Jean-Guy Chrétien

[Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, June 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I take part in this debate on Bill C-23 this afternoon, immediately after the parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis, in Quebec. These past few weeks, we have examined Bill C-23 to implement a convention for the protection of migratory birds in Canada and the United States.

A great many witnesses have appeared before the committee to help us better grasp the problem. These individuals and organizations spokespersons were all experts from whom we have learned a lot. It is now obvious to me that this legislation, which was passed in 1917, really needed to be updated.

Knowing how important it is to protect migratory birds from becoming an endangered species, we Bloc members have no major problem with this bill, including the amendments proposed by the committee. It is simply a matter of bringing an outdated act into line with the realities of the 21st century. As the saying goes where I come from, foresight is better than hindsight. So, as soon as the act comes into effect, all birds flying across Canada will be protected.

You can imagine what it would be like if only certain species were to be protected. You can picture as well as me hunters noticing from afar something flying, shooting and then pleading rightly or wrongly that they thought it was a bird from another species. More illogical yet would be to protect only endangered species, letting other species be fired on at will until they too become endangered.

Amendments to this act will also enable us to pull the rug from under potential dealers in sperm, embryo and tissue culture.

The Convention on Biodiversity ratified by Canada in December 1992 unveiled what trading in such things could represent. It would be possible to create hybrid species for experimentation, or even conduct experiments directly on tissue. The possession, purchase or sale of migratory birds are also strictly prohibited. Indeed, it is now stipulated in this bill that no person shall be in possession of a migratory bird or nest, or buy, sell, exchange or give a migratory bird or nest or make it the subject of a commercial transaction.

So, that will be it from now on in living rooms or summer cottages where hunting trophies are displayed. In my part of the country, it is not uncommon to see displayed in summer homes stuffed specimens of these birds which are now so rare. The time for this is now past.

As the hon. member for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis noted earlier, the fines-the maximum fines, of course-are very high, so much so, in fact, that during our committee deliberations, I often wondered out loud and said to myself that "migratory birds will be better protected than our children".

The new Act will also give the minister more power in the designation of game officers. And I quote:

1. (1) The Minister may designate any person or class of persons to act as game officers for the purposes of this Act and the regulations-

I was somewhat intrigued by this provision, Mr. Speaker.

I questioned witnesses in committee to find out whether the minister could, for instance, designate all members of a hunting and fishing association to act as game officers.

I was told yes, but that such associations might have restricted powers. I find this provision a little scary. It would be difficult for an ordinary citizen to go to a farmer's land to tell him that he is breaking the law. He runs a great risk of simply being ejected from a private property.

My fear is that some members of these associations may have big arms and small heads. A member automatically designated to act as game officer with little training but big arms could decide to play policeman.

I will always remember a sentence I heard in my Grade 11 course on social, political and economic life: "In Canada, a free country, it is better to see 99 guilty persons go free than one innocent person unjustly punished". That made a big impres-

sion on me. It is a minor concern, but we will still vote for Bill C-23.

It is, however, a well-known fact that there are not enough game officers to enforce the act. In that case, we should recognize the need to designate civilian game officers immediately but with really restricted powers, to ensure that our laws are respected.

We in the Bloc Quebecois think it would be worthwhile to take certain measures to ensure that the people collectively designated as game officers have the skills required to maintain credibility. That is why we suggested two amendments in committee.

The purpose of the first amendment is to ensure that the people collectively designated by the minister have at least received the training appropriate to their functions. That of the second amendment is to make the designation of a class of persons conditional on the approval of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

As regularly happens when we vote here in the House of Commons, our two amendments were defeated, but I am still convinced that it would be important to exercise a little more control over this kind of appointment; otherwise these provisions could do more harm than good.

If you allow me, I would now like to draw your attention to a presentation given to us by Daniel Jauvin, president of the Quebec ornithologists' association. This Quebec association of more than 30 bird-watching clubs or societies has produced many briefs on the protection of birds and their habitats.

In particular, it does scientific research on birds and especially on endangered species. This organization supports the bill but has nevertheless carried out a very worthwhile exercise. Its members checked the translation in the schedule to Bill C-23, namely the Convention.

According to these experts of the ornithological association, the French terminology used to name the birds is obsolete. They therefore suggested to the committee the terminology used by the international commission on bird names in French as published in Noms français des oiseaux du monde . This terminology is the one recognized throughout the world. The problems are of two kinds. First, an attempt was made to translate directly from English to French. As a result, names of genera were translated by names of species. Second, the association believes that the names of many species which should be there are still missing, unfortunately.

