Denis Blanchette

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, June 7th, 2013]

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

I would like to draw his attention to a specific item in the bill, namely co-operatives. We know that the government has decided to treat co-operatives like the big banks, despite their very different structure.

Can he say a few words about this aspect of the budget?

[Safe Drinking Water for First Nations Act, June 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I find it sad that they keep breaking their own time allocation records. It is always the same story: it is oh-so-important, oh-so-urgent.

My question for the minister is very simple. If it is so urgent, if it really is a priority for the government, why did the last two versions of this bill come from the Senate?

[Main Estimates, 2013-14, June 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Scarborough—Rouge River for her speech.

Is it not rather strange that after the Senate was created at the request of the provinces, they discovered it was not useful? That is rather strange.

I would like my colleague to talk about the work that needs to be done and specifically what we could do that would be better than a partisan Senate.

[Main Estimates 2013-14, June 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

On this side of the House, we have never said that we could resolve this issue by just snapping our fingers or waving a magic wand. We have always said that the institution is dysfunctional and that we will have to roll up our sleeves and find other solutions.

However, as I pointed out twice in my speech, the motion does not state that all the Senate's money will disappear, but only the portion voted by the House of Commons. The other portion, which is statutory, nevertheless amounts to $32 million. I think they can do a thing or two with that money.

[Main Estimates 2013-14, June 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

As I mentioned in my speech, the notion of equality was a factor when the Senate was initially created. It was designed to provide increased representation for regions that do not have large populations. We all understand that.

However, although the original intent was a good one, the institution no longer works, and it is partisan. Instead of trying to repeat what we have done over the past 140 years by trying to reform an institution that does not work, the House should have the courage to look at other solutions.

[Main Estimates 2013-14, June 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I should say that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River.

This evening we are discussing a motion, a notice of opposition to a specific budget item. In fact, it is the role of the House to decide what sort of money to give out here and there. As everyone can see, there is one question and three answers. Do we need an upper chamber? Some will want to stick to the status quo, some will say that reform is in order and others will say that the Senate must be abolished.

The Senate as we know it today is an historic compromise that was made when this country was born. It is a hybrid of the British House of Lords and the U.S. Senate when it comes to its values and what its founders really wanted it to achieve. In fact, this was a matter of great debate during the Charlottetown Conference and the Quebec Conference in 1864. This is what was said at the time:

Senators are appointed by the Governor General on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. 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.

Is that really so? Has that ever been the case on any given day? I doubt it.

At the time, only the elite could be members of the Senate. There were two main conditions. We have to go back to the 19th century. To be a senator, a person had to be over 30 and own property worth at least $4,000, which was a lot of money at the time.

Governments of all stripes immediately saw a partisan advantage to appointing senators, and the problems began. It was supposed to be a chamber of people who could make wise decisions, a chamber of sober second thought. Has it ever been that? Not often enough for our liking, because if it were truly working well, then we would not be against it. Unfortunately, history tells us that year after year, decade after decade, there have been problems with that chamber.

Allow me to quote George Brown, who said at the time that the Senate was the key to federation,

...the very essence of our compact. Our Lower Canadian friends 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.

At the time, it was a founding element of Canada and the intentions were noble. However, reality soon caught up. Do I really need to talk about Senators Harb, Brazeau, Wallin and Duffy? I do not have to talk about them any more in this place, because everyone knows all about it.

At the beginning of my speech, I said that there were three options. One of them is to maintain the status quo. That is obviously unacceptable, although some still believe in it. For all sorts of reasons, they try to instill fear in us, but all they really want is to go back to the way things were and appoint people who will do their bidding. The second option is reform. Do you believe it, Mr. Speaker? Do you know in what year the first attempt to reform the Senate took place? It was in 1874. We have been talking about Senate reform for almost 140 years. Has anything happened during that time? Not really.

More recently, attempts were made in 1980 and 1990. There was the Molgat-Cosgrove committee in 1984, the Macdonald commission in 1985, and even the Beaudoin-Dobbie committee in 1992. Did anything happen? On this side of the House, we believe that the only possible solution, in light of the Senate's history, is to abolish it.

However, that is not what we are talking about this evening. I would like to remind hon. members that the Senate has two types of budgets. Even if our motion is adopted tonight, the Senate will still have a $32 million budget under laws enacted by Parliament. We tend to forget that.

Do we need a bicameral system? The provinces decided a long time ago that such a system was unnecessary, and it did not bring about an apocalypse as some people claim.

British constitutional expert Walter Bagehot once commented about the British parliamentary system that, if we had an ideal House of Commons, we would not need a higher chamber. I believe that we need to look at how we work together for the good of this country.

Is the motion unconstitutional? Some have suggested that that is the case. I would like to point out to my colleagues that one of the privileges of this House is passing a budget. Part of the Senate's budget is granted by the House of Commons. It is therefore our prerogative to move this type of motion.

As I was saying earlier, part of the upper chamber's budget is statutory. I would like to once again remind hon. members that the Senate has a statutory budget of $32 million, which is not exactly peanuts.

The problem right now is that the Prime Minister appoints people and then he washes his hands of them. There is a serious problem with accountability. The Prime Minister cannot appoint people left and right or appoint just anyone and then, when they do something wrong, say that he is not responsible and that those people will pay back the money. That is not how it works.

The Conservative government has managed to do even worse than its Liberal predecessors when it comes to political partisanship in the upper chamber. That is why we are having this debate tonight. The situation is going from bad to worse. The more time passes, the less people see the relevance of this institution. What is its purpose?

