House of Commons Hansard #51 of the 35th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was elected.

Topics

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Reform

Deborah Grey Reform Beaver River, AB

My side won.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Milliken Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

I am well aware that the hon. member's no side won. She had a chance then to support an elected Senate and she campaigned against the Charlottetown accord. I put my money where my mouth was. Our party supported an elected Senate despite my preference for abolition. I went along with the thing and supported an elected Senate in an effort to make the accord work. When the hon. member for Beaver River had a chance go for an elected Senate she would not hold her nose and go for it. She said "I am not going for an elected Senate, it is not that important to me".

It was important enough to our party that I was able to support the accord and I did my bit for an elected Senate. Even though we lost the battle, we won the war in Kingston and the Islands.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Reform

Jim Abbott Reform Kootenay East, BC

Mr. Speaker, I have in hand a copy of an article from the Hill Times by Mike Scandiffio from February 26 this year. I think the member might be interested:

Cash strapped and struggling in the polls, Tories are looking to tap into Senate funds as they try to rebuild the party and take on the Liberals.

A 10-page memo written by Tory Senate staffers and obtained by the Hill Times outlines a plan by Tory senators and staffers to set up research working groups as part of a ``policy issues network'' paid by the research budget, allocated to each of the senators.

However, according to the memo the working groups are to "provide support to the leader-

the member for Sherbrooke

-and the party process by acting as a source for immediate information requests" and "to provide substantive analysis and input into the party policy process".

I wonder if this does not make the case that there must be an accountability that he, all jokes notwithstanding, as a member of Parliament, should be calling for on the part of the Senate if it is proposing to divert funds from the objective that was set out for those funds. It is proposing to divert Senate funds to rebuild the Tory political party, according to this article.

Therefore I must ask the member in all seriousness, does he not agree it is important that this elected, legitimate body by virtue of its election, on behalf of the people of Canada who elected it, hold the Senate accountable? Why is that such a difficult concept to understand? Should the Senate be held accountable to the people of Canada for its expenditure of funds, yes or no?

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Milliken Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Mr. Speaker, of course the Senate should be held accountable for its funds. I am glad the hon. member asked this question. The article seems to be suggesting the Conservative members of the Senate were using the Senate funds available to them for research and other such purposes to do research on behalf of party policy for the Conservative Party of Canada.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Reform

Jim Abbott Reform Kootenay East, BC

For their members in the House of Commons.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Milliken Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Or for the Conservative Party of Canada. These members are given a budget for research purposes, as we are, and they are allowed to use that money for partisan purposes, as we are permitted to do.

I can develop policy statements in my office intended for use by the Liberal Party of Canada should I choose to do so. I can use my House of Commons staff, just as the hon. member can do with his.

I cite a few examples. There is a former Reform candidate now employed in the office of a member of the Reform Party. He was employed there before he ran as a candidate. He was a candidate in cold storage. It is like a frozen steak; pull it out when there is an election and start cooking. Then when the election is lost, it is put back in the freezer. That is what happened with one of theirs.

Then the Reform Party spent $30,000 on its leader's suits with taxpayers' money raised in donations to the party. Do we think people who contributed money to the Reform Party thought that $30,000 would be used to buy suits for the hon. member for Calgary Southwest? That is accountability. Let us hear about that.

If the hon. member is so concerned about accountability why does he not tell us about the car the party provides the party leader? When he handed over the keys to the official car given to him by the House of Commons, he took a car from the party and said it was not from the taxpayers. Who got all the receipts for the money with $75 out of $100 as a tax credit but the people who paid for that car who were all taxpayers. The rest of us are all taking it in the neck because they got a $75 tax credit out of the first $100.

The hon. member says it is a taxable claim. My figures are correct. If a person gives $100 to a party they get a $75 tax credit. That comes out of the pockets of taxpayers, as does any other deduction.

