House of Commons Hansard #240 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was senate.
Main Estimates, 1999-2000Government Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
If the hon. member gets away with it once, shame on me. If he gets away with it twice, really, that is it.
Rick Borotsik Progressive Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB
Mr. Speaker, I do not think there was anything of any substance in those comments.
Actually people do not have to call the 1-800 number. If they wish, they can call my office and I will put them in touch with the senators I know with their personal phone numbers. Those phone numbers are listed, so I am sure the hon. member could find them.
The hon. member spent a lot of time, effort and energy getting petitions to abolish the Senate.
I think the hon. member would have been much better suited had he gone out and spent that time and energy trying to find out from those same constituencies where the Reform was going. What was it going to do? Was it going to go to the UA, to three parties or just disappear like most Canadians would like?
Ted McWhinney Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise because I was fascinated by the remarks of the hon. member for Brandon—Souris.
I am looking for the right adjective. I thought it was perhaps a cathartic address, but I will settle for the notion that his remarks were fertilizing in an atmosphere where one badly demanded ideas.
May I ask if he, as a partisan of the Senate, will join the movement to give British Columbia, rightly recognized as the fifth region of Canada, 20% of the seats in a reformed, elected Senate? Would he join us in that? We would be prepared to allow Manitoba to share a third of another 20%.
Rick Borotsik Progressive Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB
Mr. Speaker, Manitoba already has the third of the 20% of the seats. We have seven senators currently in the province of Manitoba.
Rick Borotsik Progressive Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB
Six senators, excuse me. I was looking for the one from Regina. I missed that one.
Rick Borotsik Progressive Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB
I don't know where he's at. I was looking for the seventh senator.
I very honestly suggest to the hon. member that obviously would require a constitutional change. I am prepared to look at anything that will give better representation to the country. I will also look at making sure that there is a fair and honest distribution of those senators.
Earlier in my dissertation I said that I had not gotten my head around elections just yet. However, I feel very strongly that in part of that reform we should look at the possibility of provincial governments playing a much more active role in the appointment process, not necessarily the appointments but the appointment process of senators to the Senate of Canada.
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Verchères, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this fundamental question of supply for the maintenance of the Senate of Canada.
To begin with, I need hardly point out that the Bloc Quebecois is against granting any such supply, in whatever amount, to the upper chamber, because our party proposes its abolition pure and simple.
This was the position we took in our 1993 election platform. It is a position that still has unanimous support among our members. The reason I am taking this position in the House today is not just because it was part of our election platform in 1993. There are obviously a number of empirical, objective arguments underlying this position.
First, let us start by pointing out that this institution, which is the Upper House of Canada's parliament, has no basis in the realities of Quebec or Canada. Let us look back at the context in which it was created.
The British Parliament in London, which is in a way, as anglophones say, the mother of the British-type parliaments, is obviously a bicameral parliament, with an upper chamber, the House of Lords, and a lower chamber, which is the House of Commons.
In the case of the House of Commons, the parallel, the link between the House of Commons in London and the House of Commons here in Ottawa, is very easy to make.
As regards the House of Lords, they wanted to create a similar House when Canada was born, when they realized, horror of horrors, that there was no nobility in Canada. So they could not create a House of Lords on the same principle and model as the one in London. They therefore created something a little bit different, drawing on the model in London.
In the United Kingdom, as we know, there is hereditary nobility, which is passed from father to son or from mother to daughter now. There are counts, viscounts, barons, dukes, duchesses and so on. There are also nobles who are given titles which are not hereditary.
This has been the case of a number of Canadians in history, such as Sir John A. Macdonald or Sir George-Étienne Cartier, but these people could not pass their nobility on to their descendants.
They wanted to create something similar here in Canada, since in the middle of the 19th century, in Quebec for example, the seigniorial system had been abolished. So there was, properly speaking, no more native or local nobility in Canada. Accordingly, they created a system that made it possible to basically appoint people and give them the nobility by appointing them to the Senate, not by giving them a title but by giving them the title of senator.
Hon. members will recall that initially appointment was for life, until it was realized in the 1950's and 1960's that having senators for life had, one might say, lowered the level of debate in the other place, it having become a rather—
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Verchères, QC
—aging place, to say the least. At that time, the decision was made to do away with the notion of appointments for life and to drop the age to 75, which is far earlier needless to say.
