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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House 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 NDP's position was clearly stated at the beginning of this debate. Since 1930, we have been in favour of abolishing the upper chamber for various reasons. This is a position that I believe is unanimous in New Democrat circles and that periodically comes up and is always reaffirmed at our conventions and meetings.

There are specific reasons for that, but first I would like to mention that we are not the only ones. The provinces are also in favour of flat out abolishing the Senate. Ontario, Nova Scotia and Manitoba have clearly spoken out in favour of doing so. With respect to Bill C-7 in particular, we know that Quebec has already looked into the possibility of contesting its constitutional validity in court.

What we have in front of us now could be considered a partial reform. It is not real reform of the Senate, but rather a modification of certain aspects. For example, the aspect that has to do with Senate terms. Right now, senators are appointed to the age of 75 or until the death of the senator, and that term would be reduced to nine years. Although the NDP is unanimously in favour of abolishing the Senate, there are some differences of opinion on the Conservative side, particularly among Conservative senators who have already shown some reservations about limits to their terms. Those senators were appointed recently. All members are aware that since the Conservatives took power in 2006 they have appointed 27 Conservative senators, which has given the Conservative Party a majority in the Senate.

We could talk about what the Liberals did before, and we may or may not agree with them. The fact remains that when there was a Liberal government, it was still possible that a non-Liberal senator would be appointed. That was the case in the past. The Liberals even appointed an NDP senator. Unfortunately, we asked her to give up her NDP designation because we do not support the Senate and are proposing that it be abolished. At least former Liberal governments provided some balance. But we are not seeing that same kind of balance with the Conservative government.

We talk a lot about the Senate being a chamber of sober second thought, a place where a different kind of reflection takes place, in comparison to the House of Commons. The members of the House of Commons know that all provincial senates have been abolished. No province has had a Senate since 1968. As far as I know, there have been no significant issues with passing laws at the provincial level since that time. Provinces do not have senates and, to be honest, they do not seem to be missing them. No provinces are requesting or calling for a provincial upper chamber. In looking at the provincial situation, I think that the NDP's position on the Senate is completely legitimate and is far from the Conservative position of wanting to keep the Senate. However, the Conservatives want to reform it. It is interesting to see how the Conservative opinion on the Senate has evolved.

There has been much talk—particularly during the era of the Reform Party and the Canadian Alliance—of the need for a triple–E Senate. Such a Senate, by its very nature and essence, would bear a much closer resemblance to the U.S. Senate as we know it, and that creates a few problems. If the bill were adopted as it stands, similar problems would arise. I will come back to the U.S. model, but I would first like to discuss two specific problems with the bill and the manner in which it provides for the election of senators at the provincial level, who would then be appointed by the Prime Minister.

The first problem has to do with legitimacy. If the provinces have no consistent process for the election of senators—and since the term being used is plebiscite rather than election—it would create a situation whereby, in certain provinces, no senators would be elected or selected in this way. That raises a problem of legitimacy. Those senators elected under one process might believe—and this would undoubtedly be the case—that they have greater legitimacy than those who are simply appointed by the Prime Minister without being subject to the procedure established by the provinces.

That would be problematic since the members of the Senate would not share the same understanding of the institution.

The second problem—and this is where the U.S. example is relevant—is that the Senate currently wishes to be perceived, if it does serve a purpose, as a place for sober second thought in response to bills adopted by the House of Commons. This sober second thought theoretically serves as a counterbalance to an overly populist reaction in the House and is intended to please a certain segment of the electorate without necessarily improving in any way on what the bill proposes.

In its current form—and I think that this has been evident over the last five years during which 27 new Conservative senators were appointed—there is no longer any sober second thought. The Senate no longer plays this role. The Senate, just like the House, polarizes political debate. I believe that the debate and political discourse in the House since 2006 have been much more polarized than in any previous era or decade. That is how things look nowadays in the Senate.

The Senate was intended to be a forum in which senators could adequately reflect upon the impact that bills may have on various facets of Canadian and Quebec society. The Senate no longer plays this role. Two bills have demonstrated this, including one we thought was particularly important. I refer to Bill C-311 on climate change and the establishment of clear standards and targets in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. The House of Commons and its committees held several debates. It was not the first time this bill had been introduced. The purpose of the bill was to ensure that Canada honoured its international commitments. After a number of attempts, the House of Commons finally adopted the bill. The unelected Senate, however, simply opposed the will of the House of Commons, in other words, the elected representatives of the Quebec and Canadian public. The objective was to polarize rather than to be effective. The Conservative government did not condemn this action as it should have, and undoubtedly would have, had a Liberal-dominated Senate stood in the way of one of its bills. When this occurred in the past, Conservative members led the charge in condemning the abuse of power of an unelected chamber pitting itself against the House of Commons.

My colleague from Winnipeg North raised the question: do Canadians and Quebeckers still want a Senate? It is an interesting and very relevant question, in my opinion. I propose therefore, as have a number of my colleagues, to ask Canadians and Quebeckers if they still want a Senate, and whether they believe the upper house still fulfils its role. Quite recently, in July, a poll was taken across Canada to determine whether Canadians wanted to vote on the existence of the Senate. Seventy-one per cent of Canadians, including Quebeckers, want a referendum in which they can vote on the issue. It is high time that we had this debate. In the same poll, 36 % of Canadians were in favour of abolishing the Senate. This is a significant increase compared to the previous year. It reflects public discontent with the role the Senate has played in recent years and the partisan appointments made by the Prime Minister.

Experience has clearly shown us that abolishing the provincial senates did not drastically affect how the provinces operate. In fact, a number of experts and constitutional jurists would say without a doubt that this perhaps even made it easier for the provinces, because there was no longer an unelected chamber able to interfere and undermine the will of publicly elected representatives. There is not a single province that would revisit the past and choose to bring back an unelected chamber.

We must be very careful about the Senate's mandate and about the direction we are currently taking to avoid having what we see in the United States. The suggestion was made by our colleague from the third party, and had already been made by the NDP. Let us have a real debate, let us include the Canadian public and let us have a referendum on this subject. Our position is clear: we are and will always be in favour of abolishing the Senate.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Nova Scotia is a tough act to follow. That was one of the best speeches I have heard in the House. He was flying.

I am pleased to speak to Bill C-7.

If I understand correctly, what is being proposed seems to me to be an improvement on what we have now. For example, they are proposing that the law limit the terms of all senators summoned to the Senate after October 14, 2008, to a maximum of nine years. In my opinion, that limit is not a bad thing. As well, the provinces and territories would have the option of choosing to hold elections at their own expense to determine what names would be submitted to the Prime Minister for consideration. We are not living in a perfect world.

