Maurice Bernier

[Criminal Code, June 10th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I take part in this debate. First, I want to thank my colleague, the hon. member for Québec, for giving me the chance to speak on the matter, since she put forward her own motions and private member's bills on this issue in 1994 and 1995.

I commend her and pay tribute to her because it is thanks to her work and interventions that the government was sensitized to this subject and finally decided to act by introducing Bill C-27 we have before us today.

So, as the hon. member for Québec mentioned, the official opposition will support this bill because it is a step in the right direction, although amendments should be passed not only to improve its content, but also to ensure its objectives can be reached be more efficiently.

I want to take a few minutes to deal with the sex tourism aspect of this bill. Obviously, when we think of sex tourism, we immediately think of the moral issue. Personally, I find it unacceptable that adults-mostly men, but I am told that some women are also into this practice-go to foreign countries where the economic situation is always extremely bad and take advantage of it-as I will demonstrate in my intervention-to sexually abuse children aged 10 or even younger sometimes. Again, these are boys as well as girls.

This practice is obviously unacceptable. We must strongly denounce it without beating about the bush. Adults seeking such services must know that Canadians, and Quebecers of course, as well as their representatives do not condone those activities, and this is why, I am sure of it, a vast majority of the members of the House will support this bill.

But beyond the moral issue, there is also an issue of economic rights. We must ask the following question: How is it that in these countries where child sex tourism is practised, the common characteristic is the extreme poverty of the people? Asian and African countries as well as South American and Central American countries and Indonesia all have in common an unacceptable, terrible economic situation where people live naturally under inhuman conditions. I will come back to this in order to link this situation to the bill before us and to measures the government should take in this regard.

I would also like to raise the following issues.

On the subject of sex tourism, I would like to explain what is meant by that, to say who practices that kind of tourism, why it exists and how, finally, we can put an end to it. Bill C-27 gives an answer to the last question by making sure Canadian residents and Canadian citizens will run the risk, with the passing of this bill, of being prosecuted for having taken part in sex tourism activities outside Canada.

I know that the critic for the Bloc Quebecois will propose amendments to make sure that the bill will apply to every person in Canada because, according to the analysis that we, the official opposition, make of it, some categories of citizens could escape the application of the act. It could be the case of political refugees and citizens awaiting permanent resident status or Canadian citizenship. So, my colleague will move amendments.

But let us go back to my first question: What is sexual tourism? As I already said, it is the practice consisting in going out of Canada-of course, it could also be inside Canada-to sexually abuse boys and girls who are generally under the age of 10. I have been told about children aged 6, 7 or 8, which is totally unacceptable according to the moral code we have in Canada, and also according to our Criminal Code.

Who practices sexual tourism? I would say that no particular category of people can be excluded automatically. However, we can easily identify two categories of sexual tourists. First, there are men in general. I am convinced that if data were available or if we could make a precise study of people who practice sexual tourism, we would discover that the great majority are men. I do not challenge this in the least, but it would also seem that there are also a few women.

There is another category of people that is singled out: the paedophiles. When we hear about paedophilia, we have a tendency to associate it with homosexuality. We saw it during the debate on Bill C-33; several members, particularly Reform members and a number of Liberal members, made this connection without any restraint to serve their political cause. Yet we know full well, and I think it is particularly true in the case of sex tourism, that the victims are, once again, mostly young girls.

All the reports I have personally seen on television, heard on the radio or read in newspapers or trade journals lead to the conclusion that the victims are mostly girls.

It does not matter whether the victim of child sexual abuse happens to be a boy or a girl, it is totally unacceptable in both cases. However, I wanted to make this distinction since it is easy, specially for some of our colleagues, to make this connection and to lead the public to believe that pedophilia is practised only by homosexuals when it is absolutely not the case.

Why does sex tourism exist? It is, I think, the basic question we have to ask ourselves. First, I will look at it from the perspective of the client. It has been mentioned that people who practice that kind of tourism in other countries do it knowing full well that our laws prohibit such activities here, in Canada. The Criminal Code is very clear on that. People who do it outside Canada are perfectly aware that it is against our laws and that it is contrary to the moral standards adhered to in Canada. This is also true in most European countries.

