Debates of June 8th, 1994

Supply

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I feel I must refer to Standing Order 18, because I am afraid the hon. member went too far. The text reads as follows, and I quote:

1. No Member shall speak disrespectfully of the Sovereign, nor of any of the Royal Family, nor of the Governor General or the person administering the Government of Canada; nor use offensive words against either House, or against any Member thereof.

That is the rule under the Standing Orders. This is very important, and I hope the hon. member will speak respectfully of the Senate.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I would like to thank the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands for his comments. In fact, I have the text of Standing Order 18, from Standing Annotated Orders right here, because I want to be vigilant at all times.

However, I must admit I was taking some notes in the chair, so I cannot comment on what was said by the hon. member for Joliette, who nevertheless caused the hon. member on the government side to raise his point of order.

I do want to make it clear to hon. members that I will remain in the House until the end of the debate. And I want to thank the hon. member for his remarks, because members must behave in a parliamentary fashion, as has always been the tradition in this House, and I am confident that we will continue to do so.

Resuming debate.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

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.

[Anna Terrana, Liberal, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the passionate speech of the hon. member. Much has been said about the Senate already.

During the election campaign, many people asked me to do something about the Senate. I believe we all have the same problem, we want to improve the Senate. My question is about the Senate. Most civilized countries have a Senate, but I heard the opposition party's members say that they want it abolished.

What kind of checks and balances do they think we should have for the House of Commons? Do they think we have to abolish the Senate to improve the system, or would they consider an improved Senate which would work the way it should?

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

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.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is absolutely essential that this House question the relevance of the Senate. This Upper House made up of members who are nominated and not elected-it bears repeating-goes against our democratic system in which we take so much pride. In fact, it is against any form of democracy to give important decision-making powers to a nominated House. That is why I rise today against this fossilized institution that costs taxpayers millions of dollars.

I want to remind my colleagues opposite and the House that, on January 28, 1957-a long time ago-a member, I think he was a Liberal, suggested the following-and I quote in view of my colleagues' lack of memory: "We will call a meeting between the federal and provincial governments and, taking their recommendations as a starting point, we will make the Senate into an efficient instrument for Parliamentary governance". Liberals are probably still studying the issue, which is probably still a priority for them, 37 years later.

The federal Senate is the only non-elected House still in existence in Canada. Having understood what a nonsense it was, provincial legislatures abolished theirs. Unfortunately, on the threshold of the 21st century, we are still debating the issue in this House.

The Senate was created in 1867 to quietly review legislation, free from the glare of public pressure. However, over time, practical limitations were imposed on its powers. The Upper House long ago abandoned its practice of introducing bills. Furthermore, it can, even if it only rarely does so, block bills that the people's elected representatives have democratically brought in. Such an opportunity arose in 1961 in connection with a bill respecting the dismissal of the Governor of the Bank of Canada, and again in 1964 over the bail-out of the unemployment insurance fund. More recently, we saw the Senate block bills concerning the GST and the NAFTA. Rarely does the Senate invoke this power akin to the sword of Damocles dangling over the House's head to block government bills, the reason being that Senate appointments are basically partisan in nature.

Appointments are handed out to acknowledge services to the party in power. That is an undeniable fact. The Senate legitimizes the practice of doling out political rewards. This is an aberration of the federal system which purports to be democratic. The appointment process is the reason for the passive role now played by the Senate. It also explains why a party newly in power like the Liberals is in such a hurry to gain a majority in the Senate.

One patently obvious example of the kind of partisanship which prevents the Senate from making objective decisions is the speed with which Senator Jacques Hébert, without mentioning any names, opposed unemployment insurance reform during the Conservative reign. So concerned was he for the unemployed that he had gone on a hunger strike four years earlier to show his support for young people and the jobless. Well, Senator Hébert does not seem to be quite as perturbed this time around by the Liberal reform which reduces unemployment insurance benefits. At least he has not shown any signs yet of being perturbed. Surely his lack of passion has nothing to do with partisanship. Or does it?

Getting back to the role of senators, each one is appointed to represent a region of Canada. One of the objectives in creating the Senate was to ensure regional representation. However, we would be deluding ourselves if we believed that today's Senate provided real regional representation. Speaking about regional representation, how can we forget the passion with which Senator Gigantes who represents the senatorial division of Delorimier in Quebec cautioned Quebecers-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I will take the time to check but, as far as I know, the members of this House should not refer to other members or to senators by their names but by the names of their ridings. I will check but I would still ask the hon. member to keep this in mind in his comments as much as possible. I will come back to this if necessary.

The hon. member for Terrebonne.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this clarification. I checked and I thought we could use names but I will refrain from doing so.

