Jim Abbott

[Supply, May 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I can be very incisive with a very precise rifle shot question. The question is should the Senate be accountable to the Canadian taxpayer for the $40 million it is to spend, yes or no?

[Supply, May 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the comments of the member for Vancouver Quadra. However, I note he did not speak specifically to the motion.

The motion gives notice of opposition to the Senate estimates. The purpose of this is to put pressure on the Senate to make it account for the $40 million of taxpayer money it will be spending.

In this House we need a majority to indicate they are prepared to vote down the Senate funds if Senators refuse to appear before the Standing Committee on Government Operations.

What is the Liberal position on this? Should the people of the upper Chamber be held accountable to the people of Canada, to the Canadian taxpayers, yes or no?

[Supply, May 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect to my colleague, he has a very elitist perspective on how people in Canada should be governed.

Members of Parliament should be representative of the viewpoint of the people in their constituencies. The fact that senators may have to bend to the will of the people, in my judgment, is a very positive thing as opposed to an elitist approach where one person, the Prime Minister of Canada, has taken it upon himself to appoint those who would represent his point of view only and represent his party only in the other chamber.

At the outset of his intervention the hon. member asked what I thought the Fathers of Confederation had in mind. It is well documented that the Fathers of Confederation had two things on their minds: regional representation and a house of sober second thought.

The reason Prince Edward Island delayed coming into Confederation for four years was the fact that it did not like the idea of entering into Confederation in 1867 with an appointed Senate. That was the delay.

There was a desire on the part of the Fathers of Confederation to have an elected Senate, an elected second chamber. However, after not coming to an agreement, they decided to move forward. Perhaps my colleague from Vancouver Quadra could enlighten me on this as I believe he is an expert on these matters.

In 1871 the politicians of Prince Edward Island wanted to become part of Confederation. They finally agreed in spite of the fact that there was an appointed Senate. Perhaps the hon. member will be able to enlighten me on that.

[Supply, May 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very interesting debate because it brings up the entire issue of accountability, an issue that seems to be very foreign to the Liberals and particularly to the member for Vancouver Centre in her comments earlier. She spoke about the issue of being accountable for taxpayer dollars as being an academic dissertation.

Nothing could be further from the truth. This House must be accountable for the expenditure of Canadian taxpayer dollars. We are talking about the expenditure by the Senate of $40 million. She is correct to a great extent when she says the Houses are equals. However, she is absolutely incorrect when she comes to the issue of their being equal if she is saying this Chamber, elected members, is equal to the other Chamber, appointed members. This simply cannot be the case.

It has been shown by the member from the Bloc who pointed out the House of Commons is the place where expenditures of Canadian dollars are controlled or should be controlled. In that respect the two Chambers are not equal and never could be equal.

The difficulty we are experiencing at this juncture is we have an unelected, unaccountable body that is nonetheless functioning as part of the parliamentary process.

I received a communiqué on May 22, as I am sure did many of the members from the Senate, stating the Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology will be beginning hearings on the employment insurance bill, Bill C-12, the employment insurance bill which passed from this Chamber to that Chamber.

That it is before that Chamber is the clearest possible indication and the most current example I can give of the Senate's being responsible for the ultimate passage of government legislation, which is why the Prime Minister goes out of his way to make sure his Senate is stacked the way he wants it to be stacked, the same thing the Conservatives have done. All the traditional parties have done it and continue to do it.

The Senate is supposed to be a chamber of sober second thought. Considering it is supposed to be a chamber representative of the regions, it is very interesting to see the composition of the Senate committee on social affairs which is discussing the employment insurance Bill C-12. There is one member from Newfoundland, two members from Quebec, three members from Ontario, three members from New Brunswick, three members from Prince Edward Island but none from western Canada.

It is particularly interesting that of the four senators, the four Senate seats given to the province of Prince Edward Island, three out of four of those members are sitting on this pan-Canadian bill on the Senate committee. How many of the 24 Senate seats from western Canada are represented? Zero, none, zip. Western Canada is cut out.

