moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, representation in the Senate should be equal from each province, elected by the people, and have sufficient power to make it effective in order to better represent the people of the less populous provinces.
Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour for me today to rise as the mover of Motion 459 and therefore to speak in favour of it.
Advocating a triple E Senate has been part of the platform of the Reform Party of Canada virtually from its inception. As Senate critic over the past year I have had the opportunity to research the Senate. Senate reform for the Reform Party and for all of us from the less populous provinces addresses a feeling of alienation from central Canada and the central government, which has grown through the last two decades.
This feeling of alienation stems from the reality that governments will respond positively to pressure exerted by the provinces or the regions that contain the largest portion of our population. Sometimes these policy responses are at the expense of the smaller provinces and their desires. Equality of representation of provinces in the second chamber of Canada's central Parliament we believe would give the people of the less populous provinces real clout over the policy agenda of the federal government.
However, I am getting ahead of myself. I would like to spend some time today talking about the original purpose of the Senate; in other words, why it was created. I would like to speak about how it has performed this role, then deal with the criticisms of the Senate and attempt to respond to them. I will then conclude with the reasons why I believe the triple E concept for the Senate makes a lot of sense.
The Senate was designed to perform two main functions, the review of legislation emanating from the lower House, and provide a forum wherein the regions would have a voice in the central Parliament's law making process. It was to provide an institutional voice to small governments and perhaps to minority groups against the popular majority of the lower house. One could say that it was designed to act as a political bridge between the component parts of the federation and the central government.
The work of the Senate as presently constituted in the scrutiny of legislation has been praised by most political commentators. Also, Senate committees have carried out useful investigative studies over the years, which have added new information to policy development. Yet criticism has been levelled against senators who have stayed in the post regardless of the fact that they may show up only once a year, some less often than that. This criticism stems from the fact that senators used to be in for life. Also, because of undeserving patronage appointments Canadians have lost respect for the Senate, so much so that it has resulted in uncomplimentary names and references such as the old boys' club.
However, the main criticism of the role played by the Senate in our country concentrates on the inability of the institution to represent all regions. This has led to great frustration in western Canada predominately because there is a definite perception that central Canada, because of sheer numbers, sets and controls the public policy agenda.
Following on this argument is the feeling that senators, because they are not elected, have no legitimacy to act. Therefore, even if senators decided to start voting in regional or provincial blocs, they would not have the ultimate legitimacy to do so, in that they are not elected by the people of Canada. This is a strong reason for an elected Senate.
Bear in mind as well that our present Senate's powers are virtually equal to those of the House of Commons, except that while it can initiate legislation except money bills, it cannot hold up constitutional amendments for longer than 180 days. With these two exceptions, it is important to note that it can defeat, amend or indeed stall all legislation coming from the House of Commons. However, because of its lack of legitimacy its exercise of these powers is constantly subject to criticism. Therefore this lack of equality of representation and legitimacy to act to either defend or promote the interests of the smaller provinces has given great impetus to the movement of Senate reform.
While the impetus to a triple E Senate seems to have grown out of actions by the previous Liberal government to implement the national energy program, there have been other proposals for reform. Let us take a look at some.
The most popular subject for these proposals has been the method of selection of senators. Popular election, provincial government appointment, and a mixed formula whereby half would be appointed and half elected have been proposed through the years. As early as 1908 Senator David suggested one third of the Senate chamber be named by the federal government, another third by the provincial government, and the final third by universities and other public bodies.
A popular suggestion for reform in the 1970s was the creation of the House of the Provinces. This second chamber would be made
up of delegates appointed by the various provincial governments or perhaps provincial cabinet ministers. This was a second chamber modelled on what was then the West German upper house. While this reform had many supporters, especially among the provinces, it was obvious that this Senate could quickly evolve into a house of obstruction or a constitutionalized permanent federal-provincial conference. Neither scenario would have a long term positive effect on how the country is governed. Provincial interests only would be advanced in the upper house, with the national interest taking, at best, second place.
The idea of an elected Senate attained prominence in 1981 with the publication by the Canada West Foundation of "Regional Representation-the Canadian Partnership". It was based on the work of Dr. David Elton of the foundation and Mr. Burt Brown of Alberta. In 1982 Senator Duff Roblin, former Premier of Manitoba, proposed that senators be elected on a basis similar to the elected system in Australia.
The first federal parliamentary report to espouse an elected Senate was written by the Special Joint Committee on Senate Reform and released in 1983. It is noteworthy that the Senate co-chair of the committee is now the Speaker of the Senate, Senator Gil Molgat of Manitoba.