I know the hon. member for Kootenay East is thankful he asked me that question. I agree with accountability. I believe people should be accountable. His party should come clean about what it is doing with taxpayers' money, as we do.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon.

member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, terrorism; the hon. member for Labrador, mining.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Reform

Mike Scott Reform Skeena, BC

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to listen to the intervention from the member for Kingston and the Islands. It was very entertaining. There is a very popular box office hit called "Twister". It is also very entertaining and there is a similarity. We could draw the analogy that after being entertained for a couple of hours people have only spent money and received a lot of wind.

The Reform Party has spoken in the House since it arrived about the need for change in our parliamentary system. We have talked about the need for change in our Senate.

There are many members in the House from the Bloc, some from the Liberal Party and from the NDP who advocate that we abolish the Senate. Canadians from coast to coast recognize the Senate is nothing more than a haven for political patronage and has been for a very long time. Canadians are not satisfied with that. They are not getting a bang for their buck. They recognize that it is nothing more than a patronage pay-off for political hacks and they want it changed.

The simple solution is to say we will abolish it. That sounds good. I can understand why members from Ontario and Quebec would feel that was a proper solution. They do not have the problem of the regional parts of Canada where representation by population means they are left vulnerable by many political decisions. The Senate provides an opportunity to ensure regional balance and regional fairness in the face of representation by population.

Canadians understand that we do not have regional fairness when in the Senate. It does not provide a sober second look. It does not ensure that the legislation which passes through the House meets the test of fairness for all Canadians. It is nothing short of an opportunity for the prime minister in office to appoint his or her political hacks. The Canadian taxpayers are virtually saddled with those people for a lifetime. There is no way out.

We in the Reform Party recognized a long time ago that the Senate was not working. Instead of coming up with the simplistic solution of abolishing it, we said we needed to change it to make it work, just as we need to change the House to make it work.

We have talked about recall. We have talked about referenda. We have talked about opening up Canada's parliamentary process both in this House and in the upper House to be a more democratic system, to have a more democratic method of operation. We have talked about the way Parliament is working now is nothing short of a democratic dictatorship.

We have an outbreak of democracy once every four or five years when Canadians go to the polls to elect a new government. We are only electing our next dictator. Whoever becomes prime minister in a majority government, which we get most of the time, becomes a virtual dictator for the next four or five years.

The Prime Minister exercises power over cabinet by virtue of the fact that he appoints and fires cabinet ministers. Loyalty is driven toward ensuring that the Prime Minister's will is done in that inner circle of high powered cabinet ministers.

The Prime Minister has a vested interest in the Senate's remaining as it is because it offers him the opportunity to reward his political cronies. It also offers him the opportunity to give the people of Canada the perception that there is a place for a sober second look at legislation that passes through this House. In reality it is nothing more than a rubber stamp.

However, the perception is falling away. Canadians are demanding that substantive changes be made to the way the House of Commons and the Senate work. For the benefit of the members opposite I say that anybody who is in politics in Canada today who does not recognize that and who is not prepared to deal with that will not be here for long.

That is the reality of change coming to Canada. It is driven by the grassroots, by the citizens of the country. We hear it right across the nation. I know there will be some members from some parties in this House dragged through that change kicking and screaming, but it is coming.

The member for Kingston and the Islands said with regard to the Senate that one Reform senator was appointed by the Prime Minister. To say it was a political appointment is a slight on the remembrance of Stan Waters, a great Canadian who ran for public office, who ran for the position of senator and who was elected by over a quarter of a million voters in the province of Alberta.

I can tell the member for Kingston and the Islands that if Stan Waters were alive today and if he were to hear this member denigrating his election to the Senate, I am certain that Stan Waters, knowing him and knowing the way he was, would have given the member an education out behind the barn. That was Stan Waters' way.

The members talk about the Charlottetown accord and say "you nasty Reformers talk about a triple E Senate, yet when you had an opportunity to vote for a triple E Senate you turned it down in the Charlottetown accord".

I remind members opposite that Canadians are not stupid. They understood clearly that the Charlottetown accord was not about a triple E Senate. There was no requirement for an election. There was an opportunity for provincial premiers to make appointments

to the Senate as opposed to the Prime Minister but there was no requirement for an election.

There was no real opportunity for an effective Senate because the provisions in the Charlottetown accord did not allow the Senate to oversee many facets of legislation which we on this side of the House feel it should have the right to review.

