Bill C-2 (Historical)

Tackling Violent Crime Act

An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment amends the Criminal Code by
(a) creating two new firearm offences and providing escalating mandatory sentences of imprisonment for serious firearm offences;
(b) strengthening the bail provisions for those accused of serious offences involving firearms and other regulated weapons;
(c) providing for more effective sentencing and monitoring of dangerous and high-risk offenders;
(d) introducing a new regime for the detection and investigation of drug impaired driving and strengthening the penalties for impaired driving; and
(e) raising the age of consent for sexual activity from 14 to 16 years.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

I hear you on Bill C-2. I certainly wish you had stuck around to support us on that one.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Dykstra, and I would say that I appreciate the opinion that you have expressed. I appreciate the legitimacy with which you and many of my own colleagues and others want to do something, and feel that this is something.

I'm just saying that I disagree. I think we are better with nothing. Obviously it's the option of every committee member to do what they feel is best on this issue. I can only offer you my own opinion, and I've tried to lay out, as best I can, why I feel this entrenches a bad situation instead of moving us forward.

My preferred option, if I could just leave you with this, would be to say no and tell the Senate we have already dealt with this, that we've already developed effective legislation, and do the same thing as the government is doing on Bill C-2, which is to say to the Senate, pass it immediately. We've already dealt with this. We have tens and hundreds of thousands of Canadians who want it dealt with now.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Yes, even with the amendments. I would rather table a motion in the House arguing that it is very important that we immediately adopt a bill on cruelty to animals, such as Bill C-373. The decision is in your hands.

It's important not to think, though, that if you pass this today.... I understand the amendments; I understand where you're coming from and I think they're well-intended, but I think we would be far better served by a motion from this committee that says to pass what the House has already passed, a motion that says to the government to make the same demand of the Senate that you did on Bill C-2.

How is this any less important? It's just as important to deal with crime before it happens as it is to deal with crime afterwards. We have shown time and time again that when it comes to cruelty and violence against human beings, cruelty and abuse to animals is a precursor, so I think we should say the same thing that the government is saying to the Senate about Bill C-2.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the committee for the opportunity to appear today.

I'm going to start off with four reasons that I believe this committee should defeat this bill. I think they're clear reasons and I hope the committee will consider them.

The first is that the House has actually already--and I'm talking about the House of Commons--passed the same bill that I've introduced, Bill C-373, on two separate occasions. This was done so unanimously, with all-party support. It was the product of an enormous amount of compromise. Members will recall that at that period of time it was very difficult to bring together both those who are involved in animal welfare and those who are involved in the use of animals towards a point of consensus. We got so close that all parties agreed and it passed the House of Commons, and we sent that legislation, effectively the same legislation I have before you today, twice to the Senate.

So why is that relevant to this bill? Because the Senate is telling us today what is possible in this bill. They are rejecting what the House has sent to them twice and have sent something back that is totally ineffective.

That brings me to my second point; that is, to pass an animal cruelty law that has every major animal welfare group opposed to it makes no sense. How in the world we could pass something that every single major animal welfare group is opposed to makes no sense at all. I don't understand how we could possible explain that to our constituents. I'm not talking about people who are involved in animal rights; I'm talking about people who are involved on the front lines of dealing with animal abuse. I'm talking about humane societies and veterinarians who, day in and day out, see terrible, egregious abuse against animals, and they say it's time to put an end to it. They recognize that if you merely increase sentences, it does nothing for the fact that we can't get convictions.

That's the problem--people aren't being convicted. Only one-quarter of 1% of animal abuse complaints results in a conviction. You heard from an SPCA officer here just a couple of weeks ago who talked about how impossible it is to enforce today's existing laws.

The other great tragedy, of course, is that not only do we see these terrible abuses happening to animals, but we see that same abuse of animals then translating into abuse against human beings, violence against human beings. That was one of the reasons this committee heard that in Florida they had a campaign that said, if you can stop animal abuse by reporting it early, you can possibly stop spousal abuse, or abuse in the home. So we have to remember the linkage there—even if we don't care about animals, and I'm sure we all do around this table—that this has towards violence against human beings. I'm sure we all want the opportunity to be able to stop violence early.

The third is Senator Bryden's own comments, both before this committee and elsewhere, in which he said he would not support Bill C-373. If this was merely a step along the path to finally doing something, even though the House of Commons has already said we already have effective animal cruelty legislation, then we would expect the senator to say, well, maybe with some minor revisions we can accept what the House has already passed twice. I know that the government, as an example, is not accepting this with Bill C-2. They want the Senate to pass it immediately. Crime is extremely important. It needs to be dealt with immediately. The Senate shouldn't be telling the House what it should do; it should be dealing with the matter post-haste. Yet when it comes to animal cruelty, there's the application of a very different standard. Even though we've sent legislation to the Senate twice, we are somehow letting the Senate dictate to us what is possible and what should be done.

