René Laurin

[Supply, June 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat to the hon. member that the provinces which did away with their upper houses never regretted it. The province of Quebec, where the Legislative Council was abolished in 1968, never regretted that decision, and the laws are not worse than they were.

The people of Quebec barely noticed the disappearance of the Legislative Council. If it had not been for the headlines in the dailies, a good part of the population might never have known that the Legislative Council had ceased to exist.

I repeat, the modern means of communication are the watchdog of the people. When the Prime Minister of the former government announced his intention to pass legislation to limit old age pensions, a little lady, very shy, very modest, rose up in front of television cameras and said to the Prime Minister: "Charlie Brown, you broke your promises".

It did not take long, it did not take a Senate to make the Prime Minister realize that he was about to do something that the people did not approve. It took only a single and modest taxpayer to tell the Prime Minister, in front of the cameras, that the bill he was about to pass was unjust for a good many people.

It did not take a Senate, the Prime Minister backed down and the bill was never voted on.

I challenge the present government to try to pass, tomorrow, a bill which would be against the best interest of the people, and then try to enforce it despite the opposition of the population. The Senate would be of no help in such a case.

Senators themselves had to be called to order a few months ago when they asked for a pay raise. It is not the House of Commons that made the senators reconsider their position, it was public opinion. Senators were told that they had not shown enough wisdom to realize that in a recession everybody had to

tighten their belts. It is not the Senate, in its wisdom, which understood it had gone too far, it is public opinion alerted by the media. The House of Commons told the Senate to show more wisdom. All this goes to prove that our democracy is well protected, even without a Senate which costs $54 million a year.

[Supply, June 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I promise to show respect in my choice of words, but I must admit that it is sometimes frustrating to hear people speak against things you hold true and which are dear to you. If I talk about these institutions, it is not because I do not appreciate them, but rather because I believe that they should be modified, if not abolished.

I was going to say that the government claims that it wants to take steps to save money. Allow me to suggest an excellent way to do just that. As I said a moment ago, cancel the estimates for the Canadian Senate.

The men and women who are in the Senate, the other House, or more respectfully, the other place, were not sent there by the people; they are not accountable to the people for their decisions, therefore they are not democratic representatives of the people.

I will admit that they are people of considerable merit-as you can see, Mr. Speaker, I have the greatest respect for them-but no matter how much merit they have, the Senate is still a very costly institution for Canadians and Quebecers, especially given our present economic situation.

One must ask what was the reason for giving Parliament two houses back in 1867? And why today, more than 125 years later, we still have this non-elected House called the Senate?

Since 1960, 52 different bills have been introduced in this House with a view to changing either its role or its operations, or even questioning its very existence. This proves that the Commons had realized that the Senate urgently needed to be updated. In 34 years, there has been 52 attempts, some successful, some not, to change the way the Senate operates.

At the time the Senate was created, it was meant to be a House of sober second thought. Its members were to serenely review legislation, free from popular pressure. That could be justified in 1867, but nowadays, the Senate's role has changed drastically due to the practical limitation of its authority.

In those days, the Senate used to be a place where the members of the Federation could be heard. It allowed for the protection, at the federal level, of provincial and regional interests. In today's context, the only link between senators and their province is the fact that they own property and reside there.

Nowadays, the Senate remains an institution without a basis, which derives its authority solely from the merits of its members.

Above all, the Senate provides a legal framework for political rewards. In fact, I believe that, in its present form, the Canadian Senate is an anachronism as a legislative body, a mistake that costs millions of dollars in public funds.

Communications being what they were in 1867, the public was informed of decisions taken by the legislator long after the fact. In such a context, one could understand the existence of a Senate comprising people having reached the age of wisdom, having acquired an experience recognized by everyone; one could understand the usefulness of such an Upper House in protecting the taxpayers, the voters, against sometimes emotional or hasty decisions by legislators. Since the taxpayers were sometimes informed 30, 60 or even 90 days after the decisions were made, it was difficult for them to react and exert pressure on their member of Parliament.

But with our modern satellite communications, with the advent of television, people can exert pressure every day on their legislator, on their member of Parliament, and can tell them that they think he or she is making a mistake by supporting one bill or another, with the opportunity for all the wise people from each of our ridings-I think that there are 104 members in the Senate-in each of our ridings I can find at least a hundred or so wise men and wise women who can very ably advise each member of this House on the relevance of supporting one bill or voting against another one.

That safeguard is already guaranteed by our modern means of communication. We no longer need this Upper House to protect taxpayers from the mistakes that a single House, voting too emotionally or too hastily, could make.

