Debates of Sept. 18th, 1996

Supply

[Denis Paradis, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if I understood correctly, the first point had to do with the UI fund surplus, the need for jobs, and the new economy. Those are the words my colleague used earlier.

As for the Quebec economy, we are having a hard time these days. Let me give you an example. The other day, I was walking on Rue de la Montagne in downtown Montreal, between Maisonneuve and Sherbrooke Streets. You should try it. Every second door was a boarded-up shop or restaurant. The economy is dying. But, as Mr. Dumont said, there is something really simple that could be done. Economic prosperity cannot be founded on uncertainty.

The former leader of the Bloc Quebecois, who is now in Quebec City, is holding a sword of Damocles above our heads. Will a referendum be held in one, two or three years? How reassuring can it be for an investor to be told: "We do not know what will happen in one, two or three years"? This makes no sense. What we need is a truce. Mr. Dumont is absolutely right. We need a truce that would last at least 10 years. As members of the Bloc Quebecois, you should speak to your former leader and ask him to call a truce so that the Quebec economy can pick up again.

If Mr. Bouchard had seen former U.S. President Harry Truman's desk, he would have read the sign saying, "The buck stops here".

My colleague's second question concerns the Senate. It is a totally legitimate question on cost effectiveness, but we must keep in mind that we are debating the main estimates. If we wanted to do something else like abolishing the Senate, we would need a constitutional amendment. The Senate is in the Constitution. I am asked if people in Brome-Missisquoi and in other ridings would like-Indeed, some would, but we would still need a constitutional amendment. This is not something that can be done through the main estimates, because our institutions must be able to operate.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Stop appointing them.

[Denis Paradis, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Not only the people of Brome-Missisquoi- The hon. member for Bellechasse was on the same committee as I was the other day and we had a chance to discuss this.

But we should get rid of this mental block. As you know, Mr. Bouchard attended the first ministers' conference. The first thing he said was: "No discussion whatsoever on constitutional amendments". In the meantime, our friends here, our colleagues, are saying the Senate should perhaps be abolished, but this would require a constitutional amendment. Mr. Bouchard does not even want to broach the subject, so I have trouble understanding whether or not he continues to issue orders from Quebec City. This is something I have trouble understanding.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as usual we heard a very positive speech from the member on the government side about how things are coming up roses right across the country. He told us about the problems on Sherbrooke Street in Montreal. I think I am quoting him properly when he said that at every second door a restaurant or a retail store was closed down.

Do members remember the old slogan jobs, jobs, jobs? Yet every second business on that street in Montreal, which is a major shopping street if I am correct, is closed down and one family in four in Montreal is on government assistance.

This government is supposed to be the federal government that governs the people on Sherbrooke Street in Montreal, on Jasper Avenue in Edmonton, and on Perron Street in St. Albert, which is my constituency. The member said that in order for the government to do its job it wants a truce from the Bloc Quebecois and the separatists in Quebec. Its job is to govern.

I would like to know from the hon. member from Brome-Missisquoi when the Liberal government will start governing and representing the people on Sherbrooke Street in Montreal, Quebec. When will it start delivering on the old cliché of jobs, jobs, jobs that it promised to the people of Quebec, to the people of Edmonton, and to the people in my riding of St. Albert?

The government said it would deliver. It did not say give us a truce from the separatist and we will see if we can deliver. We are still waiting. When will it deliver?

[Denis Paradis, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

First of all, Mr. Speaker, it is true-and I cited Montreal, and the stretch of de la Montagne street between Maisonneuve and Sherbrooke in particular, as an example-that every second business is closed down, but let me tell you about Brome-Missisquoi.

In terms of jobs, there are two main areas around the two largest cities of the riding, the first one being the Cowansville-Bromont area, which is doing well, with its IBM plant, General Electric, research and development facilities and so forth.

At the other end of my riding is Magog, with its textile industry and plans for a 20,000-foot expansion in that industry and another 20,000-foot expansion in the plastics industry. That is the situation in Brome-Missisquoi in a nutshell. That is what is going on in this riding where, must I remind the hon. member for St. Albert, the population is made up of 20 per cent anglophones and 80 per cent

francophones and we are all living in perfect harmony, somewhat shielded from the winds of separation.

I have the honour of representing the riding of Brome-Missisquoi in this Parliament, while Pierre Paradis, a relative of mine, represents the same riding at the Quebec National Assembly.

