Bill C-7 (Historical)

Senate Reform Act

An Act respecting the selection of senators and amending the Constitution Act, 1867 in respect of Senate term limits

Part 1 of this enactment establishes a framework for electing nominees for Senate appointments from the provinces and territories. The following principles apply to the selection process:
(a) the Prime Minister, in recommending Senate nominees to the Governor General for a province or territory, would be required to consider names from a list of nominees submitted by the provincial or territorial government; and
(b) the list of nominees would be determined by an election held in accordance with provincial or territorial laws enacted to implement the framework.
Part 2 alters the tenure of senators who are summoned after October 14, 2008.

Senate Reform Act

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

moved that Bill C-7, An Act respecting the selection of senators and amending the Constitution Act, 1867 in respect of Senate term limits, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to begin debate today on the Senate reform act, Bill C-7. The bill has been a long time coming. Reform of the other place has been the subject of strong passions across the country that have crossed party lines for the better part of a quarter century. While the government's priorities are unchanged and the economy remains a top priority, we have an opportunity to take the first steps on this road.

Our government has always been clear about our commitment to bring reform to the Senate chamber. We pledged to do this in our most recent election platform and we repeated our promise in the Speech from the Throne. I am proud to present this legislation and to start the work in the House to fulfill our commitments to Canadians.

The Senate can play an important role in our parliamentary system. It reviews statutes and legislation, often from different perspectives than those found in this place. It serves to represent regional and minority interests in a different way than they are represented in the House. Many of its members and committees have demonstrated and provided appreciable research and investigative skills and thoughtful recommendations. It can be a place where a broader range of experience and expertise can be brought to bear on the issues facing our country.

Unfortunately, the contributions of the Senate are overshadowed by the fact that senators are selected and appointed through a process that is neither formal nor transparent, with no democratic mandate whatsoever from Canadians.

Moreover, there are no strict limits on the number of years an individual can sit in the Senate. Under the Constitution, an individual can be appointed to the Senate at the age of 30 and serve until the age of 75. That means a senator could serve for as long as 45 years.

Taken together, the Senate lacks any essential democratic characteristics. Its effectiveness and legitimacy suffers from the democratic deficit.

We must then ask ourselves the simple question. Is this good enough? Our answer and Canadians' answer is no. Our government does not believe that the current situation is acceptable in a modern, representative democracy, and neither do Canadians.

Our government has long believed that the status quo in the Senate is unacceptable and therefore it must change in order to reach its full potential as an accountable and democratic institution. The alternative is the continuation of a situation where senators are appointed to long terms without any democratic mandate. We say enough, and Canadians are with us in saying no to the status quo in the Senate.

In July of this year, polling found that seven out of ten Canadians reject the status quo in the Senate. Although striking, this is not shocking. The Senate and its reform has been the subject of numerous reports, proposals and studies over the past several decades.

While recommendations on how to reform the Senate have differed, and differ still, there is one consistent theme that runs throughout. Nearly all reports and studies agree that the Senate is an important democratic institution and that reform is needed to increase legitimacy in the context of a modern, democratic country. It is clear that while there may be different approaches to solving this problem, all parties agree that reform is necessary.

Senate reform of any kind has proven to be a complicated process. Under our Constitution, reforming fundamental aspects of the Senate, such as its powers or the representation of the provinces, requires the support of seven provinces representing 50% of the population of the provinces. Achieving the necessary level of provincial support for particular fundamental reforms is a complex and lengthy process with no guarantee of success.

Canadians do not want drawn out constitutional battles, battles that will detract from our government's focus on the top priority of Canadians, which is the economy. But a lack of agreement on large fundamental reform does not leave us with a lack of options if only we have the sufficient will to do so. If we are to begin the journey toward reform, we must do what we can within the scope of our authority in Parliament.

Our government believes that Senate reform is needed now, and we are committed to pursing a practical, reasonable approach to reform that we believe will help restore effectiveness and legitimacy in the Senate. That is why we are moving forward with the Senate reform act.

Through the bill, our government is taking immediate and concrete action to fulfill our commitment to Canadians to increase the effectiveness and legitimacy of our upper chamber and to work co-operatively with the provinces and territories.

The Senate reform act includes two initiatives that would help bring the Senate into the 21st century.

First, the act provides a suggested framework to provinces and territories that wish to establish a democratic consultation process to give Canadians a say in who represents them in the Senate.

Second, it introduces term limits for senators appointed after October 2008, which would ensure that the Senate would be refreshed with new ideas on a regular basis.

While each of these initiatives can stand on their own merits, combining these measures allows our government to act quickly to implement our promise to Canadians to bring about reforms.

As I have already noted, our government has long been committed to Senate reform. Our commitment to reform remains as strong as ever, and we are now in a position to act on our commitment. We have consistently encouraged provinces and territories to implement a democratic process for the selection of Senate nominees. The Senate reform act will give clarity to our flexible approach.

The act would require the Prime Minister to consider the names of individuals selected from the holding of democratic processes with Canadians when making recommendations on appointments to the Governor General. The act would not bind the Prime Minister or the Governor General when making Senate appointments. Nor would it change the method of selecting senators.

Therefore, Parliament is able to enact this provision through its authority under section 44 of our Constitution. Under section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982, Parliament has the legislative authority to amend the Constitution in relation to the Senate.

The act also contains a voluntary framework, attached as a schedule to the act, for provinces and territories to use as a basis for developing democratic selection process to consult voters on the preference of their Senate nominees. The framework is based on Alberta's Senatorial Selection Act. The framework is meant to provide enough details to facilitate the development of provincial or territorial legislation, without limiting provinces and territories in the establishment of a consultation process or in the precise details of such a process, which may differ between jurisdictions as local needs may demand.

This is, after all, a co-operative venture. Provinces and territories would not be required to implement the framework precisely as written. Rather, they would be encouraged to adapt the framework to best suit the needs of their unique circumstances.

It is our hope that this built-in flexibility will further encourage provinces to provide a democratic consultation process to give greater voice to their citizens and their provinces in the Senate.

Before moving on to explain other aspects of the bill, I would like to note that the approach proposed in the Senate reform act has already been successful and this type of reform has already gained a toehold in the Senate.

In 2007 the Prime Minister recommended the appointment of Bert Brown to the Senate. Senator Brown was chosen as a senator in waiting by Alberta voters in 2004 in a selection process held under the authority of Alberta's Senatorial Selection Act, which was introduced in 1989.

Senator Brown's tireless work on reform both inside and outside the Senate is greatly appreciated, not only by me and our government but also by the many Canadians who want Senate reform and who have campaigned for it for many years.

Alberta may have been the first province to pass this type of legislation and to see its nominees appointed, but it is not the only province that has taken steps to facilitate reform.

In 2009 Saskatchewan passed the Senate Nominee Election Act, which enables a provincial government to hold a consultation process on Senate nominees. Saskatchewan has not yet held a consultation process, but I encourage it to do so at the earliest opportunity. Our government continues to be welcoming toward discussion and co-operation wherever possible.

In British Columbia, the previous parliamentary secretary has introduced a bill that would provide the provincial government with the authority to hold consultation processes. I will be following the progress of the bill closely and would encourage my provincial colleagues in the British Columbia Legislative Assembly to support the passage of the bill.

More broadly, I would encourage our colleagues in all provincial and territorial legislatures and assemblies to consider supporting and moving forward with similar initiatives.

Let us move on to the other major initiatives of Bill C-7.

In addition to encouraging the implementation of democratic selection processes for Senate nominees, the act would also limit Senate terms, which can span several decades under the current rules. Polls have consistently shown that over 70% of Canadians support limiting the terms of senators. When we began to talk about specific reforms, that amount of support for one particular provision is impressive and encouraging.

Under the Senate reform act, senators appointed, after the bill receives royal assent, will be subject to a single nine-year non-renewable term. The nine-year term will also apply to all senators appointed after October 2008, up to royal assent. The nine-year clock for those senators will start upon royal assent.

As with the earlier provisions, limiting the terms of senators would amend the Constitution, but, again, it is a reform that can be accomplished by Parliament, through section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Similarly, in 1965, Parliament acted alone to introduce mandatory retirement at age 75 for senators. Prior to that, senators were appointed for life.

As I have outlined, the Senate reform act presents practical, reasonable and achievable reforms within Parliament's authority. In order to do all that we can to ensure these reforms will be supported, our government has also consistently demonstrated our willingness to be flexible. We believe that we must work with our colleagues to ensure that change is achieved. Let me outline just a few examples.

Concerning the selection of Senate nominees, we have given discretion to the provinces and territories to develop their own consultation processes. As I noted, the Senate reform act includes a voluntary framework that is meant to provide a basis for the development of consultation processes. However, we have been clear that provinces and territories are not bound to the rules proposed in the framework.

For example, the framework proposes that consultations use an electoral system known as plurality at large, which is a version of our first-past-the-post electoral system applied to multi-member districts. Despite this, the Prime Minister has indicated that he is willing to consider the names of any nominee that is selected by voters in a democratic process. This means that provinces and territories are free to choose an electoral system that will ensure effective representation for their citizens and that will account for local or regional considerations as may be determined necessary.

Turning to term limits, our government has made a number of amendments to respond to comments made during previous examinations of this proposal.

One change was to increase the term limit from an eight-year term to a nine-year term. From the beginning, the Prime Minister was clear that he was willing to be flexible on the length of the term, as long as the principle of the bill, a truly limited term, was respected.

Our government decided to increase the term limit by one year in response to concerns that in the future, eight-year term limits could allow a two-term prime minister to appoint the entire Senate. In modifying the term limits, we are demonstrating our flexibility and desire to work with colleagues in order to ensure that this important reform is adopted.

I would note that this is not the only change we have made with respect to term limits. When the bill to first limit the terms of senators was first introduced in 2006, the bill allowed for senators to be reappointed for further terms and proposed elimination of the mandatory retirement age for senators. Following study of the bill, a number of concerns were raised that renewable terms could compromise the independence of the Senate, since senators might modify their behaviour to attempt to have their terms renewed by the government of the day. Therefore, our government responded to this concern and all subsequent versions of the bill have proposed a single term.

During its study of the bill, the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs recommended that the mandatory retirement age of 75 be maintained. When the bill was reintroduced in the last Parliament, the mandatory retirement age for senators was retained, illustrating our willingness to listen to our Senate colleagues. The Senate reform act would keep the mandatory retirement age for senators.

I raise these points because I want to be clear about our commitment to both change and flexibility. Our goal is to begin the reform process and we want to be as constructive as we can while ensuring we move forward.

I believe it is fair to say that, while many in this House agree that changes to the Senate are necessary, we sometimes disagree on the way forward.

In contrast to the position of the other parties, it is clear that our government's approach is the practical and reasonable way forward. It is the approach that can truly achieve results. In fact, the stated positions of the opposition parties are essentially arguments in favour of the status quo. Their proposals have such a low chance of success that they might as well not even propose them at all.

For example, the official opposition would try to abolish the Senate. This position is untenable for a number of reasons.

First, there is no consensus among the provinces to abolish the Senate. To take away the Senate, without significant other reforms, would be to seriously damage the effective representation of large sections of our country in our Parliament.

A second reason why this approach is undesirable is simply because Canadians do not support this idea. Polls have consistently shown that this proposal does not garner popular support. Our second chamber, though flawed, can serve valuable democratic functions if we can reform it to make it more effective and legitimate.

We should have enough respect for institutions and our democracy toward the implementation of an institution in need of repair.

The position of the Liberal Party, on the other hand, has been to advocate for a process, not a result. The Liberals do not support the reform of the Senate. Their 13-year record of inaction demonstrates their opposition. They have been clear about this. Yet their suggestion is to open the Constitution and begin a process that we know would end in a bitter, drawn-out national conflict, without Senate reforms being achieved. Their approach is a recipe for accomplishing nothing.

I reject Liberal obstructionism and encourage the them to join us in implementing constructive reforms that are reasonable and achievable.

Let us be clear. Our reforms are reasonable and achievable. They are absolutely within Parliament's authority to enact.

Our government is dedicated to reforming the Senate so that it better reflects the values of hard-working Canadians across the country. My constituents tell me that they want change. I believe that the time for change in the Senate has come.

With the Senate reform act, our government is presenting modest but important and attainable changes that would improve the Senate by providing it with greater legitimacy in the eyes of Canadians. I consider the enhancement of our democratic institutions a significant responsibility and I am privileged to be working with my hon. colleagues to meet this common objective.

I encourage all my colleagues to work toward achieving these reforms, giving Canadians a stronger voice in determining who represents them in the Senate.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, my first comment for the minister would be this. Just because the government says that it will have reform, that does not make it good reform. We saw that with former Ontario Premier Mike Harris when he said that he would change the education system. The problem is that he made it worse. That is how we see this bill. It is reform, but it is bad reform. It takes us in the wrong direction.

My question is very straightforward. One of the key fundamental components of democracy is accountability. Given that no senator, under this law, is allowed to run for re-election, given the promises they make to get elected, how on earth are they ever held accountable for whether they kept those promises for the actions and the votes they did in office if the law prohibits them from being accountable? Where is the accountability?

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Madam Speaker, first, it is obvious that the status quo in the Senate is unacceptable. Canadians have said this. Seven out of 10 believe it is unacceptable.

It is unfortunate. Although the NDP members talk about the reforms, they have not suggested any reforms that would be reasonable or practical, that could pass in this place and that would be a part of parliament's authority to move forward on. They have no ideas.

As for accountability in the Senate, the important thing is that the senators are not to be renewed. There would be one nine-year term limit. This would ensure that senators could not rely on a government to reappoint them. They could act independently, do their studies independently, they can speak independently and not have to rely upon a prime minister or a government to reappoint them. That is accountability.

Also, as term limits are over in nine years, this would continuously bring new and fresh ideas and new people in to the Senate, which is important.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, up to now, the minister's co-operation with the opposition has been very good. I want him for that. He should be an example for many of his colleagues and the staff of the government.

On the contents, though, we have, for now at least, a very deep disagreement.

First, section 42(1)(b) of our Constitution states that changing the method of selecting senators requires a 7/50 formula. The title of the bill is, “An Act respecting the selection of senators”, so it is clearly an unconstitutional bill if it is done only by Parliament.

However, in relation to it, I would like to ask the minister this. Why is he willing to penalize his province this way? The very moment the Senate will be elected, since his province has only six senators, while New Brunswick, for example, has ten senators, it will be terribly powerful and unfair for the province of Alberta and the province of British Columbia. Why is he penalizing the west this way?

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member talked about the constitutionality of the Senate selection process. It actually does not change the Senate selection process. We are asking the provinces to provide nominees. The Prime Minister would consider those nominees in making recommendations to the Governor General. That process will not change.

Under section 44 of the Constitution, these Senate reforms are completely within Parliament's authority to do. I will give two examples. The Liberals, in 1965, changed the lifetime term limit for senators to a term ending when a senator turned 75 years old.

Currently, Senator Brown has been selected in this way. There are precedents for both reforms in the Senate reform act.

As for changing the number of seats, the hon. member well knows that would require us to open up the Constitution. Canadians do not want a long drawn out constitutional battle. They want us to focus on the economy and keeping the streets safe.

We have an opportunity to move forward and make some reforms that would bring the upper chamber into a 21st century democracy. By stalling and requiring us to open up the Constitution, the Liberals are just standing for the status quo in the Senate.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Madam Speaker, in his speech my colleague had thoughtful comments and ideas about Senate reform.

He mentioned that over 70% of Canadians wished to have reform and flexibility. It is unfortunate that our colleagues across the aisle do not wish to have that degree of flexibility and opportunity for Canadians to bring forward a more robust democracy.

I would ask the minister about the great ideas and responses that he is hearing from Canadians and which need to be implemented.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is important to listen to Canadians and to have a sense of what they are saying about the Senate. I had an opportunity this summer to travel from coast to coast to coast and listen to what Canadians are saying about the Senate. We are hearing over and over that the status quo in the Senate is not acceptable and that things must change.

Senators can serve terms of up to 45 years and they do not have a democratic mandate from Canadians.

Canadians want steps taken to have reasonable reforms to bring the Senate into a 21st century democracy.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the minister for his speech. I would like to ask him a question.

The bill preamble states: “whereas Parliament wishes to maintain the essential characteristics of the Senate within Canada’s parliamentary democracy as a chamber of independent, sober second thought”.

Given that elections would make the Senate even more partisan, I am trying to understand how this reform could maintain the Senate as a chamber of independent thought.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is absolutely important that the Senate continue to have its independence to freely do its studies and not be reliant upon the government for renewal or reappointment at any time. That is why we have proposed a non-renewable nine-year term. Senators would have the opportunity to be independent from the government.

We have changed the term from eight years to nine years so that a two-term prime minister could not appoint the entire Senate. A nine-year term is long enough for senators to learn the job and gain the necessary experience. It is also a reasonable amount of time to have new thoughts and new people who could add their perspectives as well.

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have the dubious distinction of being the author of the first bill in the history of Canada to be killed in the Senate without debate or consideration or being sent to committee. It was a very distressing and difficult day when that bill which was passed after due diligence in the House was killed in the Senate.

Why do we not get serious about Senate reform and simply do away with this useless appendage to a dysfunctional government?

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am surprised that the member is not completely jumping for joy regarding Senate reform. He said that he has concerns about the Senate. That is why we are bringing forward these reforms. Senators elected in their provinces by Canadians who are being represented by them in the Senate would be more accountable to Canadians and voters in their provinces. That is why we prefer to reform the Senate. It is an important institution of Parliament. It is important that we try to make it better, make it more legitimate and democratic so it can serve the purpose that we believe it should.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address this bill. Let me say at the outset that my first reaction to the notion of electing a Senate was probably not unlike that of many Canadians. We have an unelected appointed Senate, we have abolition and then there is election. The Canadian character being what it is, of not wanting the status quo and looking at abolition as maybe too radical, the comfort zone is that election, the bowl of porridge in the middle, is the way to go.

The reality is that the most radical thing we could do in this country is elect the Senate, give it a mandate and create the kind of gridlock we see in the U.S. That is radical. Long before we go down that road, we should be asking Canadians whether they even want a Senate, yes or no. That will tell us what the mandate of the country is rather than just our deciding that we know best in terms of constructing our Parliament.

I also want to indicate that I have some criticisms of the Senate as an institution, but none of my remarks are meant to reflect on individual senators. In fact, I have the greatest regard and respect for most of the senators that I work with. An example of a great Canadian currently in the Senate is a woman from Saskatchewan. I have spoken about her before. She is a fantastic Canadian who does an excellent job. The only problem is there is no mandate or right in that place to pass judgment on laws. We should be using people like them for the betterment of Canada but we ought to be using them in way where we ask them to do specific work and not necessarily be a part of the law-making process. My comments are not about individual senators, and I say again that I have the greatest and utmost respect for most of them.

Let us recall the history of the Senate and how we got here. This originated back in the British Parliament. It was the House of Lords. The whole purpose was to control all the commoners who were starting to get some rights. As the Magna Carta started to take hold, ordinary commoners like us suddenly had a say in the governing of their country. Therefore, the House of Lords was created to make sure that the unwashed masses did not run amok and screw things up for people who were doing quite well in that country and got more than their share of the cream that the country produced. Even the current Prime Minister has said the Senate is a relic of the 19th century.

I will use my words to describe this bill and I am going to comment on each aspect as I go along. It is radical, dangerous, undemocratic, misleading, and not at all what Canadians need.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Tell us where you stand.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am so glad the Minister of Foreign Affairs has joined us. It means we are going to have a very entertaining afternoon. It reminds me of the good old days back in the Ontario legislature. I am glad the minister is here and I am looking forward to the next half hour or so.

I said that it is radical. To me, this is arguably the most important aspect of what we are debating. If we elect the Senate, we would radically change Parliament. I said that just now, but who else said that? The Supreme Court in 1980 said, “The substitution of a system of election for a system of appointment would involve a radical change in the nature of one of the component parts of Parliament”.

The Supreme Court said that this is radical. It is not usually known for knee-jerk reactions and going over the top. It is certainly not known as being hard right or hard left. It just looks at the facts. It sees that this is radical, and it is, because if we abolished the Senate and brought proportional representation to this House, we would be more than adequately equipped to govern the 35 million people in this country. The provinces proved this when they abolished their senates.

One of the reasons it is radical is that the Senate killed my colleague's Bill C-311, a bill which passed this House at least twice, and the Senate had no right. Every member of the House, right, wrong or indifferent, has a mandate to be here and to vote and pass judgment on laws. Senators do not. They do not have a moral, ethical mandate; a constitutional one, yes; a moral and ethical one, no. Is that democratic? Certainly not.

If we elected the Senate and Bill C-311 passed this House again, what would happen over there? The Senate would kill it again, only now the senators would be all puffed up and would say, “We have an electoral mandate to do this. Yes, the House of Commons passed it, and yes they are elected members, and they have the mandate and the trust of the people who elected them, but so do we. We are not with the party in the House; we are with a different party and therefore we will do things differently. One of the things we will do is stop any kind of progressive legislation that actually protects the environment in this country.”

If we want to see where we are heading in terms of a radical proposal that is also dangerous for us as Canadians, we only need look at what happened recently in the U.S. Congress. There was a piece of legislation on the debt limit that members had to pass in order to borrow money to keep the economy going. Normally it is a routine thing. It passed under President Reagan umpteen times, no big deal. Because of the partisan split where the House of Representatives is Republican controlled and the Senate is democratically controlled, all the interests of the American people seemed to be set aside as the two parties fought each other to the brink of a crisis. It put the world on alert for a financial crisis because the two houses have their own independent mandate.

Is that what we want? Do we really need to complicate the process of governing more? Do we need to spend more money? That place already costs almost $100 million a year. Think of what we could do with that $100 million promoting our own democracy.

The other reason it is dangerous is that the house that would be created would be like the house of Frankenstein, and no one should take that personally. There would be people who would serve until age 75. Under this legislation there would be some people who would serve for nine years and some people who promised to serve only eight years who would get a free bonus year. Then there would be some provinces that elect people and some that would not. There are some provinces that believe, like us in the official opposition, that we ought to abolish the Senate, so they would not elect anyone. We must think about it. It would be like the bar scene from Star Wars over there. Never mind the gridlock between us, they would be gridlocked over there. Trying to get anything out of that house would be a serious challenge.

The last reason it is dangerous is that it gives the impression we are making things better. I mentioned that the former premier of Ontario, Mike Harris, used the same technique as we are seeing here. The minister in one of his opening remarks said, “I'm bringing reform”. By virtue of that we are all supposed to say it is wonderful and thank him for the reform, but as we saw with Mike Harris, just because it is reform does not make it good reform.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Don't yell.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, my friend, the foreign affairs minister woke up again and realizes we may be getting into some interesting areas.

The change that was brought in Ontario was a nightmare for our education system. We are still trying to get out of the mess that the change brought us. This reform is the same thing. Yes, it is reform, but it is not good reform; in fact it is very bad reform. One of the reasons it is bad is that it is so undemocratic.

I asked the minister what I thought was a reasonable question about accountability, one of the major tenets of democracy. I said that, when we run for office, we all make promises. At the end of our term, we go back to our constituents and we ask them how we did. We ask if they were satisfied with the representation we gave them or if they want to fire us and hire someone else. We put ourselves out there publicly and the people pass their judgment. That is accountability. Just the fact that someone is elected does not make it a democratic process unless they are held accountable.

The senators will run on promises, get elected, serve nine years and then leave. There is no accountability. By law, they cannot run again, so how can they be held accountable. They will be elected on promises and the other half of a promise in a democracy is to be held to account for it. I am held to account for every word I speak, every vote I cast and every action I take. I am held accountable. I have a constituency office where people can reach me.

Elected senators will not be accountable. They cannot be by law. It is crazy to call this democratic when they will not be held to account because the law prevents it. That is what we are heading into.

It is also undemocratic because of what the Prime Minister said. It is a cute little technique. I am not a lawyer so I do not know if it will pass constitutional muster. However, what he is doing is maintaining the Constitution that says that the Prime Minister appoints senators. He is leaving that in place and all this sort of rests below it. It is the process that leads to a list of names that are put in front of the Prime Minister.

I think there is at least a constitutional argument that they are okay but it does not deal with the democratic deficit that is in this bill. The Prime Minister does not need to appoint those people.

Some would ask how a prime minister of the day could ever say no to an elected Senator from any province. That is a good question, a fair question. Might I also pose: Who would ever think that a prime minister in the same Parliament that he passed a fixed election date law would violate his own law in the same Parliament?

It is quite possible that we could see a political situation where a party that is in government in a province is a real thorn in the side of the government of the day. I will use the present government as an example. It elects some people and one person it elects is somebody who is very loud, very opinionated and who will not shut up when people want him to. The prime minister looks at that and asks himself or herself if he or she really wants to bring this problem into his or her back yard.

There is no guarantee that the democratic choice of the people will be honoured. Therefore, how can one call it democratic?

I would also mention that, under what is being proposed, all the costs get pushed to the provinces. In some situations it might get pushed to the municipalities, believe it or not. In these economic times, does anyone really think the provinces look at the federal government with any kind of affection when it is handing them more things to pay for that the provinces already cannot afford?

The federal government should at least have the decency to pay for its own bill. These people will be federal parliamentarians, so why are they not paid at the federal level? It is misleading. Everything about the Senate is misleading.

One of the things the minister talked about, and I am not quoting so I stand to be corrected, was the important regional representation and interest that the Senate does and can provide. I do not think I am too far off there.

We need to remember that the cover story when the Senate was created was not to keep an eye on the unwashed masses who were suddenly being thrown into the House of Commons. No. The cover story was that these would be regional representatives. They would represent the regions and the provinces of this vast country. We are the second biggest land mass country in the world with a relatively small population.

The cover story for the Senate was that we needed them there, that we would deal with the riding issues and local issues and the Senate would deal with the regional issues and protect the provinces' interests.

It did not turn out that way, not for one second. First, any thought of sober second thought is a joke. The Senate has House leaders and whips, and opposition leaders and whips. Why does it need whips if it has independence? Many senators attend caucus meetings. The whip of the official opposition is a very good fellow but that does not change my argument one bit. That good fellow should get elected and come here, not stay over there. That is a good idea.

The premiers have some strong opinions about these things. It is interesting to note that Premier Wall from Saskatchewan fears that he knows the answer. Earlier this year. when he was asked about the elected Senate, he said:

I think we could get a little bit more enthused even about the whole thing if it became clear that this was not about just an expanded parliamentary caucus for existing parties.

Is that not an interesting quote?

I have a letter from a certain elected senator, whose name I shall not mention, dated June 15 of this year, addressed to members of the CPC Senate caucus. Where do the sober second thought caucus people meet? He said:

Dear Senators,

Yesterday, in Senate caucus Minister...[for Democratic Reform] was showered with complaints about Senate elections and a nine year term.

The last paragraph is the key, and this is the issue about whether the Senate represents the regions or whether it represents caucus interests. It reads:

Every senator in this caucus needs to decide where their loyalty should be and must be. The answer is simple; our loyalty is with the man who brought us here, the man who has wanted Senate reform since he entered politics, the Rt. Hon. Stephen Harper.

That senator's priority was to be loyal to the Prime Minister, not his region and not his province. Abolish the Senate. This is a bad idea.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I would just remind all members, as this debate heats up, that it is the custom in the House not to mention the name of sitting members. I trust all members will continue to direct their comments through the Chair.

The hon. Minister of State for Democratic Reform.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Madam Speaker, I e listened to the hon. member's speech with great interest and I picked up on two things from it.

First, he agrees with us that there needs to be some type of Senate reform, that we need to make some changes to the Senate. He does not agree with the way it is today, the status quo. Canadians agree with us, so that is what this government is doing.

The other thing that I picked up on is the fact that he has no ideas. NDP members do not have any ideas. They have nothing constructive to provide to us. The only idea they really have is to abolish the Senate. I am sure my colleague knows that would require a constitutional battle. It would open up the Constitution.

Does the member really believe that drawn out constitutional battles is the way to go, is what the government should spend its time on, or should we move forward with Senate reforms that are reasonable, measured and within Parliament's authority to do?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the minister said that we support some changes. No, not really. We just want to get rid of the darn thing.

The minister also said that Canadians agree with his government and then went on to talk about the bill.

The minister also said that we were not proposing anything. We proposed two things. We did it in the last Parliament, we will do it in this Parliament and we will keep doing it until we are government and can make these changes. We proposed a referendum asking the Canadian people if they want a Senate, yes or no. We also proposed bringing proportional representation to that place and making it truly democratic.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Madam Speaker, would my colleague agree that because Canada is a federation, if there is a provision in the Constitution that says that if a fundamental change is made to the Senate that means it would affect not only Parliament but the legislative assemblies of the provinces and the country as a whole? A bill like this will surely be considered unconstitutional if it is supported by Parliament.

Would he also not agree that all the provinces would be affected, but that the minister's province of Alberta and the province of British Columbia would be terribly affected since they are so under-represented in the Senate?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would need to look carefully, but I pretty much agree with everything the member had to say. Whether or not it ends up being unconstitutional, my colleague should make no mistake that Quebec will send this to the Supreme Court of Canada, as will some of the other provinces.

The government knows that this bill will never see the light of day in terms of being law. This is a big political charade meant to look like the government is doing something while knowing that nothing will happen. What really hurts is that if it ever actually did, it would hurt our Parliament and our ability to govern ourselves in the most democratic way.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Hamilton Centre for his fiery speech and the way he stood up for so many Canadians who supported the New Democratic Party. Many of them refer to our position on the abolishment of the Senate, the way we speak out for them and the position we bring forward to the House of Commons as the key reasons for supporting us.

The member talked about the nature and history of the Senate. The actual structure of the Senate is a relic of our past. For example, I could not be in the Senate because I am under the age of 30. Almost 20 NDP members of Parliament are under the age of 30 and they could not be in the Senate.

If the Senate is supposed to be an institution that represents the Canadian people, is it not inherently discriminatory? Is it not against the democratic right of Canadians to elect whomever they want to represent them, including young people whose voices need to be heard in this Parliament?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is amazing that in this day and age it is quite all right for that highly competent MP to represent her constituents here in the House of Commons but, by law, cannot go to that other place. This is one more example of how dumb the whole thing is.

If we were to bring in proportional representation, we would have the ability to ensure that more segments of our population are represented here. As much as each party tries, the House is still not representative of the Canadian people demographically. We have a lot of work to do in this House but the first step is getting rid of that House.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to address the colourful reference the hon. member made to Frankenstein's monster. He said that we would have a variety of different kinds of mandates, and that when members of the House are elected with different kinds of mandates, we would have different kinds of responsibilities, which would lead to a dog's breakfast of Frankenstein's monster.

I could tell that he felt strongly about it because his voice went up an octave when he did it and I heard a wine glass shattering somewhere.

He favours proportional representation, the multi-member proportional system for the House of Commons. Under that system, some members came from a party list and some were elected from individual ridings.

Given that he feels so strongly that different kinds of mandates lead to this kind of Frankenstein's monster, why is he advocating turning this House into a Frankenstein's monster and removing all checks and balances and giving it complete control over the affairs of the country? That seems inherently incompatible with his statements about mixed mandates in the Senate.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I knew when the hon. member got up it would be a thoughtful, intelligent question and probably a little tough. It was all of those things.

I stand by what I said. I am disappointed that it was wine glasses I shattered; I would rather it would be busted beer bottles, but that is just because I am from Hamilton.

I understand the question. I would just say that the Frankenstein, to use that reference, was because of the cherry-picking, all these different ideas and different pieces that do not fit together.

The notion of proportional representation does contain the element that the member says, but let us understand that this is only one model of proportional representation. We have not said anything about a particular model being cast in stone; we just think we ought to start a dialogue with Canadians about what kind of proportional representation model we should adopt to bring into the House.

The second thing is that most of the models are well established. In reality, we are very far behind in terms of democracy. We think of ourselves as a mature modern democracy, and we are in so many ways, but with that Senate over there, we are not.

Proportional representation is about as mainstream as it can get in Europe and many other countries. The fundamental aspect that some people have a direct election and some are on a list is an issue, but it is a systemic issue that is built into a model that has been tested and used in many countries around the world, whereas this hybrid monster really is not anything.

We will have senators over there fighting among themselves over all kinds of issues. As I said, that is a gridlock in and of itself, and that is before we even get to the point of the gridlock that happens here.

My friend from Saint-Laurent—Cartierville raised this point, and I want to give him credit for it: if we do get into the gridlock that the Americans have, the Americans at least have a mechanism, the conference committee, to deal with it in some way. We do not have one. We have no ability to deal with the gridlock that exists between two elected houses.

Not only is this a bad idea, it is not even well thought out.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is completely right to raise the issue of the danger of a gridlock and blockages and so on.

At a time when the economy is doing so badly and the United States situation is so awful, how can the government claim that they care so much about the economy, and that it is a priority, when it is planning to create a stalemate here in the Parliament of Canada?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I suspect, based on the question he is asking, that the government thinks it is a fine idea because it controls the Senate right now. If it did not control the House under the current system, it would still control the Senate, so it probably does not give much of a darn.

It works for the Conservatives the way it is now. These plans will work for them. Everything works for them. The problem is that the bill does not work for Canadians.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Liberal Party does not oppose Senate reform, but it must be done right and in accordance with the Constitution.

There are three reasons the Liberal opposition cannot support the bill.

First, it is the conviction of the Liberal opposition that such an act would be unconstitutional. The fundamental changes it proposes cannot be implemented by Parliament alone. These changes would require the support of at least seven provinces, representing 50% of the Canadian population, notably because appointing senators through a patchwork of voluntary provincial senatorial elections is clearly a fundamental change; limiting the senators' tenure to nine years is a significant change; and giving the Prime Minister the power to name the totality of senators at the end of two mandates of four and a half years would strengthen his power considerably, another significant change.

Second, such an act would be against the interests of two of our provinces, Alberta and British Columbia. Here is why: practically speaking, an elected upper chamber would carry more weight in its dealings with the House of Commons than it does in its present form. The problem is that both western provinces are better represented in the House than they are in the Senate, and both provinces have only six senators, while some provinces have 10 with a population four or six times smaller.

Third, such an act could provoke frequent blockages in Parliament in the absence of a constitutional mechanism to resolve any conflicts that might arise between an elected House of Commons and an elected Senate.

For those three reasons, we propose that the government abandon this bill, or at least refer it to the Supreme Court to verify its constitutionality.

I would like to elaborate on each of these three objections, which have led the Liberal opposition to determine that this bill is not in the interest of Canadians. One issue is that if this bill becomes law, we will have to expect arguments that would pit one elected chamber against the other elected chamber, creating delays and roadblocks in Parliament. Just think of the frequent intercameral paralysis experienced by our neighbours to the south.

In fact, the situation could be even worse here than in the United States, because Canada does not have a constitutional mechanism to bridge the gaps between two elected chambers. Both could claim the same legitimacy and claim to speak for the people.

What is the government thinking? What does the minister have in mind? Does he really want to bring the same paralysis we see in the United States or in Mexico here to Canada? Do we not have enough challenges here in Canada without thoughtlessly burdening our decision-making process?

This seems like a very bad idea, especially when we consider that Canada is a decentralized federation with 11 governments—14 including the territories—that have important powers and responsibilities. In such a decentralized federation, it is important that federal institutions, common to all citizens, work well and quickly, before drafting legislation or making decisions that may or may not be popular, but that at least are not constrained by the ritual opposition of two elected chambers, an opposition that would be exacerbated by the absence of a constitutional dispute resolution mechanism.

It is important to realize that the government's muddled plan would have senators appointed through a patchwork system of optional provincial elections. Funding for these federal elections would come from the provinces, and even though they would be federal elections, the federal parties would be excluded from the electoral process. The provincial parties would control these federal elections. What a mess.

It is not surprising that a number of provincial governments have said they are not planning to put up funds for these federal elections. This bill is the antithesis of common sense and it is unconstitutional to boot. If this bill passes, the resulting legislation would be declared unconstitutional because the fundamental changes it would cause could not be implemented by Parliament alone. These changes could only be made with the support of at least seven provinces representing 50% of the Canadian population. This unilateral initiative is another manifestation of the Prime Minister's style of government: controlling and centralizing. This attitude shows disrespect for the provinces and a lack of understanding of what Canadian federalism is.

Indeed, many of the provinces have said that they believe this proposal is not something that can be done unilaterally. They believe they should be involved, and they want to be involved in these proposed Senate reforms. In other words, it is not just we who are saying the federal government cannot do this alone: the provinces say that, and they want a voice.

Wrong for the whole of Canada, this bill is especially ill-conceived for the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia. We are far from being alone in saying that. Both British Columbia Premier Christy Clark and former Alberta Premier Don Getty rightly point out that this version of Senate reform would be bad for their respective provinces. As the Edmonton Journal wrote, “second thoughts” must be given to this plan.

Let us look at the numbers. Alberta has 9.1% of the total number of members of Parliament, but only 5.7% of the senators. The gap is even larger for British Columbia, with 11.7% of the members in the House of Commons and only 5.7% of the members of the Senate. Let us compare these provinces with New Brunswick, which counts 10 senators for a population 4.8 times smaller than Alberta's and 6.1 times smaller than British Columbia's.

This unbalanced distribution of Senate seats, an historical artifact, is a problem for the two western provinces and an anomaly for our federation. The government's reform would make the situation much worse.

In the existing unelected Senate, this problem is mitigated by the fact that our senators play the constitutional role with moderation, letting the elected House of Commons have the final word most of the time. However, in an elected Senate, with members able to invoke as much democratic legitimacy as their House counterparts--if not more, since they would represent provinces rather than ridings--the under-representation of British Columbia and Alberta would take on its full scope and significance.

Of course, elected senators from the other provinces would not be hostile to the interests of Alberta and British Columbia, their duty being to address the interests of the whole country, but these senators would be more familiar with, and closer to, the interests of the voters of the province where they were elected.

Premier Charest has already announced that his government will challenge the constitutionality of this unilateral Senate reform in the courts. Premiers Stelmach and Clark will serve the interests of their provinces well if they join their Quebec colleague in this court action.

Do Canadians need and want the waste of time, effort, money and goodwill that the government's initiative would cause? I think not. It is time for the Prime Minister, a Calgarian, and the Minister of Democratic Reform, an Edmontonian, to give this issue a second sober thought and abandon this ill-advised and ill-conceived Senate reform plan, an ill-advised and problem-fraught plan for Alberta, British Columbia and the whole of Canada in English et en français.

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

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague has indicated that regional unfairness is an issue. I am notorious in my own party as a supporter of greater equality between members in selecting our leaders, so I have natural sympathy with that.

However, I wonder if he really supports what he is saying. He is quite right that there are 10 senators each for Nova Scotia and New Brunswick--actually, there are 12 each. There are four senators for Prince Edward Island, which results from the fact that because of another provision of our Constitution, Prince Edward Island has a minimum number of MPs, causing the average riding in P.E.I. to be about one-third the size of a riding in Ontario, and so on.

Is he in favour of eliminating all these things? Would he be willing to start, for example, by doing something that I personally do not support, which is cutting the number of senators for New Brunswick and Nova Scotia down to six, or perhaps fewer, in order to have some kind of population balance with British Columbia and Alberta?

If he is not, or if he is not willing to suggest an amendment that would lead to the opposite conclusion, then I suggest he is just coming up with these objections as a way of trying to prevent any progress from being made and is repeating the old Liberal line that until we have perfect reform, which is unachievable, we should have no reform at all and stick to an appointed Senate, which in due course would be appointed by Liberal governments based on Liberal partisans as it was in the past.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is true that in Canada there is no agreement about the number of senators each province should have and it is a problem for two provinces that are very underrepresented. But why make this problem worse and significantly worse by the reform my colleague and his party are proposing today?

Between 1945 and today the Senate rejected only seven bills from the House. So the Senate has been quite prudent and reserved about its own role. Imagine if they were elected? Do members think there would only be seven bills during half a century that would be stuck by an elected Senate? No, it would be daily life, it would do it all the time. Only six Albertans would be there to make their mind known. It would be terribly unfair. I care about each province in my country and it is why I am clearly against the bill.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for an excellent speech and an excellent analysis. I particularly enjoyed the analysis because it comes from a respected academic perspective which is about the antithesis of everything that I bring to it with a grade nine education, but I do have an experiential viewpoint from 26 years of being elected at all three orders of government. That is why my question is about accountability.

From my limited academic point of view, it looks to me like there is no room for accountability. I asked the minister as my first question, where is the accountability given the importance of that in a democracy and the minister either could not, or would not articulate an answer.

I would ask my colleague, have I missed something? Is there an element of accountability that I am not seeing, or is it clearly missing from this reform bill?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Madam Speaker, this gives me an opportunity to say that I understand the appetite for having members of Parliament and senators elected in a democracy. I understand that and it is popular in Canada. The second step is how can we do it in a way that will help the country and every region of the country. The way the minister wants to do this will be awful. It would create stalemates. It will paralyze us. It will not create better policy-making, to the contrary, and it will accentuate this proportion of unfairness for some regions of our country, especially Alberta and British Columbia.

By definition, I am not saying it is wrong to have elected senators. I am saying it is wrong to do it this way for everyone.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed my colleague's knowledgeable speech on this. I am from one of the most affected provinces, British Columbia, so I would like to pose to my colleague this question. Could he give us a greater idea and more details about the kind of inequities that would be placed on the provinces of British Columbia and Alberta by this Conservative government proposal?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Madam Speaker, on every bill in the Senate, British Columbia and Alberta would be very underrepresented and in any democracy that I know of, to be underrepresented is bad news. Today it is a problem, but it is manageable because the Senate at the end of the day almost always gives the last word to the House.

British Columbia and Alberta are much better represented and we will work on some things that will make their representation even better in the House in the coming weeks, but not in the Senate. In the Senate it cannot be changed and the minister did not answer my question. He said that the distribution of senators by province cannot be changed other than by the Constitution. I agree with him. So that means that forever British Columbia and Alberta will be terribly underrepresented in one of the two elected chambers of this country. Is that really what he wants for his province?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is curious that the minister is not taking the opportunity to ask my colleague some questions with respect to what I would regard as a very thoughtful speech and a detailed deconstruction of what is clearly a flawed bill.

We have seen some pretty awful situations in the United States recently with constitutional and political gridlock between two houses which are elected. As others have said, there is a conference mechanism wherein people of goodwill can in effect work out their differences.

It seems to me that one of the core points the hon. member raises in his speech is the institutionalization of gridlock between the two houses. As I think about what he has elucidated, I think he is right. I am curious as to how the hon. member sees that happening over time as each develops its own culture.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is a big concern for me. Canada is a complex country to govern, and friends in the Conservative Party are realizing that more and more. It is a huge country, very decentralized. There is little that Ottawa can do alone without at least consulting the provinces. Also the aboriginal people have to have their say.

Why add an even more complex situation when the common institution of the country, the Parliament of Canada will, most of the time, like in the United States, be blocked by partisan differences between the two elected houses, the two elected chambers?

I think it is ill-advised to do so. We should at least have a long debate. I would urge the minister to ensure to have hearings. Many experts will come and explain to the minister how dangerous this bill is for Canada.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Madam Speaker, 70% of Canadians have said that they want some form of reform. I would just like to ask, does the member opposite really want a constitutional quagmire? That is what he is proposing.

Canadians want action. They elected a strong, stable, Conservative government to create reform. We are moving forward with that. Why does the member opposite want to put us in a constitutional quagmire?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Madam Speaker, in fact, it is the bill that will create the quagmire. The hon. member must understand that.

Alberta and British Columbia will see that on every bill they will be so unfairly represented that they will request a constitutional change to be sure that they will have their fair share. It will be completely understandable.

As the member well knows, there will not be one politician in Quebec or Ontario who will be willing to change that. So we will have the quagmire that the member is speaking about, and it is what I do not want. I am sure she does not want it either. So the member should say no to this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I had come with the intention of giving a fairly dry speech full of historical references. I am a comparative historian, so I was going to make all kinds of comparisons to other countries, but I have heard so many things today that just do not seem to bear with what I would consider to be the facts. So I thought I would, instead, turn my attention to responding to some of the, I am sure, sincerely meant but completely incorrect statements made by some of my colleagues today.

I want to start with the completely erroneous and baseless statement that this amendment would represent some kind of unconstitutional change to our Constitution. Let me start with that.

First, I should draw the attention of members to the fact that the bill contains two parts. Part of the bill is an ordinary piece of legislation that deals with the subject of how senators would be elected using the advisory election process. That process then causes individuals' names to be submitted to the Prime Minister. I will read that part of the bill, if I could. It is very brief. Part 1, clause 3 of the bill states:

If a province or territory has enacted legislation that is substantially in accordance with the framework set out in the schedule, the Prime Minister, in recommending Senate nominees to the Governor General, must consider names from the most current list of Senate nominees selected for that province or territory.

There is then a schedule that outlines what the rules would be for such an election to qualify the individual to be treated in that manner by the Prime Minister.

Part 2 of the bill is actually an amendment to the Constitution of Canada. My colleague from Saint-Laurent—Cartierville made a reference to unconstitutionality and he can correct me if I have misunderstood what he was asserting, but I believe he was referring to Part 2 of the legislation. On that basis, I will now turn to dealing with any objections to constitutionality that he may believe exist.

I should first correct something he said. He said that the changes to the Senate are governed by subsection 42(1), the amending formula, of the Constitution Act and that is only partly true. I have subsection 42(1) with me and it reads as follows:

An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made only in accordance with subsection 38(1)--

Subsection 38(1) is the 7-50 formula.

Paragraph (b) of subsection 42(1) states, “the powers of the Senate and the method of selecting Senators”. That is the paragraph he referred to. Paragraph (c) says, “the number of members by which a province is entitled to be represented in the Senate and the residence qualifications of Senators”. These two things require the 7-50 formula. Seven provinces with half the population must approve it or it cannot go forward. This is the kind of discussion that tends to lead to constitutional quagmires.

By contrast, section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982 is the amending formula. Our Constitution has five amending formulae for different parts of our Constitution. Section 44 says, “Subject to sections 41 and 42, Parliament may exclusively make laws amending the Constitution of Canada in relation to the executive government of Canada or the Senate and House of Commons”. The question is: Does this proposed change fall under section 44 or is it not in fact under that section and, therefore, does it fall back under the 7-50 amending formula? The answer to that is it does, indeed, fall under section 44. This is established law.

Section 44 is the governing formula because of the fact that it is the replacement for another section that allowed the Parliament of Canada to make amendments exclusively in certain areas. There is widespread acceptance that section 44 is the replacement for the subsection 91(1) amending formula that was put in place for Canada in 1949.

That formula read that, “It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make laws” dealing with the following classes of subjects:

The amendment from time to time of the Constitution of Canada, except as regards matters coming within the classes of subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the provinces, or as regards rights or privileges by this or any other Constitutional Act granted or secured to the Legislature or the Government of a province, or to any class of persons with respect to schools or as regards the use of the English or the French language or as regards the requirements that there shall be a session of the Parliament...at [least] once [every] year, and that no House of Commons shall continue for more than five years from the [date] of the return of the Writs for choosing the House....

The subsection 91.1 formula was used in 1965 by the Pearson government and the Parliament at the time to change the Constitution, causing senators to no longer be elected for life, but rather to be elected until age 75.

There are the precedents for doing it this way.

I want to take a few moments to mention some other considerations here.

The practice of having a section 44 amendment, that is an amendment to the Constitution authorized under section 44 of the Constitution contained in a piece of legislation, a bill dealing with ordinary legislative matters in one part and then with an amendment to the Constitution in the other part of the same bill, is an established practice. It has done been a number of times. I would point, in particular, to the act passed in 1999 that created the territory of Nunavut. That act contained some ordinary legislation and also an amendment, an amendment that dealt with the Senate of Canada because it awarded a senator to the territory of Nunavut.

Therefore, the established practice of doing things in this manner, as authorized by this section of the Constitution, has existed for no small amount of time, it is well-precedented and there is considerable scholarship to back up the assertion that the subsection 91.1 amending formula is the parent of the section 44 amending formula.

I turn now to some other issues that were raised in the earlier debate.

I mentioned my frustration with the argument that we cannot engage in piecemeal reform, that we must engage only in a complete reform. I think this leads to a constitutional quagmire. The perfect becomes the enemy of the good and we achieve no change whatsoever. That is a very strong reason for opposing the arguments made by the hon. for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville.

I want to mention in particular that we do deal in this bill with some very significant points. We do not deal with the issue of regional fairness. That is quite true. We do deal with the election versus appointment issue. Members would be, in a formal sense, appointed by the Governor General, and the Governor General's powers are very carefully protected under the text of this bill. However, nonetheless, a de facto election takes place. On the term length of senators, they cannot be appointed at age 40 and serve for 35 years. That is also dealt with.

As for regional fairness, and this is always a vexed question, it is in the nature of upper houses to tend to not reflect representation by population or the principle of one person, one vote; one vote, one weight and therefore that presumably justifies some inequality. I think the inequality in our current upper house is excessive. On the other hand, to argue that therefore we must ensure that the upper house is powerless is to say that we must eviscerate one of the basic concepts of federalism because of the assumed belief that, as the member said, no politicians in Ontario or Quebec would support a change to correct that unfairness of representation. That would be a very wrong thing.

Remember, every long-standing federation in the world, every successful federation in the world, has an independent upper house, which is based, at least to some degree, on considerations other than representation by population. There are two senators per state in the United States. In Australia it was originally six per state, then eventually 12 per state. It of course have only six states. In the upper house in Switzerland, there are two per canton. There are some what they call half-cantons, such as Appenzell Innerrhoden and Appenzell Ausserrhoden, which get one senator each, but everybody else gets two. Germany has a somewhat different system but, again, it is not based on representation by population. There is some overrepresentation for the smaller länders.

The idea of having some kind of equality is there. We could work towards a more principled kind of equality. I really think there is sufficient good will. However, we should not halt any progress because we are searching for perfection on that point.

Let me deal with something else on the same subject. The idea that the upper house ought to be kept effectively illegitimate so it cannot second guess the lower house, leads logically toward the NDP position to abolish the upper house rather than to the position taken by the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville.

We have to be realistic about this. The upper house cannot be abolished without a 7/50 amendment, without 7 provinces with half the population agreeing to that amendment. The chances of getting that kind of success—

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Unanimity of provinces. It is unanimity.

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

I just heard the member say “unanimity”, and he may well be right. I may be incorrect on that statement. The point is that it is very difficult to achieve that kind of change. Getting that change is also not really an option.

The fact is that the only option aside from leaving an appointed upper house, which simply reflects the partisan interests of either the government of the day or the government of recent memory, is a pretty undesirable alternative to any kind of reform whatsoever. I do not think that is the approach we ought to take.

The hon. member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville said that the Senate has only blocked seven bills since 1945 and warned against the danger of it blocking bills. I would just ask this question. Surely no one will argue that the House of Commons and Senate together have not passed more than seven bad acts of Parliament since 1945? Surely there have been things that should have been stopped in the Senate.

Surely the point of having checks and balances, which is a principle in our government, a principle in the government of all those other federations, and indeed in any civilized government, is something we ought to be protecting and honouring. This means that certain decisions that I personally would like to see would be blocked by an elected Senate, and also some that I would like to see stopped.

In general, the search for a greater consensus, something that does not simply reflect the will of a mandate achieved at one instant in time on election day in a certain election, is a worthwhile endeavour.

On that basis alone, it is absolutely vital we have a Senate that can be effective, as our Senate currently and most emphatically is not.

I mentioned a bit about the Frankenstein's monster argument that was presented by the member for Hamilton Centre. After he made his comments in response to my question, he noted that the multi-member proportional system, which has multiple mandates, is one that is precedented, it exists elsewhere, unlike the idea that an upper house has multiple types of mandates.

In fact, that is actually not correct. The Swiss upper house has multiple types of mandates. The members sent from different cantons are elected by different methods. They are elected by Landsgemeinde, an assembly of all the citizens in some of the so-called mountain cantons in the eastern part of the country. They are elected by different systems elsewhere. That is the decision of the individual canton.

There is a system that exists, and has been in existence for many years, quite successfully with more than one kind of mandate. In fact, if one looks around, they can discover that there are many legislatures in many parts of the world where multiple mandates are used. I think one should be careful about these things. One does not want to overdo it.

I point out that in this case what is being proposed is simply a method for transitioning out of the status quo where some people were appointed after 2008, promising to serve a mixed mandate, others where appointed before that time, having made no such promise, and those coming in after the passage of this amendment to the Constitution would be under a third system.

In the long run, there would one type of mandate for everybody. We are simply going through a transition process, and not one that I think would be damaging.

I also want to deal with the suggestion made by the member for Hamilton Centre that this is in some respect undemocratic. The whole point of this is to be democratic. His argument was that a prime minister might not recommend the individual who won an election. Let us remember the relevant part of the act, which I read to everybody, and I will read it again:

If a province or territory has enacted legislation that is substantially in accordance with the framework set out in the schedule, the Prime Minister, in recommending Senate nominees to the Governor General, must consider names from the most current list of Senate nominees selected for that province or territory.

It is binding on the Prime Minister. In true theory it is not binding upon the Governor General.

I think the point the member was making, and he will be able to reiterate that point if I do not get it correct, was that a prime minister might simply ignore this advice. The fact is that there is no penalty in the bill for doing so. Therefore, I see his point.

I would point out that in the discussions that took place for the parallel piece of legislation on Senate reform proposed in the 39th Parliament, the opposite objection was made by a number of witnesses. They said that the problem was that we would be establishing a convention which would become too firmly rooted and that the Prime Minister would, regardless of what objections he might have, be forced to follow the advice by the enormous political pressure. The argument then went on that this convention would cause this to be a de facto power of appointment being given to the people and that would mean the Governor General would lose his independent ability to appoint the senators and therefore it would be unconstitutional.

I will not go into the absurdity of that argument, although it was absurd, but I will point out that the feeling was very much the opposite. Therefore, the member's fears might be allayed by reviewing some of the testimony from that committee.

I would also point out the fact that there is an historical example we can draw upon. Prime Minister Brian Mulroney stated that until the Meech Lake accord was enacted into law, and at which point the Senate would be elected using a new set of mandates, he would accept senators appointed by provincial governments.

Therefore, in 1989 the legislative assembly of Alberta held an election for the Senate and General Stan Waters won it. His name was then presented to the prime minister who was very resistant. He tried to wiggle out of making that appointment, but in the end the heat was too great and he appointed Senator Waters to the upper House, where he served very well. Unfortunately it was not very long because he passed away as a result of cancer a couple of years later.

There is a precedent which indicates that prime ministers will have a very tough time ignoring who and what people choose.

Our whole system is based upon constitutional conventions. Our entire Canadian political system and its British ancestor are based upon the idea of conventions. On paper, the Governor General has an independent power with regard to the appointment of senators. On paper, the Monarch has tremendous arbitrary powers. In practice, a person not even mentioned in the Constitution, the prime minister, has most of those powers and exercises them via the House of Commons. In practice, we have responsible government, something which is absolutely responsible to the House of Commons and is absolutely not written down anywhere in the Constitution.

These rules are absolutely binding. They are not legal rules; they are constitutional rules. Those who would dream of trying to ignore them would do so at the cost of their political career.

I suggest that much the same dynamic would be at work with regard to the Prime Minister following the letter of this law and making a recommendation to the Governor General as to the appointment of senators who come from that provincial list.

There is no question that prime ministers in the end would lose the power they have to appoint partisans or people of their choice and would be forced to follow the will of the people of the relevant province. That would be a very good thing.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Madam Speaker, I found the speech given by the hon. member across the floor rather incoherent, especially when it comes to giving powers to the provinces. The bill supposes that the provinces could, at their expense, hold elections to elect senators, but it very clearly states that the Prime Minister would not be obliged to accept those elections or that choice of senators. Where is the democracy in this bill?

Also, the member across the way added that it would be unconstitutional to give these powers to the provinces. What do the Conservatives ultimately want from this bill? Do they want to give powers to the provinces or not? Where is the democracy in that?

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

Mr. Speaker, we want to give powers to Canadians, in their respective provinces. Regarding the issue of democracy, the prime minister is obliged to accept the decisions of the voters in the provinces. To quote the bill:

If a province or territory has enacted legislation that is substantially in accordance with the framework set out in the schedule, the Prime Minister, in recommending Senate nominees to the Governor General, must consider names from the most current list of Senate nominees selected for that province or territory.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington for his very thoughtful and personal speech. It is a refreshing change from the kind of canned speeches read for the first time by so many of his colleagues in his party. He came with something personal and I hope it will stay this way. I hope that he will not one day come in repeating slogans as if he were unable to come up with his own personal view.

However, he made some comments that were in contradiction to what the minister and some of his colleagues have said. For example, he said that, yes, the bill would be unfair for some provinces. It is a fact and he does not say that it is not true. However, he thinks that there will have enough goodwill elsewhere in the country to address these issues une fois que le mal sera fait, once the wrong is done, and that this goodwill will come from other provinces.

In to order to justify the bill, the member is saying that we should not to worry, that we will have a constitutional negotiation after writ. Therefore, the constitutional nightmare his colleague spoke of before, he is hoping for it. That is what he said. I think that is a very dangerous contradiction within the Conservative Party and he will need to explain that to Canadians.

Do Canadians want a constitutional fix after the wrong the government would have made for the whole country, especially for British Columbia and Alberta?

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

Madam Speaker, it would be truer to say that what I said was that it was not that the bill was unfair, but rather that it does not deal with one of the issues that confronts us today, and that is absolutely true.

I would be willing to do this sort of thing, but whether there is a national willingness is not for me to decide. Whether the nation says that it is satisfied with the way things are is not for me to decide.

I would point out the goal of the original Confederation deal on the subject of Senate representation. There was no illusion at the time that we were trying to achieve representation by population in the Upper House, quite the contrary. Nor was there the goal to achieve what the Americans had done, which was equal representation for each of the states. The goal was to achieve equal representation for each of the regions. At that time, we perceived Canada as consisting of three regions: Quebec, Ontario and the Maritime provinces. The west was contemplated but did not come in. When it did, a change was made to the Constitution to allow for equal representation for the western region. That regional principle of representation inequality, more or less, stays in place.

There is a separate issue one could point to. There are 24 senators for each region except for the Atlantic region, which is, population wise, less than half the size of the next region, and yet it has seven extra senators because Newfoundland entered in and was given extra senators.

These are things I genuinely do think can be dealt with by means of goodwill. I do not lose faith in the goodwill of all members, both people in the regions that are under-represented and understand that is not the end of the world, and those who are in the over-represented regions who have a sense that we might want to make corrections. However, I leave that to them. I should not be making decisions on their behalf.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for taking the time to listen to my remarks and include them in his responses. It is enjoyable debating with that parliamentarian at committee.

The member commented that the Prime Minister would consider that if it became a convention it would, therefore, have the effect of law. However, that takes time. My point is that the Prime Minister violated his own law in the same Parliament that he brought it into. Therefore, it is quite possible that we may never get enough time to have a convention.

He mentioned Sweden, which was an excellent answer. My response is that, again, it is a recognized model. It may be unique but it is a model. What we have in the Senate, by virtue of what is being proposed here, is not a model, it is a mishmash of things that were hangovers from before; new immediate short-term fixes. I mean, it is just a patchwork and that is why I used the Frankenstein example.

The member mentioned deliberately built multiple mandates. Again, when it is a deliberate mandate that is built-in, that is a lot different than saying that we need to leave this piece here because we have people appointed for that length of time and we need to put this piece in here to cover that. There is a huge difference.

I will come back to the point that was just made about the regions. The member said that we do not deal with regional fairness. That is quite true. The member prides himself in being intellectually honest and, for the most part,I believe he is, but could he please comment on, or however he wants to skate over this, how this bill would entrench the serious problems that are being referenced not only in Alberta and B.C. but also the eastern provinces and the northern part of our country?

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

Madam Speaker, I also I enjoy debating with the member at committee. He is always a gentleman and very fair-minded. While we honour all colleagues, perhaps they are not all equally fair-minded in the proceedings of the House. I appreciate that from him and from the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville too.

I think the member was inadvertent in referencing Sweden. I was actually referring to Switzerland.

The more substantive issue he pointed out was he continued to say that we have a model here that is a mishmash. I would suggest another word. I would suggest the word “transition”. I want to point out that we would not be the first country to face this kind of problem.

When the senate was being set up in the United States following the 1787 constitutional convention, there was a basic problem. Its senate was to consist of members, all whom would have six-year terms, but some of whom would have their six-year term expire six years from then and others would have it expire only four years into the future within a de facto four-year term, and some of whom would have only a two-year term. This was a problem. Every state wanted to have one of the four-year and one of the six-year senators and every candidate for the senate wanted to be one of the four or six-year senators. No one wanted to be a two-year senator. This was a short-term political problem and it did not prevent it from functioning as a very august institution and to grow in depth with time.

As well, I should mention that when the U.S. senate in the early part of the 20th century, exactly 100 years ago, was in transition from being an appointed body to being an elected body, what happened was initially one state, the state of Oregon, started electing its senators. That practice gradually spread, first through the west and, within a few years, an amendment was passed to the constitution, I believe it was the 17th amendment, that called for all senators to be elected. But again, there was a transition that lasted about a decade. It did not cause, as far as I am aware, any catastrophic problems.

The member had one last question, which was the one he was most vexed about, but it has slipped my mind of what it was.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Regions.

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

Thank you, regional representation. As I mentioned, if there is a national desire to have a discussion on that point,then that discussion would occur, but I do not think that should keep us from having a discussion on this point.

I will ask my Alberta and British Columbia colleagues this question. Would they prefer being represented by six unelected senators or six elected senators?

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak.

I recognize that it is a privilege to have the opportunity to address the House today. This is a privilege granted to me by the democratic principles of our country. Based on the supremacy of the rule of law, Canadian parliamentary institutions recognize this fact and often serve as an example throughout the world. Whether it be our Supreme Court, our Constitution or the House of Commons, the international news constantly reminds us that it would be very dangerous to take our democratic institutions for granted or to simply handle government business in a manner that is inconsistent with the most basic parliamentary rules.

This opportunity to speak about Bill C-7 is an opportunity to express my concern about the profound changes that this government wants to make to Canadian parliamentary institutions and, in particular, about the questionable manner in which it intends to go about doing so.

First, I would like to draw the House's attention to one thing, and that is the purely cosmetic nature of this bill. It is like a face lift that merely serves to superficially hide the signs of aging. This proposed Senate reform does not do much to hide the wrinkles. It is what I would call botched surgery. This bill does not address the real problems with the Senate.

First, this government is not above the laws, and certainly not above our Constitution. How does the Conservative government plan to justify the fact that it is blatantly thumbing its nose at the most basic rules of our state? In the preamble of the legislation, the government says it plans to use section 44, which, subject to sections 41 and 42, allows Parliament to make an ordinary law to change the way senators are appointed. This move would very clearly violate subsection 42(1) of our Constitution, which states:

An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made only in accordance with subsection 38(1)...

The Constitution unequivocally states that the powers of the Senate and the method of selecting senators cannot be changed without the consent of seven provinces representing at least 50% of the population of Canada.

This provision is in the Constitution in black and white. How does the minister justify ignoring it? If the government wants to reform the Senate, it must do so in accordance with the rules that have been established.

The government is saying that the scope of section 44 covers everything else, including, it says, what it is trying to do with this bill. This argument does not hold water, given the name of the bill: Bill C-7, An Act respecting the selection of senators and amending the Constitution Act, 1867 in respect of Senate term limits. That kind of language cannot go unnoticed. I urge the government to honour the procedure for amending the Constitution.

I would like to add something here. I took a look at the government's previous Senate reform bill, Bill C-20. It was very interesting. In the preamble, it states quite clearly that the reform based on consultative elections was to be a transition process that would lead to a more permanent constitutional reform of the Senate to provide for a means of direct election. This statement, which is quite significant, does not appear in Bill C-7. This is yet more proof of the superficial nature of this bill. This is all that the majority government plans to bring to Senate reform. It is amazing that this is being used for political games.

This government feels justified in using an undemocratic method to make an antiquated institution that is ill-suited to modern political realities more democratic. All I am seeing here is another attempt by this government to unilaterally move forward with institutional reform in the least collegial and transparent way possible. What is more, the government is saying that this is all there will be in the way of Senate reform. What a lost opportunity.

Flouting the process for amending the constitution would create a dangerous constitutional precedent. Is this the historic legacy this government wishes to leave? I would like to take this opportunity to say that the New Democratic Party will always defend the rule of law and stand up for healthy, friendly and constructive debate on the future of this country and the issues that directly affect Canadians. No government can avoid meeting this country's constitutional obligations. No government can do that.

I do not think it could be any clearer that the use of section 44 is a way to avoid debate and especially to avoid obtaining the consent of the provinces, which are also concerned about these changes. By proceeding in such a unilateral way, the bill sends an ambiguous and underhanded message to the provinces. Last I heard, they were an integral part of this country. Is this government afraid that this reform bill will not obtain the required consent? This kind of attitude tells me that the government is incapable of generating the support it needs to make these reforms. This bill, in its current form, is an excellent way of short-circuiting the provinces' opinions.

The provinces that had an upper chamber in their own legislature abolished it a long time ago. Furthermore, a number of provincial premiers have opposed this unilateral reform. It is blatantly obvious that the government is saying, “You do not agree with us? Oh well, too bad for you. Our mandate is too strong for us to worry about you. Here are the wonders of Canadian constitutional law, covered in Conservative sauce.” What a fabulous message to send to Canadian citizens. Does that really represent the actions of a responsible majority government that claims to work for all Canadians?

The role of the Senate has been controversial since the early days of Confederation. If I may, I remind the House that the Senate, as an institution, was meant to be a chamber of sober second thought, a chamber of wise people chosen to represent the territorial diversity of the country and act as a counterbalance to the decisions made in the House of Commons. Today, the makeup of cabinet reflects one of the requirements for regional representation, which was previously a responsibility of the Senate. The role of the Senate has increasingly weakened since it was created at the time of Confederation.

Above all, the Senate must be absolutely devoid of partisanship. I am in no way questioning the wisdom of the current senators. However, it is clear that the Senate has never consistently attained the other objectives laid out for it. Territorial representation, a concern at a time when it took several days to reach the federal capital, is no longer relevant and does not protect remote regions. The Senate rarely opposes the decisions made by the House of Commons. When it does, it hinders the proper functioning of the democratic process. The perception of voters is not that the Senate is a chamber of sober second thought, but that it is the chamber where bills that are too controversial remain in limbo. Finally, and this is the key point, Senate partisanship is legendary. That is the greatest complaint about the Senate. Far from correcting the situation, Bill C-7 will only makes things worse.