In a perfect world we would have the following. What the government has proposed is not a perfect world. In a perfect world we would have senators appointed for a limited period of time. They would be non-partisan and they would not represent specific political parties or be appointed as a reward for their services to a party. They would be distinguished people from most segments of society, such as first nations, business, labour leaders, the social sector, students.

In a perfect world a group of non-partisan people, an impartial board, would select individuals. If we were to do this, then in this perfect world we could have a chamber of sober thought consisting of respected people who would look at the work we do here and certainly not meet with the caucus of the governing party of the day, but, as the previous member said, be truly non-partial.

When we on this side speak out against what goes on in the Senate or what is proposed, we are not criticizing many of the honourable senators in the Senate. For example, I am pleased to see my former boss and friend from Yukon, Danny Lang, there and he is working hard. There are other folks like Hugh Segal, who has been championing poverty issues and rural poverty for many years. I certainly respect the work he and many of his colleagues do.

Unfortunately this is not a perfect world and it is an illusion or dream to think that we somehow could have in our democratic country a group of people, wise elders of our society, who would sit down and reflect upon what needs to happen and give its impartial advice. However, as my colleague from London—Fanshawe earlier said, it is not a reality and there is a contrast between what happens in the Senate, with its expenses, and all the effort that goes into maintaining that antiquated body.

If the Senate did not exist, we could inject more funding toward assisting people who are unemployed, the percentage of workers who do not have access to employment insurance. Many of us met with students in the last couple of weeks and know that, for example, the average student debt in British Columbia upon completion of university is $27,000 and tuition fees are rising. Yet other countries have made it a priority to have free tuition and health care and have strong economic engines, countries like Sweden.

In previous Parliaments I have been in since I was elected in 2006, there was actually a fair amount of debate on various bills and a fair number of witnesses would be brought to committees. There was much scrutiny, unlike now, when there is limited debate and closure on a number of important bills. Even after that time, when these bills would go to the Senate, under the direction of the current Prime Minister and his ideologically-driven government, they would be killed and often senators were told there would be no further debate whatsoever.

There was the climate change accountability act in the previous Parliament, Bill C-311, and the bill on generic drugs. For all the people watching this debate, a bill to help people suffering from AIDS so we could finally eradicate this devastating disease and take up the work done by Stephen Lewis and his foundation was before Parliament. Groups like the Grandmothers for Grandmothers, which I met with in Nelson a couple of weeks ago, is raising money to assist grandmothers in Africa who are raising children. There are millions of orphans due to this devastating disease. Parliament had a chance to pass that bill and, in fact, did so.

What happened? The Senate limited debate and stopped it. As a result, we do not yet have a policy to assist those suffering with AIDS by having cheap generic drugs available. This is truly a shame.

Then we had the act to kill the Wheat Board rammed through Parliament by the Conservatives without any democratic vote by farmers, the people who are part of the Wheat Board. There was limited debate in Parliament with no economic analysis, no in-depth study and a limited number of witnesses. Now this bill will go the Senate. If there were an impartial Senate, if the Senate, in an ideal world, were made up of wise people from different segments of society, they would look at the bill, bring in witnesses and say that maybe Parliament has not done what it should have been doing. They would then send it back to us and tell us to get back to work and fix this or abolish it, because that is not the will of the people that the House of Commons has reflected.

Then there is the crime omnibus bill that we are all faced with now that has also been rammed down our throats. At a time when crime rates are going down, we will be putting more people in prison and, not only that, the provinces will be bearing the costs of the bill. Even American conservatives are turning away from putting people into prisons. They are saying that it is not cost-effective and that maybe they should be doing more prevention and more rehabilitation. At the same time, we are going against all of the evidence and the Conservatives are not even listening to their conservative friends in the United States or the Canadian Bar Association and judges.

Even though most of Canadian society and the provinces have asked us what we are doing, the bill has been rammed through by the government. Once again, if we were to have a Senate that truly represented Canadian society in an impartial way, it would tell the Prime Minister to take his time here, that this does not need to be rushed through.

We need to hear more witnesses and actually listen to what the Canadian Bar Association is saying. We need to listen to our provincial colleagues who say that the cost is a bit too much and that they cannot really afford it. We need to listen to the Canadian public and then, in an ideal world, the bill would be brought back here and we would be told to do something about it that truly reflects the values of Canadian society and not the ideology that the government is presenting to us in this Parliament.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I wish to congratulate my hon. friend from Sackville—Eastern Shore for being elected the most congenial of members of Parliament five years in a row. He reflected that in not taking any hits against any person named in the Senate, who are all good people.

I want to buttress his arguments slightly by going to Bill C-7. There really is no mandatory element that senators should come from this list. Clause 3 states that the Prime Minister “must consider names from the list”. Within the schedule, paragraph 1, we have the strange construction that “Senators to be appointed for a province or territory should be chosen”.

As a student of law, I learned that we look for discretionary language “may” or mandatory language “shall”. I have never before found a “should” in legislation.

I find this whole thing rather illusory that the government is requiring anyone to come from a list that is elected. Could my hon. friend comment on that?

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am not necessarily pleased to take part in the debate on this legislation, because the government is trying to force it down our throat. We, on this side, simply want a real indepth debate on this issue, but the other side wants to very quietly pass a bill dealing with the future of our country and of our parliamentary system. Our parliamentary system exists to discuss bills that will change our country, settle issues and bring solutions. Today, and in recent weeks, we have been presented with what seem primarily to be partisan tools for the party in office, while we on this side want to deal with issues.

Bill C-7 is about the Senate, the chamber of sober second thought. This makes me laugh because, historically, the Senate has never played that role. It has never done its job. Right now, they are trying to trade four quarters for a dollar. They want to change a Senate that does not do its job and whose members are appointed on a partisan basis. Under the new process, senators will still be appointed in a partisan fashion. An election will take place, but the candidates will have been selected in a partisan fashion.

Today's debate on the Senate gets me thinking more seriously about our democracy, our division of powers, our parliamentary system, our form of representation, our electoral practices, our media—which are part of our democracy—and about the Conservative government's attitude towards democracy.

I agree that we can choose the type of democracy that we want in Canada. Everyone agrees. This is a healthy debate and it is about our future. However, whose decision is it to make? Getting back to democracy, about one person in three voted for the current government. Do they all agree with the whole agenda proposed by the Conservative Party? For example, do they all support abolishing the firearms registry? Do they all support Senate reform? Do they all support the justice bill and all the other bills that were introduced recently with very short debates and closure?

