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.

Competition Act

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-454, An Act to amend the Competition Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts and to congratulate the hon. member from the Bloc Québécois for introducing it.

The Competition Act is an important law in Canada. It governs how we do business in a number of ways. The purpose of the Competition Act is to encourage Canadian businesses to compete with one another with the belief that enhanced competition will lead to lower prices and greater product choice for consumers.

The Competition Act contains criminal and civil provisions which apply to most industries and businesses in Canada, both large and small. The Competition Bureau is an independent federal agency which administers the act.

The current act criminalizes some anti-competitive practices. The criminal provisions include: conspiracy to unduly lessen competition; bid rigging; discriminatory and predatory pricing; price maintenance; refusal to supply; and certain misleading advertising and deceptive marketing practices. The offences are investigated by the Competition Bureau and prosecuted in federal or provincial superior courts.

Attempts have been made before to update the Competition Act. In April 2002 the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology released a report entitled “A Plan to Modernize Canada's Competition Regime”. It recommended extensive amendments to the Competition Act.

Subsequently Bill C-19 was introduced. It proposed changes to the Competition Act that would have allowed the Competition Tribunal to impose an AMP, an administrative monetary penalty, if it found that a person or a company abused its dominant position. It would have increased the AMP that the Competition Tribunal or court could impose when it found that a person or company had engaged in deceptive marketing. It would have repealed the airline specific provisions that are currently found in the act, which arose out of a particular period in Canada's aviation history and were designed to deal specifically with the airline industry. Bill C-19 proposed to decriminalize predatory and discriminatory pricing provisions.

At the time, there was a great deal of debate about Bill C-19 but it died on the order paper and ultimately did not pass. The Competition Act remained unchanged and that is very unfortunate for Canadians.

Every time the price of gasoline goes up, we hear complaints from our constituents. They see gas prices rise in lockstep usually just before a long weekend. The greatest instance of consumer complaints is probably from people who believe they are being gouged by gas and oil companies.

The government should deal with this in a more effective way. It is clear that the Competition Act, as it currently stands, does not have the teeth to deal with this kind of price gouging. It should be thoroughly investigated so that Canadian consumers are protected.

The issue of deceptive marketing and deceptive advertising is also of great concern to Canadians. We have an aging population. We all know of situations where seniors especially have fallen prey to deceptive advertising. Again, the Competition Act simply does not have the teeth to protect consumers. It is basically a buyer beware situation, and that is simply not good enough.

We should think of a situation where an individual senior, who lives alone in his or her own home, who maybe does not have access to the Internet, and does not read as widely as some other folks, is up against a very powerful and well resourced company that has a very slick marketing campaign. That individual senior could be quite vulnerable. I believe it is our job as parliamentarians to do everything we can to ensure that all consumers are protected.

We all want to foster a healthy economy. We want to make sure that we are creating the conditions for businesses in our economy to do well and for them to compete. We have a very mature economy, but there has to be a balance so that consumers are also protected.

Today the average person is really getting squeezed. Savings are at an all time low and consumer debt is the highest it has been in a generation. People are incredibly price sensitive. There are people who have to commute from the suburbs to the centre of town to go to work every day. Some people in my part of the country and the greater Toronto area commute long distances. With respect to the price of gas, people are phenomenally price sensitive. When the price of oil goes up, consumers really take a hit in the pocketbook. They need us to make sure that they are protected.

There is one concern that I do have with this bill, and it was a concern with Bill C-19 as well, which is that the AMPs, the administrative monetary penalties, would be tax deductible for the corporations that face these penalties. That does not make any sense. It makes no sense that the Government of Canada and the Canadian taxpayers would somehow be responsible for paying these monetary penalties. That is something we should discuss at the committee.

I will be supporting this bill. As a member of the industry committee, I look forward to discussing the bill at the industry committee. The goal is to protect Canadian consumers, to put teeth into the Competition Act, and to protect our seniors from deceptive advertising. I believe all of these provisions would lead to greater competition and a healthier economy.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-454. I would like to congratulate the member for Montcalm on his bill.

The origins of the bill can be traced back to early 2002 when the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology released a report entitled, “A Plan to Modernize Canada's Competition Act”. The proposed changes from that committee's report formed the basis of government Bill C-19 during the 38th Parliament, under the leadership of the member for LaSalle—Émard.

Reading this private member's bill, I noticed that virtually all the provisions of Bill C-19 have been included as well as some of the other recommendations from the industry committee's 2002 report, which did not find their way into the original bill.

I understand many of the additions in Bill C-454 had been proposed during the rather lengthy year that the industry committee spent studying Bill C-19 before it died on the order paper in November 2005.

