Debates of Sept. 18th, 1996

Supply

[Bernard Deshaies, Bloc, Abitibi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for his spirited and passionate speech pointing out the unnecessary spending the other institution can entail.

I would also like the hon. member to talk about his private member's bill to limit the amounts available to senators and to tell us about the petitions he is receiving from people who want to express their opposition to the Senate.

Perhaps, at the same time, other colleagues may also want to sign this petition, so that his bill can receive more support. Increasingly, Canadians are wondering whether the Senate is really an institution that has outlived its purpose or whether it ought to undergo major reform.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's comments remind me of something that was discussed a few years ago, namely an equitable and equal Senate. One thing is for certain: today's Senate is inequitable and unequal.

Inequitable because senators are appointed for partisan reasons and do not have a mandate from the people. Unequal because representation is totally inconsistent with the role originally intended for the Senate. For these reasons, but especially because of the unnecessary spending, because we saw some senators dozing off on television, I think the Senate should be abolished. This may sound like grandstanding but, as we know, in practice the Senate's role is much more often to represent big business and the banks.

Who are the campaign chairs or co-chairs for the major parties? Senator Hervieux-Payette, and Senator Nolin for the Tories. All the old parties that have appointed senators are using them as political organizers. This makes a mockery of democracy. This is something we should get rid of. That is why there is popular movement to abolish the Senate.

You may tell me that this will not eliminate Canada's deficit, but people expect their members of Parliament to make symbolic gestures to show we are willing to cut at all levels and not always on the backs of the same people.

I expect the third hour of debate on my motion to abolish the Senate to take place in October, probably in the second half. Until then, I would like my campaign to pick up speed and to collect even more signatures for my petition. I hope we can convince a majority of members that most Canadians are clearly in favour of abolishing the Senate in its present form.

We want the public to support us. I will table petitions signed by thousands of people, as will the hon. members for Frontenac and Champlain. Altogether, I think we have collected between 20,000 and 25,000 signatures so far. I think this clearly shows what the people want.

In Quebec, people clearly told us that they want to get rid of this institution; they feel that it is unnecessary, that it costs too much for no good reason. They are tired of having to pay the salaries of people without mandates, whom they are unable to get rid of until they reach the age of 75. To add insult to injury, some of them are even appointed Lieutenant Governor of Canada after having slapped Quebec in the face.

This kind of situation is unacceptable and that is why we must reject the government's estimates, especially the money allocated to the Senate, because it is a blot on Canadian democracy.

Mr. Speaker, in my remarks, I mentioned that all members of the Bloc Quebecois, including myself, will be sharing their time, each of us therefore speaking for 10 minutes.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I thank my hon. colleague. As he indicated, he is sharing his speaking time. Therefore, the hon. member for Frontenac has the floor.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to participate in this debate of particular significance to several of my colleagues and to myself, of course. And I will not even mention how pleased some of my constituents from Frontenac will be when they read what I have to say.

Today's debate plunges us into what I would venture to describe as parliamentary nonsense and political burlesque. I could go on and on about how futile I find the role the Senate plays, or rather, should be playing.

First, I would like to thank the many senators who are following this debate, either from their offices or from the gallery, this afternoon. In this regard, I would like to read you at this time, if I may, a few lines from the March 1995 issue of the Reader's Digest (French edition), on page 31, under the title Très chers sénateurs'' orDear Senators''. I will just make a few remarks, particularly regarding their salary.

"I think all Canadians should know how much it costs to keep the Upper House here, in Ottawa. On top of a $64,000 sessional allowance, a $30,000 research allowance, a $20,000 allowance for office expenses, and a tax-free expense allowance of over $10,000, senators receive benefits of a totally different nature". I will spare you the details.

Canadians should also know that senators must be very fit. Of course, they are only allowed to sit until the age of 75 nowadays,

whereas they used to sit for life. "To keep in shape, to maintain their physical condition, senators have at their disposal a gym which is fully equipped, including climbing simulators, stationary bicycles, bodybuilding equipment, free weights, and I could go on, as well as an aerobics room, with instructors. Only one thing is missing in these state-of-the-art facilities, the senators themselves. One senator only is a regular at the gym: Colin Kenny from Ontario".

In 1991, the then auditor general, Kenneth Dye, dared to take a look at the Upper House. Not to worry, Mr. Speaker, for to audit the senators' expenses, the auditor general had to get the authorization, not of the Prime Minister, but of the senators themselves. This is incredible. Of course, after much negotiation I presume, he obtained the authorization to audit the books.

In concluding, I also invite the Canadians who wish to know more on the subject or to voice their opinion about it to call a toll-free number that I will now give. Canadians who wish to call the senators' office can dial 1-800-267-7362.

Before coming in, I made sure to get the list of Quebec senators. There are 24 of them and, of those 24, there is one independent senator, who was appointed by Mr. Mulroney and who represents the Senate division of de La Salle. There is only one independent senator on my list, Marcel Prud'homme, who, incidentally, closely follows the proceedings of the House of Commons. There are, of course, several other senators from the Liberal and Conservative ranks.

