterday about new Canadians. It is an insult.
My question is for the Prime Minister, and I think it is his
responsibility as Prime Minister to respond. The Prime Minister
was delighted recently by the suspension of three members of the
third party for similar reasons. Is he going to act responsibly today
as he ought as Prime Minister? Will he act quickly and demand the
resignation of this minister, who brings shame onto the entire
government with remarks he made that are clearly unacceptable in
a democracy?
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
3082
(1420)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am moved by the words of the Leader of the Opposition,
by his sudden concern for the respect of individual rights.
The other day in Quebec, the Leader of the Opposition alluded to
the leader of the government, the Prime Minister, as being an
Ontarian, although I have had the privilege of sitting in this House
since 1963, have served the people of Quebec and New Brunswick
here in the House of Commons and have followed the francophones
of Quebec for 33 years.
I think the Leader of the Opposition should first clean up the
language of his own members, who are accusing federalists of
being traitors to Quebec because they believe in Canada. The
members of the Bloc Quebecois are not about to teach us a lesson
in good manners.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister certainly is having trouble
understanding the terms used by his Minister of Human Resources
Development. He did not understand the question yesterday, and
you are confusing manners-
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, you must always address the
Chair.
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is confusing
manners and respect for democracy with unacceptable speech.
Yesterday, the Minister of Human Resources Development said,
and repeated, ``While it was Canada which gave him citizenship,
here he is now seated in this House preaching separatism. Enough
is enough, Mr. Speaker''.
Can the Prime Minister tell us if the government's policy toward
Canadians by adoption is this: ``Welcome to Canada, but you are
not entitled to your political opinions''?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is an opinion expressed by a minister concerning an
elected member sitting legitimately in this House. He told the hon.
member that he was preaching separatism in a country which had
welcomed him. I think that is realistic. If the member in question
wishes to say that he is a federalist, we will welcome him with
pleasure, but he is a separatist. Is there any shame in being labelled
a separatist, when a separatist is what one is? That is not shameful.
That is what the minister said. He is a separatist and a new
Canadian, and he is working to destroy this country. He is entitled
to do so, just as the minister is entitled to point out to him that he is
a new citizen and involved in trying to destroy the country that
welcomed him. He is entitled to do so. That is the beauty of
Canada, to have absolute freedom.
There are a good many countries which would not allow new
immigrants to work to destroy the country, but we in Canada have
sufficient confidence in democracy to do so.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister does not even have the courage of the
leader of the Reform Party.
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, it is not a question of being or
not being courageous. We all have the courage of our convictions. I
would ask the hon. member to choose his words with a little more
care.
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, what the Minister of Human
Resources Development said yesterday was that, if the hon.
member for Bourassa continued to express those ideas, he would
do better to find himself another country. That is what he said.
Will the Prime Minister's convictions lead him to denounce
these words, as the leader of the Reform Party denounced the
members of his party who made unacceptable statements? Can he
do that, rather than trying to camouflage the truth?
(1425)
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I simply stated that he is entitled to defend his ideas in
Canada, and that there are not many countries that would allow
that. If we were to start going back over unacceptable statements
made about members of this House, there is one person who could
be on his feet every day: myself.
However, I accept the political debate and the opinion expressed
by an Acadian, a francophone outside Quebec, who knows that the
separation of Quebec would endanger the cultural life of his fellow
francophone citizens in New Brunswick or elsewhere in Canada.
His feelings are true. I believe that he is describing a reality, which
is that there is a member of this House who is an immigrant and
who is working to break up Canada. That is something he does not
like.
Considering that a member of the party across the floor from me
said, not all that long ago, that people who were not born in Canada
ought not to be entitled to vote in the Quebec referendum, we do
not need the Bloc Quebecois' advice.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, during the last election campaign the Liberals
criss-crossed the country promising worried Canadians jobs, jobs,
jobs.
3083
Almost three years later we have 1.4 million Canadians
unemployed, we have almost a third of our workforce
underemployed and we have about one out of four Canadians
worried about their future job security.
In other words, we have massive economic insecurity. How does
the Prime Minister respond to this situation? He responded on his
recent western trip by saying Canadians will just have to live with
it.
Is the Prime Minister really telling 1.4 million unemployed
Canadians they will simply have to learn to live with yet another
broken promise, the broken promise of jobs, jobs, jobs?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I can tell the leader of the third party what I said. I have
the transcript. I said that in the last two and a half years we have
seen unemployment go down, although not enough to my liking. I
have said that many times in the House of Commons. I will not be
happy until all people who want to find work find it.
In January 1994 we were at 11.5 per cent and now we are down
to 9.4 per cent. The economy has created 636,000 new jobs in two
and a half years, a record unmatched anywhere in the world.
Germany and France together have not created as many jobs as
Canada was able to create in the last two and a half years. I wish we
had created more. That is why we had this budget. It is why we
managed to reduce the interest rate to four points below what it was
a year ago so that there would be more jobs created.
As long as there are Canadians who want to work, the
government will work to create jobs. We have not done too badly,
636,000 new jobs in the last two and a half years.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the number of jobs the government claims to have created,
even if it were taken at face value, is completely inadequate in
relation to the millions of jobs required.
If we subtract the number of jobs lost over the last three years, if
we subtract the number of temporary jobs and if we subtract the
number of Canadians who have given up looking for work, the
government's job creation record is simply atrocious.
The government professes to have firm targets for deficit
reduction. What is the government's target for reducing the
unemployment rate and when will it be achieved?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in the statistics published by Statistics Canada, it is very
clear these jobs are after the deduction of the loss of other jobs. The
net figures are 636,000 new jobs.
It is a very good record and we will keep working on it, as we are
doing now. That is why we said we would reduce the level of
unemployment. We went from 11.5 per cent to 9.4 per cent. With
the policies of the Minister of Finance, approved by the
government, we are doing better than any other country in the
western hemisphere on that score.
(1430 )
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, these answers are simply not enough for the 1.4 million
unemployed, for the underemployed and for the one out of four
Canadians worried about their jobs.
On the 1993 campaign trail the Prime Minister slammed Kim
Campbell for saying unemployment would not substantially
improve until the year 2000. He called it an admission of failure.
Then after only two and a half years in office he turns around and
says almost exactly the same thing, and all this after promising job
creation heaven on pages 11, 15, 16 and 20 of the now discredited
red book.
Did the Prime Minister ever intend to keep this election promise
of jobs, jobs, jobs or was it, like the GST, simply another cynical
political ploy to get undeserving Liberals elected?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very proud of the record of the government on job
creation: 636,000 jobs. We have done it while reducing the deficit
in relation to GDP from 6.2 per cent to 3 per cent this year.
On Monday in the Globe and Mail there was a big article saying
people are running to buy Canadian bonds because they think it is
the best investment they can make. Only a year and a half ago we
had to explain to people abroad that Canada wanted to solve its
problems. Now people recognize we are on the right track and they
are running to buy new Canadian bonds.
The way the Minister of Finance is doing that, in two or three
years from now there will be no more new cash requirements. It is
better for them to rush to buy Canadian bonds.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development, a
government minister, has made a statement that is fraught with
consequences for the future. All new Canadians are concerned, and
rightly so, about a government minister stating that they must share
the government's political views because they chose Canada and
because Canada gave them Canadian citizenship.
The Prime Minister said essentially the same thing. My question
is very clear: Does the Prime Minister, by refusing to dissociate
himself from his minister's statement, support the comments made
3084
by his Minister of Human Resources Development, yes or no? That
is what we want to know.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I repeated what the minister had said. He was referring to
a comment about the fact that the hon. member for Bourassa is a
new Canadian who came here, I imagine, as a refugee and was then
granted Canadian citizenship. He is now exercising his democratic
right to try to break up Canada. This did not please either the
minister or myself, but he has a right to do so. Those are the rights
given to those who become Canadian citizens. They have the right
to espouse any cause they want.
I think that such freedoms are allowed in a country like Canada,
and I am very happy to see that several other new Canadians from
Quebec are sitting in this House, most of whom are on our side.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister should be careful with majorities as
they may disappear quickly in certain circumstances.
Is the Prime Minister, by sticking to the comments made by the
Minister of Human Resources Development, who urged the hon.
member for Bourassa to choose another country, implementing
plan B as a political expedient aimed at the rest of Canada, and
taking members of cultural communities hostage by demanding
that they share his political views if they want to become Canadian
citizens?
[English]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, that is always the rhetoric, talking about hostages, talking
about prisons.
[Translation]
It is always the same thing. They are trying to frighten people.
What happened in this House? What happened is that, like his
colleagues, a separatist member of Parliament did not have the
courage to say he is a separatist, preferring to call himself a
sovereignist.
(1435)
The Speaker: My dear colleague, again, you are asked not to
question the courage of any member. If the Prime Minister has
something to add to his answer, he may do so now.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to
see that the members of the Bloc Quebecois now want immigrants
to be welcome in Quebec. I am very happy to hear this. I would
have preferred that they not attack the Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration who, during the referendum, wanted them to
have the same freedom of speech as that enjoyed by the hon.
member for Bourassa.
The people who criticized us for allowing new immigrants to
vote in the referendum are now complaining that both sides of the
House can now express themselves freely. In the opinion of
Acadians, those who, upon becoming citizens of all of Canada,
regained the freedom they had lost in their native countries should
not try to break up Canada.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, CSIS
has arrested and charged two agents of the Russian FSB, formerly
known and the KGB, for the firebombing of a Toronto home owned
by a Russian businessman. Apparently this Canadian resident owed
money to a Russian bank. This is a grave and serious matter of
internal security and external diplomacy.
If the solicitor general determines, as it is reported, that these
were active KGB-FSB agents, will he and the external affairs
minister immediately expel some or all Russian diplomats in
Canada?
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the House is aware, the
Canadian government has undertaken a review of the two
individuals alleged to be with the Russian security service
operating under false identities.
These people are under investigation by the appropriate
authorities. Under the Immigration Act there are proceedings
underway that will determine whether they should be deported.
As this case is before the courts, and I believe the hearings will
be tomorrow, it would be imprudent for me to make any further
comments on the case.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I do
not think the answer given by the parliamentary secretary is
appropriate for this grave and serious situation.
I ask again, if these agents who firebombed a house in Toronto
are determined to be active members of the KGB-FSB, will the
government expel some or all Russian diplomats today?
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the person who is
confused here is the hon. member because the two members he is
questioning regarding the firebombing in Toronto are not the two
that are related.
In any event, if any person in this country is here acting illegally
appropriate actions will be taken.
3085
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue.
It is now official, we have learned this morning that the ruling
made by Revenue Canada in 1991, which allowed one of the
wealthiest families in Canada to transfer $2 billion in assets to the
United States without paying a cent in taxes, may actually have
created a precedent. This morning, the deputy minister of revenue
stated that hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars may well
have evaded and still be evading taxes.
Is the minister of revenue prepared to admit today that, contrary
to what she said two weeks ago, the situation does require urgent
attention and that the time to act is not sometime next fall, but right
now?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as the House knows very well, my department took the
report of the auditor general very seriously and responded
immediately. He was concerned about documentation of rulings,
and we have responded to that. He was concerned about whether
rulings were made public, and we have responded to that.
(1440 )
We have also responded by making sure that these very
important points of law are reviewed by the finance committee.
While this important review is going on, out of respect for the work
of the committee, we will suspend any further rulings that have to
do with this particular aspect of income tax law.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the situation has evolved over the past two weeks. Two
weeks ago, the minister said it was not urgent to act in this matter
but, just this morning, her deputy minister indicated that, since
December 31, 1991, when an advance ruling was made by officials
of her department, there may have been further instances of flights
of capital like the $2 billion that were transferred to the U.S.
without a cent being collected in taxes.
The government did not act. The only way to go is to
immediately suspend the 1991 advance ruling, preventing it from
being extended to other families. That is what the government
should do. Will the minister undertake before this House to take
this action immediately?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my understanding that the deputy minister indicated
he had no clear understanding that there were any tax rulings
which preceded or came after 1991. I would recognize again, as the
hon. member points out, that 1991 was a time previous to our
government and we are taking action to deal with this very critical
aspect of income tax law right now.
The hon. member has a very good opportunity to listen to the
witnesses who come before the finance committee to understand
the complexities of this part of the Income Tax Act. It is complex.
It does affect all Canadians. I would encourage him to listen closely
to the testimony and be part of a good and fulsome
recommendation to the Minister of Finance.
* * *
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the defence minister has abused his budget and now
the President of the Treasury Board is in a conflict of interest trying
to cover it up for him. I have seen the contracts. They are an
example of contract splitting at its worst. The minister knows this
and is condoning the practice.
Why does the President of the Treasury Board think it is
acceptable for the defence minister to engineer contracts rewarding
his campaign pals through Treasury Board guidelines?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
can only repeat what I said yesterday. Department of National
Defence and Treasury Board officials checked the contracts and
found them to be in compliance with the guidelines regarding
ministerial office budgets. I would add that we have exempt staff
budgets which have different rules because there is some advice
that is given which is of a partisan nature. There is a difference
between these two types of budgets for that reason.
In this case advice was solicited by the Minister of National
Defence. It was for advice which he judged to be necessary. Once
again, it was done in compliance with Treasury Board guidelines
for these budgets.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure the Canadian public will be happy to
hear that we now have patronage budgets for ministers.
The President of the Treasury Board keeps saying that he
conducted a thorough investigation into these contracts. The
investigation was a joke. Whom did he ask? He asked Department
of National Defence officials if they followed Treasury Board
guidelines and to everyone's surprise, they said yes. It is like
asking the fox to mind the chicken coup.
Given these blatant abuses and conflicts of interest, why has the
ethics counsellor not been called in to look at this matter?
3086
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
member should recognize that he too has a political budget. If he
looks at his budget as a member of Parliament, the secretary he
hires and the people who are hired to give him advice under that
budget are usually picked because they are of a certain political
colour. Every member of Parliament and every minister has an
exempt staff budget.
The member talks about patronage. He is trying to use loaded
words. He does not recognize the fact that these budgets are term
exempt staff budgets because they usually employ people who give
advice of a partisan nature.
* * *
(1445)
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
We just learned about the incredible fate of four Romanian
stowaways, three of whom are said to have thrown overboard by
the captain of the cargo ship they were aboard.
Can the Minister of Foreign Affairs provide details on the
circumstances surrounding this horrible tragedy?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would explain to the hon. member that because the
alleged transgression took place on the international high seas,
Canada has no legal standing. The only countries that can take
action are those that are party to the dispute, the flagship nation
Taiwan, the Romanians or in this case the Philippines because of
the crew involved.
We have offered every co-operation we can to those authorities.
There have been discussions with the Romanian authorities. My
officials met with the Romanian chargé d'affaires to offer our full
co-operation. We are prepared to do anything we possibly can.
The Minister of Transport has said that the ship is still being held
in the harbour. The Minister of Justice is working on potential
extradition questions with the Romanians. Canada will co-operate
in any way we possibly can to deal with this very serious misdeed.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as the
minister said, Romania asked him to take action regarding this
incident. Will the minister intercede with international authorities
so that such a tragedy can never happen again?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there are two levels. First, there are official agreements
that we have signed dealing with extradition. The Minister of
Justice and his officials are already seized with that aspect of the
case. The other is political co-operation where the police, the
solicitor general, the Department of Transport and my own
department are co-operating fully with the Romanian officials to
determine what action might be taken to protect their citizens and
to react to this serious case.
We are dealing at the legal level of extradition and at the other
level of offering all co-operation to the Romanian authorities.
* * *
Mr. Peter Thalheimer (Timmins-Chapleau, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National
Defence.
In my riding of Timmins-Chapleau flood damage has affected
the communities of Chapleau, Foleyet, White River and Timmins.
The price tag is growing and our communities and residents in the
wake of this natural disaster now must face the consequences.
What can the federal government do to assist the communities in
my riding and others in Canada which have been so negatively
affected by flood conditions?
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, may I take this opportunity to express the government's
concern for the people who have been affected by the floods this
spring in the hon. member's riding and the adjacent region.
The provincial government as the lead government is responding
to the disaster and has requested help from the federal government
in the evacuation of its citizens. The federal government has
assigned two Hercules aircraft to evacuate people from the
neighbouring area of the hon. member's riding.
* * *
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the government
took extreme measures to seize foreign vessels when turbot were at
stake, not to mention votes, but it refuses to act immediately when
murder was alleged on the container ship
Dubai.
If the Dubai tries to sail from Halifax without the allegations of
high seas murders being fully addressed by the RCMP, will the
justice minister commit to detaining the Dubai and holding its crew
until the investigation is complete?
3087
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Foreign Affairs
has said, we are operating at various levels to see that steps are
taken in relation to the tragedy that has been alleged on the high
seas.
The Department of Foreign Affairs has been in touch with the
chargés d'affaires of other governments. I am standing by to
exercise whatever authority I might have in terms of extradition.
Transport is busy doing what it can to investigate. We have made it
clear to the foreign government that we will do whatever we can to
co-operate.
(1450 )
I want the hon. member to know that as much as we deplore and
are appalled by the allegations, we do have to respect the rule of
law. These events, as alleged, took place in international waters.
They involve a Romanian ship and a crew from the Philippines.
What is important is for us to respond in accordance with the rule
of law and we will do that. It does not mean that we are without
remedy but it is a little more complicated. However, I assure the
hon. member that we will do whatever we can within the law to see
that a remedy is provided.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I do not feel very
reassured when it comes to human rights like this that there is very
much concern there.
It has been reported that this ship has been operating out of
Taiwan. We hear the minister saying that it is owned in Romania. It
is owned in Taiwan. It is operated by Maersk Shipping of Madison,
Wisconsin.
Will the Minister of Foreign Affairs end this kind of charade we
see over there and call Maersk Shipping? The phone number is
right here and I can table it. Will the minister ask that the ship be
voluntarily held here until the investigation is completed? I have
already asked them that.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the motor vessel Dubai is not going anywhere. Transport
Canada has had a look at the ship as a result of comments by the
crew. We have determined that there are defects in the main engine
exhaust system which causes fume leakage.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Transport.