The fourth comment I would make is the overwhelming outpouring from Canadians. In front of me here are thousands upon thousands of signatures that were received just in the last month that I'll soon be presenting to the House. I had a Conservative member approach me last week with 2,300 signatures from his own riding of individuals who oppose this Senate bill and support Bill C-373. There are over 130,000 signatures that have been attained in a formal format, such as this, calling for the defeat of this Senate bill and for the passage of effective animal cruelty legislation, such as the legislation that the House of Commons has already passed and that is before us again. On Facebook there are thousands upon thousands of members, and there are people everywhere clamouring and calling for something very simple; that is, to update our animal cruelty laws.

The passage of this bill, which only deals with sentencing, will mean that the international embarrassment that is Canada's animal cruelty laws will continue. Today we are behind the Philippines. We are a third world nation when it comes to our animal cruelty laws. This bill would do nothing to fix that.

I would ask that members have the courage to stand up for what the House has already supported, to stand up for the legislation the duly-elected members of the House of Commons have already stood for, and to say to the Senate, enough is enough, it's time to pass effective animal cruelty legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Child Pornography

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the Ontario police agencies and officers for their outstanding work that resulted in the arrest on February 12 of more than 20 people and 73 criminal charges being laid in the largest coordinated child pornography investigation in the history of Ontario. That is the good news. The bad news is that this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Although our law enforcement agencies are working hard to protect young Canadians, they need more tools. One of those tools is the tackling violent crime act. I just do not understand why the Senate, the members of which are most likely grandparents, is holding up this bill. It contains legislation that would make it so much easier for our law enforcement agencies to fight child exploitation.

Our children rely on us to protect them. The House has done its job. It is now time for the Senate to do its part and pass Bill C-2 immediately for the sake of our kids.

Once again, congratulations to the police. This government and this Prime Minister will do their part to get the job done.

[Joe Wild, Executive Director, Strategic Policy, Corporate Priorities, Planning and Policy Renewal Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Before beginning my remarks, I'll quickly introduce my colleagues who are at the table. Marc O'Sullivan is the acting assistant secretary to the cabinet for senior personnel and special projects with the Privy Council Office; and Katharine Rechico is with the Department of Finance, as is Benoit Robidoux. They're here primarily to assist in any technical questions that might come up around the specifics of some of the mandate.

I'm going to quickly go through some brief opening remarks just to help set some context for the members of the committee.

Thank you for your invitation to appear before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance to discuss the implementation of the Federal Accountability Act and especially the implementation of a Parliamentary Budget Officer position.

As lead for the overall implementation of the act, I propose to update the committee on the overall progress that has been made by the government.

As you know, the Federal Accountability Act amended 46 existing statutes and created two new ones. Some of these changes came into force at royal assent on December 12, 2006, while others were subject to coming-into-force dates set out in the act or established by order in council.

The introduction of Bill C-2 was accompanied by the federal accountability action plan, which organized the various elements of the Federal Accountability Act along 14 themes and set out as well related policy initiatives. I will now provide some details on the highlights of the government's progress in implementing the act and action plan along those themes.

With respect to reforming the financing of political parties, this element has been fully implemented. The relevant statutory amendments came into force on January 1, 2007. These measures are currently being administered by the Chief Electoral Officer.

With respect to banning secret donations to political candidates, this element has been fully implemented. The final statutory amendments came into force on July 9, 2007. These measures are currently being administered by the Chief Electoral Officer and the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.

With regard to strengthening the role of the Ethics Commissioner, this element has been fully implemented. The new Conflict of Interest Act came into force on July 9, 2007. On that date, Ms. Mary Dawson was appointed to the new position of Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.

With regard to making qualified government appointments, statutory amendments to provide parliamentarians with more say in the appointment of agents of Parliament, to revise the process for appointing returning officers under the Canada Elections Act, to provide for the creation of a public appointments commission, and to remove entitlements to priority appointments within the public service for ministerial staffers, these have all come into force.

With respect to cleaning up government polling and advertising, most of the items under this heading have been implemented, including statutory and policy changes and contract regulations that came into effect on June 7, 2007.

With regard to providing real protection for whistle-blowers, the amended Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act was brought into force and operational as of April 15, 2007. Appointments have been made to both the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner and the public servants disclosure tribunal.

In terms of strengthening the access to information legislation, all of the statutory amendments under this element have been brought into force. The Access to Information Act has been expanded to include 69 additional institutions, which comprise agents of Parliament, several foundations created under federal statute, seven additional parent crown corporations, and all subsidiary crown corporations.

With respect to strengthening the power of the Auditor General, all of the statutory elements under this element have been brought into force. Regulations are also being developed in order to support the Auditor General's authority to inquire into the use of funds under federal funding agreements.

