Mr. Speaker, I listened with some degree of attentiveness to the member's arguments that he was putting forth in his speech. There are a few questions I would like him to answer based on what he was telling me, which of course does not conform with Reform Party policy.
He talked about wanting to abolishing the Senate. That is fine. However when we take a look at what the Bloc's sister party is saying in the province of Quebec and indeed what the Bloc Quebecois is saying, it is that they will not respect the rule of law regardless of what the court decides for example in the Bertrand case; that the rule of law can be ignored, thrown out the window by a political party such as the Bloc Quebecois and its sister party, the Parti Quebecois in Quebec.
The Senate has been as we know a chamber of sober second thought. The reason we have a chamber of sober second thought is that periodically, maybe once in a hundred years, there are times when we need a check and a balance on the headstrong attitudes of people who are elected to office. That time is perhaps now when we see what is happening here in this House by a party of separatists who want to break up the country and by a party in Quebec which is in government yet has stated quite clearly and quite succinctly that it will ignore the courts and the rule of law in this country.
The Minister of Justice has stood in this House repeatedly and told us how important it is in a democracy. Surely the need for a Senate to guarantee that sober second thought is important in a democracy rather than abolishing it and allowing a party headstrong, without real commitment to democracy to go ahead and do what it thinks is right. I would like the hon. member's opinion on the sober second thought versus the abolishment.
Another point I was concerned about is the waste of money and of course we as Reformers are concerned about wasting money. He was quite critical of the cost. He mentioned the pensions and everything else that we pay for members in the other place.
I think back to about a year ago when the government introduced a gold plated pension plan, which Reformers objected to. Reformers felt that we could not participate in it because there are so many thousands of Canadians out there who have practically no money at all, who are virtually destitute. Yet this government felt it more important to give themselves a gold plated pension plan rather than looking after the seniors and the poor people, but that is another argument.
My point is that the Bloc Quebecois members voted for the gold plated pension plan to be paid for by Canadians while they want to leave the country. I found that a bit confusing. They want to leave but they want us to pay for them after they have left. To me that would seem to be a tremendous waste of money. Canadians would have to pay a pension to separatists after they had left the country.
I would like the member to comment on the waste of money on pensions to MPs, especially separatist MPs, versus money paid to pensions in the other place. Also, I am serious when I ask about
sober second thought. It may only be once in a hundred years that we need that sober second thought, but perhaps this is the time.