Mr. Anderson: Mr. Speaker, the point that the Reform Party
seems to forget is that there are legal reasons for detaining this ship
and preventing it from leaving. We are exploring every one of those
reasons. This ship is not leaving that harbour until we are satisfied.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Justice.
Independence of the judiciary is a cornerstone of our legal
system. However, in a case heard before the federal court, an
assistant deputy minister from the Department of Justice, Ted
Thompson, tried to influence court proceedings through a personal
meeting with Chief Justice Isaac of the federal court.
How can the Minister of Justice accept that a senior official of
his department would unduly interfere with the legal proceedings,
in an attempt to influence the presiding judge?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite right to
raise this important matter. It is troubling. We have already told the
court in the course of the litigation that the Department of Justice
regards the meeting that was held as inappropriate and it ought not
to have occurred.
In the period since the meeting came to my attention, I have
asked the deputy minister to investigate the matter and recommend
a course of action. Tomorrow it is my intention to make a statement
in this House with respect to our response to the developments.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
ministers have resigned because of interference in the legal
process. There are precedents.
What measures does the minister intend to take to prevent such
violations of the law from reoccurring, and does he intend to report
to the judicial council the overly conciliatory attitude of Chief
Justice Isaac and Mr. Justice Jerome?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be making a statement to the
House tomorrow with respect to the department's response to these
circumstances.
I can tell the hon. member, as has been made clear to the court, I
regard the meeting that was held between the justice official and
the chief justice as inappropriate. Where counsels are involved in
matters before the courts, those counsels should be notified of such
meetings and those meetings should not take place without
counsels being informed.
3088
(1455 )
In terms of the role of the chief justice or others, I withhold
comment on that until I have recommendations from the deputy
minister. I will have more to say about the entire subject tomorrow
when I make a statement in the House.
* * *
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a week ago
Friday the minister of agriculture used his cabinet authority and
moved immediately to shut down farmers who wanted a fair price
for their grain. Yet, when this government was aware that a
loophole a mile wide was opened in the Income Tax Act for
influential businessmen and family trusts, it intended to hold the
barn door open until the last horse had gone through.
The Minister of National Revenue just announced in question
period that she has suspended future rulings on the issue, that the
deputy minister of finance said it was so simple he did not want to
keep notes on it.
Will the minister of revenue appoint a public inquiry today to
investigate the circumstances surrounding those two very
questionable rulings?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): No,
Mr. Speaker.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
morning the deputy minister of finance appeared before the finance
committee and went through contortions to try to justify a bad
ruling that created this tax loophole. In order to justify his position
he was giving new tax interpretations off the top of his head, such
as all real estate owned by Canadians is now taxable Canadian
property.
The Department of Finance and the Department of National
Revenue are digging themselves into a bigger hole. What about the
Minister of Finance? Will he admit this game has gone too far?
Will he plug the leak and call for a public inquiry to investigate the
circumstances now?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of National Revenue has already stated quite clearly
that there will be no more advance rulings on this pending the
completion of the work of the parliamentary committee.
There is a parliamentary committee. Meetings were held this
morning. I am a little surprised the hon. member opposite does not
take his responsibilities sufficiently seriously and he does not think
that he and his colleagues are able to get at all of the details that are
required. We on this side of the House have a great deal of
confidence in democracy, the parliamentary system and the finance
committee. We think it can do the job.
Ms. Judy Bethel (Edmonton East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Secretary of State for International Financial
Institutions.
Alberta's government wants fair and efficient capital markets
and enhanced harmonization of regulatory requirements between
provinces. In the speech from the throne our federal government
announced that it will work with interested provinces to develop a
Canadian securities commission.
How would a Canadian securities commission accommodate the
regional differences in capital markets that exist in Canada?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is an important
issue that regional differences in capital markets are represented in
a Canadian securities commission, if one should come about, and
we are working at that.
We must remember that a group of provinces initiated the
Canadian securities commission idea. The regional differences
would be represented by commissioners from the regions. They
would be represented by regional offices.
It is important to stress that Canada is the only major country
that does not have a national securities commission. In other
countries that have those securities commissions there are very
strong regional developments.
* * *
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Prime Minister.
The recent purchase by Conrad Black's Hollinger Inc. of all
Saskatchewan daily newspapers has resulted in a steady drop in
quality, a decline in local and balanced reporting and 25 per cent
fewer jobs. Since then, Hollinger has increased its Canadian
ownership to 53 per cent of all daily newspapers and 42 per cent of
circulation.
Will the Prime Minister freeze these recent acquisitions until a
complete review of this concentration of ownership and its effects
on Canadians can be undertaken by the government through either
a royal commission or through a press ownership review board?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I wish the hon. member had included with his question his
premise of the legal grounds upon which such an extraordinary
measure could be taken. What he does know is that the director of
the competition bureau will review the acquisitions with respect to
3089
the impact of the economic concentration of ownership and the
transactions will be considered accordingly.
* * *
(1500)
The Speaker: I wish to draw to your attention the presence in
the gallery of Mr. Luis Igacio Gomez Gutierrez, Minister of
Education of the Republic of Cuba.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in the
name of freedom I would like to ask for unanimous consent to
move the following motion:
That in the opinion of this House, since global markets are becoming
increasingly more open, deregulated, diverse and specialized and since not
all-
The Speaker: First we need unanimous consent to put the
motion. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: No.
* * *
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise today in memory of a young man, a constituent, a colleague
and a friend in the person of Carl Gillis. Carl Gillis passed away
last evening at the age of 26. His untimely death reminds us all of
the fragility of life.
It is appropriate that we honour Carl's memory here in the House
of Commons for it was here that he served as a page while he
attended Carleton University. He was at home in this Chamber and
he has left behind many friends from various political parties.
Carl was born in East Bay, Nova Scotia on March 27, 1970. He
came to Ottawa to pursue his post-secondary studies in political
science but his education in politics did not only come from books.
He was active in student government and served as chair of the
Canadian Federation of Students. He was holding that position
when this government came to power. I know that some of my
colleagues here on the front benches and indeed members of the
opposition will remember him in that capacity. I know all of us will
remember him fondly.
Carl came to my office from the Canadian Federation of
Students in the spring of 1994. He shared the constant pressures
and the occasional joys of the Hill with many members of
Parliament, their assistants and his many friends.
For those of us who knew him, he was a great student of
American presidential politics. Carl was a great admirer of the late
John. F. Kennedy and I am sure he was familiar with the following
quote:
For of those to whom much is given, much is required. And when at some
future date that high court of history sits in judgment on each of us, recording
whether in our brief span of service we fulfilled our responsibility to the state,
our success or failure in whatever office we hold will be measured by the
answers to four questions: First, were we truly men of courage? Second, were
we truly men of judgment? Third, were we truly men of integrity? Finally, were
we truly men of dedication?
(1505 )
Much was given to Carl Gillis and now much has been taken
away. We are left with the answers to those four questions. Yes, he
was a young man, but he was a young man of courage. He was a
man of judgment, of integrity, of dedication.
The qualities he possessed in abundance are too seldom seen;
now they are too soon gone. We must now find comfort in Carl's
memory and in the knowledge that he enriched the lives of those
who knew him. The generosity and compassion which
characterized his life have also defined his death.
Our thoughts and our prayers are with Carl's family at this very
sad time, to his mother Peggy and his father and nine brothers, to
the extended family and to his many friends, some of whom are
here.
Your death, my friend, has come far too early but your memory
will never die.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it was
with sadness that we learned of the tragic accident that claimed the
life of Carl Gillis. I did not have the pleasure of knowing him
personally, but I am told that he was a good man, a generous
individual who shared his joie de vivre and was loved by all who
knew him.
His untimely death forces us to stop and reflect on safety in
sports. To the Minister of Health, his parents, his family, and his
friends, the Bloc Quebecois and I extend our most heartfelt
condolences.
[English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of my party, I too want to extend sympathies to Carl's
family. It is unbelievable that a life so young would be taken from
us.
At times like this we realize the tragedy that somebody as young
and healthy and who spent so much time in the outdoors doing
something he loved can have their life suddenly snapped away so
quickly. It is easy to ask why. His family is grieving, along with
many people on the Hill.
3090
My prayer is that all of us today consider our own mortality
and realize how important it is to appreciate every special day we
have. It is easy to get caught up with how important issues are,
yet life itself is such a gift. It is important for all of us to live
each day as it is a special gift for all of us.
I extend our sympathy and profound grief at the passing of this
young man. May he be an example to all of us that we cherish every
day we have.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Minister for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Minister of Western
Economic Diversification and Minister responsible for the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to join in these few words
about my assistant, Carl Gillis, whose death last evening continues
to shock us all.
As the Minister of Health mentioned, Carl came to Ottawa to
serve as a page in this House where he was exposed to the political
virus so many of us have contracted. He went on out of a desire to
serve to be the vice-president of the Carleton University Students
Association and then later was president of the Canadian
Federation of Students.
He was undoubtedly one of Canada's best and brightest. He was
a member of our parliamentary family. Carl, like many of the
young people who come here to serve as pages, as assistants in
ministers' offices or in the offices of members, came with the hope
they all bring for Canada's future. Carl cared about the world he
lived in. He cared about the people around him and he desperately
wanted to make a difference.
(1510)
I have never met Carl's parents but he must have made them
extraordinarily proud. He excelled as a student. He demonstrated
qualities of honesty, integrity, perseverance, politeness, good
humour, loyalty, kindness. In fact, one wonders how a young man
could grow up as ninth in a family of ten boys and turn out so nice.
He first worked with me in 1992 and I quickly learned to respect
his ability, his judgment, his qualities of character. When he joined
my staff earlier this year he quickly became part of the team in
taking up his new duties with enthusiasm and dedication.
I would like to express my sympathy, and I am sure that of this
House, to the Gillis family. I also want them to know that we share
their pride in Carl as we also share their loss. We will not be able to
replace Carl. We will never see his potential fulfilled and we will
miss our friend.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of
my colleague, the hon. member for Sherbrooke, I would like to
give our deepest sympathy to the family of Carl Gillis, one young
man who was known not just on the Hill but back in Cape Breton as
well.
When I arrived on the Hill today my legislative assistant told me
about being at a prayer vigil for Carl last week and that many
people were there because they loved this young man. He set an
example not just for our pages but for all of us in the House. They
tell me that great love came from Carl and if someone was upset
about anything and just happened to sit down with him for a few
moments they would come away with a smile on their face. He was
a very special young man. Why he has been taken away from us so
early in life, we have no answer for that.
To his family I want to say it is a great loss to all of us here, a
great loss on the Hill, a great loss to Canada and a great loss to his
family. Our deepest sympathy goes out to them.
The Speaker: My colleagues, it is an extraordinary thing that we
in this House of Commons would pay this type of tribute to this
young man. Many of his colleagues are here with us this afternoon,
young Canadians, proud Canadians. He served us and he served
this Parliament as a page.
I have been here now some 22 years and this is the first of this
type of tribute I have heard. I wish I had known that man, but we
claim him as part of our family and we grieve with his family now.
I thank you all, those who have participated here with your
words and those who hold him dear to your hearts.
_____________________________________________
3090
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I will
spend a few minutes talking about the motion which is before us. I
thank my colleague from Vancouver Island for bringing it forward.
This is historic. It is unfortunate that a lot of members on the other
side perhaps do not understand how historic this is.
(1515 )
To make sure we all understand, it was 100 years ago that anyone
from the Senate was summoned to the House of Commons. Given
that we are getting close to the end of this century it is pretty
amazing to think that someone from the Senate is being summoned
to talk about the spending and the financing of the Senate.
Our colleague from Vancouver Centre this morning asked
whether the Senate is the master of its own internal affairs. Then
3091
she answered her own rhetorical question by saying yes. Then she
said this was wasting a whole day of debate. Perhaps that one
sentence shows the contempt some of the people across the way
have for the Senate of Canada.
My friend from Kingston and the Islands said this could be a
three hour speech. I would say he had that right. It certainly could
be. Unfortunately I will spare him that pain and talk for a few
minutes.
Are we wasting a whole day by talking about the legitimacy or
the accountability of the Senate? I hardly think so. I would love it if
she would come from B.C., her home province, up to my province
of Alberta where we have had legislation in place since 1989 which
deals with the legitimacy and the importance of an elected Senate. I
would love her to come and have a chat with some of the people I
spoke with in my town hall meetings last week. They were furious
about some of the new Senate appointments.
Parliamentary reform is something which brought me to
Parliament several years ago. If we are to look at the legitimacy or
the mandate of the Senate, whether it is about its intent, its purpose
or the cost involved, it is paramount to look at the history of the
Senate and why it was set up.
It originally was set up as the chamber of sober second thought.
That is great on paper. If we are actually to live with that and the
mandate of regional representation it is a great idea. Dear knows
we could all use some sober second thought. If we look at what the
Senate is supposed to do, that is a great idea. It should be an
institution to where legislation goes from here so senators can look
at it to see how it is affected by a regional fairness tests or
whatever.
Unfortunately it went off the rails between Confederation when
it was set up and the place that it occupies in people's hearts and
minds now. We could say it has been reformed. However, reform is
supposed to be a positive thing. Maybe I could say it became
deformed somewhere along the way. Now, rather than being a
chamber of sober second thought for the Canadian public or for the
House of Commons, it is accountable only to the dictates of the
Prime Minister. That is probably what is more unfortunate than
anything else about the whole Senate Chamber. It has become
deformed. It is no longer providing the function for which it was
originally intended.
As a Reformer I would say now that the thing has been so
changed and so marred in so many ways, it is essential to change it.
We must reform the Senate now. I favour the triple E Senate model.
I am not ashamed of that. I live in a province which has taken great
strides in pushing for a triple E Senate, which means its members
would be elected, that there would be an equal number of senators
from each province and that hopefully it would be an effective
Senate.
In large countries where the population distribution is uneven
there is a fundamental need to balance representation by population
with representation by region or province. There would be people
who disagree with me in this Chamber. I am used to that after all
these years. However, the United States, because of its huge
disparate population, has an elected Senate with an equal number
from each state. Probably even a better example is the Australian
model. Tasmania, which is sparsely populated, has the same
number of elected senators as New South Wales which has a huge
population. It is an excellent example and model for us to use. It is
not impossible.
People say abolish the place. Unfortunately that is what we hear
across the country. They ask how much is getting accomplished in
the Senate. Precious little? Let us then do away with it. After all,
we are looking at the spending and the accountability of the Senate.
It spends about $40 million a year, a chunk of change.
(1520)
The Canadian public is demanding there be some mandate, some
legitimacy here for the Senate, and we need to make sure we have
regional representation to balance representation by population.
One of my colleagues mentioned that Ontario has 99 members of
Parliament because its population is so numerous. I see some of my
colleague from Ontario here. There are fewer people in my
province and we have only 26 members of Parliament, certainly a
lot less. We have representation by population in the House of
Commons.
In a country like this where there is such disparity we need that
but we need it balanced in the upper House or the second House,
which is supposed to be sober second thought. Because regimented
party discipline results in block voting, Canada's parliamentary
system is a good example of why this balance is needed. We have
seen that time and time again in the House.
The Fathers of Confederation intended that the Senate provide
this type of balance. Unfortunately it has been completely unable
and neutered so that it cannot fulfil this role. An appointed Senate
is not democratic.
We could say that any number of different ways and we might
like to think there are nice ways of saying it, but there simply are
not nice ways. We can say politely but we cannot say kindly that
people who are sitting in the Senate right now are in any way
democratic or in any way accountable to the people they are
supposed to be serving. It is simply not right. It is high time for an
elected Senate.
If I look at the number of people in the Senate of Canada since
Canada began who have actually been elected to the Senate, I come
up with one. It is so simple. One person only has ever been elected
to the Senate of the Parliament of Canada, and that is pretty
interesting.
3092
An hon. member: He was appointed.
Miss Grey: An hon. member across the way hollered he was
appointed. He was appointed in June 1990 only after he had won a
historic election on October 16, 1989. He won that, which was in
place by the Alberta Senatorial Selection Act, a piece of provincial
legislation which my province brought into place for that Senate
election in 1989.
He ran in that and won with hundreds of thousands of votes. He
had the largest majority that any elected official in the country has
every received because the vote was province-wide. Now Granted,
once he won that election our premier put his name forward for
appointment by the Prime Minister because that was the legitimate
channel he had to go through.
It took nine months, a regular nine month gestation period for
Brian Mulroney to put him in. In June 1990 my friend, my
colleague, one of my heroes, Stan Waters, was appointed/elected,
whatever you want to call it. The only reason he was appointed was
we were able to put such incredible pressure on the Prime Minister
of the day. He said ``those Albertans are causing trouble, I will put
this guy in here and hope he keeps quiet''.
Stan Waters did not keep quiet. The entire nine months he was
waiting to be put into the Senate, no matter who interviewed him,
no matter the issue, regularly he said that democracy delayed is
democracy denied. He said that for month after month because he
was the only democratically elected Senator we have ever seen in
Canada. When it was always put to him that maybe he would get
appointed to the Senate, maybe he would not, that did not sway him
in the least.
I was able to talk about it in the House of Commons. He was able
to talk about it in the Senate, outside the Senate, right across the
country. He said regularly that democracy delayed is democracy
denied.
Fortunately we were able to put him into the Senate because he
won that mandate from the people of Alberta. He could go home on
a plane whenever he wanted to go home and could get off that plane
and know those people were literally his constituents. In other
words, because he was elected he knew he had a mandate. Because
he was elected he knew also that he could go home and that he was
speaking the words of those Albertans to Parliament.
(1525)
He let the Albertans pick, not the Prime Minister. Alberta people
picked him. They voted for him and then because of that incredible
mandate he had Brian Mulroney was shamed into appointing him
into the Senate because he knew there might be a small uprising out
west.
