Bill Gilmour

[Canada Labour Code, February 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, to begin with I would like to describe my riding because it is important to this debate.

Nanaimo—Alberni stretches right across the centre of Vancouver Island. We have fisheries, we have forestry and we have retirement. In the centre, Port Alberni, which is largely forestry oriented, a strong labour town. It is a town with heart. It is a town which has grown through the labour movement. It used to be a strong NDP community. Now it is a strong Reform community.

My background is that of a professional forester. I worked in the forest industry for 25 years. Yes, I was on the management side but labour and management together built a good union and a good foundation for that town.

Under this legislation a union could be certified with less than 50% of the employees being in favour of it. Frankly, it is nuts. I can see that members opposite are agreeing with me.

It seems to fit into the Liberal idea of what democracy is. If we can get about a third of the people, that is democracy and we will go with it. Unfortunately that does not work in the rest of Canada.

I am quite amazed at this government. Where are the Ontario Liberals? There are strong unions within Ontario. The auto workers come to mind.

I am amazed that this legislation has been allowed to get this far without Ontario labour unions being up in arms. They should be solidly against this legislation, and I am sure they are.

Members opposite are sitting there trying to decide why the labour unions are in favour of it when they are not. They are clearly in a dilemma. It is most interesting, in 25 minutes we are going to have a budget debate. I point out that labour unions are well paid people.

It is the taxpaying public. You should hear them muttering over there, Mr. Speaker. It is very difficult for most Canadians to hear because they sound like hens in the hen house busy cackling away.

It is about investment. Investment in B.C. requires a solid base. There cannot be a government that ignores unions, that ignores the investment potential of any province, be it Ontario, B.C. or Alberta, because it will be at its peril. In fact, in my home province of B.C. we are in difficulty because the NDP provincial government has tried that. It is now having great difficulty getting foreign investment.

This bill died in the Senate, which I am sure most Canadians will understand. However, the Senate does have its purpose. It killed this bill. It killed it for a reason. The reason was it did not work. So the new bill came in, and what have we got? Very much of the same type of legislation. It is a gloss over of the old type of legislation. I suspect that if this goes to the Senate it is not going to go anywhere either.

This government has to realize that it has to listen up. Even the Senate cannot take this type of legislation. But it is going to try it again, to keep pushing. Maybe if it pushes it harder it will go through again. It is not going to work.

This government has tried it on a number of types of legislation. Look at endangered species last time in the last Parliament. It did not go through. Why? Members on the government side could not vote for it. Look at the conference on global warming in Kyoto. Talk about a fiasco because this government did not have its groundwork in order. This is typical of this bill. Government has not done its homework. When other countries get together, where is Canada? We do not have our act together. We have not done our homework, very similar to this bill.

I suggest this bill needs major refurbishment and hopefully this government will listen up and do it before it introduces it again.

[Senate Of Canada, February 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House the Prime Minister said:

We would like to reform the Senate and the best way is to try to convince the provinces to do so.

Premier Klein of Alberta wrote the Prime Minister seeking a commitment to hold off on filling the vacant Alberta Senate seat until Alberta had an opportunity to have a Senate election.

The Prime Minister says he is keen on bringing the provinces on side to reform the Senate. Why then did he ignore Premier Klein's request to appoint an Alberta senator who had been duly elected?

[The Senate, February 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was in Toronto for the unveiling of an Ontario senatorial selection act at Queen's Park. Both Alberta and British Columbia already have senatorial selection acts that allow the people to choose their senators. Now Ontario has joined the movement for democracy in government.

The message is clear. Over half of this country has indicated its willingness to modernize the upper house. Government by appointment is clearly outdated, undemocratic and unacceptable. Canadians want effective, elected and accountable representation.

The Prime Minister has told Canadians on many occasions that he supports an elected senate. Now Canadians are calling on the Prime Minister to respect the will of the people and allow the provinces to choose their representatives through democratic elections.

Senator Thompson's second hearing is tonight. It is time for the Senate to say adios Senor Thompson, and for this Prime Minister to say Senate election.

[Canada Evidence Act, February 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on the first point, there are only two parties represented in the Senate, the Liberals and the Conservatives. When legislation is brought into the Senate, the NDP, the Reform and the Bloc do not have representation. At the beginning of the legislation they are not represented. We have the views of two parties as opposed to five. That is unfair.

On the second question, we have already had an elected senator, Senator Waters of Alberta. We would like the people of Canada in all provinces to be able to elect their senators. Right now B.C. and Alberta have senatorial selection acts in place which allow senators to be elected. Stan Waters was elected in 1989 in a municipal election. A lot of people say the costs are horrendous. The election can be tagged onto an municipal, provincial or federal election, so the costs are not huge.

The concept is that the people of Alberta chose Stan Waters. We think the people of all provinces should choose their senators so that they then represent the people that sent them and not the party that put them in place.

[Canada Evidence Act, February 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Calgary Southeast.

