Debates of June 8th, 1999

Main Estimates, 1999-2000

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Qu'Appelle, SK]

That seems like a lot of money for the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre.

It might be better if there were some system of accountability but what kind of accountability is there? Can the members for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Calgary West or Sarnia—Lambton know how we are accountable for this money?

Tonight maybe a lot of people are channel flipping between hockey games and baseball games and are watching this debate. Sixty million dollars is being spent. The Liberal member across the way laughs, but tonight there is going to be a vote and he has to be accountable to his constituents on how he votes. Is he going to vote for spending $60 million a year for that unelected undemocratic house?

There was a request by a lot of MPs to have Senator Rompkey, who is the chair of the internal board of economy for the Senate, to appear before the relevant committee of the House of Commons. He would not appear. He refused to appear to justify the estimates and the expenditures of the Senate of Canada.

Every department has to appear before the relevant committee of the House. The Ministry of Transport, the Ministry of Agriculture and Agri-Food, the CRTC, the Canadian Wheat Board, they all have to be there, except the Senate of Canada. Senator Rompkey said no that he was not accountable to the House of Commons, yet the House of Commons has to sign this blank cheque for the Senate of Canada.

Even the member for Brandon—Souris, that famous Tory who supported David Orchard for the leadership, must be hanging his head in shame on this one. I can hear him rattling his head from this far away. Is he going to get up and say he is going to sign this blank cheque for the Senate of Canada? His constituents are watching as they flip channels tonight. They are watching.

Senator Rompkey refused to appear before any committee of the House of Commons. No senator has justified the expenditures. No senator has been willing to sit there and be cross-examined by members of parliament asking why they want to spend so much money on the salary for Senator Balfour, or on a restaurant, or on a tunnel, or on a fancy committee room, or for travelling the world to study boreal forests and so on. They are not doing that.

What Canadians should do is take out their pencils and paper because the Senate unlike the House of Commons has a toll free number. We do not have a toll free number but it has one. They should call a senator. The member for Sarnia—Lambton did not know who Senator James Balfour was. Phone him tonight. Give him a call. They can call a senator at 1-800-267-7362. Does the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre remember that number? Can the member from Calgary remember that number?

That is what the Canadian people should be doing tonight and tomorrow. Pick up a phone and call their favourite senator. Ask why senators had a 10% increase last year, a 6% increase this year, a 16% increase over two years more than any government department received, more than the Department of Health for medicare, more than the educational system in this country, more than the salary increase the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre was lobbying for. People should do that.

I am anxious to see how the House will vote tonight on this particular motion, including our Conservative Party friend from Brandon.

We had a little demonstration outside the Senate today. A member from the Reform Party, the Liberal Party, the New Democratic Party and the Bloc Quebecois organized a little rally. No one from the Conservatives was there. They did not show up. Their caucus is dominated by senators. They were not there. They have a lot of senators in that caucus. They could have been there protesting this huge cash grab by the Senate of Canada.

The time has come for members of parliament to reflect what their constituents are saying when it comes to the Senate. About 5% of the people support the existing Senate. The rest either want to abolish it or reform it, change it in some way. Members of parliament should be listening to what their constituents are saying and reflecting what their constituents are saying.

I challenge every member of parliament, including the member for Brandon—Souris, to go out and knock on doors in their ridings. Ask the first 10 people on the street whether or not they support the existing Senate. Unless they run into a senator from Manitoba, the answer will be a resounding no. We should start reflecting that in the House of Commons and actually do in this place what the people of this country want us to do.

I also believe along with many others in the House that the Senate should be abolished. I also know there are members of the federal cabinet who would be on the record for talking about abolishing the Senate. The external affairs, constitutional affairs and industry ministers among others have spoken out at various times in the past about the abolition of the Senate.

The reason I am saying that is I have given up on the idea that we are going to reform the Senate. It has been tried ad nauseam year in and year out. We have had 132 years of the existing Senate. As the member for Sarnia—Lambton said, 132 years ago it was set up as part of our constitutional framework because we copied the model in Great Britain.

