Mr. Speaker, this is a great amendment and very timely.
The standing orders allow us only so many opportunities to speak of the other place, the Senate. Normally we leave the Senate to do its own thing and we do the House of Commons things here and never the twain shall meet.
On occasion there are bills that mention the Senate, in this case the appointment of a senator and the process that should apply. This bill gives us an opportunity to point out to Canadians that the way senators are appointed does not have to be done as it is done now. This amendment says that the appointment process has so discredited the other place over the years because of friends of the Prime Minister being appointed ad nauseam who are expected to be loyal to him until death do us part or age 75, whichever comes first. That process has been going on now for the life of the nation, far too long.
It is interesting that a recent poll indicates that some 43% of Canadians think the Senate should be elected. A further 41% say it should be abolished. They have given up on the place. I understand where they are coming from when they say the place is a boondoggle. The place is a waste of money, a patronage infested place based on protocol, geritol and alcohol and they do not want to have anything to do with it. So 41% of the people say they do not want anything to do with it. They would like to abolish the Senate.
That is unwise and I hope to talk to the 41% during these brief remarks. A Senate that was elected and is accountable to the electorate and not to the Prime Minister who sent him or her into that exalted office would be able to represent the concerns of their region or province in a regional manner that the House of Commons does not reflect. The House of Commons is by necessity and must remain by and large representation by population.
I accept the principle that the larger provinces have the larger sway in this place. There are 103 members from Ontario. That is as it should be. There is a big population in Ontario that will for the foreseeable future dominate the House of Commons in representation, not necessarily in the quality of presentations but at least in numbers, as it should be.
What about the more sparsely populated regions of the country? Who looks after their interests in this place? You can do your best as a representative of a smaller province population wise, a province like Prince Edward Island or Saskatchewan, provinces that do not have a burgeoning population or any prospects of that happening soon. But three or four or half a dozen voices in a sea of three hundred and one seats are almost voices in the wilderness.
A Senate accountable to the voters of Saskatchewan or of P.E.I., not the Prime Minister, would allow those senators to have a strengthened role in the upper place to review legislation and to have a serious sober second thought on legislation. They would be able to represent regional interests and disparities that this place does not do a perfect job of.
They could be given enhanced roles on everything from the selection of supreme court justices to the review of that sort of thing and review of other government appointments. They could serve an excellent role being a check and balance on the ever increasing powers of the Prime Minister and his office. That would be a wonderful thing.
In the Nunavut bill we have a provision that says the old system is the good system. It says the senator should be appointed and he should come from among the cadre of the Prime Minister's friends, answerable to him and his party.
I have heard the Prime Minister say in this House that he would appoint a senator into that other place and he will do the work of the Liberal Party. That is his or her job. What a sad thing as we approach the 21st century that we are still living in the days of the House of Lords where depending on who you knew rather than on the confidence of the people, you got a position in an exalted place. It used to be an exalted place. That is really unfortunate.
Now is the perfect time to initiate change. The amendment says let us give the people of Nunavut an opportunity to elect their senator into the other place. Nunavut by and large is inhabited by aboriginal people. I do not know the percentage but they populate a very high proportion of the Nunavut region. I think they have an opportunity to send someone they have confidence in, someone they are friends with, associated with or have respect for at least.
That person may or may not be of any political stripe, they may be Liberal, Tory, NDP, Reform. I do not really even care because if they had the confidence of the people of Nunavut what an opportunity for those people to lead the way for the nation. They would be able to say they are electing a representative to the upper house who would represent the Nunavut region, not the Prime Minister.
Every time an issue comes up dealing with the Arctic, dealing with aboriginal issues, an Arctic conference which now takes place from time to time, every time there are land claims or anything happening in the region, a mine, a caribou herd, whatever it might be they will be there to represent their people.
What a concept. The senator would not be there to represent the Prime Minister, not to ensure anything going speedily through the Senate, if anything can be done speedily in the Senate, but to ensure the people of that region are properly represented. Would that not be a good and healthy step toward democratizing the other place? I think it would be a grand and wonderful step.
It would be a wonderful thing to give that ability to this area north of 60 that is in a fledgling manner feeling its way toward a democratic system under which it is to be governed. It is actually building the structures there right now.
What an opportunity for those people to say during the fledgling and expanding part of their democracy that they are going to be the pace setters and lead the way. That would be a wonderful thing for the people up north to be able to say, that they are leading the way in Senate reform.
