Lost his last election, in 2000, with 42% of the vote.
Supply September 18th, 1996
You are right to laugh. He lost his seat.
I understand that it is not funny for Senator Prud'Homme, who, I agree, is an excellent senator. It is sad for him, but a number of our constituents remind us, and rightly so, of the news program where they saw senators sleeping. There is no more than one throne speech every two years. He could have gone to bed a bit earlier the night before-
Supply September 18th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, my distinguished colleague from Témiscamingue should know that the percentage of success in these tests is very low. If I could, I would ask my colleague from Témiscamingue to give me the name of his Senate division and the name of his senator. I would be willing to bet $10 that he does not know.
In response to his first question, I can tell the hon. member that the senator who represents the division of Kennebec is Guy Charbonneau, who, until recently, was Speaker of the Senate. If he visited the riding of Frontenac, he did it very quietly since we never heard about such a visit. I have never seen the name of our senator mentioned in the newspapers, yet I read them from cover to cover. Even worse, at a press conference held six months ago, I did the test with reporters from the asbestos region and none of them could name the senator who represents us. Yet they all knew the names of the Speaker of the House of Commons and his three assistants. That was good, at least.
The second question is this: Has the senator for our senatorial designation ever tried to do anything about important issues in his designation? To my knowledge, we have never had the slightest assistance from our senator, never.
This afternoon, we were visited by a group of Belgian senators. In Belgium, the senators are elected. In the United States, they are as well.
When we were trying to bring about a major constitutional reform, which was blocked by a few people-I can still remember the feather-we wanted to have a Triple E Senate, which meant equal, among other things. In Quebec we have 24 for a population of seven million, whereas in Prince Edward Island they have three for a population smaller than that of Sherbrooke; four MPs, four senators, they are overrepresented or we are underrepresented. In any event, looking at the results, there is no big difference. But, if senators were elected, I would be in favour.
I remember very clearly a senator saying to me on the way out of the parliamentary restaurant last spring: "As far as I am concerned, the day we are required to campaign to get elected is the day I quit the Senate". That might be a good way to weed out some of them, and it would get results.
My colleague from Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup was again telling us just now in his speech about the television news clip that showed four senators sleeping soundly. Is that not shocking? I remember when television was introduced in the British Parliament and the camera panned the House and showed one MP with his eyes shut; he lost his seat.
Supply September 18th, 1996
I hope that Quebec will indeed become sovereign before that.
I am telling you, in my riding, the best known senator is Thérèse Lavoie-Roux, and the senator who has just resigned has also become quite famous, Jean-Louis Roux. But of course he is not responsible for the fame he has acquired, because it is our good old Prime Minister who did not deign to consult, as is the tradition, his counterpart in Quebec in order to arrive at an agreement on an appointment.
I see here, for example, Marie-P. Poulin, who was appointed until the year 2020. This is terrible.
Of course, while our fellow citizens have to tighten their belts, while both spouses often have to work, while everybody in a household has to work, in Quebec, an education-employer sectoral round table was set up to ask employers not to work students too hard, because it has a negative impact on their studies. In many households, 14, 15 or 16-year olds must work to help their parents. But here, in the House of Commons, we appoint senators who profit from the system.
Only this week, I read about a poll done in Great Britain. According to this poll, 52 per cent of the respondents said they were in favour of the abolition of the monarchy; 52 per cent of British respondents said that, while here, in Canada, we have a very British system with a representative of the same Queen who is also costing us a fortune. And all provinces, even the smallest ones, must have a lieutenant governor who is the Queen's representative.
So do you not think that the time has come to put an end to this scandalous waste of public funds? While we are unable to find, at Treasury Board, $3 or $4 million to help save 2,000 jobs in the asbestos mines, we will spend-and I do say spend-needlessly, without getting anything in return, $65 million this year to sustain the Senate. It is a shame. It is outrageous.
Supply September 18th, 1996
Seventy-five years of age, yes, thank you for reminding me, let us not appoint new ones.