In 1867 the people elected the house of commoners. The people here were commoners. The aristocracy in those days thought there should be someone looking down on the commoners and keeping them in line. That was the House of Lords or the Senate in this country.

We have long evolved through that system where the commoners have to be looked upon and controlled by the aristocracy or the elite. We have come to the position now where there is no place for an unelected, undemocratic, unaccountable house. I believe we are never going to reform the Senate. There are many people in the Reform Party, some Liberals and some Tories who think we can still reform that place.

We can still have the equality of the provinces, with Prince Edward Island with as many senators as Ontario or as many senators as Quebec. Quebec has seven million people and Ontario has ten million. Prince Edward Island has 130,000 people. But we are never going to get an agreement that will call for the equality of all those provinces in terms of the configuration of a new Senate. I believe it is never going to happen.

We should go out across the country and campaign among the people of Canada. Between now and the next federal election we should campaign on the issue of abolishing the other place. Make it an issue in the next campaign. Force the people in all political parties to take a position on what they want to do with the Senate.

If we do that and we get rid of the other place we then have to reform the House of Commons and bring into this place many of the things the Senate was supposed to do. It was supposed to be a place for checks and balances. It was supposed to be a place to review legislation. That is obviously not happening in the other place.

We can do it here by strengthening parliamentary committees, by having fewer confidence votes, by having more free votes. We can do it by giving the committees of the House of Commons the power to initiate legislation, initiate studies and reviews. There can be better budgets for committees so they can set their own timetables, and they can actually timetable when legislation must come to the House of Commons.

It is also time to take away power from the executive, namely the Prime Minister. This is no criticism of any particular Prime Minister; it is a criticism of our system. The Prime Minister's office in Canada has immense power to appoint cabinet ministers, parliamentary secretaries, parliamentary committees, even though there is a so-called election in the committees. A lot of that power should be taken away.

We should also take away a lot of the power that the Prime Minister has in making major appointments to crown agencies. I think of the CRTC, the Canadian Wheat Board and many other agencies, boards and commissions. I also think of the Supreme Court of Canada and federal judges. I do not think the federal government should have the unilateral power to appoint federal judges to the Supreme Court of Canada.

In most of these cases the federal government should have the right to nominate someone it wants to nominate but it should go to the relevant committee of the House to have hearings and ratify or reject the nomination of the Government of Canada.

I came to that conclusion in about 1978 or 1979 when I saw the then Prime Minister, who happened to be Pierre Trudeau but it could have been anyone else including the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, appoint Bryce Mackasey as the head of Air Canada. Bryce Mackasey knew as much about Air Canada and aviation as I know about the Atlantic fishery, which is very little.

I did not meet a single Liberal backbencher in those days who supported the nomination of Bryce Mackasey, who by the way was and is a friend of mine and a very honourable gentleman. He is a very wonderful person. I am not criticizing him. But that was not the position he should have been appointed to.

I did not meet a single Liberal backbencher in those days who supported the nomination of Bryce Mackasey as the president of Air Canada. Of course it was a crown corporation in those days. But because of our parliamentary system, they were handcuffed. Their hands were tied. They could do nothing about it because it was the prerogative of the Prime Minister to appoint the president of Air Canada, just like the Prime Minister now appoints the president of the CBC who last time around happened to be another good friend, Perrin Beatty, who was a minister in the cabinet of Brian Mulroney.

In any event if we had had serious parliamentary reform in those days and the Prime Minister could have only made the nomination but the relevant committee, transport at that time, would have the right to have hearings and ratify or reject, Mr. Mackasey would never have been nominated by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister would have known that Mr. Mackasey would never have survived those review and ratification hearings. There would have been a nomination by the Prime Minister of someone who would have been more able and capable to be president of Air Canada.

That is why we need some serious parliamentary reform. When we vote in the House of Commons to reject the estimates of the Senate, we do so knowing that we just cannot get rid of the other place and leave a vacuum and a vacancy but it is important to also reform the House of Commons. Bring the process of review and the process of checks and balances into the House of Commons itself.

