Bill Gilmour

[Senator Selection Act, November 26th, 1998]

moved that Bill C-382, an act to allow the electors of a province to express an opinion on who should be summoned to the Senate to represent the province, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to have this bill come forward before the Alberta election of senators last month. In my role as opposition Senate critic at the time I put it into the mill. Unfortunately it did not get up before that time. The issue remains very much the same as it did before the Alberta election.

I am pleased to present Bill C-382 to the House today as it attempts to bring democratic reform to the upper house of parliament or our Senate.

The purpose of my bill is to ensure that if a province has a law providing for the expression of the opinion of the electors on who should be summoned to the Senate to fill a vacancy, no person shall be summoned to fill the vacancy unless the electors opinion has been sought and the results transmitted to the Privy Council, or unless a year has passed since the vacancy was published in The Canada Gazette . To break down the legalise, basically my bill allows for elected senators over appointed senators. Our current system is to appoint them.

This can be done without constitutional change. Time and again the government has said it cannot be done, that it requires constitutional amendment. My bill on the election of senators does not require any change to our current Constitution.

This was shown in Alberta in 1989 when Stan Waters was elected and appointed to the Senate by then Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. I make it very clear to the House and to people watching that this does not require any constitutional change. The confusion comes when we want to change the numbers of senators that represent provinces. That does require constitutional change, but to elect our senators does not.

The Prime Minister would simply be required to respect the wishes of the voters of any province with a senatorial selection act. Two provinces to date have senatorial selection acts, B.C. and Alberta. Alberta has chosen to use its act on two occasions.

Our first senator, Stan Waters, was appointed to the Senate without constitutional change. In 1989 hundreds of thousands of Albertans voted for the first democratically chosen senator in Canadian history. This was an historic first in Canada and clearly demonstrated how easily democratic change can be done without changing the Constitution.

My bill is significant. Electing senators has been an issue that has been around as long as the House. It has been debated over and over again and tossed back and forth. It needs to be resolved, the key point being that Canadians do not want a government by appointment. They want to have a say. A senate going back to the last century and the thinking of the last century no longer works. The world is moving ahead. Canada is dragging behind. It is time we caught up.

Originally our Senate was meant to represent the regions. A senator from B.C. would represent B.C. A senator from Ontario would represent Ontario. A senator from Quebec would represent Quebec. However, as it now stands, the Senate provides little more than political representation for the party in power. It is absolutely essential that we remove patronage appointments from the Prime Minister's hands and put them into the hands of the people. That is what my bill would do.

Last month Canadians witnessed a Senate election in Alberta. There are now two senators in waiting. The final results of that election on October 19 last were Bert Brown with approximately 332,000 votes, Ted Morton with approximately 261,000, Guy Desrosiers with approximately 147,000 votes; and Vance Gough with approximately 131,000 votes. Nearly a million votes is a significant number. There were a million Albertan votes for an elected Senate. Both Bert Brown and Ted Morton broke Stan Waters' record of 256,000 votes, which at that time was the largest number of votes ever received by any elected member in the history of Canada. These two senators beat that record.

Clearly it is time for the government to acknowledge the democratic rights of Canadians and agree to appoint these elected senators to the Senate when vacancies arise. As it now stands it is simply undemocratic.

Canadians are governed by both houses of parliament, the Commons that we are in today and the Senate which is the other house of parliament. In theory both houses have almost equal powers. Senators have powers similar to those of elected MPs. They can write laws, vote on important motions and bills, sit on parliamentary committees and perform other government functions.

Yet most significant is the fact that senators can approve or veto legislation that comes from the lower house. Any bill passed by the elected members of this House must also pass the Senate to become law. It is completely unacceptable that this powerful part of our government is run by political appointees, not by elected representatives.

Senators must be held accountable. Yet there is absolutely no accountability in the upper chamber and this must change. Canadians expect and deserve accountability in their public institutions, and the Senate is lagging far behind.

The Senate is exempt from any accountability to the people. This was painfully demonstrated last year with the actions of former Senator Andrew Thompson. Thompson demonstrated and showed that once appointed senators do not have to answer to anyone including the prime minister. Once senators are appointed and are in place, if they so choose they are there until age 75. If Canadians are to obtain an effective upper house we must give the Senate a democratic mandate similar to what we have today in the House of Commons.