As an appendix to their brief, they presented to us a proper translation of articles I to IV of the above-mentioned Convention. This presentation showed that we should go further than simply reading the legal terminology. Such translation problems can seriously affect the enforcement of the law. Some species might be in the English version but not the French one. This would cause interpretation problems that would slow down and complicate law enforcement.

The hon. member for Terrebonne and myself were also very interested in the comments made by another speaker, Mr. Daniel Lacombe, who is the secretary general for the Fédération québécoise de la faune. That organization supports, of course, the proposed legislative changes but deplores the fact that all the regulations are left to the free will of officials from the Canadian Wildlife Service and Environment Canada. Mr. Lacombe also pointed out that it is unfortunate to see organizations such as the one he represents not being really consulted when regulations are drafted. It appears that the Canadian Wildlife Service merely informs these groups of the new rules in effect. Since these organizations use legislation such as Bill C-23, they should at least be consulted on a regular, effective, honest, and serious basis.

Mr. Lacombe gave us an example which illustrates the inconsistencies of the current process. He told us that the hunting season-this is something I still have a lot of trouble understanding, but that is the way it is-opens one week earlier in Ontario than in Quebec. The reason why it is later in Quebec is to protect the various species of birds. The same birds are found in Ontario and in Quebec, but the season opens earlier in Ontario because there are sedentary species. In other words, there are birds which remain in Ontario because they must have figured out that there is an imaginary line between the two provinces and they do not come to Quebec. However, Quebec birds do visit their friends in Ontario, where they can get bombarded one week earlier. This is the official reason which was given to our committee.

According to Mr. Lacombe, migratory birds mingle with other birds and the end result is the same for both groups. Consequently, Mr. Lacombe deplores that, when meetings take place with officials from the Canadian Wildlife Service, it is not possible to solve such issues, since those meetings are designed to provide information and not to consult organizations such as the one represented by Mr. Lacombe.

I want to make a comment regarding the Canadian Wildlife Service. I received documents from the president of the Association des sauvaginiers du Québec, Mr. Gaétan Fillion, who is upset at the lack of communication between his organization and the Canadian Wildlife Service. Mr. Speaker, the Fédération québécoise de la faune is not the only one suffering from this problem. It may be that this is a chronic problem only in Quebec, but it does seem persistent.

In our review of Bill C-23, we should look at the issue of regulations with those testimonies in mind. In that regard, officials from the Department of the Environment should look at two major issues. There are of course migratory birds which are

endangered, but there are many others which pollute our environment, including gulls.

At the Daishowa manufacturing plant, in Quebec City, it took almost two years to get permission, not to kill such birds, but to destroy their nests and their eggs. There were an estimated 170,000 pairs of adult gulls capable of reproducing on the site and this situation was causing serious problems. When stringent regulations exist and when we have problems, we resolve them. When I was mayor, if I had taken two years to make such a minor decision, I would not have remained in office very long. This is one example. The process needs to be smoothed out so that effective solutions can be adopted quickly.

Secondly, when we protect wildlife, we must protect their habitat. Imagine, Mr. Speaker, if a flock of geese decided to descend on your home for three weeks and you were not allowed to frighten them away. Believe me, I have tried. They merely circle about and land on your property, as if they had decided that it was their home. Imagine the condition of your lawn after three weeks. Do you know who would be responsible for the cleanup costs? You would. The legislation makes no provision for any compensation. I raised this question and an official told me that the farmer could rely on his crop insurance. I checked this out and while it is true, what if the poor farmer does not have crop insurance that covers this kind of damage? Then he would have to pay for the damages out of his own pocket.

I am telling you this because I have received letters to the effect that the snow geese were chased-I am not sure how-out of the Montmagny region. The geese ended up in the Rimouski-Témiscouata area. Snow geese are lovely creatures, but when 40,000 or 50,000 of them descend all at once for a three-week to one-month stay, well it is nice to see them arrive, but it is equally nice to see them leave.

[Environment, June 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, at the request of the Minister of Environment, the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development will review the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

Having considered creating an environment commissioner position and having examined the Wildlife Act as well as the legislation concerning migratory birds at length, the committee will now devote itself to reviewing this extremely complex act over the coming year.