This summer, when I went around asking my constituents to sign the petition to abolish the Senate, I would often ask them to name a few senators.

To be sure, the senator who represents my riding is a total stranger. I am referring to the Senate division of-you see, Mr. Speaker, I am a member of Parliament and I have already forgotten-oh yes, Kennebec and the senator is Guy Charbonneau, who is from the Trois-Rivières area.

Seriously, I was not able to find anyone who could name more than one senator. The best known senator this summer appeared to be Thérèse Lavoie-Roux, since her name came up a few times in the news.

So, as far as Quebecers and Canadians are concerned, senators are total strangers. And this is costing us a fortune. The figure of $43 million has been mentioned, but I think the real figure would more likely be $65 million a year.

There are asbestos mines in my riding. France is about to ban this product on its soil. The French decision has been known for two and a half months already. Up till now, except for a few diplomatic notes, the federal government has not spent a nickel to defend some 2,000 jobs directly related to the mining industry. The banning of asbestos by France will have a disastrous impact on my area and on the Asbestos area.

If we can spend $65 million to maintain 101 jobs, almost for life, for political friends, could we not find $2, $3 or $4 million to promote the use of asbestos and to counter the French decision to ban asbestos on its soil?

Several ministers of this government have travelled across the great region of the Eastern Townships and the asbestos area, saying that they would take that matter up with their colleague responsible for international trade or with their colleague responsible for natural resources. However, nothing has happened and yet the French decision will get implemented in two or three months from now, on January 1 next.

Mr. Speaker, I am asking you, which means could we use to try to make this government understand that it should help us abolish the Senate? You are going to tell me that this would require unanimous consent and that senators would have to accept their demise. How could we do it?

I will give you the recipe. First, we should stop immediately appointing new senators. One of them, Jean-Louis Roux, just resigned. He headed for Quebec City with a slight raise. He now has $94,000, a chauffeur and a nice limousine, and he can also appear on the stage. That is what we call double dipping.

At least, there is a vacancy following the departure of the former senator Jean-Louis Roux. Let us not appoint a new senator to replace him. We would have at least one vacancy, which will save us over $100,000, with all the expenses related to this job.

As soon as some of the senators reach 65 years of age-

[An hon. member]

Seventy-five.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac, QC]

Seventy-five years of age, yes, thank you for reminding me, let us not appoint new ones.

At some point, there will be no senators left, although when we reviewed the list earlier on, we realized that the government, especially the current prime minister, has been generous. I noticed that some senators have been appointed until 2023. Can you imagine, until 2023. As you know, job security, even in the civil service-as I look at the table clerks, is a thing of the past. It does not exist any more. But we still appoint senators until 2023. That is simple awful, as you will agree.

[An hon. member]

Quebec will be sovereign before that.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac, QC]

I hope that Quebec will indeed become sovereign before that.

I am telling you, in my riding, the best known senator is Thérèse Lavoie-Roux, and the senator who has just resigned has also become quite famous, Jean-Louis Roux. But of course he is not responsible for the fame he has acquired, because it is our good old Prime Minister who did not deign to consult, as is the tradition, his counterpart in Quebec in order to arrive at an agreement on an appointment.

I see here, for example, Marie-P. Poulin, who was appointed until the year 2020. This is terrible.

Of course, while our fellow citizens have to tighten their belts, while both spouses often have to work, while everybody in a household has to work, in Quebec, an education-employer sectoral round table was set up to ask employers not to work students too hard, because it has a negative impact on their studies. In many households, 14, 15 or 16-year olds must work to help their parents. But here, in the House of Commons, we appoint senators who profit from the system.

Only this week, I read about a poll done in Great Britain. According to this poll, 52 per cent of the respondents said they were in favour of the abolition of the monarchy; 52 per cent of British respondents said that, while here, in Canada, we have a very British system with a representative of the same Queen who is also costing us a fortune. And all provinces, even the smallest ones, must have a lieutenant governor who is the Queen's representative.

So do you not think that the time has come to put an end to this scandalous waste of public funds? While we are unable to find, at Treasury Board, $3 or $4 million to help save 2,000 jobs in the asbestos mines, we will spend-and I do say spend-needlessly, without getting anything in return, $65 million this year to sustain the Senate. It is a shame. It is outrageous.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, of course, I want to congratulate my colleague from Frontenac for his speech and for giving his voters a chance to express themselves through the petition which is being circulated in his riding.

I would like to ask him a double question. He talked about the senators' involvement in regional issues. On the asbestos issue particularly, the hon. member, like the people from the industry, must have a lot of work to do, and, normally, there should be a senator from the area to help them in their efforts.

During the three years he has been here, did the hon. member see the senator for his area work on an issue of direct regional interest? We do not see those people very often around here. Maybe things are different in his riding. I would like to have his opinion on the subject.