As I said earlier, Senate elections can be done easily. They do not require a constitutional amendment. Many changes to our country's government require complex constitutional changes but the Senate elections, as we have already seen clearly demonstrated in Alberta with Stan Waters, show that it can be easily done and without major change.

Another issue is that many people say that it will cost too much. Both the elections of Stan Waters and of the senators last month were done during municipal elections. The cost is not great. In fact it is quite minimal because people are already going to the polls in municipal elections. It simply means printing another ballot.

Canadians are impatient with this issue and with the government of the day that has failed to change this system. The national Angus Reid poll conducted last April shows that the public is now divided between reforming the upper house and abolishing it entirely. Very few Canadians want to leave the Senate as it is. There are three options: leave the Senate as it is, which very few Canadians want; reform the Senate; or abolish it.

A poll taken last May shows that Manitobans overwhelmingly want the province's next senator to be elected, not appointed. This survey found that 86% of Manitobans believe that the people, not the prime minister, should fill vacancies in the upper house. Only 7% were in favour of having the prime minister appoint senators and 7% were undecided. In a similar poll in B.C., 84% of the residents want to elect their senators.

Here are two separate and independent polls, one in Manitoba and one in British Columbia with 86% in Manitoba and 84% in British Columbia saying they want their senators elected. This is not a wishy-washy issue. As demonstrated by the polls and by Canadians they want this to happen. Senators such as Senator Gerry St. Germain have acknowledged an elected Senate would be more democratic. He said that it was realistic to hope this would be achieved one day. Clearly an elected Senate would be far more representative, responsible and democratic than what we have today.

Let me list the record because to date the current Prime Minister has made more patronage appointments to the Senate than his predecessor, Brian Mulroney. This is the same Prime Minister who severely criticized the past prime minister for his patronage appointments.

The current Prime Minister has riddled the Senate with political patronage appointments, including eight former Liberal members of parliament which include four former Liberal cabinet ministers; a former Manitoba Liberal leader and long time ally of the Prime Minister; a former Alberta Liberal leader; a former P.E.I Liberal leader; a former deputy premier of Quebec; a former candidate for Liberal leader in New Brunswick who managed the Prime Minister's leadership campaign in 1990; a failed provincial Liberal candidate and loyal Liberal worker; a former Liberal riding president and Liberal Party worker; a prominent B.C. Liberal organizer, golfing and business buddy of the Prime Minister; a Quebec Liberal organizer; the wife of the son of former Liberal Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson; and the list goes on.

How can we have a Senate that is unbiased when the Prime Minister loads it up with Liberals who rubber stamp legislation? This was done in reverse with the former government. They loaded it up with Conservatives. This simply does not serve the interest of Canadians.

To whom are senators accountable? Originally they were supposed to be accountable to the provinces, accountable to the regions. However, because of the political appointment system, they are accountable only to the political party that appoints them. That is absolutely wrong.

Recent changes to the House of Lords in Britain demonstrate democratic reform is long overdue. This week Queen Elizabeth removed the hereditary voting privileges of the House of Lords. This was historic, democratic reform. What remains to be seen in Britain is if the election of senators will now become a reality, or whether they would unfortunately go into our system of appointment. It is time to bring democracy to Canada's upper house.

We as members of parliament answer to our constituents. When we do well, as we all hope to do, we go back to the polls and hopefully get re-elected. If we do not do well, we are thrown out as we should be. This is the system that occurs not only in lower houses but in upper houses in many parts of the world.

Why can we not have our senators elected and answerable to the provinces and the constituents that sent them there so that they are accountable to the people who sent them there instead of accountable to the political party that appointed them? This is the real wrong in our Senate.

Many people are becoming jaded because they have a Senate they feel simply does not work. We get wrangling and haranguing, no change. In my view as a politician this is why many of us are held in low esteem. We simply do not have an upper house that is accountable to the people.

Before the 1993 election the Prime Minister proposed an elected Senate when he said:

Reform of the Senate is extremely important. I believe in it. We must look for a division of powers that best serves the interests of the people, all the Canadian people.

The Prime Minister also said in the House:

To meet the hopes and dreams of those who live in the west and the Atlantic, a reformed Senate is essential. It must be a Senate that is elected, effective and equitable.

It is long overdue for the Prime Minister to give Canadians what he promised, an elected Senate. It is my hope that my bill will give the Prime Minister the prod that is required to allow him to live up to his promises.