The senator I just mentioned, who represents Delorimier, in Quebec, warned Quebecers against the possible failure of the Charlottetown Accord. He even predicted such a failure would lead to a crisis similar to what happened in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Do you see tanks in Quebec, senator? Who did the Delorimier people vote for in the last election, senator? We wonder who you represent today, senator.

This senator recently did it again, predicting a civil war-what a wise man he is-in Quebec if that province ever becomes independent. This senator represents Quebec. Is this wise senator acting like a good regional representative when he accuses Bloc members democratically elected by the Quebec people of being traitors. I doubt that this senator really represents his region. As I said earlier, the fact that he represents Delorimier, which was named after a Quebec patriot, is one of the system's

absurdities. I repeat, who did the people of Delorimier vote for on October 25, senator? Again, who do you represent?

I would like to shed light on something. I would like to quote from two articles that appeared in La Presse to show the intellectual rigour of this senator from Delorimier. In September 1992, this senator said about the Charlottetown Agreement:

A no vote in Quebec would not be a return to the current status quo. Under the current status quo, all the premiers from English Canada approved the agreement which, as Professor André Tremblay said, contains all the concessions that English Canada would be prepared to grant to Quebec.

Two months after the Charlottetown Accord failed, this senator said: "Obviously, if the rest of Canada could not swallow the Charlottetown Accord, Quebecers now have only two choices, namely the status quo and independence without previously negotiated economic association".

Two months earlier he was saying that the status quo was not an option and two months later, that it was the only option. What a wise man!

In the wake of the Charlottetown Accord he said this:

The rest of Canada will never allow the Bloc Quebecois to wield influence by holding the balance of power.

Someone who was appointed in a non-democratic fashion and who represents a Quebec division dares to speak against democracy. That is the Senate for you!

[An hon. member]

Against duly elected representatives.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Against duly elected representatives!

Let us now look at these exorbitant costs of this other House, by the way. According to the Auditor General's report of 1991, the Financial Administration Act could not apply to the Senate. The Auditor General says that the usual accountability mechanisms do not apply to the Senate. Without such mechanisms or appropriate alternatives, neither the Senate nor the people can be sure that it is managed with sufficient concern for economy and efficiency.

Moreover, the expenditures declared by senators in the public accounts are incomplete. The Auditor General's report tells us that neither the Senate's policies nor its practices provide assurance that all the amounts reimbursed were spent for the operation of the Senate. The Senate administrators cannot distinguish the Senate's operating expenses from the senators' personal expenses.

That is serious, Mr. Speaker. But what are the Senate's actual expenses? In 1990-91, the total budget of the Upper House was $40 million and today it is $43 million. Need I say that this is public money, funds provided by the taxpayers, and the Auditor General's report tells us that there is no control over this spending. Forty-three million dollars with which we could create jobs for the unemployed is wasted.

The senators have a very busy schedule but they still have plenty of free time. They sat for 29 days in the four months from February to May 1993 and they collect an annual salary of $64,400, which is public, plus a $10,000 non-taxable expense allowance, which is also public, to which we must add 64 travel points to which they are entitled and this is also public.

This is a little more than the average salary of taxpayers who work 40 hours a week. We could go on talking for a long time about what journalist Claude Picher in La Presse calls a list of horrors.

For example, based on the Auditor General's report for 1990-91, I would like to ask you a question now, Mr. Speaker. Because I do not know her division, can I name Senator Cochrane or not?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I want to clarify some points at the end of your comments, for the benefit of the House.

I simply want to say that your 10 minutes have now expired. However, I will recognize you for another minute if you want to conclude your remarks.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So, a public report released by the Auditor General refers to Senator Cochrane, not to mention any names, who, on top of her $60,000 salary, as I was saying earlier, and her expense allowance of $9,000, cost Canadian taxpayers $35,000 in travelling expenses and $49,000 in office-related costs. Canada does have its own museum of horrors and its own villains in that museum.

In the minute I have left, I want to point out how absurd it is, in a democratic system, to have a house of non-elected members with decision-making power. Canadian dignitaries who are so proud of their democracy have no lesson to teach to other countries. When will they abolish that House which costs Quebecers and Canadians $43 million every year, even though it is ineffective and non-democratic?

We are in the midst of an economic crisis and our debt increases by thousands of dollars every minute. The federal government cannot continue to waste public money on a useless institution.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Before proceeding to the period of questions and comments following the intervention from the hon. member for Terrebonne, I would like to bring some clarification to the issue of naming either members of Parliament or senators.

Those comments are from the Annotated Standing Orders and refer to Standing Order 18(3): "What is acceptable depends largely on the circumstances, but personal attacks, insults, obscene language or words which question a Members' or a

Senators' integrity, honesty, or character are not in order. To reduce the possibility of personal references, convention further requires Members to refer to each other by title, position or constituency name. Likewise, the Senate is usually "the other place," and Senators, "members of the other place".

