Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I will spend a few minutes talking about the motion which is before us. I thank my colleague from Vancouver Island for bringing it forward. This is historic. It is unfortunate that a lot of members on the other side perhaps do not understand how historic this is.
(1515 )
To make sure we all understand, it was 100 years ago that anyone from the Senate was summoned to the House of Commons. Given that we are getting close to the end of this century it is pretty amazing to think that someone from the Senate is being summoned to talk about the spending and the financing of the Senate.
Our colleague from Vancouver Centre this morning asked whether the Senate is the master of its own internal affairs. Then
she answered her own rhetorical question by saying yes. Then she said this was wasting a whole day of debate. Perhaps that one sentence shows the contempt some of the people across the way have for the Senate of Canada.
My friend from Kingston and the Islands said this could be a three hour speech. I would say he had that right. It certainly could be. Unfortunately I will spare him that pain and talk for a few minutes.
Are we wasting a whole day by talking about the legitimacy or the accountability of the Senate? I hardly think so. I would love it if she would come from B.C., her home province, up to my province of Alberta where we have had legislation in place since 1989 which deals with the legitimacy and the importance of an elected Senate. I would love her to come and have a chat with some of the people I spoke with in my town hall meetings last week. They were furious about some of the new Senate appointments.
Parliamentary reform is something which brought me to Parliament several years ago. If we are to look at the legitimacy or the mandate of the Senate, whether it is about its intent, its purpose or the cost involved, it is paramount to look at the history of the Senate and why it was set up.
It originally was set up as the chamber of sober second thought. That is great on paper. If we are actually to live with that and the mandate of regional representation it is a great idea. Dear knows we could all use some sober second thought. If we look at what the Senate is supposed to do, that is a great idea. It should be an institution to where legislation goes from here so senators can look at it to see how it is affected by a regional fairness tests or whatever.
Unfortunately it went off the rails between Confederation when it was set up and the place that it occupies in people's hearts and minds now. We could say it has been reformed. However, reform is supposed to be a positive thing. Maybe I could say it became deformed somewhere along the way. Now, rather than being a chamber of sober second thought for the Canadian public or for the House of Commons, it is accountable only to the dictates of the Prime Minister. That is probably what is more unfortunate than anything else about the whole Senate Chamber. It has become deformed. It is no longer providing the function for which it was originally intended.
As a Reformer I would say now that the thing has been so changed and so marred in so many ways, it is essential to change it. We must reform the Senate now. I favour the triple E Senate model. I am not ashamed of that. I live in a province which has taken great strides in pushing for a triple E Senate, which means its members would be elected, that there would be an equal number of senators from each province and that hopefully it would be an effective Senate.
In large countries where the population distribution is uneven there is a fundamental need to balance representation by population with representation by region or province. There would be people who disagree with me in this Chamber. I am used to that after all these years. However, the United States, because of its huge disparate population, has an elected Senate with an equal number from each state. Probably even a better example is the Australian model. Tasmania, which is sparsely populated, has the same number of elected senators as New South Wales which has a huge population. It is an excellent example and model for us to use. It is not impossible.
People say abolish the place. Unfortunately that is what we hear across the country. They ask how much is getting accomplished in the Senate. Precious little? Let us then do away with it. After all, we are looking at the spending and the accountability of the Senate. It spends about $40 million a year, a chunk of change.
(1520)
The Canadian public is demanding there be some mandate, some legitimacy here for the Senate, and we need to make sure we have regional representation to balance representation by population.
One of my colleagues mentioned that Ontario has 99 members of Parliament because its population is so numerous. I see some of my colleague from Ontario here. There are fewer people in my province and we have only 26 members of Parliament, certainly a lot less. We have representation by population in the House of Commons.
In a country like this where there is such disparity we need that but we need it balanced in the upper House or the second House, which is supposed to be sober second thought. Because regimented party discipline results in block voting, Canada's parliamentary system is a good example of why this balance is needed. We have seen that time and time again in the House.
The Fathers of Confederation intended that the Senate provide this type of balance. Unfortunately it has been completely unable and neutered so that it cannot fulfil this role. An appointed Senate is not democratic.
We could say that any number of different ways and we might like to think there are nice ways of saying it, but there simply are not nice ways. We can say politely but we cannot say kindly that people who are sitting in the Senate right now are in any way democratic or in any way accountable to the people they are supposed to be serving. It is simply not right. It is high time for an elected Senate.
If I look at the number of people in the Senate of Canada since Canada began who have actually been elected to the Senate, I come up with one. It is so simple. One person only has ever been elected to the Senate of the Parliament of Canada, and that is pretty interesting.
An hon. member: He was appointed.
Miss Grey: An hon. member across the way hollered he was appointed. He was appointed in June 1990 only after he had won a historic election on October 16, 1989. He won that, which was in place by the Alberta Senatorial Selection Act, a piece of provincial legislation which my province brought into place for that Senate election in 1989.
He ran in that and won with hundreds of thousands of votes. He had the largest majority that any elected official in the country has every received because the vote was province-wide. Now Granted, once he won that election our premier put his name forward for appointment by the Prime Minister because that was the legitimate channel he had to go through.
It took nine months, a regular nine month gestation period for Brian Mulroney to put him in. In June 1990 my friend, my colleague, one of my heroes, Stan Waters, was appointed/elected, whatever you want to call it. The only reason he was appointed was we were able to put such incredible pressure on the Prime Minister of the day. He said ``those Albertans are causing trouble, I will put this guy in here and hope he keeps quiet''.
Stan Waters did not keep quiet. The entire nine months he was waiting to be put into the Senate, no matter who interviewed him, no matter the issue, regularly he said that democracy delayed is democracy denied. He said that for month after month because he was the only democratically elected Senator we have ever seen in Canada. When it was always put to him that maybe he would get appointed to the Senate, maybe he would not, that did not sway him in the least.
I was able to talk about it in the House of Commons. He was able to talk about it in the Senate, outside the Senate, right across the country. He said regularly that democracy delayed is democracy denied.
Fortunately we were able to put him into the Senate because he won that mandate from the people of Alberta. He could go home on a plane whenever he wanted to go home and could get off that plane and know those people were literally his constituents. In other words, because he was elected he knew he had a mandate. Because he was elected he knew also that he could go home and that he was speaking the words of those Albertans to Parliament.
(1525)
He let the Albertans pick, not the Prime Minister. Alberta people picked him. They voted for him and then because of that incredible mandate he had Brian Mulroney was shamed into appointing him into the Senate because he knew there might be a small uprising out west.
Dear knows we have had enough uprisings out west that they were not keen to have repeated. When he was finally put into the Senate he knew he was representing Albertans.
Let me spend another few minutes on some of the newer day senators who have come from my province, from western Canada, and talk about some of these people who believe passionately with all their heart in an elected Senate. They thought senators should be elected. They thought they would let their names stand for election. They thought every senator should step down from their appointments and be elected to the Senate of Canada.
One was Sharon Carstairs from Manitoba. During the Charlottetown accord she made quite a bit of noise talking about how important an elected Senate is. I remember hearing her on the Charlottetown accord campaign trail. She was quite upset about that.
All of a sudden out of the clear blue sky, not long ago after this government comes into power, boom, Sharon Carstairs appointed to the Senate of Canada.
I was in an elevator with her not that long ago. I said: ``I thought you always were in favour of an elected Senate. How could this change so quickly?'' She said: ``I am trying to do what I can from the inside''.
Members know that if someone accepts a paycheque of $64,000 a year or whatever their salary is and some plane trips back and forth, how does that person go home to Manitoba, get off a plane and say ``Yes, I was the one who talked about an elected Senate all the time, I was the one who said I would run for election, I was the one who said how important it was, but times have changed. Here I am now. I am making a fairly healthy salary. I am in the Senate, but I am just doing everything I can do''?
It is not legitimate. It is simply not legitimate. That is the first one in my hat-trick of those people who had a conversion experience along the Damascus road. We could entitle it a funny thing happened on the way to the Senate. They were passionate believers in an elected Senate but as soon as they get the call from the Prime Minister things are different now.
Sharon Carstairs is number one. A good friend of mine and colleague, Nick Taylor, comes from closer to home. I appreciate him. He has been one of the provincial members of the legislative assembly in Alberta, in my federal riding. He was another one in all his years in the political wilderness in Alberta as the Liberal leader.
He did not get a seat. He could not get elected. He had a terrible time. He watched more goings on in the legislative assembly from the gallery than he ever did from his seat because he simply could not get elected.
By some stroke of luck and his good personality, he finally got elected in the Bon Accord area, Redwater, Smoky Lake in 1986. He
has sat as the Liberal leader for several years and talked about an elected Senate. Away we went again.
At the Liberal's federal biennial convention, as was mentioned earlier, in 1992 they said: ``Be it resolved that the Liberal Party of Canada commit itself to an elected and effective Senate comprised of but not limited to equal representation from each of the 10 provinces of Canada''. That is the Liberal resolution.
What happened to Nick Taylor in the middle of it all? He believed in that resolution. I bet a dollar he was at the convention in 1992. I bet he voted in favour of it. I talked to him lots of times.