I also believe that other powers should be taken away from the prime minister. There are many countries in the world, for example, where the prime minister or the president cannot set the election date unilaterally. I think we should look at that as well. Many countries do not give the right to their prime minister to set the election date. If we took that right away and had elections every three, four or five years, that would take a lot of power away from the prime minister.

I also think that we should have in statute set times for throne speeches and budgets so that we could have a timetable for those items as well, not in accordance with the wishes or the agenda of the prime minister, but in accordance with what is best for the country as a whole. We pretty well have the practice of setting the budget date in the month of February, but it is not in statute and we do not have set throne speech dates. If we did there would be a better planning process for the provinces, the municipalities, the school boards, the hospitals and so on.

I believe that these are some of the things we should be looking at as parliamentarians.

I want to make one final comment this evening, which is a bit more radical.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Radical, from the NDP?

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Qu'Appelle, SK]

A bit more radical. I know the hon. member for Calgary West will support this, but I am not sure about the more frugal member for St. Albert.

I believe we should also be looking at incorporating the idea of at least some proportional representation into our electoral system so that we give a voice to all Canadians in the country, regardless of whom they want to vote for and where they come from. I have presented a private member's bill to this effect. This would give some regional representation to the central institution of parliament.

As a matter of fact, when Tony Blair reforms the British parliament the election after next, we will be the only parliamentary system in the world that does not have at least some PR mixed into our system. I am not talking about advocating a totally pure PR system like there is in Israel. I think we should have a mixed number proportional, where we have some members, maybe half or two-thirds, representing constituents. That would be topped up by members elected by PR in a very democratic way, where the party leadership does not choose the people who go on that particular list.

I say that because this House of Commons is supposed to be a reflection of the Canadian people. However, if we look at the composition of the House today, we have a majority government with the constitutional right to govern for five years. What vote did it get last time? It got 38%, with a turnout of about 67%. The turnout has been plummeting in the last 30 years. In 1968, 80% of the people voted. Last time it was 67%, largely because people asked “Why bother? Why waste my vote? Politicians do not listen. How I vote does not seem to make any difference”. In many cases that is absolutely true.

Since 1921 we have only had two elections where a majority of the people voted for the government in power. They were in 1945 with Mackenzie King and in 1958 with John Diefenbaker. Brian Mulroney came close in 1984 with 49.7% or 49.8%. During that time we have had many majority governments and every one of them, except for those two, was elected by a minority. Really what we have is the tyranny of the minority in the House of Commons today.

We have other distortions in the House of Commons. The Reform Party and the Conservative Party got about 19% of the votes each. The Conservative Party got 20 seats and the Reform Party got 60 seats.

There are now 21 NDP members and 44 from the Bloc Quebecois. In the last election, the Bloc Quebecois obtained 11% of the vote and the NDP also obtained 11%.

We had the same vote as the Bloc Quebecois.

The votes are not reflected in the House of Commons in accordance with the way that the people of this country vote. Therefore, most people consider that their vote is wasted. Most Canadians voted for losing candidates. If we had a system of PR incorporated into the House there would not be a single lost vote in the country.

A person could, for example, vote Liberal in parts of the prairies where that party cannot win and that vote would still count. A person could vote NDP in southern Alberta and that vote would count. A person could vote Reform in Newfoundland and that vote would count. A person could even vote Conservative in Saskatchewan and that vote would count. I suppose that a person could vote for the Bloc Quebecois in British Columbia and that vote would still count, if there was a system in this country that had a measure of proportional representation built into it like every other parliamentary system in the world. Every other parliamentary system in the world has it except Canada.

I think these are some of the changes we need, some of the reforms we need. What we need in this country is big democracy. Allow the people in. Let the people's voice be heard. Let the people say what they want in this country. That is the way we should go.

Instead, tonight we are going to see the majority of this House vote another $30 million for the unelected Senate, with no accountability, no election, no democracy. Does anybody agree with that? Why do they vote that way?

I want the member for Brandon—Souris to tell me why members of his party for 132 years have defended the status quo. I know they are Conservatives, but 132 years of the status quo? How in God's name can those members vote that way?

