Bill Gilmour

[Fisheries, June 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the fisheries minister's track record on the Pacific coast has been disastrous to say the least.

His announced licence buy back is a failure because it does not deal with the real issue: major reductions in the number of fish available to all sectors of the fishing community, commercial, sports and native fishermen.

When fish stocks are in danger, what does the minister do? He opens a native only fishery in the Alberni Inlet, a move which drew severe criticism of the minister from a federal court judge last Friday.

The minister has repeatedly favoured the native fishery at the expense of the commercial and sports sectors. It is time for the minister to cancel all native openings and when that is done, to deal severely with all fishermen who defy the law and fish illegally.

This government and this minister must first conserve fish stocks for future generations and then treat all fishermen equally regardless of their race.

[Fisheries, June 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday I attended Federal Court in Vancouver to hear the case regarding the native only fishery in the Alberni Canal in my riding of Comox-Alberni.

The plaintiffs sought an injunction to stop the fishery and challenged the fishery minister's authority to grant an opening to one sector of society based solely on race. Rarely has a Federal Court judge been so critical of a minister of the crown.

The judge charged that this was a very serious issue and the courts were dealing with only half the information and half the evidence, and he blamed the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. He said DFO had been negotiating secret deals that had impacts far beyond those which involved the two parties before him in court.

When will this government, and particularly this minister, realize that all Canadians, regardless of race or background, deserve equal treatment and that all Canadians must be treated equally before and under the law?

[The Senate, June 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, more than a month has passed since members of this House sent a message to the Senate requesting that the chair of the Senate board of internal economy appear before the Standing Committee on Government Operations to account for Senate expenses. We have heard nothing from the Senate.

How can an unelected, unaccountable public institution not justify its expenses to the public? It is simply unacceptable. If $40 million cannot be justified, members should reduce spending to more reasonable levels. A $10 million reduction to bring spending down to $30 million may be more appropriate.

Canadians simply cannot continue to write a blank cheque for the Senate. It is time for the Senate to respect modern democratic principles of accountability and justify its spending to taxpayers.

Senator Kenny told reporters he is willing to come before committee. Well Mr. Kenny, your time has come. Come on down.

[Canadian Bill Of Rights, June 10th, 1996]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government provide a greater measure of protection for individual property rights by amending the Canadian Bill of Rights to read:

"1. Subject to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society, every person has the right to the enjoyment of that person's personal and real property and the right not to be deprived thereof unless the person

(a) is accorded a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, and

(b) is paid fair compensation in respect of the property, and the amount of that compensation is fixed impartially, and is paid within a reasonable amount of time after the person is deprived of their property.

1. Any person whose rights, as set out in section 1, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances".

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to introduce my private members' motion today for the first hour of debate.

The purpose of my motion is very basic. It proposes to strengthen and protect individuals' property rights. Motion M-205 reads:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government provide a greater measure of protection for individual property rights by amending the Canadian Bill of Rights to read:

"1. Subject to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society, every person has the right to the enjoyment of that person's personal and real property and the right not to be deprived thereof unless the person

(a) is accorded a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, and

(b) is paid fair compensation in respect of the property, and the amount of that compensation is fixed impartially, and is paid within a reasonable amount of time after the person is deprived of their property.

1. Any person whose rights, as set out in section 1, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances".

In brief, the motion asks the government to amend the Canadian Bill of Rights by adding two sections. The first section would allow citizens the right to their property unless the person receives a fair hearing in accordance with principles of fundamental justice. The second section gives individual property owners the right to fair compensation for their property within a reasonable amount of time.

Canadians are fortunate to have an abundance of rights in this country. Many of our rights are guaranteed in the Constitution. Our Constitution guarantees language rights, native rights, women's rights; however, it does not cover property rights.

Section 7 of the charter of rights and freedoms provides that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Life, liberty and security of the person are clearly basic values fundamental to all Canadians; however, the protection of individual property rights is also of major importance to Canadians. It affects all of us and is a fundamental part of Canadian law and society.

Canadians believe in a free and democratic society. They believe in fundamental justice and in the necessity for fairness. These are values that unite Canadians. Most believe that property rights are also among those basic rights in Canada. Yet property rights is one value that does not have protection.

The protection of property is an important guarantee of freedom. This right must be protected so that government cannot infringe on that right without due process and without providing compensation for the property. There is simply no reason that government should have the freedom to expropriate private property without fair, just and timely compensation. Yet there is no requirement in Canadian constitutional law that removal of private property be covered by a fair procedure to deal with compensation to the owner. There is no guarantee of fair treatment by the courts, tribunals or officials who

have the power over individuals or corporations. Motion M-205 addresses these concerns.