To get an idea of its partisan nature, we need only watch the news. My colleague from Winnipeg Centre recently gave an interview in which he criticized the involvement of a Conservative senator who was serving as the election campaign co-chair and leading spokesperson for the Manitoba Conservative Party. It is clearly unacceptable for a member of the Senate, who is paid by taxpayers, to use his time for that purpose. If he wishes to get involved in the Manitoba election campaign, he should never do so at the expense of Canadian taxpayers. This example highlights how the Senate, in its current form, is poisoned by partisanship.

Canadians expect the Senate to act as independently as possible. Can the minister clearly tell this chamber that reforming the way senators are selected—by adding an election process—will make the Senate less partisan? No, I do not think he can, unless the minister outright contradicts a Progressive Conservative senator who told the Hill Times last June that Bill C-7 could be a threat to the Canadian parliamentary system. He maintained that the proposed reforms could politicize the Senate even further instead of making it free of partisanship. He also stated that a senator is more effective when there is no partisanship.

What more is there to say? This bill would clearly exacerbate the partisanship that is already all too prominent in the Senate. How can this bill possibly be described as an improvement to the democratic legitimacy of the Senate? The proposed nature of the method of selecting senators would poison the Senate's mandate, which is supposed to be as independent as possible. If we look closely at the government's line of thinking, there would be a huge divide among senators appointed before October 14, 2008, and those appointed after. How will these new, elected senators with fixed terms serve alongside senators who were appointed without any fixed terms? How will Canadians perceive this dual reality?

On that topic, I have a few questions I would like to raise. Approximately 60% of the current senators were appointed before October 14, 2008. This means that they would be able to fulfill their senatorial duty and enjoy the generous privileges of their position until the age of 75. The coexistence of the former kind of senators with the new kind of senators would go on for several years, perhaps even decades. Consider the example of a senator who still has 35 years of service ahead of him. How would the legitimacy of the former kind of appointed senator compare to that of the new senators with a fresh mandate from the electorate? The legislative process and the reputation of the Senate would definitely be undermined. This simply does not fit in with the vision of an independent Senate whose mandate is to remain as impartial as possible.

The Hill Times tried to contact the 37 senators currently serving who were appointed by the Prime Minister after October 14, 2008, and they received very few responses.

Most of them declined commenting or simply did not respond. There is not even a semblance of unity on this bill from Conservative senators. If their own senators do not support it, it is the ultimate insult to present it to this House. How can this government claim that its Senate reforms are based on increasing its democratic legitimacy? This same government did not hesitate a single second to appoint three candidates from its own party who were defeated in the last election. That is an insult to the intelligence of Canadians who clearly expressed their free and democratic choice.

If this government truly had the intention of reforming the upper chamber, as it has been claiming for a long time now, it would have avoided this unacceptable and irresponsible behaviour. This is yet more evidence of a consistently applied double standard: one policy for friends of the Conservatives, another policy for other Canadians. That is the reality of this government's policy. I doubt that the public takes this lack of respect for their democratic choices lightly. There are strong mandates, and then there are brutal mandates.

There are some aspects of this bill that are worth special attention. Unless they are declared as independents, provincial candidates for the Senate will be free to associate themselves with a political party during their election campaign. If the minister is hoping to cut down on the politicization of the work of the upper chamber through this initiative, I think he has misunderstood the role of the Senate, which is to protect regional, provincial and minority interests, while acting as a chamber of sober second thought to examine legislation in greater detail.

It all comes down to the same thing. How can this government say that greater politicization of the Senate could help deliver this mandate? And how does it reconcile overstepping the opinions of the provinces on this, when the mandate of the Senate is partially entrusted to them in order to balance representation within Confederation? Political party affiliation has a major influence on the work of the Senate. Through this bill the minister is proposing to increase the number of partisan battles by renewing the contingent of senators from each province every nine years.

By introducing a non-renewable term, the reform also denies Canadians an opportunity to reward the work of an elected Senator. If the senator is doing good work, he or she will not be able to continue and the voters will not have a chance to show their appreciation through a re-election. If, on the other hand, the senator is doing mediocre work, voters will not be able to punish his or her incompetence and the senator will leave when the nine-year term is up. Either way, citizens are denied their say in the matter. One of the fundamental principles of democracy currently seriously lacking in the Senate is accountability and this reform is devoid of it as well. This principle is working quite well in the House of Commons and it forces us to give the best of ourselves.

Again, this government does not know what it wants. It is trying to achieve a number of objectives without any real focus. This bill would give us a partially elected Senate that, according to the government, is more democratic by virtue of repeated partisan elections for a non-renewable and non-punishable term. Where I come from, we call that hogwash.

These things cannot be reconciled with the mandate of the Senate, as I was saying earlier. Allow me again to read part of the preamble to Bill C-7, which states that “Parliament wishes to maintain the essential characteristics of the Senate within Canada’s parliamentary democracy as a chamber of independent, sober second thought”. I do not think partisanship will create a climate for independent, sober second thought within the Senate. Just look at the climate in this House to see what I mean by that.

The objective of the bill contradicts its actual effects. The government must decide whether it wants to respect the historical mandate of the Senate or whether it wants to make the Senate more democratically legitimate through partisan elections. Regardless, it is inconceivable that the government would introduce this bill to the Canadian public and insist that these two goals are compatible. Frankly, such vague legislation should not be introduced. But perhaps the government is sacrificing finesse for strength.

I was also distressed to notice that the bill, vaguely and without explanation, shifts the responsibility for holding elections to select Senate candidates. Under the bill, Senate candidates would be elected during provincial elections, on a date to be determined by the lieutenant governor, or during municipal elections. Dumping this responsibility seems like a disorganized and very imprecise way of improving the Senate's democratic legitimacy. The government could have taken the time to draft a clear, detailed and intelligible bill, but instead, Bill C-7 is terribly unclear and illogical. For example, when Canadians choose their candidates during an election, they will not even be certain that the one they choose will sit in the Senate. The final choice will remain in the hands of the Prime Minister since the bill imposes no obligation.

I mentioned that this reform seems to be purely cosmetic and here is the evidence. Parliamentary institutions deserve a little more respect and rigour. Unfortunately, when I look at this bill, the public's cynicism about politicians seems justified to me. Nothing now guarantees that this government will take its reform of the Senate any further.

In addition to this important point, we must also consider the costs of this reform. However, Bill C-7 does not make any mention of these costs. As further proof of how vague this legislation is, the bill does not clearly set out which level of government will have to assume the new costs. In these uncertain economic times, the government is adding new costs without having analyzed the proposed reforms to determine how useful they actually are.

Senate elections would thus become a federal, provincial, or municipal matter. Nothing is clear because the bill allows for all three scenarios. How will expenses be shared in these even more complex elections? Moreover, this new use of public money will contribute nothing to democracy. Canadians have long questioned the usefulness of the Senate. I doubt that the public will find the Senate more attractive if it becomes more expensive. In other words, we do not know “when?” or “how?”, and especially not “how much?”. Would it not be preferable to reform the Senate by passing bills that have more substance than grey areas? Is that asking too much of the government?

These are the indicators of a sloppy bill that takes too simplistic an approach to the parliamentary institutions of this country. I am disappointed if this is all that this government can add to the debate on Senate reform. The regions, provinces and minorities of Canada are again left hanging and will continue to be represented by an upper chamber that is completely disconnected from contemporary reality.

This bill, in addition to moving ahead in a manner that is, at a minimum, constitutionally suspect, only masks the problem of the democratic legitimacy of the Senate, without undertaking the mandatory and necessary consultation of the provinces of this country and, above all, without considering what mandate Canadians realistically want an upper chamber to have. The message to the provinces is as follows: this government does not need to consult you to proceed unilaterally with constitutional amendments. The message to Canadians is that this government is not listening to them. Its mandate is too strong for it to worry about them, especially when they indicate their preferences in a general election.

My colleagues are certainly aware of all the attempts made to reform the Senate since its inception. These attempts all have one thing in common: they failed. In the past 100 years, 13 attempts have failed and, today, given the lack of provincial interest and the absence of a consensus on the nature of the reform, there is every indication that this bill will be added to that historic list of failed attempts.

The reality is that the Senate is a problem that no one has been able to fix. So, as our party is suggesting, it is time to consider another option that has yet to be explored—abolishing the Senate. That is why are proposing that we consult people about this, to see if they believe that the upper chamber still has a place in our democratic institutions. We want to ask them if they feel this legacy from the 19th century still has a place in a 21st century democracy. The provinces that abolished their senates did not stop functioning. Countries like Denmark and New Zealand abolished their senates and continue to operate without any problem.

Yes, I am critical of this bill, but the official opposition will not be content with simply criticizing in a stubborn and narrow-minded fashion. The opposition will do everything it can to propose well-thought-out and reasonable solutions for the good of Canadians. Our parliamentary institutions deserve more of our time and intellectual rigour. That is why I insist that when difficult issues such as Senate reform are brought before the House for debate, we should be discussing the option of abolishing the Senate and presenting that to the Canadian public as well. That is the spirit of what I consider to be constructive and respectful debate.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her very interesting speech. I would like to ask her about the solution recommended by her party, that is, to hold a nation-wide referendum on abolishing the Senate.

Would the question read, “Are you in favour of abolishing the Senate?”

This question is problematic. Perhaps the majority of Canadians simply want Senate reform. But if they are forced to choose between abolishing it or keeping it as is, they may vote to abolish it, even if that is not their first choice. Thus, it would be a complex question to ask in a referendum, because Senate reform could be done in many ways. It could be done badly, as we are seeing here today, or it could be done in a way that is much better for Canadians.

Therefore, in my opinion, it is not suitable for a referendum for that very reason. But there is another reason. Let us suppose that the majority of Canadians say “yes” to abolishing the Senate, but a few provinces say “no” and want to keep the Senate, including, for example, Prince Edward Island, which is guaranteed four senators in the Constitution. Does the member believe that the premiers of those provinces—Prince Edward Island or others—would be forced to say, against the majority vote of their respective provinces, that they will agree to abolish the Senate? For if all premiers do not give their consent, it cannot be abolished, since the provinces' decision must be unanimous. So does she not see that her plan for a referendum on this issue, which on the surface appears very tempting, raises many problems?

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question.

In terms of the referendum question in this context, my colleague is acutely aware that it is very difficult to ask a very clear question in a referendum. Everyone agrees on that.

I agree with him when he says that presenting just one question that asks whether the Senate should be maintained or abolished does not cover all the possible options. In a similar way, the government is simply presenting Parliament with a reform, saying that people agree on having a reform. In fact, all people are saying is that they do not agree with the status quo. It is intellectually dishonest because we do not know whether people truly agree with the reform or whether they simply no longer want the status quo. It is important to verify what people really want and get their approval.

In terms of unanimous agreement among the provinces, discussions will have to be held and a consensus reached. What is being proposed is not simply to abolish the Senate without consideration and keep this Parliament the way it is. We would like to seek different representation in Parliament that could compensate for the fact that the Senate would no longer be there to represent the regions.

We could seek the unanimous consent of the provinces to a proposal for real democratic reform of our parliamentary institutions.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, unless I am mistaken, I think it was the member for Ottawa—Orléans who was recognized, not the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville.

I would like to hear the hon. member's opinion on the two choices before her now: the status quo in the Senate—where there are senators who have potentially been appointed for 45 years—or a Senate with shorter terms.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, the problem is that they have tabled this bill, saying that it will be more democratic and will improve the situation. In reality, this bill will not fix the problems inherent in the Senate, such as partisanship and a lack of regional representation. It is not true that senators represent regions; it is simply partisan. This reform bill is being presented as an improvement to democracy and as an accountability measure, but I do not agree with that. I cannot accept the reform as it stands.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are trying to find some logic in this whole thing. We have heard from colleagues with constitutional backgrounds on both sides of the House, and yet we still cannot make any sense of it.

I am wondering if this move is not a way for the Conservative Party to prepare for a time when the tide starts to turn against them. By keeping the Senate and stacking it in their favour, they are ensuring that they will be able to pursue their agenda in the future and that Parliament would not be able to go back and change things. Does my colleague get the same impression?

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question. It would indeed be a dangerous precedent to allow such amendments that are so close to being constitutional. This is an extremely sensitive issue. Making these amendments without any consultation would set a very dangerous precedent of completely unilateral constitutional amendments.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the NDP member for Louis-Saint-Laurent for her very detailed and interesting speech. However, I must say that I was very disappointed when she proposed a constitutional dialogue on abolishing the Senate rather than a consultation with the provinces to see how we could improve the Senate. Abolishing the Senate is a major debate.

Does the hon. member think that this would be an effective use of our time during this period of economic uncertainty in our country and the world? Is it a priority for the Canadian public, the provinces and the members of the House to start a constitutional debate at this time?

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to sincerely thank the hon. member for her question. In fact, it is the government that introduced this bill on Senate reform in the House. I do not know if it is a top priority to reform the Senate or reopen the Constitution, but it was the government that introduced the bill before us today.

Personally, I believe that it is not worth reforming the Senate in this manner without having consulted the provinces and the public. When we talk about some form of abolition, we are not talking about simply abolishing the Senate. We will have to really reform our parliamentary institutions so that they are more representative of everyone in Canada. It would be possible to seek a consensus and see what the public thinks.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent provided an excellent analysis and a great speech outlining the problems with the bill. She actively put forward what we as the official opposition believe should be happening.

One of the things that those members over there pride themselves on is the sober second thought. The member made reference to many of them toeing the line. There might be one person here who ran as an independent and was elected as an independent, but I do not think so.

Therefore, given that most of the new senators would likely be partisans elected under the new legislation, would the hon. member expect more partisan toeing of the line or less as a result of senators being elected on the party ticket?

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is fairly clear that organizing partisan elections with partisan confrontation will serve only to further increase the partisanship that already plays a major role in the Senate and makes its mandate even more difficult to carry out.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak in support of Bill C-7, Senate Reform Act.

In our platform and in the Speech from the Throne, we outlined our commitment to Senate reform, promising Canadians that we would take action. With the introduction of the Senate reform act, we are taking the first steps toward meeting this objective.

Calls for Senate reform are not new. Senate reform has been a part of the political discussion for nearly as long as there has been a Senate. In fact, within two years of the founding of Canada in 1867, arguments for reform began to surface.

In all the studies and reports on Senate reform that have been completed, a common theme has emerged. The studies concluded that while the Senate is a valuable part of our democratic institutions, the status quo is no longer acceptable. Reform is required.

Canadians have overwhelmingly indicated that they feel the same way. They want to see action on Senate reform. In a recent poll released in July this year, 70% of respondents indicated support for Senate reform. Despite the countless calls for reform and citizen dissatisfaction with the Senate, it has survived virtually unchanged in its fundamental features since Confederation. In part, this situation exists because fundamental reform of the Senate requires the support of the provinces, which has been difficult to achieve.

In order to build support for fundamental reform, our government has been pursuing an incremental approach to reform that falls within the federal government's legislative jurisdiction. One of the most pressing concerns about the Senate is that it has no democratic mandate from the citizens it serves, and the current rules allow individuals to stay in their positions for as long as 45 years.

The fact that Senators are not accountable to Canadians contributes to a perception that the Senate lacks legitimacy. That is why we introduced the Senate reform act. The act proposes measures that will give Canadians the opportunity to have a say in who represents them in the Senate. It will also limit the terms of senators to nine years.

The changes proposed in the Senate reform act do not purport to completely resolve the debate over Senate reform. It is our hope that these reforms, once implemented, will be the first step down a path toward more fundamental changes.

Before continuing, it is important to outline, briefly, the elements of the bill. Let me first present the issue of the selection of Senate nominees. The Senate reform act encourages but does not compel provinces and territories to establish democratic consultative processes to give citizens a say in who represents them in the Senate.

The bill then requires the Prime Minister to consider the names of these individuals selected as a result of these processes when making recommendations to the Governor General on Senate appointments.

The Prime Minister has always been clear that his preference is to appoint senators chosen by the voters, and he is committed to respecting results of any democratic consultation with voters. However, the act does not bind the Prime Minister nor the Governor General when making appointments to the Senate. It does not change the method of selecting senators, and therefore does not require a constitutional amendment.

To assist provinces and territories in establishing their consultations, a voluntary framework is attached as a schedule to the act which provides guidance and direction on consultations. Again, I stress the framework is voluntary. Provinces and territories would not be required to adopt the framework word for word. In fact, they are expected to adapt the framework to suit their unique circumstances and culture.

The framework is simply meant to be a tool to facilitate the implementation of the consultative process. At the end of the day there is only one requirement related to any consultative process that is established. Senate nominees must be selected as a result of a democratic consultation with citizens.

The act illustrates our government's support for the development of consultative processes with the provinces and territories. It is our hope that all provinces and territories will take advantage of this support and help to create a more democratic Senate with enhanced legitimacy.

The Senate reform act will also introduce term limits for senators. The act will restrict the length of time that senators can sit in the Senate to nine years. This would apply to all senators appointed after the royal assent of the bill. It would also apply to current senators appointed after October 2008 whose terms would end nine years after royal assent.

We believe that nine-year terms provide enough time to enable individual senators to gain the experience necessary to carry out their legislative functions while also ensuring regular renewal of the upper chamber.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I regret to interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary. She may pursue her comments when this debate resumes.

It being 2:30 p.m., this House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)

The House resumed from September 30 consideration of the motion that Bill C-7, An Act respecting the selection of senators and amending the Constitution Act, 1867 in respect of Senate term limits, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources has 15 minutes left to conclude her remarks.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, as I was mentioning a few days ago, the Senate reform act will also introduce term limits for senators. The act will restrict the length of time that senators can sit in the Senate to a nine year term limit. This will apply to all senators appointed after the royal assent of the bill. It will also apply to current senators appointed after October 2008 whose terms would end nine years after royal assent.

We believe that a nine-year term provides enough time to enable individual senators to gain the experience necessary to carry out their legislative functions while also ensuring regular renewal of the upper chamber. At the same time, a nine-year term does not compromise the Senate's role of sober second thought in independent legislative review and in in-depth policy investigation.

Unlike the selection provisions which do not amend the Constitution, the term limits provision would change the Constitution. However, this change is within Parliament's exclusive constitutional authority under section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

I would now like to address in more detail some of the concerns that have been raised about the constitutionality of this bill.

While some commentators would argue that this bill presents a fundamental constitutional change requiring the support of the provinces, I disagree. Our government has been careful to ensure that our approach to Senate reform falls within the federal government's constitutional jurisdiction. Let me explain.

Concerning Senate consultations, I have already noted that the process would not require constitutional amendment because it does not change the method of selecting senators. The bill does not require that the Prime Minister recommend the names of individuals selected as a result of the consultation process. Any provincial process would only be consultative in nature and not legally binding. The fact that these processes would be consultative is a key aspect of this bill, especially considering that consultation with citizens is a fundamental element of our democratic system. In many ways, these consultative processes would resemble non-binding referendums or plebiscites.

In that vein, I would note that the majority of provinces have legislation that enables them to seek the views of citizens through a referendum on any matters of public interest or concern. I would also note that the Prime Minister already consults with a number of people when making recommendations on Senate appointments and this bill would not change that. The bill simply proposes a method to enable the Prime Minister to consult with Canadians on who should be selected to hold a position in the Senate.

In 2006, the Senate convened a special committee to study the issue of Senate reform. The committee heard from a number of distinguished constitutional scholars, including Peter Hogg, Patrick Monahan and Stephen Scott. In its report, the committee noted that Professors Hogg, Monahan and Scott supported the view that if the result of a consultation process was simply to create a pool of individuals from which the Prime Minister could make a selection, then there “would not likely be any objection on constitutional grounds”. Since this is the approach presented in the Senate reform act, I am confident in the constitutionality of these provisions.

Concerning term limits, I would point out a similar amendment was passed by Parliament, acting alone, in 1965. At that time, Parliament reduced the tenure of senators from a lifetime appointment to mandatory retirement at age 75.

The Constitution provides specific authority for the Parliament of Canada to legislate with respect to the Senate. The Constitution also very clearly sets out those types of changes to the Senate that requires some level of provincial consent. Our legislation has been very carefully designed to ensure that we are acting in those areas where we have authority to legislate.

In its 2006 study, the special Senate committee concluded that the constitutionality of term limits was sufficiently clear and that a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada was not necessary. In fact, the committee further reported that most members of the committee endorsed the principle of the bill and agreed that “a defined limit to the terms of senators would be an improvement to Canada's Senate”.

As a final point, I would note that nothing in the Senate reform act would fundamentally alter the role or powers of the Senate. The House of Commons would continue to be the chamber of confidence and the Senate would continue principally as a revising chamber, offering its valuable insight in the review of legislation. While our proposed agenda focuses on achievable reforms, that does not mean that the more fundamental issues, such as Senate powers and the appropriate representation of the provinces, are insignificant.

These are important questions that must be considered and discussed; however, we will continue to concentrate on our incremental approach and how its successful implementation will possibly ignite interest in further enhancing the role of the upper chamber.

The reforms proposed by the Senate Reform Act are not radical changes but are important changes that provide an alternative to the status quo which is no longer acceptable to Canadians. Doing nothing is simply not an option.

Our government is doing its part to ensure that we can improve and enhance our institutions to make them better for Canadians. Our reforms are practical and achievable, and we hope they will lay the foundation for more fundamental reform. To implement these changes, however, we need the co-operation of parliamentarians. Until now our government has faced resistance to our attempts to modernize the Senate, in particular some from within the Senate itself.

It is my hope that we can count on all parliamentarians to come together to implement these important reforms for all Canadians.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help thinking that this entire piece of legislation is a bit rickety. Where I come from we might call it held together with duct tape and chicken wire. It is hardly an overwhelming reform, and I do not think it has much of a chance of success. We are going to end up with much of what we have now.

Could the member tell us to what extent she has consulted with provinces, and how many provinces have actually signed on to this legislation?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our government has been given a strong mandate. Part of that strong mandate was for Senate reform. We have taken a flexible approach to this with incremental changes, so that we can implement those things that are important to Canadians, to improve the democracy that we hold dear to us, and to improve our Senate from the standpoint of ensuring there are limited terms as well as ensuring that we have some degree of flexibility in what we are doing moving forward.

We are consulting. We had a substantive consultation earlier this year on May 2. The Canadian public gave us a strong mandate to move forward on Senate reform.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, my colleague did not answer the question. There is one reality for the Government of Quebec and another reality for the other provinces.

Which provinces did the Conservative Party consult? Does it have the support of these provinces? Which provinces support it? Is my colleague not concerned that this will still end up before the courts?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we consulted all Canadians with respect to our plan.

On May 2 Canadians brought us forward with a strong mandate for Senate reform. As the member opposite knows, there is already legislation in place for democratic selections in other provinces, whether that be in Alberta or Saskatchewan, which have enacted legislation for democratic selection processes.

There is a broad consultation that will be taking place. In the case of Alberta, it moved forward in 1989 with the senatorial selection act, and in 2009, Saskatchewan moved forward with the senate nominee election act.

This government is moving forward by creating a reformed Senate, so that we can ensure that we have democratic institutions that are modern in this country.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on Saturday I attended a round table in Toronto with the Minister of State for Democratic Reform. We had a very diverse group of people around the table.

We talked about different things around democratic renewal generally, and we did talk a little bit about the Senate. One of the things that people around that table did say was that they wanted to see the Senate be more effective. They believe the Senate plays an important role in representing regional interests and regional differences.

Perhaps the parliamentary secretary could give a little bit more background on how these reforms are going to make the Senate more visible and more active for Canadians?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Senate Reform Act would encourage the provinces to enact the democratic process so Canadians would have a greater say in who represents them in the Senate. It would provide more of a dynamism in the Senate.

The bill provides a voluntary framework to assist the provinces in implementing a selection process to bring forward names of individuals for the Prime Minister to consider. It also introduces term limits for senators. After the bill receives royal assent, senators will be appointed for a non-renewable term of nine years. This will allow a routine and regular turnover of senators so that fresh and new ideas are brought forward. We want to move forward with this reform of the Senate in order to modernize the democratic institutions in this country.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was wondering whether the hon. member has considered the question of costs. Time and again we see Conservative proposals presented in this chamber with no costing. Could she comment on the more than $100 million the Senate costs us every year?

In addition, what about costs for holding those election campaigns? On this side we question the value of a second house. The House of Commons is elected and does a very good job doing the public's business. Do we need to spend several hundred million dollars more on a second chamber?

Could the member comment on what costs would be associated with the bill?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this issue has come up. The bill does not provide funding for provincial and territorial consultation processes. Our government believes provincial and territorial processes should be funded by the provinces and territories.

Alberta has already had three consultative processes and the Government of Canada has not contributed funding for them. Alberta's most recent consultation process was held in 2004 in conjunction with its general provincial election. Alberta estimated that it cost approximately $1.6 million. The Government of Alberta is the one that took on that cost.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not entirely satisfied with the answer from the parliamentary secretary to the question posed by my hon. colleague from Bourassa.

The hon. parliamentary secretary and I come from a province where the government is opposed to having a Senate and would like to abolish it. I was wondering if the parliamentary secretary would like to comment on what would happen if a province decided that it did not want to participate in Senate reform because the province wants to abolish it. What if a province does not want to participate in the process as set down by the government in the bill?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as was mentioned before, this process is voluntary. We look forward to working with the provinces and using the framework as a base for creating what the provinces believe to be the best process for consultation. The federal government is not imposing this framework; it is voluntary. Each province should be given the flexibility and ability to put forward names. However, we are not taking away the ability of the Prime Minister and the Governor General to choose those individuals. In order to increase representation, whether that be of minority groups or women, the Prime Minister would still be able to select individuals even if they are not presented on the list provided by the provinces.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the parliamentary secretary on her presentation and some of the clarification that has come over this long debate. Since 2006 when the Conservative Party formed government, it has been the mandate not only of the Prime Minister, but certainly of this caucus of moving ahead on being transparent and having accountability within the Senate.

One of the things that continually comes up is the question around tenure, and the member has talked about it already. Not only is there a question about the length of tenure, but about whether we can actually do it. We realize that in 1965 that was changed and it was constitutionally allowable. Now we are looking at a term of nine years. I wonder if there has been a discussion with the provinces about tenure and how they feel about the term of nine years.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Senate reform bill is an incremental approach to reform and reaffirms our government's commitment to make the upper chamber more democratic, effective and accountable. The bill is consistent with the government's efforts to encourage the provinces to implement a democratic process for this election but also to implement term limits for senators so that there is continued renewal. That continued renewal would be brought about through the nine-year non-renewable terms. In that way new and fresh ideas could be brought into the Senate for debate and sober second thought.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, on this fine morning I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this bill regarding the selection of senators and amendment of the Constitution Act,1867.

For a long time this Parliament has been made up of two chambers, one elected and one unelected. When the provinces were first set up they had the two chamber concept but all of them got rid of the second chamber. History has shown us that the legislatures of Canada can function very well without a second chamber. The legislatures representing the provinces across this country do not have senates now and they are doing a fine job.

What has been my experience with the Senate here in Parliament over the last five years? I have a very difficult time identifying the positive work of the hundred or so members in the other chamber. It is not that they are not good Canadians or that they have poor work habits or that they are not intellectually capable people; it is that they are simply not listened to when they make reports. In the last while, there has been a change in the Senate. It has become much more political. The senators who are there very much play a role in determining government policy. Now that the government has a majority, the Senate acts in accordance with the government's wishes in moving forward government legislation or in blocking legislation that comes forward from other members of this House.

I would say that the climate change bill is at the root of the change that has taken place. That bill was voted on and approved by elected members in the House of Commons but was summarily rejected by the Senate. This represents for me a clear delineation of the problem with the Senate. Ignoring the Senate and allowing it to remain a basket of good intentions where reports are written and nothing is done with them is the old model. The new model is one in which the Senate acts as a policeman over the House of Commons for any of the private members who might not agree with the prevailing view within that Senate, whether there is a Liberal majority or a Conservative majority in the Senate. That is what has been happening.

Of course the New Democrats have supported the abolition of that institution for a long time. We are very concerned that the Senate does not add to the democratic process. In reality, it is taking away from the democratic process. It is taking away from the rights of elected members and from the directions that are given clearly by the majority of the elected members in this House of Commons. The situation is not good and it is getting worse.

I am glad to have the opportunity to debate Senate reform. I want to assist in improving the democratic process that we use to run this country, to provide protection for the rights of Canadians and to give good direction to the future for our country. I am positive we are all here for that. However, what we have here does not strike me as a likely addition to the good work of this body.

I cannot help but continue to support our position to abolish the Senate and look for ways to find approbation among the people of Canada for that position, because that is the democratic process.

A referendum on the future of the Senate and opening the debate to Canadians is a great idea. We support that idea. When this bill fails, as it is likely to do, perhaps the government will consider that to be a better way to go about this exercise. This is a better way to determine which direction we should take. My colleagues can rest assured the people actually can make choices. They have the capacity to look at what is going on and make good choices.

Having spoken to the general direction of the Senate, this bill purports to make changes to the Senate to give us exactly what I am not sure. I am not sure what the government's vision of the Senate would be after the bill passed, which is very unlikely, or what its vision of the Senate should be.

The Prime Minister uses the Senate as an instrument of control over the democratic process in this House. Would the changes made in the bill increase the Prime Minister's use of the Senate? Would it become even more of a tool for parties to use when they are in government? Or when a party is thrown out of government, would that party use the Senate as a tool to subvert the democratic will of the House of Commons?

Four years from now after the next election when the people have turfed out the present government but it has a very large majority in the Senate, I can see a situation where things could be made very difficult for a new direction for Canada. I do not want that.

I am not here to create a situation where those who are not in power have their hands around the throats of those who have been democratically elected to represent the people of Canada. I am not interested in that. I hope the other side is not interested in that either. I appeal to hon. members as Canadians to think about that. When Canadians make a choice, that choice should be represented in the House of Commons and not in the Senate.

What do we see in the proposed changes to the Senate? All senators would be restricted to a single nine-year term. They would need to be registered with a political party in order for people to vote for them in the elections that would be held in the provinces. People would have to register, for example, as a Conservative, a Liberal, a New Democrat or a Green Party. However, once they were elected, it would be for one electoral term and that is it.

Where is the recourse of the voter to senators? They would be in there for nine years. They would be under the direction of the government or the opposition, whichever party they were registered with. How would that work for sober second thought, for careful delineation of what is going on in the House, for advice given to the House, for supporting the democratic process in the House? How would that actually help? Where is the vision?

The Prime Minister would not be required to appoint any of the people elected by the provinces through registered parties. The Prime Minister could make his choice.

We really have changed nothing. If the Prime Minister did not like a particular candidate, he could ignore the person throughout his time in office. If it does not extend to six years and the Prime Minister is thrown out after the next election, perhaps that person who was elected by the people in the region would have a chance to be appointed by the new prime minister. As long as that happened within the next few years, they would have that opportunity. If not, good-bye to the voters' intent to put somebody in to represent them.

If the Senate is to represent the regions and the only way people can get elected to the Senate is to be part of a registered political party, and once they are in there, they still must be appointed by a prime minister, I just do not see how that would push forward the regional issues that someone who is actually elected by the region to represent the region would be in a position to do so. I think it would leave that senator much indebted to the political party and very little indebted to the region that will never get vote for him or her again anyhow.

Those are some of the provisions that the Conservatives have put forward to change the Senate.

What do we see? Not much of this will make a difference to what is happening now. It will not make a difference to the fact that the Senate is now being used to subvert the will of the majority in this House of Commons, which happened in the last two years. Nothing will stop that. If the government does not succeed in being re-elected four years from now, it will have a stranglehold over in the Senate. We will fight our way through that, as a new government, with extreme difficulty. That will become a vehicle for non-change and a vehicle for continuing the will of a government past its time, which is unfortunate to a Canadian democracy. That will not work.

The Conservatives railed at the Liberal senators for three years, until they got a majority. They hated them. They said that they were always standing in their way and always making it more difficult for them. What were they going to do? They were going to perpetuate, through this legislation, the continuation of that problem that the Conservatives saw very clearly when they started their time as government.

Where is their vision? What is their vision for the Senate of Canada? They should tell us.

However, like most legislation that the Conservatives put forward, they do not put a vision forward with it. They are scared to do that. They are scared to tell us what they are really thinking and what they really want for this country, which is unfortunate because this country needs leadership and direction right now. They need to work to make things better.

However, the only way we will do that is with disclosure, with understanding. When we do not have it, this will not work.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague.

We know that, fundamentally, the Senate should be there to ensure a separation of powers. How does my colleague think that a senator elected under the banner of a party will allow us to have a true separation of powers?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I actually do not see that as the trend that has developed in the Senate. I see the trend developing in the Senate much more in a direction of political parties being the primary driver of the Senate, which is unfortunate because, quite clearly, the good work that Senators have done in the past, and there has been good work, has been when they have spoken impartially on legislation, when they have made their way forward with reports that do not speak to any particular political direction but speak to the realities of Canadian life and the way legislation could be written that would better suit Canadians. Those are things that are useful. I do not say that they are useful to $100 million a year. I have trouble with that because there is simply not enough work being done there to make that $100 million viable.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my friend and I found a fair number of contradictions in what he was saying to the House. One is either for democracy or not but the member is both for and against democracy. I found that very contradicting.

Our goal here is to make the Senate more transparent and ensure that it plays an effective role in Parliament. I do not think I heard the member talking about a constitutional war with the provinces to kill the Senate. , I think our role as parliamentarians is to make the Senate as democratic and transparent as possible and to ensure that the senators over there are doing good work for Canadians.

Perhaps the member could take a moment to better explain whether he believes senators should be elected or whether senators should continue to be appointed in the way they have been for 143 years.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I do not see any contradiction in what I said. If the prime minister would have the right to overrule any election, how could that possibly be part of a democratic process? That would be like asking a U.S. senator running for the Republicans to get permission from President Obama before he is elected. If we are going to have an elected Senate, then let it be elected. People make the choice and that is the choice they are stuck with.

Another point in the bill is that senators would need to be members of registered political parties. How is that democratic? How is it democratic for somebody who wants to represent his region to have to indicate his support for a particular party when he would be going into a body that is supposed to represent the region and speak for the region?

When those elements are put into the bill, the democratic process is taken away.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague, whose speech I very much enjoyed.

I would like to know what he thinks about more substantive and fundamental reform of our parliamentary institutions. The former Bill C-20 on Senate reform very clearly set out a transition towards a means of direct election for the Senate, which would completely change the system. This bill was simply a transition. That was completely cut out of the bill before us today. There is no more talk of a transition or of more substantive changes. This seems to be all that the Conservatives have to offer us by way of reform. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I will speak to why I favour the abolition of the Senate.

We do not have a 200-year history like the United States. However, there are many other countries that have two elected Houses where they have an arrangement between the two elected bodies to work together to create legislation and make government work.

A directly elected body of senators could be a terrible imposition on the smooth running of the Government of Canada. There could be very different points of view about how the government should be run, what direction it should take, and that would be coming from two groups of elected members. The senators, who are not now elected, do not have much jam when it comes to speaking for the people. If they were elected, I agree that they would have a lot more influence and confidence in their ability to stand up to the government.

I would say that it would be an extreme problem for our democracy right now. We do not have the underlying principles or the direction for two elected bodies in this House.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I want to correct the record. The member opposite commented on having to be a member of a registered party in order to have one's name brought forward. I would like him to look at section 19.2(b) in Bill C-7 where it states that the name of each candidate must be printed on a ballot together with:

the word “independent”, if the candidate is not a candidate for a registered provincial or territorial political party.

Just to be clear, one would not need to be a member of a political party in order have one's name brought forward.

The member and his party talked about the abolishment of the Senate altogether. This would require significant constitutional change but really end up at the status quo. Would this help modernize Canadian society by just maintaining the status quo as opposed to moving forward with incremental democratic reform, as the Canadian public wishes?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, having a debate about the Senate is a great idea. I happen to favour the approach of abolition, much as the provinces have with their senates because that is likely to be the most democratic thing to do. I do not see that creating an elected Senate in the end will be a good thing for our democracy.

Without attention to a whole number of issues that come out of our developed political system, imposing an elected Senate on it will cause more grief than productive results for Canadians.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for pointing out the folly of this bill.

For me, this bill seems weak, ill-conceived and flimsy. I wonder if my colleague would agree that the Conservatives have proposed this weak legislation because they have put themselves in a trap. They have over-promised to their base and now must come up with legislation that they know will not really work. They have done this to themselves and now we are stuck with legislation that will not do anything.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have found the Senate to be useful to them in the last while in stopping legislation in a minority situation that they could not stop in the House. I think that has been of some interest to them.

In the long term, over the next dozen years if they are thrown out as government, if they legitimize the power of the Senate they will have a powerful instrument to thwart the will of any other party that takes control of the government. It is not simply to massage their base. I look at it in a different fashion because that has been my experience in the last five years in the House.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to enter into the debate on Bill C-7, Senate Reform Act.

First, I tend to share some of the feelings that members opposite may have about the Senate because I was there at one time. Before I was first elected to this place in 2004, I had many misgivings about the Senate in its current form. I did not know, frankly, whether the Senate actually served any useful purpose. I was not sure whether the Senate should still remain as an institution in our democratic system or whether it should be abolished. However, it was not really until I came to this place that I started to more fully understand what the Senate was, what it did and the benefits it could provide to Canadians and to our democratic institution.

I am now firmly of the belief that the Senate plays a very important role in Parliament and should not be abolished, but it needs to be reformed. That is what Bill C-7 intends to do, to make some incremental preliminary steps to reform this institution, to make it a more democratic, more accountable system in today's society.

This debate will also serve the purpose of perhaps, and hopefully, pointing out to Canadians what the Senate actually does and how it works on their behalf.

We have seen in news stories emanating out of New Brunswick today that New Brunswick Premier Alward has stated that he wants to see democratic consultations on Senate appointments made in New Brunswick. He believes New Brunswick will need a strong, regional representative voice in the Senate should our Parliament go forward with expanding the number of seats in the House of Commons.

I think most members of this place know that one of the primary functions of Senate is to provide that regional representation in the House and in Parliament.

I can point to a very quick example in my own province of Saskatchewan many years ago of where this regional representation really came into play. Back 40 or 50 years, there was a Liberal government of the day. Unfortunately for the government it had no elected Liberal members of Parliament from the province of Saskatchewan. Therefore, Saskatchewan had no effective representation in Parliament, at least in the House of Commons.

The prime minister of the day appointed a Saskatchewan Liberal senator by the name of Hazen Argue to cabinet and made him the minister of agriculture. in that fashion, Saskatchewan had representation. That is probably the most glaring and best example of how the Senate and senators can represent their region in Parliament.

Beyond the regional representation, on many occasions I have seen senators provide very useful services and provide a very important function to Parliament. We have seen, time and time again, where senators start to examine bills that have been passed by our Parliament, by the House of Commons. After due diligence and post-examination of some of those bills, Senate reports have come back recommending amendments or changes or improvements to legislation, which in fact have strengthened the bill.

There is a reason why the Senate is called the chamber of sober second thought. It allows that second set of eyes to examine legislation that is brought forth from this place.

I could go on with many more examples of why the Senate is a useful institution, but I want to concentrate on two elements of the Senate that I think need reform. Those two areas are what Bill C-7 purports to do.

As we all know, currently senators are appointed. They are appointed by the Governor General. Many people think it is the Prime Minister who appoints senators to the Senate. That is not correct. The Prime Minister provides advice to the Governor General who then makes the appointments. However, one of the reasons I think Canadians have been so upset over the years with Senate appointments is that on many occasions senators have been appointed for purely partisan reasons.

If people have been good soldiers for a political party that happens to be in power at the time, whether they have been local campaign workers and good volunteers or have been fundraisers over time, it seems, on many occasions, that their reward for all of this partisan work on behalf of the political party they represented was an appointment to the Senate. Too many times we have seen blatant partisan appointments where the competency, the integrity and the independence of that senator comes into question, and rightfully so.

With Bill C-7, what we purport to do is allow Canadians to have a direct input into the Senate appointments coming out of their region. Let me be clear. We are not talking about direct Senate elections. That would require constitutional change. We are not talking about a system in which Canadians would elect a senator, where on the results of that election, they would automatically go to the Senate. The legislation does not intend to do that. We do not want to reopen the Constitution. We do not want to try to engage provinces and others in constitutional discussions about revamping the Constitution to allow for direct Senate elections. What we are however talking about is allowing Canadians in various regions the ability and opportunity to voice their opinion on who they would like to see as their senator or senators.

How would we do this? It is quite simple. Each province has the ability and flexibility to set up a process for consultation. They could have an election, if they want to call it an election, in which the voters of particular region or province would cast a ballot, usually in conjunction with a provincial election or a federal election, and then the people who would come out of that consultation process or election would have their names given to the Prime Minister with a recommendation that the next appointments to the Senate should be that person or persons. However, it would still be up to the Prime Minister and the Governor General to make the official appointments.

In other words, provinces would be able to hold a consultation process to seek the input from their citizens on who they would like to see as their senator. That name would then be passed along to the Prime Minister, who would then have the ability to either suggest that name to the Governor General for appointment, or reject that name.

Let us be quite clear that any prime minister would be walking a very thin political line if he or she did not take the advice of the provinces on the choice they wanted or had made in terms of Senate appointments. A prime minister could ignore the advice of the province and appoint someone else. That would be within his or her purview, but the prime minister of the day would be doing that at his or her political peril if he or she did not follow the consultation process that the provinces had set out.

The beauty of this is that it would not require a constitutional amendment because the Prime Minister and the Governor General, as they have always done, would be the ones who would make the final appointment. It is just that in this fashion they would be able to take advice from provinces on who the appointment should be.

This is a very important first step in democratic reform of the Senate. Why? Should this legislation pass, for the first time Canadians will have the ability to directly consult with their citizens and will have a direct opportunity and have a hand in the appointment process.

We have seen and heard time and time again from Canadians that they do not believe the Senate serves any useful purpose because there is no accountability and because appointments are made for partisan purposes and for no other reason. The consultation process that we are bringing forward in the legislation would provide accountability because the citizens of each province would have direct input into the senators who would represent their interests. Accountability is paramount is a democratic institution. It is certainly paramount in determining which senators represent which regions.

I do not think there can be any hesitation on behalf of Canadians. In fact, most of the polling data that I have seen seems to indicate that Canadians from coast to coast to coast are very much in favour of having some form of direct input on senatorial appointments. I believe this would be a process that would find Canadians approving of the attempts by the Prime Minister and the government to reform the Senate and allow accountability to finally come into the Senate.

I could talk about a few other matters that are important with the consultation process, but I should also point out that most of the provinces are onside with this. Most of them have either changed or introduced legislation to allow for some form of consultation process or have at least indicated that they would be willing to entertain such a system. Saskatchewan has already brought forward legislation that would allow for the consultation process to take place, Alberta has had this consultation process established for a number of years. Several other provinces have indicated their willingness to enter into such a process so they would be able to engage their citizens in a discussion and ultimately an election or referendum of sorts to give to the Prime Minister a name or names of possible Senate appointments.

I want to also point out that the legislation would allow individual provinces the flexibility to establish this consultation process however they wish. In other words, a province may want to have a consultation process wherein a first-past-the-post system would be established and the name of person who received the greatest number of votes would be suggested to the Prime Minister for appointment purposes. However, another province may want to have a preferential balloting system, if there were multiple openings for the Senate.

The flexibility remains with the provinces to determine how they wish to consult with their citizens. It would not force the provinces to follow a set-in-stone path for the consultation process. I believe this is one of the reasons why most of the provinces have tended to agree with our attempts to reform the Senate because they would have a direct say in these democratic reforms.

The appointment process is one of the elements of Bill C-7, which is the ability for provinces to have a direct say in the appointment process for senators. However, I believe the second part is also extremely important, and that is setting term limits for senators.

I mentioned at the outset that I had some concerns before I came to this place about the Senate itself. One of my concerns was that beyond being appointed for purely partisan reasons, senators could be appointed for an extended period of time and there was no recourse. Outside of perhaps being charged and convicted criminally, once an individual was appointed to the Senate, that person was there for up to 45 years potentially. One could be appointed at 30 years old, with 75 years of age being the mandatory retirement age for senators. For that period of time, unless someone appointed to the Senate did something against the law or contravened the Constitution, a person could remain there and the government or citizenship would have absolutely no ability to remove the individual.

I think we all recall a story from a number of years ago that got great play in Canadian newspapers and media. There was a senator who had been in the Senate for several decades, and his attendance record was absolutely abysmal. This senator actually spent more time in Mexico than he did in the Senate. If memory serves me well, in the last year of that senator's duration, he had spent fewer than five days actually in the Senate. In other words, he showed up for work on fewer than five days out of a year. Eventually, once the story became public, the Senate took steps, and that senator eventually was forced to resign.

However, the fact of the matter is that constitutionally, once people are appointed to the Senate, there is no way to either reprimand them or force them to resign should they not be doing their job, and that is something I do not think most Canadians can abide by. I certainly cannot see the rationale behind allowing someone to be appointed at age 30 and then serve until age 75 with absolutely no accountability or recourse.

In this legislation, we are suggesting that senators would be appointed for a nine-year term, and for only nine years. They could not be reappointed. In other words, if a senator were to run in a provincial consultation process and ultimately be appointed to the Senate, if that senator wanted to run again after nine years, he or she could not do so. The only flexibility built into that system would be that if the senators, once appointed, had to resign because of, for example, medical issues, they could run again in their province and perhaps be reappointed, but only to serve out the remainder of their nine years. In other words, whether it was an interrupted term or a consecutive term, nine years would be the absolute limit.

Why is that important? It's very important because it would allow those senators to be beholden to the people of the region rather than to the people who appointed them.

As an explanation, right now we have people who have been appointed for partisan reasons. Who are they responsible and loyal to? Human nature being what it is, they are probably going to be more loyal to the person who appointed them than to the people they are supposed to be representing.

If senators were appointed for a nine-year term and appointed based on some consultations with the people of their region, in my view they would be more loyal to the people who appointed them. If they were only there for nine years with no chance of being reappointed, those senators would not have to curry favour with the Prime Minister or anyone else, because they would know that at the end of nine years, their terms would be done. Those senators would be there for a finite period of time and to represent the wishes of their region. That is what the Senate is supposed to be all about.

In conclusion, let me just say that while I believe there are more reforms needed in today's Senate, these two steps, as small and incremental as they may be, would be the first steps toward a total and needed reform of the Senate. I would ask all members to please get behind these reforms, get behind Bill C-7 and show Canadians that while we understand the role the Senate can play, we understand the need for reform.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the speech given by the hon. member on the other side was extremely interesting. He spoke about a senator who made the front page around the country. I remember it; we actually talked about it on the call-in radio show I was hosting at the time.

When I look at Bill C-7, introduced by the Conservatives, I do not understand how limiting terms to nine years would prevent that type of behaviour. On the contrary, the person who is elected—no matter how it is done, which the bill is not clear on—will be accountable to absolutely no one. A senator can finish his nine-year term and do pretty much anything he wants. All this bill does is limit a senator's term to nine years, instead of allowing it to span a longer period. I do not understand the Conservatives' logic on this one.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, to a point I agree. If a senator were appointed for a nine-year term, that person could certainly argue that once he or she had been appointed, we could not get that person out for nine years.

However, when we combine the nine-year term with the fact that the senator has really been appointed as a result of a democratic process within his or her own region, I think there is accountability built in. That senator will still have to go home and face the citizens of his or her province.

Human nature being what it is, I think any elected member here could say the same thing. We could say that we are elected for four years now in a majority government, so we can do whatever we want. Well, we still have to answer to our constituents. I think that single element alone speaks to the fact that senators, if they are appointed for nine years after consultation with their own province or region, will have accountability to their members.

Quite frankly, I would also suggest that while the member makes the point that nine years could mean they could come in and just fall asleep at the switch for nine years, the fact is that there is a system in place through which there is peer pressure, pressure from their provincial counterparts and pressure from their own constituents that would prevent a lot of the abuse of the senatorial process that the member suggests could take place.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question about the consultative process between the provinces and their citizens.

Let us imagine if the Prime Minister were to simply promise Canadians that he would consider lists of potential appointees submitted by the provinces. I fail to see the difference between that and the current bill. The current bill simply invites provinces to hold elections and to consult with their citizens. In both cases, whatever the provinces do, it is voluntary.

Now, the Conservatives could say that what is really going to happen is that there are going to be elections and we are going to have senators who are basically de facto elected senators.

To my mind, that is backdoor legislation. That is having an elected Senate by backdoor means. I do not think that is right.

In that case, if the Conservatives are saying that de facto we are going to have an elected Senate, we should be consulting with the provinces and the Supreme Court, because the reality is that senators would be elected. We should be dealing with reality instead of trying to trick Canadians about changing the Constitution, but not changing the Constitution because we are not allowed to.

Would the parliamentary secretary care to respond to that?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we are not trying to trick Canadians at all.

As I said in my presentation, the reason we are setting up the consultation process in the manner suggested by Bill C-7 is to do so in such a way that we would not have to open up the Constitution, yet it would still allow provincial input and input from citizens within provinces and regions. That is all.

Is it a de facto elected Senate? Yes, some could argue that it would be. However, we are talking about accountability. The reason we want provinces to consult with their own citizens before a senatorial appointment is made is so that the citizens of their own province could have a say in who they would like to see as a senator. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

If we can do so in a manner that does not require constitutional change and is efficient and effective, that is what we are trying to get at here. It is nothing short of that. It is as simple as that.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his comments today and also for bringing up the Premier of New Brunswick, who just this past weekend announced a willingness to enter a consultation process that could happen as early as this spring as part of the municipal election process.

Given that there will be additional seats added in this place based on population growth in provinces, would he tell me how important it is to ensure the legitimacy of the Senate going forward and how important it is to make sure we have these elective processes to ensure that they establish this legitimacy?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the tough but fair question.

All kidding aside, Premier Alward was quite clear when he said that he wanted to ensure good representation in New Brunswick. If the number of seats in the House of Commons is to increase because several provinces--Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia in particular--are increasing their population base and thus will require additional representatives in the House of Commons, he does not want to see New Brunswick's voice being diluted. He wants to ensure that the province has adequate representation, and one way to do so is to ensure that it has strong regional representation in the Senate.

If there were no Senate, New Brunswick's voice in Parliament would be diluted. Premier Alward is right on the money when he understands and appreciates the role the Senate can play and wants to ensure that New Brunswick continues to have a strong regional voice at the Senate level.

Premier Alward is one of the many premiers who are in support of this legislation, and for good reason.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I find it a bit strange today to hear members from the Conservative Party standing up and defending the Senate. It must make for awkward cocktail parties when they say that they want the status quo with a few extra bells and whistles.

I was interested when the member opposite described this as phase one of Senate reform and that perhaps we would be moving on to a phase two. I was wondering if the member could explain what phase two would look like.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will only refer to Bill C-7, because I will certainly not pre-empt or presuppose what future reforms or pieces of legislation may be. I am sure my colleague, the Minister of State (Democratic Reform), will have much to say about that in future, but we have already spoken about some of the things we want to see in terms of democratic reform initiatives in Parliament.

I would, however, like to make a quick comment on the preface of his question. He said he found it passing strange that Conservatives would actually be standing up defending the Senate. I see nothing strange about that whatsoever.

We have stated on many occasions, and the Prime Minister has stated on many occasions, that while the Senate is a useful institution, it needs to be reformed. We have also heard the Prime Minister say that if reform cannot be enacted, then we are in favour of abolishment. I do not think there could be a stronger statement than that: that while we believe in the institution, there must be fundamental reform.

That is what Bill C-7 intends to do.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the hon. member's speech, which was very interesting. He stated repeatedly that the primary functions of the Senate are to represent the regions and to be a chamber of sober second thought.

Given that that is the Senate's core mandate and that, in fact, since the Senate has existed, it has actually achieved regional representation only a handful of times, how will a partisan election, with the fights between parties, help this regional representation and this chamber of sober second thought, which is supposed to be wise, non-partisan and independent?

How will elections help fulfill this mandate?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the consultation process or, as my colleague calls it, elections, will absolutely have a positive impact, because right now the current system is that the senators who are appointed are really accountable to no one, except perhaps the person who appointed them, whereas if there were consultations conducted on a provincial level, senators would be accountable to the people who elected them or at least suggested that they be appointed to the Senate.

In other words, if we have a senator who is appointed by the Prime Minister for partisan reasons, that person is really only accountable to and answerable to, in many respects, the Prime Minister, because that is how the person got the appointment. It was because the Prime Minister suggested that appointment to the Governor General, who made the ultimate appointment.

However, if provinces suggest to the Prime Minister that an individual should be appointed to the Senate and the Prime Minister follows through with that in his advice to the Governor General, ultimately it is the people of the province who made that selection and to whom the senator will be accountable. That is the beauty of this approach. A senator would be accountable to the people of his or her region and province rather than to the Prime Minister, and that is an important distinction.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-7, An Act respecting the selection of senators and amending the Constitution Act, 1867 in respect of Senate term limits.

I begin by acknowledging the work that the member for Hamilton Centre has done on Senate and democratic reform over a number of years. He has spoken quite clearly regarding our opposition to the bill for a number of good reasons.

The members who have risen to speak to the bill have stated that this is an opportunity to raise awareness regarding the Senate as well as some of the issues we face when discussing the bill. Therefore, I will take this opportunity to refer to the legislative summary for Bill C-7 wherein there are a couple of key points I want to raise.

It states in the background that the Prime Minister made an appearance before the Special Senate Committee on Senate Reform in September 2006 wherein he spoke of a step-by-step process for Senate reform. The process involved legislation to introduce short senatorial terms that would be followed by legislation to establish an advisory or consultative election process for senators on a national level.

As well, the summary states that Bill C-7 sets out a model statute that prescribes an electoral process which provinces and territories may choose to adopt. It is the word “may” that is a sticking point.

It also states that the provinces and territories may select senatorial nominees and submit them to the Prime Minister who would be obligated to consider them in making his or her recommendations to the Governor General for appointment to the Senate. Again, the word “may” is a critical part of this conversation.

We have heard the parliamentary secretary say that the provinces are largely getting on board. We know that simply is not true. The Ontario and Nova Scotia premiers have openly called for the abolition of the Senate. The B.C. premier has stated that the Senate no longer plays a useful role in Confederation. Manitoba has maintained its position on Senate abolition. However, if the bill goes forward, it will prepare legislation to deal with the outcome of the bill. Quebec has called the legislation unconstitutional and has said it will launch a provincial court appeal if the bill proceeds without consultation of the provinces.

The legislation is being touted as the forerunner of great Senate reform yet the provinces may or may not be on board. It appears that they have not been consulted in depth.

The summary also states:

It should be noted that the bill imposes no obligation on provinces or territories to establish a selection process for Senate nominees modelled on the framework as set out in the schedule. It provides provinces and territories with an opportunity to propose qualified individuals to the prime minister, who must consider--but is not bound to accept--the names of the persons proposed. The bill effectively sets out an optional alternative to the current selection process. If a particular province or territory chooses to take no action, the current process--whereby the prime minister alone selects Senate nominees--would continue.

The bill highlights several other issues regarding this supposed great Senate reform. First, the Prime Minister is not required to accept the nominees suggested by the provinces. We heard government members say that the Prime Minister would honour that process, but there is nothing in the legislation stating that.

We heard the parliamentary secretary speak to the partisan process currently in place. We have seen its track record over the last five years, wherein Conservative Party candidates who were defeated in elections were appointed to the Senate. We have seen party officials appointed to the Senate. There is nothing in the legislation to prevent the government from continuing to recommend partisan appointments if the provinces choose not to engage in the process as it is outlined.

New Democrats support abolition of the Senate. It is difficult to see how Senate reform would be mandated in the context of this legislation when it contains so many loopholes.

In terms of history and background, proposals for Senate reform have been ongoing since 1887. I will touch on a few of those.

During the first interprovincial conference of 1887, provincial premiers passed a resolution proposing that half the members of the Senate be appointed by the federal government and the other half by the provincial governments.

In 1972, a special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons report recommended that senators continue to be nominated by the federal government but that half of them be appointed by a panel of nominees submitted by the provincial and territorial governments.

In 1979, the Task Force on Canadian Unity recommended the abolition of the Senate and the establishment of the Council of the Federation to be composed of provincial delegations led by a person of ministerial rank or by the premier of a province.

In 1984, the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons on Senate Reform recommended that senators be directly elected.

The Royal Commission on the Economic Union and Development Prospects for Canada recommended that senators be elected and those elections be held simultaneously with elections to the House of Commons.

Finally, in 1992, the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on a Renewed Canada recommended the direct election of senators under a proportional representation system. There were a number of other proposals in between.

I mention those recommendations to point out that Senate reform is not a new conversation in the House.

The bill before us reflects some of those recommendations in terms of an electoral process. Substantial work has been done and therefore, it would seem appropriate on the basis of this work to go back to the Canadian people to discuss what it is they want in terms of a Senate. Do they want it abolished? Do they want Senate reform? Do they want an electoral process? Do they want to minimize the Prime Minister's influence on those appointments? The amount of work that has been done, and the fact that virtually no change has occurred as a result of it, shows that there is an appetite for looking at the Senate seriously. Whether this bill is the way to do it is the question.

I mentioned that there has been virtually no reform since 1867, but there has been one, which has been mentioned in the legislative summary, that has affected the tenure of senators. In 1965, the British North America Act was amended to establish a retirement age of 75 for senators. Prior to that reform they were allowed to serve for life. Despite the dissatisfaction that has been raised with this long-standing institution's performance, there has been no other reform introduced since that time.

We have heard the conversation surrounding constitutional amendment. The legislative summary is not clear regarding whether this will require constitutional amendment. It is important that Canadians be made aware of the two opinions that exist on this.

Professor Patrick Monahan, a constitutional law specialist who was vice-president, academic and provost of York University, believes that a non-binding election for the nomination of senators would not need a constitutional amendment. It should be noted that certain changes are possible in federal institutions without formal constitutional amendment, such as the appointment of senators on the basis of non-binding elections.

Of course there is an opposing opinion. It has been suggested that this advisory or consultative election process may constitute an alteration to the method of selection of senators, in which case an amendment to the Constitution Act, 1867 would be required. In accordance with paragraph 42(1)(b) and section 30 of the Constitution Act, 1982, any such constitutional amendment would require the concurrence of at least seven provinces, representing at least 50% of the population.

Despite the government's assurance that no constitutional amendment would be required, constitutional experts disagree. It begs the question as to whether or not we will end up in some sort of long legal wrangling over that.

There have been arguments raised in favour of term limits for senators. Regarding term limits the legislative summary states:

Term limits could enhance the prime ministerial power of appointment, eroding the independence of the Senate and its sober second thought function as well as its historical role of protecting regional and provincial interests. As previously noted, prime ministers with a majority government lasting two or more terms could conceivably fill all or most Senate seats by the time they left office, effectively controlling the Senate. This would also exacerbate political partisanship in the Senate, further eroding the Senate’s capacity for independent and thorough legislative review and regional and provincial representation.

In the context of this bill and the many assurances offered by the government as to how it would deal with some of the challenges, including partisanship, there are simply far too many questions remaining to actually satisfy the concerns that have been raised.

Part of what the New Democrats are calling for is a process to engage Canadians in discussions involving democratic and Senate reform. Although the 43rd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs did not deal specifically with Senate reform, I will quote one paragraph which deals with the importance of engaging Canadians when talking about reforms of this magnitude.

It states:

Despite different approaches to the study of electoral reform, it is clear that no contemplated change can be done without citizen engagement. A successful consultation strategy will ensure that the process is, and is seen to be, objective, transparent and accountable. Citizen engagement also gives legitimacy to the recommendations that are made. The electoral system must reflect the views, the priorities, and the values of Canadians, and their involvement is essential.

Therefore, when we are talking about Senate reform, it is essential that we engage Canadians in the conversation rather than hammer through a bill that could affect the democratic process we have in place. New Democrats have consistently called for democratic reform. We believe there should be a system of proportional representation in the House. It is important that the bill be taken off the table and that we engage Canadians.

Members on the other side constantly say that in the last election they were given a mandate to establish this kind of reform. I would argue that as members of Parliament we have a due diligence to consider the legislation that comes before us.

We must also consider whether Canadians are actually in favour of it. To state that an election process stipulates that Canadians are in favour of all aspects of a legislative agenda a government chooses to bring forward simply is not true. If that were the case, that government would be required to present that agenda to Canadians at that time. That does not happen, nor is it realistic.

On July 6, 2011, Deborah Coyne wrote an article entitled, “The wrong road to Senate reform”. Although I do not necessarily agree with her approach and what she says regarding Senate reform, she does make a couple of valid points about this piece of legislation. She states:

....the Conservative government is misleading Canadians into believing that mere tinkering with a Senate structure dating back to the 19th century – establishing nine-year term limits and à la carte elections – is sufficient.

She goes on to say:

Senate reform is too important a component of any serious plan for improving the functioning of Canadian democracy to be left to the legislative fiat of shortsighted politicians. Rather, the people of Canada must be directly engaged in the debate over this vital issue, and must ultimately be consulted through a national referendum.

Due to an insufficient amount of democratic legitimacy in Senate, our national leaders have increasingly deferred to provincial premiers on matters of national concern in unaccountable federal-provincial negotiations. The national interest is too often equated with the haphazard sum of disparate provincial-government interests, dependent on highly improbable provincial-government co-operation for even the minimum national standards or actions.

The result is a lack of national action on climate change, an increasing patchwork of health-care policies, the absence of a national clean-energy strategy, a crumbling national infrastructure, and a stalemate on pension reform. This ongoing drift toward national incoherence has not only failed Canadians, but has also led to Canada’s increasing insignificance on the global stage. Among other things, we are ignored during international climate-change discussions, and are no longer considered worthy of a UN Security Council seat. Furthermore, with our recent infamous UN vote blocking the addition of asbestos to the list of hazardous chemicals, we have relegated Canada to the sidelines of history on this issue, further devaluing the Canadian perspective on the international stage....

To engage Canadians, we must take the Senate-reform debate to the people, and away from the day-to-day operations of Parliament. A non-partisan commission of informed Canadians should be tasked with holding hearings across the country to listen to Canadians, explain the issues at stake, and discuss possible options for reform.

New Democrats would like to see one of those possible options of reform as abolition.

She goes on in her article to state:

Any proposal that the commission makes must then be made available for Canadians to vote on in a national referendum. Ratification cannot be left only to the first ministers, since they are able to stifle all possible progress in the national interest....

In closing she states:

[The] Prime Minister...has made the disingenuous claim that the May 2 election somehow performed the function of a referendum, and that, in that “referendum,” Canadians provided the Conservatives with a strong mandate for their Senate tinkering. Our national representatives need to be reminded that, at all times – whether during, or in between, elections – they govern in trust for the people of Canada. It is their democratic responsibility to engage Canadians in fundamental debates, and they cannot shirk this responsibility for the sake of convenience.

I think that says it far better than any of us in this House have so far about the importance of engaging Canadians.

In closing, I would refer to a speech of February 10, 2011 by Jack Layton called “Canada's Senate: Second thoughts about sober second thought”. I want to raise this because he talked about a number of democratic reforms that should be required, including true implementation of the accountability act and proportional representation. He also talked about what the current Senate appointments have done to very important pieces of legislation in Canada. I quote from Jack's speech:

Last fall, the Conservative-dominated Senate was used to veto legislation the Prime Minister simply didn’t like. The Climate Change Accountability Act was Canada’s only federal climate change legislation. It passed twice in a minority Parliament. It was good, solid legislation—supported by a majority of elected MPs. Legislation embodying the direction Canadians want to take. But on November 16, 2010, the Senate defeated Bill C-311 at second reading. No committee review. No witness hearings. Canada’s only legislative effort to fight climate change—gone

Of course, we have seen other circumstances where the Senate has disregarded the will of the House. I think it is a good reminder that the Senate has a kind of influence that people would think is undemocratic because of the way the partisan appointments take place there.

Later in Jack's speech he said:

Real political reform, of course, involves more than just the Senate. To really change the way politics works, we need to reform the elected House as well. It’s up to all of us, in a minority Parliament, to make sure our political system works for the people we’re elected to serve. To bring Canadians back in touch...Let’s bring about the electoral reform New Democrats have been working for since the days of Ed Broadbent. Incorporating proportional representation would produce a fairer House that truly reflects the political choices of all Canadians. And it would bring us up to speed with most of the world’s democracies.

In conclusion, New Democrats simply cannot support the legislation that has been put forward. First of all, the legislation itself has no teeth because of the loose way it could be applied. It would allow a prime minister to continue to make partisan appointments, as he can currently. It does not engage Canadians in what could be a significant change to the way our democratic process works. It certainly does not go far enough in looking at the kind of electoral reform we need in this House. In the last election, only 39% of Canadians elected a majority government, which simply is not reflective of the will of the majority of Canadians.

I urge all members to say no to this legislation. I urge the government to do that kind of consultation process with Canadians. It is very important to the democratic process.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for her eloquent speech.

This coming year in Canada we have several provincial elections. There's one in Ontario, P.E.I., Newfoundland, I believe Manitoba and in one of the territories. Presently, we have senators going from province to province to campaign in these elections on the taxpayers' dime. The taxpayers are paying for these unelected senators to campaign for their parties.

I would like the member's opinion on these unelected senators going from province to province to either campaign or fundraise for their parties.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, a number of issues have been raised about the appropriate use of Senate resources, whether it has been in provincial elections or federal elections. We are seeing taxpayers' dollars being used.

I know many members in the House work for their respective political parties in elections, but they do it outside of their duties here. They are not using the resources of the House.

I cannot see how this is a legitimate use of Senate resources: the travel is on Senate budgets and Senate resources are used to do that kind of campaigning. That simply does not make any kind of sense.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in this debate I continue to be amazed by a party that calls itself the New Democratic Party actually arguing against a bill that brings true democracy to the Senate. I just shake my head every time I listen to one of the members in the opposition get up and speak to this bill.

