Bill C-19 (Historical)

Constitution Act, 2007 (Senate tenure)

An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (Senate tenure)

This enactment changes the tenure of members of the Senate.

Constitution Act, 2007 (Senate tenure)

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

moved that Bill C-19, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (Senate tenure), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, as a modern thriving country, Canada stands as an inspiration to people from around the world who have come here, or look at us from abroad, aspiring to share in the kind of freedom of open opportunity that Canadians always have, but the Senate of Canada darkens somewhat the reputation that we have as a beacon of democracy.

In the 21st century, it is unacceptable that one-half of our Parliament, the Senate, is unelected and unaccountable. That is why today, I am pleased to open debate in this House, first on our Senate term limits bill, Bill C-19, which limits the terms of senators to eight years, and consequently on the future of the Senate itself. At its core, a debate about the Senate is a debate about accountability.

Accountability is one of the main principles underlying our democratic institutions. Canadians expect and, in fact, demand that the government be accountable for the decisions it makes.

And the electoral process is a basic necessity to keep the government accountable. By voting, Canadians choose the people who will represent them in Ottawa. Every member of this House had to put his or her name on a ballot and tell the voters why they should vote for him or her instead of the other candidates whose names were also on the ballot.

Once in power, members must constantly justify their actions and their decisions if they want to be re-elected. Election after election, the members of this House have obtained the democratic legitimacy they need to exercise political power by taking part in the electoral process.

Members of this House, such as the member for Elmwood—Transcona or the member for Cardigan, have given the voters in their ridings the opportunity to pass judgment on their actions time and time again. This is what is meant by accountability. It is the essence of democracy. Let me be clear, there is today no accountability in the Senate.

If the Senate had to be accountable to Canadians, it would be difficult to imagine that senators could justify, for example, their work week to the average Canadian. Statistics show that Canadians are working longer and longer hours, yet senators work only three days per week, since, conveniently, they do not work on Mondays or Fridays.

Most Canadians work 50 weeks a year, but senators are content to collect their annual salaries of $120,000 while only working usually 29 weeks per year. This works out to about 87 working days annually, or roughly one-third of what the average Canadian works.

When Canada is facing increasing pressure in its manufacturing and forestry sectors, and Canadians are struggling to get by each day, it is utterly ridiculous that senators are guaranteed their $120,000 per year salaries until the age of 75.

Yes, that is right. Once appointed to the Senate, senators sit until the age of 75, which results in terms of up to 45 years. I hope all members will agree that 45 year terms are unacceptable in a modern democracy.

The Senate has remained virtually unchanged since Confederation. That is over 140 years. It is arguably the most powerful upper chamber in the world and it has powers nearly equal to those of this House.

For example, the Senate can block legislation passed by this House, the democratically elected and accountable House of Commons, and we have seen that happen just in this past year. It can compel government officials and Canadian citizens to appear before Senate committees. The Senate can propose and pass legislation, and send it here for approval.

In its current form, where its members are not elected by Canadians and therefore not accountable to the Canadian people, it is unacceptable. The fact remains, the Senate is an artifact of a long ago time when aristocrats and nobles wielded influence and power without being accountable to anyone.

I should clarify what I said earlier that it will delay, obstruct, not make decisions or block legislation. When it did it earlier this past year, it was not a bill that came from the House of Commons and it was not a bill that came from the government. It was this very bill, the Senate terms limits bill, on which it simply refused to make a decision.

Our view is that the Senate must change. Our government will lead that change. This week we introduced two bills in the House to create a modern, accountable Senate that is consistent with 21st century democratic values, principles and traditions. One of the bills we introduced this week would create a process for giving Canadians a say in who represents them in the Senate.

The bill, entitled the Senate appointment consultations act, is the same bill that was introduced in this House in the last session of parliament. It would create a process for holding popular consultations with Canadians to fill vacant Senate seats.

The process it would create is simple. The consultations would be held in conjunction with either federal or provincial elections. The results would provide the Prime Minister with a list of names chosen by Canadians in their particular province from which to choose to fill vacancies in the Senate.

The practice of prime ministers consulting only with party hacks before appointing friends and colleagues will end. Now, for the first time ever, Canadians across Canada will have a direct say in who should represent them in the Senate.

The other bill we introduced is the bill we are debating today. Our Senate term limits bill, officially entitled the Constitution Act, 1867 (Senate tenure), will put an end to 45 year terms for senators by limiting their terms to eight years.

The bill is quite simple and straightforward. It would amend the Constitution of Canada to limit the terms of new senators to eight years and limits senators to serving a single term.

This simple, straightforward piece of legislation would end the terms of up to 45 years for senators that Canadians simply cannot accept. It would also allow the Senate to be consistently replenished with new people, with different perspectives and modern views.

Hon. members will recall that the bill on Senate tenure was first introduced in the Senate in May 2006. However, the unelected Liberal senators blocked and delayed its adoption for over a year before shirking their constitutional duty and refusing to examine this bill. Although the government was disappointed at these tactics, it had expected them somewhat.

Clearly, the increasingly aristocratic Liberal senators are not democratic and do not believe in basic democratic principles such as accountability, and as the legislative successors of the nobility, who ruled by means of arbitrary decisions, they do not believe they have to bow to public opinion.

That is why we decided to introduce our bill on Senate tenure in this House.

With the Liberal leader and many members of his caucus expressing support on numerous occasions for term limits, we expect the bill to easily pass this House. In fact, in a book published just this year, the leader of the Liberal Party indicated his support for the concept of limiting senators terms to an even shorter period than we are proposing. He proposed six years. We hope, as I said, that it will pass this House.

The problem will be in the Senate, where the noble aristocrats in the Liberal Senate caucus are trying ever more desperately to protect their privileged existence and their perks.

In spite of everything, the government expects the Liberals in the Senate to respect the will of a legitimate, elected, accountable House of Commons and quickly adopt the bill on Senate tenure, even though it is not in their personal interests.

Our Senate term limits bill, along with our Senate appointment consultations act, would allow for the accountability that Canadians demand of their parliamentary institutions by allowing them to pass judgment on the conduct of senators. Senators will now have to be accountable for the decisions they make, the work they do, and the paycheques they receive. Accountability, the basis of democracy, will finally come to the Senate.

Moreover, these bills have been consistently supported by an overwhelming number of Canadians. Last December, a poll was released by Decima Research which showed that 72% of Canadians supported term limits for senators and 64% supported Senate elections.

In September, our government released our public consultations report on democratic reform. As part of that report, a scientific poll was conducted. The results were clear: 79% of Canadians supported elections for senators and 65% supported term limits for senators.

Finally, Angus Reid recently released a poll which reiterated the findings from the earlier polls and showed that 71% of Canadians supported elections for senators and an equal amount supported term limits. The results are overwhelming. Canadians want the Senate to change and so does their government.

We have indicated on numerous occasions that we are open to different approaches to the details of Senate reform, but we will not compromise on one fundamental aspect: the status quo is not acceptable. The Senate must change.

While the government prefers to try to reform the Senate, if that change cannot happen through reform then we believe that the Senate should be abolished. This is not our preferred route. We would prefer to try to reform the Senate before resorting to abolish it. But if the vested interests continue to use their unaccountable and illegitimate democratic power to resist democratization, it is a route that Canadians will want to see us travel.

As a result, the Liberals in the Senate and the House have a decision to make. Do they want to join the government in creating a modern, accountable Senate that reflects Canada's democratic values, principles and traditions, or do they want the Senate to vanish, leaving its original purposes unfulfilled in the parliamentary process?

We hope they will choose the first option. As an artifact of a long ago time, the Senate is out of place in its current form in a 21st century democracy. An institution with the extraordinary powers of the Senate must be accountable for its decisions. It must change. Our government is providing leadership to achieve that change.

Today we are debating legislation to limit the terms of senators. This bill along with our Senate appointment consultations bill are together important steps in creating a modern accountable Senate that reflects 21st century democratic principles.

However, if we find that that effort to change the Senate continues to be blocked by a Liberal Party that prefers to protect the entitlements of a privileged few, then I am sure Canadians will want us to abolish it. We are willing to travel that road if necessary.

I might add that is a road that has been travelled. As many of the provinces entered Confederation, they still had an upper chamber in their legislatures. In every one of those provinces since Confederation, those upper chambers have been eliminated.

While we think the Senate can perform an essential role, we see from the example of those provinces that the loss of that second chamber has not made it impossible for those provinces to function well. I hear few people calling for a return of upper chambers in the provincial legislatures.

For that reason as well we see that there is a need for change and that the change that we prefer is one that is practical and achievable. If that cannot be done, the other route is not the worst route. It is a route that is far preferable to the status quo in the Senate.

I look forward to debate on this bill. I hope that members of the House will have regard for the clearly expressed views of Canadians, a strong sentiment and desire for change, the desire for accountability, and the desire to see our country, seen around the world as a beacon for democracy, reform its institutions to actually reflect that reputation.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister both for his comments and for showing us the road map of where the government is going regardless of what debate takes place here.

I know that the minister is learned in the law. I know that he has in the past lectured in the law, that he has been on the faculty of law schools on a quasi-basis and that he comes to this House with a breadth of experience in the law.

My question for the minister is about the law, specifically the law about constitutionality. Does he think the bills he is presenting before this House regarding Senate reform will require a constitutional amendment under the amendment formula as dictated by Canadian law? Is that his view? Will he tell the House?

Will he tell the people of Canada that this is mostly a charade, that these bills are a charade, that if they pass they will still require a constitutional amendment and thus a reopening of constitutional discussions? Will he tell the Canadian public the truth about the constitutional amendment requirement and the opening up of all of the complaints and wishes of Canadians when it comes to constitutional reform?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his kind introduction by discussing my qualifications. Unfortunately, like the name he bears and the law that bears that name, he did get it wrong. The faculty I was associated with was not the law school. It was in fact the School of Graduate Studies at the University of Toronto. It is true that I have been a guest lecturer and have participated in teaching at law schools as well as other faculties at several universities, but I did not want that to go on the record improperly.

In terms of the constitutionality in regard to this, it is quite clear that the proposed bill on Senate term limits is constitutional. We have heard from individuals far more expert and eminent on the Constitution than myself or the hon. member from Moncton. People such as Patrick Monahan and Peter Hogg, as anyone who has been to law school will recognize, are the leading experts on the Constitution alive today in this country. On a couple of occasions, they have both testified at Senate committees that these bills are entirely constitutional.