With regard to strengthening auditing and accountability within departments, deputy heads have been designated as accounting officers under the Financial Administration Act. Statutory amendments have been made regarding the governing structure of crown corporations, and a new offence has been created for fraud involving public moneys.

In terms of creating and establishing a director of public prosecutions, the office of the director has been created and it is operational. An acting director has been appointed, pending a permanent appointment to this position. It has been that way since the act received royal assent on December 12, 2006.

We have also ratified the United Nations Convention against Corruption. That convention was ratified on October 2, 2007.

In terms of cleaning up procurement of government contracts, several items under this element have been completed, including the incorporation of an overarching statement of principle on procurement in the Financial Administration Act and the adoption of a new code of conduct for procurement on September 19. A procurement ombudsman designate has been appointed. Draft regulations were posted in the Canada Gazette on December 22, 2007.

In terms of toughening the Lobbyists Registration Act, the government has developed proposed regulations for the coming into force of the Lobbying Act. The consultations on those regulations are now closed. The regulations are going through the process of being finalized in order to be brought forward for deliberation by the Governor in Council.

With regard to the establishment of a parliamentary budget authority, as you know, this item remains to be fully implemented. The Federal Accountability Act established within the Library of Parliament the position of parliamentary budget officer. The new officer will provide research and objective analysis to the Senate and House of Commons concerning the state of the nation's finances, the estimates of the government, and trends in the national economy. The parliamentary librarian, under whose responsibility the selection process of the parliamentary budget authority falls, has highlighted current progress made on the matter.

There has been a lot of work done in the last year on the Federal Accountability Act, and I want to assure this committee that, across government, we continue our hard work to implement this important piece of legislation.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my opening remarks. I'd be pleased to answer any questions committee members may have.

I understand that Mr. O'Sullivan has a few brief remarks.

Constitution Act, 2007 (Democratic representation)

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been interested over the last two days in this issue of democratic reform. I have always been trying to get a real clear answer from anybody as to what the Senate actually does.

Yesterday we were told it protects the rights of minorities. Of course if we go back to John A. Macdonald, when he said “minorities”, he meant the rich. He said that there will always be a lot more poor people than rich people, so we have to have a special chamber to protect the interests of the powerful.

Today I hear the Liberals saying that the Senate is there to represent the interests of the provinces. If one were to ask the average Canadian, he or she would say the Senate is there for people who have flipped pancakes at Liberal Party fundraisers for 30 years and they are given basically a life of leisure working two or three days a week.

Where were they last week? They were in New Mexico at a casino. While hard-working Canadians were suffering in -50° weather, the senators were at the casino. If the government was wondering where Bill C-2 was being stalled, it could have put some suntan lotion on the government member's back and he could have gone to try to rouse some of the senators from their pina colada luncheons that are being paid for by the taxpayers of Canada.

People need relief from that crew. Why does the government not just do the simple thing about democratic reform, throw them out, open the other place up as a public basketball court, save the Canadian taxpayers a lot of grief and actually save the embarrassment of having an upper chamber based on party patronage and cronyism in the 21st century?

[Andrew Murie]

First of all, you're correct in your assumption, and there's a perspective to look at. If you go back to the 1980s, 70% of teen deaths were alcohol-related. That number has dropped into the 40% range, so we have made progress with our young people. But as a percentage of licensed drivers, they're still the most overrepresented in the group of drivers who have been fatally injured by alcohol. So we still have progress to make.

The other issue of concern with young people especially is that of cannabis and driving. Student surveys clearly show the rates of cannabis and driving at high school levels have now exceeded the drinking and driving levels. Bill C-2 will go a long way in resolving some of those problems because now police will have the tools to apprehend drug-impaired drivers. So there's a perception some young people like to get out there that they're not the problem anymore, it's their parents, it's other people. But we still have a lot of work to do with young people.

On the solution side, it's mostly administrative; it's not criminal. As our friends here from the Canada Safety Council said, the zero BAC has been a very effective tool; it's part of graduated licensing. One of the things MADD Canada is doing with all the provinces is recommending zero BAC to the age of 21 or the first five years of driving. So far, Manitoba and Nova Scotia have adopted that, so we're making headway. Just as much as we work here at the federal level, we do a lot of work provincially.

We feel that if zero BACs to 21 were done in most jurisdictions, hundreds of young people's lives would be saved. That's the most important thing that can be done. Also, the other piece for young people is random breath testing, the fact that police can intervene and put young people back to the beginning or take away their licence. Young people, more than any other group, want the privilege to drive, want the opportunity to drive. So consequently, they, more than any other age group, will follow the rules, especially because it's not their motor vehicle.

Canada Elections Act

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

I realized my mistake the moment I saw you rise, Mr. Speaker.

The Conservative government awarded a communications contract to Marie-Josée Lapointe, who was on this government's transition team. This contract goes against the spirit of the government's own Federal Accountability Act, since political staff are not allowed to receive contracts from the government in place for 12 months after they leave. The contract was eventually cancelled halfway through, following a hard fight in the House.