Above and beyond those additions, Bill C-454 has a number of other amendments that were not in the original bill.

While I am willing to lend my vote to the bill at second reading, I do so in the hope that it will receive the same diligent consideration at committee stage that Bill C-19 received in 2005. We must, as legislators, ensure that the objectives of the bill will be met without any unintended consequences.

To reiterate my position for the member, the bill shows good promise and I will support it at this stage. However, I will reserve my final judgment until it returns from committee wherein stakeholders and Canadians will have had the opportunity to voice their praise or their concerns for the bill.

While I am on the topic of committee stage, I hope the industry committee' s efforts to review the bill will be well coordinated with the Minister of Industry's review of the Competition Act. I believe the minister is expecting his panel to report later this spring and I hope that the two tracks will find some common ground.

The underlying purpose of Bill C-454 is to enhance the Competition Act, with a view to ensuring that businesses in our country compete with each other in a fair and open market. The act helps to protect businesses, especially small businesses, but large ones as well, from becoming the victims of such anti-competitive behaviour as predatory pricing and abuse of dominance.

The end beneficiary of this is the Canadian consumer, who will benefit from increased competition, diversified choice and in theory lower prices at the cash register. The act achieves this through the Competition Bureau, which enforces the provisions by responding to consumer complaints and investigating evidence of illegal activity by businesses.

The biggest change that Bill C-454 would make to the Competition Act is it would allow for general administrative monetary penalty, or AMP, provisions to be used against businesses or individuals abusing their dominant position in any industry. This would allow businesses and individuals injured by an abuse of dominance to seek financial remuneration for any damages they have suffered due to abuse of a dominant position. Currently there are only criminal penalties for such breaches of the act.

Similar administrative monetary penalty provisions are already in place for abuse of dominance in many countries around the world. Adding Canada to the list of countries that allows for these fines in cases where dominance has been abused is important, not only domestically but also in terms of strengthening ties with our major trading partners.

Let me move on to other aspects of Bill C-454. One is that the bill would increase the administrative penalties, or AMPs, that a business could be fined for practising in deceptive marketing practices. With the low limits of the current maximums, deceptive marketing can often lead to profits that are far greater than the monetary penalties that can be administered. By raising the limits, we will increase the deterrence factor and help to ensure that the people who are hurt by deceptive marketing campaigns can get a much greater percentage of their investment back from the guilty party.

Another measure included in the bill, which came directly from the industry committee's 2002 report, was to eliminate the section of the Competition Act that dealt specifically with airlines. This special mention of our airline industry was added at a time when Canadian and Air Canada were merging and there was widespread concern that the Competition Bureau needed stronger tools to ensure that the combined giant did not engage in predatory conduct.

Today, however, there are many low cost carriers that have emerged and the airline industry no longer needs special mention in the act. The industry can go back to being covered by the general provisions, which, as I have mentioned, would be strengthened the bill.

I am glad to see that the Bloc Québécois have taken an interest in helping to build a stronger 21st century economy, supported by a competitive marketplace and a competition with the tools to ensure that they get the job done. The Bloc often takes a narrow and isolationist approach to economic matters, so it is nice to see it put country before its own party interests.

It would have been very easy for the Bloc for instance to dismiss a bill, such as C-19, as an intrusion of the federal government into matters of provincial jurisdiction. For instance, price controls are the exclusive jurisdiction of the provincial government, save for in emergency situations. The Bloc of old might have believed that the federal government had no place deciding when a business had engaged in predatory pricing. Determining the appropriate price of something could be interpreted as a matter purely for provincial jurisdiction.

In this instance I am glad to see that my Bloc colleague from Montcalm was willing to table a bill that proves a federal bill can be good for all Canadians including the people of Quebec.

I look forward to seeing what the industry committee does with Bill C-454 and when it arrives back here in the House for report stage and third reading.

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

Certainly that is his intention. That's what he's going to do, and he said that clearly.

Since Confederation, in probably most governments, there have been members of cabinet who have come from the Senate. What we have now is nothing new. But should Bill C-19 be introduced, and should it become the practice that all senators take office as a result of popular consultation, which would be the case within a number of years should this be adopted, then you would never again have members of the cabinet who were not the product of a democratic process. I think that would be a measure of improvement for our country all around. I think everybody agrees with that, and I hope this committee will keep it in mind in considering this proposal.

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

I think there are probably very few places in the country where people know who their senators are. It's the nature of the institution right now, because there is no democratic element. In fact, it's probably in the more remote regions where people are more likely to know who their senators are, because they're well-known local figures. Certainly I could walk down the streets of Toronto, I'm sure, and ask a hundred people to name me a senator who was from Toronto, and I'd have a tough time getting one person to provide me an accurate answer.