The first finding is that this institution, which has absolutely no connection with our reality, is obsolete, archaic and totally devoid of any meaning to the people of Canada or Quebec, or any connection to their lives.
Second, this House ought to promote and defend the interests of the various regions of Canada. A noble objective, if ever there was one, but it became quickly apparent that far from defending the interests of the regions, the institution was far more what one might call an asset for the government by defending the interests of the party in power.
I am weighing my words carefully but that chamber has, over the years, for all intents and purposes, turned into a veritable den of patronage in that the nominations go to friends of the party, friends of the regime. They would never have gone as far as to appoint people of other political persuasions, which has meant that the other place has representatives of only two parties despite the fact that there are five parties represented in the House of Commons. In the upper chamber only the two parties that have divided the power ever since Confederation are represented, in other words the Liberals and the Progressive Conservatives. They are surprisingly in favour of allocating supply to the upper chamber.
That chamber, which was intended to defend the regions, has finally come to defend the interests of the government far more than those of the regions. It is not representative of the full political spectrum represented here in the House of Commons.
Furthermore, I think it should be pointed out that this House, as I said, whose job it was to defend the regions, does not represent the full range of the political spectrum of the regions. For instance, there are New Democratic governments in western Canada. Are these governments represented in the upper chamber? Of course not. There is a sovereignist government in Quebec. Are the interests of the sovereignist government of the national assembly, with its sovereignist majority, represented in the other place? Of course not.
So the initial purpose for which the other chamber was created, which was to defend the interests of the regions, also no longer holds.
The other factor is that this chamber is a somewhat dusty institution that has accomplished the feat—if feat it be—of breaking the records for unpopularity and lack of credibility, even beating out lawyers and politicians according to the polls. That takes some doing.
Joking aside, we unfortunately have an image of the Senate as an institution where people go to live out their retirement years in peace, after loyal service to the party in power, and where there is really no incentive to do more than is necessary, where people can pursue their professions on the side thus building up their income.
There are, of course, extreme cases—former Senator Thompson comes to mind—who do serious damage to the Senate's credibility in the eyes of the public. The public, which should normally have faith in its political institutions, sees one of the Houses of Parliament as completely discredited and no longer has any faith in them at all.
This parliament, according to the advocates of federalism in this House and throughout Canada, is a model of democracy around the world. Yet one of the Houses that pass the laws of this country is appointed by the Prime Minister. What is the democratic prerogative of such an institution? Is the presence of the Senate in this parliament not a democratic disadvantage in this great country, which wants to be an example for the world as a whole?
There are few countries around the world that are real democracies and of those there are few around the world that may boast of having their Houses appointed by the Prime Minister, appointments that are basely and blatantly partisan.
We should look at the relevance of having such a House, which costs taxpayers a minimum of $50 million annually. We need only look at the situations of manifest suffering in a number of ridings, and even in all ridings in the country to various degrees. I am thinking of the riding of my colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, which has the highest rate of poverty in Canada.
How can his fellow citizens allow an institution that costs $50 million annually to continue to survive while they can barely make ends meet? These people experience anger, confusion and indignation.
We could say that in any self-respecting democracy the presence of two Houses is a guarantee of balance and against the appropriation of power by a single House.
The people in this non-elected House on the other side are simply there because of service rendered to the government opposite and therefore really do not need to take the interests of the public to heart. I say that with an aside because there are, needless to say, and we all know some of them, senators who give fully of themselves and work very hard.
The problem is not so much the individuals making up the institution, although for most of them, for the reasons they were appointed, it may in fact be a problem. But the institution itself, because of its nature, is the source of the problem.
How can this institution claim to constitute a balance aimed at preventing this House, elected by the people of Canada and Quebec, from gaining the upper hand? Every single provincial legislature has got rid of their legislative councils. The last one to do so, the Quebec National Assembly, abolished its legislative council in 1968, if I am not mistaken.
Could the supporters of the Senate dare to claim here in this House that the provincial legislatures and the Quebec National Assembly are less democratic institutions because they have abolished their legislative councils? Absolutely not. There is no connection whatsoever. We are very much aware that the best guarantee of democracy is the people's choice.
This choice translates into the presence here in the House of Commons, as well as in each of the provincial legislative assemblies and the Quebec National Assembly, of representatives who have been duly elected by their fellow citizens. That is the true guarantor of democracy, not the presence of a phoney second chamber which does nothing but serve the partisan interests of the government.