When Bill C-2 was passed, the point was raised also that the issue of whistleblower protection had not been covered. In addition, the reform of the Access to Information Act has yet to be covered. So, in terms of ethics, it is falling short.

[Chris White, Vice-President, Public Affairs, Canadian Automobile Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On behalf of the Canadian Automobile Association, thank you for inviting us.

From our establishment in 1913, CAA has been Canada's foremost voice, supporting the rights of Canadian motorists and travellers. With approximately 5.2 million members, CAA continues to advocate for a wide variety of safety initiatives, which have helped guide relevant traffic safety laws, public safety initiatives, and public policies throughout Canada. We continue to work with the federal government, our nine clubs, and other stakeholder groups to ensure safer drivers on safer roads in safer vehicles.

Mr. Chair, as one of Canada's largest member-based advocacy groups, we, like you and the members of the committee, are anxious to see fewer deaths and injuries on the roads as a result of impaired driving. In 1999, this committee tabled the report entitled,Toward Eliminating Impaired Driving. That report concluded that the current level of 0.08 adequately empowered police to remove impaired drivers from the road, while at the same time not burdening the justice system.

More importantly, though, the report stated the following:

...a legal BAC limit of 50 mg/100 ml of blood could result in a loss of public support, especially since scientific evidence suggests that not everyone would be impaired at that level.

Mr. Chair, CAA's only raison d'être on behalf of our members and on behalf of the travelling public is to be a credible advocate for safety issues for Canadians. With this as our sole motivation, CAA continues to support the approach cited in 1999. Based on figures from Transport Canada, we know that nationally 2005 crashes involving drinking and driving accounted for about 33% of all road users killed on public roadways. And until studies show overwhelmingly strong and consistent evidence for lowering the criminal BAC limit, it is our view that the current limit of 0.08 should be maintained and strongly enforced.

To address the growing concern of impaired driving, CAA strongly supports legislation, strict enforcement, and continued education to end the practices of driving while under the influence of drugs, alcohol, or medication. It is our view that this is where an investment of resources is most needed.

The committee's review of mechanisms to reduce impaired driving in Canada is timely and overdue. Current measures are clearly not providing adequate deterrents, nor are they removing dangerous drivers from the road. It is our perspective that we are not talking about a deficiency in law but rather a deficiency in the social behaviour of drivers. Most drivers inherently know when they have consumed too much alcohol to drive, regardless of the blood alcohol content. The more serious problem, though, is the drivers who lack this understanding and those who chronically and consistently get into their cars under the influence of alcohol well beyond the 0.08 levels. Repeat offenders and an underresourced judicial system are endangering the safety of everyone on the roads, and, as CAA has long maintained, driving is a privilege and not a right.

Furthermore, CAA, like many stakeholders, believes in a comprehensive approach to address the problem of impaired driving. We advocate for specific measures to deal with repeat offenders and measures to increase enforcement.

We would specifically like the committee to consider the following:

One, introduce tougher sanctions for recidivists and drivers with high BACs: the higher the blood alcohol level, the more serious the sanction.

Two, implement a mandatory requirement for the use of alcohol ignition interlock devices that become progressively longer with each subsequent conviction.

Three, encourage provinces to coordinate provincial legal drinking ages to reduce the practice of cross-border drinking and driving.

Four, recommend that the Criminal Code admit evidence from mobile digital breath testing devices in court. These devices have proven to be highly reliable compared to the first-generation devices that were initially used.

Five, encourage the federal and provincial governments to simplify the evidence-gathering and charging procedures, with the goal of reducing the paperwork and time needed to lay an impaired driving charge.

Six, and finally, strengthen coordination and increase funding to ensure that law enforcement agencies have the resources and legislative support to effectively detect and properly charge drug-impaired drivers.

The continued level of public concern about drinking and driving is justified by the persistence of the problem on Canadian roads. CAA appreciates the attention of lawmakers to this issue and is confident the implementation of the aforementioned recommendations will improve safety on the roads and highways and will also reduce the incidence of drinking and driving in Canada.

I would like to conclude by thanking the committee for undertaking this important study. In addition, committee members should be commended for their work on Bill C-32 during the last parliamentary session and the speedy passing of the violent crime bill, Bill C-2, last fall.

CAA strongly supports Parliament's efforts to strengthen the enforcement of drug-impaired driving offences in Canada and would persuade the members of this committee to encourage their Senate colleagues to do the same.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Senate Appointment Consultations Act

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate today on the Senate reform this Conservative government wishes to achieve. First, I would like to mention that from time to time, at receptions or on Parliamentary trips, I do exchange greetings with my colleagues in the Senate. As far as I am concerned, they are human beings just like us and friendliness is always in order whenever we have an opportunity to discuss matters. I make no secret of the fact that many of them have the best interests of the public at heart. Yes, what is more, some senators have even accomplished great things in our society. I thank them for their contribution. However, that is not the question.