Dear knows we have had enough uprisings out west that they
were not keen to have repeated. When he was finally put into the
Senate he knew he was representing Albertans.
Let me spend another few minutes on some of the newer day
senators who have come from my province, from western Canada,
and talk about some of these people who believe passionately with
all their heart in an elected Senate. They thought senators should be
elected. They thought they would let their names stand for election.
They thought every senator should step down from their
appointments and be elected to the Senate of Canada.
One was Sharon Carstairs from Manitoba. During the
Charlottetown accord she made quite a bit of noise talking about
how important an elected Senate is. I remember hearing her on the
Charlottetown accord campaign trail. She was quite upset about
that.
All of a sudden out of the clear blue sky, not long ago after this
government comes into power, boom, Sharon Carstairs appointed
to the Senate of Canada.
I was in an elevator with her not that long ago. I said: ``I thought
you always were in favour of an elected Senate. How could this
change so quickly?'' She said: ``I am trying to do what I can from
the inside''.
Members know that if someone accepts a paycheque of $64,000
a year or whatever their salary is and some plane trips back and
forth, how does that person go home to Manitoba, get off a plane
and say ``Yes, I was the one who talked about an elected Senate all
the time, I was the one who said I would run for election, I was the
one who said how important it was, but times have changed. Here I
am now. I am making a fairly healthy salary. I am in the Senate, but
I am just doing everything I can do''?
It is not legitimate. It is simply not legitimate. That is the first
one in my hat-trick of those people who had a conversion
experience along the Damascus road. We could entitle it a funny
thing happened on the way to the Senate. They were passionate
believers in an elected Senate but as soon as they get the call from
the Prime Minister things are different now.
Sharon Carstairs is number one. A good friend of mine and
colleague, Nick Taylor, comes from closer to home. I appreciate
him. He has been one of the provincial members of the legislative
assembly in Alberta, in my federal riding. He was another one in all
his years in the political wilderness in Alberta as the Liberal leader.
He did not get a seat. He could not get elected. He had a terrible
time. He watched more goings on in the legislative assembly from
the gallery than he ever did from his seat because he simply could
not get elected.
By some stroke of luck and his good personality, he finally got
elected in the Bon Accord area, Redwater, Smoky Lake in 1986. He
3093
has sat as the Liberal leader for several years and talked about an
elected Senate. Away we went again.
At the Liberal's federal biennial convention, as was mentioned
earlier, in 1992 they said: ``Be it resolved that the Liberal Party of
Canada commit itself to an elected and effective Senate comprised
of but not limited to equal representation from each of the 10
provinces of Canada''. That is the Liberal resolution.
What happened to Nick Taylor in the middle of it all? He
believed in that resolution. I bet a dollar he was at the convention in
1992. I bet he voted in favour of it. I talked to him lots of times.
What do you know, not too long ago he got the call from the
Prime Minister. What do members think that call was about?
``Nick, I would like you to run in an election that is already
provided for in your province as a senator''. Members are smiling.
I bet they think that is what the call was about. No, he said: ``I am
putting you into the Senate''. Da-da-da, patronage rules again.
Nick Taylor, who has a tremendous sense of humour and who
always has a ready smile and good one-liners, said ``of course it is
patronage, but I am in, I am going''. I was at his swearing in not
long ago when he went into the Senate. Everything he ever said
about an elected Senate just went kind of over the edge.
(1530)
Now he is in the Senate. One has to ask: Do you put the pension,
do you put the pay, do you put the perks over principles? I would
hope not. I wish he would have said: ``Mr. Prime Minister I
appreciate the call, but I believe so strongly in an elected Senate
and my province has the legislation already in place, the Alberta
senatorial selection act. I will not take your appointment but I will
run. I will let my name stand under the legislation we have in
Alberta''.
I bet a dollar he would have won that election, but who knows?
Think of the legitimacy and the mandate he would have had if he
had been elected by the people of Alberta and then went to sit in the
Senate. He could have really puffed his chest out because he could
have said: ``I am here because I deserve to be here, not because I
follow the dictates of the Prime Minister''.
Unfortunately on May 9 in the hallowed halls of the House of
Commons, the Prime Minister said: ``Obliged by the Canadian
Constitution I will name a senator who I will choose and who will
represent my party''. Is this sober second thought? This is not
sobriety. This is something that says I will tell you exactly what
you should do, and he will represent my party. A senator who will
respect the will of the House of Commons? How about respecting
the will of the people who sent him there? Unfortunately Nick
Taylor is not able to do that.
Mr. Taylor qualifies for his MLA's pension. He has a $16,000
provincial pension. I was just at a townhall meeting in that
provincial constituency the other night. There are a lot of people
living in the Red Water-Bon Accord area who would give anything
to make $16,000 a year, not to get a senator's salary as well as 16
grand a year for the pension. There is something awfully
unfortunate about that. That is only number two on my list.
Let me talk about number three in the hat trick of senators who
believed so strongly in an elected Senate, then all of a sudden
something happened when they got the call. This month Jean
Forest, a very respected Albertan, someone who has really
contributed to society and who also talked about how important it
is to have an elected Senate. She was all in favour of an elected
Senate. She would have been out there with her name on the list if
the Prime Minister had not given her the call.
My colleague mentioned earlier how important it was for
attention to be paid to the wishes of Alberta. The premier, Ralph
Klein, wanted to send a letter to the Prime Minister after the death
of Senator Earl Hastings. He thought that he should at least have
the courtesy to wait until the funeral was over. No sooner had the
senator died then bang, Jean Forest got the call. Sober second
thought? Funerals are sober second thought, but not the call which
was so fast it would make one's head spin.
We should have at least conducted the business of what
Albertans had to do with the Senator. She should have said: ``Mr.
Prime Minister, thanks for the call, but just a minute. Let us talk
about what is propietous. Let us talk about general courtesy and
general respect''.
The next thing we knew she is in the Senate. ``You have just been
summoned to the Senate at age 69,'' when she should have been
retired and at least have bought a motor home to go camping or
something. There is a second person from my province who was
appointed faster than the eye can see, who has said: ``I firmly
believed in an elected Senate then, but now that I have received the
call I am so sorry, I will be appointed''. That is not right. It is very
frustrating and it is wrong.
The Canadian public are paying the bills for this. At least they
deserve the chance to know the Senate is doing something
worthwhile because it is costing several million dollars a year.
I will talk about another person from my province, Bud Olson,
who has done the down and back again. He will receive an MP
pension. He came in as a Socred, joined the Liberals on the national
energy program and was appointed to the Senate. He was here a
long time and has now gone back home to be the
lieutenant-governor. He is making thousands of dollars. He
receives a tremendous wage from the federal government as
lieutenant-governor. I wish him well in this position and bear him
no personal malice.
3094
(1535)
However, when his stint as lieutenant-governor is over he will be
able to collect an MP pension, a Senate pension and a
lieutenant-governor pension. That is going to be a lot of money. He
has excused it by saying: ``I would have made much more money in
private life''. That is not good enough for the people who are
slogging and paying taxes and the bills on this. It is not good
enough for you and I, Mr. Speaker, to say: ``It is nice to be here but
we would have done so much better in our private lives''. You and I
are teachers, Mr. Speaker. Could we have made better? What does
it matter? Service is the ultimate.
I am reminded of a phrase from one of my favourite books which
states: ``Let him who wants to be chief amongst you be servant of
all''. That is what the Senate and the House of Commons needs to
learn to do.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in her remarks the hon. member for Beaver River rewrote
a little bit of history. I recall her saying in the course of her speech
that she remembers the former Prime Minister, Mr. Mulroney,
being shamed into appointing a Reformer to the Senate.
I know she likes to claim that this particular senator was elected
because he happened to win a popularity contest in Alberta that was
organized under an Alberta statute which had no validity
whatsoever in terms of the election of a senator. However, the
Prime Minister of the day, because he had a surfeit of Tory senators
in the Senate, was quite prepared to stuff it with a Reformer. He
chose a Reformer who had won this popularity contest in Alberta
because, according to the member for Beaver River, he was shamed
into doing so.
Mr. Speaker, you were in that Parliament. I was in that
Parliament. The hon. member for Nunatsiaq was in that Parliament.
I do not recall any look of shame on the Prime Minister's face when
he appointed this particular Reform hack to the Senate.
The hon. member for Beaver River loves to rewrite history. I
know she thinks this man was the people's choice because he won a
popularity contest in Alberta. She says he received more votes than
anybody else. He may have but there were no qualifications for
running in this election. It was a fraud run by the Government of
Alberta for the purpose of trying to change the Constitution which
it did not do.
Mr. Abbott: You are insulting the people of Alberta.
Mr. Milliken: I am not insulting, I am just stating a fact. I am
rewriting history in a way the hon. member for Beaver River just
did but I am trying to put a fair slant on the facts.
I wonder if the hon. member for Beaver River could tell us what
day it was when the former Prime Minister had this look of shame
come over him which, as she says, possessed him to appoint this
particular fellow to the Senate. I do not recall it and I do not think
any of my colleagues who were here in the House at the time every
recall any look of shame on Prime Minister Brian Mulroney ever,
at any time, let alone the day he appointed some Reformer to the
Senate of Canada.
I wonder if she can tell us when that was because I would like to
hear about it. I also wonder if she remembers the look of shame that
came over him when he stuffed the Senate with eight extra Tories to
get the GST bill through. I think she was here then too.
Miss Grey: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I was here when there was that
fracas in the Senate over the GST. I well remember these Liberals
when they sat on this side of the House and said that they would
scrap, kill and abolish the GST. I was the only one here who
remembers that little promise and it simply did not happen. They
have not been able to do it.
I said that Brian Mulroney was shamed into putting Stan Waters
into the Senate. Now to be shamed into something does not
necessarily mean that one has to have a look of shame on one's
face. Stan Waters certainly remembered the call. He received the
call from the Prime Minister saying that he would be putting him
into the Senate because he had to honour that election.
My colleague says that Stan Waters won a popularity contest.
Let it be known, although I do not have the numbers on top of my
head, but I think he received 275,000 votes which is a darn sight
more than any one of us have ever received in a single election in
this House. It was no popularity context.
My friend also said that it was a fraud by Alberta. This is a
provincial government with some legitimacy in this country. It has
provincial rights. It put in provincial legislation called the
senatorial selection act. It is as simple as that. For some guy from
Ontario to stand up and say: ``This is a fraud in Alberta'', it is not
proper. We do not need to change the Constitution to let this
happen. The political will of the government in power is all that is
necessary.
(1540)
A full blown Senate amendment could be passed and this party
has that ready to go if the day comes. However, anyone who has the
political will to say that this is important, like the Liberals had in
1992, as I thought, at their biennial convention to say that ``be it
resolved that we are going to go ahead and have an elected
Senate'', I wonder what happened to the hon. member's memory.
He may follow the Prime Minister in saying: ``You voted against
the Charlottetown accord. Because the Charlottetown accord was
defeated you people gave up an elected Senate''. That is not true.
There was so much gobbledegook in the Charlottetown accord that
an elected Senate was only one part of it. An elected Senate was
only one of the six or seven major issues in the accord but it would
3095
not be an effective Senate because it was going to be
counterbalanced by the number of people in the House of
Commons.
My friend from Kingston and the Islands knows a lot more about
all these technicalities than I do, but I am smart enough to figure
out that it was not a true triple E Senate. The Charlottetown accord
went down in flames across the country for various reasons but it
was not because my party was against Senate reform. We want true,
fair Senate reform.
My province of Alberta was the one that started a legitimate
process. This was not a fraud. It was not a popularity contest. It was
something that was absolutely legitimate and we are demanding
that it be legitimized again. We do not have somebody dictate from
the House of Commons what is going to happen over there. As the
Prime Minister said so clearly not once but twice as I reiterated
earlier on May 9: ``I will name a senator who I will choose and who
will represent my party''. There is no shame there and there
certainly should be.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, just
before I make my comments I would like to invite, if he has the
courage-
The Speaker: Order.
Mr. Abbott: I am sorry. You are right, Mr. Speaker. We have had
difficulty with that word today, haven't we? I understand
completely.
I would like to invite my colleague from Kingston and the
Islands to stand and state the position of his party. It seems as
though there has been a complete vacuum-we are talking about
Liberals-of input by the Liberals. They know full well if they
stand in this House they are going to be asked again and again: ``Do
you support the concept that we would permit 40 million
taxpayers' dollars to go to the Senate without any accountability?''
I would like the hon. member to stand up and make a speech about
that.
Miss Grey: Who is being questioned here anyway?
The Speaker: Order. I am sure the hon. member realizes that the
hon. member for Kingston and the Islands is not making a speech.
It is the hon. member for Beaver River. Maybe we are going to
have a bank shot over here and the member for Beaver River is
going to answer that.
Miss Grey: Let me put this in the pocket, if we are talking about
bank shots.
Liberals across the way can laugh and talk and there are three or
four of them over there who can hoot and howl about it, but at their
convention in 1992 they endorsed a resolution which said that they
supported an elected Senate.
Perhaps one of them has the nerve to get up and speak in this
debate, as I have seen precious few of them here today. I would
love it if they would stand up and address this topic so we can ask
them questions and then we would be able to put one in the pocket.
The Speaker: With that last shot, I think we will continue with
the debate.
(1545)
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate today on
the motion presented by our colleague from the Reform Party, the
member for Comox-Alberni. This motion reads as follows:
Given that the Senate has failed to respond to a message from this House
requesting that a representative of the Senate Standing Committee on Internal
Economy, Budgets and Administration appear before the Standing Committee
of Government Operations to account for $40 million taxpayers' money, this
House express its dissatisfaction with the Senate for disregarding modern
democratic principles of accountability and, as a consequence, notice is hereby
given of opposition to Vote 1 under Parliament in the Main Estimates for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 1997.
This is the wording of the motion, and it is not the first time we
find ourselves discussing in this House the manner in which the
Upper House, the other place, the Senate, operates. This is not the
first time we have questioned expenses incurred by the Senate. It is
also not the first time we have questioned the reason for the
Senate's existence.
When I meet with people in my riding, and this is the case for all
of my colleagues, one question comes up regularly. People ask us:
``What is the purpose of the Senate? What do the senators do?
The public had the opportunity to catch a glimpse of the Senate
during the reading of the last throne speech, but I do not think they
came away with a more positive image. As you will recall, one or
two senators were caught snoozing in full view of the entire
population. Jean-Luc Mongrain, a very well known and very
popular Quebec commentator, had a field day with it, devoting an
hour of one of his broadcasts to the Senate.
It is easy to make fun of what goes on in the Senate. There are, of
course, senators who do a serious job, who attend regularly, who
carry out research and get involved in the political life of our
country in order to improve it, to improve the situation of our
fellow citizens. We must, however, admit that, for a large number
of people at least, the impression is that they contribute absolutely
nothing, that they are, to all intents and purposes, more of a
liability than an asset for the people of Canada and of Quebec.
Our fellow citizens, the people with whom we have regular
contact, who ask us that question, are not the only ones to wonder
the same thing. Both the auditor general himself, to whom I shall
3096
return in a few minutes, and several political commentators, have
questioned the strange way the Senate operates year after year.
I would like to quote one in particular, because I feel that the
examples he refers to are ones people can relate to, and are based
on true facts.
(1550)
This is an article from La Presse, over the byline of Claude Piché
who refers to an article by the Financial Post's Gord McIntosh.
Referring to the finance minister's speech, Mr. Piché said in his
introduction that, at the very time the federal Minister of Finance is
cutting back on expenditures-and this applies to all of the
provinces-and asking people to tighten their belts, urging workers
and governments to do more, telling everybody that there is no
more money to throw away recklessly, we have to act prudently,
manage the budget carefully, intelligently, make sure that the
available money is spent on the right things.
Referring to the Senate, Mr. Piché writes: ``Of course, the
government's financial statements show us that the Senate costs
Canadian taxpayers $43 million year after year''. He also reminds
us that a senator earns $64,000 a year, plus a tax free allowance of
$10,100. We are talking about gross salaries, excluding operating
expenses, of approximately $85,000 to $90,000, which is hardly at
the poverty line or on the brink of social assistance.
Mr. Piché referred to Mr. McIntosh's investigation and said that
what he finds totally unacceptable are the expense allowances in
addition to this salary, on top of the fact that many senators are
absent more often than not.
He said that what he and everyone find unacceptable are the
totally inflated expenses. He provided some examples. He asked
whether anyone had visited senators' offices. ``Last year, a new
lobby panelled in mahogany and adorned with green, black, salmon
and grey granite,'' reports journalist McIntosh, ``at a cost to
taxpayers of $125,000''. He added that ``One senator even had the
gall to add that it was a bargain''.
Mr. Piché also noted that, in 1993, the Senate sat only 47 days.
He reports: ``The Senate employs 11 people full time at an average
salary of $60,000 simply to immortalize the words of the senators
in Hansard, minutes of a sort of Parliamentary proceedings.
Obviously, these officials have a lot more free time and can
therefore make month end by selling their services to other
government agencies''.
Another example: ``Senators have their own exercise room, set
up, of course, at taxpayers' expense. The equipment in this room at
the senators' disposal is worth $29,000''. Mr. McIntosh's report on
his investigation reveals that only one senator used this room
during the year the investigation was conducted.
(1555)
And it goes on. He says, and I think that is what is the most
striking for all our fellow citizens: ``From February to May of
1993, the Senate met six days in February, ten in March, five in
April and eight in May, for a total of 29 days in four months''. Mr.
Piché adds: ``This furious pace of work appears to have been more
than many senators could handle, judging from the mind-boggling
rate of absenteeism at the Senate''.
These examples show beyond the shadow of a doubt the merit of
the motion before us. I could go on reading one example after
another for hours and hours. Mr. McIntosh and Mr. Piché are not
the only ones to point to such totally unacceptable situations.
Earlier in my remarks, I referred to the auditor general's report for
1991. Five years later, there is still no indication that those
situations condemned, raised and identified by the auditor general
back in 1991 have been addressed in 1996.