You know, we do not see the senators very often. Of course, there are the two or three we regularly meet in the corridors, like Senator Rivest and Senator Prud'homme. As for the others, we do not see them very often.

The second part of my question is this: Since there is currently a debate on the question in his riding, is it true that his voters think that the Senate should be reformed? What do the people he talked to about Senate reform think? I would also hear his views on that.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my distinguished colleague from Témiscamingue should know that the percentage of success in these tests is very low. If I could, I would ask my colleague from Témiscamingue to give me the name of his Senate division and the name of his senator. I would be willing to bet $10 that he does not know.

In response to his first question, I can tell the hon. member that the senator who represents the division of Kennebec is Guy Charbonneau, who, until recently, was Speaker of the Senate. If he visited the riding of Frontenac, he did it very quietly since we never heard about such a visit. I have never seen the name of our senator mentioned in the newspapers, yet I read them from cover to cover. Even worse, at a press conference held six months ago, I did the test with reporters from the asbestos region and none of them could name the senator who represents us. Yet they all knew the names of the Speaker of the House of Commons and his three assistants. That was good, at least.

The second question is this: Has the senator for our senatorial designation ever tried to do anything about important issues in his designation? To my knowledge, we have never had the slightest assistance from our senator, never.

This afternoon, we were visited by a group of Belgian senators. In Belgium, the senators are elected. In the United States, they are as well.

When we were trying to bring about a major constitutional reform, which was blocked by a few people-I can still remember the feather-we wanted to have a Triple E Senate, which meant equal, among other things. In Quebec we have 24 for a population of seven million, whereas in Prince Edward Island they have three for a population smaller than that of Sherbrooke; four MPs, four senators, they are overrepresented or we are underrepresented. In any event, looking at the results, there is no big difference. But, if senators were elected, I would be in favour.

I remember very clearly a senator saying to me on the way out of the parliamentary restaurant last spring: "As far as I am concerned, the day we are required to campaign to get elected is the day I quit the Senate". That might be a good way to weed out some of them, and it would get results.

My colleague from Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup was again telling us just now in his speech about the television news clip that showed four senators sleeping soundly. Is that not shocking? I remember when television was introduced in the British Parliament and the camera panned the House and showed one MP with his eyes shut; he lost his seat.

[Some hon. members]

Ha, ha.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac, QC]

You are right to laugh. He lost his seat.

I understand that it is not funny for Senator Prud'Homme, who, I agree, is an excellent senator. It is sad for him, but a number of our constituents remind us, and rightly so, of the news program where they saw senators sleeping. There is no more than one throne speech every two years. He could have gone to bed a bit earlier the night before-

[Some hon. members]

Ha, ha.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac, QC]

-because he had to work the next day.

Now, we wanted a triple E Senate. Efficient, not asleep on the job. When I used to hire people to work on our farm, if I had found the guy I was paying to clear stones asleep on the job, he would not have worked for long.

Thank you for your kind attention, and long live a triple E Senate, maybe.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member's time is well and truly up.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Kindersley-Lloydminster.

I am pleased to initiate the first motion to amend the main estimates. My motion, seconded by the member for Kindersley-Lloydminster, will amend vote 1. It proposes that vote 1, in the amount of $40,713,000 under Parliament-Payments to the Senate, program expenditures in the 1996-97 main estimates, be reduced by $10 million.

I would like to give some background to that motion. It goes back to the government operations committee. Last March I moved a motion in committee that we invite the Senate to come before the committee to examine the estimates of the Senate. We debated that motion and the vote was relatively close. The Bloc and the Reform voted in favour and the Liberals were split. However, it went through committee.

In order to send a letter to the Senate there has to be unanimous consent of this House, which we got. The letter went to the the Senate inviting it to come before the government operations committee to basically go over the estimates for the $40 million for the Senate. This was not an untoward request. Any business, household, this House or any other institution has to justify how they are going to spend money. All we were asking was for the Senate to come forward and justify how it was going to spend the $40 million.

However, the senators ignored that request. Subsequently I sent a letter to Senator Kenny, the head of the Senate finance committee, which was also ignored. We asked for a conference between this House and the Senate to discuss these issues. That was ignored. We simply have heard nothing.

My point is that if the senators refuse to come before the committee to justify their expenses, there has to be a reason. What is the reason? The reason could be that they figure they are way over there and that they should not have to justify their expenses, or perhaps they do not want people looking into the estimates because there are areas that they do not want to or cannot explain. I would suggest that could well be the case.

In 1991 the auditor general looked into the accounting process within the Senate. Unfortunately it was a bit of a horror show. This request, which originated from Reform, also has the backing of the auditor general's accounting into the Senate. In 1991 he basically found that it is an inefficient and poorly managed institution. There has been plenty of time, five years, for the Senate to address the concerns of the auditor general and to come before the Canadian public. It was an excellent opportunity to come before the committee and say: "Okay. We are open and above board. The auditor general said there were some major concerns, but we are quite willing to come before the Canadian public and justify our expenses". That did not happen.