We know the bill is constitutional because we have seen it happen in the past. There actually has been a Senate term limits bill before. It was passed without consultation with the provinces and without any approval from the provinces. That was done in Parliament. That bill was the one that changed senators' terms from terms for life to age 75 for retirement. This shows us that the practice was constitutional in the past.

We have the advice of the best constitutional experts today. We have the past practice. It is quite clear that this is a constitutional measure we are taking and that the approach we are taking is properly within the ambit of the government.

Had we gone further, for example, to suggest that we change the allocation of Senate seats between provinces, I think the hon. member would be quite right. Then we would be straying into the area that the Constitution says does require the consent of the provinces.

This bill, however, does not do that. As such, it is wholly within the powers of this Parliament.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a comment before a very direct question for the House leader. Our party believes in term limits for the Senate and we like the number to be zero. I hope that the minister might engage with us on that number. We also believe that we should consult Canadians. After all, this has been the problem with the government on democratic reform: it consults friends and everyone in the backroom, but not Canadians.

My question for my friend is this: if the government is looking at genuine change in the Senate, why do we not get this over with and have a referendum? We should ask Canadians whether they want the Senate at all. This would save us all a lot of time. It would put this bill to sleep. It is about time that Canadians really were consulted on the Senate. We should not be just tinkering. We should be asking whether they want the Senate or not. Why does the government not do that and get on with it?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very heartened by two things that the member for Ottawa Centre has said.

First, the belief of the NDP is that we should consult Canadians. I am heartened, because that of course means that he is indicating he will be supporting our next bill that we will be debating, which is the bill on consultations with Canadians about those whom they would like to represent them in the Senate. It heartens me that he has given his commitment to support that because he believes in consulting Canadians.

Second, on the question at hand, his other statement was that he supports term limits, so we are making progress there.

In terms of the question of going straight to the matter of abolition and asking Canadians about that, there is of course a private member's bill by a Conservative senator in the other place, Senator Segal, which proposes exactly that. We do not necessarily say that it is a bad idea; however, we believe there is a better option than abolition or the status quo and that better option is to correct the Senate. That is what we are seeking to do here.

However, in fairness to the member for Ottawa Centre, I do believe he is right when he says that the Senate in its current form should be put out of its misery. It needs to be made accountable and democratic. If that cannot be done, I believe the member for Ottawa Centre is right and we should ask Canadians if they wish to see that institution in its current form terminated, because it simply cannot justify, in a 21st century democracy, continuing to hold the powers that it holds without any accountability or any democratic element.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments that we have heard from the government House leader. I have also heard from my constituents that they are not happy with the Senate in its present form. They are asking for changes. They support what the government is proposing. They do want to see an accountable Senate. They would like to see senators elected, so the government's plan is taking us in that direction. They also want to see term limits.

My question for the member, though, relates to the Liberal Party's resistance to change. I would ask him why he thinks there is that resistance. Also, Alberta indicated through an election those whom Albertans would like to see appointed to the Senate. Again, the previous Liberal government ignored that.

We now have a Prime Minister who is seeking direction from Canadians on whom they would like to see in the Senate. The previous government did not do that. Could the member remind us of that example and give us his thoughts on why there is such a huge resistance from the Liberal Party? Why does it resist listening to Canadians? Canadians are unanimous in wanting to see a change in the Senate. Why are the Liberals resisting it?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the member for Langley shares his constituents' interest in this important issue.

In terms of the matter of appointing senators who have been elected, there actually now have been two occasions in Canadian history when senators who have been recommended by the voters in their province have then been appointed to the Senate.

The most recent one, of course, is Bert Brown, who was appointed by our current Prime Minister. He was recommended in a vote that took place many years ago. He was a senator in waiting for a long time while others who had not been elected continued to be appointed by the previous Liberal government. He was passed over.

We did not do that. The Prime Minister was happy to implement the spirit of our proposed legislation on Senate consultations and appoint him in this Parliament.

The previous occasion was actually under the former Progressive Conservative government, which was in place from 1984 to 1993. Again, there had been an election in the province of Alberta and a senator had been recommended. In the spirit of the desire of this party historically to see reform in the Senate, that appointment was also made.

So we have a number of examples, and I do not think anybody would say the Senate was worse off for either of those appointments. I think they were all good examples of how things could operate in the future. If we had a Senate filled with people who had a legitimate mandate from their voters, from their provinces and the people of their provinces, it would certainly strengthen that institution.

In terms of those who are in the Senate now, it is a Liberal-dominated institution. It usually is. The history of this country has been one of Liberal governments, primarily, and the history of this country in the modern era has been one of Liberal governments appointing almost exclusively Liberal Party hacks to that institution.

That is the very reason why it is discredited in this day and age, but the Liberals of course view those appointments as the legitimate spoils of the electoral game. They view that as the riches that they are able to access for their friends to reward them for their good work for the party over the years.

That is not what an institution in a Parliament should be for. It should not be for rewarding one's buddies, one's friends, one's campaign chairs from previous elections or one's best fundraisers. It should be an institution that represents and speaks for the voice of ordinary Canadians. That is how democracy works.

If the Liberals want to reward their buddies and friends, the Liberal Party can pay for them out of its own money. That is not what this institution is for. However, I can see how, in dominating that institution with those kinds of folks, they want to resist any change that puts at risk exactly those perks and privileges. Their strategy is clear. It is to delay, obstruct and prevent any change, because as soon as there is one hint of legitimate reform, the floodgates will open and the good ride they have had, enjoying the perks and privileges for years at the expense of our democracy, will come to an end.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand in the House and outline some of the concerns that Canadians should have about the thin gruel of the agenda on democratic reform that is coming from the Conservative Party and, frankly, the attacking of parliamentary privilege, the disrespect and the shallow nature in which the minister responsible for democratic reform is attacking these issues.

Because I think we all need to be drawn together in a real debate about where we are going with respect to Liberal-led democratic reform, I would like to start with a quote from the Bible:

And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.

That is the Gospel according to St. Mark, chapter 3, verse 25.

What we kind of forget is that there is a history and it is called the history of Canada. Canada was founded on bases that were different from our two feeding democratic countries by way of origin. We have certain influences from the United Kingdom, which we see when we look around this House, the other place, Parliament in general and the system of government, that reflects our British heritage and the influence of Great Britain on our founding.

What we cannot ignore as well is that there was an influence from the south, that there was a young republic that was going through the throes of a civil war, one of the most bloody wars in the history of humankind, and that country is the United States of America that was very prescient on the minds of the Fathers of Confederation at the time that debates took place regarding how we came to have this House, the other house and the system of responsible government.

We specifically did not copy the British model. It is not often that I would quote with favour a Conservative politician but I will do it this once because I think, with the distance of time and separation, that our first prime minister, John Alexander Macdonald, was right when he said:

An hereditary Upper House is impracticable in this young country.... An hereditary body is altogether unsuited to our state of our society, and would soon dwindle into nothing.

This was said in 1865 when the Confederation debates took place. There was a very early understanding that we were different than the United Kingdom.

Looking at events extraneous to Kingston and to Charlottetown where great debates took place at the time and the carnage that resulted from the American experiment, that Conservative prime minister, the first prime minister of Canada, also said that we needed to distinguish ourselves from the United States of America. He said:

...the defects which time and events have shown to exist in the American Constitution. They commenced, in fact, at the wrong end. They declared by their Constitution that each state was a sovereignty in itself, and that all the powers incident to a sovereignty belonged to each state, except those powers which, by the Constitution, were conferred upon the General Government and Congress. Here we have adopted a different system. We have strengthened the General Government. We have given the General Legislature all the great subjects of legislation. We have conferred on them, not only specifically and in detail, all the powers which are incident to sovereignty, but we have expressly declared that all subjects of general interest not distinctly and exclusively conferred upon the local governments and local legislatures, shall be conferred upon the General Government and Legislature. We have thus avoided that great source of weakness which has been the cause of the disruption of the United States. We have avoided all conflict of jurisdiction and authority, and if this Constitution is carried out, as it will be in full detail in the Imperial Act...we will have...all the advantages of a legislative union under one administration, with, at the same time, the guarantees for local institutions and for local laws, which are insisted upon by so many in the provinces now....

We must remember that the provinces came together to form a union. We must remember that those provinces were the seed for the plant that is now Canada. We must remember that the provinces insisted on specific legislative powers but they also insisted on protection for their interests. Thus, the legislative council, now known as the Senate, arrived.

This must be the starting point for all discussion about the Senate: the provinces. As John A. Macdonald said, “The central government was well-defined, the federal powers were entrenched and this House, the House of Commons, having almost all of the powers of the new federal government, was well-ensconced”.

What of the Senate? The legislative council was there to protect provincial rights. I submit that since 1867 there has only been one change in the Senate makeup that has had any effect on those powers as deemed important by the provinces since 1867, and that was the one change with respect to the length of time that senators may serve.

I am shocked that the Minister for Democratic Reform, a person who has had at least some legal training, suggests that the change made in 1965 was constitutional. It was done and it was passed unilaterally. Any constitutional scholar who we have taken the advantage of listening to will say that unilateral change to the Constitution may or may not be constitutional. If it is done and not challenged, then it lies there in possum waiting for someone to challenge it perhaps.

However, the change was not that objectional to all parties concerned. It limited the life appointment of senators to the age of 75. I do not hear anybody objecting to that from the Senate or from any other quarter in this country. It was done unilaterally in 1965 before there was an amendment formula for the Constitution Act of Canada. Therefore, to say that it was done constitutionally is misleading.

Legally speaking, it was done unilaterally before there was a constitutional amendment formula. We live in an era where there is a formula now and we have to fast forward discussions to today's reality, today's legal environment, and understand that the constitutional amendment package that is part of the laws of this country is in play.

It shocks me. If we were here as a result of extensive federal-provincial consultations, negotiations, conferences or even a video conference that the minister might have had with his provincial counterparts, I might be a little less shocked about how the government can bring these bills forward and say that every Canadian wants them. I know they are government-driven by opinion polls and that for the government it is 37% of Canada. In reality, however, we are talking about provincial rights and interests and anything that touches upon Senate reform touches upon provincial rights.