So my question to the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan is this. Would not the election of senators allow for much greater diversity in the membership of the Senate? It clearly would end the partisan appointments, regardless of which party is in power. We might actually get a couple of New Democrats elected to the Senate, heaven forbid but that would be democracy. And we would have senators there who would be reflecting the views of all kinds of Canadians. Her party also talks about proportional representation. We would have more diversity in the Senate. We would have more parties represented in the Senate. We would probably even have some independents elected to the Senate which would probably be a good thing.

Why are the member and her party so opposed to democracy in the Senate?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I outlined in my speech, this legislation does not guarantee that outcome. Bill C-7 has a lot of “mays” and “maybes” and “might haves” in it. Provinces may conduct some sort of process and that is a big problem here. Currently, there is one province that does that. One other province had legislation, but it is sunsetted. Other provinces may or may not engage in that legislative process. There is no guarantee that this legislation would actually do what the member for Mississauga—Streetsville is talking about.

Regarding the member's comments about a democratic process, in my speech I outlined in a number of different places that what we actually do in a democratic process is engage Canadians. Why do we not talk to Canadians about what they want to see regarding Senate reform? As I pointed out in my speech, there have been numerous reports between the Senate and the House about proposed Senate change and nothing has come to fruition.

I think it is time we take that question to Canadians and ask them what they want to see in their Senate.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan for her excellent speech on this topic and especially for her emphasis on consulting Canadians. It is fairly clear the government on the other side has consulted neither Canadians nor the provinces.

Let us imagine a Canada that did not have a Senate. What does my colleague think the public's reaction would be if we went to them and said, “Let's have an extra 105 politicians, have them stay there for nine years without being voted on again and let's spend $100 million a year?” We could ask if the public would think this would actually help solve the problems we face as a country. I would be interested to hear what the member thinks the public would think about this, if we did not have a Senate and if someone came forward to suggest we needed one.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there have been recent polls that strongly suggest that Canadians actually want to see the Senate abolished. I would be surprised if Canadians thought that this tinkering at the margins around Senate reform is actually reflective of any significant change to the Senate.

When we talk about a democratic process, this would be a good time to engage Canadians. In this House, we have seen declining percentages of Canadians coming out to vote. I would argue that this is actually a really good time to ask Canadians how they want their governments to behave; how they want this House to be elected; what they want to do with their Senate; and whether to abolish it or some other kind of reform. It seems to me that this would be a time when we could re-engage and re-legitimize the democratic process by engaging Canadians in that very important conversation.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, most of our discussion surrounding this particular speech that was made by my colleague has focused on the issue of the voluntary selection by provinces of a senator-in-waiting. We do know that the province that has implemented that has had a positive experience with it. However, in the last few minutes we have not had much focus on the issue of the term limits of senators.

It seems to me that most Canadians would find it surprising that currently a senator can be elected as early as age 30 and potentially serve there for 45 years. That is not a really good representation of Canadians. I would like my colleague to respond as to whether she thinks it would be a move in the right direction to limit a senator's term of service from a potential 45 years back to nine years.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely correct. Most of my focus has been on the electoral process and the consultative process.

However, when it comes to term limits, other members in this House have already pointed out that just because we have a senator serving only nine years it would not prevent partisan appointments, so it would not prevent all the partisan activities that the member for Nickel Belt, for example, outlined. It would not prevent misuse of Senate resources. It would not prevent the kinds of problems that have been identified with the Senate currently.

One of the members opposite had talked about some senator who spent a significant amount of time in Mexico. There is nothing about limiting it to nine years that would prevent any of that kind of behaviour. Whether they are at it for nine years or 40-some-odd years, that is not what the issue is. The issue is, do we want to have a Senate to begin with? If we have a Senate, how do we want the senators chosen? And then, how do we prevent the kind of partisan activities and appointments that have characterized the other place since its inception?

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since a member just asked a question about term limits and the fact that senators can now serve up to the age of 75, I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the fact that, at present, senators must be at least 30 years old. We are talking about better representation of the regions and of the Canadian population. How can an elected Senate represent the people if none of the elected senators is under 30 years of age?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there were all kinds of anachronisms around the way senators used to get appointed. It used to be the place where one could only be appointed if one were a landholder, for example. Actually, I do not know if that rule is still in place.

When we hear the conversation about diversity in the Senate, young people are currently precluded from being appointed. I would argue that if we have a place of so-called sober second thought, young people have a lot to contribute toward that sober second thought because they are ones who are actually going to have to live out the impacts of any legislative agenda that is put in place.

It is young people, now, who are having to deal with the impacts of climate change for many decades to come. Some of us are at the other end of the spectrum. It is young people who are having to deal with things like child care. It is young people who are going to have look at the impact of pension reform in the long term for how it is going to affect their generation as they retire.

I agree with the member. It is a very important question.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as this is my first speech in this Parliament since the May election, I will take this opportunity to thank all the voters of the great constituency of Wetaskiwin, Alberta, for putting their faith in me for a third consecutive term. I will commit to them that I will continue to put their interest first in all that I do as their member of Parliament and as their humble and faithful servant.

I also want to take this opportunity to thank all of the volunteers who worked so hard on the last campaign, either in the office, at the door or putting up signs in the over 15,000 square kilometres that encompasses our riding, from Rolly View to Genasee, from Buck Creek to Strachan, from Alhambra to Alix and all points in between. The job is daunting, to say the least. I am proud of each of them for exercising, not only their democratic right but for taking their responsibility so seriously that they got involved and participated more than just the act of voting.

I just returned to Ottawa last night from my home in Lacombe, Alberta, after this past weekend. I have been away for a couple of weeks. I was so glad on Thursday to step off the airplane into the fresh, crisp Alberta evening air. Right away, my senses were overcome as I could smell the wheat and barley dust in the air. The harvest is still in full swing. It took my memory back to the times when I was a child growing up on a farm in central Alberta and the salt of the earth people with whom I grew up and was surrounded by.

My memory also went back to a time when I was a little bit younger than I am now. I am still fairly young, at least I like to think so. To brought me back to a time when one of those fields was used for more than just growing a crop in Alberta. It was one of those fields that one could see clearly from the air when landing an airplane in Calgary. Etched into that field all those years ago, some 20, if not more, years ago, were three large letters, EEE for a triple-E Senate, back when the movement in Alberta to elect our senators was in full swing. I believe that field, at that time, or still does belong to now-Senator Bert Brown. I cannot think of a better use of a field, other than growing some wheat or barley.

This is the crux of my speech today. I am so proud as an Albertan and as a Canadian that this Parliament is moving forward to reform and enhance our democracy. The change is but a small step in implementation but a leap forward in making our democracy more accountable to the people it represents.

The 2011 Speech from the Throne reaffirmed the government's Senate reform priority and that our government would reintroduce this legislation, encourage provinces and territories that have yet to do so to hold elections for Senate nominees, and to limit those term lengths that they now enjoy.

In keeping with that commitment in the throne speech, on June 21, 2011, earlier this spring, our government introduced the Senate reform act that we are debating today.

There has been some criticism that the reforms do not go far enough and do not meet all the pillars of the triple-E Senate, for example, that the reforms constitute a major change in the Senate structure, that it should be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada, or that the changes may be unconstitutional or may change the Senate for the worse in the long run. I do not believe any of those are true.

These reforms are consistent with the government's incremental approach to reform and are completely within the jurisdiction of Parliament. While the bill encourages provinces and territories to hold elections for Senate nominees, it does not change the method of selection for senators. Moreover, it does not bind the Prime Minister or the Governor General when making appointments to the Senate.

Our government is approaching Senate reform in a step-by-step fashion in order to avoid the all-or-nothing confrontational approaches that have failed in the past.

One of the important initiatives in this bill, when implemented, is that our government would be very willing to consider other worthwhile proposals. If anyone has a better idea, I am all ears.

The government has encouraged the provinces and territories to implement a democratic process for the selection of Senate nominees. The Senate reform act would provide a voluntary framework for provinces to implement a democratic process that enables voters to select nominees to represent them, their province and their region in the Senate.

The act would include a voluntary schedule based on Alberta's senatorial selection act, which would set out a basis for provinces to enact these democratic processes. As we said, Alberta already has established a democratic process for the selection of senators in which we have seen most recently the appointment of Senator Bert Brown in 2007.

However, it would require the Prime Minister to consider the recommended names from a list of elected Senate nominees when making or recommending Senate appointments. In Alberta, for example, there is some criticism. The Edmonton Journal has led the way in speaking out against our reforms by printing an op-ed by the hon. member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville and a negative editorial. On the other hand, our former premier, Don Getty, says that the reforms do not go far enough to bring democracy to the Senate.

Despite those criticisms, much of which is hypothetical and speculatory, the one thing that is standard across the board is that the status quo is no longer acceptable. Everyone agrees that it has to be reformed. We just simply may disagree right now on how to go about it.

Generally speaking, our reforms have been perceived to be balanced, moderate and reasonable. We are not going so far as to suggest that it should be abolished. I do not think the Conservatives like to tear down their house before seeing if they can fix it first. However, members of the New Democratic Party and the member for Hamilton Centre specifically, have been very vocal on that point.

We are acting on what I think everyone agrees must happen but we need to change things up. We need to make it more democratic and accountable and that the status quo simply cannot continue. Our government received a strong mandate from Canadians to reform the Senate and to implement our Senate reform commitments. We were very clear, not only in this past election campaign but in every election campaign in which I have been involved as a Conservative candidate, that we would bring democratic reform to the Senate.

The effectiveness and legitimacy of the Senate suffers because senators have no democratic mandate from Canadians and can serve terms as long as 45 years. I have been here for almost six years and have served as an executive member of the NATO parliamentary assembly. I am an executive member of the interparliamentary union of 144 countries that get together to discuss how to enhance their parliaments and democratic processes and I am continuously amazed when parliamentarians from places like Mexico, Indonesia, Poland and even Australia are amazed that Canada does not have an elected Senate.

The Senate reform act would change that. It also would change how long senators can sit in the upper chamber. We have specifically chosen terms that are long enough to maintain the essential characteristics of the Senate as a chamber of sober second thought while still providing regular renewal in Senate membership. Limiting Senate tenure is within Parliament's exclusive constitutional authority under section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and is similar to an amendment passed by the Pearson government in 1965, which also reduced the tenure of senators.

The Prime Minister has made it clear that our government is prepared to be flexible in the consideration of amendments to Senate term lengths so long as any amendment does not undermine the principle of the bill. By proposing a nine year term, our government has already demonstrated that it can be flexible in the details of the bill. However, we would not accept a length of term that was so long that it would defeat the purpose of the bill, which is to ensure that the Senate is refreshed with new ideas and perspectives on a regular and ongoing basis.

As the Prime Minister stated when he appeared before the Special Senate Committee on Senate Reform, the fact that senators can be and occasionally are appointed for terms of 15, 30 or even 45 years is just not acceptable today to the broad mainstream of the Canadian community.

Our position has been supported by many of Canada's leading constitutional authorities, as well as the Senate Special Committee on Senate Reform, but that is not what the opposition would like Canadians to believe.

Our minister has met with opposition critics in the House and discussed Senate reform broadly. The NDP's former leader and the member for Hamilton Centre always maintained a strict Senate abolitionist position as their preferred and ultimate goal. While they have stated publicly that some reform is better than no reform, I fully expect that the NDP will oppose the bill.

The Liberal critic, the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, is highly knowledgeable on the file and has expressed specific concerns, all of which have been publicly dealt with. The Liberals are concerned that a dispute resolution mechanism between the two chambers does not exist. They claim that other conventional and constitutional tools necessary to deal with changed circumstances with Senate reform would cause numerous problems. They oppose incremental reform and argue that the provinces must be consulted and that this legislation should be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada before proceeding. They have argued and prefer longer term limits than those proposed by the government, if and when they support term limits at all.

We expect Liberal senators to oppose and obstruct the legislation and to encourage Conservative senators with reservations about the bill to speak publicly and to oppose it. Furthermore, we expect the Liberals to profess support for wholesale Senate reform in general, but opposition to incremental reform through legislation such as this bill.

We have heard the opposition ask questions about these reforms affecting people representation within the Senate chamber. However, under the current appointment system, there is no guarantee that minority groups will be properly represented in the Senate. Our government is hopeful that women and minority candidates will participate fully in any selection process by putting their names forward as candidates.

Provincial political parties could play a role in the nomination of potential Senate nominees, as they do in the nomination process for members of the legislative assembly. The government hopes that parties will encourage the participation of groups that have been traditionally under-represented in our political institutions.

The Prime Minister's prerogative to recommend qualified individuals for appointment to the Senate would not be affected by any consultation process that may be implemented. Should the Prime Minister feel that it is necessary to take steps to address an imbalance in the representation of women or minority groups in the Senate, he or she would retain the power to do so.

I will now discuss what Senate reform has done in my home province of Alberta, but I will first talk about a very interesting thing that happened in my province this past weekend.

I congratulate Alison Redford, the premier-elect and now the new leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta. She will be one of three women leading various provinces across our country in the very near future. I convey to her my congratulations and offer her goodwill as she takes on the task of taking over the helm of our province.

I also thank outgoing premier, Ed Stelmach, and his wife, Marie, for the decades of service they have given to Albertans. I wish them well as they move on to the next phase of their lives after the next provincial election.

Alberta has been ahead of the game for quite some time. We passed the senatorial selection act in 1989, an act that allows voters to select nominees through a democratic process. Under that act, the Government of Alberta submits the names of elected nominees to the federal government. The act does not require the prime minister or the governor general to appoint the individuals selected as nominees through the process.

We have had Senate selections in 1989, 1998 and 2004. Two senators have been appointed as a result of these processes: Stan Waters in 1990 by Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, and Bert Brown in 2007 by our current Prime Minister.

In Alberta, candidates for Senate nominees can run as independents or as candidates of a registered provincial political party. Recently, the Alberta Progressive Conservatives have nominated candidates in each of these selection processes. The Liberal Party of Alberta has not had and did not have any candidates in either the 1998 or the 2004 process. The New Democratic Party of Alberta, which has stated its preference for Senate abolition, has yet to endorse a candidate for a selection process.

In past processes, candidates have also been nominated under provincial parties formed specifically to contest Senate elections. For example, the Reform Party of Alberta supported candidates in the 1989 and 1998 selections but did not run in the 2004 selection process. Stan Waters was a Reform Party of Alberta candidate in 1989 and sat as a Reform Senator when he was appointed in 1990.

In other cases, candidates have run under provincial party banners that have no federal equivalent. In 2004, three candidates ran under the Alberta Alliance Party. The Alberta Alliance Party changed its name to the Wildrose Alliance when it merged with the Wildrose Party in 2008. Wildrose Alliance leader Danielle Smith has indicated the party's plan to run full slate of candidates in the next senatorial selection process and has noted that the selections are one of the ways our regional issues can be most fairly represented.

The Canada West Foundation estimates that voter turnout for the 1998 process was about 30% overall. On average, voter turnout for the Senate vote was about 10% lower than ballots cast in municipal races.

In 2004 Alberta held its senatorial selection process in conjunction with the provincial general election. Previously, in 1998 and in 1989, these processes were held at the same time as general municipal elections.

Voter turnout for the 2004 senatorial selection process was nearly 44.2%. However, once rejected and spoiled ballots were considered, voter turnout for the senatorial process was closer to 35%. In comparison, voter turnout for the 2004 provincial general election was just over 44%.

I know what some rural Canadians are thinking. If Senate nominees are selected from provincial-wide constituencies, would candidates from urban centres not have an advantage over Canadians from rural areas?

I want to be very clear here. Our legislation improves the current consultation process in terms of Senate selections. Under the current method of selection, there is no guarantee that all regions in a province can be represented at the same time. However, the proposed bill empowers the provinces to implement a consultation process that will best meet the needs of its citizens. It will be up to each province to decide upon a process to ensure that all citizens in the provinces are properly represented.

The role of the Senate and the individual senators would not change as a result of this legislation. Senators will continue to play an important function in legislative review and their status will not be affected by whether they have been appointed directly or selected on the basis of popular consultation.

Similarly, the status of senators will not be affected by the type of electoral system that is used to select them. Over time, as more senators are appointed on the basis of a consultation process, it is our hope that the democratic legitimacy of the Senate as a whole will improve and that this would lay the basis for longer term future reform.

The bill does not provide funding for provincial or territorial consultation processes. Our government believes that provincial or territorial processes should be funded by provincial or territorial governments. For example, Alberta has held three consultation processes and the Government of Canada has never contributed funding. Alberta estimated that the cost of the most recent consultation process held in 2004 was approximately $1.6 million.

Our preference is Senate reform, not Senate abolition, like some of the opposition would suggest. That is why we acted quickly in reintroducing Senate reform legislation so the Senate would better reflect the values of Canada and Canadians in the 21st century.

On the equal part of the triple-E, we need more seats for the west. Across the country, there may be varying viewpoints, opinions and ideas on what to do with the Senate. These are all things for legitimate debate, but most important is the status quo. What we are doing today is simply no longer palatable to the Canadian public.

That is why we are proceeding with Senate reform that is reasonable and within the constitutional authority of Parliament. The federal government has to take a look at the processes that have worked for our provincial colleagues.

Alberta is firmly committed to an elected Senate and to Senate reform. Not only that, but Alberta has proven that democratic processes are feasible and possible, holding its first selections more than 20 years ago.

We in this party encourage all provinces to follow Alberta's lead and start electing their Senate representatives.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his presentation on a variety issues surrounding Senate reform, including the decoration on his wheat fields, which I thought was quite entertaining.

He spoke about public support for this. In fact, the public support for a referendum on the Senate is growing. An Angus Reid survey from 2011 shows that 71% of Canadians are in favour of holding a referendum to decide the future of the Senate and 36% of Canadians support the abolition of the Senate, up from 25% one year earlier.

In the spirit of democracy, would it not be incumbent upon the government to determine what Canadians think is a good plan of attack for dealing with the Senate? Would it not be a good idea to open it up for a much wider ranging discussion that would come with a referendum? Would that not make more sense than putting forward a bill that is likely to fail anyhow?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure where the hon. colleague was when we had referenda on these mixed in with other issues back when we had the Charlottetown accord and the Meech Lake accord. Those were failed processes. Also I do not share his view that the bill will not pass this chamber. I do not know why he wants to muddy this issue. It is very clear, and we agree, that Canadians want change. The status quo is no longer acceptable.

Conservatives believe we should fix the house before we tear it down. There is something here we are salvaging. Regional interests need to be taken into consideration. The Senate is there to do just that. This House, if we get future bills passed, will more accurately reflect representation by population. Our country is too large and vast, both in its ethnicity and culture and in its space. We have five easily discernible regions: the Arctic; the West; Ontario; Quebec; and the Atlantic provinces. They all need to have some say and oversight and someone here in Ottawa looking out for the broader interests of those regions and those provinces. It is folly to throw that institution away on a whim from the NDP.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and join him in congratulating the new Premier of Alberta.

Since she is bilingual, I am pleased to congratulate her in French.

I thank him for taking the time to list the criticisms of this bill that have been addressed, including by the former premier of his province, Don Getty.

Although my colleague said that Mr. Getty's criticism is speculative, it is not. It is arithmetic. Today Alberta has only six senators. We have provinces four to five times less populated that have 10 senators. It is a problem but it is not so huge because the Senate is playing its role with reservation.

Since 1945, the Senate has only blocked seven bills. If everyone in the Senate is elected, then it would be a part of daily life for the Senate to stop the House and the House to stop the Senate and six Albertans would have a voice on that. It would be grossly under-represented for Alberta. I question why he is hurting his province this way.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not hurting my province at all. Albertans have always done their fair part in this confederation and they always will continue to do so. Six Alberta senators is what we constitutionally agreed to as part of this confederation.

They may want to go back and open up the Constitution. They have argued that is the case. However, everybody knows it is simply not possible. There is no current support across our country to have seven of ten provinces holding at least 50% of the population to have a one-off constitutional amendment. Unless the member knows something which I do not know, which I doubt on this case, if he has names and agreements of premiers and so on to go forward with this, then by all means bring it before the House and let us have a look at it. I said in my speech that we would take a look at the options that are available to us.

However, I am glad he is sticking up for Alberta. When the future legislation comes to increase the number of seats in the House so we have democratic representation by population, I know my colleague will stand with me in supporting Alberta's increase in seats in the House of Commons.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my friend from Wetaskiwin's position on the Senate reform was very well thought out and well articulated.

I want to add my voice to the support for Bill C-7. This is an important bill and I cannot believe the suggestions coming from New Democrats that this is not fixing democracy. They do not want to have new democracy within the Senate. They talk about having proportional representation. Do members know how proportional representation works?

I know my friend from Wetaskiwin will be able to tell us how proportional representation works because of his experience with other parliaments around the world that have proportional representation. The list is developed through a partisan manner and the people who come into the chamber come off a partisan list. The New Democrats think there is too much patronage and partisanship happening in the Senate, which we want to fix, but they want to bring that type of patronage into the House of Commons through proportional representation.

It is the worst thing that could happen to democracy and I want my friend from Wetaskiwin to talk about that.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I might be a little partisan in my remarks here. It has happened from time to time.

Any time we have discussions about democracy, there are certain forces in this world that are always claiming they are acting in the best interest of the people, for the people, but the reality is it is just a smokescreen. We only have to ask the Hugo Chavezs of the world. What happens when totalitarian leftists or extremists on either side get into power? They circumvent all the processes that they have to in order to seize and hold power indefinitely.

Our first-past-the-post system is a tried and tested method of democracy. We have inherited this from our parent countries when we became our own country. This is something that works and it works in the House. It will work in the upper chamber as well.

We can elected people who belong to provincial parties, or people with affiliations to federal parties, or people with no affiliation to any political party at all. What a novel concept. How many members of Parliament have heard complaints from their constituents in that they do not really like the party but they vote for the person?

Now we have an opportunity through this legislation to elect an individual with no party affiliation at all to represent the interest of a province in the upper chamber. However, the New Democrats say that this is not good enough for them.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, does the hon. member seriously think his constituents would like the idea of adding 105 politicians to our system if we did not already have a Senate now? Would they really think it would solve their problems? Would they think that spending $109 million or $107 million a year would actually do anything to solve the problems they are worried about in their daily lives? I do not think so.

The second part of my question in on accountability. In a nine-year term where people are not re-elected, how is there any accountability for that person at all in the system being proposed?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have to doubt too much what the constituents in the riding of Wetaskiwin are thinking. They sent me here with a fairly solid mandate to represent their interests. In respect to the member's question though, yes, I hear some folks say that abolition is certainly an option, but that is only if we cannot get the democratic reform that they are seeking.

I made it very clear in my speech. Albertans like Bert Brown in the Senate. They liked Stan Waters before him. Like all of those who have ran and let their names stand for Senate elections in Alberta three different times, and they are going to do it again, it is very clear what Alberta's position is. We want democracy in the Senate. We do not want to wipe out democracy. We love democracy in Alberta. We love electing people based on their merits, which is why we elect the Alison Redfords to be our premier, the Naheed Nenshis and Stephen Mandels to be our mayors. We like having those democratic choices.

In Alberta we believe that people with merit should be representing Alberta's provincial and regional interests in Ottawa, which is why they send virtually a full slate of Conservatives to Ottawa. They know those interests will be best represented that way.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, what a rare honour it is to follow the very astute comments by the member for Wetaskiwin. Did he not speak well? He spoke well in defending democracy, pushing toward updates and reasonable changes to our democracy.

Our party has been very clear that the economy and job creation are top priorities. Those are the priorities of the Conservative government. That is why we have taken Canada's economic action plan to the next step. That is why we unveiled advantage Canada way back in 2007 and started working on a framework and foundation that would guide Canada not just through good times but through tough times. Has that plan not worked well? That does not mean we do not continue to work toward improving this place. It does not mean we do not continue to work at making our streets and communities safer and that we do not try in every way possible to make Canada an even greater nation than it is today.

I am honoured to represent the electric city of Peterborough, Ontario and the great hard-working people of Peterborough. In fact, you, Mr. Speaker, represent the riding adjacent to mine. We share one of the most beautiful regions in the country. The Kawartha Lakes region is in the name of your riding, Mr. Speaker, but I have most of it in my back yard. However, we are not going to fight over that. The bottom line is we are very privileged to represent one of the truly great regions within Canada.

When I talk to people in my riding, they understand that the Senate needs to be changed, that it needs to be reformed and that we should constantly work to improve democracy in this country. One thing is clear. If we go back to 1867 and the foundation of this country, the Senate was prescribed in a given fashion. However, the country has matured. It has become a more mature democracy. We have seen reforms in many ways. In fact, we have seen Canada grow up. I would argue it is an experiment that continues to evolve, to become stronger and even more united. In fact, I would argue patriotism in this country and the identity behind the Canadian flag has never been more clear, passionate or stronger than it is today.

In May our government received a mandate; a strong, stable, national Conservative government was elected on May 2. It is a majority government, as the member for Kitchener—Conestoga correctly pointed out. One of the things we made very clear in the election campaign was that we would continue to fight for reform of the Senate.

New Democrats had a very confusing policy on the Senate. They said that they would come to Ottawa and fight for Senate abolition, but they cannot do that in isolation. They know that requires the agreement of the provinces. One of the key provinces that has voiced concerns over that is the province of Quebec. When the New Democrats take their Senate abolition message back to Quebec, I wonder what they are hearing from the provincial government and constituents in Quebec. I wonder what they are hearing because that is not what we are hearing. In fact, we are hearing that the Senate should be reformed, not abolished.

Our government has been clear about our commitment to bring reform to the Senate chamber. We pledged to do this and we are following through.

We believe the Senate can play an important role in our parliamentary system. It reviews statutes and legislation. It serves to represent regional and minority interests. It provides research and thoughtful recommendations to the members of the House. It can be a place where a broader range of experience and expertise can be brought to bear on the issues facing our country.

I heard a member point out that one cannot assume a position in the Senate until the age of 30 and felt that was discriminatory. I do not believe that is discriminatory when we look at the role the Senate plays. I was elected, I thought as quite a young person, at the age of 35, but I brought a considerable amount of experience, small business experience, charitable experience and experience on the farm growing up. I had a resumé of life experience that I could bring to bear.

I think the younger that members are, regardless of how intelligent or well intentioned they are, it is the life experiences they bring with them to Parliament, whether it is here in the House of Commons or in the Senate chamber, that allows them to be truly representative of a broader scope of people, but also to fully understand and comprehend the impact of the decisions that are made here in Parliament.

Unfortunately, the contributions of our Senate are overshadowed by the fact that senators are selected and appointed without a democratic mandate from Canadians. Their effectiveness and legitimacy suffer because they have no democratic mandate and they can serve as long as 45 years.

As I said, the Senate does good work. One of the most transformative and important reports to come out of the Senate in a very long time is the “Out of the Shadows at Last” report by Senator Keon and Senator Kirby, two very outstanding Canadians who worked very hard to bring forward their study on mental health and mental illness. From that our government acted. We put together a Canadian mental health strategy that is now working to organize and build capacity in that regard here in Canada. That is the kind of good work and the kind of solid report we see come out of the Senate. That is why there is value in what the Senate does.

Much of that work is overshadowed because the Senate is still stuck in 1867. Our government does not believe the current situation is acceptable in a modern representative democracy and neither do Canadians, certainly not the people of Peterborough.

Our government has long believed the Senate status quo is unacceptable and that it must change in order to reach its full potential as a democratic institution and a more legitimate chamber of this Parliament. The alternative is status quo. Canadians are with us in saying no to the status quo.

With the introduction of the Senate reform bill, our government is responding to the concerns of Canadians who made it clear that the status quo is simply not acceptable. If we are to begin the journey toward reform, we must do what we can within the scope of Parliament's authority.

Our government believes that Senate reform is needed now. We are committed to pursuing a practical and reasonable approach to reform that we believe will help restore effectiveness and legitimacy in the Senate. Canadians do not want a long drawn-out constitutional battle, as we have been down that road, especially when, as I said at the start of this speech, Parliament needs to focus on the well-being of the Canadian economy and on job creation. It does not mean that Parliament should not act, but a long drawn-out constitutional battle is not in our interest, nor in the provinces' interest, nor in the interest of any Canadians. These battles would detract from the government's focus in all areas.

Achieving the necessary level of provincial support for particular fundamental reforms is complex and lengthy with no particular guarantee of success. That is why we are moving forward with the Senate reform bill.

Through this bill, our government is taking immediate and concrete action to fulfill our commitment to Canadians to increase the effectiveness and legitimacy of the upper chamber and to work co-operatively with the provinces and territories.

The bill provides a suggested framework for the provinces and territories that wish to establish democratic consultation processes to give Canadians a say in who represents them.

I have often said it is a real shame that many Canadians can name their member of Parliament, they can name other members of Parliament, they can name ministers and opposition critics, but many Canadians cannot name the senators who represent their province or any province. That points to a fundamental flaw in the current system. They are the people who are supposed to represent the regions, including Nickel Belt, for example.

The member who is arguing for abolition as I am speaking should know that the people from Nickel Belt can have representation in the Senate; they can have a say in who represents them in the Senate. It is important regional representation for northern Ontario. I hear from people in the north all the time that they feel they are under-represented in this place, that they are under-represented at the provincial level. The regional representation in the Senate can give them a voice, and they should have a say in who represents them there.

We have consistently encouraged provinces and territories to implement a democratic process for the selection of Senate nominees. The Senate reform bill gives clarity to our flexible approach.

The bill requires the Prime Minister to consider the names selected from democratic processes when making recommendations on appointments. It does not bind the Prime Minister or the Governor General when making Senate appointments, nor does it change the method of selection for senators.

The bill also contains a voluntary framework for provinces and territories to use as a basis for developing a democratic selection process to consult voters on the preferences for Senate nominees based on Alberta's senatorial selection act.

The framework is meant to facilitate development of provincial or territorial legislation. This is a co-operative venture. The provinces and territories can adapt the framework that best suits the needs of their unique circumstances. Built-in flexibility will further encourage provinces to provide a democratic consultation process to give greater voice to their citizens and the provinces in the Senate.

Our proposed approach has already been successful. In 2007 the Prime Minister recommended the appointment of Bert Brown to the Senate. He was chosen by Alberta voters in 2004, and I might add, ignored by the Liberal government that oversaw the selection process here in Ottawa. We thank Senator Brown for his tireless work for reform both inside and outside the Senate.

Alberta is not the only province, however, that has taken steps to facilitate this reform. In 2009 Saskatchewan passed its Senate nominee election act. In British Columbia the premier's parliamentary secretary has introduced a similar bill. Just on Saturday, October 1, Premier Alward of New Brunswick announced his government's support for our approach. We look forward to seeing New Brunswick take the steps toward Senate reform.

It is building. Provinces are taking up the challenge of improving our democracy. It is exciting. We encourage our colleagues in all provincial and territorial legislatures and assemblies to consider supporting and moving forward with similar initiatives.

In addition to encouraging the implementation of the democratic selection process for Senate nominees, the act would also limit Senate terms which can span several decades under the current rules. In fact, a term could be up to 45 years under the current rules. Polls have consistently shown that over 70% of Canadians support limiting senators' terms. This is quite different from some of the speeches we have heard in the Senate. I listened when senators who have served for decades reach the age of 75 and point out there is no legitimate reason for them to have to bow out from the job.

But there is a legitimate reason. I would hope that every member in the House would understand that it is not enough simply to be elected; it is not enough simply to be here. People have to contribute. They have to bring fresh ideas to the table. New people have to be given a chance to bring in new ideas. More people have to be given an opportunity to contribute toward this great country. That is one of the reasons term limits are so important.

The nine-year term would also apply to all senators appointed after October 2008, up to royal assent. The nine-year clock for those senators would start when this bill receives royal assent. The Senate reform act would keep the mandatory retirement age for senators in place. In 1965, Parliament introduced mandatory retirement at age 75 for senators. Prior to that, senators were appointed for life. This clearly demonstrates Parliament's authority to put these laws in place. In 2007 the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs recommended that the mandatory retirement age of 75 be maintained while examining a previous Senate term limits bill.

Some opposition members argue that the bill presents a fundamental constitutional change requiring the support of the provinces. Personally I think they are entirely wrong, as do many others, including the provinces that are signing onto the bill and putting in place mechanisms to elect senators.

The Constitution also very clearly sets out those types of changes to the Senate that require some level of provincial consent. Our government has been careful to ensure that our approach to Senate reform falls within Parliament's constitutional jurisdiction.

I have listened to the speeches and questions from the opposition members and I have to say that they are missing the point. Our goal is to begin the reform process. We want to be as constructive as we can while ensuring that we move this place forward.

In contrast to the position of other parties, it is clear that our government's approach is the practical and reasonable way forward. It is the approach that can truly achieve results on behalf of every single Canadian in this country.

In fact, the stated positions of the opposition parties are essentially arguments in favour of the status quo. This is what is so dishonest about their approach. They understand full well that standing in this place and arguing anything other than this bill is in fact an argument for the status quo. It is an argument for the Senate to stay stuck in 1867. Their proposals would not achieve anything, and we would have no reform at all. That is not acceptable to Canadians.

The NDP, as I have said previously, would try to abolish the Senate. Canadians just do not support that kind of radical and fundamental change. There is no wide agreement among the provinces for that proposal. As I said earlier, I encourage the Quebec members to go to the National Assembly in Quebec City and see how much support they get for that position.

The position of the Liberal Party, on the other hand, has been to advocate for a process, not a result. How Liberal.

Perhaps we could have a summit. After the summit, we could have round tables. After the round tables, we could go to telephone consultation. After that, maybe we could do a mail-in campaign, and maybe sometime, a decade or two down the road, the Liberal Party might be prepared to act; we are not sure.

The Liberals do not support the reform of the Senate. That is the bottom line. The Liberals' 13-year record of inaction demonstrates their opposition. They have been clear about this, yet their suggestion is to open up the Constitution and begin a process that we know would end in bitter, drawn-out national conflict without Senate reforms being achieved.

We have seen how the Liberal Party responds whenever the Constitution is opened. It is simply to be contrarian. When we were seeking to bring Quebec into the Constitution, for example, when former Prime Minister Mulroney entered into constitutional reform, we know it was the Liberal Party that fought against it. We know it was the Liberal Party that was trying to tear down that House that would have, in my mind and in the minds of many others, put an end to the question of Canada being a country that spans from sea to sea to sea.

The Liberal approach is a recipe for accomplishing absolutely nothing while dragging us into a constitutional quagmire at a time when the government, the Liberal party, the New Democratic Party and all their members should be focused on the economy and jobs.

In conclusion, our government is dedicated to reforming the Senate so that it better reflects the values of hard-working Canadians across the country.

My constituents tell me that they want change. I believe that the time for change in the Senate has come. With the Senate reform act, our government is presenting modest but important and attainable changes that would improve the Senate by providing it with greater legitimacy in the eyes of Canadians.

Every member in this House has the opportunity to do something truly historic, something fundamental to our democratic process. They have the opportunity to bring the Senate, even if just marginally, into the 21st century to begin the process of reform.

We see what happens when we introduce democracy into the parliamentary system or into the governing systems of countries. It becomes infectious. People demand more democracy. They want even greater participation in their political process.

Every member in this House has the opportunity to do something historic, to give something to their constituents that they have never had before: a say in who represents them.

Can members imagine that in the 21st century in Canada we have a political body structured such that the people we all represent have no say in who represents them?

Let us do something historic. Let us support this bill. Let us move forward. Let us reform the Senate. Let us make Canada an even stronger and better country than it is today.

That is the charge I put to every member of this House.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the hon. member's grand flourish at the end, although it seemed a bit inappropriate since what the bill would do is give the Prime Minister the option that he has right now. He can, right now, agree to appoint a senator elected from a provincial legislature or from the workings of a provincial election. He can do that right now.

If we were to pass the bill, the Prime Minister would not be required to appoint those elected. He can appoint whomever he feels like appointing. What would we be adding to Canadians? We would not have very much at all in that regard.

Would the hon. member explain exactly what he meant when he said this would be a grand change for Canadians?

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the member that he has a historic opportunity on behalf of the citizens of Western Arctic. I would also remind the member that when the Prime Minister in this Conservative Party of Canada had an opportunity to nominate someone who had gone through that process, our Prime Minister did just that. We are very proud of him for doing so, because he followed the democratic will of the people of Alberta. Our Prime Minister will follow the democratic will of the people across Canada.

We would be putting in place a formal understanding between the Prime Minister and the people of Canada that if they take part in the democratic process and make their voices heard by casting their ballots, that person would be considered by the Prime Minister, and I would say that any Prime Minister who thwarts the democratic will of the people would not be the Prime Minister for very long.

However, it will not be this Prime Minister. This Prime Minister has already indicated and clearly demonstrated that he will follow the democratic will of the people of this country when it comes to the Senate. That is why I believe that the Prime Minister will be the Prime Minister for a very long time.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member must keep in mind my suggestion that an old law of public policy says that the problems we have today are often the result of the institutional reforms of yesterday. I want to point out three problems with the bill that may create a lot of problems in the future.

The first is corporate donations. The Prime Minister created a law that banished corporate donations. However, they would be back with a vengeance with the passage of the bill because many provinces have weak or no regulations regarding corporate donations.

Second, it is very likely that the bill is unconstitutional. I understand that the member disagrees, but the list of experts saying the opposite is quite long. Premier Charest said he would go to court to fight the bill. In order to avoid this constitutional chaos, why not ask the Supreme Court for its view on the bill? It would be responsible to do so.

Finally, there is no constitutional mechanism to solve any disagreement between the two elected chambers. If the Senate were to be elected, the likelihood that the Senate would be of a different view than the House would be very high. What democracy would accept being in a situation in which there are no constitutional mechanisms to solve disagreements between the two chambers?

These are three clear questions. I would like my colleague to answer each of them.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member brings forward a number of very good concerns that I think are important and valid.

On his first question with respect to banishing corporate and union donations, we made that very clear in the Accountability Act.

Now, the NDP does not feel that it should follow it. We know the NDP accepted tens of thousands of dollars of illegal donations at its most recent party convention in June in Vancouver. That is an issue for the Chief Electoral Officer, and it is one we expect him to follow up on.

However, it is important, because in doing so, we have returned politics to the people. We have empowered the people by making sure that those with deep pockets cannot simply buy elections or buy the electoral process.

I think every province should have similar legislation. They should also ban third party advertising. If we look at what is going on in the province of Ontario right now, as far as I am concerned, that is not putting people first; it is in fact drowning out the voices of the people, and it is unacceptable.

With respect to the constitutionality of the bill, we have sought opinion and we believe it is well within the authority of Parliament to move forward with the bill.

I believe the member's last question had to do with sending the bill to the Supreme Court. We have no interest in being in a long-drawn-out constitutional battle. We do not think that is productive. We think bringing democracy to the Senate chamber is what Canadians want and deserve.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his excellent speech and for his hard work for his colleagues and constituents in Peterborough.

My question is specifically on the timeframe.

I represent wonderful constituents in Kelowna—Lake Country. We had a Liberal senator, Ross Fitzpatrick, who served our community very well. I worked nine years on city council before being elected three times to the House. I know being partisan was mentioned, and it was mentioned that we can elect a senator who does not necessarily have a political affiliation. In this case, Mr. Fitzpatrick was appointed by the Liberal Prime Minister at the time.

Mr. Fitzpatrick had to retire at the age of 75. I hear from constituents that 15, 30 or 45 years seems like a long time for somebody to have that job without either having to be elected the first time or being accountable.

My question to my colleague is this: why is a nine-year term proposed? What is significant about nine years?

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the establishment of the term limit at nine years is in response to the concerns that were brought forward by some of the members in the opposition and some of the members of the public. They indicated that anything shorter would allow a government, in two majority mandates, to be able to dictate all of the membership of the Senate. Putting in place a nine-year term limit would be longer than two terms of Parliament. It was a fair compromise that we sought.

I go back to the argument. The hon. member represents, by the way, one of the most beautiful parts of this country. It is very close to being as beautiful as the Kawartha Lakes. In fact, some folks from there might even be deceived into believing it is more beautiful, but I will not enter into that debate.

However, I can say very clearly that the hon. member is representing his constituents and the overwhelming majority of Canadians in his support for a term limit on senators that is not up to 45 years.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about the bill.

First, it presents flimsy and minor changes designed to pander to a Conservative base. I am concerned that it will not have any real impact, and that if it does have any impact, as my colleague has pointed out, it is bound to be negative. Tie-ups between the House of Commons and the Senate are something we can ill afford at this time.

Second, it continues the trend of offloading to the provinces. There does not seem to be any provision in the bill to help provinces pay for elections. Just as in Bill C-10, there are basically no provisions to help provinces to absorb these additional costs that are being lowered onto them by the federal government.

Could the member opposite tell me how much it will cost British Columbians to hold these kinds of mostly meaningless elections?

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it shocks me that the member is concerned about the cost of democracy.

What is the cost of not having democracy? What is the cost of having a completely and entirely appointed body that may not represent the views of the people of British Columbia? I would argue that the cost is a democracy stuck some 143 or 145 years in the past.

The member should take a second look at the bill. As I said previously, the member has the opportunity to do something historic: to start Canada down the road toward building a democratic chamber in the Senate and to start down the road of establishing a reasonable Senate term limit.

Is the member aware that there are people currently serving in the Senate who were appointed by Pierre Trudeau? Is he aware of that? Is the member aware of what their contributions may or may not have been, or whether anyone in their respective provinces supported those senators' appointments to begin with?

I am aware that most of the people in my riding cannot name a single senator. Some of them might be able to name two or three, but virtually none of them can name a senator who represents them. Under a democratic body, that would change.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, since this is my first speech in the House of Commons in the 41st Parliament, I would like to thank the people of Nickel Belt for returning me to this House of Commons. I am grateful to the people from as far west as Foleyet, to the east of Garden Village, from the south in Killarney, and to the north of Capreol and River Valley, for returning me to this House.

One of their reasons for returning me to this House of Commons is due to the fine work that my staff is doing in Nickel Belt. I would like to thank them in this House, including Carmen McMurray in Nickel Belt and Val Caron, Ghislaine Millette in Val Caron, and Mona Noël and Don Pitre in Sturgeon Falls. I would like to thank them for the fine work they are doing.

Some of the reasons why we were re-elected to this House of Commons are because the people of Nickel Belt are more concerned about unemployment, health care, education and about their mothers, fathers and grandfathers. They are not too concerned about Senate reform. They are concerned about the things that affect them and Senate reform certainly does not affect them.

I am happy to rise in the House today to speak about the important principles of democratic reform and accountability.

I know the citizens of my riding of Nickel Belt want an electoral system where people are made to feel their vote counts. They want to feel good about government again, to see it as truly representative of them, and to feel they have a choice.

Five years ago, our Prime Minister was opposition leader. He recognized how wrong the unelected Senate was. He called it unfair and undemocratic. He called an appointed Senate a relic of the 19th century. Then, as opposition leader, he clearly did not like how the Prime Minister held a virtual free hand in the selection of senators and he made a promise that, as Prime Minister he would not name appointed people to the Senate. Sadly, we have seen another broken promise. Instead of fixing the problem with the Senate, the Conservative government has made the problem worse.

Consider the evidence. The Prime Minister now holds the all-time record for appointing the largest number of senators in one day. He has appointed Conservative Party faithful, spin doctors, fundraisers and insiders, his former Conservative Party president, his former national campaign director, and several defeated Conservative candidates. What more evidence do we need than seeing the architect of the Conservative notorious in and out scheme currently sitting in the Senate? Unnecessary Conservative senators spend their time voting down laws passed by elected members of the House of Commons, while burning through taxpayers' dollars to travel the country fundraising for the Conservative Party of Canada. Talk about doing politics differently; it is more of the same old, same old as we saw with the previous Liberal government.

Last fall, we watched in shame as the Conservative-dominated Senate was used to veto legislation that the Prime Minister simply did not like. The Climate Change Accountability Act, introduced by my colleague from northern Ontario, the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, was passed twice in a minority Parliament. Elected members representing Canadians passed the bill. A majority of elected MPs supported that legislation twice. Tragically, on November 16, 2010, the Senate, with its Conservative appointees, defeated Bill C-311 on second reading. There was no community discussion in the Senate and no witnesses. It was killed by unelected friends of the Prime Minister.

Unfortunately, the government's legislation related to the Senate is not about real democratic reform or delivering on commitments of accountability. New Democrats are talking about real democratic reform. We are calling for the abolition of the Senate. Canadians have had enough. The Senate has to go. Most Canadians would not miss it. Recent polling shows that only 18% approve of the actions of the Senate. Unfortunately, today's senators are too often partisan, working for their parties while being paid with public money. No sober second thought can come from unelected appointees with such obvious conflicts of interest.

Then there is the waste of money in the unelected Senate because Canadians are paying more and more for a discredited institution that does less and less at a time when people are dealing with slow economic recovery and the Conservative government is contemplating billions in cutbacks. Maintaining the Senate costs Canadians around $19 million a year. While folks are looking for jobs, trying to make ends meet when their EI runs out and scraping by on pensions that do not even cover basic necessities, senators are earning $132,000 a year for a three-day work week. Travel and expenses for senators cost $859,000 a year for an institution that will not play any relevant role in the lives of most Canadians.

I can think of a lot of things that matter to people, like creating family-supporting jobs, improving public health care, and building a decent future for our kids. Lining the pockets of party insiders probably is not high on anyone's list. I repeat that New Democrats want the Senate abolished. That has been the position of the New Democratic Party and its predecessors since 1930, and we are not alone.

The Premier of Ontario, Dalton McGuinty, and the Premier of Nova Scotia, Darrell Dexter, have publicly called for the Senate to be abolished. The Premier of British Columbia, Christy Clark, has said she does not think it serves a useful purpose within Confederation. Manitoba also maintains its position in favour of abolishing the Senate. Quebec has called this bill unconstitutional. The provincial government has said it would appeal the matter in court if this bill passes without prior consultation with the provinces.

We know real democratic reform is not achieved by tinkering with how senators are appointed or chosen from the provinces. We will need to introduce fair voting and proportional representation where the franchise of every voter is respected. We are calling on government to hold a referendum asking the Canadian public whether they support abolishing the Senate.

Today, I am asking the Prime Minister to start with two modest but vital first steps. First, I am asking the Prime Minister to stop appointing failed candidates and party insiders to the Senate. I am asking him to reach out to Canadians by making that a firm commitment.

Second, I am asking the Prime Minister to work with me to ensure all senators are banned from fundraising for political parties. No sober second thought can come from unelected appointees with such an august conflict of interest. It makes a joke of our democratic system, and it is not fair to Canadians.

In the long run, New Democrats remain firmly committed to following other modern democracies, as well as Canada's provinces, by abolishing the upper house and continuing to call for a pan-Canadian referendum to allow Canadians to provide a mandate on how to proceed.

We, as New Democrats, want Canadians to feel good about government again, to see it as the embodiment of their collective capacities as citizens, and to feel they have a voice. Let our elected members of Parliament, and only our elected MPs, speak on behalf of Canadians.

Second, let us stop wasting money on the undemocratic parts of our country that are not benefiting Canadians.

I want to bring out some key facts on this Senate reform. All provincial Senates were abolished by 1960, and provinces have continued to function properly. For those from the opposition who think we cannot work without a Senate, the proof is in the pudding. The provinces got rid of all Senates in 1968, and they are still functioning.

Public support for a referendum on the Senate is growing. An Angus Reid survey from July 2011 showed that 71% of Canadians were in favour of holding a referendum to decide the future of the Senate; and 36% of Canadians supported abolishing the Senate, up from 25% one year earlier.

If we really want to hear what Canadians have to say about the Senate, maybe we should have a referendum and let Canadians tell us what they want. With this Angus Reid survey, we know what Canadians want. They want the Senate abolished.

The Conservatives have said that they do not want to tear the other place down, they want to rebuild it. They are accusing us of wanting to tear the other place down. There have been 13 attempts to reform the Senate since the 1900s, 13 times Canadians wanted to remodel the Senate and failed every time. We are not going to accomplish anything this time either.

The government has been all over the map when it comes to Senate reform. A previous Conservative bill called for a federally regulated electoral process, while another bill called for eight year term limits.

The Conservatives have not properly consulted with the provinces about whether or not they agree with the content of this bill. When this bill was first introduced in June 2011, Conservative senators, even those appointed by the Prime Minister, pushed back against any plan for Senate term limits.

Senators will remain unaccountable to the Canadian people by only being allowed by law to serve one term as senators. They will never have to face the public to account for the promises they made to get elected or the decisions they made in the previous nine years, and they will get a pension when they leave office.

The safest, small c conservative approach to the Senate is to abolish it. We know how the House of Commons works, but we have no idea what will happen with an elected Senate.

The Prime Minister has called the Senate a relic of the 19th century. In 2006, the Conservative Party platform stated:

The Conservatives...believe that the current Senate must be either reformed or abolished. An unelected Senate should not be able to block the will of the elected House in the 21st century.

That is exactly what happened to Bill C-311.

The government has used the Senate as a dumping ground for party operatives and fundraisers who are using public money to campaign for the Conservatives. We are seeing that right now with the provincial elections going on across the country. We are seeing senators going from province to province and riding to riding campaigning for the Conservatives at a cost to public money.

The Prime Minister has used the unaccountable and undemocratic Senate to kill legislation that had been passed by the House of Commons twice. As I mentioned previously, Bill C-311 and, this past spring, killing Bill C-393, generic drugs to Africa.

We have Alberta senator, Bert Brown, whose name has been mentioned quite often by Conservative members today making him the god from Alberta. Bert Brown made it very clear in his letter to the Senate dated June 15, when he stated:

...our loyalty is to the man who brought us here, the man who has wanted Senate reform since he entered politics....

It was not to their regions or constituents.

What a shame that an appointed senator would say something like that. He is not there to represent the regions or his constituents. Who is he there to represent if he is not there to represent Canadians? It is a shame.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. My apologies to the hon. member but I must interrupt him at this time. The hon. member for Nickel Belt will have four minutes remaining when the House returns to this matter.

The House resumed from October 3 consideration of the motion that Bill C-7, An Act respecting the selection of senators and amending the Constitution Act, 1867 in respect of Senate term limits, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise today to speak on behalf of the official opposition and the good people of Vancouver Kingsway regarding C-7, An Act respecting the selection of senators and amending the Constitution Act, 1867 in respect of Senate term limits.

Before I proceed, for Canadians watching, I am one of the men that has a moustache in honour of movember, which is a time when we remember the very real effects of prostate cancer and encourage men across the country to not only get checked but to raise funds to help defeat this disease that has not only taken the lives of many men, but is something that afflicted the past leader of the NDP, the Hon. Jack Layton.

When we talk about the Senate, it conjures up a number of concepts in the minds of most Canadians. Unelected, undemocratic, unaccountable, political patronage and elitist are words that have been cemented in the minds of Canadians whenever they think of the Senate of Canada.

Modern democratic nations do not have representative chambers that are unelected. Modern democratic nations do not have representational chambers that are regionally imbalanced and unequal, with the principle of representation by population being completely ignored and frozen in a time two centuries past. Modern democratic nations do not have representative chambers where a ruling head of state hand-picks legislators who are the head's fundraisers, failed candidates and partisan supporters.

Modern democratic nations do not have representative chambers where people are appointed for life or until they are 75 years old, while the people who senators supposedly represent have no means to remove them. Modern democratic nations do not have representative chambers where the members spend their time campaigning for the ruling party on the public dime on the taxpayer-funded purse. They do not have chambers where unelected, patronage appointed members block legislation passed by a democratically elected chamber.

Modern democracies do not have chambers that restrict membership to those who own property, in the case of Canada $4,000 in land, and are closed to Canadians who do not. In fact, that is why Canada stands almost alone in the world among modern democratic nations with an anachronism from the past, a sordid past, a shameful history and a dubious future. That is why every province in Canada that had such a body abolished it in 1968.

I want to mention a few facts about the issue of abolishing the Senate.

Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty and Nova Scotia Premier Darrell Dexter have openly called for the abolition of the Senate. The premier of my province, British Columbia, Premier Christy Clark, has said that the Senate no longer plays a useful role in Confederation. Manitoba maintains its position of Senate abolition, although it has plans in place for the contingency that Senate elections are required should this bill be passed. Quebec has called this legislation unconstitutional and has said that it will launch a provincial court appeal if the bill proceeds without the consultation of provinces, which have not occurred to date. So far the bill is opposed by premiers of provinces representing the vast majority of Canadians.

In terms of what Canadians think, public support for a referendum on the Senate is growing. An Angus Reid survey from July, just some months ago, showed 71% of Canadians were in favour of holding a referendum to decide the future of the Senate. Members of the Conservative government stand in the House virtually every day and say that they have received a strong mandate from the Canadian public. They received 39% of the vote in the last election and 61% of Canadians did not support them. They consider 39% of the Canadian public to be a strong mandate. I hope members of the Conservative government recognize that when 71% of Canadians support a referendum on the Senate that is an even stronger mandate.

Thirty-six per cent of Canadians support the abolition of the Senate right now and that is without any kind of public education campaign or national discourse or dialogue, which I am sure would elevate that number to well over 50% very quickly. There have been 13 attempts to reform the Senate since 1900 and all of them have failed.

I want to outline what the bill would do.

The bill would restrict all senators appointed to the Senate after October 14, 2008, to a single nine-year term. It purports to give provinces and territories the opportunity to choose to hold elections at their cost and to determine which names will be submitted to the Prime Minister for his consideration. The bill clearly states that the Prime Minister is not required to appoint anyone so-called elected by the provinces. The bill would not make it mandatory that the Prime Minister would appoint a person so elected. In other words, it does not actually change the way senators are currently appointed, which is that the Prime Minister is free to appoint whomever he or she chooses.

Bill C-7 appears from the outset to be a rather vague and once again confused legislation, which is clumsily attempting to pursue a number of objectives without any clear focus. The reforms outlined in the bill continue the undemocratic nature of the Senate and do not provide, in any way, what Canada needs as a modern democratic nation.

I will go through some of the major flaws in the bill.

When I said that the government had been a little bit confused, previous Conservative bills called for federally-regulated electoral processes. This one calls for provincially-regulated electoral processes. Another bill the Conservatives tabled called for eight-year term limits. This one has nine-year term limits.

The Conservatives have not properly consulted with the provinces about whether they agree with the content of the bill. When the bill was first introduced in June, Conservative senators, even those appointed by the current Prime Minister, pushed back against any plans for Senate term limits, even those who were supposedly appointed after giving their word that they would respect term limits.

The bill would retain the fundamental flaw that senators would remain unaccountable to the Canadian people. By only being allowed to serve one term, senators would never have to face the public to account for the promises they made to get elected or the decisions that they took in the previous nine years. Then they would get a pension for life after they left office. So much for fiscal accountability from the Conservatives.

Having an elected Senate would fundamentally change the nature of politics in Canada. It would create a two-tier Senate where those who were elected likely would feel that they would have more legitimacy. Later in my speech I will talk more about where we run into conflicts with the role and authority of the provinces to speak on behalf of the people in those provinces versus the senators.

Since the Senate has virtually the same powers as the House, an elected Senate would give greater legitimacy for the Senate to introduce legislation or oppose bills sent from the House of Commons. We very well could end up with the same kind of gridlock that we see in the United States, and I will talk about that in a few minutes as well.

The safest, the most conservative approach to the Senate is to abolish it. We know how the House of Commons works, but we have no idea what would happen with an elected Senate.

Let us reflect on the history and role of the Senate which originated in the British parliamentary system as the House of Lords. For hundreds of years the so-called upper chamber has been a symbol of nobility and power in place to prevent the commoners in the lower house from affecting the privileged lives of those who enjoy more than their fair share of the product of the nation. Indeed, our own Prime Minister has described the Senate as “a relic of the 19th century”, echoing my view that its presence continues to give merit to an outdated concept.

During the last election, Jack Layton said that something had changed with the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister used to talk about being democratically accountable. He used to talk about things like the Senate being something that had no business opposing or blocking legislation from the House of Commons, where senators who were appointed had no business being patronage appointments.

The Prime Minister has stuffed the Senate with his political friends and with failed candidates. He either allowed or required the unelected senators to block environmental legislation passed democratically in the House of Commons after three readings. It is funny how things change when someone is in power.

The bill would do nothing to address the wider issues around the Senate, that its relevance and role comes from a shameful past of elitism and distrust of the ability of the common people to govern themselves. How else do we explain a requirement that to hold a Senate seat, one must own land? What does that say in 2011, in modern Canada, to all the millions of Canadians who rent or who do not own land? Is it that they are not fit to pass legislation in the Senate of our country? The government does nothing to change that rule.

I said that these reforms were not what Canada needs. This is an important message which must be conveyed to Canadians across the country. We have a tendency in this modern era to hear the word “reform” and automatically assume that this must be a good thing, something that we should greet with open arms. However, just because something represents reform does not necessarily make it good reform. Bill C-7 is not good reform. It represents reform that will make Canada's democracy far less efficient, much less predictable and is much more radical than the government will admit.

By describing the bill as radical, the government has presented it as an evolution of our democratic principles. However, the truth is these reforms would dramatically change the way in which our Parliament operates.

Bill C-7 is being discussed as simply a method of increasing democratic legitimacy in our system, but in reality it would not do that. In fact, it risks imperilling the very democratic premise it purports to improve. It would result in a complete change in the way our Parliament operates, with a significantly stronger and more active upper chamber. This will undoubtedly create challenges, some of which will undermine the efficiency and effectiveness of government.

By electing the Senate as well as the House of Commons, we will create two parliamentary bodies that both may claim to have a mandate to govern. This is a very dangerous situation for Canada to be in. Parliament would lose the clarity that it currently has regarding where ultimate authority lies, in the democratically elected representatives in the House of Commons.

The importance of clarity in this area is illustrated by events from the last Parliament when my NDP colleague tabled Bill C-311, which was a climate change accountability act. The bill went through all three readings in debate in the House of Commons, went through democratic votes and passed. The bill was then referred to the Senate where the Conservative majority in the Senate, who are not elected by anybody, who are not accountable to anybody, who sit in that chamber for $135,000 a year until they are 75 years of age, voted to kill that legislation. That is not democratic; it is autocratic.

The 2006 Conservative Party platform stated that, “An unelected Senate should not be able to block the will of the elected House in the 21st century”. What kind of hypocrisy is that? The Conservative Party went to the people of the country five years ago and said that its position was the Senate, which is unelected, should not block any parliamentary legislation that had been passed by the House of Commons. Five years later the government caused its Conservative senators to do exactly that. That is not undemocratic. That is hypocritical and unethical. It was a lie and that is wrong.

On these grounds, the actions of the Senate, on those two occasions, were unwarranted and unacceptable. It is our current system that allows us to draw this conclusion. It is clear that in a parliamentary democracy, ultimate authority must lie with the elected chamber and not with the appointed one.

Again, the fact is this bill would muddy those waters. If these reforms were implemented, then the Senate would have every right to throw out a bill that had already passed through the House of Commons as the senators, at least those who had been elected, would have an equal democratic mandate to the members in this place, or may very well claim so.

No clearer indication can be given about the dangers of this kind of system than what we have seen recently in the United States. With the house of representatives and the senate there having equal democratic mandates and being controlled by two separate parties, the world financial markets were almost brought to their knees. Once again, a piece of legislation concerning the debt limit in the United States was raised and the bill to borrow more money to keep the economy going had to be passed. The U.S. Congress had passed similar legislation many times before without a hitch, but on that occasion, the well-being of the American people was firmly put to one side as the two parties battled it out to achieve their own partisan goals.

This is what the bill risks here. Had one of those two political institutions had the clear authority over the other any chance of this kind of situation developing would be non-existent.

That has been the history of the House of Commons and Senate up to now. The Senate, being unelected, has always by convention refused to exercise its de jure powers and instead restricted itself only to holding up legislation, but never to blocking it, until the Conservative government of this Prime Minister came into being.

I would like to raise the issue of the makeup of the Senate going forward if the reform outlined in the bill were implemented. These changes would result in a completely incoherent upper chamber with two tiers of senators. Some would be subject to term limits for nine years and be elected, others would be appointed and could serve until age 75. What kind of message does this send to Canadians, or people all over the world about the reputation of our democratic processes? How can a parliamentary institution operate when one member has a fresh mandate from the electorate, while the person sitting next that member has been there for 25 years with no input from those who his or her decisions affect?

The divisive nature of the reforms also mean that there is a conflict set up between the provinces and the Senate. Which body would truly speak on behalf of the people of that province? I would argue that it is the provincial governments of the country set up by our Constitution that have a legitimate democratic mandate to speak for the people of those provinces, not the Senate, or senators from those provinces, many of whom do not even live in those provinces and have only a very tangential relationship with those provinces.

I know I am running out of time so I want to talk about a couple of quick facts that I think are important; one is money. The Conservative government that has given us a massive $610 billion debt and the largest deficits in Canadian history still wants to maintain a chamber that costs Canadian taxpayers over $100 million per year and is undemocratic.

We could abolish the Senate, as the New Democrats have suggested, and save the taxpayers $100 million a year with absolutely not one iota of deleterious affect on the democratic health of our nation. We could make our government more efficient and more effective. We could be quicker. I have heard members opposite talk about the slow rate with which it passes legislation. They are frustrated by how long it takes to get legislation passed.

By abolishing the Senate we could dispense with three readings and committee study, and speed up legislation, which is what Canadians want in this country, according to the Conservatives.

Why do the Conservatives not abolish the Senate? Why do they tinker around the edges? Why do they continue to take a fundamentally flawed and undemocratic chamber and continue to make it a flawed and undemocratic chamber? It makes no sense.

I want to talk briefly about the people of Vancouver Kingsway. I come from a riding where David Emerson was elected as a Liberal and two weeks later crossed the floor to sit as a Conservative. The people of Vancouver Kingsway rose up like few citizens, or few ridings, in this country have ever done. They loudly expressed their commitment to democracy in this country because what Mr. Emerson did was a betrayal of democracy.

Here, we are talking about a chamber that is stuffed with failed Conservative candidates, like Yonah Martin, Josée Verner, Fabian Manning, people who ran in elections, placed themselves before the people of the country for their democratic mandate and were rejected, then find themselves appointed by the Prime Minister to the Senate and serve as legislators, even though the people of this country said they did not want to give them their trust or a mandate to do so. That is outrageous. That is an outrage in a democracy, when former fundraisers and failed Conservative candidates end up in the Senate. The Liberals were no better. They did the exact same thing when they were in power.

It is time that people in this country follow the New Democratic lead and abolish the Senate. That is the only responsible, reasonable, democratic measure that can be taken in this country, and I urge all members of the House to do so.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Vancouver Kingsway for his eloquence in discussing what we believe are the concerns with the Senate.

I have always believed that the Senate has two roles in life. One is to peer review executive legislation from the House of Commons and, because senators do not have a constituency per se, to carry out in-depth studies facing the challenges of our society. For example, the Michael Kirby report on mental health was very good. I thought it was well done.

However, that is not what the Senate has been doing for the longest time. It rubber stamps legislation from the government. Bill C-311 the environmental bill, was passed by this House of Commons and the appointed, unelected Senate, without one witness, killed the bill without a word of debate. After all the work that the elected members of Parliament did to get it through this House and the years it took, for a bunch of unelected, unaccountable people to kill it is not democracy.

I would like my hon. colleague to elaborate on the fact that this is what unelected, unaccountable people can do to override the wishes of the majority of the members of Parliament representing the majority of Canadians.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, part of the preamble to Bill C-7 states:

--Parliament wishes to maintain the essential characteristics of the Senate within Canada’s parliamentary democracy as a chamber of independent, sober second thought--

I am going to focus on the word “independent” for a minute. Everybody knows that the Senate is anything but independent. Both the Liberal and Conservative parties have House leaders and whips in that House and many senators attend party caucus meetings. To many Canadians, the Senate appears simply to be a extension of this House, an extension of the government controlled by the parties, and largely there to ensure that controversial bills get lost in the system. Partisanship clearly works against this objective of the Senate to be a chamber of sober second thought and these reforms would only serve to make this situation worse.

My hon. colleague brings up a classic example. We do not have to reach back in history 40 or 50 years. We can reach back to the last 24 months to see an example where the Senate was not acting independently but acted on the behest of the government of the day to kill a piece of legislation that it did not like but could not command the majority support of the democratically elected members of Parliament. What we saw on that day, with regard to climate change, was the death of democracy in Canada. That is regrettable and undemocratic.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Questions and comments. My apologies to the hon. member for Winnipeg North. I did not see him the first time.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to tour the province of Manitoba on a Senate reform committee. It was a committee that was dominated by the New Democratic Party and what we heard time and again was that there is great potential value to a reformed Senate, that we do not have to abolish the Senate, and that there is great value in terms of reforming it.

My NDP colleague in the front row made reference to Michael Kirby's mental health report. I could talk about Sharon Carstairs' palliative care. There are a number of examples that are there where the Senate has provided fine work which has been accepted by provincial jurisdictions and been acknowledged outside of the House, outside of Parliament Hill.

Does the member not recognize that adding value to the Senate is achievable if the political will were there? To abolish it is to wipe out the opportunity to get some gains that we would not be able to achieve, that only an appointed Senate can, such as looking for senators with an expertise to contribute to the many works that could still be done. Yes to reform, but does it have to be abolished?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a conceptual response for my hon. colleague and a practical one.

The practical one is that, of course, we do not need a Senate. If we were to abolish it, there would be absolutely zero effect on the quality of legislation or study of social issues in this country. The practical evidence is that every single province in the country that had a Senate has abolished it.

For my hon. colleague's question to have logic would be to suggest that every single province in Canada is no longer capable of producing intelligent policy in different areas because they do not have a Senate. I think that is wrong. I think every province in this country is producing policy in all sorts of areas and they do that through democratically elected people.

Second, on the conceptual front, there is no question that sometimes despots can do good work. There is no question that sometimes autocrats can provide a good study. However, the question here is whether or not the people in the Senate have a democratic mandate to engage in the work that they are doing.

The New Democratic Party believes in democracy. Government legislation and comment on public policy should be made by people who are elected by and accountable to the Canadian public. The fact that an unelected person can sit in the chamber for 35 years and once in a while produce a good report is beside the point.

Of course, my hon. colleague comes from the Liberal Party, which spent decades filling the Senate with its party faithful, bag people and failed candidates, and so I do not expect him to agree with the New Democratic position on that score.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, rather ironically this is a government piece of legislation, yet I do not see too many Conservative members rising to ask questions or comment on what they call an important piece of legislation.

