House of Commons Hansard #51 of the 35th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was elected.
Myron Thompson Reform Wild Rose, AB
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-
House Of CommonsOral Question Period
The Speaker
First we need unanimous consent to put the motion. Is there unanimous consent?
The Late Carl GillisOral Question Period
Cape Breton—East Richmond Nova Scotia
Liberal
David Dingwall LiberalMinister of Health
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?
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.
Pauline Picard Bloc Drummond, QC
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.
Deborah Grey Reform Beaver River, AB
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.
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.
John Manley LiberalMinister of Industry
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.
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.
Elsie Wayne Progressive Conservative Saint John, NB
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 Late Carl GillisOral Question Period
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.
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Deborah Grey Reform Beaver River, AB
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.
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
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.
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.
Deborah Grey Reform Beaver River, AB
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Peter Milliken Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
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.
Peter Milliken Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
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.
Deborah Grey Reform Beaver River, AB
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.
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
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.
Jim Abbott Reform Kootenay East, BC
Mr. Speaker, just before I make my comments I would like to invite, if he has the courage-
Jim Abbott Reform Kootenay East, BC
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.
SupplyGovernment Orders
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.
Deborah Grey Reform Beaver River, AB
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.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Speaker
With that last shot, I think we will continue with the debate.
Maurice Bernier Bloc Mégantic—Compton—Stanstead, QC
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
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.