Bill C-7 (Historical)

Senate Reform Act

An Act respecting the selection of senators and amending the Constitution Act, 1867 in respect of Senate term limits

Part 1 of this enactment establishes a framework for electing nominees for Senate appointments from the provinces and territories. The following principles apply to the selection process:
(a) the Prime Minister, in recommending Senate nominees to the Governor General for a province or territory, would be required to consider names from a list of nominees submitted by the provincial or territorial government; and
(b) the list of nominees would be determined by an election held in accordance with provincial or territorial laws enacted to implement the framework.
Part 2 alters the tenure of senators who are summoned after October 14, 2008.

Concurrence in Vote 1—The Senate

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

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Vote 1, in the amount of $57,933,343, under PARLIAMENT — The Senate — Program expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2013, be concurred in.

Madam Speaker, I stand in the House this evening to join debate on the main estimates' allocation of funding to the Senate of Canada.

While I am always happy to discuss the ways in which our government is taking action to bring greater effectiveness and democracy to the Senate, it is disappointing to be discussing such issues as a result of partisan manoeuvring by the NDP. Rather than discuss real and achievable Senate reform measures such as term limits and getting provinces to hold a Senate nominee selection process, the NDP would rather pull procedural stunts in order to call for constitutional battles with the provinces. We know what calls for Senate abolition really are: they are calls for long-drawn-out constitutional clashes with the provinces.

At a time when the global economy is still fragile and Canadians are rightly worried about their savings, their retirement and their financial future, long-drawn-out constitutional clashes with the provinces would be a recipe for sideshows, distracting the government's attention away from the economy.

It is not surprising that the NDP would be advocating for bombastic constitutional sideshows, because it would need a sideshow in order to distract from the misinformed economic statements of a leader who shows such little regard for critical components of Canada's economy. In fact, we could say the NDP is doing that right now. Instead of talking about ways in which we can ensure jobs, growth and long-term prosperity for Canadians, the NDP is forcing a debate tonight to create a sideshow in order to distract from the leader's gaffes in calling key sectors of the economy a disease.

Frankly, if the NDP was so concerned about the state of the Senate, it would not stall the Senate reform act, yet it resorts to procedural tactics, including filibustering the Senate reform bill and creating this sideshow tonight, because it is afraid that our reforms will work. Once senators are selected by Canadians, the case for creating long-drawn-out constitutional sideshows diminishes greatly.

Our government has always been clear about our commitment to bring reform to the Senate chamber. We pledged to do this in our most recent election platform and we repeated our promise in the Speech from the Throne. While our government's top priority remains the economy, we have to do something about the status quo in the Senate. The Senate makes, reviews and passes laws that affect Canadians every day. It is not right that senators have no democratic mandate from the people they represent, nor that they can sit in the other place for decades at a time.

I believe that the Senate can play an important role in our parliamentary system. It reviews statutes and legislation, often from different perspectives than those found here on this side. It serves to represent regional and minority interests in a way different from the way they are represented in the House. Many of its members and committees have demonstrated and provided appreciable research and investigative skills and thoughtful recommendations. It can be a place where a broader range of experience and expertise can be brought to bear on the issues facing our country.

Unfortunately, I believe that the contributions of the Senate are overshadowed by the fact that senators are selected and appointed through a process that is neither formal nor transparent, with no democratic mandate whatsoever from Canadians. Moreover, there are no strict limits on the number of years an individual can sit in the Senate. Under the Constitution, an individual can be appointed at the age of 30 and serve until the age of 75. That means that senators can serve for as long as 45 years. Taken together, the Senate lacks any essential democratic characteristics. Its effectiveness and legitimacy suffer from its democratic deficit.

We must then ask ourselves this simple question: is this good enough? Our answer on this side of the House is no. Our government does not believe that the current situation is acceptable in a modern, representative democracy, and neither do Canadians. Our government has long believed that the Senate status quo is unacceptable, and therefore it must change in order to reach its full potential as an effective and democratic institution.

One, we can have a long-drawn-out constitutional Senate reform showdown with the provinces, which the NDP advocates; two, we can keep the status quo in the Senate; or three, we can have reasonable reform that can be done through Parliament.

In July of last year, public opinion research found that seven out of 10 Canadians reject the status quo in the Senate. Although striking, this is not shocking. The Senate and its reform have been the subject of numerous reports, proposals and studies over the past several decades.

While recommendations on how to reform the Senate have differed and differ still, there is one consistent theme that runs throughout. Nearly all reports and studies agree that the Senate is an important democratic institution and that reform is needed to increase legitimacy in the context of a modern democratic country.

It is clear that while there may be different approaches to solving the problem, reform is necessary. Senate reform of any kind has proven to be a complicated process. Under our Constitution, reforming fundamental aspects of the Senate, such as its powers or the representation of the provinces, requires the support of seven provinces, representing 50% of the population of the provinces.

Achieving the necessary level of provincial support for particular fundamental reforms is a complex and lengthy process, with no guarantee of success. Abolishing the Senate, for example, at the very minimum requires the consent of at least seven out of ten provinces.

Canadians do not want drawn-out constitutional battles that would detract from our government's focus on Canada's top priority, the economy. Added to this is the fact that there is not consensus among provinces to pursue large wholesale reform.

It must be said, though, that the lack of agreement on large fundamental reform does not leave us with a lack of options, if only we have sufficient will to act. If we are to begin the journey towards reform, we must do what we can within the scope of Parliament's authority.

Our government believes that Senate reform is needed now, and we are committed to pursuing a practical, reasonable approach to reform that we believe will restore effectiveness and legitimacy in the Senate. That is why we are moving forward with the Senate reform act.

Through this bill, our government is taking immediate and concrete action to fulfill our commitment to Canadians to increase the effectiveness and legitimacy of our upper House, and to work cooperatively with the provinces and territories.

The Senate reform act includes two initiatives that will help bring the Senate into the 21st century.

First, the act provides a suggested framework to provinces and territories that wish to establish democratic consultation processes to give Canadians a say in who represents them in the Senate.

Second, it introduces term limits for senators appointed after October 2008, which will ensure the Senate is refreshed with new ideas on a more frequent basis and allow Canadians to select their Senate representatives at regular intervals.

While each of these initiatives can stand on their own merits, combining these measures allows our government to act quickly to implement our promise to Canadians to bring about Senate reform.

As I have already noted, our government has long been committed to Senate reform. Our commitment to reform remains as strong as ever, and we are now in a position to act on our commitment.

We have consistently encouraged provinces and territories to implement a democratic process for the selection of Senate nominees. The Senate reform act would give clarity to our flexible approach.

The act would require the Prime Minister to consider the names of individuals selected from the holding of democratic processes with Canadians when making recommendations on appointments to the Governor General.

The act would not bind the Prime Minister or the Governor General when making Senate appointments, nor would it change the method of selection for senators. Therefore, Parliament is able to enact this provision through its authority under section 44 of our Constitution.

Under section 44 of the Constitution Act 1982, Parliament has the legislative authority to amend the Constitution in relation to the Senate. The act also contains a voluntary framework, attached as a schedule to the act, for provinces and territories to use as a basis for developing a democratic selection process to consult voters on their preferences for Senate nominees. The framework is based on Alberta's Senatorial Selection Act.

The framework is meant to provide enough details to facilitate the development of provincial or territorial legislation, without limiting provinces and territories in the establishment of a consultation process or the precise details of such a process, which may differ between jurisdictions as local needs may demand. This is, after all, a cooperative venture. Provinces and territories would not be required to implement the framework precisely as written. Rather, they would be encouraged to adapt the framework to best suit the needs of their unique circumstances, as we have seen recently with the legislation introduced in New Brunswick. It is our hope that this built-in flexibility would further encourage provinces to provide a democratic process to give greater voice to their citizens and their province in the Senate.

Before moving on to explain other aspects of the bill, I would like to note that the approach proposed in the Senate reform act has already been successful. This type of reform has already gained a toehold in the Senate.

In 2007, the Prime Minister recommended the appointment of Bert Brown to the Senate. Senator Brown was chosen as a senator-in-waiting by Alberta voters in 2004. A selection process was held under the authority of Alberta's Senatorial Selection Act, which was introduced in 1989. Senator Brown's tireless work for reform, both inside and outside the Senate, is greatly appreciated, not only by me and our government, but also by the many Canadians who want Senate reform and who have campaigned for it for many years.