They do it because many of these people consider that, since they are in a country where the culture is different from ours, the moral standards are more liberal. I think of a Radio-Canada television report we saw a few weeks ago precisely on sex tourism.

In that report, a French national was interviewed by a reporter who asked him: "Why are you, a French citizen, fully aware of the fact that you could not do in your country what you are doing here"-they were in Dominican Republic-"taking advantage of young girls of 16, 15, 14 years of age and sometimes even younger?" He gave a direct and very blunt answer, saying: "Yes, I am perfectly aware that I could not do the same thing in my country, but here, usage and customs are different and we can do this sort of thing".

It is awful to see people who, I am sure, are intelligent, who are perfectly aware of the moral code and who would deem unacceptable such practices for themselves or their fellow citizens in their own country, thinking that this is acceptable when they are in Dominican Republic simply because they are abroad, and have concluded that customs, usage and attitudes are different.

If I presented the case of a French citizen, it was not to chastize our friends in France, but because it was a French national who was interviewed in the report I am referring to. He could have been from Canada, Germany or anywhere else in the world. It is completely unacceptable.

I truly believe that, before he leaves our country, such a bill will send the client a clear message to the effect that such practices are intolerable both in our country and throughout the world. We will not accept that, anywhere in the world, children be used for purposes of child sex tourism or the sex trade.

I said at the beginning of my remarks that another problem needs to be identified. Even if this bill were to be passed and even if, overnight, we started to prosecute individuals who engage in this sort of activity, I am convinced that the problem will not automatically be resolved. It will be only partially solved. This bill will allow prosecution of individuals, to set an example and to send a message, as I said earlier, to the public, so that individuals will think twice before engaging in this sort of activity, and prosecution of organizations as well.

When one talks about procurers, one refers to individuals whose commercial activities involve promoting, directing customers to countries where child sex tourism is possible. These people will be prosecuted. We shall be certainly effective to a degree, but the problem will be far from resolved. If in some countries, children are sexually abused, it is not a matter of customs or morals, it is essentially and basically for economic reasons.

I can give examples. In La Presse , this morning, there was an article which mentioned that 73 million children in the world work. I am not saying that 73 million children are sexually abused, but that 73 million children are victims of what comes close to forced labour, slavery. Many of these children are, of course, forced to submit to sexual acts. Most of the countries where children work and where there is sexual tourism are located in Africa, Asia and Latin America. For example, if you compare Burkina Faso, where 51 per cent of children work, to Italy, since it is on our list, where 0.3 per cent of children aged 10 to 14 work, you can see there is a significant difference.

The point is that even if we do adopt this bill, with which I agree wholeheartedly and which I will support, the Canadian government must realize that to solve the problem, we will have to help these populations and their governments, whenever possible, to improve their financial situation. These children could be our own, they are not even 14 or 15 yet, not even 10 in some cases, and more often than not they are homeless, with no one to turn to for help, and they have no choice but to do anything they can to survive and eat. This is the type of situation where children become slaves, work in shops for almost no salary at all and find themselves on the streets where they are easy prey for sexual tourists.

This is what I had to say. I say yes, we must adopt this bill, but we must also take other measures.

[Canadian Bill Of Rights, June 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to speak to this motion put forward by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, which deals with property rights, essentially demanding that these rights be included in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Before getting into the substance of this motion, I will say that I am somewhat surprised to see our colleagues from the Reform Party bring back this debate for the second time in this House. Not that the debate on property rights or the rights themselves are not important, quite the contrary. I will get back to this. In a way, this motion shows the priorities of the so-called Reform Party, which would deny the right of individuals to be what they are, be they black or gay, as we saw during the debate on Bill C-33.

Denying this right would, for example, make it impossible for some individuals recognized as gay or lesbian to work or cause them to lose their jobs. Yet, if this gay individual manages to work without anyone knowing his or her sexual orientation and to own some property, our friends in the Reform Party will move heaven and earth so that his or her property rights are recognized and defended in the face of all opposition. So I am somewhat puzzled as to that party's priorities.