At some point, there will be no senators left, although when we reviewed the list earlier on, we realized that the government, especially the current prime minister, has been generous. I noticed that some senators have been appointed until 2023. Can you imagine, until 2023. As you know, job security, even in the civil service-as I look at the table clerks, is a thing of the past. It does not exist any more. But we still appoint senators until 2023. That is simple awful, as you will agree.
Supply September 18th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to participate in this debate of particular significance to several of my colleagues and to myself, of course. And I will not even mention how pleased some of my constituents from Frontenac will be when they read what I have to say.
Today's debate plunges us into what I would venture to describe as parliamentary nonsense and political burlesque. I could go on and on about how futile I find the role the Senate plays, or rather, should be playing.
First, I would like to thank the many senators who are following this debate, either from their offices or from the gallery, this afternoon. In this regard, I would like to read you at this time, if I may, a few lines from the March 1995 issue of the Reader's Digest (French edition), on page 31, under the title Très chers sénateurs'' orDear Senators''. I will just make a few remarks, particularly regarding their salary.
"I think all Canadians should know how much it costs to keep the Upper House here, in Ottawa. On top of a $64,000 sessional allowance, a $30,000 research allowance, a $20,000 allowance for office expenses, and a tax-free expense allowance of over $10,000, senators receive benefits of a totally different nature". I will spare you the details.
Canadians should also know that senators must be very fit. Of course, they are only allowed to sit until the age of 75 nowadays,
whereas they used to sit for life. "To keep in shape, to maintain their physical condition, senators have at their disposal a gym which is fully equipped, including climbing simulators, stationary bicycles, bodybuilding equipment, free weights, and I could go on, as well as an aerobics room, with instructors. Only one thing is missing in these state-of-the-art facilities, the senators themselves. One senator only is a regular at the gym: Colin Kenny from Ontario".
In 1991, the then auditor general, Kenneth Dye, dared to take a look at the Upper House. Not to worry, Mr. Speaker, for to audit the senators' expenses, the auditor general had to get the authorization, not of the Prime Minister, but of the senators themselves. This is incredible. Of course, after much negotiation I presume, he obtained the authorization to audit the books.
In concluding, I also invite the Canadians who wish to know more on the subject or to voice their opinion about it to call a toll-free number that I will now give. Canadians who wish to call the senators' office can dial 1-800-267-7362.
Before coming in, I made sure to get the list of Quebec senators. There are 24 of them and, of those 24, there is one independent senator, who was appointed by Mr. Mulroney and who represents the Senate division of de La Salle. There is only one independent senator on my list, Marcel Prud'homme, who, incidentally, closely follows the proceedings of the House of Commons. There are, of course, several other senators from the Liberal and Conservative ranks.
This summer, when I went around asking my constituents to sign the petition to abolish the Senate, I would often ask them to name a few senators.
To be sure, the senator who represents my riding is a total stranger. I am referring to the Senate division of-you see, Mr. Speaker, I am a member of Parliament and I have already forgotten-oh yes, Kennebec and the senator is Guy Charbonneau, who is from the Trois-Rivières area.
Seriously, I was not able to find anyone who could name more than one senator. The best known senator this summer appeared to be Thérèse Lavoie-Roux, since her name came up a few times in the news.
So, as far as Quebecers and Canadians are concerned, senators are total strangers. And this is costing us a fortune. The figure of $43 million has been mentioned, but I think the real figure would more likely be $65 million a year.
There are asbestos mines in my riding. France is about to ban this product on its soil. The French decision has been known for two and a half months already. Up till now, except for a few diplomatic notes, the federal government has not spent a nickel to defend some 2,000 jobs directly related to the mining industry. The banning of asbestos by France will have a disastrous impact on my area and on the Asbestos area.
If we can spend $65 million to maintain 101 jobs, almost for life, for political friends, could we not find $2, $3 or $4 million to promote the use of asbestos and to counter the French decision to ban asbestos on its soil?
Several ministers of this government have travelled across the great region of the Eastern Townships and the asbestos area, saying that they would take that matter up with their colleague responsible for international trade or with their colleague responsible for natural resources. However, nothing has happened and yet the French decision will get implemented in two or three months from now, on January 1 next.
