Debates of May 28th, 2009

Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Madam Speaker, I certainly would like to see the proposal that the hon. member has. We, obviously, are in favour of alternative sources.

One simple thing we could do is change the building codes in Canada. One of the simplest ways to reduce our dependence on greenhouse gas-producing sources of fossil based fuels is to change our building codes, change the way we build our buildings and reduce the amount of energy we actually use. That is one of the simplest ways to massively reduce our burning of greenhouse gases.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Madam Chair, I would like to address the House for a few minutes to discuss Bill C-20, An Act respecting civil liability and compensation for damage in case of a nuclear incident.

One of the reasons why it is important to take the time to study this bill is of course the fact that the act goes back to 1976. You will understand that I was only three years old at that time. The whole nuclear movement has changed and evolved over time. The time has certainly come, 33 years later, to ensure that provisions are updated and to improve the act which has been in effect since then.

Updating means ensuring that the act reflects what is going on today, but also ensuring that we go a little further by being proactive and instituting measures so that the population feels better protected. We also want to see those who will be dealing with nuclear material and facilities take on some responsibility.

We all know that we need energy if we are to function. Whatever type of energy we use, have to have it to power our cars and heat our homes. That is reality, in this country and throughout the world. We are not unique in this. We most certainly live in a climate where the population has to heat their homes in the winter. We have to find a way. Some feel that certain energy solutions are less polluting than others. If we want to take the environment into account and pollute less, this may mean putting the emphasis on wind power and hydroelectric power.

However, we must also examine sources of energy that are extremely polluting, be it coal-generated energy or electricity produced by burning oil.

Nuclear energy also exists and must not be set aside. I heard certain members oppose Bill C-20, which seems a bit bizarre to me. As I mentioned earlier, when an act goes back to 1976, sooner or later we have to ensure that we update that legislation, especially when we are talking about nuclear energy.

Some members may be against nuclear energy and speak against it. However, we also have to look at the whole matter of the use of nuclear matter for worthwhile medical purposes. The crisis we are experiencing currently seems worse to me than the one in 2007. This year, in 2009, we are going to experience what appears to be an insurmountable isotope crisis. Indeed, from one day to the next or from one week to the next, we see that the government is introducing and adding amendments stating that medical isotopes will not be available before a given time.

The reality is that everyone in our country and elsewhere needs medical care. We have to be able to find solutions and identify people's illnesses. We may then see that there is no disease; that can happen. In that sense, medical isotopes allow us to move forward. They make it possible to find health-related, medical solutions for our fellow citizens.

If we want to be able to move forward in this area we have to be able to develop isotopes and this is done in a nuclear environment. It cannot be done with thin air, nor with wind turbines. We cannot make isotopes with hydroelectric energy, even if some people would like that. That is the reality we have to deal with.

If we want to continue to ensure a better quality of life where the health of our population is concerned, we must also be able to take steps to provide a safe nuclear environment. I was talking about protection earlier, and I may have an opportunity to get back to that.

When we speak in the House, it is good to have people listen to us, and not have them be talking to each other instead. Sometimes that can be distracting. It seems that some people are not interested in this very current and important matter, important for the health and safety of our populations.

I was talking about isotopes. Who can be against the obvious virtues of nuclear energy? Nuclear energy will be used to create medical isotopes. We must not forget that Canada produces 50% of the world's medical isotopes and 70% of the isotopes used in North America. It is all well and good to look at what we provide to other countries, but when the time comes to make a decision and vote on this bill, we will also have to take into account the fact that we use medical isotopes for the citizens we represent, Canadian citizens. How then can we be against the clear advantages of nuclear energy in that regard?

We cannot oppose it. I hope that some of the members who say they are against nuclear power will take a few extra minutes to think this through and think about their fellow citizens, the members of their family as well as themselves; they may at one time or another have had to undergo medical tests that involved the use of isotopes. It is almost impossible to be against the virtues of nuclear power in this regard. We cannot tell our fellow citizens that we will just stop producing isotopes because their production involves nuclear power. It would be like telling them that we will no longer be able to diagnose their diseases because we do not want to produce medical isotopes anymore. We really have to think about this with great care.

