Debates of May 28th, 1996

Supply

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

They are heckling. All four are heckling. This is hard to take. It is worse than question period.

With respect to some of the innuendo by the member for Vancouver Centre, there is something wrong with a government that says a person or a party which disagrees with something like immigration policy is racist or when a party, groups or individuals disagree with the gay rights legislation that they are homophobic. There is something wrong with the message the government is

sending out across this land. The innuendo by the member that was said earlier is strongly resented.

The most important comment we have to look at is: "Let us get on to more important issues". Well, let us do that. Let us deal with the Young Offenders Act. Yes, the Liberals looked after that one, did they not? They did a good job on that one except for virtually every victim across the country who says: "You did not do what we asked". So let us get on with more important issues. Just when is the Liberal government going to do that? The government has had ample opportunity to deal with that issue and has not done so.

There are a number of useless bills coming through the House of Commons. For anybody who has the time to look at the list of bills that have been put through this place in two and one-half years, bills that do not matter at all to the average Canadian outside of this House, it is astounding.

For a Liberal member to say: "Let us get on with more important issues", I would agree. Just when is that going to happen? Those folks over there are three years into their mandate. Hello, is anyone home?

[George Proud, Liberal, Hillsborough, PE]

The lights are on.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Not too brightly.

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

George, you stop heckling me. My mother is watching this.

It took three years for the Reform Party to bring victims rights into the House and we had to stuff them at the members opposite, to get them to do something. And the member says: "Let us get on with more important issues". When will that come?

Of course this year we are only overspending $35 billion or close to that. What does it matter to them? It is only $35 billion, over $100 million since the Liberals were elected, $100 billion, a million billion. I do not think they know the difference anyway. There is the problem. The Liberals are overspending to the tune in excess of $100 billion over three years and the member says: "Let us get on to more important issues". Give me a break.

There are kids up there in the gallery wondering just exactly when the government will get on to more important issues. Whilst we are overspending $35 billion and with a debt load in excess of $570 billion, where does the motion we have today fit in with this? "It is not much; it is only $40 million. Heck, we overspend by $35 billion a year". It is petty cash to you guys, is it not?

So do not bring the Senate in here. Do not ask the senators how they are spending their money. Do not ask them about their jaunts around the country. Do not ask them about where they are splurging or how they can cut back. That does not appear to be important.

The member for Vancouver Quadra said it all. What we have here, he said, is a lack of restraint of a non-elected House. That is okay. It reminds me of the minister of immigration's policy with the Immigration and Refugee Board: "It can make mistakes. It is autonomous. That is another place. It has nothing to do with us. I cannot have any input into that".

If the government makes enough of these organizations autonomous, then we will not have to have anybody appear at all, do we? We will just overspend every year, raise the debt and we will go on our merry way. It is only the next generation that is sitting up there who will have to worry about that.

I do not know. We give $30,000 or $40,000 away here and there on grants. We are only talking about $40 million to an organization which does what exactly?

[An hon. member]

Sober second thought.

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

Sober second thought. I would say second thought.

This motion is serious. We have no speakers over there because they have been told by the boss, I am sure, not to speak to this because it is about their friends over there. Forty million dollars is being spent and the people who spend it are not accountable. We owe more than that to the people who are paying the bills. Regardless of whether it is the Senate, the RCMP, Correctional Service Canada, MP salaries, MP pensions or whatever else, one must be held accountable. For the Liberal Party to say or do otherwise is irresponsible.

It is no wonder a large segment of society today is concerned about politicians and governments or any group of people that would whisk the money from their pockets to an unaccountable group. It is a very sad commentary.

I suppose I cannot ask for unanimous consent again. They will not give me unanimous consent, so I will not ask. I wish these folks were not so much like sheep. It would be a really nice place to come to and talk about accountability, about spending money and even about trying to get a Senate elected, effective or equal. However, we are dealing with traditional party mentality where you do as you are told and you do as we say. It will not change until we move this government out.

There are only 52 of us here. Every time we stand up to speak about something they put their PR people on it and they fight us as best they can. However, we will not go away on this issue or on any other issue because of lack of performance, because of lack of caring or because of plain arrogance. That is the best way I can put it.

