Bill C-20 (Historical)

Fair Representation Act

An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867, the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act and the Canada Elections Act

This enactment amends the rules in the Constitution Act, 1867 for readjusting the number of members of the House of Commons and the representation of the provinces in that House.
It amends the time periods in several provisions of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act and requires that electronic versions of maps be provided to registered parties.
It also amends the Canada Elections Act to permit a returning officer to be appointed for a new term of office in certain circumstances.

Preserving Provincial Representation in the House of Commons Act

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon.

I rise to speak on Bill C-14, an act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867. More specifically, what this bill would do is amend what is known as the grandfather clause. By way of background, the grandfather clause has been part of our Constitution since 1986, with the passage of the Representation Act, 1985. Very simply, what the grandfather clause does is establish a floor in terms of the allocation of seats by province in terms of the redistribution process that takes place every 10 years. The floor that the grandfather clause sets is that no province shall be allocated fewer seats in future redistributions than that province had in 1985.

Bill C-14 is a fairly straightforward piece of legislation in that it amends the grandfather clause by establishing an updated floor, a floor of 2015 as opposed to 1985. More specifically, it would ensure that no province will receive an allocation of fewer seats than that province had in 2015, in the 43rd Parliament, in any future redistribution. What that means for my province of Alberta is that it increases the floor in terms of the minimal number of seats that Alberta will be allocated in any redistribution by 13, the 13 seats that Alberta gained between 1985 and 2015.

When we look at the issue of allocating seats across Canada, a foundational principle of our democratic process is representation by population. Representation by population is based upon the notion that the weight attached to the vote of each Canadian should be equal, regardless of what region of Canada they live in. It is a principle that was adopted by the fathers of Confederation in 1867, and it is a principle that is enshrined in our Constitution.

While it is a principle that is foundational, achieving pure representation by population is not practical. Indeed, it is not entirely desirable in regard to a number of factors, including the vastness of Canada. With respect to the impracticability of achieving pure representation by population, one need look no further than our Constitution. For example, the senatorial clause of 1915 guarantees that every province shall have at least the same number of seats in the House of Commons as it has senators. That is why, for example, the province of Prince Edward Island is guaranteed four seats in the House of Commons because it has four senators, notwithstanding the fact that the province of Prince Edward Island has fewer than 160,000 people.

Indeed, my riding of St. Albert—Edmonton is almost as large as Prince Edward Island. My friend and colleague down the road in Edmonton—Wetaskiwin represents a riding of more than 200,000 people, 40,000 or 50,000 more people than Prince Edward Island. One might say to simply rescind or repeal the senatorial clause, but of course that requires the unanimous consent of the provinces. Prince Edward Island, I am sure, will be in no hurry to offer its consent.

Achieving pure representation by population is not practicable, but it is also important to take into account what the Supreme Court of Canada provided for in the Saskatchewan boundaries reference case of 1991. That case dealt with the boundary redistribution in the province of Saskatchewan that tended to disproportionately favour rural areas at the expense of more populous urban areas. The court looked at section 3 of the charter, which guarantees the right of every Canadian to vote, and in the context of the redistribution of boundaries in the province of Saskatchewan, the Supreme Court determined that the overriding principle is one of effective representation.

In terms of effective representation, the court recognized such factors as geography, communities of interest and so on. However, that being said, the court did stress the importance of representation by population. To that end, I would cite Madam Justice McLachlin, who said:

What are the conditions of effective representation? The first is relative parity of voting power. A system which dilutes one citizen's vote unduly as compared with another citizen's vote runs the risk of providing inadequate representation to the citizen whose vote is diluted.

In order to have effective representation, what we must have, to the greatest degree possible, is representation by population. That is where we have moved significantly towards, thanks to the leadership of Prime Minister Harper and the previous Conservative government with the passage of the Fair Representation Act.

The Fair Representation Act replaced the 1985 formula that established an electoral quotient, which is the first step in terms of determining the allocation of seats, with a new formula that sets a new electoral quotient. The problem, very simply, with the 1985 formula is that, although it was thought to be fair in 1985, it did not allow for the allocation of seats by province to keep up with population growth among the fastest-growing provinces. As a result, the fastest-growing provinces were denied their right to fair, proportionate representation in the House of Commons. It created, over time, a representation gap.

Take, for example, my province of Alberta. Alberta gained nearly one million people between 1988 and 2004, yet in the span of nearly 20 years with one million new Albertans, Alberta only gained two seats in the House of Commons. So significant was the representation gap at the time that the Fair Representation Act was introduced, some analysis established that the three fastest-growing provinces in Canada, namely Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta, were among the most under-represented provinces or states in the industrialized world, according to analysis at the time from the Mowat Centre.

The Fair Representation Act addressed the representation gap significantly by establishing a new formula that better takes into account population growth, all the while respecting the overriding principle of effective representation. What that has meant in the last two redistributions is an increase in representation for the provinces of Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta.

My province of Alberta has gained nine seats in the span of 10 years. Ontario gained 18 seats in the first redistribution. The province of British Columbia gained eight seats. That gap is being closed thanks to the legacy of Prime Minister Harper and the formula provided in the Fair Representation Act.

In closing, I will say that this legislation, I am pleased to see, would not in any major way impact the Harper formula. It would maintain the Harper formula, and in that regard it maintains a significant step forward in achieving something much closer to representation by population, which the Supreme Court has said is essential for having effective representation.

National Capital Act

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I speak to the bill in front of us, I would like to take the opportunity to provide condolences to the family of Marc Robert Nelson, whom people in the House will know as the worker who died recently at the Bank of Canada. This is a day of mourning for injured workers and those who have been killed on the job. I want to provide condolences on behalf of our party and Parliament to Marc Robert Nelson's family. It is a tragic loss, and something that reminds us of the need to look out for job safety everywhere.

The bill we have in front of us has a fairly long history. As has been noted by my colleague from across the way, there have been different iterations of the bill. They have been from me, from the government a couple of times, and now from my colleague.

One thing we should understand is the reason for having this bill in front of us. As has been noted by all members who have spoken to the bill, it is the need to protect a park that many people thought already had protections.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure you have gone there with your family, as others have. When people come to Ottawa, they do not only come to the House of Commons; they usually take the opportunity to visit the region. Gatineau Park is fundamental to the identity of the national capital region.

When we talked to people about Gatineau Park, it was a great surprise to many to find out that it is not a park, in essence, with protections. Rather, it is a park in name. When we think about all of the other parks—frankly, the government has done some good work in protecting parks and creating new parks—the fact that we have not protected Gatineau Park and given it the fundamental protections it needs is something most people find very surprising.

The good news for people who want to see Gatineau Park protected is that I do not see any contention at all with anyone that it should be a park, that it should be protected, and that we should have some legislation to protect it. When people look at Parliament, they often see that there is derision and that people cannot agree on the day of the week. When it comes to Gatineau Park, people agree, and we have heard agreement from the government side, that there should be protections.

In fact, Bill C-20 and Bill C-37 of previous Parliaments would have given just that. I worked with the government on Bill C-20 and Bill C-37 when they came before the House. They were government bills. As I mentioned, I also had a bill of my own. We actually worked together to try and move things forward to protect Gatineau Park for reasons that have been mentioned and are probably worthy of reiteration. It is a place of history. It is a place of biodiversity. It is a place for recreation. It is a place where people come to enjoy and to protect nature. It is a fundamental piece of history for first nations, who were the stewards of the land before there was European contact.

It embodies many of the values, symbols, and history of our country. That is why I am passionate about Gatineau Park. Yes, I am the member for Ottawa Centre, but for people in Ottawa and for those who have experienced the national capital region, Gatineau Park is a shared place. It is not one entity for only those people who live in and around the park. That is why it is so important.

As I said, there is consensus to protect the park.

It was interesting that back in 2008, we were looking at bringing forward legislation to protect the park. I worked with the government at the time. I had my own bill. The government then brought in its legislation. I had a campaign going to get public support behind this, as my colleague from Hull—Aylmer has done. It was then a matter of consulting the community and getting the park going.

Bill C-37 was brought forward. What was not mentioned by the government, just for the sake of facts, is that the reason Bill C-37 did not go forward was that Parliament was prorogued. Let us put that on the record. It could have been passed. We would now be talking about how great the Gatineau Park bill is and that all the things we want to see being done had been done.

Alas, as everyone knows, when Parliament is prorogued, government bills die. Fine, that was okay. We came back and worked with the government on Bill C-20, a government bill, to strengthen the bill, and it was a good experience. It was not a priority of the government. It finally brought it forward just before the 2011 election, and there was not time for it to make its way through. I had pleaded with my friend, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, to get it going and fast-track it, and we could have had it done. That is by way of background.

The government has picked out a couple of things it thinks is worthy of note to suggest that we should oppose the bill. I appeal to those who look at the role of backbenchers and individual members of Parliament to look at the bill and what the government is saying in its critique of it, particularly my friend from the Hamilton region. In his speech, he noted things that could be changed at committee. If the government wants to protect the greenbelt in Ottawa, there is nothing in the way of doing that.

With respect to my friend across the way and the government members who have been given their points as to why they should oppose the bill, they should actually reflect on the argument. Their argument is that the Gatineau Park bill is too restrictive and does not include the greenbelt here in Ottawa. It is a simple thing to amend it at committee. We could support that. We have no problem with that. In fact, that is what we did with Bill C-20 and Bill C-37.

Note that when private members' bills come forward, members want to make sure that there is a chance that a bill can be passed. They sometimes bring forward bills and the government will say that they are too big. My friend from Hull—Aylmer put this very specifically with respect to Gatineau Park. If the government wants to make the scope bigger, fine, we have no problem with that and will support that.

With regard to some of the other issues, they really are not worth killing the bill.

I know that there is a Conservative member bringing forward an initiative to allow members to have more say in legislation.

One of the things we should honour is that if a bill is not too controversial, we should allow it to at least get to second reading. After all, we only get one shot at this, whether we are on the government side or in opposition. Respectfully, if there is good intent, as there is in this bill, at least let us get it to committee. I plead to the government, because there will be a change of government sometime. Members will be in a position when they will want to bring their private members' bills forward, and we should remember that, because this is about how Parliament functions. The bill could be amended by bringing in best ideas.

I was recently at a conference with legislators from the U.K. and the U.S. When they bring forward legislation and members get behind bills, there is an opportunity to have debate and input. We do it at second reading. It gives life to an issue. I would plead with the government to think about this. This is about protecting the park, but it is also about protecting the integrity of our Parliament. If the bill is not up to the standard the government or backbenchers or frontbenchers or anyone wants, then that can be dealt with at committee.

Let me finish with the following. Everyone agrees that we should protect Gatineau Park. Let the bill get to committee. Let members of Parliament play their role as representatives of their constituents, and let good ideas go forward. Let us not get in the way of a good idea and the participation of everyday members of Parliament on the bill. People want to protect the park. Members agree on that. Let us get the bill to committee so Parliament can do its work, so MPs can do their work, and so citizens can see the value of the work we do here.

Combating Terrorism Act

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

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

He pointed out some undeniable facts and truths, one of them being that the government seems to always be trying to attack the rights of unions and unionized workers. It wants to attack the most fundamental of rights, as Bill C-20 shows. Apparently, the government has now put that bill aside, because of the public discontent created by the idea that it would give police the power to listen to or spy on the conversations we have on the Internet or in email.

With this bill, the government is launching a shameless attack against the most fundamental of our freedoms: our individual freedoms. We must strongly condemn this attack.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to congratulate my New Democratic colleague for her excellent, well-documented and substantial comments about concerns that, in my view, are fair and legitimate.

I would like to ask her a question about the overall direction being taken by the Conservative government and about what is revealed in this bill. It amounts to one more bill that restricts civil liberty, and that aims at oppression and repression. Some repression is of course needed, but caution is in order. Our police officers should have the resources they need, but are we dealing with a government that wants to interfere in the private lives of Canadians? What is more, where are we on bill C-20? I do not know where it stands. It is as if it has disappeared. It raised legitimate concerns.

And yet the government is systematically moving towards limits on fundamental freedoms and respect for human rights.

I would like my colleague to tell us whether she believes we are witnessing some form of neo-conservative bifurcation by the government on the other side of the House.

Democratic Representation Act

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am in fact very pleased to rise today in this House and to tell all my colleagues, particularly those from Quebec, just how proud I am that we are able to stand up for Quebec's level of representation in our democratic system and champion the Quebec culture and what it brings to Canada from an historical standpoint.

Allow me to put things into context. As everybody knows, Bill C-20 was passed before Christmas. This brought Quebec's representation in this House from 24.35% to about 23%. In fact, the bill provided for the addition of seats in several provinces of Canada, which is quite legitimate, while reducing Quebec's political weight within the House of Commons.

For the Conservatives, who love to talk about laws and law enforcement, I would like to present an argument that has never been successfully challenged and that is still contemporary. It is very important to understand that the Supreme Court stated that, according to the Constitution, representation by population is a constitutional principle. However, this is not called into question at all by this bill. The governments, parliamentarians and legislators must also take into consideration historical and cultural criteria when it comes to the representation of members in this House.

For example, there was a debate on Bill C-7 regarding the selection of senators. I made a number of remarks when I rose to speak about that bill. I stated that the role that the Constitution conferred upon the Senate is one of regional representation. In fact, the Senate was created to enable the regions that had less weight in the House of Commons to be better represented in another chamber. But that was never achieved; it was never honoured. The idea, of course, was to ensure that rights are conferred upon our country's minorities, to some of its cultures and its peoples, in order that they may have a voice in our democratic system.

We have had to fight. The NDP had to fight to get the government to give Quebec more seats. We reminded the government that in 2006 it had passed a motion recognizing Quebec as an integral part of Canada while maintaining its nationhood status, in other words, that it is a distinct nation within a united Canada. The government was very clear about this. Yet, today, the government once again refuses to give Quebec the place it deserves within the House of Commons. The NDP and my colleague from Compton—Stanstead want to fight so that Quebeckers maintain the voice to which they are entitled in this House.

This bill does not render invalid the addition of other seats in other provinces: on the contrary. What does this do? It tells Quebeckers—in line with everything this government has claimed since it was elected in 2006—that Quebec has a place here, that it has the right to a percentage of representation. And we want it to keep that same percentage of representation, since the Government of Canada has itself recognized Quebec as a nation within Canada. That percentage is 24.35%. Bill C-20 reduces this percentage by a little more than one percentage point. But what are they thinking, on the government side? They are being asked for a little more than one percentage point. It is not as if we were asking for an increase from 24.35% to 50%. We are simply asking them to keep their word.