What do you know, not too long ago he got the call from the Prime Minister. What do members think that call was about? ``Nick, I would like you to run in an election that is already provided for in your province as a senator''. Members are smiling. I bet they think that is what the call was about. No, he said: ``I am putting you into the Senate''. Da-da-da, patronage rules again.
Nick Taylor, who has a tremendous sense of humour and who always has a ready smile and good one-liners, said ``of course it is patronage, but I am in, I am going''. I was at his swearing in not long ago when he went into the Senate. Everything he ever said about an elected Senate just went kind of over the edge.
(1530)
Now he is in the Senate. One has to ask: Do you put the pension, do you put the pay, do you put the perks over principles? I would hope not. I wish he would have said: ``Mr. Prime Minister I appreciate the call, but I believe so strongly in an elected Senate and my province has the legislation already in place, the Alberta senatorial selection act. I will not take your appointment but I will run. I will let my name stand under the legislation we have in Alberta''.
I bet a dollar he would have won that election, but who knows? Think of the legitimacy and the mandate he would have had if he had been elected by the people of Alberta and then went to sit in the Senate. He could have really puffed his chest out because he could have said: ``I am here because I deserve to be here, not because I follow the dictates of the Prime Minister''.
Unfortunately on May 9 in the hallowed halls of the House of Commons, the Prime Minister said: ``Obliged by the Canadian Constitution I will name a senator who I will choose and who will represent my party''. Is this sober second thought? This is not sobriety. This is something that says I will tell you exactly what you should do, and he will represent my party. A senator who will respect the will of the House of Commons? How about respecting the will of the people who sent him there? Unfortunately Nick Taylor is not able to do that.
Mr. Taylor qualifies for his MLA's pension. He has a $16,000 provincial pension. I was just at a townhall meeting in that provincial constituency the other night. There are a lot of people living in the Red Water-Bon Accord area who would give anything to make $16,000 a year, not to get a senator's salary as well as 16 grand a year for the pension. There is something awfully unfortunate about that. That is only number two on my list.
Let me talk about number three in the hat trick of senators who believed so strongly in an elected Senate, then all of a sudden something happened when they got the call. This month Jean Forest, a very respected Albertan, someone who has really contributed to society and who also talked about how important it is to have an elected Senate. She was all in favour of an elected Senate. She would have been out there with her name on the list if the Prime Minister had not given her the call.
My colleague mentioned earlier how important it was for attention to be paid to the wishes of Alberta. The premier, Ralph Klein, wanted to send a letter to the Prime Minister after the death of Senator Earl Hastings. He thought that he should at least have the courtesy to wait until the funeral was over. No sooner had the senator died then bang, Jean Forest got the call. Sober second thought? Funerals are sober second thought, but not the call which was so fast it would make one's head spin.
We should have at least conducted the business of what Albertans had to do with the Senator. She should have said: ``Mr. Prime Minister, thanks for the call, but just a minute. Let us talk about what is propietous. Let us talk about general courtesy and general respect''.
The next thing we knew she is in the Senate. ``You have just been summoned to the Senate at age 69,'' when she should have been retired and at least have bought a motor home to go camping or something. There is a second person from my province who was appointed faster than the eye can see, who has said: ``I firmly believed in an elected Senate then, but now that I have received the call I am so sorry, I will be appointed''. That is not right. It is very frustrating and it is wrong.
The Canadian public are paying the bills for this. At least they deserve the chance to know the Senate is doing something worthwhile because it is costing several million dollars a year.
I will talk about another person from my province, Bud Olson, who has done the down and back again. He will receive an MP pension. He came in as a Socred, joined the Liberals on the national energy program and was appointed to the Senate. He was here a long time and has now gone back home to be the lieutenant-governor. He is making thousands of dollars. He receives a tremendous wage from the federal government as lieutenant-governor. I wish him well in this position and bear him no personal malice.
(1535)
However, when his stint as lieutenant-governor is over he will be able to collect an MP pension, a Senate pension and a lieutenant-governor pension. That is going to be a lot of money. He has excused it by saying: ``I would have made much more money in private life''. That is not good enough for the people who are slogging and paying taxes and the bills on this. It is not good enough for you and I, Mr. Speaker, to say: ``It is nice to be here but we would have done so much better in our private lives''. You and I are teachers, Mr. Speaker. Could we have made better? What does it matter? Service is the ultimate.
I am reminded of a phrase from one of my favourite books which states: ``Let him who wants to be chief amongst you be servant of all''. That is what the Senate and the House of Commons needs to learn to do.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in her remarks the hon. member for Beaver River rewrote a little bit of history. I recall her saying in the course of her speech that she remembers the former Prime Minister, Mr. Mulroney, being shamed into appointing a Reformer to the Senate.
I know she likes to claim that this particular senator was elected because he happened to win a popularity contest in Alberta that was organized under an Alberta statute which had no validity whatsoever in terms of the election of a senator. However, the Prime Minister of the day, because he had a surfeit of Tory senators in the Senate, was quite prepared to stuff it with a Reformer. He chose a Reformer who had won this popularity contest in Alberta because, according to the member for Beaver River, he was shamed into doing so.
Mr. Speaker, you were in that Parliament. I was in that Parliament. The hon. member for Nunatsiaq was in that Parliament. I do not recall any look of shame on the Prime Minister's face when he appointed this particular Reform hack to the Senate.
The hon. member for Beaver River loves to rewrite history. I know she thinks this man was the people's choice because he won a popularity contest in Alberta. She says he received more votes than anybody else. He may have but there were no qualifications for running in this election. It was a fraud run by the Government of Alberta for the purpose of trying to change the Constitution which it did not do.
Mr. Abbott: You are insulting the people of Alberta.
Mr. Milliken: I am not insulting, I am just stating a fact. I am rewriting history in a way the hon. member for Beaver River just did but I am trying to put a fair slant on the facts.
I wonder if the hon. member for Beaver River could tell us what day it was when the former Prime Minister had this look of shame come over him which, as she says, possessed him to appoint this particular fellow to the Senate. I do not recall it and I do not think any of my colleagues who were here in the House at the time every recall any look of shame on Prime Minister Brian Mulroney ever, at any time, let alone the day he appointed some Reformer to the Senate of Canada.
I wonder if she can tell us when that was because I would like to hear about it. I also wonder if she remembers the look of shame that came over him when he stuffed the Senate with eight extra Tories to get the GST bill through. I think she was here then too.
Miss Grey: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I was here when there was that fracas in the Senate over the GST. I well remember these Liberals when they sat on this side of the House and said that they would scrap, kill and abolish the GST. I was the only one here who remembers that little promise and it simply did not happen. They have not been able to do it.
I said that Brian Mulroney was shamed into putting Stan Waters into the Senate. Now to be shamed into something does not necessarily mean that one has to have a look of shame on one's face. Stan Waters certainly remembered the call. He received the call from the Prime Minister saying that he would be putting him into the Senate because he had to honour that election.
My colleague says that Stan Waters won a popularity contest. Let it be known, although I do not have the numbers on top of my head, but I think he received 275,000 votes which is a darn sight more than any one of us have ever received in a single election in this House. It was no popularity context.
My friend also said that it was a fraud by Alberta. This is a provincial government with some legitimacy in this country. It has provincial rights. It put in provincial legislation called the senatorial selection act. It is as simple as that. For some guy from Ontario to stand up and say: ``This is a fraud in Alberta'', it is not proper. We do not need to change the Constitution to let this happen. The political will of the government in power is all that is necessary.
(1540)
A full blown Senate amendment could be passed and this party has that ready to go if the day comes. However, anyone who has the political will to say that this is important, like the Liberals had in 1992, as I thought, at their biennial convention to say that ``be it resolved that we are going to go ahead and have an elected Senate'', I wonder what happened to the hon. member's memory.
He may follow the Prime Minister in saying: ``You voted against the Charlottetown accord. Because the Charlottetown accord was defeated you people gave up an elected Senate''. That is not true. There was so much gobbledegook in the Charlottetown accord that an elected Senate was only one part of it. An elected Senate was only one of the six or seven major issues in the accord but it would
not be an effective Senate because it was going to be counterbalanced by the number of people in the House of Commons.
My friend from Kingston and the Islands knows a lot more about all these technicalities than I do, but I am smart enough to figure out that it was not a true triple E Senate. The Charlottetown accord went down in flames across the country for various reasons but it was not because my party was against Senate reform. We want true, fair Senate reform.
My province of Alberta was the one that started a legitimate process. This was not a fraud. It was not a popularity contest. It was something that was absolutely legitimate and we are demanding that it be legitimized again. We do not have somebody dictate from the House of Commons what is going to happen over there. As the Prime Minister said so clearly not once but twice as I reiterated earlier on May 9: ``I will name a senator who I will choose and who will represent my party''. There is no shame there and there certainly should be.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, just before I make my comments I would like to invite, if he has the courage-
The Speaker: Order.