I would like to go through some of the points because they are significant in that some areas, including travel and how the accounts are processed, really leave a lot of room for concern for the Canadian public. I will go through a number of these points but I will not belabour them.

These are from the auditor general's report: "The Financial Administration Act does not apply to the Senate. Therefore the usual accountability mechanisms simply do not apply". Another point: "The Senate has neither formally nor informally delegated clear responsibility to management, nor has it made it clear what it will hold management accountable for". Basically, it is a very loose relationship within the Senate management team. Again: "The Senate does not adequately report on its administrative, financial or human resource management performance and does not possess significant information to enable it to do so systematically". Again, it is a very loose system of managing the support staff within the Senate.

The public reporting provided by individual committees does not reflect all expenditures and does not provide detailed information on expenditures, so we have a number of committees basically out on the loose. Their expenditures are not recorded correctly. This is simply not the way to run a business.

If that is the way things were going in this House, we would clean up our act. However, because it is the Senate, apparently it can do whatever it likes. That is the appearance and that is what has Canadians' backs up. They feel that group refuses to be accountable for its actions and refuses to come forward and have its books audited.

To continue with the auditor general's points, basic facts about Senate administration such as organizational structure, operational goals, plans and performance are not published. Amounts reported in the public accounts are incomplete and do not give sufficient information to determine whether the expenses incurred were for "the service of the Senate as required by the Parliament of Canada Act".

Senators are incurring expenses and those expenses cannot be back traced to show that they are related to Senate business. It is really getting to the point of being bizarre. Surely there must be some points. We have the Parliament of Canada Act, yet the senators refuse to abide by it.

I could go on and on. Anybody can pick up the 1991 auditor general's report on the Senate. Auditor General Kenneth Dye went into great detail on some of the areas that need to be tightened up.

The auditor general's report is long and scathing and it notes many areas of possible abuse. That is the point and that is the reason I moved the motion in committee to have the Senate come before our committee.

We have a Liberal government across the way. Before the last election the Liberals took the position: "Elected representatives must be permitted more influence on decisions regarding expenditure priorities. This will require their meaningful involvement in the process before government's actual spending estimates are formally prepared". I would like to ask members across the way how much input they had on the estimates going to the Senate. I would venture to say that it was very little, which is unfortunate.

Talk of Senate reform has gone on for years. My colleagues from the Bloc are advocating abolition of the Senate. My Reform colleagues do not advocate abolition; we feel the Senate has to be reformed. It is an institution that can work and can work very well. However, it cannot work in its present form.

In 1991 the current Prime Minister told the House of Commons: "Reform of the Senate is extremely important. I believe in it. There is nothing sacrosanct about the present division of powers. We must look for a division of powers that best serves the interests of all the people, all the Canadian people". This is from our current Prime Minister. If this quote is accurate, I would expect that Liberals across the way and Reformers would all want to have a Senate that works, that is not a patronage haven for the old boys and the old girls, but an institution that works.

I will return to the American and the Australian examples because their Senates work. In each case, oddball goofy legislation does not go through the lower house because they know it will never go through the upper house. Those are Senates that work. Unfortunately some of that legislation goes through this House and lands on a Senate that is ineffective and inactive.

I would like to sum up with the issue of accountability. We have a vote this evening on the estimates of the Senate. I challenge members on the government side. They do not know what they are voting for in the estimates for the Senate. They cannot because other than lump sums, the Senate committees have failed to come before us to justify exactly what the expenditures are.

Are government members going to vote as they are told or are they going to question these estimates? If they are going to question them, why are they not putting more pressure on the senators to come before the government operations committee to bring forward their reasons why some of the travel budgets, some of the staffing and some of the accounting procedures are so out of whack?

I sum up with the analogy of the dinosaur and where I see the Senate right now. A group of dinosaurs are sitting on the edge of the swamp. They can either carry on there and in a hundred million years we will find them as a lump of coal, or they can turn around and back up. Others will say the dinosaurs are gone anyway.

The point is that the Senate has an opportunity right now to come into the 20th and 21st centuries and not become dinosaurs but become part of an institution that really works, an institution that this country is crying for. We need the two Houses to work well together and right now they are not. Right now we have a lower House that moves through the legislation and the upper House that is just rubber stamping it.

My last point is that we must have accountability. The Senate has refused to be accountable. My motion to reduce the estimates by $10 million stands and I move that motion.

[Bernard Deshaies, Bloc, Abitibi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to ask a question of my colleague from the third party. The hon.

member mentioned that the senators have refused to come before the committee to account for the funds they received.

