House of Commons Hansard #148 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was senators.

Topics

Senate Appointment Consultations ActGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Merv Tweed

The Liberals deny democracy again.

Senate Appointment Consultations ActGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Order, please. Let us hold off until the questions and comments period. If members from any party have questions or comments they would like to make about the member's speech, they can do so at that time. Until then let him finish.

Senate Appointment Consultations ActGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

Mr. Speaker, the fourth reason the Conservatives have upset Conservative voters is for this poorly thought out bill that does nothing for the Senate. Another reason is the Conservatives' flip-flop on income trusts.

Before the election, the Prime Minister said that to tax the income trusts would be an attack on the savings of the seniors of Canada. On page 33 of the Conservative platform it says “preserve income trusts by not”--

Senate Appointment Consultations ActGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Conservative

Lynne Yelich Conservative Blackstrap, SK

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to ask what we are debating. We are supposed to be debating Bill C-43. Have we changed the debate since I came into the House?

Senate Appointment Consultations ActGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Is the hon. member making a point about relevance?

Senate Appointment Consultations ActGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Conservative

Lynne Yelich Conservative Blackstrap, SK

Mr. Speaker, I want to know how he got on this topic.

Senate Appointment Consultations ActGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I would remind the hon. member for Yukon to keep his remarks as close as possible to the subject matter of the bill that is before us which is Bill C-43.

Senate Appointment Consultations ActGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

I do not mind that intervention, Mr. Speaker, because I do not have time to give the other six reasons why Conservatives are upset but I will briefly mention them.

People are wondering why the Conservatives would hastily bring forward a bill on the Senate that does nothing except cause other problems. As people have postulated, the Conservatives are trying to solidify their Conservative base after upsetting it so much.

However, it would not be fair to say that about the Conservatives without giving some examples. I gave five reasons and the others would be interest deductibility, the reverse on capital gains and the pledge to eliminate the GST on gas when it was above 85¢ a litre. I bought gas on the weekend and I have a bill showing that it is $1.30 a litre now. The Conservatives also have the broken promise to war veterans and the promise for icebreakers in the north. Those are 10 reasons.

The famous saying is, “Every complex problem has a simple solution”, but that is wrong. That is exactly what has happened here. This bill must have come as a shock to many western Conservatives. It would hurt the west dramatically if it were to go forward. The Senate would become more powerful, which was not envisioned in the original Constitution. As senators were elected, the Senate would become equally as powerful as the House of Commons.

The west is poorly represented already, especially Alberta and British Columbia. Representation in the Senate may be in the neighbourhood of 25%, whereas in the House of Commons representation is much closer to one-third. That body would then have the same power as the House of Commons but dramatically diminish the power of the west. We are already upset about the level of power.

As a definite precursor to this, we have suggested that power for the west be balanced in the Senate before its overall power is dramatically increased to the detriment of people in Alberta, British Columbia and the rest of the west. The Liberals will stand hard regardless of what people try to say about us. We certainly cannot vote for a bill that would hurt the west until that particular problem has been solved.

There is another issue in relation to the bill that has not been dealt with. What happens when they are quasi equal bodies? What about the interaction between them? How do we break the backlogs? The last member who spoke suggested that the other body could actually hold up bills. As we know, the Senate defers to the House as it generally understands the position of the House and its role. Very seldom, unless it is a very bad bill, does the Senate stop a bill completely to make amendments. Senators understand their role, which is how the system happens to work, and that is why most bills approved by the House of Commons get through, some amended and some not.

However, how will this work when both Houses have the same moral authority? As many constitutional experts have said, there will be gridlock. This was not envisioned in the Constitution because this particular minor provision was not made. The whole system will be held up.

I want to mention a couple of other flaws, one of which I think was mentioned earlier by a member, and that was the lack of consultation. Unfortunately, this has been the hallmark of the new government on a number of issues. Some of these issues and problems might have been resolved had there been major consultation.

We have had all sorts of examples related to cuts. We had the outcry from NGOs, literacy groups and museum groups about the cuts to women's programs, the court challenges program and the Law Reform Commission. These groups were upset not just by the fact that the cuts were made but that they were made without consultation, which is not the way that government works.

