Benoît Sauvageau

[Supply, June 8th, 1994]

Against duly elected representatives!

Let us now look at these exorbitant costs of this other House, by the way. According to the Auditor General's report of 1991, the Financial Administration Act could not apply to the Senate. The Auditor General says that the usual accountability mechanisms do not apply to the Senate. Without such mechanisms or appropriate alternatives, neither the Senate nor the people can be sure that it is managed with sufficient concern for economy and efficiency.

Moreover, the expenditures declared by senators in the public accounts are incomplete. The Auditor General's report tells us that neither the Senate's policies nor its practices provide assurance that all the amounts reimbursed were spent for the operation of the Senate. The Senate administrators cannot distinguish the Senate's operating expenses from the senators' personal expenses.

That is serious, Mr. Speaker. But what are the Senate's actual expenses? In 1990-91, the total budget of the Upper House was $40 million and today it is $43 million. Need I say that this is public money, funds provided by the taxpayers, and the Auditor General's report tells us that there is no control over this spending. Forty-three million dollars with which we could create jobs for the unemployed is wasted.

The senators have a very busy schedule but they still have plenty of free time. They sat for 29 days in the four months from February to May 1993 and they collect an annual salary of $64,400, which is public, plus a $10,000 non-taxable expense allowance, which is also public, to which we must add 64 travel points to which they are entitled and this is also public.

This is a little more than the average salary of taxpayers who work 40 hours a week. We could go on talking for a long time about what journalist Claude Picher in La Presse calls a list of horrors.

For example, based on the Auditor General's report for 1990-91, I would like to ask you a question now, Mr. Speaker. Because I do not know her division, can I name Senator Cochrane or not?

[Supply, June 8th, 1994]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this clarification. I checked and I thought we could use names but I will refrain from doing so.

The senator I just mentioned, who represents Delorimier, in Quebec, warned Quebecers against the possible failure of the Charlottetown Accord. He even predicted such a failure would lead to a crisis similar to what happened in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Do you see tanks in Quebec, senator? Who did the Delorimier people vote for in the last election, senator? We wonder who you represent today, senator.

This senator recently did it again, predicting a civil war-what a wise man he is-in Quebec if that province ever becomes independent. This senator represents Quebec. Is this wise senator acting like a good regional representative when he accuses Bloc members democratically elected by the Quebec people of being traitors. I doubt that this senator really represents his region. As I said earlier, the fact that he represents Delorimier, which was named after a Quebec patriot, is one of the system's

absurdities. I repeat, who did the people of Delorimier vote for on October 25, senator? Again, who do you represent?

I would like to shed light on something. I would like to quote from two articles that appeared in La Presse to show the intellectual rigour of this senator from Delorimier. In September 1992, this senator said about the Charlottetown Agreement:

A no vote in Quebec would not be a return to the current status quo. Under the current status quo, all the premiers from English Canada approved the agreement which, as Professor André Tremblay said, contains all the concessions that English Canada would be prepared to grant to Quebec.

Two months after the Charlottetown Accord failed, this senator said: "Obviously, if the rest of Canada could not swallow the Charlottetown Accord, Quebecers now have only two choices, namely the status quo and independence without previously negotiated economic association".

Two months earlier he was saying that the status quo was not an option and two months later, that it was the only option. What a wise man!

In the wake of the Charlottetown Accord he said this:

The rest of Canada will never allow the Bloc Quebecois to wield influence by holding the balance of power.

Someone who was appointed in a non-democratic fashion and who represents a Quebec division dares to speak against democracy. That is the Senate for you!

[Supply, June 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is absolutely essential that this House question the relevance of the Senate. This Upper House made up of members who are nominated and not elected-it bears repeating-goes against our democratic system in which we take so much pride. In fact, it is against any form of democracy to give important decision-making powers to a nominated House. That is why I rise today against this fossilized institution that costs taxpayers millions of dollars.

I want to remind my colleagues opposite and the House that, on January 28, 1957-a long time ago-a member, I think he was a Liberal, suggested the following-and I quote in view of my colleagues' lack of memory: "We will call a meeting between the federal and provincial governments and, taking their recommendations as a starting point, we will make the Senate into an efficient instrument for Parliamentary governance". Liberals are probably still studying the issue, which is probably still a priority for them, 37 years later.

The federal Senate is the only non-elected House still in existence in Canada. Having understood what a nonsense it was, provincial legislatures abolished theirs. Unfortunately, on the threshold of the 21st century, we are still debating the issue in this House.