In the past there have been many attempts to deal with property rights concerns. In 1960 John Diefenbaker introduced and passed the Canadian Bill of Rights. The bill of rights includes property rights, yet the guarantee of protection is only marginal at best.

Section 1(a) of the Canadian Bill of Rights states: "The right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law". As well, section 2(e) provides that no federal law is to be construed or applied so as to deprive a person of the right to a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice for the determination of his rights or obligations. In short, property rights are given very marginal protection under the Canadian Bill of Rights.

I am talking about two documents. There is the Canadian Bill of Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Members should pay attention to the one I am talking about because each has a different application in law.

There is no guarantee that private property will not be removed for public use and there is no provision that government must pay just compensation when it expropriates property. Without rights of due process and fair compensation, individual property rights are quite meaningless.

There have also been attempts to entrench property rights in the charter of rights and freedoms. Prime Minister Trudeau argued vigorously and repeatedly for inclusion of property rights in the charter of rights and freedoms. When Mr. Trudeau was justice minister in 1968 he tabled a Canadian charter of human rights which included the protection of property rights. The next year, as prime minister, Trudeau wrote that the charter should protect the right of the individual to the enjoyment of property. Then in 1978, Trudeau's constitutional amendment bill included a clause representing fundamentally the same protection he had suggested 10 years earlier. In 1980 Trudeau attempted to include a property rights clause in the proposed charter.

In addition, as Minister of Justice, our current Prime Minister supported Trudeau's attempts to include property rights in the charter of rights and freedoms. The Prime Minister described property rights as "a central value of our society and an essential ingredient for the charter, a right which all Canadians should have regardless of where they live in our country". I hope the Prime Minister will stand by his words and give full support to this motion.

Finally in 1981 Pierre Trudeau made a last gasp attempt to include property rights in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In the end, after 13 long and frustrating years, property rights were left out of the charter and Canadians were denied property rights when the Constitution was repatriated in 1982.

The issue did not end there. In 1988 the House voted overwhelmingly to support a motion that proposed the 1982 Constitution Act be amended in order to recognize the right of enjoyment of property and the right not to be deprived thereof, except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice and in keeping with the tradition of the usual federal-provincial consultative process. This was passed in this House with a majority of 108 who supported the motion versus 16 members who opposed it. Property rights were subsequently proposed for inclusion in the revamped charter of rights and freedoms in 1992.

The government proposed amendments to the charter to guarantee property rights and to ensure that individual Canadians were allowed to own and hold property and not have it taken away without due process of law and without fair compensation. Yet we were again denied justice when property rights were removed from the Charlottetown accord against the wishes of many Canadians. The Charlottetown accord, as we all know, subsequently failed to pass.

All of these attempts to entrench property rights in the charter failed. The reason for their failure is that property rights are considered by many to be a provincial responsibility. Legislation of ownership of property is a civil matter and is the responsibility of provincial governments.

In response, several provinces objected to entrenching property rights in the charter as they felt it would step on areas of provincial jurisdiction. Provinces such as Saskatchewan, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island objected to federal intrusion into provincial jurisdiction over property and civil rights granted to them in the BNA Act. These provinces feared it would limit their power to make decisions and the cost of fair and just compensation to individuals may have prohibited or restricted provincial decision making power. I am talking about the charter here; my bill would amend the bill of rights.

Provinces such as Prince Edward Island voiced concerns that if they were forced to compensate individuals for their property to build a road, a municipal park, expand a building or perhaps build a casino as was the case in Ontario, then the costs of fair compensation to the person who owns the land may limit the government's ability to act.

However there is a silver lining. The good news is that Motion M-205 avoids concerns about federal interference and interprovincial jurisdiction because it applies to federal law and operations of the federal government. It binds only the federal government and holds it to a reasonable standard of fair and just compensation in exchange for personal property. By amending the Canadian Bill of

Rights as opposed to the charter which applies only to federal law, matters of provincial jurisdiction remain untouched.

Most provinces however support entrenchment of property rights. Provinces such as British Columbia, Ontario and New Brunswick have passed resolutions supporting inclusion of property rights in the charter.

A 1987 Gallup poll showed 87 per cent support for increased property rights protection. Canadians considered the right to own and enjoy property of all kinds a fundamental right that should be entrenched in law. In the poll, property rights were considered equally as important as the right to life, liberty and security of the person.

