House of Commons Hansard #62 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was wine.

Topics

Bill C-20—Time Allocation Motion
Fair Representation Act
Government Orders

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

Tim Uppal Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about democracy. Really, it is not about us, but about the people who live in the fastest-growing provinces, including her province and those living in her riding.

I have been to the member's riding. It is a great part of the country. There are many new Canadians and many visible minorities who are under-represented. In a good democracy, their vote should count to the greatest extent possible, just as much as anyone else's in any other part of the country. The people in her riding deserve this bill to be passed.

Bill C-20—Time Allocation Motion
Fair Representation Act
Government Orders

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Bruce Stanton

Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, Status of Women.

It is now my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Bill C-20—Time Allocation Motion
Fair Representation Act
Government Orders

4:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Bill C-20—Time Allocation Motion
Fair Representation Act
Government Orders

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Bruce Stanton

All those in favour will please say yea.

Bill C-20—Time Allocation Motion
Fair Representation Act
Government Orders

4:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Bill C-20—Time Allocation Motion
Fair Representation Act
Government Orders

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Bruce Stanton

All those opposed will please say nay.

Bill C-20—Time Allocation Motion
Fair Representation Act
Government Orders

4:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Bill C-20—Time Allocation Motion
Fair Representation Act
Government Orders

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Bruce Stanton

In my opinion, the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #99

Fair Representation Act
Government Orders

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Andrew Scheer

I declare the motion carried.

I wish to inform the House that because of the proceedings on the time allocation motion, government orders will be extended by 30 minutes.

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.

Senate Reform Act
Government Orders

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker 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.

Senate Reform Act
Government Orders

5:05 p.m.

NDP

Pierre-Luc Dusseault 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?

Senate Reform Act
Government Orders

5:05 p.m.

NDP

Malcolm Allen 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.

Senate Reform Act
Government Orders

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux 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?