Canadians and Reformers were asked at the time of the Charlottetown accord to buy a pig in a poke. We were told "if you want your triple E Senate", and it was not a triple E Senate, "you will get it if you vote for the Charlottetown accord".

We were not to get a triple E Senate. We were to get about a one and a half E Senate, which does not mean we were 50 per cent of the way to our goal. It only meant that we had slightly improved on a very bad system.

Canadians were also told the Charlottetown accord meant distinct society status for Quebec. They were told that one of the five key components of the Charlottetown accord was the inherent right to aboriginal self-government. The Charlottetown accord was turned down by people in many areas of Canada for those reasons. The accord was not turned down because of the extremely limited provisions for change to the Senate.

The government is quick to implement those failed aspects of the Charlottetown accord which did not sit well with Canadian people from coast to coast. Within weeks of taking office the government turned around and issued statements like we recognize the inherent right of aboriginal peoples to self-government. That was a key component of the Charlottetown accord which was voted down by Canadians, but Liberals opposite will foist it down our throats anyway, like it or not.

Last year the Liberal government passed distinct society recognition for Quebec, although it was clearly voted down by the people in the rest of Canada in the Charlottetown referendum. If the Liberals can implement these other aspects of the failed Charlottetown referendum against the wishes of the Canadian people, why can they not agree to implement changes to the Senate?

Depending on which riding they are in, 80 per cent to 85 per cent of Canadians from coast to coast want change in the Senate. They expect change in the Senate. They demand change in the Senate. During its election campaign the government indicated it would to make changes, that it believed in an elected Senate.

The reality is here now. It was one thing to promise change during an election campaign. That was then, this is now. There will not be an elected Senate. Canadians' hope for change has been dashed by the comments of members opposite today. It has become clear the government, this Liberal Party, has absolutely no intention whatsoever of changing the rules with regard to electing senators. It has made that abundantly clear.

There was a book that was popular several years ago. I cannot remember the name of the author but I recall one of the quotes, that power is rarely or never given but almost always taken. The Reform Party came to Ottawa in part because we wanted to see the tremendous power that is centralized in the Prime Minister's office dissipated somewhat and democratized. There would be more power in the hands of ordinary Canadians.

A major component of that goal is ensuring Canadians have the right to accountability by the Senate, which they pay $40 million for. They should have some measure of accountability. They should have some way of ensuring senators are doing what the voters want and not what the Prime Minister wants.

I will say again that any political party or political representative who does not recognize the need for accountability and who is not prepared to implement that in the future does not recognize that fundamental changes are needed in our system and they are destined for political extinction. It is coming and I do not think voters will accept any less.

We can listen to the Liberal members opposite talk about how much they believe in democracy, about how much they believe in keeping their election promises when they clearly do not. They clearly do not believe in democracy. They twist words around. They twist sentences around. They twist promises around. They will do anything to avoid making the changes required. They will do anything to avoid having a triple E Senate because it does not work in their political party's interest and it does not work in the Prime Minister's interest. It certainly works in the interests of the Canadian people.

As I said earlier, the Canadian people are no longer content to sit back and watch business unfold as usual. There will be an election within the next year or two, possibly this fall. I believe two of the key issues in that election for Canadians will be just how democratic the process is and how good their representation is in Ottawa.

When I go back to Atlantic Canada I talk to the fishermen. As the fisheries critic I end up talking to a lot of fishermen. They tell me that their elected representatives are not in agreement with the minister on a particular policy. The constituents they have been elected to represent are not in agreement with the minister's policy. However, these MPs dare not come back to Ottawa and take a contrary position to the minister for fear of punishment. We have seen that punishment demonstrated graphically by the Prime Minister in the last six or seven weeks.

We have seen how a Liberal MP, who wanted to stand up for his election promises and for what his constituents wanted, was hustled out of that party quicker than you could blink when he dared do it.

The question of representation on the part of Canadian voters is becoming more serious all the time. They are no longer content to live with the status quo.