Of course, some still think that this group of non-elected people must have a permanent right to veto decisions made by elected representatives of the House of Commons, that senators are here to restrain members of Parliament in their decisions and to correct their errors. It is true that members of Parliament can make mistakes. However, we are accountable to our constituents and they are the ones who will judge us. Not six months later. They have an opportunity to judge us every week when we go back to our riding and even before because, when an error is

too blatant, you can be sure that taxpayers back home call their member in Ottawa to pressure him or her into reconsidering his views.

Yet nobody will judge the actions of the senators in the Upper House. These individuals are there, appointed by the government in a partisan way and often for services rendered. They stay there until their retirement at 75. We then must pay them a pension on top of having to pay the full salary of their successors.

You will understand that I cannot consider such a treatment to be in accordance with the principle of democracy. You will therefore better understand my opposition to the payment of $26.9 million for program expenses to an institution that is in no way representative of Canadians and Quebecers.

The five provinces that once had an Upper House abolished that political institution. That was the case in 1968 in Quebec, which was the last province to abolish the Senate because it no longer served a need that once existed. The same question arises for the Canadian Senate.

Can we consider abolishing the Senate? For almost 30 years, the question of the further existence of the Senate has constantly been raised. The Supreme Court gave a break to the Senate when ruling in 1980 that Parliament could not abolish the Senate without having a law passed by the British Parliament.

Yet, at patriation time in 1982, the main aspects regarding the powers of the Senate, its regional and provincial make-up and its non-elected nature were enshrined in the new Constitution, which opened a door for the government.

Rather than taking steps and solving once and for all the Senate issue, the government preferred to focus on Senate reform, with the results that we now have. How can senators justify being allocated $54 million a year when the Senate does not sit for long periods of time, when recess periods are numerous and long and when absenteeism is very high even when the Senate is sitting?

Do people know that 450 employees had to be hired to work for the 104 senators. This is an average of 4,3 employees for each senator? Do people know that $54 million represents a yearly average of $520,000 for each senator? We could create a lot of jobs with $54 million.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I wonder why we have to add to the burden of the taxpaying population of Canada and Quebec an extra $26 million to maintain a non-democratic institution that does not represent at all the regions and has not been given any mandate by the people.

[Supply, June 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak on the subject of the appropriation of certain votes, and especially the $26.9 million allocated to the Senate for the 1994-95 fiscal year. I think it is high time this government realized that sound government management starts with more prudent and especially more efficient management of taxpayers' money.

I think it is useless to allocate $26.9 million to the Senate for program spending, an amount that will be added to the $15 million it will receive directly in the course of the current fiscal year and to another $12 million in services provided by various federal departments and agencies to maintain an institution that has absolutely no connection with how a modern democracy operates.

[Credit Card Interest Calculation Act, June 7th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, we would like to have some explanation, please. Could you tell us what will happen to the member's bill if second reading is refused now and the whole thing is referred to the Standing Committee right away? I would like some explanation of the step that is being skipped over.

[National Transportation Week, June 3rd, 1994]

Madam Speaker, as part of National Transportation Week, I too would like to pay tribute to everyone who works or has worked in this field.

National Transportation Week is a good opportunity to take stock of our transportation system and its importance for the development of our economy in Quebec and Canada. We must understand that transportation is an industry which has a major impact on the whole economy; even more, transportation directly affects people's quality of life. The transportation system is like the circulatory system in the body.

The transportation system has gone through great upheaval in the past ten years. Deregulation has had a major impact on transportation in Quebec and Canada. In some cases, our system is operating beyond capacity and in others it is underused. Federal transportation policies have something to do with many of the problems our transportation system is now experiencing.

The federal government systematically neglected rail transport in favour of air and road transport. As a result of this policy, our roads and airports are congested. Our rail system has been so neglected that today Canada has the oldest and slowest passenger rail transportation system of all industrialized countries.

Meanwhile, we must continually build new runways at our airports and our roads are deteriorating so much that the provinces can no longer repair them adequately.

We agree with the minister that we must acquire a truly intermodal system that is efficient, safe and affordable. For this, the government must not leave the field of transportation but instead invest in facilities that will put our transportation system at the leading edge of technology.

Having a modern transportation system provides tremendous benefits. Montreal's airports alone generated $2.2 billion in economic benefits for the region in 1992, according to a study by the École des Hautes Études Commerciales. Other transportation infrastructures certainly have a major economic impact.

The minister claims that his marketing plan is the answer to all our problems with the transportation system. The market forces are supposed to resolve all our problems. True enough, bringing the decision-making center closer to the users will increase the efficiency of the system, but it would be naive to think that market logic can be applied to the transportation problem across Quebec and Canada.