From that perspective, I think it's a reflection or manifestation of the remoteness of the institution if people don't even know who represents them in the Senate. We have here parliamentarians, people who are very actively engaged in passing laws, telling us they don't know who represents them in the Senate today. Of course, in Quebec people do represent Senate constituencies; it's different from the rest of the country. But that, I think, is a profound indication of the problem.

There are a bunch of folks in the Senate, and even the most engaged, active, interested people in the political process don't know they're there. Yet senators have more power. There are far fewer of them than there are members in the House of Commons, but the body has the same power as the House of Commons, essentially. Each senator is more powerful than any member of Parliament, yet they're not accountable.

I think the connection to the people of the province, the level of representation, the familiarity, the likelihood that individuals will be sensitive to the concerns of the area they represent, all of those will be enhanced and increased if you have a system in place, as we are suggesting under Bill C-19, where people are actually asked who they want to have representing them in the Senate.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. Minister, building off what you were saying, it's not just that the Senate is undemocratic. In recent experience it's anti-democratic in that it's been undermining and stymying the democratic will of the other side of Parliament, the House of Commons.

If I could clarify one thing in the same vein as Mr. Hill, the province of Manitoba, my home province, is listed in research as favouring abolition, and I've heard Premier Gary Doer say that as well. But by the same token, we have just recently put together a legislative committee of the provincial government to explore our options for electing our provincial senators. I don't want it to be overstated that the province of Manitoba is uncooperative in this idea of incremental reform of the Senate.

Minister, I was one of the lucky ordinary Canadians chosen in the Charlottetown accord process, when they actually put an ad in The Globe and Mail and asked...I was an ordinary Canadian once; I still am. I simply wrote a letter to The Globe and Mail, to the Government of Canada that Joe Clark had set up. What I'm getting at is that it was a consultation that was a real engagement for Canadians. There were five--six in the end--conferences across the country where they brought in ordinary Canadians, some selected the way they selected me, others from civil society, first nations groups, labour, and business. We were really seized with the issue for months and months at a time.

So I wouldn't say there's no appetite on the part of the public for a broad consultation, because in that instance the country came out. They really did. They brought their best game and they got into it.

I firmly believe that the problem with the Charlottetown accord is that we tried to take on too much at once and it collapsed under its own weight. If the Charlottetown accord had been limited to what you're putting forward in Bill C-19 and Bill C-20, I think it would have passed. We were talking about the division of power and jurisdiction, shared jurisdictions, the distribution of seats, and the way we elected senators, all at once. People's heads exploded. It just became too much, until one guy raised one feather in the province of Manitoba and said no—oh, that was Meech Lake, wasn't it? I'm mixing up my constitutional reforms here.

But if I could, in the same vein the United States gets by with two senators from Rhode Island and two senators from New York, wildly different populations. So I don't think we should agonize too much about the equal side of it at this point in time. Ours is crazy. I believe New Brunswick has ten senators, if I'm not mistaken, and Prince Edward Island has four for a population of 150,000 people. I don't know how it got so out of whack.

But the 13 failed attempts, I think, are partly because we bit off too much. So maybe with these incremental stages there is some room for optimism that we can address all those irritants that make people cry out to abolish. Maybe they can be dealt with incrementally, so that hue and cry will settle down to the point where Canadians feel this is a problem we can solve if we solve it one step at a time.

I know that's more of a comment than a question, but is there any reaction you'd like to give?

[Warren Newman]

Sometimes this is a question of legislative drafting, but I don't think that's necessarily the case here.

In some cases, it's quite clear that one must proceed by section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982, because one is seeking to amend textually the Constitution of Canada, that is, the Constitution Act. That is certainly the case with Bill C-19. It would effect an amendment to the very text of the Constitution Act, 1867.

In this particular case, first of all, our view is that this is not a constitutional amendment in the sense in which that is understood in the amending formula. That is, it does not purport to amend a provision of the Constitution of Canada. What it does do is take the provisions of the Constitution as a given--the formal appointing process, the summoning of senators by the Governor General, and the conventional role played by the Prime Minister--and provides a mechanism or a process by which the democratic principle can play on that choice of senators. So it is not proceeding via section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Some would argue that any organic legislation is, in a sense, constitutional in a small c sense. It's all part of the common law Constitution, if you will. And there are many statutes, including the Parliament of Canada Act, that have that organic character. But this is not, as I say, a constitutional amendment the way Bill C-19 is.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Let me say first, Minister, that I'm very pleased we're dealing with this matter today. I find Bill C-19 and Bill C-20 very interesting, and I admire that your government is taking this on. You will know that in the history of my own party since the 1930s, one of the basic tenets of the CCF was to abolish the unelected Senate. That language is important. We reaffirmed that at our most recent convention in September 2006, to abolish the unelected Senate. I don't know what the opinion of my party would be if someone came up with a motion to abolish the Senate; I don't think it would be a view that is as widely held within the party.

