I used a moment ago a phrase which, I think, is an answer to my hon. friend. I said that the second chamber should be as a brake, not a block, to the locomotive. I think it is well to have a second chamber which can ask us to reconsider things. I do not complain in any case when the Senate says: You are in too much of a hurry; we want to wait for another year in respect to this particular legislation. That is a legitimate function of the Senate. If they attempted year after year to veto our legislation, I would agree with my hon. friend that that would be wrong. On the ether hand, if you give the Senate, by electing its members, the same powers that this House has, the elected Senate may say: What right has the House of Commons to say it represents the people?- we claim to represent the people as well as it does. I do not want the Senate to represent the people in that direct way; I want the House of Commons to represent the people. I do not want the second Chamber, as I have already stated, to be more than a guard against hasty legislation. Again let me say I am not expressing any opinion of the government; I am simply giving an outline of what I had hoped some day I could present somewhere in more concrete form. It may not represent even my own finality of judgment. There will be much discussion of the question before the change is made in the constitution, and it is just possible that in the light of that discussion I would like to modify my views. But, for whatever they are worth, I am offering these suggestions, and would ask that they receive the consideration of all who may be interested in the subject.
Subtopic: SENATE OF CANADA
Sub-subtopic: MOTION BY MR. DENIS (JOLIETTE) FOR AN ELECTIVE BODY