Jim Abbott

[The Senate, June 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this debate is particularly timely considering what occurred last night. Many of the Liberals are beginning to wonder if sparrows might not need airports.

Taking the look at the situation we have suddenly discovered the other place does have effect. It is effective. It can do things. In our parliamentary system where we have a government like the current government which attempts to run roughshod all over the opposition parties and the concerns of many Canadians, it is good to have a House of sober second thought that truly is effective. We have seen that the Senate can be effective.

This motion, which calls for the abolition of the Senate, period, end of statement, is unacceptable. That is why the member for Vegreville moved the Reform amendment that after the word Senate, the words "in its present form" be added.

It has been a longstanding position of the Reform Party that we require an effective Senate. We require a Senate that can take a look at bogus bills like Bill C-28.

Bill C-28 was to come back before the House today for the fourth time, after passing through the other place, but even after all this juggling the bill was still flawed. There were a number of amendments to Bill C-28 which were passed by the Liberal majority in the other place in an attempt to water down some of the more odious aspects of the bill, but they still did not get it right, as was shown by virtue of the fact that Liberal Senate Sparrow decided he would do the right thing and join the other people in the other place to vote the bill down.

Bill C-28 attempted to retroactively cancel a contract. It went directly into the teeth of the privileges and the rights we have as Canadians. Whether we are individuals or corporations, it makes no difference, we should have the right to have access to a court of law. What the Liberal government was attempting to do was shut down due process in Canada.

We recognize there was a tremendous amount of money involved in this process. Because of the Prime Minister's promise during the 1993 election, he has placed the people of Canada directly in the way of at least a $600 million loss. This is unconscionable on the part of the Prime Minister. It was only the Liberals in the other place, with the exception of Senator Sparrow, who would put this through. They would not use their conscience. They would follow the direction of the former minister of transport.

There is a process in Canada which we all understand. There is a process within the House of Commons. The legislation from the House of Commons, when passed, goes to the Senate. The Senate should be effective, and it has been shown to be effective. The other place is to be there as a place of sober second thought and also to represent the regions.

We recognize there is some tremendous difficulty within the Senate at this moment. I speak as someone in business. The predecessors to this Liberal government, yet another Liberal government, brought us the great and wonderful national energy plan.

We had in western Canada, based out of Calgary, our very own made in Canada depression. It was made right here in Ottawa with bogus thinking, with centrist thinking that Liberals consistently possess. Sixty-five billion dollars was sucked out of western Canada and brought back to Ontario.

That would never have happened had there been an elected Senate. It is for that reason that we have put forth the amendment that yes, the Senate should be abolished, but in its present form. In other words, there is a place, there is a time, there is a function for the Senate and we must see that it remains. However, the problem is it is not elected and is totally unaccountable.

The Reform Party has been attempting to bring some semblance of order, some accountability to the Senate, in spite of the fact that the Prime Minister has said he will appoint the Senators he wants, who will represent his party and just on and on. He is the past master at manipulating and controlling the parliamentary system.

In addition, the Liberals will not let us make the Senate accountable for dollars and cents. They will not let members of the House of Commons, who are the duly elected representatives of the people of Canada, hold the Senate accountable for the $40 million plus that they are currently spending.

From the executive summary of the auditor general:

We found that the Senate has neither formally nor informally delegated clear responsibility to management, nor has it made clear for what to hold management accountable. We recommend the Senate should more clearly define the mandate of the committee on internal economy and subcommittees, and establish clear accountability relationships with its senior staff.

This is the most important part.

The Senate does not adequately report on its administrative, financial or human resource management performance and does not possess sufficient information to enable it to do so systematically.

It is the Liberal Party of Canada that wants to make sure that the Senators, its friends in the other place, are not going to be accountable to this place. Should we throw out the Senate? No, because as we have seen when there has been an odious bill such as Bill C-28, the other place from time to time will actually get it right.

We saw what the Progressive Conservatives did when they were being thwarted in bringing in the GST, the gouge and screw tax. Former Prime Minister Mulroney ended up padding the Senate so that he could manage to get the GST through the House of Commons. The Senate just broke up into bedlam with kazoos and all sorts of other exciting things.

The way the Senate is currently conducting itself, and occasionally showing itself to be effective, should give the people of Canada at least a glimmer of insight to how the parliamentary system in Canada should work. Why will it not work that way? Because the Prime Minister has made no less than 16 appointments to the Senate, every one of them patronage appointments. In some cases, the people who have been appointed have directly and clearly admitted that they were appointed as a result of patronage.

The second to last person appointed from the province of Alberta clearly stated: "I recognize that I am being appointed to the Senate as a result of the longstanding service that I have done for the Liberal Party". The Prime Minister was very happy to have him there.

The last person who was appointed to the Senate admitted that she should have been elected, to which I say that if she would do the honourable thing she would resign.

The Liberals are noted for half measures. I suggest to them that this might just fit. If Liberal members, in good conscience, were to vote in favour of this motion, as amended by the Reform Party, at least we could start along the process of seeing some changes happen to the other place because truly they must happen. The Reform Party stands for a Triple E Senate, elected, effective and equal.

[Pearson International Airport, June 20th, 1996]

Remember, sparrows fly.

[Taxation, June 13th, 1996]

A Reform policy?

[Point Of Order, June 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in regard to a motion I placed on the Order Paper. The motion is as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, a message be sent to the Senate respectfully requesting a free conference with Their Honours to consider the issue of the relationship between the two Houses of Parliament with respect to the accountability process for the main estimates.

My point of order will address the issue of where the motion stands on the Order Paper. I do not feel it should be the subject of a private member's motion but a matter that can be moved under Routine Proceedings under Motions. I will also address the issue of the necessity of a procedure that has fallen into disuse.