The Senate was created in 1867 to quietly review legislation, free from the glare of public pressure. However, over time, practical limitations were imposed on its powers. The Upper House long ago abandoned its practice of introducing bills. Furthermore, it can, even if it only rarely does so, block bills that the people's elected representatives have democratically brought in. Such an opportunity arose in 1961 in connection with a bill respecting the dismissal of the Governor of the Bank of Canada, and again in 1964 over the bail-out of the unemployment insurance fund. More recently, we saw the Senate block bills concerning the GST and the NAFTA. Rarely does the Senate invoke this power akin to the sword of Damocles dangling over the House's head to block government bills, the reason being that Senate appointments are basically partisan in nature.

Appointments are handed out to acknowledge services to the party in power. That is an undeniable fact. The Senate legitimizes the practice of doling out political rewards. This is an aberration of the federal system which purports to be democratic. The appointment process is the reason for the passive role now played by the Senate. It also explains why a party newly in power like the Liberals is in such a hurry to gain a majority in the Senate.

One patently obvious example of the kind of partisanship which prevents the Senate from making objective decisions is the speed with which Senator Jacques Hébert, without mentioning any names, opposed unemployment insurance reform during the Conservative reign. So concerned was he for the unemployed that he had gone on a hunger strike four years earlier to show his support for young people and the jobless. Well, Senator Hébert does not seem to be quite as perturbed this time around by the Liberal reform which reduces unemployment insurance benefits. At least he has not shown any signs yet of being perturbed. Surely his lack of passion has nothing to do with partisanship. Or does it?

Getting back to the role of senators, each one is appointed to represent a region of Canada. One of the objectives in creating the Senate was to ensure regional representation. However, we would be deluding ourselves if we believed that today's Senate provided real regional representation. Speaking about regional representation, how can we forget the passion with which Senator Gigantes who represents the senatorial division of Delorimier in Quebec cautioned Quebecers-

[Supply, June 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, let us say that, for only a few minutes, I agree with my colleague and that I support the Senate. It is only for a few minutes, because I do not really agree with him, but it is a figure of speech. I would like to ask my colleague, since the Senate is so important, if he can say who is the senator representing his region.

I would also like to ask him, in the case of an elected Senate such as the one proposed by his party, the triple-E Senate, which House would make the final decision on passing bills? Would it be the elected House of Commons or the elected Senate? Let us take, for example, a bill on the right to abortion.

My last question is: does he believe that having bills passed by only one House in his province is wrong or harmful?

[Double Hulled Ships, June 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, since there is no Canadian law, can the Minister of Transport inform his colleague in Environment that there are no regulations on double-hulled ships and that such regulations should be passed urgently in order to avoid environmental disasters?

[Double Hulled Ships, June 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, for several days, the Minister of the Environment has been claiming that government regulations concerning double-hulled ships in Canada are in force, despite a contrary opinion from the legal service of the Department of Transport.

My question is for the Minister of Transport. As the one responsible for applying the Canada Shipping Act, does the Minister of Transport confirm, as his legal advisors indicate, that there is no regulation now in force under this act with respect to double-hulled ships?

[Double Hulled Ships, June 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I simply ask the minister to give an answer.

[Double Hulled Ships, June 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of the Environment kept insisting that, last year, Canada had passed legislation on double hulling. She referred to the Maritime Shipping Act, which simply does not exist. She probably meant the Canada Shipping Act, which was amended last year by Bill C-121, in which the government merely announced its intention of legislating double hulled ships.

How can the Minister of the Environment justify her answer, when the legal services of the Department of Transport, her own department and the Canadian Coast Guard maintain that there is currently no legislation on double hulling?

[Double Hulled Ships, June 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, how can the Minister of the Environment claim to be able to face any potential environment crisis in our waters, when she does not even know that there is no legislation concerning the transportation of dangerous goods in double hulled ships?

[Double Hulled Ships, June 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, last Monday, in answer to a question from the opposition about double hulled ships, the Deputy Prime Minister stated, and I quote: "The double hull legislation was passed last year. I do not know where the Bloc member and his colleagues were at that time, but the legislation already exists".

In fact, the legal counsels of the transport department we talked to confirmed that there is no such legislation in force. Let me remind the House that Bill C-121, an Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, passed in 1993, does not require ships to have a double hull.

My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment. To avoid any further misunderstanding, can the minister tell us exactly what piece of legislation on double hulled ships she was referring to?