Mr. Speaker, you have the pleasure of hearing me as the last speaker tonight. I will try to be interesting for you, Mr. Speaker, for my colleagues and also for all those who are watching us on television.
I believe it would be worth recalling the motion on which will have to vote in a few minutes. It reads as follows: "The President of the Treasury Board requests that the House concur in Vote 1, in the amount of $40,713,000 under Parliament-Senate-Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1997."
Forty million dollars, and we should add to that a few more millions provided for services offered by different departments and other federal agencies to maintain that honourable and noble institution. In fact, the exact amount of the funds granted to the Senate will be close to $55 or $60 million at the end of the year.
Before granting such an amount of money to an institution like the Senate, we must ask ourselves what purpose it serves. We must ask ourselves what the Fathers of Confederation had in mind in 1867 when they created a Parliament with two Houses. During those 22 years, the senators had to debate 18 bills from the House of Commons, which did not received royal assent either.
More than 125 years ago, the Fathers of Confederation thought it was a good idea to have these two assemblies, one of which is non elective, namely the Senate. But it would be interesting to look at the Senate's record since the birth of our federation. I examined the list of interventions made by the Senate from 1867 to 1996, the last year for which statistics are available.
Let us round the numbers off and take the period from 1867 to 1900. In the first 33 years, the Senate proposed amendments to House of Commons bills which never received royal assent. There were 105 bills during the Senate's first 33 years of existence.
During the next 25 years, from 1900 to 1925, there was a slight decrease. The Senate proposed amendments to 93 bills which never received royal assent. That gives us a cumulative total of 198.
From 1926 to 1963, that is during the next 37 years, the work of senators decreased even more. They proposed amendments to 49 House of Commons bills which, after having been passed in the Senate, did not receive royal assent. So from 1867 to 1963, a period of 96 years, the Senate made a grand total of 247 interventions with regard to bills presented in the House of Commons.
Starting in 1963 there was a period of lethargy that lasted 11 years during which the Senate did not propose any amendments to House of Commons bills. It is probably during this 11 year period that senators fell into a deep coma that they are still having great difficulty getting out of.
Then suddenly, from 1975 to 1996, that is during the past 22 years, the work started again. During those 22 years, the senators had to debate 18 bills from the House of Commons, which did not received royal assent either.
Overall, during its 129 years of existence, the Senate had to examine 265 bills from the House of Commons that never received royal assent, which means these bills were discussed in the Senate but never became law. So, with 265 bills in 129 years, for an average of 2 bills a year, I can understand that the senators fall asleep and can not stay awake even in front of television cameras.
Now, lets look at the bills that were introduced in the House of Commons, amended in the Senate and received royal assent. I went back to 1960 only. In the 22 years from 1960 to 1982, 35 bills were amended in the Senate, sent back to the House of Commons and received royal assent.
In the following 14 years, from 1982 to 1996, the Senate recommended amendments to 30 bills that were later adopted by the House of Commons.
In all, from 1960 to 1996, for the 36 years of statistics that I noted down there were 65 bills. This is just short of 1.8 bills a year or less than two bills annually. At such a pace, one can hardly stay awake and justify a salary. This is why those people do not feel the need to go before the public and account for what they do.
It would be embarrassing to show such a record to their employer, the taxpayers who pay the salaries of the senators. It
would really be embarrassing to face taxpayers and say: "My friends, this is the work we have done in 129 years on bills introduced in the House of Commons which did not receive the royal assent and other bills introduced in the Commons which we managed to amend and which were then passed by the House of Commons".
No wonder there is a temptation to reform the other place. Since 1960 only, 52 bills on the Senate have been introduced in this House to modify its role or its functioning or even to abolish it.
Those 52 bills aimed at abolishing the Senate. Stanley Knowles, an honorary member of this House, alone has attempted 18 times-between 1964 and 1981-through motions presented in this House and through private bills, to have the Senate abolished.
Despite all these attempts, it has never been possible to make any significant changes to the operations of the Senate or to its very existence.
Its role was understandable at the time of the creation of the federation, in 1867 and in 1900. The Senate was seen as a sort of chamber of sober second thought. Its members calmly considered the legislation, free from public pressure. This was understandable in 1867, but the role of the Senate today is far different because of the practical limits on its powers.
Is what is called in English "double checking" or in Quebecois "double vérification" still necessary nowadays? The primary role of the Senate was to double check the laws passed by the House to ensure that the first chamber had not made any mistake, had not made serious mistakes for the taxpayers, and it was the role of the Senate to correct any mistake or to propose amendments to bills.
But nowadays, given the modern means of communication, television, the Internet, it is no longer possible to pass laws expeditiously without arousing among people increasing interest, which leads the lobbying groups to come and tell the government it is making a mistake or is being unfair towards a certain segment of society. This is why we no longer need this double checking institution.
In the five provinces that used to have a Senate, this type of political institution has been abolished. That was the case in Quebec in 1968. Quebec was the last province to abolish the Senate, and it did so because this institution was no longer needed. The same thing could be true for the Canadian Senate.
When, in 1968, the legislative council was abolished in Quebec, if it had not been commented in the media, we would still not know that it was done away with, because we went on passing laws, and the same thing is true in the four other provinces where the legislative council was abolished.
Nobody complained that laws had become unfair or less equitable for the people. We now have a public that is better informed and members of Parliament that are better prepared. Nowadays, with the political and legislative systems we have, members are able to get all the information they need.
I do not believe it to be necessary to spend between $50 and $60 million a year to keep an institution that does not double check, to all intents and purposes, but mostly acts as a place where some friends of the party in power are sent as a reward for services rendered-and when their senator's earnings are not enough, they are appointed as lieutenant governor. Fortunately, there are only ten positions of lieutenant governor. Otherwise, there would not have been enough of them for all the senators interested in a new job.
For these reasons, we think it would be improper to support appropriation for an institution which does not have our confidence and which we would like to see not only changed, but abolished outright.