What we are asking for regarding our democracy is that people be able to take part in this debate and express their concerns. This must be done through a referendum. Other countries have held referendums on important national issues. We should do the same.

As I was saying earlier, our Senate is there essentially to ensure there is some sort of division of powers, to ensure some representation of the regions and minorities in Parliament. Nonetheless, this has never been the case and now the government does not want to do anything about it.

I want to come back to the division of powers. As far as our electoral practices are concerned, in addition to the related costs, if we ask our provinces to choose candidates for the Senate elections, we are simply transferring the partisan decision to the provinces instead of to the federal government, but it remains a partisan decision nonetheless. What is more, the Prime Minister in power when the elections are held and the nominees are chosen has the last word. In the end, nothing changes.

If we look at what happens in other countries where there are two chambers, we see that in the United States, it is a source of division that borders on chaos.

In the event that the two chambers do not agree, there will be constant obstruction and a host of strategies to defeat what the government is proposing in the other chamber, and even sometimes, for partisan reasons, to oppose certain bills, despite how much they matter to the entire country, simply because it was the other institution that introduced them.

In my opinion, this could happen here if the government goes ahead with this reform. We have to avoid that situation, especially considering there is going to be an election in the House of Commons every four or five years and in the Senate every nine years. The elections will therefore not be held at the same time and people will not necessarily vote for governments that are able to work together.

I have some examples. A constituent in my riding told me he voted for the Conservative Party in 2011 for one reason only and that was because he wanted to get rid of the firearms registry. The New Democratic Party wants to keep the registry. He then said that once that was done, since he is not in favour of any of the Conservative Party's other plans, he would vote for an intelligent government. He did not come right out and say it was our party, but he was not referring to the Conservative Party he voted for in 2011.

There are always going to be attitudes like that and we must not judge people for it. But if people vote for a party for one reason only and that creates situations where the parties cannot agree, it will always be a source of conflict and chaos in our parliamentary system.

On the question of the costs associated with this reform, we see that the plan is to transfer the costs of selecting nominees to the provinces. It talks about our democracy, our federal parliamentary system, but the plan is to transfer the costs to the provinces. To me, that is illogical and almost absurd. If we are not prepared to make changes to our parliamentary system and at the same time assume responsibility for the repercussions in terms of the cost, then let us find other solutions or let us not do it.

As well, a second chamber, which I think is pointless for the reasons I have stated, would also cost even more, because over a long period of time, more senators will have spent time in that chamber and more senators will be entitled to retire with a pension paid for by that chamber. Those are all costs associated with this reform.

The problem right now is that we have a government that is proposing something that it wants to slip past us. As I have often said, we are talking about the future. I would like the government to consider that we are talking about something quite important right now and that we have to do more than this; we have to ask the public whether they support it. There may be other methods, but there is one obvious one: a referendum. Every citizen could say what they think. Every citizen could say whether it is a good idea or not and there would be a thorough debate before the referendum on Senate reform was held.

In Canada, a majority of provinces have stated a position and agree with the NDP that this bill is absurd. For example, Dalton McGuinty, Premier of Ontario, and Darrell Dexter, Premier of Nova Scotia, have publicly called for the Senate to be abolished. The premier of British Columbia has said that the Senate plays no useful role in our Confederation. Manitoba has also maintained its position on abolishing the Senate, stating that it had a plan if it happened, but obviously, if it happens, there will be no choice but to live with that decision. So decisions about this have to be made.

Quebec has already called this bill unconstitutional. All Quebec actually wants is separation of powers. That is a debate we should have by holding a referendum.

[José Nunez-Melo, NDP, Laval, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very proud to rise here today to speak to Bill C-7. I would also like to recognize the speeches, questions and all the comments made by the hon. members for Laval—Les Îles, Nickel Belt and Louis-Hébert. I would also like to draw attention to the efforts of the hon. member for Mississauga—Streetsville. He has made a remarkable effort to evade the issue we are debating here today in the House, by asking an unrelated question regarding what the NDP has always proposed and maintained regarding abolishing the Senate, that is, that the government should hold a referendum on the matter.

I will summarize what the bill is proposing. It proposes limiting Senate terms to nine years, especially for senators appointed after October 14, 2008. Nonetheless, if a senator cannot carry out his or her term for nine continuous years, the term is interrupted and the person may be summoned again for a period equivalent to nine years less the portion of the term already served. That is quite something.

The provinces and territories would have the opportunity to hold elections, at their own expense. Nonetheless, the Prime Minister is in no way obligated to appoint a person who has been elected. There is an inconsistency there. Further in the bill it says that if the elected senator is not appointed within six years, the time expires and new elections have to be held. This will result in a duplication of the cost. That is rather inconsistent.

In the backgrounder we see that this is the third time the Conservatives have tried to introduce this bill. During the previous sessions, heated debates were held on this subject and then prorogation or dissolution of the House killed the bill.

We want to reaffirm that the official opposition proposes completely abolishing the Senate. We know full well that since 1968 most of the provinces have abolished their upper houses and things work very well without them. We also know that, in the current context and with the system already in place, the House of Commons, with elected members of Parliament, can manage the work quite well. It can create legislation in Canada that is truly representative of all citizens, in every riding, who elect the MPs.

We all know the origin of the Senate. What was its purpose at the time it was created? As the hon. member for Louis-Hébert explained, we know it is a legacy of the English crown.

In addition, I have here some of the Prime Minister's comments. He said that it is a relic of the 19th century or something to that effect. Reforming the Senate in order to elect senators does not make sense.

If the government really wanted to reform and keep the Senate or upper house, the parties would be prepared to support him provided that he holds a public referendum on this matter. Polls have been conducted. It is not official, but we already know that 71% of Canadians want a referendum. We often hear the hon. Conservative members say that they were given a strong mandate with 39% of the vote. If I had to compare, I would say that there is a big difference between 39% and 71%, which amounts to very strong support for a referendum.

In conclusion, I would like to again thank the hon. NDP opposition members. We will continue to fight to defeat this bill, to abolish the Senate or, in the worst case, to hold a public referendum to settle this matter. We have to be done with this.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-7.

When we speak to a bill, we often have to look at where we are coming from to see where we want to go. To begin, I would like to look at where the government is coming from in introducing this bill. It seems to be gambling on the fact that it can change the way the lists are organized without touching the Constitution. There is nothing to say that things will work out that way or that the provinces will accept this. There could very well be a significant legal deficit from the get-go.