I know the member campaigned on behalf of David Orchard. It seems to me that he would be a bit of a rebel and would not be afraid to speak out and take a line that differs from Senators Balfour, Berntson, Cogger and everybody else in the Senate. I hope the member does that this evening in the House of Commons.

We need serious parliamentary and electoral change. We have to democratize our electoral system and democratize our parliamentary system. I hope that government backbenchers have the courage like the member for Sarnia—Lambton to advocate serious democratic change for the people of this country. If we do that we could make a real contribution to the new millennium and we could have a real democracy for the new millennium.

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec East, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a brief comment to make before asking my honourable colleague a question.

I recently mailed out in my riding 48,000 copies of a 16-page pamphlet containing a great deal of information on senators, with a breakdown of their income and benefits, and what they do in the Senate. In addition to being extremely well paid and having a multitude of benefits, they serve particular interests. Some even sit on the board of multiple corporations, as well as defending the interests of certain parties.

The reaction in my riding was extremely virulent. Hundreds of people called up to ask “How can Canada allow an institution that is not representative, not elected and not accountable?”

In the pamphlet, I gave two phone numbers, one for the Senate, which I think is still connected, and the other for the PMO. They have been swamped with calls and the PMO line had to be disconnected. The Senate line may well follow suit before long if people keep on calling.

One of the points raised by the leader of the government in the House was that there were a great many constitutional problems relating to the Senate regulations. In this document, since we have the power to set the Senate's budget, I propose that its budget be limited to $1 per senator per year. This will encourage the senators to retire.

I would therefore ask my colleague if he finds that budget formula more acceptable than allocating $30 million to the Senate.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member for Québec East. A unique way to abolish the Senate of Canada would be to reduce its budget from $60 million a year to $104, or $1 per senator. With a budget of $1 per senator, the Senate would be abolished de facto.

This would perhaps be a way of coming up with a solution that did not involve the Constitution of Canada or its amending formula.

I agree with him, and I think that our party does as well, if there is a way to do this without going through the lengthy process of amending our Constitution.

The problem with the Constitution is that we need unanimous consent to abolish the Senate and even to reform it. We need unanimous consent for a great many things. In other cases the section 42 formula applies. We then need the consent of two-thirds of the provinces representing 50% of the Canadian population, in addition to the support of parliament. I therefore agree with the hon. member.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to what the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle said. He made some excellent points. Without question, the Canadian public does not support a non-elected Senate. If a survey was sent out to 100 Canadians, I dare say that 70 of them would say they do not support a non-elected Senate.

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

It would be 99.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

No, I would not put it that high, certainly not in the riding I represent, because I sent a survey out to every household in the riding, which came back with 70% in favour of an elected Senate, not in favour of abolishing the Senate.

Unlike both hon. members who spoke, I do not think we do such a great job in the House. I do not think we are the last line of defence for the Canadian public. I am not so full of myself that I could believe that we could put something forth in the House of Commons and have the final say for all Canadians.

I would not for a moment say that we should not have another house to keep check of the House of Commons, regardless of who sits on that side or on this side of the House. I also do not think that we are doing justice to Canadians by having four official opposition parties in the House of Commons. I would like the hon. member's comments on that.

I fully agree that we should do something about the Senate, but stopping their budget? Let us be real. Let us have an elected Senate. Let us do something about it. I do not care if it is a triple E Senate or a double E Senate, I want the word “election” in the process.

With respect to holding back its budget, the Senate does do some good work. It has some members who should not be members of the Senate. We have some members of parliament who should not be members of parliament.

Let us do something progressive and positive. I will offer my support to reform the Senate, but not to abolish it. It is as simple as that. I would like to have the hon. member's comments on that.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what more I could add. First, let us say that we have a consensus that the existing Senate is not supported by many people in this country. The survey which the hon. member took indicated that there was about 30% support in his riding. The Angus Reid poll indicated that around 5% of the people of this country support the existing Senate. Pollara did a poll which indicated that it was a bit higher than that. By the way, just in terms of the record, the Angus Reid poll indicated that 41% of the people wanted to abolish the Senate and 43% wanted to reform the Senate. Pollara did a poll which indicated that 36% of the people wanted to abolish the Senate and 35% wanted to reform the Senate.