More recently, the Meech Lake accord proposed a hybrid type of appointment procedure for Senate vacancies, and the 1992 proposed Charlottetown accord proposed an elected Senate. I remember in British Columbia just how this was interpreted by our present NDP government. As a matter of fact, it was the B.C. provincial government's interpretation of the proposals for Senate change in the recent Charlottetown accord that helped to precipitate my entry into politics. At the time there was some suggestion that the provincial government would control the format of how the elections by the people would proceed.
In B.C. statements were being made by elected government MLAs and the premier that there would be equal men and women and the government would look after candidate selection for Senate seats. The first statement flies in the face of Canadian tradition. Canadians have long been committed to a system of merit for job applications. That is, those who can do the job best should do it. And any potential candidates for a Senate position must come from all spectrums of the province, not from government patronage lists.
As a point of interest, we must recognize in our country that to hire employees according to an ethnic and gender preference program is not working. In California, where the selection of employees has been based on preferential treatment based upon race and gender over the last while, Americans are going to see a ballot question in the 1996 election year that will potentially forbid the use of ethnicity or gender as criteria for either discriminating against or granting preferential treatment to any individual or group by the government.
Those who take the time to think realize that discrimination, if it exists, cannot be cured by counter discrimination. It is very divisive and fundamentally unfair.
During the 1980s a unique event in the history of the Senate occurred in Alberta. Alberta enacted legislation to enable persons to stand for election on a province-wide basis to contest a vacant Senate seat. An election was held and Reform Party member Stan Waters topped the polls. He was subsequently summoned to the Senate by the Governor General on the advice of the Prime Minister. Unfortunately we lost Stan Waters before he had the opportunity to show Canadians just how valuable an accountable senator could be. The election of Senator Stan Waters is a valuable precedent. Unfortunately, it was not followed with later Senate appointments from Alberta.
That very briefly is the history of how we got to where we are now, the history of why the contents of this motion are so dear to the hearts of all of us who represent the Reform Party.
The triple E Senate should be elected, and therefore accountable. It is our belief that a Senate must be popularly elected. In a democratic age in a country that prizes democracy so highly, an appointed upper house lacks legitimacy.
More specifically, elected representation is essential in addressing issues of equity, since an elected Senate would place greater emphasis on increasing the likelihood that people will be elected based on merit rather than appointed simply to fulfil equity quotas. This would also address the longstanding problem of patronage appointments.
Let us take a look at the issue of patronage and the practice of the government to promote adding party members and friends to the Senate, whether as a result of section 26 of the Constitution Act or just to fill vacancies.
Section 26 of the Constitution Act 1867 provides that in exceptional circumstances an additional four or eight senators may be appointed. This provision was invoked in December 1990, when the Senate systematically opposed passage of the legislation introducing the goods and services tax, legislation that had been passed after much contentious debate in the Commons. Here it could be argued that the Canadian people did not want the GST, but in order to raise more money in taxes-sounds like England in the days of wicked King John and others-the government of the day forced through legislation that people did not want by invoking section 26 and adding more senators.
If senators were elected by the people of Canada, the Prime Minister and present government could not run roughshod over the wishes of the people or set the odds in his government's own favour, but would have to abide by the will of the people.
At this time I must remind the House that we have a similar situation in the House of Commons today. We have the hated legislation on the contentious Bill C-68. The people of Canada do not want the national gun registration. Most of them know that forcing law-abiding Canadians to register guns that have been collected over the years, some as collector's items, some to be used in hunting, and some left to them as heirlooms from their fathers from a previous period in history, will not make Canadians one bit safer in their homes.
Most Canadians have done their research and know of the thousands of weapons smuggled in each year over our borders. Most Canadians know that these illegal weapons will not be registered. Most educated Canadians know that criminals or those with minds of criminal intent can get guns in all of our major cities from the underground network. Worst of all is the computer list that honest, law-abiding citizens will be placed on when they register their guns. They say those lists will be secure. American and Canadian authorities already admit that security cannot be guaranteed any more. The criminal element in the new computer world and information age breaks our security time and time again. American spokespersons readily admit the computer criminal gets access from supposedly secure documents.