[Solicitor General Of Canada, November 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we are well aware that politics and perceptions are what people see. The Canadian perception now is that there is a bad apple in the Liberal barrel, namely the solicitor general.

Prime Minister Mulroney got rid of Sinclair Stevens, yet this government does not do anything with the current solicitor general. How far are the Liberals prepared to let the rot in that barrel expand? When are they going to get rid of the solicitor general?

[The Environment, November 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, last week I attended the global warming negotiations in Buenos Aires.

Little progress was made toward meeting the goals set down in Kyoto last year and one simply has to ask “Why?”

Could it be that many of the delegates to the Kyoto protocol arrived home in their respective countries last year only to be beat up because of the unrealistic goals they had agreed to?

The distinct lack of agreement in Buenos Aires on key issues such as inclusion of developing countries or emissions trading mechanisms makes it appear that many countries want to push negotiations well into the next century and then use that as the excuse for not meeting the global goals.

Why not have the political backbone and admit it up front. The goals that Canada agreed to in Kyoto are unrealistic and unachievable—

[The Environment, October 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, what my colleague asked was what is the plan going to Buenos Aires. Next week 160 countries are meeting to go over the Kyoto protocol at the negotiating table. However, according to foreign affairs and environment Canada officials testifying before committee, Canada does not have a plan. We still do not have a plan.

We are going to negotiations next week. Will the minister state now what is Canada's plan going to those negotiations in Buenos Aires next week?

[Fishers' Bill Of Rights, October 26th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, when we speak to a bill such as Bill C-302, proposed by the member for New Brunswick Southwest, there are commonalties all across the country and on all coasts. However I will be talking about this bill from a west coast perspective, as the member opposite said that we might have concerns in this area.

The bill describes a bill of rights for fishermen. This bill has multiple rationales and essentially would be a good counter-balance to the dominance of decision making on fisheries fronts by an overly centralized bureaucracy that we all know as the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. This bill is not responsive enough to local communities, to local fishermen or in fact to the recreational sector.

This bill is clear in stating that people who fish for their livelihood should be involved in decisions regarding the protection, development and harvesting of fish. This is good for two reasons. First, the fishermen have important local knowledge of the kind we cannot afford to prove scientifically, but which has stood the test of time. Second, if we do not involve the fishermen we do not get a buy-in with new policy directions and new management proposals.

It is also a primary way to develop volunteerism which is so critical in the development of fish stocks, whether through fish hatcheries, the development of riparian zones or developing a conservation ethic in children's or citizen's watch on poaching. Any number of things contribute to the good citizen aspect of looking after our resources.

Probably the most controversial aspect of the bill deals with the right of compensation to those whose rights were taken away or abrogated by the federal government through unilateral or actions which exclude affected fishermen.

The government and DFO bureaucracy will fight this clause tooth and nail because it attempts to make them accountable for decisions they make about people affected by their decisions. It is far easier for bureaucrats or ministers to sit ensconced, buffered and unchallenged and be securely protected from the results of their decisions. These people do not have repercussions from their bad policy decisions. Given a choice they would prefer not to deal with people affected by their decisions because plainly it is uncomfortable for them.

This is the crux of the bill, the strongest part of the bill. It is an attempt to bring accountability to the bureaucracy.

Despite all this I have some concerns about the bill which I discussed with the member for Vancouver Island North who spoke to the bill in debate on June 4 this year. Here are our concerns.

The bill does not establish a process to provide for fishermen's involvement or representation prior to the decision making process. There is nothing to say that the fishermen's representations have to be heeded. Nor does it give any meaningful decision making power to those affected. There is a prohibition against any decisions being made until all the hearings are exhausted. This could render the system too cumbersome when quick decisions are needed for conservation or other purposes.

In addition, clause 5(a) of the bill mentions fishing rights but this term is not defined. Licence holders who are active and who continue to invest in vessels, gear and so on, should have a right to renewal of that licence year after year. However this is not set out in the bill. It would also be useful to see that the minister could not create new licences without consultation and support from all existing licence holders of all categories affected.

Also the definition of the public right to fish in clause 2 is not consistent with the general law that extends this right to the commercial sector. This misdefining of the public right to fish could be taken as an abolition by parliament of the public right to fish in any area beyond the areas defined specifically in the bill.