I simply wanted to make this clarification for the benefit of the House during the rest of the debate, until 10 p.m. this evening. Resuming debate.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to question the previous speaker and the one prior to him on a couple of things.

First of all, I want it perfectly clear that I stand firm in the belief of a truly triple-E Senate, and I also believe that what we presently have is ineffective and truly a waste of dollars for a lot of reasons.

One area that I am familiar with is the United States, as that is where I came from, and although the systems are slightly different the Senate has a significant purpose in that country and that is to protect the districts and regions from exploitation from larger regions. That is primarily its purpose.

For example, the state of Montana, with one representative by population, is protected by two senators, as all states. Montana could have been exploited on a great number of occasions had it not been for that set-up.

First of all, if we had no means of protection from exploitation by larger regions for smaller regions, what process would we use to make certain that does not happen? I am going to assume that he is going to answer in the same way as the previous speaker, that the people would take the appropriate action and put a stop to it. If he believes that, would he believe that the people of Canada as a whole should be able to take appropriate action if Quebec decides to separate?

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

I would like to thank the hon. member for his question, as is the tradition here in this House. First of all, I want to say that, before their independence, the Americans promoted a philosophy which resulted in the fact that their Senate, although quite effective, is not representative. It is representation by population. We often heard about Loyalists demanding rep by pop and the United States having rep by pop. Of course, it is all right to have two senators per state, but then you do not have rep by pop. However, this is not the place to review the U.S. Senate, so I will try to give a more direct answer to the hon. member.

About the triple E Senate, we believe that an elected House can undoubtedly make responsible decisions, because we support ministerial responsibility. An elected House could and should be able to make decisions concerning some legislation. Two elected Houses, if the Senate were to be a triple E Senate, could create confusion about which House must make the decision. The ten Canadian provinces, which do not have two, but only one House, show us how one House can make decisions, and very sensible decisions at that.

For example, the province of Quebec, with a population of about 7 million, got rid of the legislative council in 1968, that is nearly 30 years ago. No one in Quebec has any regrets about that decision. Other provinces also got rid of their legislative councils and I do not think they have any regrets about it. So, in Canada, an elected House where hon. members would abide by the principle of ministerial responsibility could give proper consideration to the decisions they are about to make.

And if Quebec were to become sovereign, I hope Canada will respect the democratic principles it has been advocating since 1867.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and friend, and also neighbour, the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe, clearly explained why he is against spending $26,952,000 for the Senate. I totally agree with him, given that such a measure would, in the long run, abolish a costly but far from essential institution, namely the Senate.

It is a well-known fact, and has been for quite some time, that Quebecers do not see why they should pay to maintain the Upper House. The country is going bankrupt. Social programs are being slashed. In senior citizen centres, soup portions are being reduced from four ounces to two ounces, but we can still afford to appoint senators.

In my riding of Frontenac, every Friday, I receive a call from Mrs. Lessard, from East Broughton in my riding of Frontenac-and she must be listening now, because I informed her-, and she asks me the same question: "Hon. member, when will the government increase old age pensions? I have not quite paid my heating bill yet". She said that only last week. She also asks the following question: "When will the government abolish the GST? They promised to do so. I have some purchases to make, but I am waiting for them to abolish the GST".

How can I explain to Mrs. Lessard the government's delay in abolishing the GST, which they would rather hide than abolish? How can I explain to Mrs. Lessard that she will only get a $1.28 monthly increase in her old age pension, while, in the other place, some are handsomely paid, appointed, not elected, to serve until they reach 75 years of age? If we had jobs like that in

the riding of Frontenac, I am sure the list of applicants would be very long.

To prove to you to what extent the Senate is unknown in Quebec, I will give you the results of a poll I conducted in my riding, in July of last year, with some of my assistants. We asked some people in the riding about the Senate, to find out what they knew. We crisscrossed the riding of Frontenac, from Thetford to Plessisville, from Coleraine to East Broughton, via Saint-Jacques-de-Leeds, Sainte-Agathe and Saint-Sylvestre. We visited grocery stores, credit unions, shopping centres, gas stations, etc. In fact, we went everywhere we could find people.

We wanted to measure how voters reacted to the Senate, and to find out whether they knew any senators. I can tell members opposite that I heard many sighs and saw many skyward looks.

Many told us straight out that the Senate was useless, or that it was a circus manned by people appointed by the government as a reward. We asked those who were more receptive whether they knew any senators and could name some. Only two names out of 104 came up, and not very often. They were Solange Chaput-Rolland and Jacques Hébert. Considering their past achievements, it is clear that their notoriety did not come from the fact that they were senators.

Ordinary people do not see how the Senate could possibly help them. They only see a group of individuals appointed for reasons sometimes obscure, on whom they never call to defend their interests. As one of my constituents pointed out to me, it is difficult enough for people to know if they have to go to their provincial or their federal MP for a particular problem. They just do not want to bother finding out what a senator can do for them.