What is more, the government wants to perpetuate partisanship in the Senate. It is already not fulfilling its role, and now the government wants to make partisan electoral lists. I am not convinced that the Senate could provide a counterbalance to the House of Commons for the regions in that case.

It is important to underscore that this bill is very mechanical, in that the vast majority of the clauses tell the provinces how to hold an election to create a list of people who could potentially be appointed to the Senate. The government is shifting the rather high cost of all this to the provinces. What is more, the Prime Minister might suggest names to be included on the list.

In this regard, I would like to point out something that is unique to Quebec. There are electoral divisions for senators, of which there is no mention. In other words, in a province such as Quebec, there would have to be elections in 24 districts in order to comply with the current Constitution, whereas elsewhere elections would be held at the provincial level. This would be more expensive for Quebec and evidently no one is footing the bill. That is also an important point.

We should note that Senate elections could take place at the same time as municipal or provincial elections. I am not sure that this is necessarily a good thing. For example, in 2008, when I was campaigning federally, a provincial byelection was also being held in one part of my riding. Quite simply, in this part of the riding, people did not know if they were dealing with a candidate for a provincial or a federal election. I am not sure that democracy will be well served by adding a Senate election.

These are just some of my thoughts, but I would like to take a step back.

The history of the Senate is rather special. The Senate as we know it in Canada is a hybrid of the British House of Lords, with its unelected senators appointed by the Governor General upon the recommendation of the Prime Minister, and the U.S. Senate, with its equitable representation of all regions. This means that our Senate is unique and that there are not many like it.

The groundwork for the Senate as we know it was laid at the Charlottetown Conference and especially at the Quebec Conference held in October 1864. Six of the 14 days of the Quebec Conference were spent on the concept of the Senate. There were debates. Even back then there were discussions about an elected Senate versus an unelected Senate. There is nothing new today; we are rehashing past arguments. The Fathers of Confederation chose an unelected Senate. They had their reasons.

All that we can say about that is that our current Senate was not created with much enthusiasm. I would like to read a description of senators and the Senate.

Senators are appointed by the Governor General on the recommendation of the Prime Minister. [Everyone knows that.] Senators represent regions and provinces in order to balance the representation in the House of Commons. Less populated regions have a stronger voice in the Senate so as to ensure representation for regional and minority interests.

That is the goal. But in reality, we have never seen that. What we have seen is partisan appointment after partisan appointment, to the point where we have never seen the Senate play the role it was meant to have, which is to defend the interests of the regions. Instead, it is a chamber that may or may not support a government, depending on what party holds the majority in the Senate. The upper chamber has become nothing but a partisan stronghold. The Conservatives did indirectly what they could not do directly when, in past parliaments, they defeated certain bills that were passed here but did not pass in the Senate for partisan reasons. The Senate should be thought of as the upper chamber, a chamber of sober second thought, but instead it is a purely partisan chamber. And so we are left to wonder what we are doing with an institution that does not fulfill its role and that, in fact, has rarely fulfilled it.

I would like to address an important point. Suppose this bill is passed. We would then have two chambers made up of elected members. Would we then have a competition? Since everyone would be legitimately elected, would there be competition between the two chambers, something like what we see in the United States where the system becomes paralyzed when the majorities are not the same in both chambers? Is that what we are heading for? Are we headed for an American-style Senate that could, in some cases, paralyze the work of the House of Commons and the running of the country as we see south of the border? This is a very important question to consider.

The other thing that concerns me about this issue is that the talk always focuses on the people who would be elected. There is never any mention of how many positions or who or when. Might this result in a power struggle between the government and various provinces? For example, suppose a given province decided to hold an election and presented fewer people than the number of positions to be filled or just enough people. What happens in that situation? There might then be a power struggle between the Prime Minister—or the Governor General, obviously—and the provinces. We would once again be back to a model that creates tension between the various levels of government. I do not think our objective here in this House is to create new kinds of tension between the various levels of government. I do not think we want to go in that direction.

I would like to discuss the historic position of the Government of Quebec in a bit more detail, and I would like to begin by quoting one of the Fathers of Confederation, George Brown. He said:

Our Lower Canadian friends [he is talking here about Quebec] have agreed to give us representation by population in the Lower House, on the express condition that they would have equality in the Upper House. On no other condition could we have advanced a step.

Even before 1867, there was tension between what was then Lower Canada and the other groups in the federation. Quebec insists on the assurance that any changes are constitutional and not partisan.

I would like to continue, but I see that my time is up.

[François Pilon, NDP, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

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.

This bill would limit the terms of senators appointed after October 14, 2008, to a maximum of nine years. Furthermore, under this bill, the provinces and territories would have the opportunity to hold elections, at their own expense, to determine the names that would be given to the Prime Minister for consideration. The problem is that the Prime Minister would not be required to choose senators from this list. This is yet another wonderful example of a waste of public money by our friends on the other side of the House.

What is more, if a nominee is not appointed to the Senate by the sixth anniversary of that person's election, a new election would be necessary, resulting in even more public money being wasted. It is fun to spend someone else's money, is it not?

What we are proposing on this side of the House is clear. Our party wants to abolish the Senate, which is a position we have always held. We are calling on the government to hold a referendum asking the Canadian public whether they are in favour of abolishing the Senate.

In addition, when this bill was introduced for the first time in June 2011, the Conservative senators clearly said that they would oppose all attempts by the federal government to limit their terms. And they are the ones who have the last word, as always.

The Premier of Ontario, Dalton McGuinty, and the Premier of Nova Scotia have publicly expressed their support for abolishing the Senate. The Premier of British Columbia, Christy Clark, has said that the Senate, as an institution, no longer serves any useful purpose within our Confederation. The Government of Quebec has deemed this bill to be unconstitutional. In fact, it has stated that it will go to court if the provinces are not consulted before Bill C-7 is passed. Clearly, passing this bill without consulting the provinces would once again demonstrate the federal government's willingness to impose its views on the provinces, as it has so often done in the past few months.

Now, why are we in favour of abolishing the Senate rather than reforming it? First, there has not been an upper chamber in any of the provinces since 1968 and their legislative systems have not crumbled as a result. On the contrary, all the provinces are operating very well without a senate.

Second, the idea to reform the Senate is not a new one. Since 1900, there have been no fewer than 13 attempts to reform the Canadian Senate, with a brilliant success rate of 0 out of 13. And no wonder, since the Senate always has the last word.

