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.

Senate Reform Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their very relevant remarks on today's issue, the Senate reform bill, as introduced by the Conservative government. I am also pleased to support the position of the official opposition, which proposes to simply abolish this archaic institution, which should no longer be part of a modern democracy like Canada.

As my colleagues have done, I will try to present clearly and accurately the arguments supporting the NDP's position. I will also explain why this government should immediately put a stop to its Bill C-7, An Act respecting the selection of senators and amending the Constitution Act, 1867 in respect of Senate term limits.

First, I want to commend the work done by members opposite, who recognize that we need to reflect on the democratic system in which we live. As Canadians, we should all ask ourselves whether that system adequately meets the changing needs of a modern democratic society like ours.

Since 1900, 13 attempts have been made to reform the Senate, but they all failed. Considering that so many attempts have been made to deal with a serious issue that affects the very foundation of our Constitution, I think there is as much a need to debate the issue and reflect on it as to engage in a reform. It is on the content of the proposed reform that our opinion differs from that of the government. Indeed, a thorough analysis of the issue leads us to the conclusion that the Senate simply no longer serves the interests of Canadians.

The first amendment proposed in the bill by the government deals with the appointment process. The government is proposing a process that, in theory, allows voters to have a say in the selection of Senate nominees. However, in fact, there is not much change in this regard.

The government is saying that a province or territory would have the option of holding an election, at its own cost, to select the names to be submitted to the Prime Minister for consideration. However, the Prime Minister would be under no obligation to appoint a person previously elected in a province or territory. Therefore, this bill does not change the way senators are appointed, since the Prime Minister would still be free to appoint whomever he chooses from a pool of elected nominees.

In short, this means that the government is proposing to keep all the power regarding Senate appointments, under cover of a supposedly more democratic selection process, and with the provinces footing the bill.

What is the point of letting voters believe that they can have a say if, ultimately, senators will continue to be appointed by the Governor General upon the sole recommendation of the Prime Minister? And why make the provinces again pay for a federal measure?

Furthermore the bill states that if an elected person is not appointed within six years of their election, a new election must be held. This means that a candidate may have spent time, energy and money on an election campaign. He or she may be elected by the people, but if this person is not appointed to the Senate within six years, he or she will have to start all over again. Voters would have elected candidates for the Senate who will wait to be appointed on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, but who may not be appointed and will have to start all over again six years later. This measure makes no sense at all and, to my mind, even seems anti-democratic in that it still leaves a great deal of room for favouritism and cronyism while discriminating against others.

The second amendment being proposed by the government has to do with term limits. Before 1965, senators were appointed for life. Under the British North America Act, 1965, the maximum duration of a term is nine years and the retirement age is 75 years. Reducing terms to a maximum of nine years is definitely a step in the right direction. However, in my humble opinion, it is not enough. This proposal does not do enough to make senators accountable to Canadians.

Once their terms are over, senators will never have to stand before the people of Canada and be accountable for the election promises that they failed to keep or for the decisions that they made while serving. Another thing that does not make sense is that senators will be entitled to receive a Senate retirement pension without ever having had to account for their performance to those who elected them to be their representatives and stand up for their interests.

Another issue of major concern to me is that the provinces were not consulted when the bill was drafted, despite the fact that it deals with the foundations of our Constitution. This government cannot take the initiative for any more new bills devoid of logic on the redundant and unjustified pretext that Canadians gave them a mandate on May 2.

I believe that the provinces have something to say about this bill and that it is imperative that they all be consulted on the subject. Right now, we have proof that the government did not consult the provinces. Ontario and Nova Scotia have publicly called for the Senate to be abolished. Manitoba has maintained its position in favour of abolishing the Senate. The Premier of British Columbia has said that the Senate no longer serves any useful purpose within our Confederation. Even Quebec, the nation that I very proudly represent here today, has stated that it will appeal the matter in court if this bill is passed without first consulting the provinces.

As far as I know, the provinces are the parts that make up Canada. Can the government tell us, here in this House, who it listened to when drafting this bill? Did it develop its approach and these proposals based on actual needs?