Mr. Abbott: I am sorry. You are right, Mr. Speaker. We have had difficulty with that word today, haven't we? I understand completely.
I would like to invite my colleague from Kingston and the Islands to stand and state the position of his party. It seems as though there has been a complete vacuum-we are talking about Liberals-of input by the Liberals. They know full well if they stand in this House they are going to be asked again and again: ``Do you support the concept that we would permit 40 million taxpayers' dollars to go to the Senate without any accountability?'' I would like the hon. member to stand up and make a speech about that.
Miss Grey: Who is being questioned here anyway?
The Speaker: Order. I am sure the hon. member realizes that the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands is not making a speech. It is the hon. member for Beaver River. Maybe we are going to have a bank shot over here and the member for Beaver River is going to answer that.
Miss Grey: Let me put this in the pocket, if we are talking about bank shots.
Liberals across the way can laugh and talk and there are three or four of them over there who can hoot and howl about it, but at their convention in 1992 they endorsed a resolution which said that they supported an elected Senate.
Perhaps one of them has the nerve to get up and speak in this debate, as I have seen precious few of them here today. I would love it if they would stand up and address this topic so we can ask them questions and then we would be able to put one in the pocket.
The Speaker: With that last shot, I think we will continue with the debate.
(1545)
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate today on the motion presented by our colleague from the Reform Party, the member for Comox-Alberni. This motion reads as follows:
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 million 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.This is the wording of the motion, and it is not the first time we find ourselves discussing in this House the manner in which the Upper House, the other place, the Senate, operates. This is not the first time we have questioned expenses incurred by the Senate. It is also not the first time we have questioned the reason for the Senate's existence.
When I meet with people in my riding, and this is the case for all of my colleagues, one question comes up regularly. People ask us: ``What is the purpose of the Senate? What do the senators do?
The public had the opportunity to catch a glimpse of the Senate during the reading of the last throne speech, but I do not think they came away with a more positive image. As you will recall, one or two senators were caught snoozing in full view of the entire population. Jean-Luc Mongrain, a very well known and very popular Quebec commentator, had a field day with it, devoting an hour of one of his broadcasts to the Senate.
It is easy to make fun of what goes on in the Senate. There are, of course, senators who do a serious job, who attend regularly, who carry out research and get involved in the political life of our country in order to improve it, to improve the situation of our fellow citizens. We must, however, admit that, for a large number of people at least, the impression is that they contribute absolutely nothing, that they are, to all intents and purposes, more of a liability than an asset for the people of Canada and of Quebec.
Our fellow citizens, the people with whom we have regular contact, who ask us that question, are not the only ones to wonder the same thing. Both the auditor general himself, to whom I shall
return in a few minutes, and several political commentators, have questioned the strange way the Senate operates year after year.
I would like to quote one in particular, because I feel that the examples he refers to are ones people can relate to, and are based on true facts.
(1550)
This is an article from La Presse, over the byline of Claude Piché who refers to an article by the Financial Post's Gord McIntosh.
Referring to the finance minister's speech, Mr. Piché said in his introduction that, at the very time the federal Minister of Finance is cutting back on expenditures-and this applies to all of the provinces-and asking people to tighten their belts, urging workers and governments to do more, telling everybody that there is no more money to throw away recklessly, we have to act prudently, manage the budget carefully, intelligently, make sure that the available money is spent on the right things.
Referring to the Senate, Mr. Piché writes: ``Of course, the government's financial statements show us that the Senate costs Canadian taxpayers $43 million year after year''. He also reminds us that a senator earns $64,000 a year, plus a tax free allowance of $10,100. We are talking about gross salaries, excluding operating expenses, of approximately $85,000 to $90,000, which is hardly at the poverty line or on the brink of social assistance.
Mr. Piché referred to Mr. McIntosh's investigation and said that what he finds totally unacceptable are the expense allowances in addition to this salary, on top of the fact that many senators are absent more often than not.
He said that what he and everyone find unacceptable are the totally inflated expenses. He provided some examples. He asked whether anyone had visited senators' offices. ``Last year, a new lobby panelled in mahogany and adorned with green, black, salmon and grey granite,'' reports journalist McIntosh, ``at a cost to taxpayers of $125,000''. He added that ``One senator even had the gall to add that it was a bargain''.
Mr. Piché also noted that, in 1993, the Senate sat only 47 days. He reports: ``The Senate employs 11 people full time at an average salary of $60,000 simply to immortalize the words of the senators in Hansard, minutes of a sort of Parliamentary proceedings. Obviously, these officials have a lot more free time and can therefore make month end by selling their services to other government agencies''.
Another example: ``Senators have their own exercise room, set up, of course, at taxpayers' expense. The equipment in this room at the senators' disposal is worth $29,000''. Mr. McIntosh's report on his investigation reveals that only one senator used this room during the year the investigation was conducted.
(1555)
And it goes on. He says, and I think that is what is the most striking for all our fellow citizens: ``From February to May of 1993, the Senate met six days in February, ten in March, five in April and eight in May, for a total of 29 days in four months''. Mr. Piché adds: ``This furious pace of work appears to have been more than many senators could handle, judging from the mind-boggling rate of absenteeism at the Senate''.
These examples show beyond the shadow of a doubt the merit of the motion before us. I could go on reading one example after another for hours and hours. Mr. McIntosh and Mr. Piché are not the only ones to point to such totally unacceptable situations. Earlier in my remarks, I referred to the auditor general's report for 1991. Five years later, there is still no indication that those situations condemned, raised and identified by the auditor general back in 1991 have been addressed in 1996.
Take the budget of the Senate, the Upper House, for example. Expenditures of about $40 million are mentioned in the motion. In 1991, the budget was $42.6 million. But the auditor general comments: ``Total Senate expenditures are closer to $54 million, if we add the estimated $11.4 million in services provided to the Senate by certain government agencies''. This ``we'' does not refer to Bloc members or to yours truly, but to the auditor general himself. This means that it would be more accurate to talk about upwards of $50 million in the wording of the motion, instead of $40 million.
The report is about 100 pages long. I will obviously not read it, but I will mention a few examples which reflect the views expressed by Mr. Piché, although in a more detailed fashion, since they are provided by the auditor general, who is accountable to the House, who works at arm's length, who has the necessary resources-even though he may sometimes think otherwise-to enable him to do serious work.
What does this report on Senate spending say? There is a recommendation, recommendation No. 2, on page 13. The auditor general recommends that the Senate should publish a statement on its expenditures and the performance of its administration. Under 3.23, recommendation No. 2 provides that: ``The Senate should regularly publish a summary of committee activities and expenditures''.
(1600)
If the auditor general made such a recommendation in 1991 and if, as I said, nothing has changed since, the public will realize, like us, that the activities of the Senate and its members are not subject to any audit. Senators are not accountable to anyone. They can do what they want with the public money at their disposal. Again, the Reform Party motion is fully justified.
Take travel expenses. We read in the auditor general's report that there is nothing to guarantee that the travel expenses assumed by the Senate are for the Senate's operations. An example is given.
The example describes a senator who is reimbursed for a one-week trip to Vancouver for himself and four members of his family. Moreover, all of them came from different regions of Canada. To top it all, the senator himself was not a native of British Columbia. Would it be permissible to wonder about an expense of this nature? The auditor general thinks so. Those listening today, those who elected us, the public, taxpaying Canadians, think so.
Mr. Speaker, you are indicating that I have only two minutes left. That is, unfortunately, not enough. I will conclude with some remarks about the reason for the Senate's existence.
I will not give a political science lecture on the difference between the Upper House and the House of Commons, but in the opinion of many of our citizens, particularly those in Quebec, the Upper House, the Senate, is completely unnecessary.
All the members from Quebec share this view. What is more, the political option we are legitimately defending, whether we are from Canada, Quebec, or elsewhere, means that we want not just to see the Senate abolished, but as well not to be represented by anyone at the federal level.
But even from a federalist standpoint, and our colleagues in the Reform Party have, I think, very aptly demonstrated this, even from a federalist standpoint, almost everyone agrees on the need to reform the Upper House, to ensure that, if there is truly a desire for institutions that respect British tradition, at least that House will have real powers. It will also have to be accountable, unlike what we are seeing now. These days, and I will conclude on this note, the Senate is more like a Club Med to reward political organizers or to facilitate their party fundraising activities. More often than not, this is the purpose served by the Senate nowadays.
(1605)
At a time when all Canadians are being asked to tighten their belts, to take another look at how they are doing things, they are entitled to require the same of their elected officials. The first expense that should be cut is not grants to organizations representing the disabled, but Senate spending. Action should be taken so that if our senators, our political organizers, want a paid vacation, they pay for it out of their own pockets.
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the comments of my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois.
Perhaps I could read the first two paragraphs of a column by Mike Scandiffio which appeared in the Hill Times a few weeks ago. ``The Senate is underfunded and needs a minimum of $4 million more to meet its objectives'', said the senator who chairs the committee which sets out the budget for the upper chamber. ``The budget leaves the Senate little room for ongoing operations'', said Senator Colin Kenny who chairs the internal economy committee. ``$4 million, that is a low ball figure. I would like to see $7 million''.