Take the budget of the Senate, the Upper House, for example.
Expenditures of about $40 million are mentioned in the motion. In
1991, the budget was $42.6 million. But the auditor general
comments: ``Total Senate expenditures are closer to $54 million, if
we add the estimated $11.4 million in services provided to the
Senate by certain government agencies''. This ``we'' does not refer
to Bloc members or to yours truly, but to the auditor general
himself. This means that it would be more accurate to talk about
upwards of $50 million in the wording of the motion, instead of
$40 million.
The report is about 100 pages long. I will obviously not read it,
but I will mention a few examples which reflect the views
expressed by Mr. Piché, although in a more detailed fashion, since
they are provided by the auditor general, who is accountable to the
House, who works at arm's length, who has the necessary
resources-even though he may sometimes think otherwise-to
enable him to do serious work.
What does this report on Senate spending say? There is a
recommendation, recommendation No. 2, on page 13. The auditor
general recommends that the Senate should publish a statement on
its expenditures and the performance of its administration. Under
3.23, recommendation No. 2 provides that: ``The Senate should
regularly publish a summary of committee activities and
expenditures''.
(1600)
If the auditor general made such a recommendation in 1991 and
if, as I said, nothing has changed since, the public will realize, like
us, that the activities of the Senate and its members are not subject
to any audit. Senators are not accountable to anyone. They can do
what they want with the public money at their disposal. Again, the
Reform Party motion is fully justified.
3097
Take travel expenses. We read in the auditor general's report
that there is nothing to guarantee that the travel expenses assumed
by the Senate are for the Senate's operations. An example is given.
The example describes a senator who is reimbursed for a
one-week trip to Vancouver for himself and four members of his
family. Moreover, all of them came from different regions of
Canada. To top it all, the senator himself was not a native of British
Columbia. Would it be permissible to wonder about an expense of
this nature? The auditor general thinks so. Those listening today,
those who elected us, the public, taxpaying Canadians, think so.
Mr. Speaker, you are indicating that I have only two minutes left.
That is, unfortunately, not enough. I will conclude with some
remarks about the reason for the Senate's existence.
I will not give a political science lecture on the difference
between the Upper House and the House of Commons, but in the
opinion of many of our citizens, particularly those in Quebec, the
Upper House, the Senate, is completely unnecessary.
All the members from Quebec share this view. What is more, the
political option we are legitimately defending, whether we are from
Canada, Quebec, or elsewhere, means that we want not just to see
the Senate abolished, but as well not to be represented by anyone at
the federal level.
But even from a federalist standpoint, and our colleagues in the
Reform Party have, I think, very aptly demonstrated this, even
from a federalist standpoint, almost everyone agrees on the need to
reform the Upper House, to ensure that, if there is truly a desire for
institutions that respect British tradition, at least that House will
have real powers. It will also have to be accountable, unlike what
we are seeing now. These days, and I will conclude on this note, the
Senate is more like a Club Med to reward political organizers or to
facilitate their party fundraising activities. More often than not,
this is the purpose served by the Senate nowadays.
(1605)
At a time when all Canadians are being asked to tighten their
belts, to take another look at how they are doing things, they are
entitled to require the same of their elected officials. The first
expense that should be cut is not grants to organizations
representing the disabled, but Senate spending. Action should be
taken so that if our senators, our political organizers, want a paid
vacation, they pay for it out of their own pockets.
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I was very
interested in the comments of my colleague from the Bloc
Quebecois.
Perhaps I could read the first two paragraphs of a column by
Mike Scandiffio which appeared in the Hill Times a few weeks ago.
``The Senate is underfunded and needs a minimum of $4 million
more to meet its objectives'', said the senator who chairs the
committee which sets out the budget for the upper chamber. ``The
budget leaves the Senate little room for ongoing operations'', said
Senator Colin Kenny who chairs the internal economy committee.
``$4 million, that is a low ball figure. I would like to see $7
million''.
We get the idea of the seriousness of the motion the Reform
Party has brought forward, notwithstanding the fact that we hear all
sorts of laughing and chuckling from the peanut gallery over there.
They do not realize that the people of Canada are sick and fed up
with the notion that the senators, along with their porky pension
plan, keep on going to the people of Canada and to the trough. They
just do not understand that the people of Canada are fed up with the
Liberals and all the old line parties constantly swilling out more
and more money.
I have a question for the member. The motion gives notice of
opposition to the Senate estimates. Its purpose is to put pressure on
the Senate to make it account for the $40 million of spending. We
would need a majority in the House to indicate that we are prepared
to vote down the Senate funds if it refuses to appear before the
Standing Committee on Government Operations.
I realize that he and I are just members of a caucus. He does not
have an official capacity in the Bloc Quebecois, at least none that I
am aware of. I would like to ask him, though, what the Bloc
position is on this point. Does he agree that in fact the Board of
Internal Economy of the Senate should be brought before the
standing committee to account for its $40 million so that the people
of Canada have a legitimate say into the expenditures?
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead): Mr. Speaker,
the Bloc's position has been explained by my colleague who spoke
this morning immediately after the mover of the motion. As for me,
I am saying, as I have throughout my speech, obviously, that I find
that the requirement that the Upper House submit accounts
according to the formula set out in the motion is not only
acceptable, desirable, but strikes me as a minimum, that the
senators provide an accounting of their administration.
I will therefore repeat that I am, of course, in agreement for this
motion to be passed, but I am convinced that the government will
not be brave enough to follow up on it. This gives me the
opportunity to recall another expenditure the auditor general found
with respect to telecommunications. I have already referred to the
number of sitting days attended by a goodly number of senators. If
records are broken over there, it most certainly has nothing to do
3098
with attendance. There are no marathon sittings, no one dropping
down from exhaustion afterward-
An hon. member: Just falling asleep.
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead): Yes, they
nod off, but they do not collapse exhausted from having sat too
long.
(1610)
What does the auditor general have to say about
telecommunications? It is important to pay attention, and I am
talking to my Liberal colleagues, who should think about this. The
auditor general says that about $10,000 per senator is spent
annually on the average on telecommunications, but that the figure
varies considerably. He reports that, in a ten month period, starting
April 1989, the expenditures of seven senators exceeded $2,000 a
month on 26 different occasions overall.
Two thousand dollars in telephone costs a month. I understand
why they do not sit often, they are always on the telephone. It
reminds me of my teenagers. I hope they have the call waiting
service so people can reach them sometimes. Other senators,
however, spent less than $500 a month.
This sort of example is important. I repeat this is not gossip
about politicians people are sharing on street corners. This is what
the auditor general, a credible individual recognized by all
politicians in Canada, had to say. This kind of example is in his
report.
In response to my colleague, I repeat that we in the Bloc want the
Senate abolished, purely and simply. The motion by our Reform
colleague is the minimum in terms of political decency.
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
wish to thank my colleague. Although everyone understood what
he just said, not everyone accepts it. It is our colleagues across the
way who do not accept it. The auditor general came up with these
figures and everyone can see them.
Yet, when I explain to my constituents that the Senate costs $43
million, while some industries are being cut by 30 per cent because
the government does not want to invest in forestry, they find it hard
to take. It is indeed very hard to take.
I fully agree with the motion put forward by my colleague from
Comox-Alberni, but it does not go far enough. As my colleague
from Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead was saying, the Senate
must be abolished. We must give some serious thought to this.
I attended the speech from the throne and saw senators sleeping
and being filmed by the TV cameras. Is there better evidence of
how hard some senators work? Of course not. This scene was
shown several times on television. The people in my riding asked
me what those people were doing there.
The government is making cuts to forestry, to agriculture, to
unemployment insurance, to everything-The people in my riding
have a much more appropriate name for unemployment insurance:
poverty insurance. Meanwhile, senators travel in first class, quaff
champagne and run up extravagant communications bills. When
they travel to foreign countries, senators arrive around five o'clock
and have a sip of champagne before laying down for a nap; that is
about the extent of it. I am not making anything up, as you well
know.
To be honest, some senators do a certain amount of work, but 90
per cent of them are a waste of time, energy and money. The people
of the great Lower St. Lawrence region, of Matapédia-Matane,
will never be able to understand this.
If you do not believe me, you should hold a referendum asking
whether we should keep the Senate, whether we should keep
feeding senators or get rid of them. I can tell you right now that
there would be a strong majority in favour of abolishing the Senate.
(1615)
[English]
Following a further inquiry from the table officers, having just
replaced the previous chair occupant, I will look to the government
side for a speaker. Then, of course, I will recognize the Reform
Party in whose name the opposition day stands.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the
debate this afternoon.
[Translation]
I am somewhat shocked by the remarks made by the hon.
members of the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party who just
spoke. In their speeches, they made remarks to the effect that
several members of the other place are not working, which are
insulting to the members of Senate. It is not true. Many senators
work hours on end at the Senate and the hon. members of both
opposition parties know it full well.
They are perfectly aware of the fact that many senators sit on
Senate committees, often splitting their time between these
committees and the Senate itself for weeks on end, and they work
very hard for the residents of their province, whom they represent
in the other place.
[English]
For hon. members opposite to dump on the Senate in this way
may be popular and may be fun, but I suggest that in respect of at
least some of the hon. senators, quite a good number of them, it is
unfair. Many of them are extremely hard working and do an
excellent service for Canada and for the Parliament of Canada.
3099
I know it is a popular sport to criticize the Senate. I will have
some remarks of my own in respect of the Senate. I have made
them in the past. That is fair game. However, there are many hard
working Canadians in the Senate and for hon. members opposite
to make those remarks is improper, in my view, and contrary to
our rules and practices.
The motion before the House is questionable. It is not surprising
when one considers the source. The hon. member for
Comox-Alberni put forward the motion which says the Senate
failed to respond to a message from the House requesting that a
representative of the Senate committee appear before the Standing
Committee on Government Operations to account for $40 million
of taxpayer money. Talk about crocodile tears.
Mr. Abbott: That is a fact.
Mr. Milliken: If the hon. member for Kootenay East could
control himself for a few minutes he will have a chance to ask
questions a little later. He says it is a fact. Yes, it is a fact. It is also a
fact that this kind of request has never gone to a Senate committee
chair before from this House. It is also a fact that it is quite
improper for one House to demand the attendance of members of
the other House in their capacity as representatives of the House.
I suggest to the hon. member that if a request came from the
Senate for members of this House to go down to defend their
expenditures before the Senate, the request would be treated with
some disdain.
The hon. member for Kootenay East wags his head. Perhaps he
would go to the Senate to explain his expenditures, but I do not
regard it as my responsibility to go there to explain anything to the
Senate about my expenditures.
The hon. member says he is elected and that, of course, makes a
difference. It may, but the Senate has certain powers and rights
under the Constitution. Senators may not be elected but they are
appointed under the Constitution and their powers are derived from
the same act, the Constitution Act, from which our powers are
derived.
While the hon. member may have a point that there is a
difference in the way we are appointed, if I received a request from
the Senate to come hither to answer questions, I would say no, I
will not, thank you very much. The Senate has exercised that right.
What the hon. member for Comox-Alberni is trying to do by
the motion is make it appear that somehow the Senate is being
undemocratic because these non-elected people are saying they
will not appear before a group of elected people to explain the way
they are accounting for their money.
There are procedures for doing this. There are procedures for
bringing the Senate to account in respect of its management of the
funds it has. Members can ask questions with respect to the Senate
estimates when they are here in the House. They can move a
motion, as they have today. They can ask a minister of the crown to
discuss the estimates. They can ask the President of the Treasury
Board questions about the Senate estimates. They can also arrange
for members of the Senate to ask questions in the Senate.
(1620)
The hon. member opposite seems to suggest the Senate is one
big happy club, but he knows, as I do, the Senate is made up of
partisans from at least two parties.
Mr. Abbott: The old line traditional parties.
Mr. Milliken: There we are. We are hearing it, what we have
been listening to throughout this debate from the opposition today,
the politics of envy. Here we have two opposition parties screaming
and ranting about the Senate. Why? They do not have one of their
own in the Senate. We did not used to hear these criticisms of the
Senate when Stan Waters was there.
Here was the hon. member for Beaver River shedding crocodile
tears earlier because Stan Waters won a popularity contest and was
appointed to the Senate by Brian Mulroney. He was appointed just
like every other senator was. He was as big a hack as Lowell
Murray and Lynch-Staunton and all those Tory hacks in the Senate.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Milliken: The hon. member for Kootenay East can protest
all he wants. He can say what an awful thing it is but when it comes
right down to it, Stan Waters was appointed the same way the
others were.
Listen to the protests. There is no provision in the Constitution
Act for the election of a senator. The only way one gets to the
Senate-I urge my hon. friends to read the Constitution Act-is by
a nomination of the governor general on recommendation from the
Prime Minister. There is no other route. One can win a popularity
contest for Mr. Beauty Queen and that person will not get into the
Senate unless the governor general summons them to the Senate on
the recommendation of the Prime Minister.
Stan Waters managed that feat. He got into the Senate but he got
named by the Prime Minister. If he had not been, he would not have
been there. I do not care how many election campaigns he ran in
Alberta or anywhere else. He could not get there without that little
slip of paper signed by His Excellency the Governor General of
Canada.
He got it and he loved it. He sat in the Senate and while he was
there we had the hon. member for Beaver River here in the House.
She did not rant and rave about the evils of the Senate and its
expenditures then.
An hon. member: You did not let her speak.
3100
Mr. Milliken: We were treated to the speeches of the hon.
member for Beaver River all the time. She gave us another sterling
example this afternoon.
We all listened with bated breath to the member for Beaver River
when she got a chance to speak. I remember many times the Liberal
Party gave up space in its speaking list in order for the member for
Beaver River to get on the record. We wanted to hear her views. We
were enthusiastic about hearing her views. We still are.
Here she was today telling us all about the Senate and how her
friends had been appointed to the Senate, friends of hers she
thought were in favour of a democratically elected Senate.
The position of the Liberal Party on this is very well known. We
favour an elected Senate. It will come in the fullness of time. In the
meantime, we operate under the existing Constitution. That
requires the Prime Minister to fill vacancies in the Senate by
making recommendations to His Excellency the Governor General
of Canada who then summons persons to sit in the Senate.
I am sure my hon. friends opposite would not want to have the
Senate continue to be dominated by the party that formed the
government and that was so soundly thrashed in the last election
campaign.
They say they are very democratic and that they support
democratic principles. I found it passing strange that when I came
into the House today I saw that the two Conservative members
have been shifted away so that they are not sitting so close to the
Reformers any more. We know why that happened. It is that they
were treated so rudely by the Reform Party members, being
shouted at and screamed at so that they could not hear themselves
think where they were sitting. They got moved closer to the Bloc.
For a party that is so democratic as the Reform Party, I am rather
surprised it would take that approach.
Anyway, there they are moved. It is bad enough to see them
mistreated in the election campaign, having been reduced to two
seats, but then to have them treated this way in the House by the
Reform Party is a shameful thing.
The Conservative Party still controls the Senate; well not quite
anymore, but it still has a very large number of members in the
Senate. Until recently it exercised effective control of the Senate. I
am sure hon. members opposite who are after all professed
democrats would not want that to continue.
(1625)
The government has continued to appoint Liberals to the Senate
to redress the imbalance that was the hangover of the Mulroney
years in the Senate. It was a hangover that Canadians were tired of.
The government took the right approach. It has continued with that
approach by appointing Liberals to the Senate to fill every possible
vacancy to make sure we are not confronted with Tory dominance
in the Senate any longer.
Some of my colleagues may not be aware of this but hon.
members opposite have been in cahoots with their Tory colleagues
in the Senate Chamber. I go back to Bill C-69 and that ill fated
attempt to amend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act
which was introduced in the House and which members on all sides
worked on so hard to come up with a good bill.
That bill was adopted in this House and sent to the other place. I
recall going down to a committee meeting to answer questions
about the bill as chairman of the procedure and House affairs
committee as parliamentary secretary to the government House
leader at the time. I went down to the Senate to answer questions
with regard to the bill. Who did I see down there but the hon.
member for Calgary West. He had run down and climbed into bed
with Senator Staunton and Senator Murray. He was in cahoots. He
was whispering away at the committee table, saying ``ask him this,
ask him about that'', and giving all kinds of asides to these senators
to stir up trouble with respect to a bill that had passed in this House.
This is the Senate that we are hearing about today which is so
undemocratic, autocratic, so unfair and full of all these awful
people, according to the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois. Yet
when Bill C-69 was there, boy, there was the member for Calgary
West, who the last time I checked was still in the Reform Party,
down there talking those Tory senators and trying to get them to
jump on the Reform band wagon and block the bill. They
succeeded. He succeeded abundantly. He so convinced the Tory
senators that this bill was a bad thing that they blocked the bill.
They held it up for months and months. Now the hon. member for
Beaver River is losing her seat.
We heard the member for Beaver River today. She was preaching
politics of envy. She wants a Senate seat.
Mr. Abbott: Oh, right.
Mr. Milliken: The hon. member for Kootenay East says I am
right. He knows I am right. Her seat disappears in redistribution.
She wants to go to the Senate. Here she was making a speech today,
wanting to create vacancies in the Senate by exposing some kind of
scandal down there. If she could make it account for this $40
million and found something had been misspent, maybe there
would be a vacancy and she could get appointed to the vacancy.
She listed her three friends who have all gone and she wants to
be with them. I can understand her desire. I guess if I had three
close friends all go to the Senate maybe I would want a Senate seat
too. In the meantime I am quite happy to stay here.
I am not finished yet. I know hon. members opposite want to ask
me questions and that is why I made this speech. I want to give
3101
them an opportunity to ask me questions, but they will have to hold
their horses until I am finished.
The other thing about the Senate is how is it that the Reform
Party, which says it is so much in favour of democracy, can favour
a triple E Senate? Why does a triple E Senate make so much sense
to the Reform Party and so little sense to almost everybody else?