Some services, like port and airport administration, lend themselves well to being managed locally by non-profit organization. In other cases, like the Canadian Coast Guard, local management poses serious difficulties, but I will come back to this later.

We must also ask ourselves what impact if any, this will have on transportation services provided to remote areas. The minister views the role of his department as ensuring transportation safety. That is to take a very restrictive view to its responsibilities. As it was so aptly put in the Liberal policy on VIA Rail developed by the Liberal caucus in November 1989, the government must provide an efficient and affordable transportation system to people living in remote areas. It sounds like market logic could not be applied to the transportation problem in remote areas.

Air deregulation resulted in substantial increases in fares to regional destinations. Also, the withdrawal of several of VIA Rail's regional lines has resulted in depriving regional communities of an important development tool. The government cannot decommit from regional transportation, because of the severe impact such a decision would have on regional economic development.

With his privatization plan, the minister is trying to free himself from his obligations towards remote areas. He is also refusing to hold any public hearings on transportation in remote areas. In so doing, he is acting like a cold-blooded policy maker who does take into account the interests of the public.

If the Coast Guard were to be privatized, this would seriously affect the competitiveness of ports along the St. Lawrence River vis-à-vis those in the Maritimes. Any measure as a direct consequence of which shipowners would have to pay higher tariffs in ports along the river than in the Maritimes is an all-out attack against fundamental economic development tools of Quebec.

It is totally unacceptable. The federal government has been trying for over ten years to pass the cost of operating the Coast Guard onto shipowners and thus, to the public. This is not to say that we are against any form of privatization in the Canadian transportation system. In some cases, privatization can be a powerful tool to promote the expansion of transportation systems. Transfer of airports to local non-profit organizations has been successful. Harbours are another kind of services that could easily be transferred to local non-profit organizations.

Montreal harbour would lend itself well to such a project. Also, if we could give VIA Rail more flexibility to implement projects in cooperation with local interests, it would probably be able to provide better service on existing lines and even restore several of the abandoned lines.

Freight services on branch lines could also help to keep several lines in operation and could be affected by CN and CP streamlining policies. Remember that remote areas consider these lines as vitally important for their economic development strategies. What policies does the minister support in this area? None, for now. I will have the opportunity to come back to these issues some other time and indicate to the House our position on this matter.

[Arms Smuggling, June 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, how can the Solicitor General ignore such serious allegations when his own colleague from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell has allegedly warned Customs officials about weapons being smuggled by train?

[Arms Smuggling, June 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. Yesterday, the Solicitor General denied the existence of a secret briefing note based on a RCMP report concerning arms smuggling in Kanawake, and I quote: "Further to my inquiries, my department insists that it has no knowledge whatsoever of the existence of such a briefing note".

Will the Solicitor General keep denying the existence of a memorandum from his department about arms being smuggled into the country on CP trains and does he expect the RCMP to investigate this matter since, contrary to what CP officials have stated, we saw pictures last night of detached freight cars from a train returning from the United States that were left unattended inside the Kanawake reserve?

[Supply, June 2nd, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I would like to go back to a few points mentioned by the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine when he vaunted the Liberals' regional development programs. First, with regard to education programs in Quebec, he said he was concerned about the drop-out rate in Quebec. But he never said we were losing between $250 and $300 million a year in occupational training, money which should be spent in Quebec to help solve the problems caused by dropping out. Education budgets have been cut for nearly ten years in Quebec and, again, it is a Liberal government which, for the last eight years, has reduced grants to school boards and continually asked them to do more.

Neither does the member mention duplication in regional development, where federal programs overlap with provincial programs, and sometimes all this is done without considering evaluation programs. They do not want to know what the results will be. All they want is to throw some money in order to convince Quebecers that the federal government is the best. They are not interested to know if the programs will help create jobs, all they want is to spend money to impress people.

Where was the member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine last week when we spoke of putting the regional infrastructure in place for building a high-speed rail line? Not a single Liberal member from Quebec rose in this House to support this bill, which could create 120,000 jobs. This is a real regional development project, it is not an infrastructure project creating only short-term jobs. But the member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine was not here to support it.

When one speaks of measures, one must be sincere and follow one's principles and thinking through to their conclusion!

[Postal Services Review Act, May 27th, 1994]

It suits your own needs!

[Credit Cards, May 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, since a conspiracy seems to exist among retail stores to maintain similarly outrageous interest rates on their credit cards, does the minister intend to hold an inquiry to determine whether these practices constitute an offence under section 45 of the Competition Act concerning anticompetitive practices?