When the CEPA was passed, it stirred up passionate debates, and it is to be expected that they will be every bit as heated during this first review which, by reason of its scope, includes many aspects which are not regulated and emphasizes structural problems within the Department of Environment.

Initially, this act was intended to fill regulatory gaps in certain environmental matters, particularly with regard to toxic substances, the consolidation of federal environmental statutes and performance improvement of the federal government in the area of environment.

The act is also aimed at enabling Canada to fulfil international commitments. This review following the first five years of operation of the act is automatic and mandatory. Pursuant to section 139 of the Act, its administration must be reviewed by Parliament within five years after enactment.

The CEPA came into force in 1988. The primary objective of this act is of course to protect the environment, but also to protect human health. That is why both Environment Canada and Health Canada are involved. Given the diversity of aspects to be reviewed, Environment Canada's evaluation directorate commissioned a study by Resource Futures International for this first review. The firm presented its report to the department's audit and evaluation committee on December 17, 1993, as well as at the January meeting of Environment Canada's Management Board.

According to Environment Canada officials, this impartial report will give us a better idea of many aspects of the application of the Act. For those not familiar with the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, such a report shows us the shortcomings in this law. It examines, among other things, the effectiveness of the particular management mechanisms and provisions for implementing CEPA.

I noted the points in this report which I think give us a clear idea of possible problems. It is important to begin by noting a particular feature of this law. Despite what one might think at first, CEPA cannot be called an anti-pollution law, even though it brings together previous federal laws on dumping waste at sea and air and water pollution. Let me explain that many federal and provincial laws already regulate polluting activities. CEPA's

scope is thus limited since it cannot deal with these activities that are already regulated.

You may suppose that this overlapping regulation by the provinces and the federal government concerns me as a member of the Bloc Quebecois. I therefore read with interest the report's analysis of federal-provincial relations. Since environmental jurisdiction is not clearly defined in the Constitution, I am not telling you anything new when I say that the expanded environmental activities of both levels of government since the 1980s have created some tension.

In the beginning, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act contributed to this tension by increasing the federal presence in a field that was largely a provincial responsibility. Nevertheless, it seems that the disruptive intrusion feared by the provinces has not occurred. CEPA provides three mechanisms to harmonize federal and provincial responsibilities for environmental protection, but we are told that two of them are not yet in effect, so it is hard to assess how effective they will be.

Nevertheless, the report maintains that the many difficulties faced in negotiating equivalency agreements suggest that the mechanism is not effective in its present form. The report says that even if the law has already been harmonized with respect to the regulatory approach for certain matters, difficulties in co-ordinating federal departments, as well as the federal and provincial governments, still persist.

However, one body seems to be making quiet progress. It is the federal-provincial advisory committee whose members say that they are satisfied with the way it operates. Nevertheless, we must be careful not to mistake this attitude for provincial agreement with the status quo. Some provinces wonder if it would not be appropriate to merge this committee with the environmental protection committee.

While we are on the subject of provincial jurisdiction, I should mention that the uncertainty about the future scope of federal jurisdiction in the field of environmental protection will probably have an impact on the implementation of the Act.

In recent years, the political climate has undoubtedly had the effect of slowing things down in terms of implementing regulations whose scope is close to that of the provinces' jurisdiction.

However, provinces must be involved in the process, since in these times of budget cuts, Environment Canada does not have sufficient resources to take full responsibility for the implementation of the Act, as pointed out in the same report. Needless to say that separating these regulations is like walking on eggs.

A thorough review of this issue by the committee is absolutely essential. It is true that environmental issues transcend boundaries, but this is no reason for the federal government to interfere in provincial affairs.

Each province can define its own policies and then conclude agreements with its neighbours. I want to point out another aspect of the report which is very interesting, namely the ambiguity of Environment Canada's mandate. On the one hand, this department must promote sound environmental practices and encourage businesses to implement them, while on the other hand, it must take action against offenders.

In other words, Environment Canada must say what should be done, but it must also take action if it is not already done. In the end, the department finds itself sitting on the fence. Generally speaking, the evaluation report contains the following conclusions.

The first one is that since the Canadian Environmental Protection Act does not cover all environmental aspects, its impact is limited. The second conclusion is that the government has not yet looked at all the problems targeted in the Act because of administrative decisions made concerning priorities. Third, it is too early to tell whether initiatives taken under this legislation have been directly responsible for improving health or the environment, except in a very limited number of cases. However, although we do not have extensive knowledge of the many aspects of the question, we could at least consider these three observations and try to find effective solutions to correct these problems.