Alberta may have been the first province to pass this type of legislation and to see its nominees appointed, but it is not the only province that has taken steps to facilitate reform. In 2009, Saskatchewan passed the Senate Nominee Election Act, which enables the provincial government to hold a consultation process on Senate nominees. Saskatchewan has not yet held a consultation process, but I encourage it to do so at the earliest opportunity. Our government continues to be welcoming toward discussion and cooperation, wherever possible.

In British Columbia, the premier's parliamentary secretary has introduced a bill that would provide the provincial government with the authority to hold consultation processes. Last week, a bill was introduced in the New Brunswick legislature to hold a Senate nominee process by 2016.

I will be following the progress of this legislation closely, and I would encourage my provincial colleagues in their legislative assemblies to support the passage of both bills. More broadly, I would encourage all colleagues, in all provincial and territorial legislatures and assemblies, to consider supporting and moving with similar initiatives.

I will move on to the other major initiative of our Bill C-7. In addition to encouraging the implementation of a democratic selection process for Senate nominees, the act would also limit Senate terms, which can span several decades under the current rules. Public opinion research has consistently shown that over 70% of Canadians support limiting the terms of senators. When we begin to talk about specific reforms, that amount of support for one particular provision is impressive and encouraging.

Under the Senate reform act, Senators appointed after the bill receives royal assent would be subject to a single nine-year, non-renewable term. The nine-year term would also apply to all senators appointed after October 2008. The nine-year clock for those senators would start upon royal assent.

As with the earlier provision, limiting the terms of senators would amend the Constitution, but again it is a reform that can be accomplished by Parliament through section 44 of the Constitution Act 1982. Similarly, in 1965, Parliament, acting alone, introduced a mandatory retirement age of 75 for senators. Prior to that, senators were appointed for life.

I believe it is far to say that while many in this House agree that changes to the Senate are necessary, we sometimes disagree on the way forward. Our goal is to begin the reform process, and we want to be as constructive as we can while ensuring we are moving forward.

In contrast to the position of the other parties, it is clear that our government's approach is a practical and reasonable way forward. It is the approach that can truly achieve results. In fact, the stated positions of the opposition parties are essentially arguments in favour of the status quo in the Senate. Their proposals have such a low chance of success that they might as well not even propose them at all.

For example, the official opposition would try to abolish the Senate. Aside from the very obvious sideshow that the NDP is attempting to create using procedural tactics this evening, the position on abolishment is unattainable, for a number of reasons. First, there is no consensus among the provinces to abolish the Senate. Second, to take away the Senate without significant other reforms would be to seriously damage the effective representation of large sections of our country and our Parliament.

Our upper chamber, though flawed in some ways, can serve valuable democratic functions if we can reform it to make it more effective and legitimate. We should have enough respect for our institutions and our democracy to work towards the improvement of an institution in need of repair. We should not throw our hands up in the air in defeat without first attempting reform.

The position of the Liberal Party, on the other hand, has been to advocate for a process, not a result. Liberals do not support reform of the Senate, and their 13-year record of inaction demonstrates their opposition. They have been clear about this. Yet, their suggestion is to open the Constitution and begin a process we know will end in bitter drawn-out national conflict without Senate reform being achieved. Their approach is a recipe for accomplishing nothing.

I reject the opposition's obstructionism and encourage them to join us in implementing constructive reforms that are reasonable and achievable. Let us be clear. Our reforms are reasonable and achievable. They are absolutely within Parliament's authority to enact.

Our government is dedicated to reforming the Senate so that it better reflects the values of hard-working Canadians across the country. My constituents tell me they want change. I believe it is time for change in the Senate, and that time has come.

With the Senate reform act, our government is presenting modest but important and attainable changes that will improve the Senate by providing it with greater legitimacy in the eyes of Canadians.

I consider the enhancement of our democratic institutions to be a significant responsibility, and I am privileged to be working with my hon. colleagues to meet this common objective. I encourage all of my colleagues to work toward achieving these reforms and giving Canadians a stronger voice in determining who represents them in the Senate.

[John Davies]

I believe Bill S-7.... Again, Justice leads on this file, but the idea around Bill S-7 is to make it illegal to knowingly participate in activities of a terrorist group for the purpose of enhancing the ability of a terrorist group to carry out an act of terrorism. So the idea of leaving Canada to go to a terrorist training camp...it will be made a very clear crime to do so.

I'm not sure how you would review that decision. It's part of the Criminal Code amendments.

Democratic Reform

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, not only would the Conservatives' Senate reform result in the same parliamentary impasses we see in the United States, and not only would such a reform be unfair to Alberta and British Columbia, which would be under-represented in an elected Senate, but also, Bill C-7 is unconstitutional because changing the nature of the Senate requires the agreement of the provinces, a right that Quebec would justifiably exercise in court.

Why will the government not forget about this ill-conceived reform, thereby avoiding costly and futile constitutional quarrels?

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.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my NDP colleagues why they have begun to mimic one of the most unpleasant traits of the Conservatives, which is to fail to respond to objections to their party’s proposals.

We saw this again during question period. When we ask the Conservatives to tell us the number of fighter jets and tell us when the aircraft will be ready, they do not reply. When we ask them to explain why they want to cut pensions when the OECD and all the experts say that it is not necessary, they do not respond.

I would like to invite my NDP colleagues to take pride in not acting like the Conservatives and to answer my objections to this bill, even though they have not responded thus far and have behaved as if these objections had not been raised. This is precisely the same attitude my NDP colleagues took with respect to the abolition of the Senate. The last time I rose in the House, perhaps six or seven times, and asked each NDP member to tell me what majority would be required to abolish the Senate, whether it would be the majority of all Canadians or the majority in each of the provinces, as required in the Constitution, they never responded. So we will see this time.

The first question that I would ask the NDP about this bill is this. If the NDP thought that the House motion of November 27, 2006 meant that Quebeckers, being a nation within a united Canada, should have more weight than other provinces' voters, since the other provinces' voters are not part of a nation within a united Canada, why did the New Democrats not say that when they voted for the motion in the House on November 27, 2006?

Why did they not come straight out and say that they would be voting for this motion and that this would mean that Quebeckers, as members of a nation, should have more weight than the other provinces’ voters? And why did they not say so in French and in English everywhere in Canada? That is my first question.

The second question is this. Both the Liberal plan for 308 seats in the House and the ballooned 338-seat plan of the Conservative Party, which has become the law of the land unfortunately, accept the rule that ensures that any currently overrepresented province will not become under-represented. Bill C-312 does not include this rule. Does this mean it would be acceptable to the NDP if, perhaps, either Manitoba or Nova Scotia became under-represented and, if so, why? Is that because they are not nations? Is that the logic of the NDP?

And if that is the logic, then they should say so, in English and in French, in Nova Scotia, Manitoba and everywhere else.

They would just have to say to Manitobans that they would be under-represented because they are not a nation within Canada. They should say that everywhere. I want to hear that from my colleague from Compton—Stanstead, the sponsor of this bill. Can he confirm that he is speaking on behalf of his NDP colleagues from Manitoba, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick? Are they are okay with the view that their provinces may be under-represented in the House, since they are not nations? I hope to get an answer to this question.

The third question is the following: is the NDP going to produce some numbers at last? According to its plans, how many members of Parliament would make up the House? It has no reason not to release its numbers. All the other parties have. When you propose something, you have to say what it will look like. Actually, it is a bit difficult to understand what it would look like. If the representation of a province is set in stone, regardless of demographic trends, it can lead to rather complex arithmetical complications.

If Quebec is guaranteed 24.35% of the seats in the House, regardless of what the demographics of Quebec are, that means that other provinces will go down in percentage, since the total has to add up to 100%. Otherwise, it is an arithmetical impossibility. Only in hockey can we have 110%. The NDP has to understand that.

The New Democrats have to show us their numbers. How do they get 100%? Which provinces have to give up seats so that one province is overrepresented based on their calculations?

I want to mention that in this bill, the NDP would keep the rule of equitable representation for the fast growing provinces. They want to correct the under-representation of Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta. I think it is right to do so. They would keep the Senate clause that no province can have fewer seats than its existing number of senators. It is in the Constitution: we have no choice and have to respect that rule. They would keep the grandfather clause, like the Conservatives, which is a mistake, because then we cannot subtract from the number of seats of provinces but only add to them. They also have a fourth rule that Quebec will remain at 24.35%.