I am sure my time is up. I have made my point. It is very difficult and frustrating to come from British Columbia or any other province into the House knowing full well a majority government will not change. It will continue to put its friends and party hacks in a place it calls a chamber of sober second thought. Those people

will continue to be unaccountable. They will spend money the way they wish. The government will continue to ignore the wishes of many Canadians until it gets booted out of office, just like the other party from jurassic park.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member for Vancouver Centre got up and displayed her ignorance of this issue. Then the member for Vancouver Quadra got up and expressed his knowledge of this issue. The reason the Liberals are not putting anyone up is the difficulty the member for Vancouver Quadra got into.

Because this motion gives notice of opposition to the Senate estimates we pointed out the purpose of this was to put pressure on the Senate to make it account for the $40 million or so of spending. We do need a majority in this House to approve spending. We asked the member for Vancouver Quadra for his perspective.

It was very instructive that he was not prepared to the state the obvious, that the people of Canada should have some kind of control over the amount of money being spent by the upper Chamber, that the people of Canada have a right to know these things. He would not admit it.

I take the member for Vancouver Quadra as being an honourable gentleman. He waffled and he side stepped and he gave all sorts of soft answers. Even when we tried putting a very precise question to him, as did a member from the Bloc, the member would not answer the question.

Would the member for Fraser Valley West agree that the real reason the members of the Liberal Party, the people who are in control of the government, will not put up any speakers is they are afraid they will be seen in the hypocritical position they are taking on this issue? Would he agree they are not prepared to stand up and be counted in this House to answer whether this House as the elected people of Canada, responsible to the people of Canada, not also exercise responsibility for the $40 million currently being spent by the Senate. I suggest to my colleague the Liberals have no backbone, no courage and will not stand up again in this House on this issue.

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

Madam Speaker, no I do not agree with that, right?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[An hon. member]

The answer is yes, Randy.

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

The answer is yes, and I was told to say that by my party, just like the Liberals.

There is a problem over here, is there not? This place is full of people. Why do they not all get up? Why does one of them not get up, talk to this issue and explain why a member of the Senate cannot come forward and justify spending $40 million in taxpayer bucks? Let us have at them in the questions after their speeches.

What is wrong? It is embarrassing. I hope people watching and listening are asking why the Liberals will not stand up and justify, why they will not support the Senate's coming forward to a committee of the House of Commons to justify how it spends $40 million of taxpayer money.

Perhaps we should stop paying $40 million in taxes. Perhaps we should say if you do not want your money you will not operate. That takes backbone, something the Liberals do not have.

[An hon. member]

You are getting personal.

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

Getting personal? You have not seen personal yet.

This is serious, and we do not know how to make the government see it is serious, and it is sad. It is sad that my kids have to pay the taxes they do. It is sad that my kids my not have jobs like us baby boomers. It is sad that perhaps my mother's pension will be a lot less than what she thought. It is so sad that a government cannot even look at $40 million and why it is spent. The real reason I suppose is it is like firing your sister, is it not? We do not want to question these folks over here, after all we did put them in. They did work for us on the campaign trail, did they not? They are in touch with everything today even though Mr. Trudeau appointed a few and lord knows who else.

[John Duncan, Reform, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member for Fraser Valley West is a hard act to follow.

Do we need a Senate? Many Canadians do not think so. They think it is irrelevant, it is held in contempt or it is the butt of jokes, and the polls would indicate that is the case as well.

We do not hear this about other senates in the democratic free world where we have elected senates. We do not hear that about the senate to the south of us. What is the main reason? It is very clear the main difference and the main reason why they are credible and accepted is they are elected and very often they are the prime people who are responsible for regional interests. They are accountable and that follows from being democratically elected.

There are times in Canada when our Senate has been very relevant. Primarily this is when it is not a rubber stamp. There are a few times when the Senate is not nominated by the government of the day. We saw this in this Parliament for the first couple of years and there were some issues on which the other place did some very responsible things. Of course, that is not convenient or comfortable for the government of the day.

