Mr. Speaker, you are right, there are some things about this House that we can miss over the summer. I certainly enjoyed the peace and quiet of the country back in Morinville, Alberta. It was just wonderful. We are now back into the fray and debating the estimates.
I have a couple of points. The previous speaker, the member for St. Boniface, takes pride in his accomplishments. It is a real accomplishment that he has been able, through the chairmanship of his committee, to provide a pilot project that would give new information to Parliament. We hope it is going to provide better and more useful information to this House.
The point unfortunately is that once we have this new and improved information and once we are able to see how the government intends to spend the money and we make recommendations to reduce that amount, we are absolutely and totally stonewalled by the members of the government because they say: "Confidence is the order of the day. There is nothing that we can do. Whatever they say they want has to be voted through".
That is the shame about this House, not the other one, this House: the fact that the democratic will of this House is thwarted because the Prime Minister says that confidence applies to the estimates. Therefore any backbencher in the government who wishes to oppose, challenge, reduce or change any figure in these estimates had better think twice. They would not want to be back out in the hustings trying to get re-elected because the government might fall because of one backbencher. They are not prepared to stand up to the Prime Minister.
As a result, the estimates as tabled by the President of the Treasury Board are rammed through this House without any change of any kind being tolerated, regardless of whether or not we get new and improved information courtesy of the member for St. Boniface. It is not to detract from his work which is real and serious work. It is to say that in this House the democratic principle of representation of the people who sent us here to talk about these estimates and to act upon these estimates only allows us to talk about these estimates. That is most important.
Of course, there is the other house. I was quite surprised at the two members of the Bloc Quebecois. The member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley talked about challenging their legitimacy to sit in this House. I thought they would blow a gasket. Their blood pressure went up. The rhetoric got hot and I thought they would stomp right out. Very sensitive they were to the challenges to their legitimacy.
The other House is well and truly entrenched in our Constitution as a legitimate part of this Parliament, albeit unelected, yes. Nonetheless it is part of our Constitution; it is entrenched and has a place in this Parliament. Does the Bloc have a place in this Parliament? That is a serious question and that is why when one questions their legitimacy to sit in this House, Bloc members get so hot under the collar that we have to stand back. Members know how it is.
Anyway, there is the other House. We heard the member for St. Boniface. If they make us an offer, we are prepared to debate the issue.
There was an article in the August 5, 1996 Edmonton Sun . The headline is ``PM's sad slide on the Senate''. I will read from it:
Back in October 1990, the then opposition leader had a vision for the Senate, one he promised to enact. At the time of this momentous disclosure the Prime Minister was addressing 400 delegates at the annual general meeting of the Alberta branch of the federal Liberal Party.
He was speaking to his own converted people. Going on, he said:
Saying it was only the presence of Liberal senators that made the chamber of second thought effective at all, he went on to vow that "The Liberal government in two years will make it elected".
It is now nearly six years later, and the Senate is more a palace of patronage than ever. And as far as we know, the Prime Minister has never uttered the words "elected" and "Senate" in the same sentence since he was elected in 1993.
Talk about promises, talk about the red book. They enact the promises. The Prime Minister stood up in 1990 and said: "I want to see an elected Senate because they have almost stopped the GST from being rammed through against Canadians' will". That is why we need a House of sober second thought. It is to ensure that Canadians are represented. What they want is what they get. When they do not want the GST, they do not want the GST.
The Senate had its finest day in years. The senators were on television every night as they stomped out of the chamber. Of course the Liberal majority frustrated the will of the Tory government in this chamber until the Prime Minister of the day said: "I will fix that. I will appoint a bunch of my cronies to outnumber your cronies and then we will get what I want through that chamber because it is not elected". That is hardly democracy.
I asked the Library of Parliament for some background on the other place and they were kind enough to give me a paper that they had prepared for the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association 30th Canadian regional conference in New Brunswick in August 1990. I will quote from that paper.
On page 2 on the powers of the Senate it states: "The powers of the Senate, which have not been amended since 1867 except with regard to the amendment of the Constitution, are impressive on paper. In formal terms the Senate comes immediately after the Queen and before the House of Commons in the list of components of the Canadian Parliament. For a law to pass it must be agreed to by the Senate. If a bill passed by the House of Commons is amended in the Senate the amendment must in turn be approved by the Commons failing which the entire text will die on the Order Paper.
"Supremacy was conceded to the Commons only in the terms of financial initiatives. Money bills have been subject to dispute since Confederation. In the United Kingdom under the Parliament Act of 1911 it is up to the Speaker of the Commons to certify bills as money bills but no such procedure exists in Canada. It is generally accepted that tax bills, bills of supply and bills of appropriation fall into this category and that such bills may only be introduced in the House but must pass both chambers".