We have a Senate. Right now, there are vacancies in the province of British Columbia, two vacancies in Ontario, two in Quebec and five in Atlantic Canada. There are disproportionate vacancies in Atlantic Canada. Would the premiers of those provinces feel that perhaps the government does not feel that those regions, which are completely under-represented in the Senate from its structure, might want to have a say in its redevelopment?

I look at the number of seats for western Canada. British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba each have six seats. We all know, by the layout of the Senate as envisioned when Canada was a much smaller place, that it gives more seats to eastern Canada and yet those seats have not been filled by the government and remain vacant.

There is a disequilibrium with respect to the number of seats. This is not me just saying that. There are very weighty tones on the issues of what affects our country. Most of the scholars suggest that we will have two major problems for the next 100 years in the existence of this Confederation. One of the major problems, which I do not need to go into too deeply, is the unacceptability to Quebec of the Constitution as revised without its agreement in 1982. That has been floating out there for a long time.

One would think that the Minister for Democratic Reform and the Prime Minister might have a concern about that and might want to occasionally talk to premiers about this issue.

I will quote from the book entitled, A House Divided by Gordon Robertson. It states:

The other major problem that had to be remedied was the imbalance in political power and influence that led Western Canada to feel that its interests were normally subordinated to those of the populous centre of Canada—Ontario and Quebec. Here the only thing that seemed likely to help was Senate reform.

Western Canada has, for some time, through its scholars, through its elected leaders and through some of its elected politicians, been active and perhaps more active than any part of the country with respect to Senate reform.

Let me start the debate as well by saying that I thought we were here discussing Senate reform. The Prime Minister, in his speech before a Senate committee in September of last year, made it very clear that he was there to talk about reform. We had no indication from the Prime Minister or the Minister for Democratic Reform or spokespeople for the Conservative government that a referendum or otherwise on abolition was the ultimate end game of these bills. No discussions have actually taken place yet with the provinces.

I suppose, if that is the case and the Conservative government is actually putting time limits on debates with respect to all of these bills, then maybe the government should be honest and say that it will just skip steps one and two and go to step three and put the abolition element to a constitutional amendment process, which is clearly required. I think we had that admission from the minister today that, in his view, anything more than tinkering with tenure and selection or nomination processes, anything beyond that as he said, composition of the Senate or abolition would require the constitutional amendment formula to take place.

Perhaps the government should be honest with Canadians and say that it favours the abolition of the Senate, it supports Progressive Conservative Senator Hugh Segal's amendment and go straight to that point. Otherwise, I believe that it is pulling a fast one on the people of Canada by suggesting that these bills, other than getting the headlines that the Conservatives so crave, will actually affect Senate change. I do not think that is the case. It is pretty clear that there is a constitutional issue here and the amendment formula will come into play.

As I started to say, we should be talking about western Canada. We talk about western alienation. It seems perhaps funny for a member of Parliament from the shores of the Bay of Fundy to talk about western alienation, but I suppose, if we look at half the population of northern Alberta, it is probably from the Atlantic provinces, so I feel some kinship to the concerns and respect very much the concerns of successive western premiers who have not had a chance to have constitutional conferences or meetings with the Prime Minister. He has not had a first ministers meeting since he was elected. His first meeting is coming up and he will be talking about the economy, which, obviously, is an important subject.

However, if the reform of Canada's Senate continues to be important and, as the scholars said, to bring in the west, to effect a change to their under-representation, then we should know that the west of Canada has spoken before. The Canada West findings in 1981 suggested, for instance in terms of distribution, equality for all provinces, six to ten senators each, territories one or two each. This would be a cutting back of the number of seats, which is 24 each in Quebec and Ontario. I am not sure that would fly with the respective premiers of Quebec and Ontario.

The joint committee hearings, which took place in 1982 through 1984, recommended a distribution of seats which would be in the formula of 2, 6, 12 and 24. What that means is that the territories would each get 2 senators, P.E.I., because of its historical incident, would get 6. Almost all the other provinces would get 12 except for Ontario and Quebec. It is a formula that was discussed. The Alberta committee in 1985 essentially came to a similar conclusion that there should be equality for provinces at 6 each.

We must remember that although we differ from the United States in terms of having provincial rights protected in a federal institution as opposed to ceding rights directly to states, it is the upper house in the United States that gives credence to small populations having equality with large populations. I do not think the people of California and New York are so much more magnanimous than the big provinces in Canada that they had not thought that Rhode Island and Maine having two senators along with their two senators in New York and California would not be a bit of a problem.

However, in over 200 years it has not been problem. There have not been calls for more senators for the larger states and the U.S. senate, when it is dominated by the right party, I suppose one could argue, works fairly well with respect to administering the Government of the United States. It is a check and a balance on the House of Representatives and on the government in question, and that may be the bigger issue.

I think the kernel of the real motive would be in the speech of the Minister for Democratic Reform when he said, repeatedly, the Liberal-dominated Senate. He is taking a snapshot in time. I wonder, and maybe the Canadian public wonders, if this were a Conservative-dominated Senate of the day and it voted with the government all the time, because of the nature of collegiality and the conformity to one's party, whether we would be here.

This is shortsighted for two reasons. Governments need checks and balances. It is why, Mr. Speaker, you have to sit through the gruelling, incisive and informative question period every day. Question period is an opportunity for opposition members to keep the government on its toes.

If not, what are we left with? We might be left with the press, members of the fifth estate, to be the official opposition. I lived as a citizen through something like that. Of course members will think I am talking about some despotic state in an undeveloped part of the world. I am talking about New Brunswick after former Premier McKenna wiped out the opposition parties with a 58 to zero majority.

As a former premier, he has spoken of this. He says that it was the worst nightmare for a premier. It was not that he had 58 colleagues. He may have said that privately and I do not want to quote him. The point was there was no institutional opposition to his government. It is a dangerous thing. He very much took steps to make opposition party leaders, although not having seats, comfortable in the democratic questioning process. He elevated the press to a higher position of knowledge and accountability than it likely was prepared for.

It is not a system that works very well, and these are unicameral situations in our provinces. They do not happen that often. There are usually oppositions in the democratically elected houses of our country. However, it would be a dangerous thing if the Senate were completely abolished. We are here to talk about making it more effective.

If the Senate were completely abolished and there was an overwhelming majority of any party, and we cannot see that in this minority Parliament because it is pretty well balanced, there would not be the institutional opposition or that chance for review and verification of legislation that exists now.

Is the Senate perfect? We can have that debate another day. Is the Senate open to change? Certainly. However, what are we discussing if, at the end of the day, a constitutional amendment is required? Why are we here at all if the government is too timid to meet its provincial homologues, both in terms of intergovernmental affairs and premiers?

Is the Prime Minister in fact afraid to meet other first ministers? Is there a problem that he cannot sit down with his confreres and discuss issues like this because he is afraid of the results?

We saw the Prime Minister attack the Premier of Ontario yesterday. I need to go very far east to say that he has not had collegial relationships with the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador. On these issues reflecting Senate reform, at least four provinces have written us as to their opposition to Senate reform without consultation.

The two key issues here are that we need to have consultations with the provinces, in whatever form, to verify what their wants and desires are. This second House was founded for them, for the protection of their rights. We do not have any official word on what the provinces feel. We have letters written after spats that the Prime Minister created and we have the Minister of Democratic Reform going around and getting telephone opinions as to what people in certain provinces want, but it cannot be said that we have the stakeholders' interests in mind.

Finally, there is a huge question of constitutionality. If this matter proceeds to committee, which it likely will, it is very clear to me that we will have to hear from constitutional experts, who may well suggest that it may be necessary for this bill and other bills coming to be referred to a court of competent jurisdiction, whether that is a provincial Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court of Canada itself.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his lecture this morning on aspects of constitutionality in respect to Canada and Parliament.

By way of background, I had occasion to get some literature out in play for my constituents on the question of reasonable term limits. I was aghast to learn that 98% of constituents in my riding prefer this kind of reform.

The member across went on ad nauseam about the need for constitutional amendments, provincial rights and so on. I note there is nothing in the legislation that would change the allocation of seats in the Senate.

He continued on a fairly lengthy debate on what sort of protocols would come to play about constitutional change. He must not have been listening to the government House leader when he indicated in his opening remarks on this bill that leading constitutional scholars have indicated the bill is completely constitutional and does not need an amendment.

What are the real reasons the member continues to block, delay and find excuses that have no rationale? Why does he put those issues in front of us as a way of blocking this kind of legislation that Canadians want and are looking forward to seeing in Canada's Parliament?

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. member on the comment about ad nauseam. I will try to get right to the point and make it very clear for him.

It is not clear that the bill is constitutional. Because the Minister for Democratic Reform says that this specific bill has been vetted by constitutional scholars, and he mentioned Dean Monahan and Peter Hogg, would suggest to me that the bill has already been put through a process through the Department of Justice, which certainly no parliamentarian here is aware of, if that is what my colleague said.

If I listened to him carefully and have it right, and subject to correction, he said that those scholars have given testimony before committee hearings on issues of Senate reform and have found this aspect constitutional. The proof is in the pudding. We will take this to committee and we will hear that evidence.

This bill has not been before committee, so those opinions will be forthcoming. We will decide whether a constitutional amendment is required. I am sorry to go on ad nauseam, but something is either constitutional or it is not.

The only way to find that out is to have nine justices of the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously say that this is constitutional, the Parliament of Canada is within its rights to ignore provincial concerns with respect to anything to do with the Senate. I would suggest that those justices, even if by obiter dictum, would suggest that a change to the Senate, which is provincial rights over a coordinated body, without any consultation from the stakeholders would not be appropriate. I am willing to bet my Confederation Debates book to the hon. member that would be the case.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I very much regret the tone of debate as it began with the words of the government House leader. In laying the basis for the proposed reform, he found it necessary to slag members of the other place, suggesting that they were hacks, that they did not work for their money and that they were inept. If there is a need for reform, let us deal with it straight up without slagging the other House and without shooting the messenger.

I am one of those who believes there is a need for reform, so the objective of the bill might be laudable. The question is how we are going about it.

I want to put a question to the member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, who just spoke so well.