That kind of thing simply would not ever happen in an accountable body. It would never happen where the members would have to go back to western Canada and say "I am sorry but you guys do not count, you do not matter, your point of view is not to be represented in this committee hearing".

They have set up some meetings. Every now and then a little serendipity happens. It is very interesting. Potential meeting times for the standing Senate committee on social affairs for Bill C-12, employment insurance, are to be held in room 256-S in the Centre Block, Thursday, May 30, and this is the serendipity, when the Senate rises but not earlier than 4 p.m. I thought that was a rather neat bit of serendipity because as we saw during the delivery of the governor general's speech from the throne, perhaps some of the senators had not risen before 4 p.m. They had just been carried to the Chamber to continue their snoozing.

What is wrong with the Senate at this point? While senators are effective, or at least have the potential to be effective, they are not elected and therefore not accountable. We have gone through the issue of it not being equal. There is not equal balance, regional representation on this committee or in the Senate Chamber itself.

That the province of Ontario has 24 senators, that the province of Quebec has 24 senators and that the four provinces in western Canada between them have 24 senators clearly shows there is a very distinct regional imbalance.

What is the first step? The first step in Reform's process of making this an important part of the parliamentary process, a full functioning body, elected, effective and equal, the triple E Senate, the first step that can happen outside of the Constitution is that we

see the next Senate appointments be elected. The first step is to make it accountable through election.

It is interesting we have had one elected senator. Reform Senator Stan Waters, who passed away unfortunately a few years ago, was the first and only elected member to that body. We have precedent. The Alberta government through its Alberta Senate selection law elected Senator Stan Waters and he was appointed after his election.

When there was a vacancy in the Alberta lieutenant-governor position, the Prime Minister simply reached into the Senate and said: "Okay Bud Olson, you are no longer a senator. You are now the lieutenant-governor". That is fine, but within 10 minutes the announcement was made that Senator Nick Taylor would be the next senator. It should be noted that Senator Taylor did run against Stan Waters. I guess if you cannot get into the Senate one way, you will get in another.

In a statement made in the House by my colleague from Calgary West, he made note of this fact: "It may take 10 years to balance a budget, 10 years to lower taxes, 10 years to reform people's pensions, but it only takes 10 minutes to reward friends with Senate appointments". That is the shame of the Senate.

There are people who would accept these positions when in Alberta the Senate selection act is in place. I have been encouraging the province of British Columbia, and with the new government that will be elected today I will be encouraging it, to re-enact the B.C. senate selection act. This can happen outside of the Constitution.

The Prime Minister appointed Bud Olson as lieutenant-governor. Then he appointed Nick Taylor. Then what? I went back and came up with the adopted resolutions of the biannual convention of the Liberal Party of Canada in 1992. I would think this was a good document. These were the adopted resolutions of the Liberal Party of Canada from 1992.

Resolution 20 is on Senate reform. After it goes through all the whereases it resolves that the Liberal Party would commit itself "to an elected and effective Senate comprised of, but not limited to, equal representation from each of the 10 provinces of Canada". This resolution was brought forward to the Liberal Party of Canada by the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador and adopted by the Liberal Party of Canada.

It is interesting that Senator Rompkey, out of the goodness of his heart, following the adoption of the resolution of the Liberal constituency organizations in Newfoundland and Labrador, accepted an appointment to the Senate. I guess that is having it two ways, is it not?

This is a matter of accountability. This is a matter of what our legislative process is, where it should go and how it should get there. But what of the most recent Liberal appointment? First, the leader of the Reform Party asked the Prime Minister in this House what he was going to do.

I had a conversation with Premier Klein who indicated that he was very distressed-unhappy, we will say-about the fact that the Prime Minister had moved with such obscene haste to make sure that Nick Taylor got his just reward. After the unfortunate passing of Senator Hastings, the premier was going to write to the Prime Minister asking that the people of Alberta be permitted to go ahead with the senatorial selection act.