Once certain members have thought about this, I want them also to think about how anyone can be against updating and improving an act that has been around from 1976 to 2009. It is impossible to think that a member could oppose that and vote against this bill because he or she is against nuclear energy. That is missing the point. The point is that we have to be in favour of the bill because we are going to need nuclear energy in order to be able to provide medical care to Canadian citizens and to identify certain diseases or certain problems. Let us at least update the bill. Why run an additional risk? As parliamentarians, why not ensure that those who work with nuclear power be made more liable? We cannot be against that idea either.

Earlier, I mentioned protecting our citizens. There is no doubt that nuclear energy is not like water. We can drink water, even if it may sometimes be polluted, but not nuclear substances. So we have to be careful. Certain steps have to be taken. However, citizens must also feel that they are in a realistic environment. They must feel that parliamentarians have considered all aspects and that the government and the various government agencies have taken the necessary steps to ensure that the population is well protected, especially when we are dealing with nuclear power. It has to be said that this is an environment that can be unstable in some respects. No one will deny that. However, if we want to ensure that we are giving our citizens greater protection, one of the ways of doing that is to update this law in order to make sure that we will have much better regulation.

The other point concerns liability. We want to make sure that we are increasing the liability of nuclear power plant operators. One of the important things to point out in this regard is that the bill will increase liability from $75 million as it is currently to $650 million. Increasing these liability levels will ensure that people will not be able to take their work lightly. In addition to ensuring the protection of the environment and of our citizens, we will be making those who operate nuclear facilities more accountable, and raising the liability level from $75 million to $650 million is one proof of that.

Generally, it is when there are no limits that people do things in a somewhat more negligent way. If you increase liability to such a level, this clearly demonstrates that we want to attain an objective: that of ensuring that operators are doing their work seriously, so as to provide greater protection to our citizens.

As everyone will have understood, I will indeed be voting in favour of this bill. We will never be able to eliminate nuclear power, except perhaps in 100 or 150 years. This is not just about energy, but about medical treatment. Some of us may not agree with one or another of these matters, but it is very difficult to be against the medical aspect. If we cannot be against nuclear energy as it relates to medical matters, clearly we have to improve the act if we want to increase the protection we afford our citizens, and if we want operators to be more liable.

I will conclude here. If members have questions for me, I am ready to answer them.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Madam Speaker, I ask that the division on the motion be deferred until Monday, June 1, at the end of government orders.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Agreed.

Senate Ethics Act

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

moved that Bill C-30, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to move second reading of Bill C-30, the Senate ethics act.

Bill C-30 proposes to make a single officer responsible for administering all the ethical standards for parliamentarians.

Many Canadians are surprised to learn that despite the overlap in ethics standards for ministers, members of Parliament and senators, senators have their own ethics officer while ministers and members of Parliament have another.

From the perspective of the House of Commons, there has been long-standing support to establish a single ethics officer for all parliamentarians. Several attempts have been made to correct this inconsistency.

In 1997, a special joint committee chaired by our current Speaker and Senator Oliver recommended that a single ethics officer should administer a common code of conduct.

In 2002, the federal government introduced a draft bill on appointing a single ethics officer in the wake of the recommendations made by the special joint committee in its 1997 report.

However, the upper house ultimately opposed the initiative, insisting that it should have its own ethics officer. As a result, the government introduced a bill that created two separate ethics officers: an ethics commissioner for the House of Commons and public office holders, and a Senate ethics officer.

In 2006, the House of Commons passed the Federal Accountability Act, which provided for the appointment of a single ethics officer.

However, the upper house again opposed this political accountability measure and deleted the relevant clauses from the bill. In the interest of passing the many other important accountability measures in our government's flagship legislation, the House of Commons agreed, with a promise to return to the issue.

Today, we are doing just that.

I hope that the House of Commons will again pass the measure it supported previously. I also hope that the other place will recognize the democratic will of the people of Canada as expressed in this House.

The upper house has blocked our efforts in the past on this issue. Let us pass the bill as a signal to Canadians that their voice cannot be stifled by unelected members in the other place.

The main provision in the Senate ethics act would eliminate the office of the Senate ethics officer and transfer all of its responsibilities to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.

There are many advantages to bringing the administration of the ethics standards for members of Parliament, ministers, parliamentary secretaries and other public office holders under a single officer. For one, it reflects the expectation of Canadians that ethics standards should be applied consistently for all public officials, rather than having a special process for a special class of people.

In 2004, the Parliament of Canada Act was amended to create two positions: the office of the ethics officer and the office of the ethics commissioner. While the Senate ethics officer's mandate was to oversee the ethics code for senators, the ethics commissioner was given a broader mandate that included members of Parliament and public office holders: ministers and parliamentary secretaries, ministerial staff and governor-in-council appointees, for example.