The government House leader said that the legal basis of their purported claim to change the constitution without using the amending formula was that a change happened in Senate terms some 30 or 40 years ago. Is it not a fact that when that change happened, there was no amending formula, the Senate itself partnered in the change and there were no objections from the provinces? That context does not exist now, as I understand it, and the government is moving headlong into this. I think it is just charging toward a brick wall. The government must know it. I regret it if it does not. Therefore, I regard the bill as just posturing.

Could the member respond to my suggestion?

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is correct. It happened in 1965, when the Pearson government introduced an amendment to section 29 of the Constitution Act to create mandatory retirement age at 75 years. It was done, and the language is quite clear, unilaterally, without objection. It does not, as I said, make it constitutional because there was no challenge. It exists, and it was not challenged. That book of history was closed as of the date when we had a constitutional amendment formula passed in our country in 1982.

We are in a different playing field. If the Minister for Democratic Reform is suggesting, and the hon. member is correct, that the basis upon which the legality rests is that it was done before an amendment formula was in place, that is a bit shallow, specious and not thorough.

That is the way all legislation comes from the government. It is knee-jerk, it is without consultation and it is to get the biggest and best headline that it can get to garner its 32%. Again, 32% or 33% is what the Conservatives think all of Canada is. That is good enough for them and their math.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech of the hon. member across the way. I listened to him once again, as the Liberal Party of Canada is so fond of doing, wrap himself up in constitutional talk and rambling.

I would like to give the member a chance to not speak ad nauseam on this and to be quite clear and simple. His leader has been quite clear that he is in favour of term limits for senators. Is the member in favour of term limits for senators, yes or no?

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer the question yes or no. Again, if the member is going to be ill, I think there are provisions in the lobby to take care of him.

The point is that the Senate itself proposed 15 years when this bill went through the Senate as Bill S-4. Then it was killed by the government when it pulled the plug on Parliament. If we are to go through all this again, there will be recommendations with respect to the number of years.

Obviously, it is a matter of debate as to whether we go to eight, twelve, fifteen, or whether we can go to anything without a constitutional amendment process. That is really the issue.

We should hear from the provinces, see what they want and talk intelligently about debate. However, if there is a gun to our heads, then all of this is for naught. It will never take effect because a constitutional amendment formula has to kick in.

Second, the government's math is always a little crazy. It says that a committee sat for 199 days and avoided a bill, or something. If the 199th day comes up and the committee sides with Conservative Senator Segal and abolishes the Senate, why does the government not just skip to that stage now, because that is what it really wants?

I suggest the Conservatives should be direct with the Canadian people and say that they do not like the Senate because it is Liberal dominated. They would plug the Senate full of Conservative senators if they wanted to pass the ever popular HST of the day, but otherwise, they have no use for it. That is my answer.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-19, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (Senate tenure), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Bloc Québécois about Bill C-19, which would reform the Senate. To start, I would like to say that the Bloc Québécois is against this bill in principle. I will give five reasons, which I will explain later on.

First, Canadian institutions cannot be reformed. By using bills to reform the Senate instead of a constitutional amendment, the Prime Minister and the Conservative Party are confirming what has become clear to us, the sovereignists: it is impossible to significantly amend the Constitution.

Second, Parliament cannot unilaterally change the Senate without amending the Constitution.

Third, even if it were reformed, the Senate is a useless institution. A second elected House is useless and all the provinces have already scrapped their upper chamber.

Fourth, limiting a senator's term and indirectly electing senators does not make the Senate democratic, as I will explain later on.

Fifth, by further legitimizing the federal Senate, the Prime Minister and the Conservative Party want to undermine the authority of provincial premiers.

The very first point I made at the beginning of my speech was that Canadian institutions cannot be reformed. It is becoming increasing clear to Quebeckers that Canada just cannot be reformed. The failure of Meech and Charlottetown speaks volumes. Twice Canada has rejected Quebec's aspirations.

Our party, the Bloc Québécois, was born out of the realization that Canada could not be reformed. It was established in 1990 in response to the federal government's failure to find a formula meeting Quebec's minimum demands so that Quebec could rejoin the constitutional fold, which it chose not to do in 1982.

Even the Conservative government recognizes that Canada cannot be reformed. By reforming the Senate through bills instead of a constitutional amendment, the Prime Minister and the Conservatives are confirming what has become obvious: it is impossible to amend the Constitution in any significant way.

The many attempts at reforming the Senate illustrate the Canadian impasse, or dead end, perfectly. Senate reform proposals were brought forward as early as 1874. A mere seven years after Confederation, the Senate of Canada was the subject of criticism and calls for reform. On April 12, 1874, as reported in the April 13, 1874 Debates of the House of Commons, the House of Commons considered a resolution by David Mills, subsequently Minister of Justice and member of the Supreme Court. The motion recommended that the Constitution be reformed “so as to confer upon each Province the power of selecting its own Senators”. That is an except from the April 13, 1874 Debates of the House of Commons.

One hundred and thirty-three years later, we are still debating the issue. According to Senator Serge Joyal, who wrote a piece on Senate reform, in the past thirty years alone, there have been at least 26 proposals for Senate reform. Take for example the ones put forward by the Canada West Foundation in 1981, the Alberta select special committee in 1985, the Molgat-Cosgrove committee in 1984, the Macdonald commission in 1985, the Meech Lake Accord in 1991, the Beaudoin-Dobbie committee in 1992 and the Charlottetown proposal in 1992.

Our party, the Bloc Québécois, believes that the proposed Senate reform is a slap in the face for Quebec federalists. In fact, the minimum position of successive governments in Quebec on Senate reform has always been clear: there will be no Senate reform without first settling the question of Quebec's status. In 1989, Robert Bourassa, who cannot be accused of being a sovereignist premier, said that he did not wish to discuss Senate reform before the Meech Lake accord was ratified. In 1992, Gil Rémillard said that Quebec's signing of an agreement on senate reform would depend on the outcome of negotiations on the concept of a distinct society, the division of powers and the federal spending power.

With the Conservative government's Bills S-4 and C-47, the Prime Minister is proceeding with piecemeal reform of the Senate without satisfying the minimum conditions stipulated by Quebec. I reiterate that any Senate reform without the agreement of Quebec is a slap in the face for Quebec federalists.

The second point raised is the fact that the Senate cannot be changed unilaterally and without a constitutional amendment. The Canadian Constitution is a federal constitution. Consequently, there are reasons why changes to the essential characteristics of the Senate cannot be made by Parliament alone and should be part of the constitutional process involving Quebec and the other provinces.

In the late 70s, the Supreme Court of Canada examined Parliament's ability to amend on its own the constitutional provisions concerning the Senate. According to its decision, known as Re: Authority of Parliament in relation to the Upper House, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 54, decisions pertaining to major changes to the essential characteristics of the Senate cannot be made unilaterally.

Under the Constitution, all reforms of Senate powers, the means of selecting senators, the number of senators to which each province is entitled and residency requirements for senators, can only be made in consultation with Quebec and the provinces. Once again, the Conservative modus operandi of this Prime Minister and of this government is to not respect the Constitution.

Benoît Pelletier, the Quebec Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, recently reiterated Quebec's traditional position. And Benoît Pelletier is not a sovereignist minister; he is a member of the Liberal Party of Quebec. He said in a press release:

The Government of Quebec does not believe that this falls exclusively under federal jurisdiction. “Given that the Senate is a crucial part of the Canadian federal compromise, it is clear to us that under the Constitution Act, 1982, and the regional veto act, the Senate can be neither reformed nor abolished without Quebec's consent.”

That is an excerpt from Minister Pelletier's press release on November 7, 2007.

That same day, Quebec's National Assembly unanimously passed the following motion. I am taking the time to read it because it is the view traditionally espoused by all Quebeckers, including federalist Quebeckers.

That the National Assembly of Québec reaffirm to the Federal Government and to the Parliament of Canada that no modification to the Canadian Senate may be carried out without the consent of the Government of Québec and the National Assembly.

The Bloc Québécois is against this bill for a third reason, which is that even a reformed Senate would be a useless institution. A second elected house is not necessary.

Initially, the Senate was supposed to be a chamber of sober second thought that also protected regional interests. Regional equality in the Senate was supposed to counterbalance representation in the House. However, it seems that partisanship has gained the upper hand over regional representation, thus rendering null and void the purpose of the other place, which has a tendency to follow the lead of the House of Commons.

Indirect election of senators would not improve this situation; quite the opposite. The electoral process tends to emphasize the role of political parties to such a degree that indirectly elected senators would likely be more concerned about their party's interests than about their region's.

How can this government justify having a Senate whose responsibilities would be much like those of the House of Commons at a cost of $81 million per year, according to the 2006-07 public accounts?

Moreover, given the uselessness of the Senate, I should point out that all provinces have done away with their upper chambers. No province has had an upper chamber since Quebec abolished its legislative council in 1968.

It is interesting to note that several provincial upper chambers at least had the virtue of being elected, unlike today's Senate of Canada. Prince Edward Island's legislative council was elected as of 1862, and the Province of Canada's as of 1857. Nevertheless, as I said, all of those upper houses have been abolished.

Fourth, limiting the tenure of senators would not make the Senate democratic. In many respects, despite the proposed reform, that is, an eight-year term and the indirect election of senators, the Senate would remain a democratic aberration.

On one hand, despite Bill C-19, it would be nearly impossible to remove senators. Once appointed, senators would never have to face the public again. Thus, they would be less sensitive to public opinion, since there would be no risk of losing the next election.

Furthermore, public consultation is not binding. The Prime Minister maintains the authority to appoint or not appoint the senators chosen by the public. The Prime Minister could therefore decide not to appoint a candidate selected by the public. Besides, how can we trust this Prime Minister, who did not hesitate to appoint Michael Fortier to the Senate, even though he himself criticized the Liberals' partisan appointments to the Senate?

In any case, it is becoming increasingly clear as time goes by in this Parliament that the Conservatives and the Liberals are one and the same.

Voters are not represented equally in the Senate. The distribution of seats on a regional basis, rather than on a demographic basis, leads to democratic aberrations. For instance, how can anyone justify the fact that a senator from Quebec represents 244,000 voters, while a senator from Prince Edward Island represents 27,000?

Does the vote of a Quebecker mean less than that of a voter from Charlottetown? These are the questions that need to be addressed.

