Mr. Speaker, certainly the hon. member has identified the party's platform on the triple E Senate. The triple E Senate of course has always been the first of our principles in our published papers. We do believe in what we call a triple E Senate, which is equal numbers from each of the provinces, elected and effective. In other words, it needs a job to do, something that senators can put their teeth into.
Our argument on the Senate has always been that the Senate's job originally was to represent the regions. Here we have representation by population. Quebec is well represented in numbers here with the Bloc. I do not always agree with their politics, but in numbers it is represented according to population.
The Senate on the other hand represents each province with an equal number. What we have said is that by doing that, a message is sent. For example, in this place where Quebec has 75 seats, it has a significant influence on the House of Commons. It is a very dominating force. It has a lot of influence and people in key figures. It is able to influence matters in the House of Commons very well. However, to protect the outlying regions, say a weakly populated province like Prince Edward Island or Saskatchewan, which are not well represented numberwise, the Senate would represent those provinces in the other place, in the Senate itself.
By doing that, there is a balance. In the House of Commons, there is rep by pop. Rep by pop allows people to know that they have as much say as any other one person in the province through their representative here. To protect the regions and to protect the provinces that do not have huge populations, something else is needed. We say that that something else should be a Senate.
What could a Senate like that do? The arguments go back and forth. Our current Prime Minister said in 1991 that "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", and that "a reformed Senate is essential. It must be a Senate that is elected, effective and equitable", as he called it. "Such a Senate should have the power to examine appointments to important federal institutions and agencies".
What that means is there is consensus that the Senate needs a job. One of the things it should do is approve of important appointments to federal institutions and agencies. If, instead of the wife of the current defence minister being in charge of patronage appointments-that is her job-would it not be something if we had a Senate including the province of Quebec that would be able to say: "On the appointment to the CRTC, we in Quebec have a real problem with this person, what they have done, what their academic record is, what they stand for and what they have been doing".
Someone could step in at that stage and say: "I am going to put the kibosh on this. I will stop this now". So could people from B.C. So could have Alberta during the national energy program. So could have people from Manitoba when the F-18 contract was hived off. There could be a check and a balance in there.
As the Prime Minister said, that would be a good job for the Senate. Its job now is not that. Its job right now is election readiness. That is its job right now. It is a place where all kinds of people who are on the organizational shelf of the Liberal Party have been plugged into the key positions. Taxpayers are paying the bills; we do not know how much. Senators travel the country at taxpayers' expense. They do whatever they want. Nobody knows because they are not accountable to anybody. The only one they are accountable to is the Prime Minister.
That is not right. As the Prime Minister himself has been saying for some years now, that is a lousy way to run an upper house. The upper house needs to be reformed. It needed to be reformed said Mr. MacKay in 1926. It needed to be accountable said the auditor general in 1991.
In 1991 the Prime Minister said that a reformed Senate is essential. Why? "To meet the hopes and dreams of those living in the west and in the Atlantic regions, a reformed Senate is essential". That is the Prime Minister. I wish he would go back and read some of his old speeches. I wonder if he realizes the impact that this status quo stuff is having on British Columbia.
When I hear promises being made and then not delivered on I wonder if that is part of what makes Quebecers so angry. They were promised distinct society in the Constitution and it was not delivered. That is a broken promise. Would that not make Quebecers angry?
From our perspective in the west we were promised Senate reform. The Prime Minister promised that within two years an elected Senate would be in place. He did not deliver. In 1991 he said it has to happen. If we are going to keep the hopes and aspirations of the west and Atlantic Canada we have to do something to provide an elected Senate. He did not deliver on that. In the west what are we supposed to take from that? Was he saying what he thought we wanted to hear during the election campaign? Did he really sincerely believe it and then find out there was too much pressure from within his party or other regions that he could not deliver?
I do not know what goes on behind closed doors. But I do know that in British Columbia the support for the Senate in its current form is approaching zero. It is seen as a waste of money. That is what we are trying to address here today.
If we could address some of those concerns and say to the people of British Columbia that the budget is like so, the travel budget is like this, and office budgets and so on, then we could say it looks like it is all in order and above board. But when we get the auditor general saying they are inefficient and have no accountability for the way they spend their money I cannot guarantee to the taxpayers of B.C. that their money is being well spent.
Certainly at a political level when somebody says, including the current Prime Minister, that it is not effective, I am not going to argue with him. I agree. The message it sends, both on accountability and the reform of the political institution itself, is it just does not matter and we do not care what you say, or what the people in B.C. think, or Quebec or any other region. If that message is consistently hammered home by the Prime Minister leading up to the next election I do not suppose he will be surprised when he comes out to British Columbia to find a less than hearty welcome from people who are expecting some changes.
The old poem says that a promise made is a debt unpaid. It is from Robert Service. I think that is true for most of us. For example, I promised to opt out of the MP pension plan. I did not do it because I want to live a life of poverty when I grow old. I did it because I promised to do it during the election campaign. I promised also to fly economy class, not that I like my legs shoved up around my chin. However I made a promise to try and save a few dollars. I promised to move into the office of my predecessor and make no changes to the furniture. As a matter of fact I used the same phones and everything he had so it would not cost any money. Those were promises made and I have kept them.
I also promised to treat tax dollars as funds held in trust on behalf of the taxpayers. I can go back in the next election and say that I have kept my promises and I am willing to do it again because I will be running again in the next election.
I do not know what we are supposed to read into the fact that the Prime Minister will not keep his promise. What Reform reads into it, of course, is that the Prime Minister is using this for expediency. He is not really interested in Senate reform. He is not really interested in accountability. He is not interested in saving a few dollars. And he is not really interested in doing better than the treading of water that we have seen for three years.
I heard the hon. member from the Liberal Party say that he was proud of the employment rate that is pushing 10 per cent. I am not happy with that. The government has taken $25 billion or more out of the economy and I am not happy with that.
I am not happy that whenever the heritage minister seems to be in a pickle the finance minister can come up with another $150 million to try to get her out of that bind.
I am not happy that the budget is going to be balanced at some indefinite date off in the future. I want to see a date where we can look forward to some tax relief. There are no promises of tax relief and there never will be unless the government makes a promise, lays out the plan and then follows through. Following through means when you give your word on something. That is a promise and it will happen.
We had the GST promise which set this in motion but can we take them at their word? So far we have not seen any action on the GST. The GST that the government will be placing on reading material in Atlantic Canada will double once this new agreement comes into place.
What did the Prime Minister promise? What did the finance minister promise when he was in opposition? There will be no tax
on reading material. Next month it will be 15 per cent on reading material. It is no wonder people are cynical.
The Senate in the example we are trying to deal with today is numero uno on many people's books of why they feel so cynical about Parliament and the way it is run. There is no accountability. I believe the government wants us to put up a fuss over this item. That is why this particular item on the main estimates has been challenged by Reform. We think that Canadians deserve an accounting for the money that is being spent on their behalf.