Debates of May 28th, 1996

Supply

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

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.

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?

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

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.

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.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

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.

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.

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.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

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?

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

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.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

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?

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

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.

[Bill Gilmour, Reform, Comox—Alberni, BC]

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?

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

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.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

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.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

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.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

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?

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

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.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

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.

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?

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

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.

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

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".

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.

[Daphne Jennings, Reform, Mission—Coquitlam, BC]

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.

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

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.

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,

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.

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-

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.

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-

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.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

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.

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?

[Daphne Jennings, Reform, Mission—Coquitlam, BC]

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.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

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?

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,

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.

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.

[George Proud, Liberal, Hillsborough, PE]

I just came in to see you.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

It is nice to see another Liberal.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.