That said, the property rights referred to in the motion are, of course, important rights that have been recognized for centuries, I would say, in our society. They lie at the very foundation of how our society works in several areas, if one considers, among other things, property taxes or the fact that the right to vote in school council elections is linked to property rights, which have been recognized and set out, again for several decades, in the laws enacted by provincial legislatures. However, before we include these rights in the charter of rights and freedoms, there are questions we must ask. We must question the real intentions, the motives behind this proposal.

If we include property rights in the charter of rights and if these rights become immutable, it would not be a step forward but rather a setback for our society. It would, in a way, bring us back to the mentality prevailing in the last century, when property rights could be used to thwart social progress or to prevent most members of a group or population from moving forward.

I am convinced these property rights were demanded on several occasions by wealthy landowners in South America and elsewhere in the world. In three or four countries, most of the land was owned by these people. I guess that, when the people in those countries or regions rose up against this situation, landowners used their property rights to argue that they had to keep the lands they owned, thus forestalling any social progress for these groups of people.

Like my colleague from the Liberal Party, I pointed out that property rights are important, basic rights that must be preserved and which are indeed protected under our current legislation.

Take expropriation, for instance. Our provincial legislation provides a mechanism governing expropriation. Under this mechanism, the government is required to give sufficient notice to those being expropriated so they can assert their right to a fair and equitable assessment of their property-this decision can be challenged before the courts-and thus obtain fair compensation. These are precisely the considerations set out in the motion put forward by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. All this already exists, is already being done.

I have not seen, in my riding or in Quebec, anyone take to the streets or what not to ask for the property right to be strengthened.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, to oppose or compare the property right to other fundamental rights enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, such as the freedom of conscience and religion, the freedom of expression, the freedom of association, the right to dissent, the right to vote, the right to life, the right to equality, which are all rights designed to protect the identity of individuals, is not really sound and valid.

How is a person's identity affected by the property right per se? Does the fact of having property, or how much this property is worth, give someone's identity greater value? I think distinctions ought to be made between these fundamental rights.

I would also like to mention out that, as our friend from the Reform Party pointed out, this idea of including the property right in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom was raised on several occasions in the past. In 1968, the former Prime Minister of Canada, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, had made it his thing. In 1978, the idea resurfaced when a motion pertaining to Bill C-60 at the time was defeated.

Again, in 1980, the federal government tried to introduce a new guarantee regarding the property right. Once again, objections were raised, which remain perfectly valid today. I am referring, of

course, to the objections raised by the provinces. The fact of the matter is that all provinces are opposed to incorporating the property right in the charter of rights and freedoms, since this would considerably restrict their capability to legislate in this area.

Take, for example, the environment: How could a provincial government legislate in the environment sector if property rights are enshrined in the Constitution? This would greatly impede provincial action in this area. There are already enough constitutional, administrative and federal-provincial hurdles as it is. The Reform Party regularly raises these issues. I do not see the need to add to this by passing such a motion.

Including property rights in the charter of rights could also have enormous consequences on the legislation concerning marriage, as was pointed out during a debate in this House two years ago.

For example, what would happen in the case of a divorce if the man went before the courts to have his property rights enforced, thus going against Quebec's legislation which stipulates that, in the case of a separation, the goods must be divided equally between the man and the woman? Various applications of such a provision could considerably affect the way our society currently operates.

These are, in short, the reasons why, two years ago, the official opposition opposed the motion then tabled before this House, and why we will again vote against this motion today.

[China, June 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak this morning on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois to mark this 7th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre on June 4, 1989, when thousands of students fell victim to the brutal repression of the Chinese regime, which savagely put down their democratic movement.

As I said yesterday in this House, this great democratic movement had raised a great deal of hope, and yet today we are compelled to note that the situation in China is far from improved. Thousands of Chinese are still victims of repression and their rights are constantly being trampled.

I was somewhat amazed to hear the Secretary of State for Asia and the Pacific's review of the so-called efforts of his government to bring the Chinese leaders to respect human rights. We need only recall the Prime Minister of Canada's response here in this very House on March 22, 1994, when the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Bouchard, asked him to act to protect human rights in China. The Prime Minister replied: "If I told the President of China, who represents 1.2 billion people, that the Prime Minister of Canada was telling him what to do, he would laugh in my face". So much for what the leader of the Government of Canada thinks of the importance of human rights.