Eighty-four per cent of people say either elect the senators or get rid of them, one or the other. This would allow those people to say let us see if it makes a difference. Here is a tiny first step. There is only one but there is one. One person can make a difference not only in setting a trend but in just showing that it can work better. It did happen before in the Senate selection process in Alberta a few years ago. Senator Stan Waters became the first person elected in a provincial senatorial selection.
The prime minister of the day said that while it is his privilege under our constitution to appoint senators, recognizing the wisdom of placing into the Senate the person who was duly elected, Mr. Mulroney said that makes democratic sense. He said that it made sense and he appointed Stan Waters even though Stan Waters was a Reformer.
Mr. Waters went to the Senate. Those of us in the Reform Party often remember his call to arms about keep on marching. He was a very self-disciplined man. He gave the keep on marching orders as he went into the Senate. Unfortunately he passed away all too soon. Perhaps the long term impact of his presence was not felt as it could have been had he been there longer.
This amendment would do more than any other single thing to restore the faith of those 84% who have given up on the Senate.
Other things can be done with the Senate. For example, there is a person on Parliament Hill in one of the parliamentary buildings who is no longer a senator but who still gets accommodations. He has a suite of offices. He has access to the phones. He has facilities paid for by the taxpayer and he is not even a senator. He is a retired senator. He has been out of office for a couple of years already.
When senators have finished their job, when they are 75 years old, it is time to get out and write their memoirs, smoke their pipes at the beach, gaze out over the ocean and start writing. There is a maximum age in the other place. It is the rule. The rule on retirement at 75 seems to be a reasonable one. The ex-senator, past senator or whatever he is should move on.
If we were to elect a senator from Nunavut, perhaps he could even use that same suite of offices. He could move right in and say that this was the way it used to be where the senator kind of moved in. If they were the friend of the prime minister they got the seat and not only that, they got the offices even after their job was finished.
We could do something very symbolic and say he moves in and takes either that office or Senator Thompson's old digs. That of course is an option as well, since Senator Thompson is as they say in the funeral parlour business, no longer with us. His offices are available. Either one of those offices would be very symbolic in saying that is what is wrong with the Senate and this fresh new face, this elected person is what is right with the new Senate.
There is no doubt we would hear the cheering in Ottawa from the people of Nunavut who would say “Ah, my senator, my guy, my woman is down there right now holding to the fire the feet of the Liberal government and the opposition. In fact, they are doing their job representing my region”. That is what those people are going to say, if and only if the person is elected.
If the person is appointed, unfortunately there will be 41% saying to abolish the Senate and 43% saying to elect it. And there will be another .5% saying “Look at that, another boondoggle. The prime minister picked somebody who raised money for him, who campaigned for him, who golfs with him, who helped him with his investments or who knows what all. He or she gets an appointment in the Senate. Thanks for nothing”. That is what they are going to say. “I thought I was sending somebody down there and paying his or her wages to represent me and my area, my region. Instead I hear from the prime minister that he or she is there to represent the prime minister and the Liberal Party”. That is just not good enough.
To the people of Nunavut, I suggest it could be done in a dozen different ways. A poll could be done. There could be a questionnaire but that is not even necessary. Eighty-five per cent of them will say “Let me send the senator from among us, not from among the Liberal Party”.
What a glorious opportunity we have in this House to change the course of Canadian history. Maybe it has to be one at a time. Alberta is going to hold a similar election this fall to select people. It will then ask the prime minister to appoint them to the other place as a halfway step to reforming the Senate.
If the people of Nunavut could lead the way it would be a great opportunity for them to say they championed a cause and were in the forefront of positive change in the House of Commons. That would be a wonderful thing for them and this institution. It would be a wonderful thing for the Senate which I think is clamouring for some direction and a positive role. It needs something positive in that place.
It would set a precedent. Alberta could be next and then B.C. which also has a Senate electoral act in place. Maybe even Saskatchewan would follow because it is now considering a Senate electoral act. And so on and so on until the other place is elected and effective. Then we could work toward the third goal of rejigging the numbers in the other place, but at least with people who are standing up on a public podium telling the people what they stand for and what they will do for their region if they are elected. Their responsibility would then be to the people and not to the prime minister.
As they say in other circles, what a glorious day it will be when we have an elected Senate instead of the patronage trough that the other place unfortunately has become.