In closing, we hear all the eloquent words from the Liberal MPs on the other side. We hear the rhetoric about how the government would like to see a more open and democratic process. We see it in the red book promises. We see it in interviews with various Liberal MPs in the media from time to time. However, for all those people out there who may be watching, the reality is that there is absolutely no commitment to that at all. The government is not committed to having any changes in the status quo. The only way Canadians will have that in the future is to elect a Reform government.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Reform

Jim Abbott Reform Kootenay East, BC

Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the comments by the member for Kingston and the Islands as they related directly to what my colleague was just saying about the need for institutional reform.

It is particularly interesting that the Prime Minister on September 24, 1991, page 2595 of Hansard , said:

The regions of Canada need to be more involved in decision making and policy making at the national level. To meet the hopes and dreams of those who live in the west and the Atlantic, a reformed Senate is essential. It must be a Senate that is elected, effective and equitable.

I know my colleague will agree that the member for Kingston and the Islands does not even know what the Prime Minister used to say.

I just got off the telephone with a gentleman in Calgary, Glen Schey. The Liberals would have us believe that this is a figment of the Reform's imagination. Here is a grassroots petition that this individual is putting out. It reads:

We the people of Alberta request that Jane Forest resign her Senate seat. We also request, in accordance with provincial law, that the Government of Alberta hold an election to fill the vacant Senate seat.

I advised him that unfortunately the wording would not be adequate for a petition to the House of Commons. However, the Liberals should know that the people of Alberta and indeed, after many conservations with some government officials, the people of Ontario, are saying that it is time that this government take charge.

In light of the fact that there seems to be a kind of groundswell movement, whether it is in Alberta, the maritimes or Ontario, to get the Senate under control, particularly in the area of its $40 million of spending, I wonder if my colleague would like to comment on that.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Reform

Mike Scott Reform Skeena, BC

Mr. Speaker, Canadians from coast to coast are unhappy with the status quo. They want to see substantial change.

They are unhappy with the fact that the Senate has been used as a patronage haven. It is anti-democratic to its core and has a tremendous budget. They know that senators are jetting off all over the world on various junkets without accountability to the voters or to anyone else. We are asking for accountability to the House and the member for Kingston and the Islands says we have no right to demand that accountability.

To whom are senators accountable for their budget? Are they accountable to the Prime Minister? They are not accountable to the electors because they were never elected and they do not have to stand for re-election.

Canadians are very unhappy about that. It is very frustrating for Canadians to hear the Prime Minister make promises and statements about changing the Senate. Then they read the red book and hear statements such as those made by the member for Kingston and the Islands here this afternoon, which are contradictory.

It all goes back to what the Liberal Party has done for generations, which is make promises and then the ground shifts. We must keep moving with the times and promises change as time goes by and reality rears its ugly head.

I suppose like the red queen, the promises in the red book mean whatever the Liberals want them to mean. The Prime Minister can change his position two or three times in a month and seems to get away with it. However, I do not think that is going to happen any more. It certainly did not happen on the GST. The member for Hamilton had to resign over her broken promise. I have talked with Canadians from coast to coast over the last 18 months and they tell me they want serious change in the Senate. They are not content with the status quo.

In answer to my colleague in the Reform Party, Canadians are not going to sit back and watch $40 million a year be shovelled into that place with no accountability and be used as nothing more than a patronage haven for whatever prime minister happens to be in office at the time.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening all day long, as Reform Party members discussed this very important motion dealing with Senate expenditures and the fact that the Senate refuses to testify before the Standing Committee on Government Operations. This is very serious and Canadians must know about this.

Since this morning, I have been hearing Reformers complain about the lack of control over Senate expenditures and the fact that the Senate refuses to account for the $40 million budget it was given. Incidentally, according to the auditor general's report for

1991, the actual amount would be closer to $54 million, when certain other expenditures are added to this $40 million. The Senate is also described as haven of patronage, and Senate appointments as political rewards.

My question is as follows: If that is the case, why does the Reform Party not recommend that the Senate be plainly and simply abolished, as advocated by the Bloc Quebecois? That it what I ask myself.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Reform

Mike Scott Reform Skeena, BC

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member was not here for my entire intervention earlier. For his benefit I will recap once again.