I am confident that if we conducted a poll today it would show national support for guaranteed property rights protection at levels at least as strong as they were nine years ago. Canadians have grown more aware and have been more concerned for their rights in the past few years than ever before.

As well many national organizations have also come out in favour of greater protection of property rights. These organizations include the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Canadian Real Estate Association, to name but a few.

In addition, the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, signed by Canada in 1948, commits Canada to protection of property rights. Article 17 reads: "Every one has the right to own property alone, as well as in association with others. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his or her property".

Obviously property rights are fundamental to good government. When people are treated fairly in accordance with principles of fundamental justice and are fairly compensated for their property when it is taken for the common good, then Canadians should receive the respect and dignity fundamental to good government.

A number of other democratic countries, including the United States, Germany, Italy and Finland have already taken the lead in property rights legislation. For example, the fifth amendment to the United States constitution adopted in 1791 provides that the federal government cannot deprive anyone of life, liberty or property without due process of law. It also stipulates that private property cannot be taken for public use without just compensation. The 14th amendment to the U.S. constitution adopted in 1868 extended these restrictions to state governments.

Canada is one of many countries with a high percentage of home owners and land owners, yet Canada alone among the industrialized nations does not grant some form of constitutional protection to property ownership. The time has come for Canadians to be afforded the protection agreed to almost 50 years ago in the UN. Individual Canadians must be allowed to own and hold property and not have it confiscated without due process of law and without fair compensation.

Property rights are not just some kind of abstract idea for debate on the floor of this House. Property rights for many in rural areas means holding on to the family farm. When government expropriates property from individuals, owners must have the right to be compensated at fair market value.

Motion No. 205 considers giving Canadians the security that their home and their possessions are theirs and theirs alone. This motion is about giving Canadians the rightful protection of their own property. As it stands, these rights are only protected by common law. However, common law can be superseded by a statute at any time. The government can easily pass a law requiring certain lands or houses or goods to be surrendered to the state and that no compensation be paid. If one owned one of these properties, one would have no recourse if the government were to take it away.

Any valid statute can expressly say that no compensation is payable when property is expropriated. This is wrong. There is no constitutional guarantee for compensation and the power of government in this area is absolutely unlimited. As it stands, the rights of the individual are secondary to the powers of the state and that is wrong.

Without the guarantees provided in my motion, the law gives governments the right to pass legislation which removes private property without providing compensation in return. The fundamental protection of property and contract rights must take precedence over government powers. Federal laws must not override individual property rights. The government must not be able to compensate for private property without fair compensation.

In circumstances where it is necessary for an individual to surrender property, this motion would ensure that property could not be taken except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

It is my hope that the provinces will take responsibility within their jurisdictions to guarantee Canadians living within their borders the rights and freedoms that I am offering at the federal level. Canadians can rest assured that this motion will strengthen individual property protection.

Motion No. 205 will not diminish rights Canadians already have or prevent the government from carrying out its duties for the common good of the nation. Government is supposed to be there to serve the people. Too often the reverse is the case and people are put in the position of serving government. My motion sets right

this wrong to ensure that individual rights are there and they are protected.

Government has the ability to protect people, but often the will to protect those people is not there. It is long overdue for this government to set the record set and put the individual Canadian first.

The right to hold and enjoy property provides one of these checks against undue concentration of power in government at any level. Government must defend the rights of the people, not take them away.

Motion No. 205 would not protect individuals from expropriation. However, it would guarantee that expropriation would be carried out in a fair and reasonable manner. It would protect against government deciding arbitrarily what compensation should be paid, if any.

With my motion, implementation of property rights' protection would be straightforward. It would give Canadians their rights and protection without requiring a formal constitutional amendment. Amending the charter of rights and freedoms would require the support of two-thirds of the provinces and 50 per cent of the population, which is clearly tough. However, by amending the Canadian Bill of Rights it could be done right here in this House.

As we have said in the past, property rights cross all party lines and are represented on all sides of the House as a value to be cherished and to be protected. Protection of these rights have been supported by all sides of the House. Canadians are concerned now more than ever that their individual property rights must be protected.

In conclusion, the protection of individual property rights is a fundamental freedom which must be protected. This is not a partisan issue but a matter of fundamental justice. It is my hope that members of the House will give representation to their constituents when they vote for this motion and vote for property rights.

[Questions On The Order Paper, June 5th, 1996]

What was the total dollar amount (direct and indirect) and source of government funding included in the 1995-96 estimates to the Western Canada Wilderness Committee?