This mandate was continued in 2006 in the Federal Accountability Act. When it was established, it included the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to replace the aforementioned ethics commissioner. The Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner has considerable expertise in the administration of ethical standards.

The commissioner oversees ethical standards not only for the 308 members of Parliament, but also for Governor in Council appointees.

Moreover, the commissioner currently administers two codes: the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons, and the ethical rules for public office holders in the Conflict of Interest Act.

While there are some differences between the rules for a member of Parliament and for public office holders, where the rules do overlap, there is a stronger accountability through a common approach applied by a single officer. Indeed, it makes little sense for two ethics codes to prescribe the same conduct and yet be administered differently.

The Conflict of Interest Code for Senators is similar in many respects to the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons, yet there is no way to promote a consistent approach to administering similar rules under our current system.

The Senate ethics act would correct this by enabling the commissioner to administer the ethics standards for all parliamentarians. To maintain the expertise of the commissioner and allow for his or her office to access the necessary funds to pursue a new mandate, the resources and staff of the ethics officer will be transferred to the office of the commissioner to assist in these new responsibilities.

On several occasions senators have expressed their own concerns that this change would undermine their independence as a chamber of sober second thought. They fear that a single ethics officers would undermine their independent status in Parliament.

Some also feel that a single ethics officer would undermine their privileges as a chamber to regulate their internal affairs, including the power to discipline its members.

In response, I would like to point out that the Senate ethics act has been designed to respect every aspect of the upper house's independence. Currently, the Senate ethics officer is appointed by the governor-in-council after the approval of the appointment by the upper house.

The Senate ethics act preserves the upper house's role in approving the appointment of the officer responsible for its ethics code. The conflict of interest and ethics commissioner will have to be approved by both the House of Commons and the upper house before being appointed by the governor-in-council.

Our colleagues in the other place would have no less of a say in approving the officer responsible for administering their ethics code under the Senate ethics act than they do currently. Moreover, the Senate ethics officer currently carries out his duties and functions under the general direction of the conflict of interest committee.

The Senate ethics act maintains the committee's role in providing general direction, but simply specifies that the direction would be provided to the conflict of interest and ethics commissioner.

The act also allows for the House of Commons and the upper house to establish a joint committee to provide general direction to the commissioner, but in no way obliges either chamber to do so.

In this way the other place will have no less of a say in the direction of the officer responsible for administering its ethics code under the Senate ethics act than it currently does--

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I am wondering if those who have their BlackBerries on could turn them off because there is static from the BlackBerries that are perhaps near where the mic is on.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is amazing how BlackBerries get in the way sometimes.

As I was saying, in this way, the other place will have no less of a say in the direction of the officer responsible for administering its code under the Senate ethics act than it currently does.

However, this bill goes further to address concerns of the upper house with respect to its independence. Since senators had no role in selecting the current Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, who will now assume the responsibilities for its ethics regime, the Senate ethics act provides an important transitional provision.

The current commissioner will remain in office for no more than six months unless the upper house confirms the appointment by resolution. If the other place prefers another commissioner, the bill also provides that the upper house and the House of Commons may approve the appointment of a different officer. In this important way, the upper house will maintain its role in selecting, directing and appointing the officer responsible for its ethics code.

Another important fact to note is that nothing in the Senate ethics act affects the Conflict of Interest Code for Senators. That code is an internal document and can only be amended by the other place. The upper house remains responsible for regulating its internal affairs, including the power to discipline its members, consistent with parliamentary privilege. The House of Commons is no less independent a chamber than the upper house in our Parliament. Yet, nobody in this chamber believes that we are less independent because our ethics officer is also responsible for administering the ethics standards for public office holders.

Similarly, in provincial legislatures most ethics commissioners are also responsible for administering the ethics standards that apply to ministers. In some cases, ethics commissioners have also been given responsibilities for the ethics governing the public service and for the regulation of lobbyists. How, then, can the upper house argue a loss of independence where no loss of independence exists for the House of Commons?

Ultimately, I do not agree with the upper house argument or some of the members of the upper house. For this reason, I hope others can see that the Senate ethics act has been carefully designed to respect the independence of both houses. We may question what happens when the bill is referred to the other place. The expectation of Canadians is clear. Any concerns with the independence of the upper house have been addressed. We in this place have expressed our desire to proceed with the reform and I hope we will do so again.