I will try to explain it. Under its proposal for a triple E Senate, it
is to have the senators elected on a province-wide basis in each
province and there will be an equal number of senators per
province, say 10 per province.
Miss Grey: What is all this I hear?
Mr. Milliken: The hon. member for Beaver River has
reappeared. Like the phoenix from the ashes she has come back. I
am so glad she has made it. I hope she has not missed the point of
the beginning of my story.
Reformers want this triple E Senate, 10 senators per province,
elected on a provincial basis so that they can all get huge numbers
of votes.
The hon. member for Beaver River in her remarks spoke
eloquently about how her friend, Stan Waters, got a huge number of
votes, the biggest number anyone had ever received in an election
in Canada, because he ran in the biggest constituency anyone had
ever run in, in this popularity contest in Alberta. I can only tell the
hon. member that if we had a similar election today across the
country in each province, in the province of Prince Edward Island
the winner might get as many votes as I did.
(1630 )
An hon. member: Not that many.
Mr. Milliken: The hon. member says not that many. I know he is
flattering me. We could then go to another place like Ontario where
the winner might receive 10 times as many votes as the person in
Manitoba, Saskatchewan or some other province, but it would be
many times more than Stan Waters received in Alberta.
Let us go on with this case for another second. Then we get these
people into the Senate and the Senate becomes effective. It has all
the powers the current Senate has, the power to block any bill. We
would create a newly elected body of 10 people from every
province, representing the people of their provinces, with the
power to block the elected will of the House of Commons.
What happens to the democratic principle in this case? The five
smallest provinces could get together and effectively block the five
largest provinces because there would be a tie vote.
An hon. member: What is the matter with that?
Mr. Milliken: The hon. member asks what is wrong with that. In
a democracy we normally go with the majority, the numbers. We
have compromised the majority somewhat by tying the number of
seats into the population in provinces with certain floors, certain
guarantees, and so on and so forth. Those exist in the country. It is
this House which is the basis for government in the country, not the
Senate. It has unlimited powers in theory but in practice very
limited powers. This House has virtually unlimited powers.
The hon. member knows the way this House works is that the
different regions of the country are represented here. However,
what is sought in this triple E Senate is a power in the smallest
provinces to block the larger provinces.
Hon. members opposite must know that if about one-quarter of
the population of the country were able to thwart the wishes of over
three-quarters of the country there would be something wrong. If
they do not think that, their idea of democracy is pretty weak.
Have I said something in a way that is too complicated for the
hon. members opposite to understand?
The country should be governed by a group of people elected to
represent their geographic areas based on some system of equality
of representation. What hon. members opposite are suggesting is
exactly the opposite. They are to turn the Senate Chamber into
something that will be able to dominate the Canadian political
system big time and in a way that is most undemocratic despite
their protests of democracy.
It makes me very suspicious when I combine my hearing of their
views on the triple E Senate with the hon. member for Calgary
West's sliding into bed with these Tory senators on Bill C-69 and
the hon. member for Beaver River in her enthusiasm to get a Senate
seat to make up for the loss of her seat in the redistribution. All
those things make me very suspicious. I begin to think that maybe I
am paranoid or something. However, when I speak with my
colleagues they all agree with my views as to what Reform really
wants here.
If the hon. member for Calgary Southwest were here, although I
am sure he is here in spirit, and if he had to act as Prime Minister I
can just imagine what he would have been doing the last few weeks
if he had vacancies in the Senate at his beck and call. I could see the
hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan in the Senate. I could see
the hon. member for Athabasca in the Senate. I will bet if she had
played her cards right, the hon. member for Calgary Southeast
might even have made it to the Senate. I will bet it is a good place
for them. It is just as well there as it is at the back of the bus.
The poor hon. member for Calgary Southeast is now sloughed
off in the back row over there with the Bloc members. The poor
soul, she is off with the Bloc members. The hon. member for
Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead is back after his speech and he
and the hon. member for Calgary Southeast can commiserate on
3102
what life would be like in the Senate. I am sure they would share
views on the importance of appointment to the Senate and what
useful lives they could lead there after the next election.
(1635)
The hon. member for Calgary Southwest is not the Prime
Minister of Canada and that is why we are hearing this politics of
envy. If he were the Prime Minister of Canada we would not be
hearing all these complaints about the Senate because there would
be some Reform members in the Senate and so they would stop
complaining.
It would not stop the Bloc, I admit, since it is not running to be
the Government of Canada. It is unlikely that we will have any
appointments from that party, which would silence it.
I assure my colleague for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead that
if the Prime Minister, once there is a Liberal majority in the Senate,
chooses to appoint one of his colleagues to the Senate he too will
agree the Senate is a great place, that its members work very hard
and he will repent all the words he spoke today. He will withdraw
those words and apologize to his friends in the Senate for the nasty
things he has said.
I hope all hon. members in their remarks and in their questions
will be temperate in their criticisms of the other place because I
believe it does good service for Canada.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Given the huge interest in
the intervention from the member for Kingston and the Islands on
questions and comments, I will try to recognize as many members
as I can.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
have been at this for years and years. I can hardly believe he is
ranting and raving right now against an elected Senate. I ask him to
agree or disagree with the proposal in the resolution his party came
forward with at the 1992 convention that said be it resolved that the
Liberal Party of Canada is in favour of an elected Senate.
It would hardly seem he is following his party's policy right now
in ranting against it. His friend, the member for
Etobicoke-Lakeshore, for whom I have quite a bit of respect, said
to me earlier ``well, that was then''.
Something happens from this side of the House over to that side
of the House. In opposition the Liberals could say all kinds of
things. Then of course at their assembly in 1992 before they
became government they could have all these wonderful
documents come forward.
The interesting thing that is different about his party and mine is
that when we have an assembly and the delegates at that assembly
vote on party policy, heaven help any MP who thinks they can vote
against it because the people have the last word. I could never sit in
the House and say that was then but now that I am in government
things are so much better. Does he agree or disagree with that
resolution?
He spent more time talking about me than he did about the
Senate. I could not help but notice he was wondering aloud if I
really wanted a seat in the Senate because of the redistribution of
the constituency in Beaver River.
Let me put on the record in Hansard that if I ever think that I
might get a seat in the Senate of Canada it will be because I run as
an elected person for a seat in the Senate of Canada. It will be
democratic, it will be legitimate and I will have some mandate for
being in the Senate, not because some hack threw me in there.
He also says there might be Reformers in the Senate. I dare say
there will be someday, but it will be because we are running there.
It will not be because some political hack says to me ``well done,
thou good and faithful hack, go to the Senate''. It will not happen,
but that is his dream of getting to the Senate.
Perhaps there is a little disappointment because his name did not
come up on the list. Several people have been put in the Senate
since he was heaved down there by the glass doors. How much
farther can you go before you are out of this Chamber?
He did not get a chance to get into the Senate. I wonder if he
would agree with me, being that he did not get a seat, how
important it is not to just make fun of the whole issue of election
and talk about a fraud or whatever in Alberta, but would he stand
with me and say he does not believe in some political person
throwing him into the Senate, that he will be hanged before he will
let some pot licker put him in the Senate without running to be
there effectively and legitimately.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the protestations of
the hon. member for Beaver River, I have no intention of being
hanged before or after any possible chance of going to the Senate.
(1640 )
To answer her question, I support the Liberal Party resolution of
1992. If I had my choice, I would abolish the Senate. I see there
will be a debate on Friday on a motion moved by the hon. member
for Kamouraska. I hope the hon. member for Beaver River will
support the motion so we can get rid of the Senate for now. If we
can agree on an elected Senate at another date, I would be to have
an elected Senate. It will have to be by some kind of agreement.
I also suggest the proper thing to do is put some restrictions on
the power of the Senate, whether it is elected or not. The hon.
3103
member for Beaver River can discuss that with me at a later date. I
would be more than happy to have a lengthy debate on the subject.
With respect to the Charlottetown accord, when we had a chance
to have an elected Senate, I actively campaigned for the yes side.
Miss Grey: My side won.
Mr. Milliken: I am well aware that the hon. member's no side
won. She had a chance then to support an elected Senate and she
campaigned against the Charlottetown accord. I put my money
where my mouth was. Our party supported an elected Senate
despite my preference for abolition. I went along with the thing and
supported an elected Senate in an effort to make the accord work.
When the hon. member for Beaver River had a chance go for an
elected Senate she would not hold her nose and go for it. She said
``I am not going for an elected Senate, it is not that important to
me''.
It was important enough to our party that I was able to support
the accord and I did my bit for an elected Senate. Even though we
lost the battle, we won the war in Kingston and the Islands.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have in
hand a copy of an article from the Hill Times by Mike Scandiffio
from February 26 this year. I think the member might be interested:
Cash strapped and struggling in the polls, Tories are looking to tap into
Senate funds as they try to rebuild the party and take on the Liberals.
A 10-page memo written by Tory Senate staffers and obtained by the Hill
Times outlines a plan by Tory senators and staffers to set up research working
groups as part of a ``policy issues network'' paid by the research budget,
allocated to each of the senators.
However, according to the memo the working groups are to ``provide support
to the leader-
the member for Sherbrooke
-and the party process by acting as a source for immediate information
requests'' and ``to provide substantive analysis and input into the party policy
process''.
I wonder if this does not make the case that there must be an
accountability that he, all jokes notwithstanding, as a member of
Parliament, should be calling for on the part of the Senate if it is
proposing to divert funds from the objective that was set out for
those funds. It is proposing to divert Senate funds to rebuild the
Tory political party, according to this article.
Therefore I must ask the member in all seriousness, does he not
agree it is important that this elected, legitimate body by virtue of
its election, on behalf of the people of Canada who elected it, hold
the Senate accountable? Why is that such a difficult concept to
understand? Should the Senate be held accountable to the people of
Canada for its expenditure of funds, yes or no?
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, of course the Senate should be held
accountable for its funds. I am glad the hon. member asked this
question. The article seems to be suggesting the Conservative
members of the Senate were using the Senate funds available to
them for research and other such purposes to do research on behalf
of party policy for the Conservative Party of Canada.
Mr. Abbott: For their members in the House of Commons.
Mr. Milliken: Or for the Conservative Party of Canada. These
members are given a budget for research purposes, as we are, and
they are allowed to use that money for partisan purposes, as we are
permitted to do.
I can develop policy statements in my office intended for use by
the Liberal Party of Canada should I choose to do so. I can use my
House of Commons staff, just as the hon. member can do with his.
I cite a few examples. There is a former Reform candidate now
employed in the office of a member of the Reform Party. He was
employed there before he ran as a candidate. He was a candidate in
cold storage. It is like a frozen steak; pull it out when there is an
election and start cooking. Then when the election is lost, it is put
back in the freezer. That is what happened with one of theirs.
(1645)
Then the Reform Party spent $30,000 on its leader's suits with
taxpayers' money raised in donations to the party. Do we think
people who contributed money to the Reform Party thought that
$30,000 would be used to buy suits for the hon. member for
Calgary Southwest? That is accountability. Let us hear about that.
If the hon. member is so concerned about accountability why
does he not tell us about the car the party provides the party leader?
When he handed over the keys to the official car given to him by
the House of Commons, he took a car from the party and said it was
not from the taxpayers. Who got all the receipts for the money with
$75 out of $100 as a tax credit but the people who paid for that car
who were all taxpayers. The rest of us are all taking it in the neck
because they got a $75 tax credit out of the first $100.
The hon. member says it is a taxable claim. My figures are
correct. If a person gives $100 to a party they get a $75 tax credit.
That comes out of the pockets of taxpayers, as does any other
deduction.
I know the hon. member for Kootenay East is thankful he asked
me that question. I agree with accountability. I believe people
should be accountable. His party should come clean about what it is
doing with taxpayers' money, as we do.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon.
3104
member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, terrorism; the hon. member for
Labrador, mining.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it was interesting
to listen to the intervention from the member for Kingston and the
Islands. It was very entertaining. There is a very popular box office
hit called ``Twister''. It is also very entertaining and there is a
similarity. We could draw the analogy that after being entertained
for a couple of hours people have only spent money and received a
lot of wind.
The Reform Party has spoken in the House since it arrived about
the need for change in our parliamentary system. We have talked
about the need for change in our Senate.
There are many members in the House from the Bloc, some from
the Liberal Party and from the NDP who advocate that we abolish
the Senate. Canadians from coast to coast recognize the Senate is
nothing more than a haven for political patronage and has been for
a very long time. Canadians are not satisfied with that. They are not
getting a bang for their buck. They recognize that it is nothing more
than a patronage pay-off for political hacks and they want it
changed.
The simple solution is to say we will abolish it. That sounds
good. I can understand why members from Ontario and Quebec
would feel that was a proper solution. They do not have the
problem of the regional parts of Canada where representation by
population means they are left vulnerable by many political
decisions. The Senate provides an opportunity to ensure regional
balance and regional fairness in the face of representation by
population.
Canadians understand that we do not have regional fairness
when in the Senate. It does not provide a sober second look. It does
not ensure that the legislation which passes through the House
meets the test of fairness for all Canadians. It is nothing short of an
opportunity for the prime minister in office to appoint his or her
political hacks. The Canadian taxpayers are virtually saddled with
those people for a lifetime. There is no way out.
We in the Reform Party recognized a long time ago that the
Senate was not working. Instead of coming up with the simplistic
solution of abolishing it, we said we needed to change it to make it
work, just as we need to change the House to make it work.
(1650 )
We have talked about recall. We have talked about referenda. We
have talked about opening up Canada's parliamentary process both
in this House and in the upper House to be a more democratic
system, to have a more democratic method of operation. We have
talked about the way Parliament is working now is nothing short of
a democratic dictatorship.
We have an outbreak of democracy once every four or five years
when Canadians go to the polls to elect a new government. We are
only electing our next dictator. Whoever becomes prime minister
in a majority government, which we get most of the time, becomes
a virtual dictator for the next four or five years.
The Prime Minister exercises power over cabinet by virtue of the
fact that he appoints and fires cabinet ministers. Loyalty is driven
toward ensuring that the Prime Minister's will is done in that inner
circle of high powered cabinet ministers.
The Prime Minister has a vested interest in the Senate's
remaining as it is because it offers him the opportunity to reward
his political cronies. It also offers him the opportunity to give the
people of Canada the perception that there is a place for a sober
second look at legislation that passes through this House. In reality
it is nothing more than a rubber stamp.
However, the perception is falling away. Canadians are
demanding that substantive changes be made to the way the House
of Commons and the Senate work. For the benefit of the members
opposite I say that anybody who is in politics in Canada today who
does not recognize that and who is not prepared to deal with that
will not be here for long.
That is the reality of change coming to Canada. It is driven by
the grassroots, by the citizens of the country. We hear it right across
the nation. I know there will be some members from some parties
in this House dragged through that change kicking and screaming,
but it is coming.
The member for Kingston and the Islands said with regard to the
Senate that one Reform senator was appointed by the Prime
Minister. To say it was a political appointment is a slight on the
remembrance of Stan Waters, a great Canadian who ran for public
office, who ran for the position of senator and who was elected by
over a quarter of a million voters in the province of Alberta.
I can tell the member for Kingston and the Islands that if Stan
Waters were alive today and if he were to hear this member
denigrating his election to the Senate, I am certain that Stan
Waters, knowing him and knowing the way he was, would have
given the member an education out behind the barn. That was Stan
Waters' way.
The members talk about the Charlottetown accord and say ``you
nasty Reformers talk about a triple E Senate, yet when you had an
opportunity to vote for a triple E Senate you turned it down in the
Charlottetown accord''.
I remind members opposite that Canadians are not stupid. They
understood clearly that the Charlottetown accord was not about a
triple E Senate. There was no requirement for an election. There
was an opportunity for provincial premiers to make appointments
3105
to the Senate as opposed to the Prime Minister but there was no
requirement for an election.
There was no real opportunity for an effective Senate because
the provisions in the Charlottetown accord did not allow the Senate
to oversee many facets of legislation which we on this side of the
House feel it should have the right to review.
Canadians and Reformers were asked at the time of the
Charlottetown accord to buy a pig in a poke. We were told ``if you
want your triple E Senate'', and it was not a triple E Senate, ``you
will get it if you vote for the Charlottetown accord''.
(1655 )
We were not to get a triple E Senate. We were to get about a one
and a half E Senate, which does not mean we were 50 per cent of
the way to our goal. It only meant that we had slightly improved on
a very bad system.
Canadians were also told the Charlottetown accord meant
distinct society status for Quebec. They were told that one of the
five key components of the Charlottetown accord was the inherent
right to aboriginal self-government. The Charlottetown accord was
turned down by people in many areas of Canada for those reasons.
The accord was not turned down because of the extremely limited
provisions for change to the Senate.
The government is quick to implement those failed aspects of the
Charlottetown accord which did not sit well with Canadian people
from coast to coast. Within weeks of taking office the government
turned around and issued statements like we recognize the inherent
right of aboriginal peoples to self-government. That was a key
component of the Charlottetown accord which was voted down by
Canadians, but Liberals opposite will foist it down our throats
anyway, like it or not.
Last year the Liberal government passed distinct society
recognition for Quebec, although it was clearly voted down by the
people in the rest of Canada in the Charlottetown referendum. If the
Liberals can implement these other aspects of the failed
Charlottetown referendum against the wishes of the Canadian
people, why can they not agree to implement changes to the
Senate?
Depending on which riding they are in, 80 per cent to 85 per cent
of Canadians from coast to coast want change in the Senate. They
expect change in the Senate. They demand change in the Senate.
During its election campaign the government indicated it would to
make changes, that it believed in an elected Senate.
The reality is here now. It was one thing to promise change
during an election campaign. That was then, this is now. There will
not be an elected Senate. Canadians' hope for change has been
dashed by the comments of members opposite today. It has become
clear the government, this Liberal Party, has absolutely no
intention whatsoever of changing the rules with regard to electing
senators. It has made that abundantly clear.