There are two kinds of senators. There are many ways we could categorize senators. There are those who were previously elected officials, such as members of Parliament, who know what democratic accountability is. From my province of British Columbia there are a couple of members who leap to mind as being in that category. Generally speaking, if we were to ask the public in British Columbia who were the B.C. senators, those two individuals would be most recognizable. If we were to ask for a credibility quotient those two individuals would once again have the highest credibility quotient. Very often they are head and shoulders above the rest.

There is a reason for this. They carry the tradition, the responsibilities and the accountability that had to go with everything an elected official has in their terms of reference. They have carried that into that other place.

The Senate has left itself wide open for criticism on so many fronts. All of our institutions are challenged if they do not change with the times. We need look only at royalty in Great Britain and other places.

The old political institutions, the old political parties, the whole party discipline system, these practices are changing. There is a new found interest in direct democracy. The Reform Party is a reflection of direct democracy coming to the House of Commons.

Some of the party discipline that has been traditional in the House of Commons is starting to change in the governing parties in my view as a consequence of the Reform Party's presence in the House of Commons. We saw that on the sexual orientation bill, Bill C-33, with the backbench Liberals wanting to express a non-government point of view. We understand the same thing is to express itself with regard to Newfoundland schools coming up.

This will not go away. It is the thin edge of a very fat wedge. The old political parties will have to reinvent themselves, as will the Senate. The more the House of Commons changes and the more the Senate entrenches itself in its non-elected and non-accountable ways, the more irrelevant it will become. This is a shot across the bow for the other place. If the Senate were elected it would follow that this would create accountability and we would not need to be having this debate in all likelihood.

Once again, by bringing this motion to the House, Reform is rocking the boat on the status quo. I was delighted to hear the comments from our Bloc colleague who sees our point. Once again we find the Liberal government defending the status quo. It has exploited the current system to its advantage for decades. It is not difficult to understand why it wants to defend the status quo even though it is indefensible in the public's mind. What a sad spectacle this is.

The senators will stand on principle, so the speculation goes, and not appear before the House committee to defend their estimates. This is not a House of Lords. This is Canada where our young country should be creative, constructive and invigorated by fresh challenges, not cloistered and defensive in every way and entrenched in historical irrelevance.

No senator has appeared before a committee of the House of Commons since 1888. This would be the first time since 1869 that any senator has ever appeared before a House committee to defend expenditures. Does this precedent mean this should be the case? No, quite the contrary.

This is a very important reinventing of a very important institution. There is symbolism that in the main estimates this is vote one. One could hardly say this has simply been overlooked through all the years, nor could one say that this time. By virtue of its mere placement, it is impossible to overlook.

Canada has had in its history one elected senator, Stan Waters from Alberta. Stan Waters from Alberta ended every speech in the Senate with, I believe: "And besides all that, the Senate should be reformed". I understand he did that every time. A wake up call is needed. It is unfortunate the late Stan Waters is not here to witness what we are going through today, which appears to be of such little interest to the government.

The Senate has always tended to be the home for those of privilege, accustomed to perks, travel and expense accounts. Audits generally turn a blind eye to those individuals who enjoy such prestige. It was only in the 1980s that the House of Commons got control of its operations and procedures. Until that time it also was enjoying very loose control procedures. Now it is time for the Senate to get under the microscope and face those same expectations of the taxpayers if it wishes to be something that was once revered and not held in contempt.

I co-operated with a senator from British Columbia and a senator from Nova Scotia to carry on an ad hoc parliamentary committee, joint committee hearings in British Columbia on the light station issue. This was a good and valuable exercise. It was good for British Columbians, it was good for me, it was good for the senators, it was good for these institutions and in my mind displayed some of the things that could occur and would occur on a regular basis if we had two institutions reformed in some minor and in some major ways.

It took creativity on our part. In a sense we were battling the status quo in order to get this ad hoc parliamentary committee on the road. We did not get help from very many people. When we made the final report, which I think was a valuable report, the House denied me the unanimous consent to table it in the House. I think it was a loss to the House, and there should be a provision for doing things differently. If members want to participate in these kinds of things the House should encourage them and the product

of those hearings or procedures should automatically be tabled in the House.