Third, Canadians' interest in this issue is growing. In fact, according to a survey conducted by Angus Reid in July 2011, 71% of Canadians were in favour of holding a referendum about the future of the Senate. The same survey found that 36% of Canadians are in favour of completely abolishing the Senate, which is a sharp jump of 25% as compared to 2010. We therefore feel that Canadians must be consulted on this issue since the Senate is their democratic institution and, as a result, they are the ones who have the right to decide what will happen to the upper chamber.

This bill has some serious shortcomings in terms of legitimacy. First, according to the provisions of the bill, senators will still not be accountable to Canadians.

The fact that senators will only be granted one nine-year term means that they will never have to answer to the public for decisions made during their term. In addition, they will have the right to a pension when they leave the Senate, paid for, of course, by the taxpayers.

Second, passing this bill would create a strange situation in the upper chamber. Certain senators would be elected and others not, so how would the unelected senators justify their legitimacy and actions to their elected colleagues?

Third, as I mentioned earlier in my speech, the government has not consulted the provincial governments about the provisions in this bill. Neither has it consulted the public, and only 39% of people voted for the Conservatives on May 2. Despite all this, those on the other side of the House are once again dumping the cost and responsibility on the provincial governments and taking all the credit.

Finally, since the Senate would have roughly the same powers as the House of Commons, an elected Senate would have more legitimacy in terms of tabling bills or opposing House bills. That could paralyze the political system, as is the case in the United States, where the House of Representatives and the Senate are often locked in a power struggle that completely paralyzes the American government.

That summarizes a few of the arguments proving that Senate reform, as proposed by the Conservatives, is problematic and that the solution is to abolish the Senate.

To conclude, we have seen over the course of the past few minutes how passing Bill C-7 would create a significant number of problems in our political system, and these problems could easily be eliminated by abolishing Canada's Senate.

I invite the hon. members to join with me and the members of the official opposition and vote against Bill C-7.

The House resumed from November 14 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.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, as we have said before, our government's top priority is the economy. Despite global economic challenges, nearly 600,000 new jobs have been created in Canada, 90% of them full-time. Through Canada's economic action plan our government has put forward focused and effective policies that have promoted job creation and economic growth in all sectors of the economy. That has been reflected in this week's successful jobs and economic growth week.

Our government will continue to focus on delivering important measures for Canada's economy. Thus, next week we will be delivering results on jobs week, and anticipate passing the next phase of our low tax plan for jobs and growth next week.

Beginning tomorrow, we will move forward on report stage for Bill C-18, Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act. This important bill provides economic choice to western Canadian farmers. I understand that the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre has a number of amendments on the notice paper, but keep in mind that getting this bill passed would give farmers predictability for next year's growing season, which is an objective. I am looking forward to a productive, efficient and civil debate on the legislation, which will finally deliver freedom to western Canadian grain farmers after seven decades.

We will continue debate on Bill C-18 next Wednesday. I am hoping that we will be debating the bill's third reading on Wednesday, if the debate tomorrow turns out to be productive and efficient. In the last election, we committed to moving forward with Canada's economic action plan, a low tax plan for jobs and growth. Canadians gave our Conservative government a majority mandate to implement our plan.

On Monday, we will have the final day of debate on Bill C-13, the Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, our primary bill in job creation and economic prosperity week. Bill C-13 implements important measures from our budget such as the small business tax credit and the extension of the accelerated capital cost allowance to make our manufacturers more competitive.

On Tuesday morning, we will continue debate on Bill C-7, the Senate Reform Act. The bill has already been debated on three days, so I hope that following Tuesday's debate the opposition will allow members to vote on this bill that will allow the Senate to reach its full potential as an accountable and democratic institution.

On Tuesday afternoon, we will continue debate on the opposition's motion to block Bill C-11, the copyright modernization act. The bill is another of our priority economic bills that the opposition is trying to prevent coming to a vote through what it calls a reasoned amendment.

Bill C-11 would create modern copyright laws to protect and create jobs, promote innovation, and attract new investment to Canada. This will be the fourth day that the bill has been debated. The time has come for members to have the chance to vote on this important economic bill. However, if the opposition continues in its efforts to delay and block the bill, we will again debate it on Thursday.

As is always the case, we will give priority to other important bills that may be reported back by committees. I refer especially to Bill C-10, as I understand that the justice and human rights committee is working hard, even as we speak, to complete its clause-by-clause consideration of the bill later today, I hope.

Finally, the next allotted day will be on Friday, November 25.

Senate Reform Act

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is surprisingly similar to that just put by the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

This is a complicated matter. It is not as simple as saying that we do not like the Senate, so we should end it.

We have constitutional issues embedded in how it is structured, and I share the view of the member for Beaches—East York and his caucus that there are significant problems with Bill C-7 as put forward by the government.

Having worked with the Senate over the years, I have seen the Senate take its own initiative and do some very good work, and we have seen examples here this morning. For instance, I point to the decision to not put bovine growth hormone into our milk. That was a done deal until the Senate committee, under Senators Mira Spivak and Eugene Whelan, subpoenaed scientists from Health Canada who were being muzzled and in that way made it possible for the information to get out.

Would the best way forward not be to have a real public consultation on the fundamental problems within our democracy, including the extreme power of the Prime Minister's Office, the lack of sufficient role for individual members of Parliament, the proper balance between the House of Commons and the Senate and the question of whether the Senate should survive or not?

How does the hon. member feel about taking this to the people before we make it legislation?

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-7, an act respecting the selection of senators and amending the Constitution Act, 1867 in respect of Senate term limits.

Before I continue, I will take a moment to speak to the issue of movember. Members probably see this sorry scruff on my face. It is an effort to encourage all men to take good care of their health and get their prostate checked out. My father died just over 18 years ago from prostate cancer. He did not live to see his son become an MP. He did not live to see his grandchildren. I am sure all members would agree that these are things that are worth living to see. I would urge, in the most strenuous terms possible, all men to suffer the indignities and get themselves checked out.

I will get back to Bill C-7. It strikes me as strange to have to speak in this chamber to issues so fundamental to our political life in this country that we cherish as a democracy. These issues I am talking about are democracy itself and accountability.

I had the pleasure of studying political theory In university. I had no idea at that time that it would be so relevant to the job of being a member of Parliament. Many people did ask me what the heck I was studying that stuff for, but here we are and I have the opportunity now to speak in this chamber about matters so fundamental that they are matters of political theory.

The government talks so much about Canadian values inside and outside this chamber that one would think there was almost violent agreement on what these things actually are. However, here we are in the House talking about the issue of democracy and a bill that is, frankly, fundamentally undemocratic.