Unfortunately, I think I need to remind the House that this government is supposed to listen to and serve Canadians. Such an amendment to our Constitution cannot be made without consulting the provinces and the general public. So why not hold a referendum on the issue? Some 71% of Canadians have already said they want a referendum on the issue, before the question has even been asked unofficially. Some 36% of Canadians are already in favour of abolishing the Senate. Personally, I think a responsible government is one that allows the people to have their say on issues as fundamental as this one.

As a final point on this bill, one that illustrates my negative feelings about it, has to do with a potential conflict of legitimacy between elected senators and appointed senators. How does the government plan to deal with the fact that some senators will have been elected and others appointed, and that some can remain in their positions until they are 75, while others will have a nine-year term? It will be impossible to ensure equal treatment for them all because, right from the start, those who were elected by the public will insidiously be given greater legitimacy.

In the NDP, our reflections on the possibility of abolishing the Senate date back to the 1930s. The relevance of an unelected Senate was already in question, to say nothing of the costs involved, which of course Canadian taxpayers are forced to bear. The Senate costs up to $100 million a year and that money should be invested elsewhere—in infrastructure, for instance, and in job creation.

As we know, historically, the Senate was created based on the Anglo-Saxon model in order to represent Canada's economic and social elite, but that role is outdated and the institution has become archaic.

These days, great modern democracies have come to the same conclusion as the NDP and realized that the Senate is no longer fulfilling its duty in the current political framework. Its role simply no longer corresponds to our current social reality.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Liberal Party for his views on Bill C-7, the act respecting the selection of senators.

Earlier today, during routine proceedings, there were no fewer than three pieces of legislation introduced in the House of Commons that had their origins in the other place, the unelected, undemocratic Senate. I would like to ask him if he shares my view that it is completely inappropriate for the democratically elected House of Commons to be guided by and, in fact, have its business interrupted and interfered with by bills originating in the Senate, which take primacy and bump the business of the House of Commons.

Regardless of the fact whether he shares the NDP's view that the Senate should be abolished, does he at least concede that it is inappropriate and wrong for the Senate to be dictating the course of action and the debate in the elected chamber, the House of Commons?

The House resumed from December 7, 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, since it is related to the debate, I would like to talk about the Senate's financial statements from March 31, 2010. The costs were: pay and benefits, $71,685,000; transportation, $12,883,000; facilities, $11 million; and professional services, $4 million. The total is $107 million. Since we have a deficit budget, I think it is appropriate to bring up the costs of an unelected, undemocratic and unrepresentative Senate. I thank my colleague for mentioning it.

There is something strange in the Conservatives' Bill C-7. The government says that it wants to respect basic democratic principles, but at the same time, candidates for election to the Senate must be nominated by a registered political party, meaning that the Conservatives would refuse to accept an independent candidate. What does my colleague think about that?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a tough act to follow, believe me.

I am pleased to rise here today to speak to An Act respecting the selection of senators and amending the Constitution Act, 1867 in respect of Senate term limits. I admit that the issue of the Senate is one that may seem straightforward at first, but it must nevertheless be carefully analyzed, because we are wading into constitutional waters, as some would say, and into muddy waters, as others would say.

I can think of one prime minister who talked about abolishing the Senate for quite some time and then started talking about an elected Senate. Once he came to power, he suddenly changed his tune and decided to do the same thing as the previous Liberal governments—he started giving Senate appointments to political friends, fundraisers, and as my hon. colleague from Welland so aptly put it, people who work behind the scenes, all paid for by taxpayers.

When I began my legal studies and was studying constitutional law, the issue of the Senate of Canada came up. I had the great pleasure of taking classes taught by none other than the great Senator Beaudoin himself—not necessarily great in height, but great in terms of eminence. He was not a Conservative senator when he was teaching my classes. He taught us about the Canadian parliamentary system.