The two senators with whom I participated are previous members of Parliament of long standing. They understood the system, accountability and their responsibility to the people and the taxpayers. One senator was in cabinet for an extended period of time and has a very high credibility index, in particular in British Columbia which is where she is from.

I do not want to see an end to the Senate. We get a taste of how useful the Senate could be from time to time, especially when representing regional interests. Let us join the 21st century before we leave the 20th century.

A 1991 auditor general's report was referred to in earlier speeches by other members. It is useful to look at what is being said. This is important stuff. I have gone through the executive summary. I do not think very much has changed since 1991 in this regard. If it has changed, let us hear about it. The only way we will hear about it is if we have vote one of the estimates defended by the very people who prepared those estimates, the senators from the appropriate committee.

We found the Senate has neither formally nor informally delegated clear responsibility to management, nor has it made clear for what it will hold management accountable. That is a pretty straightforward recommendation from the auditor general.

The Senate does not adequately report on its administrative, financial or human resource management performance and does not possess sufficient information to enable it to do so systematically. That is pretty straightforward.

To improve accountability the Senate should periodically publish details of travel, telecommunications and office expenditures of senators. It is amazing what public disclosure will do for accountability.

Senators have insufficient incentives to manage their office expenses with due regard for economy and efficiency. The details of the expenditures should be publicly reported.

There are lots of reports in every bureaucracy that sit on shelves and gather dust. When we are talking about expenditures of taxpayer funds, there is no more important single role for members of Parliament and for the House of Commons than to be watchdogs and to be calling for accountability for the expenditures of taxpayer funds.

When we get vote one on the estimates and an organization, the other place virtually thumbing its nose at the House of Commons standing committee responsible for going over the estimates, there is something very wrong. The public deserves better.

The final statement in the auditor general's report recommends that where appropriate the operational mandate should be clarified, costs ascertained, opportunities for productivity improvement seized and the types and levels of service provided should be re-examined to see if other less costly levels of service might also be acceptable to senators.

I felt very blessed to talk to this item today. I was beginning to wonder if there were any way as members of Parliament we could talk in a substantive way about the functioning of the other place.

I understand there is historical reticence to do so but I also understand that historical reticence is leading us nowhere. It is leading to the abolition of the Senate. I do not endorse the abolition of the Senate. I would like to see the Senate reformed.

Organizations that dig in their heels are setting themselves up for a much bigger fall than institutions that embrace change, that smell the winds of change and decide they want to seek a fresh mandate, new systems, that they want to be in step with or ahead of the times. It is long overdue in this longstanding Canadian institution that we are speaking about today. That is my strongest recommendation.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Madam Speaker, there must be some reason that not only this Prime Minister, but Brian Mulroney, Pierre Trudeau and all of the prime ministers before them from the traditional parties have gone out of their way to ensure that their selected people go to the Senate.

I wonder if the hon. member would agree with me that perhaps it has something to do with the fact that many of these people are put there to be bagmen for the tradition parties. In other words, these people are given taxpayers' dollars to travel around the countryside, to wine and dine people to get contributions for the Liberals and Conservatives.

For example, let us look at a statement of seasonal expense allowances, travel and office expenses paid in 1993-94 for Senator Buchanan. The former premier of Nova Scotia spent $49,930 in that year travelling around the countryside. Senator Fairbairn is from Alberta. She spent $49,019. Senator Hays who, it is absolutely no secret, is a Liberal bagman going around collecting money for the Liberals, spent $42,528 on travel. One of the most interesting cases is a senator who lives in Ottawa. It could be assumed that this senator, who comes from Ottawa and lives in Ottawa, would not have any expenses. Senator Kenny spent $29,328 going around Canada collecting money for the old line parties.

There is absolutely no possible way that any Liberal will stand up to be counted in the House today. They realize how absolutely, totally disgusting the process is. These people were appointed by today's Prime Minister and by Brian Mulroney. The traditional parties have continually appointed people to the upper chamber, given them an expense account and told them to go out and collect money for our political party.

I am sure the member would agree with me that this is an absolutely reprehensible practice that must be stopped. But how can it be stopped if these people will not even be accountable for the $40 million that the Senate is currently spending? It is quite reprehensible.