I have two questions for him. First does he believe that the Senate could justify what it receives considering its present political relevance? Secondly, since my colleague compared senators to dinosaurs, ma question is the following: If a majority of Canadians were in favour of the abolition of the Senate since dinosaurs have disappeared, should the Senate be abolished to make way for a new political vision? Otherwise, what would be the solution?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the questions. If I understood the question on relevance correctly I believe it is relevant to have the senators come before the committee. What is quite relevant is the fact that the Senate is being handed a blank cheque for $40 million of Canadian taxpayers' money. There has to be accountability and that is the whole reason for the motion.

On the second point the difference between the views of the Bloc and Reform of the Senate is whether the Senate should be abolished, as the Bloc is basically moving toward, and the Reform view that it needs to be brought into the 20th and 21st century as a triple E Senate.

I used the analogy of the dinosaurs. If the senators keep going the way they are going with no reforms they will join the dinosaurs. If members wandered into the Senate these days they might think they are mired in a swamp a hundred million years ago.

I hope I have answered my colleague's questions and if there are any more I would be delighted to answer them.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Hamilton—Wentworth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am in great sympathy with the motion from my colleague from the third party.

I point out to the House that what is at issue is not just accountability, which is key to the issue, but also that the Senate would like the country to believe it is a house equal in authority to the House of Commons.

The reality is that there is only one highest authority in this land and that is this House of Commons which is responsible to every aspect of the land. It is the ultimate chamber of accountability. The Senate must be subject to that because it is not elected as are we in the House of Commons.

I strongly endorse the motion put forward by the member for the third party, even though he is a political opponent. He is right. He is on the right track. Accountability from the Senate will make a responsible Senate and the Senate can therefore contribute materially to this nation in a very responsible way.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the privilege of speaking to my colleague's motion to reduce the estimates of the Senate by some $10 million.

The member for Comox-Alberni spoke very eloquently regarding the Senate. He gave us a lot of facts and he also told about the unaccountability of the Senate. I too will touch on the unaccountability but I want to talk a little about some principles and some attitudes as well as accountability with regard to this matter.

First of all, whose money are we talking about? If we look at the estimates, it says $40.700-some for the Senate. Someone might say that this is the Senate's money. It is not the Senate's money. It is Canadians' money because these are taxpayers' dollars. Some of that money is yours and mine and the other 29 million Canadians who support the Senate through their tax contributions.

We are talking about reducing spending by the Senate by $10 million in this motion. That $10 million is not the Senate's dollars. We are not taking $10 million from the Senate. What we are doing is talking about how we are going to spend $10 million of taxpayers' money.

In Kindersley-Lloydminster, if someone is speaking to a group or to an individual and wants to draw a laugh, start talking about the Senate. That is the esteem in which the Senate is held by average Canadians. We are spending $40 million for something about which Canadians do not think very highly. The attitude of Canadians is that the Senate, in the form in which it now exists, is not a very good investment.

I can guarantee that if someone surveyed Canadians from one end of this country to another and if they had any criticism of this motion, they would say that they are not reducing the Senate's spending by enough. Ten million dollars is pretty modest. After all, that is our money and we think it could be put to better use.

I think of my own riding of Kindersley-Lloydminster. How could that money be used in Kindersley-Lloydminster? Because of health care funding cuts, hospital have been closed in the Kindersley-Lloydminster constituency. It means that while there are still some good health care facilities available, some people might not get there on time. Lives may actually be lost because of the health care cuts experienced in Kindersley-Lloydminster.

I also have a stretch of the Yellowhead highway that goes through my constituency near Lloydminster and also near Saskatoon. A lot of that highway is still two-way traffic. It is one of the major transportation arteries across this country. Funding in part to upgrade that highway is a federal responsibility. There has been talk and commitments of upgrading the Yellowhead highway.

I know the constituents in the Lloydminster area would much rather see this $10 million go into highway construction on the Yellowhead than see an unaccountable Senate spending those dollars on what we know not.

The concern of Canadians is why would they fund something for which they have no respect? Our concern should be then, what do we do about it? Immediately, what we can do is reduce their funding. There are some longer term things that need to be done. My colleague from Comox-Alberni has touched on that.

Certainly he has tried to initiate some accountability from the Senate and I appreciate his endeavour. He requested the Senate to appear before this House and account for how those dollars are spent. It was not a very threatening request. It was fairly civil and fairly reasonable, in fact very reasonable and very important. It was an opportunity for the Senate to justify the way it has been spending tax dollars but it ignored his request. That tells us a bit about the attitude of the Senate itself. Canadians' attitude may not be good toward the Senate but it is reciprocated by the Senate, which has a very low opinion of Canadians and of its role in accounting for the money that it spends.

There is a difference between this House and the other place. In this House we are held accountable. We can hold one another accountable in debates and so on and how we vote on legislation, but there is that accountability that comes at election time.