I grew up thinking that the Senate was indeed what had always been called “a chamber of independent sober second thought”. That title always impressed me. The title is even longer in French: “lieu de la réflexion indépendante, sereine et attentive au sein de la démocratie parlementaire canadienne”. I was so naive that I believed that for a very long time. I thought we had a parliament made up of MPs elected by the public to debate the issues, represent their constituents and engage in dialogue, which might be vigorous but is always supposed to be respectful.

Since then, I have learned that Canadian democracy is not all that healthy. When we want to talk, we end up being silenced. There are time allocation motions. That is a new expression I have heard a lot in the House the past few months.

While I was learning about the wonderful Canadian system, I learned that the Senate was a place free from any influence, a body that would disregard partisan politics and work together to examine issues. I learned that the Senate conducted indepth studies of bills once they passed all the stages in the House and in committee.

I have met senators whom I admire a lot. They are strong people, people with whom you can have extremely interesting and deep conversations. Unfortunately, the very politicized and partisan side of the system seems to have drifted down the hall to that sacrosanct chamber, where we do not often have the right to enter, except on rare occasions, and even then, only in the hall. In any case, we do not go in very far.

As co-chair—with a colleague from the Senate—of the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations, I learned that no matter where it goes, the Senate always has priority over the House of Commons, the people's house.

Partisan appointments have always tainted the quality of the Senate. Once people were appointed, they were there until the age of 75. We saw Senate reports that were not necessarily partisan and that did not reflect the views of the party that had the majority in the Senate. It was not uncommon to see bills come back to the House of Commons with amendments because they had been carefully studied.

The problem with the current situation is that not only do we have an ultra-partisan House of Commons that hardly debates any more and is often democratic in name only, but we also have a Senate that is the same in nature. That is of great concern to me. In this context, when examining the issue of changing and improving the Senate, I take everything with a large grain of salt. I see nothing in any of the changes proposed by the government in Bill C-7 that will ensure that the Senate will serve as chamber of independent, sober second thought within Canada's parliamentary democracy.

There are even some aspects of the bill that are of great concern to me. On the one hand, we will end up with a sort of patchwork Senate, made up of senators who may be elected, who are not really elected, who are almost elected, who are not elected at all, and who are elected but not appointed, and this will really create a rather unusual situation. As for its fundamental role, we must be honest and members of the House of Commons have to take a good look and ask themselves what the purpose of this Senate is, other than having a Liberal or Conservative wing that, depending on who has the majority, does the prime minister's bidding.

Canada is probably the country where power is most concentrated in the hands of only one person. I challenge even my colleagues opposite to say that they have a lot of power. What the PMO says is what the PMO does. The rest just trickles down and people fall in line. There is only the official opposition to stand up to and serve as the counterweight to the government. Thus, under the circumstances, I went one step further and asked myself what the purpose of the Senate is. To my mind, it serves no purpose. The NDP nevertheless realizes that there are very important constitutional issues involved in abolishing the Senate. We are very much in favour of putting the question to the people, and I believe that they must decide if we should continue to have a senate.

Since 1968, I believe, every provincial senate has been abolished, and the provinces are doing just fine without their senate. This solves my problem. I am acutely aware that we have to discuss this with our partners in the federation, namely the provinces and territories. We cannot come up with this type of change and be paternalistic about it and presume that it is up to us, because this has a huge impact on how the Canadian Constitution operates. I am also well aware of the position of Quebec, which challenges the constitutionality of the Conservative government's proposed changes.

We have a much simpler suggestion: it might be time to put the question to the Canadian public. The Liberals are saying they do not want more MPs. But we keep asking the wrong questions. The real question is: what is a reasonable number of constituents for an MP to represent? Once we establish that, we stop playing political games, we respect the fact that some provinces are less populous, and we respect the nation of Quebec. That would work.

The same goes for the Senate. Let us put the question to the public. If we put our trust in the public, we might be surprised by the result. They might say something intelligent. They might say that the Senate is indeed a waste of time, that it is redundant and full of people who get pensions that cost the country a lot of money, when other people are in real need of that money. I am not talking about the people here in this House, but those outside the walls of Parliament. Perhaps we could find a better way to invest that money than in a stronghold of partisan players who are working at our expense to help the Liberal or Conservative cause.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

When we last finished debate on Bill C-7, the hon. member for Welland had five minutes remaining in the questions and comments period.