The member comes from a province of approximately seven million people. I come from a province of about three million people. There are provinces in Canada with only several hundred thousand in population. When we have a democratic system that elects members to the House on the basis of population it means that some provinces or regions in Canada are going to be under represented.

Let me offer a graphic example of how a regional interest can be overridden by the powerful political forces in central Canada. During the late 1970s and early 1980s the Liberal government of the day led by Pierre Trudeau was in a bit of a cash crunch. It looked over at Alberta and British Columbia and saw an opportunity to reach into the energy well of those provinces to dig out a whole fistful of dollars. As members may recall, energy prices were rising.

Alberta and northeastern British Columbia have tremendous oil and gas reserves. They were developing and bringing onstream more properties all the time. The federal government adopted a national energy program.

The national energy program was nothing more than a legislated rape of Alberta's and British Columbia's oil and gas reserves. There was no opportunity for a Senate to review that legislation to ensure the regional interests of Alberta and British Columbia were protected from the strong, dominant, centrifugal political forces in Ottawa and in Ontario and Quebec. That is why I fear for the future of Confederation, for the future of Canada, as a country of 10 equal and harmonious provinces if we do not have a Senate.

There will come a time in the future when another such silly idea as the national energy program will be dreamt up by some federal government, maybe even this one. It has come up with some pretty silly ideas. It will be foisted on some region in Canada that is not prepared to accept it. That will create a tremendous feeling of unrest and ill will and possibly be a move for separation of other provinces from the federation.

It is important for the sake of national unity to have a Senate.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Bloc

Antoine Dubé Bloc Lévis, QC

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to advise you that I will share my time with the hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm, who will speak a little later.

Bloc members do not often support Reform Party motions. This proposal is a minimum since, as the hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm said earlier, we are in favour of abolishing the Senate.

The Reform member who moved the motion is saying that spending must be submitted to the scrutiny of this House, so that these expenditures can be made known to the public as much as possible. This seems to be a minimum, given the large number of recommendations made by the auditor general following a review of this issue. There are 27 recommendations, and all of them make a lot of sense.

In the context of expenditure reduction expected by all Canadians right now, and since the public debt continues to grow and will soon reach $600 billion, cuts must be made somewhere.

The Senate is not subject to any of the rules that usually apply to departments. This makes its activities somewhat less credible in the public eye. The auditor general's proposals made a lot of sense, and he did submit a whole series of recommendations. What the Reform Party member is proposing, that a report be tabled in this House, so that it can be scrutinized, is also a good idea.

However, we must look at the issue from another angle. Why have a Senate at all? I recently asked some of my constituents what the Senate meant to them. They did not really have an answer.

They also asked who the senator was who represented their area here. I was asked that some time ago and I now know who it is because I made some inquiries. I do not wish to dump on those who do this job, that not being the purpose of the question, but my constituents did not know the name of the senator who represented them here in Parliament.

At one point I was visiting a school class and I asked them what the Senate meant to them. "Oh sure we know the Senators. We see them a lot." I was a bit taken aback by that, so I asked them to name some names. They then started to give me the names of hockey players. Does that ring a bell for you, Mr. Speaker? Children, even young people in secondary school and Cegep, told me "The Senators are the Ottawa hockey team. They are not that

good yet, but they are up and coming. They will be a good team eventually". Young people know absolutely nothing about the regular activities of the senators here in the other place.

After having the fun of asking that question for some time, and finding so many people giving me the same answer, I asked myself what the purpose of the Senate was. I wondered about its mandate.

Moreover, the first recommendation the auditor general made in his report was the following: the mandates of the Senate and its committees needed tightening up, as they were too vague. So then I became more interested in the question: What is the use of the Senate?

Finally, we became aware that the function of the Senate, although this is not how it is written down, was to block bills, to prevent their being passed. In actual fact, it is to examine bills that have been passed by the House of Commons, but in certain cases they are blocked because that is the only means at the disposal of the Senate. For example, it might be of some use if it were to block Bill C-12 on unemployment insurance reform. The Senate has made use of that means in certain cases.