As recently as 2006, our Prime Minister described the Senate as a relic of the 19th century. I would suggest that the Senate, in some important sense, takes us back much farther than the 19th century. It takes us back to a time when democracy in any form and however limited was much distrusted. It takes us back to a time when a ruling class was concerned about losing its social and economic status by way of decisions made by representatives of the people. It takes us back to a time when certain parts of our society were considered to be incapable of and unsuited for making the important decisions of a nation.

What is clear is that this skepticism of democracy is not just an historical tradition. It does not just find expression in our Senate of the 19th century. It is alive today and finds expression in the Conservative government in this 21st century in the form of the bill before us today, Bill C-7. The ancient tradition of distrusting the people survives in the Conservatives.

Bill C-7 clings to the security of a second unelected chamber where progressive legislation, such as the climate change accountability bill and the drugs to Africa bill, legislation that may have moved this country forward in the interests of all its citizens, as well as citizens around the world, can be defeated by the supposed superior wisdom of the present government's, and previous governments, hand-picked, unelected, self-selected watchdogs, not of, but watchdogs against, democracy.

The only thing the bill confirms is the Conservative government's determination to hang onto the reins of power by way of patronage. I would point to the fairly recent, widely-distributed and very instructive letter from a Conservative senator in which he wrote, in part:

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 [Prime Minister].

With this, we are a long way from the justifications most frequently offered for the existence of this anti-democratic institution. One of those justifications is independence. However, as we have seen, by virtue of that quote, and by virtue of the conduct of this chamber and those in it for well over a century, that it is hardly an independent chamber.

Other justifications have been equally persistent. I refer, in part, to the notion that the Senate is to provide our parliamentary institutions with regional representation. Yet, none of us have ever seen regional interests coalesce and operate to trump partisanship born of patronage in the Senate chamber. In fact, the bill would do nothing to advance or facilitate the emergence of regional interests or expressions in the Senate.

The government is unwilling to surrender its control over Senate appointments, as evidenced by the provision that permits the Prime Minister to reject the outcomes of Senate elections held at the provincial or territorial level; that is to say, the bill would allow the Prime Minister the ability to overrule the democratic will of the regions of this country.

This anti-democratic institution has also survived, cloaked in the justification of a second sober thought and yet all of us in this chamber were sent to this place on the basis of, at least in part, our sobriety of thought.

Therefore, on precisely what democratic principle does one confer in one person elected to this so-called lower chamber the power to overrule the democratic will of Canadians as expressed, at least potentially, in the Senate election and to decide who is wise enough to evaluate and overrule decisions made in this House of Commons?

Further, how grossly exaggerated must one's sense of one's self be to overthrow the results of an election in favour of one's own opinion and judgment, or to believe that he or she is so much wiser than the collective in this chamber so that he or she must appoint a senator to watch over us? Or, is it not that kind of hubris but simply a blatant disregard and disrespect for democracy that underlies the bill?

Whatever it is, it is clear that this bill would, both in practice and in theory, not only continue the unfortunate tradition of relocating power away from the elected representatives of Canadians and, therefore, the Canadian citizenry itself to an unelected body, but would locate that power in the single person of the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister, like the rest of us in this chamber, submitted himself directly to the judgment of the electorate in but one of 308 ridings. Beyond that, the Prime Minister can claim to have won directly only the confidence of the membership of his own political party as expressed through that party's internal leadership processes. However, that is a far cry from winning the confidence of all Canadians to exercise the kind of power over the rest of us directly elected members of this chamber that the bill would continue to provide to that position.

It has been argued that the bill would move us away from the undemocratic tradition by permitting provincial and territorial elections of a senator. Notably, however, such elections to a federal institution are to be financed by the province or territory. Notably, too, this would not provide the right of the citizens of that province or territory to elect a person to the Senate.

Senators would, under the bill, remain appointed, as the government clings, white knuckles on the reins of power, to its fear of losing control to the will of the people.

This skepticism of democracy is also evident in the very curious nine year term limit imposed on senators. The bill itself provides no rationale for such a length of terms. However, what this seemingly random term does do is effectively frustrate the ability of Canadians to hold senators accountable for their decisions and actions. What is more, with a one year term limit, a senator would never have to answer to voters for decisions he or she made or did not make.

Accountability is a key principle, a foundation of democratic institutions. This chamber is a democratic institution not just because we were elected to this House but because we, should we wish to continue in this position, are held, through the electoral process, to account for our decisions and actions while in this position.

This term, as lengthy as it is, also serves to frustrate the will of this chamber and, in doing so, the will of Canadians. It would provide the government of the day the opportunity to reach into the legislative bodies of this country long after it has lost its own mandate.

Finally, there are a number of questions of critical constitutional importance that are raised but not answered by Bill C-7. What kind of institution is being created in the Senate when some are elected while others will be appointed? Do some of these senators have more authority by virtue of being representatives of the electorate or are all considered to be equal? If the Senate gets filled with elected representatives, what is their relationship and relative authority to those of us in this chamber? Do they retain the same roles that justify those appointed directly, i.e. regional representation, independent sober second thought, et cetera, or is this a new role that they assume as elected representatives? Where there are differences between chambers, how are these resolved in favour of which chamber, or do we anticipate gridlock?

It is long past time for this country to shed the undemocratic traditions of another age, another time. It is time for the parties that have ruled this country to let go of the illogic and, frankly, hypocrisy that the people are good enough to elect us but that only one of us is good enough to appoint someone to watch over us.

It is time to let go of its skepticism of the wisdom of Canadians. It is time for Canada to embrace democracy by abolishing the Senate and allowing those of us sent to this place by the people of Canada to do what they have asked of us and to be turfed out of this place should we fail to do so or should we fail to do so to their standards.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, part of the preamble to Bill C-7 states:

--Parliament wishes to maintain the essential characteristics of the Senate within Canada’s parliamentary democracy as a chamber of independent, sober second thought--

I am going to focus on the word “independent” for a minute. Everybody knows that the Senate is anything but independent. Both the Liberal and Conservative parties have House leaders and whips in that House and many senators attend party caucus meetings. To many Canadians, the Senate appears simply to be a extension of this House, an extension of the government controlled by the parties, and largely there to ensure that controversial bills get lost in the system. Partisanship clearly works against this objective of the Senate to be a chamber of sober second thought and these reforms would only serve to make this situation worse.