The first three rules mean there will be 30 more seats in the House. That is what the Conservatives decided to do, and so the next time there will 338 seats. The additional rule of Quebec at 24.35% means that we would then have six more seats, or 344.

But if we add those six seats for Quebec, then Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario are underrepresented again in terms of the objective. Alberta is no longer making any progress. So we end up with 344 seats and we do not achieve the objective we were seeking. So we have to add seats for Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario. But then, Quebec will no longer have 24.35%. So we have to add seats for Quebec. And in this little game, even if there were 350 seats, we would not be able to satisfy the four rules proposed by the NDP in its plan. And that is for 2011. Imagine how distorted things could get in 2021 and 2031.

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

The fourth and last question is whether this bill is constitutional. In permanently fixing the percentage of seats of 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. Yes, 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 in relative decline. That is true. However, that leeway has its limits: parliament cannot run afoul of the principle of proportionate representation. That would be unconstitutional.

While Bill C-312 mentions the Supreme Court decision of June 6, 1991, we have said again and again to our NDP colleagues, but without receiving any answer from them, that this ruling applied to the delimitation of ridings, not to the representation of the 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 cultural 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 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 this House to show respect for the basic law of the land, the Constitution of Canada. In the meantime, we Liberals will as always remain consistent in principle. We will oppose this bill because it is unconstitutional and impractical.

The next time there is an opportunity, we urge all members of Parliament to support the Liberal plan to freeze the number of seats in this House, because otherwise we will have to extend Parliament as far as the Rideau Canal if we are to fit in all members in the House.

In conclusion, I have asked my questions. Will I get any answers?

Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to speak to Bill C-24 on Canada-Panama trade.

However, earlier today I was up on my feet talking about Bill C-7 on Senate reform. I know we have moved on, but during the debate on Bill C-7 I pointed out that I was hard pressed to name the senators from Nova Scotia and noted that they were politically absent from the scene in Nova Scotia. I received an email from a constituent who was at home watching. He wrote:

Excellent points. Here's a note: since 2008 I have been periodically emailing Nova Scotia Senators...in relation to various political, environmental, or other issues. If memory serves me correctly, in those four years I've never received a response from any of them. I've never met any of them. You're right: they're absent from the Nova Scotia political landscape.

I know it is off topic, but it is the same day and I am hoping for a little latitude on this.

Getting back to Bill C-24, I would love to give a little shout out to Meghan Lawson who is working in my office through the parliamentary internship program. She has helped me greatly in doing research on the bill and for this speech.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to this piece of legislation. As with many other pieces of Conservative legislation, the title of the bill tries to paint a pretty rosy picture of a quite troubling proposal. The bill's long name is an act to implement the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, the agreement on the environment between Canada and the Republic of Panama and the agreement on labour cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Panama, otherwise known as the Canada–Panama economic growth and prosperity act and the protecting Panamanians from childhood predators act. That last part may not be part of the title, but the point is that we have a short title painting a rosy picture of something that just does not exist.

It is a very worrying piece of legislation. I think it jeopardizes Canadian growth and overlooks distressing concerns when it comes to Panama's record on environmental issues and workers' rights. We will hear this as a theme in many NDP speeches, because those are two things that we hold dear to our heart: the planet and the rights of people who are working. It is about the rights of the environment and the rights of people.

We think that Canada's trade policy should be based on the principles of fair, sustainable and equitable trade. Canada should build trading partnerships with other countries that support the principles of social justice and human rights while also expanding our business and economic opportunities.

If we just pursue these NAFTA-style deals, we are adopting legislation with a one-size-fits-all mentality. They overlook the fact that some of these countries we are negotiating with are not on the same footing, which is the situation here: Canada and Panama are not on the same footing.

We are taking the NAFTA template designed to function between large industrialized nations and are applying it to Panama, a global south community or a “developing nation”. Instead of helping Panama to grow in a sustainable way, this trade deal is really just about benefiting big multinational corporations. It would actually promote further inequity and inequality within Panama. Instead of these shortsighted bilateral deals, we need multinational trade deals that are going to benefit all trading partners both now and in the future.

As I pointed out, bilateral trade deals usually favour the dominant players. They facilitate a degree of predatory access by large corporations to less powerful domestic economies, in this case Panama, not us. If this legislation passes, we risk failing not only countless Canadian workers but also countless workers and families in Panama. They will be subject to increased inequality, and possibly a decreased quality of life.

According to the UN, a third of Panama's population lives in poverty.

Some of my colleagues discussed testimony that was submitted to committee by witnesses. Teresa Healy, a senior researcher at the Canadian Labour Congress, appeared before the Standing Committee on International Trade this past December and gave some interesting testimony. She stated:

[Panama]...is currently recording relatively high growth rates, but it is the second most unequal society in the region: 40% of the population is poor and 27% is extremely poor, and the rate of extreme poverty is particularly acute in indigenous populations. Although the country has endured extensive structural adjustment, liberalization, and privatization in recent years, this has not translated into economic benefits for the population.

We need trade deals that promote sustainable growth for all partners, not ones that put big business before people. Remember that tag line, “big business before people”, because I will shortly talk about a company in Nova Scotia that specifically talks about people and the planet before profits.

The glaring shortfalls of this trade deal do not actually stop there. Although Panama refuses to sign a tax information exchange agreement, the Conservative government is still going ahead with this deal. This is really troubling considering the large amount of money laundering that takes place in Panama, including money from drug trafficking, as we know. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, Panama is a major financial conduit for Mexican and Colombian drug traffickers' money laundering activities. Both local and international corruption watchdogs also rank Panama really low in terms of its transparency.

Panama's complete lack of taxation transparency has even led the OECD to label the nation a tax haven. As another parentheses about tax havens, we have recently seen the U.S. trying to crack down on tax havens. It loses about $100 billion a year to offshore tax evasion and avoidance. Canada loses about a tenth of that or $10 billion a year. The U.S. is trying to crack down on these tax havens by making sure that people are tax compliant and introducing new legislation like FATCA, for example. The problem is that they are actually scooping up the wrong people. They are not going after the folks who are tax avoiders or are ferreting off this money and trying to hide it, but are hitting ordinary citizens, like ordinary Canadians.

In my riding of Halifax, there are many people who have immigrated to Canada from the U.S. and are dual citizens, as well as people who are American by accident, whose parents were American citizens and whose offspring are therefore considered American citizens for tax purposes. They did not know they had to file taxes over all these years and are now finding out that they may face tens of thousands of dollars' worth of fines. The phone was ringing off the hook in my constituency office from these folks calling and saying that they were scared, too scared to find out what their rights were and too scared to find out if they are considered U.S. citizens and do not know what to do.

As a result, we held an information session on rights and filing obligations, how the amnesty works, and those kinds of things. Myta Blacklaws in my Halifax office organized this information session. We booked a room for 60 people but when we managed to fit 125 people into that room, we started putting people into a second room. It was unbelievable. It was standing rooms only, as it were. This information session was led by a woman named Blair Hodgman, an immigration lawyer, and some tax accountants were also present.

It is really stressing people. People are scared and under a lot of pressure. Yet the NDP has been asking the Conservative government to take action to start discussions with the U.S. about what is going on, why regular folks are being penalized and that this is not what we are going after with the tax haven legislation, that this is not the intended effect and that we should be reasonable.

We have not seen action from the government on this issue. I know it is the opposite situation that we have in Panama with tax havens, but the track record on tax havens by the government has been pretty appalling, so I cannot imagine that it is going to try to enact anything when it comes to Panama as well.

Anyone who has been in the House for any period of time knows my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster and his passion for international trade and for fair trade. He has spoken to this many times in the House. He has done a lot of dedicated work on many pieces of international trade legislation and free trade deals, including this one. He actually proposed that the Canada--Panama trade agreement not be implemented until Panama agreed to sign a tax information exchange agreement. That sounds reasonable. We can do that. We can say that Panama only gets this if it does something. We can offer up a good faith piece that we can work with.