Why does this occur? Because the senators are appointed by the government, no longer for life, as the age limit now is 75 years, but there are still a certain number of senators over the age of 75, because of their vested rights which date back to the late sixties.

When a new government is elected, the Senate contains a majority from the time of the old government, and it is in the interests of the former government to block the work of the present government. It has become what I see as a pointless game of leapfrog, paralyzing, sterile. We in the Bloc Quebecois, as you well know, find the federal system sterile, so imagine another system on top of that one, slowing the legislative process down even more.

Quebec abolished its legislative council in the late 1960s, perhaps 1968. Since then, there have been no complaints in Quebec that the legislation has been less good, less well examined, less well worded. It is, however, less expensive. The figure given is $42 million, but when you include the expenses of all of the other departments concerned, the cost is $54 million, and by far the majority of Canadians do not know what that money is used for.

Of course, some of them are hard-working. This is nothing personal, but the fact remains that, when there are a mere 42 or 45 sitting days in some years, when the Senate normally sits three afternoons a week, as compared to our five days in this House, that can hardly be called going flat out.

So, the basic question is: what is the use of the Senate? I submit that, when the public does not even know who the senators are and mistake them for the hockey team, we must ask ourselves very serious questions. The whole issue has to be reconsidered, especially since the Senate is so expensive to run.

In that sense, the motion put forward by the Reform Party is most interesting and appropriate because, if nothing else, appropriations would at least be scrutinized, which is one step in the right direction. The next step would consist in plainly and simply abolishing the Senate in order to save money, which could contribute to the public debt reduction effort.

I will conclude on this to give the hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm a chance to speak.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC

Mr. Speaker, the motion before us is extremely important. I think it is worthwhile to look at it a little more closely. This motion put forward by the other opposition party reads as follows:

Given that the Senate has failed to respond to a message from this House requesting that a representative of the Senate Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration appear before the Standing Committee on Government Operations to account for $40,000,000 of taxpayers' money-

The motion is longer, but I think we already know the most important part. It is a little strange that the Senate refuses to discuss the budget allocated to it by the House of Commons. This is a very considerable amount of money.

The current system is made up of the House of Commons on one side and the Senate on the other side. Taxpayers elect a government with a platform, a program, an ideology. They know to whom they are giving the mandate to spend their money, to administer a province or the country.

The people's democratically elected representatives are now asking the Senate, an institution that receives $40 million a year, to account to a committee, but their request has gone unheeded. No senator has come forward to give us the information we want. This in a way is a flaw of our current political system.

I think that, in everyone's mind, it is the House of Commons that holds the decision making authority and that is responsible for using taxpayers' money. If the Senate does not want to be accountable and to answer our questions, it is perhaps because they have things to hide. There may be some things senators do not want taxpayers to know. If they have nothing to hide, they should come forward and justify their expenditures.

I know the system is set up that way, but any system can be improved, especially when the Minister of Finance says that we are going through some very difficult times and that we must all pitch in and tighten our belts. It is time for the Senate to start doing its part.

Let us ask our constituents if the Senate is useful. I can tell you that if, tomorrow, a referendum was held in Quebec on whether or

not to keep the Senate, the result would be very clear. Quebecers have no use for senators who are there only to spend taxpayers' money, to all intents and purposes.

The motion mentions the figure of $40 million but, as I said earlier, it should really be closer to $54 million. The auditor general said, regarding the 1990-91 budget, that total costs for the Senate are closer to $54 million taking into account the cost of services provided to the Senate by certain government agencies, which are estimated at $11.4 million. This is a considerable amount and we still wonder whether the Senate is profitable or not, whether to keep it or not. In the current context, the least we could expect is to have a representative of the Senate appear before the Standing Committee on Government Operations.

Earlier, I said that if they do not want to be held accountable, it may be that they have things to hide. Let me tell you about certain things we learned about from newspapers and other sources. It appears that, a few years ago, I believe it was 1992, senators had renovations done in the foyer. It was not nice enough. So, they spent money to decorate it with black, green, salmon and grey granite, with mahogany, etc. The foyer is very grand, but it cost $125,000.