Not everyone is eligible to become a senator. The Constitution still requires that, in order to become a senator, a person must be at least 30 years old and own at least $4,000 of equity in land in the province represented. These conditions make it impossible for underprivileged people and young people to access such a position. Lastly, an indirectly elected senate would undermine the parliamentary system, a British parliamentary system. The executive branch relies on the trust of the House of Commons, members of which are elected.

The election of the Senate alone would undermine the preeminence of the House of Commons and would create confusion. The election of two Houses would complicate the issue of preponderance and consequently would weaken the parliamentary system. This is why all the provinces did away with their upper house. Once again, we do not understand why the Conservatives are not reacting and why they do not understand this reality, a reality that the provinces have understood for several generations, which is why they eliminated their upper house.

The government's real motivation, and that is the issue, is to marginalize the nation of Quebec. Under the pretext of an orthodox reform of federalism, the Conservative government is proposing shattering the balance of the federation.

In Australia and the United States, having an elected senate has enhanced the legitimacy of the federal government and has “nationalized” public life rather than serve the representation of the federated states within federal institutions.

To be heard in Congress, the American states have been reduced to being lobbyists. Senators elected to represent an entire province would overshadow the authority of the provincial premiers and run the risk of supplanting them as regional representatives.

That is what the proponents of a “triple E” Senate want: a federal Parliament that would be more legitimate because its elected members were more sensitive to regional interests.

Quebeckers would never stand idly by as their own province blithely accepted Senate reform. The Bloc Québécois is still the only defender of the interests of Quebeckers and of the National Assembly of Quebec. That is why I am pleased to reiterate the position of the National Assembly, which was presented by Mr. Pelletier, a federalist minister. You can see why Quebeckers have been voting for us in election after election since 1993: because sometimes we are able to put aside our orientation to deliver a message from Quebeckers. In this case, we are also delivering a message from federalist Quebeckers who feel wronged by the Conservative Party, as they were by the Liberal Party.

I will read the motion of the National Assembly that was passed unanimously, in other words, by all parties in Quebec:

That the National Assembly of Québec reaffirm to the Federal Government and to the Parliament of Canada that no modification to the Canadian Senate may be carried out without the consent of the Government of Québec and the National Assembly.

I find it very difficult to understand, politically, how members from Quebec can rise in this House to go against a unanimous resolution of the Quebec National Assembly. It is probably very difficult to understand because Quebec is the province that, for a number of reasons—because it has been ostracized by the federal Canadian system—is the most aware of everything going on here, in Ottawa.

When the federalist and sovereignist parties in Quebec City decide together to deliver a clear message, that the Senate cannot be changed because the Constitution requires the provinces' consent, and when Quebec says that the Senate should not be changed—as stated in the motion—I find it difficult to understand how elected members from Quebec here, in Ottawa, can rise in this House and defend bills like Bill C-19, which goes against the wishes of the Quebec National Assembly. This means that they have decided to oppose the position traditionally held by all Quebeckers.

It is even more difficult to understand because the current Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities was a minister in a Quebec government. I do not understand how he can defend a bill today, when, even under the government in which this minister was elected—the Bourassa government—Quebec had always refused, as long as it had not rejoined the constitutional fold, to agree to any amendments related to the Senate.

Politics has its reasons, which reason knows nothing of. The Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities proves that every day when he gets up to defend the Conservative government's position and goes against the interests of Quebeckers. This is not the first time.

The Conservatives went against Quebeckers' interests this week on the issue of assistance for the manufacturing and forestry sectors. They dared to vote against a Bloc Québécois motion calling on the government to reinstate assistance programs in regions hit by the crisis in the manufacturing and forestry industries, which are in an economic recession. Tables provided by the Conservative government prove as much.

But the Conservatives stood and voted against the motion and the Liberals from Quebec remained seated, unable to defend the interests of working people who are going to have a tough time this Christmas. The Christmas season is around the corner. People will be celebrating everywhere, but some families will find Christmas more difficult this year, either because workers have lost their jobs or because they are about to. These people will have to think twice about giving gifts this year. I am disappointed that the Quebec members did not stand up this week to defend the interests of the people in their ridings who are losing their manufacturing and forestry jobs.

These sectors are being doubly hit by the increase in gas prices, the higher Canadian dollar and the softwood lumber crisis in the forestry sector. Because of the collective lack of conscience of the Conservative and Liberal members from Quebec, many people are becoming disinterested in politics. It is very difficult, because we have to live with that every day.

Bill C-19, which the Conservatives have introduced, runs counter to the interests of Quebeckers, as expressed in a unanimous motion by the National Assembly. They are going to vote for Bill C-19, which is intended to bring about Senate reform that is not wanted by Quebec, by the Government of Quebec or by the National Assembly, which passed a unanimous motion.

Day after day, we watch as members who were elected in Quebec fail to defend the interests of Quebeckers. There is a good reason why Quebeckers have chosen mainly Bloc Québécois members to represent them year after year since 1993 and will continue to do so, no matter what happens in the next election.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot remain silent on such a debate and on the words of my colleague and good friend.

I share with my friend and hon. member a number of values as a Quebecker, but I do not share his vision for the future of Quebeckers and neither do a good number of our colleagues in this House.

I always marvel at Bloc Québécois members who say they have been defending the interests of Quebec in this chamber since 1993. They make countless references in their speeches to the best interests of Quebec, or the interests of Quebec.

But it is action that counts. I have a question for my hon. colleague. I can anticipate his response and it will not be the one I am hoping for. I know full well that in his heart, he is not in favour of reforming Canadian federalism. If he were in favour of reforming Canadian federalism, he would not be here in the House.

Rather than find ways to honestly and truly represent what Quebeckers have done, said and asked for—I am talking about a population that has twice in its history chosen to stay within a united Canada, to remain a nation within a united Canada—the Bloc focuses on its own agenda.

In my opinion, this is a relatively clear signal. For everyone here, this means we have to work on reforming Canadian federalism. I would like the hon. member to tell me how an unelected upper chamber, in its current form, can necessarily advance the democratic governance of our country. I would ask him to explain just that. I do not want him to look back at 1992, or 1993 or Meech or all that. I would like him to say a few words specifically on this.

When someone says they are here to represent interests, I could play cat and mouse with him and ask him why his political party voted against the economic statement, thereby refusing to allow Quebeckers to have $12 billion in tax cuts, both in income tax and the GST. But I would not do that.

I would like him to stick closely to the wording of my question.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to reply to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. I will quote Benoît Pelletier, Quebec minister of intergovernmental affairs. By the way, if the Minister of Transport ever wants to speak with him, Mr. Pelletier is a member from the Outaouais whom he must surely see at various events because part of his riding is probably adjacent to that of Mr. Pelletier. Therefore, I will share with him what Mr. Pelletier said recently.

Given that the Senate is at the heart of the Canadian federal compromise, it is evident to us that any Senate reform or its abolition cannot proceed without the consent of Quebec, in accordance with the Constitution Act, 1982 and the Act respecting constitutional amendments (regional veto).

Once again, we do such a good job of defending Quebec's interests that, in this House, we quote a federalist Liberal minister who rightfully puts on notice the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and all his Quebec colleagues. Why are they heading down this road? The Senate is an example of Canadian federalism; they should not be fiddling with it! They do not have the right to make changes without the consent of the provinces.

For the benefit of the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, here is the motion recently adopted by Quebec's National Assembly.

That the National Assembly of Quebec reaffirm to the federal government and to the Parliament of Canada that any reform of the Senate of Canada cannot be made without the consent of the Government of Quebec and of the National Assembly.

My colleague is a member of the Conservative Party and I am a member of the Bloc Québécois; in this House, it is my party that represents the interests and the values of Quebec. Once again, even Quebec federalists are disappointed by the Conservative's treatment of the constitutional file.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would have a few little comments to make concerning the remarks of my friend from the Bloc Québécois.

He has given an impression which suggests to me that he is mistaken about the importance of the second chamber, the upper chamber, among all the legislative assemblies. He said that here, in Canada, all the provinces had abolished their second chambers. Granted, that was the practice in Canada, but it is a very different story in the rest of the world.

In the other big federations besides Canada, such as the United States, Australia and other geographically smaller but nonetheless very important federations like Switzerland, Germany and Austria, there is a second chamber which plays a very significant role with respect to legislation. The same is true of the states, provinces or townships of federations worldwide.

In the United States, only one of the 50 states, Nebraska, has abolished its second chamber. In Australia, Queensland is the only one to have done so.

What is the practice in Canada is therefore not a universal practice. As regards chambers at the national level, there are only seven countries seriously considering abolishing their second chambers. In my opinion, that is a mistake.

In addition, the member suggested that, in Australia and the United States, introducing a second democratic chamber had weakened the strength, power and legitimacy of the states. I do not think that is the real reason behind the states' loss of power in these two federations. We are therefore not at risk here.

In the other two federations, it was the federal spending power in state jurisdiction that weakened the states' power. In Canada, our government has put in place measures dealing specifically with that problem. I just want to point out that this danger does not exist in our country.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am rather surprised by these comments from my Conservative colleague, since he just said it was a mistake for the provinces to abolish their upper houses. On the contrary, I think the provinces did so in a moment of great lucidity. My colleague did in fact say that they made a mistake. He said that, in Australia, only one province has eliminated its upper house and that, in the United States, only one state has done so, as though eliminating their upper houses was a mistake on the part of Canada's provinces.

I would not want to be in the position of the Americans or the Australians, given their way of doing things. I am happy the provinces abolished their upper houses. I am even more surprised by the fact that he compared power and the loss of state autonomy to Congress in the United States, saying that this would not be the case in Canada. On the contrary, this worries me, since that is exactly what the Conservative Party wants to do.

It is not true that the Conservative government wants to limit the federal spending power. We know this. In the Speech from the Throne, the Conservatives talked about shared-cost jurisdictions. Yet, they no longer exist. This means that they reserve the right to spend in all other jurisdictions. That worries me even more. I was against this bill before, and now I am opposed twice as much, after my Conservative colleague's speech.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I truly appreciate the opportunity to speak to this issue because it is one I feel very strongly about. The basis for that is the fact that every one of us here had to knock on thousands of doors, be accountable for what we have done, and what we are going to do. We know that we have to go back to those same doors and be accountable for what we did here, what we said, and how we acted. In that other place, one only has to knock on one door, once, for life.