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Hamilton West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Not to cast aspersions on hon. members of this place or of the other place, which in itself is reprehensible, I would point out that Senator Colin Kenny went across Canada on Bill S-7 which is the alternate fuels bill that successfully passed this place.

[John Duncan, Reform, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, one of the concerns that has been expressed about the Senate is that the people who are appointed to the Senate are there to provide a variety of functions, one of which is the function mentioned by my colleague, to be bagmen. I do not know if there is a gender neutral term. Bag people? Is that what we call bagmen now? I am not sure. Because of the potential negative connotation of the word bagmen maybe nobody is seeking gender neutral terminology for it.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

A replenisher of the treasury.

[John Duncan, Reform, North Island—Powell River, BC]

A replenisher of the treasury. That is gender neutral. Other functions, of course, would be to act as a party researcher and to be a part of the election readiness machine.

There are also other concerns about the role of Senators. Certain senators hold corporate directorships. Senators are held to a different set of standards than members of Parliament because they are not elected and the Senate does not deal with legislation in a substantive way. Well, I am afraid they do. The potential is there and I do not think the Criminal Code should be the standard of conduct for any government institution. That is not good enough.

I share concerns that the terms of reference in the selection by patronage of appointment to the Senate often reflect the political wishes of the governing party rather than the greater good of the nation or of representing the regional interests of the region from which the senator is appointed. I believe that is clear.

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

Madam Speaker, I have here the adopted resolutions of the biennial convention of the Liberal Party of Canada 1992. I want to read a statement about the Senate which was made at the convention.

"The members of the current House of Commons who are suddenly advocating Senate abolition have no interest in establishing any checks and balances on themselves, in particular, the regional checks and balances which a reformed Senate provides. They are simply seeking to consolidate power in their own hands". Basically that says that if there is a Senate then there cannot be a consolidation of power in the House of Commons.

I would like to ask the hon. member how he feels about that, particularly since the government makes it a point when it comes to power to appoint a majority in the Senate of their party members. If that is done, how can the Senate remain independent, from the House of Commons?

[John Duncan, Reform, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I addressed that in my speech. The Senate does not represent regional interests except when it is not dominated by the government of the day. The government of the day will post haste, at full gallop, do everything in its power to ensure that it dominates the other place. We have seen this in Canada's history time and time again.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the debate and especially to the introductory speech of the Liberals this morning. They said that we should be talking about more relevant things in this place.

The theme of my speech today is, and I have said a hundred times, that unless the system in this country is changed, nothing much else can be changed. The system needs to be changed to bring in democracy. I am going to say that over and over again.

When I was first elected by the people of Yorkton-Melville, they told me two things. They said: "We want you to speak up on our behalf. Breitkreuz, we want you to go to Ottawa and be our voice in Ottawa". I have tried faithfully to do that on issues like gun control, justice reform, reduction in the size of government, preservation of health care, education, pensions, protection of agricultural issues, more recently on the issue of sexual orientation, and yesterday on the funding of abortions.

They also asked me something else. They wanted me to tell them what is going on in Ottawa. They wanted to know. I want to tell the people of Yorkton-Melville and all Canadians what is going on in the Senate today.

The Senate is not elected. How then do we get our senators? The Prime Minister appoints them. How does he decide who goes into the upper chamber? He chooses the people who have worked the hardest on the Liberal Party campaign, or in the Liberal Party, or in the case of Mr. Mulroney when he was Prime Minister, those who worked hardest for the Conservative Party. The other place is full

of faithful Liberals and Conservatives, those who have helped those respective governments to get elected. Senators are patronage appointments.

Patronage appointments go to the party faithful, the Liberals and Conservatives who have helped get those parties elected. It is their reward. It is an incentive for them to do what they are told in an election campaign. They do not get to the Senate on merit.

Some people may ask: What is wrong with this? It gets people involved in politics for the wrong reason. They do not get involved to serve their country. They do what they are told to do by the Prime Minister. If they do what they are told they get appointed to the Senate.

The whole system stinks. There is no democracy in it. Those senators are there because they were faithful campaign mangers, fundraisers or whatever.