Mr. Speaker, I am asking you, which means could we use to try to make this government understand that it should help us abolish the Senate? You are going to tell me that this would require unanimous consent and that senators would have to accept their demise. How could we do it?
I will give you the recipe. First, we should stop immediately appointing new senators. One of them, Jean-Louis Roux, just resigned. He headed for Quebec City with a slight raise. He now has $94,000, a chauffeur and a nice limousine, and he can also appear on the stage. That is what we call double dipping.
At least, there is a vacancy following the departure of the former senator Jean-Louis Roux. Let us not appoint a new senator to replace him. We would have at least one vacancy, which will save us over $100,000, with all the expenses related to this job.
As soon as some of the senators reach 65 years of age-
Supply September 18th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I would like to ask the President of Treasury Board, since he is the one to handle the cabinet's big budget, if he does not sometimes have to act like a bad government to be able to distribute the money. I would like to give the example of the commercial investment credit.
A number of farmers from the vast Eastern Townships region have complained to my office-justifiably, I think-that, two or three years later, the revenue department wants to recover, with heavy interest charges, the 10 per cent, the credit to which they were entitled and which ended on January 1, 1994, which they used in good faith for purchases prior to that date.
As the President of Treasury Board, how could he explain that these directives have gone solely to the Sherbrooke regional office?
The Asbestos Industry September 16th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Following the French decision to ban asbestos in France effective January 1, 1997, the government of Quebec developed an action plan to defend the safe use of this product in consumer countries. This plan is backed up by a budget of close to $3 million from the Quebec treasury.
During his next visit to France, where he is to meet with President Chirac further to the G-7 Summit, will the Prime Minister agree to intervene personally and directly with French authorities so that France will review its positions with respect to the use of asbestos?
Questions On The Order Paper June 20th, 1996
Pursuant to the act amending the Department of National Revenue Act and other acts in consequence thereof, which organizations or associations of maple syrup producers received early payments for maple syrup production in 1994 and 1995 and: ( a ) what amount of money was used for each of these payments; ( b ) on what date were they paid, and ( c ) under what conditions?
Supply June 19th, 1996
My colleagues are making a pun about Reform cows, because the word in French for cull cow is vache de réforme , which means, as you know, Mr. Speaker, dairy cows who are no longer good producers.
The price of beef at this time is rock bottom, but if there were an organization similar to the Canadian Wheat Board, possibly the beef producers would have regular and stable prices.
Supply June 19th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I would need about ten minutes to answer this question from my distinguished colleague, who is, moreover, the sponsor of today's motion.
The milk producers have disciplined themselves. I remember, for example, that ten years ago you would see four different milk tanker trucks on one concession road, picking up milk from the various farms, because there was competition between dairies at that time.
The dairy farmers got together and today there is one truck, just one. A bigger truck, of course, and it comes more often, so the milk is of better quality and this is the truck that will deliver the milk to the processors, according to their needs. If one needs three quarters of the tank, that is what will be delivered there. If another needs a quarter tank, that is what it gets, and so on. This has lowered production costs, therefore, and dairy producers have increased their incomes without increasing milk prices.
What I would like to say to my distinguished colleagues is that, in my region, when there is a sectorial meeting, 68, 72, or 75 of the 90 members will turn out. Dairy producers look after their own affairs, and if something is not working, they tell their sector president, and he passes the word higher up, and so on, until it reaches the top.
Are the western grain producers united? The 120,000 producers should form a basic union, because if they wanted to unite, these 120,000 or 125,000 farmers, they would have immense political and economic clout. That is worth nothing if they are not united.
I think that if they start to break apart-someone stays out for two years, another six months later, stays out for two years as well, so comes back six months after the first-fragmented like this, as my distinguished colleague from Malpèque has said so aptly-there would be competition between the producers themselves and no good would come of it for stabilizing prices and ensuring income stability for the producer. There would be no impact whatsoever.
Take the price of beef, for instance. I remember on the farm I sold feeder calves at the same price after ten years as I did when I started out farming. Beef prices have gone down. For the past 24 months, for example, they are practically giving beef away. The farmers listening to me today know very well that we get nothing at all for our cull cows and practically nothing for our butcher cattle.