My colleague brought this up I think at committee. His motion was defeated by the Conservatives and the Liberals who argued that the double taxation agreement that Panama agreed to was satisfactory. The problem with the double taxation agreement is it only tracks legal income. We heard that Panama has some pretty big issues when it comes to non-legal or illegal income. What my colleague proposed would actually track all income, including income made through illegal means. As the OECD has noted, having a trade agreement without first tackling Panama's financial secrecy practices could incentivize even more tax dodging. We could be making things worse by having this agreement in place. Why would we not try to avoid making it worse, but also mitigate the problem in the first place? I think he came up with a really good solution. Considering Panama's history and reputation on these matters, it is pretty clear why this kind of agreement is absolutely necessary before signing a trade deal.

This deal also fails to take real action on addressing Panama's record on the environment and workers' rights.

First, let us look at the environment. I am the environment critic. While this deal includes an agreement on the environment, as we saw with the free trade agreement with Colombia which has a separate agreement on the environment, it actually provides no enhanced environmental protection or resources for affected communities. Given Panama's lax environmental regulations especially when it comes to mining, this oversight is extremely worrying. Let me illustrate.

One current proposal from the Canadian mining corporation, Inmet Mining, includes plans for an open pit copper project west of Panama City. This plan would see 5,900 hectares of mostly primary rainforest deforested. According to media reports, the controversial presence of another Canadian mining corporation, Corriente Resources, on indigenous lands has spurred protests from civil society groups and indigenous nations in Panama. Earlier this month reports surfaced of protesters being killed in violent clashes with police.

We know full well the devastating impact of deforestation, especially in that area of the world. Instead of taking real action to address the current and impending threats to Panama's precious natural resources, the Canada--Panama trade agreement risks encouraging a race to the bottom on environmental protection.

Why is the government so willing to ignore huge threats to Panama's environment? All trade agreements, including this one, should respect sustainable development and the integrity of all ecosystems. That is another carrot and stick idea. We could say we are not going to enter into this agreement until we see action, but we are not seeing any action on that.

Lack of concern for labour rights in this trade agreement is also deeply troubling. As Teresa Healy pointed out in her testimony before the Standing Committee on International Trade, this agreement is weaker than previous agreements when it comes to workers' rights.

This agreement does not include specific protection for the right to organize and the right to strike. It provides instead for the “effective” recognition of the right to collective bargaining. The Conservatives appear to assume that the free flow of trade and investment automatically leads to better wages and working conditions, but we know that is not the case, whether it is in Panama, Canada, or wherever.

The fact of the matter is that the agreement fails to ensure that labour rights are not denied to Panamanian workers as they have been in the past. In effect, this agreement creates a free trade zone that belittles the rights of labour. This is a serious problem that already is prevalent in Panama.

I have heard some comments from the other side that the NDP is at it again, that we are against trade. That is not the case. The reality is that fair trade should be the overarching principle, not just an afterthought, of any trade negotiation. It is possible. We see these winning examples in our local communities.

For example, in Nova Scotia there is a company called Just Us!, which in 1997 became the first certified fair trade licensed coffee roaster in North America. It is actually in the riding of Kings—Hants but it does have a coffee shop in my riding. It was the first in 1997 which was not too long ago. Now there are 250 licensed fair trade companies just in Canada. They are in communities all over Canada. They recognize the need for sustainable development, the need for relationships with communities in the global south, and the need for fair trade.

The motto of Just Us! is “People and Planet Before Profits”, but mark my words, it is a profitable company. It is doing very well. It has expanded. It has a museum of fair trade in its coffee shop in Wolfville. It has two coffee shops in Halifax. The company keeps getting bigger and bigger. It is all based on the principle of fair trade. This is an idea that came from our local communities and it is working.

I also note that behind the chamber's curtains there is a little area where we can have a cup of coffee or a glass of water. I note that the coffee there is fair trade. It is good enough for parliamentarians, but somehow it is not good enough for Canada, not good enough for Canadians, not good enough for our trade agreements. I do not understand how that works.

Canadians need an agreement that supports our sovereignty and the freedom to chart our own policy, an agreement that supports our ability to be a competitive force on the world stage. We need an agreement that upholds the principles of a multilateral fair trade system, but instead we have an agreement that shows complete disregard for corruption and money laundering practices that are rampant in Panama, not to mention the country's glaring environmental and labour rights records.

We need an agreement that puts people before big business.

Senate Reform Act

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-7.

It is important to state that this bill does not make senators accountable. Regardless of whether they are elected or not, they will not have to keep any of their election promises, knowing that their term is not renewable. That is one of the major problems with the Senate. Under the Constitution, the role of the Senate is to represent people, as we are doing today in the House of Commons. I am representing the people in my riding, La Pointe-de-l'Île. I must admit, I have never attended a debate or consideration of a bill in the Senate, but I am certain that no senator ever rises to go against the will of his or her political party and vote against something in order to defend the interests of the people in the Maritimes, for example, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North was saying. Senators have never represented the people they are meant to represent.

This bill does not resolve the biggest problem, which is that the Senate has become a political battleground to which the elected government appoints its cronies, its financial contributors or anyone else who has accomplished some obscure task. Senators will not be any more accountable.

What is more, the bill was supposed to correct those things that people and the Prime Minister himself have often complained about when it comes to the Senate, namely that senators should be elected. The Prime Minister has said himself that he would never again appoint an unelected senator. After the May 2, 2011, election he appointed three defeated Conservative candidates. I, personally, do not trust him. I do not think that Canadians are going to trust a Prime Minister who says one thing but does the complete opposite after the election because he won a majority in the House of Commons.

Then the bill gives the impression that senators will be elected. But as my colleague pointed out earlier, it may be that an individual will be elected, and that individual may also be appointed by the Prime Minister, but we cannot be certain. This means the provinces will spend money to hold elections and submit names to the Prime Minister, but the Prime Minister will keep the arbitrary power of appointing his own personal choice. I think we all agree that the bill, which seeks to have senators elected, does not really achieve its objective. That power remains with the Prime Minister. It is still an arbitrary and undemocratic power. The Prime Minister is under no obligation to respect the will of Canadians. We are well aware that, for this government, respecting the will of Canadians remains a rather vague and fuzzy principle that has yet to be defined.

All this to say that, personally, I think the government has failed miserably with this bill. It gets a 0 out of 10. I realize the Conservatives must keep certain tools at their disposal, but my party is in favour of abolishing the Senate.

As for the Senate itself, its mandate under the Constitution, which is to generally represent the population of a region, has never been respected. Instead, it is a political battleground to which the government appoints its friends to reward them.

We are talking about Senate reform, but there is currently no system allowing the House of Commons and the Senate to work in harmony. For example, in the United States, the institutions that fill the role of the Senate and of the House of Commons work in harmony. There is a system which determines how these institutions work together. For example, if senators were elected, who would have more power? Would it be the House of Commons or the Senate? How are we going to determine the way bills will be passed, and who is going to review them? What about amendments? Things will be exactly like in the United States. Bills will be blocked and it is going to take months before they can be passed. Even if we were to reform the Senate, it would be impossible to have harmony—and a system that works—between the House of Commons and the Senate.

Even if we reform the Senate, the House of Commons and the Senate cannot work in harmony. We do not have a system. It is not in Canada's parliamentary tradition. Therefore, abolishing the Senate is the solution. It would be impossible, especially with this bill, to solve all the problems of the Senate. Even if the government came up with a new proposal for reforming the Senate, it would not work. It would completely skew Canada's democracy. People are elected to the House of Commons. We, here, represent the people.

Bill C-7 does not make the Senate democratic, not in the least. Senators would purportedly be elected by the provinces, which will spend money on these elections, and then the government would retain the arbitrary power to appoint whomever it wants. None the problems with the Senate the Prime Minister has identified will be solved by this bill. It is wrong to say that passing Bill C-7 will make the Senate democratic.

How would we decide which house has the most power to pass legislation? A bill passed by the majority, or even unanimously, in the House of Commons could be rejected by the Senate. Voters in my riding could ask me to vote for a bill, which would be passed by the House of Commons and then rejected by the Senate. It will not work. It is undemocratic. The solution is to abolish the Senate. That is how we can solve the problems.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues for allowing me to speak. When they have the opportunity to ask questions, even repetitive ones, I will be happy to answer as best I can, as all the members who spoke before me have done.