They are still faithful party workers. They are still working for the Liberals and Conservatives raising funds and managing campaigns. Just because they were appointed to the Senate does not mean they begin doing the work of senators, at least not solely. They are still campaign managers, faithful party workers and fundraisers.

Listen to that, Canadians. That is what you are paying for. That is happening right now. That is what is going on here in Ottawa.

I am a watchdog. I was sent here for that reason by my constituents. I am barking loud and long about what is happening here. Taxpayers' funds are being used to pay campaign workers and fundraisers through the Senate of Canada. Public funds go to senators' salaries, expense accounts and travel. Over $100,000 per senator goes for blatant political reasons. That is wrong.

Some of the names which are coming to light are Joyce Fairbairn, Dan Hays, Ron Ghitter. Joyce Fairbairn and Dan Hays are faithful Liberals. Ron Ghitter was appointed by Mulroney. His whole purpose in being in the Senate is to be the western campaign manager for the Conservatives in order to build that party up. That is happening today and it is wrong, plain and simple. The people ought to know that and I am objecting.

When I came here over two and half years ago I actually thought there was some mechanism by which Parliament was accountable to the people between elections. I am sad to report to Canadians that there is no accountability existing in this House or in the Senate. Frankly, I think that the House of Commons is masquerading as a democracy. It is pretending it is a democracy. The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia said it best about this time last year when he said: "Canadians elect 295 members of Parliament to represent them in Ottawa, but with all the decision making power resting with a dozen or so ministers who refuse to be influenced by reasoned argument and persuasion, I have to question the purpose of all the shenanigans that go on in the House in the name of parliamentary debate".

When I was elected I told the voters of Yorkton-Melville that I would be their voice in Ottawa. If all the members in this House had the same attitude the entire process would be opened up so that real democracy could express itself. The Reform Party believes in true democracy, not democracy by cabinet decree as we have it here.

The Liberal government reminds me of a leader of the Soviet Union who once said: "How can you expect me to run a country if no one obeys my decrees?" That was said in the Soviet Union but what is happening here? The Liberal cabinet has nothing to worry about because it has all the power and the full force of government to have all of its decrees implemented.

Under a Reform government all MPs would be able to vote freely on bills such as those concerned with gun control, sexual orientation, immigration, the GST and MP pensions. Another topic I wish I had time to discuss today is the obscene MP pension plan. I hear members opposite mumbling. They do not like some of the comments I am making as they are feeding at the trough of that MP pension plan.

Principle number 16 of the Reform Party constitution states: "We believe in the accountability of elected representatives to the people who elect them, and that the duty of elected members to their constituents should supersede their obligations to their political parties".

A Reform government would not only give MPs the power and responsibility to represent their constituents but would also transfer the power to the people by giving them the right to recall their MPs. There would be MP recall if their member failed to represent them properly in the House, which is a very important democratic measure. Once put in place there would seldom be a need to exercise it.

A Reform government would also give power to the citizens to initiate a referendum by petitioning government to put a question on the ballot at each federal election. That is called citizens' initiative. It would allow people direct input into what is happening in their country. It is very very important to have those kinds of changes made.

I remind everyone that my theme is that unless we change the system we will not change much else in the country. We need to bring democracy back to Canada. Four democratic reforms will guide government between elections when Reform forms the government: free votes, recall, referenda and citizens' initiative.

The next step in making any federation work is an elected, equal for all provinces and effective Senate, commonly known as the triple E Senate. This is not only essential to making Canada operate more democratically and more effectively, but it is also necessary to ensure that the Senate is accountable to the people, not just the Prime Minister who appointed them in this perfect patronage plum I just described.

Why is this called the highest court in the land? Because we should be sitting here debating the laws that are laid before Parliament. We should be discussing the pros and cons. We should be deciding if it is good legislation that is before this House.

Why do we see very few people here? Because it is not a democratic institution. The people opposite are not allowed to vote on the legislation in a free vote to decide whether or not it is good legislation. They are simply told how to vote. Why sit and listen? This is not the highest court in the land. We are not debating these things and deciding whether or not they are good laws.