One of our colleagues actually wrote a letter to the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix which is published in today's edition and it is absolutely wrong. This member for Saskatoon-Humboldt said: ``In June I spoke in the House of Commons in opposition to a Reform Party motion aimed at the destruction of the Canadian Wheat Board''. People who read Hansard could look there and they would not find one word by one Reformer who ever called or indicated any aim of ours to destroy the Canadian Wheat Board. We talked about reforms to the board, improving the board and the long term viability of the board but in no case did we ever talk about the destruction of the board. In fact we said that is not what we want to accomplish.

The member for Saskatoon-Humboldt can be held accountable. We can talk to her constituents and they have an opportunity at the next election not to vote for her if she was wrong on this issue, which she was, and in other areas in which she may be wrong.

That is not the case with senators. They are not accountable. They are patronage appointments. Once they have that seat in the other place they are pretty comfortable. They can pretty well do whatever they want. They can make statements that are rather ridiculous like the statement made by the member for Saskatoon-Humboldt and nobody can challenge them. Canadians have no way to hold them accountable. They do not have to be answerable for their actions, for their words and for their deeds.

Everyone in this House would agree that is not a very healthy situation. We need to bring more accountability to the Senate. Perhaps if we vote them $10 million less of Canadian taxpayers' dollars to spend it will wake them up. Some of my Bloc colleagues have been talking about them sleeping. Sometimes when you take some money out of your back pocket it wakes you up if you are sleeping and that is what this motion intends to do.

We have on record Liberal promises to the effect that the Liberal Party, if it was in government, would reform the Senate. There are more broken promises. We have a promise from the Prime Minister that he is committed to an elected Senate. He has not kept that promise which is one of many that the Liberals have broken. We wonder how much longer Canadians will let the Liberals get away with making promises that they have absolutely no intention of fulfilling.

We do not even need a constitutional change to invite the provinces to elect senators. We have already had one elected Senator in this place, Senator Stan Waters, who has since passed away. He was elected by the people of Alberta and the then prime minister appointed an elected person to the Senate. It seems funny to appoint an elected person, but because of our Constitution that is the only way it can be done. A long term project would be to fix that process.

As the House knows, I am a committed supporter of the triple E concept. I want to see an elected, an effective and an equal Senate. It is certainly very important to the people of Saskatchewan. For the Liberals, as I said, who promised an elected Senate we just have to look at the record. Since they took office in the fall of 1993 they have appointed 18 Senators and most of them for a very partisan activity.

It is very interesting for me because I am the agriculture critic that one of the senators is Eugene Whelan who has a long history of being involved in agriculture. He was appointed on August 9. It would be great to have someone who is a voice for agriculture in the Senate if they were accountable. If farmers could say: "We want you to vote this way and if you don't, we don't want you in the Senate any more". Of course Mr. Whelan is in there until he is 75 years of age. The farmers have no way of removing Mr. Whelan from the Senate should he not represent their interests in the Senate.

Mr. Whelan is from Ontario and so he should be representing the interests of Ontario farmers; the corn producers, soybean producers and the milk producers. However, Mr. Whelan can just support the Liberal agenda no matter whether it is good for the farmers of Ontario or not. That is extremely unfortunate. I do really think that when one makes a promise it is extremely important to keep it.

We talked about the attitude of Canadians toward the Senate. Canadians have an attitude toward us in this place as well. We had better be on our toes and perform for Canadians, or the attitude or esteem they hold us in may not be much better than the attitude or esteem they have for the Senate. The one way to build up people's confidence and trust is to keep one's promises.

In the red book the Liberals criticized the Conservative practice of choosing political friends when making thousands of appointments to boards, commissions and agencies that cabinet is required by law to carry out. They also campaigned on integrity in government, patronage appointments and lack of accountability in the Senate. They have clearly broken these promises.

I quote from the Prime Minister. In October 1990 in the province of Alberta, out west where there is real call for Senate reform, he spoke to the federal Liberal Party and said that in two years the Liberal government would make it elected. Obviously the Liberals were in opposition then so we have to understand that he meant two years after the Liberals formed the government. I think that is fair to say.

Let us look at when the Liberals formed the government. It was in October 1993. A little simple math tells us that two years later would be October 1995, which is almost one year ago, and this promise has not been kept. There is not even the slightest indication in the throne speech that the Prime Minister intended to keep his promise. There have been no words from members on the other side that the Liberals intended to keep this promise. What are we to conclude but that he never meant it. It is another broken promise.

In 1991 the Prime Minister changed a bit. He said that he would propose a 2E and a 1R Senate: elected, effective and representative of the regions. This is not what we called for but it is an improvement. We would look for the Liberals to do what they usually do, and that is a half-baked job. They have not even done that.

It is time to conclude my presentation. I certainly support the motion to reduce spending in the Senate by a mere $10 million. I could have supported more. To wake senators up perhaps we need to make them a bit hungry. If they were a bit hungry they would not be going to sleep over there. In fact they might be a little more interested in reforming themselves. They might be a little more interested in coming over here and accounting for tax dollars they are spending, which would make Canadians feel a whole lot better.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I think we should set the record straight. In 1992 the Reform Party had an opportunity to support major Senate change in the Charlottetown accord. Of course the Reform Party campaigned against it. So much for the Reform Party's credibility on that issue.

