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.