I do not think anyone in this room has anything against the individuals in the Senate. However, although it would never happen in my lifetime, if the Senate were truly independent of government, with no party caucuses, no party labels, and if we were to have experts in various fields with various backgrounds, we might have had a different reaction from the NDP.

The reality is that the bill would not make the Senate independent of the government, it would make it more dependent. Basically the Prime Minister and the Conservative Party could lose their government tomorrow, but if they stack the Senate with all of their people for x number of years, they would still have control over legislation, and that is simply wrong.

I would like my hon. colleague to elaborate on that, please.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is one of the prime dangers of the bill. Up until now the senators in the other chamber have at least acknowledged that they do not have any democratic legitimacy. Therefore, they do committee work, study bills they hold up, but they would never, up until the current Conservative government of course, actually defeat a bill passed by the House of Commons. However, one of the dangers of the bill is that if they were elected, would they feel they then have the legitimacy to strike down legislation passed in this chamber?

We have not even begun to speak about the regional inequities in the Senate. The composition of the Senate is frozen, in many cases, from 1867. We have tiny provinces that have more seats than provinces 20 times their population; for example, Prince Edward Island compared to British Columbia. It is fundamentally undemocratic to have a handful of people with the same weight as provinces that have many times the population. This is another problem we face. To give democratic legitimacy to a chamber that is horrifically imbalanced from a regional and population point of view is a democratic time bomb. That has not been thought through.

One of the reasons we are not seeing members of the government stand up on the bill is because I think they know this. Many of them were Reform members and I give them credit when, in the 1980s, they stood up against the Senate. They were appalled at the misuse of the Senate by the previous Liberal governments and wanted it to be reformed in a sincere and democratic manner. If that were to happen, it might be a different story, but that is not what the bill does.

There is only one answer: save $100 million, make our government more efficient, leaner, more democratic, and get rid of an anachronism that made sense in the 1800s, but makes no sense in a modern democratic nation in the 21st century.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-7, an act respecting the selection of senators and amending the Constitution Act, 1867 in respect of Senate term limits.

Before I continue, I will take a moment to speak to the issue of movember. Members probably see this sorry scruff on my face. It is an effort to encourage all men to take good care of their health and get their prostate checked out. My father died just over 18 years ago from prostate cancer. He did not live to see his son become an MP. He did not live to see his grandchildren. I am sure all members would agree that these are things that are worth living to see. I would urge, in the most strenuous terms possible, all men to suffer the indignities and get themselves checked out.

I will get back to Bill C-7. It strikes me as strange to have to speak in this chamber to issues so fundamental to our political life in this country that we cherish as a democracy. These issues I am talking about are democracy itself and accountability.

I had the pleasure of studying political theory In university. I had no idea at that time that it would be so relevant to the job of being a member of Parliament. Many people did ask me what the heck I was studying that stuff for, but here we are and I have the opportunity now to speak in this chamber about matters so fundamental that they are matters of political theory.

The government talks so much about Canadian values inside and outside this chamber that one would think there was almost violent agreement on what these things actually are. However, here we are in the House talking about the issue of democracy and a bill that is, frankly, fundamentally undemocratic.

As recently as 2006, our Prime Minister described the Senate as a relic of the 19th century. I would suggest that the Senate, in some important sense, takes us back much farther than the 19th century. It takes us back to a time when democracy in any form and however limited was much distrusted. It takes us back to a time when a ruling class was concerned about losing its social and economic status by way of decisions made by representatives of the people. It takes us back to a time when certain parts of our society were considered to be incapable of and unsuited for making the important decisions of a nation.

What is clear is that this skepticism of democracy is not just an historical tradition. It does not just find expression in our Senate of the 19th century. It is alive today and finds expression in the Conservative government in this 21st century in the form of the bill before us today, Bill C-7. The ancient tradition of distrusting the people survives in the Conservatives.

Bill C-7 clings to the security of a second unelected chamber where progressive legislation, such as the climate change accountability bill and the drugs to Africa bill, legislation that may have moved this country forward in the interests of all its citizens, as well as citizens around the world, can be defeated by the supposed superior wisdom of the present government's, and previous governments, hand-picked, unelected, self-selected watchdogs, not of, but watchdogs against, democracy.

The only thing the bill confirms is the Conservative government's determination to hang onto the reins of power by way of patronage. I would point to the fairly recent, widely-distributed and very instructive letter from a Conservative senator in which he wrote, in part:

Every Senator in this caucus needs to decide where their loyalty should be and must be. The answer is simple; our loyalty is to the man who brought us here, the man who has wanted Senate reform since he entered politics, the [Prime Minister].

With this, we are a long way from the justifications most frequently offered for the existence of this anti-democratic institution. One of those justifications is independence. However, as we have seen, by virtue of that quote, and by virtue of the conduct of this chamber and those in it for well over a century, that it is hardly an independent chamber.

Other justifications have been equally persistent. I refer, in part, to the notion that the Senate is to provide our parliamentary institutions with regional representation. Yet, none of us have ever seen regional interests coalesce and operate to trump partisanship born of patronage in the Senate chamber. In fact, the bill would do nothing to advance or facilitate the emergence of regional interests or expressions in the Senate.

The government is unwilling to surrender its control over Senate appointments, as evidenced by the provision that permits the Prime Minister to reject the outcomes of Senate elections held at the provincial or territorial level; that is to say, the bill would allow the Prime Minister the ability to overrule the democratic will of the regions of this country.

This anti-democratic institution has also survived, cloaked in the justification of a second sober thought and yet all of us in this chamber were sent to this place on the basis of, at least in part, our sobriety of thought.

Therefore, on precisely what democratic principle does one confer in one person elected to this so-called lower chamber the power to overrule the democratic will of Canadians as expressed, at least potentially, in the Senate election and to decide who is wise enough to evaluate and overrule decisions made in this House of Commons?

Further, how grossly exaggerated must one's sense of one's self be to overthrow the results of an election in favour of one's own opinion and judgment, or to believe that he or she is so much wiser than the collective in this chamber so that he or she must appoint a senator to watch over us? Or, is it not that kind of hubris but simply a blatant disregard and disrespect for democracy that underlies the bill?

Whatever it is, it is clear that this bill would, both in practice and in theory, not only continue the unfortunate tradition of relocating power away from the elected representatives of Canadians and, therefore, the Canadian citizenry itself to an unelected body, but would locate that power in the single person of the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister, like the rest of us in this chamber, submitted himself directly to the judgment of the electorate in but one of 308 ridings. Beyond that, the Prime Minister can claim to have won directly only the confidence of the membership of his own political party as expressed through that party's internal leadership processes. However, that is a far cry from winning the confidence of all Canadians to exercise the kind of power over the rest of us directly elected members of this chamber that the bill would continue to provide to that position.

It has been argued that the bill would move us away from the undemocratic tradition by permitting provincial and territorial elections of a senator. Notably, however, such elections to a federal institution are to be financed by the province or territory. Notably, too, this would not provide the right of the citizens of that province or territory to elect a person to the Senate.

Senators would, under the bill, remain appointed, as the government clings, white knuckles on the reins of power, to its fear of losing control to the will of the people.

This skepticism of democracy is also evident in the very curious nine year term limit imposed on senators. The bill itself provides no rationale for such a length of terms. However, what this seemingly random term does do is effectively frustrate the ability of Canadians to hold senators accountable for their decisions and actions. What is more, with a one year term limit, a senator would never have to answer to voters for decisions he or she made or did not make.

Accountability is a key principle, a foundation of democratic institutions. This chamber is a democratic institution not just because we were elected to this House but because we, should we wish to continue in this position, are held, through the electoral process, to account for our decisions and actions while in this position.

This term, as lengthy as it is, also serves to frustrate the will of this chamber and, in doing so, the will of Canadians. It would provide the government of the day the opportunity to reach into the legislative bodies of this country long after it has lost its own mandate.

Finally, there are a number of questions of critical constitutional importance that are raised but not answered by Bill C-7. What kind of institution is being created in the Senate when some are elected while others will be appointed? Do some of these senators have more authority by virtue of being representatives of the electorate or are all considered to be equal? If the Senate gets filled with elected representatives, what is their relationship and relative authority to those of us in this chamber? Do they retain the same roles that justify those appointed directly, i.e. regional representation, independent sober second thought, et cetera, or is this a new role that they assume as elected representatives? Where there are differences between chambers, how are these resolved in favour of which chamber, or do we anticipate gridlock?

It is long past time for this country to shed the undemocratic traditions of another age, another time. It is time for the parties that have ruled this country to let go of the illogic and, frankly, hypocrisy that the people are good enough to elect us but that only one of us is good enough to appoint someone to watch over us.

It is time to let go of its skepticism of the wisdom of Canadians. It is time for Canada to embrace democracy by abolishing the Senate and allowing those of us sent to this place by the people of Canada to do what they have asked of us and to be turfed out of this place should we fail to do so or should we fail to do so to their standards.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague very much. He is very hard-working and, as we saw from his speech, very intelligent as well. He understands the issues at stake here quite well.

The government boasts that with this bill reforming the Senate the public would be represented more democratically and more accurately. But, according to the existing Senate rules, no one under the age of 30 can become a senator.

Does my colleague think that this kind of limit and the fact that no one under the age of 30 can sit in the other chamber are signs of better democratic legitimacy? There is something I do not understand there, and I would like to hear what my colleague has to say.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will answer that question from my colleague right next door to me in English, if I might. I am trying to learn French from my colleague but we are not quite there yet.

I appreciate the question about youth and those of us in the New Democratic caucus. Some of us at least feel very old relative to some of our colleagues. However, the wonderful thing about democracy is that the will of the people sends to this chamber those who they believe are best able to represent their views in the House.

The bill, should it be amended, should certainly provide the opportunity for all Canadians to send whoever they feel best fit to represent them in the upper chamber.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a fairly straightforward question.

If a majority of Canadians wanted to see the Senate retained, but changed so that there would be more value to it, what would the position of the New Democratic Party then be? Would it still oppose and want to abolish it, even if a majority of Canadians wanted to retain it?

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the question is of a hypothetical nature, but it is the position of the New Democrats that the fate of the Senate should be put by way of referendum to the Canadian people. As we respect the views of Canadians and the principles of democracy, we would obviously abide by the perspective of all Canadians in a referendum on this matter.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is surprisingly similar to that just put by the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

This is a complicated matter. It is not as simple as saying that we do not like the Senate, so we should end it.

We have constitutional issues embedded in how it is structured, and I share the view of the member for Beaches—East York and his caucus that there are significant problems with Bill C-7 as put forward by the government.

Having worked with the Senate over the years, I have seen the Senate take its own initiative and do some very good work, and we have seen examples here this morning. For instance, I point to the decision to not put bovine growth hormone into our milk. That was a done deal until the Senate committee, under Senators Mira Spivak and Eugene Whelan, subpoenaed scientists from Health Canada who were being muzzled and in that way made it possible for the information to get out.

Would the best way forward not be to have a real public consultation on the fundamental problems within our democracy, including the extreme power of the Prime Minister's Office, the lack of sufficient role for individual members of Parliament, the proper balance between the House of Commons and the Senate and the question of whether the Senate should survive or not?

How does the hon. member feel about taking this to the people before we make it legislation?

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as it is a multipartite question, I will approach it this way.

It is clear that good work has come out of the Senate in the past. A recent report about poverty in Canada comes to mind; many worthy recommendations came out of that report.

As my colleague for Vancouver Kingsway said in answering a very similar question previously, this is not an issue of whether the Senate ever does good work or whether senators have worthy opinions on matters of great importance to Canadians.

Like so many issues, this issue is reducible to simple issues. At the beginning of my speech, I spoke to some fundamental principles. That is what we are wrestling with. The fundamental principles are that we have a chamber here in our parliamentary institutions that is undemocratic. It has the power to block legislation. We have seen that happen with some very worthy representation that this elected House passed on to the Senate.

In response, I would say that at times the appropriate approach is to reduce matters to fundamental principles. If we look at an issue in those terms, it often becomes starkly simple. The starkly simple fact is that the upper chamber, the Senate, is not a democratic institution and should therefore be abolished.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, correct me if I am wrong. The government introduced legislation stating that the provinces have to pay for Senate elections and that the provinces have to hold Senate elections. By the way, if only 40% of people vote for MPs, imagine how few people would vote for a senator. Then the Prime Minister can say that the elected senator is not wanted. Only a Conservative can come up with a plan like that. The government is putting forward federal legislation stating that the provinces have to pay for an elected Senate, but when they do elect a senator, the Prime Minister can then refuse their choice.

I would like my hon. colleague to elaborate a bit more on that.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what elaboration can follow. It is that simple. I spoke about this fundamental skepticism of democracy that is betrayed in the bill: it talks about an elected Senate, but as I said, the government seems to be hanging onto the reins of power with white knuckles; it is not letting go of this. While the provinces and territories may go through the process at their expense and take this issue and democracy seriously, the government is not surrendering authority to the people and to the provinces to elect members of the upper chamber. Under this bill, it is still an appointed Senate.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point that I started to develop, I want to raise the question of who is going to be representative of the provinces.

Currently we elect premiers, cabinets and governments in every province and territory, but the Senate was set up originally as a body to supposedly represent regional concerns. If we were to elect senators from a province such as Prince Edward Island, does the member think this situation could create an unacceptable conflict in terms of who would have the democratic mandate to speak for the people of that province? Would it be the elected senators from that province, or would it be the elected provincial government of that province?

I would also like to ask what my colleague thinks about the judgment of the Prime Minister. Under the bill he would still get to appoint senators; we know the Prime Minister has appointed a number of failed Conservative candidates, so we have some clear examples of the kind of judgment that the Prime Minister exhibits when considering who is appointed to the Senate.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I spoke earlier about reducing things to fundamental principles and about simplifying matters, but that question and the previous question make it clear that in trying to amend our Constitution and in trying to change the makeup of the Senate and the process of becoming a senator, one runs into some very complex issues.

One of them is raised by my colleague in his question, which is that we could end up with senators elected from a province who might take positions in conflict with provincial representatives of that province. As well, how elected members of the Senate would resolve differences with elected members of this chamber from that province is certainly unclear. We would be creating a very complicated system, potentially with duelling elected members, so the issue is to abolish the Senate and do away with those complexities entirely.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

While Senate reform has been a golden calf of the Reform movement for years, I do not believe any real Reformers would recognize the bill before us today. This bill is wasteful and a clear attempt on the part of Conservatives to distract from the real issues, like jobs and the economy.

What is more unfortunate is that the government will not even approach the issue of democratic reform in an appropriate manner. The Prime Minister and his minister for democratic reform are no doubt aware of the quagmire that is constitutional negotiation, so they are progressing in a haphazard manner, attempting to reform an institution of Parliament by the back door and making change that is not really change. It is like most of what emanates from the government benches: sound and fury.

Regardless of their once ferocious opposition to what they saw as centralizing power in Ottawa, the Prime Minister has changed his spots and is currently acting unilaterally and without proper consultation with the provinces. The changes presented in this bill will foist Senate elections on the provinces, forcing the provinces during a time of economic hardship to fund and administer an additional series of elections without their consent.

This is not surprising, given the single-minded desire of the government to download the costs of an ill-considered and ill-advised justice omnibus bill. It is unfortunate that the government will again increase the financial burden on the provinces. Let us keep in mind that one Ontario provincial election costs taxpayers approximately $135 million; in this time of financial restraint and instability, the government seems all too keen to saddle the province with yet more costs.

Moreover, this bill is not about real reform. Regardless of its efforts, the government cannot change the appointment process without seven provinces representing 50% of the population agreeing. Ultimately the process of recommending senators for appointment to the Governor General still rests with him.

While the bill provides that a province or territory that enacts electoral legislation that is substantially in accordance with the framework may select its senatorial nominees and submit those nominees to the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister is not even obligated to submit those names to the Governor General, but only to consider them. A prime minister who does not bear the same political stripes as an elected senator is under no compulsion to select that person. This is clearly more waste.

Furthermore, if a province or territory opts out of this expensive and ineffective process, the Prime Minister will nevertheless select his or her own nominee. In essence, this political window dressing will allow the provinces and territories to feel involved, for a price, while in fact it is the status quo that will really be maintained.

More offensively, the bill is another assault on western Canadian provinces. Since deciding to ignore the democratic will of western grain farmers expressed through a plebiscite supporting, by a majority, the single desk marketing and sales arm of the Canadian Wheat Board, the government signalled it was not interested in the voices of western Canadians. It shut down debate and refused to allow enough time in committee to hear from western Canadian farmers, as it was required to do under section 47.1 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act.

This bill, in its present incarnation, places Alberta and British Columbia at a notable disadvantage as well. My esteemed colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, is doing a marvellous job explaining the unbalanced distribution of Senate seats. Currently there exists an anomalous gap between the representation of the western provinces in the House of Commons and the Senate. An elected senator will now have an entirely new and very specific constituency to satisfy; it will be difficult for the six elected Alberta senators, for example, to square against the 24 Ontario senators, the 24 Quebec senators, or even the 10 senators from New Brunswick.

Through these measures that dilute the influence of western Canadian provinces, the Prime Minister and his minister appear to have forgotten, likely once getting into government, that the west wanted in when they were young Reformers. Once again, the west is ignored.

The most egregious about-face in this bill is that the horse the government rode in on, the old horse called accountability, seems to have died and the government is dragging it through the streets. Buried in the bill are the surreptitious financial implications found in clause 27 for campaign funding during senatorial elections. In April 2006, the government introduced the Federal Accountability Act to bring forward “specific measures to help strengthen accountability and increase transparency and oversight in government operations”. The Prime Minister heralded these measures as an end to the influence of big money in federal political parties by banning union and corporate contributions, as well as limiting individual donations.

Now the government appears to be performing an end run on its financing rules by squeaking in clause 27 of this bill, which would allow campaign funding for senatorial elections to be governed by a provincial legislature. Of course, the rules that govern political contributions vary greatly depending on the province or territory. There is no continuity.

In this blatant contradiction of the Federal Accountability Act, allowing these laws to govern senatorial campaign funding would in fact perpetuate big money in political parties. Until this bill, senators have been governed by a federal body. Should this bill pass, senators would be governed by 13 different sets of rules and regulations, depending on their province or territory, placing some at a major financial advantage and most in contravention of the Federal Accountability Act.

Take, for instance, a senator from Yukon Territory. Should this bill pass, when the Yukon seat is vacated in 2023, political contributions for the subsequent senatorial election would be governed by the political financing rules of the Yukon territorial legislation. Currently, in Yukon Territory there are no restrictions on how much an individual, corporation, union or entity, whether inside or outside Canada, can donate to a political party.

During the 2006 territorial election, Premier Dennis Fentie and the Yukon Party, formerly the Yukon Progressive Conservative Party, raked in a cool $114,044 in political contributions during the election, donations like $7,500 from Seattle's Holland America, or $5,000 from Trans-Canada Pipelines. The Conservative government had seemingly eliminated contributions from anyone outside Canada, only to now open up the back door through the Senate.

The legislation continues with a vague mention of necessary modifications on campaign funding, but why not be specific right off the bat instead of these cosmetics? These legislative discrepancies create an unequal playing field and are certainly not more effective for both the senators and their provinces. The original intent of the Senate is to achieve a balance of regional interests and to provide a house of sober second thought. That is why we as Canadians have seen doctors, scholars, artists, politicians, community activists, generals and athletes serve our society for the good of the nation through our Senate. We simply cannot maintain a sober second thought in the upper chamber with such unequal and partisan-based governance.

Members opposite may throw around the term “mandate” in response to these allegations, but remember that 39% certainly does not constitute a mandate or majority. Stifling public opinion and this clandestine attempt to circumvent their own political funding rules cannot stand, and the constant attacks on western Canadian provinces and the Canadian Constitution must stop. The Liberal Party will not stand for it. I am sure if members opposite listen very carefully, they will hear the sound of their Reform forebears throwing up their hands in disgust.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member was quite right when he said that jobs and the economy are what are important to Canadians today. There is no doubt about that.

The bill before us tries to provide a bit of hope in terms of democratic reform but in reality that is not the case.

I was living on the Prairies back in the 1990s during the time of the Reform Party. There was a sense of the need to reform the Senate back then. New Democrats were saying that the Senate had to be abolished. The Reform Party wanted an equal, elected and effective Senate. There was an expectation that the Reformers, now known as the Conservatives, were going to make huge gains in terms of achieving a triple-E Senate. Truth be known, the government has failed in its delivery of a triple-E Senate.

There is a great deal of merit in looking at the most effective way for the Senate to operate. There is a great deal of value to the Senate.

I participated in an all-party task force in the province of Manitoba. We toured the entire province, from Flin Flon to Russell to Winnipeg. We listened to many presenters talk about Senate reform. There was no unanimous opinion that it had to be an elected Senate or that it had to be abolished. Many believed there was merit in having an appointed Senate.

It would be wonderful for us to deal with the issue of the Senate in a more open fashion as to what value a reformed Senate could have.

Some New Democratic colleagues have no problem bashing the Senate. They would abolish it, even though the majority of Canadians see the value of the Senate. To say that it is useless and does absolutely nothing is just not fair.

The Senate has done many studies and reports of great value. There was reference to a couple of them in the last hour of debate. There have been reports regarding poverty in Canada, mental health, palliative care. The Senate has taken upon itself to investigate these issues and to provide information and input in terms of government policy, policy which could save millions of dollars.

One concern that was mentioned earlier by a New Democratic member of Parliament was the cost of $100 million. The NDP has no problem increasing the number of members of Parliament from 308 to 338 which has a substantial cost. Those members thought there should be even more members of Parliament. The cost of the Senate is not necessarily the issue. The bigger issue is the value. There are a great many Canadians who, if provided the opportunity to be representatives in the Senate, could serve our country well.

I have had the opportunity to sit down with Senator Carstairs. I have had the opportunity to listen to other senators present at an all-party committee. What sort of feedback was provided and some of the things that came from the committee can be found in the Manitoba Hansard. A Senate page and several senators and lay people participated at the committee. What members of all political parties found was interesting was that there was a sense that the Senate has some value.

Time is a very scarce commodity for parliamentarians. In fact, time management is a very important issue for each and every one of us in the House. The Senate on occasion represents Canada outside Canada and has done notable work on the democracy front. I am aware of some of the efforts Senator Carstairs has been involved in personally as a senator representing Canada. She has gone abroad to countries like the Philippines on a democracy watch, to look at why some individuals are incarcerated. I have heard many touching stories of how our senators have gone abroad to represent Parliament and Canadians.

Let us look at the types of appointments to the Senate that we have seen in the past. Who would question the appointment of Senator Dallaire? He is an incredible individual who has a great deal to offer in the Senate chamber and in committees. His position as a senator affords better opportunities to travel across Canada and talk about the issues that are important to all Canadians.

There is a great deal of value to the Senate. Some members have said there are premiers and MLAs to ensure that regional interests are being represented. I will use the Canadian Wheat Board as a great example. There are three prairie premiers and I would challenge each and every one of them to come to the House of Commons committees. Where were they on the whole issue of saving the Canadian Wheat Board? There was representation from at least a couple of senators who wanted to deal with this issue. They see it as a regional issue.

I do not have any problem with Senate reform; in fact, I encourage it. Let us recognize that in order to achieve Senate reform we have to look at it in terms of changes to the Constitution. Today, the vast majority of Canadians do not want us to be debating the Constitution and the need for constitutional reform. They want us to be talking about jobs, the economy, health care, and seniors' pensions. Those are the issues they want us to be talking about today.

The government has brought forward a bill. It says it is about democratic reform and that in order to achieve this the provinces are going to have to pay for the election of senators inside each province. In my province and from the task force that I was on, I can tell the government, and it can do its own consultation with the New Democrats and the Conservatives there, the feeling is that Ottawa should be paying for the election of senators.

The government needs to refocus on the whole idea of Senate reform. Today, I think we need to focus on the issues that matter most to Canadians, the issues which I just mentioned.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the comments by the member for Winnipeg North.

He spoke a lot about the Senate and about senators. The NDP agrees that some senators do good work; however, we would like to see the institution itself abolished.

In terms of the value of the Senate, does the member think that the Senate is democratic as it is right now, in light of the fact that in November 2010, the Senate simply overturned the climate change bill that was passed by the majority of the House of Commons?

I would like to hear what the member thinks about that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the problem with the New Democrats is they have an issue of consistency and an issue with regard to hypocrisy. At the end of the day, the New Democrats, because they believe they can capture more votes by slamming the Senate, says who cares about the real value of the Senate, that it does not matter. They believe they can score a political votes.

The reality of the situation is, and even one of the member's colleagues earlier today said this, that 35% or 36% of Canadians support abolishing the Senate. However, a majority of Canadians see the value of the Senate, unlike the New Democrats.

We recognize the importance in the role that the Senate can play into the future. We in the Liberal Party are not prepared to write off the future of the Senate because the New Democrats feel that they can score a few political votes as a result of the position they have taken.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when I gave my remarks, my friend heard me reference section 27, which would allow contributions to the Senate campaign to be made in accordance with the laws of the territory or the province. There would be no continuity. Money could come, in many cases, from anyone, any corporation, any organization, even from outside of Canada. I see this as an end run around current campaign contribution law.

Does the member have the same concern as I, that with these kinds of irregularities in the law and no continuity whatsoever, we will be in a perpetual state now of fundraising and spending pre-writ and post-writ throughout the next years following the passage of the legislation, should it pass?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that would have to be taken into consideration is this. If we move toward any form of elected Senate and we dissolve the power or the authority to see those senators getting elected to the provinces, there will be a very important aspect in terms of spending limits and the degree to which a senator will be able to receive corporate or union donations. There will be a whole new realm of responsibilities regarding the finances.

The legislation before us does not really touch on that. This is just a thought that the Prime Minister had so he could go back to western Canada and say that the government wanted more democracy and this bill would do that.

The bill falls short by a long shot. If the Prime Minister were legitimately concerned and wanted to make a difference, he would first deal with the most important issues, such as jobs, health care and so forth. However, this will really involve constitutional reform.

[Laurin Liu, NDP, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we know that the Conservatives did not consult the provinces to see whether they agreed with the provisions of this bill. In addition, Quebec has called this bill unconstitutional. The provincial government said that it would appeal the matter in court if this bill were passed without prior consultation of the provinces. According to an Angus Reid poll conducted in July 2011, 71% of Canadians are in favour of holding a referendum to decide the future of the Senate. The NDP thinks that the government should hold a referendum to ask the Canadian public whether it wants to abolish the Senate. Why does the hon. member not agree with that?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good point. In a nutshell, we would have figured the government would have conducted consultations.

With regard to the provinces conducting elections, under the bill that cost would be passed on to the provinces. The provinces would have to come up with the funding.

I was on the task force for the province Manitoba. In the dialogue we had with the Conservatives and the NDP, they insisted that Ottawa should pay for it, not the provinces. We can tell the government really has not done the consultation that one would have expected prior to introducing the bill to the chamber.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague from Winnipeg to do one thing. He should go to a local tavern, legion or Lions Club in his riding, and without the assistance of Google, a BlackBerry or anything, sit down and ask the first person he sees if he or she can name the senators from Manitoba. I will guarantee, if not set up, the person may get one, if any at all. It shows us that most Canadians have no idea who is in the Senate.

It is not a question of Canadians wanting a Senate like this, they do not understand the Senate. They do not give a second thought to the Senate. For the hon. member to say that the majority of Canadians really want a reformed Senate, I think he has his facts all wrong. I challenge him to do what I have asked him to do and report back his findings to the House.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I invite the member to come to Winnipeg North and we will host a public meeting so he can hear first hand.

I suggest that if he goes into a local legion or a local hall, he will find a good number of people cannot even list their school trustees, their local city councillors or their members of Parliament, which might be a little difficult on our egos.

Generally speaking, we have to cut a little slack, provide a few more facts on the table, approach it with an open mind and see the value that the Senate could contribute in the future. That is the challenge, and I know it is a big challenge for the New Democratic Party.

The House resumed from November 14 consideration of the motion that Bill C-7, An Act respecting the selection of senators and amending the Constitution Act, 1867 in respect of Senate term limits, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[François Pilon, NDP, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-7, An Act respecting the selection of senators and amending the Constitution Act, 1867 in respect of Senate term limits.

This bill would limit the terms of senators appointed after October 14, 2008, to a maximum of nine years. Furthermore, under this bill, the provinces and territories would have the opportunity to hold elections, at their own expense, to determine the names that would be given to the Prime Minister for consideration. The problem is that the Prime Minister would not be required to choose senators from this list. This is yet another wonderful example of a waste of public money by our friends on the other side of the House.

What is more, if a nominee is not appointed to the Senate by the sixth anniversary of that person's election, a new election would be necessary, resulting in even more public money being wasted. It is fun to spend someone else's money, is it not?

What we are proposing on this side of the House is clear. Our party wants to abolish the Senate, which is a position we have always held. We are calling on the government to hold a referendum asking the Canadian public whether they are in favour of abolishing the Senate.

In addition, when this bill was introduced for the first time in June 2011, the Conservative senators clearly said that they would oppose all attempts by the federal government to limit their terms. And they are the ones who have the last word, as always.

The Premier of Ontario, Dalton McGuinty, and the Premier of Nova Scotia have publicly expressed their support for abolishing the Senate. The Premier of British Columbia, Christy Clark, has said that the Senate, as an institution, no longer serves any useful purpose within our Confederation. The Government of Quebec has deemed this bill to be unconstitutional. In fact, it has stated that it will go to court if the provinces are not consulted before Bill C-7 is passed. Clearly, passing this bill without consulting the provinces would once again demonstrate the federal government's willingness to impose its views on the provinces, as it has so often done in the past few months.

Now, why are we in favour of abolishing the Senate rather than reforming it? First, there has not been an upper chamber in any of the provinces since 1968 and their legislative systems have not crumbled as a result. On the contrary, all the provinces are operating very well without a senate.

Second, the idea to reform the Senate is not a new one. Since 1900, there have been no fewer than 13 attempts to reform the Canadian Senate, with a brilliant success rate of 0 out of 13. And no wonder, since the Senate always has the last word.

Third, Canadians' interest in this issue is growing. In fact, according to a survey conducted by Angus Reid in July 2011, 71% of Canadians were in favour of holding a referendum about the future of the Senate. The same survey found that 36% of Canadians are in favour of completely abolishing the Senate, which is a sharp jump of 25% as compared to 2010. We therefore feel that Canadians must be consulted on this issue since the Senate is their democratic institution and, as a result, they are the ones who have the right to decide what will happen to the upper chamber.

This bill has some serious shortcomings in terms of legitimacy. First, according to the provisions of the bill, senators will still not be accountable to Canadians.

The fact that senators will only be granted one nine-year term means that they will never have to answer to the public for decisions made during their term. In addition, they will have the right to a pension when they leave the Senate, paid for, of course, by the taxpayers.

Second, passing this bill would create a strange situation in the upper chamber. Certain senators would be elected and others not, so how would the unelected senators justify their legitimacy and actions to their elected colleagues?

Third, as I mentioned earlier in my speech, the government has not consulted the provincial governments about the provisions in this bill. Neither has it consulted the public, and only 39% of people voted for the Conservatives on May 2. Despite all this, those on the other side of the House are once again dumping the cost and responsibility on the provincial governments and taking all the credit.

Finally, since the Senate would have roughly the same powers as the House of Commons, an elected Senate would have more legitimacy in terms of tabling bills or opposing House bills. That could paralyze the political system, as is the case in the United States, where the House of Representatives and the Senate are often locked in a power struggle that completely paralyzes the American government.

That summarizes a few of the arguments proving that Senate reform, as proposed by the Conservatives, is problematic and that the solution is to abolish the Senate.

To conclude, we have seen over the course of the past few minutes how passing Bill C-7 would create a significant number of problems in our political system, and these problems could easily be eliminated by abolishing Canada's Senate.

I invite the hon. members to join with me and the members of the official opposition and vote against Bill C-7.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, I wish to congratulate my hon. colleague from Laval—Les Îles on his speech on the bill. I have a simple question for him.

The Prime Minister is under no obligation to appoint someone who has been elected by a province or territory. This bill therefore does not change how senators are appointed, since the Prime Minister is still free to choose whomever he wants to appoint to the position of senator.

In the member's opinion, if the Prime Minister can do whatever he likes when it comes to appointing senators, does this bill change anything?

[François Pilon, NDP, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Nickel Belt for the question.

Clearly, reforming the Senate was likely one of the Conservatives' election promises. For months now, they have been harping on about how they want to keep their promises. However, as it stands, this Senate reform allows the government to change nothing. Tomorrow morning, it could choose not to appoint someone who was elected and give all the Senate appointments to its buddies, as it does now. This changes absolutely nothing, if that is what the Prime Minister wants to do.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am having some difficulty understanding what the official position is of the NDP with respect to the Senate. I believe that its position is that it wants to abolish the Senate.

Does the NDP believe that we should reopen the Constitution and that the Prime Minister and the premier should sit down and find out if there is enough will within the country to abolish the Senate? I do not believe it is the position of the Government of Quebec that the Senate be abolished.

Is that the position of the NDP, that we should reopen the Constitution and have a national debate over whether we should kill the Senate?

[François Pilon, NDP, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I said in my speech, the first thing we need to do is hold a referendum to see what Canadians think.

If we do not want to reopen the Constitution, we can simply stop appointing senators. That way, the Senate would gradually disappear on its own, without our having to reopen the Constitution.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are talking about the future of and major plans for our democracy, such as the number of seats in this House, for instance.

Altogether, we will have debated this bill for a few weeks. I would like to know what my colleague thinks of the practice of reducing the number of people giving their opinions, both within Parliament and outside these walls. I wonder if my colleague could elaborate on this.

[François Pilon, NDP, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question.

It has been clear since our return in September that the government wants to limit our interventions in order to make the public less and less aware of what goes on here. That is truly its intention.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, my question is about the difference between provincial legislatures and Parliament.

Within provinces, there is much less diversity than across the country. It seems to me that the country needs a chamber that can balance the interests and the powers of different regions. The Senate, to me, is the place where there can be a little bit more balance.

I think that is why Quebec is not necessarily in favour of abolishing the Senate, and I wonder if my hon. colleague would comment on that.

[François Pilon, NDP, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question.

Indeed, under normal circumstances that is how it should be, but we know that during the last Parliament, the Conservatives used that to pass bills here and then once the bills got to the Senate, they just lingered there until the election.

There are so many things in limbo in the Senate right now that it has really become ineffective.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-7.

When we speak to a bill, we often have to look at where we are coming from to see where we want to go. To begin, I would like to look at where the government is coming from in introducing this bill. It seems to be gambling on the fact that it can change the way the lists are organized without touching the Constitution. There is nothing to say that things will work out that way or that the provinces will accept this. There could very well be a significant legal deficit from the get-go.

What is more, the government wants to perpetuate partisanship in the Senate. It is already not fulfilling its role, and now the government wants to make partisan electoral lists. I am not convinced that the Senate could provide a counterbalance to the House of Commons for the regions in that case.

It is important to underscore that this bill is very mechanical, in that the vast majority of the clauses tell the provinces how to hold an election to create a list of people who could potentially be appointed to the Senate. The government is shifting the rather high cost of all this to the provinces. What is more, the Prime Minister might suggest names to be included on the list.

In this regard, I would like to point out something that is unique to Quebec. There are electoral divisions for senators, of which there is no mention. In other words, in a province such as Quebec, there would have to be elections in 24 districts in order to comply with the current Constitution, whereas elsewhere elections would be held at the provincial level. This would be more expensive for Quebec and evidently no one is footing the bill. That is also an important point.

We should note that Senate elections could take place at the same time as municipal or provincial elections. I am not sure that this is necessarily a good thing. For example, in 2008, when I was campaigning federally, a provincial byelection was also being held in one part of my riding. Quite simply, in this part of the riding, people did not know if they were dealing with a candidate for a provincial or a federal election. I am not sure that democracy will be well served by adding a Senate election.

These are just some of my thoughts, but I would like to take a step back.

The history of the Senate is rather special. The Senate as we know it in Canada is a hybrid of the British House of Lords, with its unelected senators appointed by the Governor General upon the recommendation of the Prime Minister, and the U.S. Senate, with its equitable representation of all regions. This means that our Senate is unique and that there are not many like it.

The groundwork for the Senate as we know it was laid at the Charlottetown Conference and especially at the Quebec Conference held in October 1864. Six of the 14 days of the Quebec Conference were spent on the concept of the Senate. There were debates. Even back then there were discussions about an elected Senate versus an unelected Senate. There is nothing new today; we are rehashing past arguments. The Fathers of Confederation chose an unelected Senate. They had their reasons.

All that we can say about that is that our current Senate was not created with much enthusiasm. I would like to read a description of senators and the Senate.

Senators are appointed by the Governor General on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. [Everyone knows that.] Senators represent regions and provinces in order to balance the representation in the House of Commons. Less populated regions have a stronger voice in the Senate so as to ensure representation for regional and minority interests.

That is the goal. But in reality, we have never seen that. What we have seen is partisan appointment after partisan appointment, to the point where we have never seen the Senate play the role it was meant to have, which is to defend the interests of the regions. Instead, it is a chamber that may or may not support a government, depending on what party holds the majority in the Senate. The upper chamber has become nothing but a partisan stronghold. The Conservatives did indirectly what they could not do directly when, in past parliaments, they defeated certain bills that were passed here but did not pass in the Senate for partisan reasons. The Senate should be thought of as the upper chamber, a chamber of sober second thought, but instead it is a purely partisan chamber. And so we are left to wonder what we are doing with an institution that does not fulfill its role and that, in fact, has rarely fulfilled it.

I would like to address an important point. Suppose this bill is passed. We would then have two chambers made up of elected members. Would we then have a competition? Since everyone would be legitimately elected, would there be competition between the two chambers, something like what we see in the United States where the system becomes paralyzed when the majorities are not the same in both chambers? Is that what we are heading for? Are we headed for an American-style Senate that could, in some cases, paralyze the work of the House of Commons and the running of the country as we see south of the border? This is a very important question to consider.

The other thing that concerns me about this issue is that the talk always focuses on the people who would be elected. There is never any mention of how many positions or who or when. Might this result in a power struggle between the government and various provinces? For example, suppose a given province decided to hold an election and presented fewer people than the number of positions to be filled or just enough people. What happens in that situation? There might then be a power struggle between the Prime Minister—or the Governor General, obviously—and the provinces. We would once again be back to a model that creates tension between the various levels of government. I do not think our objective here in this House is to create new kinds of tension between the various levels of government. I do not think we want to go in that direction.

I would like to discuss the historic position of the Government of Quebec in a bit more detail, and I would like to begin by quoting one of the Fathers of Confederation, George Brown. He said:

Our Lower Canadian friends [he is talking here about Quebec] have agreed to give us representation by population in the Lower House, on the express condition that they would have equality in the Upper House. On no other condition could we have advanced a step.

Even before 1867, there was tension between what was then Lower Canada and the other groups in the federation. Quebec insists on the assurance that any changes are constitutional and not partisan.

I would like to continue, but I see that my time is up.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, if we were to reform the Senate, if the Senate were less partisan, if senators were appointed by provincial premiers, if the seats were attributed by region and political party, would by colleague still be in favour of abolishing the Senate?

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very interesting question. History has shown us that when appointments are made by small groups, when we give the party in power the choice to make appointments, all successive governments—both Liberal and Conservative—have made strictly partisan appointments. If we give governments permission to make partisan appointments, the Senate can certainly not fulfill its role. So I do not have much faith in this hypothesis.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Louis-Hébert on his speech on this bill. We must not forget that the Liberals and the Conservatives have always appointed Liberal or Conservative senators to raise money for their parties. They have appointed candidates who were defeated in elections: candidates whom Canadians did not want as representatives. The government then appointed them to the Senate to raise money for its own party. Their expenses are paid by Canadians. I would like my colleague to comment on the fact that senators are appointed to raise money for the Conservative and Liberal parties.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague has raised a very important problem. It shows that we have hit rock bottom. “Rock bottom” is my polite way of sharing how I feel about partisan appointments. The fathers of Confederation wanted a chamber of sober second thought, a chamber of people who could reflect and serve as a sort of counterbalance. Those were great principles. However, in reality, as time passes we get further and further away from these principles and it all becomes shamelessly partisan. It is completely unacceptable.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. NDP member a question about equity within Parliament. Former Liberal prime ministers have had to appoint senators in order to have a more equitable Parliament, that is, one with more women in the Senate. Unfortunately, the current Prime Minister's senate appointments have reduced the proportion of female senators.

Does my colleague not see having more women representing Canadians as one of the values of the Senate?

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question, because it gives me a chance to correct something. As I said, the Senate was initially supposed to represent the regions, but it was also supposed to represent minorities. The hon. member points out another problem with the upper house: groups that are generally under-represented are even more so in the Senate. This is just further proof that the Senate is no longer fulfilling its role.

[José Nunez-Melo, NDP, Laval, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very proud to rise here today to speak to Bill C-7. I would also like to recognize the speeches, questions and all the comments made by the hon. members for Laval—Les Îles, Nickel Belt and Louis-Hébert. I would also like to draw attention to the efforts of the hon. member for Mississauga—Streetsville. He has made a remarkable effort to evade the issue we are debating here today in the House, by asking an unrelated question regarding what the NDP has always proposed and maintained regarding abolishing the Senate, that is, that the government should hold a referendum on the matter.

I will summarize what the bill is proposing. It proposes limiting Senate terms to nine years, especially for senators appointed after October 14, 2008. Nonetheless, if a senator cannot carry out his or her term for nine continuous years, the term is interrupted and the person may be summoned again for a period equivalent to nine years less the portion of the term already served. That is quite something.

The provinces and territories would have the opportunity to hold elections, at their own expense. Nonetheless, the Prime Minister is in no way obligated to appoint a person who has been elected. There is an inconsistency there. Further in the bill it says that if the elected senator is not appointed within six years, the time expires and new elections have to be held. This will result in a duplication of the cost. That is rather inconsistent.

In the backgrounder we see that this is the third time the Conservatives have tried to introduce this bill. During the previous sessions, heated debates were held on this subject and then prorogation or dissolution of the House killed the bill.

We want to reaffirm that the official opposition proposes completely abolishing the Senate. We know full well that since 1968 most of the provinces have abolished their upper houses and things work very well without them. We also know that, in the current context and with the system already in place, the House of Commons, with elected members of Parliament, can manage the work quite well. It can create legislation in Canada that is truly representative of all citizens, in every riding, who elect the MPs.

We all know the origin of the Senate. What was its purpose at the time it was created? As the hon. member for Louis-Hébert explained, we know it is a legacy of the English crown.

In addition, I have here some of the Prime Minister's comments. He said that it is a relic of the 19th century or something to that effect. Reforming the Senate in order to elect senators does not make sense.

If the government really wanted to reform and keep the Senate or upper house, the parties would be prepared to support him provided that he holds a public referendum on this matter. Polls have been conducted. It is not official, but we already know that 71% of Canadians want a referendum. We often hear the hon. Conservative members say that they were given a strong mandate with 39% of the vote. If I had to compare, I would say that there is a big difference between 39% and 71%, which amounts to very strong support for a referendum.

In conclusion, I would like to again thank the hon. NDP opposition members. We will continue to fight to defeat this bill, to abolish the Senate or, in the worst case, to hold a public referendum to settle this matter. We have to be done with this.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member very ably outlined the concerns that New Democrats have with the legislation that is before us. The member referenced the need for public input on a decision that would radically change how we govern ourselves.

In previous Parliaments, what we have seen from the other place, for example, is the New Democrats' climate change accountability bill which was passed by the House of Commons was defeated in the Senate without any discussion, any debate, any calling of witnesses. This points to why we speak so firmly and loudly against the Senate.

On the issue of public consultation, could the member elaborate on why he thinks the Conservative government refuses to take this very important question to the public?

[José Nunez-Melo, NDP, Laval, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question. I was mainly referring to the minister of state who introduced this bill. The government's objective is somewhat illogical. It is proposing to reform a law that dates back to 1867 so that the appointment process for senators is kept secret. The Prime Minister would retain his right to veto an appointment or to make recommendations to the Governor General. This really is not the sign of a true democracy. That is what should be kept in mind in this chamber and even in the Senate.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have been talking to my constituents about this issue. Everyone agrees that the Senate serves a purpose: it is used to recycle mediocre candidates who lose their election campaigns. The Senate is used to appoint extreme right-wing militants who insult defence lawyers. Everyone agrees that we should not talk too much for fear of waking them up.

There is something else that the government is missing. If we were to play the game, to recruit candidates for potential Senate elections and we were to come up with a list, what would the Prime Minister and the Governor General do? Would they appoint them? That is what I wonder.

[José Nunez-Melo, NDP, Laval, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his eloquent comments.

In response to his comments about what his constituents think, I can say that my constituents are concerned about the same things. This poll seems to show that 71% of Canadians support holding a referendum because they do not really see the relevance of the current process for appointing senators.

As we have just heard, the purpose of the current process is to get partisan people to support bills and to find people who share their ideology—their “idiocracy”—and to support something that looks like a crooked political system.

We are still in favour of abolishing the Senate because this chamber of elected members here, as in the other provinces, would help Canada be the best country it can be.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to enter into this debate on what is surely a relic of centuries gone by that has long since outlived its usefulness in this country.

I must also comment that the silence from the other side of this House is deafening. This is a government bill, yet only the official opposition seems to have anything to say about it. What does that tell us about where democracy is in this country?

Our comments are valuable and, in my opinion, are closer to the feelings of the Canadian public than is the bill. We believe the public generally does not wish the Senate to continue. Canadians do not believe, in our opinion, that the Senate serves a useful purpose. They believe it is merely a place for a government, as we have discovered in recent times, to undo the will of the elected people of Canada, meaning the members here in this Parliament. We believe that if it were put to a vote, the result would be that the Senate should be abolished.

What should the government do? It should not propose this kind of legislation.

The Prime Minister has talked on a number of occasions about the uselessness of the Senate. However, if we want the true opinion of Canadians, we should take the true opinion of Canadians, and if we want to take the true opinion of Canadians, we should hold a referendum to determine exactly what Canadians feel belongs in the government. We believe that Canadians feel the Senate should be abolished.

If it is in fact not the will of the people that the Senate should be abolished, then reform is needed, but we do not do this kind of reform without consulting with the provinces. The provinces, Quebec in particular, have stated quite clearly that they need to be consulted on any kind of constitutional reform. Quebec, in fact, is threatening to take the government to court over the fact that it was not consulted. Other provinces have stated quite clearly that the Senate should be abolished.

In any event, no consultation took place. There was no consultation about the expense of elections, no consultation about the methods of electing senators, no consultation about the term limits. No consultation about any of this was taken with the provinces prior to the bill's coming before the House.

The law itself, as proposed by the government, states:

And whereas Parliament wishes to maintain the essential characteristics of the Senate within Canada's parliamentary democracy as a chamber of independent, sober second thought;

What does that mean?

First there is the word “independent”. It flies in the face of those very words to read the rest of the government's bill, which demands that if political parties exist, they nominate candidates; that is, candidates must be nominated by political parties.

“Independent” also would imply that the government already believes that an essential characteristic of the Senate is that it be independent. However, as we have experienced most recently, in a non-independent and very partisan way, the Senate has killed legislation that was passed by this House, so that is clearly not what is happening. It is very clear that the government does not propose that the Senate remain independent. Indeed, it is not independent today.

It has also killed climate change bills twice, again in a very partisan way, with the Conservatives voting against the rest. As well, it killed a bill to provide generic drugs to Africa, again in a very partisan way, so to say that it is independent flies in the face of what is actually happening.

Next is “sober second thought”. It implies that this House is not sober. I am offended by that suggestion, because we are not a House of drunkards or laggards. I think the Conservatives would be just as offended it that were the implication. We are, in fact, giving sober thought to everything we do. To suggest that we need somebody else to look over our shoulders and give it sober thought is an affront.

Finally, in terms of independence, we have one of the senators appointed by the government from the elected version of the Alberta government, Bert Brown, suggesting that:

Every senator in this caucus needs to decide where their loyalty should be and must be. The answer is simple; our loyalty is to the man who brought us here, the man who has wanted Senate reform since he entered politics, the Rt. Hon. [Prime Minister].

That clearly shows what the government intends with regard to independence: loyalty is to the Prime Minister, not to some sense of independence nor to the people who, if this bill were to pass, would elect those senators.

In the bill we also discover the creation of a real dog's breakfast of senators. There would be three levels of senators as a result of the bill. There will be senators appointed for life before the 40th Parliament elections; those senators will continue to be appointed for life, and for some of them life will be quite long. It could be 14, 15 or 16 years in some cases. Those senators will continue well beyond any elections and well beyond the term limits of elected senators.

Then there are the senators who were appointed since the last election. Those senators will serve an additional nine years. Some of them will leave before nine years because they will reach age 75, but others will continue for their full nine years. They would have their terms shortened as a result of this bill by an average of about 13 years. There are a whole lot of senators who thought they were there for a long time; as a result of this bill, they would be there for a much shorter period of time.

Then there are the senators who would be elected in the future. Those individuals would have terms of exactly nine years.

That is an incredible dog's breakfast. In Ontario, where I am from, the Ontario government could have an election for 20 senators. Because of the bill, unless those 20 senators were actually appointed by the government, some of them would expire before they were ever appointed. Then there would have to be another election, because their elections only last six years. Unless there were enough appointments to fill those elections, the dog's breakfast would continue.

Finally, I noticed that there is nothing in this bill concerning election financing. The government has made a few statements in the House about its wish to get the government out of financing elections; it feels that parties themselves should look after the financing of their members of Parliament and senators. However, this bill says nothing about it. Apparently the rules of the province or the municipality in which the election was to be held would determine whether election financing would be limited or whether unions or corporations would be allowed to donate to the campaigns of these senators. Depending on the province and the municipality, that could be large sums of money. Again, it flies in the face of what the government thinks is a reform of democracy.

On the accountability portion, there would no accountability. They would be elected for nine years, and they could not come back; therefore, no matter what they did in those nine years, they would have no accountability whatsoever to the electorate who put them there. That is not a democratic principle that we adhere to.

Finally, the Prime Minister would not be obliged to appoint any individual. Should Ontario or any other province elect a bunch of senators, the Prime Minister would retain the power to say, “No thanks. I have friends I want to appoint.”

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, on the one hand the NDP would allow the country to break up if a majority of Quebeckers, 50% plus one, were to vote for separation, yet when a majority of Canadians see value in having the Senate, the NDP does not believe that Canada deserves keeping it. How does the member reconcile those two points?

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Madam Speaker, they are so different as to not require a discussion. Our point is that we believe that Canadians believe the Senate should be abolished. Our point is that if nothing else happens, there should at least be an opportunity for the people of Canada to give the government direction on exactly what should happen with the Senate. We believe that the people of Canada will tell the government that the Senate is no longer necessary, that it is a relic, and that it should not continue.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from York South—Weston made a comment about sober second thought, meaning that maybe someone from the opposite side of the House thinks that we are all drunk here, but we are not.

A couple of weeks ago we had a motion in the House to ban asbestos. The Conservatives, even the good doctor over there, voted against all science that clearly indicates asbestos causes cancer. They voted against the Canadian Cancer Society, against doctors and against Canadians. They actually stood in the House and said that asbestos does not cause cancer.

Since my colleague mentioned sober second thought, does he think that members on the opposite side of the House were not sober when they voted against the motion to ban asbestos?

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Madam Speaker, the question of asbestos is a very troubling one in the House. A very dear friend of mine died of mesothelioma and very likely it was as a result of the inhalation of asbestos fibres in an old building where he worked. It is absolutely shocking that the government would continue the mining and the manufacture of asbestos products in this country for sale elsewhere knowing what it knows.

Were we not sober when we made that decision? We certainly were not thinking straight. But when the bill gets to the Senate, because it is not independent, sober second thought in the Senate, it is unlikely the Senate will overturn that decision by the government. That is why the Senate needs to be abolished.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Louis-Hébert has time for a very quick question.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to come back to the part of my colleague's speech that had to do with financing these election campaigns, where nothing is clearly worded and the rules seem to be flexible.

I would like him to talk about the inequities there.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Madam Speaker, absolutely. We have a situation where members of this chamber have strict limits on who can donate and the parties that we represent have very limited access to financing, made more limited still by the government's recent budget. And yet, for a senatorial election, the bill is silent except to say that generally speaking the rules of a provincial election, should the province choose to hold it in that fashion, or the rules of a municipal election should the municipality choose to hold it in that fashion, would apply. That presents huge inequities. The Senate elections could then have large donations from corporations, unions and individuals.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am not necessarily pleased to take part in the debate on this legislation, because the government is trying to force it down our throat. We, on this side, simply want a real indepth debate on this issue, but the other side wants to very quietly pass a bill dealing with the future of our country and of our parliamentary system. Our parliamentary system exists to discuss bills that will change our country, settle issues and bring solutions. Today, and in recent weeks, we have been presented with what seem primarily to be partisan tools for the party in office, while we on this side want to deal with issues.

Bill C-7 is about the Senate, the chamber of sober second thought. This makes me laugh because, historically, the Senate has never played that role. It has never done its job. Right now, they are trying to trade four quarters for a dollar. They want to change a Senate that does not do its job and whose members are appointed on a partisan basis. Under the new process, senators will still be appointed in a partisan fashion. An election will take place, but the candidates will have been selected in a partisan fashion.

Today's debate on the Senate gets me thinking more seriously about our democracy, our division of powers, our parliamentary system, our form of representation, our electoral practices, our media—which are part of our democracy—and about the Conservative government's attitude towards democracy.

I agree that we can choose the type of democracy that we want in Canada. Everyone agrees. This is a healthy debate and it is about our future. However, whose decision is it to make? Getting back to democracy, about one person in three voted for the current government. Do they all agree with the whole agenda proposed by the Conservative Party? For example, do they all support abolishing the firearms registry? Do they all support Senate reform? Do they all support the justice bill and all the other bills that were introduced recently with very short debates and closure?

What we are asking for regarding our democracy is that people be able to take part in this debate and express their concerns. This must be done through a referendum. Other countries have held referendums on important national issues. We should do the same.

As I was saying earlier, our Senate is there essentially to ensure there is some sort of division of powers, to ensure some representation of the regions and minorities in Parliament. Nonetheless, this has never been the case and now the government does not want to do anything about it.

I want to come back to the division of powers. As far as our electoral practices are concerned, in addition to the related costs, if we ask our provinces to choose candidates for the Senate elections, we are simply transferring the partisan decision to the provinces instead of to the federal government, but it remains a partisan decision nonetheless. What is more, the Prime Minister in power when the elections are held and the nominees are chosen has the last word. In the end, nothing changes.

If we look at what happens in other countries where there are two chambers, we see that in the United States, it is a source of division that borders on chaos.

In the event that the two chambers do not agree, there will be constant obstruction and a host of strategies to defeat what the government is proposing in the other chamber, and even sometimes, for partisan reasons, to oppose certain bills, despite how much they matter to the entire country, simply because it was the other institution that introduced them.

In my opinion, this could happen here if the government goes ahead with this reform. We have to avoid that situation, especially considering there is going to be an election in the House of Commons every four or five years and in the Senate every nine years. The elections will therefore not be held at the same time and people will not necessarily vote for governments that are able to work together.

I have some examples. A constituent in my riding told me he voted for the Conservative Party in 2011 for one reason only and that was because he wanted to get rid of the firearms registry. The New Democratic Party wants to keep the registry. He then said that once that was done, since he is not in favour of any of the Conservative Party's other plans, he would vote for an intelligent government. He did not come right out and say it was our party, but he was not referring to the Conservative Party he voted for in 2011.

There are always going to be attitudes like that and we must not judge people for it. But if people vote for a party for one reason only and that creates situations where the parties cannot agree, it will always be a source of conflict and chaos in our parliamentary system.

On the question of the costs associated with this reform, we see that the plan is to transfer the costs of selecting nominees to the provinces. It talks about our democracy, our federal parliamentary system, but the plan is to transfer the costs to the provinces. To me, that is illogical and almost absurd. If we are not prepared to make changes to our parliamentary system and at the same time assume responsibility for the repercussions in terms of the cost, then let us find other solutions or let us not do it.

As well, a second chamber, which I think is pointless for the reasons I have stated, would also cost even more, because over a long period of time, more senators will have spent time in that chamber and more senators will be entitled to retire with a pension paid for by that chamber. Those are all costs associated with this reform.

The problem right now is that we have a government that is proposing something that it wants to slip past us. As I have often said, we are talking about the future. I would like the government to consider that we are talking about something quite important right now and that we have to do more than this; we have to ask the public whether they support it. There may be other methods, but there is one obvious one: a referendum. Every citizen could say what they think. Every citizen could say whether it is a good idea or not and there would be a thorough debate before the referendum on Senate reform was held.

In Canada, a majority of provinces have stated a position and agree with the NDP that this bill is absurd. For example, Dalton McGuinty, Premier of Ontario, and Darrell Dexter, Premier of Nova Scotia, have publicly called for the Senate to be abolished. The premier of British Columbia has said that the Senate plays no useful role in our Confederation. Manitoba has also maintained its position on abolishing the Senate, stating that it had a plan if it happened, but obviously, if it happens, there will be no choice but to live with that decision. So decisions about this have to be made.

Quebec has already called this bill unconstitutional. All Quebec actually wants is separation of powers. That is a debate we should have by holding a referendum.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.

The purpose of this bill is to make changes by proposing a pool of people who might become senators someday. I would like my colleague to say a little about this stealthy change to our parliamentary system and the consequences of this kind of thing. When we do something to a structure like the parliamentary system, we have to look to see where it is going to take us. Here, I am not certain that the government is seeing the big picture. I would like the member from Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord to comment on the big picture we should be looking at when we address this kind of question.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, the consequence of this bill will be to create the illusion that something has been settled, but nothing will have changed. Senators would be elected on a partisan basis. Ultimately, nothing will have changed. Before our democracies were established, one segment of the population made the decisions. Now, everyone does. One segment of the population decided how our parliamentary system was going to operate. Today, I think we have got to a point where everyone must express an opinion. In an election, everyone gives an opinion about the relatively near future. The same should be true for something that is so important and that will last a long time. We are going to be living with this parliamentary system until the next reform. There must be a referendum involving all Canadian citizens.

[François Pilon, NDP, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague spoke a little about the costs associated with this reform. I would like him to speak to one aspect in particular.

In this bill, the costs of electing future senators are going to be foisted onto the provinces. Except that, even once they are elected, these people have no guarantee they will someday be appointed to the Senate. Does my colleague think the provinces will want to get involved in investing money in electing senators without being sure they are going to be appointed someday?

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is my personal opinion, but the provinces might simply propose names. Instead of investing money, they will give the Prime Minister the names of people they know, or people who have an interest in this election. The last word will go to the same person as today: the Prime Minister. He is the one who will decide who participates in the Senate election. It comes down to trading four quarters for a dollar.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord.

Ontario and Nova Scotia have publicly called for the Senate to be abolished. The Premier of British Columbia, Christy Clark, has said that the Senate is useless. Manitoba is in favour of abolishing the Senate. Does my colleague think that the government does not want to hold a referendum to hear the opinion of Canadians because it sincerely believes it will lose?

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, the bill definitely would not pass. We do not know what kind of parliamentary system the people want. They deserve to make that decision and they deserve a thorough debate about the future form of our parliamentary system, our House and our Senate.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleagues, as elected members, have a duty to be accountable, but members of the archaic Senate do not have this moral duty.

This relic is a home for numerous defeated politicians who are appointed for partisan purposes, which was the case for some Conservatives who lost the election and were still rewarded by the Prime Minister. I am not the first person to use the word “relic”. In fact, the Prime Minister himself described the Senate as a relic of the 19th century. Now that he is no longer talking about abolishing it, as he used to do, he wants to reform it based on equally outdated values. Why not donate this relic to the Museum of Civilization?

You do not have to be able to predict the future to know that this bill will fail, as did the 13 other attempts at reform before it. The NDP's long-standing belief in abolishing the Senate dates back to the 1930s, and it has constantly been reaffirmed by the party. Yes, the New Democratic Party will vote against the bill and will voice its desire to abolish the Senate, pure and simple. If the government is wondering about the public's opinion on this, we invite it to ask Canadians to voice their opinion through a referendum.

Here is why this bill is going to end up in the dustbin of history. It is undemocratic. The government wants to limit the tenure of all senators summoned after October 14, 2008 to a maximum of nine years. Considering that these individuals are accountable only to the Prime Minister, this is an invitation to hit and run. Moreover, they are entitled to a pension when they leave the Senate. While elected members must face voters at each election to get their verdict, senators are free to completely reject the opinion of Canadians.

The nine-year term set out in the bill confirms this situation, because even if senators were appointed after being elected, they would have the luxury of behaving as they please, without any obligation to go back before voters. The term “election” thus becomes devoid of any moral compass that is part of democratic duty. Since senators will not be allowed to run twice, how can they be accountable to the public? In this regard, the bill does not change anything in the undemocratic basis of the Senate, whose members are accountable only to the Prime Minister. A senator will only be accountable to the Prime Minister, as has always been the case. The bill only provides that a list be submitted to the Prime Minister. It does not in any way affect his discretionary powers.

Some may argue that the Prime Minister will never dare oppose the public's choice, but recent history has shown that the Prime Minister can violate this principle, as he did on the issue of fixed election dates.

I am going to digress a bit and talk about my thoughts while listening to hon. members and what the majority of people think of the Senate. To most people, the Senate is not a big concern. Except for the fact that it costs a lot of money, people do not wake up in the morning thinking about the Senate. For years, I too did not think about those individuals sitting over there and quietly passing the time while waiting for a well-deserved retirement. I did not think about the Senate until Ms. Verner was appointed there. To me, that was a fundamental violation of the democratic process. Someone who had lost all authority through a democratic process was promoted to the Senate with a golden pension for the rest of her life, this for services rendered to the Conservative government. There is a problem there.

There is a second problem. The Senate blocked two bills passed by a majority of members in a Parliament that required the agreement of all parties in order to make a firm decision. I am referring to Bill C-311, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change, which the Senate killed, and Bill C-393, An Act to amend the Patent Act (drugs for international humanitarian purposes) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act.

In addition to posing a problem of legitimacy, the people appointed to the Senate have begun to kill bills duly passed by a democratically elected assembly. This is starting to get serious. Do we want to continue down that road? The Conservative government is going down a path that is fraught with danger for the future and for democracy.

It has been said the Prime Minister will take into consideration the provincial nominees or the list submitted when elections are held. I am the first to doubt this, and I am convinced that my colleagues and my friends in the NDP and other parties also have serious doubts about that.

Let us imagine for a moment that cross-Canada elections are held for senators. The list of new senators includes Amir Khadr, a symbol of the new Quebec left. This man is a leading light. His views could lead to social progress in Canada. Would the Prime Minister agree to appoint him to the Senate? Never, that is clear.

François Saillant, a champion of Quebec's homeless people, has been involved in every fight to increase social housing in the past 25 years. Would the Prime Minister appoint him if he were on the list? Never.

If Steven Guilbeault were on the list submitted by Canadians, would he be appointed as a senator by the Prime Minister? Of course not. I am convinced that members of the Green Party share my belief. Steven Guilbeault would never be appointed, nor would Laure Waridel of the organization Équiterre. The government does not want supporters of fair trade. We know that trade is unfair in the House. We have to leave it alone.

Would David Suzuki be appointed if he were on the list? I am convinced that the Conservatives would not want to appoint David Suzuki to the Senate.

Would astrophysicist Hubert Reeves be appointed? Would the Prime Minister appoint an astrophysicist, when this party denies scientific facts and scientific actions? Never.

Vivian Labrie founded the Collectif pour un Québec sans pauvreté, which fights to try to get the government to take the reality facing those most in need into account when making decisions. It fights to prevent decisions that will affect the poorest one-fifth of the population. Would this government appoint Ms. Labrie to the Senate? Never.

So this shatters the illusion and the fantasy that the Prime Minister would definitely appoint all of the senators proposed. That is not true. I would like to come back to my speech, which does not necessarily address that, but this raises a question. Basically, is it not dishonest to claim such things, when we all know the political stripes of the people appointed to the Senate?

The Prime Minister is under no obligation to appoint someone who has been elected by a province or territory. This bill therefore does not change how senators are appointed, since the Prime Minister is still free to choose whomever he wants to appoint to the position of senator. How can anyone believe that he will respect the democratic will of the people? He clearly does not understand the notion of democratic accountability. The Conservatives say that the provinces would be able to choose any system they like to elect senators, as long as the system complies with basic democratic principles. The facts show that this government knows very little about basic democratic rules. We cannot help but be cynical, since the government acts as though it was elected by 100% of the population when, clearly, that is not the case.

Quebec has called this bill unconstitutional. The provincial government said that it would go to court if this bill were passed without prior consultation with the provinces. What do the Conservatives want to do, reopen a constitutional debate? What a great way to be put through the wringer.

In closing, I wish I could find the words that would bring this government back to its senses and make it see that this issue must be resolved by the people.

We invite the government to hold a referendum if it is certain about the reform it wants to propose. I remain convinced that all Canadians would like to do away with this relic and relegate the Senate to the Canadian history museum.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite makes the exact point that we are making. This bill would allow for the election of senators. If the individual, who the member was speaking of before, Mr. Suzuki, was interested in becoming a senator, and he might even be a non-partisan senator, who knows, this bill would give him the opportunity to run for that position. It is exactly the democracy that we are advocating for on this side of the House.

Why are the New Democrats opposed to David Suzuki having the ability to run for the Senate?

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, if the hon. member is so fond of David Suzuki, Hubert Reeves, Vivian Labrie and Steven Guilbeault, why did his government not appoint them directly instead of appointing Ms. Verner and other associates involved in the financing of their party? He is all talk.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Madam Speaker, I found that to be a very enlightening and interesting speech.

It is clear that the member on the other side of the House has not read the bill. Whether a person runs for election or not, it does not mean that the person would become a senator. It means the person's name would be put on a list which the Prime Minister could look at. The Prime Minister would have the right to say no according to this bill. The Prime Minister certainly would say no if somebody on that list was someone with whom he vehemently disagreed. He would never appoint the person to the Senate.