I believe I spoke to him on the Wednesday, which was only a day or two following the passing of Senator Hastings. He felt constrained because the funeral would be on the Friday. Premier Klein naturally and justifiably felt constrained in writing to the Prime Minister and saying: "I know you went with unseemly haste to get your friend Nick Taylor appointed, but I would like people in Alberta to be able to exercise their democratic right". He did not want to do it at least until the funeral of the senator.

The funeral of the senator was on Friday and in the first part of the week what did the Prime Minister do? He knew from the questions of the leader of the third party what our party wanted. He knew from the reports in the newspaper what Premier Klein wanted. He knew from comments that I had been making in the news media what was going on. What did he do? The Prime Minister of Canada pre-empted democracy and denied the people of Alberta the ability to vote on who they wanted to represent them in that chamber.

I wrote this letter to the editor:

The arrogance of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien in appointing a Senator from Alberta, is only overshadowed by the hypocrisy of the appointee Jean Forest. Jean Chrétien proved that he doesn't give a hoot what Albertans want and what they are legally entitled to through the Province's Senatorial Selection Act. He told the leader of the Reform Party in the House of Commons, "I will name a Senator who I will choose and who will represent my party in the House of Commons". What about someone to represent Albertans?

The last time I checked, the Senate was supposed to represent Canadians not the Prime Minister's Liberal Party.

As if that wasn't bad enough, the Prime Minister's Senate appointee Jean Forest has proven that the Senate is out of touch and unaccountable. She is either ignorant or hypocritical. On her first day in Ottawa she said, "if it could all be worked out, I would be in favour of an elected Senate".

It has been worked out. It was worked out when Senator Stan Waters was elected and appointed to the Senate. What does she

mean when she says: "If it could all be worked out, I would be in favour of an elected Senate?"

Considering her credentials, it is doubtful she is ignorant. She must know about Alberta's Senatorial Elections Act and the written request from Premier Ralph Klein to Prime Minister Chrétien. The new Senator was grossly insincere when she went on to say, "it doesn't seem to be in the works now. I accepted the appointment thinking I could, perhaps, make a contribution in the meantime".

Albertans have shown they support an elected Senate. Jean Forest has lost the small fragment of integrity she may have had by accepting her appointment to the Senate with her stated support of an elected Senate.

If she truly believed her own words she would not have accepted her own appointment. She has only one honourable course of action and that is to resign and give Albertans what is rightfully theirs-the ability to elect a senator to represent the wishes of the electorate.

We must speak with respect of the other place. I do so, but nonetheless I must say this. If those people really believed in the democratic process, if those people really believed that the people should be represented by a legitimate house of sober second thought, if those people in that chamber really believed that the people should hold them accountable, every one of them would resign and stand for election.

This can be done outside the Constitution. I am not talking about constitutional reform at this time. I will restate that the purpose of the Reform Party is to ultimately get a triple E Senate: effective, elected and equal. That is our goal. That is our objective. That is a foundation stone of our party.

In the meantime, without tinkering with the Constitution, I say to all the senators: Do the honourable thing. Resign.

[Supply, May 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I find it passing strange the parliamentary secretary would stand up when it is her government that is in the process of cutting funding to women's programs. I had people come in from the Women's Resource Centre in Cranbrook who spoke to me about this issue. They wanted to know what her government would do about it.

Yet she is standing up in the House of Commons saying it is fine that the other place is not accountable for spending over $40 million. How in the world can she have it or try to have it both ways? The hon. member in her self-righteousness is standing there as supposedly the defender of women's programs when her own government is cutting women's programs, saying the Senate is unaccountable for the millions of dollars it wastes.

[Supply, May 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have in hand the Senate Debates for May 9, 1996. There is a rather interesting exchange. It relates to the $50,000 and $20,000, the so-called accountability of its Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration.

Senator Lynch-Staunton, the leader of the opposition, is asking questions. He asked: "As I understand it, the amounts that can be allocated to research run up to $50,000. Is that correct? There are also guidelines for office expenses, what used to be called the discretionary budget which was $20,000, where are the guidelines for those?" He asked questions back and forth about this $50,000 and $20,000, which was rather interesting.