[François Langlois, Bloc, Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for St. Albert will surely have the opportunity to speak after the member for Richelieu, with whom I will share my time.

The issue of a second House in Canada is not something new; it goes back to 1774. That year, the pyramid was started from the top, in the sense that institutions were established for the British North America of the time. In 1774, only institutions approved by a legislative council were set up. Our structures were rather simple, with a governor representing the Crown and a legislative council appointed by the governor.

This was a bit of a family compact. There was little discussion when laws were passed and budgets approved. When democratic movements called for an elected house to represent the population and have a say in the government of the colony of the time, many voiced their opposition to the idea.

In the end, rather significant support from the United Empire Loyalists led to our country's having elected houses. But do you know what happened at the same time? Canada was divided in two: Upper Canada and Lower Canada, to make sure that French Canadians would never succeed in passing their laws and in imposing them on the rest of the country.

Today, as we try to get our powers back and to govern ourselves, we meet with strong objections and are told that we cannot do that. Two hundred years ago, they would not let the majority govern in this country. The pendulum has swung back.

So, in 1791, the Constitutional Act amended the Quebec Act to create the Houses of Assembly. We still did not have a responsible government. However, we had an elected House of Assembly, with an extremely restricted role to play, and the legislative council was maintained in both Upper Canada and Lower Canada. While the Constitutional Act of 1791 was in force, this legislative council, whose members were appointed by the governor, systematically opposed every decision made by the House of Assembly. The elected representatives had little success in imposing their final decisions during the period from 1791 to 1838, at which time the Special Act was passed to suspend the Constitutional Act of 1791, following the Patriots' Rebellion in 1837.

The Union Act of 1840 maintained the legislative council and an elected House, of course, but the legislative council could oppose, under any circumstances, all the decisions made by the elected representatives of the population. For 16 years, the members of this legislative council would be appointed by the governor and could do everything they pleased to oppose the decisions of the elected representatives.

In 1858, a timid but still significant reform was initiated, with the election of the members of the legislative council, although vested rights were maintained. Those who had been appointed before the 1856 act, which provided for the election of the legislative council members, were able to keep their seats, but had to sit next to members who were elected on a rotational basis.

It must have been strange to have an elected member and a member appointed for life sitting side by side in the same House. It is as if my colleague, the hon. member for Shefford, was there for life and I had to go back to the voters every four years, I would not be too amused.

Change had begun, and with it government instability and the decision of the elite, not the public, to change the form of government. These were the people known as the Fathers of Confederation, the grand term used to describe those who decided that there would be a federal government in Canada's future. There was never any desire to consult the public about this.

A great Liberal, Antoine-Aimé Dorion, proposed in the House of Assembly in Parliament, here in Ottawa, that a referendum be held on the change in Canada's constitutional status in 1867. This highly democratic proposal to let the public decide on the future status of Canada was defeated. The changes proposed by a small elite were adopted. In Quebec, numerous county and municipal councils opposed the constitutional change, sensing the trap into which we were heading. By letting go of our equal representation in the Parliament of the United Canada, that is, from an institutional point of view, we were saddled with a lame duck. At the beginning we had a third of the seats in the Senate and the House of Commons, but today we no longer even guaranteed a quarter of the seats.

In the next election, Quebec will have only 75 members out of 301, which is below the critical threshold of 25 per cent representation which has always been one of Quebec's traditional demands.

Perhaps I may, oh irony of ironies, quote Senator Jean-Claude Rivest, who represents the district of Stadacona. Speaking before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, he said that 25 per cent was the minimum, was the critical mass Quebec needed in the House of Commons. This 25 per cent will be lost in the next election.

In 1867, they talked about what they would do with these institutions. When I say: "they", I am referring to the Fathers of Confederation. There were other constitutions in the past. There

was the Constitution of Great Britain and there was a tendency to refer to the Constitution of Great Britain, the United Kingdom.

The first preamble to the British North America Act, 1867, forms the basis of all provisions dealing with the Senate in our institutions. I will read it to you:

Whereas the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have expressed their desire to be federally united into one dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom.

A constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom provides for two Houses of Parliament. In the United Kingdom, as in this country, there is a House of Commons, but also an upper House, the House of Lords. We wanted to establish one as well. I am not an agriculture critic but we have our own little lords.