As someone who has travelled as a member of Parliament to other countries to assist in observing their elections, I want to say that it is downright embarrassing when those countries look at us as the evolution of the democratic process and hold it out as an ideal that they would love to be like Canada. Then we have this embarrassing albatross around our neck where the upper house is appointed for life.

I know I am not going to get through all my issues now, so I will be looking for other opportunities to speak because there is a lot to be said about this issue.

I have had the opportunity to work with individual senators and I would like to say that it was a horrible experience, that they are not very good people, and that they do not work very hard and this and that. However, none of its true. My experience with individual senators is that they are outstanding individuals. They truly are. Whether they have been the head of a mission that I have been a part of internationally or working on committee, they are hard-working, they care, they are certainly more than competent, and it is a joy to work with them as fellow Canadians. Where I have trouble is that they are fellow lawmakers.

I care enough about some of them that if one takes a look at my current calendar for December, it is me and a Conservative senator no less, arm in arm no less, waving Merry Christmas from Kiev, Ukraine where we were on one of those international election monitoring missions. By the way we were both cold sober.

It is a reflection of the fact that to me it is not about the individuals. In fact, the more I meet the more impressed I am. However, that alone is nowhere near reason enough to sustain the Senate. If we need good people to do good deeds, we have lots of opportunities to do that and if we do not think there are enough we can create more.

Telling me that senators produce good reports and individually they do good things does not cut it. If that is all they were about, a place of good deeds, that would be a whole other matter; a little expensive, a little bit of unnecessary pomp and ceremony one might argue, but if that is all they did, we would not be having this debate.

No, the issue is not whether or not the work that they do is good. The question is whether or not the powers they have are legitimate in a modern democracy. I argue and my colleagues argue, no.

I would like to go through some of the issues that I believe others have or will use in support of keeping the Senate, amended or otherwise.

First, this is a place of sober second thought. No, I am not going to touch the word “sober” because it is not about personalities and I am not going to go there and play those games.

We know historically that they were appointed to keep the House of Commons, which was the ordinary commoners, from running amok. We get into this mob atmosphere and we start doing crazy things, but we have these grown-ups in the other place who are there to be above that, who do not get bothered by partisan politics and some of the pettiness that goes on in the House of Commons. They are above that. They will look at the issues and say, “What is good for Canada? Unlike those House of Commoners who only care about elections, we will look at the issue”.

If that was the truth and that was the beginning and the end of it, I might have some room to give it a little bit of weight. The reality is that most senators go to their caucus meetings, but not all. There are independents. Not all go to their caucuses and not all vote according to their caucus line, but that is the same here, so there is nothing special about that. However, most of them go to caucus meetings. They do not go to caucus meetings to have sober second thoughts. They go to caucus meetings to be a part of their party's position on the issue of the day and then they just carry out their part of it in that place.

If we have any doubt about that, we should keep in mind that in the Senate there is a government leader in the Senate who is in the cabinet. How much sober second thought do we think is going on among cabinet ministers? Do we think that senator says, “Wait a minute. I need everybody to get above this partisan discussion and talk about what's in the best interest of Canada”? Come along. The sober second thought thing sounds good, but has nothing to do with reality.

The fact of the matter is that most of the time when the Senate has used its powers--and it has great power; it just does not use it often, but it does use it a little bit--we know when senators block legislation, it is for partisan reasons. It is no different from what happens in this place. That is what is so upsetting about arguing that this is all about sober second thought, that a check and balance is needed on those of us who are elected here by the people, that somehow we may run amok, or not put the interests of our nation first when, at the end of the day, we decide what to do.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Louder.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will speak louder if the member has trouble hearing me. I don't usually have that problem, but I will speak louder for him.

Let us face it. Many senators, not all, but many of them are full time party organizers. They are chairs of national campaigns. They are chairs of fundraising. It is all about politics because they do not have the nuisance of having to go back to a riding and talk to Canadians, let alone be accountable to those same Canadians.

What is another issue? That senators represent their provinces. I suppose at some point maybe they do, and I will offer up that maybe in some of the smaller provinces there is a closer relationship between the MPs, the senators, the government of the day and ensuring that the provinces' rights are put forward, but I always thought that was the responsibility of each of us.

I am a member of this national place. I am an Ontario MP. I happen to be chair of the Ontario NDP caucus. My role, and your role, Mr. Speaker, and that of every member here is to represent our constituents and by doing that we are representing our community and our province. I would also--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George is rising on a point of order.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I hope it is a point of order, but I need some clarification. I have been here for a number of years and I have never seen the complete official opposition benches empty. I am wondering whether this is--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George is experienced in this House and he knows that it is not permissible to refer to either the presence or the absence of hon. members.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services has the floor.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order as my colleague from Prince George, then perhaps the Speaker could clarify. Is there quorum in the House of Commons if no Liberals are present?

And the count having been taken:

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

I am pleased to report to the hon. parliamentary secretary that there is quorum in the House.

[An hon. member]

But there is only one Liberal though.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

I have already ruled on the issue of pointing out the absence or the presence of members in the House.

Another point of order from the hon. member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if the members on the opposite side would like to play games, I am a Liberal member and I am in the House, so I would like to know how many members there are from the Conservative Party.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

This is getting to be a point of argument rather than a point of order. We are returning to the debate at hand with the hon. member for Hamilton Centre, and he might like to know that his microphone works.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As a former deputy speaker in Ontario, I will gladly take advice from you on being an MP, and maybe you will take some from me on being a Speaker.

This was a perfect example of the kind of things that do happen in here. We get into partisan pettiness. We go back and forth and we are always looking to get the electoral up. Like, big shock; that is the way this place works, but if one believes that we are going to elect senators and somehow they will not have any of this, that we are going to find--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington is rising on a point of order.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to encourage decorum and urge all hon. members not to make, either directly or indirectly, insulting remarks toward others. That would include all members.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

I thank the hon. member, but I would much rather listen to the hon. member for Hamilton Centre, who has been recognized and who has the floor for the next 11 minutes.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I forget exactly where I was when I left off, which was probably the point of doing that.

I was pointing out that a lot of this partisan pettiness, and that is what it is, exists no matter where one goes, whether one is in the provincial legislature or here. If members are elected to the Senate, we are going to get the same thing. If that is what Canadians want, fair enough, but let us understand that by electing and giving legitimacy to the incredible constitutional powers the Senate has, we create a whole new political dynamic in Canada. This place will function nothing like it does now.

We could look to the Americans as an example of the kind of gridlock there can be between two strong elected houses. They have conference committees where they are forever trying to find compromises so they can actually get something done. We could go there, as complicated as it is, but for less than 35 million people, is it really that practical?

Ontario, Quebec and every other province that had a Senate got rid of it. I believe that our provinces have incredible responsibility under the Constitution. Health care, environment, police services and administration of the courts are just a beginning list of things they are responsible for. They are important matters. The people of all the provinces did not believe they had to elect another tier, find another class of politicians to go into a second place to provide that sober second thought.

The people were quite competent to decide who among them they would send to their provincial capital and make the decisions, and it works. I am quite prepared to be corrected, but I am not aware of a single province where there is a huge clamouring to reinstate the Senate in that province because it cannot trust the people who have been elected directly to the legislature. They may not like them, but then we have a means of taking care of that, do we not? It is called an election, which we do not have in the other place.

This notion that the country needs it as part of its structure I do not think holds. I know there is a concern, particularly among members from smaller provinces, that in the absence of the Senate there would be some kind of a ganging up of the larger provinces. I say this right up front as a member from the province with the largest population in our Confederation. I understand the concern, but as I have said earlier, I am not aware of just how much province protecting is going on in that other place. I am sure I will get examples of senators who have done things for their provinces, but I am talking about the grand scheme of things. Unless we actually walk over there, we do not know what is going on as the Senate does not have TV cameras. My point is that alone is not reason enough to keep the Senate.

What about the notion that because we have such big provinces compared to many smaller ones, without the Senate, no matter what role it is playing directly, somehow that is going to be a real problem for the smaller provinces. Having served municipally, provincially and now federally, I can say that as long as there is representation by population, we are always going to have this.

My good friend, the hon. member for York South—Weston, a former regional chair, would understand better than most what it is like with densely populated areas such as a downtown area and then the more suburban areas that feel they are not being treated fairly because all the attention and money is going downtown where the people are. It is a constant struggle.

I was an alderman, but if a councillor has an area in the ward where there are only a few houses or maybe an area by an industrial sector and most of the money seems to be going toward the development of a new area, a new school, a new recreation centre, people constantly say, “You are only doing it because that is where all the votes are for you. You are ignoring us”. I am not saying it is not a problem; I am saying that it is inherent in representation by population.

At the city level and more appropriately as a comparison at the provincial level, we get past that. We elect premiers in cabinet who are partisans, clearly, but we also expect that for the most part we do not do too badly overall, and I am talking historically, in managing to ensure that everyone has a piece of the pie and gets a share of the interest of the senior level of government. There is no reason we cannot do that. We do that here. We do it in our caucuses.

We have to elect the right kind of parliamentarians. I do not want Hamilton to win at the expense of my neighbour, Burlington. I want Hamilton to win, you bet. It is in large part why I am here, but I care about my neighbours in Burlington. I also recognize there is a self-interest. We cannot be isolated. We are part of a regional economy in southern Ontario, as well as a national economy. So that does not hold, in my opinion.

In the few minutes I have left, I want to focus on the power that senators have, why Canadians ought to care about this, and why it matters. I am going to use a very pedestrian issue compared to the huge issues of the day that we deal with here at the national level.

Not long ago, there was an attempt by this place with a bill passing all the stages at committee and here in the House, to reduce the ability of railways to ignore the noise they make, especially when the trains are idling in neighbourhoods. This was a good thing. It was Parliament responding to issues that affect people where they live. It is not just about the big issues of the day; we have to care about where people live, how they live and the quality of that life.

The House of Commons and the minority Parliament was doing the right thing. The bill went over to the Senate. The Senate changed it. It gave the power back to the railways, not to make as much noise as they want, but to go beyond the language and the restrictions that the House of Commons, the elected people, said that the railways should abide by.