On the motion brought forward by the hon. member, our friends opposite are mixing two issues. One is the issue of Senate accountability and the other is the issue of the future of the Senate. I do not think there is anyone in the House of Commons who does not want major change when it comes to the Senate. I certainly want major change. I am not even too sure whether we should have a bicameral legislature.

The other issue-and the member should not be mixing the two-is the issue of accountability. I would be much more impressed if the hon. member, a number of months ago, had simply walked down the halls of Parliament to the Senate, presented himself to the Senate's finance committee, and demanded a change in the way the Senate accounts to Parliament and to the Canadian people. When he did what he did in trying to force the Senate's hand through the committee on government operations, it looked like grandstanding. It looked like he was trying to put on a show.

For all intents and purposes the other place is autonomous and separate from this Chamber. If we want greater accountability from the other place, which is what I want, we have to follow proper procedures. This motion and what the hon. member tried to do in the last few months only get the senators' hackles up. If we want to do this properly and with credibility, we go to the Senate and force it to hold a hearing to deal with this question. We should not do it the way the hon. member has tried to do it. It simply does not have credibility and will not work. It has been shown that in the last few months his attempts have fallen flat. He got absolutely nowhere with senators because they have their pride whether or not it is wrongly placed. Those are my comments.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Winnipeg St. James for his comments. My colleague followed the proper procedure. He was not grandstanding, which is proven by the fact that the House gave unanimous consent. Members of the Liberal party supported what he was trying to do. Unanimous consent is the consent of the NDP, Bloc, Liberal and Reform. All agreed that the Senate should be held more accountable. The member for Comox-Alberni met in a very respectable way with Senator Kenney to request that type of co-operation, and they thumbed their noses at a very responsible approach.

The member mentioned the Charlottetown accord and said that Reform refused its opportunity to support Senate reform. He must have a very short memory. He probably does not recall some of the changes called for in the Charlottetown accord regarding the Senate. It was actually kind of a racist approach to Senate reform. If I remember correctly, Senate seats were based on heritage, ethnic origin. There had to be so many francophone senators and

the majority of them had to vote for legislation that affected language and culture. Talk about pulling scabs off wounds inflicted hundreds of years ago.

Anyone who supported the Charlottetown accord and the type of Senate reform that it was calling for would have done a terrible disservice to Canada. Canadians supported Reform's opposition to the Charlottetown accord by voting against it and by voting against the judgment of the Liberals and Conservatives who tried to impose this terrible piece of legislation on Canadians.

I applaud Canadians. I am very disappointed in the member for suggesting that anyone should stoop to supporting to Charlottetown accord.

[George Baker, Liberal, Gander—Grand Falls, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who just spoke opened his speech by stating the reason he was making his points was that the federal government had responsibility for reconstructing a road in his constituency. Could the hon. member give the House a yes or no reply to the question whether he is agreement with the Reform party's budget published last year, which said the federal government should get out of the business of road construction and turn it over to the private sector so that the general public could pay for the road through tollgates?

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member does not pay very much attention to what Reformers have been saying about roads. If he had done so, he would realize why we did so very well in the Labrador byelection when we talked about a road that needed to be built in that part of Canada for which the Liberals had absolutely no regard and almost lost the byelection over. Reform had zero votes in 1993 and almost won the byelection in 1995.

I take some solace in the fact that Reform listens to Canadians and knows where they want to spend dollars. Reform does not support spending where the federal government does not belong. We stand by our budget. We stand by spending money for federal infrastructure where the federal government is required to play a role.

[Ovid Jackson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to members of the House today on the subject of full supply of the estimates for fiscal year 1996-97. This year the main estimates total $157 billion, a reduction of $7.2 billion compared to the 1995-96 main estimates.

Of the $157 billion, $111.7 billion or 71 per cent represents statutory payments authorized by Parliament in previous years. The government is seeking approval to spend the remaining $45.3 billion for programs that rely on annual appropriations.

To improve the information available to parliamentarians on the main estimates and their relationships to the budget, this year the government introduced a new document entitled "Program Expenditure Detail: A Profile of Departmental Spending". This new document, while not formally constituting part of the estimates, combines federal program spending details previously presented in both part I of the estimates and the budget. Presenting spending information on a basis consistent with the expenditure plan contained in the budget provides parliamentarians with a bridge between the budget document and other estimate documents.

The government has maintained its resolve to reduce program spending. In 1996-97 program spending including public debt charges is $109 billion or $5.4 billion less than the 1995-96 main estimates. This is an important achievement. It demonstrates that the government's program review continues to have a significant impact on the level of program expenditure requirements.

If we examine the composition of spending, it is evident that most sectors of government show a decrease in planned program spending compared to the 1995-96 levels. In the estimates we categorize program spending in 10 sectors. Expenditures on social programs represent the largest component of program spending at 46 per cent.