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Sherbrooke.

The House resumed from November 22 consideration of the motion that Bill C-7, An Act respecting the selection of senators and amending the Constitution Act, 1867 in respect of Senate term limits, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Democratic Representation Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, this is here for law-abiding Canadians week.

This afternoon, we will continue debate on Bill C-26, the Citizen’s Arrest and Self-defence Act. If we finish that before 5:30, we will get back to Bill C-4, the Preventing Human Smugglers from Abusing Canada’s Immigration System Act.

We will conclude here for law-abiding Canadians week tomorrow, with third and final reading of Bill C-10, the safe streets and communities act. I expect the vote will be deferred until Monday before the bill moves to the other place where I am sure the senators will deal with the bill swiftly in keeping with our commitment to Canadians to pass the bill within 100 sitting days.

I noted the offer from the member for Mount Royal, which appears to be at least somewhat endorsed by the opposition House leader, and I will propose a motion in response, hopefully later today, that can address the amendments in question.

Monday will be the final allotted day for the supply period, which means that after debating an NDP opposition motion all day we will also be dealing with the supply bill that evening. I understand that the NDP has removed all its opposition motions from the order paper so we really have no idea what we will be debating that day. The House will have to await word from the NDP.

I am pleased to announce that next week in the House will be democratic reform week. During this week, we will be debating bills that are part of our principled agenda of democratic reform, specifically bills that would increase fair representation in the House of Commons, reform the Senate and strengthen Canada's political financing regime by banning corporate and big union loans.

The key part of democratic reform week will be Tuesday with report stage debate on Bill C-20, the fair representation act, which seeks to move Canada toward the democratic principle of giving each citizen's vote equal weight. I thank the procedure and House affairs committee for the consideration of this important bill. Report stage debate will continue on Friday, December 9.

On Wednesday, December 7, we will resume debate on Bill C-7, the Senate Reform Act , which seeks to give Canadians a say in who represents them in the Senate and limits the terms of senators. If more time is needed, which I hope will not be the case, Mr. Speaker, we will continue that debate on Thursday morning.

Filling out our democratic reform week agenda, on Thursday, we will start second reading debate on Bill C-21, the Political Loans Accountability Act. It is a bill which seeks to close the loophole which allowed wealthy individuals to bankroll leadership campaigns, thus circumventing the legal contribution limits.

Finally, there have been consultations, and in the interests of having members of the House use their place here in the forum of the nation to draw attention to an important issue that knows no party divisions and to encourage Canadians to sign organ donor cards, I, therefore, move, seconded by the Minister of Labour:

That a take-note debate on the subject of the importance of organ donations take place pursuant to Standing Order 53.1 on Monday, December 5, 2011.

Senate Reform Act

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. 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.

The Senate was created in 1867 to mirror the British House of Lords to serve as a chamber of sober second thought, to provide regional representation, and to act as a check on Parliament. It was made as an appointed body so that it could not stop legislation from the House of Commons. It was to revise and review the legislation. It was also created to recognize the social and economic elite. It was in part created to protect the property interests of the wealthy. There was some concern by our founding fathers that an elected body, the House of Commons, would not do so. Today we know that this is not true.

The Senate is broken and no longer works in the public interest. The House knows it and so do the Canadian people. We need to go beyond simply changing term limits of the Senate. The Senate needs fundamental change.

I became convinced of the need to abolish the Senate after witnessing the vote in the Senate in 2010 that killed Bill C-311, the climate change accountability bill. That bill would have required the federal government to set regulations to establish targets to bring greenhouse gas emissions to 25% below 1990 levels by 2020 and to set long-term targets to bring emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. The government must take action on climate change. This bill would have been the first step toward setting hard targets to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. However, it has become abundantly clear that the government did not want to deal with one of the most pressing issues of our time, so it arranged for the Senate to do its dirty work.