Another point is that, apparently, it was not easy to evaluate how well the legislation functioned during the first six years it was in effect. The firm that conducted the study maintained it was very difficult to evaluate results, because the information required to evaluate the impact of this legislation was not already assembled with a view to establishing a connection between cause and effect.

However, the real problem is the absence of specific objectives in the legislation. Many were of course formulated during the past five years, but they were not regrouped to reflect specific priorities. We must not fall into the trap of evaluating the success of the CEPA on the basis of the number of activities it has generated rather than the results obtained. In that case, our conclusions and recommendations would be superficial.

Another interesting point raised in the report was the public's perception of this legislation. It seems there is a substantial gap between the actual impact of the legislation and the way its benefits were extolled to the public.

Expectations were very high because the powers provided under this legislation were not clearly explained to the public. It will be difficult to establish the level of satisfaction from statements that are made before the committee.

The report says that many environmental groups were very disappointed in the federal government's efforts to pass strict environmental legislation through the CEPA. They may be right or perhaps they overestimated the powers provided under this Act. However, the crux of the problem is quite straightforward, as presented in two fundamental questions put in the report.

The first question: Does the Canadian Environmental Protection Act allow the federal government to do what must be done about the environment? The second question: Does the federal government administer the Canadian Environmental Protection Act in an effective way?

As soon as we can answer both questions in the affirmative, we will have done our job. I intend to concentrate on the second question, because in my opinion, it is crucial. We can revamp legislation as much as we like, but if Environment Canada does not have the human and financial resources to implement the legislation, we are no further ahead.

According to an historian who has looked at how the Department of the Environment has progressed over the years, progress and effectiveness are limited by four factors.

First, the department's inability to establish and implement strict observation procedures; second, cuts in staff responsible for research and investigations and an increase in their workload; third, the element of uncertainty in federal-provincial and interdepartmental relations; and fourth and last, insufficient knowledge of the economic and legal aspects.

I am therefore doubtful as to the real impact of any recommendations or changes we might make with respect to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. It is all very well to have plans, but if you cannot implement them they are not going to help the environment very much.

My point is that it seems, from the information I got from various sources, that the Department of the Environment is poorly equipped to enforce the legislation. I will repeat that: It seems to me that the Department of the Environment is poorly equipped to enforce the legislation.

I will give you a very concrete example which supports these allegations. During a sitting of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Terrebonne, questioned the deputy minister on the ability of Environment Canada to adequately enforce the legislation.

The senior official explained to us that the department does not have the resources to fully enforce all the provisions contained in the legislation, that resource allocation to departments is done by the cabinet and Parliament. Therefore, technically, the minister, despite all her goodwill, cannot fully enforce the Canadian Environment Protection Act. The same senior official also said that the Act is rather soft.

The logical conclusion is that we do what is specifically required by the legislation and we neglect the rest. The question I ask myself is this: To what extent can we make this evaluation effective? There are two alternatives. Either we relax the legislation, keeping only what the department can do, to have a real idea of the impact of the legislation, or we provide the department with legislation so good that cabinet will have no choice but to give Environment Canada what it needs to act.

This last alternative is by far the preferred one. The only way to adequately protect our environment is to put pressure on the mandarins in the finance department. However, with the creation of the job of environment commissioner, I fear that we might be told to limit the scope of the CEPA since some of its provisions will likely be in the environment commissioner act. However, the CEPA is probably the fundamental instrument of environmental protection and it is crucial to evaluate its first six years to be able to refine it.

It is very difficult to assess the results since the necessary data to evaluate the impact of this Act are gathered in such a way that it is impossible to link cause to effect. This review and the approach taken prove that it is essential to take all the time needed to make the legislation efficient. All I can do this morning is ponder over the themes which will lead our committee's reflection.

I hope that when I come back here next year to present our comments, I will be thoroughly convinced that I have contributed to advance the cause of environmental protection. In conclusion, I must say that I am pleased to see that the Minister of the Environment seems to be willing to let the committee on the environment and sustainable development play a greater role. I see that most committee members are in the House today. I recognize our chairman, the member for Davenport, and as the Official Opposition, we can already assure the standing committee of our complete co-operation in this review of the legislation which is the cornerstone of the Department of the Environment.