Similarly, that is what should be happening in the Senate. Elected senators would not be able to thumb their noses at a request from the House of Commons to explain how they will spend $40.7 million a year. They would be accountable. Right now they are not accountable to the taxpayers. If they fly across the country on the Liberal or Tory election campaigns, there is nothing the taxpayers can do even though it is their money. The senators are not accountable to the taxpayers of Canada for the $40 million being spent. "Just give us the money and shut up" is the attitude of the Senate.

The question on whether the Senate is accountable for the money it spends would not even arise if the Senate were doing its job. And if senators were elected, if the Senate was effective and made each province equal in the upper chamber, this question would not even come before this House but that is not the case. They are not doing their job.

For a true federation to work it must have both a lower House and an upper House. The lower House, the House of Commons, gives voters representation by population based on the principle of one person, one vote. The upper House, the Senate, is supposed to represent the regions or the provinces based on the principle of Canada being a federation of 10 equal provinces. Unfortunately Canada's federation of equal provinces was corrupted from the start by giving the Prime Minister the power to appoint senators instead of letting voters in each province elect them.

There have been 16 Senate seats vacated since the election in October 1993. The Prime Minister has appointed a Liberal 16 times. Even Brian Mulroney had a better record than that. The blatant patronage that is going on in this place rewarding party workers by giving them these hundred thousand dollar positions in the Senate is unconscionable.

Another unfortunate development was when the Senate seats were divided among the four regions of the country instead of equally among the provinces. Because Quebec and Ontario are defined as regions, they have 24 senators each while a province like Saskatchewan only has six senators. There are those who are going to complain that Ontario has more people than Saskatchewan and should have more senators, but remember that Ontario already has 99 members of Parliament to represent its large population. Saskatchewan only has 14 members in this House.

The state of California has two senators, as does North Dakota. We do not hear Californians clamouring for more senators because they know that the only way a true federation can work effectively is if each voter is equal and each state or province is equal.

Remember that the purpose of the Senate is to provide equal representation to each province in the federation. Until our Senate is reformed along these lines, our federation will always suffer from the tyranny of the majority in central Canada. That is one of the key objections the people in my province have about what goes on in this place.

The Prime Minister wants puppets in the Senate so he can simply pull their strings and have them do as he wishes. That is why there are no, or very few, Liberals present today to debate this issue. It makes them very uncomfortable. Absence and silence make a huge statement on this issue.

Why do the Liberals and the Conservatives not want to make changes to the Senate? I have already explained that briefly. They would not have a place to put their party faithful. Where would they put there faithful fundraisers and campaign managers? How would they reward those faithful Liberals who tirelessly worked to get the Liberals elected to the House of Commons? Liberals and Conservatives cannot defend an appointed Senate and that is why they are silent on this issue today.

What is the purpose of the Senate? It is to ensure that legislation does not pass and become law without being properly vetted and to make sure that minorities, regions and certain provinces are protected. The province of Quebec has some valid concerns if it is not properly protected in the Senate. It should ensure that minorities are properly protected and that is one of the reasons we have the Senate. It also could be a control on government spending, spending that is often out of control.

One of the Liberals who introduced the topic on that side of the House asked: Are the two Houses not independent of one another? How can they be independent when the Prime Minister appoints those who will faithfully carry out his wishes? That cannot happen.

I heard the member complaining that Reformers tried to get the Senate to overthrow Bill C-68. I would like to remind the House that it was the justice minister who lobbied hardest to get his bill through the Senate. It was the justice minister who lobbied hard and the member talks about the need for them to be independent or that Reformers were concerned. Reformers were responding to what the justice minister did.

Until we change the system we will not change much else in this place. We need democracy, not just one day out of every four or five years.

I should also point out that when Bill C-68 on gun control went to the Senate, the Prime Minister ensured it would get through by appointing more senators. Is that independence between the two Houses? Are they separate? Hardly.

One of the reasons members of the Reform Party received the support of 2.5 million Canadians in the last election is that they objected strongly to the elitist system of government. Traditionally Canadians have trusted their leaders. That trust is seriously eroding as they find out more and more how the system works, or in this case does not work.

The government often engages in an exercise called public consultation. It looks at public input as being nice but it never listens to it. If the government would listen to the public input on the Senate, this motion today would become votable. If a free vote were held and if government members were representing their constituents, things would drastically change in this place.