Bill C-311 passed the House of Commons. The bill passed at committee. The majority of members in the House at that time passed the bill, yet it was killed in the Senate. Let me repeat for clarity. The unelected, unaccountable Senate shut off debate and called a snap vote to kill important legislation passed in the House of Commons.

This was an outrageous move. Canadians were outraged by this move. It was the first time since before the Second World War that the Senate voted down a bill that won the support of the majority of the House of Commons. This move did not get the attention it deserved. It was a fundamental change in the way our democracy operates.

The Conservative government is not known for its transparency and adherence to democratic principles and now it has appointed enough senators to circumvent the democratic process.

Only a short few years ago, before they were in power, the Conservatives had very real concerns about the way the Senate operates. While the Prime Minister was in opposition he claimed that he would never appoint a senator. At that time he considered the Senate to be undemocratic, and the Prime Minister was correct. The Senate is undemocratic. It is why the people of New Zealand abolished the upper house, the legislative council, in 1951.

It is amazing how things change once someone gains power. Now that the Conservatives are in power, they have completely changed their tune and are using the unelected, undemocratic body to push through their legislative agenda.

The Prime Minister has appointed 36 Conservative insiders to the Senate since coming to power. In 2008 he broke a record by appointing 18 people to the upper chamber in just one day. The Senate is now stacked with failed Conservative candidates, party fundraisers and political organizers. Let us not forget that this was the same modus operandi of the federal Liberal Party. It too stacked the Senate with friends and insiders.

A senator earns approximately $132,000 a year. The qualification to become a senator now is to be loyal to the ruling party that appointed him or her.

The Senate costs approximately $90 million a year to run. Taxpayers are paying a large sum for an unaccountable, unelected body in the Senate and for senators to block legislation passed by their elected representatives.

I believe it is time, through a referendum, that Canadians have a say on the future of the Senate. A referendum will open up a dialogue on the system in which far too many Canadians have lost faith. It will allow us to engage the population in an issue that is important to our very democracy.

It is time for an examination of democratic reform. It would show Canadians that we, as their elected House, care about their participation in our political system.

This is the third time the Conservatives have introduced legislation on an unelected Senate and legislation on Senate term limits. Each time the legislation died because of prorogation or dissolution of the House.

The NDP policy calls for abolishing the unelected Senate. It is fairly clear. It is a long-standing call that dates back to the 1930s. This policy has been constantly reaffirmed by the party. We want to maintain our position to abolish the Senate. We call on the government to hold a referendum, asking the Canadian public whether they support abolishing the Senate.

Who else has called for this? Let us look across the country. Both Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty and Nova Scotia Premier Darrell Dexter openly have called for the abolishment of the Senate. The premier in my own province, B.C. Premier Christy Clark, has said that the Senate no longer plays a useful role in Confederation. Manitoba maintains its position on Senate abolition, although it does have plans, if this bill should pass, for Senate elections. Quebec has called this legislation unconstitutional. It has said that it will launch a provincial court appeal if the bill proceeds without consultation of the provinces.

The public supports the idea of a referendum for the Senate, and it is growing. For instance, an Angus Reid survey from July of this year shows that 71% of Canadians are in favour of holding a referendum to decide the future of the Senate and 36% of Canadians support the abolition of the Senate. That is up from 25% a year earlier. We can see the momentum is growing. There have been 13 attempts to reform the Senate since 1990 and all have failed.

The Conservatives have not properly consulted with the provinces about whether they agree with the content of the bill. When the bill was first introduced in June 2011, Conservative senators, even those appointed by the Prime Minister, pushed back against plans for Senate term limits.

Senators will remain unaccountable to the Canadian people. By only being allowed, by law, to serve one term, senators do not have to face the public or account for the promises they made to get elected or the decisions they took in the previous nine years, and they get a pension when they leave office.

Having an elected Senate will fundamentally change the nature of politics in Canada. It will create a two-tier Senate, where those who are elected will feel they have more legitimacy. Since the Senate has virtually the same powers as the House, an elected Senate would have greater legitimacy to introduce legislation or oppose bills sent to it from the House of Commons. We could end up with the kind of gridlock we have seen in the United States.