Our critic, the member for New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, outlined our position on Bill S-5. I will take a different tack and explore where the bill has come from. It has come from the Senate. The Reform Party position is that it should not be coming from there.

Let examine the history of the Senate. In the British system it is the House of Lords. Legislation went from the Commons up to the Senate and then on to royal assent. My party believes it is not correct to have legislation originating in the Senate.

The Senate only represents two of the five parties in the House of Commons. There is not fair representation in the Senate. Senators are appointed as opposed to members of the House who are elected. Legislation should originate in the House and then proceed through.

The Senate does not represent the people or the regions as it was meant to do. Senators represent the parties that put them into place. It is unlike members of the House who have to go back to their constituents. Should introduce legislation or represent a view our constituents do not like, we do not get re-elected. Senators are there until 75 years of age. They are not accountable for the positions they take. There are no constituents to say they did not represent them and they want them out of there. That does not happen.

The bill by originating in the Senate is flawed. We support the legislation. We are not talking about the legislation. It is the concept or the principle as to where the legislation is coming from. We believe it should be coming from the House. We are all accountable. We are all elected. We represent our constituents as opposed to those in the other place.

I believe I have made my point. I wanted to get it on record. There are a number of other bills like Bill S-5. We will continue to push the line of thinking that bills should originate from elected representative in the House of Commons.

[The Senate, February 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, our absentee senator from Mexico will stroll into Ottawa tomorrow to make an appearance in the Senate so that he can continue to collect his pay for another two years.

This particular senator has taken advantage of the Canadian taxpayer for 31 years and now the government and the Senate have made his life easier. He has been freed from his party obligations and was recently relieved of his Ottawa office. Now he does not even have a phone should his constituents try to get a hold of him.

What kind of representation are Canadians receiving when senators can live on the beaches of Mexico and show up once a year or so only to qualify to collect their pay?

Now is the time to end this senator's siesta. The Prime Minister must take responsibility and ask the senator from Mexico to withdraw from the Senate so that Canadians can have legitimate representation in the upper chamber.

[Point Of Order, February 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I also rise to support my colleague's motion.

Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 11, comments on the necessity to adjust the interpretation of our precedents and traditions in the light of changing circumstances.

Mr. Speaker, when this issue was first brought to your attention this citation was referenced in terms of the five parties which presently sit in the House of Commons, as opposed to the two which sit in the Senate.

I would also like to add the argument that when the Fathers of Confederation drew up the Constitution Act, 1867, they included a provision which restricted the Senate.

Section 53 of the Constitution Act, 1867, provides that:

Bills for appropriating any Part of the Public Revenue, or for imposing any Tax or Impost, shall originate in the House of Commons.

Back in the 19th century most of the work of Parliament concentrated on the appropriation of money. Today the government has grown so large and is so extensively involved in the every-day lives of Canadians, it would make sense that this restriction upon the Senate be expanded.

The reason for restricting the Senate back in 1867 was because senators were unelected and unaccountable to the people. They are still unelected and they are still unaccountable to the people.

The evolution of our rules includes keeping the relevant rules, discarding those rules which no longer make sense and adopting new rules when new rules are needed. For example, members of this House are protected by the privilege of freedom of speech which goes back to the bill of rights of 1689. At the same time we are guided by rules which were adopted only a few short months ago which addressed the reality of five parties in this House.

The Senate issue today is more of a 20th century matter. Since the present day Senate simply does not fit into a modern democracy, we should consider bringing the Senate into the 20th century. To begin this process the government could end the practice of introducing bills in the Senate today. It is that simple.

I would ask that the Speaker consider my remarks, as well as those of my colleagues, and judge on them.

[The Senate, February 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to revisit a statement made by our Prime Minister: “I, on the other hand, support Senate reform. If it is done properly, a restructured and revitalized upper chamber can given 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”.

These are the words and promises of our Prime Minister spoken at the Liberal leadership convention on June 23, 1990. It would appear the Prime Minister has forgotten his pledge to work for an elected, representative Senate. Fortunately we in the official opposition are delighted to assist the Prime Minister in honouring his promise.

[Points Of Order, February 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I believe what we often deal with in this House is not black, it is not white, it is grey and this is one of those grey areas that you will have to deal with.

Arguably this is a money bill. This will be your decision. But I believe what we are dealing with here is the inch worm. It is the wedge.

If you rule against the Reform Party on this point of order, how far down the road do we have to go? Do we have to go to the state of the Australian Parliament where the Senate which could deal with money bills formed a gridlock? The Australian Parliament ceased to function. Is that where this Parliament is going? Is that how far we want to go down that road? Do we have to get there? I do not think we do.

Mr. Speaker, I urge you to look at this in the context of how far down the road we are going to stop it. I believe the time is now.

[The Environment, December 1st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, well, golly, I think the minister just identified the problem: they did not have it until today. That is what the people wanted to know. Good Lord.

The question is, how is the government going to do it? Premier Klein is not all on side. What about the unemployment and what about the costs? Again I ask, how many jobs is this going to cost and how many dollars for the Kyoto deal?