We get the idea of the seriousness of the motion the Reform Party has brought forward, notwithstanding the fact that we hear all sorts of laughing and chuckling from the peanut gallery over there. They do not realize that the people of Canada are sick and fed up with the notion that the senators, along with their porky pension plan, keep on going to the people of Canada and to the trough. They just do not understand that the people of Canada are fed up with the Liberals and all the old line parties constantly swilling out more and more money.
I have a question for the member. The motion gives notice of opposition to the Senate estimates. Its purpose is to put pressure on the Senate to make it account for the $40 million of spending. We would need a majority in the House to indicate that we are prepared to vote down the Senate funds if it refuses to appear before the Standing Committee on Government Operations.
I realize that he and I are just members of a caucus. He does not have an official capacity in the Bloc Quebecois, at least none that I am aware of. I would like to ask him, though, what the Bloc position is on this point. Does he agree that in fact the Board of Internal Economy of the Senate should be brought before the standing committee to account for its $40 million so that the people of Canada have a legitimate say into the expenditures?
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc's position has been explained by my colleague who spoke this morning immediately after the mover of the motion. As for me, I am saying, as I have throughout my speech, obviously, that I find that the requirement that the Upper House submit accounts according to the formula set out in the motion is not only acceptable, desirable, but strikes me as a minimum, that the senators provide an accounting of their administration.
I will therefore repeat that I am, of course, in agreement for this motion to be passed, but I am convinced that the government will not be brave enough to follow up on it. This gives me the opportunity to recall another expenditure the auditor general found with respect to telecommunications. I have already referred to the number of sitting days attended by a goodly number of senators. If records are broken over there, it most certainly has nothing to do
with attendance. There are no marathon sittings, no one dropping down from exhaustion afterward-
An hon. member: Just falling asleep.
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead): Yes, they nod off, but they do not collapse exhausted from having sat too long.
(1610)
What does the auditor general have to say about telecommunications? It is important to pay attention, and I am talking to my Liberal colleagues, who should think about this. The auditor general says that about $10,000 per senator is spent annually on the average on telecommunications, but that the figure varies considerably. He reports that, in a ten month period, starting April 1989, the expenditures of seven senators exceeded $2,000 a month on 26 different occasions overall.
Two thousand dollars in telephone costs a month. I understand why they do not sit often, they are always on the telephone. It reminds me of my teenagers. I hope they have the call waiting service so people can reach them sometimes. Other senators, however, spent less than $500 a month.
This sort of example is important. I repeat this is not gossip about politicians people are sharing on street corners. This is what the auditor general, a credible individual recognized by all politicians in Canada, had to say. This kind of example is in his report.
In response to my colleague, I repeat that we in the Bloc want the Senate abolished, purely and simply. The motion by our Reform colleague is the minimum in terms of political decency.
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague. Although everyone understood what he just said, not everyone accepts it. It is our colleagues across the way who do not accept it. The auditor general came up with these figures and everyone can see them.
Yet, when I explain to my constituents that the Senate costs $43 million, while some industries are being cut by 30 per cent because the government does not want to invest in forestry, they find it hard to take. It is indeed very hard to take.
I fully agree with the motion put forward by my colleague from Comox-Alberni, but it does not go far enough. As my colleague from Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead was saying, the Senate must be abolished. We must give some serious thought to this.
I attended the speech from the throne and saw senators sleeping and being filmed by the TV cameras. Is there better evidence of how hard some senators work? Of course not. This scene was shown several times on television. The people in my riding asked me what those people were doing there.
The government is making cuts to forestry, to agriculture, to unemployment insurance, to everything-The people in my riding have a much more appropriate name for unemployment insurance: poverty insurance. Meanwhile, senators travel in first class, quaff champagne and run up extravagant communications bills. When they travel to foreign countries, senators arrive around five o'clock and have a sip of champagne before laying down for a nap; that is about the extent of it. I am not making anything up, as you well know.
To be honest, some senators do a certain amount of work, but 90 per cent of them are a waste of time, energy and money. The people of the great Lower St. Lawrence region, of Matapédia-Matane, will never be able to understand this.
If you do not believe me, you should hold a referendum asking whether we should keep the Senate, whether we should keep feeding senators or get rid of them. I can tell you right now that there would be a strong majority in favour of abolishing the Senate.
(1615)
[English]
Following a further inquiry from the table officers, having just replaced the previous chair occupant, I will look to the government side for a speaker. Then, of course, I will recognize the Reform Party in whose name the opposition day stands.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the debate this afternoon.
[Translation]
I am somewhat shocked by the remarks made by the hon. members of the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party who just spoke. In their speeches, they made remarks to the effect that several members of the other place are not working, which are insulting to the members of Senate. It is not true. Many senators work hours on end at the Senate and the hon. members of both opposition parties know it full well.
They are perfectly aware of the fact that many senators sit on Senate committees, often splitting their time between these committees and the Senate itself for weeks on end, and they work very hard for the residents of their province, whom they represent in the other place.
[English]
For hon. members opposite to dump on the Senate in this way may be popular and may be fun, but I suggest that in respect of at least some of the hon. senators, quite a good number of them, it is unfair. Many of them are extremely hard working and do an excellent service for Canada and for the Parliament of Canada.
I know it is a popular sport to criticize the Senate. I will have some remarks of my own in respect of the Senate. I have made them in the past. That is fair game. However, there are many hard working Canadians in the Senate and for hon. members opposite to make those remarks is improper, in my view, and contrary to our rules and practices.
The motion before the House is questionable. It is not surprising when one considers the source. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni put forward the motion which says the Senate failed to respond to a message from the House requesting that a representative of the Senate committee appear before the Standing Committee on Government Operations to account for $40 million of taxpayer money. Talk about crocodile tears.
Mr. Abbott: That is a fact.
Mr. Milliken: If the hon. member for Kootenay East could control himself for a few minutes he will have a chance to ask questions a little later. He says it is a fact. Yes, it is a fact. It is also a fact that this kind of request has never gone to a Senate committee chair before from this House. It is also a fact that it is quite improper for one House to demand the attendance of members of the other House in their capacity as representatives of the House.
I suggest to the hon. member that if a request came from the Senate for members of this House to go down to defend their expenditures before the Senate, the request would be treated with some disdain.
The hon. member for Kootenay East wags his head. Perhaps he would go to the Senate to explain his expenditures, but I do not regard it as my responsibility to go there to explain anything to the Senate about my expenditures.
The hon. member says he is elected and that, of course, makes a difference. It may, but the Senate has certain powers and rights under the Constitution. Senators may not be elected but they are appointed under the Constitution and their powers are derived from the same act, the Constitution Act, from which our powers are derived.
While the hon. member may have a point that there is a difference in the way we are appointed, if I received a request from the Senate to come hither to answer questions, I would say no, I will not, thank you very much. The Senate has exercised that right.
What the hon. member for Comox-Alberni is trying to do by the motion is make it appear that somehow the Senate is being undemocratic because these non-elected people are saying they will not appear before a group of elected people to explain the way they are accounting for their money.
There are procedures for doing this. There are procedures for bringing the Senate to account in respect of its management of the funds it has. Members can ask questions with respect to the Senate estimates when they are here in the House. They can move a motion, as they have today. They can ask a minister of the crown to discuss the estimates. They can ask the President of the Treasury Board questions about the Senate estimates. They can also arrange for members of the Senate to ask questions in the Senate.
(1620)
The hon. member opposite seems to suggest the Senate is one big happy club, but he knows, as I do, the Senate is made up of partisans from at least two parties.
Mr. Abbott: The old line traditional parties.
Mr. Milliken: There we are. We are hearing it, what we have been listening to throughout this debate from the opposition today, the politics of envy. Here we have two opposition parties screaming and ranting about the Senate. Why? They do not have one of their own in the Senate. We did not used to hear these criticisms of the Senate when Stan Waters was there.
Here was the hon. member for Beaver River shedding crocodile tears earlier because Stan Waters won a popularity contest and was appointed to the Senate by Brian Mulroney. He was appointed just like every other senator was. He was as big a hack as Lowell Murray and Lynch-Staunton and all those Tory hacks in the Senate.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Milliken: The hon. member for Kootenay East can protest all he wants. He can say what an awful thing it is but when it comes right down to it, Stan Waters was appointed the same way the others were.
Listen to the protests. There is no provision in the Constitution Act for the election of a senator. The only way one gets to the Senate-I urge my hon. friends to read the Constitution Act-is by a nomination of the governor general on recommendation from the Prime Minister. There is no other route. One can win a popularity contest for Mr. Beauty Queen and that person will not get into the Senate unless the governor general summons them to the Senate on the recommendation of the Prime Minister.
Stan Waters managed that feat. He got into the Senate but he got named by the Prime Minister. If he had not been, he would not have been there. I do not care how many election campaigns he ran in Alberta or anywhere else. He could not get there without that little slip of paper signed by His Excellency the Governor General of Canada.