I believe that Bill C-7 is a bogus reform of the Senate. The Prime Minister promised Senate reform. He obviously had no choice, because the legitimacy of the Senate is constantly being questioned by all sides.

Thus, we have before us a bill that attempts to save face and to support the legitimacy of a Senate by proposing measures that make no real changes and provide no pertinent solutions to the concerns that people have expressed about the Senate.

This is not the first time that we have seen bills that herald bogus and ineffective changes. For example, I would like to talk about last spring's proposal regarding income enhancement for seniors living in poverty. After the enhancement was announced, some major associations representing thousands of seniors in Quebec and Canada said they were more or less satisfied and pleased with the measure. They were expecting that it would really benefit seniors who needed additional income to leave poverty behind. However, after a more careful analysis of the eligibility criteria for such income, they came to the realization that very few seniors living in poverty would qualify. Thus, they felt betrayed by an announcement that said millions of dollars would be paid to seniors in need, but that did not disclose a number of criteria and sub-criteria and gave almost nothing—just two dollars a day more—to the poorest of poor seniors. It did not provide any real support.

That is just one example that illustrates how it is now commonplace to introduce bills that announce change, but are really just smokescreens.

For example, there is no mention in Bill C-7 of the unequal distribution of the seats in the Senate. That is a concern that has already been raised and it is not being addressed here in Bill C-7. We are trying to tackle the legitimacy of the Senate. Why do unelected members have the right to interfere in decisions by the House of elected members? What we have here is pure hypocrisy: the government says it is in favour of electing senators, but in fact the bill provides for holding an election to create a list that the Prime Minister could use to then appoint senators. Does that truly enhance the legitimacy of the senators? I do not see how, because at the end of the day, the Prime Minister still appoints his senators. What are the criteria? That remains to be seen.

There are other frustrations that might stem from Bill C-7, other things that can be refuted. For example, the provinces are not being consulted. A bill is introduced that says that the provinces could, if and as they wish, hold elections at their expense to allow the citizens of the province to elect potential senators and to establish a list. The provinces are being affected by a decision on which they are not being consulted at all.

Again, I am not really surprised. The government is constantly trying to send the bill to the provinces without consulting them or to pit one province against another. When the government was talking about minimum sentences, it forgot to mention that the bill would be sent to the provinces, whether they wanted the legislation or not. When the government was talking about abolishing the firearms registry, did it listen when Quebec said it wanted to recover the data? No, not at all. The government totally ignored Quebec.

Old age security is another good example. Lowering the age of eligibility for old age security would certainly mean additional costs for the provinces, which would have to provide social assistance to people with no income for an extra two years.

There are many examples. It is becoming common practice for the Conservatives to send the bill to the provinces and then turn a deaf ear to what they want. This is yet another case in which the provinces have not been consulted about measures that will affect them. This is rather unfortunate.

What tangible impact will a bill such as Bill C-7 have? Unresolved issues are still a cause for concern, and with good reason. For example, if senators are elected, will their mandate have to be redefined? Will senators who win an election be entitled to request more duties or to have their duties changed because they are now elected officials just like members of the House? This is a question to consider.

In fact, we have a complex system that has been around for a number of years. Are changes needed? Yes, without a doubt. However, we must also take the time to determine what the impact of such changes would be. In my opinion, the Conservatives have not done enough in this regard. They talk about measures and tangible results without telling us the basis for or the expected outcomes of these changes. Since the provinces will be able to choose whether or not to hold elections, some senators will be elected and others will not. Will this create a hierarchy among the senators? That is another question to consider. Unfortunately, the Conservatives have not had much to say on the subject. These are real concerns that deserve our attention.

We also have other concerns. What criteria will the Prime Minister use to appoint a senator from a list of elected candidates? Will more women and aboriginal people be appointed to the Senate? Or will selection be based on partisan considerations that will allow the government to have a new senator who is loyal to the government or the party? We have to consider these questions.

Once again, the authority will be left in the hands of a single individual with discretionary power, namely the Prime Minister. These are legitimate questions. Voters who will have chosen a list of Senate candidates may be upset to see the Prime Minister not appointing their first choice but, instead, their second one. So, this whole process all very vague and there are many questions about the criteria that will guide the Prime Minister's choice and the impact that choice will have.

There are other questions about this legislation. Ultimately, will senators still be appointed by the Prime Minister? Will they be less loyal to the Prime Minister who appoints them?

As I said at the beginning of my speech, there is a lot of dissatisfaction with the fact that senators are not elected. Now, the government is proposing a bill which includes an election process. Is this really going to change the legitimacy of senators? One has to wonder.

If I may, I would remind the House that the Senate, as an institution, was meant to be a chamber of wise people representing the territorial diversity of the country and acting as a counterbalance to the decisions made in the House of Commons. Wisdom is an important aspect. I do not want to question the wisdom of current senators, but what good is wisdom if, in the end, one must obey the Prime Minister and be faithful to one's party? What good is senators' wisdom and judgment? Can this aspect be questioned? Perhaps. After all, senators are not accountable to the people they represent for the decisions they make. Therefore, what is the impact of a decision? We really wonder about that.

Currently, one may even get the impression that the Prime Minister is doing through the back door what he does not want to do publicly.

These are my concerns about Bill C-7. All hon. members know that the NDP's position on the Senate is clear, so I will not repeat it in detail.

The solution is not Bill C-7 but, rather, the abolition of the Senate.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join this debate on Bill C-7.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House to speak about Bill C-7, which is complete garbage. I hope it is not too unparliamentary of me to say so.

I came prepared to speak about many issues that have been raised by all sorts of people who are much more qualified than I am. I considered the content of the bill. I will start there. Everything that follows the word “Whereas” is complete nonsense: “it is important that Canada’s representative institutions, including the Senate, continue to evolve in accordance with the principles of modern democracy and the expectations of Canadians”.

The word “modern” is used. With this bill, the government is telling Canadians that people may be elected, or they may not be. They will then be recommended and may or may not be chosen. They will remain in limbo for six years and then they may sit for nine years. This extremely convoluted process, which cannot be called a suitable political process, is referred to as “modern” in the first paragraph of the preamble. Simple decency requires that, at the very least, the word “modern” be removed from the first paragraph of the bill. In 2012, the word “modern” cannot be associated with such a piece of garbage.

A little further on, the preamble states, “Whereas the tenure of senators should be consistent with modern democratic principles”. Again the word “modern” is used. I made a note for myself: nine years. Is there a modern democracy that would allow an individual to sit for nine years and to remain in limbo for six years once elected? That is 15 years. In addition, someone could be relieved of their mandate as senator for an indeterminate period of time and then come back. Could such a mechanism be used, for example, to improve the public standing of a person who was appointed by a party in power? That person would be in limbo, but he would also be in the public eye for six years. He could then sit for three years and take a break, perhaps to become a member of the House. While we are at it, why not allow senators to be elected for nine years and then come back after four or eight years for another six-year term? Such a process would allow an individual to be elected as a public official for 15, 20 or 22 years. For goodness' sake, can we take all the instances of the word “modern” out of this piece of garbage?

Another paragraph astonished me: “And whereas Parliament wishes to maintain the essential characteristics of the Senate…as a chamber of independent…thought.” Not all Canadians are that gullible.

I have here a letter from Senator Bert Brown dated June 15, 2011. It concludes as follows: “Every Senator in this caucus needs to decide where their loyalty should be and must be. The answer is simple; our loyalty is to the man who brought us here, the man who has wanted Senate reform….” His loyalty is to the person who appointed him. The bill talks about a “chamber of independent thought”. While the government makes claims, the way that chamber operates, in fact, has nothing to do with what is discussed by the elected chamber here.

In another clause, the bill says: “A person remains as a Senate nominee until whichever of the following occurs first: ….” Here we are talking about something I mentioned earlier. A person could be suspended after 15 years. Fifteen years is equivalent to three or four provincial terms. Elections of senators would be associated with provincial elections.

The governments in power in the provinces will change, in a democratic and modern way, every three or four or five years, while someone is going to be in limbo with a position as an elected public representative for two or three or four provincial terms.

If we look at the history of the Senate, we see the extent to which this completely bizarre construction that this government is on the verge of creating is based on something that has been bizarre since the outset: the founding instrument enacted in 1867. One of the first comments made by Sir John A. Macdonald was that that chamber could act to curb democratic excesses. That is the foundational instrument. A chamber was created to avoid democratic excesses. The other chamber does not seem to be questioning whether its approach is healthy and democratic. The goal of the foundational instrument was to prevent democratic excesses.