It is quite simple: let them keep the promise they made to all Quebeckers in 2006 when they recognized that Quebec is a nation. And the Supreme Court said in 1991 that consideration must be given to historical and cultural criteria when talking about democratic representation within Canada. So this is clear. I fail to understand why the government wants to flout these principles. It is clear, plain and specific. Quebec is a nation. The Conservatives recognized this in 2006. In 1991, the Supreme Court recognized that account must be taken of cultural and historical criteria. It is clear and specific, it is in our democracy and in our history, it is right there in front of them.

Once again, I hope that my colleagues in the government will vote in favour of this bill. If they do not, it will show that they are once again going to flout not only Quebeckers' and Canadians' desire to have democratic representation in the House, but also a Supreme Court ruling and principles that have been established for years.

The government is inconsistent in its actions. In 2006, it claimed that Quebec is a nation. Everyone was happy; we had been asking for this for a long time. Thank you very much. But right after that, we saw that respect for the French language in this Parliament completely collapsed. I am truly outraged today, for I am ashamed to see the government’s scorn of language rights. We saw this yesterday, when they refused to vote for a bill that would allow Quebeckers to work in certain federal institutions in their own province in compliance with their language rights.

The government is not even prepared to recognize this or to take action to help Quebeckers and ensure that the French language is respected. It claims that French is part of our country and our history, but that is where it ends. There is no action, no funding. The government claims that there will be a commission to examine the French language, but it has never been created, and no funds have been invested for that purpose. It will probably be created in 2014 or 2025, or who knows when. Perhaps it will never be created at all. Empty words.

Emptiness is what the government gives us. I hope that the Conservatives will wake up, give themselves a slap in the face and realize that it is time they recognize that Quebec is part of Canada. Even though Quebeckers refused to vote for the Conservatives, the Government of Canada is supposed to represent all Canadians. Whether in British Columbia, the Yukon or Quebec, it is supposed to respect the rights of all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a golden opportunity to speak today to Bill C-312. My colleague from Compton—Stanstead introduced this bill when were still debating Bill C-20 on readjusting the number of seats in the House. The NDP introduced Bill C-312 as an amended version.

We were unshakeable in our opposition to the government’s bill. It rebuffed any attempts at conciliation. As a result, our party voted against Bill C-20, even though it contained desirable elements. Bill C-20 was of course referred to the Senate and it went through like a shooting star with no sign of resistance.

Is it at all useful to continue to debate and promote our version? Yes, it certainly is. This is definitely a very good time to restate how we differ from the government. Most of all, this discussion will allow us to warn the government on several points, and one in particular. The Constitution of Canada is very old in terms of politics. How many different constitutions have most European countries had since 1867? Ours was written at a time when most Canadians lived in Ontario and Quebec. From scattered British colonies, an attempt was made to build a political entity that was considered more viable and competitive given the rise of the United States of America. Visionaries built a railway across the continent and flew a Union Jack at each end. And there you have modern Canada. That is the country we live in.

When drafting the Constitution, the Fathers of Confederation sought above all to strike an equitable balance between the interests of the two most populous provinces, Ontario and Quebec. They had lived side by side ever since the conquest of New France, and the dynamics were well established.

I believe that the very soul of the 1867 Canadian Constitution was the harmonization of the interests of Upper and Lower Canada in a venture that included the maritime provinces. The Constitution was what led to a sovereign country that had legitimacy in the eyes of the outside world. Any discussion must be firmly anchored in the foundations established in 1867; otherwise it would be meaningless.

For a few months now, the population in the west of the Confederation has exceeded the population in the east. This is a first in our country’s history. I would like to take advantage of my opportunity to speak to congratulate our fellow citizens at the other end of Canada. Alberta, whose beginnings were so difficult, is now a prosperous and progressive land. It contributes enormously to the country through its wealth of human and physical resources. British Columbia, which had initially resisted joining Confederation, became a symbol of Canada’s beauty and open-mindedness. For all these reasons, I congratulate them.

This Parliament is finally getting around to providing them with a more flexible way of giving them more seats in the House. It was decided to increase their relative weight within our democracy to allow for a fairer distribution. Representation by population is one of the foundations of our current system; the NDP is delighted that this should be the case. The House will also be more crowded than the kitchen in a Soviet apartment on a holiday, but that is all to the good. The more the merrier.

However, these additions are made to a system that is ill-suited to them. Indeed, there is a clear opposition between rep by pop and communities of interests. Rep by pop is a calculation, it is the beginning of the distribution and sharing. Communities of interests are the adjustments that are necessary so that the sense of belonging, which is the most fundamental aspect of politics, is respected in this sharing. Again, Bill C-20 did not at all take communities of interests into consideration. By contrast, Bill C-312, adds this fundamental notion.

If someone does not understand what I am saying, he or she should pretend to be a Quebecker for a moment. Whether he or she chooses to be Alexandrine, Jean or Pierre for a minute, he or she will see what I mean.

We are a distinct nation in a supranational entity. The dynamics are different. Anyone who refuses to see this obvious fact is deeply mistaken. Consequently, it often happens that one goes to the right while the other moves to the left. If we do not consult each other, we could end up doing more of less anything.

That said, it is obvious to the outside world that we are all passengers on the same big ship. Whether we want or not, wherever Canada goes, Quebec follows: that is the nature of things. At least, we try with all the goodwill in the world.

However, this time we are facing a very serious problem, precisely because we did not consult each other. Bill C-20 went through Parliament like the Millennium Falcon. The Conservatives are adopting an overly simplified attitude, whereby they think they are right and good, while we members of the stubborn opposition, are bad and wrong. There is no room for discussion.

Meanwhile what does the Quebec wing of the government do? It shuts up and continues to look shameful.

If people still have trouble seeing things from our perspective, let me explain briefly. The government decided, without consulting us, that Quebec's democratic weight within the Canadian Confederation can be reduced. Since 1982 and the constitutional capers that led to years and years of bickering, and ultimately to neechee vo nyet—nothing at all—it is my job to warn the House.

What about the Quebec members of the Conservative Party? Why have they not said a word about this move to cripple Quebec's democratic status? I do not want to be a Cassandra crying “Death, Death!” but I do believe that the bill was an almost deliberate attack on Quebec. The government goes about this quietly and gradually in order to weaken Quebec. As I have said before in the House, they are taking away a tiny piece now, but they will not stop there. Quebec members are opposed to this, or at least those who can express themselves freely are.

I am really upset about this. As a Quebecker and as a Canadian, I cannot help but think of the opportunity this House missed to fully embrace the best that Canada has to offer. Over the past few months, the NDP has clearly demonstrated that its understanding of the Canadian question is utterly unlike that of the Conservatives and Liberals. Over the past few weeks, it has become obvious that toxic old-school politics are still going strong in Ottawa. In fact, it is getting worse, with cheating, fraud and bickering ruling the day. This comes as no surprise, because it is the only political culture they understand. It is in their DNA. We will see whether the Canadians who have been lied to remember. To Quebeckers, the answer will come naturally: “Je me souviens”. I remember.

To us, difference and diversity are our collective wealth. We have to respect, protect, cherish and, above all, fight for it.

I have some examples. One: the inability to protect French. The bill introduced by my colleague from Trois-Rivières on the use of French in federally regulated enterprises was defeated. This is a bilingual country, but only sometimes. Two: the inability to protect the first nations—the sorry example of Attawapiskat and the last minute resolution to Shannen's dream. Fortunately, the government was smart enough to follow our lead on that initiative. Three: the unilateral reduction of Quebec's weight in the House. I could go on.

Maintaining Quebec's political weight in the House of Commons at the same level it was when the motion recognizing Quebec as a nation in a united Canada was adopted, is more than just a number or a number of MPs. It is a guarantee that my difference is respected. In essence, Bill C-20 is the government's way of telling Quebec that resistance is futile.

Respect for the French language, respect for Quebec, respect for first nations civilization: that is the NDP's vision for this country. That is our plan for a truly strong and united Canada.

As a result of this pell-mell approach, Canada will fall apart. A nation is a group of people who see themselves reflected in a common past and who want to extend that experience into the future. Will we think otherwise one day? That question might never be answered.

In closing, I would say that after successive Liberal and Conservative governments, the image of a great and beautiful Canada that was created in 1867 is starting to crack. That bothers me. I will leave the status quo of petty politics to the other parties because we have better things to do in the NDP. Here is to the new generation of politicians who will bring this country back to its rightful place. Here is to a party that respects difference and democracy.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased and proud to be able to rise in the House to support the bill introduced by the hon. member for Compton—Stanstead.

I feel that this bill addresses some major concerns of Quebeckers and that it is a step forward. As the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine has just pointed out, this bill is a logical, concrete and direct extension of recognizing Quebec as a nation. Otherwise, this concept, adopted by the House, would become an empty gesture and of no benefit to Quebeckers.

I would also like to point to the questions and comments of the hon. member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, who, in my view, asked some legitimate questions that can add value to the discussion and to this debate.

First, why did the New Democrats not say right from the start in 2006 that they wanted to go in this direction? I cannot answer for the people who were there at the time. I have been the elected member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie since May 2, 2011. But I can give you a recent example that explains why the NDP voted against the Conservatives' Bill C-20. There were a number of reasons, but one of the main reasons was that the bill reduced Quebec's political weight in the House of Commons. And as Quebeckers and New Democrats, we considered that it made no sense and that the Quebec nation was not respected. That is the first answer I can give him.

Second, for many years, the Constitution has provided for situations in which certain parts of the country are under-represented, with the rule that a province cannot have fewer members of Parliament than senators. Prince Edward Island is an example. So are communities in different situations, such as areas in the north, which are huge, but very sparsely populated. No strict mathematical rule, whereby every voter has the same weight, applies at the moment to the representation of Quebeckers and Canadians in the House. That does not exist and it is reasonable for it not to exist because it would be unfair in historical, linguistic, cultural and sociological terms. That is what the bill introduced by the hon. member for Compton—Stanstead is trying to accommodate.

So there is no arithmetical rule, as the Supreme Court acknowledged in its 1991 decision. I hope I will have the time to come back to that. As there is a straight line back to factors that have already been recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada, there is no problem, in our view.

The hon. member wants exact figures. I have no figures to give him, but I have a formula. Politics and demographics are a bit like chemistry: they react and move.

The proposal is that an electoral divisor will be calculated after each decennial census, that is, in 2011, 2021, 2031. The former divisor is multiplied by the total population of the provinces according to the most recent decennial census. That product is then divided by the total population of the provinces according to the previous decennial census. The present electoral divisor would be 108,000 people. With that formula, Quebec's political weight remains at 24.35% of the population. I doubt if that last section will necessarily get me quoted on the national news because it is not really exciting. But the important concept is to repeat an exercise every 10 years in order to make sure that Quebec's political weight in the House remains the same. For us, it is vitally important that the recognition of Quebec as a nation does not become either a dead issue or a fine example of words in the House that lead to no concrete change.

On November 27, 2006, the House of Commons recognized Quebec as a nation. In order to give meaning to this recognition, there must be some concrete action. We are open to proposals that will allow British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario to get a number of seats that will adequately reflect their demographic growth. However, it is critical that Quebec's representation in the House remain at 24.35%, because the Conservatives are systematically showing contempt and disregard for Quebec, for the vision of Quebec and Canadian progressive and social democrats in the House.

I am going to provide a few examples before quoting court rulings, and also Quebec and Canadian laws which show that the recognition of a community of interest must sometime take precedence over mere numbers and arithmetic rules.

This exists and this is where we are headed. If we recognize communities of interest, what about a nation, which is indeed a very powerful community of interest?

Let us get back to the fact that the Conservatives are not doing anything to meet Quebec's demands. They are even doing the opposite of what Quebeckers are asking. The Conservative government is definitely not respecting Quebeckers' fair share when it comes to the opportunities fund for persons with disabilities. Indeed, since it was created, only 3% of the subsidies have been given to Quebec, while 85% of the $67 million allocated by the federal government were paid in Conservative ridings.

The Conservative government definitely did not give its fair share to Quebec's shipyards. The Conservatives chose companies in Nova Scotia and British Columbia for the construction of new warships but, once again, there was nothing for Quebec, which was ignored.

The Conservative government did not respect Quebec's position and its approach to rehabilitating young offenders. That approach works and it is a model for the world. The Quebec justice minister, Jean-Marc Fournier, clearly opposed this bill, which absolutely does not reflect Quebeckers' values and their approach to justice. On December 5, the Conservatives turned their backs on Quebeckers yet again.

The Conservative government did not respect Quebec's position on the environment. December 12, 2011, was a dark day. That is when the Conservatives decided that Canada would pull out of the Kyoto protocol, which is supported by a large majority of Canadians and also a majority of Quebeckers. Climate change is an important issue for all those who look to the future and who want our planet to remain healthy.

The Conservative government definitely did not respect Quebec's position on the gun registry. On February 15, the Conservatives passed a bill abolishing the register. They even celebrated their victory. That register was created at the initiative of Quebeckers, following the evil and despicable killings at École Polytechnique.

The Conservatives rejected at second reading the bill to protect French in Quebec companies under federal jurisdiction. Yesterday once again, the Conservatives turned their back on Quebeckers. Remember that on April 22, 2010 the Quebec National Assembly passed a unanimous resolution reaffirming that Quebec, as a nation, must be able to enjoy special protection for the weight of its representation in the House of Commons. That resolution calls for elected members here, from all federal political parties, to abandon the passage of any bill whose effect would be to reduce the weight of Quebec’s representation in this House.

This is a clear message that we as New Democrats want to send to all Quebeckers and also to all the elected members of the National Assembly: we are going to carry this message and defend Quebec's interests.

The weight that Quebec had when it was officially recognized as a nation by this House was 24.35%. That proportion adds value to any calculation of the representativeness of seats in the House of Commons. Why? Because any good researcher in fact knows that social science calculations must of course take account of numerical, of arithmetic factors, but also of qualitative factors. Quebec is Canada’s link to the Francophonie, the extension of its culture throughout the world, the influence of its social policies all across the country and even beyond.

That is why this strength, this solidarity that characterizes us, requires effective representation in the House of Commons, that is to say, electoral legislation that will take account of the following three factors in its calculations: demographic representation, appropriate geographic representation, and representation of a community of interests. In that regard, it is my pleasure to quote from the 1991 decision of the Supreme Court:

The content of the Charter right to vote is to be determined in a broad and purposive way, having regard to historical and social context. [Recognition of the nation of Quebec is the historical and social context.] The broader philosophy underlying the historical development of the right to vote must be sought and practical considerations, such as social and physical geography, must be borne in mind.…

The purpose of the right to vote enshrined in s. 3 of the Charter is not equality of voting power per se but the right to "effective representation". The right to vote therefore comprises many factors, of which equity is but one. The section does not guarantee equality of voting power. [There is a distinction between "equity" and "equality".]