My hon. colleague brings up a classic example. We do not have to reach back in history 40 or 50 years. We can reach back to the last 24 months to see an example where the Senate was not acting independently but acted on the behest of the government of the day to kill a piece of legislation that it did not like but could not command the majority support of the democratically elected members of Parliament. What we saw on that day, with regard to climate change, was the death of democracy in Canada. That is regrettable and undemocratic.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise today to speak on behalf of the official opposition and the good people of Vancouver Kingsway regarding C-7, An Act respecting the selection of senators and amending the Constitution Act, 1867 in respect of Senate term limits.

Before I proceed, for Canadians watching, I am one of the men that has a moustache in honour of movember, which is a time when we remember the very real effects of prostate cancer and encourage men across the country to not only get checked but to raise funds to help defeat this disease that has not only taken the lives of many men, but is something that afflicted the past leader of the NDP, the Hon. Jack Layton.

When we talk about the Senate, it conjures up a number of concepts in the minds of most Canadians. Unelected, undemocratic, unaccountable, political patronage and elitist are words that have been cemented in the minds of Canadians whenever they think of the Senate of Canada.

Modern democratic nations do not have representative chambers that are unelected. Modern democratic nations do not have representational chambers that are regionally imbalanced and unequal, with the principle of representation by population being completely ignored and frozen in a time two centuries past. Modern democratic nations do not have representative chambers where a ruling head of state hand-picks legislators who are the head's fundraisers, failed candidates and partisan supporters.

Modern democratic nations do not have representative chambers where people are appointed for life or until they are 75 years old, while the people who senators supposedly represent have no means to remove them. Modern democratic nations do not have representative chambers where the members spend their time campaigning for the ruling party on the public dime on the taxpayer-funded purse. They do not have chambers where unelected, patronage appointed members block legislation passed by a democratically elected chamber.

Modern democracies do not have chambers that restrict membership to those who own property, in the case of Canada $4,000 in land, and are closed to Canadians who do not. In fact, that is why Canada stands almost alone in the world among modern democratic nations with an anachronism from the past, a sordid past, a shameful history and a dubious future. That is why every province in Canada that had such a body abolished it in 1968.

I want to mention a few facts about the issue of abolishing the Senate.

Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty and Nova Scotia Premier Darrell Dexter have openly called for the abolition of the Senate. The premier of my province, British Columbia, Premier Christy Clark, has said that the Senate no longer plays a useful role in Confederation. Manitoba maintains its position of Senate abolition, although it has plans in place for the contingency that Senate elections are required should this bill be passed. Quebec has called this legislation unconstitutional and has said that it will launch a provincial court appeal if the bill proceeds without the consultation of provinces, which have not occurred to date. So far the bill is opposed by premiers of provinces representing the vast majority of Canadians.

In terms of what Canadians think, public support for a referendum on the Senate is growing. An Angus Reid survey from July, just some months ago, showed 71% of Canadians were in favour of holding a referendum to decide the future of the Senate. Members of the Conservative government stand in the House virtually every day and say that they have received a strong mandate from the Canadian public. They received 39% of the vote in the last election and 61% of Canadians did not support them. They consider 39% of the Canadian public to be a strong mandate. I hope members of the Conservative government recognize that when 71% of Canadians support a referendum on the Senate that is an even stronger mandate.

Thirty-six per cent of Canadians support the abolition of the Senate right now and that is without any kind of public education campaign or national discourse or dialogue, which I am sure would elevate that number to well over 50% very quickly. There have been 13 attempts to reform the Senate since 1900 and all of them have failed.

I want to outline what the bill would do.

The bill would restrict all senators appointed to the Senate after October 14, 2008, to a single nine-year term. It purports to give provinces and territories the opportunity to choose to hold elections at their cost and to determine which names will be submitted to the Prime Minister for his consideration. The bill clearly states that the Prime Minister is not required to appoint anyone so-called elected by the provinces. The bill would not make it mandatory that the Prime Minister would appoint a person so elected. In other words, it does not actually change the way senators are currently appointed, which is that the Prime Minister is free to appoint whomever he or she chooses.

Bill C-7 appears from the outset to be a rather vague and once again confused legislation, which is clumsily attempting to pursue a number of objectives without any clear focus. The reforms outlined in the bill continue the undemocratic nature of the Senate and do not provide, in any way, what Canada needs as a modern democratic nation.

I will go through some of the major flaws in the bill.

When I said that the government had been a little bit confused, previous Conservative bills called for federally-regulated electoral processes. This one calls for provincially-regulated electoral processes. Another bill the Conservatives tabled called for eight-year term limits. This one has nine-year term limits.

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, Conservative senators, even those appointed by the current Prime Minister, pushed back against any plans for Senate term limits, even those who were supposedly appointed after giving their word that they would respect term limits.

The bill would retain the fundamental flaw that senators would remain unaccountable to the Canadian people. By only being allowed to serve one term, senators would never have to face the public to account for the promises they made to get elected or the decisions that they took in the previous nine years. Then they would get a pension for life after they left office. So much for fiscal accountability from the Conservatives.

Having an elected Senate would fundamentally change the nature of politics in Canada. It would create a two-tier Senate where those who were elected likely would feel that they would have more legitimacy. Later in my speech I will talk more about where we run into conflicts with the role and authority of the provinces to speak on behalf of the people in those provinces versus the senators.

Since the Senate has virtually the same powers as the House, an elected Senate would give greater legitimacy for the Senate to introduce legislation or oppose bills sent from the House of Commons. We very well could end up with the same kind of gridlock that we see in the United States, and I will talk about that in a few minutes as well.

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

Let us reflect on the history and role of the Senate which originated in the British parliamentary system as the House of Lords. For hundreds of years the so-called upper chamber has been a symbol of nobility and power in place to prevent the commoners in the lower house from affecting the privileged lives of those who enjoy more than their fair share of the product of the nation. Indeed, our own Prime Minister has described the Senate as “a relic of the 19th century”, echoing my view that its presence continues to give merit to an outdated concept.

During the last election, Jack Layton said that something had changed with the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister used to talk about being democratically accountable. He used to talk about things like the Senate being something that had no business opposing or blocking legislation from the House of Commons, where senators who were appointed had no business being patronage appointments.

The Prime Minister has stuffed the Senate with his political friends and with failed candidates. He either allowed or required the unelected senators to block environmental legislation passed democratically in the House of Commons after three readings. It is funny how things change when someone is in power.