So we established another House, the Senate. This House has the same powers the House of Lords had at the time: the power to fully obstruct decisions of the House of Commons. This was in 1867, when the House of Lords systematically opposed all bills that would give back to Ireland its institutions, which had been suspended for many years.

In any case, one would have to be totally lacking in political vision to be oblivious to the fact that someday, the other House, the Canadian Senate, which was not elected and was not accountable to any one would obstruct major legislation. We saw it happen during this Parliament.

Earlier, the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup referred to the bill concerning Pearson Airport. The bill was defeated in the Senate. An important bill on electoral boundaries readjustment, Bill C-69, on which the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs worked for weeks on end, was never passed and died on the Order Paper in the Senate.

There is something odd about an unelected house coming to tell us how to get ourselves elected.

We cannot, of course, as Bloc members and sovereignists, subscribe to the Reform proposals, which will perhaps be useful to a Canada in which Quebec is not represented, but we certainly cannot subscribe to a Senate which would be elected, effective and equal. If there were any equality, it would have to be between the two nations, the two founding peoples, not one between provinces. And what would an elected Senate mean? It would mean another House with popular legitimacy which would act as a buffer between the provincial and federal governments. If there is one thing we do not need right now, it is that.

The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi has just said that a constitutional amendment is needed to abolish the Senate. Of course we need a constitutional amendment; it is the 7-50 rule which applies: 7 provinces representing 50 per cent of the Canadian population. Let the other provinces reach agreement among themselves to abolish the Senate and we will probably be rid of it.

I would like to close with an acknowledgment that, of course, there are some good people sitting in the other House. It is not my intention to discredit those who are there, but rather to state that, in 1996, the existence of a House of this nature is no longer justified. The best way to see it abolished quickly is to hit it where it hurts the most, in the pocket book, by choking off its operating funds, and then there is a good chance that it will fall on its own sword.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Ontario, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the comments of the Bloc Quebecois member. I found it very interesting to hear the hon. member, as well as those who preceded him, talk about the future and about his plan for the Senate, that is, not to have another House.

I found it rather interesting to see that, perhaps for the first time, the Bloc Quebecois is in full agreement with the third party, the Reform Party.

I know well the fate of francophones outside Quebec, because when I was younger, in high school, we studied two or three historians, Guy Frégault, Séguin and Brunet, who were always talking about the underrepresentation of Quebecers in the House of Commons when it came to seat allocation and distribution.

I find what the hon. member just said very interesting, and perhaps he can easily answer this fundamental question for me: if we let the Senate go or abolish it, what good will come of it for Quebecers who have to deal with demographic pressures for which Canada is not to blame, but which your province, our neighbour, has to bear?

As your former leader explained it well, the issue of not having enough children could have an impact on the strength of your population. Is the rest of the country to blame for a decrease in the population of Quebec? If that is the case, as it was said, would abolishing the Senate not boil down to affecting or decreasing the importance of Quebec in this House and in this Parliament?

[François Langlois, Bloc, Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in the Upper House, the Senate, Quebec has a constitutional guarantee of 24 seats. Unlike any other province, Quebec counts 24 senate ridings.

In 1867, Quebec was divided into 24 ridings. A thing to remember, a small anomaly of which I will remind my colleague, the member for Ontario: in 1912, Quebec borders were altered by

adding to it the Ungava area. Quebec borders were changed, but the Senate map was not. All of northern Quebec is not represented in the Senate. Today we are asked if Quebec would be less represented? Probably over a third of it is not represented at the moment. I cannot see where the problem is.

As far as the problem of demographics is concerned, I have trouble putting it in context. With regard to procreation, I would be more inclined to trust the members of this House, especially my colleague from Témiscamingue, who recently had a little Félix, than the members in the other House. I fail to see the connection.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Ontario, ON]

Congratulations!

[François Langlois, Bloc, Bellechasse, QC]

I am wondering too. The member for Ontario, who is also very vigourous and represents around 250,000 people, must feel very frustrated these days knowing that he will have to face the electorate and justify his policies and the fact that the promise to abolish the GST has not been fulfilled; he might have a hard time.

There are people roughly his age in the other place, they are there until they turn 75, without being held accountable to anyone. It is incredible. There is something wrong somewhere. We all will have to go home. In your riding of Stormont-Dundas, maybe it will not be so difficult, Mr. Speaker, but in Bellechasse it might be harder, we will see.