I submit to the hon. member that his constituents probably think in a similar way to people right across the country. If he had a question worded as to whether his constituents wanted to reform the Senate, abolish the Senate or maintain the status quo, I am sure in his riding the opinion would be overwhelmingly to not have the status quo, but would be divided on whether we should abolish or reform it.

We should unite in terms of getting rid of the status quo. Let us listen to that 90% or 95% of the Canadian people. Liberal members feel the same way, if we could get rid of these crazy handcuffs of confidence votes on estimates.

I am sure that if Conservative members were to reflect the interests of their constituents and forget about their friends in the Senate they too would vote in favour of reducing Senate estimates. If we could unite on that point, that the status quo is not good enough and it has to go, then we could have a real debate after the next federal election to come up with a formula either to elect it or abolish it. I would like to see that be the real debate. At that time I will obviously be continuing my support for abolition. One reason for that, and I want to throw this at my friends in the Reform Party, especially my friend from St. Albert who is so concerned about money, is that if we have an elected house it is not going to cost $60 million. We could probably double or triple that because it will have legitimacy. We will then have an awful lot of money being spent in terms of its elections, its staff, its travel and its facilities.

If it is elected, it is legitimate. If it is elected, it is just as legitimate as we are and we invite gridlock and deadlock between the two legitimately elected houses. It creates a bigger bureaucracy, more red tape and a greater slowness in terms of governing. It seems to me that is something the Reform Party has always stood against.

Points Of Order

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to the appropriation bill which we are about to consider at all stages tonight. In my opinion the bill is out of order since it is attempting to approve expenditure for the Department of Canadian Heritage Parks Canada Agency for the fiscal year 2000-01.

Subclause 6(2) at page 3 of the bill states:

Amounts appropriated by Schedule 2 may be spent at any time on or before March 31, 2001, so long as every expenditure is charged first against the relevant amount appropriated that is earliest in time until that amount is exhausted, next against the relevant amount appropriated that is next in time until that amount is exhausted and so on.

Schedule 2 of the bill at page 58 attempts to appropriate $245,857,000 for the fiscal years April 1, 1999 to March 31, 2001.

Mr. Speaker, if you review the standing orders and our practices, the estimates process is designed to deal with the next fiscal year and not the fiscal year after that.

I will start with citation 933 of Beauchesne's sixth edition which states:

The purpose of the Estimates is to present to Parliament the budgetary and non-budgetary expenditure proposals of the Government for the next fiscal year.

Citation 934 states:

In accordance with Standing Order 81(4), in every session the main Estimates to cover the incoming fiscal year for every department of government shall be referred to the standing committees—

If citation 934 is read in full, it goes on to talk more about the current fiscal year. Citation 944 states:

The Estimates are limited to setting out only the sums which it is calculated will be required in the current year, and do not show the value of assets held or the liabilities outstanding from the previous financial year or to be spread over future years.

While these citations refer to the estimates, citation 968 ties the appropriation bill into this argument. It states:

The concurrence by the House in the Estimates is an Order of the House to bring in a bill, known as the appropriation bill based thereon.

If we review the standing order starting with Standing Order 81(1) and follow through to Standing Order 81(22), they all deal with the principle that the estimates are to cover the incoming fiscal year and not the year after that.

We have example after example before us from both Beauchesne's and the standing orders of the House which clearly demonstrate that the estimates and appropriation acts are intended to deal with one fiscal year at a time.

I fear that the legislation such as this before us is eroding the power of parliamentarians and the power of the House to make informed decisions on granting supply to the crown.

If this bill is allowed to remain on the order paper, it will set a dangerous precedent where the estimates will no longer be required to be published and passed on a yearly basis. Therefore, I believe that Appropriation Act No. 2, 1999-2000, Bill C-86 as it will become known, should be ruled out of order and removed from the order paper forthwith.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I invite any other members who would like to speak to this specific and interesting point of order to do so.

As no one else wishes to rise on the point of order raised by the hon. member for St. Albert, we will take it under advisement and come back to the House.

The House resumed consideration of Motion No. 1.