The safest and conservative approach to the Senate is to abolish it. We know how the House of Commons works, but we have no idea what will happen with an elected Senate.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to the bill entitled “An act respecting the selection of senators and amending the Constitution Act, 1867 in respect of Senate term limits”.

Although the bill may appear to address one of Canada's most egregious democratic deficits, I am afraid that the approach being taken leaves much to be desired.

Essentially, Bill C-7 restricts all senators appointed to the Senate after October 14, 2008, to a single nine-year term. Provinces and territories would then be given the opportunity to hold elections at their own expense to determine which names would be submitted to the Prime Minister for consideration, and only consideration.

While on the surface this approach might appear to bring heightened accountability to an unelected institution of the Crown, restricting Senate term limits while holding non-binding Senate elections fails to consider the most logical option for improving Canadian democracy, namely the abolishment of Canada's Senate.

I recall one of my constituents, Craig, telling me that he did not support a triple-E Senate. He supported a single-E Senate, and that single E stands for empty.

Before I get into why New Democrats believe that the Senate has outlived its raison d'être, I would like to highlight some specific criticisms of the bill as it currently has been presented to Parliament.

First, it appears that, as it is currently written, Bill C-7 contains a glaring loophole which would completely undermine the spirit of what the government is proposing. This is because the government is clearly attempting to pass legislation which should require a constitutional amendment and making unclear how much force the bill would actually carry.

For instance, by taking an approach which fails to crystallize the changes in Canada's Constitution, the Prime Minister would not be constitutionally required to appoint anyone elected by the provinces. Therefore, the bill does not actually change the way senators are currently appointed as the Prime Minister would still be free to appoint whomever he or she chooses.

We have seen previous examples of the Prime Minister acting in contravention of existing democratic reform legislation which has passed through the House. Specifically, I can point to the fixed election date legislation. Why then should Canadians trust that the government would actually abide by the legislation that we have in front of us today? Call me a pessimist, but this is certainly one concern that I have with Bill C-7.

Let me make this clear. We know how the House of Commons works, but we have no idea what would happen with an elected Senate. That brings me to another major concern arising from Bill C-7, which is the inevitable gridlock which would arise from having two separately duly elected Houses of Parliament.

Since the Senate would have virtually the same powers as the House under Bill C-7, an elected Senate would have greater legitimacy to introduce legislation or oppose bills sent to it from the House of Commons. On the surface this seems like a good idea. However, when we dig deeper into those proposals, it would illicit the real fear that we could end up with the kind of gridlock we see in the U.S., something which no Canadian wants to see our Parliament descend into.

This brings me to my final point that the best approach to take in order to reduce Canada's democratic deficit is the complete abolishment of the Senate. Personally, I am of the belief that when it comes to the Senate, Canadians do not need it. It is expensive. It has been packed with party insiders and we cannot trust what the leaders are going to do with the Senate.

The Prime Minister has repeatedly used the unaccountable and undemocratic Senate to kill legislation that had been passed in the House of Commons, twice killing Bill C-311, the climate change accountability act and, this spring, killing Bill C-393, a very important bill which would have facilitated the movement of generic antiviral drugs to Africa to help people living with HIV-AIDS.

These pieces of legislation, supported by wide swaths of the Canadian public, were killed by the Prime Minister's appointed senators in the Senate with no sober second thought. How can we have sober second thought when we have a bunch of Conservative Party organizers and fundraisers with obvious conflicts of interest? It makes a mockery of our democratic system.

As I noted earlier, even should the bill pass during the 41st Parliament, there is no guarantee that the government would actually abide by the rules it has put in place. Thus, we could end up with a patchwork Senate filled with a mix of elected and unelected senators.

I will put forward a hypothetical situation. What if the government refuses to appoint a senator who has been elected by residents of a province because it disagrees with the party banner under which that senator was elected? After all, the prime minister would not be constitutionally obliged to actually appoint them to the Senate. That is why I firmly believe the safest and most obviously beneficial approach to the Senate is to abolish it.