Despite ideological differences I may have with the senators, it is not the senators who disturb me but rather the institution of the Senate itself. I find it absurd that a democratic society, such as Canada claims to be, can still accept the notion that unelected people should play a role in approving legislation and in governing the affairs of the country.

I am not a historian, but I can easily remember that Canada’s upper chamber, the Senate, descends directly from the British House of Lords. At one time, those lords argued it was essential not to give power to the people and that it was necessary to offset the elected House with a chamber comprised of aristocrats. The Senate is the last sign of an old, obsolete monarchy in which the seats of power are allocated according to blood ties.

That way of thinking has not changed much. Today, some senators are appointed because of their family relations. I think, for example, of one senator from Quebec who was appointed because his father was a minister in the Trudeau government. In the case of other senators, the reasons for their appointments may be slightly different but they owe their places to connections, friends or political allegiance.

Will electing senators change this selection process? Not at all. In fact, the Conservative government must think electors are gullible if it would have them believe that this reform will make a big difference. In the formula proposed in the bill, the Conservatives are trying to reform the Senate with a simple bill, without getting into any constitutional details. I can understand their fear of starting a constitutional debate, as they did with the Charlottetown accord in 1992, because the Conservatives know full well that a reform of the Senate or the Constitution, like the one they are proposing, is unacceptable to Quebec.

Last November, the National Assembly of Quebec unanimously—including the government's ADQ friends—passed the following:

That no modification to the Canadian Senate may be carried out without the consent of the Government of Québec and the National Assembly.

Quebec is not alone in opposing the idea of Senate reform, as proposed by the Conservatives. Premiers Calvert, Doer and McGuinty have mentioned that it would be better to abolish the Senate than to try to renew it. Curiously, our party, the Bloc Québécois, a sovereignist party, has support from the governments of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario to abolish the Canadian Senate rather than have a piecemeal reform. For the Bloc, whether the Senate is reformed or not, it is still a useless institution.

For those who support Senate reform, the upper chamber draws its legitimacy and its need to exist from the fact that it provides a sober second look at the work of the House of Commons. Allow me to be skeptical. Senators are meant to take an objective and perhaps even a regional look at bills that are sent to them and review the work of the House of the Commons, but they are not elected and are not accountable for anything or to anyone. Over the years, partisanship has gained the upper hand over this supposed objectivity.

Electing senators will not change this partisanship in the least. According to the Conservatives' bill, the members of the upper chamber would be elected under a political banner and then appointed by the Prime Minister, if he so wishes. Since these new senators would be elected with a political affiliation, we can expect that they will toe their party's line.

The Bloc Québécois and I are not alone in saying this, and not only today in this House.

On October 1 of last year, Le Droit printed a quotation by Elaine McCoy, an Alberta senator. She said:

—the institutional structure causes senators to close ranks around party discipline and to hold the party line.

According to this senator, we would have to do much more than elect members to the upper house to put an end to this kind of discipline. In other words, electing senators would do nothing more than duplicate the House of Commons.

As everyone here knows, none of the provinces have had upper chambers since Quebec abolished its Legislative Council in 1968. In Quebec and the Canadian provinces, parliamentary democracy is working just fine without a second partisan review of decisions made by elected representatives. Furthermore, I am certain that Quebeckers would be delighted to find out that just by abolishing the Senate, we would avoid duplication and save between $80 million and $100 million per year.

Before wrapping up, I would like to make three points to illustrate the connection between the issue of Senate reform and other current issues.

First, as I said before, neither the existing nor a reformed Senate can be of any use, as evidenced by the fact that the institution slows down and hinders the democratic process. Bill C-2, the omnibus bill we talked about earlier, has been blocked in the Senate for partisan reasons even though this House, which was democratically elected, passed it unanimously.

Second, the Prime Minister rails against the Senate, but he, too, uses it for partisan purposes, as shown by his appointment of the Minister of Public Works. Many people no longer believe the Prime Minister when he talks about democracy, transparency and a new way of doing politics. What a wonderful show of federalism and openness. The Minister of Public Works has had four opportunities to run under his party's banner in Quebec byelections, but he chooses to be a ghost-like presence by putting in precious few appearances in the upper house. He gets paid pretty well for the tiny amount of time he spends there.

The third and final point that connects the bill with current events is being played out in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and the courts. Certain Conservative members and ministers broke Elections Canada's rules during the last election. I have no doubt that the Conservatives would consider themselves above the law and use the same tactics when the time came to elect senators.

The simplest solution for everyone—and I would recommend it to my Conservative colleagues who have not yet gotten the point—is simply to abolish the Senate. We should not waste our time on piecemeal reform. The Senate costs a fortune, has no legitimacy and more often than not holds up decisions of the House.