It has been a bit shocking at the justice committee, once again, to hear the witnesses talk about the lack of consultation on bills that have come forward. Of course, the same was true with income trusts and interest deductibility. It has led to a major problem with the provinces that a member raised this morning about the bill.

Ontario and Quebec have not come on side, were not consulted, and there were suggestions from some in Yukon that because Yukon needed a senator right away, the bill should not be stalled.

The last point I want to make, and it has been made before, is the important role of the Senate to protect minorities, those people in rural areas, the Acadians, first nations, Métis and Inuit. They are not going to have a way to be represented to ensure their representation if we make this change.

A solution has to be found for all of us who represent minorities and rural areas of the country before any type of bill like this could go forward. We must ensure in a democracy that the majority does not run a tyranny over the minority and that it is properly represented.

Senate Appointment Consultations ActGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Conservative

Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the hon. member's speech. I found it kind of humorous to be quite honest. The member seems interested in the Conservative base and the protection of the base of Conservative support in the country.

I would like to suggest a couple of things to the hon. member, that as long as we have opposition members who stand in the way of bills like age protection, the Conservative base will be strong.

As long as we have the member of Ajax—Pickering suggesting that we should nationalize the oil program, the Conservative base will be strong.

As long as Liberal members stand in the way of an accountable Senate in Canada, the Conservative base will be strong.

Canadians deserve an accountable, elected Senate. They deserve to be consulted on who represents them in the Senate and you should support it.

Senate Appointment Consultations ActGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

I remind the hon. member for Peterborough to address comments through the Chair, not directly at other members.

Senate Appointment Consultations ActGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

Mr. Speaker, it is too bad the member brought up a poor example for the Conservatives because he suggested the age of consent bill. The justice critic just reminded me that at committee last week Liberals saved the bill when the Conservatives voted against it in a voice vote.

I am not concerned about the Conservative base or worried about the 10 reasons that I outlined in my speech. It seems they have upset Conservatives. But there has to be a rationale as to why the government would hastily bring forward a bill that has so little effect, that the Prime Minister can already appoint these particular people identified in elections as the Conservatives pointed out with Mr. Waters. In fact, he does not have to appoint the person under this particular bill and there are no provisions to deal with the other issues arising.

I see there are lots of questions, which is good. Perhaps they could deal with how the bill would interact with the other problems that I mentioned, the interaction between the House of Commons and the Senate, and the protection of minorities which are very substantive issues with the bill. I am sure Conservatives would like to address those. So, how will they address those and still support the bill?

Senate Appointment Consultations ActGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission B.C.

Conservative

Randy Kamp ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans

Mr. Speaker, I too listened to the comments from the hon. member and from his colleague earlier, and frankly, I am still just a little bit confused on whether the Liberal Party believes in Senate reform or does not.

I have heard sort of mixed signals here. I know the Liberals say they do, but it looks very much to me like they favour the status quo. If they do, I wonder if the member can outline for me the specific measures that the Liberal government took during the 13 years that they were in power to advance the cause of Senate reform, those specific measures that they took.

Senate Appointment Consultations ActGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we certainly support comprehensive Senate reform and we do not support a bill that is going to cause more problems just by taking one little section of it, as this particular bill does, and cause all the problems that I mentioned because of lack of representation for British Columbia and Alberta.

It causes a lack of representation for minorities, rural people and aboriginal people. We made it quite clear in the last government, which the member is asking about, and in this government that there needs to be comprehensive consultation with the provinces. We would be happy, after that type of consultation has gone forward, to move forward on Senate reform, which I am sure all Canadians would like.

Senate Appointment Consultations ActGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the member's commentary. He always has the knack of being able to provide some lucidity and clarity to the matters before the House.

One of the things that was mentioned by a questioner was another bill that was passed by the House, the age of consent legislation, which as the member said, would have died last week if it had not been for the Liberal caucus.

As it turns out it appears to me that the record will show that the bill in fact passed and has been sent to the Senate with Liberal support. I wonder if the member would care to further comment.