I want to know what senator is from Hamilton and is going to be accountable to the people on Stinson Street, Aberdeen Avenue, Lawrence Road and Allison Crescent, where we have trains that park and idle, people who would have benefited from this House passing that law. What senator is going to answer to my constituents? I do not even know who it is.

I spent 13 years in the Ontario legislature and I never once had a senator call and ask me what I thought about something or what Ontario thought about something. I was in the Ontario cabinet. I never had a senator call and ask me, “What does Ontario think about this?” or “I want to talk to you about this and how it affects Ontario”. No, but that place has the power to make the lives of my constituents who are living beside those railway yards worse.

That is not right. It is not right, when we have taken the time and the effort to improve the quality of life of Canadians and an unelected body, not answerable to anyone, not consulting with anyone, can override that decision. If they are holding public meetings, I would like to know about it. I have never heard of one.

That is not the end of the process. We then start going back and forth with it, which takes me right back to the idea of whether we want that process. If the senators were elected and had that power, they would certainly be democratic, but we have to have this whole big battle over what the final law will look like, rather than just letting the democratic process that serves us so well in this place be the final decision.

If we get a law passed through here and it is signed by the Governor General, it becomes the law of the land. Then we go back to our constituents, and in this minority Parliament we do that a lot, and we knock on those doors and we say, “Yes, sir and yes, ma'am”, and we account for our time here.

In the absence of that, Canada cannot offer up all that we believe Canada is, because when we get out on the international stage, people look at us and say, “But do you not have an appointed upper house?” There is no answer to that. The only real answer is that we are trying to fix it. The way to fix it is to abolish it, or at the very least, have a referendum. If none of that works, we can try reform, but the reality is that it is probably going to fail.

What has the best chance is to have an agreement that we will take what that place is supposed to do in terms of representing provincial interests and have it reflected in this place, and thus not rely on an unelected house.

I look forward to questions and comments.

[James Moore, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on this debate today. I appreciate the passion from my colleague from Hamilton and from the NDP on this subject.

I really do disagree with the NDP's position on this issue. I want to talk a bit about some of the merits of Senate elections and the demerits of the NDP position.

I am the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works. As members know, the Minister of Public Works is a senator. One of the benefits of the current system is seen when we have a federal election. In the last federal election, the Conservative Party did not get a member of Parliament elected from downtown Montreal. We have the view that the second largest city in Canada should have somebody sitting at the cabinet table to defend the issues relating to the city of Montreal. We appointed Mr. Fortier as a cabinet minister and Minister of Public Works.

We also decided that there should be a measure of democratic accountability, so he was appointed as well to the Senate, because the Senate has a question period and has an access so that opposition parties can ask him questions directly about his activities as Minister of Public Works.

I suspect the NDP may well condemn what we did in this regard, but my colleague should know that when the NDP was in government in British Columbia, it did the exact same thing. When the NDP was in power, it appointed as minister of aboriginal affairs an individual who had not been elected. The NDP did so because at the time we were just coming out of a debate over the Nisga'a agreement in British Columbia and that party wanted to have an aboriginal cabinet minister at the cabinet table.

We believe that at this time in Canada's history all regions of Canada should be represented at the cabinet table. We also want to make sure that all the diverse regions of Quebec are represented, including Canada's second largest city. This is an important thing. This is a practice that has been done before.

We want to make sure that regions of this country are represented. There are 50 separatists here in the House of Commons who want to rip Quebec from the future of this country and we want to make sure that the province is well respected and well represented at the cabinet table. We have done that. Minister Fortier will be putting himself forward to be a member of the House for the riding of Vaudreuil-Soulanges in the next election campaign.

I have a question for my colleague. It has not been uncommon for provincial premiers historically to be in favour of abolishing the Senate, because they all have unicameral legislatures so it makes sense for them to say that this should be transitioned federally. The problem, of course, is that historically it is a two party system in most provincial election campaigns so there are majority governments and of course it makes sense to get rid of an upper chamber so there is unfettered support.

However, in our system it does not serve our best interests. I believe that my colleague's constituents in Hamilton would not support the NDP position of abolishing the Senate, given that if it is abolished, the cities of Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver alone, those three cities, would have an absolute majority of seats in the House. The regions, the suburban areas, the rural areas and the northern areas in this country would not have the same effective voice that they do now with a balanced system where we have provincial representation and a fair voice in the House of Commons.

There are reasons for the status quo. There are ways to improve it, but I think the NDP approach is thoroughly backward.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member caring enough to listen and to ask a good question. The answer is that, first of all, there is nothing perfect about democracy. It is the people who decide who comes to this place, not parties, not governments, not any of us. The people decide and it is then up to us to make sure that we give the people, as best we can, a Parliament that works.

Also, if that is the member's only justification for keeping an entire Senate, then I would say there is an easier way to accommodate these kinds of needs. I understand the point the member is making. It is a valid one. What I do not accept is that to me it is the same as the senators saying to look at all the good work they do. That is not the point. The member's point is not the issue. Here is what matters. Would my colleague have an entire Senate with half of our constitutional power residing in that other place just to solve that one issue that does come up from time to time?

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member on a very eloquent speech and an insightful one with respect to the issue at hand.

I would be interested, in that same vein, to hear the member's response to what I see as an inconsistency between the New Democratic position with respect to the Senate, based on accountability, and its support for proportional representation.

Proportional representation would have a group of members in a legislative assembly who would not have a direct responsibility to any constituency. That is the same argument, to some extent, that the member has been putting forward. I accept that and I am sure the House does, but it seems inconsistent with the position that his party has put forward on proportional representation. I wonder if the member could address that.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an excellent question and I thank the member for it. My answer to that would be that to the best of my knowledge each of the parties in this place, if we ever did go that way, has confirmed that it would elect anyone on any list within each one's own party.

There would have to be some level of democracy. I doubt that any of us would stand for our party leader unilaterally saying “him, her and him”, who suddenly get seats. There is that accountability back to the party. In large part, that accountability will be reflected by how well the party did in the last election. If it did not do very well, it knows where the weak spots are. The hon. member has been around politics a long, long time. He knows how that would be.

The difference, of course, is that with the Senate, if a person is appointed at 40 years old, he or she has a 35 year term and at no point, none, ever, does he or she account to anyone for that time.

I take the point. It is a valid one, but I do think that the element of democracy still being in there does stand the test of time in terms of a comparison between the “win a lottery for life” sort of thing over there versus still having to go back to somebody in the democratic process, where at the end of the day, the people still decide. If we do not get any votes for our party, nobody will get in there.

That is not case in the other place. It is still a matter of one person in this entire nation, one person in the Prime Minister's Office, who decides who goes into the Senate. Once they are there, they never, ever have to account to anyone about anything.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

There are three minutes left and there are three people rising to ask a question. If I can trust each of you to have half a minute questions, we can have half a minute answers. The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make sure we hold to the same standard for all members here. The government member previous to me gave a little speech a minute ago, but I will be succinct.

When we look at the bill, what we see is that the government is tinkering. At the end of the day, we are asking if this is enough. That is my question for my colleague. Is this enough to actually make the Senate a democratic institution? Is this tinkering enough or should we be doing more?

If this bill and the other bill for Senate reform are all we have, is it enough? Does the hon. member think his constituents will be happy with that or do they need more?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question is an excellent one. I will answer by saying no, and that is the difficulty, it does not go all the way.

There are two pieces to this. First, is this enough democracy to say in regard to the existence of the Senate that it is okay, we can live with it and at least it is democratic? The answer is no, not by a long shot. One election in eight years is not democratic accountability. I do not know anybody else who has an eight year term that is somehow called accountable and democratic.

The bigger issue, though, is still whether or not the Senate, even if it were fully democratized, and this is far from that, is the structure we want. Do we really want to duplicate the whole process? Do we want to run the risk of gridlock? Do we need two full houses for 35 million people? Is this in the best interests of Canadian governance?

We in the NDP believe it is not.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Western Arctic should know that there are 45 seconds left for both the question and the answer.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I am not very verbose, but I do tend to use more than 45 seconds.

I want to go back to the point that the hon. Conservative member was making on using senators to fill positions of importance in the cabinet. To my mind, that goes against the principles of this institution. The people who elected members from Montreal were in a--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The member for Hamilton Centre should know that the clock has run out, but I will allow a short moment to respond.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will not abuse it except to say that the biggest problem with the issue was the government saying one thing before the election and doing something else afterwards. I answered it one way, but there is also that aspect.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are few issues that conjure up more debate within Canadian political circles than Senate reform.

In fact, in 1874 and in 1909, only a few years after the proclamation of the British North America Act, there were calls for Senate reform. This country was only seven years old when the issue of Senate reform first materialized. Despite calls for Senate reforms in 1874 to the present day, the institution remains essentially unchanged since its inception in 1867.

In fact, the only material change of note that has taken was in 1965 and that was a change under the British North America Act respecting retirement age. It was Parliament alone at that time which introduced the retirement age of 75 years for Senators who had previously served for life. Parliament was able to do this exclusively without the need for approval from the provinces under section 91(1) of the British North America Act.

The reality is of course that the introduction of the new retirement age in 1965 was essentially reasonable and would have found no substantial opposition from the provinces, as it did not dramatically affect the reform or function of the Senate.

The fact that there has been only one relatively small change to the Senate since Confederation clearly suggests to any reasonable person that reform is necessary. The real challenge, of course, in the context of Canada's unique political realities, is how to bring about this change.

Let me clearly state without equivocation that I do support Senate reform and I do believe in an elected Senate.

The Senate was, as most of us know, created as an institution of sober second thought. It is a place where laws and policy can be debated in an atmosphere that is less politically charged through the very nature of how its membership is determined.

This place of sober second thought is an aspect of the Senate that we should endeavour to retain. Indeed, even the current Prime Minister agrees with this concept, or at least I hope he still does. He stated before a Senate committee in 2006, “Canada needs an upper house that provides sober — and effective — second thought”.

It is for this reason that I am particularly concerned when the Prime Minister and his government make statements that the Senate needs to be reformed as they dictate or they will support the goals of our colleagues in the other opposition parties who want outright abolition.

This position hardly demonstrates a government with solid commitments to principle. I believe we need to reform the Senate, along with other institutions of our democracy, in consultation with Canadians and their provincial governments.