Would the member like to comment further on that?

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question.

I did mention people and, if I took the time to talk about them, it is because they actively participate in Canadian debate but the Conservative government will never recognize them as having a vision for Canada's future. This government is lacking a vision for the future, a vision on climate change, trade, industry and energy issues.

In civil society, these people participate in this thought process. However, the members opposite do not. The proof? We are discussing the Senate and no one is rising to speak today. The Conservatives have decided that they are not interested and that everything is fine. They do not act like a majority government but like a government that does not care about Canadians or about the message that the provinces and the people regularly send about these different bills. The Conservatives do what they want. Despite the fact that 70% of people are against some of the provisions they are bringing before the House, the Conservatives are stubborn; they fight and they introduce those provisions.

Clearly, the speeches and the responses that have been given today are really intended to show Canadians the government's infamous way of making a mockery of democracy.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Nickel Belt for a quick question.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to commend the hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord for his wonderful speech about the Senate.

Many provincial premiers have said that the Senate should be abolished. Why does the hon. member think that the government does not hold a referendum to find out what Canadians want to do about the Senate?

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am finding it difficult to get inside the Prime Minister's head. How has he switched from a vision in which he called for abolition of the Senate, when he called the Senate a relic of the past, to a vision of a Senate of elected representatives?

Recently, the Senate has been used for undemocratic purposes and a lot of people on that side of the House are pleased with that undemocratic atmosphere. I have the impression that they want to keep going in that direction and systematically block democratic debate, as we are now seeing in committees and in the House. That would be another way of infringing the prerogatives of Parliament.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to be speaking to the Senate reform bill.

First, let me say that I am very disappointed that the government has put up no speakers. I wonder just how important this bill is to the Conservatives if they have nothing to say.

As members know, New Democrats have long advocated for abolishing the Senate. This has been our position since the 1930s. Very recent polling shows that Canadians are open to having a closer examination of the value of the Senate in the 21st century and that we should carefully look at Senate abolition because it is achievable and it is a balanced solution.

The NDP believes that the Senate is a 19th century institution, an anachronism that is unnecessary in a modern 21st century democracy like Canada's. Senators only sit 90 days of the year and they cost taxpayers over $90 million annually. The Muskoka minister's $50 million pales in comparison. Democracies such as Denmark and New Zealand have long since eliminated their outdated senates. This decision was also undertaken many years ago by our own provincial governments. There are many who support the NDP position, including the premiers of several provinces.

For example, the premier of British Columbia, Christy Clark, stated in May of this year:

I support abolishing the Senate. I don't think the Senate plays a useful role. I think that they've outlived their usefulness to our country.

Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty echoed Ms. Clark's comments:

We think the simplest thing to do is abolish it, and I think, frankly, to reform it in any substantive way is just not possible. We have one elected accountable body that sits in Ottawa for us in the House of Commons. I just don't think we need a second, unelected, unaccountable body.

Even Conservative-friendly premiers condemn the Prime Minister's recent patronage appointments.

Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall said, “It takes away momentum for change at the provincial level and it will probably increase calls that we hear from time to time saying, 'Do we really need this institution?'”

The Senate has become a repository of failed candidates, party fundraisers and professional organizers. These taxpayer subsidized Conservative senators even torpedo legislation passed by the elected members of Parliament. We are talking about bills passed by elected and accountable members of Parliament, such as the late Jack Layton's private member's bill to ensure action on climate change. Also, there was the member for Ottawa Centre's private member's bill to provide affordable AIDS drugs to those suffering in Africa. Both bills were killed by the Senate.

Both of these bills were extremely important and valuable not only to Canadians, but to people around the world. These bills were an opportunity for Canada to shine on the international stage, but the unelected Senate trashed them and left Canadians wondering what on earth has happened to our democracy.

New Democrats would like to abolish the Senate.

In addition to what has already been discussed, this bill has some other problems. It restricts all senators appointed to the Senate after October 14, 2008 to a single, non-renewable nine-year term. Senators would never have to be accountable for campaign promises they made because they would not have to keep them, or for any of the actions that they had taken while in office.

Provinces and territories are given the opportunity to hold elections if they choose. These elections are at the cost of the provinces. The prime minister can then decide if she or he wishes to appoint the senators, but there is absolutely nothing holding the prime minister to appointing anyone who has been elected.

Several provinces have indicated that they have no intention of holding Senate elections. The Province of Quebec has been perfectly clear and called the legislation unconstitutional and said Quebec will launch a provincial court appeal if the bill proceeds without the consultation of the provinces.

The Conservatives and the Liberals seem intent on maintaining an antiquated institution that they have increasingly used for partisan purposes.

New Democrats understand that the Senate is unnecessary and does not serve to further our democracy in any way at all. We will continue our call for a referendum on the abolition of the Senate. In the meantime, we will work hard to expose the dangers that the Conservative agenda on Senate reform pose to the very fabric of our democracy.

Six years ago when the Prime Minister was opposition leader, he knew there was something wrong with an unelected Senate. He thought it was unfair. He called it undemocratic. He also said an appointed Senate, a relic of the 19th century, was what we had. He did not like how the prime minister holds a virtual free hand in the selection of senators. He promised that if he ever got the chance to be the prime minister, he would not name appointed people to the Senate. He insisted that anyone who sits in the Parliament of Canada must be elected by the people he or she represents.

However, the Prime Minister has turned his back on those democratic principles. Instead of solving the problem, he is becoming the problem. The Prime Minister now holds the all-time record for appointing the most significant number of senators in one day. Who are his appointees? The Conservative Party faithful: spin doctors, fundraisers, bagmen, insiders, people such as his former press secretary, his former Conservative Party president, his former national campaign director through two elections, and let us not forget the several defeated Conservative candidates who were rejected by the voters.

The Prime Minister has broken his promise to do politics differently. Not only does he play the same old politics, he plays them better than anyone else, and I mean that in a very negative way.

Last fall the Conservative-dominated Senate was used to veto legislation the Prime Minister simply did not like.

The climate change accountability bill was Canada's only federal climate change legislation. It passed twice in a minority parliament. It was good, solid legislation supported by a majority of elected MPs, legislation embodying the direction Canadians want to take. On November 16, 2010, the Senate defeated Bill C-311 at second reading. There was no committee review or witness hearings. Canada's only legislative effort to fight climate change was gone, killed by the unelected friends of the Prime Minister.

Now unelected Senators seem poised to do the same thing to the NDP labour critic's bill requiring Supreme Court judges to understand both official languages. Former Bill C-232 was duly passed by elected MPs in the previous Parliament, and is now Bill C-208.

Just because someone flipped pancakes for the Conservative Party of Canada does not give that individual the right to override the wishes of elected MPs.

Too often today's Senate is doing partisan work for public money. Speaking of money, Canadians are paying more and more for a discredited institution that does less and less at a time when people are dealing with a slow economic recovery, and the Conservative government is contemplating billions in cutbacks.

Maintaining the Senate costs Canadians around $90 million a year. While folks are looking for jobs and trying to make ends meet when their EI runs out, or scraping by on pensions that do not even cover basic necessities, senators are earning $132,300 a year for a three-day work week. Add in travel and expenses and each senator is costing us about $859,000 a year, all for an institution that will not play any relevant role in the lives of most Canadians.

I can think of a lot of things that do matter to people, such as creating family-supporting jobs, improving public health care, and building decent futures for our kids. Lining the pockets of party insiders just is not high on my or anyone's list.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, one of the things that I hope to address later today in my presentation on this bill is the constitutional difficulties of reforming the Senate. I am particularly attracted to the NDP proposal that the Senate should be abolished.

How does the hon. member for London—Fanshawe and her party contemplate getting around the constitutional aspects of Senate protection within our system? How would we engage the provinces and territories to make this happen?

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, there clearly will be significant challenges to face in terms of the Constitution.

When I was a member of provincial parliament, we looked at the Charlottetown accord, and realized that any time we take on changes to the Constitution, we face real difficulties.

The point is that Canadians have been very clear. This is an antiquated institution that many Canadians are just not willing to pay for any more.

We would consult with Canadians. We would talk to the provinces. We would find a way of doing it and making sure that the concerns of the people across this country were addressed, while respecting their very clear wish that we move into the 21st century and leave this less than sober second thought bunch behind.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, my question concerns the attitude of the government toward the fact that one voter out of three voted for the Conservatives. We have to expect that even some of those voters were opposed to this bill.

I would like my colleague to comment on that. What are the Conservatives trying to do by limiting the number of hours of debate on this bill?

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Yes, Madam Speaker, it is very clear. In the last election the Conservative Party garnered 38% of the vote and the rest of Canadians, 62%, voted for other parties.

I have profound concerns about the democratic nature of that. New Democrats have long proposed proportional representation. We think that is the way to make every vote count.

Even more to the point of the gerrymandering of our democracy, both here in the House with time allocation motions and in committees with all kinds of less than democratic means, the Conservatives are undermining what Canadians believe they have, a democratic state.

One of my real concerns, and I think this has been voiced, is in appointing Conservative-friendly senators. Even when this Conservative government is gone--and let that be soon; it cannot come quickly enough--even after it is long gone, there will be that Conservative Senate interfering with the democratic processes in this House by simply voting down legislation that matters, like Mr. Layton's climate change bill and the bill that would have delivered drugs for people suffering from AIDS, malaria and measles in Africa.

We should be ashamed that happened. Yet we have this legislation in front of us that shows no shame, and in fact supports an institution that has clearly been derelict in any kind of duty to Canadians.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, I do not know if I am really that proud to rise today on the debate of Senate reform because we are not getting Senate reform at all. We are getting Senate stay as it is with a few changes behind the cloak and dagger of what is perceived as Senate reform.

Let me get this straight for the people watching. Only the Conservatives can come up with this. We are going to make the provinces pay for elections. By the way, 40% of people do not vote in a federal election now. I cannot imagine the percentage of people who would love to vote in a Senate election.

Let me get this straight. We would get wonderful people, put their names forward for a Senate election and make the provinces pay for it. For example, if Mr. Smith was elected to be the senator from Nova Scotia, the Prime Minister could say, “No. We don't like that Mr. Smith, the elected person from Nova Scotia. We'll pick someone else.”

Folks will have to help me out with this because I really am missing the so-called democratic reform of this one. If one is going to pick someone else, do it in the first place. It is already being done. Why go to the waste of a sham of a so-called election?

The reality is that every single one of the people in the other chamber is a decent person. I think of Senator Dallaire, Senator Mahovlich, Senator Lang, Senator Meighen and Senator Baker. There are all kinds of them. They are really decent, hard-working, honest people. The premise of the chamber, the so-called chamber of sober second thought--mind, that is not completely gone--is that senators are supposed to peer review legislation that comes from the elected House to ensure that it meets the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of Canada.

In theory, that actually sounds pretty good. We select learned people from around the country to go into the Senate. These are people with life experience in a variety of fields. We use their expertise to peer review our legislation. Then, because they do not have a constituency, per se, they can report on issues facing the country. For example, the Kirby report on mental health was quite good. However, we have to ask ourselves, do we need a publicly funded Senate to produce a report like that? There are probably a lot of private entities out there that may have been able to produce the same report. Senator Kirby also did the 1982 report on the east coast fisheries, and that did not go very well. There is good and bad in both of those reports.

Having said that, they get to peer review executive legislation from the House of Commons. But do they peer review executive legislation from the House of Commons? No, they do not. A classic example is Bill C-311 in a previous Parliament. I am looking at some of my colleagues who were here. It passed the democratically elected House of Commons, went through the committee stage, went through third reading and passed, not once, but twice. Bill C-311 then went to the Senate, where it was supposed to be reviewed, but Bill C-311, the environmental bill from the NDP, did not even get to first base. It did not even get to the clubhouse. It did not even get to the parking lot. Some senators stood and said no. There were no witnesses, no discussion, nothing and the Conservative senators absolutely killed it.

If constituents of Canada vote, they take democracy seriously. We have to ask ourselves, where was the democracy in that? I can guarantee that if that happened to a Conservative bill and New Democrat senators killed it, the Conservatives would be screaming from the rafters. They would be doing what Randy White did, with the mariachi band, in 1995 or 1996, standing in front of the Senate, doing a Mexican salsa. I remember those days very well, how they ridiculed the Senate because a certain Mr. Thompson spent most of his time in Mexico.

[An hon. member]

It was 1997.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Sorry,1997.

I remember when the Reform Party or Canadian Alliance was against the Senate. It wanted a triple-E Senate. That is all gone now. It is finished when the husband of a sitting cabinet minister can be put into the Senate, along with a fundraiser.

This one is beautiful. This one I really love. Fabian Manning--and do not get me wrong, he is a really nice guy, a decent guy--ran in an election and won. He became a member of Parliament. When he ran In the next election, he lost. The Conservatives said, “Don't worry, Mr. Manning, we have a seat for you in the Senate”. The constituents said they did not want him to represent them anymore. However, the Prime Minister said there was a seat for him in the Senate.

About a year or two later, Mr. Manning did the honourable thing and quit. He said he should be an elected member in the House of Commons. That was a very honourable thing for him to do and it was pretty risky too. He ran in the 2011 election and was defeated again. Even though he had quit the Senate, the Conservatives have a revolving door at the Senate, and invited him back in at $130,000 a year. He was twice defeated, not elected by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, in the Avalon Peninsula, and was twice put in the Senate.

The Conservatives talk about Senate reform. It is an embarrassment to the country. Our democratic rights and principles make us a laughing stock. It is unbelievable that the Conservatives can hide behind this Senate bill, which is a sham.

Here is a novel idea: we could abolish it. Ten provinces and three territories operate their jurisdictions very well with one operating democratic body. Bring in proportional representation and have a true census of the vote. If we did that, my hon. colleague from the Green Party, sitting in my old seat 309, would probably have three or four more of her people here. That would be true representation of the popular vote.

We should not forget that even though the Conservatives got 38% of the voting public, 40% of eligible voters did not vote at all. Therefore, how many voters in Canada actually voted for those folks? A lot less than 38% when we consider the number of eligible voters out there.

If we were to bring in true proportional representation, we would have a true say in the House of Commons, reflective of Canadian society. We could do away with the Senate. However, if for whatever reason, the provinces were to say there had to be a Senate, and this is the if--I am a flexible kind of guy; some people call me Gumby--why do we not make the Senate truly independent of government? That would mean it would no longer caucus with the government. Senators would no longer be appointed by the government but by a panel of experts.

We should make the Senate completely independent so that we can get the best of the best and have it independent of Parliament. That way senators would not be beholden, or rubber-stamping legislation, or breaking election laws and having a plea bargain deal, paying the $52,000 and wiping their hands of it. We do not need that from the Senate. It happened.

This is what we get and it is an embarrassment. If we in the NDP were in government and the Conservatives were on this side, they would be standing up screaming at the top of their lungs about the bastions of power, the democratic withdrawal from this country, and shame on the New Democrats for doing that. That is precisely what they are doing. They think they can get away with it. Of course, with their smug majority and their dingwalling efforts, that arrogance is going to come back to haunt them.

My colleague from Calgary and I have been here the same amount of time and he knows what arrogance does to a front bench and what it does to the backbench. If the Conservatives think this arrogant piece of legislation is going to pull the wool over anyone's eyes, and no offence to the sheep out there, it is simply not going to work.

I ask the government to withdraw this bill, to get rid of it. We could save $100 million a year by abolishing the Senate. I mean no offence to the good people over there. I have said many times I have not met an MP or senator that I would not want as my neighbour. They are all decent people, but the chamber itself is a prehistoric institution and is no longer required. That would save us $100 million a year. What could we do with that kind of money? That is a debatable question.

The Prime Minister, with the economic action plan, appointed 27 senators in one year. Over 20 years, the cost will be $100 million. That is the economic action plan right next door for all their friends and neighbours.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I wish to congratulate my hon. friend from Sackville—Eastern Shore for being elected the most congenial of members of Parliament five years in a row. He reflected that in not taking any hits against any person named in the Senate, who are all good people.

I want to buttress his arguments slightly by going to Bill C-7. There really is no mandatory element that senators should come from this list. Clause 3 states that the Prime Minister “must consider names from the list”. Within the schedule, paragraph 1, we have the strange construction that “Senators to be appointed for a province or territory should be chosen”.

As a student of law, I learned that we look for discretionary language “may” or mandatory language “shall”. I have never before found a “should” in legislation.

I find this whole thing rather illusory that the government is requiring anyone to come from a list that is elected. Could my hon. friend comment on that?

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, the member from the Green Party is one of the finest people in our country and well-deserved of the Order of Canada.

Both she and I have been around union contracts for a long time and we know what those weasel words actually mean. At the end of the day, no matter what comes out of this, the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister alone, will have the final say on who sits in that chamber. Those are the facts, the truth and Canadians should know this. It does not matter what is done. The process is a sham. At the end of the day, one person determines who gets to sit in the chamber. I guarantee members it will be payback time for an awful lot of people who helped that man out.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the fact that, ultimately, a bill is being brought forward to keep the Senate and have basically the same thing we have now. As well, it will be more expensive in the short, medium and long terms than it is at present. It is often said that in a democracy, money is never invested badly, but in this case, are the Conservatives being good managers?

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, he is right. Let us think about all the money we are wasting right now on this topic when, at the end of the day, we are going to end up back in the same place we started, with a non-elected, non-responsible, non-accountable, self-appointed friends of the Prime Minister Senate.

The reality is we do not have to do that. The government could introduce legislation that I am sure, and I cannot speak for the Liberals or the Green Party, we would definitely support. It could be one line “abolish the Senate”. If that were brought forward, we would give it passage right through the committee, right on to second reading and onward.

If the government cannot do that, we have ways of vastly improving the legislation to the point where the senators are not an extension of the long arm of the government.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, Gumby, from Sackville—Eastern Shore, gave an eloquent speech.

At the end of the day, if we have elections for senators and the Prime Minister appoints somebody else instead of appointing Mr. Smith from Nova Scotia, what is the point of having elections or what is the point of having a Senate?

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it shows that the government is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of Canadians, yet the taxpayers are going to have to pay for this. Those individual provinces that decide to go into this scheme, which is really like a Ponzi scheme, will end up paying for something that at the end of day they will not get value for their money. It is quite clear that the prime minister of the day, whichever party, will decide who sits in the Senate. That has to stop.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Nova Scotia is a tough act to follow. That was one of the best speeches I have heard in the House. He was flying.

I am pleased to speak to Bill C-7.

If I understand correctly, what is being proposed seems to me to be an improvement on what we have now. For example, they are proposing that the law limit the terms of all senators summoned to the Senate after October 14, 2008, to a maximum of nine years. In my opinion, that limit is not a bad thing. As well, the provinces and territories would have the option of choosing to hold elections at their own expense to determine what names would be submitted to the Prime Minister for consideration. We are not living in a perfect world.

In a perfect world we would have the following. What the government has proposed is not a perfect world. In a perfect world we would have senators appointed for a limited period of time. They would be non-partisan and they would not represent specific political parties or be appointed as a reward for their services to a party. They would be distinguished people from most segments of society, such as first nations, business, labour leaders, the social sector, students.

In a perfect world a group of non-partisan people, an impartial board, would select individuals. If we were to do this, then in this perfect world we could have a chamber of sober thought consisting of respected people who would look at the work we do here and certainly not meet with the caucus of the governing party of the day, but, as the previous member said, be truly non-partial.

When we on this side speak out against what goes on in the Senate or what is proposed, we are not criticizing many of the honourable senators in the Senate. For example, I am pleased to see my former boss and friend from Yukon, Danny Lang, there and he is working hard. There are other folks like Hugh Segal, who has been championing poverty issues and rural poverty for many years. I certainly respect the work he and many of his colleagues do.

Unfortunately this is not a perfect world and it is an illusion or dream to think that we somehow could have in our democratic country a group of people, wise elders of our society, who would sit down and reflect upon what needs to happen and give its impartial advice. However, as my colleague from London—Fanshawe earlier said, it is not a reality and there is a contrast between what happens in the Senate, with its expenses, and all the effort that goes into maintaining that antiquated body.

If the Senate did not exist, we could inject more funding toward assisting people who are unemployed, the percentage of workers who do not have access to employment insurance. Many of us met with students in the last couple of weeks and know that, for example, the average student debt in British Columbia upon completion of university is $27,000 and tuition fees are rising. Yet other countries have made it a priority to have free tuition and health care and have strong economic engines, countries like Sweden.

In previous Parliaments I have been in since I was elected in 2006, there was actually a fair amount of debate on various bills and a fair number of witnesses would be brought to committees. There was much scrutiny, unlike now, when there is limited debate and closure on a number of important bills. Even after that time, when these bills would go to the Senate, under the direction of the current Prime Minister and his ideologically-driven government, they would be killed and often senators were told there would be no further debate whatsoever.

There was the climate change accountability act in the previous Parliament, Bill C-311, and the bill on generic drugs. For all the people watching this debate, a bill to help people suffering from AIDS so we could finally eradicate this devastating disease and take up the work done by Stephen Lewis and his foundation was before Parliament. Groups like the Grandmothers for Grandmothers, which I met with in Nelson a couple of weeks ago, is raising money to assist grandmothers in Africa who are raising children. There are millions of orphans due to this devastating disease. Parliament had a chance to pass that bill and, in fact, did so.

What happened? The Senate limited debate and stopped it. As a result, we do not yet have a policy to assist those suffering with AIDS by having cheap generic drugs available. This is truly a shame.

Then we had the act to kill the Wheat Board rammed through Parliament by the Conservatives without any democratic vote by farmers, the people who are part of the Wheat Board. There was limited debate in Parliament with no economic analysis, no in-depth study and a limited number of witnesses. Now this bill will go the Senate. If there were an impartial Senate, if the Senate, in an ideal world, were made up of wise people from different segments of society, they would look at the bill, bring in witnesses and say that maybe Parliament has not done what it should have been doing. They would then send it back to us and tell us to get back to work and fix this or abolish it, because that is not the will of the people that the House of Commons has reflected.

Then there is the crime omnibus bill that we are all faced with now that has also been rammed down our throats. At a time when crime rates are going down, we will be putting more people in prison and, not only that, the provinces will be bearing the costs of the bill. Even American conservatives are turning away from putting people into prisons. They are saying that it is not cost-effective and that maybe they should be doing more prevention and more rehabilitation. At the same time, we are going against all of the evidence and the Conservatives are not even listening to their conservative friends in the United States or the Canadian Bar Association and judges.

Even though most of Canadian society and the provinces have asked us what we are doing, the bill has been rammed through by the government. Once again, if we were to have a Senate that truly represented Canadian society in an impartial way, it would tell the Prime Minister to take his time here, that this does not need to be rushed through.

We need to hear more witnesses and actually listen to what the Canadian Bar Association is saying. We need to listen to our provincial colleagues who say that the cost is a bit too much and that they cannot really afford it. We need to listen to the Canadian public and then, in an ideal world, the bill would be brought back here and we would be told to do something about it that truly reflects the values of Canadian society and not the ideology that the government is presenting to us in this Parliament.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am always intrigued by the NDP's position in regard to the Senate. It seems to be fairly straightforward and simple in the minds of many colleagues in the NDP and that is that we abolish the Senate, that there is no situation in which the New Democratic Party could envision where there would be any value whatsoever to Canada by retaining some form of a Senate.

If the majority of Canadians disagreed with the NDP and believed that there was some value in retaining the Senate, would the member be prepared to support the will of the majority of Canadians?

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I truly believe that we do need to listen to the majority of Canadians when we even attempt to change or abolish the Senate. I certainly would be prepared to support the majority of Canadians. For example, I talked about this ideal world where we could have a different way of having the chamber of second thought. It would be something to explore and we could maybe put something out to the public with different options.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of different aspects of the bill that are troubling. I spoke earlier in terms of the constitutional ways in which we become ensnared. However, we have not had an adequate discussion across Canada of the difference it will make to the house of sober second thought continuing under this legislation once it is able to claim some legitimacy through the quasi election process before the Prime Minister appoints them.

I wonder if the hon. member has any concerns that we might create much more of a system like the United States where there would be constant gridlock between an elected House and a quasi elected Senate.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I truly welcome my hon. colleague's presence here in the House. We will be collaborating on a bill that I will be introducing on the department of peace.

I think there could be problems with an elected Senate. When we are elected, especially if we want to be re-elected, sometimes the focus is not on the actual job but on being re-elected.

I would say that, if we are to retain a Senate, perhaps it should be people from all segments of society who are appointed by an impartial board. They could then focus on what they need to do for that period of time and not worry about whether they would be elected, re-elected or what the government is doing and be, as my colleague from Nova Scotia said, completely independent of the government of the day.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, even in the guise of reform, the bill is not really reform. We have heard several times that the Prime Minister would retain the right to decide who gets appointed. Therefore, it is really an appointed Senate.

The only real reform is the term limit, which would go from life to age 75, or now nine years. However, even that is a dog's breakfast of mixed up rules and regulations depending on when one was appointed. By my calculations, the number of people who could theoretically be elected over the next six years would amount to only 36 people. Therefore, 64% of the Senate would remain an appointed Senate in six year's time. Does the member have some comment on that?

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think this bill is a waste of time. We should put it to the Canadian people whether they want to keep the Senate and, if they do, we need to give them some options that might work, rather than the option that is before us.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-7, An Act respecting the selection of senators and amending the Constitution Act, 1867 in respect of Senate term limits.

The NDP's position was clearly stated at the beginning of this debate. Since 1930, we have been in favour of abolishing the upper chamber for various reasons. This is a position that I believe is unanimous in New Democrat circles and that periodically comes up and is always reaffirmed at our conventions and meetings.

There are specific reasons for that, but first I would like to mention that we are not the only ones. The provinces are also in favour of flat out abolishing the Senate. Ontario, Nova Scotia and Manitoba have clearly spoken out in favour of doing so. With respect to Bill C-7 in particular, we know that Quebec has already looked into the possibility of contesting its constitutional validity in court.

What we have in front of us now could be considered a partial reform. It is not real reform of the Senate, but rather a modification of certain aspects. For example, the aspect that has to do with Senate terms. Right now, senators are appointed to the age of 75 or until the death of the senator, and that term would be reduced to nine years. Although the NDP is unanimously in favour of abolishing the Senate, there are some differences of opinion on the Conservative side, particularly among Conservative senators who have already shown some reservations about limits to their terms. Those senators were appointed recently. All members are aware that since the Conservatives took power in 2006 they have appointed 27 Conservative senators, which has given the Conservative Party a majority in the Senate.

We could talk about what the Liberals did before, and we may or may not agree with them. The fact remains that when there was a Liberal government, it was still possible that a non-Liberal senator would be appointed. That was the case in the past. The Liberals even appointed an NDP senator. Unfortunately, we asked her to give up her NDP designation because we do not support the Senate and are proposing that it be abolished. At least former Liberal governments provided some balance. But we are not seeing that same kind of balance with the Conservative government.

We talk a lot about the Senate being a chamber of sober second thought, a place where a different kind of reflection takes place, in comparison to the House of Commons. The members of the House of Commons know that all provincial senates have been abolished. No province has had a Senate since 1968. As far as I know, there have been no significant issues with passing laws at the provincial level since that time. Provinces do not have senates and, to be honest, they do not seem to be missing them. No provinces are requesting or calling for a provincial upper chamber. In looking at the provincial situation, I think that the NDP's position on the Senate is completely legitimate and is far from the Conservative position of wanting to keep the Senate. However, the Conservatives want to reform it. It is interesting to see how the Conservative opinion on the Senate has evolved.

There has been much talk—particularly during the era of the Reform Party and the Canadian Alliance—of the need for a triple–E Senate. Such a Senate, by its very nature and essence, would bear a much closer resemblance to the U.S. Senate as we know it, and that creates a few problems. If the bill were adopted as it stands, similar problems would arise. I will come back to the U.S. model, but I would first like to discuss two specific problems with the bill and the manner in which it provides for the election of senators at the provincial level, who would then be appointed by the Prime Minister.

The first problem has to do with legitimacy. If the provinces have no consistent process for the election of senators—and since the term being used is plebiscite rather than election—it would create a situation whereby, in certain provinces, no senators would be elected or selected in this way. That raises a problem of legitimacy. Those senators elected under one process might believe—and this would undoubtedly be the case—that they have greater legitimacy than those who are simply appointed by the Prime Minister without being subject to the procedure established by the provinces.

That would be problematic since the members of the Senate would not share the same understanding of the institution.

The second problem—and this is where the U.S. example is relevant—is that the Senate currently wishes to be perceived, if it does serve a purpose, as a place for sober second thought in response to bills adopted by the House of Commons. This sober second thought theoretically serves as a counterbalance to an overly populist reaction in the House and is intended to please a certain segment of the electorate without necessarily improving in any way on what the bill proposes.

In its current form—and I think that this has been evident over the last five years during which 27 new Conservative senators were appointed—there is no longer any sober second thought. The Senate no longer plays this role. The Senate, just like the House, polarizes political debate. I believe that the debate and political discourse in the House since 2006 have been much more polarized than in any previous era or decade. That is how things look nowadays in the Senate.

The Senate was intended to be a forum in which senators could adequately reflect upon the impact that bills may have on various facets of Canadian and Quebec society. The Senate no longer plays this role. Two bills have demonstrated this, including one we thought was particularly important. I refer to Bill C-311 on climate change and the establishment of clear standards and targets in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. The House of Commons and its committees held several debates. It was not the first time this bill had been introduced. The purpose of the bill was to ensure that Canada honoured its international commitments. After a number of attempts, the House of Commons finally adopted the bill. The unelected Senate, however, simply opposed the will of the House of Commons, in other words, the elected representatives of the Quebec and Canadian public. The objective was to polarize rather than to be effective. The Conservative government did not condemn this action as it should have, and undoubtedly would have, had a Liberal-dominated Senate stood in the way of one of its bills. When this occurred in the past, Conservative members led the charge in condemning the abuse of power of an unelected chamber pitting itself against the House of Commons.

My colleague from Winnipeg North raised the question: do Canadians and Quebeckers still want a Senate? It is an interesting and very relevant question, in my opinion. I propose therefore, as have a number of my colleagues, to ask Canadians and Quebeckers if they still want a Senate, and whether they believe the upper house still fulfils its role. Quite recently, in July, a poll was taken across Canada to determine whether Canadians wanted to vote on the existence of the Senate. Seventy-one per cent of Canadians, including Quebeckers, want a referendum in which they can vote on the issue. It is high time that we had this debate. In the same poll, 36 % of Canadians were in favour of abolishing the Senate. This is a significant increase compared to the previous year. It reflects public discontent with the role the Senate has played in recent years and the partisan appointments made by the Prime Minister.

Experience has clearly shown us that abolishing the provincial senates did not drastically affect how the provinces operate. In fact, a number of experts and constitutional jurists would say without a doubt that this perhaps even made it easier for the provinces, because there was no longer an unelected chamber able to interfere and undermine the will of publicly elected representatives. There is not a single province that would revisit the past and choose to bring back an unelected chamber.

We must be very careful about the Senate's mandate and about the direction we are currently taking to avoid having what we see in the United States. The suggestion was made by our colleague from the third party, and had already been made by the NDP. Let us have a real debate, let us include the Canadian public and let us have a referendum on this subject. Our position is clear: we are and will always be in favour of abolishing the Senate.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member made reference in his comments to the fact that there was a fairly extensive poll or survey carried out in which 36% of the respondents felt that it was necessary to abolish the Senate. Ultimately, that would imply that there was a majority that did see some value to retaining the Senate.

If the member were to canvass his own constituents and they were of the opinion that indeed there was value in the Senate, would the member then take the position of supporting retaining the Senate, maybe advocating for change but at the very least supporting a Senate?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

This question applies more to the politics of the entire country than to individual ridings. I could go and see the 85,000 people I represent in the riding of Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques and ask them the question. However, without a real debate, the kind of broad debate we can have during an election, for example, it is really hard to know exactly what the people think.

This issue regarding the Senate is not at the forefront of the minds of my constituents right now. They have more important economic and social concerns. So if we were to ask them about the Senate, this issue would not be at the top of their list. In fact, many do not even know the role of the Senate. They do not necessarily follow the debates that take place there. If we want real public consultation, it should not necessarily be done riding by riding, but rather by referendum. Thus, the issue could dominate the mass media and we would then be able to see various viewpoints from a broader perspective than we otherwise could through individual conversations.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques for his very interesting speech. I have a question about the reality of this bill.

I find it fascinating that the federal government is in no way bound by this, which of course it cannot be because of exemptions in the Constitution Act that restrict the federal government's ability to insist on the election of senators without consulting the provinces. However, in schedule 1 of this legislation, we have bound the provinces to hold elections and to create a list which may or may not be used. I would appreciate the member's further thoughts.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her question.

The big problem is that we would have a Senate whose members would be elected or appointed according to different rules. In some cases, there would be more legitimacy and the senators themselves would have a greater sense of legitimacy in certain situations. In that sense, this will create a dysfunctional Senate.

Indeed, my colleague is right when she says that the Prime Minister would still have the latitude not to follow the recommendations that come out of the plebiscites. That is a big problem. This bill creates a type of hybrid, a type of monster, and we will not necessarily know the extent of it until it happens. We are not interested in testing out that experiment. We would like to see how Canadians feel about this issue and have a party that advocates the abolition of the Senate, which is what the NDP promises to do.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his well-informed comments on this bill. This is the third time that this bill has been introduced, so clearly the Conservatives have not seen it as a priority. However, as it relates to basic democratic reform, I want to ask the member, would he agree that a more pressing issue is to move ahead with proportional representation for the House of Commons itself, and would that be a better measure for us to move forward on?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes, absolutely. I think that if the question is clear, then so is the answer. That is what is missing right now.

Our current system dates back to 1867, and even further than that since we adopted the British system. That system no longer suits today's realities. It is a flaw of the House of the Commons that a party can form a majority government with less than 40% of the votes.

In that sense, proportional representation would be much more modern. There are a number of types of proportional representation. We can sit down and discuss the merits of each. Nonetheless, I think that proportional representation is an inevitable solution for the House. We should get on with it.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate and give the Bloc Québécois’s opinion on Bill C-7, the Senate Reform Act.

No one in the House will be surprised to hear that the Bloc Québécois is of the opinion that we can do without the Senate and that we should just abolish it.

The Senate is an archaic institution. I heard members of other parties describe it as such earlier. I know that, in the House, we cannot denigrate the other chamber. However, I do not think that it is a form of denigration to say that, today, in a democracy, it is completely useless to spend so much money and have 105 senators who simply redo the work that was already done by legitimately elected people. That is the big difference. In fact, the House of Commons, with its 308 members, makes decisions and passes all sorts of legislation while following the procedure that should normally be followed here, which involves first, second and third readings. That being said, with the current Conservative government, this procedure is not being followed at all because the Conservatives are imposing time allocations for almost every bill.

In the beginning, the Senate, whether it was at the federal or provincial level, was put in place to protect certain territories. However, over time, the Senate became a place where the Prime Minister appointed friends to ensure a majority. That is what the current Prime Minister promised not to do but, when he had a minority government, he saw that he could change things by appointing Conservatives to the Senate to have a majority there. He broke his promises. He made a series of very quick appointments so that the Senate would have a Conservative majority. The Senate has thus become a very partisan place. I do not say this to insult the senators. Some are doing the best they can and are doing their work honestly.

I think that almost everyone, at least in Quebec, agrees that we could easily do without the Senate since the House of Commons operates in a completely democratic way with 308 people who, for the most part, campaigned and were elected democratically by the public, which is not the case for senators.

Of course, Bill C-7 seeks to ensure that senators are elected. However, in my opinion, the Conservative government is trying to do indirectly what it cannot do directly. It wanted an elected Senate and it made this an election promise. In fact, this goes back to long before the current Conservatives. At the time of the Reform Party, they also wanted an elected Senate. However, they realized that constitutional changes and consultations with the provinces would be necessary to achieve that goal. So they decided to resort to this process and basically tell the provinces they could hold elections and the federal government would then decide whether or not to accept the results of those elections. This is completely ridiculous.

I believe the government introduced Bill C-7 thinking it could avoid consulting with the provinces. Personally, I think that is the major problem with this bill.

So we are witnessing a Senate reform and also a House of Commons reform, since there is also Bill C-20 dealing with representation in the House of Commons. These two bills will weaken Quebec's position within federal political institutions. We know that, with Bill C-20, the government wants to diminish the political weight of Quebec in the House. As for the Senate, we know that Quebec does not agree with the government's way of doing things, but the government wants to have its way nevertheless.

The Bloc Québécois feels that the job of senator is increasingly becoming a reward given by the Prime Minister to political friends. The Senate as an institution is less and less useful to democracy. We are saying that the Senate should be abolished. As members will see later on in my speech, I have a survey which shows that Quebeckers fully support abolishing the Senate.

I remind the House that Quebec's long-standing position is that any change to the Senate must be made with the agreement of Quebec and the provinces. Quebec is not the only one to hold this view since the government began trying to introduce a bill to reform the Senate.

We can go all the way back to the late 1970s. The Supreme Court of Canada looked at the power of Parliament to unilaterally change the constitutional provisions dealing with the Senate. In its decision, the court ruled that decisions regarding major changes affecting the fundamental nature of the Senate cannot be taken unilaterally.

That could not be more clear. The House does not always agree with the decisions of the Supreme Court, but we must abide by them. With this ruling, the Supreme Court spoke loud and clear:

Changes to the powers of the Senate, the method of selecting senators, the number of senators to which a province is entitled, or the residency requirement of senators can be made only [in consultation with Quebec and the provinces].

That could not be more clear. In 2007, Benoît Pelletier, a former Quebec minister of intergovernmental affairs, a renowned teacher and constitutional expert respected by all Quebeckers, both federalists and sovereignists, reiterated Quebec's traditional position by stating that the Government of Quebec believes that this institution does not fall exclusively under federal jurisdiction. In a press release dated November 7, 2007, which I will table in a moment, this former minister said:

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.

He said it a number of times, on television and elsewhere. Benoît Pelletier has credibility in this matter. The same day he made that statement, Quebec's National Assembly unanimously passed the following motion:

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.

Much earlier, the same position was taken by Robert Bourassa as well as Gil Rémillard, a constitutional expert who was a minister and my professor, although that is nothing to brag about. In any case, he certainly had a great deal of credibility.

In 1989, Robert Bourassa said that he did not want to discuss Senate reform before the Meech Lake accord was ratified. In 1982, Gil Rémillard said that the signing by Quebec of an agreement involving Senate reform would depend on the results of negotiations on the concept of a distinct society, the division of powers and the federal spending power.

Regardless of their party, all elected representatives in Quebec agree that the federal government should not make any changes without the permission of the provinces, and of Quebec in particular, in the examples I just gave.

In 2007, Quebec's Liberal government took part in the Special Committee on Senate Reform. In its brief it stated:

The Government of Quebec is not opposed to modernizing the Senate. But if the aim is to alter the essential features of that institution, the only avenue is the initiation of a coordinated federal-provincial constitutional process that fully associates the constitutional players, one of them being Quebec, in the exercise of constituent authority.

The Government of Quebec, with the unanimous support of the National Assembly, therefore requested the withdrawal and/or suspension of various bills that were introduced by the Conservative government over the course of previous sessions, including Bill C-43, which had to do with elected senators. It also requested the suspension of proceedings on Bill S-4—which became Bill C-19, then Bill C-10—which had to do with term limits, so long as the federal government was planning to unilaterally transform the nature and role of the Senate.

Bill C-7 raises the same problem and it clearly shows that the government wants to act unilaterally.

I would like to quote a poll on the Senate conducted by Leger Marketing in 2010. It said, “The majority of Quebeckers think that the Senate has no worth in its current form and even more Quebeckers are in favour of abolishing the Senate.”

I encourage all members of the House to consider the opinion of the Government of Quebec, of the other provinces and of Quebeckers in this poll, to truly understand that the government cannot act unilaterally here.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the comments and speech made by my colleague. I would like to read a brief remark made by Senator Bert Brown:

In his comments he said:

Those of us who came to the Red Chamber were there to get a majority vote for reform.

Then he went on to say:

Every Senator in this caucus needs to decide where their loyalty should be and must be.

He sent this letter to several other senators.

I listened to the hon. member's speech and I think he is on the right track. Like us, he is in favour of abolishing the Senate. Can the hon. member tell us whether the Senate is truly impartial and a forum for sober second thought concerning the decisions made by the House? I would like the hon. member to respond to that. Is the Senate truly an impartial chamber?

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her question. Without making a sweeping, general comment, I can give an example.

I recall that when Jacques Demers, the former head coach of the Canadiens, was appointed to the Senate, he was asked what interested him in the Senate and what bills and measures he intended to support. The first example that came to mind—and I understand this because we also agreed with that measure—was the bill introduced by Senator Jean Lapointe. Senator Lapointe was also well known in Québec, and obviously throughout the rest of Canada, as he was an actor and singer. In any event, he had introduced a very important bill concerning lotteries and gaming. He wanted stiffer rules regarding slot machines in bars. In the end, Senator Demers did not vote because the Conservative Party told him that there was a party line and that the Conservatives did not agree with the bill.

People come here, oftentimes in good faith, and end up realizing that there is a party line and that this line has to be toed in the House—and yet, these people are democratically and legitimately elected. In the Senate, they sometimes think that they have some leeway, but that is not the case.

In response to the member's question, the answer is no, certainly not. People are appointed for partisan reasons to do the work for the party that appointed them.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a comment for the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska concerning his preamble.

Earlier, he said that we could not denigrate the other chamber when in fact the government is constantly doing just that, so I do not think that we are prevented from making such remarks about the other chamber. We can say that the Senate has never done its job and is still not doing it.

Does my colleagues think that the Senate is going to be able to do its job in the future as a result of this new bill?

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

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

Obviously, I was referring to a rule that we do not attack the other chamber here, but in fact, with thanks to you, Mr. Speaker, we are fortunately still able to criticize it. We are still living in a democracy and it is certainly not forbidden.

To answer my colleague’s question, he is entirely correct. In fact, his question was more of a comment. However, I think this Bill C-7 does not actually change anything in terms of the legitimacy of the Senate, particularly since we could find ourselves with a completely crazy creature, if I may put it that way. We might have senators appointed by the Prime Minister, as they are at present, for some provinces where they refused to hold elections, and in other provinces we would have elected senators because they held elections there. And worse still, even if the provinces decide to send a list, the Prime Minister is not obliged to accept those nominations.

Imagine the mess there might be with that kind of Senate. We would have some democratically elected people and others who were still appointed, with all the partisanship that implies. Since the Senate already serves no purpose, I do not think Bill C-7 would improve the situation.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak at second reading on Bill C-7, pertaining to the Senate. As many of my NDP colleagues have outlined today in the House, we have a lot of concerns about the bill.

The first thing I want to point out is that this is the third time the Conservative government has introduced this legislation. Despite repeated campaign promises of an elected Senate that go back even to the Reform days, the Conservatives have let it go so long that it makes one wonder whether it is indeed a priority for them.

On examining the bill, the NDP sees several major issues of concern that render the bill not supportable. I think the most basic premise of the bill is that it brings forward measures that are really half-measures, measures that are not going to fundamentally deal with what is a very undemocratic institution.

We know that the Senate has been around for a very long time. The NDP has been calling for the abolition of the Senate going back to the 1930s. When one looks at the bill, it is being put forward under the guise of democratic reform. It is being put forward under the guise of improving the Senate to make it more accountable.

Fundamentally, however, even though provinces may choose to have a process to elect senators, there is nothing in this bill that actually compels the Prime Minister to adopt those electorally based decisions that have taken place. The Prime Minister would still be free to appoint whomever she or he chooses.

That is because the constitutional question; we understand that, but it goes to the very heart of this bill that it will possibly go through legal challenges and it actually does not, in any fundamental way, bring a greater measure of democracy to Parliament itself overall. That is something we are very concerned about.

We in the NDP have taken a different tack. First of all, through motions that we have presented and had debated in the House, we have called on the government to hold a referendum that would ask the Canadian people whether or not they support abolishing the Senate.

We think that is a fair thing to do. This debate over the Senate--whether it should be there or not, whether it should be elected, or what form it should take--has now gone on for decades. We believe it is a fair and proper question that should be put to Canadians as to what they see as the future of the Senate.

We know that recent polls show a growing appetite to deal with this question. For example, in July of this year 71% of Canadians were in favour of holding a referendum to decide the future of the Senate and 36% of Canadians supported the abolition of the Senate, up from about 25% a year previous.

We know people are concerned about this issue, but there is no question that the bill is absolutely the lowest denominator. It is a low bar, a very minimal attempt to deal with the fundamental question of democratic reform in our country.

On the bill itself, before I get to a broader question, I think there is concern over what will happen if this bill goes through, as it no doubt will with this majority government. Even though it has been before us three times now, if it does finally go through this time around and we have an elected Senate, if that is what it turns out to be, and local elections take place in provinces and those people are then appointed to the Senate, it will create a very odd entity down the hall in the red chamber. In effect, it will create a two-tier Senate in which it is very possible that those who have been elected will feel that they have more legitimacy, because there will be people who have not been elected and people who have been.

We could end up with a very strange combination. In terms of the operations of the Senate, it could produce significant problems. We could end up with the same kind of difficulty or gridlock that we have seen in the United States, which I think people abhor.

Some people say we have to have a Senate and we have to have an upper chamber, but I would remind all of us that in provincial legislatures, these senate provisions were abolished many years ago.

In fact, all provincial senates were abolished in 1968. Apparently, the provinces and their legislatures have been able to function in a proper manner since that abolition. Therefore, the argument that we must have this upper chamber is a bogus argument.

Obviously, there are people who support the Senate. However, this is the main argument I want to make. There is also a very strong case to be made that it would be better if we focused democratic reform on our system overall.

In the House of Commons we are elected in our 308 ridings and constituencies across the country, seats which may possibly increase soon, and yet there is a fundamental issue here about the process and the manner of that election.

The first past the post system we have is a system that actually does not reflect the way people are voting. The makeup of the number of seats in the House unfortunately does not reflect the way people are actually voting. The representation by party is not reflecting the actual vote. A system of proportional representation is a far superior and more accountable form of election for the House of Commons or any institution. It is something that we in the NDP have long advocated.

I will say that too has been a big issue across the country. We have seen several referendums provincially. We have had two in British Columbia, one in Ontario, and one I believe in New Brunswick, although I could be wrong on that, but certainly in the Maritimes, so there has been a very healthy debate among Canadians about the need to have democratic reform.

Yet here, at the federal level, there has been a deafening silence. Certainly, New Democrats have pursued this issue with vigour. We have worked with organizations such as Fair Vote Canada. We have been very involved in a healthy debate about democratic reform.

We believe that the real course of action that is needed here, the change that is required to help transform the political process and the way people feel about their involvement in the political process, is to bring forward initiatives around proportional representation. Of course, we should begin here in the House of Commons to have a process to do that.

We came close to that in I think 2002 or 2004 when the former member of Parliament, Ed Broadbent, who was the member for Ottawa Centre, was very active and worked very closely with the Liberal government of the day. We almost got to the point where we would have had a process to examine this question of democratic reform as it affects the House of Commons.

Unfortunately, nothing proceeded, as was often common with the government of that day. There were promises made that were not followed through. We did not make any progress on that issue.

Subsequent to that, we have had vigorous debate at provincial levels about democratic reform. In the provinces that I mentioned, that debate has specifically taken place sometimes over what is called STV, a single transferrable vote. There are again arguments on both sides of that. What was important was that there was an identification by voters that they wanted to engage in a debate and a conversation about changing the electoral system to make it fairer, more accountable and more democratic.

That is the disappointment of the debate we are having here today. We are failing to address the very pressing issue of democratic reform, where people are voting for their own member of Parliament. We could engage in a process whereby we could adopt a position that would ensure that we do have a much more open sense of democratic voting and accountability. There are many countries around the world, and most democracies, that have some form of proportional representation. We are now one of the very few countries that does not.

This is a missed opportunity. Here we are having this debate on the Senate that in and of itself will possibly produce a quagmire of legal questions. We are missing the boat on the fundamental question of democratic reform for the House of Commons.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member for Vancouver East, who happens to be the health critic for the NDP, a hypothetical question.

A couple of weeks ago there was a motion in the House to ban asbestos and Conservative after Conservative stood and said that asbestos did not cause cancer. Even the good doctor from Simcoe—Grey voted against her former colleagues, the good doctors of this country and scientists. They voted against what Canadians really want and instead voted to help spread cancer in underdeveloped countries.

Hypothetically speaking, if the Conservatives had voted for this motion and it had gone to the Senate, what could have happened to it once it got there?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good hypothetical question. I love hypothetical questions.

One of the problems is that when measures pass in the House of Commons, they go to the Senate. As we saw with the climate change bill that was twice adopted by the House of Commons through a democratic majority vote, it was sent to the Senate and was completely buried under whatever business was taking place, which was thoroughly undemocratic.

On the very important issue of asbestos, every medical authority internationally and certainly in Canada has pointed out the dangers of this carcinogen to our health and population. On that very important issue, if we had managed to pass the motion and it had gone to the Senate, we have a Senate that is now chockablock full with the most appointed senators we have ever seen by one Prime Minister under the Conservative government. It speaks to the inability of the Senate to act in a proper manner and comes back to the question of the need for real democratic reform.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will agree with the member's party that the Senate needs to be reformed. There is an argument being made that I made once before but I think is wrong, and that is making a comparison to the provincial legislatures which do not have upper houses. The difference is that provinces are much more homogeneous than Canada as a whole.

The Senate was created partially because there are very different geographic regions of Canada with different histories and requirements that need to be balanced. There are parts of the country which just do not have as many people as other parts of it. In order not to disadvantage those regions, the Senate was created.

I wonder if the member would care to comment on whether there is a real qualitative difference between Canada as a whole and the diversity across the country as compared to, say, a provincial legislature.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very thoughtful comment. The differences we face federally are much greater than provincially, but they still exist provincially. If we take any province, whether it is Quebec or my own province of British Columbia, we will see a wide variety and diversity of regions, interests and people.

We live in a vast country. Our provinces are enormous territories. The fact is that our legislatures have been able to operate very effectively, which is not to say that New Democrats agree with everything they do as there is obviously very vigorous political debate that takes place. But they have been able not only to survive but function properly without the necessity of a senate. The same argument is true here.

I would much prefer that we focus on things like proportional representation for the House of Commons as a true, meaningful, genuine process of democratic reform than mucking around with the Senate and coming up with some kind of strange hybrid, when in actual fact we should be asking the people of Canada if we need the Senate, in any event, and should it be abolished.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to the bill entitled “An act respecting the selection of senators and amending the Constitution Act, 1867 in respect of Senate term limits”.

Although the bill may appear to address one of Canada's most egregious democratic deficits, I am afraid that the approach being taken leaves much to be desired.

Essentially, Bill C-7 restricts all senators appointed to the Senate after October 14, 2008, to a single nine-year term. Provinces and territories would then be given the opportunity to hold elections at their own expense to determine which names would be submitted to the Prime Minister for consideration, and only consideration.

While on the surface this approach might appear to bring heightened accountability to an unelected institution of the Crown, restricting Senate term limits while holding non-binding Senate elections fails to consider the most logical option for improving Canadian democracy, namely the abolishment of Canada's Senate.

I recall one of my constituents, Craig, telling me that he did not support a triple-E Senate. He supported a single-E Senate, and that single E stands for empty.

Before I get into why New Democrats believe that the Senate has outlived its raison d'être, I would like to highlight some specific criticisms of the bill as it currently has been presented to Parliament.

First, it appears that, as it is currently written, Bill C-7 contains a glaring loophole which would completely undermine the spirit of what the government is proposing. This is because the government is clearly attempting to pass legislation which should require a constitutional amendment and making unclear how much force the bill would actually carry.

For instance, by taking an approach which fails to crystallize the changes in Canada's Constitution, the Prime Minister would not be constitutionally required to appoint anyone elected by the provinces. Therefore, the bill does not actually change the way senators are currently appointed as the Prime Minister would still be free to appoint whomever he or she chooses.

We have seen previous examples of the Prime Minister acting in contravention of existing democratic reform legislation which has passed through the House. Specifically, I can point to the fixed election date legislation. Why then should Canadians trust that the government would actually abide by the legislation that we have in front of us today? Call me a pessimist, but this is certainly one concern that I have with Bill C-7.

Let me make this clear. We know how the House of Commons works, but we have no idea what would happen with an elected Senate. That brings me to another major concern arising from Bill C-7, which is the inevitable gridlock which would arise from having two separately duly elected Houses of Parliament.

Since the Senate would have virtually the same powers as the House under Bill C-7, an elected Senate would have greater legitimacy to introduce legislation or oppose bills sent to it from the House of Commons. On the surface this seems like a good idea. However, when we dig deeper into those proposals, it would illicit the real fear that we could end up with the kind of gridlock we see in the U.S., something which no Canadian wants to see our Parliament descend into.

This brings me to my final point that the best approach to take in order to reduce Canada's democratic deficit is the complete abolishment of the Senate. Personally, I am of the belief that when it comes to the Senate, Canadians do not need it. It is expensive. It has been packed with party insiders and we cannot trust what the leaders are going to do with the Senate.

The Prime Minister has repeatedly used the unaccountable and undemocratic Senate to kill legislation that had been passed in the House of Commons, twice killing Bill C-311, the climate change accountability act and, this spring, killing Bill C-393, a very important bill which would have facilitated the movement of generic antiviral drugs to Africa to help people living with HIV-AIDS.

These pieces of legislation, supported by wide swaths of the Canadian public, were killed by the Prime Minister's appointed senators in the Senate with no sober second thought. How can we have sober second thought when we have a bunch of Conservative Party organizers and fundraisers with obvious conflicts of interest? It makes a mockery of our democratic system.

As I noted earlier, even should the bill pass during the 41st Parliament, there is no guarantee that the government would actually abide by the rules it has put in place. Thus, we could end up with a patchwork Senate filled with a mix of elected and unelected senators.

I will put forward a hypothetical situation. What if the government refuses to appoint a senator who has been elected by residents of a province because it disagrees with the party banner under which that senator was elected? After all, the prime minister would not be constitutionally obliged to actually appoint them to the Senate. That is why I firmly believe the safest and most obviously beneficial approach to the Senate is to abolish it.

I will conclude my statement today by drawing attention to what the provinces, our partners in Confederation, have been saying about the Senate, both in terms of the status quo and the proposals in front of us. Both the Ontario premier, Dalton McGuinty, and the Nova Scotia premier, Darrel Dexter, have openly called for the abolition of the Senate. The B.C. premier, Christy Clark, has said that the Senate no longer plays a useful role in Confederation, while Manitoba maintains its position of eliminating the Senate. Even more worrisome is that Quebec has called this legislation unconstitutional and has said that it will launch a provincial court appeal if this bill proceeds without the consultation of the provinces.

Why, then, is the government moving ahead with a plan that is not supported by the federal government's partners in Confederation? It seems that without the full support of the provinces this proposal will merely be a paper tiger dressed up as a solution to bring Canada's democracy into the 21st century.

What happens if certain provinces refuse to participate in the system? Citizens of those provinces would certainly be shortchanged. Even more dire is the thought that this bill would lead to a constitutional crisis with multiple provinces taking action at the Supreme Court to challenge the constitutionality of this legislation. Without proper provincial consultation, which I fear has not taken place, this is an inevitability and something that should be avoided at all costs.

Therefore, I ask that the government reconsider its position on the bill until such a time as the provinces are properly consulted and sign on to these proposals.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the presentation by the hon. member for Sudbury and I thought it was very thoughtful and insightful from his perspective. He talked about the potential for a constitutional amendment if there were to be changes to the Senate.

In the absence of the possibility of actually abolishing the Senate, would he not agree that having term limits for senators is something that Canadians would support?

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure we will have much debate about that tomorrow night when we have a little hockey game with one another, all in good fun, of course.

The member raises a good point. Canadians do want to have a say on this. Canadians do want to express their opinions on what they feel about the Senate. I am encouraged to hear that because I would really like to see a referendum brought forward. We should put this to the Canadian people and let them have their say on what they would like to see their Senate represent.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to the position of Manitoba. I am not too sure if any other province has done this, but Manitoba had an all party task force, with a majority of the members being New Democrats. I was actually a member of that task force. We canvassed the entire province of Manitoba, heard numerous presentations on the Senate and the overwhelming feeling was that there was value to having a Senate.

If we look at the public hearings that were conducted in Manitoba and, I suspect, if we were to canvas most Canadians and talk about having a valued Senate, we would find a majority of Canadians would support it because they see the potential value of it.

Having said that, if a majority of Canadians do support the Senate, would the member be prepared to come on side, recognize and support having a Senate in the future?

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do think Manitoba did the right thing by consulting its constituents and having that conversation. It goes back to my last answer to my previous hon. colleague. If we can get this to the Canadian people and they dictate to us that they see the Senate as something valuable, whatever position that is, then, of course, we need to listen to what they are telling us.

However, until we have the opportunity to have a referendum, to hear what Canadians want, we are going on what we are seeing from the data that we are getting. More and more Canadians are saying that we should eliminate the Senate and go with what we have in the House of Commons.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Sudbury for his eloquent speech on the Senate. I really like his idea, or his constituent's idea, of a single E senate.

Aside from that, the Senate costs Canadians $90 million a year, each year.

The current Prime Minister and the previous Liberal prime minister appointed bagmen to collect money for their parties at taxpayers' cost. Taxpayers pay their salary, their expenses, their employees and their travel so they can go across the country from coast to coast to collect money for the Liberals and the Conservatives.

I would like to hear the thoughts of the member for Sudbury on that subject.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Where do I begin on that, Mr. Speaker? We have conversations in the House and we debate policy on many issues that affect all Canadians and costs that are associated with that. Some of the things we have been saying is that many of the decisions that are made in the House we need to flip on their heads.

If I could go to the one bill that was defeated in the Senate, which was Bill C-393, the cost associated with providing anti-viral drugs to children and adults in Africa suffering from HIV and AIDS would have been minimal and we could have eased the suffering of people. Instead, we are spending money on, as the hon. member said, travel and everything else.

The decisions that are being made in the Senate are affecting the decisions that we have made in this House. We make these decisions in the House based on what we think is in the best interests of Canadians.

We need to ensure those best interests continue to be brought forward and we need the Senate to actually support these bills until they are no longer around.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak for a few moments to the bill. I would like to be able to commend it as being an important piece of legislation that had been well thought out and something that was worthy of the attention of all members of the House but I am kind of flummoxed by the condition of this legislation. It does not make sense. It is ill-conceived. The ramifications of the bill, if it passes as presented, are quite extraordinary.

I know that the government is determined to get its way with most legislation that it brings before us in the chamber. It has invoked closure on eight bills, already seven in this session alone since the middle of September, which really boggles the mind of most democratic-minded Canadians.

This is legislation that proposes to make an extraordinary change to the parliamentary system that has been in place since the 1900s, that was originally based on the British parliamentary system, on the House of Lords, and yet it is striking in how badly written it is. I will talk for a few moments about some of my concerns.

I will deal with the role that the Senate plays in this Parliament. The current Prime Minister made reference in the past to how the Senate was a relic of the 19th century, that it was developed in another time under different circumstances. I do not disagree at all with that description. However, to then move in with a proposition to change it from the purpose and the terms on which it was established and suddenly say that we will make it elected is incredibly radical. I say radical from the comments that were made in the decision by the Supreme Court in 1980 where it said:

The substitution of a system of election for a system of appointment would involve a radical change in the nature of one of the component parts of Parliament.

We have heard members of the opposition say that our solution for dealing with the problems of the Senate is to abolish it. As the member who spoke previously said, one of his constituents recommended a single E Senate, that it be known as an empty Senate. Those sentiments are well-founded because we have seen a Senate, which was originally established to represent regional voices in our country in opposition to, or in juxtaposition to, or perhaps in concert with, the elected House of Commons. that has now become, frankly, a place where former partisans of either the Liberal or the Conservative Party are allowed to sit.

Some of them sit in an honourable fashion and they bring a lot of experience, knowledge and honour to what it is they do. They conduct themselves and their business in an honourable way that most Canadians would be proud of. Unfortunately, they have no basis on which they have reached that, other than the fact that they are partisans.

Now we see that some of those partisans travel this country from coast to coast to coast at the behest of the Prime Minister's Office, raising money, managing campaigns and knocking on doors for provincial parties that are affiliated with their party. Their time is basically spent on partisan purposes. Surely that is not serving anyone's interests other than the partisan interests of the Prime Minister or previous Liberal prime ministers.

I recognize that something needs to be done in order to deal with this situation, but the answer is not to come in with an ill-founded piece of legislation like that, which, as the Supreme Court said in 1980, would make for a radical change.

For the provinces, in order to effect the appropriate change in the balance between the two chambers, there would need to be a constitutional change. Constitutional changes need the input and consensus of a majority of the provinces. Here we have a piece of legislation that has not even been run by the provinces nor has it received any consensus whatsoever from the provinces. The bill proposes that the provinces would hold elections, but some of the provinces have said they would not participate. Some of them have said that if they participated, they would hold elections on this basis or that. The Province of Quebec has said that this is unconstitutional. The premier of my province of Nova Scotia, has said:

My position on the Senate in the past has been that I think the House of Commons is elected for the purpose of representing the people of the country. The upper house is not necessary.

The problem is that the government is trying to propose a change to the status of one of the houses of Parliament which would have quite an impact on the provinces and yet the provinces clearly are not on side. They have not been consulted. In one case there has been a clear commitment to take this matter before the Supreme Court.

Why are we dealing with this? If the government were serious about dealing with the role of the Senate, which I think is something that needs to be done, then I would suggest, as members on these benches have said, that we should take the matter to the people. Let us put a referendum together and ask the people of Canada what they want to do with the Senate. I have an inkling that they would say to get rid of it. I am not going to prejudge what the outcome of that would be, nor should the members opposite, but why do we not do that?

If the government is serious about this and if it has some respect for the chambers, instead of bringing in an ill-prepared, ill-conceived piece of legislation before this House, why does it not take the matter of a constitutional change to Parliament, of dealing with the Senate, to the people of this country in the form of a referendum?

It has been a pleasure to rise in this House, as it always is, although I wish it had been a better piece of legislation before us.

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the discussion we are having in the House today, but I require greater clarity from the hon. member of the opposition. He was all over the map. It seems to me that he is challenging the human rights of the members of the Senate. It is not clear to me what the NDP's policy on Senate reform is. I would ask for that to be clarified by the member.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will not take personally the fact that the member said I was all over the map. Unfortunately, I was trying to follow the key points within this piece of legislation, and it takes us all over the map because it is an ill-conceived piece of legislation.

I was pretty clear on two points. One, my position is that the Senate should be abolished. Two, my position is and the position of the official opposition is that the matter should be put to the people of Canada in the form of a resolution. Let us do it now. Let us put the bill aside and deal with the issue once and for all.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the NDP's position is to eliminate the Senate, but let us set that aside for the moment.

The legislation would permit a prime minister to use his or her discretion in choosing as senators those people who were elected in a province. Frankly, that is a situation I cannot see arising if, in this case, NDP or Liberal senators were elected in a province. I cannot see thePrime Minister exercising that discretion. I wonder if the member sees this as one huge ruse by the Prime Minister to deflect the attention of Canadians away from the real issues that are facing Canadians today.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the member has brought up an excellent point. The bill says to the provinces that individual provinces will have elections for senators, but that is not the end of the story. Then they have to come and kneel at the foot of the Prime Minister's Office. They have to come and kneel before the Prime Minister to get proper dispensation from him before the individuals can become senators.

If some of the things that come before this chamber were not so serious, it would be laughable.

I have to say that I agree to some extent with the member's premise that it is meant as a distraction, as something perhaps to say to the Conservative Party membership in a fundraising letter, “Look at what we're trying to do to get a fully elected Senate”. It is a ruse. It is ill-considered, and it is beneath the people of Canada.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

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

I am going to ask him a brief question. Back in history, people said, “No taxation without representation”. What we are talking about here is accountability. The senators will not be accountable. So I would like him to comment on this expression: “No representation without accountability”.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, when the Senate was first set up based upon the House of Lords and the British parliamentary system, there was some inkling of representation on that whole idea of representing the voices of the provinces in opposition to the great unwashed, the commoners who would be elected to Parliament. However, the establishment of the Senate has been so far removed from the concept of representation that it would be a huge stretch to ever think it could achieve that task.

I would suggest that if we were to have a referendum on the issue with the Canadian people, we may begin to get at some of that question of whether or not the Senate should exist, and if it does exist, upon what basis, so that it would be truly representative.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-7, an act respecting the selection of senators and amending the Constitution Act, 1867 in respect of Senate term limits.

The Senate was created in 1867 to mirror the British House of Lords to serve as a chamber of sober second thought, to provide regional representation, and to act as a check on Parliament. It was made as an appointed body so that it could not stop legislation from the House of Commons. It was to revise and review the legislation. It was also created to recognize the social and economic elite. It was in part created to protect the property interests of the wealthy. There was some concern by our founding fathers that an elected body, the House of Commons, would not do so. Today we know that this is not true.

The Senate is broken and no longer works in the public interest. The House knows it and so do the Canadian people. We need to go beyond simply changing term limits of the Senate. The Senate needs fundamental change.

I became convinced of the need to abolish the Senate after witnessing the vote in the Senate in 2010 that killed Bill C-311, the climate change accountability bill. That bill would have required the federal government to set regulations to establish targets to bring greenhouse gas emissions to 25% below 1990 levels by 2020 and to set long-term targets to bring emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. The government must take action on climate change. This bill would have been the first step toward setting hard targets to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. However, it has become abundantly clear that the government did not want to deal with one of the most pressing issues of our time, so it arranged for the Senate to do its dirty work.

Bill C-311 passed the House of Commons. The bill passed at committee. The majority of members in the House at that time passed the bill, yet it was killed in the Senate. Let me repeat for clarity. The unelected, unaccountable Senate shut off debate and called a snap vote to kill important legislation passed in the House of Commons.

This was an outrageous move. Canadians were outraged by this move. It was the first time since before the Second World War that the Senate voted down a bill that won the support of the majority of the House of Commons. This move did not get the attention it deserved. It was a fundamental change in the way our democracy operates.

The Conservative government is not known for its transparency and adherence to democratic principles and now it has appointed enough senators to circumvent the democratic process.