Last year, I polled the people of my riding on their knowledge of the Canadian Senate and on their reactions to the $6,000 non-taxable raise that the senators had voted for themselves, as hon. members will all remember, especially the members opposite. A $6,000 non-taxable increase is worth about $12,000. Do you know that, in my riding, many people work 50 weeks a year and barely earn $12,000? It is outrageous.

As the hon. member for Joliette was saying earlier, public opinion has been the senators' watchdog. During the three weeks following this shameful decision by the senators, public opinion in Quebec and in Canada ran heavily against them and they had to undo what they had done.

My colleague from Terrebone gave some examples of outrageous expenditures, like the senator who had his office remodelled at a cost of more than $100,000. I built myself a very good house for about half that amount. There are some Canadian families, and I use the word Canadian to please the members opposite, who cannot afford a $60,000 house. Yet, the senator had his office remodelled for double that amount and more.

We will have a provincial election in Quebec in a few months and I invite my colleagues across the way to come and defend the Senate during that election campaign. They will see what Quebecers think of the Senate.

To illustrate my point, I will tell you that when the hon. Marcel Masse was representing my riding in the House, I phoned his office to inquire about the name of the senator responsible for our region. Of course, I did not talk to Mr. Masse personally, but I talked to highly qualified individuals with eight or nine years' experience since that was at the end of the Conservative regime. Believe it or not, no one in his constituency office could give me an answer. After waiting for many days, someone finally called me back to give me the name of my representative in the Senate, but I have since forgotten that name.

Again last night, my assistant here, Manon Genest, called the Senate communications service to know which senator was responsible for my riding, Frontenac. "We will call you back" was the answer. This is a fine example of the active involvement of senators in political life! When even the communications service of the Senate itself cannot give the name of our representative right away, frankly, I must tell you that that does nothing to give me confidence in the other Chamber.

If I ask the hon. member sitting next to me what riding he represents, I am sure that it will not take him 20 minutes to give me the answer. He knows. If I call the House of Commons to know what riding Antoine Dubé represents, they will tell me immediately.

[An hon. member]

The hon. colleague.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac, QC]

My hon. colleague, to be more precise.

We also asked the people we met to tell us what they remembered the most about what the Senate did. Among the older age group, some people mentioned Senator Hébert's hunger strike. That stayed in people's minds.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I have to interrupt to indicate whether names are to be used or not. Early in the hon. member's speech, I agreed that names be mentioned since he was conveying the results of a survey he had done in his riding. I thank him for the fact that in a later part of his speech he did not mention parliamentarians by their names but by their designations instead. I hope we will abide by this rule up till the end of this debate. The hon. member for Frontenac.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for the patience you always show and for the thoughtful manner in which you correct us. You do it so well that in my turn I would like to beg your pardon for having mentioned the senator by name. I will therefore skip a few paragraphs to conclude with the way our famous senators are appointed.

I finally learned the name of my senator, and the reason for that appointment. When we look at the list of Quebec senators, the 21 left, most of whom live in Montreal, we find that one is an organizer for the Conservative Party, one is a fundraiser for the Liberal Party-I know him-another was a top adviser to the former premier of Quebec who just left office, yet another is an organizer for the Conservative Party, and another is a good Liberal, yes, and has been a Liberal MP for a long time. The letters P.C. are added to his name.

So, Mr. Speaker, I have a list of 21 senators and none of them is truly representative of Quebec.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I want to thank the hon. member for Frontenac for his co-operation and understanding.

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia has the floor.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

Mr. Speaker, there is something I do not understand. I am really confused. If the hon. member and his party want to leave Canada, why are they so interested suddenly in the future of Canada? If the member wants to destroy our country, what importance does all this have for him?

Why should he talk about the future of Canada if he has no interest in it?

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend my colleague in the Reform Party for asking his question totally in my language.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Quebecers, every year, pay 24 per cent of all taxes to the federal government. As long as Quebecers are part of this country, we will defend their interests here.

The members across the way and those in the Reform Party are probably thinking: Why do so many Quebecers wish to leave the Canadian family? My hon. friend in the Reform Party is happy in the present regime, and so are his children. As for me, I am sad and unhappy to be part of Canada, and I wish Quebecers would finally wake up and decide to give their children who are listening to us on television a country to which they are entitled: Quebec.

We see senators who are defending the regions. But when I ask what senator represents my region, which is made up of three ridings, nobody knows. He never comes to the ridings of Frontenac, Lotbinière or even Bellechasse. There are three ridings in my region. But we never see our senator. He is a Conservative senator who was appointed by the preceding government.

I tell you this: we pay, so we have our say. The present Senate is just a bunch of patronage appointees, people who were appointed for services rendered. And we have no confidence that they will defend Quebec's interests.