Mr. Speaker, I would have a few little comments to make concerning the remarks of my friend from the Bloc Québécois.
He has given an impression which suggests to me that he is mistaken about the importance of the second chamber, the upper chamber, among all the legislative assemblies. He said that here, in Canada, all the provinces had abolished their second chambers. Granted, that was the practice in Canada, but it is a very different story in the rest of the world.
In the other big federations besides Canada, such as the United States, Australia and other geographically smaller but nonetheless very important federations like Switzerland, Germany and Austria, there is a second chamber which plays a very significant role with respect to legislation. The same is true of the states, provinces or townships of federations worldwide.
In the United States, only one of the 50 states, Nebraska, has abolished its second chamber. In Australia, Queensland is the only one to have done so.
What is the practice in Canada is therefore not a universal practice. As regards chambers at the national level, there are only seven countries seriously considering abolishing their second chambers. In my opinion, that is a mistake.
In addition, the member suggested that, in Australia and the United States, introducing a second democratic chamber had weakened the strength, power and legitimacy of the states. I do not think that is the real reason behind the states' loss of power in these two federations. We are therefore not at risk here.
In the other two federations, it was the federal spending power in state jurisdiction that weakened the states' power. In Canada, our government has put in place measures dealing specifically with that problem. I just want to point out that this danger does not exist in our country.