Relative parity of voting power is a prime condition of effective representation. Deviations from absolute voter parity, however, may be justified on the grounds of practical impossibility or the provision of more effective representation. Factors like geography, community history, community interests and minority representation may need to be taken into account to ensure that our legislative assemblies represent the diversity of our social mosaic.

In Canada, with the aboriginal nations, we are a nation with two founding peoples. I want to return to the spirit of the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission with a binational, bicultural spirit. The best way to respect the notion of two founding peoples is to vote in favour of Bill C-312 and secure the weight Quebec carries.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in this House today and I thank my colleague from Compton—Stanstead for introducing this bill. I know he is very concerned about democratic, fair representation everywhere in Canada. I thank him for his passion.

The bill my colleague has introduced supplements the government’s Bill C-20. The population is growing in the West and in Ontario, and we agree that the number of seats in those regions needs to be increased. That is not the problem. However, we want to protect the voice of minorities.

Under our Constitution, there must be geographic, demographic and community of interest representation. Quebec is a community of interest by reason of its language, its culture and its difference from the rest of Canada. We saw that in the last election, in fact. It is a distinct community from the rest of Canada. On this side of the House, we think it is important to stand up for that community.

The Supreme Court of Canada has held that factors like geography, history, the interests of the community and the representation of minority groups must be taken into consideration in order to guarantee that legislative assemblies truly represent the diversity of the Canadian mosaic. That is what is in issue in my colleague’s bill.

Certainly there is an imbalance; it has been observed in recent years. There are ridings where there are a lot of people. That is the case in my riding, where the population is much larger. It is easier when ridings are all equal or there is more or less the same number of people. That is why we agree on increasing the number of seats in Alberta and Ontario, but we think that three seats for Quebec are really not sufficient.

My colleague’s bill is an attempt to meet these Canadian needs. What is essential is to recognize the province whose population is considered to be a nation. My colleague from Vaudreuil—Soulanges who just spoke made a connection with the three founding nations. So we cannot wave the Quebec nation away with the back of our hand. Quebec has 24.35% of the seats, but what is wanted now is to increase the number of seats in other provinces. No more thought is being given to the fact that this province is a distinct nation and its number of seats is not being increased so it retains the same weight in the House. My colleague’s Bill C-312 supplements the Conservatives’ bill, to build a strong and united Canada, where everyone feels they are represented.

The motion to recognize Quebec as a nation was adopted five years ago by the Conservative government, with the help of all the other parties in this House. It is time to take action to protect that nation within our country. The government’s bill weakens the Quebec nation. It is time to work together to protect that nation.

For some time, we have seen that the Conservative government does not like Quebec very much. There is the firearms registry, and the contempt for the French language. A letter was sent on January 12 by a Mr. Paul White, the president of the Conservative Party Association in Brome-Missisquoi. He is a Conservative. I am going to quote what he says in his letter, in which he seems to be quite angry:

Today the voice of Quebec is virtually absent in Ottawa’s halls of power, or if present, it is a voice grown mighty small, and mighty easy to ignore.

He continued:

Since the election of May 2, 2011, many Quebec observers have concluded that [the Prime Minister] has consciously decided to ignore Quebec, now that he has convincingly demonstrated that he can win a majority without it.

He closes his letter by saying:

In politics as in life, you deserve what you tolerate. And most Quebec Conservatives are fed up.

It was a Conservative member who said that. This tells us why Quebeckers feel rejected.

The bill of the hon. member for Compton—Stanstead strikes a balance by stating that Quebec is a nation, which has been recognized by all the parties. In 2012, the National Assembly of Quebec even unanimously passed a resolution recognizing “that Quebec, as a nation, must be able to enjoy special protection for the weight of its representation in the House of Commons”.

Even my New Democrat colleagues who do not live in Quebec are in full agreement with that. Quebec is not the main priority for some parties right now. This is not a matter of partisanship, but of acknowledging our history; Canada has three founding peoples and, traditionally, Quebec has always carried a certain weight. When we voted to recognize Quebec as a nation, this weight was 24.35%. On this side of the House, we think it is imperative to maintain this percentage because it is what gives a voice to the people of Quebec.

Currently, questions are being raised about the French language and we are trying our best to defend the voice of Quebeckers, but we are being rejected by the government, which wants to add a large number of seats in provinces other than Quebec and further reduce Quebec's weight. We condemn this behaviour.

I support my colleague's bill fully and in good conscience. I hope that the Conservatives and the Liberals will vote with us for this bill that defends Canadians—not just Quebeckers—and our history. It is important that at some point we say that Quebec's voice needs to be defended.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to give my last Thursday statement of 2011. The fall has been a productive, hard-working and orderly session. It has been capped by results that we have seen in the House during delivering results month since we returned from the Remembrance Day constituency week.

Of particular note, this fall the House passed Bill C-13, the keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act; Bill C-20, the fair representation act; Bill C-18, the marketing freedom for grain farmers act; and Bill C-10, the safe streets and communities act.

Other things were also accomplished, from the appointment of two officers of Parliament to the passing at second reading of Bill C-26, the Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act. I would like to thank the opposition parties who made these accomplishments possible. Nevertheless, the House has a lot of work to do when it returns in 2012.

The things I am looking forward to in 2012 include, after 48 speeches so far, returning to Bill C-19, the ending the long-gun registry act; after 75 speeches so far, continuing debate on second reading of Bill C-11, the copyright modernization act; after 73 speeches so far, continuing debating the opposition motion to block Bill C-4, the preventing human smugglers from abusing Canada's immigration system act from proceeding to committee; and, after 47 speeches so far, continuing debate on second reading of Bill C-7, the Senate reform act.

This winter, the government's priority will continue to be economic growth and job creation. We will thus continue to move forward with our economic agenda by debating legislative measures such as Bill C-23 on the implementation of a Canada-Jordan free trade agreement; Bill C-24 on the implementation of a Canada-Panama free trade agreement; Bill C-25, which is designed to give Canadians another way to plan for retirement through pooled registered pension plans; and Bill C-28 on the appointment of a financial literacy leader.

Needless to say, I am looking forward to the 2012 budget, the next phase of Canada's economic recovery, from the Minister of Finance, and I am looking forward to what I am sure it will deliver for the Canadian economy. This will be the cornerstone of the upcoming session.

With respect to the precise business of the House for the week of January 30, 2012, I will advise my counterparts in the usual fashion in advance of the House returning.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, please let me wish you, my fellow house leaders, all hon. members and our table officers and support staff a very merry Christmas.

In particular, I want to thank the pages, many of whom, as we know, spent their first significant amount of time away from home with us this fall. I wish them a pleasant time back home with family over Christmas. Perhaps we have provided some good stories for them to tell around the dinner table.

Merry Christmas, happy new year and all the best for the break. Here is to a productive, orderly and hard-working 2012.

Merry Christmas and happy new year. May the members of the House rest up in preparation for the hard work to come in a productive and orderly 2012.

Democratic Reform

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

Mr. Speaker, our government is delivering a principled, reasonable and fair bill for all Canadians with the fair representation act. It is truly a national formula. The opposition has brought forward alternatives. I thank those members for contributing to the debate, but I believe that in their attempt to score political points they are ignoring the real consequences of their proposals. It is time to put politics aside and support a truly national strategy on representation that is fair for all Canadians. That is why I am asking the opposition parties to vote for the fair representation act tonight.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that Bill C-20 represents the most practical and fair approach to improving representation in the House of Commons. It is the only truly national representation strategy. It is the only formula that can claim to be fair for all Canadians. Bill C-20 addresses the serious and increasing under-representation of our fastest growing provinces: Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta. The problem is significant right now and it is only going to get worse if we continue with the status quo.

Could the Minister of State for Democratic Reform please tell the House why all parties should be supporting this bill?

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, one of the most important things we are looking forward to in the next week or so is the passage of the major priority pieces of legislation we have been advancing this fall, for which we have been seeking to set timetables to ensure they could pass to be in effect for next year. They are our budget implementation act to ensure that important tax measures are in place like a tax credit for job creation and accelerated capital cost allowance to create jobs; our bill to ensure fair representation, to have that in place in time for the redistribution that is going to unfold next year; and in addition to that another bill which again is a time priority, the crime bill, and I do not think we are going to be able to make that objective.

However, we are looking to get those in place and, having done that, we look forward to, in the next 10 days or so, the very first of those bills we have been working on all fall to actually becoming law. That will be a very exciting time for us when we finally achieve Royal Assent, having spent that time.

I should advise members that next week will be free trade and jobs week. We will begin Monday morning with second reading of Bill C-24, the Canada–Panama free trade act. This free trade agreement was signed on May 14, 2010. It is now time for Parliament to put it into effect, so that Canadians can benefit from the jobs and economic growth it will deliver.

It being free trade and jobs week, we will begin second reading debate on Wednesday of another bill to implement a job-creating free trade agreement. In this case, we will discuss Bill C-23, the Canada-Jordan Free Trade Act, which will implement Canada's first free trade agreement with an Arab country.

This will be the last week before the House adjourns for the holidays. And it is with the Christmas spirit in mind that we hope to have the co-operation of all members in making great progress on a number of important bills with a focus on job creation and economic growth.

On Monday, if we are able to pass Bill C-24, the Canada–Panama free trade bill, we would call Bill C-11, the copyright modernization act. Bill C-11 is another bill that would lead to more jobs in Canada, and our world-leading digital and cultural sectors. Earlier this week, the Liberal motion to block further debate on this important bill was defeated in this House. That means we can get back to second reading debate and I would hope that after being debated for over one sitting week, the opposition will finally allow this bill to get to committee.

If we continue to make the progress I am hoping for, we will then call Bill C-14, the Improving Trade Within Canada Act, for further second reading debate. This is a fairly straightforward bill that will benefit the economy by implementing amendments to the Agreement on Internal Trade agreed by the provinces. I expect all parties will allow it to move swiftly to committee.

In addition to passing these job creating bills, on Monday, ideally, we would then call C-26, the citizen's arrest and self-defence act for further debate.

For the balance of free trade and jobs week, we will continue to debate any of those bills which have not yet been referred to committee. We would also look to begin second reading debate on Bill C-28, the financial literacy leader act. This bill will create a new position in the government dedicated to encouraging financial literacy for Canadians.

As for the balance of this week, which is democratic reform week, Bill C-20, the fair representation act, will be debated tomorrow at report stage, further to the motion adopted yesterday. Third reading in the House on this bill will be Tuesday. This will be followed by a vote Tuesday night, a vote that will give all members in this place an opportunity to vote on the important democratic principle of representation by population.

Senate Reform Act

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, a couple of days ago in the House we debated the merits of Bill C-20, which was all about rearranging the distribution within the House. The NDP very clearly said Quebec needed to be better represented with even arbitrary limits and that it could not go beneath 24% so that it would be properly recognized.

The one place that Quebec is properly recognized historically is in the Senate, where 24 senators are guaranteed to be from Quebec. It is the place in our parliamentary system where regional interests get to speak most loudly. Quebeckers, whether politicians or public opinion, have repeatedly said that they want to keep the Senate--maybe improve it a bit, but keep it, not abolish it.

The fact that the member is speaking about abolition of the Senate when over half of his caucus is from Quebec is something I would like him to address. Does he still have the agreement of half of his caucus that abolishing something that is important for Quebeckers is a good thing?

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Madam Speaker, like my colleagues who rose before me, I am very proud to speak to this bill, which interests me greatly. We care about our democracy, which is what is at stake here today, as my colleague from Winnipeg Centre so eloquently pointed out.

A lot is being said about the purpose of the Senate, and what it seeks to achieve. I was a political science student, so I will take this opportunity to provide an overview of the governing bodies of other nations, particularly the United States. Their experience, as it compares to ours, serves as a justification as to why the Senate must be abolished.

One of the things that the Founding Fathers said about the Senate in the United States was that it was important to have a division in government to protect against the tyranny of the majority. Like us, they have a system where the person with the majority of votes is elected. And yet, we know all too well from our experience here in Canada that there is a percentage of the population that votes for other parties. This is the case in the current Parliament, where 60% of Canadians voted for parties other than the governing party. The principle is, therefore, that with a Senate, the executive—the President, in the case of the United States—and the Supreme Court, it becomes possible to protect against what is known as the tyranny of the majority.

In the United States, they determined that the best way of using the Senate in this instance was to provide regional protection. We are well aware of our history here in Canada and the same principle applies. Essentially, the Senate was created to protect the distinctive features of the regions. Of course, certain provinces are huge, such as Ontario—not necessarily in terms of land mass, but population—contrary to territories or provinces such as Prince Edward Island, which may be smaller, but which, like any other province or territory, are entitled to be democratically protected, in the sense that the opinions of their people are expressed through elected representatives—in an ideal world of course.

The same thing is apparent here. It was true of the United States, where the states, which vary enormously as far as size is concerned—in terms of both population and land mass—each had two senators. And yet the United States learned something far quicker than we did. Unless I am mistaken, it was in the 1950s that the U.S. decided that in order to benefit from this equitable regional representation, and to fulfill the mandate of the Senate, senators had to be elected. The U.S. moved forward by overhauling the constitution, which led to an elected Senate. That was 60 years ago and, of course, we are terrible laggards in this area.

The difference, however, with Canada is that in the United States it was the governors of the states who appointed senators and not the President. The comparison can therefore be drawn with Canada, where the Prime Minister appoints senators, which is very different. How do you achieve regional representation when the Prime Minister of the federal government chooses the senators? It is quite difficult and, in some ways, is a conflict of interest.

So we see that this is the first lesson that has not been learned, and this is something that is still going on today in spite of the intentions of this Prime Minister, who stated that he would never appoint senators. And yet we have people who were defeated in elections who have been appointed to the Senate. This is a huge problem. They are talking about electing senators; they say it will be democratic, that they will respect democracy. It is one thing not to elect senators, but what is worse is to appoint someone whom the public refused to elect. Appointing someone who was not elected is a problem, but it is a more serious problem when the people have said no to those representatives. They have flatly refused to be represented by those individuals, and yet they are appointed nonetheless, and they expect that those individuals will provide the same representation as a person who was elected. That is essentially very illogical logic.

I recall a Liberal member who was just saying that we had a very simplistic position.