In any case, we will return, we will all take the plunge without any guarantee whatsoever to see what seat will be occupied. The 206 members who were replaced in this House all know what it means to have no job security.

I went to the other House earlier. What a nice sunset I saw. It was the darkness in that room that struck me the most; sometimes the darkness is in the minds. They speak about a House of sober second thought, but it looked more like a dormitory.

We will be sitting until ten this evening. Over there, they are not sitting at all. Evening debates are rare enough because the number of days are limited.

Section 31 of the British North America Act of 1867 states that a senator loses his seat do you know when? When he or she is absent from sittings during two consecutive sessions. That means a senator who was a member of the Senate in 1993, at the beginning of the 35th Parliament, and who has not yet been present in that House, still has two more years to attend at least one sitting in order to keep his seat.

If we did that here, if we were absent from this House, our constituents would quickly boot us out. We would be subject to procedures much harsher than impeachment, the newspapers would demand our resignation, would require that we either sit or quit and return our salaries. In the other place they can do that, but not here. It is time to abolish that institution.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have happy to participate in this debate. Since I was elected in 1984, two political parties in this House have come out in favour of abolishing the Senate. Among the Tories who were elected in Quebec, at a famous meeting in Laval, 92 per cent of 800 delegates, including at least 10 from every riding in Quebec, voted in favour of abolishing the Senate. But the Liberals, even those elected in Quebec, never had the courage to make this decision.

Of course, as my colleague pointed out, our saying that the Senate should be abolished does not mean we do not respect its members. On the contrary, I know some eminent senators. I am surprised, however, that these people have accepted this job, if it can be called a job, or this political reward.

But I am not here to judge them. I want to talk about the institution itself, what Senator Prud'homme called a relic of colonialism, before he himself was appointed to the Senate by former Prime Minister Mulroney for services rendered. Since he is sitting in the gallery, he could even confirm what I am saying with a nod of his head.

One of my colleagues who is now in the Senate was talking about the great dormitory and the hon. sleepyheads. Ms. Chaput-Rolland was also appointed to the Senate and she suddenly discovered the virtues of its appropriations, I suppose.

We may look at it from every angle, but no one can justify the existence of such an undemocratic institution.

This is the most undemocratic institution in the western world. It is incredible. There is no other such senate in the whole world. Appointments to the Senate are made by the Prime Minister as political rewards. My colleague, the Liberal member for Brome-Missisquoi, indicated earlier that the Senate could be abolished but that a constitutional amendment is required to do so. There is simple way around this. Just stop making appointments; in time, there will be no one left. It is that simple, no big deal.

But no, in the past year, the Prime Minister has been appointing his friends: Sharon Carstairs, who worked with him to make the Meech Lake accord fail; Mr. Whelan, the former Minister of Agriculture and a good friend of the Prime Minister in the Trudeau government; Céline Hervieux-Payette, the candidate from Montreal who was defeated three times in Laval. They did not know what to do with her, so they appointed her the Senate to get rid of her. And the list of patronage appointments goes on.

At least the Conservatives had the decency to consult the provincial premiers. In those days, Bourassa was the one getting rid of his dead wood by shipping it to Ottawa.

Thinking back on Senate appointments, it is appalling to be spending approximately $60 million on this relic of colonialism, as Mr. Prud'homme called it, without even considering eliminating it when cuts are being made everywhere else.

You know, as early as 1920, Mackenzie King was talking about Senate reform, but nothing came of it. The only reform the Senate ever underwent took place in 1975, when Mr. Pearson decided, with great courage, that senators were to retire at age 75. Those who were appointed before 1975 are still in the Senate. I believe that Senator Olson is 94 years old now, and he is still there. He still gets his salary. But let us not make a judgment on age either. Elderly people can serve their country very well. The problem is not the people sitting in the Senate, but the institution itself.

Let me also point out that, originally, as the hon. member explained earlier, this institution was meant to act as a brake to the zeal of the elected members. Since this was the first responsible government, there was a danger that its elected members might try to change everything. So, the Senate was established. Later, the existence of this Senate was justified by saying it would act as the defender of the interests of the various regions. Since Canada had become a large country with its ten provinces, the Senate was to offset the House of Commons, where the central provinces could wield much power.