My colleague, the member for Brome-Missisquoi, was telling me last night that he went to the Imax theatre to see "The Blue Planet" and that it gave him a lot of food for thought. When we watch programs of that kind and read about this issue, we realize that on this blue planet of ours, we are all in the same

boat, we breathe the same air, we drink the same water. Since the creation of earth, the quantity of water has not changed.

As the great scientist Lavoisier said, matter is neither lost nor created. Of course, there is the natural cycle, like the cycle by which water purifies itself. Yesterday, all newspapers carried a Canadian Press report which said that Canadians were the fifth-largest consumers in the world and thus Canada is the fifth-largest producer of waste per capita. Canada is tied with the United States as the largest producer per capita of carbon dioxide, CO2, a polluting gas which causes the greenhouse effect and global warming.

As the member for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis said in a speech, the greenhouse effect and global warming could wipe out some countries because it will melt glaciers and cause the sea level to rise. Low lying countries and islands could eventually disappear.

We are all together on this planet and we must pull together. We must reach out to one another. I would remind the Minister of the Environment that we must reach out to one another but that she must still be careful to respect others' jurisdiction. We as members of the Bloc will always make sure that Quebec's jurisdiction is respected. There can be agreements similar to those we have signed with the United States like the International Joint Commission for the Great Lakes. That can be done with Quebec, of course. It can be done now, as equal partners.

I encourage the environment committee, especially its chairman, to assess the Canadian Environmental Protection Act with all the wisdom for which he and his committee are known.

[Supply, June 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, back in 1968, Quebec Premier Daniel Johnson abolished the provincial equivalent of the Senate, the legislative council. Is Quebec worse off today because of the elimination of that council 26 years ago? Quite the contrary. The National Assembly in Quebec is much

more effective. The legislative process is shorter. Is it not true that the $65 million we spend for the Senate would be a great help to create jobs? I would like to hear your views, Mr. Speaker.

[Supply, June 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Quebecers, every year, pay 24 per cent of all taxes to the federal government. As long as Quebecers are part of this country, we will defend their interests here.

The members across the way and those in the Reform Party are probably thinking: Why do so many Quebecers wish to leave the Canadian family? My hon. friend in the Reform Party is happy in the present regime, and so are his children. As for me, I am sad and unhappy to be part of Canada, and I wish Quebecers would finally wake up and decide to give their children who are listening to us on television a country to which they are entitled: Quebec.

We see senators who are defending the regions. But when I ask what senator represents my region, which is made up of three ridings, nobody knows. He never comes to the ridings of Frontenac, Lotbinière or even Bellechasse. There are three ridings in my region. But we never see our senator. He is a Conservative senator who was appointed by the preceding government.

I tell you this: we pay, so we have our say. The present Senate is just a bunch of patronage appointees, people who were appointed for services rendered. And we have no confidence that they will defend Quebec's interests.

[Supply, June 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend my colleague in the Reform Party for asking his question totally in my language.

[Supply, June 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for the patience you always show and for the thoughtful manner in which you correct us. You do it so well that in my turn I would like to beg your pardon for having mentioned the senator by name. I will therefore skip a few paragraphs to conclude with the way our famous senators are appointed.

I finally learned the name of my senator, and the reason for that appointment. When we look at the list of Quebec senators, the 21 left, most of whom live in Montreal, we find that one is an organizer for the Conservative Party, one is a fundraiser for the Liberal Party-I know him-another was a top adviser to the former premier of Quebec who just left office, yet another is an organizer for the Conservative Party, and another is a good Liberal, yes, and has been a Liberal MP for a long time. The letters P.C. are added to his name.

So, Mr. Speaker, I have a list of 21 senators and none of them is truly representative of Quebec.

[Supply, June 8th, 1994]

My hon. colleague, to be more precise.

We also asked the people we met to tell us what they remembered the most about what the Senate did. Among the older age group, some people mentioned Senator Hébert's hunger strike. That stayed in people's minds.

[Supply, June 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and friend, and also neighbour, the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe, clearly explained why he is against spending $26,952,000 for the Senate. I totally agree with him, given that such a measure would, in the long run, abolish a costly but far from essential institution, namely the Senate.

It is a well-known fact, and has been for quite some time, that Quebecers do not see why they should pay to maintain the Upper House. The country is going bankrupt. Social programs are being slashed. In senior citizen centres, soup portions are being reduced from four ounces to two ounces, but we can still afford to appoint senators.