I take that as a compliment, because what we are saying is very simple: abolish the Senate. There is nothing complicated about that. There is no point in embarking on debates about very complex bills with huge flaws, like the main flaw that allows the Prime Minister to choose not to appoint elected senators, which is completely contrary to what is supposed to be the nub of this bill. Our position is very simple, and I agree that it is a simplistic proposal, but in the positive sense of the word. It is a solution that will enable us to solve all these problems of patronage and lack of representation, particularly as they relate to the various regions, once and for all.

I also want to talk about a few points that have already been raised by my colleagues, but I want to say more about Bill C-311 in particular, which my colleague from Winnipeg Centre and other colleagues have addressed, and which deals with climate change. We introduced an opposition motion concerning climate change earlier this week. It refers to the withdrawal from Kyoto and this government's lack of vision in that regard. In fact, this House, by a vote of all parties, had passed a bill that was going to strengthen our principles and our fundamental values in that regard, so we could take concrete action on climate change. But that bill was killed by the Senate. The very problematic thing here is that we are not just talking about a bill passed by the House of Commons, a chamber composed of elected representatives, we are also talking about a bill that many ordinary people worked hard to get passed.

I was an activist at the time myself and I worked hard to communicate with members of Parliament about the importance of that bill, and I was by no means alone. People from all across the country worked to make members of Parliament understand the inherent merits of that bill. The organization was very successful because the House passed the bill. The Senate, unfortunately, disregarding the will of the people entirely and with no justification, killed the bill. That is one of the basic problems that Bill C-7, which we have before us today, is not going to solve. The problem will be solved by abolishing the Senate. It is not complicated.

I am going to make an important connection with a debate we had earlier this week on democratic representation. The connection is important because we are talking about democracy again. I am referring to Bill C-20, which deals with redistributing the seats in this House. We know that the Liberal Party's concern was about the costs that would be incurred. But I spoke on the bill and I raised the same point today. Let us talk about reducing costs and about how to pay for that bill so that we can have more democratically elected representation. I repeat once more: it is not complicated. Let us abolish the Senate; we will save millions of dollars that we can use to pay not only for better representation for all provinces, Quebec included, but representation that will take its place in this elected House.

Since I am running out of time, I will conclude my remarks by saying that the Senate was conceived as a way to represent and protect the unique regional features of our country. I can state, specifically as a representative of Quebec, a province that is very aware of the importance of protecting those unique features, such as our language and culture, that I have seen no evidence, especially in recent years, that the Senate is doing its job of protecting that uniqueness. That is one more reason for abolishing it, and one more reason for us, as true elected members of this House, to protect the unique features of our various regions with our actions and our legislation.

[Jean-François Fortin, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to say that I am pleased to rise to present the Bloc Québécois's position on Senate reform.

The Prime Minister is definitely single-minded; he is taking another run at it. Under the cover of increasing the Senate's legitimacy, he is proposing two important changes to the Senate: limiting senators' tenure to nine years and allowing them to be elected by the provinces.

Before explaining my party's position, I would like to point out some of the dangers to democracy lurking in this reform bill. First, electing senators is not such an easy business. That is where the reform proposed by the Prime Minister becomes dangerous. According to the bill, the provinces would be responsible for organizing these elections, which means that implementing the bill would depend entirely on the provinces' goodwill. Most provinces are not interested or are downright hostile to this change that is being made without their consent. The Prime Minister has done nothing to win the co-operation of the provinces in this attempt to reform the Senate, and his inflexibility may result, in the end, in the appointment of some senators who are elected and others who are not.

We would end up with a legislative assembly whose democratic legitimacy would vary, unless the Prime Minister decides to leave some seats vacant. No elections in some provinces, elections in others. This would also be detrimental to the representation of certain provinces. There is another problem: the term limits would not apply to senators appointed before 2008, which would create a double standard. Ultimately, if all senators were elected, and in the absence of true reform, the fundamental problem would remain the same.

With the government's proposal, the election of senators would change the balance of power in Parliament and certainly also between the provinces and with Quebec. The Senate has broad powers that it has practically always used with a certain amount of restraint, out of respect for the House of Commons. Once elected, however, it could use its new legitimacy to stand up to MPs. The exception could become the rule, if the membership of the two houses were different.

The Conservatives' bill brushes this danger aside. So the Conservative government is proposing to reform the Senate with Bill C-7 and to reform the House of Commons with Bill C-20, which would weaken Quebec's position within federal political institutions. So it is doublespeak. On the one hand, the government is saying that it wants to prevent political manipulation by appointing senators for partisan reasons. And on the other hand, as we have seen over the past few months and the past few years, the job of senator has increasingly become a political reward given by the Prime Minister largely to his friends. The Senate as an institution is less and less useful to democracy.

The Bloc Québécois is in favour of abolishing the Senate. But let us remember that Quebec's traditional position is that any change to the Senate must be made with the consent of the provinces, especially Quebec. The Canadian Constitution is a federal constitution. There are therefore very good reasons for ensuring that a change in the essential characteristics of the Senate should not be made by Parliament alone, but rather should be subject to a constitutional process involving Quebec and the provinces.

As far back as the late 1970s, the Supreme Court of Canada looked at the power of Parliament to unilaterally change the constitutional provisions dealing with the Senate. In 1980, the court ruled that decisions regarding major changes, like the ones the Conservatives are proposing today, that affect the fundamental features of the Senate cannot be taken unilaterally. Changes to the powers of the Senate—the method of selecting senators, the number of senators to which a province is entitled, or the residency qualifications of senators—can be made only in consultation with Quebec and the provinces. Furthermore, in 2007, Benoît Pelletier, the former Quebec minister of Canadian intergovernmental affairs who is well known in the field, reiterated Quebec's traditional position, and I quote:

The Government of Quebec believes that this institution does not fall exclusively under federal jurisdiction. Given that the Senate is a crucial part of the Canadian federal compromise, it is clear to us that...the Senate can be neither reformed nor abolished without Quebec's consent.

The same day, in the National Assembly of Quebec, a resolution was adopted, a unanimous motion that read as follows:

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

With the unanimous support of the National Assembly of Quebec, the Government of Quebec therefore requested the withdrawal and/or suspension of the various bills that had been introduced over time by the Conservative government with a view to Senate reform.

This position by the Government of Quebec is not new. It is an historical position. Following the unilateral patriation of the Constitution in 1982, successive Quebec governments, be they sovereignist or more federalist, all agreed on one basic premise: they did not want to discuss Senate reform before the Meech Lake accord was ratified, as Robert Bourassa said in 1989.

A little later, in 1992, Gil Rémillard said that Quebec's signing of an agreement involving Senate reform would depend on the outcome of negotiations on three important things: the idea of a distinct society, the division of power and limiting the federal spending power.

Finally, on November 7, 2007, the National Assembly of Quebec unanimously adopted the motion I mentioned earlier in my speech.

As for the people of Quebec, a fairly recent poll from March 2010 clearly shows that the majority of Quebeckers do not give any value to the Senate in its current form and that a larger proportion of them are in favour of abolishing it completely.

Here are a few figures to be more specific. Only 8% of respondents from Quebec believe that the Senate plays an important role and that the Senate appointment system works well. In addition, 22% of Quebeckers would prefer to have elected senators, while 43% would like the Senate abolished completely.

Not only is this bill unwanted, but it is undesirable.

For all these reasons, the Bloc Québécois will vote against the bill introduced by the government and, as members know, it would ideally like the Senate abolished.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today in the House to debate and criticize Bill C-7.

The Liberal Party of Canada has always defended democracy and representation. Therefore we do not object to the democratic goal of Senate reform proposed by Bill C-7, but on the other hand we do object to the constitutional problems, conflicts and injustices which this reform would inevitably bring about. This reform would indeed add some democratic legitimacy to the Senate, but that very legitimacy would bring its own share of problems.

A number of new problems would be created, and basically, for what? To try to solve a democratic deficit problem which in fact has very few real consequences. In its current form, the Senate very rarely blocks bills from the House of Commons. Why? Simply because senators are not elected and the public does not see it as having the legitimacy to block the bills produced by democratically elected members of Parliament. Senate reform would give them that democratic legitimacy, and hence senators would be correct to affirm that they have a clear mandate from Canadians and would begin to block certain bills since they would represent the population on the same footing as MPs.

Let us be realistic: to get elected, senators will have to have ideas, make promises and take positions. They will have a mandate to defend the positions for which they were elected to the Senate. That also brings with it other problems, such as political party financing. It would then be necessary to increase taxpayers’ contributions, because the Senate would have to be included. It would not be just for MPs, but a whole new series of laws would be necessary to govern senators during their election campaigns.

Do we really need disputes between the two chambers? Since 1945, only very rarely has the Senate blocked bills from the House of Commons. With this reform, one can easily imagine an impasse being caused by a Senate most with a majority of members from a certain party as it faces a House of Commons with a majority from another party. In that sort of scenario, blockages would become frequent and do harm to the political dynamics of Canada that make change possible.

Do Canadians really want a political situation in which change is difficult, or do they want quick changes when problems arise? The answer to that question is obvious. With such a reform to the Senate, the political situation in Canada would, at best, become similar to that in the United States. Canadians deserve better. If the Conservatives were serious about this bill, they would propose mechanisms for avoiding blockages in the Senate. Unfortunately, this bill ushers in another problem, which is the current distribution of the Senate.

As I mentioned earlier, an elected Senate would have more power because it would have the legitimacy to be actively involved in debates. This raises a problem of current interest, namely, the distribution of senators across the entire country. For example, today, Alberta and British Columbia have only six senators each, while the province of Prince Edward Island has four and New Brunswick has ten. The demographic situation in Canada has changed a great deal since the time the distribution of Senate seats was established.

If senators had more power, do we really believe that Alberta and British Columbia would accept being seriously under-represented, the way they are now? Changing the allocation of Senate seats would not satisfy all provinces either. So what should we do? Should we take seats away from some provinces or add some more? The Conservatives will probably want to do the same thing they have suggested in Bill C-20, that is, add more senators so that each province feels it has gained something.

Do we really believe those provinces which would lose their relative representation in the Senate would be happy about it?

Let us look at the percentage mentioned in Bill C-20, which suggests adding 30 seats to the current 308. That would mean adding 10 seats in the Senate. However, as there has been no increase in the number of Senate seats since it was established, the Conservatives may want to increase that number from 105 to 500 or so, based on how the country has grown since then. I don't know what they have in mind, but I believe representation will need to change if senators are elected. I do not know whether they will be brave enough to change the allocation of seats in the House of Commons without adding any seats. If not, they will not have the guts to do it in the Senate, either.

Meddling with the Senate will lead to quarrels. Why would the Conservative government want to create more interprovincial conflicts? Although the current situation is unfair to the western provinces, it is not all that problematic since the Senate allows the House of Commons to legislate as it sees fit. As I said earlier, a democratically elected Senate would simply create more barriers. This bill will create interprovincial quarrels and political blockages.

So what would we do to avoid the Senate blocking bills from the House of Commons? We would have to create constitutional mechanisms for resolving disputes. It is highly likely that other elements of this bill will be deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada. For this bill to work, the government would therefore have to reopen the Constitution. We know how difficult a subject the Constitution is. It would be necessary to have the support of at least seven provinces, as has already been said today, representing at least 50% of the population. If we reopen the Constitution, it is highly likely that the provinces will also want something in return for their support.

Take the case of Quebec, for example. I remind you that Quebec has still not signed the 1982 Constitution. Do we seriously think it will be so easy to ask Quebec to close its eyes and sign? As a Quebecker, I would say no.

Would the maritime provinces be in favour of losing their weight in the Senate? I do not think so.

Is the Conservative government prepared to declare today that it will reopen the Constitution if necessary? I very much doubt it.

In short, this bill is probably unconstitutional and, if the government decides to move ahead with it, it will lead to constitutional confrontations.

As my colleagues can see, there are many “ifs” to this bill. It is precisely for that reason that we are opposed to it, for too many problems may arise. If the government were serious about this reform, it would respond to our concerns with amendments and would negotiate with the provinces. At present that is not the case, so there will be quarrels between the provinces, legal challenges and confrontations between the House of Commons and the Senate.

Finally, there is another problem to consider. What do we do if the Prime Minister refuses to recommend an elected senatorial candidate? In fact it is always the Governor General who appoints senators on the recommendation of the prime minister. The Prime Minister never appoints them directly, so a mere bill cannot force the Prime Minister to have a candidate appointed.

In spite of all the problems I have raised, this bill might well make no change apart from the problems I have mentioned. Let us be clear: this government does not even follow the rules when it comes to appointing an Auditor General. Can we believe that it will follow the rules for the Senate?

Like the rest of the Canadian population, we are in favour of democratic representation,but in this case, the reform will only create problems. At the moment the Senate is not democratic, but it lets the elected officials present their bills, and in so doing respects Canadian democracy. Furthermore, we believe that this reform is unconstitutional, and we know for a fact that the Conservative government does not want to reopen the Constitution.

The government must not do half the job: either let it commit to a total reform, including negotiations with the provinces and reopening the Constitution, or let it keep the status quo.

In closing, I want to emphasize the following point. We are not opposed to a democratic reform of the Senate, but we are opposed to the way that the Conservatives want to do it.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House and the Speaker for allowing me this time, as well as for allowing the debate regarding the House of sober second thought to move ahead.

Over many years, certainly since the inception of this country, this debate has raged on as to its content, how it proceeds, how it is selected and how it goes about its daily business. It has been debated across the country in many forums, sometimes high profile and other times not so high profile. Nonetheless, there have been several repeated attempts to make it better reflect the opinions and the diversity of this country, not just of persons but also the regions that many of us represent. Therefore, I will go through a brief analysis.

I do not think we thank the people who work in the Library of Parliament enough. However, I am thankful to them and, in particular, Sebastian Spano, who did some background information on this. He brought forward some great points. He also brought forward an historical context with respect to the Senate and, in particular, this bill, the thrust of which proposes two things: that we should limit the duration of time that senators can sit, in this case nine years; as well as allow the participation of the provinces in the selection of senators and, more to the point, in the election of senators, which is a practice that has been done circuitously at best when it comes to the situation.

For instance, we remember the particular appointments of the late Stan Waters, as well as Bert Brown, but they were not direct elections per se. This particular bill hopes to bring a direct election within the confines of the Senate, along with term limits.

The bill is divided into two parts. The authors of the bill, in this case the government and the minister in question, have expressed a desire to initiate a process for constitutional reform leading to an elected Senate “in the near future”, which begs the question whether this opens the door to something else. I assume that it does, given that the origins of the party in power always talk about the triple E Senate, equal, elected and effective, which, in my opinion, refers to two things, being equal and elected. Whether it is effective remains to be seen.