Safer Internet Day

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today, more than 43 countries around the world are recognizing Safer Internet Day.

Safer Internet Day is a chance to educate parents about the dangers that lurk online and encourage them to protect their children from harm. As the Internet continues to reach into more homes and be accessed by younger children with each passing year, this need is becoming even more critical.

Our government has taken strides on this important issue. Bill C-2, currently in the Senate, would raise the age of sexual consent from 14 to 16 years old and protect Canadian teens from so-called sex tourists who would take advantage of our existing laws to abuse our precious children. We need that bill passed by the Senate and we need it into law now.

All organizations, like Kids Internet Safety Alliance, deserve credit for their tireless efforts to eliminate online sexual exploitation of children and youth, but the battle is far from over.

On this Safer Internet Day, I ask everyone to please encourage everyone who cares for a child to educate themselves and their children on how to stay safe online and to put pressure on the Senate to get the job done and get Bill C-2 passed now.

Senate Appointment Consultations Act

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

I would comment, as well, that my colleague from the Bloc is continuing to heckle me.

The reason the Bloc Québécois is in favour of abolishing the Senate is because in order to abolish the Senate we must amend the Constitution. There is nothing the Bloc would rather have this country do than to get into a divisive constitutional debate.

What is more, the Bloc members want to abolish the Senate because it wants to have that Senate debate. They also recognize that about a quarter of the 105 senators are from the province of Quebec, which means that about 75% of the Senate are federalists. The Bloc does not like the idea of having that many more people in Ottawa in one of the two Houses of Parliament fighting for and defending Canada's interests. It wants to have fewer federalists in Ottawa, which is why it believes in abolishing the Senate.

The members of the Bloc Québécois, as usual, are up to their own mischief on this issue. They do not have a sincere position. Their position is about mischief making and about driving their agenda of tearing Quebec from the heart of Canada and we, frankly, will not have any of that.

This bill is about consultation. It is about reaching out to provinces and recognizing their role in having provinces at the forefront of the decision making of who will represent the provinces in Canada's upper house, which is an important step forward.

It is important to note that the province of Alberta has Senate election legislation and it has been exercised twice. In our government, we appointed Bert Brown to the Senate, who was elected by the people of Alberta. When a subsequent vacancy arises, the Premier of Alberta will have the capacity to elect senators in waiting who will then be appointed to the Senate on a democratic basis by the people of Alberta.

Under the NDP, the New Democratic government in the province of Manitoba passed bill 20 to elect senators in the province of Manitoba. The citizens of that province can have their say on who will be fighting on their behalf on Parliament Hill.

In the province of Saskatchewan, Premier Brad Wall has already indicated that he is drafting legislation and working hard to put forward Senate election legislation in the province of Saskatchewan so that the people of Saskatchewan can decide who their senators will be.

In British Columbia Premier Gordon Campbell has indicated that he is interested in following this path as well.

We have a conceivable situation where the four western provinces of Canada, based on their democratic choice, will enter into a process to elect senators at the grassroots level so Canadians can have a direct say in which politicians are in Ottawa, spending their money, in scripting their freedom and advocating for public policy changes. It is important that Canadians have that democratic right. That is something our party has always advocated and it is something in which I have always believed.

The is all about that. It is about consultation with provinces and it is about incremental reforms.

My colleague from Timmins-James Bay also mentioned the former Liberal government, under the member for LaSalle—Émard when he was prime minister. He used to constantly say, when he was campaigning in western Canada, that he believed in Senate reform. He was not prepared to engage in sweeping constitutional reform and Senate reform. He was not prepared to have any kind of incremental reform. Outside of that, he was all in favour of Senate reform.

We recognize we have a minority Parliament. We think Canadians are prepared for this debate and are prepared to engage in it. I do not think we want to go down the road of engaging in constitutional discussions if it is not necessary. We think there can be incremental Senate reform in the country, and this is one of the mechanisms by which it can be done.

A couple of bills on Senate reform are being considered by the House. The other bill is to have Senate term limits, to limit the number of years somebody can serve in the Senate, from a maximum of 45 years down to 8 years. That is a reasonable reform and proposition. Also we have the bill before us, which provides for consultation.

I reiterate the point that abolishing the Senate requires a constitutional amendment. The New Democrat position is a very idealistic one, but it is a very unrealistic one. Without constitutional amendment, the Senate cannot be abolished.

There is a backdoor way of abolishing the Senate, which is do not appoint any senators, leave the vacancies sitting there. Over time, these vacancies will accumulate. There are a couple of problems associated with that. One is the Senate vacancies will not come up proportionately across the country. We may be a situation where one province is dramatically disadvantaged in the Senate by virtue of the number of vacancies relative to another province.

We are almost getting to that point in British Columbia. Three out of the six seats in the Senate are currently vacant. Half of our Senate delegation is not there. We hope those seats will be filled through a democratic process, ultimately by consultation.