The bill would do nothing to address the wider issues around the Senate, that its relevance and role comes from a shameful past of elitism and distrust of the ability of the common people to govern themselves. How else do we explain a requirement that to hold a Senate seat, one must own land? What does that say in 2011, in modern Canada, to all the millions of Canadians who rent or who do not own land? Is it that they are not fit to pass legislation in the Senate of our country? The government does nothing to change that rule.

I said that these reforms were not what Canada needs. This is an important message which must be conveyed to Canadians across the country. We have a tendency in this modern era to hear the word “reform” and automatically assume that this must be a good thing, something that we should greet with open arms. However, just because something represents reform does not necessarily make it good reform. Bill C-7 is not good reform. It represents reform that will make Canada's democracy far less efficient, much less predictable and is much more radical than the government will admit.

By describing the bill as radical, the government has presented it as an evolution of our democratic principles. However, the truth is these reforms would dramatically change the way in which our Parliament operates.

Bill C-7 is being discussed as simply a method of increasing democratic legitimacy in our system, but in reality it would not do that. In fact, it risks imperilling the very democratic premise it purports to improve. It would result in a complete change in the way our Parliament operates, with a significantly stronger and more active upper chamber. This will undoubtedly create challenges, some of which will undermine the efficiency and effectiveness of government.

By electing the Senate as well as the House of Commons, we will create two parliamentary bodies that both may claim to have a mandate to govern. This is a very dangerous situation for Canada to be in. Parliament would lose the clarity that it currently has regarding where ultimate authority lies, in the democratically elected representatives in the House of Commons.

The importance of clarity in this area is illustrated by events from the last Parliament when my NDP colleague tabled Bill C-311, which was a climate change accountability act. The bill went through all three readings in debate in the House of Commons, went through democratic votes and passed. The bill was then referred to the Senate where the Conservative majority in the Senate, who are not elected by anybody, who are not accountable to anybody, who sit in that chamber for $135,000 a year until they are 75 years of age, voted to kill that legislation. That is not democratic; it is autocratic.

The 2006 Conservative Party platform stated that, “An unelected Senate should not be able to block the will of the elected House in the 21st century”. What kind of hypocrisy is that? The Conservative Party went to the people of the country five years ago and said that its position was the Senate, which is unelected, should not block any parliamentary legislation that had been passed by the House of Commons. Five years later the government caused its Conservative senators to do exactly that. That is not undemocratic. That is hypocritical and unethical. It was a lie and that is wrong.

On these grounds, the actions of the Senate, on those two occasions, were unwarranted and unacceptable. It is our current system that allows us to draw this conclusion. It is clear that in a parliamentary democracy, ultimate authority must lie with the elected chamber and not with the appointed one.

Again, the fact is this bill would muddy those waters. If these reforms were implemented, then the Senate would have every right to throw out a bill that had already passed through the House of Commons as the senators, at least those who had been elected, would have an equal democratic mandate to the members in this place, or may very well claim so.

No clearer indication can be given about the dangers of this kind of system than what we have seen recently in the United States. With the house of representatives and the senate there having equal democratic mandates and being controlled by two separate parties, the world financial markets were almost brought to their knees. Once again, a piece of legislation concerning the debt limit in the United States was raised and the bill to borrow more money to keep the economy going had to be passed. The U.S. Congress had passed similar legislation many times before without a hitch, but on that occasion, the well-being of the American people was firmly put to one side as the two parties battled it out to achieve their own partisan goals.

This is what the bill risks here. Had one of those two political institutions had the clear authority over the other any chance of this kind of situation developing would be non-existent.

That has been the history of the House of Commons and Senate up to now. The Senate, being unelected, has always by convention refused to exercise its de jure powers and instead restricted itself only to holding up legislation, but never to blocking it, until the Conservative government of this Prime Minister came into being.

I would like to raise the issue of the makeup of the Senate going forward if the reform outlined in the bill were implemented. These changes would result in a completely incoherent upper chamber with two tiers of senators. Some would be subject to term limits for nine years and be elected, others would be appointed and could serve until age 75. What kind of message does this send to Canadians, or people all over the world about the reputation of our democratic processes? How can a parliamentary institution operate when one member has a fresh mandate from the electorate, while the person sitting next that member has been there for 25 years with no input from those who his or her decisions affect?

The divisive nature of the reforms also mean that there is a conflict set up between the provinces and the Senate. Which body would truly speak on behalf of the people of that province? I would argue that it is the provincial governments of the country set up by our Constitution that have a legitimate democratic mandate to speak for the people of those provinces, not the Senate, or senators from those provinces, many of whom do not even live in those provinces and have only a very tangential relationship with those provinces.

I know I am running out of time so I want to talk about a couple of quick facts that I think are important; one is money. The Conservative government that has given us a massive $610 billion debt and the largest deficits in Canadian history still wants to maintain a chamber that costs Canadian taxpayers over $100 million per year and is undemocratic.

We could abolish the Senate, as the New Democrats have suggested, and save the taxpayers $100 million a year with absolutely not one iota of deleterious affect on the democratic health of our nation. We could make our government more efficient and more effective. We could be quicker. I have heard members opposite talk about the slow rate with which it passes legislation. They are frustrated by how long it takes to get legislation passed.

By abolishing the Senate we could dispense with three readings and committee study, and speed up legislation, which is what Canadians want in this country, according to the Conservatives.

Why do the Conservatives not abolish the Senate? Why do they tinker around the edges? Why do they continue to take a fundamentally flawed and undemocratic chamber and continue to make it a flawed and undemocratic chamber? It makes no sense.

I want to talk briefly about the people of Vancouver Kingsway. I come from a riding where David Emerson was elected as a Liberal and two weeks later crossed the floor to sit as a Conservative. The people of Vancouver Kingsway rose up like few citizens, or few ridings, in this country have ever done. They loudly expressed their commitment to democracy in this country because what Mr. Emerson did was a betrayal of democracy.

Here, we are talking about a chamber that is stuffed with failed Conservative candidates, like Yonah Martin, Josée Verner, Fabian Manning, people who ran in elections, placed themselves before the people of the country for their democratic mandate and were rejected, then find themselves appointed by the Prime Minister to the Senate and serve as legislators, even though the people of this country said they did not want to give them their trust or a mandate to do so. That is outrageous. That is an outrage in a democracy, when former fundraisers and failed Conservative candidates end up in the Senate. The Liberals were no better. They did the exact same thing when they were in power.

It is time that people in this country follow the New Democratic lead and abolish the Senate. That is the only responsible, reasonable, democratic measure that can be taken in this country, and I urge all members of the House to do so.

The House resumed from October 3 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.