[Supply, May 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the member is being hypothetical. We have an actual instance here where we will vote on the estimates for the Senate. Therefore to say something else, that this would be preferable going in another direction, is fine in the future. Right now in fact we have to vote on the estimates.

Will the member vote for or against accountability of the Senate?

[Supply, May 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the member across has been reading but I get her point that this is a hypothetically debate. We are to vote on the estimates. It is the first vote in the House on the estimates. It is the money for the Senate. There is nothing hypothetical about this at all. It is a $40 million vote for the other place. What we are talking about is accountability.

Does the member across disagree that the Senate should be accountable to the taxpayers of Canada? That is a pretty basic premise.

[Supply, May 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his interjection. This points out particularly well why we would like to get the Senate in front of the operations committee. The guidelines, the rules, appear to be extremely flexible. Why should an unelected, unaccountable body not account for its spending?

Some of the interesting answers we have been getting are we really do not think Senators should appear before committee because it has never been done before. This is the first time in the history of the Canadian Parliament that a request has been sent for the Senate to justify its expenses. It is perfectly rational, perfectly normal and it is absolutely necessary.

[Supply, May 28th, 1996]

moved:

That, given that the Senate has failed to respond to a message from this House requesting that a representative of the Senate Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration appear before the Standing Committee of Government Operations to account for $40,000,000 of taxpayers' money, this House express its dissatisfaction with the Senate for disregarding modern democratic principles of accountability and, as a consequence, notice is hereby given of opposition to Vote 1 under Parliament in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1997.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Reform supply day motion for debate today. I will repeat the motion.

Given that the Senate has failed to respond to a message from this House requesting that a representative of the Senate Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration appear before the Standing Committee of Government Operations to account for $40,000,000 of taxpayers' money, this House express its dissatisfaction with the Senate for disregarding modern democratic principles of accountability and, as a consequence, notice is hereby given of opposition to Vote 1 under Parliament in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1997.

One of the functions of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations is to examine the main estimates of the Senate. As a member of this committee I moved a motion to send a message to the other place requesting that the chair of the Senate's board of internal economy appear before the Standing Committee on Government Operations to account for Senate expenses. My motion was approved by a majority of the committee and following unanimous consent in this House a message was delivered to the other place on May 9. However, to this date members of the House have heard nothing from the other place.

Main estimates can only be examined in committee until June 21 and the committee agenda is quickly filling up. I subsequently sent a follow-up letter on May 21, again requesting a commitment from the upper House by Monday, May 27, but I have not received a response. We must have a firm commitment immediately, yet the other House refuses to respond to this request.

Accountability in public institutions is the most basic and fundamental requirement which Canadians demand from their representatives. No body, particularly an unelected body, should be exempt from this basic requirement. Canadians are demanding greater accountability to determine how their hard earned dollars are spent and during these times of extreme fiscal restraint when Canadians are forced to make difficult financial decisions, they expect the same from their institutions.

Canadian taxpayers pay out over $40 million a year to fund the Senate. This is public money and the expenditures of these funds must be accounted for to the Canadian public. Many Canadians are concerned about how their tax dollars are spent in the upper House. According to the auditor general's report of the Senate written in 1991, it appears many of their concerns are completely justified.

The Senate proposes to spend over $28 million on personnel, $4.5 million on transportation and communication, over $5 million on professional and special services and another $3 million on miscellaneous expenses. This is an enormous sum of money and it is little wonder that Canadians are concerned. It is time for the upper House to come clean and justify these expenses.

Although the total budget for the other place is listed as $40 million in the main estimates, in fact it will be spending more. The auditor general estimated that on top of the $40 million in the main estimates another $11.5 million will be spent on government entities to supply services for the Senate. These additional funds are not separately identified in the estimates or in the public accounts.

This public institution spends over $51 million a year and no accountability is attached to these funds. The Senate makes and enforces its own rules and is not subject to the same laws as government. The Financial Administration Act and the usual accountability mechanisms simply do not apply to the Senate. Perhaps this made sense in the 1890s, but it sure does not make any sense in the 1990s.

The auditor general reported that Senate accountability is inadequate. He stated the upper House does not adequately report on its administrative, financial or human resource management perfor-

mance and does not possess sufficient information to enable it to do so systematically.

How can Canadians be satisfied that Senate expenses are managed with sufficient concern for economics and efficiency when none of the usual accountability mechanisms apply? When it comes to accountability I wholeheartedly agree with the auditor general that there is nothing to hold that place accountable to the public as it presently stands.