What the secretary of state has said is barely credible, and the government's position is no more so, when it comes to the pillars upon which Canada's long term relationship with China rests, the fourth in particular: human rights, good governance and the rule of law. Quite a pillar. How could such a close link be made between good governance and the promotion of human rights? That takes some doing.

In his statement on June 9, 1994 here in this House, the secretary of state reserved his fourth pillar for human rights and the rule of law. In 1996, he is adding good governance. What will be added in 1997, I wonder. Concretely, all that the secretary of state sees fit to say is that, bilaterally, Canada is continuing a constructive dialogue on the question of human rights, while on the multilateral level, it is voicing its concerns. Quite an agenda, that.

Even more surprising in the statement by the secretary of state is what he said after reporting that he raised the question of human rights with Chinese officials. He said that Chinese officials, we are not sure which ones exactly, apparently gave assurances for the first time it seems that the 100,000 Canadian nationals in Hong Kong will retain their right to permanent residence following the hand over in 1997.

As late as yesterday, one of the Hong Kong papers mentioned a plan for the evacuation of Canadian nationals in the event of a crisis. It provided for their removal by air and by sea. I was also surprised to hear the secretary of state say that human rights had substantially, and nothing less than substantially, improved in the daily life of the Chinese since 1989. I do not know where the secretary of state's information comes from, but I would question it.

Amnesty International's official reports paint a very different picture. Perhaps the secretary of state is prepared to contest their validity. From them we learn instead that hundreds of political dissidents and members of certain religious and ethnic groups are victims of arbitrary arrests and that many of them, including prisoners of conscience, are being held without charge or sentence or are condemned to prison terms at the end of unfair trials.

Thousands of political prisoners and prisoners of conscience arrested a number of years ago remain incarcerated. Torture and poor treatment of prisoners are commonplace. At least 2,496 death sentences and 1,791 executions have been reported. This is a very brief summary of the situation in China in 1995, according to Amnesty International.

I will close on an equally sombre note, in my opinion. The government's petty approach, a break with longstanding tradition, considerably undermines Canada's credibility abroad in promoting respect for human rights. Practically no country anymore gives any credibility to the words of the present government on this matter. The best example I have of this may be found in the treatment recently given Tran Trieu Quan by the Vietnamese government. He now has his feet chained every day from 3 p.m. until the following morning.

All the Canadian government could muster in this matter was a slightly more strongly worded letter, according to a spokesperson for foreign affairs. This is shameful. The only real human rights spokesperson internationally is Craig Kielburger, a young man 14

years of age from Toronto, who condemns the bad treatment given a number of different groups in the world.

We therefore take this opportunity today to condemn the Canadian government whose foreign affairs practices are dictated by a human rights policy that is soft, insignificant and likely to precipitate human rights violations.

[The Constitution, June 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this debate on the motion we have been requested to adopt in this place, as well as in the other place, to make it possible for the province of Newfoundland to obtain a constitutional amendment giving it the authority to reform its public education system, in which districts

are defined on the basis of school denomination, and to ensure that the educational system is organized along different lines.

As we know, the existing system, which has in fact been in place since Newfoundland entered Confederation in 1949, is protected under term 17 of the agreement setting the terms under which Newfoundland joined the Canadian Confederation.

In 1982, certain constitutional amendments were made-incidentally, Quebec did not support these amendments and, as a result, was excluded from the Canadian Constitution, although the Constitution applies in Quebec as well as anywhere in Canada. As provided in section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982, amendments to the Constitution may be made, where authorized by the House of Commons, the Upper House and the legislative assembly of a province when the amendments in question apply to a very specific territory, namely a province.

This provision of the Constitution Act, 1982, has been used a few times since. Section 43 was used in 1987 to recognize Pentecostal schools in Newfoundland and again, in 1993, when New Brunswick became officially bilingual, that is to say a province recognizing linguistic equality between French and English. This was all done under this section, section 43 of the Constitution Act. Finally, more recently, it was used when a constitutional amendment was needed to make it possible to build this bridge that will soon, within a year, link Prince Edward Island to New Brunswick. The provision was used three time in all to amend the Constitution.

