Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure as a parliamentarian to take part in this vigorous debate this evening in order to reject a proposal to renew a $40 million budget for the Senate and demand its abolition.
My colleague pointed out earlier that the Bloc Quebecois is intervening specifically on the motion to renew a $40 million budget for the Senate and not on other budgets allocated to various programs. We could have intervened just as well on the amount of $25 million set aside for social housing, which is clearly inadequate, or on the amount of $15 million to be extended for the status of women, which is also clearly inadequate. However, when $40 million is spent like that, $40 million to produce duplication and overlap, and you know that duplication and overlap have always signalled the call to arms for the Bloc Quebecois.
It is no secret that the people of Quebec are fed up with the Senate and have been for a long time. It is a fact that a broad consensus existed in Quebec on the abolition of the Senate when the Charlottetown talks were being held, but this consensus was reached well before that time, as early as 1980.
During the referendum year of 1980, federalist politicians, without sovereignist leanings, I may add, were already demanding, as expressed by Claude Ryan in his beige paper, the abolition of the upper House. My point is that this is not just a quirk of the big, bad separatists.
The position of Quebecers on the subject has not changed since 1980, on the contrary. Barely two weeks ago, a petition was circulated in my riding and all other ridings in Quebec in support of the motion of my colleague from Rivière-du-Loup, which will demand the abolition of the Senate, no less.
The text of the petition is quite clear, and the reasons introduced to support abolition of the Senate are as follows: Whereas the Senate consists of non-elected members who are not accountable for their actions; whereas the Senate refuses to be accountable for its expenditures to committees of the House of Commons; whereas the Senate does not fulfil its representational mandate; whereas the Senate duplicates the work done by members of the House of Commons; whereas the Senate-and finally, it is necessary to ensure there are parliamentary institutions.
Four hundred senators who are not elected share a budget of about $40 million, at a time when cuts are being made everywhere. That is why today the Bloc intervenes specifically on the appropriations allocated to the Senate. Although the petition has not been publicized in any way, it has already attracted hundreds of signatures in my riding that will be added to thousands more from other ridings and tabled by the hon. member for Rivière-du-Loup here in this House.
I sincerely believe that, in Quebec, my fellow citizens strongly desire the Senate's disappearance. More than two years ago my colleague from Richelieu gave us a very interesting historical background on that institution. I think it deserves to be quickly restated.
My colleague said that the other House is a leftover from colonial times, that it was created to protect the wealthy landowners against the more populist endeavours of the elected members, our predecessors. The proof is that, at the time, senators had to be worth at least $15,000. Do we realize how much that was at the time? Obviously only rich people had that much money. They were protecting the interests of their wealthy citizens, a practice which has not yet disappeared, far from it, although it is now under a new guise.
Of course the role of senators has changed, but nevertheless they are no longer needed. As with many other institutions, the theoretical role and reality are very far apart. The wealthy landowners have been replaced by faithful political lackeys. All sorts of abuses have been noted and publicized. There is no need to come back on that. The work done by members of that House has a lot more to do with the political agenda of the major parties than with fundamental research. The Senate has become the tool used by the government to avoid contradicting itself publicly and preserving its reputation when it realizes that it has made a mistake. It is now a very discrete and reliable tool, used by elected members of the main parties.
A very good example of this is the process used for the bill on electoral boundaries, where the party in office benefitted greatly from this redistribution of representation. It was so blatant that several members condemned this practice in the House.
Recently we were also able to see how undemocratic was the Senate. Last June, we could read in all the newspapers that the Senate had refused to pass the bill on the Pearson airport. There is no better example of what the Senate is and what power it has. How can we accept that people who are not elected, who are not accountable to the people, can decide on their own authority to reject a bill that was seriously examined and debated for several hours here in the House?
Even though I was opposed to the bill in question, the fact remains that I am shocked to see people who were appointed for political services rendered either to the Conservatives or to the Liberals-it often boils down to the same thing-people who are not accountable to anyone, giving themselves the rights to decide the future of the biggest airport in Canada.
How do the members of the party in office, the members of the same party that made sure to get a majority in the Senate, feel today, knowing that even some of the people they appointed to be their standard bearers in the other House helped defeat a bill that a vast majority of them in this House were in favour of? How do they feel knowing that, instead of proposing amendments, the other House rejected the bill outright? That is not very flattering for the Liberal deputation. This is ridiculous. Some elected representatives
bring in a bill, which is later rejected by a group of non-elected representatives called senators. This is the best example of what is so absurd about the Senate and the best reason to call immediately for its abolition.
Whether they like it or not, Quebecers are paying for an institution that they do not support any more. The costs are very high, at $43 million, and there might also be some other expenses related to the senators' functions. In 1995-96, the budget is set at $42 million.
In the supply motion debated today, the amount shown is $40 million. Unemployment benefits were reduced to allow the government to save on the backs of the unemployed. Single mothers living under the poverty line could see their welfare benefits reduced because provinces are receiving less from the federal government.
Young people, looking for a first job are suffering from the absence of a job creation policy. The elderly could see their pensions cut.
Can you imagine the frustration felt by all these people who know that huge amounts, to the tune of $40 million, are spent year after year on an institution that lives off the fat of the land, an institution that does not serve any more its initial vocation and that these people have not wanted any more for a long time now. Since 1980, the people of Quebec have pronounced themselves in favour of the abolition of the Senate. That being, some wonder why our fellow citizens drop out, why that have become so bitter with regard to the politicians.
Far from approving these supplies of $40 million for the Senate, the Bloc Quebecois is asking for its abolition pure and simple because the Senate has lost its raison d'être. We have to modernize our institutions, but the Senate is an outdated institution. Its raison d'être is no more justifiable with people suffering cut after cut in social assistance, in unemployment insurance, in youth programs, women's programs, day care centres and so on. These $40 million are used to make duplication and overlapping.
When will this government have the courage to abolish that institution serving only partisan purposes? Today in this House, I am calling for its abolition pure and simple. Let us allocate money to programs aimed at helping women, at creating more day care places. I am waiting for this government to take the right decision at last.