Deborah Grey

[Supply, May 28th, 1996]

My side won.

[Supply, May 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we have been at this for years and years. I can hardly believe he is ranting and raving right now against an elected Senate. I ask him to agree or disagree with the proposal in the resolution his party came forward with at the 1992 convention that said be it resolved that the Liberal Party of Canada is in favour of an elected Senate.

It would hardly seem he is following his party's policy right now in ranting against it. His friend, the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, for whom I have quite a bit of respect, said to me earlier "well, that was then".

Something happens from this side of the House over to that side of the House. In opposition the Liberals could say all kinds of things. Then of course at their assembly in 1992 before they became government they could have all these wonderful documents come forward.

The interesting thing that is different about his party and mine is that when we have an assembly and the delegates at that assembly vote on party policy, heaven help any MP who thinks they can vote against it because the people have the last word. I could never sit in the House and say that was then but now that I am in government things are so much better. Does he agree or disagree with that resolution?

He spent more time talking about me than he did about the Senate. I could not help but notice he was wondering aloud if I really wanted a seat in the Senate because of the redistribution of the constituency in Beaver River.

Let me put on the record in Hansard that if I ever think that I might get a seat in the Senate of Canada it will be because I run as an elected person for a seat in the Senate of Canada. It will be democratic, it will be legitimate and I will have some mandate for being in the Senate, not because some hack threw me in there.

He also says there might be Reformers in the Senate. I dare say there will be someday, but it will be because we are running there. It will not be because some political hack says to me "well done, thou good and faithful hack, go to the Senate". It will not happen, but that is his dream of getting to the Senate.

Perhaps there is a little disappointment because his name did not come up on the list. Several people have been put in the Senate since he was heaved down there by the glass doors. How much farther can you go before you are out of this Chamber?

He did not get a chance to get into the Senate. I wonder if he would agree with me, being that he did not get a seat, how important it is not to just make fun of the whole issue of election and talk about a fraud or whatever in Alberta, but would he stand with me and say he does not believe in some political person throwing him into the Senate, that he will be hanged before he will let some pot licker put him in the Senate without running to be there effectively and legitimately.

[Supply, May 28th, 1996]

What is all this I hear?

[Supply, May 28th, 1996]

Let me put this in the pocket, if we are talking about bank shots.

Liberals across the way can laugh and talk and there are three or four of them over there who can hoot and howl about it, but at their convention in 1992 they endorsed a resolution which said that they supported an elected Senate.

Perhaps one of them has the nerve to get up and speak in this debate, as I have seen precious few of them here today. I would love it if they would stand up and address this topic so we can ask them questions and then we would be able to put one in the pocket.

[Supply, May 28th, 1996]

Who is being questioned here anyway?

[Supply, May 28th, 1996]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I was here when there was that fracas in the Senate over the GST. I well remember these Liberals when they sat on this side of the House and said that they would scrap, kill and abolish the GST. I was the only one here who remembers that little promise and it simply did not happen. They have not been able to do it.

I said that Brian Mulroney was shamed into putting Stan Waters into the Senate. Now to be shamed into something does not necessarily mean that one has to have a look of shame on one's face. Stan Waters certainly remembered the call. He received the call from the Prime Minister saying that he would be putting him into the Senate because he had to honour that election.

My colleague says that Stan Waters won a popularity contest. Let it be known, although I do not have the numbers on top of my head, but I think he received 275,000 votes which is a darn sight more than any one of us have ever received in a single election in this House. It was no popularity context.

My friend also said that it was a fraud by Alberta. This is a provincial government with some legitimacy in this country. It has provincial rights. It put in provincial legislation called the senatorial selection act. It is as simple as that. For some guy from Ontario to stand up and say: "This is a fraud in Alberta", it is not proper. We do not need to change the Constitution to let this happen. The political will of the government in power is all that is necessary.

A full blown Senate amendment could be passed and this party has that ready to go if the day comes. However, anyone who has the political will to say that this is important, like the Liberals had in 1992, as I thought, at their biennial convention to say that "be it resolved that we are going to go ahead and have an elected Senate", I wonder what happened to the hon. member's memory.