I will conclude my statement today by drawing attention to what the provinces, our partners in Confederation, have been saying about the Senate, both in terms of the status quo and the proposals in front of us. Both the Ontario premier, Dalton McGuinty, and the Nova Scotia premier, Darrel Dexter, have openly called for the abolition of the Senate. The B.C. premier, Christy Clark, has said that the Senate no longer plays a useful role in Confederation, while Manitoba maintains its position of eliminating the Senate. Even more worrisome is that Quebec has called this legislation unconstitutional and has said that it will launch a provincial court appeal if this bill proceeds without the consultation of the provinces.

Why, then, is the government moving ahead with a plan that is not supported by the federal government's partners in Confederation? It seems that without the full support of the provinces this proposal will merely be a paper tiger dressed up as a solution to bring Canada's democracy into the 21st century.

What happens if certain provinces refuse to participate in the system? Citizens of those provinces would certainly be shortchanged. Even more dire is the thought that this bill would lead to a constitutional crisis with multiple provinces taking action at the Supreme Court to challenge the constitutionality of this legislation. Without proper provincial consultation, which I fear has not taken place, this is an inevitability and something that should be avoided at all costs.

Therefore, I ask that the government reconsider its position on the bill until such a time as the provinces are properly consulted and sign on to these proposals.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak at second reading on Bill C-7, pertaining to the Senate. As many of my NDP colleagues have outlined today in the House, we have a lot of concerns about the bill.

The first thing I want to point out is that this is the third time the Conservative government has introduced this legislation. Despite repeated campaign promises of an elected Senate that go back even to the Reform days, the Conservatives have let it go so long that it makes one wonder whether it is indeed a priority for them.

On examining the bill, the NDP sees several major issues of concern that render the bill not supportable. I think the most basic premise of the bill is that it brings forward measures that are really half-measures, measures that are not going to fundamentally deal with what is a very undemocratic institution.

We know that the Senate has been around for a very long time. The NDP has been calling for the abolition of the Senate going back to the 1930s. When one looks at the bill, it is being put forward under the guise of democratic reform. It is being put forward under the guise of improving the Senate to make it more accountable.

Fundamentally, however, even though provinces may choose to have a process to elect senators, there is nothing in this bill that actually compels the Prime Minister to adopt those electorally based decisions that have taken place. The Prime Minister would still be free to appoint whomever she or he chooses.

That is because the constitutional question; we understand that, but it goes to the very heart of this bill that it will possibly go through legal challenges and it actually does not, in any fundamental way, bring a greater measure of democracy to Parliament itself overall. That is something we are very concerned about.

We in the NDP have taken a different tack. First of all, through motions that we have presented and had debated in the House, we have called on the government to hold a referendum that would ask the Canadian people whether or not they support abolishing the Senate.

We think that is a fair thing to do. This debate over the Senate--whether it should be there or not, whether it should be elected, or what form it should take--has now gone on for decades. We believe it is a fair and proper question that should be put to Canadians as to what they see as the future of the Senate.

We know that recent polls show a growing appetite to deal with this question. For example, in July of this year 71% of Canadians were in favour of holding a referendum to decide the future of the Senate and 36% of Canadians supported the abolition of the Senate, up from about 25% a year previous.

We know people are concerned about this issue, but there is no question that the bill is absolutely the lowest denominator. It is a low bar, a very minimal attempt to deal with the fundamental question of democratic reform in our country.

On the bill itself, before I get to a broader question, I think there is concern over what will happen if this bill goes through, as it no doubt will with this majority government. Even though it has been before us three times now, if it does finally go through this time around and we have an elected Senate, if that is what it turns out to be, and local elections take place in provinces and those people are then appointed to the Senate, it will create a very odd entity down the hall in the red chamber. In effect, it will create a two-tier Senate in which it is very possible that those who have been elected will feel that they have more legitimacy, because there will be people who have not been elected and people who have been.