Within the context of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms we should also look at rules governing the succession of our head of state, as enunciated by the British Act of Settlement, 1701. It may be recalled that I tabled a motion in this House about the Act of Succession that discriminates against Roman Catholics and violates our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Indeed, I share the belief of many observers and scholars that the amending formula as outlined in the Constitution Act of 1982 requires the consent of at least 50% of Canada's population and at least seven of our provinces before the kind of significant change being proposed is allowed to proceed.

In section 42 of the Constitution there are four specific exceptions to Parliament's right to exclusively amend the Constitution as it relates to the Senate. These are: first, the method of selection of senators; second, the powers of the Senate; third, the distribution of Senate seats; and, fourth, the residence qualifications of senators.

I believe that at the very least Bill C-19 violates if not the letter then certainly the spirit of the exceptions as outlined in the Constitution Act.

We know that the Prime Minister is proposing that there be a term limits for senators of eight years. We know that the Prime Minister wants to institute a somewhat complicated and indirect electoral process for senators that in the end would have him or her, or whoever is the prime minister of the day, choose from the list of those put forward by virtue of this electoral process.

One obvious concern about this electoral process immediately comes to mind. Should prime ministers be fortunate enough to form more than two majority governments, they would by virtue of the eight-year term limit have effectively chosen every single senator by the time they would leave office at the end of their third mandate. I believe this is a very serious and potential affront to the concept of a Senate of a sober second thought.

Yes, there will be electoral choices put forward by voters, but in essence the Prime Minister would have chosen from these lists and effectively determined the composition of the entire Senate should he or she last in office for more than two majority terms.

If a prime minister were to remain in office for a period of over two terms, would all members of the Senate be in the position to obey his or her orders? My point is simply that this is inconsistent with the role the Senate should be occupying in our parliamentary process.

We must also understand that Canada is a unique country born of unique realities that are reflected in our national institutions. The Senate is one of these with its unique characteristics.

How can the Prime Minister simply ignore provinces like Ontario and Quebec that have expressed concerns about his path forward? The founders of this country chose to have representation in the Senate which reflects the character and size of our regions. We did not choose for example the United States or Australian model or representation that ignores population size.

In the latter case of Australia, the region of Tasmania, with a population of 650,000 people, has the same senate representation as New South Wales with over 6 million people. This is not the experience that has or would serve Canada well.

We should also remember we have not for the most part witnessed the kind of interparliamentary confrontation between our upper and lower chambers that has for example been the British experience. Historians will tell us than in 1911 and subsequently in 1949 the parliament acts were passed in Britain to assert the power of the House of Commons over the House of Lords. This was as a result of the 1909 budgetary obstruction by the Conservative House of Lords against the Liberal House of Commons. At one point King Edward VII and his successor King George V were prepared to appoint hundreds of Liberal lords to resolve the issue. The Conservative House of Lords conceded and accepted the new reality.

My point is simply that we in Canada have for the most part had a productive relationship between the Senate and the House of Commons that has served Canadians well.

What we need is reform and not the Prime Minister's sword of Damocles which he tries to dangle over the Senate calling upon it to “accept my terms or be abolished”. As members may know from Greek mythology, the sword of Damocles hung by a single hair over its potential victim ready to drop at the first sign of refusal to comply. This is not the way to reform fundamental institutions like the Senate. It is not compatible with the consensus nature of our country's political heritage.

We do not have to repeat the troubled experience of past constitutional reform undertakings like the Victoria agreement, the Meech Lake accord or the Charlottetown accord. There is I believe a desire among Canadians for Senate reform. Indeed, poll after poll suggests this. Likewise, polls also indicate that Canadians do not want Senate abolition but rather Senate reform.

This leads me back to my original comments on this issue. Let us undertake real Senate reform. Let us consult Canadians and their provincial leaders. It is neither good constitutional policy nor is it consistent with our political traditions to push one version of Senate reform or else threaten abolition.

Let us have elected senators, let us have Senate reform, but let us make the changes in a manner that reflects Canada's history of consensus and that honours the traditions of our country's foundation and our nation's progress throughout history.

[James Moore, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics]

Mr. Speaker, what our government has endeavoured to do is put forward non-constitutional but effective reforms regarding the Senate, for example, consultation with the provinces and term limits. We want to limit the Senate term from a maximum of 45 years to 8 years, as this bill proposes to do.

My colleague has said, and I respect my colleague as a good friend, and a number of Liberals have persistently said over the years, they are in favour Senate reform. The Prime Minister joked in the last election campaign that the previous leader of the Liberal Party was not in favour of piecemeal Senate reform and was not prepared to engage in comprehensive Senate reform, but other than that he was all in favour of Senate reform. It has to be one or the other.

The Liberal Party, as my colleague must know, historically supported Meech Lake and Charlottetown, both of which had an elected Senate as part of their mandate.

It has opposed all of our efforts for electing senators. In the province of Alberta, where the new elected senator Bert Brown was just appointed, the Liberals in the province of Alberta and the federal Liberals opposed that Senate election. They did not want to get involved in that process.

Frankly, I am at a loss to understand exactly what the Liberals have in mind in terms of Senate reform. I think if we ask Canadians, they would vote 95 to 5 in favour of the idea of limiting Senate terms from 45 years to 8 years. It seems like a layup. However, I am still at a loss to find out exactly what the position is of the Liberal Party with regard to Senate reform.

In February of next year, my province of British Columbia, the third largest province of Canada, the fastest-growing province, is going to have three Senate vacancies. Half of our Senate delegation will be vacant. I am personally encouraging Premier Campbell to support the idea of electing senators in the province of British Columbia.

What is the Liberal position? Do the Liberals continue to oppose the idea that Alberta should have elected Bert Brown, having an elected senator appointed to the Senate?

When British Columbia has half of our Senate delegation vacated in February of next year, is it the Liberal position that the province of British Columbia should not have Senate elections in order to fill those seats?

Specifically, what is the Liberal position on Senate reform?

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one thing is very clear, and I think it is important that the member is also aware of it. We are not in favour of abolishing the Senate. As well, we have never threatened the Senate with abolition.

The approach that has been taken by both the Prime Minister and the government concerns me greatly. On one hand they are saying they want reform, but they are also saying they might also abolish it at the end. I think that is a wrong way of approaching the issue. I think we need an approach that builds on consensus, that in fact engages our provinces, engages our population, and then we can move forward.

The government is coming out from the very beginning saying that it is not happy with the Senate, as though somehow it is the Senate's fault that the composition is the way it is. It is in fact a constitutional issue. The senators have a role to play, but so do we have a role to play. I do not think we should be getting all the blame for the way the nature of the composition of the Senate is at the very moment.

The approach has to be one of collaboration, cooperation, and engagement, specifically with our provincial partners. By approaching it in that constructive way, I think we can get a lot further.

This is a very important institution in Canada. If we are going to mess around with it, if we are going to in fact alter and change it, then we need to do in a respectful way, not in a threatening way, saying basically, “Do it or we are going to abolish you”. I am totally opposed to that approach, and I think most members of my caucus are also opposed to that approach.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I also find it odd to hear the Liberals talking about Senate reform and problems with the Senate. But before speaking about Senate reform, which, by the way, should be discussed as part of a constitutional negotiation including all the provinces—which is the point the Bloc Québécois is bringing up today—there is one thing that all the members in this House could do: stand up to non-elected Senators when they go against the opinion of this House.

I will give an example of something that affected me in particular: the transport bill passed last session. I worked very hard and encouraged the members of the Standing Committee on Transportation, Infrastructure and Communities to make amendments that strengthened the bill, in order to better protect our citizens against noise, vibrations and disruptions cause by trains travelling through our communities.

We held hearings during which people spoke about their particular situation and the difficulties they face. All the members of the committee unanimously reached a compromise to strengthen the bill, to be able to have real control over the railway companies. That was already a compromise. The Bloc Québécois members and I would have liked to have gone further, but we agreed unanimously.

The other place also held committee hearings, but exclusively with railway companies, without inviting those affected by this kind of problem, the people living near the railways. The Senate committee rejected every amendment unanimously adopted by the committee of this House. It rejected these amendments unanimously and returned them to this House.

As members of Parliament, we could have said that we are the elected representatives of the people and, as such, did not accept that these amendments could be rejected; and then, we could have sent them back to the Senate. No constitutional reform was required for that. No government bill was required for that. All we needed to do was to stand on our hind legs.

The Liberals failed to do so, and the Conservatives did the same. Both these parties grovelled to unelected senators. Here they are today talking to us about Senate reform and democracy.

Basically, the real solution is first and foremost to have real, honest to God members of Parliament who really represent their constituents, stand up to the senators and never yield on principles. Our democracy would be better served already if we took that approach.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

The reality here in Canada is that we have always had two houses. We have to respect the fact that these two houses make up our country's Parliament. The Senate is an institution that plays an important role in our democracy and in our democratic system.

My colleague's question was about Senate reform. I am in favour of it. After all, we can change our system, but we cannot abolish the Senate. I am against abolishing the Senate because it plays a very important role in our country. Canada has always had two houses, both of them important, in its parliamentary system. I still support that system.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the member's comments on the Senate and I am not clear where the party stands on the bill. What would he say to the position of the Ontario government, in particular the Liberal premier of Ontario? They are on the record that their position presently, unless it has changed recently, is the abolition of the Senate.

Has the member had conversations with the premier of Ontario, or for that matter his brother who sits close to him, about this issue? At the end of the day, if this does not work, if the real reform that is necessary is not limits of eight years but limits of zero years, does he agree with the Ontario government and the Liberal premier of Ontario that abolition of the Senate is the way to go?

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been quite clear in my remarks that I do not believe in the abolition of the Senate. It is a very important institution that has served Canada well, but it needs reform.

I do not want to speak for the hon. member or for the premier of Ontario, Dalton McGuinty. My understanding is the premier stated that abolition should be only the last stage if the solution is election. I think he probably prefers to maintain the system as it is.

However, I am stating quite clearly that the Senate is important. I do not support the NDP position of abolition of the Senate. If a poll were done, I believe most Canadians would oppose the abolition of the Senate. I think they would understand that there is a need for an upper House, for the Senate to be part of the parliamentary system of our country.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.