Senate Appointment Consultations ActGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

Yes, Mr. Speaker, definitely the bill has passed. It had Liberal support and it was a terrible example to use.

I want to give another terrible example from the justice committee or perhaps two. One shows the lack of consultation. We had a witness in Toronto, when the justice committee was travelling, who said that the normal procedure when the government drafted bills was to consult with the stakeholders. In this way many people bring forward their opinions and that is not what the government is doing with these bills. It did not do that type of normal process. I think that may be an underlying problem behind this and other bills.

Another example where the Conservatives pushed forward very hard is Bill C-10. A lot of the Conservatives think it is a good bill and that it is important to increase mandatory minimums. When the minimums were defeated in committee, the Liberals put forward an amendment to increase them moderately so at least there would have been some increase in mandatory minimums and every Conservative member in the committee voted against it.

We gave them the opportunity twice, so I think they have to stand up with the philosophies they believe in on all the votes, even if there are things that are proposed by Liberals which do not go as far as they would like, but certainly further along the road that they would like to go than not having any progress at all.

Senate Appointment Consultations ActGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

Blackstrap Saskatchewan

Conservative

Lynne Yelich ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development

Mr. Speaker, I would like the member to explain what he meant by moral equality if elected.

Senate Appointment Consultations ActGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for listening to my speech. That is a very good question.

Members of the Senate now realize that they are not elected. They realize that many Canadians feel that the House of Commons should have some primacy in the end result of things because the members of the House of Commons are elected.

As I said earlier, the senators very seldom stop a bill. They quite often amend it, make suggestions back to the House. Last week or the week before, we sent an amendment back and the Senate deferred to the House, and agreed to not go with the amendment it had suggested because the House did not want it.

The moral equivalency is if the senators are equally elected and then feel that they have the same moral authority as the House of Commons to stop all the bills, to start all the bills, or to deal with money bills, we could have a gridlock. Which house then would predominate? How are we going to get government bills through when they are stopped by a house that has equal moral authority or stopped on far more occasions than they are now?

That is the point I am trying to make. I think it is a substantive point that is worth debate in the House and worth debate in any discussion on Senate reform.

Senate Appointment Consultations ActGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

Conservative

Lynne Yelich Conservative Blackstrap, SK

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about electing senators which I think would help any region and any province. The member went to great lengths to say that this would be unfair to western Canada. In western Canada, if we get to elect a senator I think that would be in our best interest. I am not sure how he comes to the conclusion that this would be bad for the west. We are talking about electing senators.

Senate Appointment Consultations ActGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

Mr. Speaker, the point is that at the moment in the Senate, unlike in the House of Commons, the west, particularly Alberta and British Columbia, is dramatically under-represented. Alberta and British Columbia have very few senators compared to their population and compared to the rest of Canada.

If we increase the power of the Senate by the ways we have just discussed, under an electoral system having a more election based Senate, then it is going to have more power as we just discussed in the member's last question.

If it has more power then we are pushing forward more power to a body where the west is not represented, whereas right now it is about 25% and in the House of Commons it is closer to 30%, which unfortunately, for the west, is not where the power and decisions are being made.

I am sure all members, if they think about that, would agree that they would much rather have a system where the west was more appropriately representative of its population and hopefully somehow together we can solve that problem in the Senate.

Senate Appointment Consultations ActGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

Cypress Hills—Grasslands Saskatchewan

Conservative

David Anderson ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board

Mr. Speaker, I would like the member to confirm that it is not the west that he is concerned about. It is the Liberal Party he is concerned about because he knows if there are elected senators in the west, there will not be any Liberal senators. We have far too many right now. Is that not the real reason why he opposes elected senators in western Canada?

Senate Appointment Consultations ActGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

Mr. Speaker, I never thought of that, but after the 10 reasons I gave during my speech where the Conservatives have upset their own voters, I have ever confidence that we would do quite well.

Senate Appointment Consultations ActGovernment Orders

1:40 p.m.

Conservative

Gary Goodyear Conservative Cambridge, ON

Mr. Speaker, it appears that the other parties are not interested in speaking to this bill.