We could end up with a very strange combination. In terms of the operations of the Senate, it could produce significant problems. We could end up with the same kind of difficulty or gridlock that we have seen in the United States, which I think people abhor.

Some people say we have to have a Senate and we have to have an upper chamber, but I would remind all of us that in provincial legislatures, these senate provisions were abolished many years ago.

In fact, all provincial senates were abolished in 1968. Apparently, the provinces and their legislatures have been able to function in a proper manner since that abolition. Therefore, the argument that we must have this upper chamber is a bogus argument.

Obviously, there are people who support the Senate. However, this is the main argument I want to make. There is also a very strong case to be made that it would be better if we focused democratic reform on our system overall.

In the House of Commons we are elected in our 308 ridings and constituencies across the country, seats which may possibly increase soon, and yet there is a fundamental issue here about the process and the manner of that election.

The first past the post system we have is a system that actually does not reflect the way people are voting. The makeup of the number of seats in the House unfortunately does not reflect the way people are actually voting. The representation by party is not reflecting the actual vote. A system of proportional representation is a far superior and more accountable form of election for the House of Commons or any institution. It is something that we in the NDP have long advocated.

I will say that too has been a big issue across the country. We have seen several referendums provincially. We have had two in British Columbia, one in Ontario, and one I believe in New Brunswick, although I could be wrong on that, but certainly in the Maritimes, so there has been a very healthy debate among Canadians about the need to have democratic reform.

Yet here, at the federal level, there has been a deafening silence. Certainly, New Democrats have pursued this issue with vigour. We have worked with organizations such as Fair Vote Canada. We have been very involved in a healthy debate about democratic reform.

We believe that the real course of action that is needed here, the change that is required to help transform the political process and the way people feel about their involvement in the political process, is to bring forward initiatives around proportional representation. Of course, we should begin here in the House of Commons to have a process to do that.

We came close to that in I think 2002 or 2004 when the former member of Parliament, Ed Broadbent, who was the member for Ottawa Centre, was very active and worked very closely with the Liberal government of the day. We almost got to the point where we would have had a process to examine this question of democratic reform as it affects the House of Commons.

Unfortunately, nothing proceeded, as was often common with the government of that day. There were promises made that were not followed through. We did not make any progress on that issue.

Subsequent to that, we have had vigorous debate at provincial levels about democratic reform. In the provinces that I mentioned, that debate has specifically taken place sometimes over what is called STV, a single transferrable vote. There are again arguments on both sides of that. What was important was that there was an identification by voters that they wanted to engage in a debate and a conversation about changing the electoral system to make it fairer, more accountable and more democratic.

That is the disappointment of the debate we are having here today. We are failing to address the very pressing issue of democratic reform, where people are voting for their own member of Parliament. We could engage in a process whereby we could adopt a position that would ensure that we do have a much more open sense of democratic voting and accountability. There are many countries around the world, and most democracies, that have some form of proportional representation. We are now one of the very few countries that does not.

This is a missed opportunity. Here we are having this debate on the Senate that in and of itself will possibly produce a quagmire of legal questions. We are missing the boat on the fundamental question of democratic reform for the House of Commons.

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

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

Obviously, I was referring to a rule that we do not attack the other chamber here, but in fact, with thanks to you, Mr. Speaker, we are fortunately still able to criticize it. We are still living in a democracy and it is certainly not forbidden.

To answer my colleague’s question, he is entirely correct. In fact, his question was more of a comment. However, I think this Bill C-7 does not actually change anything in terms of the legitimacy of the Senate, particularly since we could find ourselves with a completely crazy creature, if I may put it that way. We might have senators appointed by the Prime Minister, as they are at present, for some provinces where they refused to hold elections, and in other provinces we would have elected senators because they held elections there. And worse still, even if the provinces decide to send a list, the Prime Minister is not obliged to accept those nominations.

Imagine the mess there might be with that kind of Senate. We would have some democratically elected people and others who were still appointed, with all the partisanship that implies. Since the Senate already serves no purpose, I do not think Bill C-7 would improve the situation.