There is a clause in the Constitution, section 26 of the Constitution Act, 1867, under which the Prime Minister may, with the consent of Her Majesty, cause four or eight additional senators to be appointed. Those senators must represent equally the four regional divisions. That clause has been invoked twice in history, but it has been used only once, in 1990. Brian Mulroney invoked it to make sure a bill creating the goods and services tax was passed.

Historically, something is put in place to prevent what was called democratic excesses, and then that instrument is used to make sure that every once in a while, a bill is passed with greater speed. Or, as was done recently, and as my colleague from Halifax pointed out, bills that have been passed by members of a chamber elected in the modern way are then defeated. Nothing in this mechanism will change one iota after this bill is enacted. We will be in the same position: the parties in power will use this chamber to their advantage morning, noon and night, 365 days a year.

As a final point from the past, I would remind the House that in November 2007, Jack Layton proposed holding a referendum. I would point out that, at the time, he was supported by someone who remains very politically active today, that is, the current Prime Minister of Canada. This marks another of the remarkable transformations of this Prime Minister, who, as we know, is an ardent defender of the centre-right-right-right, but who, about a decade ago, had at least a hint of a democrat in him. As the Brits like to say, let us agree to disagree and have a healthy democracy, even with someone who is on the centre-right-right-right, as long as he maintains his democratic reflexes. Instead, we are witnessing a complete shift. Barely five or seven years ago, he was prepared to support the NDP leader on abolishing the Senate. What we have before us now is garbage. I repeat, this garbage bill will allow the government to continue using the Senate as governments have done for the past 20 years. Bill C-7 only adds inconsistency to the absurdity.

The Prime Minister is under no obligation to appoint someone who has been elected. Another part of the bill surprised me. The word “election” does not appear anywhere in the title of the bill. Instead, it refers to “selection”. So, given that this system allows for the election of a certain portion of people in one chamber who could then later be selected, how is this really a democratic process? That was a rhetorical question; the very definition of the exercise clearly indicates that this is not democratic.

As for costs, an analysis conducted by the NDP in 2009 found that in the previous fiscal year, so 2007-08, senators had spent $19.5 million on travel, an increase—

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise today to speak about Bill C-7, the Senate reform act. I have two major concerns about this bill. One concerns the process by which the bill was derived, and the second is the substance of the bill. Once I have gone through those two points, I will also bring up a proposition of how we can move forward on this topic.

In terms of process, I find the way in which this bill was developed is cynical. I think it was really developed in the backroom by the Conservatives with very little consultation with the public, the academic communities or the provinces. In fact, I do not think there was a single robocall made through this whole process. Perhaps the Conservatives might want to change not only their position on how they develop bills or their approach to developing bills, but also how they consult the public in general.

The Senate is an outdated but important institution. It requires serious debate and public input. I think we learned from the Meech Lake accord that Canadians are no longer willing to develop important positions on the Constitution, institutions of Parliament or democracy by having a bunch of guys in the backroom make a decision and then kind of foist it on the public.

We need to involve the public and all the expertise that we have across the country in order to come forward with a position that all Canadians can accept.

The Senate is a key institution of government. Its origins date back to the 11th century in England. Yet, despite the long-standing presence of this institution, both in other countries and in Canada, no public input has been sought on these changes. There is little consultation with the provinces. There is little academic input. This is unfortunate. For example, Tom Flanagan, a chief advisor to the Conservatives, said this legislation “scares me”. He opposes this legislation because he thinks it would further entrench all that is wrong with the Senate.

As I mentioned, this cynical approach to democratic reform really died with Meech Lake. Members of this House will remember that the Charlottetown accord, although it did not go forward, set a new way for major reforms in this country. This way is to bring the public in and to make sure that they are consulted. If the public does not want the change, then it is not made.

I am going to return to the idea of process at the end of my speech, but I am going to move on with substance. I have to say I agree with Professor Flanagan that this legislation is scary, not only in the way it was developed but also the substance of it. At best, this bill is frivolous and at worst it is damaging to Canadian democracy.

For example, the Prime Minister would only be required to consider these elections. A province could go through all the trouble of electing and selecting a new senator, to bring his or her name forward to the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister could reject it.

We are already in a democratic crisis here in Canada. We have voter turnouts at the lowest levels in history. Citizens do not participate between elections. I am sure we will get into that debate later today with a perhaps purposeful, fraudulent attempt on the other side to suppress public input which was brought to light over the weekend.

Again, this could only deepen the cynicism about our democratic institutions. The effect of this bill could also be no effect at all. Provinces have already indicated that they are going to take this to court if this goes ahead.

I would like to draw attention to clauses 38 to 50, which link Senate reform not only to the provinces conducting these elections for senators but municipalities. This part of the bill says that if the provinces do not want to conduct these elections, they could devolve them to municipal institutions. I think this would be very dangerous.

Three colleagues and I have just finished a book on the topic of local government institutions across Canada. I have to report that I think clauses 38 to 50 would be a very dangerous precedent to set. As we report in our book, municipal election processes in many provinces are in really dire shape.

The provincial government in British Columbia found it could not conduct referendums during municipal elections because the administration of these municipal elections is unreliable. There is improper record keeping and there are irregularities. There is not sufficient oversight to guarantee that these elections are fit for anything other than local issues.

Worse still is the influence of foreign money in municipal elections. This has come to light in the province of British Columbia. It would be important to consider if we were to move ahead with Senate elections conducted on the back of these municipal elections.

For example, the head of CSIS reported last year that foreign funds were coming to the municipal elections in British Columbia and they were having a negative influence on municipal politicians. Premier Gordon Campbell was so concerned about the charges made by the head of CSIS that he convened a task force on this very topic. I am pleased to say that Premier Campbell invited me to testify at the task force. I was able to report on an investigation that I had conducted about the amount of foreign money coming into B.C. local elections. This would be especially worrying if Senate elections were to be conducted during these same municipal elections.

One councillor in the city of Vancouver received a lump sum donation of $75,000 from a Taiwanese businessperson. This money was routed through various companies in Canada in order to land in his municipal election fund. This is one example of a large amount of money that came to one single councillor that could have the effect of influencing decisions made by councillors. If Senate elections were connected to municipal elections that in turn could influence who sits in our Senate. That is very worrying.

We reported to the provincial task force that donations from U.S. sources are common. Thousands of dollars are coming into B.C. municipal elections. This could have an influence on senatorial elections if this legislation were passed.

As additional information, there is currently no spending limit in B.C. municipal elections. In the last Vancouver municipal election over $5 million was spent by candidates of different political parties. Some of this money has already been traced to foreign sources. The task force has investigated this and continues to investigate. Both the former premier and the current premier have expressed deep concerns and are moving forward with legislation to change this. This is an investigation only in one province. Before we move ahead with anything like clauses 38 to 50 we definitely have to make sure that this is not the case in other municipal elections across Canada.

It is our position that the Senate should be abolished. However, we do not think we should rush forward with this without talking to Canadians. We should learn from the mistakes of the other side. We should engage Canadians in the discussion of what is an important democratic institution in this country.

We have a four step proposal. Most of it has already been covered in my colleagues' speeches to the House, but it is good to remind the House of our proposal.

First, we are proposing to convene a number of experts who could give us a non-partisan overview of what is possible in terms of Senate reform, that is, the constitutionality in relation to the overall Constitution and how it affects the provinces. We have brilliant academic minds in this country who could come together and bring us this information.

Second, we would need to publicize this information through a mechanism to spur debate on this issue.

Third, we would have to move to a referendum on this topic. I was an academic advisor to the B.C. citizens' assembly. With a few tweaks we could have something like a citizens' assembly that could help set the question to be asked of Canadians at large and perhaps answer some of my colleague's questions about what threshold would be appropriate. I would think 50% plus one would be fine. Again, this is a personal opinion.

Fourth, a referendum is binding. After this referendum, we would abide by the will of the people and move ahead with whatever is acceptable.

If the majority government moves ahead with the bill against our advice, I suggest that the government consult with the Province of British Columbia on foreign funding in municipal elections and take a very good look at clauses 38 to 50.