He got it and he loved it. He sat in the Senate and while he was there we had the hon. member for Beaver River here in the House. She did not rant and rave about the evils of the Senate and its expenditures then.
An hon. member: You did not let her speak.
Mr. Milliken: We were treated to the speeches of the hon. member for Beaver River all the time. She gave us another sterling example this afternoon.
We all listened with bated breath to the member for Beaver River when she got a chance to speak. I remember many times the Liberal Party gave up space in its speaking list in order for the member for Beaver River to get on the record. We wanted to hear her views. We were enthusiastic about hearing her views. We still are.
Here she was today telling us all about the Senate and how her friends had been appointed to the Senate, friends of hers she thought were in favour of a democratically elected Senate.
The position of the Liberal Party on this is very well known. We favour an elected Senate. It will come in the fullness of time. In the meantime, we operate under the existing Constitution. That requires the Prime Minister to fill vacancies in the Senate by making recommendations to His Excellency the Governor General of Canada who then summons persons to sit in the Senate.
I am sure my hon. friends opposite would not want to have the Senate continue to be dominated by the party that formed the government and that was so soundly thrashed in the last election campaign.
They say they are very democratic and that they support democratic principles. I found it passing strange that when I came into the House today I saw that the two Conservative members have been shifted away so that they are not sitting so close to the Reformers any more. We know why that happened. It is that they were treated so rudely by the Reform Party members, being shouted at and screamed at so that they could not hear themselves think where they were sitting. They got moved closer to the Bloc. For a party that is so democratic as the Reform Party, I am rather surprised it would take that approach.
Anyway, there they are moved. It is bad enough to see them mistreated in the election campaign, having been reduced to two seats, but then to have them treated this way in the House by the Reform Party is a shameful thing.
The Conservative Party still controls the Senate; well not quite anymore, but it still has a very large number of members in the Senate. Until recently it exercised effective control of the Senate. I am sure hon. members opposite who are after all professed democrats would not want that to continue.
(1625)
The government has continued to appoint Liberals to the Senate to redress the imbalance that was the hangover of the Mulroney years in the Senate. It was a hangover that Canadians were tired of. The government took the right approach. It has continued with that approach by appointing Liberals to the Senate to fill every possible vacancy to make sure we are not confronted with Tory dominance in the Senate any longer.
Some of my colleagues may not be aware of this but hon. members opposite have been in cahoots with their Tory colleagues in the Senate Chamber. I go back to Bill C-69 and that ill fated attempt to amend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act which was introduced in the House and which members on all sides worked on so hard to come up with a good bill.
That bill was adopted in this House and sent to the other place. I recall going down to a committee meeting to answer questions about the bill as chairman of the procedure and House affairs committee as parliamentary secretary to the government House leader at the time. I went down to the Senate to answer questions with regard to the bill. Who did I see down there but the hon. member for Calgary West. He had run down and climbed into bed with Senator Staunton and Senator Murray. He was in cahoots. He was whispering away at the committee table, saying ``ask him this, ask him about that'', and giving all kinds of asides to these senators to stir up trouble with respect to a bill that had passed in this House.
This is the Senate that we are hearing about today which is so undemocratic, autocratic, so unfair and full of all these awful people, according to the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois. Yet when Bill C-69 was there, boy, there was the member for Calgary West, who the last time I checked was still in the Reform Party, down there talking those Tory senators and trying to get them to jump on the Reform band wagon and block the bill. They succeeded. He succeeded abundantly. He so convinced the Tory senators that this bill was a bad thing that they blocked the bill. They held it up for months and months. Now the hon. member for Beaver River is losing her seat.
We heard the member for Beaver River today. She was preaching politics of envy. She wants a Senate seat.
Mr. Abbott: Oh, right.
Mr. Milliken: The hon. member for Kootenay East says I am right. He knows I am right. Her seat disappears in redistribution. She wants to go to the Senate. Here she was making a speech today, wanting to create vacancies in the Senate by exposing some kind of scandal down there. If she could make it account for this $40 million and found something had been misspent, maybe there would be a vacancy and she could get appointed to the vacancy.
She listed her three friends who have all gone and she wants to be with them. I can understand her desire. I guess if I had three close friends all go to the Senate maybe I would want a Senate seat too. In the meantime I am quite happy to stay here.
I am not finished yet. I know hon. members opposite want to ask me questions and that is why I made this speech. I want to give
them an opportunity to ask me questions, but they will have to hold their horses until I am finished.
The other thing about the Senate is how is it that the Reform Party, which says it is so much in favour of democracy, can favour a triple E Senate? Why does a triple E Senate make so much sense to the Reform Party and so little sense to almost everybody else?
I will try to explain it. Under its proposal for a triple E Senate, it is to have the senators elected on a province-wide basis in each province and there will be an equal number of senators per province, say 10 per province.
Miss Grey: What is all this I hear?
Mr. Milliken: The hon. member for Beaver River has reappeared. Like the phoenix from the ashes she has come back. I am so glad she has made it. I hope she has not missed the point of the beginning of my story.
Reformers want this triple E Senate, 10 senators per province, elected on a provincial basis so that they can all get huge numbers of votes.
The hon. member for Beaver River in her remarks spoke eloquently about how her friend, Stan Waters, got a huge number of votes, the biggest number anyone had ever received in an election in Canada, because he ran in the biggest constituency anyone had ever run in, in this popularity contest in Alberta. I can only tell the hon. member that if we had a similar election today across the country in each province, in the province of Prince Edward Island the winner might get as many votes as I did.
(1630 )
An hon. member: Not that many.
Mr. Milliken: The hon. member says not that many. I know he is flattering me. We could then go to another place like Ontario where the winner might receive 10 times as many votes as the person in Manitoba, Saskatchewan or some other province, but it would be many times more than Stan Waters received in Alberta.
Let us go on with this case for another second. Then we get these people into the Senate and the Senate becomes effective. It has all the powers the current Senate has, the power to block any bill. We would create a newly elected body of 10 people from every province, representing the people of their provinces, with the power to block the elected will of the House of Commons.
What happens to the democratic principle in this case? The five smallest provinces could get together and effectively block the five largest provinces because there would be a tie vote.
An hon. member: What is the matter with that?
Mr. Milliken: The hon. member asks what is wrong with that. In a democracy we normally go with the majority, the numbers. We have compromised the majority somewhat by tying the number of seats into the population in provinces with certain floors, certain guarantees, and so on and so forth. Those exist in the country. It is this House which is the basis for government in the country, not the Senate. It has unlimited powers in theory but in practice very limited powers. This House has virtually unlimited powers.
The hon. member knows the way this House works is that the different regions of the country are represented here. However, what is sought in this triple E Senate is a power in the smallest provinces to block the larger provinces.
Hon. members opposite must know that if about one-quarter of the population of the country were able to thwart the wishes of over three-quarters of the country there would be something wrong. If they do not think that, their idea of democracy is pretty weak.
Have I said something in a way that is too complicated for the hon. members opposite to understand?
The country should be governed by a group of people elected to represent their geographic areas based on some system of equality of representation. What hon. members opposite are suggesting is exactly the opposite. They are to turn the Senate Chamber into something that will be able to dominate the Canadian political system big time and in a way that is most undemocratic despite their protests of democracy.
It makes me very suspicious when I combine my hearing of their views on the triple E Senate with the hon. member for Calgary West's sliding into bed with these Tory senators on Bill C-69 and the hon. member for Beaver River in her enthusiasm to get a Senate seat to make up for the loss of her seat in the redistribution. All those things make me very suspicious. I begin to think that maybe I am paranoid or something. However, when I speak with my colleagues they all agree with my views as to what Reform really wants here.
If the hon. member for Calgary Southwest were here, although I am sure he is here in spirit, and if he had to act as Prime Minister I can just imagine what he would have been doing the last few weeks if he had vacancies in the Senate at his beck and call. I could see the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan in the Senate. I could see the hon. member for Athabasca in the Senate. I will bet if she had played her cards right, the hon. member for Calgary Southeast might even have made it to the Senate. I will bet it is a good place for them. It is just as well there as it is at the back of the bus.
The poor hon. member for Calgary Southeast is now sloughed off in the back row over there with the Bloc members. The poor soul, she is off with the Bloc members. The hon. member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead is back after his speech and he and the hon. member for Calgary Southeast can commiserate on
what life would be like in the Senate. I am sure they would share views on the importance of appointment to the Senate and what useful lives they could lead there after the next election.
(1635)
The hon. member for Calgary Southwest is not the Prime Minister of Canada and that is why we are hearing this politics of envy. If he were the Prime Minister of Canada we would not be hearing all these complaints about the Senate because there would be some Reform members in the Senate and so they would stop complaining.
It would not stop the Bloc, I admit, since it is not running to be the Government of Canada. It is unlikely that we will have any appointments from that party, which would silence it.
I assure my colleague for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead that if the Prime Minister, once there is a Liberal majority in the Senate, chooses to appoint one of his colleagues to the Senate he too will agree the Senate is a great place, that its members work very hard and he will repent all the words he spoke today. He will withdraw those words and apologize to his friends in the Senate for the nasty things he has said.