Only a short few years ago, before they were in power, the Conservatives had very real concerns about the way the Senate operates. While the Prime Minister was in opposition he claimed that he would never appoint a senator. At that time he considered the Senate to be undemocratic, and the Prime Minister was correct. The Senate is undemocratic. It is why the people of New Zealand abolished the upper house, the legislative council, in 1951.

It is amazing how things change once someone gains power. Now that the Conservatives are in power, they have completely changed their tune and are using the unelected, undemocratic body to push through their legislative agenda.

The Prime Minister has appointed 36 Conservative insiders to the Senate since coming to power. In 2008 he broke a record by appointing 18 people to the upper chamber in just one day. The Senate is now stacked with failed Conservative candidates, party fundraisers and political organizers. Let us not forget that this was the same modus operandi of the federal Liberal Party. It too stacked the Senate with friends and insiders.

A senator earns approximately $132,000 a year. The qualification to become a senator now is to be loyal to the ruling party that appointed him or her.

The Senate costs approximately $90 million a year to run. Taxpayers are paying a large sum for an unaccountable, unelected body in the Senate and for senators to block legislation passed by their elected representatives.

I believe it is time, through a referendum, that Canadians have a say on the future of the Senate. A referendum will open up a dialogue on the system in which far too many Canadians have lost faith. It will allow us to engage the population in an issue that is important to our very democracy.

It is time for an examination of democratic reform. It would show Canadians that we, as their elected House, care about their participation in our political system.

This is the third time the Conservatives have introduced legislation on an unelected Senate and legislation on Senate term limits. Each time the legislation died because of prorogation or dissolution of the House.

The NDP policy calls for abolishing the unelected Senate. It is fairly clear. It is a long-standing call that dates back to the 1930s. This policy has been constantly reaffirmed by the party. We want to maintain our position to abolish the Senate. We call on the government to hold a referendum, asking the Canadian public whether they support abolishing the Senate.

Who else has called for this? Let us look across the country. Both Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty and Nova Scotia Premier Darrell Dexter openly have called for the abolishment of the Senate. The premier in my own province, B.C. Premier Christy Clark, has said that the Senate no longer plays a useful role in Confederation. Manitoba maintains its position on Senate abolition, although it does have plans, if this bill should pass, for Senate elections. Quebec has called this legislation unconstitutional. It has said that it will launch a provincial court appeal if the bill proceeds without consultation of the provinces.

The public supports the idea of a referendum for the Senate, and it is growing. For instance, an Angus Reid survey from July of this year shows that 71% of Canadians are in favour of holding a referendum to decide the future of the Senate and 36% of Canadians support the abolition of the Senate. That is up from 25% a year earlier. We can see the momentum is growing. There have been 13 attempts to reform the Senate since 1990 and all have failed.

The Conservatives have not properly consulted with the provinces about whether they agree with the content of the bill. When the bill was first introduced in June 2011, Conservative senators, even those appointed by the Prime Minister, pushed back against plans for Senate term limits.

Senators will remain unaccountable to the Canadian people. By only being allowed, by law, to serve one term, senators do not have to face the public or account for the promises they made to get elected or the decisions they took in the previous nine years, and they get a pension when they leave office.

Having an elected Senate will fundamentally change the nature of politics in Canada. It will create a two-tier Senate, where those who are elected will feel they have more legitimacy. Since the Senate has virtually the same powers as the House, an elected Senate would have greater legitimacy to introduce legislation or oppose bills sent to it from the House of Commons. We could end up with the kind of gridlock we have seen in the United States.

The safest and conservative approach to the Senate is to abolish it. We know how the House of Commons works, but we have no idea what will happen with an elected Senate.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate just how clear the member was about the NDP's position to abolish the Senate. I have had the opportunity to ask other members of his caucus about the potential of the Senate having some value. If a majority of Canadians supported it, would the NDP support abandoning its lifelong ambition to abolish the Senate.

My question is fairly simple and straightforward. If a majority of Canadians supported having a Senate, would the New Democratic Party stop pushing to abolish it if it were deemed there was some value to it? Or, no matter what happens in the referendum it called for, would its intention still be to abolish the Senate?

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. The premise of the question is hypothetical. We need to have a referendum to determine that. New Democrats have been calling for a referendum to determine the matter. I think Canadians would respect that if it went to them and they were engaged by being included in the discussion beyond the House.

We will look at the results when that happens, but at this time we need to have a referendum, hear from Canadians and consult with as many bodies as we can, including the provinces, territories and other organizations, to hear what they have to say on this important matter.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am interested in my colleague's remarks. In the opening of his speech, he gave a graphic illustration of how the Senate was perhaps no longer just a useless institution, but actually acted as a barrier and obstacle to simple democracy.

The only environmental legislation that came out of the 40th Parliament and that wound up in the Senate was summarily dismissed. How many witnesses did the senators hear before they voted down the climate change legislation and how many days did they actually give it serious sober second thought before they destroyed it?

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, with Bill C-311, the climate change accountability act, what outraged so many Canadians was how it duly moved through the House, a momentous occasion when it finally passed at all stages. It then went to the upper house, where it should have received sober second thought. There could have been witnesses called. My understanding is no witnesses were called, not a single person was heard. In fact, there was a snap vote. It was done in a way that it was defeated in no time at all. Unfortunately, after all that work, such good legislation, which would have been amazing for the country, was gone with the snap of fingers.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We have one minute left for a brief question and a brief answer.

The hon. member for Sudbury.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one thing I find very interesting about the bill is that if it were to pass, once elected, senators would never have to be accountable to the Canadian people again. They would have nine years, would serve their time and could make a whole bunch of promises, but at the end of the nine years, they would walk away. Would the member comment on that?

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, not only after that, they would get a pension. This is the kind of thing that turns the Canadian electorate off. Canadians want accountability. They have been demanding accountability. In fact, they want more representation in how elected officials are chosen, or selected or elected. They do not want to simply see appointments made where there is no accountability.

There is no way to be accountable to those who elect one into office. It is simply a matter of appointment. There is no way of letting that elected official know whether he or she is on track doing a good job or not. It is a term and he or she will serve it out regardless, and at a huge expense to the Canadian taxpayer.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in the debate about Senate reform, albeit many of my colleagues, including the member for New Westminster—Coquitlam and the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, earlier talked about our stated policy.

On questions earlier, the member from Edmonton talked about our being all over the map today. Let me be abundantly clear, and the New Democrats have been clear since the 1930s: we think the Senate should go, just as many other Commonwealth countries that took up the Westminster model decided over the years that their senates would go.

We need not look that far afield. We do not have to look to New Zealand, as my colleague talked about. We just have to drive down the 401 from this place to Toronto. Toronto no longer has a senate for Ontario. In fact, no province in this country has a senate anymore. They are all gone. The last time I checked, Alberta was doing quite well without that senate.

When I talk with my colleagues from Alberta, they say that not only is their economy humming, but with all the things that are happening, it is a great place to be. I was in Camrose two weeks ago and I concur; indeed, Alberta is a great place to be. It is humming along with just a legislative house and no senate. It did not need one. Everything seems to work without a hitch.

It brings me to a vivid thought I have in my mind. If I could hearken back to the days of Premier Lougheed and Premier Klein, I could just imagine Premier Klein saying, “Senate, this is what I need done”, and the Senate saying to the Premier of Alberta, “Wait a minute, Premier Klein, we don't think so”. I can just imagine the constitutional flummox that would have been. I can imagine Ralph standing up in Edmonton saying, “I don't think so”.

What we are saying on this side is that we do not think we should keep the Senate, but we do not think it is up to us. We think it is up to Canadians. Let us let them decide. Let us put it to Canadians and ask them if they think the Senate is a valuable institution for us to keep. It is their institution, although when it was founded, it really was not about them as electors; as my friend from Cole Harbour said, it was the great unwashed, meaning supposedly us as members in the green chamber, and not them in the other place.

Clearly it was the landed gentry who said they needed to have sober second thought, just in case we did something absolutely ridiculous in this House and tried to send it along to Canadians.

I have great respect for all of my colleagues in the House. They do not do things that would be so ridiculous that we would need to send it to an unelected body for sober second thought, because quite clearly, that sober second thought is a myth.

Why do I say that? As my colleagues have rightly pointed out, when it came to Bill C-311 in the last Parliament, in which I had the great privilege to be a member, that legislation on climate change, regardless of what individuals thought in here, was passed democratically, as we would expect this institution to do, and duly presented to the Senate for sober second thought. I will agree with the “sober” part, but I do not think I could agree with the “second thought”, because the senators did not give it a thought at all, not one. They simply said, “Goodbye. We do not want it. We will get rid of it. Done”.

If senators were truly serious about their job, whether they liked the legislation or not, they had an obligation to look at the legislation, call witnesses about the legislation, critique the legislation, and ultimately, if they chose to, deny the legislation. That is their right.

However, to suggest that the Senate is somehow the chamber of sober second thought when the senators would not take the time to consider legislation is a slap in the face to the duly elected members. We are the duly elected members of this country, not the folks in the other place. Their actions did a disservice to their credibility, not individually, but as an institution that says it will take into consideration what the House has passed, take a look at it, investigate it, make a decision on it and, if we in the House agree, make some changes.

That has happened over the years. The Senate has indeed made some changes and sent legislation back to the House for changes. It has happened, but in this case there was no second thought, sober or otherwise.

Ultimately, why do we have such a place? Does it live up to the reputation it supposedly has?

It is interesting to note what Senator Bert Brown said in his letter to his colleagues. Of course, it was not sent to all of the senators, only to those of the Conservative persuasion. That is because the other place has taken on the mantle of a partisan place, and I will speak to what the legislation says on keeping it a partisan place.

In his letter he said, and I quote:

Every senator in this caucus needs to decide where their loyalty should be and must be. The answer is simple; our loyalty is to the man who brought us here, the man who has wanted Senate reform since he entered politics, the Rt. Hon. [Prime Minister].

What happened to this place of sober second thought when the loyalty is to a Conservative caucus and to the Prime Minister of that Conservative caucus? What happened to the idea of standing back and reviewing legislation to give it that sober second thought?

In my view, it is not only diminished; it is destroyed by the very words of a senator appointed to the Senate by the Prime Minister. Clearly this senator has an understanding of where the intention is to go with this issue.

Regarding politicization in the legislation, the bill says that to run for the Senate one must be a member of a political party in the registered domain of the place one runs in, meaning either a territory or province. In other words, one could not run as an independent senator. It would seem that one would have to join a party in order to run.

We can wax poetic about the folks who are there: the ex-finance bagman of a political party, campaign managers and defeated candidates both Liberal and Conservative. It was used as a reward for those who stood aside to let someone new get a seat in the House or when a change in leadership gave different perspectives under different parties. People were rewarded by being sent to the other place. Now we are going to politicize this place, as much as all of us here know it is political anyway. Maybe the bill is just an admission that it truly is political.

Ultimately, if we are going to say that one must run for a political party to run for the Senate, how do we make those folks accountable?

As members, we are accountable. Under the Canada Elections Act we have to hold an election every five years, although usually it is shorter than that. In the last number of years it has been shorter; sometimes a Parliament lasts only a couple of years. We have to go back to the folks who allowed us to come to this place and ask them if they would like to send us back again. They have the ability to judge us on the things we have done. They can look at our record to decide if they like what we did and then support us, or not, once again.

However, that would not be the case with this group. This group could promise the world during an election, and two things could happen. If the Prime Minister of the day liked the person, he or she would be appointed. If they represented the views of the Prime Minister and his caucus, they would be appointed.

However, we could also make the assumption that one could run and win an election in Alberta but not be appointed. There is no guarantee under the legislation that if elected, one would be appointed. The Prime Minister could simply refuse to make the appointment. One could wait six years and run again and still not get appointed. Therefore, even though the system down the hall in the other place is bad enough unto itself, we would make it worse.

It seems to me that if we want to reform the Senate, we should ask Canadians what they want. We should put it to them as to whether they want the other place. If they say yes, we should ask them what it should look like. We would then truly understand whether Canadians want it.

If the polls are right, more than 70% of Canadians say that the Senate's day has come. The sun has shone, and it is time to retire them all out of the chamber, roll up the proverbial red carpet and wish them all a Merry Christmas and a happy retirement.

That is exactly what we ought to do. We would be happy to help roll the first red carpet up as we let senators go on to whatever it is their lives will be, which is productive, prosperous and happy. We hope they enjoy the rest of their retirement.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Welland will have five minutes remaining for questions and comments when the House resumes debate on this motion.

The House resumed from November 22 consideration of the motion that Bill C-7, An Act respecting the selection of senators and amending the Constitution Act, 1867 in respect of Senate term limits, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

When we last finished debate on Bill C-7, the hon. member for Welland had five minutes remaining in the questions and comments period.

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Sherbrooke.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a rather simple question for my colleague. What does he think about the government, which wants to reform the Senate, but in a roundabout way? The government is proposing that we hold provincial elections, but the Prime Minister will not be required to appoint the successful candidates from these elections. I wonder what my colleague thinks about the Conservatives' misguided application of democratic reform of the Senate?

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, they could have saved the paper and all those trees and simply closed the place. It would have been simple: one act, and one act alone, and then wish them a merry Christmas. On this side, I think we would probably sponsor the party. Being a Scotsman, I know we are seen as being tight, but I would probably put up a few bucks for a few of those bubbly pops if that would be the end of the Senate. We could proclaim that we had done something that Canadians wanted us to do since 60%-plus of Canadians are saying that it is time for the senators to go.

We should not be trying to play around with whether we should elect some. In fact, we would not elect them. If the provinces want to have an election, they can, but there is no guarantee that their selection will get appointed. What is the point? Why would we put someone through the tortures, which we all know well as elected officials, of trying to get elected, then get elected and find out that he or she cannot be a senator because the Prime Minister does not like him or her. It would still be an appointment process. It is still at the whim of the Prime Minister to send the person there. Of course, when people are sent there, they get stay until age 75. It is not a question of taking a senator out if he or she is not doing a good job. At the end of the day, a senator can stay until age 75.

In the spirit of Christmas, I forgive them for all the things they have done wrong, but now it is time for them to go.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I question the member when he says that over 60% of the people want to see the Canadian Senate abolished. I do not buy that. I understand that a majority of Canadians do see value in having a Senate. There is no doubt that many people would argue that there needs to be reform within the Senate but they see some value in it.

Many people who live in western Canada recognize that part of that value could be through a possible appointment in which individuals who bring forward certain regional interests would be appointed. Having a valued Senate could receive support.

If the majority of Canadians agreed with that, would the member then agree that the NDP are on the wrong side of the issue? If the majority of Canadians want to have a Senate, would the NDP still oppose it?

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the only value the Senate has is for the Conservative Party and Liberal Party is as a place for their bag people to go and collect money for them. That is the value of the Senate, none other than that. The value of it is for those parties to put their own folks in the other chamber to phone and petition for money for the Liberal Party or Conservative Party.

There is no value in the Senate. My friend is wrong. He ought to look at the reports and read the polls. The majority of Canadians have said that it is time for the Senate to go.

What we say is, “Have a merry Christmas”, and then we will roll up the red carpet, send them on their way and watch them collect their pension. Unless, of course, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party would like to be generous and help the Canadian public pay the pensions that they gave the crew down at the far end. If they are willing to help the Canadian public to do that, then the Canadian public would probably appreciate it.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a tough act to follow, believe me.

I am pleased to rise here today to speak to An Act respecting the selection of senators and amending the Constitution Act, 1867 in respect of Senate term limits. I admit that the issue of the Senate is one that may seem straightforward at first, but it must nevertheless be carefully analyzed, because we are wading into constitutional waters, as some would say, and into muddy waters, as others would say.

I can think of one prime minister who talked about abolishing the Senate for quite some time and then started talking about an elected Senate. Once he came to power, he suddenly changed his tune and decided to do the same thing as the previous Liberal governments—he started giving Senate appointments to political friends, fundraisers, and as my hon. colleague from Welland so aptly put it, people who work behind the scenes, all paid for by taxpayers.

When I began my legal studies and was studying constitutional law, the issue of the Senate of Canada came up. I had the great pleasure of taking classes taught by none other than the great Senator Beaudoin himself—not necessarily great in height, but great in terms of eminence. He was not a Conservative senator when he was teaching my classes. He taught us about the Canadian parliamentary system.

I grew up thinking that the Senate was indeed what had always been called “a chamber of independent sober second thought”. That title always impressed me. The title is even longer in French: “lieu de la réflexion indépendante, sereine et attentive au sein de la démocratie parlementaire canadienne”. I was so naive that I believed that for a very long time. I thought we had a parliament made up of MPs elected by the public to debate the issues, represent their constituents and engage in dialogue, which might be vigorous but is always supposed to be respectful.

Since then, I have learned that Canadian democracy is not all that healthy. When we want to talk, we end up being silenced. There are time allocation motions. That is a new expression I have heard a lot in the House the past few months.

While I was learning about the wonderful Canadian system, I learned that the Senate was a place free from any influence, a body that would disregard partisan politics and work together to examine issues. I learned that the Senate conducted indepth studies of bills once they passed all the stages in the House and in committee.

I have met senators whom I admire a lot. They are strong people, people with whom you can have extremely interesting and deep conversations. Unfortunately, the very politicized and partisan side of the system seems to have drifted down the hall to that sacrosanct chamber, where we do not often have the right to enter, except on rare occasions, and even then, only in the hall. In any case, we do not go in very far.

As co-chair—with a colleague from the Senate—of the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations, I learned that no matter where it goes, the Senate always has priority over the House of Commons, the people's house.

Partisan appointments have always tainted the quality of the Senate. Once people were appointed, they were there until the age of 75. We saw Senate reports that were not necessarily partisan and that did not reflect the views of the party that had the majority in the Senate. It was not uncommon to see bills come back to the House of Commons with amendments because they had been carefully studied.

The problem with the current situation is that not only do we have an ultra-partisan House of Commons that hardly debates any more and is often democratic in name only, but we also have a Senate that is the same in nature. That is of great concern to me. In this context, when examining the issue of changing and improving the Senate, I take everything with a large grain of salt. I see nothing in any of the changes proposed by the government in Bill C-7 that will ensure that the Senate will serve as chamber of independent, sober second thought within Canada's parliamentary democracy.

There are even some aspects of the bill that are of great concern to me. On the one hand, we will end up with a sort of patchwork Senate, made up of senators who may be elected, who are not really elected, who are almost elected, who are not elected at all, and who are elected but not appointed, and this will really create a rather unusual situation. As for its fundamental role, we must be honest and members of the House of Commons have to take a good look and ask themselves what the purpose of this Senate is, other than having a Liberal or Conservative wing that, depending on who has the majority, does the prime minister's bidding.

Canada is probably the country where power is most concentrated in the hands of only one person. I challenge even my colleagues opposite to say that they have a lot of power. What the PMO says is what the PMO does. The rest just trickles down and people fall in line. There is only the official opposition to stand up to and serve as the counterweight to the government. Thus, under the circumstances, I went one step further and asked myself what the purpose of the Senate is. To my mind, it serves no purpose. The NDP nevertheless realizes that there are very important constitutional issues involved in abolishing the Senate. We are very much in favour of putting the question to the people, and I believe that they must decide if we should continue to have a senate.

Since 1968, I believe, every provincial senate has been abolished, and the provinces are doing just fine without their senate. This solves my problem. I am acutely aware that we have to discuss this with our partners in the federation, namely the provinces and territories. We cannot come up with this type of change and be paternalistic about it and presume that it is up to us, because this has a huge impact on how the Canadian Constitution operates. I am also well aware of the position of Quebec, which challenges the constitutionality of the Conservative government's proposed changes.

We have a much simpler suggestion: it might be time to put the question to the Canadian public. The Liberals are saying they do not want more MPs. But we keep asking the wrong questions. The real question is: what is a reasonable number of constituents for an MP to represent? Once we establish that, we stop playing political games, we respect the fact that some provinces are less populous, and we respect the nation of Quebec. That would work.

The same goes for the Senate. Let us put the question to the public. If we put our trust in the public, we might be surprised by the result. They might say something intelligent. They might say that the Senate is indeed a waste of time, that it is redundant and full of people who get pensions that cost the country a lot of money, when other people are in real need of that money. I am not talking about the people here in this House, but those outside the walls of Parliament. Perhaps we could find a better way to invest that money than in a stronghold of partisan players who are working at our expense to help the Liberal or Conservative cause.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we proceed to questions and comments, it is my duty to inform the House that although the House had been informed that 30 minutes would be added under the normal time for government orders, according to and subject to article 67.2 of the Standing Orders, the only time that the 30 minutes is added for government orders is when the said bill that was the subject of the motion on the recorded division that we just took is in fact the bill that is before the House for the remainder of government orders.

Since the bill that is before us, Bill C-7, is not that said bill, the time allocated for government orders will be the normal time until 5:30 p.m.

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her speech. She spoke very passionately and clearly expressed her point of view. However, it seems to me that her position is somewhat contradictory in that her party, quite rightly, wants to respect the Constitution when it comes to Senate reform but flouts the Constitution when it comes to making changes to the House of Commons. Of course, the NDP was unable to prove that a province's representation in this House could be forever frozen through a parliamentary decision. The NDP spoke about one case, but it involved provincial elections. The drawing of provincial riding boundaries would not in any way give Parliament the right to ignore the provinces' prerogatives in terms of the constitutional rules pertaining to their representation in this House.

Could the NDP be consistent and respect the Constitution when it comes to both Senate and House reform? The Conservatives are flouting the Constitution when it comes to Senate reform. Does the NDP intend to flout the Constitution at all costs when it comes to House reform?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we could have a very interesting debate with the hon. member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville. The NDP's position on the distribution of seats and on maintaining Quebec's political weight, which the hon. member has deemed to be unconstitutional, simply recognizes the unanimous motion adopted by this House giving Quebec the status of a nation within a united Canada. We did not hear any province or territory object to this fact.

When a motion such as this one is adopted, members play politics to look good, but when the time comes to act on such a motion, they are happy to ignore it. The NDP's positions on Senate reform and maintaining Quebec's political weight are not inconsistent in any way.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her comments. I would like her to explain why it is important that this issue be taken to the people and that they take part in the debate.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what a great question. The people should be consulted because it is their House and their Senate. The Senate was created to ensure that all regions of the country would be well represented and to serve as a counterbalance to the House of Commons, where members are elected and where the system is not based on proportional representation. This allows Conservatives, for example, to have a majority with only 39% of the vote.

We want to transform the Senate, which is supposed to represent the Canadian people. We have reached this point in our constitutional life. Seventy-one per cent of Canadians want to have a say in the lifespan and viability of the Senate.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since it is related to the debate, I would like to talk about the Senate's financial statements from March 31, 2010. The costs were: pay and benefits, $71,685,000; transportation, $12,883,000; facilities, $11 million; and professional services, $4 million. The total is $107 million. Since we have a deficit budget, I think it is appropriate to bring up the costs of an unelected, undemocratic and unrepresentative Senate. I thank my colleague for mentioning it.

There is something strange in the Conservatives' Bill C-7. The government says that it wants to respect basic democratic principles, but at the same time, candidates for election to the Senate must be nominated by a registered political party, meaning that the Conservatives would refuse to accept an independent candidate. What does my colleague think about that?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question, but I do not want to start a debate with the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

When I first read the bill, that was the impression I was under. However, there is indeed an additional clause that provides for the possibility of having an independent candidate. That is how I understood it.

Nonetheless, in my opinion it is nothing but tricks—there is no other word for it—because the thing that comes out of all this is the fact that the Prime Minister is never required to choose the person who was duly elected by the public. That alone leads me to believe that once again this is just smoke and mirrors to give people the impression that the Conservatives are being democratic.

When the Conservatives were elected in 2006, they said they were going to start doing what the Liberals had stopped doing and that is to govern properly. The Conservatives were going to be transparent, do things better and be scandal-free. Look at them now. It did not take long before they were up to their eyeballs in alligators. The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie criticizes their antics almost every day.

Somewhere along the way, we traded one bad thing for another, and that is what has to change.

The House resumed from December 7, consideration of the motion that Bill C-7, An Act respecting the selection of senators and amending the Constitution Act, 1867 in respect of Senate term limits, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

When this matter was last before the House, the member for Bonavista--Gander--Grand Falls--Windsor had the floor.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House and the Speaker for allowing me this time, as well as for allowing the debate regarding the House of sober second thought to move ahead.

Over many years, certainly since the inception of this country, this debate has raged on as to its content, how it proceeds, how it is selected and how it goes about its daily business. It has been debated across the country in many forums, sometimes high profile and other times not so high profile. Nonetheless, there have been several repeated attempts to make it better reflect the opinions and the diversity of this country, not just of persons but also the regions that many of us represent. Therefore, I will go through a brief analysis.

I do not think we thank the people who work in the Library of Parliament enough. However, I am thankful to them and, in particular, Sebastian Spano, who did some background information on this. He brought forward some great points. He also brought forward an historical context with respect to the Senate and, in particular, this bill, the thrust of which proposes two things: that we should limit the duration of time that senators can sit, in this case nine years; as well as allow the participation of the provinces in the selection of senators and, more to the point, in the election of senators, which is a practice that has been done circuitously at best when it comes to the situation.

For instance, we remember the particular appointments of the late Stan Waters, as well as Bert Brown, but they were not direct elections per se. This particular bill hopes to bring a direct election within the confines of the Senate, along with term limits.

The bill is divided into two parts. The authors of the bill, in this case the government and the minister in question, have expressed a desire to initiate a process for constitutional reform leading to an elected Senate “in the near future”, which begs the question whether this opens the door to something else. I assume that it does, given that the origins of the party in power always talk about the triple E Senate, equal, elected and effective, which, in my opinion, refers to two things, being equal and elected. Whether it is effective remains to be seen.

The legislative model would allow voters to select candidates wishing to be considered for appointment to the Senate. It does that on two levels. It does that at provincial elections and municipal elections, which is something I will discuss a little later.

It should be noted that the bill would impose no obligation on the provinces or the territories to establish a selection process. However, the nominees model and framework is set out in the schedule, a lot of which the entire framework is set out in the province of Alberta legislation, which is what the schedule is modelled on.

Bill C-20, An Act to provide for consultations with electors on their preferences for appointments to the Senate, was a past attempt to do this. There were past recent attempts in both the Senate and here. We had Bill S-7 and Bill C-20, which were two ways of doing that, both of which died on the order paper in 2008.

I will trace back to when it all started. Basically six major changes were proposed with respect to how the Senate should react through committees, through the House of Commons, as well as through the Senate. First, in 1887, they proposed a Senate in which half would be appointed by the federal government and the other half would be appointed by the provincial governments. Again, we go back to the appointment process. There was no election involved.

The second time this happened was at the end of the 1960s. In the constitutional conference of 1969, the federal government of the day proposed that senators be selected in part by the federal government and in part by the provincial governments, which is the same sort of situation we had in 1887. As well, the provinces could choose the method of selection of senators, whether by nomination by the provincial governments or with the approval of their legislatures. The difference here is that in the past they wanted to infuse provincial input into this by allowing them to appoint but it never set out the way it was to be done, whether by election or appointment. I am assuming they wanted to do it by appointment of the legislatures so they would choose their own, but we can get the idea.

What they wanted to do, for the most part, for the past 144 years, was bring the provinces into a direct consultation process and a process to directly appoint senators to Parliament.

Third, in 1978, the Government of Canada's proposal for a time for action, as the document was called, a renewed Constitution, which would include a house of the federation that would replace the Senate. How interesting is that? It was probably something similar to what the Council of Europe has in Strasbourg.

Basically, the legislators in their home provinces would come to Ottawa and use the Senate, the upper chamber, as a house of the federation, as it was called. Now that proposal did not last very long. It is did not cause a lot of excitement around here and it did not get a lot of media attention. Nonetheless, it was something that was brave and bold for its time.

Bill C-60 was tabled and received first reading in the House of Commons in 1978. In 1979, the Pépin-Robarts task force on Canadian unity recommended the abolition of the Senate and the establishment of the council of the federation. It moved one step further. The council of the federation was to be composed of provincial delegations led by a person of ministerial rank or by the premier of a province. I suggest that members in this House may want to look at that as a proposal, as an alternative, as in the case of the NDP who want to abolish the Senate. There is something there the NDP may want to consider.

In 1984, the Molgat-Cosgrove Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons recommended that senators be directly elected. The Royal Commission on the Economic Union and Development Prospects for Canada recommended that senators be elected in elections held simultaneously with elections to the House of Commons. Therein lies the rub. That is where the direct participation of the provinces is needed, depending on the formula, in particular, seven provinces representing 50% of the population.

That brings us to 1987. I have three words, Meech Lake accord. We all remember that. That was one of the more high-profile attempts at reforming the Senate, a constitutional reform that would have had implications for the method of selecting senators.

With the Meech Lake accord, once a vacancy occurred in the Senate, the provincial government of the province in which the vacancy existed could submit a list of nominees for potential appointments to the Senate. It was somewhat circuitous in the way it went about its business. The provinces would provide a list of people for the prime minister through the governor general to select. That is a little different but, nonetheless, I do not think it would have put it into the context of allowing the provinces to be directly involved simply because it was more of an advisory role. That brings me to this bill, but I will get to that in a little bit.

In 1992, the Beaudoin-Dobbie Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on a renewed Canada recommended the direct election of senators under a proportional representational system. Therein again lies the participation of the provinces.

Several provinces have enacted their own legislation to make way for this type of procedure where they would be involved in electing senators to the Senate. We know about Alberta. It enacted a senatorial selection act in 1989 which set out the guidelines by which they could do that.

In 1990, British Columbia enacted a senatorial selection act as well, which mirrors the counterpart in Alberta, and it did lapse by the way, but it has been reported in recent media accounts that British Columbia may revive this type of legislation.

In 2009, Saskatchewan passed the Senate nominee election act, which received royal assent but has not been proclaimed into force yet.

In Manitoba, there is the special committee on Senate reform. Manitoba took a different track. In November 2009, it proposed an election process for selecting Senate nominees to be administered by Elections Canada and to be paid for by the federal government. Manitoba went in a different way, which tied it a little more directly into the federal system, certainly with Elections Canada, and proposed that the federal government would look after it. As my hon. colleague from Manitoba points out, it was put forward by Gary Doer of the former NDP government.

Proposals for reforming Senate tenure, again from 1867 to 1985, I mentioned the Molgat-McGuigan committee and others. There were several guiding principles involved, which brings me to the point I am trying to make here when it comes to Senate reform. This is why this particular bill could find itself in trouble.

A few years back a former premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, Danny Williams, made a representation by saying that this cannot be done without the provinces. I think he was right and here is why.

In a judgment delivered in 1980, the court articulated a number of guiding principles in the British North America Act and the Senate. It said, basically, that in many ways we cannot change the spirit of the legislation because of the effect of direct election to the Senate. It said that what we would end up doing is changing the very thrust of the way the Senate operates. However, in this particular case, the Conservatives will convince themselves that it is not direct, but it is, thanks to clause 3, which states that the Prime Minister must consider this.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Liberal Party for his views on Bill C-7, the act respecting the selection of senators.

Earlier today, during routine proceedings, there were no fewer than three pieces of legislation introduced in the House of Commons that had their origins in the other place, the unelected, undemocratic Senate. I would like to ask him if he shares my view that it is completely inappropriate for the democratically elected House of Commons to be guided by and, in fact, have its business interrupted and interfered with by bills originating in the Senate, which take primacy and bump the business of the House of Commons.

Regardless of the fact whether he shares the NDP's view that the Senate should be abolished, does he at least concede that it is inappropriate and wrong for the Senate to be dictating the course of action and the debate in the elected chamber, the House of Commons?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good point. I would point out one thing. Despite their origins, they still have to get through this House, which is a good thing. The origin of which in many cases was introduced by a member of Parliament.

With regard to the abolition of the Senate, one of the things being talked about is a referendum to choose whether it should be abolished or not. It is a pretty sincere motive, but the problem with that is the provinces also have to get involved, which in many cases could become a cumbersome event. Nonetheless, if that is the way New Democrats feel, the only thing I can suggest they do is win a majority government and give it the boot.

Nonetheless, in the meantime, this bill is probably the wrong way to go about doing this as the provinces are not involved. That is the fundamental flaw of this legislation because, according to the legislation, as I pointed out earlier, the reference to the Supreme Court said that we cannot change the spirit of the Senate without going to the provinces for consultation and their approval.

This does because there are elections in the provinces. Not only that, clause 3 states that the Prime Minister must consider it, which binds him to the will of provincial legislation, which, in turn, has to enact that formula, which is seven provinces and 50% of the population.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will not talk about hypocrisy, but I will pose a question. Just prior to starting the debate, New Democrats gave unanimous support for a motion that came from the Senate dealing with a world issue. I believe they gave unanimous support because they recognized what the Senate had done was of value.

The province of Manitoba had a public consultation to deal with what we could do to add value to the Senate and people of all political parties in the province of Manitoba at least recognized that. Does he not think that other jurisdictions like Manitoba would benefit if, in fact, the public was consulted as to what sort of future role the Senate would play, and whether the Senate would be elected or appointed?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the member brings up a valid point when it comes to the Senate, how there are many facets of it and how it should be reformed. The vernacular bandied about here is that it is the House of sober second thought. Certainly, it is. Many of my colleagues, I know when it comes to defence issues, such as Roméo Dallaire and others, bring some great input into the debate in Parliament.

However, bear in mind, the thrust of my speech is about the provincial consultation method that is there. The provinces have the right to be involved in Senate reform as well as if we had a referendum to abolish the Senate. They have a right to be involved in that, as well. That is the gist of what I am saying. Whether we believe in the abolishment of the Senate or not, we have to engage the provinces because they are part of the process.

This legislation points out a fundamental flaw. We need to bring these provinces into this discussion, for their agreement, and for the constitutional amendment, because it states quite clearly that we should. That is something that I have not seen from the government; namely, the language saying that the provinces will be involved. That is just not there.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the bill the Conservative government has introduced is a travesty of democratic reform and an affront to Canadians’ intelligence.

If the bill is passed, our Senate will no longer be representative either of Canadians’ choice or of the cultural reality of Canada, and we will inherit a hybrid Senate devoid of the independence it needs if it is to be more credible in the public’s eyes.

If I may, I would like to explain why this reform is sloppy, incomplete and scandalous. I would then like to add a few thoughts about genuinely democratic reform of our parliamentary system.

Let us see. This reform would allow the provinces to hold elections in order to participate in the process of selecting senators. The bill proposes a framework for holding these “elections”, which could be held at the same time as municipal or provincial elections, for example. The public would be invited to go and vote for one of the candidates in the running. Citizens would do their civic duty and put their ballot in the box. And then what would happen? The province would submit the list of candidates selected to the prime minister of Canada, who would decide whether to take the recommendations into account. But the prime minister would retain the privilege of choosing the candidates. He would therefore not be at all obliged to take the voters’ choice into account.

Are we really going to ask Canadians to go and vote, and not be able to assure them that their choice will be honoured? And the government calls this a democratic reform? We already have a declining voter turnout for federal, provincial and municipal elections. Canadians are completely disillusioned about our political system, and they are being asked, with a straight face, to take part in a travesty of democracy. Is this a joke?

That is not all. These senators will be appointed or elected, as the case may be, for a maximum term of nine years, and will be allowed to serve only one term. These new senators will be sitting alongside colleagues who are senators appointed for life and will be telling them that since they were elected, they have more legitimacy than they do. This will create a two-tier Senate.

As well, once the senators are elected, they will never again have to account to Canadians. Because they will be unable to stand again, they will not have to face the public and keep their campaign promises. The provinces will be able to decide to hold elections without even knowing whether the voters' choice will be honoured. And who is going to foot the bill for those elections? The provinces, of course.

We might say that this has become a bad habit with Conservatives. This looks like the omnibus bill, Bill C-10, which provides for more prison terms and more prisons. Who will pay for that? The provinces will, again. It is easy to make reforms when you can pass the buck and the consequences on to someone else, but it is hard for the provinces to swallow, given, moreover, that they are not the ones who are making the decisions. This really looks like an ad hoc, sloppy bill. The fact is that this is the third time the Conservatives have proposed a bill relating to Senate elections, and my Liberal colleague has explained that very well. And yet they still have not managed to do any better than this. To me, this looks a lot like a manoeuvre to get us to swallow an ad hoc reform at top speed, in order to circumvent the constitutional rules of this country.

If the government truly wanted to respect democracy, it would follow the rules laid down in the supreme law of this country, our Constitution, which states that any reform relating to the selection and qualification of senators requires an amendment to the Constitution of Canada.

It is true that section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982, authorizes Parliament to amend the Constitution without the agreement of the provinces in certain circumstances, however paragraphs 42(1)(b) and 42(1)(c) of the Constitution Act, 1982, set out four exceptions to this rule, and in these cases the agreement of the provinces is required. The exceptions are as follows: amending the powers of the Senate; the method of selecting senators; the number of members by which a province is entitled to be represented; and the residence qualifications of senators.

So what is the government doing in order to avoid consulting the provinces? It is trying to make people believe that senators will be elected while continuing to appoint them. It is trying to reform the Senate without asking the opinion of the provinces.

This trick, however, is perhaps not even constitutional. In fact, in a very important decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in 1980, the justices of the highest court in the land stated that Parliament alone cannot make substantive amendments to the “essential characteristics or fundamental features of the Senate”. Moreover, Quebec intends to challenge the constitutionality of this bill, if passed.

What can be made of a bill that is nothing but a parody of democracy and does not respect the Constitution of our country? What can be made of a government that says it supports democratic reforms in Libya and in other Arab nations, touts democracy in China, Burma and Vietnam, and is not even capable of following its own democracy’s rules? What can be made of a government that negotiates free trade agreements and security perimeters behind closed doors and Conservative members who shut down standing committees by systematically directing committees to go in camera and cut short debates in the House? This government is very poorly placed to talk about democracy.

Moreover, the purpose of the Senate must be kept in mind. The Senate was created by the Fathers of Confederation to ensure the independence of our democratic system, a long-term perspective, continuity and equality between the regions, all in keeping with the principle of federalism of our nation. If the government wanted true reform of the Senate—democratic reform—it would modify the upper house to reserve a special place for the first nations, women, francophones—especially francophones outside Quebec, who presently have no national voice in our system—a place to better respect the contemporary nature of our Canadian societies with seats for the cultural communities.

I am convinced that Canadians also have their thoughts on the matter. Why not give them a voice? A referendum on the reform or abolition of the Senate would provide us with a real democratic verdict. We should let Canadians have their opinion on such an important subject. We should give Canadians a real voice instead of having them participate in a mere semblance of democracy. Canadians deserve much better than this botched reform.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate many of the member's comments. She has described what she does not like about the Senate and the reasons to get rid of it. However, I do not think undermining the role of democracy is the way to go.

If we go ahead and abolish the Senate and it is no longer, what do we do then?

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if we abolished the Senate, we could reinvest thousands of dollars in communities. Last July, 36% of Canadians said they were in favour of abolishing the Senate. It is up to Canadians to decide. We need to have a referendum, to consult the provinces, as the Constitution demands. That would be a much more democratic approach and would allow people to have a say, share their opinion.

We are elected by the public and are accountable to them. The three reforms the Conservatives are proposing in the current bill do not even allow senators to be accountable to the public, since a senator's term would end after nine years. They would be replaced before they could even serve a second term, precluding the need to take responsibility for their decisions or to justify the choices they force on the public. For all those reasons, this cannot stand and we must abolish the Senate.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's thoughtful comments get to the heart of the problems that we have with the unelected Senate.

It seems to me that one of the key questions when we are looking at electoral change and democratic reform is the need to move on proportional representation. If we are going to do something, let us make it meaningful. We need to get to the heart of the matter and deal with the way we vote as Canadians. Let us forget about the Senate and deal with proportional representation.

I wonder if the member might comment on the need to move to a system where the way people are voting is actually reflected in the makeup in the House.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Vancouver East.

Indeed, proportional representation would better represent the realities of all regions of the country and the different peoples who live in Canada. As a result, things would be much more democratic. This would be politics at its best. More people would be inclined to get involved and become interested in Canadian politics.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member referred to ways to add value to an appointed or an elected Senate to better protect minorities and regional interests.

We saw what happened with the Canadian Wheat Board and the disadvantage many westerners felt. A regionally based Senate that had more strength to it, whether appointed or elected, would have protected the interests of western Canada. Many westerners truly believe that adding that kind of value to the Senate would be of great benefit. Would the member not agree that, in that sense, a valued Senate is better than no Senate?

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. Liberal member.

In fact, when it comes to the Canadian Wheat Board, if we had better representation in Parliament, representation that was more proportional and democratic, the people in the regions and the prairie provinces would be better represented. The current government represents just 40% of Canadians.

If there were better representation, we would have more people from the Prairies or from each region and local issues would be better represented. Canadians would have better representation within our Parliament.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their very relevant remarks on today's issue, the Senate reform bill, as introduced by the Conservative government. I am also pleased to support the position of the official opposition, which proposes to simply abolish this archaic institution, which should no longer be part of a modern democracy like Canada.

As my colleagues have done, I will try to present clearly and accurately the arguments supporting the NDP's position. I will also explain why this government should immediately put a stop to its Bill C-7, An Act respecting the selection of senators and amending the Constitution Act, 1867 in respect of Senate term limits.

First, I want to commend the work done by members opposite, who recognize that we need to reflect on the democratic system in which we live. As Canadians, we should all ask ourselves whether that system adequately meets the changing needs of a modern democratic society like ours.

Since 1900, 13 attempts have been made to reform the Senate, but they all failed. Considering that so many attempts have been made to deal with a serious issue that affects the very foundation of our Constitution, I think there is as much a need to debate the issue and reflect on it as to engage in a reform. It is on the content of the proposed reform that our opinion differs from that of the government. Indeed, a thorough analysis of the issue leads us to the conclusion that the Senate simply no longer serves the interests of Canadians.

The first amendment proposed in the bill by the government deals with the appointment process. The government is proposing a process that, in theory, allows voters to have a say in the selection of Senate nominees. However, in fact, there is not much change in this regard.

The government is saying that a province or territory would have the option of holding an election, at its own cost, to select the names to be submitted to the Prime Minister for consideration. However, the Prime Minister would be under no obligation to appoint a person previously elected in a province or territory. Therefore, this bill does not change the way senators are appointed, since the Prime Minister would still be free to appoint whomever he chooses from a pool of elected nominees.

In short, this means that the government is proposing to keep all the power regarding Senate appointments, under cover of a supposedly more democratic selection process, and with the provinces footing the bill.

What is the point of letting voters believe that they can have a say if, ultimately, senators will continue to be appointed by the Governor General upon the sole recommendation of the Prime Minister? And why make the provinces again pay for a federal measure?

Furthermore the bill states that if an elected person is not appointed within six years of their election, a new election must be held. This means that a candidate may have spent time, energy and money on an election campaign. He or she may be elected by the people, but if this person is not appointed to the Senate within six years, he or she will have to start all over again. Voters would have elected candidates for the Senate who will wait to be appointed on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, but who may not be appointed and will have to start all over again six years later. This measure makes no sense at all and, to my mind, even seems anti-democratic in that it still leaves a great deal of room for favouritism and cronyism while discriminating against others.

The second amendment being proposed by the government has to do with term limits. Before 1965, senators were appointed for life. Under the British North America Act, 1965, the maximum duration of a term is nine years and the retirement age is 75 years. Reducing terms to a maximum of nine years is definitely a step in the right direction. However, in my humble opinion, it is not enough. This proposal does not do enough to make senators accountable to Canadians.

Once their terms are over, senators will never have to stand before the people of Canada and be accountable for the election promises that they failed to keep or for the decisions that they made while serving. Another thing that does not make sense is that senators will be entitled to receive a Senate retirement pension without ever having had to account for their performance to those who elected them to be their representatives and stand up for their interests.

Another issue of major concern to me is that the provinces were not consulted when the bill was drafted, despite the fact that it deals with the foundations of our Constitution. This government cannot take the initiative for any more new bills devoid of logic on the redundant and unjustified pretext that Canadians gave them a mandate on May 2.

I believe that the provinces have something to say about this bill and that it is imperative that they all be consulted on the subject. Right now, we have proof that the government did not consult the provinces. Ontario and Nova Scotia have publicly called for the Senate to be abolished. Manitoba has maintained its position in favour of abolishing the Senate. The Premier of British Columbia has said that the Senate no longer serves any useful purpose within our Confederation. Even Quebec, the nation that I very proudly represent here today, has stated that it will appeal the matter in court if this bill is passed without first consulting the provinces.

As far as I know, the provinces are the parts that make up Canada. Can the government tell us, here in this House, who it listened to when drafting this bill? Did it develop its approach and these proposals based on actual needs?

Unfortunately, I think I need to remind the House that this government is supposed to listen to and serve Canadians. Such an amendment to our Constitution cannot be made without consulting the provinces and the general public. So why not hold a referendum on the issue? Some 71% of Canadians have already said they want a referendum on the issue, before the question has even been asked unofficially. Some 36% of Canadians are already in favour of abolishing the Senate. Personally, I think a responsible government is one that allows the people to have their say on issues as fundamental as this one.

As a final point on this bill, one that illustrates my negative feelings about it, has to do with a potential conflict of legitimacy between elected senators and appointed senators. How does the government plan to deal with the fact that some senators will have been elected and others appointed, and that some can remain in their positions until they are 75, while others will have a nine-year term? It will be impossible to ensure equal treatment for them all because, right from the start, those who were elected by the public will insidiously be given greater legitimacy.

In the NDP, our reflections on the possibility of abolishing the Senate date back to the 1930s. The relevance of an unelected Senate was already in question, to say nothing of the costs involved, which of course Canadian taxpayers are forced to bear. The Senate costs up to $100 million a year and that money should be invested elsewhere—in infrastructure, for instance, and in job creation.

As we know, historically, the Senate was created based on the Anglo-Saxon model in order to represent Canada's economic and social elite, but that role is outdated and the institution has become archaic.

These days, great modern democracies have come to the same conclusion as the NDP and realized that the Senate is no longer fulfilling its duty in the current political framework. Its role simply no longer corresponds to our current social reality.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my NDP colleague for providing so much relevant information. I would like to hear her opinion on this bill, which has been introduced for a third time and still has many shortcomings. For example, the provinces will hold elections and cover the costs, but the elected candidates will not necessarily be considered by the Prime Minister. In fact, the Prime Minister could choose candidates without any obligation to consider the elections held in the provinces. In addition, the Senate would be made up of some elected senators and some appointed senators.There are still many slapdash elements that were developed on the fly. Is that democratic? What does my colleague think?

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

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

When the Fathers of Confederation planned the Senate at the time of Confederation in 1867, they did not think that the authorities in place had the ability to properly manage Canada and the provinces. Times have certainly changed and those who have been appointed and elected by the provinces are able to manage their own territory. Today, the Senate, as an institution, is no longer indispensable.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her excellent speech and historical overview of what the Senate has done over the years, or not done, in my view, when it comes to public service. She has articulated how this thing, and I hate to refer to it like that, I guess I will just refer to it as the other place, over the years has been really ineffective.

I wonder why my friends in the Liberal Party down at the other end of the House still want to defend it when, clearly, it is only the other side that is going to actually get to put anybody there. Until the day that this thing changes and we go across the aisle and actually get rid of it, it is only Conservatives who can put Conservatives there. The day of the Liberals putting folks in the other place is over. They are going to see them finally decline, to the point where it will be a blue House not a red House. Maybe they will change the carpet.

However, at the end of the day, the premier of the province of Ontario, the largest province in this country by population, has said it should go. Which party does the premier of the province of Ontario happen to belong to? It is the Liberal Party. Imagine that. The premier of a province who has been elected, I guess I should congratulate him even though I am a New Democrat, for the third time in a row, two majority governments and just shy of a majority government this time, says, as a Liberal, let it go. Let it go to wherever it needs to go to, just let it go.

I wonder if my colleague would like to comment on the fact that the premier of Ontario, the hon. Dalton McGuinty, says it is time to let it go.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member.

Ontario and the other large provinces want to do away with the Senate. This institution has outlived its raison d'être. I will not show any pictures but I am thinking of at least three senators who were appointed by the last government after they were defeated in the election. That is shameful. Things like that should not be done. Canadians do not want things like that.

The bigger provinces like Ontario and Quebec are saying that the Senate should be abolished and that it is no longer necessary. However, replacing the Senate with an American model is not the solution either. We saw what happened recently: that type of model can completely paralyze the government. That is not a solution.

In a country like Canada, we are capable of managing the country. We must therefore abolish the Senate.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today in the House to debate and criticize Bill C-7.

The Liberal Party of Canada has always defended democracy and representation. Therefore we do not object to the democratic goal of Senate reform proposed by Bill C-7, but on the other hand we do object to the constitutional problems, conflicts and injustices which this reform would inevitably bring about. This reform would indeed add some democratic legitimacy to the Senate, but that very legitimacy would bring its own share of problems.

A number of new problems would be created, and basically, for what? To try to solve a democratic deficit problem which in fact has very few real consequences. In its current form, the Senate very rarely blocks bills from the House of Commons. Why? Simply because senators are not elected and the public does not see it as having the legitimacy to block the bills produced by democratically elected members of Parliament. Senate reform would give them that democratic legitimacy, and hence senators would be correct to affirm that they have a clear mandate from Canadians and would begin to block certain bills since they would represent the population on the same footing as MPs.

Let us be realistic: to get elected, senators will have to have ideas, make promises and take positions. So they will have a mandate to defend the positions for which they were elected to the Senate. That also brings with it other problems such as political party financing. It would then be necessary to increase taxpayers’ contributions, because the Senate would have to be included. It would not be just for MPs, but a whole new series of laws would be necessary to govern senators during their election campaigns.

Do we really need disputes between the two chambers? Since 1945, only very rarely has the Senate blocked bills from the House of Commons. With this reform, one can easily imagine an impasse being caused by a Senate most with a majority of members from a certain party as it faces a House of Commons with a majority from another party. In that sort of scenario, blockages would become frequent and do harm to the political dynamics of Canada that make change possible.

Do Canadians really want a political situation in which change is difficult, or do they want quick changes when problems arise? The answer to that question is obvious. With such a reform to the Senate, the political situation in Canada would, at best, become similar to that in the United States. Canadians deserve better. If the Conservatives were serious about this bill, they would propose mechanisms for avoiding blockages in the Senate. Unfortunately, this bill ushers in another problem, which is the current distribution of the Senate.

As I mentioned earlier, an elected Senate would have more power because it would have the legitimacy to be actively involved in debates. This raises a problem of current interest, namely, the distribution of senators across the entire country. For example, today, Alberta and British Columbia have only six senators each, while the province of Prince Edward Island has four and New Brunswick has ten. The demographic situation in Canada has changed a great deal since the time the distribution of Senate seats was established.

If senators had more power, do we really believe that Alberta and British Columbia would accept being seriously under-represented, the way they are now? Changing the allocation of Senate seats would not satisfy all provinces either. So what should we do? Should we take seats away from some provinces or add some more? The Conservatives will probably want to do the same thing they have suggested in Bill C-20, that is, add more senators so that each province feels it has gained something.

Do we really believe those provinces which would lose their relative representation in the Senate would be happy about it?

Let us look at the percentage mentioned in Bill C-20, which suggests adding 30 seats to the current 308. That would mean adding 10 seats in the Senate. However, as there has been no increase in the number of Senate seats since it was established, the Conservatives may want to increase that number from 105 to 500 or so, based on how the country has grown since then. I don't know what they have in mind, but I believe representation will need to change if senators are elected. I do not know whether they will be brave enough to change the allocation of seats in the House of Commons without adding any seats. If not, they will not have the guts to do it in the Senate, either.

Meddling with the Senate will lead to quarrels. Why would the Conservative government want to create more interprovincial conflicts? Although the current situation is unfair to the western provinces, it is not all that problematic since the Senate allows the House of Commons to legislate as it sees fit. As I said earlier, a democratically elected Senate would simply create more barriers. This bill will create interprovincial quarrels and political blockages.

So what would we do to avoid the Senate blocking bills from the House of Commons? We would have to create constitutional mechanisms for resolving disputes. It is highly likely that other elements of this bill will be deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada. For this bill to work, the government would therefore have to reopen the Constitution. We know how difficult a subject the Constitution is. It would be necessary to have the support of at least seven provinces, as has already been said today, representing at least 50% of the population. If we reopen the Constitution, it is highly likely that the provinces will also want something in return for their support.

Take the case of Quebec, for example. I remind you that Quebec has still not signed the 1982 Constitution. Do we seriously think it will be so easy to ask Quebec to close its eyes and sign? As a Quebecker, I would say no.

Would the maritime provinces be in favour of losing their weight in the Senate? I do not think so.

Is the Conservative government prepared to declare today that it will reopen the Constitution if necessary? I very much doubt it.

In short, this bill is probably unconstitutional and, if the government decides to move ahead with it, it will lead to constitutional confrontations.

As my colleagues can see, there are many “ifs” to this bill. It is precisely for that reason that we are opposed to it, for too many problems may arise. If the government were serious about this reform, it would respond to our concerns with amendments and would negotiate with the provinces. At present that is not the case. So there will be quarrels between the provinces, legal challenges and confrontations between the House of Commons and the Senate.

Finally, there is another problem to consider. What do we do if the Prime Minister refuses to recommend an elected senatorial candidate? In fact it is always the Governor General who appoints senators on the recommendation of the prime minister. The Prime Minister never appoints them directly. So a mere bill cannot force the Prime Minister to have a candidate appointed.

In spite of all the problems I have raised, this bill might well make no change apart from the problems I have mentioned. Let us be clear: this government does not even follow the rules when it comes to appointing an Auditor General. Can we believe that it will follow the rules for the Senate?

Like the rest of the Canadian population, we are in favour of democratic representation. But in this case, the reform will only create problems. At the moment the Senate is not democratic, but it lets the elected officials present their bills, and in so doing respects Canadian democracy. Furthermore, we believe that this reform is unconstitutional, and we know for a fact that the Conservative government does not want to reopen the Constitution.

The government must not do half the job: either let it commit to a total reform, including negotiations with the provinces and reopening the Constitution, or let it keep the status quo.

In closing, I want to emphasize the following point. We are not opposed to a democratic reform of the Senate but we are opposed to the way that the Conservatives want to do it.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel for all the very serious questions he raised concerning this reform.

The only thing that I do not understand is why some of his colleagues dream of saving this institution and think that it can be fixed. It is like trying to fix a wound on a horse by sewing on a piece of an old fur coat. That does not work. It gets us nowhere, it seems to me.

Does the hon. member think that this institution can be fixed?

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

Mr. Speaker, we do not think the Senate is broken. We are always ready to reform the Senate because things change over the years, but we are not ready to abolish it. We have recently had proof of that with Bill C-10. The House of Commons has just passed Bill C-10, although it contained a number of errors. Even the government acknowledged that the bill had errors. Who is going to deal with those problems? Who is going to accept the new amendments? The Senate, that is who. The Senate will move its own amendments, which are going to be more sensible, I believe. That is the Senate's job. We are ready to respect the role the Senate plays in Canada's democracy.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a serious problem with the beginning of the argument made by the hon. member. The issue is not that the Senate seldom defeats bills. The issue is that it has the ability to do so.

The Senate defeated the bill dealing with climate change, which is one of the most important issues of this century. The Senate interfered in this debate. The problem is not that it does so often. It may do so on rare occasions, but if it is for issues that are as important as the world's future, we absolutely must think about getting rid of an institution that does such things without being elected.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. If we are talking about the same bill, it came from the House. Elected members introduced this bill. Even if that bill came from the Senate, it would eventually have to be introduced in the House of Commons so that the members could debate it. When a bill is debated in the House of Commons, it is elected members who engage in debate. So I do not see the difference.

Does Canada really need an elected Senate and an elected House of Commons? People are already mixed up. There are provincial members, councillors and mayors. People already know there are specific skills for each area. Do we really need two levels of elected officials at the national level? I do not think so.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it always amazes me how narrow-minded a New Democrat can be.

The vast majority of people in the province of Manitoba see value in the Senate, especially when it comes to representing regional interests. Some New Democrats seem convinced that the only way to deal with the Senate is to abolish it. Many Canadians recognize that value could be added to the Senate that would benefit our nation going into the future.

Could the member respond to the idea that the Senate does play a valuable role today, and could even contribute more in the future if we work with Canadians to add more value to it?

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

Mr. Speaker, I always get the most difficult questions from the Liberal Party, but obviously the ones that are best thought out.

I want to thank the member for Winnipeg North. He is one of the hardest-working members. He is always working for his constituents. Meanwhile, the NDP is not fit to govern, and neither are the Conservatives.

In one of my questions today, I spoke about the fact that there are different people with different talents who would not normally run in elections but are selected for the Senate. They may have different points of view, for example, on child issues or the elderly. It was mentioned that Mr. Dallaire is an expert in defence matters. That is one benefit of having the Senate.

The other one is what I mentioned in relation to Bill C-10. If we did not have the Senate, we would have a flawed bill going through the judicial process right now.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to the title “An Act respecting the selection of senators”, I would add “to ensure that the Senate resembles the bar scene in Star Wars”, as my colleague said. Senators appointed for life, senators elected through some crazy, vague process, all at the provinces' expense, people who lost elections, friends: the Senate is a goldmine for comedians.

Before reforming an institution like that, it is important to do a bit of thinking. In countries where several nations or ethnic groups share the territory, when there has been improvisation or when thoughtless things have been done, we have seen results as in Czechoslovakia, India or Belgium—we still see it today. When there is tension between different groups and someone decides unilaterally to limit the political force of one of those groups, it leads to conflict. That is what we are heading for.

Every constituent I speak to wants to know when the Senate will be abolished. Everyone thinks that getting rid of an outdated symbol of the monarchy would be an essential first step in parliamentary reform. We have to wonder where the government is going. This is the same government that lamented the presence in the House of a party that dreamed of dividing Canada. Let me say that the Prime Minister and his government seem to be even better at doing that themselves.

I ran in the election to represent the people of Laurentides—Labelle primarily because, like them, I could no longer take the government's sterile confrontation and inaction on important issues. People back home are not scared of cyberpredators and criminals. They are scared that the sawmills will remain closed and their children will move away to find work. The Senate does not even register on their list of priorities, except in that it costs taxpayers money.

In June, I signed the clerk's book and made a four-year commitment. I thought that I was signing on with the most progressive force in the country, and I do not think I was mistaken. We keep seeing improvisation from members on the other side, and the one thing we can count on is that their mistakes are already coming back to haunt them. Every day we see court rulings or international opinions about our country. We can see that they are losing ground. This kind of nonsense is not the best way to move forward.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to look beyond this reform and tell me how he envisions democratic reform for the 21st century. With the means of communication available today, what could we do to ensure that citizens and civil society can participate? I would like to hear some of his thoughts on that.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, at the very least, when we want to reform an important institution—I say “important” because unfortunately it still is—the first step would at least be to consult the provincial and territorial partners and the public, instead of improvising like this. People across Canada are intelligent and reasonable. They are capable of forming an opinion if we ask them to. Taking action without any consultation means you can do whatever you want, as those across the way are proving in this House.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments. Given the member's response, is it safe to assume that if the NDP were in government, its first act in dealing with this issue would be to consult Canadians to hear what they would want to happen with the Senate? Is that a fair conclusion on my part?

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question.

We would very likely do something else because there are far more pressing matters that need our attention, such as ensuring that our aboriginal communities do not have to turn to the Red Cross for help, or ensuring that our seniors are not living in poverty. There are plenty of other things to do. Personally, on my list, the Senate is item Z-270.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, presently we are in a global economic crisis and there seem to be many issues more important than tinkering with an unelected house, the red chamber.

Could my colleague describe to us all the other priorities that we should be tackling now, rather than tinkering with the mechanics of a upper house that costs Canadians millions of dollars per year and that is wasteful spending when there are so many other priorities? Could he outline what the priorities of an NDP government would be, if we were the government right now?

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before concerning ourselves with the retirees in the other place who sit around twiddling their thumbs, we should begin by ensuring that the 308 members here succeed in producing results for the public. I feel it when I meet with the public. They tell us that the system is ineffective and that we get paid to do nothing. It hurts me to hear that because I did not come here to do nothing and neither did my colleagues. We are even prepared to work with our friends across the way. That is why we are proposing amendments. The hon. members opposite should at least look at those amendments before voting against them.

[Jean-François Fortin, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to say that I am pleased to rise to present the Bloc Québécois's position on Senate reform.

The Prime Minister is definitely single-minded; he is taking another run at it. Under the cover of increasing the Senate's legitimacy, he is proposing two important changes to the Senate: limiting senators' tenure to nine years and allowing them to be elected by the provinces.

Before explaining my party's position, I would like to point out some of the dangers to democracy lurking in this reform bill. First, electing senators is not such an easy business. That is where the reform proposed by the Prime Minister becomes dangerous. According to the bill, the provinces would be responsible for organizing these elections, which means that implementing the bill would depend entirely on the provinces' goodwill. Most provinces are not interested or are downright hostile to this change that is being made without their consent. The Prime Minister has done nothing to win the co-operation of the provinces in this attempt to reform the Senate, and his inflexibility may result, in the end, in the appointment of some senators who are elected and others who are not.

We would end up with a legislative assembly whose democratic legitimacy would vary, unless the Prime Minister decides to leave some seats vacant. No elections in some provinces, elections in others. This would also be detrimental to the representation of certain provinces. There is another problem: the term limits would not apply to senators appointed before 2008, which would create a double standard. Ultimately, if all senators were elected, and in the absence of true reform, the fundamental problem would remain the same.

With the government's proposal, the election of senators would change the balance of power in Parliament and certainly also between the provinces and with Quebec. The Senate has broad powers that it has practically always used with a certain amount of restraint, out of respect for the House of Commons. Once elected, however, it could use its new legitimacy to stand up to MPs. The exception could become the rule, if the membership of the two houses were different.

The Conservatives' bill brushes this danger aside. So the Conservative government is proposing to reform the Senate with Bill C-7 and to reform the House of Commons with Bill C-20, which would weaken Quebec's position within federal political institutions. So it is doublespeak. On the one hand, the government is saying that it wants to prevent political manipulation by appointing senators for partisan reasons. And on the other hand, as we have seen over the past few months and the past few years, the job of senator has increasingly become a political reward given by the Prime Minister largely to his friends. The Senate as an institution is less and less useful to democracy.

The Bloc Québécois is in favour of abolishing the Senate. But let us remember that Quebec's traditional position is that any change to the Senate must be made with the consent of the provinces, especially Quebec. The Canadian Constitution is a federal constitution. There are therefore very good reasons for ensuring that a change in the essential characteristics of the Senate should not be made by Parliament alone, but rather should be subject to a constitutional process involving Quebec and the provinces.

As far back as the late 1970s, the Supreme Court of Canada looked at the power of Parliament to unilaterally change the constitutional provisions dealing with the Senate. In 1980, the court ruled that decisions regarding major changes, like the ones the Conservatives are proposing today, that affect the fundamental features of the Senate cannot be taken unilaterally. Changes to the powers of the Senate—the method of selecting senators, the number of senators to which a province is entitled, or the residency qualifications of senators—can be made only in consultation with Quebec and the provinces. Furthermore, in 2007, Benoît Pelletier, the former Quebec minister of Canadian intergovernmental affairs who is well known in the field, reiterated Quebec's traditional position, and I quote:

The Government of Quebec believes that this institution does not fall exclusively under federal jurisdiction. Given that the Senate is a crucial part of the Canadian federal compromise, it is clear to us that...the Senate can be neither reformed nor abolished without Quebec's consent.

The same day, in the National Assembly of Quebec, a resolution was adopted, a unanimous motion that read as follows:

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.

With the unanimous support of the National Assembly of Quebec, the Government of Quebec therefore requested the withdrawal and/or suspension of the various bills that had been introduced over time by the Conservative government with a view to Senate reform.

This position by the Government of Quebec is not new. It is an historical position. Following the unilateral patriation of the Constitution in 1982, successive Quebec governments, be they sovereignist or more federalist, all agreed on one basic premise: they did not want to discuss Senate reform before the Meech Lake accord was ratified, as Robert Bourassa said in 1989.

A little later, in 1992, Gil Rémillard said that Quebec's signing of an agreement involving Senate reform would depend on the outcome of negotiations on three important things: the idea of a distinct society, the division of power and limiting the federal spending power.

Finally, on November 7, 2007, the National Assembly of Quebec unanimously adopted the motion I mentioned earlier in my speech.

As for the people of Quebec, a fairly recent poll from March 2010 clearly shows that the majority of Quebeckers do not give any value to the Senate in its current form and that a larger proportion of them are in favour of abolishing it completely.

Here are a few figures to be more specific. Only 8% of respondents from Quebec believe that the Senate plays an important role and that the Senate appointment system works well. In addition, 22% of Quebeckers would prefer to have elected senators, while 43% would like the Senate abolished completely.

Not only is this bill unwanted, but it is undesirable.

For all these reasons, the Bloc Québécois will vote against the bill introduced by the government and, as members know, it would ideally like the Senate abolished.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the excellent presentation he just made; it explains his position quite well.

Certainly, the Senate has evolved in recent years, especially in the light of the increase in partisanship. When it was established, the role of the Senate was to provide sober advice to members of Parliament, who tended to be rather partisan.

How does the hon. member think an institution could offer that advice to members of Parliament while avoiding partisanship? I am thinking of civil society or more participatory democracy. I would like to explore those ideas a little to see how we could achieve something along those lines.

[Jean-François Fortin, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her very pertinent question.

We have indeed seen the reasons for which the upper house was created, especially in coming to the defence of minorities and of certain regions of Canada. Over time, things have changed and the role of the Senate has become much more closely linked to partisanship. That was because the government largely saw it as a way to reward its friends.

Of course, besides the formal machinery of democracy, we have civil society and we have groups that are very capable of providing representation on issues that affect daily life. In my opinion, the government should listen to those groups to a greater extent and, specifically, should establish formal and informal mechanisms that would allow it to connect with the reality of Canadians and Quebeckers.