I submit once again that this House, which is duly elected by the people, must not lend any credibility whatsoever to the other chamber by voting supplies to it, which it will spend like crazy, while in each and every one of our ridings there are people who can scarcely make ends meet.
I therefore urge every one of my colleagues to oppose this motion aimed at granting supply to the Canadian Senate.
Ted McWhinney Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member accept the conclusions of the Pepin-Robarts commission on an elected Senate, dividing the number of its members among the five regions of Canada, but with a veto for Quebec on matters concerning linguistic rights, culture and similar elements?
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Verchères, QC
Mr. Speaker, I nearly fainted when I heard my colleague from Vancouver—Quadra candidly suggest the conclusions of the Pepin-Robarts report.
I was thinking that it was a long time ago the government opposite shelved this report, not wanting to give it any credibility or relevance.
We must realize that if this institution had really been intended to play the role of defender of Canada's regions, it would not have been created as it was, and even now we would not maintain it in its present form by simply having the senators there elected. These people would, if I could put it this way, challenge the legitimacy of this House in which we sit.
In addition, for the benefit of our colleague, I would like to mention two examples of upper houses around the world, which might originally have provided an example, had they existed, to Canada's Senate, in the spirit that its creators wanted to give it.
There is the German Bundesrat, which represents each of the assemblies of German Landers, or provinces. Accordingly, no legislation is passed by the German parliament, the Bundestag and the Bundesrat, without the support of the Landers' legislatures.
There is another example. The Russian federation council, which is the upper chamber, the equivalent of our Senate, has two representatives for what they call there the subjects of the federation, the equivalent of our provinces. Generally it is the governor of the province and the president of the legislative assembly, therefore one representative of the executive body and one representative of the legislative body of each of the subjects in the federation, who sit on the council.
In this case, once again, it is very clear that no legislation may be passed by the Russian parliament without the subjects of the federation, that is the Russian provinces, giving their approval.
Therefore, as it exists the Senate is totally incapable of meeting the initial objective set for it, that is of defending the interests of the regions.
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes for his excellent speech. As a political scientist, he is obviously very up on these issues.
I would like him to clarify for us what else these supplies, which we are refusing to approve, could be spent on. They will very likely be approved because of this government's overwhelming majority in the House.
For the benefit of those listening today, I would like our colleague to give some concrete examples of how this $54 million budget, which will probably be approved for what I might call purely gerontocratic purposes, could be put to better use.
Could he also give other examples of funds being used to provide relatively long term care and perhaps examples of areas where the money would be put to much better use?
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Verchères, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve for his question. I think he has hit it on the head.
With all due respect, I think he would have been in a much better position than I to give excellent examples of how these supplies, which are about to be approved for the other place and the usefulness of which still seems a bit nebulous right now, could be better spent.
In Quebec, we already have the feeling we are paying for two structures. We are paying for a provincial member and for a federal member. We are even paying for a senator who represents each of our regions. Each senator in Quebec represents what is called a Senate division. I doubt there is anyone in Quebec who has the slightest idea which senator is responsible for the Senate division in which he lives, since these people are completely absent from the political scene in Quebec.
That said, as a more direct reply to the question by my colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, certainly reference could be made to a number of issues that have been addressed in this House in recent months and recent weeks, particularly employment insurance.
The government diverts billions of dollars from the employment insurance fund, supposedly to cover increased expenses, like eradicating the deficit, while it would be far easier to get it hands on some $50 million or $54 million in the other place, instead of dipping into the pockets of the unemployed, the workers and the employers across Canada.
Needless to say, it is unacceptable that while social transfers to the provinces are being cut forcing the provinces to make some really hard decisions on social and health services and post-secondary education, we would continue to hand over $50 million annually to this institution that is right next to ours.
This government needs to make some societal choices. At the moment, the government seems to lean as much to the right as the whole of Canada does as far as the directions it is taking are concerned. The choices made by this government are totally unacceptable. They leave the least advantaged in a precarious and difficult situation and continue to maintain this sort of living dinosaur.
Ted McWhinney Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
Mr. Speaker, one understands the lateness of the hour produces that mixture of melancholy and euphoria that we have seen at various stages of the debate this evening.