I note that there have been 13 efforts to reform the Senate since 1900, all of which have crashed and burned after various periods of time. As a starting point, I think my party would have liked a nation-wide referendum on whether we want a Senate at all. In fact, we put an opposition day motion forward to that effect recently.

Has your government contemplated a consultation of that kind in the lead-up to this legislation?

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I also want to thank in particular the members of this committee, because the work you're doing on this bill is very important. It's significant that it was sent not only to a special legislative committee, indicating the importance the government places on this, but also before second reading, so that you have the fullest latitude possible in considering the important question of how to deal with how we select people to represent Canadians in the Senate, and ensuring that they do actually represent Canadians in the Senate.

The bill, of course, is Bill C-20, the Senate Appointment Consultations Act.

Our government's position has been clear on the question of the upper chamber. We believe the Senate must change. We're committed to leading that change. The bill you're studying represents one aspect of our plan to effect that change.

The Senate must change because it is a body that is not elected by Canadians, and therefore, not accountable to the Canadian people.

Quite simply, the Senate is an artifact of a long ago time where aristocrats and nobles wielded influence and power without being accountable.

Incredibly for an unelected institution, the Senate has powers that are nearly equal to those of the House of Commons. For example, the Senate can block legislation passed by the democratically elected House of Commons. It can compel government officials and Canadian citizens to appear before Senate committees. The Senate can propose and pass legislation and send it to the House of Commons for approval.

As Members of Parliament, I am sure we can all agree that it is utterly absurd for the members of the unelected, unaccountable Senate to have power nearly equal to the equal, accountable House of Parliament that we are all members of, the House of Commons.

This is not healthy for the Senate, it's not healthy for democracy in Canada, and it's not appropriate for the 21st century. That's why we introduced two bills to create a modern and accountable Senate that is consistent with modern and contemporary democratic values, principles, and traditions.

The first bill, Bill C-19, will put an end to terms of up to 45 years for senators by limiting their terms to eight years. The bill before this committee, entitled the Senate Appointment Consultations Act, is Bill C-20, and it creates a process for giving Canadians a say in who they want to represent them in the Senate by holding popular consultations with Canadians to fill vacant Senate seats.

The bill is carefully drafted to ensure that the Senate will remain a chamber of independent sober second thought and that its essential positive characteristics are maintained.

This legislative proposal is drafted so as not to make any changes that would require a formal constitutional amendment.

The formal legal method of selection remains unchanged. The constitutional powers of the Governor General to summon Canadians to the Senate and the conventional prerogative of the Prime Minister to recommend appointments are unaffected. The constitutionally stipulated qualifications of senators are maintained, and the consultation process can take account of whatever length of term Parliament ultimately decides to establish for senators. This legislative initiative does not change the constitutional role of the Senate as the arbiter of questions respecting the qualifications of senators.

This bill provides the government with the flexibility to decide whether and when to use a consultation, in how many provinces to hold a consultation during a federal or provincial election, and for how many seats, be they vacant or not. This flexibility is important. It will help to ensure that nominees are available to fill seats as they become vacant.

For the first time ever, Canadians across Canada will have a direct say in who should represent them in the Senate; however, the bill must become law before that will happen.

That is why, in a serious effort to pass this bill and achieve a modern, accountable Senate, the government asked for this bill to be sent to a special legislative committee—this committee—before second reading.

We want to work cooperatively with the opposition parties—as we did, for example, on extending the mission in Afghanistan—to bring real change, real accountability, and real progress to the Senate. It's something that Canadian people have been consistently supporting in every opinion poll taken since we formed the government—I suspect, actually, in every opinion poll that might have been taken since slightly after Confederation.

In recent public consultations on democratic reform that were completed last year, 79% of Canadians said they supported electing senators and 65% said they supported term limits for senators. The fact is that support for Senate reform is overwhelming in Canada.

Which is why we have consistently stated that we are open to different approaches on the details of Senate reform, but we will not compromise on one fundamental aspect: the Senate must change.

However, members of this committee should note that if change cannot happen through reform, if the Senate and establishment interests demonstrate that they are resistant to the idea of a modern Senate, then we believe that the Senate should be abolished.