I am happy to provide the government with the briefing I gave to the Campbell task force. I am also working on a private member's motion on this matter, which I will raise at a later time.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity today to speak to Bill C-7 before the House.

Just before I start, I note that the most recent question was whether or not it was wise to consult Canadians. Yet the government has not even consulted the provinces when talking about making massive changes to the Senate and its functions.

The rub in this particular legislation is that it all sounds very simple. In fact, if we look at the summary to the legislation it merely says that part 1 of the enactment is to provide that the Prime Minister, in recommending Senate nominees to the Governor General for a province or territory, as if the Prime Minister did not make the nominations and put them into effect, would be required to consider names from a list of nominees submitted by the provincial or territorial government. The list of nominees would be determined by an election held in accordance with provincial or territorial laws.

Therefore, what we have here is what a famous Canadian once called “meddling with the constitution”. That man is considered one of the fathers of Confederation, none other than Sir John A. Macdonald. He talked about certain proposals coming forward prior to Confederation in the Province of Canada, between Upper and Lower Canada. Suggestions were made for some changes based on representation by population. It was really about changing the balance, in this particular case, between Upper and Lower Canada, or Quebec and Ontario. It was being proposed in some other fashion, not directly, but the idea was to change the nature of the Constitution.

Sir John A. quite rightly identified this as meddling with the constitution. That is what is happening here. What is the effect of this legislation? Is it to improve the situation in Canada? Do we have a circumstance that requires adjustment by saying that we will appoint only senators who are elected in a province? Is that what the people are crying out for? Do we want to have a Senate now that has six members from Alberta, six members from B.C., six members from Manitoba, and ten from New Brunswick and four from P.E.I.? Are we going to improve things by saying they would be chosen from those who have been elected? Therefore, in the Senate we would have B.C. with six senators and P.E.I. with four. That is the representation we are going to have in the Senate, and we would start to give them legitimacy by saying they were chosen from people who were elected in the provinces.

That is going to be a muddle if ever there were one. If John A. Macdonald were here today that is what he would call it. He would say this is “meddling with the constitution”. If the bill passes, we do not know what the real effect is going to be, but it will give some legitimacy to senators, or at least the senators will think they have legitimacy. They will say they were elected by the people of Prince Edward Island or British Columbia, or at least that they “won” an election, because they are not allowed to be elected. A senator will say, “I am one of six senators and should therefore be able to flex my constitutional muscle in the Senate”.

That person will be up against someone from Prince Edward Island who will say: “I was elected. I won an election in Prince Edward Island. I am one of four. I have a vote in the Senate and my vote is just as important as yours. We collectively are going to have legitimacy because we were elected”.

What is that going to do to our constitution? It would muddle it at the very least and delegitimize this place, the House of Commons, the elected representatives of the people making the law. We have a Senate down the hall, “the other place” I think we are supposed to refer to it politely. We are not allowed to utter its name because it is the other place. That is the tradition here.

The tradition also is that the other place is supposed to defer to the House of Commons. That is the convention. If we look at the Constitution, it says they have equal powers, but the constitutional convention is that they are not supposed to be exercising those powers.

What have we had in the last couple of years? We have had a government that has been using the Senate as a tool to defeat the majority in the House of Commons. We saw that in the last Parliament. The climate change action bill was passed by the House, and what did the government do? It used its majority in the Senate to kill the bill. The will of the House of Commons, the elected people of Canada, was defeated by appointed people in the other place.

Who are they? They are appointed at the whim of the Prime Minister. Never mind the language about the Prime Minister “recommending” nominees to the Governor General. We know what that means: anyone who is recommended by the Prime Minister to the Governor General is appointed to the Senate. I do not even think they are called appointments. Instead, they are called to the Senate. I do not mean to mock this, but that is the way the system is set up. Senators are clearly appointed by the Prime Minister based on whatever whim he has. This legislation says he would have to consider nominees who have won an election in a province. Some of them are recognizable people, such as defeated Conservative candidates, for example.

The former member for Avalon in my province was defeated in an election and appointed to the Senate. Then he resigned and ran in the last election. He was defeated again and re-appointed to the Senate. In my province that is not regarded very highly. It is not regarded as democratic that someone can become a senator because he is a defeated Conservative candidate who is rewarded for his loyalty by being put in the Senate, where he can serve for as long as the Constitution allows.

That is the body the government wants to give legitimacy to by saying that the persons chosen could potentially or possibly be from among those who have been elected. This is meddling with the Constitution, because senators and others have talked about how we will have differential senators as a result, some appointed until age 75 because they were appointed 20, 10 or 5 years ago, and then those who are appointed from a list of elected candidates. Not all provinces are happy with this. British Columbia does not seem to be happy about this. Quebec is not happy with it. In fact, it is saying it is going to take it to court to challenge the constitutionality of it.

There was a time when the Reform Party talked about a triple-E Senate: equal, effective and elected. That was the model and I think it has been rejected. What are we trying to salvage? Is it the notion that we can reform a body that ought to be abolished, like every other senate in Canada has been abolished? Every other province had the equivalent to the Senate. Most of them were called legislative councils and some were called other things, but the provinces got rid of them and we now have what are called unicameral legislatures across the country.

Democracy has not suffered; democracy has been enhanced. In fact, these senates or legislative councils were initially aimed in part to be a brake on democracy, to the effect that “We cannot let commoners pass laws unless the aristocracy and the establishment have an opportunity to veto them”. That was part of the original idea. There is talk about regional balance, yes, but it was also about this other notion.

It is a fundamentally undemocratic institution and ought to be abolished. Our first step, as was mentioned, would be to ask Canadians to reflect on this issue in a referendum. It would be a first step, and not a constitutional step, by the way. Do not mistake that. It would say that New Democrats wanted to develop a national consensus on abolishing the Senate. That is our policy. This alleged reform is in fact meddling with the Constitution and ought not take place.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-7, An Act respecting the selection of senators and amending the Constitution Act, 1867 in respect of Senate term limits.

I am pleased to have this opportunity today. I have a degree in political science and I am very interested in all matters pertaining to parliamentary process, especially Senate reform. It is a subject that I studied a number of times while in university. This is the third time that the Conservatives have introduced a bill dealing with either the election of senators or Senate terms. Thus, we have had a great deal of material to examine and analyze in recent years.

The purpose of the bill before us today is to reform the Senate in two main ways. The first limits the tenure of senators to a maximum of nine years for all senators appointed after October 14, 2008. The second allows the provinces and territories to hold elections, at their own expense, to decide the names to be submitted to the Prime Minister for consideration for future Senate appointments. The provinces could thus choose any system they liked for electing senators, provided that the system adhered to basic democratic principles.

The Conservatives say the measures they have introduced are intended to modernize the aging institution that is the Senate. For once, I agree with my Conservative colleagues on part of what they say: the upper chamber does in fact present major problems, and measures need to be taken to remedy the situation.

However, the solution the NDP has been proposing for several years is quite different. In fact, we are calling for the complete abolition of the Senate. The reasons why we are calling for the abolition of the upper chamber are very simple. First, the institution is not democratic, and it is composed of unelected members appointed by the Prime Minister. More often than not, those appointments are partisan and are made to reward friends of the Prime Minister. As well, he sometimes adds insult to injury by appointing candidates, and even ministers, who were rejected by the public in a general election, as we saw after the last election on May 2. The people living in the greater Quebec City region can attest to that as well.

In addition, the Senate is also used for partisan purposes by the government, whether to guarantee the speedy passage of government bills or to kill bills that have actually been approved by the House of Commons. I am thinking in particular of the Climate Change Accountability Act and the bill to provide generic drugs for Africa.

Since 1900, there have been 13 attempts to reform the Senate, and they have all failed. Bill C-7 is no different from all those other failed attempts. It does not solve the problems that already exist in the upper chamber, and on top of that it creates new problems that simply worsen the present situation. First, limiting senators’ tenure to nine years does not make them more accountable to Canadians; quite the contrary. In fact, the bill eliminates any form of accountability to the public, since senators would never have to face the public at the end of their tenure. Once senators were elected, they would never have to account for their decisions, their actions and their broken election promises, because they could never stand in another election. As well, they would be automatically entitled to a pension, regardless of their record.