Perhaps the senators do not want the general public to know about that. Perhaps that is why they do not wish to appear before a committee to explain their spending.

There is also the story about the senator who wanted a better view of the Hill and who decided to have the entire floor of his office raised. That is also perhaps some of the spending that they do not want the general public to know about.

Earlier, my hon. colleague made a very good point. It is apparently true that the average number of sitting days for senators is around 45 to 50 a year. Perhaps if the senators appeared before a committee and were asked questions like: How is it that you sit for only 47, 45, 50 days a year and it costs $54 million? Do you not think those are some rather expensive days?

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

An hon. member

A million a day.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC

A million for every day they sit. Perhaps that is why they do not wish to appear before the committee to explain. There are all sorts of other expenditures: VIA Rail, travel, points to travel anywhere in Canada that are transferable to anyone. These are all the things the senators do not want us to know.

But what is it all for? Why do we have a Senate? There are 295 of us here. Our country has too many levels of government: federal, provincial, municipal, school boards, churches. Where does the Senate fit in? Churches? Mr. Speaker, you laugh. But the government of Newfoundland is now realizing that the churches still have power over some people. There are elected officials, but where does the Senate fit into the system? I think it is surplus to requirements.

As my hon. colleague said earlier, it is unusual for the Bloc Quebecois to support motions presented by the Reform Party. To my knowledge, since 1993, I believe this is the only time, but we can see when something is good. I think this is an extremely important motion. I see that my time is running out and I will end here.

Given the importance of this motion, I believe that, if you were to seek it, there would be unanimous consent to make the motion votable and we could thus make our views known. I therefore propose:

That the motion be made votable.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

Is there unanimous consent?

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

There is no unanimous consent.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Bloc

Antoine Dubé Bloc Lévis, QC

Mr. Speaker, although his request has been defeated, people are entitled to know why my colleague for Berthier-Montcalm proposed that this motion be put to a vote. Because it involved credits, I would like him to explain to me what prompted him to make this request.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC

Mr. Speaker, I find that somewhat deplorable. I am surprised that the opposition parties are in agreement for this motion to be votable, but that our government friends, the Liberals across the way, refuse to allow this extremely important motion to be voted on. It is important to know where the $54 million spent in 1991 have gone. It is important to know why the Senators do not want to come and give the committee an explanation.

I have a hard time understanding the Liberal members' coming out from behind the curtains to vote against this proposal. I think there could have been unanimous consent. We could have had a vote, and that would have given an indication to the Canadian taxpayers that, yes, these are hard times, yes everyone will have to contribute, but those who benefit from tax dollars will at least have to come and explain themselves to the elected representatives, those who represent the people, for the senators are not the ones who represent the people, it is the members elected to the House of Commons. They have a clear mandate. They are the true representatives, not the other place.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

It being 5:30 p.m., it is my duty to indicate to the House that the deliberations on the motion are over.

It being 5.30 p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from March 25 consideration of the motion.

Dangerous OffendersPrivate Members' Business

5:25 p.m.

Liberal

Brenda Chamberlain Liberal Guelph—Wellington, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Motion No. M-116 today. I thank the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley for bringing this debate before the House. I am also grateful to have this opportunity to share with the House some of the concerns of my constituents on justice issues.

We are debating here one of the more serious of crimes, sexual assault. If crime studies are correct, only 10 per cent of sexual assaults are reported to police. Of course sexual assault is more than just a crime. Sexual assault happens to real people. It affects them, their families and their relationships for as long as they live.

The people of Guelph-Wellington welcome all efforts to reduce crime, punish criminals and support programs which prevent crime. They know that crime prevention means more than prisons. Crime prevention means deterring criminals and it means strengthening individuals, families and communities.

Crime may be fostered by an unsupportive family life, violence in the home, illiteracy, drug and alcohol abuse, unemployment and poverty. While the people of Guelph-Wellington want programs which address these issues, they also demand that we as a government get tougher with criminals and strengthen programs that support the victims of crime.

