Madam Speaker, I rise to further explain why I will have the pleasure to support the sub-amendment presented by my colleague from Laurentides.
To clarify where we are coming from with this sub-amendment to Motion No. 4 presented by the NDP member, I will say that the only thing we agree with is that we would be ready to support the motion presented by the member for Battlefords-Meadow Lake. Therefore, we would be pleased to support it. However, to be consistent with the positions we have taken since the opening of this Parliament, we cannot accept that non-elected individuals might take the place, even occasionally, of elected representatives.
We must point out that the Senate is composed of appointed members who are, as my colleague so skilfully demonstrated, appointed in a partisan way; they are government cronies. These appointees, who cost taxpayers $53 million a year, and who are supposed to be wise, have shown that this is seldom the case.
Therefore, according to the 1848 principle of responsible government which I explained earlier, decisions made here by democratically elected representatives of the people should only and always be discussed in this House. I should point out, for the benefit of all those present, that each one of them represents a federal riding, but that they also represent their provincial legislature, and that there is only one House in each province because their provincial legislature recognizes the authority of democratically elected representatives.
What we are opposing mainly is the fact that non-elected individuals could make decisions. We must therefore support the amendment to the amendment submitted by my colleague from Laurentides and make sure that we remove from the motion of our NDP colleague anything that could be interpreted as meaning that both Houses must be involved in the decision-making. Democratic decisions are made here, in this House, and anything not democratic, like the present proposal, must be rejected.