I hope all hon. members in their remarks and in their questions will be temperate in their criticisms of the other place because I believe it does good service for Canada.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Given the huge interest in the intervention from the member for Kingston and the Islands on questions and comments, I will try to recognize as many members as I can.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we have been at this for years and years. I can hardly believe he is ranting and raving right now against an elected Senate. I ask him to agree or disagree with the proposal in the resolution his party came forward with at the 1992 convention that said be it resolved that the Liberal Party of Canada is in favour of an elected Senate.
It would hardly seem he is following his party's policy right now in ranting against it. His friend, the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, for whom I have quite a bit of respect, said to me earlier ``well, that was then''.
Something happens from this side of the House over to that side of the House. In opposition the Liberals could say all kinds of things. Then of course at their assembly in 1992 before they became government they could have all these wonderful documents come forward.
The interesting thing that is different about his party and mine is that when we have an assembly and the delegates at that assembly vote on party policy, heaven help any MP who thinks they can vote against it because the people have the last word. I could never sit in the House and say that was then but now that I am in government things are so much better. Does he agree or disagree with that resolution?
He spent more time talking about me than he did about the Senate. I could not help but notice he was wondering aloud if I really wanted a seat in the Senate because of the redistribution of the constituency in Beaver River.
Let me put on the record in Hansard that if I ever think that I might get a seat in the Senate of Canada it will be because I run as an elected person for a seat in the Senate of Canada. It will be democratic, it will be legitimate and I will have some mandate for being in the Senate, not because some hack threw me in there.
He also says there might be Reformers in the Senate. I dare say there will be someday, but it will be because we are running there. It will not be because some political hack says to me ``well done, thou good and faithful hack, go to the Senate''. It will not happen, but that is his dream of getting to the Senate.
Perhaps there is a little disappointment because his name did not come up on the list. Several people have been put in the Senate since he was heaved down there by the glass doors. How much farther can you go before you are out of this Chamber?
He did not get a chance to get into the Senate. I wonder if he would agree with me, being that he did not get a seat, how important it is not to just make fun of the whole issue of election and talk about a fraud or whatever in Alberta, but would he stand with me and say he does not believe in some political person throwing him into the Senate, that he will be hanged before he will let some pot licker put him in the Senate without running to be there effectively and legitimately.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the protestations of the hon. member for Beaver River, I have no intention of being hanged before or after any possible chance of going to the Senate.
(1640 )
To answer her question, I support the Liberal Party resolution of 1992. If I had my choice, I would abolish the Senate. I see there will be a debate on Friday on a motion moved by the hon. member for Kamouraska. I hope the hon. member for Beaver River will support the motion so we can get rid of the Senate for now. If we can agree on an elected Senate at another date, I would be to have an elected Senate. It will have to be by some kind of agreement.
I also suggest the proper thing to do is put some restrictions on the power of the Senate, whether it is elected or not. The hon.
member for Beaver River can discuss that with me at a later date. I would be more than happy to have a lengthy debate on the subject.
With respect to the Charlottetown accord, when we had a chance to have an elected Senate, I actively campaigned for the yes side.
Miss Grey: My side won.
Mr. Milliken: I am well aware that the hon. member's no side won. She had a chance then to support an elected Senate and she campaigned against the Charlottetown accord. I put my money where my mouth was. Our party supported an elected Senate despite my preference for abolition. I went along with the thing and supported an elected Senate in an effort to make the accord work. When the hon. member for Beaver River had a chance go for an elected Senate she would not hold her nose and go for it. She said ``I am not going for an elected Senate, it is not that important to me''.
It was important enough to our party that I was able to support the accord and I did my bit for an elected Senate. Even though we lost the battle, we won the war in Kingston and the Islands.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): 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?
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, of course the Senate should be held accountable for its funds. I am glad the hon. member asked this question. The article seems to be suggesting the Conservative members of the Senate were using the Senate funds available to them for research and other such purposes to do research on behalf of party policy for the Conservative Party of Canada.
Mr. Abbott: For their members in the House of Commons.
Mr. Milliken: Or for the Conservative Party of Canada. These members are given a budget for research purposes, as we are, and they are allowed to use that money for partisan purposes, as we are permitted to do.
I can develop policy statements in my office intended for use by the Liberal Party of Canada should I choose to do so. I can use my House of Commons staff, just as the hon. member can do with his.
I cite a few examples. There is a former Reform candidate now employed in the office of a member of the Reform Party. He was employed there before he ran as a candidate. He was a candidate in cold storage. It is like a frozen steak; pull it out when there is an election and start cooking. Then when the election is lost, it is put back in the freezer. That is what happened with one of theirs.
(1645)
Then the Reform Party spent $30,000 on its leader's suits with taxpayers' money raised in donations to the party. Do we think people who contributed money to the Reform Party thought that $30,000 would be used to buy suits for the hon. member for Calgary Southwest? That is accountability. Let us hear about that.
If the hon. member is so concerned about accountability why does he not tell us about the car the party provides the party leader? When he handed over the keys to the official car given to him by the House of Commons, he took a car from the party and said it was not from the taxpayers. Who got all the receipts for the money with $75 out of $100 as a tax credit but the people who paid for that car who were all taxpayers. The rest of us are all taking it in the neck because they got a $75 tax credit out of the first $100.
The hon. member says it is a taxable claim. My figures are correct. If a person gives $100 to a party they get a $75 tax credit. That comes out of the pockets of taxpayers, as does any other deduction.
I know the hon. member for Kootenay East is thankful he asked me that question. I agree with accountability. I believe people should be accountable. His party should come clean about what it is doing with taxpayers' money, as we do.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon.
member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, terrorism; the hon. member for Labrador, mining.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to listen to the intervention from the member for Kingston and the Islands. It was very entertaining. There is a very popular box office hit called ``Twister''. It is also very entertaining and there is a similarity. We could draw the analogy that after being entertained for a couple of hours people have only spent money and received a lot of wind.
The Reform Party has spoken in the House since it arrived about the need for change in our parliamentary system. We have talked about the need for change in our Senate.
There are many members in the House from the Bloc, some from the Liberal Party and from the NDP who advocate that we abolish the Senate. Canadians from coast to coast recognize the Senate is nothing more than a haven for political patronage and has been for a very long time. Canadians are not satisfied with that. They are not getting a bang for their buck. They recognize that it is nothing more than a patronage pay-off for political hacks and they want it changed.
The simple solution is to say we will abolish it. That sounds good. I can understand why members from Ontario and Quebec would feel that was a proper solution. They do not have the problem of the regional parts of Canada where representation by population means they are left vulnerable by many political decisions. The Senate provides an opportunity to ensure regional balance and regional fairness in the face of representation by population.
Canadians understand that we do not have regional fairness when in the Senate. It does not provide a sober second look. It does not ensure that the legislation which passes through the House meets the test of fairness for all Canadians. It is nothing short of an opportunity for the prime minister in office to appoint his or her political hacks. The Canadian taxpayers are virtually saddled with those people for a lifetime. There is no way out.
We in the Reform Party recognized a long time ago that the Senate was not working. Instead of coming up with the simplistic solution of abolishing it, we said we needed to change it to make it work, just as we need to change the House to make it work.
(1650 )
We have talked about recall. We have talked about referenda. We have talked about opening up Canada's parliamentary process both in this House and in the upper House to be a more democratic system, to have a more democratic method of operation. We have talked about the way Parliament is working now is nothing short of a democratic dictatorship.
We have an outbreak of democracy once every four or five years when Canadians go to the polls to elect a new government. We are only electing our next dictator. Whoever becomes prime minister in a majority government, which we get most of the time, becomes a virtual dictator for the next four or five years.
The Prime Minister exercises power over cabinet by virtue of the fact that he appoints and fires cabinet ministers. Loyalty is driven toward ensuring that the Prime Minister's will is done in that inner circle of high powered cabinet ministers.
The Prime Minister has a vested interest in the Senate's remaining as it is because it offers him the opportunity to reward his political cronies. It also offers him the opportunity to give the people of Canada the perception that there is a place for a sober second look at legislation that passes through this House. In reality it is nothing more than a rubber stamp.
However, the perception is falling away. Canadians are demanding that substantive changes be made to the way the House of Commons and the Senate work. For the benefit of the members opposite I say that anybody who is in politics in Canada today who does not recognize that and who is not prepared to deal with that will not be here for long.
That is the reality of change coming to Canada. It is driven by the grassroots, by the citizens of the country. We hear it right across the nation. I know there will be some members from some parties in this House dragged through that change kicking and screaming, but it is coming.
The member for Kingston and the Islands said with regard to the Senate that one Reform senator was appointed by the Prime Minister. To say it was a political appointment is a slight on the remembrance of Stan Waters, a great Canadian who ran for public office, who ran for the position of senator and who was elected by over a quarter of a million voters in the province of Alberta.
I can tell the member for Kingston and the Islands that if Stan Waters were alive today and if he were to hear this member denigrating his election to the Senate, I am certain that Stan Waters, knowing him and knowing the way he was, would have given the member an education out behind the barn. That was Stan Waters' way.