This debate focuses on sexual assault. If this motion is adopted by the House, every convicted sex offender would be sent to a facility for a thorough examination by two psychiatrists. I do have concerns that this may create an inefficient and costly system and may be a poor use of our limited resources.

I do support legislation which I believe would better our justice system. For example, I voted in favour of a private member's bill which would rescind section 745 of the Criminal Code because I believe the vast majority of my constituents support this legislation and I know my police force does.

Earlier this month I voted in favour of Bill C-217, legislation which would protect witnesses in sexual assault cases. I have asked the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice to get tougher with repeat offenders and to allow consecutive sentencing for violent crimes. The message this government must give is that we will not tolerate criminal behaviour.

Crime prevention involves all of us. In Guelph-Wellington there are organizations like Guelph Block Parents, Hospitality Connection, Tough Talk and Guelph Neighbourhood Watch which promote public awareness, offer peer and family support and remind us that we are responsible for one another. We must care for one another. The organizations work with our police force, the finest police force in Canada, to help make our community safer, address the causes of crime and identify problems which may lead to crime.

Two weeks ago I attended the first police awards dinner to honour local police officers and community leaders in their efforts to make Guelph-Wellington better. We honoured corporations like The Co-Operators, Guelph Hydro; individuals like T. Sher Singh and Jeff Heymans; service clubs like the Kiwanis Club of Guelph and Royal City Optimists; educators like the Wellington County Board of Education; volunteer organizations like Child Find and Senior Peer Advisory Service; and police officers like Constable Paul Crowe and Constable Rick Devine.

The most important message of that night was that we must all work together to build a safe community. Guelph Police Chief Lenna Bradburn cannot do it alone. Constables Tom Gill and Dave Johnson cannot do it alone. State Farm Insurance and Block Parents cannot do it alone. It is our responsibility, each of us working with our families, our co-workers and in our communities to help reduce crime.

The government has promised to introduce legislation on high risk offenders. I welcome and look forward to it. The people of Guelph-Wellington want action on this issue. They support their government when it works for them. We can continue to work for them through legislation that responds to their concerns and begins to alleviate their fears. That is why I supported Bill C-41 and Bill C-37.

We see the effects of crime every day. Yaqub Rahmaty, a member of my Liberal executive, was a victim of two robberies. He manages a convenience store in Guelph. He was scared.

It is estimated that the cost of crime is approximately $46 billion annually in Canada. These costs include policing, the hospitalization of victims, the cost of administering our correctional institutions, the cost of running our courts and the costs associated with property loss, security services and also insurance fraud. The list goes on.

But those costs are nothing compared to the pain and the suffering associated with the crime itself. How can we put a cost on sexual assault? How can we ever measure the pain of losing a child through a violent act? No dollar figure can ever be placed on a woman suffering through a violent relationship or a child in a violent home. It costs us in lost productivity, in trauma and it lessens life. The effects of crime are more than a stolen car and

some lost jewellery. We can just imagine the potential of a young person living on the street who has been murdered. The effects of crime are real.

This government has done more to respond to the concerns and the fears of Canadians than any other government in history. It has reviewed serial killer cards, initiated the National Crime Prevention Council, toughened the Young Offenders Act, made peace bonds more effective, allowed victim information to be presented in early parole hearings, introduced tough new DNA legislation and initiated a witness protection program. I welcome tougher new anti-stalking legislation, as well as legislation which will give longer sentences to those who benefit from child prostitution.

By the end of our mandate we will have cracked down on joy riders, sex abusers and those who smuggle guns. We will have improved information sharing among professionals, such as teachers and police officers. We will have made people more accountable for violent acts committed while drunk.

As I said earlier, government cannot and should not work alone. As citizens of this great country we are responsible to each other. This responsibility includes working together to prevent crime when we can, punish criminals to the fullest extent of the law and look out for those who are most in need.

Again I thank my hon. colleague for her motion. I believe that she has raised an interesting idea. However, I cannot support it at this time. I ask the Minister of Justice to proceed quickly with his efforts on high risk offenders, efforts that I know will address the concerns and help alleviate the fears of women, men and children in Guelph-Wellington and in every part of this great country of ours, Canada.