I would like to answer a question from one of my colleagues earlier about what the Liberals did in the last 10 years with respect to democratic initiatives. I guess the member forgot that his own party appointed the member for Newmarket—Aurora as the minister for democratic reform. However, regrettably, the member did not win through the democratic process to the level she wanted and resigned. So, they did do something.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention that I will be sharing my time with the member for Brandon—Souris.

I am standing today on behalf of my constituents, the good people of Cambridge and North Dumfries, who actually support improving democracy. They like the idea of giving some of the power back to the people. They do not like the backroom deals that we have come to know from the Liberal Party. They do not like when the Liberals keep doing that, as they just did by making Elizabeth May, the Green Party leader, an honorary member.

People in my riding of Cambridge do not like the political stacking, the partisanship that takes place, and the personal gains that are made for political purposes all the way up to the Senate. Specifically, the people in my riding of Cambridge do not like the favour the few kind of attitude. They like politics to be played out when it favours Canadians.

In particular, my riding of Cambridge is now suffering from some bad decisions made by the provincial Liberals. They have taken back money that has been promised to the hospital in my riding for many years. The only logical reason for that is that the Liberal support is collapsing in the riding of Cambridge and North Dumfries. Constituents do not want more growth in the area of partisanship by anybody here in Ottawa.

Constituents in my riding of Cambridge and North Dumfries are an honest group of people with the foundations of hard work and entrepreneurship. They go to work every day for the most part. They work hard, long hours and pay their taxes. They do not like paying as much tax as they pay and we are responding to that. They are an extremely generous group of people not just with their money and donating to the hospital but with their time. It is a very intelligent group of people. They want an increase in democracy. They want democracy to change for the better, not for the worse. They see that as a good thing.

They want to eliminate any bit of partisanship or preference to a political party or any decision making in Ottawa that favours a certain group, in particular a political group or individual, or the spouse of a campaign manager. They do not want that any more. They are tired of that kind of stuff. They see the effect of that over time and it is not a good thing.

The people in Cambridge and North Dumfries want the House of Commons and the Senate, not just when it is convenient or before an election, to put them first always, and they should be. They do not want anyone in Ottawa working for members of Parliament in Ottawa. They want us to act in the best interests of Canada and Canadians, not the best interests of the future of the Liberal Party, as dim as that may be.

That is why people in Cambridge did not like the sponsorship scandal. They did not like it. They did not like the sponsorship scandal because it actually favoured a few people for political gain. They prefer that we work for them.

They are happy that we, the new Conservative government, have found creative and innovative ways to change democracy and put them first, not continue to put ourselves first and look out for our futures. We are here to look out for their futures.

Bill C-43 does take one more step forward. It is part of this government's obligations and our commitment to put Canadians first. It is good for Canadians, good for Cambridge and good for North Dumfries, and therefore I intend to support Bill C-43.

It is great to be here on this side of the House and be a part of the new, fresh Conservative Government of Canada. I will tell members why. This government is focused on putting Canadians first. On our crime and justice agenda, this government has brought forward a dozen crime and justice bills, if members can believe it , one dozen, which all the parties supported during the election.

Of course that is what those parties do when they look out only for themselves, but this government made promises during the election and here we are in government moving forward on our promises.

Yet the opposition is now opposing our crime and justice bills. Let us imagine that. These are political flip-flop games that the opposition members play at the expense of people in my riding, at the expense of safety in my community and at the expense of safe streets.

As well, the Liberals pretty much destroyed our environment when they were in power. They did absolutely nothing. In fact, it became an embarrassment. Canada became an embarrassment on the world stage. However, as we know, they promised to do it time and time again and asked Canadians to give them another chance. Canadians did so because Canadians are good people. We gave them another chance. They still did nothing. Now we know, from various statements made by those members, that they had no intention of doing it.

This new Canadian government, this new Conservative government, is here for the people of Canada. We have brought forward a number of environmental initiatives that will work both to clean up the environment, with technology that we are going to share around the world, and to maintain the health of Canadians, not just their physical health and mental health, but the health of their economy.

