Mr. Speaker, I will be the only member to speak on behalf of the Official Opposition on Senate amendments to Bill C-42, an act to amend the Criminal Code and other acts. As far as we are concerned, we, the voice of democracy, have already made ourselves heard when the bill was read the third time and passed in this House, on October 4, 1994.
If I rise today, it is to denounce the amendment process used by the other chamber of this Parliament. The Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs of that institution tabled its recommendations on December 12. The committee suggested that some amendments be made. The spokesperson of this committee of the other place complained about the Criminal Code review process as well as that used for Bill C-42.
In his view, it would be highly desirable in the future that such bills be submitted to the other place first. He says that the other place has proven itself in that area.
The Bloc Quebecois has always been openly opposed to the existence of an institution like the other chamber of this Parliament. Let me tell you why.
The primary function of the other chamber of this Parliament should be akin to a consideration and review process to put the brakes on the House of Commons. The role of this institution is supposed to be to counterbalance the parliamentary executive. The Fathers of Confederation gave the other place the means to act as a federal chamber looking after the rights of the provinces, the rights of the regions, and to guarantee their participation in the federal legislative process.
We are forced to recognize that such is not the case however. The inherent goals of this institution of the Parliament of Canada have been replaced with less noble and less democratic goals, such as thanking friends of the regime and representing a handful of groups with interests often less than compatible with those of a true democracy. The elitism prevailing in this obsolete institution is not reconcilable with democratic activity. We, the Official Opposition, think that it is up to the elected representatives of the people of Quebec and Canada in this House to pass or reject the legislation introduced by the government.
Therefore, we are not interested in giving consideration to the amendments suggested by the members of the other place. The amendments proposed by the house of partisan appointments in regard to this bill clearly demonstrate the uselessness and the waste of time, energy and money generated by the activities of the members of the other place.
Notwithstanding the respect we may have for some members of the other place, the fact remains that their work can often amount to mere stylistic or cosmetic changes. We see the legislative role of the other chamber as unacceptable overlap, especially in these times when we have to put public finances in order.
Is it justifiable to spend $26,952,000 a year so that the other place can tell us that a bill we have just passed, on which all democratically elected members of this House voted, needs cosmetic or stylistic changes?
Allow me to quote a short passage from a speech delivered on June 8 by my colleague from Richmond-Wolfe: "The Bloc has always spoken out against the existence of a Senate, and I would like to demonstrate that this institution is, in our opinion, as archaic as it is useless. This institution is nothing more than an excuse for the government to reward its friends, be they Liberal or Tory, who will then work-in true partisan fashion-for the government or for the interests they represent".
No, we do not need the other chamber. Given the current lack of constitutional progress, I understand how some members of the other place, with pensions and perhaps a passion for passive political life, would want to justify their salaries. But all this only adds to a system which is already too heavy and costly.
Furthermore, this does not enhance in any way the process to consult on and pass a bill already approved by all members of this House.
Let us have a quick look at the proposed changes. There are six amendments, including two technical changes and two somewhat questionable stylistic changes. The last two amendments suggest that the members of the other place did not understand the purpose of Bill C-42, since their amendments deal with protecting the right to a fair and equitable trial and with the obsolescence of a current provision in the Criminal Code.
As you can understand, we refuse to give any consideration to the amendments proposed by the other place, since it does not represent anyone, has no mandate from the population and is to all intents and purposes a mere patronage nest or, if you prefer, a haven of recognition, pure and simple.
We will therefore vote against the amendments proposed by the other place, since they are, in our opinion, cosmetic in nature and questionable and come from an institution without legitimacy in the eyes of the Bloc Quebecois, the official opposition. I am sure that the vast majority of Quebecers will support our position on this.