There was a book that was popular several years ago. I cannot
remember the name of the author but I recall one of the quotes, that
power is rarely or never given but almost always taken. The
Reform Party came to Ottawa in part because we wanted to see the
tremendous power that is centralized in the Prime Minister's office
dissipated somewhat and democratized. There would be more
power in the hands of ordinary Canadians.
A major component of that goal is ensuring Canadians have the
right to accountability by the Senate, which they pay $40 million
for. They should have some measure of accountability. They should
have some way of ensuring senators are doing what the voters want
and not what the Prime Minister wants.
I will say again that any political party or political representative
who does not recognize the need for accountability and who is not
prepared to implement that in the future does not recognize that
fundamental changes are needed in our system and they are
destined for political extinction. It is coming and I do not think
voters will accept any less.
We can listen to the Liberal members opposite talk about how
much they believe in democracy, about how much they believe in
keeping their election promises when they clearly do not. They
clearly do not believe in democracy. They twist words around.
They twist sentences around. They twist promises around. They
will do anything to avoid making the changes required. They will
do anything to avoid having a triple E Senate because it does not
work in their political party's interest and it does not work in the
Prime Minister's interest. It certainly works in the interests of the
Canadian people.
(1700 )
As I said earlier, the Canadian people are no longer content to sit
back and watch business unfold as usual. There will be an election
within the next year or two, possibly this fall. I believe two of the
key issues in that election for Canadians will be just how
democratic the process is and how good their representation is in
Ottawa.
When I go back to Atlantic Canada I talk to the fishermen. As the
fisheries critic I end up talking to a lot of fishermen. They tell me
that their elected representatives are not in agreement with the
minister on a particular policy. The constituents they have been
elected to represent are not in agreement with the minister's policy.
However, these MPs dare not come back to Ottawa and take a
contrary position to the minister for fear of punishment. We have
seen that punishment demonstrated graphically by the Prime
Minister in the last six or seven weeks.
3106
We have seen how a Liberal MP, who wanted to stand up for
his election promises and for what his constituents wanted, was
hustled out of that party quicker than you could blink when he
dared do it.
The question of representation on the part of Canadian voters is
becoming more serious all the time. They are no longer content to
live with the status quo.
In closing, we hear all the eloquent words from the Liberal MPs
on the other side. We hear the rhetoric about how the government
would like to see a more open and democratic process. We see it in
the red book promises. We see it in interviews with various Liberal
MPs in the media from time to time. However, for all those people
out there who may be watching, the reality is that there is
absolutely no commitment to that at all. The government is not
committed to having any changes in the status quo. The only way
Canadians will have that in the future is to elect a Reform
government.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I was
interested in the comments by the member for Kingston and the
Islands as they related directly to what my colleague was just
saying about the need for institutional reform.
It is particularly interesting that the Prime Minister on
September 24, 1991, page 2595 of Hansard, said:
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.
I know my colleague will agree that the member for Kingston
and the Islands does not even know what the Prime Minister used
to say.
I just got off the telephone with a gentleman in Calgary, Glen
Schey. The Liberals would have us believe that this is a figment of
the Reform's imagination. Here is a grassroots petition that this
individual is putting out. It reads:
We the people of Alberta request that Jane Forest resign her Senate seat. We
also request, in accordance with provincial law, that the Government of Alberta
hold an election to fill the vacant Senate seat.
I advised him that unfortunately the wording would not be
adequate for a petition to the House of Commons. However, the
Liberals should know that the people of Alberta and indeed, after
many conservations with some government officials, the people of
Ontario, are saying that it is time that this government take charge.
In light of the fact that there seems to be a kind of groundswell
movement, whether it is in Alberta, the maritimes or Ontario, to get
the Senate under control, particularly in the area of its $40 million
of spending, I wonder if my colleague would like to comment on
that.
(1705 )
Mr. Scott (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, Canadians from coast to coast
are unhappy with the status quo. They want to see substantial
change.
They are unhappy with the fact that the Senate has been used as a
patronage haven. It is anti-democratic to its core and has a
tremendous budget. They know that senators are jetting off all over
the world on various junkets without accountability to the voters or
to anyone else. We are asking for accountability to the House and
the member for Kingston and the Islands says we have no right to
demand that accountability.
To whom are senators accountable for their budget? Are they
accountable to the Prime Minister? They are not accountable to the
electors because they were never elected and they do not have to
stand for re-election.
Canadians are very unhappy about that. It is very frustrating for
Canadians to hear the Prime Minister make promises and
statements about changing the Senate. Then they read the red book
and hear statements such as those made by the member for
Kingston and the Islands here this afternoon, which are
contradictory.
It all goes back to what the Liberal Party has done for
generations, which is make promises and then the ground shifts.
We must keep moving with the times and promises change as time
goes by and reality rears its ugly head.
I suppose like the red queen, the promises in the red book mean
whatever the Liberals want them to mean. The Prime Minister can
change his position two or three times in a month and seems to get
away with it. However, I do not think that is going to happen any
more. It certainly did not happen on the GST. The member for
Hamilton had to resign over her broken promise. I have talked with
Canadians from coast to coast over the last 18 months and they tell
me they want serious change in the Senate. They are not content
with the status quo.
In answer to my colleague in the Reform Party, Canadians are
not going to sit back and watch $40 million a year be shovelled into
that place with no accountability and be used as nothing more than
a patronage haven for whatever prime minister happens to be in
office at the time.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I have been listening all day long, as Reform Party
members discussed this very important motion dealing with Senate
expenditures and the fact that the Senate refuses to testify before
the Standing Committee on Government Operations. This is very
serious and Canadians must know about this.
Since this morning, I have been hearing Reformers complain
about the lack of control over Senate expenditures and the fact that
the Senate refuses to account for the $40 million budget it was
given. Incidentally, according to the auditor general's report for
3107
1991, the actual amount would be closer to $54 million, when
certain other expenditures are added to this $40 million. The Senate
is also described as haven of patronage, and Senate appointments
as political rewards.
My question is as follows: If that is the case, why does the
Reform Party not recommend that the Senate be plainly and simply
abolished, as advocated by the Bloc Quebecois? That it what I ask
myself.
[English]
Mr. Scott (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member was
not here for my entire intervention earlier. For his benefit I will
recap once again.
The member comes from a province of approximately seven
million people. I come from a province of about three million
people. There are provinces in Canada with only several hundred
thousand in population. When we have a democratic system that
elects members to the House on the basis of population it means
that some provinces or regions in Canada are going to be under
represented.
(1710 )
Let me offer a graphic example of how a regional interest can be
overridden by the powerful political forces in central Canada.
During the late 1970s and early 1980s the Liberal government of
the day led by Pierre Trudeau was in a bit of a cash crunch. It
looked over at Alberta and British Columbia and saw an
opportunity to reach into the energy well of those provinces to dig
out a whole fistful of dollars. As members may recall, energy
prices were rising.
Alberta and northeastern British Columbia have tremendous oil
and gas reserves. They were developing and bringing onstream
more properties all the time. The federal government adopted a
national energy program.
The national energy program was nothing more than a legislated
rape of Alberta's and British Columbia's oil and gas reserves.
There was no opportunity for a Senate to review that legislation to
ensure the regional interests of Alberta and British Columbia were
protected from the strong, dominant, centrifugal political forces in
Ottawa and in Ontario and Quebec. That is why I fear for the future
of Confederation, for the future of Canada, as a country of 10 equal
and harmonious provinces if we do not have a Senate.
There will come a time in the future when another such silly idea
as the national energy program will be dreamt up by some federal
government, maybe even this one. It has come up with some pretty
silly ideas. It will be foisted on some region in Canada that is not
prepared to accept it. That will create a tremendous feeling of
unrest and ill will and possibly be a move for separation of other
provinces from the federation.
It is important for the sake of national unity to have a Senate.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first I would like
to advise you that I will share my time with the hon. member for
Berthier-Montcalm, who will speak a little later.
Bloc members do not often support Reform Party motions. This
proposal is a minimum since, as the hon. member for
Berthier-Montcalm said earlier, we are in favour of abolishing the
Senate.
The Reform member who moved the motion is saying that
spending must be submitted to the scrutiny of this House, so that
these expenditures can be made known to the public as much as
possible. This seems to be a minimum, given the large number of
recommendations made by the auditor general following a review
of this issue. There are 27 recommendations, and all of them make
a lot of sense.
In the context of expenditure reduction expected by all
Canadians right now, and since the public debt continues to grow
and will soon reach $600 billion, cuts must be made somewhere.
The Senate is not subject to any of the rules that usually apply to
departments. This makes its activities somewhat less credible in
the public eye. The auditor general's proposals made a lot of sense,
and he did submit a whole series of recommendations. What the
Reform Party member is proposing, that a report be tabled in this
House, so that it can be scrutinized, is also a good idea.
However, we must look at the issue from another angle. Why
have a Senate at all? I recently asked some of my constituents what
the Senate meant to them. They did not really have an answer.
(1715)
They also asked who the senator was who represented their area
here. I was asked that some time ago and I now know who it is
because I made some inquiries. I do not wish to dump on those who
do this job, that not being the purpose of the question, but my
constituents did not know the name of the senator who represented
them here in Parliament.
At one point I was visiting a school class and I asked them what
the Senate meant to them. ``Oh sure we know the Senators. We see
them a lot.'' I was a bit taken aback by that, so I asked them to
name some names. They then started to give me the names of
hockey players. Does that ring a bell for you, Mr. Speaker?
Children, even young people in secondary school and Cegep, told
me ``The Senators are the Ottawa hockey team. They are not that
3108
good yet, but they are up and coming. They will be a good team
eventually''. Young people know absolutely nothing about the
regular activities of the senators here in the other place.
After having the fun of asking that question for some time, and
finding so many people giving me the same answer, I asked myself
what the purpose of the Senate was. I wondered about its mandate.
Moreover, the first recommendation the auditor general made in
his report was the following: the mandates of the Senate and its
committees needed tightening up, as they were too vague. So then I
became more interested in the question: What is the use of the
Senate?
Finally, we became aware that the function of the Senate,
although this is not how it is written down, was to block bills, to
prevent their being passed. In actual fact, it is to examine bills that
have been passed by the House of Commons, but in certain cases
they are blocked because that is the only means at the disposal of
the Senate. For example, it might be of some use if it were to block
Bill C-12 on unemployment insurance reform. The Senate has
made use of that means in certain cases.
Why does this occur? Because the senators are appointed by the
government, no longer for life, as the age limit now is 75 years, but
there are still a certain number of senators over the age of 75,
because of their vested rights which date back to the late sixties.
When a new government is elected, the Senate contains a
majority from the time of the old government, and it is in the
interests of the former government to block the work of the present
government. It has become what I see as a pointless game of
leapfrog, paralyzing, sterile. We in the Bloc Quebecois, as you well
know, find the federal system sterile, so imagine another system on
top of that one, slowing the legislative process down even more.
Quebec abolished its legislative council in the late 1960s,
perhaps 1968. Since then, there have been no complaints in Quebec
that the legislation has been less good, less well examined, less
well worded. It is, however, less expensive. The figure given is $42
million, but when you include the expenses of all of the other
departments concerned, the cost is $54 million, and by far the
majority of Canadians do not know what that money is used for.
Of course, some of them are hard-working. This is nothing
personal, but the fact remains that, when there are a mere 42 or 45
sitting days in some years, when the Senate normally sits three
afternoons a week, as compared to our five days in this House, that
can hardly be called going flat out.
So, the basic question is: what is the use of the Senate? I submit
that, when the public does not even know who the senators are and
mistake them for the hockey team, we must ask ourselves very
serious questions. The whole issue has to be reconsidered,
especially since the Senate is so expensive to run.
In that sense, the motion put forward by the Reform Party is
most interesting and appropriate because, if nothing else,
appropriations would at least be scrutinized, which is one step in
the right direction. The next step would consist in plainly and
simply abolishing the Senate in order to save money, which could
contribute to the public debt reduction effort.
I will conclude on this to give the hon. member for
Berthier-Montcalm a chance to speak.
(1720)
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the motion before us is extremely important. I think it is
worthwhile to look at it a little more closely. This motion put
forward by the other opposition party reads as follows:
Given that the Senate has failed to respond to a message from this House
requesting that a representative of the Senate Standing Committee on Internal
Economy, Budgets and Administration appear before the Standing Committee
on Government Operations to account for $40,000,000 of taxpayers' money-
The motion is longer, but I think we already know the most
important part. It is a little strange that the Senate refuses to discuss
the budget allocated to it by the House of Commons. This is a very
considerable amount of money.
The current system is made up of the House of Commons on one
side and the Senate on the other side. Taxpayers elect a government
with a platform, a program, an ideology. They know to whom they
are giving the mandate to spend their money, to administer a
province or the country.
The people's democratically elected representatives are now
asking the Senate, an institution that receives $40 million a year, to
account to a committee, but their request has gone unheeded. No
senator has come forward to give us the information we want. This
in a way is a flaw of our current political system.
I think that, in everyone's mind, it is the House of Commons that
holds the decision making authority and that is responsible for
using taxpayers' money. If the Senate does not want to be
accountable and to answer our questions, it is perhaps because they
have things to hide. There may be some things senators do not want
taxpayers to know. If they have nothing to hide, they should come
forward and justify their expenditures.
I know the system is set up that way, but any system can be
improved, especially when the Minister of Finance says that we are
going through some very difficult times and that we must all pitch
in and tighten our belts. It is time for the Senate to start doing its
part.
Let us ask our constituents if the Senate is useful. I can tell you
that if, tomorrow, a referendum was held in Quebec on whether or
3109
not to keep the Senate, the result would be very clear. Quebecers
have no use for senators who are there only to spend taxpayers'
money, to all intents and purposes.
The motion mentions the figure of $40 million but, as I said
earlier, it should really be closer to $54 million. The auditor general
said, regarding the 1990-91 budget, that total costs for the Senate
are closer to $54 million taking into account the cost of services
provided to the Senate by certain government agencies, which are
estimated at $11.4 million. This is a considerable amount and we
still wonder whether the Senate is profitable or not, whether to keep
it or not. In the current context, the least we could expect is to have
a representative of the Senate appear before the Standing
Committee on Government Operations.
Earlier, I said that if they do not want to be held accountable, it
may be that they have things to hide. Let me tell you about certain
things we learned about from newspapers and other sources. It
appears that, a few years ago, I believe it was 1992, senators had
renovations done in the foyer. It was not nice enough. So, they
spent money to decorate it with black, green, salmon and grey
granite, with mahogany, etc. The foyer is very grand, but it cost
$125,000.
(1725)
Perhaps the senators do not want the general public to know
about that. Perhaps that is why they do not wish to appear before a
committee to explain their spending.
There is also the story about the senator who wanted a better
view of the Hill and who decided to have the entire floor of his
office raised. That is also perhaps some of the spending that they do
not want the general public to know about.
Earlier, my hon. colleague made a very good point. It is
apparently true that the average number of sitting days for senators
is around 45 to 50 a year. Perhaps if the senators appeared before a
committee and were asked questions like: How is it that you sit for
only 47, 45, 50 days a year and it costs $54 million? Do you not
think those are some rather expensive days?
An hon. member: A million a day.
Mr. Bellehumeur: A million for every day they sit. Perhaps that
is why they do not wish to appear before the committee to explain.
There are all sorts of other expenditures: VIA Rail, travel, points to
travel anywhere in Canada that are transferable to anyone. These
are all the things the senators do not want us to know.
But what is it all for? Why do we have a Senate? There are 295 of
us here. Our country has too many levels of government: federal,
provincial, municipal, school boards, churches. Where does the
Senate fit in? Churches? Mr. Speaker, you laugh. But the
government of Newfoundland is now realizing that the churches
still have power over some people. There are elected officials, but
where does the Senate fit into the system? I think it is surplus to
requirements.
As my hon. colleague said earlier, it is unusual for the Bloc
Quebecois to support motions presented by the Reform Party. To
my knowledge, since 1993, I believe this is the only time, but we
can see when something is good. I think this is an extremely
important motion. I see that my time is running out and I will end
here.
Given the importance of this motion, I believe that, if you were
to seek it, there would be unanimous consent to make the motion
votable and we could thus make our views known. I therefore
propose:
That the motion be made votable.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): There is no unanimous
consent.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, although his
request has been defeated, people are entitled to know why my
colleague for Berthier-Montcalm proposed that this motion be
put to a vote. Because it involved credits, I would like him to
explain to me what prompted him to make this request.
Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, I find that somewhat
deplorable. I am surprised that the opposition parties are in
agreement for this motion to be votable, but that our government
friends, the Liberals across the way, refuse to allow this extremely
important motion to be voted on. It is important to know where the
$54 million spent in 1991 have gone. It is important to know why
the Senators do not want to come and give the committee an
explanation.
I have a hard time understanding the Liberal members' coming
out from behind the curtains to vote against this proposal. I think
there could have been unanimous consent. We could have had a
vote, and that would have given an indication to the Canadian
taxpayers that, yes, these are hard times, yes everyone will have to
contribute, but those who benefit from tax dollars will at least have
to come and explain themselves to the elected representatives,
those who represent the people, for the senators are not the ones
who represent the people, it is the members elected to the House of
Commons. They have a clear mandate. They are the true
representatives, not the other place.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 5:30 p.m., it is my
duty to indicate to the House that the deliberations on the motion
are over.
3110
[English]
It being 5.30 p.m. the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
3110
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
The House resumed from March 25 consideration of the motion.
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Motion No. M-116 today. I thank
the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley for
bringing this debate before the House. I am also grateful to have
this opportunity to share with the House some of the concerns of
my constituents on justice issues.
We are debating here one of the more serious of crimes, sexual
assault. If crime studies are correct, only 10 per cent of sexual
assaults are reported to police. Of course sexual assault is more
than just a crime. Sexual assault happens to real people. It affects
them, their families and their relationships for as long as they live.
The people of Guelph-Wellington welcome all efforts to reduce
crime, punish criminals and support programs which prevent
crime. They know that crime prevention means more than prisons.