One of the first things this new and fresh government did was bring out the Federal Accountability Act, which of course the opposition changed a hundred ways from Sunday. Let us imagine taking money for a political campaign from children. That is definitely not for Canadians. That is for personal political gains.

I am absolutely thrilled to be part of this new and fresh team that comes up with creative and innovative ideas and actually puts Canadians first. Bill C-43 is a perfect example of that. I just hope it does not get stuck in the Senate, because there are a lot more words in this one than the 66 words in Bill S-4. I think that is at about five days for each letter now, a difficult bill that the Liberal-dominated unelected Senate has been struggling with for some time now. I sure hope this bill does not become another example of that kind of democracy.

Let me explain what Bill C-43 is all about.

Very basically, it says that we have a couple of vacancies for the Senate in a particular province and the bill allows the people in that province to put names forward through an election process run by the Chief Electoral Officer. How innovative. That list of names goes to the Prime Minister. He then selects the names. He may in fact infer that the aboriginal communities should have better representation there. Maybe a province has selected five people for three positions and the Prime Minister thinks we need more women in the Senate. Those are decisions and powers that remain. Ultimately, none of this is going to affect the Governor General's authority because the Governor General still maintains the ability to do the appointment.

Here is what people in Cambridge did not like either: they did not like it when they heard the leader of the official opposition say that the Liberals had to get back to power as quickly as possible. But here is what people in Cambridge like: as Canadians, they want be restored to power. Bill C-43 restores just a little bit more of the influence that Canadians have on the Senate. For that reason, on behalf of the good people in Cambridge and North Dumfries, I am going to support Bill C-43.

Senate Appointment Consultations ActGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

Mr. Speaker, earlier in the discussion there was some mention by some members that Alberta was going to have all Conservative senators and then they would have everything, all the senators and all the MPs. It made me think of one of the reasons why we have a Senate, why it was originally set up. It had to do with making sure there was representation in regions that was balanced and not necessarily all one-sided.

From that narrow aspect alone, it would seem that to have a consultation process supported by political parties that could in fact result in one party that controls a particular province having all of the senators, and all of the members of Parliament, would tend not to represent those who have a different ideological view of where the country should be going, what the future is and what the important things are. I can think of many examples of differences between the parties in this place.

From that standpoint, would the member not agree that there is some merit to having representation across the country, from coast to coast to coast, province and territory, that represents a spectrum of ideologies, to make sure that all Canadians will have representation in Parliament?

Senate Appointment Consultations ActGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

Conservative

Gary Goodyear Conservative Cambridge, ON

Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate my hon. colleague's question, the fact remains that the Senate, over time, has come to be such a partisan and politically dominated House that it has lost its credibility with the Canadian people, and there is only one way to get it back.

In fact, it is as a result of the member's own party that we need this bill in the first place. If the Liberals had not played such outright partisan politics, I am sure the Senate would be more effective and have more respect.

On that note of the member asking me whether a group of people in Ontario, let us say, should start telling people in Alberta what their political slant should be, I totally disagree. I think the right thing to do is ask Albertans what they think and bring their views and the views of Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia and Manitoba, whatever they are, the views of those folks, through an elected process to the Senate.

That is not happening right now. What is happening right now is that the prime ministers of the Liberal governments of the past stacked the Senate with their own political views and they are dictating the direction of the country.

Senate Appointment Consultations ActGovernment Orders

1:55 p.m.

Conservative

Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the member's speech. I thought he spoke quite well on the topic. I also liked it when he spoke specifically about his constituents in Cambridge and how he feels that they want to be part of the process and how power belongs to the constituents. I can tell members that the constituents of Peterborough are very well equipped to pick a representative for the Senate who would represent Ontario very well.

I want to go back to a question raised just a moment ago with respect to other parts of the country where perhaps a given region might elect certain members all representing a similar brand. Do members not think that it is more than undemocratic for a governing party to suggest that it should put someone in even though the constituents of that riding would never pick that person? Because that person represents a different party, is the suggestion, that person should therefore should be in. That underlines a need for democracy more than anything that I have heard in this House today, that they would put someone--