In my riding of Frontenac, every Friday, I receive a call from Mrs. Lessard, from East Broughton in my riding of Frontenac-and she must be listening now, because I informed her-, and she asks me the same question: "Hon. member, when will the government increase old age pensions? I have not quite paid my heating bill yet". She said that only last week. She also asks the following question: "When will the government abolish the GST? They promised to do so. I have some purchases to make, but I am waiting for them to abolish the GST".

How can I explain to Mrs. Lessard the government's delay in abolishing the GST, which they would rather hide than abolish? How can I explain to Mrs. Lessard that she will only get a $1.28 monthly increase in her old age pension, while, in the other place, some are handsomely paid, appointed, not elected, to serve until they reach 75 years of age? If we had jobs like that in

the riding of Frontenac, I am sure the list of applicants would be very long.

To prove to you to what extent the Senate is unknown in Quebec, I will give you the results of a poll I conducted in my riding, in July of last year, with some of my assistants. We asked some people in the riding about the Senate, to find out what they knew. We crisscrossed the riding of Frontenac, from Thetford to Plessisville, from Coleraine to East Broughton, via Saint-Jacques-de-Leeds, Sainte-Agathe and Saint-Sylvestre. We visited grocery stores, credit unions, shopping centres, gas stations, etc. In fact, we went everywhere we could find people.

We wanted to measure how voters reacted to the Senate, and to find out whether they knew any senators. I can tell members opposite that I heard many sighs and saw many skyward looks.

Many told us straight out that the Senate was useless, or that it was a circus manned by people appointed by the government as a reward. We asked those who were more receptive whether they knew any senators and could name some. Only two names out of 104 came up, and not very often. They were Solange Chaput-Rolland and Jacques Hébert. Considering their past achievements, it is clear that their notoriety did not come from the fact that they were senators.

Ordinary people do not see how the Senate could possibly help them. They only see a group of individuals appointed for reasons sometimes obscure, on whom they never call to defend their interests. As one of my constituents pointed out to me, it is difficult enough for people to know if they have to go to their provincial or their federal MP for a particular problem. They just do not want to bother finding out what a senator can do for them.

Last year, I polled the people of my riding on their knowledge of the Canadian Senate and on their reactions to the $6,000 non-taxable raise that the senators had voted for themselves, as hon. members will all remember, especially the members opposite. A $6,000 non-taxable increase is worth about $12,000. Do you know that, in my riding, many people work 50 weeks a year and barely earn $12,000? It is outrageous.

As the hon. member for Joliette was saying earlier, public opinion has been the senators' watchdog. During the three weeks following this shameful decision by the senators, public opinion in Quebec and in Canada ran heavily against them and they had to undo what they had done.

My colleague from Terrebone gave some examples of outrageous expenditures, like the senator who had his office remodelled at a cost of more than $100,000. I built myself a very good house for about half that amount. There are some Canadian families, and I use the word Canadian to please the members opposite, who cannot afford a $60,000 house. Yet, the senator had his office remodelled for double that amount and more.

We will have a provincial election in Quebec in a few months and I invite my colleagues across the way to come and defend the Senate during that election campaign. They will see what Quebecers think of the Senate.

To illustrate my point, I will tell you that when the hon. Marcel Masse was representing my riding in the House, I phoned his office to inquire about the name of the senator responsible for our region. Of course, I did not talk to Mr. Masse personally, but I talked to highly qualified individuals with eight or nine years' experience since that was at the end of the Conservative regime. Believe it or not, no one in his constituency office could give me an answer. After waiting for many days, someone finally called me back to give me the name of my representative in the Senate, but I have since forgotten that name.

Again last night, my assistant here, Manon Genest, called the Senate communications service to know which senator was responsible for my riding, Frontenac. "We will call you back" was the answer. This is a fine example of the active involvement of senators in political life! When even the communications service of the Senate itself cannot give the name of our representative right away, frankly, I must tell you that that does nothing to give me confidence in the other Chamber.

If I ask the hon. member sitting next to me what riding he represents, I am sure that it will not take him 20 minutes to give me the answer. He knows. If I call the House of Commons to know what riding Antoine Dubé represents, they will tell me immediately.

[Supply, June 8th, 1994]

From Saint-Méthode-de-Frontenac.

[Supply, June 8th, 1994]

I am told it is in the Montreal area. In Quebec, 14 senators represent the Montreal region. Is this a good regional representation?

Could the member tell us if, in his home province, regions are well represented in the Senate? I can tell him that in Quebec, I seriously question the value of the Senate as champion of the regions. I think it is not very effective, on that score.