In the event we find something terribly wrong or something is way out of whack, the members do not face re-election. They are not subject even to minimal reporting requirements and this is completely wrong. Accountability in public institutions is not only vital, it is clearly essential. It assures those who provide the institution with authority and funds either directly or through their representatives in Parliament that the goals required are achieved and that funds are well spent with due regard to economy and efficiency.

There are many reasons Canadians are concerned about accountability in the upper House and concerns of the auditor general make it absolutely necessary that the other place hold itself accountable. The fact that members in the other place are taking liberties with tax dollars should be of great concern to Canadians, in particular when the auditor general has brought into question the use of the non-taxable allowance by members of the Senate.

According to the auditor general, Senate administrators cannot distinguish operating expenses from personal expenses and there is no way to determine that amounts received for such expenses are expended in the manner they were expected to be.

Fiscal accountability is clearly a problem when according to the auditor general there seems to be no limit on personal non-Senate expenses particularly for travel and telecommunications incurred either by senators or by members of their families.

In addition the auditor general also noted that there is no assurance that travel expenses are incurred for the service of the Senate. To make matters worse, restrictions on Canadian destinations or origins of trips either for senators or their families were eliminated and researchers were added to the list of permitted travellers. Rather than tightening up on restrictions, the other House is relaxing restrictions and allowing more junkets.

For example, last year the upper House spent almost $3 million in travel expenses and the year before that, it spent a similar amount. What is absolutely astounding is that there are some outlandish travel bills from members of the other place who represent and reside in Ontario. For example, one member from the other place who represents Markham, Ontario spent over $74,000 in the past two years on travel. A senator from Toronto Centre, a one hour plane ride from Ottawa, spent over $71,000. Another senator who represents Rideau here in Ottawa spent over $64,000 over the past two years.

There is simply no excuse that members in the other House whose ridings are right here in Ontario should have travel bills over $70,000. Furthermore, travel points given to members in the other place do not include travel on behalf of committees, parliamentary associations or parliamentary exchanges. The utter waste of taxpayers' money in this area is unbelievable and unforgivable.

The auditor general found many discrepancies within the system and noted that one senator travelled three times to the third world, twice to Europe, once to the U.S. and three times to various locations within Canada for a total of 55 days. Clearly, more accountability is required on travel expenditures in the other place. I agree with the auditor general's recommendation that the upper House periodically publish information on all Senate funded travel for each senator.

The auditor general also noted that members in the other place have insufficient incentives to manage their office expenses with due regard for economy and efficiency particularly with respect to secretarial services and telecommunications. He recommended that details of senators' office expenses be publicly reported.

Office expenses in the other place have jumped from over $2.5 million to $3 million in the past two years. The member for Terrebonne here in this House referred to one senator who had his office remodelled for $100,000.

The upper House must follow the auditor general's advice and publish at least annually details of senators' research and discretionary office expenditures including names of suppliers and purchases in excess of amounts determined by the committee on internal economy.

Also the auditor general noted that one of the problems with the gross overspending in the upper House lies in the fact that staff generally accept a senator's signature as sufficient evidence that the funds are requested for the service of the Senate. The auditor general did not feel this was adequate. He came to the conclusion that given the unique nature of the upper House, such difficult decisions cannot be made appropriately by officials alone and therefore should be open to public scrutiny.

I certainly agree. It is time we opened the books to Canadians so they can see exactly what is going on. Opening the books to public scrutiny is the simplest and most efficient and cost effective way of achieving accountability.

In addition, committee expenses in the other place have also run up huge bills only to have the subsequent reports shelved or ignored. For example, the Senate Pearson airport committee ran up a $210,000 bill after failing to find anything clearly wrong with the airport bill. Last year, $153,000 was also approved for a special study by the Senate Special Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs. Of that, $123,000 was allocated for transportation and communications alone. On it goes, all without any accountability.

According to the chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce, the budget for $8,000 was "a token budget for a few lunches and some possible outside professional services". A token budget for a few lunches. I wonder what they eat for lunch that is going to run up an $8,000 tab. Try to explain that to the long suffering Canadian taxpayers.

On it goes. The committees went $100,000 over budget last year. When they ran out of money they began to look at funds that were saved from the previous years' budgets.

What concerns me is the fact that the auditor general found that amounts reported in the public accounts were incomplete and did not give sufficient information to determine whether the expenses were incurred for the service of the Senate or otherwise. Administrators could not identify what was or was not official business.