Main Estimates, 1999-2000

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I guess I must start my dissertation with what vitriolic balderdash we hear from members of the New Democratic Party, of the Reform Party and of the Bloc Quebecois.

I wonder if it has any bearing on the fact that all three of those parties have no representation or membership in the Senate. Quite frankly they never will have any representative in the Senate because they would have to form government.

The Bloc will never form government. The NDP is lucky to even be here and, if the New Brunswick and Ontario elections are any indication, probably will not be here in the future. As for the Reform Party, we do not know where it is. We do not know who the Reformers will be running under, what they will be running under or if they will even be in the House. It would be best for Canadians if they did not come back to the House.

Let me talk about a couple of issues. We are dealing with government appropriations for many departments. We could be standing here today debating the appropriations for the Department of Health, a huge budget and an issue that resonates across the country with every individual Canadian. Health deals with each and every one of us.

We could be dealing with appropriations for the Department of Agriculture, which has a budget of $1.2 billion, not $50 million. Its budget should be increased because there are some very serious issues within the Department of Agriculture such as the development of a long term policy that deals with natural disasters. The member from the NDP should have talked to that because his constituents are being directly affected by what is going on as we speak. Members of the Reform Party should be talking about it because their areas are directly impacted by what is going on right now in agriculture.

We are having a Senate bashing debate. We have a $50 million appropriation and we are having a full debate in the House of Commons when there are issues out there that certainly should be talked about.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if members would listen they would learn something. We are a party unlike some other parties in the House that do not know whether they are fish or fowl at this point in time. We will not get into those debates now.

When I first came to the House, probably as uninformed as Reform Party members or perhaps not quite as uniformed because I do have a tendency to learn and listen, I too had some questions as to the viability and the responsibility of members of the Senate. I have an advantage because my party has members sitting in the Senate. I have the advantage of listening, learning and keeping an open mind, which obviously sometimes is not shared by other members of the House.

When I first came to the House I looked across the House and saw a government with a majority and a piece of legislation called Bill C-4. That piece of legislation was to revamp the Canadian Wheat Board. It was a very important piece of legislation to my constituents and to others.

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was wondering what relevance reference to Bill C-4 has to a vote on money for the Senate. I wonder if you could rule on that.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is the hon. member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre suggesting the Chair should rule on relevancy in the debate tonight?

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

No, not at all sir.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if that were one of the criteria, the hon. member would never have been able to speak in the House since he was elected.

Let me tell him how Bill C-4 becomes relevant to the debate on whether the Senate has a place to play in parliamentary democracy in the country. Bill C-4 had some serious flaws when it came to the House, but a government with a majority has a tendency not to listen to members of the opposition who quite frankly have some very good ideas and thoughts about how legislation could be made better.

Unfortunately that piece of legislation was rammed through committee and through the House. The only opportunity I had to make that legislation better was to elicit the support of the Senate.

The Senate did a wonderful job. The senators went out and listened to the Canadian public. They were accountable to the Canadian public. They held Senate hearings at which they listened to the stakeholders. They made changes that made the legislation better. It is a check and balance. It is an opportunity for parliamentarians to solicit and elicit the other house to make legislation better.

With a stroke of a pen the Reform Party would abolish the Senate. Where would we be? We would have a majority government able to do anything it wanted to the citizens of the country because it has a majority. The Reform Party has no plans. It has no understanding of parliamentary democracy. There is a requirement to have that check and balance.

Should there be reconstruction of the existing Senate? Of course there should but it should be done logically and with a well thought out plan. Let us not do it with vitriolic balderdash. Let us go forward and make sure that not only Canadians agree with the new plan but that the House and the Senate agree with the new structure and plan.

Let me give the House some ideas that were put forward in the Charlottetown accord. The Charlottetown accord came forward with restructuring of the Senate in mind. Who did not support it? The Reform Party did not support it. It did not want to restructure the Senate and make a change to the status quo. It did not want to think logically about how Canadians could be better governed.

The governance of the country was not important to that party. What was important was simply the matter of partisan politics, the hot button issues, instead of health care, agriculture and all other departments that are important to the country which we should be talking about.