The other problem with the backdoor way of abolishing the Senate, without constitutional reform, is we get into this dynamic where the smaller the Senate, the more power it has. We have seen this. We have seen the Senate exercise its power in a way that is not helpful to the democratic mandate provided to the House by the Canadian people. We have seen that in the past and we see it today.

We know the clichéd saying that the Senate is supposed to be the chamber of sober second thought. We have the example of Bill C-2, a comprehensive crime bill. It was one of the cornerstone issues on which Conservatives campaigned in the last election campaign. When I campaigned in my district in the suburbs of Vancouver, it was the dominant issue I pushed on the doorsteps. That was what I heard back from my constituents. As good politicians, we talk about the issues that are of concern to our constituents.

Criminal justice reform was probably the central issue of concern for my constituents. We campaigned hard on criminal justice reform matters. We were elected to Parliament on the basis of our criminal justice platform, and we put forward these bills twice, once in the individual forms, and we did not succeed. The House prorogued. We came back, we packaged them together in Bill C-2, a comprehensive tackling violent crime act, and we have pushed that legislation forward.

We had full debate in the House of Commons on the legislation in the original form. When it came in the form of Bill C-2, we had a full debate in the House. We had a full debate at committee. We considered amendments and accepted them. Then the bill finally passed, with the support of opposition parties. Now it is in the hands of the Senate.

The government was elected on the basis of a very specific platform of criminal justice reforms. We passed them in the House, with the support of the opposition parties, and they went to the Senate. Now the Liberal Senate members have proposed 59 witnesses on Bill C-2 to logjam bill at the Senate side. After more than two years of government, where we have compromised on the bill, we have worked together, we have worked across party lines, we have passed the bill, we want to see it become a reality. This kind of activity on the Senate side needs to be stopped.

Therefore, if there is abolition of the Senate through constitutional means, the Bloc will play its games. If there is abolition of the Senate through backdoor means, by restricting senators, a smaller number of people will be empowered to play more games like we have seen on Bill C-2.

The way to go ahead is to have incremental reform with reasonable measures. It is not unreasonable to say that senators should sit for a maximum of eight years rather than 45 years and have that responsibility of being a senator circumscribed to that amount of time. That is an entirely reasonable reform.

The second one we have proposed is to have the federal government sit down with the provinces and consult with them in the best way to allow the people to decide who should legislate on their behalf in Ottawa.

This is quite straightforward. I think if that proposition were put forward to Canadians, we would win this debate 95:5. This is why I hope the bill will see that kind of support in the House, with the support of opposition parties.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, right off the top, I am not very happy to speak in a debate about Motion No. 3, which would send a message to the Senate about its work on Bill C-2. I would rather have spoken about a bill that the government had introduced to increase its assistance to the manufacturing and forestry industries. If they had done that, we could have been dealing with problems that are much more urgent for our fellow citizens than Senate reform.

In any case, though, this reform does not pass muster in our view. As I said yesterday in the debate on Motion No. 3, we think the Senate is a political institution that is not only undemocratic but in the modern era has lost its very reason for being. It is simply a vestige of colonial times and the British monarchy. For these fundamental reasons we will oppose referring it to committee before second reading.

I think we would have opposed it even after second reading because we are opposed to the very principle underlying this bill. Its purpose is to reform an institution that, in our view, is no longer relevant if it ever was. There is no point trying to amend a bill in some way when it is so unacceptable in content and form and when no amendments could possibly make it acceptable. We will therefore vote against referring this bill to committee.

We disagree with the very principle of this bill because it is obvious in our view—and Canadian and Quebec history make it crystal clear—that Canada’s institutions cannot be reformed. By trying to reform the Senate through bills rather than a constitutional amendment, the Prime Minister is confirming something that was already evident to many people in Quebec. For Quebec sovereignists, of course, it is impossible in any case to make significant changes to the Canadian constitution, even more so when taking into account the national reality of Quebeckers.

It is also deeply shocking to see the Conservative government and the Prime Minister bring in bills with which not only the Bloc Québécois but also the National Assembly of Quebec have said they disagree. This is true of both Bill C-20 and Bill C-22, the latter dealing with a redistribution of seats in the House of Commons.

Each time, it is clear that behind these changes—I am not even talking about reforms, because I think the word “reform” has a positive connotation—there is never any will to take into consideration the existence of at least two nations within the current Canadian political space: the Quebec nation, which was recognized by this House, the Canadian nation, which we readily recognize, and, of course, the first nations and the Acadian nation.

I think this has been the problem since Canada was created, and is why Canada's political institutions cannot be reformed. I am obviously talking about the lack of will from the majority of this political space, meaning the Canadian nation, to recognize, and not just by a motion in this House, the existence of several nations within the Canadian political space.