It is a pity perhaps that such an interesting subject has been consigned to a late evening session. There has been an absence of concern or attention in this parliament and perhaps the one before it with fundamental questions, the large principles of government. Yet in a way I think we are seeing the creaking and groaning of parliamentary institutions that are already out of date and, in some ways in this country, lag behind the creative changes that have been made in other countries with similar systems. In a sense, it is all a consequence of the too exclusive preoccupation for the last 30 years with the Quebec question narrowly defined. The narrow definition is not the fault of all the opposite side of the House. I think the blame lies equally. One could suggest that the larger solutions for the Quebec problem would better be obtained in a larger solution of general constitutional problems, but here we come back again to this basic principle that it is very difficult, since the Constitution Act, 1982, to change the Canadian constitution, but it is not impossible.
The other day I encountered a very distinguished senator and former member of this House who had to retire because he had reached the term of years, 75 years. He was complaining that he was forced to retire at that age. I told him that it was possible that it was not constitutional to compel retirement for age. I asked him if he had ever considered invoking the charter of rights and freedoms.
It would certainly be possible, without going to the provinces, for the federal parliament to establish within the federal parliament, with parliamentary power alone, a term of years for the Senate. It would be possible for this House and the Senate to make a constitutional amendment limiting future senators to four years, or eight years or two renewable terms of four years. This is solely within federal power.
It would be possible to extend the age issue. The only reason I think the age issue arose is simply because people had enough sense, 100 years after 1867, to realize a life term was just unacceptable in the conditions of North America.
The biggest problem in electing a Senate is that it would be a Senate elected on a basis of regional representation that reflected the social realities of 1867, the demographic realities that are totally inequitable today. There is no way in which British Columbians for example, would vote for Charlottetown or any other agreement that perpetuated an inequitable division of the Senate, even an elected Senate.
If we want to change these things we have to go the long route unless we take the surprising step, but not so surprising in other countries, of getting a court ruling on the constitutionality of these provisions of the constitution viewed in contemporary terms. Why not? Unless we go the ultimate route of a constituent assembly.
We are, in a certain sense in our parliament at this time, engaged in a form of low level problem solving largely because people, in reaction to the failure of the Meech Lake accord and the failure of Charlottetown, have said they do not want to discuss fundamental change. There is no particular evidence of that.
Earlier in the debate, I remember one of the members citing the example of a Gallup poll that he had consulted, or the equivalent, and finding that 43% of the people wanted to abolish the Senate. I wonder if he had asked how many people wanted to abolish the House of Commons as it is presently constituted. He might well have found that there was a similar large public disillusionment with the legislative process.
I think we badly need, on the evidence of this parliament, to reform our committee structure. We badly need to re-examine the relationship of executive and legislative power. These are areas that could be changed without the necessity of going to the provinces and going through that seven out of ten or ten out of ten formula. They have largely been left to one side.
I think one of the problems we have with the proposals put forward today on Senate reform is that they do not recognize the interdependence of constitutional institutions. If we abolish the Senate, we will dramatically change the House of Commons as it is now, and it is presently staggering under its current burden of office. Something obviously is needed: a little more comprehensive thinking.
The 1960s, 1970s and 1980s were golden periods in terms of producing a consensus on constitutional change. Let me read the sort of consensus that emerged: That an elected Senate, if it were to be achieved, should have the power to ratify all international treaties; that it should have the power to confirm nominations or reject nominations to the Supreme Court of Canada; and that it have the power to confirm ambassadorial appointments and appointments as deputy ministers. Why not? It is common in other systems of government. It might have the power, if the governor general were to be a wholly Canadian appointment, to conduct the election of the governor general. An elected Senate could perform the function that we give at enormous public expense and with a term of years seemingly without limit to royal commissions of inquiry. Should a legislative body not be doing that? It is quite obvious that the House of Commons cannot do it. If we look at the overburdening and the number of committees and the mandates of the committees today, I do not think we are able to discharge the functions that are given to us now.
The cause of Senate reform is I think an interesting one. It offers the most promise in terms of changes in our federal institutions, if we can get over this dilemma of constitutional change.