Let me tell the House about the Senate. The Senate has helped me in the job that I do. I have that opportunity. When I came here I did not think that what was there was right. In fact there has to be some restructuring, but members opposite should take the time to phone the 1-800 number to talk to the senators. They are very accessible and very open.

Phone the 800 number that has been advertised by the NDP right now. Talk to the senators. Ask them their opinion. There are some very bright, experienced and very dedicated people in that House.

I will not mention names like the hon. member from Saskatchewan did because I do not think it is fair that we use those names in this House, but I can take members to the people who spend as much if not more time in their house than do probably the majority of members of parliament. There are good and bad in every house. I believe that the majority of the senators who sit on our side in the Senate are very good.

Let us talk about what would happen if there was not that check and balance. Simple solutions for very complex issues is where the Reform come on this one; a stroke of the pen and let us get rid of the Senate. Where would we be?

Right now we have a government that sits in power with its majority coming from Ontario. Do we want Ontario to run Canada? I think not. The Reform Party has a mantra that the west wants in. It would certainly be a heck of a lot harder for the west to have its voice heard if it was simply an Ontario or Quebec based government. Now we have the opportunity for the check and balance because we have the other house to call on when necessary.

We talked about an elected Senate. I have to honestly say that I have not got my head around this one yet. I have tried to analyse it; I have tried to look at all the pros and cons which is obviously something some of the members in the Reform Party and the NDP have not done. They simply like to push the button.

I looked at the American system. The member from Regina said that we look at other jurisdictions and what is good and what is bad. I look at the American senate which is elected. I see an administration of one political stripe and a house and senate of another political stripe. They get nothing done. They stop each other. They block each other. That is not good for democracy either. I am not so sure that the elected side of it should be there.

Let me talk about the reform in the Charlottetown accord. We talked about term limitations, something that everybody here should talk about and discuss logically. At one point in time a senator was appointed for life. That was wrong. Now senators are appointed until age 75. That too may be wrong. But what are the solutions? Should we have term limitations? Perhaps. Personally I could support a term limitation on the appointment of a senator.

It was also mentioned there should be some gauge as to what the efficiency and the effectiveness was for an individual. I agree. There should be gauges, attendance requirements and effectiveness and efficiency standards that have to be met. There is nothing wrong with that. We do it in the House. Our gauge and our standard is obviously an election. The Senate should have gauges and standards as well.

We should also talk about the effectiveness of the Senate and how it could be more accountable to the public it represents. The example was given that the senator from Regina has not been seen in Regina. That is wrong. A senator who is appointed to a provincial responsibility and jurisdiction should represent that responsibility and jurisdiction. That is part of the restructuring that should go on within the Senate, but it should not be a stroke of a pen abolition because it is not good governance for this country.

It was also said that senators do not do anything. I just gave the House the example of Bill C-4 which was very important, although the member from the NDP decided that Bill C-4 was not a very important piece of legislation. Probably because he agreed with Bill C-4 we disagreed with it.

Members of this House were treated as fools when Bill C-55 was put through. There was an urgency because we were going to protect the Canadian heritage. We were going to make sure that we would not back down from the Americans. It was a piece of legislation that was absolutely necessary. Where is Bill C-55 now? The only people who held up Bill C-55 to have it checked by the Canadian public was the Senate.

This government will be accountable for that. It was the wrong way to put that legislation through, it was the wrong legislation and it will be accountable. The only one that had the opportunity to bring that out in the open was the Senate.

Bill C-78 is a piece of legislation that came through the House because the Liberals are the majority. It was to take pensions away from superannuates. Thirty billion dollars will be taken away from Canadians because the government has a majority, but the bill has not passed the Senate. There will be accountability to the government because we have that check and balance.

Do not get me wrong. I said earlier that I believe very strongly there has to be some restructuring, but to sit here and say that we will not approve a $50 million budget for the other House is balderdash. It is not the way to do it.

I am disappointed and frustrated that we are not talking about real issues. Canadians should be able to deal with real issues. Canadians should have an opportunity to speak to real issues such as services that should be delivered by this government and that are not being delivered.