The legislative model would allow voters to select candidates wishing to be considered for appointment to the Senate. It does that on two levels. It does that at provincial elections and municipal elections, which is something I will discuss a little later.

It should be noted that the bill would impose no obligation on the provinces or the territories to establish a selection process. However, the nominees model and framework is set out in the schedule, a lot of which the entire framework is set out in the province of Alberta legislation, which is what the schedule is modelled on.

Bill C-20, An Act to provide for consultations with electors on their preferences for appointments to the Senate, was a past attempt to do this. There were past recent attempts in both the Senate and here. We had Bill S-7 and Bill C-20, which were two ways of doing that, both of which died on the order paper in 2008.

I will trace back to when it all started. Basically six major changes were proposed with respect to how the Senate should react through committees, through the House of Commons, as well as through the Senate. First, in 1887, they proposed a Senate in which half would be appointed by the federal government and the other half would be appointed by the provincial governments. Again, we go back to the appointment process. There was no election involved.

The second time this happened was at the end of the 1960s. In the constitutional conference of 1969, the federal government of the day proposed that senators be selected in part by the federal government and in part by the provincial governments, which is the same sort of situation we had in 1887. As well, the provinces could choose the method of selection of senators, whether by nomination by the provincial governments or with the approval of their legislatures. The difference here is that in the past they wanted to infuse provincial input into this by allowing them to appoint but it never set out the way it was to be done, whether by election or appointment. I am assuming they wanted to do it by appointment of the legislatures so they would choose their own, but we can get the idea.

What they wanted to do, for the most part, for the past 144 years, was bring the provinces into a direct consultation process and a process to directly appoint senators to Parliament.

Third, in 1978, the Government of Canada's proposal for a time for action, as the document was called, a renewed Constitution, which would include a house of the federation that would replace the Senate. How interesting is that? It was probably something similar to what the Council of Europe has in Strasbourg.

Basically, the legislators in their home provinces would come to Ottawa and use the Senate, the upper chamber, as a house of the federation, as it was called. Now that proposal did not last very long. It is did not cause a lot of excitement around here and it did not get a lot of media attention. Nonetheless, it was something that was brave and bold for its time.

Bill C-60 was tabled and received first reading in the House of Commons in 1978. In 1979, the Pépin-Robarts task force on Canadian unity recommended the abolition of the Senate and the establishment of the council of the federation. It moved one step further. The council of the federation was to be composed of provincial delegations led by a person of ministerial rank or by the premier of a province. I suggest that members in this House may want to look at that as a proposal, as an alternative, as in the case of the NDP who want to abolish the Senate. There is something there the NDP may want to consider.

In 1984, the Molgat-Cosgrove Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons recommended that senators be directly elected. The Royal Commission on the Economic Union and Development Prospects for Canada recommended that senators be elected in elections held simultaneously with elections to the House of Commons. Therein lies the rub. That is where the direct participation of the provinces is needed, depending on the formula, in particular, seven provinces representing 50% of the population.

That brings us to 1987. I have three words, Meech Lake accord. We all remember that. That was one of the more high-profile attempts at reforming the Senate, a constitutional reform that would have had implications for the method of selecting senators.

With the Meech Lake accord, once a vacancy occurred in the Senate, the provincial government of the province in which the vacancy existed could submit a list of nominees for potential appointments to the Senate. It was somewhat circuitous in the way it went about its business. The provinces would provide a list of people for the prime minister through the governor general to select. That is a little different but, nonetheless, I do not think it would have put it into the context of allowing the provinces to be directly involved simply because it was more of an advisory role. That brings me to this bill, but I will get to that in a little bit.

In 1992, the Beaudoin-Dobbie Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on a renewed Canada recommended the direct election of senators under a proportional representational system. Therein again lies the participation of the provinces.

Several provinces have enacted their own legislation to make way for this type of procedure where they would be involved in electing senators to the Senate. We know about Alberta. It enacted a senatorial selection act in 1989 which set out the guidelines by which they could do that.

In 1990, British Columbia enacted a senatorial selection act as well, which mirrors the counterpart in Alberta, and it did lapse by the way, but it has been reported in recent media accounts that British Columbia may revive this type of legislation.

In 2009, Saskatchewan passed the Senate nominee election act, which received royal assent but has not been proclaimed into force yet.

In Manitoba, there is the special committee on Senate reform. Manitoba took a different track. In November 2009, it proposed an election process for selecting Senate nominees to be administered by Elections Canada and to be paid for by the federal government. Manitoba went in a different way, which tied it a little more directly into the federal system, certainly with Elections Canada, and proposed that the federal government would look after it. As my hon. colleague from Manitoba points out, it was put forward by Gary Doer of the former NDP government.

Proposals for reforming Senate tenure, again from 1867 to 1985, I mentioned the Molgat-McGuigan committee and others. There were several guiding principles involved, which brings me to the point I am trying to make here when it comes to Senate reform. This is why this particular bill could find itself in trouble.

A few years back a former premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, Danny Williams, made a representation by saying that this cannot be done without the provinces. I think he was right and here is why.

In a judgment delivered in 1980, the court articulated a number of guiding principles in the British North America Act and the Senate. It said, basically, that in many ways we cannot change the spirit of the legislation because of the effect of direct election to the Senate. It said that what we would end up doing is changing the very thrust of the way the Senate operates. However, in this particular case, the Conservatives will convince themselves that it is not direct, but it is, thanks to clause 3, which states that the Prime Minister must consider this.

Bill C-20—Time Allocation Motion

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again today, this Conservative government's behaviour is pathetic. What was once supposed to be an exception is becoming the norm. For the ninth time this fall, the government is limiting time for debate in the House. It is a sign of contempt for parliamentarians, democracy, this institution, our debates and Parliament. The Conservatives are systematically preventing parliamentarians from speaking and debating because they do not want to listen.

They claim that it is urgent. What is urgent is helping people in Attawapiskat, the unemployed, people who are losing their jobs and people who are going to food banks on Christmas Eve. Bill C-20 addresses a serious issue that will change this House, but it is not urgent. The government should take time to hold debates and listen to everyone.

Why is this government incapable of moving its bills through the House without limiting debate?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-20, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867, the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act and the Canada Elections Act, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at report stage of the Bill and one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said Bill; and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government orders on the day allotted to the consideration at report stage and on the day allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

Democratic Representation Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party does not support the bill. I will explain why the bill is unconstitutional and impractical.

Let us begin with the first point, that Bill C-312 is unconstitutional.

In permanently fixing the percentage of seats for a province, the NDP is asking Parliament to contradict the principle of proportionate representation of the provinces in the House of Commons. This principle is well entrenched in our Constitution. We should all be proud that our Constitution affirms rep-by-pop. That is a fundamental principle of democracy.

Parliament has some leeway in how it applies the principle of proportionate representation of the provinces when dealing with the effective representation of communities and provinces that are in relative decline. In a 1987 ruling, the B.C. Supreme Court stated, “The principle of representation 'prescribed' by the Constitution does not require perfect mathematical representation...”. A year later the B.C. Court of Appeal said that what must be preserved is “the principle, not a specific formula”. That leeway has its limits. Parliament cannot run afoul of the principle of proportionate representation. That would be unconstitutional.

Section 42(1)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1982 states that to amend this principle we need the agreement of Parliament and the legislative assemblies of at least seven provinces representing at least 50% of the population, the famous 7-50 formula.

Bill C-312 mentions a Supreme Court decision of June 6, 1991, but this ruling applied to the delimitation of ridings, not to the representation of a whole province.

All democratic federations try to accommodate communities while delimiting ridings, but no democratic federation gives extra representation to a whole constitutional jurisdiction on the grounds of its culture or national character. That would be an extraordinary decision requiring a constitutional amendment that Parliament cannot do alone without the consent of its constitutional partners, the provinces. In other words, the NDP and the Bloc are asking Parliament to show disrespect for provincial constitutional jurisdiction.

The NDP and the Bloc are asking Parliament to exceed its jurisdiction regarding the House of Commons reform with Bill C-312.

The Conservatives are asking Parliament to exceed its jurisdiction regarding Senate reform with Bill C-7.

Only the Liberals are consistently respecting the Constitution. We urge all our colleagues in the House to show respect for the basic law of the land, the Constitution of Canada.

This brings me to my second point, that Bill C-312 is impractical. Bill C-312 is not only unconstitutional, it is impractical. It is so impractical that the NDP chose to not release the number of additional seats that would be required in order to fulfill all the rules included in Bill C-312. Those members well know that it would be a very large House indeed.

The first rule is with respect to equitable representation of fast growing provinces. Today, Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta are likely to be the most under-represented jurisdictions in the world of democratic federations. This is unfair for the Canadian citizens living in these provinces. Furthermore, this under-representation is now so substantial that it is likely to be unconstitutional. We need to redress this issue.

The second rule is the Senate clause, “The right of a province to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of senators by which the province is entitled to be represented...”. This section of the Constitution can only be changed through our federation members' unanimous decision.

The third rule is the grandfather clause. Like the government, the NDP does not have the courage and the wisdom to revise this rule enacted by Parliament in 1985, which stops us from reducing the number of MPs representing a province.

The fourth rule is that the proportion of members from the province of Quebec shall remain unchanged from its current representation, which constitutes 24.35%.

Let us try to figure out how these rules would work together. In order to address the fastest growing provinces' under-representation while respecting the grandfather clause and the Senate clause, the government through Bill C-20, proposes to add 30 new seats. That would bring the House to 338 seats. In order to bring Quebec's share to 24.35%, six new seats would need to be added. We would be at 344 seats. Then Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta would be too under-represented again. Once we added seats for them, Quebec would need more seats to stay over the 24.35%, and so on and so forth. Even with the House at 350 seats, we would not reach a fair House with the combination of these rules.

This is for 2011. Let us imagine what it would be like for 2021 or 2031. What kind of ballooning would occur in the House? What would Canadians have to pay for it? If the NDP members claim that we are wrong with our numbers, we challenge them to release their own numbers. I bet they will not do it because they know full well that their numbers are far-fetched.

There is another reason the Liberal caucus cannot support the bill. Both the 308 seat Liberal plan and the 338 seat Conservative plan accept the rules that ensure that any currently overrepresented province does not become under-represented. However, Bill C-312 does not include this rule. Does that mean that for the NDP it would be acceptable that perhaps Manitoba or Nova Scotia would be under-represented? If so, why? Would it be because they are not nations? If this is the case, I want to hear from our colleague from Compton—Stanstead. Can he confirm that he is speaking on behalf of his NDP colleagues from Manitoba and Nova Scotia and that they are okay with the view that their provinces may be under-represented in this House since they are not nations?

Each national party has the obligation to say the same thing in English and in French through our great country. I challenge the NDP to do so on this matter, to start by releasing its numbers.

By the way, if the NDP and the Bloc thought that the motion passed in the House on November 27, 2006, meant that Quebec as a nation within a united Canada should have more weight than other provinces, since those provinces are not nations within a united Canada, why did those two parties not say so when they voted for the motion in the House on November 27, 2006?

In the meantime, we Liberals will, as always, remain consistent. In principle, we will oppose the bill because it is unconstitutional and impractical. We urge all members of Parliament to support the Liberal plan for a fair and balanced House of Commons without adding any seats. Three hundred and eight seats will suffice. Put in the proper context of what is happening in the world today, 308 seats will, in fact, work.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Minister of State and Chief Government Whip]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to participate in the debate on Bill C-312, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (democratic representation), introduced by the hon. member for Compton--Stanstead.

House of Commons representation is a subject that I am pleased to discuss, especially since addressing the significant and increasing under-representation of the fastest growing provinces is a long-standing commitment of this government and the Conservative Party of Canada.

In restoring fair representation in the chamber, our government is focused on three objectives. First, increasing the number of seats now and in the future for the faster growing provinces of Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario. Second, protecting the seat counts for the smaller provinces. Third, ensuring that Quebec's representation is proportional to its population.

On October 27, 2011, we delivered on our pledge to Canadians with the introduction of Bill C-20, the fair representation act, which seeks to update the formula allocating seats in the House of Commons in a way that is fair for all provinces. The fair representation act offers a principled approach that delivers on our government's three key representation promises. It is fair for all provinces.

The fair representation act currently before the House of Commons, and even though the bill moves every Canadian closer to representation by population, members on this side of the House are the only members who are standing up for all Canadians by voting in favour of the fair representation act.

Today, however, we are debating private member's Bill C-312, the democratic representation act, which also proposes to amend the formula for allocating seats in the House of Commons. While our government's fair representation act presents a nationally applicable formula that brings all provinces closer to representation by population, Bill C-312 cannot make the same claim. Therefore, I cannot speak in support of this bill.

Bill C-312 seeks to amend the formula in the constitution for allocating seats in the House of Commons. Taking cues from our government's legislation from the last Parliament, Bill C-312 proposes that electoral quotient for the first redistribution be set at 108,000. This reflects the approximate average riding population at the 2008 general election. Since we are now in 2011, almost 2012, those numbers are clearly out of date.

Bill C-312 also proposes to add a new rule to the formula that would provide the province of Quebec with a fixed percentage of seats based on Quebec's representation in the House of Commons when the motion recognizing that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada was adopted. This means that, under Bill C-312, Quebec's representation would be set at 24.35% of the seats in the House of Commons.

Although I appreciate my hon. colleague's effort, I have concerns that prevent me from supporting Bill C-312. I will explain.

The primary motive of addressing representation in the House of Commons is to deal with the significant and increasing under-representation of high growth provinces. I have concerns that the bill would not adequately address the under-representation of Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario. Due to the requirement to fix the representation of Quebec at 24.35% of seats in the House of Commons, the representation for Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario would only marginally improve.

Additionally, I find that the concept of fixing the representation of a single province in the House of Commons is contrary to our constitutional history and principles. The Fathers of Confederation believed that the provinces should be proportionately represented in the House of Commons, meaning that the basis for allocating the seats for provinces should reflect their share of the population.

As a result of this belief, our Constitution provides for the proportionate representation of the provinces, which has become a fundamental principle of our democracy. At the same time, the importance of ensuring protection for slower growing provinces has been recognized through measures such as seat floors. For example, our Constitution currently provides that no province should have fewer seats in the House of Commons than it does in the Senate. While it may be that only certain provinces currently benefit from these guarantees, the protection is provided to all provinces should the situation arise.