The members talk about the Charlottetown accord and say ``you nasty Reformers talk about a triple E Senate, yet when you had an opportunity to vote for a triple E Senate you turned it down in the Charlottetown accord''.
I remind members opposite that Canadians are not stupid. They understood clearly that the Charlottetown accord was not about a triple E Senate. There was no requirement for an election. There was an opportunity for provincial premiers to make appointments
to the Senate as opposed to the Prime Minister but there was no requirement for an election.
There was no real opportunity for an effective Senate because the provisions in the Charlottetown accord did not allow the Senate to oversee many facets of legislation which we on this side of the House feel it should have the right to review.
Canadians and Reformers were asked at the time of the Charlottetown accord to buy a pig in a poke. We were told ``if you want your triple E Senate'', and it was not a triple E Senate, ``you will get it if you vote for the Charlottetown accord''.
(1655 )
We were not to get a triple E Senate. We were to get about a one and a half E Senate, which does not mean we were 50 per cent of the way to our goal. It only meant that we had slightly improved on a very bad system.
Canadians were also told the Charlottetown accord meant distinct society status for Quebec. They were told that one of the five key components of the Charlottetown accord was the inherent right to aboriginal self-government. The Charlottetown accord was turned down by people in many areas of Canada for those reasons. The accord was not turned down because of the extremely limited provisions for change to the Senate.
The government is quick to implement those failed aspects of the Charlottetown accord which did not sit well with Canadian people from coast to coast. Within weeks of taking office the government turned around and issued statements like we recognize the inherent right of aboriginal peoples to self-government. That was a key component of the Charlottetown accord which was voted down by Canadians, but Liberals opposite will foist it down our throats anyway, like it or not.
Last year the Liberal government passed distinct society recognition for Quebec, although it was clearly voted down by the people in the rest of Canada in the Charlottetown referendum. If the Liberals can implement these other aspects of the failed Charlottetown referendum against the wishes of the Canadian people, why can they not agree to implement changes to the Senate?
Depending on which riding they are in, 80 per cent to 85 per cent of Canadians from coast to coast want change in the Senate. They expect change in the Senate. They demand change in the Senate. During its election campaign the government indicated it would to make changes, that it believed in an elected Senate.
The reality is here now. It was one thing to promise change during an election campaign. That was then, this is now. There will not be an elected Senate. Canadians' hope for change has been dashed by the comments of members opposite today. It has become clear the government, this Liberal Party, has absolutely no intention whatsoever of changing the rules with regard to electing senators. It has made that abundantly clear.
There was a book that was popular several years ago. I cannot remember the name of the author but I recall one of the quotes, that power is rarely or never given but almost always taken. The Reform Party came to Ottawa in part because we wanted to see the tremendous power that is centralized in the Prime Minister's office dissipated somewhat and democratized. There would be more power in the hands of ordinary Canadians.
A major component of that goal is ensuring Canadians have the right to accountability by the Senate, which they pay $40 million for. They should have some measure of accountability. They should have some way of ensuring senators are doing what the voters want and not what the Prime Minister wants.
I will say again that any political party or political representative who does not recognize the need for accountability and who is not prepared to implement that in the future does not recognize that fundamental changes are needed in our system and they are destined for political extinction. It is coming and I do not think voters will accept any less.
We can listen to the Liberal members opposite talk about how much they believe in democracy, about how much they believe in keeping their election promises when they clearly do not. They clearly do not believe in democracy. They twist words around. They twist sentences around. They twist promises around. They will do anything to avoid making the changes required. They will do anything to avoid having a triple E Senate because it does not work in their political party's interest and it does not work in the Prime Minister's interest. It certainly works in the interests of the Canadian people.
(1700 )
As I said earlier, the Canadian people are no longer content to sit back and watch business unfold as usual. There will be an election within the next year or two, possibly this fall. I believe two of the key issues in that election for Canadians will be just how democratic the process is and how good their representation is in Ottawa.
When I go back to Atlantic Canada I talk to the fishermen. As the fisheries critic I end up talking to a lot of fishermen. They tell me that their elected representatives are not in agreement with the minister on a particular policy. The constituents they have been elected to represent are not in agreement with the minister's policy. However, these MPs dare not come back to Ottawa and take a contrary position to the minister for fear of punishment. We have seen that punishment demonstrated graphically by the Prime Minister in the last six or seven weeks.
We have seen how a Liberal MP, who wanted to stand up for his election promises and for what his constituents wanted, was hustled out of that party quicker than you could blink when he dared do it.
The question of representation on the part of Canadian voters is becoming more serious all the time. They are no longer content to live with the status quo.
In closing, we hear all the eloquent words from the Liberal MPs on the other side. We hear the rhetoric about how the government would like to see a more open and democratic process. We see it in the red book promises. We see it in interviews with various Liberal MPs in the media from time to time. However, for all those people out there who may be watching, the reality is that there is absolutely no commitment to that at all. The government is not committed to having any changes in the status quo. The only way Canadians will have that in the future is to elect a Reform government.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): 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.
(1705 )
Mr. Scott (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, Canadians from coast to coast are unhappy with the status quo. They want to see substantial change.
They are unhappy with the fact that the Senate has been used as a patronage haven. It is anti-democratic to its core and has a tremendous budget. They know that senators are jetting off all over the world on various junkets without accountability to the voters or to anyone else. We are asking for accountability to the House and the member for Kingston and the Islands says we have no right to demand that accountability.
To whom are senators accountable for their budget? Are they accountable to the Prime Minister? They are not accountable to the electors because they were never elected and they do not have to stand for re-election.
Canadians are very unhappy about that. It is very frustrating for Canadians to hear the Prime Minister make promises and statements about changing the Senate. Then they read the red book and hear statements such as those made by the member for Kingston and the Islands here this afternoon, which are contradictory.
It all goes back to what the Liberal Party has done for generations, which is make promises and then the ground shifts. We must keep moving with the times and promises change as time goes by and reality rears its ugly head.
I suppose like the red queen, the promises in the red book mean whatever the Liberals want them to mean. The Prime Minister can change his position two or three times in a month and seems to get away with it. However, I do not think that is going to happen any more. It certainly did not happen on the GST. The member for Hamilton had to resign over her broken promise. I have talked with Canadians from coast to coast over the last 18 months and they tell me they want serious change in the Senate. They are not content with the status quo.
In answer to my colleague in the Reform Party, Canadians are not going to sit back and watch $40 million a year be shovelled into that place with no accountability and be used as nothing more than a patronage haven for whatever prime minister happens to be in office at the time.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have been listening all day long, as Reform Party members discussed this very important motion dealing with Senate expenditures and the fact that the Senate refuses to testify before the Standing Committee on Government Operations. This is very serious and Canadians must know about this.
Since this morning, I have been hearing Reformers complain about the lack of control over Senate expenditures and the fact that the Senate refuses to account for the $40 million budget it was given. Incidentally, according to the auditor general's report for
1991, the actual amount would be closer to $54 million, when certain other expenditures are added to this $40 million. The Senate is also described as haven of patronage, and Senate appointments as political rewards.
My question is as follows: If that is the case, why does the Reform Party not recommend that the Senate be plainly and simply abolished, as advocated by the Bloc Quebecois? That it what I ask myself.
[English]
Mr. Scott (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member was not here for my entire intervention earlier. For his benefit I will recap once again.
The member comes from a province of approximately seven million people. I come from a province of about three million people. There are provinces in Canada with only several hundred thousand in population. When we have a democratic system that elects members to the House on the basis of population it means that some provinces or regions in Canada are going to be under represented.
(1710 )
Let me offer a graphic example of how a regional interest can be overridden by the powerful political forces in central Canada. During the late 1970s and early 1980s the Liberal government of the day led by Pierre Trudeau was in a bit of a cash crunch. It looked over at Alberta and British Columbia and saw an opportunity to reach into the energy well of those provinces to dig out a whole fistful of dollars. As members may recall, energy prices were rising.
Alberta and northeastern British Columbia have tremendous oil and gas reserves. They were developing and bringing onstream more properties all the time. The federal government adopted a national energy program.
The national energy program was nothing more than a legislated rape of Alberta's and British Columbia's oil and gas reserves. There was no opportunity for a Senate to review that legislation to ensure the regional interests of Alberta and British Columbia were protected from the strong, dominant, centrifugal political forces in Ottawa and in Ontario and Quebec. That is why I fear for the future of Confederation, for the future of Canada, as a country of 10 equal and harmonious provinces if we do not have a Senate.
There will come a time in the future when another such silly idea as the national energy program will be dreamt up by some federal government, maybe even this one. It has come up with some pretty silly ideas. It will be foisted on some region in Canada that is not prepared to accept it. That will create a tremendous feeling of unrest and ill will and possibly be a move for separation of other provinces from the federation.
It is important for the sake of national unity to have a Senate.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first I would like to advise you that I will share my time with the hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm, who will speak a little later.