At this point, abolishing the Senate seems to us to be the best solution, and we urge the government to be attentive to the interests of Canadians and Quebeckers.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I feel that the government's positions are almost clear. They have no real idea what to do with the Senate, as the various approaches and bills over the years demonstrate. Our friends in the Liberal Party, I feel, are equally clear in their view that the Senate is an essential and important institution, and they have their own reasons for feeling that way. But the position of the hon. member and that of the NDP are somewhat similar in that we favour the abolition of the Senate. In that context, knowing his background in political science and that he is an expert in the field, I would like to hear his comments on the fact that Quebec abolished its own provincial senate in the late 1960s and on the impact it had on the way in which Quebec was governed and administered.

[Jean-François Fortin, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I represent a magnificent riding that I invite you to come visit. In time, you will become more familiar with the name of my riding.

I want to thank the hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques for his question. Parliaments around the world, in Europe, the United States or in Canada, have had democratic practices that have changed how the public is represented over time. Clearly, a senate that may have been necessary at a certain time for various reasons, like a photograph that reflects the true reality of a certain moment, has to be able to change and evolve in the minds of the people. My party and I feel that the Senate no longer has a place today. We see that the NDP has a similar position on this. The role that the Senate used to play is no longer called for today. We are therefore proposing the abolition of the Senate. Quebeckers, of course, chose to abolish their senate for reasons I cannot get into right now for lack of time.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on such an important bill before the House. There can be nothing more important to us as Canadians than our democratic institutions. I believe that a Senate that is appointed or pseudo-elected, which is what the bill would have us do, is actually anti-democratic. We have a democratic House of Commons. We are elected by our constituents. We come to this House, and we actually try to debate the issues and bring the concerns of our constituents into this House. However, that has been very difficult during the last few months because, as we know, time allocation has been moved and our voices have been silenced many times.

However, we still believe and would encourage our colleagues across the way to allow the democratic process to play out. In this democratic process, we do not need to have a Senate. The Senate is appointed. Senators do not really represent any constituents. They come from regions. They do not have any kind of feeling of reporting back to anybody.

As we know, this is not the first time that my Conservative colleagues have tried to make changes to the Senate, but each time the changes they propose do not go far enough.

On the other hand, the NDP is constant. Since the 1930s, we have been constant in saying that it is time for the Senate to go. Our party keeps reaffirming that position over and over again, not because we are just looking for something to be opposed to, by the way, but because when we talk with our constituents, to Canadians across this country, they actually see very little value, if any, to the Senate.

Both sides of the House have to acknowledge that we are going through hard economic times, unemployment is rising, poverty levels are rising, our child poverty has increased, actually, the gap between the rich and the poor in Canada has increased, our health care system is under stress, our students in post-secondary education are burdened with a growing debt load, and many of them do not even have access to post-secondary education because they do not have the financial wherewithal to do so. I would argue that as we go through these hard economic times, this is the time that we should really all be standing to say it is time to abolish an archaic institution called the Senate.

When we look at our history, we have a group of people who are appointed by the Prime Minister. Under the new proposals, as we all know, the provinces may have elections at their own expense, and how many of them have money these days? Even when they elect and recommend somebody, the appointment is still at the discretion of the Prime Minister. What we have seen since May 2 have been appointments of either key workers, supporters, or failed candidates, to the Senate. Obviously, patronage is truly alive on the Hill.

When we look at all that, Canadians out there are asking, what is the role of the Senate? In my riding of Newton—North Delta most of them would rather take the millions of dollars we spend on the Senate and have it spent on education. They would like to have it spent on transit infrastructure. They would like to have it spent on health care. They would like to have it spent on raising seniors out of poverty. Shame on us. They would really like to see that kind of debate.

If the government feels it has to move to make some changes, let us take it to the public. Let us take it to Canadians right across the country, and let us engage in a healthy debate. I know that healthy debate is hard for my colleagues across the aisle, but let us take this out into our communities, engage in a healthy debate, and let our constituents tell us if they are for, against, or do not care. I will bet that they will care because they care how their tax dollars are spent and they would like to have them utilized to do some public good.

I have yet to be convinced of the public good that is achieved through a Senate. I was looking at it historically. As members know, I am new to the House. I looked at the number of times that an elected House of Commons has passed legislation and it was blocked by appointed, partisan senators that owe their loyalty to no one except the people who appoint them.

It is a very telling comment when a senator can write a letter to other senators stating:

Those of us who came to the red chamber were there to get a majority vote for reform. Those in the Senate before [the Prime Minister came to power] need to realize that, had he not made appointments, the Conservatives appointed by Mulroney would now be a very small group struggling to do anything! Every senator in this caucus needs to decide where their loyalty should be and must be. The answer is simple:--

As a taxpayer this would actually give me sleepless nights. It continues:

--our loyalty is to the man who brought us here, the man who has wanted Senate reform since he entered politics, the Rt. Hon. [Prime Minister].

I would encourage every parliamentarian, my colleagues across the aisle as well, to really pay attention to that. If after reading that, we believe there is a role for the Senate, then we need to give our heads a shake. There is a need for a referendum because we need to justify that to every Canadian out there.

Every time I read this letter, I must admit I get goosebumps because here we are in a democratic country called Canada, with a parliamentary democracy, where a senator can write a letter to his whole caucus saying that their only loyalty is to the man who brought them to the Senate. That tells us a lot about the Senate, about who appoints the senators, where the power lies, and how the senators, once appointed, do not even see themselves as having any kind of commitment to Canadians. They see their commitment to the man who appointed them, who gave them their jobs.

My commitment is to the constituents who voted, whether they voted for me or whether they voted for another candidate. Once I became an MP, I am an MP for every constituent in my riding. That is my role.

It is because the Senate is archaic and out of touch, and does not connect with the people across the country, that it needs to be dissolved. Once it is dissolved, let us take those resources and do some real public good that the citizens of Canada can feel proud that their tax dollars are being spent to lift people out of poverty, to help seniors, to help our veterans, to establish a universal child care program, and to help our struggling students get an education, so that they can contribute to our economy and grow our economy.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments. However, we have another bill before us with regard to increasing the number of members of Parliament. It would increase the number from 308 to 338.

The member made reference to canvassing what Canadians want and to the issue of saving money. I am sure she would agree that a vast majority of Canadians, I would suggest 90% or more, do not believe we need more members of Parliament and do not believe we need an additional 30 MPs. We can imagine the money that could be saved.

Does the member believe that the same principles in applying those issues with the current bill should also apply to the bill that would increase the number of politicians? It is a bill her party is supporting, along with the Conservatives.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for a very insightful question.

Members of Parliament come to sit in this House and, when they are allowed to, debate issues that are important to Canadians. When they go back to their ridings, they provide a direct service. I know my colleague will agree that we are often busier when we are back in our own ridings than sometimes we are when we are here. At least we feel we play a useful role when we are back in our ridings; when we are there, we do provide a direct service.

There is a difference between parliamentarians who are elected and senators who receive a patronage appointment or are appointed by the Prime Minister.

It is not just the NDP or myself who are saying that we should get rid of the Senate. Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, a Liberal, has also said that it is time for the abolition of the Senate. B.C. Premier Christy Clark, who calls herself a Liberal, although I would say she is a Conservative, has said the Senate no longer plays a useful role in Confederation. Manitoba maintains its position of Senate abolition. Quebec has called this legislation unconstitutional.

When we really look at this issue, right across the country there is a consensus already building that we should get rid of the Senate.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her very passionate speech. She said that by abolishing the Senate, we could save astronomical amounts of money. In my riding, we are working with the government to see how we could come up with a more efficient rail transportation system in order to reduce traffic on the Island of Montreal, but we are being told there is not enough money to invest in such infrastructure.

I would like the hon. member to talk about actual projects in her riding that the government should be putting money into instead of investing in the Senate.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we could come up with a huge number of projects. With the amount of money we spend on the Senate, we could address a number of issues. We could lift our seniors out of poverty. We could have infrastructure projects that would improve our commitment to the environment--that is, if we still have a commitment from the government side to the environment. Really, when we think about it, there are many projects.

There will be some who would argue that if we do not have the Senate, our parliamentary democracy will come to a halt. I would reply that in the provinces that got rid of their senates, the sky did not fall. Everything carried on, and they actually got more work done. Bills were able to go through quickly. Legislation was able to be enacted quickly. Not only was the timing important, but they actually had money freed up.

A survey done in July 2011 found that 71% of Canadians are in favour of holding a referendum to decide the future of the Senate. I know my colleagues across the way are very committed to listening to Canadians across the country. They keep saying how they were elected to respond to the needs of Canadians; here we have 71% of Canadians saying it is time for a referendum.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak about government Bill C-7 on the Senate. For several years, the government has been saying that it wants an elected Senate. If anyone is wondering whether I believe in the Senate, no, I absolutely do not, and I will explain why.

I may have once believed in the Senate but, if I did, I lost that faith. There was a time when I thought that there should be a place for the Senate and a time when I was uncertain, but that is no longer the case. I absolutely do not believe in a Senate appointed by the Prime Minister. For me, that is not democracy. In the past, in other countries, senators were appointed by their prime ministers, but those countries changed their way of doing things to take modern democracy into account. They chose to have elected senators with certain powers. For example, there are countries where the Senate cannot vote on bills related to government spending but, instead, it takes care of bills related to what is happening in communities.

I am looking at our Senate when I refer to an unelected Senate. We are supposed to live in a democratic country. There are various political parties—the NDP, the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party, the Bloc Québécois, the Canadian Alliance and all the others. They are all legitimate. We have the right to have our parties. Someone at Elections Canada makes sure that all the rules are followed, that everyone has a place and that any eligible person can run for a seat in Parliament. Those running for office campaign for 35 days. There is a huge election campaign. We have to sell ourselves to the public. Who should the people choose to represent them in Ottawa? A democratic, secret vote is held to choose someone—a man or a woman—to represent us in Ottawa, someone who can discuss and vote on bills that will become the laws of our country. These representatives are chosen by the people. That is democracy. It is the people who decide who will represent them, or who their members of Parliament will be. In the end, does it matter that the Prime Minister says that he wants to elect senators—people who are retiring?

Everyone knows that when someone is appointed to the Senate by the Prime Minister, they are there until the age of 75. The Prime Minister has the power to appoint people to the Senate, but not to remove them, however. A senator may do whatever he or she likes after being appointed. A senator must have done something really inappropriate to be relieved of his or her duties. No one wants to leave; they do not do anything until the age of 75, and there is no problem. That said, I do not want to tar all of the senators with the same brush.

In 2005, when Canadians and Quebeckers decided to elect a minority government, the opposition had the majority in the House of Commons. As has always been the case, if a budget is brought down by a minority government in the House of Commons and if the opposition, which is in the majority, votes against that budget, this means that the government does not have the confidence of the House and, consequently, that government falls and an election is held.

If a budget is brought down by a minority government in the House of Commons and the majority opposition votes against the government's budget, this means that the government does not have the confidence of the House. The government falls and there is an election. That is the rule. That is what protects the elected government, which has the power to trigger an election. That is where confidence is expressed. It is a vote of confidence. Normally, the government has to choose.

That is not, however, what is happening. The House is passing bills and the unelected Senate is voting them down in the other place. The Senate is voting against bills passed by the members elected by the population. I will give you an example.

The NDP introduced Bill C-311 concerning our responsibility with regard to climate change, the Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change. Whether we like it or not, the House expressed its opinion in a vote. The elected members voted. I think that all members, be they with the NDP, the Liberal Party, the Bloc or the Conservative Party, should feel offended, even though this is an NDP bill, that the unelected Senate voted to defeat this bill.

Our time here in the House is limited. At some point, there will be other people here. At some point, the Conservatives will no longer be in power and will be in the opposition. I wonder how the Conservatives would feel about the Senate voting against House bills, in a minority government situation, for example, during the time when they had a minority government.

The current Prime Minister himself has said previously that the Senate's job was not to vote against House bills. The House is elected. Members of Parliament are elected by the public.

A few years ago, I sent out a bulk mailing in my riding and asked constituents to respond. It was almost a referendum. I asked people whether they agreed with the Senate, whether senators should be elected, whether the Senate should be abolished or whether it should remain as is. No one wanted the Senate to remain as is. Among those who responded, 85% indicated that they were in favour of abolishing the Senate. It would be interesting to have a referendum on this in Canada. It is great to say that this is part of the Constitution, to hide behind that and to say that, because of the Constitution, we can never change the Senate. The Constitution makes a great place to hide.

However, what would happen if there were a national referendum and the public said it was in favour of abolishing the Senate? If that happened, all of the provinces would have to agree in order to amend the Constitution. Hopefully the provincial premiers and legislatures would honour the decision of Canadians and Quebeckers. We would hope they would recognize that, if the public no longer wants a Senate, it is time to get rid of it once and for all. Why are we spending money on this institution?

The bill that I introduced required Supreme Court justices to be bilingual. The bill was passed in this House. The majority of parliamentarians voted in favour of the bill. The Conservatives consider themselves lucky that the Senate does exist because, had it not, the bill would have been passed and they would now be required to appoint bilingual justices to the Supreme Court. That is democracy. Elected representatives should decide. We are the elected representatives—whether Conservative, NDP, Liberal or Bloc. The voters elected us to the House. We were not appointed by the Prime Minister. Conservatives should mull that over. They will not be in power for the next 100 years. At some point, the Conservatives will no longer be in power.

It is not right. It was not right when the Conservatives were in opposition. The current Prime Minister was against the Senate voting down bills passed by the House of Commons. What has changed since he moved from opposition to power? What has caused such a change in him?

The Senate claims that it exists to protect minorities and the regions, but it never has done that.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Acadie—Bathurst.

We are aware that a number of countries have abolished the Senate, for example Finland, Germany and Japan. And those are not the countries lowest on the list. A number of provinces have abolished the senate as well. At present, 71% of the population would support holding a Canada-wide referendum so they could voice their opinion. This morning, a member said it would be difficult to open our Constitution. Our Constitution was created to be opened when it is necessary. Processes have been provided for opening it and for agreeing. Some of them mean that referendums can be held.

I would like to hear the member's opinion on that.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Madam Speaker, if we hold a Canada-wide referendum on the Senate, with Quebec, Canadians can decide whether they no longer want the Senate. The Constitution is not written in stone. Everything can be changed and that is why we have a Parliament.

When New Brunswick enacted legislation to make the province bilingual, all the provinces agreed. There was no talk of the Constitution and it was not opened up for everything. It was opened only on that subject, and bill 88 was incorporated into the Constitution. We are protected by the Constitution. It was done democratically; the Constitution was opened, bill 88 was added to it, and that was the end.

So if there is a referendum on the Senate, the Constitution can be opened just on that subject. We can listen to the people and respond to their desire to get rid of that institution. The provinces have got rid of it, as our colleague mentioned just now, and it was not the end of the world. No one can run and hide anymore.

Now, members rise in the House to vote on a bill, the public looks at them, and if the members do not do a good job, in a democratic way, they can be voted out in the next election. We do not need a Senate to reject bills passed by a majority of Parliament, because we are elected and senators are not. They are people appointed by the Prime Minister. Most of the time, they are friends of the Prime Minister or of a political party. That is not democracy.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member for Acadie—Bathurst is a veteran of this place, so I am sure he realizes the hard work that takes place in the Senate. Great reports come out of its committees. Great dedication is shown by so many senators. It is the place of sober second thought when it comes to legislation from here. Often some errors have been made in drafting bills, especially private members' bills, but the senators have been able to pick up on those errors as a result of their experience and expertise in looking at the law. Despite the member's comments that the current Senate is a patronage-laden place, it still does some great work.

We also have to remember that a lot of the legislation we deal with in the House actually starts over in the Senate and comes this way. Senators bring forward some great ideas on their own private members' bills. We need to look at Parliament as a whole.

We are trying to bring democracy and reform to the senate by allowing people to elect senators. If the member is so opposed to patronage and the existing Senate the way it stands, why does he want to bring proportional representation into the House where members will be appointed through patronage off party lists?

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Madam Speaker, I have been to many countries that have proportional representation. The people are appointed through a convention, not by a leader of a party. Their appointment is not done through one person.

I am not degrading people in the other place. I am not saying that the senators do not do any work. I am asking if we need the Senate.

The member says that senate is the place of sober second thought, but that is why we have committees. If the government were to stop putting time allocation on debate in the House of Commons and let us do our jobs, if it did not stop debate in committees and let us do our jobs, then maybe we would not need that other place to do the second thought. We could do our own sober second thought. Right now the government is stopping us from doing our jobs, yet it is telling us that we need the Senate to repair things. We could do the repair work right here. Leave us to do our work.

The Conservative government has stopped debate in the House 11 times. We are allowed to debate a bill for two hours and that is it. That is not democracy; that is anti-democracy. The member should think about that too.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is a tough act to follow, as always.

I would like to congratulate my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst as well as my colleague from Newton—North Delta. Both of them are very passionate, and they are models in both their bearing and their ethics. I really admire their work.

On this day, December 8, I only have one thought in mind: “Give peace a chance”. Why is it so important to give peace a chance? It is important because peace is synonymous with discussions, with communication among peoples, among people and among parties, whether they agree or not. Dialogue should always be at the forefront of a democracy. It is extremely important.

The message of my idol, John Lennon, who was assassinated on December 8, was about communication and the way in which we can together discuss topics that are extremely important to society and to the population in general. Today, we are debating a bill that affects more people than we realize and may cause a chill among some provincial elected members. First and foremost, we have to respect democracy, which is a sincere and cordial dialogue. Exchanges between the members of the opposition and the members of the government should be courteous.

It appears to me that Bill C-7, An Act respecting the selection of senators and amending the Constitution Act, 1867 in respect of Senate term limits, reflects a somewhat cavalier attitude and shows indifference to the real issues that are of concern to the population.

The role of this institution is no longer required and this has been the case for decades, as was very well explained by my colleague, the member for Acadie—Bathurst. Historically, the role of that institution has always been that of a watchdog. Personally, I think this role has evolved into a ghost's role, and I am being polite in saying that. One wonders what could have led the Conservatives to table a bill on this topic for the third time. Basically, this legislative effort contains absolutely nothing that would truly legitimize the existence and relevance of the Senate chamber, especially given the fact that at no time since the beginning of this 41st Parliament have the Prime Minister and his merry band given us any opportunity for real debate in a sound democracy. Never have they done so. And believe me, this government does not seem anywhere near doing that in the course of this exercise.

In the first paragraph of the preamble to Bill C-7, we can see the ambiguity and paradox of the Conservatives' position, especially when they claim that the Senate must continue to evolve in keeping with the principles of modern democracy and the expectations of Canadians. I would be curious to know the opinion of Canadians on that topic.

In the second paragraph of that preamble, we read:

Whereas the Government of Canada has undertaken to explore means to enable the Senate better to reflect the democratic values of Canadians and respond to the needs of Canada's regions;

As for the regions, we will get to that in due course.

How can that be called democratic if the provinces' choice is not even respected by the Prime Minister?

Part 1, clause 3, on senatorial selection, states that “the Prime Minister...must consider”. There is no obligation. The Prime Minister does not even respect the choice of senators elected democratically by the provinces. Welcome to the Conservatives’ world where even evolution runs backwards. The upshot is that we will again and again be faced with partisan appointments of the kind the Liberals had us accustomed to; now it is the Conservatives' turn.

Why reform the Senate if the provinces’ decisions are not going to be taken into account and if the Canadian government is under no obligation whatsoever?

Moreover, there is a schedule in Bill C-7 that contains a whole slew of clauses that impose a legislative framework for the selection of senators. Did I not just say that the Prime Minister has no obligation whatsoever to respect the selection process? Once again, he shows no interest in listening to voters, 61% of whom, I should point out, voted against the government.

It makes no sense and it is a waste of public money: over $100 million a year is spent on the Senate.

Once again, they have found a way to spend a fortune on an exercise in which all Canadians will have participated without their decision being respected.

In the end, Canadians will not have participated. Basically, whether it is 100% of Canadians who speak out or vote, or the 61% who voted against this government on May 2, the Conservatives do not give a damn.

The NDP's position is certainly clearer and more precise than the government's. From the early days of this 41st Parliament, the Conservatives have been very vague regarding the number of subjects up for discussion, which has left us with a great deal of doubt and uncertainty.

For many year, the NDP has called for the complete abolition of this outdated institution, which in no way serves the interests of a modern country and instead caters to the cronies of whichever party is in power. I challenge the government to hold a Canada-wide consultation on the future of the Senate or even a vote on its abolition. I would respect the outcome of such exercises because I am a democrat and I care about Canadians' opinions and what they have to say regarding the issues affecting their country, my country: Canada.

Democracy is at the very core of the British parliamentary system and yet the Conservatives show day in and day out just how much a doctrine based on the private and individual interests of a party’s leaders has a negative impact on ethics and the civic-mindedness of a people.

The premiers of Ontario and Nova Scotia have publicly expressed their support for abolishing the Senate. The premier of British Columbia said that the Senate no longer has its place in our Confederation. Manitoba remains in favour of abolishing the Senate. As for Quebec, it has said repeatedly that this bill is unconstitutional. Does the government really want to alienate these provinces? Is this a voluntary move by the Conservatives, or else a strategy aimed at dividing the country to better control it? To ask these questions is to answer them, as someone famous once said. To divide Canadians on an issue on which we should seek a consensus is really perverse. What will the next step be? Withdrawing from the Kyoto protocol, so as not to respect our targets? I almost forgot that it is already done, if I am not mistaken.

I am speaking like many citizens have done to vent their frustration in recent weeks, either in our offices, or through public forums and social media in Quebec and Canada. This way of doing things without taking into consideration the real needs of Canadians does not make sense. Instead of being concerned about the health of seniors, veterans and aboriginals, the government shocks the conscience of the public to shine light on the inefficiency of public services. I am sorry, but since the Senate does not provide a service to Canadians, let us get rid of it! During the past century, 13 attempts were made to reform the Senate and they all failed. Let us get it over with!

Let us get back to the legitimacy of the appointments made under this bill. There is no legitimacy at all. The Prime Minister does not even have to accept the decision made by voters in the provinces. As I said, he is only bound by clause 3 of the first part of the bill. Does this mean he could wait until the list includes the names of people he really wants to see in the Senate?

Section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982 does allow the Canadian Parliament to amend the Senate without complying with the normal but very elaborate amending procedures in the Canadian Constitution. Is this a reason good enough to not consult the provinces? After all, we are talking about what is a sensitive issue for several Canadian provinces, given the number of representatives in the Senate which, in itself, imposes a minimum number of members in the House for some provinces.

We are getting into a more concrete area, namely the democratic representation in the House of Commons. Since the government refuses to debate any issue in the House, what will happen to the provinces that do not agree with this reform? What means will they have to put an end to this unbelievable travesty by the Conservatives, who are afraid of any public debate?

It is unacceptable to try to divide a population that needs its elected representatives to work instead to create jobs and improve economic security in the country. As we all know, the gap between the rich and the poor in Canada is growing exponentially. Statistics released in recent days confirm it. Can we deal with the real issues and show leadership by simply abolishing this outdated institution in the 21^st century?

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague, who is very close to the people in his riding, to say a few words about what he is hearing back home about this bill or the Senate in general. The government can no longer hide the fact that it appoints its friends, former candidates and whomever it wants to the Senate. It is starting to become embarrassing. Apparently, the Conservatives' solution is to propose making senators elected members. Are they going to consult anyone? We are not so sure. Sometimes they say it is not necessary to consult experts and scientists. Sometimes they also say there is no need for wide-scale consultation since they already have police officers or their father is a farmer. What comments has the hon. member for Compton—Stanstead heard people in his riding make about this topic?

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Pierrefonds—Dollard for her question.

In my riding, people are very attached to Canada's Parliament. The Compton—Stanstead and Eastern Townships area of my riding is made up of wonderful anglophone towns. People are wondering why we are wasting so much money on a chamber that, for all intents and purposes, is useless. A tremendous amount of resources are given to us to correct the wording of legislation. My constituents say that if we abolish the Senate, our work will finally be legitimate and that we are the elected members and it is up to us to get this work done.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech, which focused a great deal on dialogue and discussion.

He also spoke about Canadian democratic values. We live in a very democratic country and we should be very proud of that. During the last election, the Conservative candidate in a neighbouring riding was not elected. Then, the day after the election, he was appointed as a senator. Many people in my riding asked me questions about that. I would like to know what the hon. member thinks of the process for selecting senators. How does he think it should be changed?

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for that question.

The schedule of the bill contains all kinds of processes and procedures for selecting senators that the provinces must follow in order to propose Senate candidates. However, the Prime Minister has no obligation to respect their choices. This is a process that will once again cost millions of dollars to implement but will not be legitimate because the Prime Minister is in no way obliged to follow this procedure. The government is imposing a procedure but does not even want to follow it. I really do not understand the idea behind this bill.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his comments.

One of the arguments that we have heard about the Senate pertains to how it was conceived. I think one of the reasons, in theory, that the Senate exists is to represent the different regions more fairly, given that some provinces are bigger than others.

Recently, we debated Bill C-10. Despite the very clear will of the Quebec National Assembly and Quebeckers, one senator became the government's puppet to a certain extent. He said that Quebeckers and the National Assembly were wrong not to support the bill. So, clearly, the Senate does not really represent the regions. Would the hon. member care to comment further on this issue?

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have an enormous amount of respect for the individuals in the Senate. They are all noble individuals who have led fantastic lives, but this is just a reward they have been given. These people have no legitimate reason for being in those seats. Although their suggestions to the government are very noble, we will first have to make them appropriately legitimate through an election; otherwise it shows no respect for democracy.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, my first thought, as I came into the chamber today to enter into the debate on the bill, was that here we go again, tinkering with an outdated, obsolete vestige of colonialism, something that is unworthy in its makeup and in the institution itself of any legitimate western democracy.

We are wasting the time of Parliament debating, tinkering with the Senate when, as per the policy of the NDP since the 1930s, the Senate should be abolished. It has outlived any usefulness and now it is just an instrument of abuse, pure, political and partisan pork.

There has never been a prime minister who has so abused the Senate and taken partisan advantage as the current Prime Minister, with 32 appointments. After being the one who agreed that the Senate was an outdated and obsolete institution, he has been stacking the Senate for purely partisan reasons.

Let me give an example of this. The president of the Conservative Party, the campaign manager of the Conservative Party, the chief fundraiser of the Conservative Party, the director of communications for the Conservative Party, the entire Conservative war room is now sitting in the Senate, pulling down $130,000 a year of taxpayers money, with staff, travel privileges and resources.

Who was the campaign manager in the last provincial election in my home province of Manitoba? The Conservative Senator from Manitoba, and I do not know if I am allowed to use his name. The former president of the Conservative Party was power shooted into Manitoba on the taxpayer nickel to work full time in partisan activities. He never has to stand for an election because he is there for life to act as an agent of the Conservative Party, not as the chamber of sober second thought, and is salaried, staffed and paid for in a direct subsidy by the taxpayers of Canada. It is appalling and it is atrocious. The senate should be abolished. It is a disgrace that we are using up time in our chamber to even re-arrange the deckchairs on that ridiculous institution.

There must be some old Reformers who have a hard time looking at themselves in the mirror, considering the things they used to say about the Senate. Now they are one. They have become what they used to most criticize. They have tossed overboard every principle on which they were founded in the interest of political expediency. They have been jettisoned over side. It is a disgrace.

Even as we speak, the Senate is sabotaging the Canadian Wheat Board bill with extra sittings. Because the courts have ruled against it, and it is against the rule of law, it is, lickety split, ramming this through. How could the Senate, in all good conscience, pass a bill that the courts have ruled against? It is one of its very functions, or used to be at least, to catch and correct any time that this chamber somehow passes a law that offends the Charter of Rights, the Constitution or the rule of law. That bill offends the rule of law, yet those senators are ramming it through.

It is possible that the Governor General, at least, will refuse to grant royal assent to a bill that the courts have struck down. As another vestige of colonialism, we have to ask permission of the Crown. When there is a runaway freight train of political expediency, like the current gang, like a bunch of six-year-old bullies who take advantage of their power to ram things through and run roughshod over everything that is good and decent about our parliamentary democracy, without even taking into account the rule of law, maybe those guys, if they are worth anything, will intercept the bill at the Senate stage, as will the Governor General at that stage, so the Conservatives cannot ram that bill through.

The other thing I want to speak about, in the brief time that we have, is this. It offends me to the core of my being that we end up having to deal with bills that originate in the Senate. In fact, those bills have primacy over the work of the chamber to which we members of Parliament have been elected.

We wait and wait our turn patiently to have our private members' bills heard. If our bill is lucky enough to get on the order of precedence, maybe we will be able to fulfill a dream of having our particular hobby horse heard in the House of Commons. The unelected chamber, senators generate bills, never mind reviewing legislation that we put together, and their bills come to this chamber and go to the top of the list, bumping the bills of members of Parliament. It is appalling. It makes my blood boil just thinking of it. I cannot believe there are people who call themselves democrats on that side of the House who put up with this ridiculous, almost embarrassing situation.

What Conservatives have proposed in the interests of democratic reform actually causes such a mess it will be pandemonium. There will be two and three different tiers of senators. We would have the elected senators and the senators who are there for life. Which ones have primacy then? Which ones have more weight? If we ever did go to a fully elected Senate, would that be the upper chamber? Would that be the senior chamber and how would the political dynamics work?

Every province in the federation of Canada wrestled with this issue and every province came to the same conclusion. They abolished their upper chamber and ensured there was adequate representation within the structure of their legislatures. We do not need a Senate.

There is an old joke about the radical diet. If one wants to lose 40 pounds of ugly fat, just cut off one's head. In this case, we could lose $200 million of utter waste just by chopping off the head of the Senate and eliminating it. We would keep the building. The chamber itself is a lovely place. I have no problem with the chamber. It is an architectural delight and it should be preserved and maintained, but the maintenance budget of the Senate chamber might be a couple of grand a year. The maintenance budget of each one of those political appointees, and I use that word in the politest way I could phrase it, costs us a fortune.

In actual fact, senators are hacks, flacks and bagmen and I do not just accuse the Conservatives. I am thinking of the most famous Liberal bagman in Manitoba who wound up in the Senate, and I will not mention his name. The most infamous Conservative bagman went right into the Senate so he could continue his partisan fundraising paid for by the taxpayer. While there, they were the architects of the biggest political election fraud in the history of Canada. Charged, tried, convicted, found guilty and they are sitting in the chamber as we speak, scheming their next election tricks.

I wish somebody watched these debates. If people only knew what we put up with by the other chamber, they would be appalled and would demand true reform in the form of abolishing that wasteful, archaic, outdated, obsolete relic of colonialism, that last vestige of colonialism that we wear around our necks like an albatross. It is like having an anchor dragging behind a boat, having the Canadian Senate as an obstacle to democracy. Senators do not enhance democracy. They sabotage and undermine democracy. Twice in the history of Canada—

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Winnipeg Centre is in violation of Standing Order 18. It says that:

No member shall speak disrespectfully of the Sovereign, nor of any of the Royal Family, nor of the Governor General or the person administering the Government of Canada; nor use offensive words against either House, or against any Member thereof. No Member may reflect upon any vote of the House...

The member has really slandered senators and the other chamber and I ask that you call him to order.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I thank the member for citing the order and he is quite right. I did not hear the last comment that was made, however, there are 30 seconds left.

The hon. member will take note and ensure that all his comments are respectful. Certainly the debate is about the Senate so there is some latitude to express opinions or facts as the members see it, however, while maintaining a tone of respect.

The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, the senators are wading into and are actively engaged in partisan politics. It offends me that they are allowed to be members of boards of directors. They are not only sabotaging bills that come through the House, such as the climate change bill, they are sitting on the boards of directors of the big oil companies and sabotaging the climate change bill.

How can a senator be allowed to sit on a board of directors when it is a clear conflict of interest for any of us to do it? Some senators sit on 10 or 12 boards. It is appalling. It is another good reason to abolish the Senate.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his, as usual, entertaining remarks.

I will first make a comment and then ask a brief question.

The hon. member noted that Senate bills can get precedence in many situations in the House. However, he failed to mention that he and his party voted against a motion brought by the member for Beauce, who is now the Minister of State for Small Business, to change that. Perhaps the hon. member should not criticize issues that he was previously on the other side of. It would be more appropriate that he remember how he voted before he talks about issues.

The Conservative Party and its predecessor parties have believed in Senate reform. The hon. member's party would prefer abolition.

If the best proposals from each side were put forward before the Canadian population in a referendum, a plebiscite or the like, and if Senate reform were chosen for a democratically elected regional Senate, would the hon. member then support the election?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, before I share one of the most appalling things that the Senate has done to date, which is the only time in Canadian history that we know the Senate has done this, I will tell the member a secret that not many people know. I used to be in favour of the Senate. I used to be about the only New Democrat in the country who was not in favour of abolishing it. I even sat with the current Conservative Prime Minister when he introduced the first bill to reform the Senate. Since then, I have realized how wrong I was and how right my party is.

What has turned me into an anti-Senate activist are the stunts that the Conservatives have pulled. Two bills that were passed democratically by this chamber were killed by the Senate. I wish the country could hear this. One is the climate change bill, the only environmental bill passed since 2006 when the Conservatives took power. It passed all stages in the House and was killed by the Senate without a single day of debate or a single witness being heard. The other bill that it arbitrarily, unilaterally killed without debate was the bill that would have made generic drugs available to Africa to fight the HIV-AIDS and tuberculosis pandemics.

Can members believe the bills that the Senate chose to intervene and squash with its undemocratic, unelected, obsolete vestige of colonialism? It is appalling.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Madam Speaker, once again, I would like to commend my colleague for Winnipeg-Centre. I greatly admire his very colourful choice of words from time to time. We really appreciate it on this side of the House.

I would like my colleague to speak more about the amount of money that could be saved if we abolished the Senate, as proposed by the NDP. What could be done with that money and how would abolishing the Senate be useful for the Canadian economy?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, Canadians should remind us that we are broke. We borrow money every year just to make payroll, to pay our bills and to keep the Government of Canada running. We are in a severe deficit situation. We should be looking under every rock and turning over every stone to find efficiencies and ways to save money.

Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent in the other chamber, not to augment, complement and enhance democracy but to sabotage and undermine democracy and to thwart the democratic will of this chamber.

A great deal of the money that we spend in the Senate is to fly senators around the world like a bunch of Harlem Globetrotters. Have members ever seen a parliamentary junket where every Senate position was not filled? We take a pass on most trips that we are offered. Senators never turn down a trip. They gallivant around the world like some high-flying globe-trotting emissary of Canada, which is of no material benefit or value to us. It is a waste of money. It is a waste of hundreds of millions of dollars that could be better spent enhancing our democracy instead of sabotaging it.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Madam Speaker, like my colleagues who rose before me, I am very proud to speak to this bill, which interests me greatly. We care about our democracy, which is what is at stake here today, as my colleague from Winnipeg Centre so eloquently pointed out.

A lot is being said about the purpose of the Senate, and what it seeks to achieve. I was a political science student, so I will take this opportunity to provide an overview of the governing bodies of other nations, particularly the United States. Their experience, as it compares to ours, serves as a justification as to why the Senate must be abolished.

One of the things that the Founding Fathers said about the Senate in the United States was that it was important to have a division in government to protect against the tyranny of the majority. Like us, they have a system where the person with the majority of votes is elected. And yet, we know all too well from our experience here in Canada that there is a percentage of the population that votes for other parties. This is the case in the current Parliament, where 60% of Canadians voted for parties other than the governing party. The principle is, therefore, that with a Senate, the executive—the President, in the case of the United States—and the Supreme Court, it becomes possible to protect against what is known as the tyranny of the majority.

In the United States, they determined that the best way of using the Senate in this instance was to provide regional protection. We are well aware of our history here in Canada and the same principle applies. Essentially, the Senate was created to protect the distinctive features of the regions. Of course, certain provinces are huge, such as Ontario—not necessarily in terms of land mass, but population—contrary to territories or provinces such as Prince Edward Island, which may be smaller, but which, like any other province or territory, are entitled to be democratically protected, in the sense that the opinions of their people are expressed through elected representatives—in an ideal world of course.

The same thing is apparent here. It was true of the United States, where the states, which vary enormously as far as size is concerned—in terms of both population and land mass—each had two senators. And yet the United States learned something far quicker than we did. Unless I am mistaken, it was in the 1950s that the U.S. decided that in order to benefit from this equitable regional representation, and to fulfill the mandate of the Senate, senators had to be elected. The U.S. moved forward by overhauling the constitution, which led to an elected Senate. That was 60 years ago and, of course, we are terrible laggards in this area.

The difference, however, with Canada is that in the United States it was the governors of the states who appointed senators and not the President. The comparison can therefore be drawn with Canada, where the Prime Minister appoints senators, which is very different. How do you achieve regional representation when the Prime Minister of the federal government chooses the senators? It is quite difficult and, in some ways, is a conflict of interest.

So we see that this is the first lesson that has not been learned, and this is something that is still going on today in spite of the intentions of this Prime Minister, who stated that he would never appoint senators. And yet we have people who were defeated in elections who have been appointed to the Senate. This is a huge problem. They are talking about electing senators; they say it will be democratic, that they will respect democracy. It is one thing not to elect senators, but what is worse is to appoint someone whom the public refused to elect. Appointing someone who was not elected is a problem, but it is a more serious problem when the people have said no to those representatives. They have flatly refused to be represented by those individuals, and yet they are appointed nonetheless, and they expect that those individuals will provide the same representation as a person who was elected. That is essentially very illogical logic.

I recall a Liberal member who was just saying that we had a very simplistic position.

I take that as a compliment, because what we are saying is very simple: abolish the Senate. There is nothing complicated about that. There is no point in embarking on debates about very complex bills with huge flaws, like the main flaw that allows the Prime Minister to choose not to appoint elected senators, which is completely contrary to what is supposed to be the nub of this bill. Our position is very simple, and I agree that it is a simplistic proposal, but in the positive sense of the word. It is a solution that will enable us to solve all these problems of patronage and lack of representation, particularly as they relate to the various regions, once and for all.

I also want to talk about a few points that have already been raised by my colleagues, but I want to say more about Bill C-311 in particular, which my colleague from Winnipeg Centre and other colleagues have addressed, and which deals with climate change. We introduced an opposition motion concerning climate change earlier this week. It refers to the withdrawal from Kyoto and this government's lack of vision in that regard. In fact, this House, by a vote of all parties, had passed a bill that was going to strengthen our principles and our fundamental values in that regard, so we could take concrete action on climate change. But that bill was killed by the Senate. The very problematic thing here is that we are not just talking about a bill passed by the House of Commons, a chamber composed of elected representatives, we are also talking about a bill that many ordinary people worked hard to get passed.

I was an activist at the time myself and I worked hard to communicate with members of Parliament about the importance of that bill, and I was by no means alone. People from all across the country worked to make members of Parliament understand the inherent merits of that bill. The organization was very successful because the House passed the bill. The Senate, unfortunately, disregarding the will of the people entirely and with no justification, killed the bill. That is one of the basic problems that Bill C-7, which we have before us today, is not going to solve. The problem will be solved by abolishing the Senate. It is not complicated.

I am going to make an important connection with a debate we had earlier this week on democratic representation. The connection is important because we are talking about democracy again. I am referring to Bill C-20, which deals with redistributing the seats in this House. We know that the Liberal Party's concern was about the costs that would be incurred. But I spoke on the bill and I raised the same point today. Let us talk about reducing costs and about how to pay for that bill so that we can have more democratically elected representation. I repeat once more: it is not complicated. Let us abolish the Senate; we will save millions of dollars that we can use to pay not only for better representation for all provinces, Quebec included, but representation that will take its place in this elected House.

Since I am running out of time, I will conclude my remarks by saying that the Senate was conceived as a way to represent and protect the unique regional features of our country. I can state, specifically as a representative of Quebec, a province that is very aware of the importance of protecting those unique features, such as our language and culture, that I have seen no evidence, especially in recent years, that the Senate is doing its job of protecting that uniqueness. That is one more reason for abolishing it, and one more reason for us, as true elected members of this House, to protect the unique features of our various regions with our actions and our legislation.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to put a question to my New Democrat colleague. I would like to know what he thinks about the fact that this Conservative bill is going to give a single term to elected senators, who will thus not have to be accountable to the public for their election promises. They could very well not keep any promises and remain in the Senate for nine years, in addition to receiving a large salary and a pension.

Personally, as a Canadian, I find the double standard inconceivable. I am very happy that the terms of the members of the House of Commons are short and renewable. In that way, we are accountable to the public, which judges us. With this bill, senators may make whatever promises they like without having to be accountable to the public, in addition to receiving a large salary and a pension.

I would like to know what my New Democrat colleague thinks about that.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, which is in fact a very good one. In the time I have, I am going to try to discuss several points that I consider relevant.

First of all, I find it interesting that some people are saying that limiting the terms of senators will make them more accountable. However, as my colleague said so well, they will not have any election promises to keep. So this will not make them more accountable to the public.

In addition, there is another problem we do not hear much about, which is that setting term limits will mean that when the party in power changes, the new party will simply have another opportunity to appoint senators who will support it.

For instance, there used to be a Liberal majority in the Senate. When the Conservative government came to power, as soon as it could do so it took the opportunity of appointing Conservative senators. Shorter terms would simply have facilitated what happened, and appointing senators from his own party would be easier for the Prime Minister to do. In the Senate, this is very problematic. All of the points my colleague mentioned, including the related costs, are indeed shameful and are yet more reasons to abolish the Senate.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague what he thinks of the fact that the bill is undemocratic because senators will be appointed by the Prime Minister. Furthermore, even if the provinces do hold elections—and at their own expense—the Prime Minister is under no obligation to consider the senators elected by the provinces.

It is undemocratic, not to mention unconstitutional, because the provinces must be consulted—which has not at all been the case—anytime there is a proposal to change key elements of the Constitution.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question.

Indeed, that is where the problem lies. As I said in my speech, the goal of the Senate, its raison d'être, is supposed to be to protect the regions and to ensure proper representation of the various regional differences that exist in Canada.

Yet the provinces are not being consulted; they are simply being told that they will be able to elect senators. The caveat, however, is that the Prime Minister will still have the final say, which effectively takes away that power. It is indeed a big problem.

That is another reason to abolish the Senate. We must ensure that, as elected members who are perfectly capable of representing our regions, that that is what we do.

The provinces do not want this bill. Despite what we heard earlier this week from a member opposite, the provinces are more than just administrative regions. They provide a framework for the very specific differences that exist, which is another reason to understand this reality and take action accordingly.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House today to debate Bill C-7, An Act respecting the selection of senators and amending the Constitution Act, 1867 in respect of Senate term limits.

The Senate was established in 1867 under an agreement between federal and provincial authorities.That agreement covered a number of aspects that still define the Senate as we know it today. At the outset, the Senate of Canada, like the British House of Lords, was an institution that was to provide sober second thought to any ill-informed decisions that legislators in the House of Commons might make. But Canada has changed a great deal, and in the past 100 years, there have been 13 attempts at Senate reform. Unfortunately, all have failed.

Under Bill C-7, now before the House of Commons, the terms of members of the upper house would be limited to nine years. The bill also contains a framework under which elections for the Senate could be held in the provinces. Those elections would provide a list of candidates from which the Prime Minister could make appointments to the Senate. Perhaps this is Senate reform, but it is not democratic reform that this government is offering, especially since the Prime Minister will still be able to choose senators himself, as he sees fit.

In fact, the bill proposes that senators be elected by a complex and ill-conceived system of elections. The elections will have no democratic value, because holding them is optional. In the provinces, the elections will probably favour candidates from the large urban centres at the expense of the regions. Bill C-7 also invites provinces to conduct elections at their own expense and under their own rules. Do we not find it strange that elections for the Senate, a federal institution, will be set up by the provinces?

Furthermore, the bill is not at all well regarded by the provinces, especially Quebec. Premier Jean Charest has already indicated that he is willing to contest it in court. Ontario, British Columbia and Nova Scotia go so far as to directly suggest abolishing the upper house.

Wanting to have the upper house made up of elected representatives also does away with the main difference between senators and members of Parliament. If senators are elected, they too will have political responsibilities to their constituents. So the one aspect that sets the Senate apart from the House of Commons, its independence, will be lost. Elected senators will be useless additions to elected members of Parliament.

The NDP is also opposed to this Senate reform because, within the next generation of senators, it would create a complicated system with half the senators being appointed and the other half being elected. The Senate, which is already discredited, would become even less functional, if not completely non-functional. There would be a division between a new category of senators elected for a nine-year term and the former category of senators appointed until age 75. The elected senators would have to follow the same party lines as the members.

We must not fool ourselves. It would be difficult to be elected to the Senate without the active support of a political party. The Senate will therefore be even more politicized than it currently is. A senator elected provincially could say that his mandate is stronger than that of a member because he would have more voters and a longer term.

This reform that the Conservative government is proposing could also lead to the same kind of legislative deadlocks that we are seeing in the United States, where Congress is composed of two elected bodies—the Senate and the House of Representatives. The situation could even be worse than in the United States, because our Constitution does not include a mechanism for conflict resolution that would make it possible to resolve the differences that are very likely to arise between the two elected chambers.

These days, the only reason for keeping the Senate is to provide lawmakers with the intellectual support of an assembly of outstanding people with various backgrounds who would have a non-partisan look at bills introduced in the House of Commons. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The Senate has never really played its role as a chamber of sober second thought. Although some senators take their role seriously, the Senate is filled mainly with party cronies and has largely served as a comfortable retirement home for former politicians where many vote blindly along party lines.

Canadians increasingly think that the Senate should purely and simply be abolished. A little over a third think that the House of Commons should be the only federal legislative entity. Angus Reid has released a new poll on what Canadians think of the Senate. This is the fourth poll on this topic that this company has done since February 2010.

Poll after poll, one idea seems to be growing in the minds of Canadians: abolishing the upper chamber. Based on the latest poll, 36% of respondents agree with the statement that Canada does not need a Senate. All legislation should be studied and passed by the House of Commons. This percentage has been constantly going up since February 2010. Meanwhile, the statement that Canada needs a Senate and that Canadians should be allowed to participate in selecting senators is less popular than before. Support has gone down to 40% from 44% last November and 50% in July 2010.

The Angus Reid poll shows that the rejection of the status quo has been a constant. Only 5% of Canadians would be happy with the current rules governing the Senate, and 71% of Canadians would support a national referendum on the topic. So there you go. That is the NDP's position exactly.

Clearly, Canadians want a referendum to determine the Senate's future. And they are not alone. Senator Murray, who has held his position for 32 years, says that the Senate reform put forward by this government is a fiasco. In his view, this will lead to a real debate on the issue.

That is why the NDP thinks that Canadians must be asked whether they need a Senate, and if so, what type of Senate. If Canadians could have the right to vote on the best way to allocate $100 million in public spending, it is very likely that the majority of taxpayers would opt for something other than funding the Senate.

The Senate has lost its credibility in the eyes of many Canadians. Many of them are wondering what is the advantage of keeping an institution that is too often a country club for government members.

Those who doubt senators' loyalty towards their parties would only have to read the letter of Conservative Senator Bert Brown to be convinced:

Every Senator in this caucus needs to decide where their loyalty should be and must be. The answer is simple; our loyalty is to the man who brought us here...

The Conservative government, just like the Liberal government before it, takes pleasure in appointing senators based on their political affiliation. Despite repeated criticism of the appointment process in the past, this government, right after the May 2 election, sent three failed candidates, including Josée Verner, to the Senate, when it already had the majority in that chamber. This type of attitude is what has led Canadians to call the Prime Minister a hypocrite on the issue. Actually, an Angus Reid poll showed that 57% of respondents think Stephen Harper is a hypocrite in the way he handles Senate appointments.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I remind the hon. member that members are not to name other members in the House.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

I apologize, Madam Speaker. I wanted to say that the Prime Minister is a hypocrite in the way he handles Senate appointments.

Why waste time—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order. I also remind the member that she must not use derogatory words in reference to a member of Parliament or the Prime Minister.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Madam Speaker, I simply encourage people to look at this Angus Reid poll. They will come to the same conclusions.

Why waste time going through with a reform that no one wants and no one needs and that will likely be declared unconstitutional?

In 2007, in a speech before the Australian Parliament, the Prime Minister talked about the possibility of simply abolishing the Senate. In this speech, the Prime Minister said that Canadians understood that our Senate, as it stands today, must either change or, like the old upper houses of our provinces, vanish. Before his untimely death, Jack Layton said that the solution was to ask Canadians whether they want a Senate.

I repeat that, before wasting money and time, as we are currently doing for completely useless reforms and bills that make no sense, we could talk to the Canadian people and the provinces to simply ask them what they think.

That is what the NDP is proposing.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her fiery remarks that shed some light on the Conservative government's anti-democratic and unconstitutional practices.

Bill C-7 clearly has flaws. Despite the fact that this bill has been introduced three times by the Conservatives, it still has flaws. That shows there is no democracy in the government's will. In addition, the Senate has voted at least twice against the interests of Canadians. For example, it killed a bill on climate change and another bill allowing Canada to send generic drugs to Africa to fight AIDS. Those bills were passed in the House of Commons, but were defeated by the Senate. Meanwhile, a lot of Canadians were in favour of that bill.

Where is the legitimacy? Where is the democracy? How is keeping the Senate relevant, if it goes against the interests, the values and the democracy that Canadians cherish?

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her question. When we look at Bill C-7, we certainly wonder where the government is heading. We all agree that things are currently not going well with the Senate; Canadians do not value the Senate as an institution. This Senate reform bill would make the situation even more disastrous. I am stressing this point because it is true. It will make the Senate's situation worse and that institution will be even more inadequate than it already is.

Various reform plans are proposed here and there, but they get us nowhere. They do not allow for a real chamber of sober second thought, an upper house independent from the House of Commons, that would enable us to represent the public and to pass bills. The Senate is really an institution that Canadians cannot identify with, and this bill has added no value to it.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Quebec for her speech. This Senate reform worries me because it gives the Prime Minister the power to appoint whomever he pleases. Even after these elections, he could still choose whomever he liked. Did the Conservatives not promise not to do what previous governments did before them? And in spite of that, have there not been some particularly partisan appointments to the Senate?

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles for her question. Canadians are very concerned about the need for transparency and independence. It is something that seems to be important to everyone, but clearly, it is not important to this government. Indeed, its Bill C-7 will not ensure the independence of senators and will not guarantee that they can do their work of sober second thought. That is precisely the point my colleague was raising. No, the government is not keeping the promises it made, nor is it respecting the wishes of Canadian citizens for real control over their institutions.

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak about Bill C-7 today.

The Senate was never originally intended to be a career for the prime minister's cronies. In debate on the bill today, many of my colleagues have brought up great points about the government's Senate reform legislation. They have discussed how the so-called election of senators would still leave Senate appointments up to the Prime Minister as he sees fit. The Prime Minister would be under no obligation to follow voters' wishes or to follow any convention at all.

This is important, because our current Prime Minister has shown no hesitation in ignoring our parliamentary conventions when it suits him politically, and we still have no answer to the question of what is to stop the Prime Minister, or any future prime minister, from ignoring non-binding elections.

Members have also brought up the fact that these optional elections would not go to the root of the matter. They would not make senators any more accountable than they are today. Senators would be appointed to a non-renewable nine-year term and would never have to face the electorate more than once.They would not be accountable for anything they did or did not do while in office.

As well, NDP members have touched on the fact that under Bill C-7, anyone who wants to be a senator would have to be chosen by a political party. This leaves little or no room for independent candidates or committed Canadians who do not have political affiliations. These points about the bill are all very valid, and I thank my fellow NDP members for them.

I would like to especially focus on one basic unavoidable fact, which is that any real reform of the upper chamber would require constitutional change. All members in the House should know that. The government knows it, and anyone who has studied the history of Confederation and of our Constitution in high school knows it. The Prime Minister certainly knows it.

Reforming the Senate would require amending the Constitution with the approval of seven out of 10 provinces representing the majority of Canadians. That means Bill C-7 is nothing but a colossal red herring. It may pass in the House and it may even pass in the Senate, but as soon as it is challenged in court by any province--and provinces are already lining up to mount legal challenges--it will be struck down as unconstitutional. Our high school history students could have told us that.

The Prime Minister thinks he can pass this totally symbolic legislation to finally reform our dysfunctional upper chamber, thereby fulfilling a long-term promise to his supporters, and when it is struck down the very next day, he thinks he will be able to throw up his hands, cry crocodile tears and say he tried, and no one will be the wiser.

However, Canadians are not stupid. Bill C-7 is nothing more than a massive waste of time and a waste of taxpayers' money. The only ones who will benefit from this exercise are constitutional lawyers, who will get rich on the taxpayer's dime arguing both sides in court for years. At the end of the day, no real reform will have been done.

Maybe that would suit our Prime Minister just fine, because, as we all know, he now has majority control of the Senate; 39% of the votes cast for the House gave him over 55% of the seats, and he has 100% control in both houses. He has it because he broke his own long-term promise never to appoint an unelected senator. Do members remember that?

Instead, he has appointed more unelected and unelectable party bagmen, Conservative fundraisers and political insiders to the upper chamber than any other prime minister in the history of Canada. He has traded his purported principles for power. Now the other place does his bidding, so would it really be in his best interests to change that situation?

A stranglehold on the Senate, both in numbers and through the use of the whip, is just another way an unprecedented amount of power has been concentrated in the office and the person of one man. The current Prime Minister has fallen a long way from his touted reform ideals.

I would like to add a personal note. Members in this House will know that I, of all people, have special reason to be unhappy with the Senate. After introducing and shepherding the country's only federal climate change legislation, Bill C-311, through all stages in this House in the last Parliament, the Senate was ordered to kill that important legislation before hearing any witnesses, before studying it in committee, before having full debate, or even any debate, on its merits.

This is the first and only time in Canadian history that a bill was summarily killed by the Senate just like that, when political appointees snuffed out important legislation passed by this elected House without even giving it the consideration it was due.

It is hard for me or for anyone to see how killing legislation before it is even studied can be considered sober second thought, as the purpose of the Senate has been alleged to be. If this continues, the red chamber is in danger of becoming the single best advocate for its own abolition.

However, I am under no illusion that it will be a long time before we abolish or reform that dysfunctional chamber. It is with no disrespect to the people who work in that place that I say the upper chamber is dysfunctional. I have had the pleasure of working with some of the very hard-working and knowledgeable senators, senators who are committed to making Canada better; however, they are constrained by our system itself and by our Prime Minister, as are we in this chamber, which could also use some reforms.

That brings me to my final point. Any true reform of our democratic institutions in this country will take much more than just smokescreens and red herrings.

Unfortunately Bill C-7 distracts everyone from real reforms that could be made today, improvements that would not even require constitutional amendments. I am talking about reforming the way this chamber, and potentially that chamber, is elected. A system of electing either of our chambers by proportional representation would finally make every vote count. There would be no more wasted votes, no more pitting one region of the country against another. More women and more minorities would be elected. A fairer and more accurate reflection of the will of Canadians in our elected Parliament would take place. It would be a real democracy, as practised by the vast majority of our world's elected governments.

However, that is something many politicians here, including government members, are desperate to avoid doing anything about, so they and the Prime Minister will do anything, including distractions like Bill C-7, to turn attention away from much more effective reforms that could be accomplished much more easily. It makes me think that the government is not really interested in changing things in our Senate at all.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Madam Speaker, the Liberal Party certainly shares some of the concerns with respect to the constitutionality of this legislation. I found it very interesting that the member laid it out as a bit of ruse in saying that the Conservatives probably expect this legislation will never see the light of day once it is put through the constitutional scrutiny that it must undergo.

It strikes me that there is a troubling pattern in terms of passing legislation through this House that is likely to be found unconstitutional. We have seen recent examples in Bill C-4 and Bill C-10 .

For the benefit of those in the House and those watching, I would invite the member to expand a bit on the constitutional arguments that would likely be upheld once the bill is subject to the scrutiny of the Supreme Court of Canada.

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Madam Speaker, even though I am a former judge, I am not a former lawyer and I am certainly not a constitutional lawyer. I will leave it to the constitutional lawyers to worry about the fine points of how we are going to run Canada, fix Canada, and work within our constitutional framework now or in the future.

However, I am deeply disturbed, as are many journalists, many lawyers, many judges and many political watchers across Canada. Many of the citizens in my riding of Thunder Bay—Superior North are concerned about the anti-democratic nature of our current Prime Minister and his desire to control not only the opposition but also the hearts and minds of the 61% of the voters who did not vote for him and even the majority of the members on his side of the House.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, the NDP has long maintained the importance of abolishing the Senate, quite simply. I would be interested to know what my honourable colleague has to say about it now. Since half of the NDP caucus comes from Quebec and since the Quebec National Assembly has repeatedly defended the Senate and its capacity to respond to and represent Quebec, is the NDP's desire to abolish an institution Quebeckers recognize as defending their interests in Canada as fervent as ever?

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am not going to speak for our party on this issue, I will only speak for myself. On most days I tend to agree that the Senate is useless, unaccountable, unelected, so let us scrap it. However, once in a while I get a wild idea. As I have already said here today and alluded to, maybe the Senate is the place where we could start, if we are going to elect it, to elect it proportionately. That way, at least in one of our Houses, when the purple party gets 20% of the votes, it will get 20% of the seats.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Madam Speaker, why does the hon. member really think that this is not the time to stir up discord between the provinces and the federal government, but a time when we should really be dealing with other issues?

Why would it be more important to focus the government's actions on the economy and job creation rather than to once again sow discord between the provinces and the federal government on this hoary old topic?

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I said in my comments earlier, this is a deliberate red herring. It is one more attempt by the Prime Minister to do what he has gotten away with quite a bit, although both the media and the public are starting to figure out that this is a prime minister that specializes in distractions and divisiveness. This happens not only on jobs and the economy but the environment, pensions, and the list of matters of substance goes on and on. When I came here to Parliament, I wanted to work on those issues of importance, not work on smokescreens and the kind of thing we are faced with here today.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-7, An Act respecting the selection of senators and amending the Constitution Act, 1867 in respect of Senate term limits.

If only we could be so fortunate as to have the government amend the bill so that the Senate would be abolished, then this could be our last time to rise and speak about Senate reform. My NDP colleagues and I believe that the Senate needs to be abolished. Any attempt to reform the Senate would simply be window dressing to this very seriously undemocratic institution. As things currently stand, Bill C-7 introduces ineffective measures that will do nothing to fix the Senate.

What is currently wrong with the Senate? We often describe the Senate as a romantic place of sober second thought. However, we know the Senate is no such a place. Last year, rather than respecting the will of this House, as my colleagues have pointed out, the Senate killed Bill C-311, the climate change accountability act. The bill was passed in the House of Commons and voted for by elected members of this House. The Senate killed it and the government called a snap election.

In the words of our former leader, the hon. Jack Layton:

This was one of the most undemocratic acts that we have ever seen in the Parliament of Canada. To take power that doesn't rightfully belong to them to kill a bill that has been adopted by a majority of the House of Commons representing a majority of Canadians is as wrong as it gets when it comes to democracy in this country.

This spring the Senate killed another bill which was very important. Bill C-393 would have made it easier for people in developing countries to obtain more affordable life-saving medicines. It was a bill that would have saved lives. It was voted for by members of this House and killed by an unelected Senate.

To suggest amendments and return a bill to the House is one thing, but to kill a bill in this way, using sneaky tactics, is just plain wrong. It is disrespectful to the decision-making power of this democratically elected House.

Right now the Senate is basically full of political appointments, friends and failed candidates. That is what the Senate is right now. For instance, our Prime Minister appointed to the Senate three failed Conservative candidates from the last federal election. All three failed to win a seat in the election. Canadians decided on May 2 that they did not want to have these people representing them. Yet, here they are; they are in the Senate.

There are a number of things in the bill that do not fix anything at all. For example, the Conservatives make excuses for their appointments saying that they will use them to reform the Senate. This is clearly laughable.

Every day in this House the Conservatives trample on democracy. They ram bills through the House and committees without debate or examination, sometimes without even costing these bills. Then the Conservatives want members to believe that they actually want a more democratic Senate. They do not.

The reforms the Conservatives are proposing in this bill are completely inadequate.

First, under the proposed legislation, the Senate would become a two-tiered system with some elected senators and some unelected senators.

Second, the limit of one nine-year term means that senators, even elected ones, would not be held accountable for their actions in a subsequent democratic race.

Third, because the actual appointment process would not change at all, despite talk of increased democratic accountability, the bill does not actually introduce any check on the Prime Minister in the appointment process. Basically, it could be business as usual.

Fourth, because the bill would do nothing to address the distribution of seats in the Senate, the increase in power of an elected Senate would mean an unbalanced increase in the power in Quebec and Ontario. I come from British Columbia and that is not fair.

Fifth, perhaps the most important intended role of the Senate is its ability to represent women and minority interests. By making it an elected Senate and forcing any candidate that runs to do so under a party banner would only tighten the partisan stranglehold on the legislative process. Parties will drown out minority representation, like we have seen in Australia. There are examples in Australia where this has happened.

Sixth, the introduction of increased democratic legitimacy would give the Senate even more leeway to assert its own decision-making power, which could result in gridlock. We have seen that in the United States. This is counter to the productivity Canadians expect from their government.

There are solutions, and New Democrats and others have proposed them. The best solution to this democratic black hole, that is the Senate, is to basically abolish it. The Conservatives have been wishy-washy in the past and unable to decide what they want when it comes to the Senate. For instance, previous Conservative bills have called for a federally regulated electoral process while another bill called for eight year term limits. We can see clearly that what the Conservatives want is the appearance of reforming the Senate when, in reality, they stack it with their cronies and use it to kill legislation passed by democratically elected members of the House.

Unlike the Conservatives, New Democrats have unwaveringly supported the abolition of the Senate since the 1930s, and many Canadians agree that we need to abolish it and move on from this undemocratically elected institution. At the provincial level, both Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty in Ontario and NDP provincial Premier Darrell Dexter have called for the abolition of the Senate. In my province, Premier Christy Clark has said that the Senate no longer plays a role in Confederation.

We have seen from history that all provincial legislatures have abolished their provincial senates. The last one was done in 1968. Even the Prime Minister himself once said that the unelected Senate is a relic of the 19th century.

Unlike the Conservatives who have not consulted the provinces, New Democrats believe it is the responsibility of the government to consult all Canadians. To that end, New Democrats believe that the issue of Senate reform cannot be solved by this piecemeal bill. The issue of Senate reform needs to be put in a referendum, so Canadians themselves can decide how they want to deal with it.

The majority of Canadians support New Democrats in this proposal as well. There have been a number of polls done and I will mention one that was done in July 2001 by Angus Reid, which said that 71% of Canadians supported having a referendum on this issue.

In closing, I would therefore urge my Conservative colleagues to heed their small c conservative roots. We know how the House of Commons works, but we have no idea what would happen with an elected Senate. It would no doubt completely change the Canadian political system, but to what end we cannot be sure. The best solution to Senate reform is abolition.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, a couple of days ago in the House we debated the merits of Bill C-20, which was all about rearranging the distribution within the House. The NDP very clearly said Quebec needed to be better represented with even arbitrary limits and that it could not go beneath 24% so that it would be properly recognized.

The one place that Quebec is properly recognized historically is in the Senate, where 24 senators are guaranteed to be from Quebec. It is the place in our parliamentary system where regional interests get to speak most loudly. Quebeckers, whether politicians or public opinion, have repeatedly said that they want to keep the Senate, maybe improve it a bit but keep it, not abolish it.

The fact that the member is speaking about abolition of the Senate, when over half of his caucus is from Quebec, is something I would like him to address. Does he still have the agreement of half of his caucus that abolishing something that is important for Quebeckers is a good thing?

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am very proud of the team from Quebec, my NDP colleagues who were elected on May 2. I want to thank Quebeckers for electing them to this House of Commons.

I basically disagree with the premise of that question. The senators do not have a voice. It is an undemocratic, unelected institution. The Prime Minister is the one controlling everything. As we have seen in this House, bills have been rammed through. My Conservative colleagues are limited to their speaking notes, so basically the Senate is duly unelected. The true voice of Quebec is being represented by my NDP colleagues in this House.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am one of those New Democrat members from Quebec. Since the start of my term, and even during the preceding election campaigns, not a single citizen came to see me to talk about the Senate. So, to say that the Senate is an institution that Quebeckers are deeply attached to is nonsense, in my opinion.

To respond to the concerns of the hon. member for Papineau and to ask a question of my colleague from British Columbia, I would like to know what he would think of resolving the matter once and for all. Let us put the question to all Canadians and Quebeckers. Let us ask ourselves whether a referendum would be the way to resolve this issue once and for all, rather than blowing smoke.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to point out that the true voice of Quebec is being represented in this House by my colleagues who were elected on May 2.

The other house is undemocratic and unelected. The only voice that is being represented there is that of the Prime Minister.

In response to my colleague's question, the only way we can truly listen to Canadians on whether to reform or abolish the Senate is to have a referendum. The sooner we do that, the sooner we can get on with the reform or the abolition of that undemocratic, unelected institution.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am also one of those 59 members, and I am proud to be one. The only time I heard anyone speak about Senate reform was after the election, when there were three partisan appointments of candidates who had just lost the election. Otherwise, it is of no concern to my constituents.

Many countries have abolished their senates, including Finland, Germany and Japan. Does my colleague think that these countries put themselves in difficulty by abolishing the Senate?

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Madam Speaker, the second house has been abolished at the provincial level, and it has worked. I believe it is time to have a referendum so that Canadians can decide whether we want to keep that house or not. That would be a true democracy.

The house resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-7, An Act respecting the selection of senators and amending the Constitution Act, 1867 in respect of Senate term limits, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, what a passionate debate on Senate reform. When I was elected on May 2, if someone had told me that I would be starting a speech in this House by saying that I agree with the Right Hon. Prime Minister on something, I never would have believed them.

But I must admit that I agree with what the Prime Minister said when he described the Senate as, and I quote, “a relic of the 19th century”. I think that “relic” is an appropriate word choice, since we all dream of having a sacred relic for all the virtues it is supposed to represent. But it rarely has any benefits.

In light of this statement, I see two choices, since the status quo is no longer acceptable. The first choice is to simply abolish the institution of the Senate. I assure the Prime Minister that he would have my support and my party's support if that was what he wanted to do.

In addition, as all provincial senates have been abolished since 1968, we can draw the logical conclusions: the provinces manage very well without senates and there is no reason to believe that it would be otherwise for the Government of Canada.

More and more Canadians believe that we should be able to express our opinions on the matter in a national referendum. According to an Angus Reid poll conducted in July 2011, 71% of Canadians expect a referendum of that kind. That is what you call a strong mandate.