I certainly do not want to paint all senators with the same brush. It is not my intention or the intention of the members on this side of the House to say that everyone is cheating. That is not our objective. The point is that the system is not working. We have been trying to change things for a long time. There are always problems, but they never get solved. In the end, we are always left with the status quo, which everyone in the House finds unacceptable, I hope. I hope that no one in the House still believes in the status quo, otherwise we have a problem.

To conclude, I would like to quote someone people here know, Michael Fortier, a former Conservative senator. On March 2, 2013, he said:

I was very naive...I thought it would be a different place than the one I found. [In fact, he shared the idyllic view of the Senate at the time.] I found it to be extremely partisan...on both sides, including my own. And it was very annoying because these people were trying to be members of parliament and they weren't.

If I had to choose today, I would say that I'm probably closer to closing the place down. I just don't see the usefulness.

More and more Canadians feel that the Senate has no place in our system, not because it does not have a defined role, but because it does not fulfill its role the way it should. Throughout history, the Senate has been manipulated for strictly partisan purposes.

[An Act to amend the Criminal Code (personating peace officer or public officer), May 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-444.

I will begin by quoting Anne Frank: “How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world.” I think this resonates with the hon. member for Red Deer, who has had to wait three years to get to third reading stage of his bill. In fact, this is a reincarnation of a bill that unfortunately died on the order paper. Such is life.

I want to commend the hon. member for Red Deer on resisting the urge to suggest a minimum sentence. He took another approach in considering personating an officer an aggravating factor in the crime committed, for the purpose of sentencing.

This is a wise approach. It respects judicial independence and it suits the opposition. It shows that we can achieve rapid success if things are done properly. I thank him for that.

By taking this approach we are showing victims that during the trial, the courts will take into consideration the circumstances in which the crime was committed. That is important because the appearance of justice is just as important as justice itself. For these victims, it is very important to take into consideration the way in which the crime was committed, as well as their story, as painful as it may be. We have to take that into account.

This bill will help prevent people from mistrusting peace officers, something that should never happen. This is not insignificant. In terms of prevention, this is important.

When someone personates an officer, they make others vulnerable. Someone who personates an officer and takes advantage might put someone else who is not necessarily a victim in a vulnerable position. When we trust people, we lower our guard. It is human nature and that is good.

Taking advantage of this vulnerability is absolutely wrong. I think everyone here, on both sides of the House, agrees on that. In many cases people actively try to make others vulnerable. Much has been said about naturally vulnerable people, such as young children and the elderly. Everyone intuitively understands that.

However, some people can exploit the vulnerability of others for their own benefit through lying or misrepresentation. Bullying is a typical case. Someone uses a supposedly superior position to achieve certain ends. Whether it involves physical or psychological abuse, bullying is bullying regardless of the individual or group of people targeted.

People who use their knowledge of the law, for example, to take advantage of others who do not have this knowledge are also doing something reprehensible. This human failing can take several forms.

Let me tell you about something that happened to me once. I was walking my dog outside. There were some homeless people not far from my house.These were people without much of a future and who did not have a lot in life. I saw a homeless person talking to someone, almost as poor, who was offering a warm place to sleep for one night. In return, this individual was asking the homeless person sleeping on the street to give up the only thing he had, which was a watch. When I saw that, I was absolutely shocked.

Continually trying to exploit a weakness, whatever it is, for example through personation, as addressed in the bill, is something that always infuriates me because everyone deserves respect.

I would like to tell the member for Red Deer that I really appreciate his approach. I really appreciate the example he sets for the entire House on how to work together, as my colleague from Vaudreuil-Soulanges mentioned. He went about it in a way that made it possible for everyone to agree. He makes it possible for us to say that if people of good will sit down together to acknowledge an obvious problem, there are ways to solve it without discord and still advance the ideals of justice. I would like to thank him again for that.

In closing, I hope that the Conservatives are prepared to consider not including minimum sentences in their future bills. In the past, and since I became a member of the House, we have opposed bills or expressed serious reservations about certain bills, not because they were not good bills in their own right, but because they did not recognize the autonomy of judges.

The member for Red Deer took this into account in this bill and that is important. For that reason, I am pleased to support this bill.

In closing, I would like to quote the Tao Teh Ching. I hope the member for Red Deer will like it. It says that one can “accomplish great things by taking a series of little steps”.

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

There are intentions and then there are actions. In his speech, the hon. member emphasized the issue of resources. In my opinion, if we want to go beyond intentions and take action, we definitely need the appropriate resources.

Ever since I came to this House, we have often voted on bills based on their intentions. One could say it has become a habit. We do not think about what is needed for our intentions to become reality, to move from intentions to actions.

Besides pointing out that the Conservatives did not consider this and are not talking about it, what can we really do to move forward and begin to calculate the costs, to see where the needs are, and in the end, to pressure the government so that intentions become actions?

[Safer Witnesses Act, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech.

We have already announced that we will support the bill although we do not think it goes quite far enough. I would like to move on to the practical aspects.

It is a good idea to improve the program, but that costs money. Moreover, it is not just the federal police that are likely to need funds.

I would like my colleague to tell the House what he thinks about the increased funding that will be required to support this legislation.

[Canadian Museum of History Act, May 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

For better or for worse, I am old enough to have been at Expo 67. It was a highlight to be there as the world was welcomed at the Montreal World Expo, at Man and His World.

I want to read part of the mandate of the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation, to explain how it fulfills its mandate.

...by establishing, maintaining and developing for research and posterity a collection of objects of historical or cultural interest, [and this is important] with special but not exclusive reference to Canada, and by demonstrating those achievements...

My question is simple: why does that not cover the government's objectives?