On the west coast the public right to fish, the common law right that dates back to the Magna Carta, is a public right of access that in the commercial and recreation sector is tempered by limited entry licences and other restrictions, but this public right is still the overriding check on the predominant powers of the minister.

Removal of this public right would essentially give the minister the power to allocate fisheries quotas to anyone, any group, institution or person. This is the crux of the debate over the ethnic based aboriginal fisheries strategy, a pilot sales program which the federal government implemented in 1992.

British Columbians oppose a separate commercial fishery based on race. Ongoing polarization and division have been created by natives and non-natives on the issue every since.

In 1998 the public protest against this fishery included native commercial fishermen in the all Canadian commercial fishery who also opposed the separate fishery but are now fully prepared to go public with their concerns. All legal challenges to this fishery have succeeded. Yet the government and the minister persist in pursuing this policy.

The legal rights protest has gone on since 1992 which has detracted from focused management of the fisheries. It has focused people's energies on divisive issues instead of allowing them to look at the big picture and conservation issues.

Another concern is that clauses 4 and 5 of the bill extend into areas covered by provincial legislation. These clauses are probably unconstitutional. If something is validly authorized by provincial legislation it is beyond the reach of federal legislation. Given the exclusive nature of the division of powers under our Constitution, I feel it should be left that way and these clauses should not be left in the bill.

In conclusion, I support the intent of the bill to create a fishermen's bill of rights and hope we can give qualified support so that the bill can move forward to committee where we can address some of our concerns. There are very good areas within the bill but there are also areas of concern.

I give it qualified support and look forward to it going to a vote in the House and then on to committee.

[Sydney Tar Ponds, October 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, when I was first elected five years ago, I visited the worst environmental disaster in Canada, the Sydney tar ponds in Nova Scotia. At that time I urged the environment minister to implement a viable long term solution. Two weeks ago I returned to Sydney to find little change. More than 15 years and over $70 million has been wasted and the people of Sydney are still waiting for a resolution.

Yesterday another study was released which concluded that Sydney residents have almost a 50% higher risk of cancer than the rest of Nova Scotia. How much more evidence do federal and provincial governments need to take action on this issue?

In addition, the people next to the coke oven site on Frederick Street must be relocated. We would not live there, why should we expect them to?

Cleaning up Sydney must be a priority. The time for studies is over. The time for action is now.

[Senate, June 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, once again our upper chamber has made a case for Senate reform.

Yesterday the supreme court convicted a Tory senator for influence peddling. Next week this Mulroney appointee will be sentenced and faces up to five years in prison.

The Constitution Act, 1867 lays the foundation for the resignation of this senator. The Criminal Code calls for resignation if he is convicted for more than two years in prison.

We should take note it took the supreme court to hold this wayward senator accountable. Now it is up to the Senate or the senator himself to act responsibly and do the honourable thing which is to resign.

Should the senator not resign, the Senate has only one option and that is to deal with the senator's criminal conviction. Canadians do not want a senator from prison any more than they want a senator from Mexico. So resign, Senator Cogger, and resign now.

[The Environment, May 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the environment minister has antagonized the provinces, has antagonized industry and has confused the public. The auditor general clearly states in his report that the Kyoto agreement is bound to fail because of government bungling.

Why did the minister go to Kyoto without a plan and then sign a protocol when she knew full well that the government had no intention of following through?

[The Environment, May 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the government received its environmental report card today and it got an f . Regarding the Kyoto protocol on climate change the environment commissioner gave the government an f for lack of an implementation plan, an f for assigning targets, an f for designating responsibility and an f for accountability.

My question is very straightforward. Who in the government is willing to take the blame for this dismal failure?

[The Senate, May 15th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Fathers of Confederation established the Senate to give Canadians regional representation.

However, with the current patronage system most senators represent the political interests of the parties that appointed them. Few are accountable to the provinces they are supposed to represent. However, there are a few good senators who represent their regions and serve their constituents well.

One notable senator in my home province of British Columbia is Senator Pat Carney. Senator Carney has been in the forefront of British Columbia issues such as the salmon treaty with the U.S. and retaining lighthouses on the west coast. Both of these are issues that the Liberal government has either failed to act on or has bungled miserably these past four and a half years.

Yesterday it was reported that Senator Carney checked into hospital in Prince Rupert with cardiac related problems. I want to take this opportunity to wish Senator Carney a speedy recovery. We want her back in her seat. Good senators are hard to come by.