The time has come for the other place to improve reporting of expenditures and to account for the performance of their administration. The main purpose of the upper House is to provide checks and balances for the House of Commons. However, how can it function in this role when its actions are called into question because of lack of accountability?

Many Canadians view the upper House as having no more authority than to rubber stamp legislation. They have no confidence that members in the other House defend their interests. This must change.

I will turn to another facet. When job insecurity is a fact of life for many Canadians, it is difficult to justify blatant patronage appointments that last until age 75, particularly when most people are forced to retire at 65 years of age.

In the infamous red book the Liberals criticized the Conservatives for their "practice of choosing political friends when making thousands of appointments to boards, commissions and agencies that cabinet is required by law to carry out". However, the continued practice of patronage appointments and lack of accountability in the other place clearly break this promise.

On the issue of patronage, Premier Klein of Alberta stated his intention to hold an election to fill the recent vacant Senate seat. Despite the fact that Alberta has a Senate election act and that Albertans were in support of an elected Senate representative, the Prime Minister chose to appoint a senator to fill the vacant seat.

It is most apparent that as it stands, seats in the upper House are nothing more than an opportunity for the ruling party to pay off their political friends. Members in the other place are appointed for their political connections and longstanding service to the Liberal Party of Canada, nothing more, nothing less. Whatever happened to the principle of ability to do the job?

Clearly this institution lacks the credibility and accountability necessary to make it an effective body of government. Former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney stacked the upper House to pass the GST. Now the present Prime Minister is doing the same thing to ram through Liberal legislation.

We clearly need a strong and effective national government to protect Canadian interests which means that both Houses need to be effective. The House of Commons is dominated by representatives from central Canada because of representation by population. The upper House is in place in order to balance representation from Atlantic and western Canada.

Canada is one of the few democratic countries that do not have an elected upper House to represent regional interests. According to a Gallup poll in 1989, majorities in all regions except Quebec support the principle of an elected upper House. Many members on the other side of this House have voiced support for Senate reform in the past. Now is the time to take the steps necessary to give Canadians the democratic accountability they have been demanding.

To illustrate, the member for Winnipeg South Centre, the present Minister of Foreign Affairs, said:

It is crucial to find a formula which would provide for a more equal representation, by region and by province. Clearly there must be Senate reform. It is the only way of correcting the imbalances, the inequities and inequalities that have existed in federalism since its inception. There is not one federal state in the world that does not have a second chamber which works effectively to represent regional interests.

Our Senate is not an elected body. It does not have the credibility or the legitimacy of being democratically elected by the people. Therefore its ability to provide a check and balance upon the role of the executive which is dictated by the majority of members from the heavily populated provinces is constantly undermined. We see it repeated time and time again in many decisions.

The member for Davenport surveyed his constituency and found that 85 per cent of his constituents were in favour of an elected Senate. The member for St. Boniface surveyed his constituents and found 87 per cent support for a triple E Senate. The member went on to say that he hoped all provinces and territories would decide to elect their senators. Obviously the support is there.

The Reform Party proposal for a triple E Senate, a Senate which is elected by the people with equal representation from each province and which is fully effective in safeguarding regional interests would make the upper House accountable to Canadians. Implementing changes to the Constitution to provide for a triple E Senate, an extension of Alberta's Senatorial Selection Act into other provinces, is the best means to proceed in permitting Canada's regions to have a greater say in Ottawa and bring democratic accountability to government.

Accountability is obviously the key to good government. As elected representatives, members in the House of Commons must take seriously their responsibility of holding public institutions accountable. Ultimately members of the House of Commons will be held accountable to the public by the public. As a member of Parliament I regard this responsibility as one of my key functions.

Reform members cannot and will not approve spending for the other House unless members of the other place can account for their spending. To do otherwise would simply be irresponsible. Any member in this House who approves this budget without representation from the other House to account for its spending is doing Canadians and this House a great disservice.

The other House must respect the modern democratic principle of accountability and justify its spending. Vote 1 in the main estimates must be rejected by this House until such time as the upper House takes the necessary steps to hold itself accountable to the taxpaying public.

[Canada Post, May 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it would appear the minister is quite prepared to see Canada Post become Canada toast.

Why would Canada Post advertise a stamp when the only place people can get stamps is in the post office?

The member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley asked this question two months ago. The minister said that she would look into it and respond. It would appear that her action is no action at all. Will the minister stop Canada Post advertising today?