René Laurin

[Committees Of The House, September 19th, 1996]

I do, Mr. Speaker. Such remarks are surprising, coming from the hon. member who just spoke, after his recent comments last spring and during the summer.

The rule of law does not mean much to people like that. What matters is their owns views, extremist views. When the law gets in their way, they get around it. When the people in front of them do not share their views, they try to get rid of them. If their skin is not the right colour, out they go. If they do not have the right political ideology, the right views about where this country should be headed, out they go.

We have been here for three years and both the official opposition and the governing party have been saying all along that the Reform Party is a party of extremists whose attitude is reflected not only in official statements to the press and in the excessive behaviour displayed by individual members but also in each and every committee of this House. They would have people excluded on the basis of their political opinions. That is discriminatory. That is extremist. It is like racial prejudice, like being against religion.

Today, these people want to teach us a lesson in democracy. But they cannot even tell us how the committees should operate in order to be more responsive to public opinion.

I suggest that they think this over and I am confident that this is the last time they make such a request because not enough of them will get elected in the next election to be in a position to demand anything, whether in committee or in the House of Commons.

[Committees Of The House, September 19th, 1996]

That too was the result of a democratic decision. I wonder what the Reform Party would do if it were in office. I would be curious to see if its position would be: "From now on, you are free to elect whomever you want to chair the committee, in spite of the fact that we have a majority".

Angels act like that, not the Reform Party, in spite of its "holier than thou" air. If it came to power, the Reform Party would be the first to insist that rules of democracy that are to its advantage apply; it would want to use them and would fight anyone opposed to their use.

I am sorry but the real subject matter of the debate today is the Reform Party's frustration at not being the official opposition, and that is how their remarks must be taken.

[Committees Of The House, September 19th, 1996]

As I could not be heard, I will correct myself now that my microphone is back on and say that I should have said the member for Calgary Southeast. I would like the members of the Reform Party to tell me what they did with the member for Calgary Southeast when she decided to vote freely, when she decided not to toe the party line, because she found it too radical, too extreme?

That MP was not allowed to remain in the party, she was expelled. Today, they are telling us, with a "holier than thou" air, that they advocate the free vote within their party. Granted, but on certain minor bills only. If, for instance, the Reform Party were to introduce a bill on the use of cow hair in mortar, I do think it could let its members vote freely on something like that, but on fundamental and vital questions which were part of a party's election platform, it is important for solidarity to be maintained, and that must extend to the committees as well.

I also have doubts about how sincere the Reform Party members are, because we have seen them in action in committee. In the three years since we were elected, every time committee chairmen and vice-chairmen are selected, the Reformers opposed having a Bloc Quebecois member as head of the public accounts committee, for example, or as vice-chair of other committees-because, traditionally, a member of the party in power heads committees except that the public accounts committee is chaired a member of the official opposition.

The Reform Party would have liked to be the official opposition, but unfortunately the voters decided to give them two seats less than the Bloc Quebecois. Terribly frustrated by this, the Reform Party decided to try to change the rules, to change tradition. True, this is not a Standing Order, but it has always been parliamentary tradition to have a member of the official opposition as the vice-chairman of a committee.

The Reform Party ought to have put more effort into its election campaign so that more of its candidates could have been elected. Then it would have been recognized as the official opposition and would have had that privilege. With all their talk of democracy and British tradition, Reformers ought to know that democracy and British tradition recognize that the majority rules.

As it happened, the Bloc Quebecois won more seats than they did, but they refuse to accept this, and that too is just another excuse, because the real reason they are making such a fuss about how vice-chairs, how Bloc representatives are chosen in committees, is not that Bloc members are involved but especially because Bloc members are sovereignists.

We are sovereignists because that is what our platform is about. We presented our platform to the people of Quebec, who democratically elected to send us to Ottawa with a majority to represent them. The people of Quebec chose so wisely that, as a result, we became the official opposition. Quebecers owe themselves a vote of thanks now because they are well represented.

Reform Party members would like to see this sovereignist position, this political option prevent us from having the democratic right to sit on committees. Because we are sovereignists, they would like to see Bloc members denied the right to be vice-chair of a committee.

If we did not have that right, why would we have the right to have a member on the committee? If we have no members on the committee, where does that leave our democratic rights? Is this not about the most elementary respect for democracy?

The most elementary respect for democracy means accepting the decision made by voters in a riding, in a province, to send representatives to the House of Commons. That is the most elementary respect for democracy. Denying someone a vice-chairmanship because it is not convenient this time around is not a good reason. A person holds opinions we do not share, and as a result, we deny him the right to be vice-chair of a committee. If it were like that, we would not get very far in a democracy.

We saw the attitude of the Reform Party in the committee that dealt with the Jacob case, for instance. Oddly enough, they showed a great deal of solidarity at the time. The Reform Party members on that committee did not seem to be allowed much latitude to express their views. They all had to think the same way, otherwise they were not allowed to sit on the committee. If one member did not work out, they would substitute another.