I noted the comments by the member for Brandon—Souris. He said that he had help with a wheat bill. I would simply say that I faced a situation in which a House committee, for some reason, produced a unanimous report last December. Then, after the unanimous report had gone to the House, some members decided to change their minds. Having accepted that a committee obviously would be well informed on the subject, I read the project and decided it was not as well informed as it could have been. Looking for an arena for change, I also went to the Senate and spoke to senators. I was able at the Senate level, because the Senate has co-ordinate constitutional powers with the House, to produce changes which I think are more in line with contemporary legal thinking.
There is a role for a second chamber, certainly if the House continues to be overburdened in the way it is with the present committee structure, which I do not think is very satisfactory unless we have this unique combination of an experienced and pragmatic committee chairperson and a good parliamentary secretary working as a team, and sufficient co-operation or acceptance of the rules of the game by government and opposition members. It does occur in some committees, but not in all, and we have noticed the difficulty in achieving a quorum in committees in the last few weeks. That is one of the realities.
I welcome the suggestions that have been made. I think the suggestions for the abolition of the Senate are simplistic. They ignore the fact that taking the Senate out will dramatically change the House too. I am not sure that we have yet learned to assume the new types of burdens that would be placed upon us.
Tackling the issue of how to make reform, as I say, electing the Senate with the present totally inequitable and unacceptable basis of regional allocation of the seats, would be a step backward in time and I do not think we can go that way. But why not?
One of the suggestions made, which was an interesting suggestion from outside, was why do we not attempt a mini-Senate reform. One of the most popular steps the present Prime Minister has taken has been to appoint senators who, in essence, will serve for a short term of years only. I think they are among the best quality senators we have had in a long time. These people, usually with two or three years to go, were never expecting an appointment to the Senate, but bring a surprising degree of expertise and knowledge and a very large degree of pragmatism.
One of the suggestions made, and I know it is taboo to speak of anything the former Prime Minister in the previous government introduced, was with respect to the so-called GST senators. It is a section of the constitution that was forgotten, which had been raised with me by a thoughtful correspondent. Could we not in some way correct, partly at least, the regional inequities of Senate representation by region by using that section and appointing more senators for those underrepresented areas of the country, in particular if it was done on a term of years basis, four years or something else?
I offer these simply because we are not completely in a straitjacket. To get movement in the upper House in that way might encourage the larger type of reform that so many people in all parties favour.
I look at the expert committees, the Lamontagne-MacGuigan committee, the Goldenberg commission, the father of the gentleman who is on the Prime Minister's staff, Pepin-Robarts that I have referred to, much the best constitutional report that has been made in Canada in the post-war period.
If we directed our attention to these matters we would see a time when parliamentarians thought in an ambitious way, looked at larger ideas, and a great deal of it came across. Except for certain egregious errors in tactics, the Pepin-Robarts report, as reflected in Meech Lake, would have gone through. It is one of those interesting things, the overconfidence of the political leaders who were directing the situation at that time.
Will we get around to these larger questions? I have raised this issue. I think the next generation of Canadians will have a rendezvous with the constitution. I am sure the imbalances, the inefficiencies that have accumulated in this inherited British system that we have not kept up to date in the way the British and other British derived systems have, will become large enough, and in a very short time from now we might get a movement toward general constitutional renewal.
If we go the constituency assembly route and we go the usual way in which constituent assemblies are adopted, we get out of the straitjacket of the chapter 5 amending sections of the constitution.
I could say more, but the hon. member opposite has pointed out to me the problem of one of his colleagues who has been waiting for four hours to speak and time is running away, so I think I will cut short my remarks.
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC
Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague for his speech. I know he takes a great interest in these matters.
I will share a fond memory with him. When I was doing my MA with Professor Edmond Orban, our required reading was texts that he had written as a law professor at the university.
I am a bit surprised at the vigour with which he is defending the Senate at a time when there is, in our ridings—in any event, it is very obvious in Quebec, and I am sure that my colleagues from Quebec, whatever side of the House they sit on, will agree—a push for increased democracy and for putting citizens at the heart of that democracy.
I invite the member to read what one of our excellent focus groups had to say about citizenship and democracy, because we are engaged in a process of renewing and giving concrete form to the sovereignist discourse.
I have trouble seeing how we could be interested in reforming the voting method. Why would we want people to have increased authority in the form of petitions, with the possibility of setting in motion mechanisms leading to public consultations? We are very involved in reviewing the role of members, yet the member for Vancouver Quadra is saying that there is an advantage to keeping the Senate and that we must rediscover this chamber.