I understand that historically conferences with the Senate are to work out disagreements with respect to legislation. In fact it is part of the legislative process. However this is the first time that the Senate has been asked to account to this House for its spending. Consequently it is the first time there has been a disagreement or misunderstanding on how to proceed in this matter. There is no mechanism nor are there any references to meetings with the Senate on this issue. That is why a free conference may serve the purpose.

As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, messages sent to the Senate are usually made under Motions. In addition there is the definition of section (p) of Standing Order 67 which describes motions that can be made under Routine Proceedings. These motions are for the maintenance of the House's authority and "the management of its business". My motion is such a motion.

The estimates of the Senate are not an issue of ministerial responsibility, which I will explain further, but are a matter of the Senate as a whole and consequently a matter of this House as a whole. If this House needs to take action on such issues, then there should be a quick mechanism through which it can take that action.

We need this conference to manage our business of supply and maintain the authority of the elected House. The deadline to deal with the estimates is June 21 or possibly earlier. We are under a deadline and we need to get together with the Senate soon.

I refer you, Mr. Speaker, to Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 745 which states:

Either House may demand a conference-to communicate resolutions or addresses to which the concurrence of the other House is desired-

Citation 746(3) states: "The free conference is a meeting of managers attempting, by discussion, to effect an agreement between the two Houses".

Although citation 748 of Beauchesne's says that conferences between the two Houses are now obsolete, a motion for a free conference with the Senate is still on our books. It can be found in Standing Order 67(1)(h).

Citation 750 of Beauchesne's makes a qualifying point:

While still theoretically possible under the Standing Orders, both the conference and the free conference have been effectively replaced by the exchange of Messages between the two Houses and the attendance of Ministers at the committees of both Houses.

Citation 751 goes even further:

What may be described as less open and ostensible means of communication arise from the fact that representatives of the government sit in both Houses, so that every public question is presented by the executive to both Houses-

As I mentioned earlier, the matter of the estimates of the Senate is not a matter of the government. It is not the Leader of the Government in the Senate who is responsible. The responsibility lies with the Senate as a whole. It does not matter if ministers from this House attend Senate committees or that a minister sits in the other place.

This is a unique situation. The arguments set out in citations 750 and 751 do not apply because ministerial accountability does not apply in this case. The use of a free conference is therefore justified and suitable to this particular issue.

Since it is a matter respecting the authority of the House or lack thereof to consider the management of its business, it is therefore a matter to be considered under Motions. I understand that it has been a long time since such a conference has been sought. However with respect to the relationship of the two Houses regarding the main estimates in modern times, it is fitting that an archaic rule will be necessary to attempt to bring the accountability practices of the Senate from the 1880s to the 1990s.

In conclusion, I view this situation as a very serious one. Outside of voting down the funds of the Senate, we in this House are virtually powerless to do anything about the issue of the main estimates of the Senate.

I would like to give this process another chance. We need to come to some agreement with the Senate so that the public can have confidence in this institution and the way it accounts for the spending of their money.

[Supply, May 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the comments by the member for Kingston and the Islands as they related directly to what my colleague was just saying about the need for institutional reform.

It is particularly interesting that the Prime Minister on September 24, 1991, page 2595 of Hansard , said:

The regions of Canada need to be more involved in decision making and policy making at the national level. To meet the hopes and dreams of those who live in the west and the Atlantic, a reformed Senate is essential. It must be a Senate that is elected, effective and equitable.

I know my colleague will agree that the member for Kingston and the Islands does not even know what the Prime Minister used to say.

I just got off the telephone with a gentleman in Calgary, Glen Schey. The Liberals would have us believe that this is a figment of the Reform's imagination. Here is a grassroots petition that this individual is putting out. It reads:

We the people of Alberta request that Jane Forest resign her Senate seat. We also request, in accordance with provincial law, that the Government of Alberta hold an election to fill the vacant Senate seat.

I advised him that unfortunately the wording would not be adequate for a petition to the House of Commons. However, the Liberals should know that the people of Alberta and indeed, after many conservations with some government officials, the people of Ontario, are saying that it is time that this government take charge.

In light of the fact that there seems to be a kind of groundswell movement, whether it is in Alberta, the maritimes or Ontario, to get the Senate under control, particularly in the area of its $40 million of spending, I wonder if my colleague would like to comment on that.

[Supply, May 28th, 1996]

For their members in the House of Commons.

[Supply, May 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have in hand a copy of an article from the Hill Times by Mike Scandiffio from February 26 this year. I think the member might be interested:

Cash strapped and struggling in the polls, Tories are looking to tap into Senate funds as they try to rebuild the party and take on the Liberals.

A 10-page memo written by Tory Senate staffers and obtained by the Hill Times outlines a plan by Tory senators and staffers to set up research working groups as part of a ``policy issues network'' paid by the research budget, allocated to each of the senators.

However, according to the memo the working groups are to "provide support to the leader-

the member for Sherbrooke

-and the party process by acting as a source for immediate information requests" and "to provide substantive analysis and input into the party policy process".

I wonder if this does not make the case that there must be an accountability that he, all jokes notwithstanding, as a member of Parliament, should be calling for on the part of the Senate if it is proposing to divert funds from the objective that was set out for those funds. It is proposing to divert Senate funds to rebuild the Tory political party, according to this article.

Therefore I must ask the member in all seriousness, does he not agree it is important that this elected, legitimate body by virtue of its election, on behalf of the people of Canada who elected it, hold the Senate accountable? Why is that such a difficult concept to understand? Should the Senate be held accountable to the people of Canada for its expenditure of funds, yes or no?

[Supply, May 28th, 1996]

Oh, right.

[Supply, May 28th, 1996]

The old line traditional parties.

[Supply, May 28th, 1996]

That is a fact.