Mr. Speaker, it has been really interesting this afternoon as we have listened to this debate in talking about the whole issue of ethics, particularly the number of reports.
There has been report after report starting as far back as the report of Senator MacEachen dated July 1973. There is all of this information. As has been pointed out by my colleagues, why are we having another committee? Why are we doing this?
Why do we not simply assimilate all of the information, put it together if we need to and come forward with a plan in the next couple of weeks, instead of months or years?
Surely with all of the work put into this process thus far we do not need to have more input. Particularly instructive to me is the amount of involvement reported that the government whip has had in this process. The member has had input and input. Is he really so short of things to do as the government whip that he needs to have a make work project to have more input into this process?
This is a joint committee. I will refer with respect to the other place. I will not play games. We are talking about the other place being a place where people are appointed fundamentally on the whole basis of patronage. What has it done for the existing Prime Minister? What has it done for the party currently in power?
We have a very interesting situation at this moment as we all know. Because the Conservatives had power for a period of nine years, the Liberal government is having some difficulty getting certain pieces of legislation through the House, not the least of which is Bill C-69, and certainly when we get to the gun control bill, Bill C-41 and hopefully Bill C-85, they will be slowed down over there so Canadians can really see what the government is up to.
Nonetheless, the point is the people in the other place have been appointed on the basis of patronage and we are having a joint committee with them to figure out what is wrong with the whole parliamentary system based on patronage. It seems to me things are slightly out of order.
We came to the House with 52 members of Parliament in October 1993 whose electors at that time thought they were the best people to represent them. I think of the member for Ottawa-Vanier who used to sit across from me. What does the government do? It has a place it needs to fill. Why did it put him there? Why did David Berger suddenly resign his seat to work for the Prime Minister? It was to get the labour minister here.
There is the whole issue of manipulation of the political system by the existing party. It talks about transparency. It is very transparent. The government has absolutely no concern for the dollars of the ordinary Canadian taxpayer when it will force a byelection in order to fill the place of patronage to accomplish certain political objectives.
Furthermore, there is no direct accountability by the people in the other place to the people of Canada. Let us assume every member in the other place is honourable. Let us create that as a basic assumption. The point is still not one person in that place has direct accountability to the people of Canada. We have accountability to the people of Canada by coming here on the basis of an election. Why in the world will the government not get serious, including this whole debate? Why will it not get serious and start to do something about making the other place accountable on the basis of getting the people over there elected?
There is no question that could be done. Reform Senator Stan Waters was the first and only elected member of the other place. It can be done. The existing premier of Alberta and the Government of Alberta brought forward legislation that created a situation in which there could be an election for the Senate. Again, the Liberals could have done exactly the same thing when they got their own bag person to be appointed to the other place on the basis of patronage. Just as easily as not, they could have gone through a legitimate election process and started to
legitimize the other place rather than just having people there on the basis of sheer patronage.
I am in support of this motion on the basis of the fact that we will perhaps get some movement forward on the issue of ethics within the government, although there is some question about the existing government on that basis, nonetheless we can always hope. The point I am driving at is that when we ask people who are in a place of patronage to be involved in a process of talking about ethics and patronage, it just does not make any sense. If a commission has to be formed, I would see it as being the responsibility of those of us who are elected to this Chamber who have the confidence of our constituents.