Our position on representation in the House of Commons is clear: Any updates to the formula allocating House of Commons seats should be fair for all provinces and nationally applicable.

After reviewing the proposal set out in Bill C-312, I can firmly say that our government's fair representation act is stronger in all areas. The formula proposed in the fair representation act is a principled, nationally applicable formula that brings every province closer to representation by population, because, on this side of the House, we are governing for all Canadians, not just some provinces.

As a result, the fair representation act provides better relative representation for the faster growing provinces of Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario than Bill C-312.

Our government's proposal also provides a reasonable increase in the number of seats in the House of Commons, compared with Bill C-312. Following the first adjustment on the fair representation act, the total number of seats in the House of Commons would be 338. Under Bill C-312, it may be as high as 351 members. We make no apologies for addressing the significant and increasing under-representation of Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta but we are all conscious of the need to manage the growth of our parliamentary institutions. Growth can be responsibly managed without pitting region against region, Canadian against Canadian, while still moving every province closer to representation by population. The fair representation act would achieve both objectives.

Additionally, our government bill introduces a representation rule. This representation rule would ensure representation by population for slower growth provinces. If a currently over-represented province becomes under-represented as a result of the application of the updated formula, additional seats would be allocated to that province so that its representation is equal to its share of the population. This rule, which would apply equally to all provinces, means that Quebec would be the first province to benefit from this application. The province would receive an additional three seats in the next re-adjustment. Under the fair representation act, Quebec has 23% of the population and would have 23% of the seats in the House of Commons.

When compared to Bill C-312, the fair representation act would provide better relative representation for faster -growing provinces, would ensure protection for slower growing provinces and would guarantee that Quebec's representation is proportional to its population, all while managing the growth of the House of Commons. Simply put, the formula put forward in the fair representation act is better than the proposal we are considering today.

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

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that Bill C-20 , the fair representation act, laid out very clearly how many seats each province would receive and how those seats would be distributed. After hearing the member's speech, it is not very clear how many seats the provinces would receive.

The member focused on Quebec, but I still do not have any numbers. What are the numbers? Why is he not talking about how many seats each province would receive? Why is he not being clear about the numbers?

Procedure and House Affairs

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in relation to Bill C-20, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867, the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act and the Canada Elections Act. The committee studied the bill and decided to report the bill back to the House without amendment.

Opposition Motion--Closure and Time Allocation

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

Mr. Speaker, I am splitting my time with the hon. member for Macleod.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to today's motion from the member for Windsor—Tecumseh. I also want to acknowledge the two previous speakers for their good work in the House and the privilege of working with them on the procedure and House affairs committee.

On May 2, Canadians gave the Conservatives a strong, stable national majority government. Canadians expect us to fulfill our commitments to them and that is exactly what we are doing. We are moving forward on our election commitments to implement the next phase of Canada's economic action plan.

There are EI measures within this bill that encourage job creation. There is the accelerated capital cost allowance for small businesses to invest in efficient equipment. There are measures to protect law-abiding Canadians. These important measures for the safety of our communities and for the safety of our children and of our grandchildren have been stalled by the opposition. The Conservatives would also provide marketing freedom for western Canadian grain farmers, something Ontario farmers have had for decades but the same privilege has not been granted to our western colleagues. There are measures to eliminate once and for all the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry. There are measures to provide fair representation to all provinces in the House of Commons and move every single province closer to representation by population. As my colleagues across the way will know, we have MPs serving fewer than 40,000 constituents while others are serving four times that many. This imbalance needs to be addressed.

We have introduced legislation in this House on all of these important measures. However, despite the talking points being used across the aisle, not one of these measures is law yet. We have seen delay tactic after delay tactic. Each of these bills has been extensively debated in the House of Commons and at committee hearings.

As an example, let us look at Bill C-13, the keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act. This bill would implement the 2011 budget. We on this side of the House think that the 2011 budget should be passed into law in 2011. Looking at the calendar, there is not a lot of time left before we get to the new year. The new year, 2012, is only weeks away and we still have not implemented budget 2011 because of opposition delay tactics.

This bill includes important measures from this year's budget, including a job-creation tax for small business. All of us in this House agree that small business is the economic engine of Canada. There is the family caregiver tax credit. My colleague knows first-hand how important it is to make it easier for families to care for gravely ill relatives. There is the children's arts tax credit and the volunteer firefighters tax credit. In rural and remote parts of Canada, it is important that we have recruitment and retention tools for our volunteer firefighters. There is tax relief for the manufacturing sector, as I mentioned, the accelerated capital cost allowance. The bill includes making the gas tax refund permanent. Municipalities are constantly asking for predictable funding for their infrastructure needs.

All of these measures would promote job creation and economic growth. They would help add to the nearly 600,000 jobs already created in Canada since the global economic recession. These measures were supported by Canadians from sea to sea. They were exactly what Canadians voted for when they re-elected the Conservative government on May 2, with a majority mandate. However, we know the opposition has voted against these job-creating measures. For some reason, it opposes these positive and important job-creating initiatives.

I know today's motion is about debate in this place so allow me to outline just how much debate has already been given to the next phase of Canada's economic action plan. The budget was introduced on March 22 by the Minister of Finance. Debate on the budget started before the opposition forced an unnecessary election. Following the 37-day election campaign, which was focused on the Canadian economy, we moved quickly to reintroduce the budget on June 6. That was followed by four days of debate on the budget in June before we rose for the usual summer break in our constituencies.

When we came back in the autumn, we introduced the keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act to implement the budget. That bill was debated for four days at second reading before being referred to the Standing Committee on Finance. That committee found time amid its 2012 pre-budget consultations to study the bill. After it was reported back to the House, it was debated for three further days at third reading and report stage. All told, the job-creating measures of the next phase of Canada's economic action plan as set out in Bill C-13 have been deliberated in this House for 12 days. That does not include the two afternoons used for the spring's two budget speeches. Just to repeat, we have had 12 days of debate on these important and urgent economic measures in this House. It is time for action.

I want to turn briefly to a second major bill in this fall sitting, Bill C-10, the safe streets and communities act.

During this spring's election, our Conservative government promised Canadians that we would pass comprehensive law and order legislation within the first 100 sitting days after the election. Looking at today's order paper, I see that today is the 54th sitting day. Just yesterday, the bill was reported from the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The bill includes important measures, including proposals which would crack down on pedophiles who prey on children, and violent gangs that sell drugs to our children. These are all very important items that need to become law.

Despite some 27 hours or so of committee proceedings dedicated to clause-by-clause study and related business, we already have some 34 amendments to the bill tabled for report stage, which we will have to debate and vote on. I have no doubt whatsoever that we will see that number grow before the bill comes forward for debate on Tuesday morning.

After report stage and third reading, the bill will then go to the other place where the entire legislative process will be repeated.

It is fair to say that we are just about one-third of the way through the passing of Bill C-10 into law. One-third might sound like a breeze to some, but passing the nine predecessor bills to Bill C-10 has been anything but a breeze over the last several years and, in some cases, over three Parliaments. There have already been 95 hours of debate in this chamber alone on these proposals. In both houses there have been 261 speeches. That sounds to me to be pretty thorough debate already.

If I had a lot more time, I would go on about some of the other key priority bills of the government, such as Bill C-20, the fair representation act, and Bill C-18, the marketing freedom for grain farmers act, just to name two. Each has its own important and urgent requirements to become law this fall in order to meet timing demands driven by facts of life outside the House of Commons. Farmers need certainty before they plant their spring crops. Boundary commissions need to know what numbers they are working with, and they need to know that by February.

I cannot help but comment on the proposals set out in the motion put forward today by the member for Windsor—Tecumseh. I have to be honest; I am quite confused by the mixed messages it sends.

The NDP House leader has put forward a motion that would give the Speaker only 19 sitting days to study his proposals. The debate he contemplates following the Speaker's report would appear to last but one single solitary day. If we look at the wording of his motion, the member is basically putting closure on his own motion.

On top of that, it is totally and completely ironic that the Speaker is required by the Standing Orders to put the NDP's motion to a vote after only two hours of debate in this House. This has to be the shortest debate on any item in the House since we came back in September.

In closing, Conservative members will be voting against the motion which tries to sidestep the fact that the opposition parties are trying to stop good things for Canadians, things which Canadians voted for just six months ago. The NDP wants to stop that great progress, to stop these things from becoming law, despite thorough and extensive debate and study.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, the thorough examination and debate of proposed legislation on behalf of Canadians is an essential duty of Members of Parliament, and that the curtailment of such debate limits the ability of Members to carry out this duty and constitutes an affront to Canadian democracy; and, therefore,

that the Speaker undertake a study and make recommendations to amend the Standing Orders with respect to closure and time allocation, such that: (i) a Minister would be required to provide justification for the request for such a curtailment of debate; (ii) the Speaker would be required to refuse such a request in the interest of protecting the duty of Members to examine legislation thoroughly, unless the government’s justification sufficiently outweighs the said duty; (iii) criteria would be set out for assessing the government’s justification, which would provide the Speaker with the basis for a decision to allow for the curtailment of debate;

that the Speaker report to the House no later than February 6, 2012;

that a motion to concur in the said report may be moved during Routine Proceedings, and that only when no Member rises to debate the motion, the Speaker shall interrupt any proceedings then before the House and put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment, every question necessary to dispose of the motion; and

if no motion to concur in the report has been previously moved and disposed of on the 20th sitting day following the presentation of the report, Standing Orders 57 and 78 shall be deemed to have been deleted.

Mr. Speaker, this motion has been brought before the House at this time because of the government's gross overuse of shutting down debate in the House, whether it is by a formal closure motion, which shuts down debate immediately, or by time allocation motions, which provide extremely limited time for debate on crucial issues facing both the House and the country more generally.

It is important that we recognize the effect of the motion. It is not that you, Mr. Speaker, need a greater workload, but that is the thrust of the motion. The motion would remove a government's unilateral ability to shut down debate in the House and would allow the Speaker, as an independent officer of Parliament, to make the decision as to when it is appropriate to curtail debate and when it is an abuse of the process. Therefore, a request for curtailment of debate could in fact be rejected by the Speaker of the day.

I have done some analysis of other jurisdictions that have similar parliaments to ours, such as the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Australia. Going back some 20 or 30 years, all of them moved to provide greater authority to the speaker to regulate when debate should be curtailed, limited or ended. In each of those parliaments, it is quite clear that it is the speaker who ultimately makes the decision in that regard.

The authority is different in each of those legislatures, but the general wording and conduct of the speaker has always been: Is the request for curtailment or ending debate an abuse? Oftentimes the term “of a minority segment of that parliament” is used. It may be a large official opposition or it may be a small third, fourth or fifth party, but the speaker has the authority in each one of those parliaments to make the determination as to whether the request by the government to end or limit debate is an abuse of the rights of the members of Parliament.

I will move on to the context in which this motion is being put forward.

In less than two months of sitting days, we have had time allocation applied to Bill C-13, the budget bill, which was 640 pages long. We were given extremely limited time to debate it. It is the only time, that we have been able to determine, in the history of this country that such a limited amount of time has been given to a budget bill. I know the government House leader said that we had some debate on this in the previous Parliament. However, we have 100 new members of Parliament who were not here and had no opportunity to debate this in the last Parliament.

It is fundamental to our process that a budget bill be given a full extensive debate. We can go back to any number of the authorities where that is repeated over and over again, and not just in this legislature, but in every legislature that works off the Westminster model.

We then had Bill C-18 dealing with the Canadian Wheat Board. This is an institution that is well over 70 years of age. It is iconic in this country. However, on two occasions, at second reading and report stage, we were again slapped with time allocation.

The Wheat Board and the farmers in western Canada were entitled to that debate. The opposition should have been given time in both the House and in committee to deal with that issue. We were given extremely limited time given the significance of what was going to happen if the bill passed, especially when the majority of farmers in western Canada, who use the Wheat Board to sell their wheat, oppose the bill. However, again we were slapped with time allocation on two occasions.

Bill C-10, the omnibus crime bill, is made up of nine former bills brought together. Again the House leader said that we had time to debate this legislation. More than 100 new members did not have time to debate this extremely complex bill because they were not here in the last Parliament.

The Conservatives have accused the opposition of delaying this legislation. On more than one occasion, the NDP has offered to take the part of the bill that deals with crimes against children, sexual predator type crimes, and run it through at all stages. It already passed through the House once before, so we were quite comfortable in having that done. On the more than one occasion that we offered that to the government, it refused and then slapped time allocation on the balance of the bill.

It was the same thing with Bill C-19, the gun control bill. We were given extremely limited time to debate an issue that is topical and very controversial. As the debate has gone on, more and more evidence has come out around reasons to not do away with the long gun registry. There was no opportunity to debate that legislation in the House to any significant degree.

Finally, Bill C-20, the seats bill. The bill proposes to make significant changes to the composition of this Parliament and again we are being limited to a significant degree in our ability to deal with it. I sit on the committee that is looking at the bill and the same thing is happening there. Extreme limitations are being placed at committee with regard to the number of witnesses we are allowed to call.

It just boggles my mind when I try to understand what is going on, and I think I am reasonably intelligent in terms of understanding it. It is a complex process that is being engendered now and it is new. It is not what was here in the last Parliament at all. The bill is a new incarnation of the process. It would make a very significant change, and we are being given nowhere near the amount of time that we will need.

If we continue with the practice as it is right now, Bill C-20 will be out of committee and back before the House either by the end of next week or early the week following, when we have limited time to debate it here in the House and limited time in committee. The same can be said about the other four bills that I just mentioned. They all have had limited time in committee.

That is the context that we have. We have a precedent, if we want to put it that way, in other legislatures.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

As I said earlier, we have this other precedent. If the bill passes, it will mean more work for the Speaker of this Parliament and subsequent Speakers. However, we need to find a much more proper balance in terms of our ability as opposition members to do our job. Our responsibility here is to determine whether legislation coming from the government is appropriate, but we are not able to do that in the amount of time that we are being given at this point. We need to take the government's ability to limit time and place it in the hands of an independent member and, in this case, that would be the Speaker and his successors.

Copyright Modernization Act

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish I knew what the Conservatives have against this country's workers. After the tax cuts to large corporations, the subsidies to oil companies and all the inappropriate expenditures for the G8 and the G20—always with Canadian taxpayers' money—the government now wants to target our artists' income.

Many of the artists we love, admire and appreciate are not rich. The majority of them have a very modest income and, because of the nature of their occupation, it is not a stable income. They must accept contracts and work at many jobs to provide for their needs and those of their family.