He may follow the Prime Minister in saying: "You voted against the Charlottetown accord. Because the Charlottetown accord was defeated you people gave up an elected Senate". That is not true. There was so much gobbledegook in the Charlottetown accord that an elected Senate was only one part of it. An elected Senate was only one of the six or seven major issues in the accord but it would

not be an effective Senate because it was going to be counterbalanced by the number of people in the House of Commons.

My friend from Kingston and the Islands knows a lot more about all these technicalities than I do, but I am smart enough to figure out that it was not a true triple E Senate. The Charlottetown accord went down in flames across the country for various reasons but it was not because my party was against Senate reform. We want true, fair Senate reform.

My province of Alberta was the one that started a legitimate process. This was not a fraud. It was not a popularity contest. It was something that was absolutely legitimate and we are demanding that it be legitimized again. We do not have somebody dictate from the House of Commons what is going to happen over there. As the Prime Minister said so clearly not once but twice as I reiterated earlier on May 9: "I will name a senator who I will choose and who will represent my party". There is no shame there and there certainly should be.

[Supply, May 28th, 1996]

An hon. member across the way hollered he was appointed. He was appointed in June 1990 only after he had won a historic election on October 16, 1989. He won that, which was in place by the Alberta Senatorial Selection Act, a piece of provincial legislation which my province brought into place for that Senate election in 1989.

He ran in that and won with hundreds of thousands of votes. He had the largest majority that any elected official in the country has every received because the vote was province-wide. Now Granted, once he won that election our premier put his name forward for appointment by the Prime Minister because that was the legitimate channel he had to go through.

It took nine months, a regular nine month gestation period for Brian Mulroney to put him in. In June 1990 my friend, my colleague, one of my heroes, Stan Waters, was appointed/elected, whatever you want to call it. The only reason he was appointed was we were able to put such incredible pressure on the Prime Minister of the day. He said "those Albertans are causing trouble, I will put this guy in here and hope he keeps quiet".

Stan Waters did not keep quiet. The entire nine months he was waiting to be put into the Senate, no matter who interviewed him, no matter the issue, regularly he said that democracy delayed is democracy denied. He said that for month after month because he was the only democratically elected Senator we have ever seen in Canada. When it was always put to him that maybe he would get appointed to the Senate, maybe he would not, that did not sway him in the least.

I was able to talk about it in the House of Commons. He was able to talk about it in the Senate, outside the Senate, right across the country. He said regularly that democracy delayed is democracy denied.

Fortunately we were able to put him into the Senate because he won that mandate from the people of Alberta. He could go home on a plane whenever he wanted to go home and could get off that plane and know those people were literally his constituents. In other words, because he was elected he knew he had a mandate. Because he was elected he knew also that he could go home and that he was speaking the words of those Albertans to Parliament.

He let the Albertans pick, not the Prime Minister. Alberta people picked him. They voted for him and then because of that incredible mandate he had Brian Mulroney was shamed into appointing him into the Senate because he knew there might be a small uprising out west.

Dear knows we have had enough uprisings out west that they were not keen to have repeated. When he was finally put into the Senate he knew he was representing Albertans.

Let me spend another few minutes on some of the newer day senators who have come from my province, from western Canada, and talk about some of these people who believe passionately with all their heart in an elected Senate. They thought senators should be elected. They thought they would let their names stand for election. They thought every senator should step down from their appointments and be elected to the Senate of Canada.

One was Sharon Carstairs from Manitoba. During the Charlottetown accord she made quite a bit of noise talking about how important an elected Senate is. I remember hearing her on the Charlottetown accord campaign trail. She was quite upset about that.

All of a sudden out of the clear blue sky, not long ago after this government comes into power, boom, Sharon Carstairs appointed to the Senate of Canada.

I was in an elevator with her not that long ago. I said: "I thought you always were in favour of an elected Senate. How could this change so quickly?" She said: "I am trying to do what I can from the inside".