And today the Reform Party tells us, with a "holier than thou" air, that it wants more democracy in committees. I agree that we are sometimes pushed around by the party in power which has a majority in all committees. I agree that the party in power, which has a majority and decides to exercise its solidarity, can beat us every time.

[Committees Of The House, September 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I regret to have to say in this House that it seems to me that the Reform Party has chosen a topic for debate this morning that would have been more appropriate for a supply day.

The hon. member from the Reform Party did not reply to the last question I asked him. I threw the ball into his court by asking him, through you, if he could tell us how he would like us to operate in committees. He did not answer the question.

What is at the bottom of all this is the Reform Party's frustration at not occupying the position of official opposition in this Parliament, and at not being able to obtain the number of vice-chairs that it would like in committees. That is the real issue.

Under the guise of a free vote, the Reform Party would have us believe that it allows its members to vote as they wish, that they do not have to toe the party line. I would like to hear from them what happened to Jan Brown, what happened to her? I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I ought to have used the name of her riding.

[Committees Of The House, September 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague from Laurier-Sainte-Marie who asked a question a few moments ago, I also agree that we can support some of the arguments put forward by the Reform Party. It is indeed difficult to work in committees where the majority of members are on the government side. Since the government exhibits a certain amount of ministerial solidarity within committees, it is difficult for us to win every time. It is part of the game of democracy.

In this context, it can be very frustrating for the Reform Party, as well as for the official opposition, to have requests or proposals rejected sometimes.

I would like the member to tell us what changes he thinks should be made to improve the committee system. Before knowing if we can support their position and if we can denounce the government's attitude on this issue, I would like to know what alternative the Reform Party is proposing for these committees. What democratic system would it like to see put in place in order to be able to achieve its aims, because I suspect that under all this lies a feeling of frustration with regard to proposals that were not supported by the majority in committee? What mechanism would Reform members suggest be put in place to ensure that other members who do not belong to their party would get the respect they deserve in committees?

[Committees Of The House, September 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, if we immediately move to the presentation of petitions, it will leave us less time to debate the committees' motion. Is this indeed the case? I would first like to know how many petitions there are. They could always be presented at three o'clock.

[Supply, September 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is not the presence of the Senate that allowed women to sit in the House of Commons because, for decades, the Senate, in its wisdom, never introduced legislation suggesting to the House of Commons that it give women the right to vote and to sit in the House.

If there are women in the House today, in increasing numbers, it is because women took matters into their own hands, because women are better informed and they have made their case. No Senate allowed women to reach the status they have nowadays.

[Supply, September 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, you have the pleasure of hearing me as the last speaker tonight. I will try to be interesting for you, Mr. Speaker, for my colleagues and also for all those who are watching us on television.

I believe it would be worth recalling the motion on which will have to vote in a few minutes. It reads as follows: "The President of the Treasury Board requests that the House concur in Vote 1, in the amount of $40,713,000 under Parliament-Senate-Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1997."

Forty million dollars, and we should add to that a few more millions provided for services offered by different departments and other federal agencies to maintain that honourable and noble institution. In fact, the exact amount of the funds granted to the Senate will be close to $55 or $60 million at the end of the year.

Before granting such an amount of money to an institution like the Senate, we must ask ourselves what purpose it serves. We must ask ourselves what the Fathers of Confederation had in mind in 1867 when they created a Parliament with two Houses. During those 22 years, the senators had to debate 18 bills from the House of Commons, which did not received royal assent either.

More than 125 years ago, the Fathers of Confederation thought it was a good idea to have these two assemblies, one of which is non elective, namely the Senate. But it would be interesting to look at the Senate's record since the birth of our federation. I examined the list of interventions made by the Senate from 1867 to 1996, the last year for which statistics are available.

Let us round the numbers off and take the period from 1867 to 1900. In the first 33 years, the Senate proposed amendments to House of Commons bills which never received royal assent. There were 105 bills during the Senate's first 33 years of existence.

During the next 25 years, from 1900 to 1925, there was a slight decrease. The Senate proposed amendments to 93 bills which never received royal assent. That gives us a cumulative total of 198.

From 1926 to 1963, that is during the next 37 years, the work of senators decreased even more. They proposed amendments to 49 House of Commons bills which, after having been passed in the Senate, did not receive royal assent. So from 1867 to 1963, a period of 96 years, the Senate made a grand total of 247 interventions with regard to bills presented in the House of Commons.

Starting in 1963 there was a period of lethargy that lasted 11 years during which the Senate did not propose any amendments to House of Commons bills. It is probably during this 11 year period that senators fell into a deep coma that they are still having great difficulty getting out of.

Then suddenly, from 1975 to 1996, that is during the past 22 years, the work started again. During those 22 years, the senators had to debate 18 bills from the House of Commons, which did not received royal assent either.

Overall, during its 129 years of existence, the Senate had to examine 265 bills from the House of Commons that never received royal assent, which means these bills were discussed in the Senate but never became law. So, with 265 bills in 129 years, for an average of 2 bills a year, I can understand that the senators fall asleep and can not stay awake even in front of television cameras.