Now our law-abiding citizens are going to have their names placed on these lists. Criminals will be able to access these lists. How safe now will Canadians be in their homes? If they are law-abiding citizens already, their guns will be locked up with the bullets in different places. The criminal will have the advantage both of surprise and of being prepared for a fight. Is this what this government wants, to put good, law-abiding citizens in jeopardy? No, it says. Then why have the national gun registration? Will it make Canadians safer in their homes? No. Will their names being placed on a list for all and sundry to steal from make them safe? No. Is this then another way for this government to raise money, taxes, as it is already deep in debt and going deeper all the time? Possibly.
This is the damage that occurs in our country when senators are placed in positions as vacancies occur, rather than being elected by Canadians, for the Senate can vote against government legislation. It can vote against poor government legislation.
In the case of the GST, which costs us heavily in the administration of it, the Prime Minister of the day invoked section 26 and appointed more senators at his own will and forced the GST on the Canadian people. In this way, the governing party became a majority in the Senate and the hated GST legislation finally passed.
How has the GST helped Canadians? It has forced some businesses into bankruptcy. It has added extra tax burdens on
already heavily taxed citizens. At present, when Canadians get their pay cheques, after taxes they are taxed again. And the promise of the government of the day that part of the GST would go toward reducing the deficit and debt did not happen. What about the growing underground economy, growing because of the enormous tax load placed on Canadians?
Today, because of attrition, the Liberals can stack the Senate and once again we will have the wishes of Canadians put second to the wishes of the Prime Minister and the cabinet. By placing the latest four senators, good strong Liberals, to the Senate we are seeing once again the upper house not accountable to the people. Canadians can do nothing about making senators accountable. Only with an elected Senate is this possible. If the hated gun legislation is forced on Canadians, down the road we will see happen exactly what Canadians warned today's government would happen.
Today's law-abiding citizens will be forced to break the law to protect themselves and their families. Canadians will be more vulnerable in their homes if the criminal element will know where the guns are.
Another costly government bureaucracy will have been created as the present federal government attempts to administer this latest tax burden on Canadians. The present gun registration will have proved no more effective than the existing gun registration, which has been in force for many years. It is past time that we as responsible MPs looked to an elected Senate so unpopular laws are not forced on the Canadian people.
As far as the method of election is concerned, I think we have a lot to learn from our Australian friends. In a recent edition of the Canadian Parliamentary Review , Professor Howard Caddy, in an article about the Australian Senate states that proportional representation ensures that the upper house in Australia does not reflect exactly the representation of the lower house.
He also goes on to say that "as a result of the fact that the political party composition of the Senate is usually different from the House, compromises can be obtained when there is a difference of opinion between the two houses on particular legislation". It can be worked out.
When we look at an equal Senate under the triple E Senate, each province will have the same number of seats. This is the present situation in both Australia and the United States. In such a Senate the less populous provinces would have a majority of the seats just as the more heavily populated provinces do now in the House of Commons.
Regarding equality, at present the Constitution stipulates that there shall be 104 senators, a number that can be changed only by constitutional amendment. Distribution of Senate seats is by region
now in Canada. If we look at Ontario and Quebec, they have 24 each. If we look around the rest of Canada, the west has only 24 between four provinces and the maritimes only 24 between three. The present representation favours central Canada and is unfair.
Do we need 104 senators? No, we do not. Can we lower the numbers? Yes, we can if the will of the Canadian people decides so. Now that senators are no longer elected for life and leave the Senate at 75 years of age, it is opportune to look at the less cost involved in fewer senators and the fact that absenteeism should be a less serious problem than it was in the past. An equal number of seats from each province suggests a fairer representation.
Should the two most populated provinces with the most MPs in the House of Commons also have the most senators in the Senate? No. This policy is unfair for the less populated areas of our vast country.
To be effective the Senate must have adequate power to balance the House of Commons. We do not believe that defeat of a government bill in the Senate should lead to the resignation of the government. However when we are fine tuning the powers of this Chamber we must ensure that the Senate can amend or veto regionally offensive legislation.
In conclusion, the adoption of an elected, equal and effective second chamber in Canada's central Parliament would be of great benefit to our political system. Through equality the interests of small provinces would be protected. With the combination of elected and effective, senators would have the legitimacy to act, to amend or to defeat legislation which did not respect regional differences in the country.
It would also combine the best aspects of the present Senate, its scrutiny of legislation, with the legitimacy to act to defend regional interests.
I realize as with all proposals there is some fine tuning to do. Ways must be found to ensure elected senators do not act to slavishly serve the interests of the political party they represent. They must have the freedom to represent their regions even if the interests of the region do not coincide with the interests of the national political party they represent.
However these are details and we can work them out if we get the fundamentals right, an elected, effective and equal Senate.