Crime prevention means deterring criminals and it means
strengthening individuals, families and communities.
Crime may be fostered by an unsupportive family life, violence
in the home, illiteracy, drug and alcohol abuse, unemployment and
poverty. While the people of Guelph-Wellington want programs
which address these issues, they also demand that we as a
government get tougher with criminals and strengthen programs
that support the victims of crime.
This debate focuses on sexual assault. If this motion is adopted
by the House, every convicted sex offender would be sent to a
facility for a thorough examination by two psychiatrists. I do have
concerns that this may create an inefficient and costly system and
may be a poor use of our limited resources.
I do support legislation which I believe would better our justice
system. For example, I voted in favour of a private member's bill
which would rescind section 745 of the Criminal Code because I
believe the vast majority of my constituents support this legislation
and I know my police force does.
Earlier this month I voted in favour of Bill C-217, legislation
which would protect witnesses in sexual assault cases. I have asked
the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice to get tougher with
repeat offenders and to allow consecutive sentencing for violent
crimes. The message this government must give is that we will not
tolerate criminal behaviour.
Crime prevention involves all of us. In Guelph-Wellington
there are organizations like Guelph Block Parents, Hospitality
Connection, Tough Talk and Guelph Neighbourhood Watch which
promote public awareness, offer peer and family support and
remind us that we are responsible for one another. We must care for
one another. The organizations work with our police force, the
finest police force in Canada, to help make our community safer,
address the causes of crime and identify problems which may lead
to crime.
Two weeks ago I attended the first police awards dinner to
honour local police officers and community leaders in their efforts
to make Guelph-Wellington better. We honoured corporations
like The Co-Operators, Guelph Hydro; individuals like T. Sher
Singh and Jeff Heymans; service clubs like the Kiwanis Club of
Guelph and Royal City Optimists; educators like the Wellington
County Board of Education; volunteer organizations like Child
Find and Senior Peer Advisory Service; and police officers like
Constable Paul Crowe and Constable Rick Devine.
The most important message of that night was that we must all
work together to build a safe community. Guelph Police Chief
Lenna Bradburn cannot do it alone. Constables Tom Gill and Dave
Johnson cannot do it alone. State Farm Insurance and Block
Parents cannot do it alone. It is our responsibility, each of us
working with our families, our co-workers and in our communities
to help reduce crime.
(1735)
The government has promised to introduce legislation on high
risk offenders. I welcome and look forward to it. The people of
Guelph-Wellington want action on this issue. They support their
government when it works for them. We can continue to work for
them through legislation that responds to their concerns and begins
to alleviate their fears. That is why I supported Bill C-41 and Bill
C-37.
We see the effects of crime every day. Yaqub Rahmaty, a
member of my Liberal executive, was a victim of two robberies. He
manages a convenience store in Guelph. He was scared.
It is estimated that the cost of crime is approximately $46 billion
annually in Canada. These costs include policing, the
hospitalization of victims, the cost of administering our
correctional institutions, the cost of running our courts and the
costs associated with property loss, security services and also
insurance fraud. The list goes on.
But those costs are nothing compared to the pain and the
suffering associated with the crime itself. How can we put a cost on
sexual assault? How can we ever measure the pain of losing a child
through a violent act? No dollar figure can ever be placed on a
woman suffering through a violent relationship or a child in a
violent home. It costs us in lost productivity, in trauma and it
lessens life. The effects of crime are more than a stolen car and
3111
some lost jewellery. We can just imagine the potential of a young
person living on the street who has been murdered. The effects of
crime are real.
This government has done more to respond to the concerns and
the fears of Canadians than any other government in history. It has
reviewed serial killer cards, initiated the National Crime
Prevention Council, toughened the Young Offenders Act, made
peace bonds more effective, allowed victim information to be
presented in early parole hearings, introduced tough new DNA
legislation and initiated a witness protection program. I welcome
tougher new anti-stalking legislation, as well as legislation which
will give longer sentences to those who benefit from child
prostitution.
By the end of our mandate we will have cracked down on joy
riders, sex abusers and those who smuggle guns. We will have
improved information sharing among professionals, such as
teachers and police officers. We will have made people more
accountable for violent acts committed while drunk.
As I said earlier, government cannot and should not work alone.
As citizens of this great country we are responsible to each other.
This responsibility includes working together to prevent crime
when we can, punish criminals to the fullest extent of the law and
look out for those who are most in need.
Again I thank my hon. colleague for her motion. I believe that
she has raised an interesting idea. However, I cannot support it at
this time. I ask the Minister of Justice to proceed quickly with his
efforts on high risk offenders, efforts that I know will address the
concerns and help alleviate the fears of women, men and children
in Guelph-Wellington and in every part of this great country of
ours, Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the motion
before us introduced by the member for Surrey-White
Rock-South Langley is important. It touches an issue of concern
to all Canadians.
(1740)
This House must weigh carefully the response to be given these
issues of sexual offences. The aim of the motion by my
distinguished colleague from the Reform Party is to ensure that, in
cases of aggravated sexual assault, the offender is examined by two
psychiatrists to determine the likelihood of his committing another
such offence.
If they determine there is such a likelihood, this person would be
declared a dangerous offender and would not be released so long as
they posed any threat to society.
On March 25, 1996, our distinguished colleague from the
Reform Party said in this House: ``This motion is a response to the
demands of Canadians who are fed up with the failure of our justice
system to protect women and children''. The problem I see is that,
despite the good and necessary intention of the Reform member,
the effect of her reform would be the opposite to what she intended.
Listen carefully. Psychiatrists are human. They work in an area
where things are never black and white. In mathematics, one and
one make two. In engineering, the combination of two forces leads
to a predictable and measurable result. When humans are involved,
rarely do the specialists agree entirely. Should the motion put
forward by our distinguished colleague from the Reform Party pass
and the Criminal Code be amended accordingly, we would then
find ourselves in the situation where the judge would have to make
his decision on the basis of the opinions of two psychiatrists. Even
then, these opinions would need to be agreement.
Let us imagine for a moment that one of the psychiatrists
concludes as follows: ``I have every reason to believe that this
person will relapse into crime'', while the other one comes to a
different conclusion: ``This person might relapse, but I am not sure.
I have a doubt''. In such cases, the judge would have no choice but
to decide against designating the individual in question a dangerous
offender.
In an area as difficult to assess as that of human behaviour, to ask
two mental health professionals to agree on an issue with such
radical, fundamental and crucial implications on the life of the
offender is certainly no small task. The fact of the matter is that, in
Canada, we already have the Criminal Code and legislation which,
if enforced properly, should provide the required level of public
protection. But the key words here are proper enforcement. Passing
more laws that would be improperly applied would not solve the
problem. Still worse, more legislation that would make
enforcement more complex and more delicate could not help but
result in the justice being sought being poorly administered.
(1745)
At this time, the procedure for declaring a person a dangerous
offender works well. Section 753 of the Criminal Code allows the
courts to declare a person who has committed a serious personal
injury offence a dangerous offender. This can, of course, include
sexual offences; all of the offences are listed in section 752 of the
Criminal Code.
But the one with responsibility is the judge, who must assess the
reports from mental health and other specialists. It is not the
3112
psychiatrists who make the decision, much less do they have to be
unanimous in their interpretation of a situation.
Once an offender is found guilty of any of the offences listed in
section 752, the court hears the evidence presented by the crown,
basing its decision in part on the individual's inability to control
himself, his clear indifference to his actions, and of course also on
the brutality of the acts in question, for which the normal standards
of restriction of freedom would not be sufficient.
Once the court's decision has been handed down, the law ensures
that the court declares the person a dangerous offender and imposes
indeterminate detention rather than some other sentence. The law is
there. The public can be properly protected by this legislation. In
fact, this is one of the most severe sentences a court can hand down.
Here again, though, the court and the judge make the decision, not
the psychiatrists.
Consideration must also be given to what actually goes on. In
Quebec in 1994, there was only one dangerous offender, and only
now, in 1996, have we declared another. This sort of inmate is
found primarily in Ontario and in the western provinces.
Why is there a difference in behaviours between Quebec and the
other provinces in Canada? Because-and this is the crux of my
argument-Quebec has focused on prevention rather than remedy.
In this sort of assault, punishment after the fact in order to protect
the rest of society does not resolve or repair the prejudice suffered,
the offence against the initial victim. Above all, the number of
initial victims must be reduced.
For several years already, Quebec has had an effective
medico-legal system to deal with the problem of the clientele under
control of the law, including dangerous offenders. The system
works well, and those suffering from mental illness receive proper
psychiatric care. In short, Quebec's approach is a solution to
Canada's problem, one that has already been put into practice and
tested.
I would propose that, rather than invest in complex legislative
processes whose results, as I have said, are far from guaranteed, we
should be investing more in prevention and the treatment of these
dangerous offenders where the medical system works with the legal
system.
(1750)
Quebec's experience is successful. It affords Quebecers security
because preventive measures are in place.
I will conclude with these words: in this area, as in many others,
an ounce of prevention is worth a pile of law books.
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on the motion put forth by my
colleague from Surrey-White Rock-South Langley. It amends
the Criminal Code to deal with those who are convicted of sexual
offences, sexual assault, sexual assaults involving a child, and
aggravated sexual assault. The motion calls for ensuring that the
convicted individual be examined by two psychiatrists to
determine whether they should have the designation of dangerous
offender.
Why bring this motion forth in the first place? The reason is that
the justice system has been unable or unwilling at times to protect
innocent civilians against such individuals who pose a threat to
society.
The designation is used but perhaps not often enough. The
reason is that a bias exists within our justice system. The bias is in
favour of the convicted criminal and not in favour of the innocent
civilian. This started in the 1980s when the Liberal solicitor general
of the day stated that from now on the justice department would
focus on the rehabilitation of criminals instead of the protection of
society. In our view that is not what the justice department is all
about and my colleague's motion is aimed at reversing that in part.
We do not believe that locking up criminals is the answer. We do
not believe that throwing away the key is the answer. Prevention
certainly is. However there are individuals who have proven by
their actions to be fundamentally violent sexual abusers and pose a
continuing threat to society.
I have a real life example. When I worked in jails as a physician I
was called upon during the weekend from time to time when an
individual was about to be released but was violent. I went into a
cell where a person went berserk and began beating up the
individuals in the cell, including me and a number of guards. I had
to commit the person who then had to be sent to a psychiatric
institute. If I had not done that, the individual who had a conviction
sheet as long as my arm, would have been released on the
unsuspecting public only to commit another crime.
We should also look at this motion and apply it to those
individuals who are about to be released at the end of their parole or
when their warrant date is up. There are individuals who escape
through the cracks. If they escape through the cracks and are let out
into society, the only people who will be hurt are innocent civilians.
We can also apply this designation to having two psychiatrists
examine individuals who might pose a threat to society upon
release.
It is important to say that the reason my colleague is putting this
motion forth is fundamentally to protect innocent civilians. We
3113
have seen a number of tragic cases such as the recent case of
Melanie Carpenter. She was murdered by Fernand Auger, an
individual who never ever should have been released from jail to
walk the streets.
When this motion passes-which I hope it does and the Liberal
members should be embarrassed if they do not support this
motion-two other aspects have to be looked at. The first aspect is
amending the charter of rights and freedoms so that designations of
dangerous offender are not overturned using the charter. The
second aspect is the division between criminal responsibilities
which fall under the federal government and mental health
responsibilities which fall under the provincial government. That is
why the Minister of Justice must work with his counterparts, the
provincial attorneys general, to try to work this out. It will be
important for this motion to come into effect.
(1755 )
There are other strategies to deal with sexual violent offenders.
There should be a national flagging system for violent sexual
offenders and sexual offenders in general. This is long overdue.
Now when sexual offenders move from one province to another,
the police have no way of knowing who they are, where they are
going and what their prior convictions are. It is important that we
have a national flagging system to enable justice and law to take its
course.
We need effective and consistent prosecution of sexual
offenders. We also need better assessment before sentencing. This
applies not only to dangerous sexual offenders but also to violent
offenders in general. Right now because of the harried crown
counsels and because of a lack of resources, we are unable to do
that. We can change the way our spending takes place in order to
ensure that this occurs for the protection of individuals. People,
such as parole officers, who decide whether or not to deem a person
a dangerous offender must be held accountable for their decisions.
Clearly we must also prevent the development of dangerous and
sexual offenders from occurring. We are dealing appropriately with
those individuals after they raise their heads. Many of these
individuals have also been victims of terrible sexual abuse and
violence themselves but it does not exonerate them from what they
have done. It provides us with a window of opportunity in
preventing these individuals from coming before our justice
system.
We have to look at children who are at risk of violence, sexual
abuse and neglect. We must identify those family units and
children so that we can help them early on and prevent these things
from occurring. We must identify families at risk and prevent these
tragedies from taking place. For those tragic souls who do become
victims of violence and sexual abuse, those children must be dealt
with sensitively, compassionately and with the appropriate
counselling, medical and psychological treatment they need.
We have to look at these individuals who become sexual violent
offenders. They do not have the pillars of a normal psyche needless
to say. Those pillars were destroyed, malformed or did not occur
early on in their development. It is important to identify these
individuals so that we bear upon them the appropriate treatment
and counselling to ensure that they do have some semblance of
normal development. That is the only way we are going to prevent
these individuals from being terribly dysfunctional.
This not only needs to be applied to sexual or dangerous
offenders but also to a number of other conduct disorders and
criminal behaviour that occurs in our society. Many of these
individuals also do not have the pillars of a normal psyche.
The parents must be brought into the early education system.
Many of the parents of the family units where these children are
abused do not know how to be good parents. It is not a federal
responsibility but it is important to bring in the provincial ministers
of education and the provincial attorneys general and their federal
counterparts to deal with the situation nationally.
Unless we deal with the prevention of crime, we are not going to
do what we want to do, which is to decrease the overall level of
crime in this country.
In closing, much has been mentioned about the cost. The cost is
important but the redistribution of the spending is important. First
and fundamentally, to uphold the essence of the motion which is
the protection of innocence in society, our justice department must
move from protecting the convicted criminal to having as its
primary focus the protection of innocent individuals. It is also
important to focus on prevention. I remind the House that it is not
only women who are victims of sexual abuse, but also men and
young boys.
(1800 )
In closing, I hope the House is going to pass Motion No. 116 of
my colleague for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley so that
Canada will be a safer place.
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the motion as
it affords me the chance to reflect on the many ways in which this
government has managed to tighten up law enforcement in Canada.
As mentioned in the red book, the government is working to
ensure both safe homes and safe streets.
Bill C-41, an act to amend the Criminal Code, received royal
assent on July 13, 1995. It provides, for the first time, a statement
of the principles and purposes of sentencing in the Canadian
criminal law, a first in Canadian legal history.
The act provides a balanced approach that takes into account
both the public's need for safety and the needs of the victim. It is
3114
also in line with the principle that serious offenders should be
treated differently than minor first time offenders.
In order to deal with the rising tide of hate crime, the act also
provides that those who commit crimes motivated by hatred will
receive a greater sentence.
The act also includes provisions to assist victims of crime by
strengthening the process for awarding and enforcing restitution to
victims.
As well, it provides the courts with more options to distinguish
between violent, serious crimes that require jail and non-violent,
less serious crimes that can be dealt with better by the local
community.
With regard to the issue of youth justice, the House will recall
that amendments to the Young Offenders Act contained in Bill
C-37, came into force on December 1, 1995.
The amendments, which include provisions to deal more
effectively with violent young offenders, complete the first part of
a two-part strategy by the government to reform the youth justice
system. The amended act includes improved measures for sharing
information among school officials, police and selected members
of the public where there is a concern about the safety of other
persons. As well, police will now be able to keep, indefinitely, the
records of young offenders convicted of the most serious crimes.
In addition, the amended act deals more strictly with the most
serious violent offences by creating longer maximum sentences for
those convicted of murder in youth court.
It also means that 16 and 17-year-olds charged with the most
serious personal injury offences will be processed in adult court
unless they are able to demonstrate that public protection and
rehabilitation can be achieved by remaining in youth court.
I strongly believe that young people should be held accountable
under the Young Offenders Act in a manner appropriate to their age
and level of maturity. For that reason, I am pleased that the act
provides for the consideration of victim impact statements in
deciding on the correct response to offending behaviour. The chief
goal must always be to discourage future re-offending by a young
person.
By the way, a few weeks ago a group of law enforcement officers
from my riding, representing various police departments, asked for
my support for the establishment of a national DNA data bank. It
is, therefore, my pleasure to mention that later in 1996, the
Solicitor General of Canada plans to table in Parliament legislation
providing for a national DNA data bank and the accreditation of
laboratories conducting DNA analysis.
(1805)
Also members will recall that Bill C-104 was adopted by
Parliament in June 1995 and received royal assent on July 13, 1995.
It provides for the first time in Canadian criminal law a clear and
express basis on which police can seek warrants to take bodily
samples from suspects for DNA testing. The changes help bring
Canada in line with other industrialized countries and provide a
reliable scientific basis for criminal proof or establishing
innocence.
I know that the police in my riding of Bramalea-Gore-Malton
have joined law enforcement officers across the country in
welcoming this powerful investigative tool which has already
resulted in convictions.
I am also pleased to note that the Minister of Justice and the
Solicitor General of Canada are developing a comprehensive
strategy for dealing with those convicted individuals who pose a
high risk to society of committing serious personal injury offences
when released. These proposals are expected to be before the
House within the next few weeks.
The government is also examining the creation of a new category
of serious offender, called a long term offender, which would
permit courts to add periods of supervision of up to 10 years to the
sentence of this category of offender.
As well, the government will be changing existing dangerous
offender provisions to permit the court to designate an offender as a
dangerous offender up to six months after sentencing. At present it
is necessary for such a designation to be made at the time of
sentencing.
I understand that the Ministry of Justice intends to extend
existing peace bond provisions in the Criminal Code to permit a
court to restrict the activities of those who may pose a risk of
violent behaviour.