Such were the historical justifications. However, our political customs have since changed, our democracy is now extremely well structured, and we have other ways and means to put pressure on elected representatives. For example, would my constituents go to the Senate to complain about something? Never. People are now extremely well organized, whether it is seniors or union members, and they have a platform to voice their claims and to reach their objectives.

This is not to mention the federal-provincial conferences, which the provinces use to impede the centralizing power of the federal government or to have a say in its decisions. And then we also now have a very aggressive press, which is quick to react if the government somehow exaggerates in terms of its legislation or behaviour. We also have the royal commissions we set up regularly.

So, as you see, nowadays, the power of the regions and of individuals is taking a new form and does not involve the Senate, which is supposed to offset the House of Commons, should it become too strong.

So, the Senate only exists on a structural basis. In reality, it serves absolutely no purpose. Who, among our constituents, would say: "I will complain to my senator"? Less than 0.1 per cent of the people of Canada know the name of their own senator.

What is the purpose of the Senate? Individuals and interest groups do not consider the Senate as an appropriate body to receive their claims and offset a piece of legislation. They are not structured that way.

Think of all the energy spent every year to question the very existence of the Senate and it never gets us anywhere. Reform would not change anything. It would only create another kind of problem. For instance, if the Senate were elected, we would have 24 senators from Quebec who would claim to speak on behalf of Quebecers, while 75 members of Parliament would say the same.

What would the provincial government think of an elected Senate existing alongside elected members of Parliament, and how would it negotiate with the federal government? Would it have to go through the elected Senate or would it have to deal with both the federal government and the Senate? What would happen if the Senate and the government were of different political stripes? Can you imagine the mess we would have with an elected Senate?

The solution is to abolish the Senate. Three or four provinces had a Senate, which they abolished. By abolishing its Senate in 1968, did Quebec lose ground in terms of meeting the expectations of the people is concerned? Did it lose ground with regard to its institutions? Not at all. Were the regions affected by the abolition of the Quebec Senate. Not at all. Is new legislation any worse because there is no Senate to improve upon it? Not at all. So, we have every right to demand a stop to this utter waste of money.

Given the current economic situation, there is no reason to spend between 50 and 60 million dollars on an outdated Senate. It does not make any sense. We could also talk about the position of governor general, or the positions of lieutenant governors, which are another shameful waste of money.

We are asked to renew the Senate appropriation, so why not make the proper decision once and for all and cut off its budget. We will then have the chance to see if the senators will be zealous enough to keep coming here to sit or sleep in the Senate.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in sitting hear listening to the debate tonight, there is such a contrast in opinions about the Senate in this House that I think the average person is wondering what is going on here.

It is absolutely amazing that members of the separatist party are in this House talking about the future of the Parliament of Canada and the Senate when on a daily basis they talk about leaving the country. I fail to see what their interest is in the future of how this institution is set up. It is a conflict in philosophy.

At the same time, the Liberals on the other side defend the Senate institution which everyone in Canada knows is unaccountable, ineffective and unelected. It is basically a rubber stamp for the government of the day, if it happens to be the majority in the Senate. The Liberals of course seized that opportunity as vacancies became available and appointed their people to Senate positions. I was going to call it a wonderland, and perhaps it is, but it is probably one of the plushest patronage appointments the Liberals and Tories could ever dream up in this institution.

It is very timely that the Reform Party is sitting in this Parliament. Down at the other end of the hall we have an institution that basically serves little or no purpose in this country except to rubber stamp the government's bills.

The Reformers came to this Parliament, beginning with the member for Beaver River, and began talking about a triple E Senate: equal, elected and effective. That rings a fairly common sense idea to most Canadians. Why should someone represent the people who is not elected by the people, they ask? Why should someone be in a position of senator without really having much to do, being basically ineffective? Why is the Senate so unaccountable? It comes to Parliament and asks for $40 million to run its operations. We ask what it is for and the Senate says that we do not really need to know, that it would just like the $40 million.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I hate to interrupt but there are only five minutes of questions and comments. Perhaps the member has a succinct question to put to his colleague. Otherwise I will give the floor to the next member.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that we can make comments and ask questions. I have a question for the hon. member from the separatist party who just spoke.

He is a parliamentarian. If his party is so bound and determined to leave this country, why is there such a tremendous interest in abolishing part of the institution of Canada? Why do those members have this interest if they simply want to leave anyway?