In Quebec, the average income of artists is estimated at $24,600 per year, based on the 2006 census data. We are talking about $24,600 to pay for rent, food and transportation, to send one's children to school and look after their needs. That amount must also cover heating costs and the material needed to create. What makes things even worse is that, with an annual income of $24,600, Quebec artists are considered to be the richest in Canada. That same year, the average income for artists in Canada was estimated at $22,700 per year.

These numbers reflect the reality of our actors, painters and singers. Our artists are struggling to make ends meet. While all the evidence should convince the government to provide increased support to our creators, it prefers, as in Bills C-10 and C-19, to ignore the facts and please the cultural industry's big businesses. This bill is going to hurt artists and make them poorer. And they certainly cannot afford that.

The Union des artistes is worried about its members' income and so are we on this side of the House. How can artists continue to create if they do not have the means to do so? Copyright royalties are an important source of income for Canada's creators. This government must ensure creators receive their fair share and are paid for their work.

I wish this government would take out its earplugs and start listening to the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, which is asking that the bill be amended so that artists are compensated fairly for the use of their creative work in the new media.

I also wish it would listen to the Society for Reproduction Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers in Canada, which is telling it that this bill is going to have a significant impact on creators' income and that it needs to be amended in order to strike a balance between the interests of creators and those of consumers. Unfortunately, as with Bills C-10, C-13, C-18 and C-20, this government prefers to turn a deaf ear.

Passing this bill would have a very negative impact on our country's cultural industry, and it would have a direct impact on creators' income. Moreover, many people are worried about producers and publishers, who would not enjoy the same protection as holders of scientific patents.

We are not stupid. Canada's copyright laws need to be reviewed. Former Bill C-32 was reviewed in committee, but the Conservatives chose yet again to ignore the recommendations made by the witnesses who appeared before the committee.

This bill could potentially create more problems than it solves. That is why I cannot support it in its current form. Even the Union des artistes finds that some of the wording is ambiguous and that court challenges are inevitable. For example, they cite the concept of fair dealing for the purpose of education and that of reasonable grounds.

Why is this government still refusing to listen to opinions that differ from its own? Why does this government not want to work with all the players involved in copyright in order to reform it properly and adapt it to the reality of the 21st century? Such stubbornness would not be so bad if Canadians did not have to bear the consequences of the government's bad bill. Copyright in the digital age has to build on two fundamental principles: accessibility for consumers and remuneration for the artists.

Unfortunately, the Conservative government has not respected either principle. It is directly compromising the millions of dollars in royalties artists receive under current copyright legislation, and it is encroaching on consumer rights by adopting provisions on digital locks.

The fact is that this bill gives consumers rights they will not be able to exercise. The general provisions on digital locks will allow the companies to decide which legal rights can be exercised and which cannot. This unbalanced perspective will end up harming artists and educators. That is also quite worrisome.

I urge this government, the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, to review this bill in light of what was said in committee during consideration of the now defunct Bill C-32 and to listen to what the artists have been trying to get across, in order to ensure that this copyright reform is balanced and beneficial to everyone.

Senate Reform Act

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate and give the Bloc Québécois’s opinion on Bill C-7, the Senate Reform Act.

No one in the House will be surprised to hear that the Bloc Québécois is of the opinion that we can do without the Senate and that we should just abolish it.

The Senate is an archaic institution. I heard members of other parties describe it as such earlier. I know that, in the House, we cannot denigrate the other chamber. However, I do not think that it is a form of denigration to say that, today, in a democracy, it is completely useless to spend so much money and have 105 senators who simply redo the work that was already done by legitimately elected people. That is the big difference. In fact, the House of Commons, with its 308 members, makes decisions and passes all sorts of legislation while following the procedure that should normally be followed here, which involves first, second and third readings. That being said, with the current Conservative government, this procedure is not being followed at all because the Conservatives are imposing time allocations for almost every bill.

In the beginning, the Senate, whether it was at the federal or provincial level, was put in place to protect certain territories. However, over time, the Senate became a place where the Prime Minister appointed friends to ensure a majority. That is what the current Prime Minister promised not to do but, when he had a minority government, he saw that he could change things by appointing Conservatives to the Senate to have a majority there. He broke his promises. He made a series of very quick appointments so that the Senate would have a Conservative majority. The Senate has thus become a very partisan place. I do not say this to insult the senators. Some are doing the best they can and are doing their work honestly.

I think that almost everyone, at least in Quebec, agrees that we could easily do without the Senate since the House of Commons operates in a completely democratic way with 308 people who, for the most part, campaigned and were elected democratically by the public, which is not the case for senators.

Of course, Bill C-7 seeks to ensure that senators are elected. However, in my opinion, the Conservative government is trying to do indirectly what it cannot do directly. It wanted an elected Senate and it made this an election promise. In fact, this goes back to long before the current Conservatives. At the time of the Reform Party, they also wanted an elected Senate. However, they realized that constitutional changes and consultations with the provinces would be necessary to achieve that goal. So they decided to resort to this process and basically tell the provinces they could hold elections and the federal government would then decide whether or not to accept the results of those elections. This is completely ridiculous.

I believe the government introduced Bill C-7 thinking it could avoid consulting with the provinces. Personally, I think that is the major problem with this bill.

So we are witnessing a Senate reform and also a House of Commons reform, since there is also Bill C-20 dealing with representation in the House of Commons. These two bills will weaken Quebec's position within federal political institutions. We know that, with Bill C-20, the government wants to diminish the political weight of Quebec in the House. As for the Senate, we know that Quebec does not agree with the government's way of doing things, but the government wants to have its way nevertheless.

The Bloc Québécois feels that the job of senator is increasingly becoming a reward given by the Prime Minister to political friends. The Senate as an institution is less and less useful to democracy. We are saying that the Senate should be abolished. As members will see later on in my speech, I have a survey which shows that Quebeckers fully support abolishing the Senate.

I remind the House that Quebec's long-standing position is that any change to the Senate must be made with the agreement of Quebec and the provinces. Quebec is not the only one to hold this view since the government began trying to introduce a bill to reform the Senate.

We can go all the way back to the late 1970s. The Supreme Court of Canada looked at the power of Parliament to unilaterally change the constitutional provisions dealing with the Senate. In its decision, the court ruled that decisions regarding major changes affecting the fundamental nature of the Senate cannot be taken unilaterally.

That could not be more clear. The House does not always agree with the decisions of the Supreme Court, but we must abide by them. With this ruling, the Supreme Court spoke loud and clear:

Changes to the powers of the Senate, the method of selecting senators, the number of senators to which a province is entitled, or the residency requirement of senators can be made only [in consultation with Quebec and the provinces].

That could not be more clear. In 2007, Benoît Pelletier, a former Quebec minister of intergovernmental affairs, a renowned teacher and constitutional expert respected by all Quebeckers, both federalists and sovereignists, reiterated Quebec's traditional position by stating that the Government of Quebec believes that this institution does not fall exclusively under federal jurisdiction. In a press release dated November 7, 2007, which I will table in a moment, this former minister said:

Given that the Senate is a crucial part of the Canadian federal compromise, it is clear to us that under the Constitution Act, 1982, and the regional veto act, the Senate can be neither reformed nor abolished without Quebec's consent.

He said it a number of times, on television and elsewhere. Benoît Pelletier has credibility in this matter. The same day he made that statement, Quebec's National Assembly unanimously passed the following motion:

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

Much earlier, the same position was taken by Robert Bourassa as well as Gil Rémillard, a constitutional expert who was a minister and my professor, although that is nothing to brag about. In any case, he certainly had a great deal of credibility.

In 1989, Robert Bourassa said that he did not want to discuss Senate reform before the Meech Lake accord was ratified. In 1982, Gil Rémillard said that the signing by Quebec of an agreement involving Senate reform would depend on the results of negotiations on the concept of a distinct society, the division of powers and the federal spending power.

Regardless of their party, all elected representatives in Quebec agree that the federal government should not make any changes without the permission of the provinces, and of Quebec in particular, in the examples I just gave.

In 2007, Quebec's Liberal government took part in the Special Committee on Senate Reform. In its brief it stated:

The Government of Quebec is not opposed to modernizing the Senate. But if the aim is to alter the essential features of that institution, the only avenue is the initiation of a coordinated federal-provincial constitutional process that fully associates the constitutional players, one of them being Quebec, in the exercise of constituent authority.

The Government of Quebec, with the unanimous support of the National Assembly, therefore requested the withdrawal and/or suspension of various bills that were introduced by the Conservative government over the course of previous sessions, including Bill C-43, which had to do with elected senators. It also requested the suspension of proceedings on Bill S-4—which became Bill C-19, then Bill C-10—which had to do with term limits, so long as the federal government was planning to unilaterally transform the nature and role of the Senate.

Bill C-7 raises the same problem and it clearly shows that the government wants to act unilaterally.

I would like to quote a poll on the Senate conducted by Leger Marketing in 2010. It said, “The majority of Quebeckers think that the Senate has no worth in its current form and even more Quebeckers are in favour of abolishing the Senate.”

I encourage all members of the House to consider the opinion of the Government of Quebec, of the other provinces and of Quebeckers in this poll, to truly understand that the government cannot act unilaterally here.

Security of Tenure of Military Judges Act

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to participate in the debate on Bill C-16. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence is well aware that the Bloc Québécois supports this bill.

What we take issue with is that the parliamentary secretary has said in the House that we have failed to provide unanimous consent, which is completely false. I will give an example. Today, I gave unanimous consent, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois which I represent, to the agreement between the Cree and the federal government. We had already given our word and consent with respect to this bill.

With regard to Bill C-16, we were asked for our support yesterday at the same time that we were asking for unanimous consent to pay tribute to veterans. Remembrance Day is at hand. We are all wearing poppies—I see, Mr. Speaker, that you are wearing one also—to commemorate the battles fought by our veterans, the people who went overseas to fight in two world wars and other conflicts, which unfortunately should not have occurred but did, and who fought for our freedom.

The dean of the House of Commons, the member for Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, wanted to rise, like members of other parties, and pay tribute for a few minutes to the people who fought to protect our freedom and to prevent dictators from taking control of the world and suppressing freedoms, as was recently the case in Libya. The leader of the Green Party also wanted a few minutes to address the people and pay tribute to our veterans. This was refused by lack of unanimous consent. We were simply told that the Conservative government had the right to do so and that it was within the rules.

I know that the government was probably afraid that the Green Party and the Bloc Québécois would use this precedent to intervene and rise often in the House, saying that they want to be recognized as parties. We have known from the beginning that we do not have 12 members, just 4, and that the leader of the Green Party is the only member of Parliament for her party. For that reason, the interim leader of the Bloc Québécois specifically stated yesterday, when making the request, that he did not want to set a precedent and that he simply wanted to make a statement.

That was one of the lowest moments I have experienced since being elected in 2004. I have rarely seen a government rebuff the opposition parties in a such a way and on such an occasion.

We did not give our unanimous consent to Bill C-16 then and we are opposing it today because the fault lies with the government for not being alert enough to introduce it sooner. The government could have introduced this bill as early as September 19, when Parliament resumed, but it waited until October 7. The government has also introduced a series of bills and has prevented the opposition from debating them and discussing them properly by moving closure and time allocation motions five or six times. I do not even know how many there have been, but closure has been moved on at least five or six bills. We cannot follow the normal legislative process because the government is in a very big hurry. It made legislative choices, but Bill 16, which we are discussing today, was not part of them.

The Conservatives chose to introduce Bill C-10 on justice. They decided to abolish the firearms registry and destroy the data. They also introduced a bill that will diminish Quebec's political weight in the House. There was also the bill on the Canadian Wheat Board. They chose to introduce all those bills instead of Bill C-16. I want to come back to Bill C-16 to which we could have given our unanimous consent. We only did what the government said it would do, in other words, follow the rules. I have been in federal politics long enough to know there are rules to be followed in the House. There is a legislative process to be followed: first reading, second reading, third reading and work in committee.

I understand perfectly well that there was a court order, but if the government was in such a hurry, it could have made sure that this bill went through all the stages as quickly as possible. After all, it is the government that sets the agenda.

Yesterday, by refusing to allow us to pay tribute to veterans, if the government was trying to send a message that we do not exist, that we are not an official party and that we do not deserve to speak in this House, it failed. Today we are sending our own message that we are still here. Just like the Conservative members, and in fact like all members of the House, we were democratically elected. Even the Prime Minister himself must acknowledge that he was democratically elected in his riding and that he is an MP first and foremost, and Prime Minister second. I think it is our duty to do things correctly here.

Thus, there are no second-class MPs in this House. I never thought that when there were 50 Bloc Québécois MPs, nor do I think that today, just because we are fewer in number. My message to the government is that it should think carefully before acting as heinously as it did yesterday. Nevertheless, once again, it is the government's fault that it did not introduce the bill earlier. And we support Bill C-16, especially since a court decision will strengthen the independence of military judges. That is very important. The Minister of National Defence introduced Bill C-16, An Act to amend the National Defence Act (military judges), in the House of Commons at first reading.

The Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada delivered its judgment in the Regina v. Leblanc case. In its decision, the appeal court determined that the provisions in the National Defence Act and the Queen’s Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces regarding the appointment and retirement of military judges do not sufficiently respect judicial independence as required by section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In declaring certain National Defence Act provisions constitutionally invalid and inoperative, the Court Martial Appeal Court in Regina v. Leblanc suspended the declaration of invalidity for a period of six months to allow remedial legislation to be enacted. The declaration will be effective December 2, 2011.

Bill C-16 amends the provisions of the National Defence Act that deal with the tenure of military judges, providing that they serve until the retirement age of 60 years, unless removed for cause on the recommendation of an inquiry committee or upon the resignation of the military judge.

To give a bit of background and explain the situation in full, I should mention that judges used to be appointed for a predetermined period of time. I believe it was for five years, but when a judge's term was up for renewal, it seemed that he or she did not have complete independence at that time. Now the process will simply be the same as it is for other judges. The tenure for military judges will allow them to sit as such until the retirement age of 60 years. That creates a balance. It sends a message that we will improve the situation around judicial independence, which is something we in the House could in no way be opposed to.

Justice Lamer made a number of recommendations, and this is one that we have agreed with from the outset. The Bloc Québécois believes in keeping military justice separate from civilian justice. It makes sense for the Canadian armed forces to have its own justice system, in light of the particularities of military life and military requirements. This bill corrects a situation that created a fairly significant difference between the civilian justice system and the military justice system, in order to improve the military system.