The Senate has no democratic foundation. This is well known. This does not mean that there are not individual senators who can earn our respect through their diligent efforts. I could mention senators Prud'homme and Beaudoin. There are, of course, some excellent people but it is the institution that is the problem.
I ask the member the following question: Is it not fortunate that there is a widespread push in civil society for increased democracy, and is this democratic fervour among members of the public not incompatible with maintaining an institution as outmoded as the Senate?
Ted McWhinney Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I wish to remind the hon. member that the best idea to come out of the quiet revolution advocated by the great Jacques-Yvan Morin and a few other scholars was the recommendation for a reformed Senate on condition that it be divided 50:50 between francophone and anglophone regions, but the idea of a second chamber had the approval of intellectuals during the quiet revolution.
I might also refer my friend to my most recent book, Constitution-making .
Rob Anders Reform Calgary West, AB
Mr. Speaker, I would like to lead into my question with a quote, which states:
I...support Senate reform. If it is done properly, a restructured and revitalised Upper Chamber can give Albertans a voice in the governance of Canada. If elected Liberal leader, I pledge to work for a Senate that is elected, that has legislative powers of its own, and contains strong representation from all regions of Canada.
That was said on June 23, 1990 at the Liberal leadership convention. It gets better.
The same individual said on September 24, 1991, as reported in Hansard : “A reformed Senate is essential. It must be a Senate that is elected, effective and equitable”.
The same individual, speaking to 400 delegates at the annual general meeting of the Alberta branch of the federal Liberal Party in 1990, said: “The Liberal Government in two years will make it (the Senate) elected. As Prime Minister I can take steps to make it happen”.
The same individual went on to say to the Toronto Star on February 2, 1990: “You want the triple E Senate and I want one too”.
The same individual, who I will reveal to the House, went on to say once again, as reported in Hansard on May 14, 1991: “As I said before, and repeat, reform of the Senate is extremely important. I believe in it”.
The same individual said on February 1, 1997 to the Calgary Herald : “If he names him”, referring to Senator Stan Waters, “that's the end of appointed senators who are not elected”.
The same individual, speaking to Prime Time News on the CBC on December 29, 1992, said: “I know that in western Canada they were disappointed that there was not, there's the Senate, because they wanted to have an equal Senate and an elected Senate and I thought it was a good thing to do”.
Only one man could make that type of speech. Only man could make that quote. It is the same individual who also said “I'm not interested in patronage because I'm a Liberal” to 600 people in Edmonton, which was reported in the Windsor Star on February 2, 1990.
I leave members with one last quote: “I didn't want to be trapped into making decisions on patronage, local contracts, and appointments that cause so much friction and bad blood”. That is found at page 196 of a book which he wrote in 1985 called Straight from the Heart .
I put it to my hon. colleague: Who could that person be?
Ted McWhinney Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
Mr. Speaker, I think it has been already established that it was Dr. Randolph White, Jr. who is the author of these well known remarks. It may present him with some problems of explanation to his colleagues. I think honour is due where it falls.
He is known for his ways of eloquence in support of a chamber which Plato said should be reserved for those who made their mark in life, who gained the top of their professions and who are prepared to serve without salary. That is the Platonic conception and Dr. Randolph White has made this a leitmotiv to his own career, which has brought us all waves of brilliant oratory and an example that stands out to this country in a period of cynicism and despair, leading the charge to the new world and the new world order.
Rob Anders Reform Calgary West, AB
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Langley—Abbotsford.
The person I was talking about and those copious quotes I just read in favour of Senate reform were from none other than the one who sits across the way from us, the Right Hon. the Prime Minister.
There are substantive, clear, demonstrable reasons that once the Prime Minister won the Liberal leadership in 1990 and was elected in 1993 he changed his mind.
One reason was Lorna Milne, a former Liberal riding president and a Liberal Party worker who was appointed on September 9, 1995 and is now sitting as a senator. I think another reason was Joseph Landry, a former Liberal member of the legislative assembly who was appointed on February 26, 1996. I also think another reason was Joan Cook, a provincial Liberal candidate and loyal Liberal worker who was appointed on March 6, 1998.
Another reason was Sharon Carstairs, a former Manitoba Liberal leader and long time ally of the Prime Minister who was appointed on September 5, 1994. Another reason was Ross Fitzpatrick, a prominent B.C. Liberal organizer, golfing and business buddy who was appointed on March 6, 1998. We seem to notice a trend in recent days with golfing buddies of the Prime Minister.