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. The answer is very simple: we pay 25 per cent. We represent 25 per cent of the population and we pay for this dormitory, this nursery, this utterly useless place. As long as we stay within the federation, we will pay our $30 billion in taxes every year and we do have a say in the way that money is spent.

I am surprised every time somebody here, in the House of Commons, questions the legitimacy of this party and of its members who were democratically elected. I received 70 per cent of the votes in my riding, which means that 70 per cent of those who voted shared our party's position.

What is my party's position? It is different from that of other parties, obviously, because we are advocating a new kind of relationship with the rest of Canada based on two founding peoples with two strong governments bound by economic ties only.

The Liberals are advocating the 1982 Constitution, the Conservative Party is advocating constitutional amendments for the distinct society clause based on the principles contained in the Meech Lake accord, and the Reform Party has a different vision of the future of the two peoples because it is looking at issues such as official languages. Each party in the House has different ideas and has the right to express them.

Each time we rise in this House to talk about financial issues that concerns Quebecers as well as Canadians, we are asked why we, who want to destroy Canada, should have the right to express our views. We do not want to destroy Canada, we want to build Quebec. We want to build a country and we want to have friendly relations with the rest of Canada, we want to have economic ties as would any majority in the world. That is the goal of the Bloc Quebecois.

When we call for the abolition of the Senate, we defend Quebec's higher interests. That is why we were elected. We were sent here to promote Quebec's sovereignty and we are doing it democratically. We have the right to do it and I am sick and tired of hearing people question the sacred right of a people to choose its own destiny every time we rise in this House.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, St. Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to take part in this debate.

With reference to the motion brought forward in opposition to the funding of the other place, I should remind colleagues that we have a longstanding tradition that both Houses of Parliament work independently to fulfil the important work entrusted to both Houses. Both Houses actively review important legislation and policies in their work as parliamentarians. Both have processes in place for the approval of expenditures of funds.

I would argue that hon. members of the third party had an excellent opportunity to participate in the reform of the other House but chose to oppose the Charlottetown accord.

I would vehemently argue that the motion of the third party simply tinkers at the fringes, tinkers at the edges. Those members have chosen to attack the other place in such a manner that they are

unable to defend themselves. I would therefore argue that this is yet another example of the third party's opportunistic approach.

It is quite simply meanspirited.

Rather than deal in a meaningful rational kind of way with change, rather than look at the reasons why one might go about changing an institution and bring forward hard data and rational arguments, they play politics. Cut a bit here, cut a bit there. That is the approach of Reformers. They do not know where they are going, so why in the world would they know what to do with the other House?

The parliamentary system needs a chamber of second thought to pass good legislation. Perhaps it needs to be changed. Yes, I would agree and so would they, but what is being proposed is not change. What is being proposed is to use another House as a target to try to enhance their imminent electoral defeat. That is what they are trying to do. They are trying to deflect. They do not know what they are doing so they are thrashing about trying to find an issue. That is what is happening.

Parliamentarians in the other House come from all backgrounds. We know many of them. They have much experience and a great deal of knowledge in many fields. Some of them would embarrass members of the third party in terms of what it is that they know about Parliament, about democracy, and about the Houses in which we sit and serve. They bring a great deal of wisdom and a wealth of information to various committees and discussions held throughout the dominion.

But they want to grandstand. That is what they want to do because they have no plan. They spoke about the deficit and the debt. That did not work, because Canadians did not believe them. They spoke about violence in society and proposed extreme measures that would have solved absolutely nothing. So what do they do? They try to find a target, something to bring them back to life. We cannot revive a political party that is so feeble.

I am surprised members of the third party did not congratulate and commend the government for its performance and fiscal management. They know the government took a hard line on deficit reduction. They know the government is meeting and exceeding its targets. It is keeping its promises in the red book. They know interest rates have declined. They know inflation is at the lowest sustained level in 30 years. They know that as a result of job creation efforts on the part of government and the private sector close to 700,000 new jobs have been created since November 1993. They know Canada is projected to have the highest employment growth of any G-7 country, but they refuse to accept it.

They know very well that the government has made enormous progress in a number of areas. I have mentioned them: interest rates, inflation, reducing the deficit, the debt, job creation. They know that the vast majority of Canadians feel that the government has been very successful. They know it, but they do not want to admit it.

They know we have a great deal to be proud of as Canadians. They know we should be applauding what we have as a nation, what we have as citizens.