Senator Kenny said: "Hon. senators we have before us the only guidelines that the Senate has dealt with or approved of. There are no further guidelines that have ever come to this Chamber for approval".

The leader of the opposition returned to the $20,000 and $50,000 and Kenny replied: "You really are confused. That is true hon. senators, the limit for sharing would still be $20,000. If you are of the view that it should be raised to $50,000-". Then Senator Lynch-Staunton said: "No, contrary to what people might expect, I am trying to be helpful to the chairman of the committee. I would like to know if the senators are still allowed up to $20,000 for office expenses".

Mr. Kenny said: "No, sir. As the report read, there would be full flexibility in the two previous budgets". Senator Doyle asked: "What are the guidelines".

The leader of the opposition said: "Just when I thought I had it, I fall back into confusion. Does that mean there is a complete discretion to spend the $50,000 exclusively of office expenses?" Then Mr. Kenny tried to explain it. This keeps on going. It would be laughable if it were not Canadian taxpayer money.

The leader of the opposition said: "Hon. Senators, I thought the question period had ended. I find this whole thing extraordinary. We are being told by the chairman of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy Budgets and Administration that because a report is before the Senate regarding research expenditures, the system that has been in place for years has now been abandoned".

Mr. Kenny said: "No, on the contrary". The leader said: "Yes, we are being told we cannot use our research fund to pay our researchers and that we must use our discretionary funds".

Mr. Kenny said: "No, that is not so". Then the other guy said: "That is exactly what we just heard". This one really caps it. Another senators said: "No, that is not what you just heard". The leader said: "That is exactly what we have been told". The first guy said: "Have you been sleeping?"

Senator Lynch-Staunton said: "We have just been told that every senator can dip into his or her $20,000". It goes on and on.

This must be exactly the kind of thing being talked about where $20,000 or $50,000 is taxpayer money.

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, May 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, that was a great answer, too bad it did not relate to the question.

The Liberals vilified the Reform Party for wanting to cut $365 million from CBC funding. We were honest with Canadians. Our position was consistent. We said the CBC should be privatized. Why does the minister go along with the fact that her predecessor slagged the CBC by $377 million? Why will she not admit that the government has no idea of what the program for the CBC is going to be? She has no concept.

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, May 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, let us put an end to the myth about the Liberals protecting programs. In 1993 the Liberal Party vilified Reformers because we proposed a $365 million cut in CBC funding. However, once in power the Liberals cut $377 million.

The Liberals say one thing and do another. They stand for nothing, they believe in nothing. It is no wonder their CBC policy amounts to nothing.

Who is to blame for the mess over at the CBC? Is it the Prime Minister for another broken promise, or Sheila Copps for not keeping her promises either?

[Parks Canada, May 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on April Fool's Day of this year Parks Canada announced that residents living in parks would pay a $38 a year fee so their families could live in the parks.

Banff mayor Ted Hart said the town participated in almost two years of federally initiated meetings, round table sessions aimed at developing a common vision for Banff's future, in the hopes that Parks Canada was adopting a more open consultative approach with the residents, "but this fees thing indicates just the opposite".

Now Parks Canada has changed its mind and will not collect fees this year. This fee mix-up does not stop here. Parks Canada also instituted a $70 annual fee for families April 1 and persists in trying to collect it. However, it is making deals with bus companies and tour groups, which clearly indicates Parks Canada does not have a clue what it is doing or where it is going with the collection of park entry fees.

Access to Canada's parks must be affordable for all Canadians. Clear up this fee mishmash now.

[Transportation, May 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, maybe when the minister gets back to his office he could have his staff explain the difference between subsidized and privatized.

The people of Nova Scotia are asking for $100,000 of infrastructure money for a privatization study. A privatization study. They know full well the Liberals squandered millions and millions of dollars on boccie courts and Saddle Domes. They also know that the government was responsible for a general's going away party which cost a quarter of a million dollars.

Will the minister authorize a privatization study at a cost of $100,000? Yes or no?