It is absolutely necessary to have discipline within an army. Without that discipline, we would lose any sense of structure and effectiveness. Since the primary goal of our armed forces is to protect the safety of Canadians, this issue is vitally important. The Supreme Court of Canada recognized this principle in 1992:

The purpose of a separate system of military tribunals is to allow the Armed Forces to deal with matters that pertain directly to the discipline, efficiency and morale of the military. The safety and well-being of Canadians depends considerably on the willingness and readiness of a force of men and women to defend against threats to the nation's security. To maintain the Armed Forces in a state of readiness, the military must be in a position to enforce internal discipline effectively and efficiently. Breaches of military discipline must be dealt with speedily and, frequently, punished more severely than would be the case if a civilian engaged in such conduct. As a result, the military has its own Code of Service Discipline to allow it to meet its particular disciplinary needs. In addition, special service tribunals, rather than the ordinary courts, have been given jurisdiction to punish breaches of the Code of Service Discipline. Recourse to the ordinary criminal courts would, as a general rule, be inadequate to serve the particular disciplinary needs of the military.

A number of changes were called for. I think that Bill C-16 is a step that, I repeat, addresses only one of Justice Lamer's recommendations. We can go step by step. That is no problem.

There are also offences in the Code of Service Discipline that do not have equivalents in civilian justice. For example, the offences of disobedience of lawful command or disobedience to a superior officer do not exist in civilian justice. Military justice applies to three categories of people: military personnel in the regular forces, reservists and civilians who work with military personnel on missions.

But although military justice is necessary, people who join the Canadian Forces do not lose their rights, including their charter rights.

For 12 years, a great deal of thought has been given to modernizing military justice to bring it more in line with civilian justice. In its May 2009 report, the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs wrote the following, “...the military, as an organization, benefits when the rules that govern it largely reflect those that apply to Canadian society in general.”

We therefore feel it is important that the government consider not only the issue of the independence of military judges but also the entire military justice reform. In my opinion, even the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence can understand that, when we talk about such a bill, it goes without saying that we should expand our discussion and thought process a bit to include the whole military justice policy, particularly since more than one recommendation was given by Justice Lamer and the Senate committee.

Military justice reform dates back to 1997 and stems from two reviews. First, a special advisory group received a mandate to study the Code of Service Discipline set out in the National Defence Act. Then, the commission of inquiry into the deployment of Canadian forces to Somalia was asked to review how to handle the actions of certain soldiers sent to that country.

The two resulting reports led the government to introduce Bill C-25, which came into effect on September 1, 1999. This bill amended the National Defence Act by abolishing the death penalty in the military justice system, a very important change; incorporating civilian parole ineligibility provisions; creating the Canadian Forces Grievance Board; creating the Military Police Complaints Commission; strengthening the independence of military judges by making changes to the terms of their appointment, their qualifications and their tenure; and creating new positions within the military justice system in order to separate the investigative function from the prosecution and defence functions.

Clause 96 of Bill C-25 provided for an independent review every five years in order to examine the amendments to the National Defence Act. Many of the amendments I just listed are still pending. I am counting on the current government and its Minister of National Defence to take into account the majority of the recommendations that I mentioned just a few moments ago.

With this in mind, the federal government appointed a former Supreme Court justice, Antonio Lamer, to conduct the first review. He presented his report to Parliament in March 2003. Military justice has been on the radar for some time now, and here today we have this bill—barely two pages long—regarding the independence of judges. There will undoubtedly be other, more significant, changes that will improve the National Defence Act and that will also implement Justice Lamer's recommendations, which, as I have said before, are already 10 years old.

In his report, Justice Lamer observed that “Canada's military justice system generally works very well, subject to a few changes.” Consequently, he made 88 recommendations to improve military justice. I will not list the 88 recommendations, although some here might like me to do so.

I will briefly refer to some of Justice Lamer's 2003 recommendations: arrest procedures and pre-trial detention; procedures for proceeding by indictment; the structure of the court; sentencing; aligning the rights of the accused with those in a civil court such that the accused could choose the type of court martial and such that the finding of court martial panels would be arrived at by unanimous vote; strengthening the independence of the principal intervenors in the military justice system; and improving the grievance and military police complaints processes.

In order to implement Justice Lamer's recommendations and amend the National Defence Act, the government introduced Bill C-45 in August 2006. It died on the order paper. In March 2008, the government introduced another bill, Bill C-7, which was identical to Bill C-45 and also died on the order paper when an election was called in the fall of 2008.

In April 2008, the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada handed down a decision in the case of Regina v. Trépanier. At issue was the possibility of choosing the type of court martial. The Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada ruled that a provision of the National Defence Act that gave the court martial administrator exclusive authority to select the type of court martial was unconstitutional. The Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada found that it was unacceptable that the accused could not chose the kind of court martial that would judge him or her.

Following that ruling—which brings us to where we are today—the federal government introduced Bill C-60 to accomplish the following: to more closely align the manner in which the mode of trial by courts martial is determined with the approach in the civilian criminal justice system, while still satisfying the unique needs of the military justice system; to reduce the types of courts martial from four to two; to allow military judges to deal with certain pre-trial matters at any time after a charge has been preferred; and to require court martial panels to make key decisions on the basis of a unanimous vote. Bill C-60 passed in the House on June 18, 2008.

One of Justice Lamer's recommendations has been incorporated into Bill C-16 before us today.

I repeat—and I will conclude on this in just a moment—the Bloc Québécois is not opposed to Bill C-16. The Bloc did not break any agreements to speed things up. The government alone is responsible for its own legislative agenda. It could have introduced the bill to get it through all the various steps in the usual way, knowing very well that a court order meant that a certain timeline had to be respected.

I cannot believe that, with the army of people and public servants available to the Minister of National Defence, it did not occur to him to look at a calendar and ensure that all the steps could be completed regarding Bill C-16. It is because of the government's own negligence that it is so keen to have the bill fast-tracked, because it did not do its homework.

I cannot believe that the government behaved in this manner. However, as I explained at the beginning of my speech, it is simply because the government made other choices. It had other priorities. It wanted to reduce Quebec's political weight with Bill C-20, for instance. It wanted to put the Canadian Wheat Board out of commission. It also decided to rule out all potential debate on Bill C-10 regarding justice. I can assure this House, not everyone is pleased about that. It is no longer only Quebec that opposes that bill. We will soon be up to 10 provinces that oppose the bill. But the government decided to make it a priority anyway.

In closing, it should have found a way to move a little faster on this matter and introduce Bill C-16 earlier. Had it done so, we might not still be talking about it today.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, nobody would be more delighted than I if we could actually not have to use time allocation, but so far we have not seen an indication from the opposition parties that they are prepared to deal with bills on an expeditious basis. We feel the need to actually get things done here and deliver on our commitments.

In fact, in each of these cases since we started in September, each one of those bills continues to be debated in the process in the House of Commons. At committee, they have not even returned here for report stage yet, let alone third reading. Extensive debate is taking place.

The fact is that the parliamentary process is a lengthy one with many stages. We want to ensure that bills have an opportunity to get through those stages so they can become law, so we can keep the commitments that we made to Canadians.

We are making good progress this week, democratic reform week.

We introduced the Political Loans Accountability Act, which will prevent future leadership contestants from bypassing the law’s contribution limits by running up huge interest-free loans from supporters. We saw this in the 2006 Liberal leadership race. Many of those loans do not get paid off and are really donations over the legal limit.

We have also begun debate on Bill C-20, the fair representation act. I am pleased that this bill will be voted on tonight before being referred to committee for study. The bill restores respect for the founding principle of our country at the heart of Confederation, that Canada's first Prime Minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, forged, that of representation by population. The bill moves every single province closer to the principle of representation by population, that each vote should have, to the extent possible, the same weight.

I know that some members may be disappointed that we have not yet had an opportunity this week to debate Bill C-7, which is the Senate reform act, but they can rest assured I will be calling that bill for debate as our first item of business on the Monday following constituency week. It is part of what one opposition member properly calls our comprehensive democratic reform plan.

Tomorrow, I hope we can deal with Bill C-16, the Security of Tenure of Military Judges Act, and Bill C-15, the Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act. I hope both bills, which make important revisions to the military justice system, will garner all party support.

Of course, next week is a constituency week where members will be in their ridings speaking to Canadians about the issues that are important to them.

I know that most Canadians, whom I have spoken with at least, think that the jobs and economic growth issues are the top priority and they expect their government to focus on that right here in the House. With this in mind, the next week that we are back will be a jobs and economic growth week.

Jobs and economic growth week will kick off on Monday afternoon when we will again debate the copyright modernization act. The opposition introduced a motion to keep this bill from ever being debated at committee. This is disappointing. The bill would modernize our copyright laws and encourage job creation in one of Canada's most dynamic and important sectors of the economy.

I understand that the finance committee is meeting later today to conduct its clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-13, the keeping Canada's economy and jobs growing act, that implements the next phase of Canada's economic action plan. I will give priority to this job creation bill when the committee has completed its study. I anticipate scheduling report stage for Tuesday and Wednesday, which will undoubtedly be the highlight of jobs and economic growth week. This bill would implement important measures from our low tax plan for jobs and growth, including tax relief for small businesses that create jobs and a new tax credit for children who go to dance classes or take arts, music, or language lessons. I hope that it will pass swiftly through the House so that the measures can be implemented for the benefit of our economy and indeed all Canadians.

Finally, Thursday, November 17, will be an allotted day.

Bill C-20--Time Allocation Motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That, in relation to Bill C-20, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867, the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act and the Canada Elections Act, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill; and

At fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on the day designated for the consideration of the said stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

Criminal Code

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to support Bill C-290. This is a private member's bill which the member for Windsor—Tecumseh introduced in the House on September 28, 2011.

Bill C-290 would authorize a province or a territory to conduct single sport betting within the province or territory if it so chooses.

In order to better comprehend how this bill would modify the structure of the current provisions relating to gambling, I will briefly go through the history of the past and current Canadian laws in this area.

As members will notice, the gambling provisions in the Criminal Code are somewhat difficult to read and to understand. Nevertheless, a careful reading of these provisions shows that their basic structure is to prohibit all forms of gambling unless a particular form of gambling is specifically permitted by the Criminal Code.

Parliament has permitted such exceptions to the gambling offences as private bets that are made between individuals who are not in the business of betting. In Canada, we also have pari-mutuel betting on horse races, where the betting is conducted by a race association. Then there are lottery schemes that are conducted by a province or territory and the slightly narrower range of lottery schemes that are conducted by a licensee of a province or territory, such as a charitable organization.

Parliament has also authorized certain lottery schemes that are conducted on international cruise ships while in Canadians waters, if certain conditions are met.

Parliament included gambling offences when it enacted the first Criminal Code in Canada in 1892. There were some exceptions to the offences, primarily for bets made at a horse race. The provisions were expanded in the 1920s to include the exception for parimutuel betting on a horse race. That made it possible to put all the money bet on a horse race into a pool and the winners would share in the pool based upon how much they had bet on a horse that finished in a spot that entitled bettors on that horse to share the winnings.

A most significant change to the gambling provisions occurred in 1969 when the provinces, territories and the federal government were each authorized to conduct a range of lottery schemes. This followed closely on the heels of the reintroduction of legal lottery ticket operations in some U.S. states.

In 1985, Parliament withdrew the Criminal Code authorizations that existed from 1969 for the federal government to conduct a lottery scheme and it went through the authorizations that existed from 1983 for the federal government to conduct a pool betting operation. This left the field of lottery schemes exclusively to the operation by provincial and territorial governments and their licensees.

It was in 1998 that Parliament authorized international cruise ships to continue operating their lottery schemes when they enter Canadian waters and up until the first port of call, if certain conditions are met. That change was made at the request of provinces in order to encourage the international cruise ships to sail to Canadian ports.

Some provinces have offered a particular kind of sports betting as a form of lottery scheme to their residents. The structure of this betting requires the bettor to select a number of games and predict the correct outcome for those games.

Bill C-290 would make it possible for a province or territory to conduct a lottery scheme that involves betting on single games. If Bill C-290 passes, I do not know if any bettors would still make bets on the outcomes of multiple games, but I would imagine that the vast majority of bettors would prefer to bet on a single game and its outcome.

Of course, it would be up to each province and territory to decide if it wanted to offer single sports betting, but that will be their decision.

Under section 207 of the Criminal Code, a province may operate a lottery scheme on or through a computer, but it cannot licence others to do so because single sport betting would, by necessity, require computer operation. Single event sport betting is something that the provinces and territories would conduct themselves because they may not licence others to conduct a lottery scheme that is conducted on or through a computer.

I want to mention that a province or territory could choose to locate a single sport event betting operation in a casino or at a race track, for example, and it could share the profits from the betting however it sees fit. Again, these would be matters for provincial or territorial decision-making. I am assuming that decisions would be made by a province or territory with the values and desires of their residents in mind. That includes keeping an eye open to the measures that are needed to prevent problem gambling.

I can appreciate that not everyone thinks that gambling is for them. However, it is my view that allowing single sport betting, even through a provincial lottery scheme, is far more appropriate than what is currently happening in this country. Betting with an illegal bookmaker is driving money to organized crime.

Bill C-290 is a response that would give the provinces and territories the choice as to whether they wish to join countries such as England where there is legalized single event betting on sports. I emphasize that the provinces and territories would be able to make that decision based on the particular circumstances within their jurisdiction.

The provinces and territories are best placed to determine public acceptance for single event betting and to implement measures for responsible betting. They have decades of experience in conducting a broad range of lottery schemes, from lottery tickets, to casinos with slots, table games and to betting on the outcomes of multiple sports events.

For those reasons, I support private member's Bill C-290 and I will be voting in favour of it.

Democratic Reform

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

Mr. Speaker, today I introduced Bill C-20, the fair representation act. The bill would deliver a principled and reasonable update to our seat allocation formula, providing fair representation for Canadians living in Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta. It delivers on our commitment to maintain the seat counts of smaller provinces and ensure that Quebec is proportionately represented.

Canadians rightly expect fair and principled representation in their democratic institutions. The fair representation act would deliver on this expectation.

I strongly encourage the opposition to work with us in passing this principled and reasonable legislation.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand and tell my constituents that our government has delivered on another one of our commitments to Canadians. Today the Minister of State for Democratic Reform introduced Bill C-20, the Fair Representation Act.

During the last federal general election, we promised to ensure that any update to the formula allocating House of Commons seats would be fair to all the provinces. We committed to increase the number of seats for faster-growing provinces and to protect the number of seats for smaller provinces.

This bill is principled and fair and it will move every province closer toward representation by population. I am proud to say that this bill will deliver on our Conservative government's long-standing commitment to Canadians.