[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, May 16, 1996
.1003 
[English]
The Chair: Order.
Mr. Crête, would you like to begin? I think your bill is fairly self-explanatory to Mr. Stinson. I don't think he'll have any problems with it. It's the other three of us you have to convince.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Member for Kamouraska - Rivière-du-Loup): First of all, I would like to explain why I was absent from the last meeting. I was responsible for the final third reading debate on Bill C-12. Thank you for understanding.
It would be interesting if my motion were deemed votable because, first of all, it is of national interest. The Senate is an institution which touches all of Canada.
Secondly, this issue is currently a source of public debate. Some people are in favour of preserving the Senate, while others would like it to be abolished. Some on the other hand favour Senate reform. Therefore, I think the time is right for an interesting debate on an issue which is not currently on the government's agenda.
This would be a fortuitous opportunity to gauge the opinion of members and, at the same time, the opinion of the public. All parties as well as Parliament would get some interesting feedback on the subject. These days, the government is trying to identify areas where it can make some cuts and a debate on the cost of operating the Senate, pegged at $43 million a year, would be interesting from this perspective. It is time to ask some questions and to examine certain structures.
.1005
This institution, a vestige of the British parliamentary system of government, has been around since Confederation. Today it no longer corresponds to the administrative needs of a State. Abolishing this institution would be a significant step in many respect.
Personally, I witnessed the impact of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act which the government tabled and which died on the Order Paper because senators decided not to bring it back. When compared with the responsibilities of elected officials, the role of the Senate no longer corresponds to today's reality.
One must remember that the House of Lords in Britain and the Senate in Canada were established at the outset because of a belief that elected officials, even if they represented the population, did not possess the required expertise. Today, this is no longer the case. Elected officials are now skilled in a range of fields.
I think that a debate on the subject could prove interesting. All parties would benefit from a debate and from a vote since it would be an opportunity to take the pulse of the House. Briefly, these are my reasons for introducing this motion.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Stinson, just to bring you up to speed, Mr. Crête had very good reasons for not being here last week, so we let him present today.
His motion is to investigate whether we should get rid of the Senate or not. He just made a very worthwhile presentation. He's got me hooked.
Do you have any difficulties? When this bill will come forward, obviously it's going to be a major change to everything in this country. Are you not afraid of opening all that up?
Mr. Crête: No.
The Chair: I shouldn't be asking a Bloc member that, should I?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I'm not worried. I believe that Canadians and their elected representatives have all the expertise required to judge this type of situation. Arguments have been advanced both for and against the position that I have taken. I'm not asking that the Senate be abolished the day after the motion is passed. I'm asking that the government move in this direction.
A number of constitutional processes may have to be taken into consideration. However, this would be the message that the House would be sending to the government. It would then have all the latitude it needed to proceed. If the motion were adopted, the mandate would be clear, but the government could choose how it would proceed. The Canadian public, which is concerned about costs, would certainly be pleased that some light is being shed on this issue. Moreover, this topic is currently being debated just about everywhere in Canada.
As a lark, I sometimes ask my constituents if they know who their senator is. Their answers prove that the public does not really identify with the Senate, although this doesn't mean that senators are not doing their job. Therefore, we can see that the Senate is straying from its original purpose.
[English]
The Chair: Are there any questions from members of the committee?
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois (Bellechasse): The wording of your motion calls for the abolition of the Senate. In your presentation, you spoke of abolishing the Senate as it now exists, which would not preclude a discussion about an elected Senate.
Personally, I am in favour of an elected Senate. I would feel quite comfortable discussing it. I lived through Bill C-69 and I don't need any major debates to convince me. When a bill on representation in the House of Commons is defeated by individuals who are not elected, whereas we have to put our jobs on the line every four or five years, conduct fundraising campaigns, administer constituency offices... We could talk about this more behind closed doors.
As far as I know, no Quebec senator operates a constituency office. Quebec is divided into senatorial districts, but no one senator has opened an office. Yet, there are budgets available for that purpose. The issue should at the very least be debated in 1996. In 1867, there was some concern over public reaction. There was a need for a chamber of sober second thought and the Senate fit the bill. It fulfilled this purpose for the first quarter century of the Federation.
.1010
Certain politicians, including members of the Reform Party, have taken a stand on Senate reform. Mr. Chrétien also made his position fairly clear when he said that in principle, he was in favour of an elected Senate. Opinion within your party is likely divided between abolishing the Senate and electing it.
I think the general mood of the House is that we should hold a debate on this subject. It would shed additional light on the subject and it would be a good topic to add to the agenda for the 1997 constitutional talks. If the suggestion came from the House of Commons, this would give it added weight.
All of the provinces hold different views on the subject. In my opinion, a change could be for the better.
I'm saying what is in my heart and I haven't hidden my feelings from the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Now you know my viewpoint as well. Thank you.
[English]
Mr. Crête: Thank you.
The Chair: I don't think he answered your question, Mr. Crête. If you would like to make a comment, you can.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: The argument about the Senate as it now stands is important. The motion concerns the Senate in its present form. If the motion was adopted, it would not prevent the government, the opposition parties or anyone else from proposing a new form of chamber. This is always a possibility.
The scope of the motion is limited to the Senate as it now exists. The particular focus is on the costs associated with operating a chamber made up of non-elected officials. These are the principal aspects of the motion.
If the dream were to become a reality, the way would be paved the following day for all kinds of possible solutions.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Stinson, do you have a question?
Mr. Stinson (Okanagan - Shuswap): I think this motion is something that transcends all party boundaries.
The Chair: We're not debating the merits of it right now. We're just asking questions.
Mr. Stinson: I have absolutely none.
The Chair: I thought you would not.
Thank you very much, Mr. Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Thank you. When are you going to make your decision?
[English]
The Chair: In the next 45 minutes.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I see. Thank you very much.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you for coming today.
[Proceedings continue in camera]