Bloc members do not often support Reform Party motions. This proposal is a minimum since, as the hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm said earlier, we are in favour of abolishing the Senate.
The Reform member who moved the motion is saying that spending must be submitted to the scrutiny of this House, so that these expenditures can be made known to the public as much as possible. This seems to be a minimum, given the large number of recommendations made by the auditor general following a review of this issue. There are 27 recommendations, and all of them make a lot of sense.
In the context of expenditure reduction expected by all Canadians right now, and since the public debt continues to grow and will soon reach $600 billion, cuts must be made somewhere.
The Senate is not subject to any of the rules that usually apply to departments. This makes its activities somewhat less credible in the public eye. The auditor general's proposals made a lot of sense, and he did submit a whole series of recommendations. What the Reform Party member is proposing, that a report be tabled in this House, so that it can be scrutinized, is also a good idea.
However, we must look at the issue from another angle. Why have a Senate at all? I recently asked some of my constituents what the Senate meant to them. They did not really have an answer.
(1715)
They also asked who the senator was who represented their area here. I was asked that some time ago and I now know who it is because I made some inquiries. I do not wish to dump on those who do this job, that not being the purpose of the question, but my constituents did not know the name of the senator who represented them here in Parliament.
At one point I was visiting a school class and I asked them what the Senate meant to them. ``Oh sure we know the Senators. We see them a lot.'' I was a bit taken aback by that, so I asked them to name some names. They then started to give me the names of hockey players. Does that ring a bell for you, Mr. Speaker? Children, even young people in secondary school and Cegep, told me ``The Senators are the Ottawa hockey team. They are not that
good yet, but they are up and coming. They will be a good team eventually''. Young people know absolutely nothing about the regular activities of the senators here in the other place.
After having the fun of asking that question for some time, and finding so many people giving me the same answer, I asked myself what the purpose of the Senate was. I wondered about its mandate.
Moreover, the first recommendation the auditor general made in his report was the following: the mandates of the Senate and its committees needed tightening up, as they were too vague. So then I became more interested in the question: What is the use of the Senate?
Finally, we became aware that the function of the Senate, although this is not how it is written down, was to block bills, to prevent their being passed. In actual fact, it is to examine bills that have been passed by the House of Commons, but in certain cases they are blocked because that is the only means at the disposal of the Senate. For example, it might be of some use if it were to block Bill C-12 on unemployment insurance reform. The Senate has made use of that means in certain cases.
Why does this occur? Because the senators are appointed by the government, no longer for life, as the age limit now is 75 years, but there are still a certain number of senators over the age of 75, because of their vested rights which date back to the late sixties.
When a new government is elected, the Senate contains a majority from the time of the old government, and it is in the interests of the former government to block the work of the present government. It has become what I see as a pointless game of leapfrog, paralyzing, sterile. We in the Bloc Quebecois, as you well know, find the federal system sterile, so imagine another system on top of that one, slowing the legislative process down even more.
Quebec abolished its legislative council in the late 1960s, perhaps 1968. Since then, there have been no complaints in Quebec that the legislation has been less good, less well examined, less well worded. It is, however, less expensive. The figure given is $42 million, but when you include the expenses of all of the other departments concerned, the cost is $54 million, and by far the majority of Canadians do not know what that money is used for.
Of course, some of them are hard-working. This is nothing personal, but the fact remains that, when there are a mere 42 or 45 sitting days in some years, when the Senate normally sits three afternoons a week, as compared to our five days in this House, that can hardly be called going flat out.
So, the basic question is: what is the use of the Senate? I submit that, when the public does not even know who the senators are and mistake them for the hockey team, we must ask ourselves very serious questions. The whole issue has to be reconsidered, especially since the Senate is so expensive to run.
In that sense, the motion put forward by the Reform Party is most interesting and appropriate because, if nothing else, appropriations would at least be scrutinized, which is one step in the right direction. The next step would consist in plainly and simply abolishing the Senate in order to save money, which could contribute to the public debt reduction effort.
I will conclude on this to give the hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm a chance to speak.
(1720)
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the motion before us is extremely important. I think it is worthwhile to look at it a little more closely. This motion put forward by the other opposition party reads as follows:
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 on Government Operations to account for $40,000,000 of taxpayers' money-The motion is longer, but I think we already know the most important part. It is a little strange that the Senate refuses to discuss the budget allocated to it by the House of Commons. This is a very considerable amount of money.
The current system is made up of the House of Commons on one side and the Senate on the other side. Taxpayers elect a government with a platform, a program, an ideology. They know to whom they are giving the mandate to spend their money, to administer a province or the country.
The people's democratically elected representatives are now asking the Senate, an institution that receives $40 million a year, to account to a committee, but their request has gone unheeded. No senator has come forward to give us the information we want. This in a way is a flaw of our current political system.
I think that, in everyone's mind, it is the House of Commons that holds the decision making authority and that is responsible for using taxpayers' money. If the Senate does not want to be accountable and to answer our questions, it is perhaps because they have things to hide. There may be some things senators do not want taxpayers to know. If they have nothing to hide, they should come forward and justify their expenditures.
I know the system is set up that way, but any system can be improved, especially when the Minister of Finance says that we are going through some very difficult times and that we must all pitch in and tighten our belts. It is time for the Senate to start doing its part.
Let us ask our constituents if the Senate is useful. I can tell you that if, tomorrow, a referendum was held in Quebec on whether or
not to keep the Senate, the result would be very clear. Quebecers have no use for senators who are there only to spend taxpayers' money, to all intents and purposes.
The motion mentions the figure of $40 million but, as I said earlier, it should really be closer to $54 million. The auditor general said, regarding the 1990-91 budget, that total costs for the Senate are closer to $54 million taking into account the cost of services provided to the Senate by certain government agencies, which are estimated at $11.4 million. This is a considerable amount and we still wonder whether the Senate is profitable or not, whether to keep it or not. In the current context, the least we could expect is to have a representative of the Senate appear before the Standing Committee on Government Operations.
Earlier, I said that if they do not want to be held accountable, it may be that they have things to hide. Let me tell you about certain things we learned about from newspapers and other sources. It appears that, a few years ago, I believe it was 1992, senators had renovations done in the foyer. It was not nice enough. So, they spent money to decorate it with black, green, salmon and grey granite, with mahogany, etc. The foyer is very grand, but it cost $125,000.
(1725)
Perhaps the senators do not want the general public to know about that. Perhaps that is why they do not wish to appear before a committee to explain their spending.
There is also the story about the senator who wanted a better view of the Hill and who decided to have the entire floor of his office raised. That is also perhaps some of the spending that they do not want the general public to know about.
Earlier, my hon. colleague made a very good point. It is apparently true that the average number of sitting days for senators is around 45 to 50 a year. Perhaps if the senators appeared before a committee and were asked questions like: How is it that you sit for only 47, 45, 50 days a year and it costs $54 million? Do you not think those are some rather expensive days?
An hon. member: A million a day.
Mr. Bellehumeur: A million for every day they sit. Perhaps that is why they do not wish to appear before the committee to explain. There are all sorts of other expenditures: VIA Rail, travel, points to travel anywhere in Canada that are transferable to anyone. These are all the things the senators do not want us to know.
But what is it all for? Why do we have a Senate? There are 295 of us here. Our country has too many levels of government: federal, provincial, municipal, school boards, churches. Where does the Senate fit in? Churches? Mr. Speaker, you laugh. But the government of Newfoundland is now realizing that the churches still have power over some people. There are elected officials, but where does the Senate fit into the system? I think it is surplus to requirements.
As my hon. colleague said earlier, it is unusual for the Bloc Quebecois to support motions presented by the Reform Party. To my knowledge, since 1993, I believe this is the only time, but we can see when something is good. I think this is an extremely important motion. I see that my time is running out and I will end here.
Given the importance of this motion, I believe that, if you were to seek it, there would be unanimous consent to make the motion votable and we could thus make our views known. I therefore propose:
That the motion be made votable.The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): There is no unanimous consent.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, although his request has been defeated, people are entitled to know why my colleague for Berthier-Montcalm proposed that this motion be put to a vote. Because it involved credits, I would like him to explain to me what prompted him to make this request.
Mr. Bellehumeur: Mr. Speaker, I find that somewhat deplorable. I am surprised that the opposition parties are in agreement for this motion to be votable, but that our government friends, the Liberals across the way, refuse to allow this extremely important motion to be voted on. It is important to know where the $54 million spent in 1991 have gone. It is important to know why the Senators do not want to come and give the committee an explanation.
I have a hard time understanding the Liberal members' coming out from behind the curtains to vote against this proposal. I think there could have been unanimous consent. We could have had a vote, and that would have given an indication to the Canadian taxpayers that, yes, these are hard times, yes everyone will have to contribute, but those who benefit from tax dollars will at least have to come and explain themselves to the elected representatives, those who represent the people, for the senators are not the ones who represent the people, it is the members elected to the House of Commons. They have a clear mandate. They are the true representatives, not the other place.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 5:30 p.m., it is my duty to indicate to the House that the deliberations on the motion are over.
[English]
It being 5.30 p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.