Members know that if someone accepts a paycheque of $64,000 a year or whatever their salary is and some plane trips back and forth, how does that person go home to Manitoba, get off a plane and say "Yes, I was the one who talked about an elected Senate all the time, I was the one who said I would run for election, I was the one who said how important it was, but times have changed. Here I am now. I am making a fairly healthy salary. I am in the Senate, but I am just doing everything I can do"?

It is not legitimate. It is simply not legitimate. That is the first one in my hat-trick of those people who had a conversion experience along the Damascus road. We could entitle it a funny thing happened on the way to the Senate. They were passionate believers in an elected Senate but as soon as they get the call from the Prime Minister things are different now.

Sharon Carstairs is number one. A good friend of mine and colleague, Nick Taylor, comes from closer to home. I appreciate him. He has been one of the provincial members of the legislative assembly in Alberta, in my federal riding. He was another one in all his years in the political wilderness in Alberta as the Liberal leader.

He did not get a seat. He could not get elected. He had a terrible time. He watched more goings on in the legislative assembly from the gallery than he ever did from his seat because he simply could not get elected.

By some stroke of luck and his good personality, he finally got elected in the Bon Accord area, Redwater, Smoky Lake in 1986. He

has sat as the Liberal leader for several years and talked about an elected Senate. Away we went again.

At the Liberal's federal biennial convention, as was mentioned earlier, in 1992 they said: "Be it resolved that the Liberal Party of Canada commit itself to an elected and effective Senate comprised of but not limited to equal representation from each of the 10 provinces of Canada". That is the Liberal resolution.

What happened to Nick Taylor in the middle of it all? He believed in that resolution. I bet a dollar he was at the convention in 1992. I bet he voted in favour of it. I talked to him lots of times.

What do you know, not too long ago he got the call from the Prime Minister. What do members think that call was about? "Nick, I would like you to run in an election that is already provided for in your province as a senator". Members are smiling. I bet they think that is what the call was about. No, he said: "I am putting you into the Senate". Da-da-da, patronage rules again.

Nick Taylor, who has a tremendous sense of humour and who always has a ready smile and good one-liners, said "of course it is patronage, but I am in, I am going". I was at his swearing in not long ago when he went into the Senate. Everything he ever said about an elected Senate just went kind of over the edge.

Now he is in the Senate. One has to ask: Do you put the pension, do you put the pay, do you put the perks over principles? I would hope not. I wish he would have said: "Mr. Prime Minister I appreciate the call, but I believe so strongly in an elected Senate and my province has the legislation already in place, the Alberta senatorial selection act. I will not take your appointment but I will run. I will let my name stand under the legislation we have in Alberta".

I bet a dollar he would have won that election, but who knows? Think of the legitimacy and the mandate he would have had if he had been elected by the people of Alberta and then went to sit in the Senate. He could have really puffed his chest out because he could have said: "I am here because I deserve to be here, not because I follow the dictates of the Prime Minister".

Unfortunately on May 9 in the hallowed halls of the House of Commons, the Prime Minister said: "Obliged by the Canadian Constitution I will name a senator who I will choose and who will represent my party". Is this sober second thought? This is not sobriety. This is something that says I will tell you exactly what you should do, and he will represent my party. A senator who will respect the will of the House of Commons? How about respecting the will of the people who sent him there? Unfortunately Nick Taylor is not able to do that.

Mr. Taylor qualifies for his MLA's pension. He has a $16,000 provincial pension. I was just at a townhall meeting in that provincial constituency the other night. There are a lot of people living in the Red Water-Bon Accord area who would give anything to make $16,000 a year, not to get a senator's salary as well as 16 grand a year for the pension. There is something awfully unfortunate about that. That is only number two on my list.

Let me talk about number three in the hat trick of senators who believed so strongly in an elected Senate, then all of a sudden something happened when they got the call. This month Jean Forest, a very respected Albertan, someone who has really contributed to society and who also talked about how important it is to have an elected Senate. She was all in favour of an elected Senate. She would have been out there with her name on the list if the Prime Minister had not given her the call.

