Mr. Speaker, as the member for the riding of Saint-Hubert and on behalf of my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois, I would like to say that we are opposed to the motion by the President of Treasury Board on Vote 1, in the amount of $40,713,000 under the heading Parliament-Senate being concurred in.
The Bloc has always maintained its opposition to the very existence of the upper House. We believe that it is not only an anachronism but useless. It is particularly outrageous in this day and age to ask taxpayers to sink millions in such an institution, when the economy is on the verge of collapse, unemployment is dangerously high, and services to the public are being drastically reduced.
In a time of budgetary restraint, when Canada's total debt is over $500 billion, and when the government is constantly asking people to tighten their belt, it is unacceptable to give 104 senators a $40 million budget.
Over and above a $64,000 annual salary, a $30,000 research allowance, a further $20,000 for their office expenses, and a tax free expense allowance of more than $10,000, senators enjoy other benefits very difficult to justify.
The main duty of the Senate is to study bills coming from the House of Commons and pass them. The role of the Senate duplicates that of House, nothing more, nothing less. Sir John A. Macdonald, when defining the role of the second House, called it a "House of reflection". I must admit that in times of budget cuts, I find that reflection to be very expensive.
Former senator Chaput-Rolland once said that this other House was simply a large dormitory. Please do not misunderstand me; I have nothing against the senators. It is the institution itself we must question. As far as we are concerned, this institution is nothing but a club of venerable old partisans whose only purpose is to reward friends of the party in power.
When we read the Confederation debates, we see that the Fathers of Confederation thought the other House was very important. Both Macdonald and Cartier wanted it to be a forum for reflection that would curtail what they called "the excesses of democracy". It is logical, a Senate which is not elected but appointed does not have to abide by the principles of democracy. On one of the walls in the upper House, we can see Cicero's maxim which states: "The role of nobility is to counter the instability of the people."
Therefore, members of the other House are supposed to control the elected members of Parliament. In fact, the very existence of the Senate is a remnant of elitism which, in a way, runs counter to legitimate democracy.
Since members of that House are appointed by the Prime Minister, it would be absurd to think they would add a reasonable and moderating influence to any legislation proposed by the House of Commons, without any kind of partisanship.
Seats in the Upper House have always been filled by friends of the party in power. It is a well-known fact, senators are chosen for their political allegiance and their long record of service.
When former Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau was in office, 81 senators were appointed, 71 of whom were of Liberal persuasion. When former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney was in office, he appointed 42 senators, 41 of whom were Conservatives. Since September 15, 1994, the current Prime Minister has appointed 17 senators, of course all good Liberal supporters.
Consequently, the institution is in no way representative of Quebec and Canadian people. Members of that House are at the most representatives of the prime minister who appoints them. Even though the Upper House has impressive powers and the institution is protected in some way by the Constitution of Canada, it does not play a very significant role in the federal regime as we know it today.
As everyone knows, the Upper House of Parliament was created by the 1867 Constitution Act to defend regional interests in the country and to contribute to political stability by acting as a counterbalance to the House of Commons. However, it was realized very quickly that this mandate was incompatible with the objectives of a centralizing government. In fact, very early in our history, it became obvious that the provinces themselves were promoting their own interests.
Even Senator Peter Bosa said in an article that was published in the Canadian Parliamentary Review in 1982 that the Upper House did not really represent the regions. He said, and I quote: ``The belief that the Senate does not really represent the regions is, I think, justified''.
While the bicameral system still prevails at the federal level, all the provinces where this type of institution existed have considered it wise to simply abolish it. That was the case of the province of Quebec, which abolished the legislative council in 1968. Quebec is no worse off since abolishing this institution.
Countries such as New Zealand, Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Spain, to name but a few, have a political system based on a single representative assembly, not two as in the case of Canada.
I realize that a constitutional amendment is required to abolish the Upper House. More specifically, under section 41 of the 1982 Constitution Act, such a change requires not only the unanimous approval of the House of Commons and of the provincial legislatures, but also the approval of the Upper House itself. Moreover, the current constitutional status quo plays in favour of maintaining this institution, even though polls show that the public supports its abolition.
According to a Gallup poll conducted in 1993, 54 per cent of Canadians are in favour of abolishing the Senate. In Quebec, the results are more conclusive since 68 per cent of Quebecers support such a measure. Quebecers and Canadians are very clear on this issue.
For the Bloc, which not only promotes the interests of Quebec but also the democratic values of Canadians, the contradiction between the arm's length relationship expected of a House of sober second thought and the partisanship actually displayed by that House is reason enough to oppose any funds that may be allocated to that institution.
Moreover, since the Upper House does not have to be accountable for its financial management, what are Canadians to do to get a clear idea of how the public funds allocated to the other place have been used? Quebec and Canadian taxpayers are entitled to know how public funds are used. After all, taxpayers are those providing the money allocated to that House.
Yet, we had to wait up till 1991 before a historical first audit of the administration of the other House was ever made. The Auditor General of Canada thus tabled a report in which we found that the Financial Administration Act and the accountability mechanisms do not apply to the other House. So, how can Quebec and Canadian taxpayers be satisfied that the expenditures of that Parliamentary institution are managed efficiently?
If my memory serves me well, my colleague for Terrebonne told us recently in the House of Commons about a senator who allowed himself the luxury of having his office renovated in order to get a better view, and this for a mere $100,000. In any case, the auditor general put forward in his report 27 recommendations to deal with the flaws in the administrative management of the other place. However, since the release of that report in March 1991, strangely enough, the Upper House has not been subjected to further audits.
In my opinion, it is high time this government understood that sound management of public administration must begin with a careful and above all efficient use of taxpayers' money.
Since the Upper House does not contribute at all to the working of our modern democracy, I find it useless to allocate $40 million every year to that institution.