We waste our time talking about a budget of $50 million instead of the billions of dollars being wasted by this government or the billions of dollars being taken by this government from legitimate Canadians. Why? Because Reform wants to Senate bash. That is all it wants to do. It is the hot button politics of the Reform Party. Frankly, Canadians are losing when they have representation from the Reform Party.

A member of the NDP said that if most constituents would not support the Senate. In New Brunswick, most Canadians spoke and they did not support the NDP. There is one NDP member. In Ontario the constituents listened and they did not support the NDP. It has no official party status in Ontario. I believe in the electorate. I believe the electorate does the right thing. In this case, they certainly did the right thing.

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Brandon—Souris just stood in this House and gave a speech. The same leader of his party appointed a senator 20 years ago, the phantom senator from Regina, a fellow by the name of James Balfour who has not been seen in the city of Regina for 20 years.

I wonder whether he was giving this speech to get himself in the Senate or whether he actually believes that taxpayers' money should be invested in someone by the name of James Balfour, a senator who has not been to Regina in the 20 years I have been around. I have never met the guy. Regina is a small city with about 200,000 people. I have been in public office off and on and have been involved in community associations for about 26 years. I had never heard of this guy. He was appointed by former Prime Minister Joe Clark, a friend of James Balfour. I guess James Balfour disappeared at the same time Joe Clark did because we have not seen Joe Clark for about 10 or 20 years either.

I wonder whether the Conservative member for Brandon—Souris continues to support the Senate when Conservatives in Saskatchewan, 18 former elected Conservatives were jailed because of the corruption they were involved with. One was the former deputy premier, Eric Berntson, who is now a senator. After years of gouging Saskatchewan taxpayers he was appointed to the Senate. He was found guilty on a number of fraud charges and breach of trust and now he is being paid as a senator as a result of the wonderful Conservative Party.

How long does the hon. member for Brandon—Souris believe the taxpayers of Canada should be supporting convicted felons such as Senator Michel Cogger and Senator Eric Berntson to the tune of about $500,000 a year for them, their expenses and their offices each before we toss them out because of their convictions in the courts? How much longer will this member support the subsidy of these individuals who have gouged Canadians for far too long?

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think even the member of the NDP who obviously is a bit of a socialist would agree that individuals are in fact innocent until proven guilty and have gone through all the opportunities for appeal. I am sure that every member would defend that aspect of our judicial system and of our communities.

Again I would say that we as parliamentarians, even though the hon. member may not agree with this, do not do a very good job of keeping that side of the House in order. There are others in this parliamentary system who are required in order to have that check and balance and that control. For a $50 million budget, I certainly have no difficulty in keeping that house.

However, and I am sure the hon. member did not listen very well when I said it, that does not mean there should not be some changes. That does not mean the status quo must stay. That does not mean there should not be some restructuring within the Senate itself. We would have done that a long time ago had those members supported the Charlottetown accord. Instead, they voted against the Charlottetown accord. That would have been in place.

[Rob Anders, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I and other members of this place, some of whom are in the House today, went through a fairly exhaustive process of gathering petitions from across the land. Media outlets, such as the Sun newspaper chain and QR77 radio, put out their own forms of Senate petitions. I collected petitions on the whole idea of Senate reform and Senate election. Other members of the House collected petitions on the issue of Senate abolition. I do not think that those people felt as though they were heard. They did not get responses from senators or from the Prime Minister's office.

The hon. member talked about phoning senators and the Prime Minister's office. The member of the NDP mentioned the number. I have a note here that if somebody wants to call the Senate I believe the number is 1-800-267-7362. I ask the hon. member if—

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As you can obviously see, and certainly anyone watching on TV can see, the hon. member is holding up a prop. He is writing on the back of it.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member for South Shore is quite correct. It is inappropriate to use a prop in the House and I accept the admonition. I should have stopped it immediately. I did check on my monitor and it was impossible to read, the hon. member will be unhappy to know.

[Rob Anders, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I ask the hon. member of the Progressive Conservative Party, was the number 1-800-267-7362 to call senators? There was a question about the Prime Minister as well.