In addition, existing dangerous offender provisions in the
Criminal Code, when applied, can result in an offender being
incarcerated for the rest of his or her life. This is much stricter than
the three strikes and you are out system in use in the United States.
In short, as all the examples I have cited demonstrate, no
government in Canadian history has done more to crack down on
crime and criminals than the present one.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to thank the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-South
Langley for the opportunity to speak in support of her Motion 116.
The motion calls for amending the section of the Criminal Code
dealing with dangerous offenders. The motion asks that once an
individual has been convicted of a serious offence or sexual assault
against an adult or any sexual offence where the victim is a child,
3115
then they must be examined by two psychiatrists to determine their
propensity to offend again.
If the two psychiatrists conclude that the convicted offender is
likely to reoffend, the attorney general must direct that a dangerous
offender application be initiated. The convicted offender would
then proceed to a dangerous offender hearing where the crown
would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the offender
was likely to reoffend.
Ideally, this motion addresses the concerns I have heard from
Canadians across the nation. They are fed up with the judicial
system and its failure to protect women and children against sexual
predators.
(1810 )
Our system has failed these people time and time again, as can
be seen from the list of the following names: Clifford Olson, Paul
Bernardo, Fernand Auger, Mitchell Owen, Joseph Fredricks,
Melvin Stanton, Daniel Gingras, Bobby Gordon Oatway. The list is
growing every day and so is the fear on our streets.
One only has to pick up the latest newspaper. For example, last
Friday, May 24, the headline in the Vancouver Sun read: ``Child
molester due for unescorted leave''. It reported that one of B.C.'s
most notorious sex offenders, ex-B.C. teacher Robert Noyes, is due
to start a 15-month program of unescorted absences from prison to
attend a sex therapy program in the Montreal area.
Noyes was declared a dangerous offender in 1986 after pleading
guilty in the B.C. Supreme Court on 19 counts of sexual assault and
sexual abuse of children. He also confessed at a parole board
hearing that there were at least 60 victims and hundreds of
incidents of abuse of children in various B.C. cities.
The National Parole Board feels that he is now considered an
acceptable risk under the new structured prison release plan.
However, it also states that his ex-wife opposes his release as does
the city council of Ashcroft where Noyes taught before he was
arrested in 1985. They have requested the dangerous offender be
kept in prison.
The parole board has decided against granting day parole to
Noyes who has been diagnosed as an incurable bisexual pedophile.
It feels he is one of the most treated sex offenders in the Canadian
prison system, but doctors who have treated him have found him to
be manipulative and deceptive. This is another case of a known sex
offender who has not been assessed properly and who will be
released into society knowing he has not been adequately
rehabilitated.
Ultimately we will need assurances from those who work outside
of the judicial system, namely psychiatrists, to adequately evaluate
these sexual offenders. This has been proven by the auditor
general's report which clearly stated that Correctional Services
Canada is not adequately rehabilitating these individuals.
The auditor general reports that sex perverts are receiving
millions of dollars in treatment programs but that the government
has no idea if they are working. He also found that Correctional
Services Canada was supposed to rehabilitate the 14,000 offenders
in its care, although there were serious weaknesses in some of its
rehabilitation programs.
For example, it was reported that about $10 million was spent in
1994-95 to treat approximately 1,800 sex offenders. However, the
auditor general found that a disproportionate amount of money was
spent on a few offenders without any assurance that the program
was achieving any positive results.
In addition, about $1.7 million of the correctional services total
sex offender program budget was used in the Quebec region on a
contract to treat a mere 20 sex offenders per year, which works out
to about $85,000 per person. The remaining $8.3 million was used
to treat the 1,800 sex offenders across the country which in
comparison is only about $4,611 per person.
It is obvious that people are coming out of jail who will reoffend
time and time again because of inadequate rehabilitation. This is
once again confirmed by the auditor general. He found that 35 per
cent of sex offenders who have been released from the federal
prison system were not receiving relapse prevention treatment,
although such an initiative is viewed as critical to reducing
recidivism. He found this shortfall occurred more in the prairie and
Quebec regions, the two regions with the largest proportion of sex
offenders.
With these failures occurring throughout our justice system it is
easy to see how this motion would offer people some hope,
knowing that a convicted offender is being reviewed by trained
psychiatrists and thereby giving the court system more information
for determining whether an offender will reoffend in the future.
This would provide not only a second opinion, but also a second
chance in protecting Canadians against these convicted sexual
predators. Most important, it would recognize the rights of women
and children and the protection they deserve from our system of
justice.
(1815)
In the last couple of years Canadians have started to take justice
into their own hands when they found out that these offenders were
being released back into their communities without being
rehabilitated. People from Val d'Or, Quebec, Prince George, B.C.,
and Toronto, Ontario, to name just a few, have mounted campaigns
by plastering posters and pamphlets warning against such people as
Joe Cannon and Bobby Gordon Oatway. They know that the only
way to protect themselves is to take action themselves.
3116
They can no longer trust the prison system to ensure the
rehabilitation of these offenders. They are calling for the names
and the pictures to be published to protect their children from
these animals.
It is no wonder Canadians have lost hope, knowing that the
Liberals would argue against this motion. The Liberals feel that
legal experts, not medical experts, know best. They feel that only
the crown should consider all the evidence available in order to
estimate whether an application will be strong enough to meet the
legal standard of who should be deemed a dangerous offender.
They feel that passing this motion into law would increase the
probability of locking people up and throwing away the key.
As well, this motion is considered dangerous because of those
individuals who may have a genuine sense of wrongdoing or
remorse. We run the risk of giving them no hope.
It is obvious that the government has no intention of making the
interests and safety of Canadians a priority with such pathetic
excuses for not supporting this motion.
We are no further ahead with the opposition party. The member
for Saint-Hubert sees this motion as nothing more than reactionary
mentality when there are no more than isolated cases. She claims
we are making political hay at the expense and suffering of victims
of crime.
One thing is very obvious when we hear the arguments from both
the Liberals and the Bloc: they are both arguing in favour of the
rights of sexual predators and the infallibility of the criminal
justice system.
In my opinion they are way off the mark. The criminal justice
system is fallible. This is proven by the Reform Party who listens
to what the people want and, in turn, proposes the legislation which
is obviously needed. This motion will protect our society, our
families and our children from the animals who are set free on a
daily basis. At no time would the Liberals or the Bloc ever consider
the victims who have suffered at the hands of these sexual
predators.
Therefore, now is the time to support this motion. We must move
immediately to amend the Criminal Code and allow the psychiatric
experts to ensure the public is protected from potential repeat sex
offenders who are a danger to our children, women, families,
society and our nation.
The most elementary of our duties in the House of Commons is
to provide legislation to protect the lives and the properties of
Canadians. This motion, when accepted, will help to accomplish
that. I applaud my colleague for having brought it to our attention.
It will fulfil the most elementary of our duties.
I have to shake my head when I listen to a Liberal giving a
speech, as I did a few moments ago. He talked about all the
wonderful Liberal accomplishments of the last three years: Bill
C-37, Bill C-41, Bill C-42, Bill C-68, Bill C-45 and it goes on.
Three years later things are not better, they are worse.
The Liberals have once again failed to meet a commitment of the
red book which said they would make the streets safer,
communities safer and all the rest of the baloney. Once again they
might as well chuck the red book on the floor. They have failed.
They are failing dismally in this area. This is their opportunity to
look sensibly at legislation which will prevent violent sexual
predators from returning to our communities. It is an extra measure
of safety on behalf of the victims of this land.
Surely these people are not so silly that they would push it aside
and say: ``No, we are not interested in an extra measure. The legal
system knows best''.
(1820 )
I know that Canadians are fed up with the inability of the
government to come up with any reasonable legislation that
definitely says it is going to be better. It has done nothing
whatsoever. What little bit that has been accomplished has been
covered up by all the rotten legislation it has attempted to bring in.
Let us accept some sensible solutions. Let us look for some
sensible solutions, something that is right for once.
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my colleague
from Wild Rose has used wild and whirling words to support this
motion. I intend to use a little common sense and balance. That is
what we are here for, to look at things with a sensible and critical
eye.
No one on this side of the House believes for one moment that
some of these sexual animals, as my colleague characterizes them,
should be granted all kinds of rights. What we are arguing is that
the Christianity which most of us profess should probably
underline our legal system and the laws that we pass in the House.
That includes such ideas as let he who is without sin cast the first
stone and that everyone may be redeemed and everyone may be
rehabilitated. That is what I would like to concentrate on.
My friend from Wild Rose says things are not better but he
presents no evidence or facts to support this claim. Quite the
reverse. The evidence and facts indicate that the rate of recidivism
is down, that the number of repeat offenders is down. In fact,
except for some fairly specific communities, crime is down.
My colleague does make a statement that is correct. The human
condition is not perfect. Our system of government is not perfect.
Our system of laws is not perfect. However, they will not be
perfected by jumping at easy solutions, at autocratic, mandated,
non-balanced ideas about how to correct people's behaviour.
3117
We may get somewhere, as my colleague from
Guelph-Wellington said, if we work together in our communities
to solve the problems of crime. We may get there if we support
community groups that are already working on programs to
integrate the alienated, trying to improve education and care of
children and helping young people have self-confidence and a
confident look at the future, so they are not looking, as we say,
at the devil that has work for idle hands to do.
That is the way the problem of crime will be solved, by getting
rid of poverty, getting rid of unemployment and getting rid of
people's malaise and fear about the future.
Let us be clear on what this amendment to the Criminal Code
would require. First of all, every criminal who is convicted of a
serious sexual offence, namely sexual assault under sections 271,
272 and 273 of the Criminal Code, would have to be examined by
two psychiatrists in order to determine the risk of reoffending. If
the psychiatrists conclude that the risk is high, then a dangerous
offender application must be launched.
There would be no discretion on the part of the judge and
certainly not on the part of the crown prosecutor. Under the present
system the judge considers relevant information about the
offender's criminal history, his or her mental state, usually as a
formal pre-sentence report. Of course the perspective of the victim
of the crime is considered. In other words, in a normal case a range
of information is taken into account in order to establish the
appropriate sentence.
What would happen if it was compulsory to remand every
convicted sex offender to a psychiatric facility for a thorough
examination by two expert psychiatrists so that these psychiatrists
could give a precise prediction of the risk presented by every
criminal?
(1825 )
Under the current law the crown attorney and the judge are the
authorities who decide whether or not to seek the opinion of
psychiatrists on the danger posed by a convicted person. It is not
the other way around. The psychiatrists do not tell the officers of
the court whether to proceed with a dangerous offender application.
There is a good reason for giving the crown and the judge the
discretion to seek a detailed psychiatric examination of the
offender and to initiate a dangerous offender application. It is
because the dangerous offender process is essentially and primarily
a legal one, not just a question of psychiatric prediction.
The crown attorney has to decide whether or not the dangerous
offender application will meet the legal standards set out in part
XXIV of the Criminal Code. For example, section 753 of the code
requires the crown to show that the offender, by his conduct in any
sexual matter including that involved in the commission of the
offence for which he has been convicted has shown a failure to
control his sexual impulses and a likelihood of causing serious
injury in the future. This is a legal test, as our courts have
repeatedly pointed out. There is no point in making an application
under part XXIV if it has no chance of succeeding.
Indeed, the dangerous offender rules require that psychiatric
evidence be presented for both sides at the dangerous offender
hearing. There may be a difference of opinion among qualified
psychiatrists just as there may be among qualified lawyers or
qualified prosecutors or, I would suggest, even qualified judges.
I also note that the ability of psychiatrists and psychologists to
assess the nature and degree of risk of offenders has certainly
improved in the last decade. I have heard Canada described as a
leader in this field. I further note that the Correctional Service of
Canada employs a wide range of clinical and actuarial testing in its
intake and case management programs for federal inmates.
This proposed amendment to the Criminal Code gets the balance
wrong. It would compel the crown to bring a dangerous offender
application every time a pair of psychiatrists reached a medical
conclusion about risk. Life is full of risks. We surely do not have to
illustrate that beyond a reasonable doubt.
Perhaps if the motion called for discretion it might receive
support. However, the motion advocates a sweeping measure that
would diminish the role of judges and prosecutors and
indiscriminately force every case of sexual offending to proceed
through a lengthy, expensive examination by psychiatrists, even
when there is little chance of those psychiatrists labelling the
offender as high risk.
The Canadian Psychiatric Association has stated that there is
already a shortage of qualified forensic psychiatrists in Canada.
The Correctional Service of Canada and the provincial departments
of justice are already hard pressed to find enough psychiatric
advice for priority cases.
It is interesting that the Reform Party will spare no expense in
this area, even if the chances of winning a dangerous offender case
are thin. To put this in context, I refer members to some figures
released very recently by Statistics Canada. In 1994-95 the federal
government spent $913 million on adult corrections. The provinces
and territories spent $980 million. The capital costs of building
federal penitentiaries increased 70 per cent between 1990-91 and
1994-95. It costs about $44,000 per year to keep a person in a
federal penitentiary. The per capita cost to operate the adult
corrections system in Canada represents $65 for each person in
Canada.
There is a way to be selective and strategic in the way we employ
our limited resources. The speech from the throne from February
27 of this year contains the following statement:
3118
The government will focus corrections resources on high risk offenders while
increasing efforts to lower the number of young people who come into contact
with the justice system. The government will develop innovative alternatives to
incarceration for low risk offenders.
(1830 )
Motion No. 116 is typical of measures. I said at the beginning of
my remarks that I selectively demand indeterminate detention for
crimes which should be targeted more carefully.
I believe that prosecutors, courts and juries with the help of
psychiatrists will in most cases pass appropriate judgments on sex
offenders. I will not support this motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and
the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the
Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
3118
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
Mr. Lawrence D. O'Brien (Labrador, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a couple of points with regard to a question I raised with the
Minister of Transport on May 17 which dealt with the safety of the
Nain airport in northern Labrador.
Nain is a small community of 1,100 people and is 20 miles from
the world class nickel find at Voisey's Bay. It has come to the fore
in terms of the necessity for the Governments of Canada and
Newfoundland and Labrador to do something about overall safety.
Before I talk about the safety issue in Nain I will give some
background as to what this entails. Nain is 200 miles north of
Goose Bay, the central community in Labrador. It is a community
comprised totally of aboriginal people, Inuit people. They resettled
in Nain from far northern communities along the north coast of
Labrador all the way up to Iqaluit in the Northwest Territories.
They came to Nain during the middle of the century for different
reasons, not the least of which was to have better services.
One such service was an airstrip which was built in the 1970s to
meet the needs of those people. The airport is 2,000 feet long. It is
on the side of a major hill with downdraft winds. There is
overcapacity because of the mining find, the exploration and the
mining development in Voisey's Bay.
There are as many as 100 to 300 movements per day of
helicopters and fixed wing planes. This has has caused grave
concerns not only to the people of Nain but to people all over
Labrador, and to people all over Canada. It affects people in
Toronto and in Vancouver who work in the mining industry. It
affects anybody and everybody who travels to and from the
community of Nain.
There are basically no firefighting services, a deficiency we have
to contend with. The weather station is due to be automated. I plead
with the Government of Canada to ensure there is a person
remaining in that weather station because of the difference in
variations of automation. If a plane is coming in and there is
freezing rain close to the ground or at different altitudes, those
instruments may not pick it up. I plead with the government to
reconsider its views on that.
There is the question of air traffic control. Air movement
determines the control of a plane when it takes off or lands. It is
according to the wishes of somebody from Transport Canada. It is
extremely important to ensure it is similar to air traffic control. I
know the minister is considering that. He is dealing with it. I want
to make sure the department continues to deal with that and
recognizes nothing but the utmost safety is first and foremost at
hand there.
I will make a couple of points about the economy of the area
relative to this issue. The people of Nain certainly want the airport
to be upgraded and would like a new one down the road, but safety
is first and foremost. They are not about to say no to the mining
industry. They are supportive of developments but not at any cost.
Environment, safety and so on are important.
One of the mining companies in the small community of Nain,
NDT Ventures, wanted to mine next to the water reservoir. On May
23 the community held a plebiscite to show the importance of this.
Of the people who voted, 64 per cent were in support of doing that
exploration and 36 per cent were against it.
The point I am making is that there is room for exploration.
There is room for mining. There is room in that community to do
things. The people are supportive. They need to work but not
without proper safety and control.
With that being said, I will close by saying I welcome input from
the government. The minister has been very helpful. He responded
very positively to my question. I welcome his further comments.
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
Labrador for the opportunity to make further comments on the
situation at Nain airport.
Since taking his seat in this House of Commons on April 15, we
cannot help but notice that the member for Labrador is a real
digger. He is a man of action, a solid worker and a strong voice for
his constituents.
3119
The issue of Nain airport is a priority on his agenda. Nain
airport is provincially owned. As the minister reported earlier,
Transport Canada aviation staff have been monitoring the
increased aviation activity in the vicinity of the Nain airport since
the beginning of the Voisey's Bay mineral exploration. I am
certain my hon. friend will be glad to hear that a number of safety
measures to facilitate the increased traffic levels have already been
implemented.
An aviation safety review team visited Goose Bay and Nain at
the end of April. While the team did not identify any violations of
aviation regulations, a number of safety deficiencies were
identified. The safety review team is now in the process of
finalizing its report and recommendations.
I am pleased to report to the hon. member that departmental
officials will be meeting with provincial officials next week to
finalize an action plan to address all the issues identified. Atlantic
region officials have planned a series of visits to Nain this year as
part of their monitoring program. Safety is Transport Canada's top
priority, and we are confident that by working together with the
province of Newfoundland and Labrador, all the safety issues
reported will be resolved.
The minister is eagerly anticipating his visit with the hon.
member in Labrador this summer to see firsthand the developments
in Voisey's Bay. He is looking forward to working together with the
hon. member on the issues of concern to his constituents in
Labrador.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The motion to adjourn the
House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to
Standing Order 24.
(The House adjourned at 6.38 p.m.)