My colleague mentioned earlier how important it was for attention to be paid to the wishes of Alberta. The premier, Ralph Klein, wanted to send a letter to the Prime Minister after the death of Senator Earl Hastings. He thought that he should at least have the courtesy to wait until the funeral was over. No sooner had the senator died then bang, Jean Forest got the call. Sober second thought? Funerals are sober second thought, but not the call which was so fast it would make one's head spin.

We should have at least conducted the business of what Albertans had to do with the Senator. She should have said: "Mr. Prime Minister, thanks for the call, but just a minute. Let us talk about what is propietous. Let us talk about general courtesy and general respect".

The next thing we knew she is in the Senate. "You have just been summoned to the Senate at age 69," when she should have been retired and at least have bought a motor home to go camping or something. There is a second person from my province who was appointed faster than the eye can see, who has said: "I firmly believed in an elected Senate then, but now that I have received the call I am so sorry, I will be appointed". That is not right. It is very frustrating and it is wrong.

The Canadian public are paying the bills for this. At least they deserve the chance to know the Senate is doing something worthwhile because it is costing several million dollars a year.

I will talk about another person from my province, Bud Olson, who has done the down and back again. He will receive an MP pension. He came in as a Socred, joined the Liberals on the national energy program and was appointed to the Senate. He was here a long time and has now gone back home to be the lieutenant-governor. He is making thousands of dollars. He receives a tremendous wage from the federal government as lieutenant-governor. I wish him well in this position and bear him no personal malice.

However, when his stint as lieutenant-governor is over he will be able to collect an MP pension, a Senate pension and a lieutenant-governor pension. That is going to be a lot of money. He has excused it by saying: "I would have made much more money in private life". That is not good enough for the people who are slogging and paying taxes and the bills on this. It is not good enough for you and I, Mr. Speaker, to say: "It is nice to be here but we would have done so much better in our private lives". You and I are teachers, Mr. Speaker. Could we have made better? What does it matter? Service is the ultimate.

I am reminded of a phrase from one of my favourite books which states: "Let him who wants to be chief amongst you be servant of all". That is what the Senate and the House of Commons needs to learn to do.

[Supply, May 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I will spend a few minutes talking about the motion which is before us. I thank my colleague from Vancouver Island for bringing it forward. This is historic. It is unfortunate that a lot of members on the other side perhaps do not understand how historic this is.

To make sure we all understand, it was 100 years ago that anyone from the Senate was summoned to the House of Commons. Given that we are getting close to the end of this century it is pretty amazing to think that someone from the Senate is being summoned to talk about the spending and the financing of the Senate.

Our colleague from Vancouver Centre this morning asked whether the Senate is the master of its own internal affairs. Then

she answered her own rhetorical question by saying yes. Then she said this was wasting a whole day of debate. Perhaps that one sentence shows the contempt some of the people across the way have for the Senate of Canada.

My friend from Kingston and the Islands said this could be a three hour speech. I would say he had that right. It certainly could be. Unfortunately I will spare him that pain and talk for a few minutes.

Are we wasting a whole day by talking about the legitimacy or the accountability of the Senate? I hardly think so. I would love it if she would come from B.C., her home province, up to my province of Alberta where we have had legislation in place since 1989 which deals with the legitimacy and the importance of an elected Senate. I would love her to come and have a chat with some of the people I spoke with in my town hall meetings last week. They were furious about some of the new Senate appointments.

Parliamentary reform is something which brought me to Parliament several years ago. If we are to look at the legitimacy or the mandate of the Senate, whether it is about its intent, its purpose or the cost involved, it is paramount to look at the history of the Senate and why it was set up.

It originally was set up as the chamber of sober second thought. That is great on paper. If we are actually to live with that and the mandate of regional representation it is a great idea. Dear knows we could all use some sober second thought. If we look at what the Senate is supposed to do, that is a great idea. It should be an institution to where legislation goes from here so senators can look at it to see how it is affected by a regional fairness tests or whatever.