The upper house has indicated its resistance to this reform in the past. Yet, the advantages are obvious and our desire to proceed with this legislation signals that the will of the democratically elected Commons should prevail. I hope members of the other place will hear the elected members of this chamber and give sober second thought to their previous position on this bill.

Since taking office, our government has emphasized through our Senate reform agenda that Canada's representative institutions must evolve with the principles of modern democracy and the expectations of Canadians. This includes the expectation that the highest ethics standards will apply to those honoured with the public trust. The institution that should be at the forefront of Senate reform is the upper house itself. Yet, time and time again, the Liberal dominated Senate has resisted changes proposed by the democratically elected members of the Commons.

Whether it is the creation of a single ethics officer or the establishment of term limits, the Liberal dominated upper house has obstructed and delayed our efforts. Indeed, the Liberal opposition senators spoke out against this bill even before they read it.

I urge our colleagues in the other place to embrace Senate reform, starting with the adoption of the Senate Ethics Act.

I would encourage our colleagues in the other place to embrace the Senate reform, beginning with adoption of the Senate ethics act. I encourage the members of this House to support the legislation. Together I hope we can make major reforms toward ensuring the upper house is a house that reflects the modern institutions that Canadians expect.

The Senate is a house that can do, and does do, work that is helpful to Canadians. However, Canadians expect that all members of Parliament adhere to the highest ethical standards. The bill helps move us in that direction. I hope the opposition party will support this important government initiative. Not to do so is not only undemocratic, it is simply wrong.

May God keep our land glorious and free.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Before moving to questions and comments, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Malpeque, Agriculture and Agri-Food; the hon. member for Gatineau, Official Languages; the hon. member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl, Employment Insurance.

Since there are no questions or comments, we will resume debate. The hon. member for Toronto Centre.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have long taken an interest in constitutional issues, and I do not think we can consider this particular piece of legislation outside of a broader context. The fact is that we find ourselves, as a country, in an unusual position. We have a government in office that has decided to take a unilateral approach to the subject of Senate reform.

I will certainly be discussing the bill and the position of the Liberal Party with respect to the particular piece of legislation in front of it, but it is impossible for us to consider the bill without also recognizing that on this very same day the government has decided to announce several other measures with respect to the unilateral reform of the Senate.

This particular piece of legislation, which provides for the House of Commons, if you will, taking upon itself to transform the questions of conflict of interest and ethical behaviour of members of the other House is not the necessary or right approach to take in our view.

The Senate has an ethics regime. The Senate has an independent ethics officer. The Senate has a structure it has created, which reflects the views of senators according to legislation that has been passed and approved. If the government wanted to initiate a discussion with respect to particular issues about any ethical matter affecting a senator or the conduct of the members of the Senate, it knows perfectly well what it could do. It could start that conversation and discussion in the Senate, with the Senate, with senators making the decisions with respect to their conduct.

First, one cannot help but observe that two days after the Minister of Finance did not even announce, but let slip, the fact that the public accounts of the country are in a much greater shambles than he was prepared to admit even 37 days ago, the government has now decided as a matter of political strategy to change the channel and once again bring out the somewhat tired and hoary subject of Senate reform in one manner or another as one of its priorities.

Political science students have long been studying the Canadian Senate, along with the possibility of reforming it and changing its nature. The Senate was established by constitutional process prior to 1867. Members of the Senate are appointed by the government, not elected. They reflect the condition of the federation of a long ago era. Naturally, some still wonder whether this institution ought not to be reformed, and they continue to work toward that.

I remember very clearly back to the 1970s when I was an elected member of this House that there were some very clear proposals on this. The Supreme Court, however, said that if the House wanted to change the nature of the Senate, it could not do so unilaterally.

It needs to respect the Canadian Constitution, and it needs to respect the fact that this federal institution does not belong to the House of Commons, does not belong to the PMO, does not belong to the government in power. This institution is entrenched, rooted in the Constitution. Even if the government and the reformists who are in large part on the other side of this House may be somewhat impatient, it is quite simply not possible to do this.

Today the minister is presenting certain reforms to the Senate's code of ethics, but we know that it is already in place. It is not that there is no code of ethics in the Senate, there is, and it is well set up and well regulated. If a senator causes problems, all it takes is a call to the office of the Senate ethics officer, who will find a solution.