Another reason was Nick Taylor, the former Alberta Liberal leader who was appointed on March 7, 1996. Another reason was Landon Pearson who is married to the son of former Liberal Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson and was appointed on September 15, 1994. The list goes on.
Another reason was William Rompkey, who refused to appear before members of the House of Commons that wanted to look at the Senate estimates. He was a former Liberal member of parliament and a Liberal cabinet minister in the Trudeau government appointed who was in 1995.
Another reason was Catherine Callbeck, former Liberal premier of Prince Edward Island who was appointed in 1997. Another reason was John Bryden, a candidate for Liberal leader in New Brunswick and someone who managed the Prime Minister's leadership campaign in New Brunswick in 1990 and was appointed in 1994. Another reason was Serge Joyal who had a prominent backroom role in the federal Liberal Party since he lost his Commons seat in 1984 and was appointed in 1997.
Since 1993 there are 34 reasons the Prime Minister has gone ahead with what he has done with the Senate and not carried forward on his 1990 promises when he was elected Liberal leader and when he was elected Prime Minister in 1993. There are currently four vacancies. If the government holds term until the year 2001, this mandate would allow it another 14 reasons, for a total of 52 reasons the Prime Minister has gone back on his word with regard to Senate elections. Senators are obsessed but the truth shall be known.
I wanted to put those reasons on the record because they are very important. I ask all hon. members to keep in mind that no one in the country can get away with only working one day in the spring and one day in the fall and getting a 16% budget increase in two years, for a total of $50 million plus.
I ask members in good conscience to apply their own good judgment when voting on the Senate estimates.
Randy White Reform Langley—Abbotsford, BC
Mr. Speaker, I have several questions to ask my colleague which may take a few minutes.
When we are talking about the Senate, I often sit back and wonder what life might be like in Canada had the Senate been elected, equal and effective. Let us take, for instance, some of the laws and changes that went through the House of Commons and were rubber stamped by a group of partisan individuals in the other place who basically take the legislation from the House and rubber stamp it.
I can think of some things that happened recently in the House of Commons. For instance, the age of consent for young people to have sex was 16 years old at one time. The government in its wisdom changed that to age 14.
Had there been a non-rubber stamp Senate, I do not think that would have happened. The place called the place of sober second thought would probably have gone around the country and tested the grassroots feelings in this regard. It probably would have come back and said that the average Canadian did not want the age of consensual sex to go from age 16 to 14. Had the Senate been effective and had the authority to turn that back, this would be a different country today.
Let us look at some other things that happened. Three years ago the government changed the fact that the Lord's Prayer was read in the House of Commons. Would that have occurred if the Senate had been effective and elected, with no particular ties to the government? After talking to some senators, I think the answer is no.
The fact is that the government said it shall occur. It was in majority and its good old boys in the other place would rubber stamp it because they are in majority as well. That is the problem with an unelected Senate which is not effective.
People across the country are wondering why it is, with all the good people in opposition, that laws get passed anyway, even though they are unpopular and even though there is a Liberal government elected with 38% of the vote. The fact is that legislation does not have to be checked through grassroots individuals. It just has to come in from cabinet and passed by telling people to put up their hands. Then it goes over to the Senate and the good old boys are told to stamp it because that is what they are there for. That is totally improper.
Does my colleague believe that Canada would be a different place if the Prime Minister were not appointing his friends to the Senate?
Rob Anders Reform Calgary West, AB
Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister of the land had abided by his promises when he was running for Liberal leader in 1990 and if he had abided by the mandate that was given him when he won the election in 1993, the Senate would be a 34% different place than it is today. It would be well on the way to being an elected and effective place, which he said he wanted to see in the country.
Randy White Reform Langley—Abbotsford, BC
Mr. Speaker, now that I have the full attention of the real guy who is standing here, I would like to make some comments pointed to the Prime Minister. He often says in question period, after we go at him with this Senate issue, that the Reform Party is responsible for having an unelected Senate.
What the Prime Minister does not say to most Canadians is that at that time there was one Reform member in the House of Commons. It was a number of provinces and millions of Canadians who did not go for the Charlottetown accord. For the Prime Minister to give us—