I will spend some time discussing some of the many changes we in government have implemented. The main estimates for 1996-97 represent the results of a number of initiatives by the government designed to reduce the budget deficit while providing the services Canadians need. It is a challenge to reduce what is spent and provide equal or better services.

The federal government's goal was to clarify its role and its responsibilities in order to make the federation more effective. It wanted to follow up on the public's call for better and more accessible government.

This means modernizing federal programs and services so that they better meet the needs of Canadians as citizens and as clients, today and in the future.

As pointed out by the President of the Treasury Board, this year's main estimates show $157 billion in planned budgetary expenditures compared with $164 billion last year, a difference of $7 billion.

The government has set clear priorities to guide the process of deficit and therefore debt reduction. It has articulated the roles of the national government thereby identifying areas where it is uniquely positioned to best serve Canadians.

This improves on the traditional techniques of modernizing public administration practices through doing more with less or through across the board cuts. These approaches have been replaced by more strategic choices about what programs and services should be treated as priorities and how best to deliver them.

The House will recall that the federal government launched program review and sector specific policy reviews to assess all policies and programs. It will also recall that the chief achievement or program review will be structural changes to the business of government, for example withdrawing from programs providing direct financial support to industry and not renewing resource sector regional development agreements when they expire while

maintaining a presence in areas such as international trade, science and technology.

It will address overlap and duplication by consolidating activities to make program delivery more efficient and effective, for example merging the Canadian Coast Guard fleet with that of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

Federal spending has been refocused to meet changing priorities. Departmental spending devoted to economic programs will decline significantly between 1994-95 and 1998-99, reflecting the shift in the government's role from providing direct support to business to setting framework policies.

Therefore it should be completely and totally evident from these initiatives that the government is acting responsibly. It is reducing spending while putting priority on programs which are the real business of the federal government and are delivered in a cost effective manner.

For this reason members of the House should concur with the government's request for full supply.

By the way, I am absolutely astonished, I would even say appalled, by the motion of the Bloc Quebecois member for Richmond-Wolfe who proposes to cancel the grants and contributions under Heritage Canada. Do you realize this means the hon. member is actually proposing to cancel subsidies to francophone communities outside Quebec? Yes, to cancel subsidies to francophone communities outside Quebec.

I would have expected this kind of gesture or initiative from the Reform Party, perhaps, but not from the Bloc. Someone must have failed to consider the consequences.

The hon. member also wants the government to stop subsidizing programs for native communities, which are included in this budget. Imagine. That is what he suggested. I think it is appalling.

He wants to do away with bursaries for athletes in amateur sport, with exchange programs for students and all multicultural programs. This motion hits at francophones outside Quebec, native people and participants in multicultural programs. Unlike the Bloc Quebecois, which seems to have no compunction about abandoning these programs, we will never abandon the multicultural aspect of our country. We will never abandon Canada's francophone and Acadian communities. Never.

[An hon. member]

There will not be any 25 years from now.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, St. Boniface, MB]

I just heard someone say there will not be any 25 years from now. Well, 20 years ago someone came and told us we were dead ducks, and one of those dead ducks is speaking here in the House of Commons. He has children who speak French and will have grandchildren who speak it as well.

Now, would you please stop saying we are going to disappear? We will never disappear, never.

Finally, I want to talk about a project that is particularly important to me entitled "Improved Reporting to Parliament". The government made a commitment to restore public confidence in government institutions and specifically the role played by Parliament. Without the right information at the right time, Parliament cannot perform its proper function. Furthermore, in order to get government right, we must engage Parliament in a meaningful dialogue of government plans, priorities and performance. In order to have an informed dialogue, parliamentarians need good information.

We are improving the information. We are in the process of piloting new documents. Later this fall we will table 16 pilot performance reports. These reports, supported by the members of my committee, which is an all-party committee and not the people who are yelling in this House tonight. They are being co-operative. They recognize the importance of this project.

These reports will provide Parliament with succinct, meaningful, results oriented information. They will allow parliamentarians to focus on the results expected from government programs and the results those programs actually achieve.

Furthermore in the spring complementary departmental expenditure planning documents will be tabled as part of the estimates process.

Overall improvements to reporting will allow committees to improve the processes by which estimates are considered and disposed of. I am confident that improved information will make parliamentary debate more meaningful and make an important contribution to overall government accountability.