I cannot see how having the Prime Minister give a senator a nine year non-renewable term increases democracy in the Senate. Nor do the measures proposed by the Conservatives in Bill C-7 prevent partisan appointments. The bill does not really change the way senators are appointed, and the Prime Minister remains entirely responsible for choosing senators. The Prime Minister is not obliged by this bill to select senators from the lists submitted by the provinces or territories, and he can continue to choose whomever he wants and ignore each and every list he receives. He can, therefore, continue to fill the Senate with senators who are loyal to the government rather than to Canadians. This is a major problem.

Canadians elect the members of the House of Commons and place their trust in them to be their voices in Parliament. The Prime Minister, on the other hand, appoints senators, as a reward, and they serve the governing party.

I shall now read a letter written by Senator Bert Brown to the members of the Conservative Senate caucus. It is dated June 15, 2001, which, in my opinion, perfectly illustrates a situation. I am going to read the first and last paragraphs, which I think are the most relevant . The letter reads,“Yesterday, in Senate caucus [the minister] was showered with complaints about Senate elections and a nine year term. ... Every Senator in this caucus needs to decide where their loyalty should be and must be. The answer is simple; our loyalty is to the man who brought us here, the man who has wanted Senate reform since he entered politics, the Rt. Hon. [Prime Minister].

The message to senators is very clear: their loyalty lies not with the regions that they represent, nor with Canadians; their loyalty is to the Prime Minister. Canadians, too, have heard this message loud and clear.

Another consequence of this bill would be the creation of a two-tiered Senate with elected and unelected senators in the same upper house, which may be worse than what we currently have.

Bill C-7, if passed in its present form, will fundamentally change the nature of Canadian politics as we know it today. We will end up with senators elected at the provincial level who believe that they are more legitimate than the unelected senators. We will then have a Senate with different degrees of legitimacy based on the method by which senators are selected.

However, the most negative effect of this bill will be evident once we have an entirely elected Senate. According to the Canadian Constitution, the Senate currently has more or less the same powers as the House of Commons. However, since senators are unelected, they cannot indefinitely block legislation with financial implications because they have no direct mandate from Canadians but are appointed by the Prime Minister.

Once we have an elected upper house, it will be a whole different story. Senators will have greater legitimacy to introduce bills and block House bills. That could result in American-style impasses pitting two houses of elected representatives with essentially the same decision-making powers against one another in legislative conflicts with no apparent solution.

Ultimately, such impasses will force us to redefine the framework of Parliament, including the rights and responsibilities of both the House of Commons and the Senate. Major changes will require nothing less than a constitutional amendment. There is no other option, because that is the existing legislative framework.

The Conservatives claim that their bill will sidestep a constitutional debate on Senate reform, but I do not see how such a debate can be avoided.

Before passing a bill that will inevitably lead to interminable constitutional debates and discussions, we have to let Canadians weigh in on the issue of the Senate's very existence. All the provinces have done quite well without their upper houses since 1968, so it is high time we thought seriously about getting rid of the federal Senate. That is why, for years, the NDP has been calling for a referendum to find out if Canadians want to get rid of the Senate. Before setting in motion any major reforms of the Senate or abolishing it entirely, we need a clear mandate from Canadians, from the people of this country, and the only way to get a clear, legitimate mandate is to hold a referendum.

The changes that the Conservatives have proposed in Bill C-7 are inadequate and will not solve the Senate-related problems. That is why I oppose this bill. If the Senate cannot be abolished outright, the status quo is better than the constitutional chaos into which the Conservatives apparently wish to lead us. Serious consideration is in order before passing Bill C-7. The government will find itself embroiled in constitutional debates that it would rather avoid. That deserves some thought.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today to Bill C-7. I will begin by talking about the Senate and where it came from.

The Senate was established by the provinces. As everybody knows, Canada is a federation. Before Confederation, some individual provinces were working together, such as in the legislative Parliament of Canada, and Ontario and Quebec were in a confederation with the Atlantic provinces.

The origin of the Senate comes from Confederation. The provinces got together and decided they would have an elected House of Commons where most of the power would reside and then they would have a second body modelled after legislatures in other countries in which the members would be drawn from a class of people with a different viewpoint and it would be independent of the elected House of Commons. This legislature was established by the provinces when they got together to form the confederation that is Canada today. The existence and role of the Senate, the way it is composed and the way that senators are chosen is embedded in our Constitution.

The bill proposes to change how senators are chosen and, because that is a substantial change, I believe the only way to change how senators are chosen would be to amend the Constitution, which requires much more than an act of the House of Commons. In fact, it requires the participation of the provinces. It would require seven provinces with at least 50% of the population of Canada. It is my belief that the provinces should be involved in something that they helped set up in the first place.

We have a bicameral system, the House of Commons and the Senate, where the two bodies are supposed to be somewhat independent of each other. One should not be under the control of the other. They are supposed to think independently and have an independent point of view. Therefore, it should not be possible for one body to decide how the members of the other body are chosen. This is sort of a moral reason that we should not be acting unilaterally here in Ottawa to change how senators are chosen. We really should be consulting with the provinces and amending the Constitution.

If the government thinks that what it is doing makes sense from a constitutional point of view and really believes it is the right thing to do, I would challenge the government to go to the Supreme Court, as we have done with other questions, such as the lead up to the Clarity Act. The government should ask the Supreme Court if it thinks, in light of the Constitution, that this is a legal thing to do. That would probably save time, money and effort in the future when one or more of the provinces decides to challenge the act, if the bill is passed.

I would like to focus my remarks today on what I view as a contradiction and I will try to explain what the contradiction is.

The bill asks the provinces and territories to provide the Governor General with the names of people who could become senators. It is expected, by this legislation, that the provinces and territories would hold some form of election in order for the people of that province to choose a list of potential senators. It is a little bit strange because the legislation would not provide funding to the provinces to run these elections to choose a senator who will work in Ottawa. It is kind of strange that the federal government would not provide funding for these elections for which it is calling.

Because the legislation says that the provinces and territories would simply be nominating people, as a result of an election or by other means, somehow that is not a substantial change in how we choose senators. Somehow, because these recommendations are not binding on the Governor General or the Prime Minister, in effect, this is not a substantial enough change to trigger the requirement of the federal government to consult with the provinces before proceeding with this kind of change.

The contradiction is that if we are to take these elections seriously, if we really think we will be changing the Senate so that it becomes elected, which is one of the Es of the triple-E Senate that many members of the Conservative side, the reform side of the House, have spoken to in the past, we need to believe that these elections would have some force and that the Prime Minister would be bound in some way. If not legally, then in a moral sense, the Prime Minister would be bound to accept the results of these Senate elections.

If we are to take seriously the idea of having an elected Senate and that Bill C-7 would implement an elected Senate, then we cannot take seriously the argument that the bill is not a substantial change to how senators are elected and that somehow we do not need to consult the provinces. That is the essential contradiction.

Related to that there is another contradiction. A lot of people who have talked about Senate reform want the Senate to be more representative of the people of Canada. That is one of the motivations behind having an elected Senate. I think Senate reform is a good thing because, from what I have seen in my less than one year working here in Ottawa, senators represent a great source of experience and wisdom which would be too valuable to simply throw away, as some of my hon. colleagues would like to do by abolishing the Senate. The Senate is a very valuable source of advice and experience and sober second thought makes sense.

However, it has always been the case that the Senate, not being elected, has deferred to the elected House of Commons whenever there was a conflict. In the past, because the unelected Senate always deferred to the elected House of Commons, it was not such a big deal if, because of an historical artifact, certain provinces had a proportionally higher representation in the Senate than other provinces.

If we were to pass this bill and have an elected Senate, the Senate would have stronger powers. It would have a mandate from the people to sometimes challenge the House of Commons. It would have more power, which would be given to it by hon. members who want to reform the Senate, and there are such members on both sides of the House. At the same time as the Senate would be reformed in this way, we would need to face the fact that some western provinces, in particular Alberta and British Columbia, would be underrepresented. The other contradiction is that hon. members who want to reform the Senate would be handicapping the ability of Alberta and British Columbia to be properly represented in Ottawa.

(The House resumed at 12 p.m.)

The House resumed from December 8, 2011, consideration of the motion that Bill C-7, An Act respecting the selection of senators and amending the Constitution Act, 1867 in respect of Senate term limits, be read the second time and referred to a committee.