Mr. Speaker, I had a strange feeling when I saw this bill coming back to the House of Commons. The first time, I wondered what was happening. We had debated all these points, we had already put them on the table and had voted on this bill.
It is the outcome of a referendum in a province, where there was a majority. I am told that some 50 per cent of the people voted. No one prevented the others from voting. They chose not to do so. Voting is not mandatory in Canada. So, the rule of democracy is to respect the outcome.
I therefore wondered and I am still wondering why this bill is back before us after a vote was taken, a decision was made, in this House of elected representatives and after it was sent to the Senate, whose members are not elected. The people there are appointed for all sorts of reasons, often because of their political allegiances or for other reasons. Often it is because they contributed to society in one way or another. Still, as members of an unelected House of Parliament, they will never have to answer for their actions either tomorrow, next week, next year, in five years or in ten years from now.
The people in the other House did not have to consult their fellow citizens to see whether or not they favoured this motion. We have before us a bill passed by the House of Commons based on a referendum held in a province on specific issues, clear issues, which showed a desire for change in that province.
And now we are monopolizing the House's time in order to resolve matters that were already resolved by those elected. I would take the liberty of proposing to the Liberal majority, which only a few weeks ago voted against the abolition of the Senate, to reconsider.
Is there anything to be gained by bringing this bill back here? Especially since the other House has a tendency at the moment, with the election coming, to put more pressure on the government. The fact is that there is a strong Conservative representation in the Senate. Those who did not manage to get members elected in this House are using this as a tool. They are also making use of another tool: the people who were appointed there for various reasons, including their political opinion and their contribution to the political parties. These people are being used as a political tool, as if they represented the people, which is not the case.
Are there people in the other House who can claim to really represent the constituents of the riding they were appointed for? Can any senator today say that he was elected? There was one in Alberta, who unfortunately is not with us any longer, but the senators do not represent anyone.
The fact that they bring back amendments like these makes us wonder how this came to be. How can the senators come back to us with these amendments? What business, authority or right do they have to do such a thing?
It is important to see the implications. This House is back, debating and considering again the same issue and amendments, because the fact is that the amendment presented a moment ago by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood is oddly similar to the one presented the first time the issue was debated in this House.
Basically, this is what could be called a remake. The same bad arguments that did not convince us the first time around are being put forward again. After going to the Senate, they are coming back to us, forcing the government to put these things back on the table, even though a decision had already been made.
I think there are several indications that the Senate does not represent what the people want. Consider this. As elected representatives, we can expect to go before the voters in the next year. All members from Ontario should think about this. As they travel to various parts of Ontario during the upcoming election campaign, they will be able to tell the people, with their hands tied behind their backs: "It is a shame the Pearson airport legislation died. It is
not our fault; the Senate killed it". Really? Is this normal? Is this democratic? Is this acceptable?
Now, about Newfoundland. Even if only 50 per cent of the people participated in the referendum, the majority of them voted in favour of what was being proposed. In my mind, those who claim that this referendum was not representative enough are very dangerous people. But this should not come as a surprise from people who said the same thing about a referendum in which 93 per cent of the population participated.
I say that a referendum is an interesting weapon in a democracy. It puts important issues directly to the people, whose capacity to understand must not be underestimated. They are very capable of following the debates. Their common sense is something that must be respected.
As regards this debate, I am tempted to say that the sooner we will be done, the better it will be. I cannot prevent MPs from expressing their views on this issue, but I want to make them aware of the fact that we are having a discussion that has already taken place in Newfoundland. This debate has certainly taken place before, because the issue had been discussed for several years among political parties. It was the subject of a referendum and referred to the House of Commons. It resulted in an amendment to the Canadian Constitution, an amendment that was supported by both the party in office and the official opposition. This is quite something.
This kind of thing does not happen every day in this House of elected representatives. Indeed, it is not every day that the official opposition agrees with the government on a bill of this nature.
In spite of this approval by the two parties representing the largest number of ridings in Canada, the two most prominent parties in this Parliament, the two parties whose role is the most official, the most necessary and the most significant, we find ourselves having to start the debate all over again because the Senate told us: "No, even if you are the elected ones, even if you represent the public, even if you are going to call an election next year, we cannot accept that, we have to take other considerations into account, and we are therefore proposing additional amendments".
This is a golden opportunity to show that we will not let them walk all over us. We cannot let the Senate, which costs us $43 million per year, have such power because, after all, it plays no effective and efficient role in our democracy. The Senate is just a group of lobbyists who are paid, and better paid, by the state, instead of by the private sector. In the early years of Confederation, the Senate may have made a contribution because, at the time, elected representatives may not have had the same training as they do today, and they may not have had access to the same research services either. The government did not have the same resources.
Today, when the Senate opposes a bill, we can tell that it is because of effective lobby groups that undermine the influence of voters. People should realize that to politicians, and I think this is an important point, it should be the electorate that has the most influence on elected representatives.
In the present case, the House of Commons is debating a motion which has come back from the Senate, because a bunch of non-elected individuals insisted there should be a decision to send it back to the House of Commons.
The Senate seems to be getting too big for its boots as far as this bill is concerned. Consider this. When the bill arrives in the Senate, there is already a general consensus to pass the bill. The government and the official opposition agreed on this bill. They submitted it to the Senate to fine-tune certain aspects. But now we get it back with amendments that call into question the very intent of the constitutional amendment.
I think we have to send a clear message. We must have a clear vote on this matter. We must reject the Senate's amendments. We have previously discussed items that were tabled again, for instance the amendment of the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood. That debate has already taken place in the House.
I realize that to educate the public, we have to repeat certain arguments. That is understandable, but we must not forget that in this case it is pretty useless, because we have given a democratic body consisting of non-elected members a responsibility it should no longer have.
We should learn a lesson from this bill, the same one we learned from the Pearson airport legislation and a number of other decisions by the Senate in recent years.
Just imagine, the previous Prime Minister had to appoint 10 additional senators to be able to do in the Senate what the House of Commons had already done. That took some doing! We had to appoint additional senators to do that. Today, the Liberal government has managed to rebuild its majority in the Senate, but since they do not have a strong majority, we get situations like the one we have today.
The solution is not necessarily to stack the Senate, but rather to do away with it. Stacking it with a Liberal majority is not the solution. Instead, it is to make sure that the Senate no longer has the possibility of overthrowing the decisions of elected members.
I believe that we, as members of the House of Commons, ought to promptly vote against these amendments, in order to ensure that the version accepted by Newfoundland in a referendum is the one respected by the House of Commons. We must, therefore, act as
soon as possible, as soon as the various parties involved have done what they have to do.
In the current system, it is true that parliamentarians have the responsibility to continue the debate, because the Senate is entitled to make this type of amendment, but this is a situation which ought to be remedied in the future.
It is my most heartfelt wish that, in the months to come, for the next election campaign, each party represented in this House will include in its platform a position which will make it possible, during the next mandate, to settle this matter of the Senate, to prevent a body made up of unelected members, a democratic organ made up of unelected members, from having the power it has at the present time. It is an anachronism, a remnant of another time, and something that does not in the least represent what a modern state will require in the years to come.
We must, therefore, resume consideration of this bill. We must ensure that the Senate's amendments are not accepted, in order to respect the wishes expressed by the people of Newfoundland.