It's not our preferred route. We prefer to try to reform the Senate before we resort to abolishing it. But if those vested interests continue to use their unaccountable and illegitimate democratic powers to resist democratization and effectively block it, I believe abolition is a route that Canadians will want us to travel.

At the end of the day, our government is committed to modernizing the Senate to reflect the 21st century democratic principles, values and traditions of our great country.

I hope that the members of this committee will work with the government in a spirit of good faith to advance this important bill, which is overwhelmingly supported by Canadians, to help create a modern and accountable Senate.

I'd be pleased to take any questions that you have.

The Constitution Act, 2007 (Democratic Representation)

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the member's speech on Bill C-22, but I would like to ask him a few questions to clarify his position. I understand that the Government of Quebec is very concerned about this government's democratic reform agenda. This means that it does not support this bill, Bill C-20 or Bill C-19.

Just so I understand, I would like to know the Bloc's position on this. It is against this bill because it wants Quebec to be recognized as a nation.

Are there any other reasons it is opposed to this bill and to the fact that the government does not consult the provinces, including Quebec? Premier Charest said that we needed to consult before changing the Senate and the number of seats in the House of Commons.

Does the member think it is a good idea for this government, or any federal government, to consult the provinces, including Quebec, about such changes and their implementation?

Senate Appointment Consultations Act

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is opposed to the bill concerning the appointment of senators. Parliament cannot reform the Senate unilaterally or without a constitutional amendment. At any rate, even a reformed Senate is a useless institution.

Canadian institutions cannot be reformed. The numerous attempts to reform the Senate illustrate perfectly the “Canadian dead end.” Proposals to reform the Senate date back as far as 1874. Barely seven years after the creation of the Dominion of Canada, the Senate was the subject of criticism and calls for reform.

A motion in April 1874, by member of Parliament David Mills, recommended that “our Constitution ought to be so amended as to confer upon each Province the power of selecting its own Senators, and of defining the mode of their election”. Now, 133 years later, we are still debating this issue. Senator Serge Joyal, who wrote a book on Senate reform, identified at least 26 proposals for Senate reform in the past 30 years alone.

The Bloc Québécois believes that the Senate reform proposed by the current government is a slap in the face for Quebec federalists. The minimum position of successive Quebec governments has always been clear: no Senate reform without first settling the question of Quebec’s status.

In 1989, Robert Bourassa said he did not want to discuss Senate reform until the Meech Lake accord was ratified. In 1992, Gil Rémillard said that signature by Canada of an accord involving Senate reform would depend on the outcome of negotiations on the concept of a distinct society, division of powers and the federal spending power.

By means of Bills C-19 and C-20, the current Conservative Prime Minister is trying to reform the Senate piecemeal, without having satisfied the minimum conditions stipulated by Quebec.

Clearly 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 provinces.

In the late 1970s, 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 “Authority of Parliament in relation to the Upper House”, in 1980, decisions pertaining to major changes to the essential characteristics of the Senate cannot be made unilaterally.

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.

Benoît Pelletier, the Quebec Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, and MNA for Chapleau, reiterated Quebec's traditional position on November 7, 2007, which was not so long ago:

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 same day, in November 2007, Quebec's National Assembly unanimously passed the following motion—I hope the government is listening:

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.

Quebec is not alone in opposing the idea of an elected Senate. The outgoing Premier of Saskatchewan, Lorne Calvert, and the Premier of Manitoba, Gary Doer, have called for abolishing the Senate instead of trying to reform it. The Premier of Ontario, Dalton McGuinty, has also expressed concerns about whether electing senators to the Senate might not make the inequalities even worse.

In summary, indirect election of senators would change the rapport between the House of Commons and the Senate. These changes cannot be made unilaterally without the consent of the provinces and without the consent of Quebec, recognized as a nation by the House of Commons. Whether the Senate is reformed or not, it is a useless institution.

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.

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? All the provinces have done away with their upper chambers. No province has had an upper chamber since Quebec abolished its legislative council in 1968, and as far as I know, the provinces are able to govern appropriately.

Bill C-20 would not make the Senate democratic. Public consultation is not binding. Bill C-20 provides for public “consultation” to choose senators. 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. The background paper provided by the government concerning this bill states: “The Prime Minister can take into account the results of the consultation when making recommendations to the Governor General regarding future representatives of a province or territory in the Senate”.

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? The current Prime Minister's real motivation 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.

Constitution Act, 2007 (Senate tenure)

[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.

[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.

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.

[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.

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

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-19, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (Senate tenure).

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)