I could talk about the history, but not this morning. At certain points in the history of Canada and Quebec, it would have been possible to mutually recognize two nations and to recognize the first nations and the Acadian nation, in order to build a political structure representative of this multinational space. Unfortunately, the past, and also more recent history—for example, the Charlottetown accord and the Meech Lake accord—has shown us that there was not a broad enough will, yet alone a majority, within the Canadian nation to change the political balance and reflect this reality.

Unfortunately, the current Parliament seems to be the perfect example of the crisis in the Canadian system. I am not talking about the Bloc Québécois, because we chose to represent the Quebec nation in the House of Commons. I am talking about the political parties that call themselves national, but should call themselves pan-Canadian, the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party and the NDP.

Those parties all have essentially regional foundations: the Conservatives, more in the west; the Liberals, in Ontario and the Atlantic provinces; and the NDP, a bit everywhere. They are not yet sufficiently entrenched in a region of Canada to claim to be pan-Canadian parties. It is not their fault. Quite simply, no one has wanted to recognize this multinational dimension in the past.

The Quebec-Canada relations crisis is not a crisis for the people of Quebec. It is a crisis in the Canadian system, with ups and downs, since history is never linear. It is very clear that, as long as people fail to grasp this reality—and in the case of the Bloc and Quebec sovereignists, we will take this reality into account as soon as Quebec decides to become a sovereign country—we cannot resume discussions with our Canadian neighbours to reorganize an economic space, at least, and perhaps a political space between our two nations.

That being said, within the existing political space, considering the mindset of Canadians, it is obvious that Canadian institutions cannot be reformed. This situation will certainly not be corrected by trying to reform the Senate, especially since Bill C-20 is aimed primarily at marginalizing the Quebec nation more than anything else.

I was saying that we are against the bill because Canadian institutions cannot be reformed. Indeed, in our view, the very spirit of the bill is unacceptable. Nevertheless, there is also the fact that Parliament cannot reform the Senate unilaterally and without making constitutional amendments. As many constitutionalists have said, the National Assembly has confirmed, and Quebec's Minister for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs, Mr. Pelletier, has said on many occasions, any attempts to change the composition or the method of appointing senators would require a constitutional negotiation. Obviously, for us as Quebeckers, and especially for sovereignists, a constitutional negotiation will not be held on the Senate question alone, since it is far from our primary concern. We often even forget that that institution exists.

It is therefore very clear to us that the bill as it now stands cannot be acceptable to Quebec or to anyone who wishes to abide by the Canadian constitution.

I often find it amusing—it should make me cry, but I tend to be an optimist—to say that the only people who try to ensure that we abide by the Constitution in this House are the Bloc Québécois. For example, when we talk about respecting the jurisdiction of the provinces or combating the federal spending power, we are unfortunately the only ones who stand up for what was set out in a document that may, in fact, be too old, because it does not reflect the present-day reality of the Canadian political space.

The fact remains, however, that as long as the Constitution has not been amended and as long as we are within the Canadian political space, Quebec, Quebeckers and the Bloc Québécois will stand up for the idea that there can be no amendments relating to the specific method by which senators are appointed without constitutional negotiations. Once again, on the question of constitutional negotiations, when that door—some would say that Pandora's box—is opened again, very clearly there will be other matters to be brought in besides mere questions about the Senate.

There is a fourth point that I think it is important to make. Even if it is reformed, the Senate is a useless institution, as I said earlier. It is a legacy of the monarchy, a legacy of British colonialism; it is the fear that the founders of the Canadian political space had of seeing a sovereign people make decisions through elections and elected representatives.

So they appointed these wise and elite people, who are often conservative. I am not speaking here to Conservatives as such. We are talking about elites who often wanted to oppose the desire for social and economic progress felt by a majority of the population. That is true for Quebec and it is also true for Canada.

I will conclude on that point because I have been told that my speaking time will soon be up. The bill itself is full of problems, even though it might have been thought to have some value.

Under Bill C-20, given that indirect election of senators is not going to make the Senate democratic, we are creating senators whom it will be virtually impossible to unseat. This is a non-binding consultation and it is full of holes.

[Gregory Tardi, Parliamentary Counsel (Legal), House of Commons]

Madam Chair, the lifespan of the existence of the Ethics Commissioner as an entity, under the newest form of the legislation brought in by Bill C-2, is far too short to be able to answer that. There is no real precedent yet.

Going beyond that, in an entirely legally based view—which has to be mine—what's at stake here is the application of the sub judice rule to the Office of the Ethics Commissioner. With respect, the Ethics Commissioner is not a court of law but an officer of parliament. That being said, it seems to me there is nothing in law or legal custom to prevent the committee from examining the subject matter, albeit perhaps not exactly the same issues as those within the responsibility of the Ethics Commissioner. Under her own legislation, the committee can choose, if it wants, to look at the general subject matter, to investigate the facts, and perhaps to draw conclusions, hopefully, other than those the Ethics Commissioner will draw.