I was involved in some of the public consultations. I was on the human resources committee in 1994 and we went across the entire country. What happened when we were all done? There was hardly a room big enough to hold all the papers the committee received, but nothing ever happened. The same thing happened on the gun control issue. Now the government is doing it on agriculture. What a joke. These public consultations are not even taken into consideration.

What should the Senate be doing? It should be the chamber of sober second thought. Instead of running across the country campaigning for the Liberals and Conservatives, senators should be consulting Canadians in their home provinces to see if the legislation that is being brought forward and intended to be passed is acceptable to them.

I want to talk about one more issue while I am talking about accountability. This issue has been raised with me by my constituents. It is the huge issue of the Supreme Court of Canada. We cannot just talk about the accountability of the Senate without talking about what is also happening in the Supreme Court of Canada.

Through our charter of rights and freedoms our country's fundamental rights are in the hands of nine judges, judges who are not accountable. They are appointed. They interpret laws and determine the direction of justice taken in this country. The laws and the rights in our country are very general and not well defined. Their ultimate meaning is determined by these nine people who may not represent the same views of most Canadians. They can in fact destroy the very fabric of our country. These judges can actually impose their views on the country with disregard for the intent Parliament may have had when the legislation was put in place. They even provide guidelines for legislation that Parliament should pass.

The fear Canadians have with the recent inclusion of sexual orientation as a category in the Canadian Human Rights Act is an example. How do those judges get where they are? They are appointed by the Prime Minister, just like senators are appointed. Will they redefine marriage, the traditional family? These are all concerns people have.

The topic we are discussing today is whether the Senate should be accountable to the taxpayer for the $40 million it spends. Let us ask the people of Canada. Let us do as I have done. Let us put out an item on a people's tax form-

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

I remind members not to refer to the presence or absence of members in the House since we all know they are now working in committee or doing constituency work.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Madam Speaker, again I make note, even in the light of your comments, that I doubt very much that we will get any Liberals on their feet in the House today to defend that they are not prepared to hold the Senate accountable for spending $40 million without accountability to the Canadian people.

It is quite shameful that there is no accountability to the Canadian people. I lay it completely at the doorstep of the Liberal majority government. There will not be one more member of the Liberal Party who will stand up because they know it is indefensible.

We also know they will not permit a vote on this. They will not give unanimous consent to make this motion votable because it would be too embarrassing to them and too embarrassing to their friends.

On the issue of accountability, I notice in today's Maclean's the following brief comment: ``In 1920 the Senate protective services took over security for the Senate side of the Parliament buildings. At that time there were only three guards, each working eight hours a day, seven days a week''.

Today there are 78 personnel, although remaining unarmed, who rely heavily on modern technology. We can understand there might have to be guards in the Senate considering its obscene performance recently over the GST where senators were yelling and ranting and raving and carrying on with kazoos. Maybe that was why we needed the number of guards there.

The point is from 1920 when we had three guards working seven days a week, eight hours a day, and yet today there are 78 personnel in security over there, this increase has never been accounted for. It has never been justified to the Canadians who pay the bills.

I am sure my colleague would agree with me. The people on the opposite side, the Liberals and their predecessors, the Conservatives, same thing, Liberal-Tory, same old story, are not prepared to make the other chamber accountable to the Canadian taxpayer. It is shameful.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, at the end of my speech I touched on the fact that Canadian taxpayers do not have a direct say into what is happening in the Senate.

If they were asked whether they want to spend $40.6 million on the Senate, the answer would be very clear. They want to see some bang for their buck. They want to know if these huge increases in security, the huge increases in the spending that have taken place in the Senate over these many years, are actually necessary.

Are there results for the money they are spending? Taxpayers want to know that. They are entitled to have an answer to that. When the Senate refuses to come and give account of how that money is being spent, there is something seriously wrong with our system.

The worst thing in a democracy is an unaccountable system. That is an oxymoron. There cannot be a democracy where there is unaccountability. There needs to be both.

The answer to my colleague's question is that the taxpayers would question the spending that has taken place there. Maybe we should ask them directly in a question what they feel about this whole issue.