We must admit it is not easy to deal with two legislative houses in a British type of parliamentary system. Parliamentary systems, clearly dominated by the executive, give their Upper House very limited if not meaningless powers. Given that such is the system in Canada, the Senate is reduced to an anachronism since it has no weight in the country's political balance and lacks legitimacy because its members are not elected but simply appointed by the Prime Minister. Since the executive is accountable only to the House of Commons, the Senate loses any influence it might have over the government. The parliamentary system requires that the Lower House have greater powers than the Upper House because the government comes from the former and is elected and, therefore, is accountable only to it.
That problem does not exist within a presidential system like the one in the United States since the executive is politically accountable neither to the House of Representatives nor to the Senate. The separation of powers is more strictly established in a presidential system than in a parliamentary system like ours where the Senate is useless.
In the third part of this demonstration, I would like to touch on the question of administrative responsibilities associated with the allocation of $26.9 million for the operation of an Upper House within the Canadian parliamentary system and, with your permission, I will explain how the Canadian Senate is unable to accomplish various tasks which, in theory, are part of its obligations.
For example, it is difficult to justify the existence of an Upper House based on the principle of legislative review. The idea that the Canadian Senate could reflect soberly on the legislative measures of the House of Commons flows from the conservative prejudices that existed earlier under the monarchy. The Canadian Senate is a remnant of a traditional and elitist representation opposed, in a way, to the monopolistic embodiment of a democratic legitimacy already more than 200 years old in the western world. The Canadian Upper House, the Senate, accepts its secondary role by undertaking activities that have nothing to do with its legislative role. In fact, senators are named by the
Prime Minister to play a partisan role, red or blue, or to represent pressure groups. What they do is lobby.
Here is the truth: Over the last 50 years, the Senate used its veto power only to delay, as was pointed out by my friend, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra. Between 1943 and 1964, only two bills were rejected by the Senate and since 1964, only one, and under circumstances which were not really significant, considering that on the rejected bill, C-43 about abortion, MPs and senators were free to vote according to their conscience. Before the Constitution Act of 1982, the Senate always bowed to the desires of the government and the Commons. It did not exercise its veto power because it was continuously controlled by the party in power.
When the Canadian Senate was created, the idea was to enable the senators to distance themselves from the partisan positions taken by the members of the House of Commons. The idea was to have a House of sober second thought which would be above the bursts of passion of the people.
In Canada, the Fathers of Confederation were in favour of nominating senators to preserve the independence of the members of the Upper House. One could have expected that senators, who hold office until they turn 75-quite the job security at a time when unemployment rate is so high, both in Canada and Quebec-and are not subject to the whims of the people, would have shown their independence towards the party in office.
On the contrary, the Upper House members have been staunchly partisan, with little regard for their role as impartial law-makers. It needs to be stated again, senators are appointed on a strictly partisan basis.
For the Bloc Quebecois, which is concerned not only with Quebec's interests, but also with the democratic values dear to all Canadians, the contradiction between the myth of a House of sober second thought and the reality of a partisan Canadian Senate, is reason enough to oppose any kind of subsidy for this useless institution and to advocate its abolition.