As I said, the motion before us arises from a decision made by the Government of Newfoundland to change its denominational system. How did the Government of Newfoundland come to this decision? First, following a long internal debate as we see in other provinces, particularly Quebec, on this specific issue. This debate allowed all those concerned to express their views and lasted months and even years in Newfoundland.

It ended on September 5, 1995, when the population made the final decision, by way of a referendum. Even though only 52 per cent of eligible voters took part in the referendum, a clear majority of 54 per cent supported the proposed changes to the denominational system.

So, on October 31, Newfoundland's legislative assembly acknowledged the public's wish, as expressed in a democratic referendum, and took action to follow up on that decision. Later, the Prime Minister of Canada recognized, of course, the referendum result and agreed to put this motion on the House's agenda for the current session, so that the issue would be settled once and for all when the House and the Senate adopt it.

I want to take the 15 minutes or so that I have left to stress important aspects in this exercise, namely the recognition of the will expressed by the public, and the obligation, for a democracy, to follow up on that will. I dare say that, in the eyes of the international community, a referendum is recognized as the most democratic tool, since all the citizens of a territory are asked to express their views on a very specific issue, following a debate in which all the parties were able to present their arguments. In other words, a referendum is the ultimate poll, since everyone can express his or her view.

A referendum does not always carry the same weight for the Liberal government currently in office in Ottawa, as we saw during the last referendum held in Quebec. During the campaign, the Prime Minister of Canada repeatedly questioned the legitimacy of the Quebec referendum and said he would not recognize the result, should the yes side win by a slim margin.

We know what the final verdict was: 49.6 per cent of Quebecers voted yes and 50.4 per cent voted no at the last referendum, and that outcome was not only recognized by the sovereignist government in Quebec, but was also recognized and fully respected by each and every sovereignist and resident of the province of Quebec. What it means is that Quebec remains a part of the Canadian federation, even if it was excluded from the Constitution in 1982, following well-known events, that is the unilateral patriation of the Constitution.

As I said before, the Prime Minister implied that any decision Quebecers make does not have the same significance if it goes against his wishes. I find such an argument, such a statement particularly outrageous. It means that they will respect the democratic rules if and only if the outcome of a democratic process goes along with their wishes. I think that is the kind of arguments most dictators on this planet use. No dictator is against a referendum, as long as he wins it.

These people are true democrats, as long as the dice are loaded and they are sure of the results. I find it a bit peculiar to hear these arguments, which were taken up for the most part by the individual who is responsible, at the governmental level, for ensuring that changes or negotiations are undertaken to improve, if that is at all possible, the Constitution of Canada, so that it meets the expectations of all Quebecers. That individual, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, in a comment about the motion now before the House, stated that referenda do not all have the same significance.

I would like to quote-and I think this is an exact quote-a report in Tuesday May 28's Le Devoir in reaction to the words of a sovereignist spokesperson who had said: ``The Newfoundlanders spoke clearly. A majority of Newfoundlanders have demanded that the Constitution be amended in response to their aspirations for the organization of their school system''.

We sovereignists say, and rightly so I believe, that if this was good enough for a decision made in Newfoundland, and was the case when Newfoundland entered Confederation as well, it is certainly so for Quebecers when they want to determine their future. It seems to me that the same principle applies in both cases. There cannot be one democratic principle for Newfoundland, and another for Quebec. That is completely unacceptable.

But not for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has been quoted as saying during a media scrum: "The principle is that, the more serious a decision and the more it impacts upon future generations, the more strictly the rules of democracy must be applied".

My understanding of this statement as I read it is that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is saying that the Newfoundlanders' decision was on a mere detail. Yet remodelling the denominational school system seems to me to impact on future generations since we are speaking of today's children and our children's children. It would seem to mean that he considers modifying the school system in a province, Newfoundland in this case, a mere detail.

So some rules of democracy can be a bit looser. Can we consider the debate of Newfoundlanders, which lasted months, years, to be a waste of time, according to the evaluation of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs? I think this is rather offensive. It treats with disdain people who reached a decision through democratic process.