Unfortunately it went off the rails between Confederation when it was set up and the place that it occupies in people's hearts and minds now. We could say it has been reformed. However, reform is supposed to be a positive thing. Maybe I could say it became deformed somewhere along the way. Now, rather than being a chamber of sober second thought for the Canadian public or for the House of Commons, it is accountable only to the dictates of the Prime Minister. That is probably what is more unfortunate than anything else about the whole Senate Chamber. It has become deformed. It is no longer providing the function for which it was originally intended.

As a Reformer I would say now that the thing has been so changed and so marred in so many ways, it is essential to change it. We must reform the Senate now. I favour the triple E Senate model. I am not ashamed of that. I live in a province which has taken great strides in pushing for a triple E Senate, which means its members would be elected, that there would be an equal number of senators from each province and that hopefully it would be an effective Senate.

In large countries where the population distribution is uneven there is a fundamental need to balance representation by population with representation by region or province. There would be people who disagree with me in this Chamber. I am used to that after all these years. However, the United States, because of its huge disparate population, has an elected Senate with an equal number from each state. Probably even a better example is the Australian model. Tasmania, which is sparsely populated, has the same number of elected senators as New South Wales which has a huge population. It is an excellent example and model for us to use. It is not impossible.

People say abolish the place. Unfortunately that is what we hear across the country. They ask how much is getting accomplished in the Senate. Precious little? Let us then do away with it. After all, we are looking at the spending and the accountability of the Senate. It spends about $40 million a year, a chunk of change.

The Canadian public is demanding there be some mandate, some legitimacy here for the Senate, and we need to make sure we have regional representation to balance representation by population.

One of my colleagues mentioned that Ontario has 99 members of Parliament because its population is so numerous. I see some of my colleague from Ontario here. There are fewer people in my province and we have only 26 members of Parliament, certainly a lot less. We have representation by population in the House of Commons.

In a country like this where there is such disparity we need that but we need it balanced in the upper House or the second House, which is supposed to be sober second thought. Because regimented party discipline results in block voting, Canada's parliamentary system is a good example of why this balance is needed. We have seen that time and time again in the House.

The Fathers of Confederation intended that the Senate provide this type of balance. Unfortunately it has been completely unable and neutered so that it cannot fulfil this role. An appointed Senate is not democratic.

We could say that any number of different ways and we might like to think there are nice ways of saying it, but there simply are not nice ways. We can say politely but we cannot say kindly that people who are sitting in the Senate right now are in any way democratic or in any way accountable to the people they are supposed to be serving. It is simply not right. It is high time for an elected Senate.

If I look at the number of people in the Senate of Canada since Canada began who have actually been elected to the Senate, I come up with one. It is so simple. One person only has ever been elected to the Senate of the Parliament of Canada, and that is pretty interesting.

[The Late Carl Gillis, May 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my party, I too want to extend sympathies to Carl's family. It is unbelievable that a life so young would be taken from us.

At times like this we realize the tragedy that somebody as young and healthy and who spent so much time in the outdoors doing something he loved can have their life suddenly snapped away so quickly. It is easy to ask why. His family is grieving, along with many people on the Hill.

My prayer is that all of us today consider our own mortality and realize how important it is to appreciate every special day we have. It is easy to get caught up with how important issues are, yet life itself is such a gift. It is important for all of us to live each day as it is a special gift for all of us.

I extend our sympathy and profound grief at the passing of this young man. May he be an example to all of us that we cherish every day we have.

[Employment, May 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the truth is that this government has broken one promise after another since it was elected. The GST was supposed to be scrapped but oops, that was a mistake. It is still with us. Jobs, jobs, jobs were supposed to be created but the reality of the numbers are that 1.4 million Canadians are still unemployed. The Prime Minister says Canadians are simply going to have to learn to live with it.

Will the finance minister admit that he has failed and unfortunately Canadians are just going to have to learn to live with it?