I am delighted to chair this all-party interparliamentary committee. I have received a great deal of co-operation from all of the members who are part of it and I am most appreciative.

In concluding, I want to say that I support this proposal by the government and am rather shocked by the proposals made by the opposition. If the two political parties on the other side of the House continue to react the way they did this evening, they will stay where they are for a long time.

[Jean H. Leroux, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest to what our Liberal colleague over there had to

say on this subject. I find it curious that this evening we are discussing the money to be allocated to the Senate, yet this hon. member refuses, not surprisingly, to speak of the Senate.

It is in the culture of the two old parties in Canada, the Liberals and the Conservatives, to hope that one day, if they are really good and have worked hard-and we know what that means if a person is in a large national political body, that they have served their party well-they can hope to fulfil their dream of finishing out their days in the Senate.

What does that involve? Finishing out one's days in the Senate means that one has all the benefits. Let me explain some of those benefits to you. I have had the opportunity of travelling in Canada and elsewhere with a joint committee. A joint committee is a committee made up of MPs and senators. I have seen how that works here in Canada.

First of all, senators have the title of "honourable", becoming honourable when they are appointed, and thus a rung above the members of the House of Commons. Travelling with them, I have heard a Canadian colonel on one occasion announce "senators first". People who have not been elected, who were appointed by the Prime Minister, who are there until the age of 75. They can be 35 when they are appointed, or 40, and will sit as senators until they reach 75.. And whom do they represent? No one.

Last summer, I was in England at a symposium where 25 nations were represented. You know, when we speak of Canada while abroad, we describe ourselves as a great country, an ultrademocratic country, the most democratic in the world. When we tell people that we have a second House, made up of unelected members who are there to the age of 75, they are amazed. They just do not understand. Appointed? For what reason? For various reasons.

The Liberal caucus, which meets weekly, is made up of MPs and senators. When they are preparing fund raising campaigns for this party, who are the ones with the time and the contacts for rounding up all the money this party needs to operate? The senators primarily. They have nothing else to do, so they become the bagmen for the two old parties.

This is a vicious circle. You will note that the Liberals are talking about all manner of things this evening except the Senate, because in their heart of hearts they hope, one day, to be appointed to it, if their leader so decides. Imagine the advantage of not having to run in elections. No longer any need to be present in the riding. Imagine all the advantages of being in the Senate.

We in the Bloc Quebecois say, and I think my colleague has said it clearly: "No taxation without representation". As long as the Bloc Quebecois remains in Ottawa, we are entitled to our opinions. What we are calling for is abolition, pure and simple. Why? Because we cannot agree. We have not for 35 years.

When I was a student at the University of Ottawa and the Senate was being discussed, there was a chapter this long in our book on the Canadian Senate. I remember that the Senate was described as a kind of British hybrid in Canada. Why was it called a senate? Because we are in North America, and there is a senate in the United States.

You know, when we are travelling we find that no one knows the Senate is appointed. People just do not know. And that is the question I would like to ask my colleague.

We are still in a federal system, with two levels of government. To lighten the federal structure, not to mention the tax burden on Canadians and Quebecers, would now not be the time to abolish the Senate?

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, St. Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments.

He started by saying: "I listened with some interest to what my colleague had to say". I would have rather that he had listened with great interest.

He seems to believe that I want to become a senator. Frankly, I have not spent much time dreaming about it. Certainly not. I do not think so. While I was listening to him, and I did carefully, I seemed to detect a trace of jealousy. When someone says "senators first", I do not have a problem. If someone was to tell my colleagues "you first", I would not have a problem with that. I will not feel put down if I go through the door behind others, in the middle of the pack or anywhere else, I have no problem with that. Frankly, some people have quite a complex.

Personally, I like to see senators go first in front of me. I have no problem with that.

Another thing, you know, what I find really shocking, and I am not kidding any more, I said in my speech that I was ready to talk about Senate reform, and this is why I have been following the debate with a certain interest. But this is not a reform. They are playing politics to try to attract some attention. This is not serious, cutting.

Why not say: This is what I propose?

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

We propose to abolish it.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, St. Boniface, MB]

Yes. Come up with a clear proposal.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Will abolition do, yes or no?

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, St. Boniface, MB]

Abolition, abolition.

Dear friends, come up with a proposal in due form. I am asking you to come up with a proposal in due form abolishing the Senate. Do it tomorrow morning, I am looking forward to it.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have?