The minister went on to say, in the same article, in the same statement: "There is a world of difference between modernizing an education system and dismantling a country". I think the basis of this discussion reveals the importance of such action. I do not think we can tell Newfoundlanders that the whole issue of their debate was not as important as the potential debate in Quebec over its constitutional future.

I would like to give a few examples and I would like to hear the opinion of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs on the Maastricht treaty, a highly complex treaty ratified by all the countries in the European Community.

The people in these countries had to vote on this treaty, which had-still has and will continue have for generations to come-major consequences on their lives, because it significantly changed the way their countries worked.

All the countries or almost-not all, but a good majority-held a referendum. I will give you two examples. In Sweden, 52 per cent of the population supported Sweden's entry into the European common market. In France, 50.9 per cent voted in favour of a significant change, a major change.

The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs might think otherwise, but when one refers to the debates which took place in those countries on the Maastricht treaty, one realizes that the decision to be taken had far reaching consequences.

In the case of Sweden and France, where the population was nearly equally divided, opponents did not ask that those who did not support the Maastricht treaty be excluded from it. On the contrary, in these countries, it is understood that the democratic rule is 50 per cent plus 1.

I will give as a last example the recent elections in Israel where, for all intents and purposes, the prime minister was elected by referendum since there was a vote by universal suffrage; the whole population was called to choose the prime minister. In this particular case, I would like you to remember this, 50.4 per cent of the Israeli population voted in favour of a change of prime minister against 49.6 per cent, which is the same results as in Quebec, last October.

If one follows international events and knows what consequences this election might have in Israel, one might think that there is food for thought for the voters, especially in view of the very important consequences of their vote on their future. And, in spite of it all, the outgoing prime minister, Mr. Peres, accepted the results as the good democrat he is, conceded defeat and agreed to recognize the new prime minister.

I say all this to show that you cannot have double standards, even if that is what the Liberal government, and especially the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, have in mind. In a democracy, you cannot have double standards. The rule of democracy is 50 per cent plus 1 for any referendum. On two separate occasions, Quebecers have respected the results of decisions which were contrary to the hopes of sovereignists.

We cannot discredit a decision or discount its importance when it results from a democratic process. That is why I will support Motion No. 5 concerning Newfoundland, which is before us today.

I hope our colleagues, from the Liberal Party in particular, will show some consistency. When Quebecers vote in favour of Quebec's sovereignty, whatever the result might be, if it represents a democratic decision, I hope they will abide by it.

[Human Rights, June 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is with sadness that the Bloc Quebecois wants to mark today the 7th anniversary of the Tiananmen square massacre on June 4, 1989, when thousands of students fell victims to the brutal repression of the Chinese regime which savagely put down their democratic movement.

This great democratic movement had raised a great deal of hope and yet today we are compelled to note that the situation in China is far from improved. Thousands of Chinese are still victims of repression and their rights are constantly being trampled. The Canadian government turns a blind eye to such practices.

We take this opportunity to condemn the Canadian government for failing to conduct its foreign affairs in compliance with a clear policy consistent with its stance on human rights.

[Access Awareness, May 31st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in Quebec, this week is National Access Awareness Week, for the integration of persons with disabilities. This is a excellent opportunity for Quebecers to get to know and become more aware of the numerous barriers persons with disabilities have to overcome if they are to participate in mainstream society, both socially and in the workplace.

It is fortunate that Quebec and other provinces have decided to celebrate National Access Awareness Week, because the federal government has clearly abandoned these people since the end of its national strategy, on April 1. Since they came into office, the Liberals have managed to dismantle the office of the secretary of state for disabled persons, restrict the admissibility to the tax credit for disabled persons and cut the funding for advocacy groups.

This government has demonstrated an unheard of contempt and arrogance for people with disabilities, who simply want to be recognized and treated as full-fledged citizens.

[Supply, May 28th, 1996]

Yes, they nod off, but they do not collapse exhausted from having sat too long.

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.

[Supply, May 28th, 1996]

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-

[Supply, May 28th, 1996]

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

[Supply, May 16th, 1996]

You were impressed.