Social sector major transfers to persons which include veterans pensions and allowances, unemployment insurance and elderly benefits constitute 34 per cent of this amount. The remaining 12 per cent is allocated to social programs directed primarily at employment, health and housing initiatives, programs that benefit aboriginal peoples, and immigration and citizenship programs.

Direct program expenditures for 1996-97 in the social sector are $13.2 billion or 2.4 per cent less than in 1995-96. Reductions in direct program expenditures in the social area have been facilitated by clarification of core mandates of the social program departments, a key element of the program review process.

I will provide the House with a few examples of adjustments departments in the social sector are making to serve Canadians better with declining resources.

Health Canada is achieving spending reductions by maximizing efficiencies, refocusing its programs and implementing cost recovery initiatives, more specifically to shift the burden of paying for some services away from the general taxpayer to industry clients that benefit most directly from them. These were introduced for some health protection services.

In addition, efficiency measures are being undertaken by consolidating food inspection services in Health Canada with those of the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans into a single food agency.

Another department in the social sector implementing innovative approaches while reducing program spending is Human Resource Development Canada. HRDC's program spending will decrease by $419 million in 1996-97. Yet HRDC will continue to develop further its services orientation with an increased emphasis on responding to the needs of specific communities and on management by results.

To illustrate this, over the next years a new service delivery network will combine offices, kiosks, electronic online services and community partnerships to integrate the department's services and improve access for our clients. Programs and services will reflect local priorities and offer more points of service through the application of new technologies.

The heritage and cultural program sector is important to all of us. It supports the growth and development of Canadian culture and life, the nation's linguistic duality, its diverse multicultural heritage, and the preservation of parks and historic sites. Expenditures in this sector amount to $2.5 billion in 1996-97 or approximately 5 per cent of the total direct program spending.

The main estimates in this sector have also decreased. For example, planned spending for the Department of Canadian Heritage in 1996-97 will decline by 4.4 per cent relative to the 1995-96 level.

Many are aware of the significant changes which are occurring in the natural resource based program sector. This sector, which accounts for 5 per cent of direct program spending, supports sustainable development to maximize economic benefits while protecting and enhancing the quality of our environment.

For example, in agricultural programs we are moving in partnership with the provinces from commodity based agricultural subsidies to a whole farm safety net focusing on income stabilization rather than income support.

Costs are also being reduced in the natural resource based programs by addressing overlap and duplication. Consolidation of activities, such as the merging of the Canadian coast guard fleet with that of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans delivers services more efficiently to clients.

In the industrial, regional and scientific technological sector program orientation has been altered significantly. Our objective in this sector is to foster economic growth and job creation through measures that stimulate private sector investment across Canada, encourage regional development and promote and a stronger science and technology capability in Canada. Program expenditures of $3.6 billion will shift from direct business subsidies to more active business support measures. The focus of federal regional agencies will be on community based economic development and improving access by small and medium sized enterprises to commercial financing. Any remaining direct contribution programs will be fully repayable.

As a result of the major restructuring initiatives which are under way in the transportation sector, transportation programs will spend $400 million less in 1996-97 than in 1995-96. Program expenditures of $1.9 billion will be redirected from operating and subsidizing specific elements of the transportation infrastructure to focusing on policy development and ensuring standards for safety and security. Furthermore, commercialization of many services is being implemented to increase effectiveness in the transportation sector and to enhance responsiveness to local needs.

The general government services sector includes departments and agencies which provide central services in support of operations of government. It also includes, under the department of finance, transfer payments to the provinces and territories which are paid pursuant to the federal-provincial transfer payment program.

Although transfer payments are not part of the direct program expenditures which have been the focus of my remarks, these transfer payments to other levels of government like social sector transfer payments to persons described earlier, are part of the total program spending.

Major transfers to all levels of government include the Canada health and social transfers, transfers to territorial governments, fiscal equalization payments and other major transfers such as statutory subsidies and grants in lieu of taxes to municipalities. In 1996-97, major transfers to other levels of government will total approximately $29.1 billion.

To return to direct program expenditures, the government services sector has rethought how it delivers services in order to increase efficiency and cost effectiveness. For example, the Department of Public Works and Government Services contains three special operation agencies: the Canada Communication Group, Consulting and Audit Canada and the Translation Bureau, which are financed on a revenue dependent basis. The net spending of the Department of Public Works and Government Services will decrease by $98 million in 1996-97 as the department continues to explore ways to streamline operations and reduce costs.

I would like to conclude my remarks in support of a full supply by noting that the government will continue to use innovative approaches, new technologies and organizational reforms because of the positive results it is achieving in all sectors. The government is improving efficiency, reducing costs and making programs more responsive to the needs of Canadians.

I trust that members will support our request for full supply in the 1996-97 main estimates. We are on the right track of fiscal responsibility combined with a better program and service delivery for Canadians.