Now, lets look at the bills that were introduced in the House of Commons, amended in the Senate and received royal assent. I went back to 1960 only. In the 22 years from 1960 to 1982, 35 bills were amended in the Senate, sent back to the House of Commons and received royal assent.

In the following 14 years, from 1982 to 1996, the Senate recommended amendments to 30 bills that were later adopted by the House of Commons.

In all, from 1960 to 1996, for the 36 years of statistics that I noted down there were 65 bills. This is just short of 1.8 bills a year or less than two bills annually. At such a pace, one can hardly stay awake and justify a salary. This is why those people do not feel the need to go before the public and account for what they do.

It would be embarrassing to show such a record to their employer, the taxpayers who pay the salaries of the senators. It

would really be embarrassing to face taxpayers and say: "My friends, this is the work we have done in 129 years on bills introduced in the House of Commons which did not receive the royal assent and other bills introduced in the Commons which we managed to amend and which were then passed by the House of Commons".

No wonder there is a temptation to reform the other place. Since 1960 only, 52 bills on the Senate have been introduced in this House to modify its role or its functioning or even to abolish it.

Those 52 bills aimed at abolishing the Senate. Stanley Knowles, an honorary member of this House, alone has attempted 18 times-between 1964 and 1981-through motions presented in this House and through private bills, to have the Senate abolished.

Despite all these attempts, it has never been possible to make any significant changes to the operations of the Senate or to its very existence.

Its role was understandable at the time of the creation of the federation, in 1867 and in 1900. The Senate was seen as a sort of chamber of sober second thought. Its members calmly considered the legislation, free from public pressure. This was understandable in 1867, but the role of the Senate today is far different because of the practical limits on its powers.

Is what is called in English "double checking" or in Quebecois "double vérification" still necessary nowadays? The primary role of the Senate was to double check the laws passed by the House to ensure that the first chamber had not made any mistake, had not made serious mistakes for the taxpayers, and it was the role of the Senate to correct any mistake or to propose amendments to bills.

But nowadays, given the modern means of communication, television, the Internet, it is no longer possible to pass laws expeditiously without arousing among people increasing interest, which leads the lobbying groups to come and tell the government it is making a mistake or is being unfair towards a certain segment of society. This is why we no longer need this double checking institution.

In the five provinces that used to have a Senate, this type of political institution has been abolished. That was the case in Quebec in 1968. Quebec was the last province to abolish the Senate, and it did so because this institution was no longer needed. The same thing could be true for the Canadian Senate.

When, in 1968, the legislative council was abolished in Quebec, if it had not been commented in the media, we would still not know that it was done away with, because we went on passing laws, and the same thing is true in the four other provinces where the legislative council was abolished.

Nobody complained that laws had become unfair or less equitable for the people. We now have a public that is better informed and members of Parliament that are better prepared. Nowadays, with the political and legislative systems we have, members are able to get all the information they need.

I do not believe it to be necessary to spend between $50 and $60 million a year to keep an institution that does not double check, to all intents and purposes, but mostly acts as a place where some friends of the party in power are sent as a reward for services rendered-and when their senator's earnings are not enough, they are appointed as lieutenant governor. Fortunately, there are only ten positions of lieutenant governor. Otherwise, there would not have been enough of them for all the senators interested in a new job.

For these reasons, we think it would be improper to support appropriation for an institution which does not have our confidence and which we would like to see not only changed, but abolished outright.

[Supply, September 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, my colleague from Parry Sound-Muskoka tried to praise the government for its good management, comparing the running of the government to that of a major corporation or any business doing well in the private sector.

I would like him to tell us how he can make such a comparison in view of certain careless mistakes on the part of the government and certain measures it did not take when it could have. We realize that, in the private sector, decisions are made every day to ensure that each department of a particular company is financially viable, that the business turns a profit, and that every penny which can be saved is.

The most recent example is CP Rail, which has just been privatized. We noticed that, as soon as it was privatized, CP Rail took all the least profitable parts of its system to form one company, which is going to try to make the eastern system more profitable. This company is giving itself three years to succeed.

This is the kind of management you find in the private sector. Has the government done the same thing with the Senate since 1867? How can the government claim it has taken the necessary steps to reduce expenditures to the bare minimum, and that it has gotten rid of the non-profitable parts of its enterprise?

How can the member justify a propaganda campaign such as was undertaken concerning the Canadian flag? Is this ongoing $23 million expenditure justifiable under the broad principles of good management referred to by the member?

Could the hon. member tell me which large and well managed company, which large Canadian, Quebec or Ontario company would keep 104 directors who, most of the time, are asleep at their desk, and that we pay presumably to check decisions already made by other directors?

Always from the point of view of sound management, would a single profitable company behave in such a fashion? Yet, that is what the government is doing with the Senate. Today, we are being asked to approve a $50 to 60 million budget, for a single year, to support 104 senators who no longer have anything to do regarding the profitability of the large Canadian company called Parliament.

Could the hon. member tell me that sound management principles apply in the case of the Senate? How can the hon. member reconcile this ignorance of Parliament for an obsolete institution which should be done away with as soon as possible? I would like the hon. member to answer that question.

[Petitions, June 20th, 1996]

Very well.