Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to what the hon. member from the Reform Party had to say and, while he was speaking, I was thinking how lucky Quebec voters are to have members of the Bloc Quebecois representing them here in this House. How lucky they are and how lucky we in the Bloc are to be able to come to this House to defend Quebec's interests and share our views with members of the other parties. Our views are often different from theirs because we are linguistically and culturally different.
In 1968, the Government of Quebec was led by Daniel Johnson Senior. There is a big difference between the father and the son. I can tell you that the father was a great premier. So the then Premier of Quebec, Daniel Johnson, abolished the legislative assembly, which was equivalent to the federal Senate. Believe it or not, Quebec has continued to function since then. We realized that we did not need two Houses in Quebec. If this works for every province, why would it not work for the central government? This would resolve an enduring situation that has been deteriorating for a long time. We have talked about reforming the Senate for a long time. We now see that it is impossible to reform because we cannot agree on anything.
The Reform Party favours an elected Senate. It would not be so bad, at least, if senators were elected. But what is the advantage of having two Houses of Parliament?
We are a middle power with a population of 27 or 28 million. Every Canadian province has its own government. There are governments in all 10 provinces and in the territories. We have a central government, municipal governments and school boards. Why not do away with the Senate?
In my school days, we were told that the Senate was a Canadian creation modelled on the House of Lords. It was decided at the time to copy the British parliamentary system. The title of lord is hereditary. In the Canadian system, it was decided to appoint senators. It may have been a good thing at the time, not knowing how educated the members of the Lower House would be, to have slightly more educated people sitting for a longer period in the Upper House. But what good is it today?
One thing matters: those who represent the people must be elected. This prompts me to ask this question: Would Canada not do better with just one House instead of reforming a Senate that is beyond reform?
There was talk about reform in 1970 and again in 1975 and 1978. When I was in school, we kept hearing about all these plans to reform the Senate, but no agreement was ever reached. As a result, the Senate remains the same and carries on.
I think that not to abolish the Senate at this time is to show lack of respect for Canadian voters, who work hard to send people to represent them in this place. These representatives work hard, very hard. We all know how expensive it is to run a Parliament. The Senate alone costs $43 million per year at the lowest estimate and $65 million, when everything is taken into account. What a saving this would be: $65 million. With this money, we could afford to build one or two hospitals per year in Canada, and these would be much more useful than a Senate.
Nowadays money must be invested where it will be profitable. A Senate is not a profitable investment. All a Senate does is give the Prime Minister in office an excuse to appoint his friends, to reward those who have served the party well. So, instead of wasting our time stubbornly insisting on reforming an archaic institution, why not just abolish the Senate?