It continues on page 3, where the paper prepared quotes from a book by Mr. Robert A. Mackay, The Unreformed Senate of Canada revised edition 1963, pages 94 and 95 and it states: ``The Senate cannot be said to have abused its powers over money bills. It must be recognized that whatever its legal powers, it has not the same political authority as the Commons and that accordingly on money matters the commons has a clear priority and that the Senate's responsibility and rights are secondary''. They are secondary.
I read those quotes because a committee of this House asked the Senate to appear before the House of Commons committee, which has supremacy on money matters clearly and obviously, to tell this House why we should give the Senate $43 million to carry on its business and it refused.
This House has supremacy, clearly, obviously and distinctly. We are elected by Canadians. We represent Canadians from coast to coast. We, the House of Commons, are the ones who have the power to tax Canadians and we are the ones who have the authority to decide how that money is to be spent. The other place, which is secondary and subordinate to this House on money matters, has refused to appear before us to explain why it needs it. Yet the Prime Minister, his government and his backbenchers later on tonight, I can guarantee it, will vote the Senate every nickel that it has asked for without one question being answered as to why it needs the money and how it is going to spend it.
That is an affront to the people who sit in this House. It is an affront to Canadians who have to pay taxes that we will give the other place $43 million even though it says: "Put it in your face. We are not going to show up and answer your questions as to why we need the money". It is an affront.
Let me say no more about the other place until it is reformed.
On a broader scale, members have heard me talk about the fact that the Prime Minister asks and the Prime Minister gets as far as the estimates are concerned. Whatever we say in this House is of no matter.
Last year the Reform Party put up quite a fight on the estimates. As a result of that fight the government said that it would create a subcommittee of the procedure and House affairs committee on the business of supply to see what could be done to reform this process. I did not think it would be a long, drawn out and complicated affair but unfortunately I have to advise that the subcommittee is still in existence. It has still to file its final report, and here we are 15 months from the time the committee was created.
We have heard the witnesses. We have listened to the people who put the current procedures in place as to why they put them in place and how they feel it is not delivering what they had anticipated. I hoped we would have reported back to the House before now, that we would be discussing these estimates under an amended procedure based on the work of the subcommittee on the business of supply, but it is not to be.
As the Reform Party critic for the Treasury Board, as a gesture of goodwill, we allowed the old process to prevail today. However, we feel this government has no desire to move and to amend the business of supply. We have been absolutely stonewalled about changing and reducing these estimates regardless of how legitimate our arguments are. Be assured that next year when the estimates are presented to the House the Reform Party will vigorously defend to the best of its ability its right to challenge the government to ensure that Canadians become fully aware of the charade that goes on here once every year, and also when we have the supplementary estimates.
It is just a done deal before we even vote because confidence is called by the Prime Minister and they on the other side all fall into line and say: "What the Prime Minister wants, the Prime Minister gets". This is regardless of what the people think, the people who sent them here. Regardless of what they think, what the Prime Minister wants, the Prime Minister gets.
We have heard the stories of responsible management, downsizing, efficiency and so on. What is the government doing? I am sure Canadians are not really aware what it is doing.
Look at some of the numbers: Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation has an increase in budget of 69 per cent. Its budget is going from $10 million last year to $17 million this year, an increase of 69.3 per cent. We have heard the speeches. They have been wonderful and glorious speeches about how the Liberals are cutting the budget and about how the deficit is coming down through their hard work.
Here is something else: The Canadian Museum of Civilization. I am sure we create a lot of jobs down there. It has an increase in its budget of 21 per cent from $38 million to $46 million.
The Canadian Museum of Nature has a 37 per cent increase in budget, from $18 million to $24 million. They must create a lot of jobs in museums these days.
The National Gallery of Canada has a budgetary increase of 20 per cent, from $27 million to $33 million. More museums: The National Museum of Science and Technology has an increase of 33 per cent, from $15 million to $20 million. There is no end.
Remember how critical the Reform Party has been of the minister of heritage and her flagrant and spendthrift waste, waving flags courtesy of the taxpayer. Everyone knows the story.
Status of Women, Office of the Co-ordinator has an increase of 222 per cent, from $4 million to $15 million. All these areas are under the control of the Deputy Prime Minister, that newly elected, wonderful member from Hamilton East who is also the Minister of Canadian Heritage. I am sure she is doing her bit to cut the size of government. Right?