In more than a century, the 13 attempts at Senate reform have failed. Perhaps it is time to draw the logical conclusions. But, once again, the government is proposing a convoluted bill whose purpose is to make us think that the Senate is being reformed, whereas what we will see is something even more questionable.

The government is moving forward with fake Senate reform since holding a constitutional debate and dealing with the provinces and territories on the form, the function, the representative nature and even the legitimacy of that chamber are out of the question. So, welcome, everyone, to the world of mystery and illusion. Let me give you some examples of how comical, or how ridiculous, the situation really is.

First of all, the Senate would be made up of elected representatives. Those who want to keep the institution may find that principle appealing. But it becomes at the very least questionable when we realize that the provinces could choose to hold Senate elections—of course, at their own expense. I draw your attention to those words: once again, financial responsibility is being transferred to the provinces. The federal government is going to download that responsibility onto the provinces without consulting them beforehand.

But the best of it is that the provinces could choose to hold elections using whichever method seems best to them. Perhaps the method would be the cheapest, the most politically expedient; who knows what considerations could go into choosing a method of holding an election. They could also choose not to hold one. On that point alone, it is difficult to imagine anything more nonsensical.

The incoherence of the proposal seems clear to me already. But if that were not enough, after all is said and done, the Prime Minister of Canada would have no obligation to appoint a person who had been previously elected by a province or territory. Heaven knows that, since this session opened, we have lost count of the times when we have realized that the government is not listening to Canadians. So why should the provinces and territories invest time and money in a process that may ultimately serve no purpose?

I also smiled rather broadly when I read in Bill C-7 that candidates for election to the Senate must be nominated by a political party that is registered in the province.

It was amusing to imagine for a few moments the list of potential candidates elected by a Parti Québécois government or the list that would be drawn up by Québec solidaire. It seems to me that here as well, we have obvious proof of the impossibility of reconciling eventual senatorial election results in Quebec with appointments by a Canadian Prime Minister, whoever that might be.

Now, I need to underscore the unilateral process in this bill. Consultations with the provinces and territories are also glaringly absent from this bill. This government is making it a habit to act entirely on its own. The strong mandate pretext cannot possibly justify making such major changes without consulting the main partners, and—why not—the whole population, as I was saying earlier.

I feel as though I am watching an old episode of Father Knows Best. The cartoonists back home chose that image for their caricatures of the government and the Prime Minister, and I think they are on to something.

The Canadian public was deeply affected by the NDP message that they were going to do politics differently and wanted all of the elected members of this House to work together in a manner marked by attentiveness, openness to others and respect. It is not enough to say “Vote as we do so that we can work together”.

If the government goes forward with this bill, it already knows that there are going to be challenges, since Quebec has already said that it considers Bill C-7 unconstitutional and intends to prove that if necessary.

There is another incongruity in this bill, and it concerns accountability. After an election, elected members are generally held accountable to the electorate. Well, think again. Once again, we are dealing with smoke and mirrors. With a single nine-year, non-renewable term—by the way, nine years is equivalent to two terms in the House of Commons, and even a bit more—the pseudo-elected members of the Senate would go directly from election promises to retirement, in recognition of their good and faithful services to Her Majesty. The only way of trying to lengthen your political career would be to temporarily leave the comfort of the Senate to try to get elected to the House of Commons, knowing that if you lost, you could return and finish your term in the comfort of the red chamber. And I could also say a few words about that retirement. One term, followed by a pension. Now there is an approach that is rather difficult to support in an economy where Canadians are having trouble making ends meet.

Now, what of the potential conflicts between the two chambers? It also makes sense that a Senate that has practically the same powers as the House, filled with the false sense of legitimacy that sham elections would bring, could end up bringing us one step closer to the same kind of impasse that is seen in the United States, where the two chambers paralyze one another.

In this House, we have already seen bills passed at third reading be blocked in the Senate by a partisan onslaught. Imagine the power that a Senate could wield if it deemed itself elected and representative.

In closing, the problems with this Senate reform are so great in number that we are automatically brought back to option A—the NDP proposal that the Prime Minister has already toyed with, I might add—namely the out-and-out abolition of the Senate.

I should say in passing that all my attacks are directed against the institution and not its sitting senators. In many cases, I have tremendous respect for their service to the nation.

While some premiers openly favour abolishing the Senate and others find it pointless, why not have the political gumption to ask Canadians, who foot the bill, to decide? It could end up being an extremely positive decision. In one fell swoop, there could potentially be a rapid return to a balanced budget without the need for cuts to services for Canadians.

Madam Speaker, thank you for having given me the floor. I would like to thank my colleagues in this House for their attention.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Trois-Rivières will have five minutes for questions and comments after oral question period.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today to Bill C-7. I will begin by talking about the Senate and where it came from.

The Senate was established by the provinces. As everybody knows, Canada is a federation. Before Confederation, some individual provinces were working together, such as in the legislative Parliament of Canada, and Ontario and Quebec were in a confederation with the Atlantic provinces.

The origin of the Senate comes from Confederation. The provinces got together and decided they would have an elected House of Commons where most of the power would reside and then they would have a second body modelled after legislatures in other countries in which the members would be drawn from a class of people with a different viewpoint and it would be independent of the elected House of Commons. This legislature was established by the provinces when they got together to form the confederation that is Canada today. The existence and role of the Senate, the way it is composed and the way that senators are chosen is embedded in our Constitution.

The bill proposes to change how senators are chosen and, because that is a substantial change, I believe the only way to change how senators are chosen would be to amend the Constitution, which requires much more than an act of the House of Commons. In fact, it requires the participation of the provinces. It would require seven provinces with at least 50% of the population of Canada. It is my belief that the provinces should be involved in something that they helped set up in the first place.

We have a bicameral system, the House of Commons and the Senate, where the two bodies are supposed to be somewhat independent of each other. One should not be under the control of the other. They are supposed to think independently and have an independent point of view. Therefore, it should not be possible for one body to decide how the members of the other body are chosen. This is sort of a moral reason that we should not be acting unilaterally here in Ottawa to change how senators are chosen. We really should be consulting with the provinces and amending the Constitution.

If the government thinks that what it is doing makes sense from a constitutional point of view and really believes it is the right thing to do, I would challenge the government to go to the Supreme Court, as we have done with other questions, such as the lead up to the Clarity Act. The government should ask the Supreme Court if it thinks, in light of the Constitution, that this is a legal thing to do. That would probably save time, money and effort in the future when one or more of the provinces decides to challenge the act, if the bill is passed.

I would like to focus my remarks today on what I view as a contradiction and I will try to explain what the contradiction is.

The bill asks the provinces and territories to provide the Governor General with the names of people who could become senators. It is expected, by this legislation, that the provinces and territories would hold some form of election in order for the people of that province to choose a list of potential senators. It is a little bit strange because the legislation would not provide funding to the provinces to run these elections to choose a senator who will work in Ottawa. It is kind of strange that the federal government would not provide funding for these elections for which it is calling.

Because the legislation says that the provinces and territories would simply be nominating people, as a result of an election or by other means, somehow that is not a substantial change in how we choose senators. Somehow, because these recommendations are not binding on the Governor General or the Prime Minister, in effect, this is not a substantial enough change to trigger the requirement of the federal government to consult with the provinces before proceeding with this kind of change.

The contradiction is that if we are to take these elections seriously, if we really think we will be changing the Senate so that it becomes elected, which is one of the Es of the triple-E Senate that many members of the Conservative side, the reform side of the House, have spoken to in the past, we need to believe that these elections would have some force and that the Prime Minister would be bound in some way. If not legally, then in a moral sense, the Prime Minister would be bound to accept the results of these Senate elections.

If we are to take seriously the idea of having an elected Senate and that Bill C-7 would implement an elected Senate, then we cannot take seriously the argument that the bill is not a substantial change to how senators are elected and that somehow we do not need to consult the provinces. That is the essential contradiction.

Related to that there is another contradiction. A lot of people who have talked about Senate reform want the Senate to be more representative of the people of Canada. That is one of the motivations behind having an elected Senate. I think Senate reform is a good thing because, from what I have seen in my less than one year working here in Ottawa, senators represent a great source of experience and wisdom which would be too valuable to simply throw away, as some of my hon. colleagues would like to do by abolishing the Senate. The Senate is a very valuable source of advice and experience and sober second thought makes sense.

However, it has always been the case that the Senate, not being elected, has deferred to the elected House of Commons whenever there was a conflict. In the past, because the unelected Senate always deferred to the elected House of Commons, it was not such a big deal if, because of an historical artifact, certain provinces had a proportionally higher representation in the Senate than other provinces.

If we were to pass this bill and have an elected Senate, the Senate would have stronger powers. It would have a mandate from the people to sometimes challenge the House of Commons. It would have more power, which would be given to it by hon. members who want to reform the Senate, and there are such members on both sides of the House. At the same time as the Senate would be reformed in this way, we would need to face the fact that some western provinces, in particular Alberta and British Columbia, would be underrepresented. The other contradiction is that hon. members who want to reform the Senate would be handicapping the ability of Alberta and British Columbia to be properly represented in Ottawa.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, under the Canadian Constitution, Canadians gave the Senate a role of regional representation in order to increase representation of the Atlantic provinces, given that they are in the minority in the House of Commons. The problem is that that objective has never been met. In fact, there is no regional representation. What we have instead is a political game where the government appoints its friends.

What does this bill propose to ensure that the role of the Senate is respected? Does this bill really resolve all the problems with the Senate?

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her good question. In my opinion, the Senate needs to be reformed. Nonetheless, as the hon. member said, the problem is that this bill does not provide for Senate reform. It is true that the regions in our country are under-represented in the Senate at this time. I am totally in favour of a real reform of the Senate, but to achieve that we have to consult the provinces and the regions in order for the Senate to work.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Madam Speaker, I heard my colleague say a number of times that reforming the Senate is a good idea. I have a few specific questions for him.

What would the Liberals do to reform the Senate? What do they propose, since my colleague says this would be a good idea? Is he in favour of having an elected Senate?

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. I am not an expert on the Senate, but I do have some thoughts on this issue. The problem with an elected Senate is that we do not currently have a mechanism for resolving conflicts between the House of Commons and the Senate. If the Senate were elected, it would be mandated by the people of Canada to exercise the power they confer upon it. Before senators are elected, we must study and establish, together with the provinces, a mechanism to resolve this conflict.

However, we can come up with other, very good possibilities. One that I like is establishing a committee to identify individuals in our country who are very experienced, who have played an important role and who are not usually active in politics. I am thinking of leading scientists, for example. It is very difficult to work in the sciences—doing research, for example—and to be actively involved in politics. In my opinion, this committee could look to such sectors for people who know Canada, who have played a major role in its history, but who are not usually involved in politics. They could be appointed to the Senate and contribute much to the work it does here.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-7, An Act respecting the selection of senators and amending the Constitution Act, 1867 in respect of Senate term limits.

I am pleased to have this opportunity today. I have a degree in political science and I am very interested in all matters pertaining to parliamentary process, especially Senate reform. It is a subject that I studied a number of times while in university. This is the third time that the Conservatives have introduced a bill dealing with either the election of senators or Senate terms. Thus, we have had a great deal of material to examine and analyze in recent years.

The purpose of the bill before us today is to reform the Senate in two main ways. The first limits the tenure of senators to a maximum of nine years for all senators appointed after October 14, 2008. The second allows the provinces and territories to hold elections, at their own expense, to decide the names to be submitted to the Prime Minister for consideration for future Senate appointments. The provinces could thus choose any system they liked for electing senators, provided that the system adhered to basic democratic principles.

The Conservatives say the measures they have introduced are intended to modernize the aging institution that is the Senate. For once, I agree with my Conservative colleagues on part of what they say: the upper chamber does in fact present major problems, and measures need to be taken to remedy the situation.

However, the solution the NDP has been proposing for several years is quite different. In fact, we are calling for the complete abolition of the Senate. The reasons why we are calling for the abolition of the upper chamber are very simple. First, the institution is not democratic, and it is composed of unelected members appointed by the Prime Minister. More often than not, those appointments are partisan and are made to reward friends of the Prime Minister. As well, he sometimes adds insult to injury by appointing candidates, and even ministers, who were rejected by the public in a general election, as we saw after the last election on May 2. The people living in the greater Quebec City region can attest to that as well.

In addition, the Senate is also used for partisan purposes by the government, whether to guarantee the speedy passage of government bills or to kill bills that have actually been approved by the House of Commons. I am thinking in particular of the Climate Change Accountability Act and the bill to provide generic drugs for Africa.

Since 1900, there have been 13 attempts to reform the Senate, and they have all failed. Bill C-7 is no different from all those other failed attempts. It does not solve the problems that already exist in the upper chamber, and on top of that it creates new problems that simply worsen the present situation. First, limiting senators’ tenure to nine years does not make them more accountable to Canadians; quite the contrary. In fact, the bill eliminates any form of accountability to the public, since senators would never have to face the public at the end of their tenure. Once senators were elected, they would never have to account for their decisions, their actions and their broken election promises, because they could never stand in another election. As well, they would be automatically entitled to a pension, regardless of their record.

I cannot see how having the Prime Minister give a senator a nine year non-renewable term increases democracy in the Senate. Nor do the measures proposed by the Conservatives in Bill C-7 prevent partisan appointments. The bill does not really change the way senators are appointed, and the Prime Minister remains entirely responsible for choosing senators. The Prime Minister is not obliged by this bill to select senators from the lists submitted by the provinces or territories, and he can continue to choose whomever he wants and ignore each and every list he receives. He can, therefore, continue to fill the Senate with senators who are loyal to the government rather than to Canadians. This is a major problem.

Canadians elect the members of the House of Commons and place their trust in them to be their voices in Parliament. The Prime Minister, on the other hand, appoints senators, as a reward, and they serve the governing party.

I shall now read a letter written by Senator Bert Brown to the members of the Conservative Senate caucus. It is dated June 15, 2001, which, in my opinion, perfectly illustrates a situation. I am going to read the first and last paragraphs, which I think are the most relevant . The letter reads,“Yesterday, in Senate caucus [the minister] was showered with complaints about Senate elections and a nine year term. ... Every Senator in this caucus needs to decide where their loyalty should be and must be. The answer is simple; our loyalty is to the man who brought us here, the man who has wanted Senate reform since he entered politics, the Rt. Hon. [Prime Minister].

The message to senators is very clear: their loyalty lies not with the regions that they represent, nor with Canadians; their loyalty is to the Prime Minister. Canadians, too, have heard this message loud and clear.

Another consequence of this bill would be the creation of a two-tiered Senate with elected and unelected senators in the same upper house, which may be worse than what we currently have.

Bill C-7, if passed in its present form, will fundamentally change the nature of Canadian politics as we know it today. We will end up with senators elected at the provincial level who believe that they are more legitimate than the unelected senators. We will then have a Senate with different degrees of legitimacy based on the method by which senators are selected.

However, the most negative effect of this bill will be evident once we have an entirely elected Senate. According to the Canadian Constitution, the Senate currently has more or less the same powers as the House of Commons. However, since senators are unelected, they cannot indefinitely block legislation with financial implications because they have no direct mandate from Canadians but are appointed by the Prime Minister.

Once we have an elected upper house, it will be a whole different story. Senators will have greater legitimacy to introduce bills and block House bills. That could result in American-style impasses pitting two houses of elected representatives with essentially the same decision-making powers against one another in legislative conflicts with no apparent solution.

Ultimately, such impasses will force us to redefine the framework of Parliament, including the rights and responsibilities of both the House of Commons and the Senate. Major changes will require nothing less than a constitutional amendment. There is no other option, because that is the existing legislative framework.

The Conservatives claim that their bill will sidestep a constitutional debate on Senate reform, but I do not see how such a debate can be avoided.

Before passing a bill that will inevitably lead to interminable constitutional debates and discussions, we have to let Canadians weigh in on the issue of the Senate's very existence. All the provinces have done quite well without their upper houses since 1968, so it is high time we thought seriously about getting rid of the federal Senate. That is why, for years, the NDP has been calling for a referendum to find out if Canadians want to get rid of the Senate. Before setting in motion any major reforms of the Senate or abolishing it entirely, we need a clear mandate from Canadians, from the people of this country, and the only way to get a clear, legitimate mandate is to hold a referendum.

The changes that the Conservatives have proposed in Bill C-7 are inadequate and will not solve the Senate-related problems. That is why I oppose this bill. If the Senate cannot be abolished outright, the status quo is better than the constitutional chaos into which the Conservatives apparently wish to lead us. Serious consideration is in order before passing Bill C-7. The government will find itself embroiled in constitutional debates that it would rather avoid. That deserves some thought.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her speech. I tend to agree with her. However, she concluded by saying that she does not want to open a constitutional debate, but at the same time, she and her party want to abolish the Senate. Abolishing the Senate would require a constitutional amendment, a constitutional reform supported not just by seven provinces representing 50% of the population, but by all the provinces. Trying to abolish the Senate would take us headfirst into a brick wall.

She said she would like to achieve this through a referendum. What would constitute a clear majority in a referendum? Since all the provinces would have to agree, would a majority be needed in each province to abolish the Senate?

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague. I am not at all surprised by this question regarding a clear majority, which is one of his favourite topics. If I were him, I would avoid this topic, since it has sometimes gotten him into hot water in Quebec, but let us not dwell on that.

To answer his question, I suggested that we not open a constitutional debate right away, but that we simply put the question to Canadians. So, before we pass this bill or even think about any reforms, we need to see where Canadians stand on this and hear their opinions on that institution. That is the first step I am proposing.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier on her very eloquent speech, which helped put things in perspective and gave some idea of the pitfalls that lie ahead concerning the government's bill on Senate reform.

We cannot ignore the fact that this government is a master at proposing superficial reforms and introducing detailed bills without worrying about all the consequences. My colleague very clearly illustrated the fact that this government is opening a Pandora's box that could lead to numerous problems.

What does my colleague think of the proposal to elect senators, even though the Prime Minister would have to approve all selections anyway?

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Beauport—Limoilou for the question. This problem will not really change the current undemocratic situation in the Senate. Holding provincial senatorial elections and then giving the Prime Minister the final say will not change the current situation. Quite the contrary. I touched on this in my speech. It remains an arbitrary decision. People will still be rewarded for what they have done for the government or for the Prime Minister, and they will have no loyalty toward their fellow Canadians. Furthermore, when we start electing senators, partisanship will taint the work of senators, and that will prevent them from properly representing their regions.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The member for Winnipeg North for a quick question.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the position of the NDP is fairly clear. It wants to abolish the Senate. There is no other option. If a majority of Canadians wanted to retain the Senate in some fashion, would the NDP then change its position on the Senate?

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is a hypothetical situation and therefore I do not think I can address it appropriately. The first step is to ask Canadians what they want. Based on the response, we can look at scenarios and establish the steps to be taken. For the time being, I remain in favour of abolishing the Senate.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity today to speak to Bill C-7 before the House.

Just before I start, I note that the most recent question was whether or not it was wise to consult Canadians. Yet the government has not even consulted the provinces when talking about making massive changes to the Senate and its functions.

The rub in this particular legislation is that it all sounds very simple. In fact, if we look at the summary to the legislation it merely says that part 1 of the enactment is to provide that the Prime Minister, in recommending Senate nominees to the Governor General for a province or territory, as if the Prime Minister did not make the nominations and put them into effect, would be required to consider names from a list of nominees submitted by the provincial or territorial government. The list of nominees would be determined by an election held in accordance with provincial or territorial laws.

Therefore, what we have here is what a famous Canadian once called “meddling with the constitution”. That man is considered one of the fathers of Confederation, none other than Sir John A. Macdonald. He talked about certain proposals coming forward prior to Confederation in the Province of Canada, between Upper and Lower Canada. Suggestions were made for some changes based on representation by population. It was really about changing the balance, in this particular case, between Upper and Lower Canada, or Quebec and Ontario. It was being proposed in some other fashion, not directly, but the idea was to change the nature of the Constitution.

Sir John A. quite rightly identified this as meddling with the constitution. That is what is happening here. What is the effect of this legislation? Is it to improve the situation in Canada? Do we have a circumstance that requires adjustment by saying that we will appoint only senators who are elected in a province? Is that what the people are crying out for? Do we want to have a Senate now that has six members from Alberta, six members from B.C., six members from Manitoba, and ten from New Brunswick and four from P.E.I.? Are we going to improve things by saying they would be chosen from those who have been elected? Therefore, in the Senate we would have B.C. with six senators and P.E.I. with four. That is the representation we are going to have in the Senate, and we would start to give them legitimacy by saying they were chosen from people who were elected in the provinces.

That is going to be a muddle if ever there were one. If John A. Macdonald were here today that is what he would call it. He would say this is “meddling with the constitution”. If the bill passes, we do not know what the real effect is going to be, but it will give some legitimacy to senators, or at least the senators will think they have legitimacy. They will say they were elected by the people of Prince Edward Island or British Columbia, or at least that they “won” an election, because they are not allowed to be elected. A senator will say, “I am one of six senators and should therefore be able to flex my constitutional muscle in the Senate”.

That person will be up against someone from Prince Edward Island who will say: “I was elected. I won an election in Prince Edward Island. I am one of four. I have a vote in the Senate and my vote is just as important as yours. We collectively are going to have legitimacy because we were elected”.

What is that going to do to our constitution? It would muddle it at the very least and delegitimize this place, the House of Commons, the elected representatives of the people making the law. We have a Senate down the hall, “the other place” I think we are supposed to refer to it politely. We are not allowed to utter its name because it is the other place. That is the tradition here.

The tradition also is that the other place is supposed to defer to the House of Commons. That is the convention. If we look at the Constitution, it says they have equal powers, but the constitutional convention is that they are not supposed to be exercising those powers.

What have we had in the last couple of years? We have had a government that has been using the Senate as a tool to defeat the majority in the House of Commons. We saw that in the last Parliament. The climate change action bill was passed by the House, and what did the government do? It used its majority in the Senate to kill the bill. The will of the House of Commons, the elected people of Canada, was defeated by appointed people in the other place.

Who are they? They are appointed at the whim of the Prime Minister. Never mind the language about the Prime Minister “recommending” nominees to the Governor General. We know what that means: anyone who is recommended by the Prime Minister to the Governor General is appointed to the Senate. I do not even think they are called appointments. Instead, they are called to the Senate. I do not mean to mock this, but that is the way the system is set up. Senators are clearly appointed by the Prime Minister based on whatever whim he has. This legislation says he would have to consider nominees who have won an election in a province. Some of them are recognizable people, such as defeated Conservative candidates, for example.

The former member for Avalon in my province was defeated in an election and appointed to the Senate. Then he resigned and ran in the last election. He was defeated again and re-appointed to the Senate. In my province that is not regarded very highly. It is not regarded as democratic that someone can become a senator because he is a defeated Conservative candidate who is rewarded for his loyalty by being put in the Senate, where he can serve for as long as the Constitution allows.

That is the body the government wants to give legitimacy to by saying that the persons chosen could potentially or possibly be from among those who have been elected. This is meddling with the Constitution, because senators and others have talked about how we will have differential senators as a result, some appointed until age 75 because they were appointed 20, 10 or 5 years ago, and then those who are appointed from a list of elected candidates. Not all provinces are happy with this. British Columbia does not seem to be happy about this. Quebec is not happy with it. In fact, it is saying it is going to take it to court to challenge the constitutionality of it.

There was a time when the Reform Party talked about a triple-E Senate: equal, effective and elected. That was the model and I think it has been rejected. What are we trying to salvage? Is it the notion that we can reform a body that ought to be abolished, like every other senate in Canada has been abolished? Every other province had the equivalent to the Senate. Most of them were called legislative councils and some were called other things, but the provinces got rid of them and we now have what are called unicameral legislatures across the country.

Democracy has not suffered; democracy has been enhanced. In fact, these senates or legislative councils were initially aimed in part to be a brake on democracy, to the effect that “We cannot let commoners pass laws unless the aristocracy and the establishment have an opportunity to veto them”. That was part of the original idea. There is talk about regional balance, yes, but it was also about this other notion.

It is a fundamentally undemocratic institution and ought to be abolished. Our first step, as was mentioned, would be to ask Canadians to reflect on this issue in a referendum. It would be a first step, and not a constitutional step, by the way. Do not mistake that. It would say that New Democrats wanted to develop a national consensus on abolishing the Senate. That is our policy. This alleged reform is in fact meddling with the Constitution and ought not take place.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Madam Speaker, again I agree with my colleague on almost everything he said. However, I am trying to get an answer from him on the following, since his colleague did not answer.

According to the Constitution, abolishing the Senate would require unanimity among all of the provinces. Would that mean that winning a referendum on abolishing the Senate would require a majority in every province of our great country? Yes or no?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, everyone in the country knows that the member is a constitutional scholar. However, I urge him not to get caught up in constitutionality.

When we are talking about holding a referendum, we are talking about political will. We first need a consensus in this country that that other place is undemocratic and ought to be abolished. Once we get that, then we will ask the hon. member to tell us exactly how he thinks it relates to the Constitution. We could have a debate about that. We might even refer it to the Supreme Court of Canada.

However, before we get involved in all of the constitutional issues and open up a can of worms, a Pandora's box, as some people call it, we should ask the question whether the people of Canada want to maintain this relic of the 19th century, as the Prime Minister has called it in the past. Do we want to get rid of this or do we want to keep it? That is the fundamental question.

We know where we stand and we would like to have an opportunity to convince the people of Canada that it should be abolished.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his excellent speech.

I would like to know whether he agrees with me on something. Is the government not just creating a smokescreen with this bill—as it has with other bills—in claiming to want to reform the Senate? This is not the first time, because the government has been saying it wants to reform the Senate for years now. However, it presents us with false reforms every time. This bill still leaves the Prime Minister with the power to decide who he will appoint to the Senate, creating a situation whereby the elected candidates will not necessarily be appointed. Is it not ridiculous, today, to ask people to run in an election to become senators, knowing that after they win there is still no guarantee that they will become senators?

I wonder whether this bill is just a smokescreen and whether the best solution here, as my colleague has said a number of times, is to ask Canadians what they think of the Senate and what they think we should do before we launch into any reform. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, I do not know if “smokescreen” is the proper word. It certainly is a subterfuge of some sort because I think it is part of a continued attempt to legitimize the work of the other place. We have seen the government use it in the past.

It is using it now in having introduced Bill S-7 in the Senate, a justice bill aimed at amending the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and other legislation to provide extraordinary powers to the Federal Court. That is legislation that died because of a sunset clause five years ago, but the government now wants to bring it back, not here but in the Senate. I think the whole idea here is to make the Senate more legitimate and maybe that will extend the government's power beyond when it is defeated.

Maybe that is part of the scheme. I am not a conspiracy theorist but I do see elements of that in this current legislation, with its nine-year terms and more and more appointments to be made by the Prime Minister, who received less than 40% in the last election and who is seeing if he can extend his power by making the Senate more powerful. That is very dangerous.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, if provinces like Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, provinces with small population bases, want to retain a Senate in the form of a referendum but because the overall numbers across Canada show that 51% want it to be abolished, what would the NDP's position be then? Would it deny the opportunity of a Senate for the smaller provinces that might want stronger regional representation?

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, we are looking at a particular institution that has failed, frankly. It is a relic of the 19th century. It does not provide for democratic representation. We are talking about a referendum that would test the will of the people.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise today to speak about Bill C-7, the Senate reform act. I have two major concerns about this bill. One concerns the process by which the bill was derived, and the second is the substance of the bill. Once I have gone through those two points, I will also bring up a proposition of how we can move forward on this topic.

In terms of process, I find the way in which this bill was developed is cynical. I think it was really developed in the backroom by the Conservatives with very little consultation with the public, the academic communities or the provinces. In fact, I do not think there was a single robocall made through this whole process. Perhaps the Conservatives might want to change not only their position on how they develop bills or their approach to developing bills, but also how they consult the public in general.

The Senate is an outdated but important institution. It requires serious debate and public input. I think we learned from the Meech Lake accord that Canadians are no longer willing to develop important positions on the Constitution, institutions of Parliament or democracy by having a bunch of guys in the backroom make a decision and then kind of foist it on the public.

We need to involve the public and all the expertise that we have across the country in order to come forward with a position that all Canadians can accept.

The Senate is a key institution of government. Its origins date back to the 11th century in England. Yet, despite the long-standing presence of this institution, both in other countries and in Canada, no public input has been sought on these changes. There is little consultation with the provinces. There is little academic input. This is unfortunate. For example, Tom Flanagan, a chief advisor to the Conservatives, said this legislation “scares me”. He opposes this legislation because he thinks it would further entrench all that is wrong with the Senate.

As I mentioned, this cynical approach to democratic reform really died with Meech Lake. Members of this House will remember that the Charlottetown accord, although it did not go forward, set a new way for major reforms in this country. This way is to bring the public in and to make sure that they are consulted. If the public does not want the change, then it is not made.

I am going to return to the idea of process at the end of my speech, but I am going to move on with substance. I have to say I agree with Professor Flanagan that this legislation is scary, not only in the way it was developed but also the substance of it. At best, this bill is frivolous and at worst it is damaging to Canadian democracy.

For example, the Prime Minister would only be required to consider these elections. A province could go through all the trouble of electing and selecting a new senator, to bring his or her name forward to the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister could reject it.

We are already in a democratic crisis here in Canada. We have voter turnouts at the lowest levels in history. Citizens do not participate between elections. I am sure we will get into that debate later today with a perhaps purposeful, fraudulent attempt on the other side to suppress public input which was brought to light over the weekend.

Again, this could only deepen the cynicism about our democratic institutions. The effect of this bill could also be no effect at all. Provinces have already indicated that they are going to take this to court if this goes ahead.

I would like to draw attention to clauses 38 to 50, which link Senate reform not only to the provinces conducting these elections for senators but municipalities. This part of the bill says that if the provinces do not want to conduct these elections, they could devolve them to municipal institutions. I think this would be very dangerous.

Three colleagues and I have just finished a book on the topic of local government institutions across Canada. I have to report that I think clauses 38 to 50 would be a very dangerous precedent to set. As we report in our book, municipal election processes in many provinces are in really dire shape.

The provincial government in British Columbia found it could not conduct referendums during municipal elections because the administration of these municipal elections is unreliable. There is improper record keeping and there are irregularities. There is not sufficient oversight to guarantee that these elections are fit for anything other than local issues.

Worse still is the influence of foreign money in municipal elections. This has come to light in the province of British Columbia. It would be important to consider if we were to move ahead with Senate elections conducted on the back of these municipal elections.

For example, the head of CSIS reported last year that foreign funds were coming to the municipal elections in British Columbia and they were having a negative influence on municipal politicians. Premier Gordon Campbell was so concerned about the charges made by the head of CSIS that he convened a task force on this very topic. I am pleased to say that Premier Campbell invited me to testify at the task force. I was able to report on an investigation that I had conducted about the amount of foreign money coming into B.C. local elections. This would be especially worrying if Senate elections were to be conducted during these same municipal elections.

One councillor in the city of Vancouver received a lump sum donation of $75,000 from a Taiwanese businessperson. This money was routed through various companies in Canada in order to land in his municipal election fund. This is one example of a large amount of money that came to one single councillor that could have the effect of influencing decisions made by councillors. If Senate elections were connected to municipal elections that in turn could influence who sits in our Senate. That is very worrying.

We reported to the provincial task force that donations from U.S. sources are common. Thousands of dollars are coming into B.C. municipal elections. This could have an influence on senatorial elections if this legislation were passed.

As additional information, there is currently no spending limit in B.C. municipal elections. In the last Vancouver municipal election over $5 million was spent by candidates of different political parties. Some of this money has already been traced to foreign sources. The task force has investigated this and continues to investigate. Both the former premier and the current premier have expressed deep concerns and are moving forward with legislation to change this. This is an investigation only in one province. Before we move ahead with anything like clauses 38 to 50 we definitely have to make sure that this is not the case in other municipal elections across Canada.

It is our position that the Senate should be abolished. However, we do not think we should rush forward with this without talking to Canadians. We should learn from the mistakes of the other side. We should engage Canadians in the discussion of what is an important democratic institution in this country.

We have a four step proposal. Most of it has already been covered in my colleagues' speeches to the House, but it is good to remind the House of our proposal.

First, we are proposing to convene a number of experts who could give us a non-partisan overview of what is possible in terms of Senate reform, that is, the constitutionality in relation to the overall Constitution and how it affects the provinces. We have brilliant academic minds in this country who could come together and bring us this information.

Second, we would need to publicize this information through a mechanism to spur debate on this issue.

Third, we would have to move to a referendum on this topic. I was an academic advisor to the B.C. citizens' assembly. With a few tweaks we could have something like a citizens' assembly that could help set the question to be asked of Canadians at large and perhaps answer some of my colleague's questions about what threshold would be appropriate. I would think 50% plus one would be fine. Again, this is a personal opinion.

Fourth, a referendum is binding. After this referendum, we would abide by the will of the people and move ahead with whatever is acceptable.

If the majority government moves ahead with the bill against our advice, I suggest that the government consult with the Province of British Columbia on foreign funding in municipal elections and take a very good look at clauses 38 to 50.

I am happy to provide the government with the briefing I gave to the Campbell task force. I am also working on a private member's motion on this matter, which I will raise at a later time.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the hon. member was very straightforward. He gave a proposal in which, to be very clear, he said that the NDP would abolish the Senate based on a referendum, if 50% plus one of the voters across Canada said yes to abolishing the Senate.

The question I have for the hon. member is this. There are provinces like Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland which have smaller populations. Some of those provinces want to see better regional representation in Ottawa and look to the Senate as a possible solution to that issue.

If you were to get a majority of people in the province of Manitoba who said they would like to see that regionally based Senate, would you then abandon the position in terms of the 50% plus one in order to abolish the Senate?

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I am sure the hon. member is not speaking about my position. I would encourage all members to direct their questions through the Speaker.

The hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the question from the hon. member, although he is putting words in my mouth. The proposal I clearly outlined is to get expert advice on what would be not only constitutionally acceptable but also on the process.

The second thing would be to take this information to Canadians, to consult with them, to see what they would find acceptable. I propose getting advice from the public, perhaps through a citizens' assembly, about not only what question would be acceptable but what thresholds would be acceptable as well. Then have a referendum and abide by the will of that referendum.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his great speech and the work he has done in British Columbia on certain files.

I find interesting that Liberal members keep asking: what is the status? What is the number? What is it going to be? What is the majority? They do not even want to take this question to the Canadian people. I think that is what we really need to do. We need to ask Canadians this question: do we really need the other place? It boggles the mind as to why they continue talking about this one subject when they do not even want to talk to the Canadian people. Maybe that is why they are sitting way down at that end now.

I would like to hear comments from the hon. member on that.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Madam Speaker, for me, the Liberal position is very consistent: it is to defend the status quo because that is what has benefited that party. It is also a cynical approach to politics.

I think that all parties in this House have to learn from past mistakes. All parties have to make sure that the public is included in a much deeper way, not only in the reform of democratic institutions but also in actual participation in our current democratic processes.

We do not have enough of that. In fact, if anything, the government and the Liberal Party have worked to exclude Canadians from these processes. However, members on this side of the House are going to make sure we bring forward proposals to include citizens, to increase voter turnout and public participation in between elections. We will continue to do so.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville for one last, very quick question.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague said he would like to have a panel of experts to determine the process to abolish the Senate. The hon. member knows the Constitution. He is a professor himself. He knows that it requires the unanimity of provinces. Why would one need a panel for that?

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will respond with an extension of the last question. Why do the Liberals not believe in public participation? Why do they not believe in getting advice from citizens and experts?

I think the process I outlined showed that we are committed to a different type of Canada, where Canadians actually have a voice and get fair information about processes so they can make properly informed decisions about what should happen in Canada. Then we would move ahead with the consent of and advice from the Canadian people.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to add my voice to the debate on Senate reform. As has been made clear in the House, the position of the NDP is to abolish the Senate. I am comfortable with that position, I support it and I advocate for it.

However, at the same time, I am all right talking about other ideas. I love hearing from my constituents about this issue. We have different perspectives on the issue, but, unlike the Conservatives, I am not afraid of different perspectives. I am not afraid of people sharing their ideas with me even if we might not agree at the end of the day on how to solve the problem.

People often talk to me about this, whether at events where they pull me off to the side and say that they have thought about Senate reform and want to talk about it. People write me letters. People stop me on the street. This is something people think about in their day-to-day lives and they try to figure out a solution. They are trying to work through what can be done.

Why are all these constituents preoccupied with Senate reform? Parliamentary procedure is not exactly something that people think about while having dinner. However, they care about this because they see our system is not working. They see that the Senate is not serving the purpose it was intended to serve. Therefore, people do legitimately talk to me about their ideas and I listen to them.

Before I came into the chamber today, I looked through some letters I received about Senate reform. I want to share a couple of them with the House. Again, they are proposing a solution that is not my solution, but it is encouraging to hear from people and know they are so engaged on this issue. I want to share just a couple of letters with you.

One letter is from Andre MacNeil, who is from Halifax. He wrote to me last year on International Women's Day. I will not even paraphrase. He said:

Hello Megan,

while listening to a news item on women's representation in the Senate (or its equivalent) in India (on the radio) this evening, I thought that we, in Canada, should consider something similar.

On the occasion of International Women's Day, I suggest that all Senate appointments be gender balanced, commencing today. From this point forward, every other appointment to the Senate should be a woman. To someone like myself—outside of politics—this seems like a reasonable possibility, since all Senate positions are appointed. As well, it should provide a much broader—and improved—representation for Canadians than the current approach.

Is this concept too “simplistic” ... or is this a viable alternative for public representation?

Thank you for your time and tireless efforts.

Andre and I have a different solution, but the point is he worries about the fact that the Senate is not working the way it should and he is trying to come up with a solution.

Mark Hoffberg wrote to me and summarized a proposal that he had. He said:

My proposal....changes the Senate from a regional representation body to one that represents the actual popular vote in the country, composed of a 100 seat chamber (with room for a rounding bump of a seat if needed). I would also allocate 5 additional seats for what the census would call Aboriginal Canadians (First Nations, Métis, Inuit).

The 5 Aboriginal seats I feel are important because of the nature of representation of Aboriginal people in the country. Making up 5% of the population but operating on wholly different governing systems, there's a lack of a voice in the direction of the country as a whole. The members would not be members of an existing party list but would be determined by other means and certainly not limited to those on or off reserves.

After a Federal Election, the number of Senate seats for each party would be determined based on the popular vote. The parties would then select members to represent them in the Senate. The parties would have a list of potential candidates available within 10 days of the writ of election being dropped....

I know the Senate is a topic of conversation so I wished to add my thoughts on it, thoughts I think would work well for all the parties in the House of Commons.

Have a good day.

He is right that the Senate is a topic of conversation.

These are two examples of Canadians writing to their MP saying that the system is broken and suggesting some ideas on how to fix it. I welcome those kinds of letters and I welcome a discussion on Senate reform.

I have a proposal. Why do we not abolish it? The reason we need to abolish the Senate is because it is “a relic of the 19th century”. Who said that? It was the right hon. Prime Minister.

The 2006 Conservative platform said that the Conservatives and the Prime Minister believed that the current Senate must either be reformed or abolished, that an unelected Senate should not be able to block the will of an elected House in the 21st century.

We can talk about these ideas on how to reform, but it is not serving us. We should abolish the Senate. At the very least, we should do what I have just done in the House, and that is welcome opinions, talk about ideas, hear from people who may even think something different than we think and put it to the test. Let us have a referendum. Why are we afraid of the Canadian people? Why are we afraid of hearing from them and getting a clear message from them, 50% plus one? Why would we not welcome that kind of participatory democracy? It is brilliant. Once we have done that, let them have a say and then follow the will of the people. Never mind party or regional posturing.

On the regional issue, I am from Nova Scotia, and the Senate is a big issue back home. People tell me that the Senate is about regional representation, that if we lose the Senate, then Nova Scotia will lose out and that this is an opportunity for Nova Scotia to have more of a say in parliamentary affairs.

When I first heard that argument, I thought it was a good point, but let us apply that to what happens in the House and the other chamber. When have we ever seen a senator stand up for Nova Scotia? When have we ever seen a senator stand up for Atlantic Canada? How are senators representing my interests as a maritimer and Atlantic Canadian? They are not because they cannot put their party allegiance aside. They are doing what the centre is telling them to do and they are not standing up for Nova Scotia.

Because I am here during the parliamentary calendar, I work and meet with constituents during the summer. Summertime is a great time to be with people in the community, whether it is at festivals or meetings. I met a senator in the airport on my way back to Ottawa and asked him how his summer was. He said that he was not busy and was so glad to go back to Ottawa. He said that he had been bored stiff. I tried to swallow the bile, because we work during the summer. We meet with our constituents and have outreach events. This man told me he was bored all summer. Well, cry me a river. Seriously, what the heck are senators doing?

I want to talk about the climate change accountability act, which was introduced in 2006 by Jack Layton. Parliament dissolved for the 2008 election so it did not get to the Senate. However, my colleague from Thunder Bay—Superior North brought it back and it passed on May 5, 2010, by a vote of 149 to 136. It went to the Senate and the Senate killed it on November 16, 2010. So much for sober second thought. Senators are activists. This is not what they are supposed to do.

I will never forget that day because I was with Jack Layton and I had never seen him that angry. He was so angry at how undemocratic this was. At a press conference, he said that this was one of the most undemocratic acts we had ever seen in the Parliament of Canada. To take power that does not rightfully belong to senators, to kill a bill that has been adopted by a majority of Canadians is as wrong as it gets when it comes to democracy in our country.

As my time has expired, it is appropriate to end on those words from my former leader, Jack Layton.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member, being from Nova Scotia, raised the issue about whether senators from Nova Scotia were representing their province. I wonder if she would take issue with the former premier of Nova Scotia, the now retired senator, John Buchanan. Did he not represent Nova Scotia? I wonder if she would take issue with Senator Don Oliver, a well-known lawyer, entrepreneur, educator, a member of the black minority in Nova Scotia, nephew of a Canadian opera singer, politician Bill White and labour union activist Jack White. He is a distinguished Nova Scotian. Is the member suggesting that Senator Don Oliver does not represent the citizens of Nova Scotia?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, Senator Oliver is an interesting fellow. He is one of the few senators who I actually see trying to engage with the community. I get a newsletter from him. I do not agree with his position on policies, but he is someone who tries to engage with community. He is out there doing what he can as a senator and I admire him for that.

However, that does not change my position on the Senate, especially when I am hard pressed to name the senators from Nova Scotia. I am a member of Parliament for the province of Nova Scotia and I do not know their names because they are non-existent in our province. They are not out meeting with people and talking about issues. I do not know what they do and I am here in this place. It is incredible to me.

There are some exceptions to the rule. I think Senator Jim Cowan and Senator Jane Cordy are working hard, but beyond that, it comes down to the fact that the Senate is not working. It does not matter to me that these are nice people who I happen to like, it does not work.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for making more nuances now than in her speech in answering her colleague and recognizing the merit of many of our colleagues from the other chamber.

However, in her speech she said something completely unrealistic. She said that one vote would be enough of a difference, as in 50% plus one, to abolish the Senate in a judicial recount. That is completely unrealistic. What would she recommend if, in this referendum, some provinces had a clear majority to keep the Senate, but she had her one vote under judicial recount to abolish it?

The member's recommendation would have no impact anyway because the referendum could not change the Constitution. The unanimity of the provinces would still be needed to abolish the Senate.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I did not say one vote, I said a majority, and 50% plus one is a majority. That is more than one vote. Why would we not follow the will of the majority of Canadians?

If the majority of Canadians are saying that it is something they want, then we act. Maybe I cannot stand here and say that then comes a, b and c. Maybe we need to take some time to figure out what that looks like, and we can find the political will to do it. Just because it might be complicated does not mean we should not try and figure out a way to do it.

The hon. member should not let people tell him that it cannot be done.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou for a very quick question.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Halifax for speaking about the unfortunate moment when the bill that had been passed by the House was defeated by the Senate.

Indeed, among the very odd measures we find in this bill is the one whereby Senate election candidates have to be appointed by a registered political party, which seems like an awfully partisan shift to me. I would like to know what the hon. member thinks about that.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his comments.

As always, I am in complete agreement with my colleague and I would like to thank him for the idea.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House to speak about Bill C-7, which is complete garbage. I hope it is not too unparliamentary of me to say so.

I came prepared to speak about many issues that have been raised by all sorts of people who are much more qualified than I am. I considered the content of the bill. I will start there. Everything that follows the word “Whereas” is complete nonsense: “it is important that Canada’s representative institutions, including the Senate, continue to evolve in accordance with the principles of modern democracy and the expectations of Canadians”.

The word “modern” is used. With this bill, the government is telling Canadians that people may be elected, or they may not be. They will then be recommended and may or may not be chosen. They will remain in limbo for six years and then they may sit for nine years. This extremely convoluted process, which cannot be called a suitable political process, is referred to as “modern” in the first paragraph of the preamble. Simple decency requires that, at the very least, the word “modern” be removed from the first paragraph of the bill. In 2012, the word “modern” cannot be associated with such a piece of garbage.

A little further on, the preamble states, “Whereas the tenure of senators should be consistent with modern democratic principles”. Again the word “modern” is used. I made a note for myself: nine years. Is there a modern democracy that would allow an individual to sit for nine years and to remain in limbo for six years once elected? That is 15 years. In addition, someone could be relieved of their mandate as senator for an indeterminate period of time and then come back. Could such a mechanism be used, for example, to improve the public standing of a person who was appointed by a party in power? That person would be in limbo, but he would also be in the public eye for six years. He could then sit for three years and take a break, perhaps to become a member of the House. While we are at it, why not allow senators to be elected for nine years and then come back after four or eight years for another six-year term? Such a process would allow an individual to be elected as a public official for 15, 20 or 22 years. For goodness' sake, can we take all the instances of the word “modern” out of this piece of garbage?

Another paragraph astonished me: “And whereas Parliament wishes to maintain the essential characteristics of the Senate…as a chamber of independent…thought.” Not all Canadians are that gullible.

I have here a letter from Senator Bert Brown dated June 15, 2011. It concludes as follows: “Every Senator in this caucus needs to decide where their loyalty should be and must be. The answer is simple; our loyalty is to the man who brought us here, the man who has wanted Senate reform….” His loyalty is to the person who appointed him. The bill talks about a “chamber of independent thought”. While the government makes claims, the way that chamber operates, in fact, has nothing to do with what is discussed by the elected chamber here.

In another clause, the bill says: “A person remains as a Senate nominee until whichever of the following occurs first: ….” Here we are talking about something I mentioned earlier. A person could be suspended after 15 years. Fifteen years is equivalent to three or four provincial terms. Elections of senators would be associated with provincial elections.

The governments in power in the provinces will change, in a democratic and modern way, every three or four or five years, while someone is going to be in limbo with a position as an elected public representative for two or three or four provincial terms.

If we look at the history of the Senate, we see the extent to which this completely bizarre construction that this government is on the verge of creating is based on something that has been bizarre since the outset: the founding instrument enacted in 1867. One of the first comments made by Sir John A. Macdonald was that that chamber could act to curb democratic excesses. That is the foundational instrument. A chamber was created to avoid democratic excesses. The other chamber does not seem to be questioning whether its approach is healthy and democratic. The goal of the foundational instrument was to prevent democratic excesses.

There is a clause in the Constitution, section 26 of the Constitution Act, 1867, under which the Prime Minister may, with the consent of Her Majesty, cause four or eight additional senators to be appointed. Those senators must represent equally the four regional divisions. That clause has been invoked twice in history, but it has been used only once, in 1990. Brian Mulroney invoked it to make sure a bill creating the goods and services tax was passed.

Historically, something is put in place to prevent what was called democratic excesses, and then that instrument is used to make sure that every once in a while, a bill is passed with greater speed. Or, as was done recently, and as my colleague from Halifax pointed out, bills that have been passed by members of a chamber elected in the modern way are then defeated. Nothing in this mechanism will change one iota after this bill is enacted. We will be in the same position: the parties in power will use this chamber to their advantage morning, noon and night, 365 days a year.

As a final point from the past, I would remind the House that in November 2007, Jack Layton proposed holding a referendum. I would point out that, at the time, he was supported by someone who remains very politically active today, that is, the current Prime Minister of Canada. This marks another of the remarkable transformations of this Prime Minister, who, as we know, is an ardent defender of the centre-right-right-right, but who, about a decade ago, had at least a hint of a democrat in him. As the Brits like to say, let us agree to disagree and have a healthy democracy, even with someone who is on the centre-right-right-right, as long as he maintains his democratic reflexes. Instead, we are witnessing a complete shift. Barely five or seven years ago, he was prepared to support the NDP leader on abolishing the Senate. What we have before us now is garbage. I repeat, this garbage bill will allow the government to continue using the Senate as governments have done for the past 20 years. Bill C-7 only adds inconsistency to the absurdity.

The Prime Minister is under no obligation to appoint someone who has been elected. Another part of the bill surprised me. The word “election” does not appear anywhere in the title of the bill. Instead, it refers to “selection”. So, given that this system allows for the election of a certain portion of people in one chamber who could then later be selected, how is this really a democratic process? That was a rhetorical question; the very definition of the exercise clearly indicates that this is not democratic.

As for costs, an analysis conducted by the NDP in 2009 found that in the previous fiscal year, so 2007-08, senators had spent $19.5 million on travel, an increase—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I must interrupt the hon. member. Perhaps he can continue during questions and comments.

The hon. member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville for questions and comments.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his speech.

I would like him to comment on his colleague's remarks about judicial recounts. She said that one vote would be enough of a difference, as in 50% plus one, to abolish the Senate in a referendum, when in fact the unanimity of the provinces would be needed.

What does the member think his party should do if a majority of Canadians vote to abolish the Senate, but a majority of Quebeckers vote to keep it? That is certainly possible given that the Government of Quebec opposes his party's position and is not in favour of abolishing the Senate.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is well known in his province for his opposition to a very simple democratic principle: 50% plus one. That is why I am not surprised at his take on this issue. In democracies around the world, 50% plus one means nothing less than a clear mandate for change. I do not see why 50% plus one would suddenly be meaningless.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the speech by my colleague from Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.

He spoke of the rhetoric in the preamble to the bill that the Conservatives are using to try and mislead people. The term “independent” is used, for example. I had not noticed it when I read the bill. I find it quite ridiculous that this term is used in a bill that refers to the Senate. In fact, it is quite clear that both the Conservatives and the Liberals have appointed party cronies to work in the other chamber and that they are accountable to the Prime Minister. That much is clear and nobody here questions it. Even they would have to agree that senators are accountable to the Prime Minister. Abolishing the Senate, an archaic institution in our 21st-century political system, could obviously change this.

I would like to know whether the member believes the bill would make the partisanship problem in the other chamber worse and that an election—which would inevitably involve political parties—would only aggravate the partisanship in the other house and actually make things worse?

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, at the start of this exercise I understand that there was at the very least a desire to strike a regional balance. I am not the only one to have observed that. Far more eminent constitutional experts than I noticed this. However, even that approach does not work, and worked barely, if at all, in the past.

My colleague from Sherbrooke just highlighted a tradition that goes back several decades of the party in power exploiting this chamber. Throw into the mix the fact that this limited desire initially to have some degree of regional representation, which might have been meaningful, was of little or no use. The only conclusion to be drawn therefore is that it is a chamber that is of little or no use.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the members of the NDP need to get together, give their heads a shake and think about this. They are prepared to break up the country if in the province of Quebec there is 50% plus one. They will break up the country. On this issue, if 50% plus one in the province of Quebec say yes to Senate reform and having a Senate contrary to what the rest of Canada might say, the member is saying that he will not take the side of Quebeckers even if there is 50% plus one and he will go with the majority in the rest of Canada. Is that what he is saying? If we listen to what he says, that is what he is saying. I am asking him to be consistent with respect to breaking up the country and Senate reform.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, the likelihood that there will be riots in Quebec regarding the Constitution and the Senate—that is, the kind of disastrous situation that my colleague just evoked—is non-existent. I can guarantee this. People do not care about the Senate. It will simply be a democratic exercise to determine whether the Senate should be kept in some intelligent form or completely abolished. There will be no riots in Quebec, there will be no breaking up the country over an issue like the Senate. That is impossible.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join this debate on Bill C-7.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please.

The member has the floor.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues for allowing me to speak. When they have the opportunity to ask questions, even repetitive ones, I will be happy to answer as best I can, as all the members who spoke before me have done.

I believe that Bill C-7 is a bogus reform of the Senate. The Prime Minister promised Senate reform. He obviously had no choice, because the legitimacy of the Senate is constantly being questioned by all sides.

Thus, we have before us a bill that attempts to save face and to support the legitimacy of a Senate by proposing measures that make no real changes and provide no pertinent solutions to the concerns that people have expressed about the Senate.

This is not the first time that we have seen bills that herald bogus and ineffective changes. For example, I would like to talk about last spring's proposal regarding income enhancement for seniors living in poverty. After the enhancement was announced, some major associations representing thousands of seniors in Quebec and Canada said they were more or less satisfied and pleased with the measure. They were expecting that it would really benefit seniors who needed additional income to leave poverty behind. However, after a more careful analysis of the eligibility criteria for such income, they came to the realization that very few seniors living in poverty would qualify. Thus, they felt betrayed by an announcement that said millions of dollars would be paid to seniors in need, but that did not disclose a number of criteria and sub-criteria and gave almost nothing—just two dollars a day more—to the poorest of poor seniors. It did not provide any real support.

That is just one example that illustrates how it is now commonplace to introduce bills that announce change, but are really just smokescreens.

For example, there is no mention in Bill C-7 of the unequal distribution of the seats in the Senate. That is a concern that has already been raised and it is not being addressed here in Bill C-7. We are trying to tackle the legitimacy of the Senate. Why do unelected members have the right to interfere in decisions by the House of elected members? What we have here is pure hypocrisy: the government says it is in favour of electing senators, but in fact the bill provides for holding an election to create a list that the Prime Minister could use to then appoint senators. Does that truly enhance the legitimacy of the senators? I do not see how, because at the end of the day, the Prime Minister still appoints his senators. What are the criteria? That remains to be seen.

There are other frustrations that might stem from Bill C-7, other things that can be refuted. For example, the provinces are not being consulted. A bill is introduced that says that the provinces could, if and as they wish, hold elections at their expense to allow the citizens of the province to elect potential senators and to establish a list. The provinces are being affected by a decision on which they are not being consulted at all.

Again, I am not really surprised. The government is constantly trying to send the bill to the provinces without consulting them or to pit one province against another. When the government was talking about minimum sentences, it forgot to mention that the bill would be sent to the provinces, whether they wanted the legislation or not. When the government was talking about abolishing the firearms registry, did it listen when Quebec said it wanted to recover the data? No, not at all. The government totally ignored Quebec.

Old age security is another good example. Lowering the age of eligibility for old age security would certainly mean additional costs for the provinces, which would have to provide social assistance to people with no income for an extra two years.

There are many examples. It is becoming common practice for the Conservatives to send the bill to the provinces and then turn a deaf ear to what they want. This is yet another case in which the provinces have not been consulted about measures that will affect them. This is rather unfortunate.

What tangible impact will a bill such as Bill C-7 have? Unresolved issues are still a cause for concern, and with good reason. For example, if senators are elected, will their mandate have to be redefined? Will senators who win an election be entitled to request more duties or to have their duties changed because they are now elected officials just like members of the House? This is a question to consider.

In fact, we have a complex system that has been around for a number of years. Are changes needed? Yes, without a doubt. However, we must also take the time to determine what the impact of such changes would be. In my opinion, the Conservatives have not done enough in this regard. They talk about measures and tangible results without telling us the basis for or the expected outcomes of these changes. Since the provinces will be able to choose whether or not to hold elections, some senators will be elected and others will not. Will this create a hierarchy among the senators? That is another question to consider. Unfortunately, the Conservatives have not had much to say on the subject. These are real concerns that deserve our attention.

We also have other concerns. What criteria will the Prime Minister use to appoint a senator from a list of elected candidates? Will more women and aboriginal people be appointed to the Senate? Or will selection be based on partisan considerations that will allow the government to have a new senator who is loyal to the government or the party? We have to consider these questions.

Once again, the authority will be left in the hands of a single individual with discretionary power, namely the Prime Minister. These are legitimate questions. Voters who will have chosen a list of Senate candidates may be upset to see the Prime Minister not appointing their first choice but, instead, their second one. So, this whole process all very vague and there are many questions about the criteria that will guide the Prime Minister's choice and the impact that choice will have.

There are other questions about this legislation. Ultimately, will senators still be appointed by the Prime Minister? Will they be less loyal to the Prime Minister who appoints them?

As I said at the beginning of my speech, there is a lot of dissatisfaction with the fact that senators are not elected. Now, the government is proposing a bill which includes an election process. Is this really going to change the legitimacy of senators? One has to wonder.

If I may, I would remind the House that the Senate, as an institution, was meant to be a chamber of wise people representing the territorial diversity of the country and acting as a counterbalance to the decisions made in the House of Commons. Wisdom is an important aspect. I do not want to question the wisdom of current senators, but what good is wisdom if, in the end, one must obey the Prime Minister and be faithful to one's party? What good is senators' wisdom and judgment? Can this aspect be questioned? Perhaps. After all, senators are not accountable to the people they represent for the decisions they make. Therefore, what is the impact of a decision? We really wonder about that.

Currently, one may even get the impression that the Prime Minister is doing through the back door what he does not want to do publicly.

These are my concerns about Bill C-7. All hon. members know that the NDP's position on the Senate is clear, so I will not repeat it in detail.

The solution is not Bill C-7 but, rather, the abolition of the Senate.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague said many very true things. She ended by saying that her party's position was clear. Would she mind clarifying her party's position? She seems surprised that her Liberal colleagues keep asking the same questions today. We have to, because we have not yet received any answers. I will make my question as clear as possible. I would like her to provide a clear answer, not beat around the bush like her colleagues.

If there is a referendum on abolishing the Senate, and if a majority of Canadians say that they want to abolish it, while a majority of Quebeckers say that they want to keep it, which majority will win the day?

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his very clear question, which I am sure everyone understood perfectly. If he wants to keep asking it, that is fine by me.

Earlier, my colleague asked whether we really had consulted the people and whether using the results of that consultation would be complicated. People can turn a blind eye and a deaf ear when they know that it will be complicated to do something about a problem or about what people want. Personally, I do not think that is the solution. We should consider how we can use the results of our consultations. That is fundamentally irrefutable. We have to ask whether the Senate should be abolished and involve Canadians in the decision-making process. If my colleague is against that basic fact, I would certainly like to hear about it.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Pierrefonds—Dollard for her speech. I am very pleased that she talked about how this will affect the provinces. Indeed, this government bill will have serious financial and other repercussions on the provinces.

This is completely typical of how this government normally operates, that is, downloading its responsibilities and putting another huge burden on the provinces. This has been the trend for nearly 20 years now, unfortunately, in many different programs.

According to the government's bill, the provinces would be free to chose their system of electing senators, but they would have to cover the cost themselves. After the election process, the Prime Minister would have the privilege of accepting or refusing the senators without any justification. What does my colleague think of a system in which the provinces would have to spend public money needlessly, while the final choice of senators would be left to the whims of the Prime Minister of the day?

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Madam Speaker, I asked myself that very question when I first read the bill. Would these elections bring anything positive to the Senate? Maybe, maybe not. It is not entirely clear. If the Prime Minister is the one who makes the final decision, to what degree would Canadians' choices be taken into account? That is a very good question.

Would this penalize provinces that cannot afford to hold an election? Would this create some sort of hierarchy in the quality of senators selected in each province? A great deal of uncertainty remains in that regard. However, one thing is certain: it is important that we probe much deeper into the issue of the Senate and ask ourselves if we should keep it or abolish it.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-7.

It is important to state that this bill does not make senators accountable. Regardless of whether they are elected or not, they will not have to keep any of their election promises, knowing that their term is not renewable. That is one of the major problems with the Senate. Under the Constitution, the role of the Senate is to represent people, as we are doing today in the House of Commons. I am representing the people in my riding, La Pointe-de-l'Île. I must admit, I have never attended a debate or consideration of a bill in the Senate, but I am certain that no senator ever rises to go against the will of his or her political party and vote against something in order to defend the interests of the people in the Maritimes, for example, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North was saying. Senators have never represented the people they are meant to represent.

This bill does not resolve the biggest problem, which is that the Senate has become a political battleground to which the elected government appoints its cronies, its financial contributors or anyone else who has accomplished some obscure task. Senators will not be any more accountable.

What is more, the bill was supposed to correct those things that people and the Prime Minister himself have often complained about when it comes to the Senate, namely that senators should be elected. The Prime Minister has said himself that he would never again appoint an unelected senator. After the May 2, 2011, election he appointed three defeated Conservative candidates. I, personally, do not trust him. I do not think that Canadians are going to trust a Prime Minister who says one thing but does the complete opposite after the election because he won a majority in the House of Commons.

Then the bill gives the impression that senators will be elected. But as my colleague pointed out earlier, it may be that an individual will be elected, and that individual may also be appointed by the Prime Minister, but we cannot be certain. This means the provinces will spend money to hold elections and submit names to the Prime Minister, but the Prime Minister will keep the arbitrary power of appointing his own personal choice. I think we all agree that the bill, which seeks to have senators elected, does not really achieve its objective. That power remains with the Prime Minister. It is still an arbitrary and undemocratic power. The Prime Minister is under no obligation to respect the will of Canadians. We are well aware that, for this government, respecting the will of Canadians remains a rather vague and fuzzy principle that has yet to be defined.

All this to say that, personally, I think the government has failed miserably with this bill. It gets a 0 out of 10. I realize the Conservatives must keep certain tools at their disposal, but my party is in favour of abolishing the Senate.

As for the Senate itself, its mandate under the Constitution, which is to generally represent the population of a region, has never been respected. Instead, it is a political battleground to which the government appoints its friends to reward them.

We are talking about Senate reform, but there is currently no system allowing the House of Commons and the Senate to work in harmony. For example, in the United States, the institutions that fill the role of the Senate and of the House of Commons work in harmony. There is a system which determines how these institutions work together. For example, if senators were elected, who would have more power? Would it be the House of Commons or the Senate? How are we going to determine the way bills will be passed, and who is going to review them? What about amendments? Things will be exactly like in the United States. Bills will be blocked and it is going to take months before they can be passed. Even if we were to reform the Senate, it would be impossible to have harmony—and a system that works—between the House of Commons and the Senate.

Even if we reform the Senate, the House of Commons and the Senate cannot work in harmony. We do not have a system. It is not in Canada's parliamentary tradition. Therefore, abolishing the Senate is the solution. It would be impossible, especially with this bill, to solve all the problems of the Senate. Even if the government came up with a new proposal for reforming the Senate, it would not work. It would completely skew Canada's democracy. People are elected to the House of Commons. We, here, represent the people.

Bill C-7 does not make the Senate democratic, not in the least. Senators would purportedly be elected by the provinces, which will spend money on these elections, and then the government would retain the arbitrary power to appoint whomever it wants. None the problems with the Senate the Prime Minister has identified will be solved by this bill. It is wrong to say that passing Bill C-7 will make the Senate democratic.

How would we decide which house has the most power to pass legislation? A bill passed by the majority, or even unanimously, in the House of Commons could be rejected by the Senate. Voters in my riding could ask me to vote for a bill, which would be passed by the House of Commons and then rejected by the Senate. It will not work. It is undemocratic. The solution is to abolish the Senate. That is how we can solve the problems.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very persistent. Perhaps we will eventually get an answer. According to the hon. member, if a referendum is held and a majority of Canadians vote to abolish the Senate and a majority of Quebeckers vote to keep the Senate, which majority will rule?

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is important to understand that the will of the people will rule.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to ask the hon. member a question. As she mentioned several times, this bill is a phoney reform. I get the impression that the Conservatives are trying to dodge the issue and avoid a constitutional debate. Right now, they are introducing a bill that will allow the Prime Minister to keep his power to choose. We do not need to amend the Constitution to do that. I get the impression that this bill is a way to avoid having the constitutional debate that perhaps we should have. The Conservatives are trying to undertake a reform without talking about the main issue—the Senate. We have reiterated our position on the Senate a number of times.

Does the hon. member think that, with this debate, the Conservatives are trying to avoid the issue and that they are pretending to undertake a reform without opening the debate on the Constitution?

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives introduced this bill without consulting the provinces. To amend the Constitution, the provinces and the people of Canada must be consulted. Regardless of the outcome of the referendum, the people of Canada must be consulted.

A 2011 survey showed that 61% of Canadians were in favour of holding a referendum. The government, therefore, knows full well what Canadians want, but that does not necessarily correspond with what the government wants. The government insists on avoiding the issue. It did exactly the same thing in the case of the Canadian Wheat Board. The government knew full well that farmers wanted a referendum and what the result of that referendum would be, but it decided not to hold the referendum because it was not in line with its principles. Yes, the government is refusing to listen to and consult the people of Canada.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the Constitution is very clear. It says that in order for there to be a constitutional amendment to abolish the Senate, which is what the NDP wants to do, every province has to agree to it. Even under the NDP's proposal of holding a referendum, if the province of Quebec said no, that it saw some value to the Senate, that means the premier in the Manitoba legislative assembly would not support the change to the Constitution that would be required.

Does the member not see that her policy would not work? She would not be able to get all 10 provinces—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order. The hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, I know exactly what the Constitution says. I studied law. I have a law degree and I know exactly what the Constitution says.

There is a difference between the provinces having to agree together and consulting the public. The member is putting everything in the same basket. We have to consult the public and then the provinces would negotiate together. He is putting the two principles together in the same basket and that is not the same thing.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I admire the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île's spirit. She really stressed that the Liberals would be encroaching on provincial jurisdiction. With respect to the voting system, it is no secret that the government has downloaded all responsibility onto the provinces, with very different systems from one province to the next, and has chosen to ignore the outcome. I would like my colleague to comment on the pitfalls that would create.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île for a brief question.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, regardless of a given province's voting system, and regardless of what the provinces do, this bill will not fix the problem. The Prime Minister will still decide who gets into the Senate. It will not matter how many millions of dollars the provinces spend; it will not matter if voters go to the polls. In the end, the government will refuse to listen to the voters.