Here we have a government that always wants the Senate to reflect its point of view, the Prime Minister's point of view, or that of the PMO. The Conservatives insist that this is an institution that they will reform by themselves, as they see fit.

Two weeks ago, I made a speech on the right this House has to take up a position with regard to matrimonial matters on aboriginal reserves. I was speaking directly to my Bloc colleagues. I said that we had long ago accepted the need to respect the fact that we have a Constitution which guarantees important rights to aboriginal peoples. That said, the House of Commons cannot make unilateral decisions as though we were not a federation, as though we did not have a Senate and as though we did not know that it is not easy to amend the Constitution. I know something about it. Twice I sat down at a table to attempt to find solutions, and we were unable to do so. That is life in Canada, and that is how we must do things.

I know very well that when we hear from the provincial premiers, they will say straight out and clearly that it is essential to respect the Constitution so that the provinces may take positions, be consulted and see how we arrive at a solution that will reflect the true federal nature of our country.

Canada is a federation.

[Vic Toews]

Yes.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

The minister may say yes, and if that is the case, I say to the minister that Conservatives must respect the Canadian Constitution. If they really believe that they have the power to unilaterally change the status of the Senate and of the members of the Senate and the ethics requirements in the Senate, let them go to the Supreme Court of Canada to see what the House of Commons can really do to unilaterally change an institution that is enshrined in our Constitution.

I do not know what the judges will say. Neither the minister nor I are judges, even if we have ambitions and desires. We do not know, we are not there yet.

We must respect the fact that we have a Constitution. If we have a Constitution, we must respect it.

What I have a problem with is that I perceive the Reform ideology which is still alive and well within the government. The Reform ideology is determined to unilaterally attempt to change the Canadian Constitution as they see fit.

In their minds, that is what the reformists are going to do.

Even if I do not like some things in the Senate, I have to respect the Canadian Constitution, I must respect the independence of this House and I must respect the fact that this institution was created by the Canadian Constitution and that it is through the Canadian Constitution that we can change it.

If I am somewhat emotional on this topic, it is not because I want to become a senator. That is not it and it is not because I want to become a senator some day, but because I understand full well that we have to accept the Constitution in its entirety.

Moreover, we have to see that we cannot continue to do what the Conservatives insist on doing and want to continue doing: trying to change the nature of the Senate without having the necessary support of the provinces.

I say to the minister, with great respect, the Conservatives cannot change unilaterally the nature and structure of the Canadian Senate. They cannot change unilaterally how it is made up and who it is made up of. They have to respect the independence and integrity of that institution. If they want a change with respect to the conduct of the Senate, then start with the Senate, start with the Senators, start with their colleagues in the Senate, and then start with a process which respects the independence of that institution. We cannot do that unilaterally ourselves.

The Conservatives may get the majority that will give the ability to get this House into second reading. They may get it into third reading. They may be able to do it. I do not know where the votes will go. I know my colleagues in the New Democratic Party continue to take a puritanical position with respect to the Senate.

I will only say to my colleagues in the New Democratic Party to name a federation in the world that does not have a second chamber. They will not find it. There is no federation in the world that does not have a second chamber. As my colleague from Calgary says, they are elected.

Look, this is not about what I think nor what the member for Toronto Centre says. If I were writing a constitution in the sky, I do not know what it would look like, any more than the member from Calgary would. That is not the point.

We are not capable, we do not have the power in this House, to unilaterally change the nature of the Senate. That is something which this party opposite, the government opposite, simply does not understand. The Conservatives cannot do it. It cannot be done. They will continue trying to do it and they should not continue trying to do it. They should be told to just stop, stop trying to change the dial and change the subject, stop going back to their tired old ideologies.

If they want to sit down and change the Senate, set up a meeting with the provinces, sit down in negotiation, and go back to the process of constitutional reform. I wish them the best of success in doing so. If that is what they want to do, go ahead and do it.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. The member for Toronto Centre is speaking. He will have the floor. Other members will have an opportunity to ask questions. If they continue to interrupt now, I will not recognize them when it is time for questions.

The hon. member for Toronto Centre.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I admit I was in full flight. I will try to come down to a lower decibel level. I know the member opposite is well known for never losing his temper or having arguments in his office, so I will not be making any further comment.

Let me just say that even with this modest bill, the minister might say, “Look, all we are simply trying to do is create one regime for the regulation of ethics in the House and the Senate. They should be the same. It's no big deal. Nothing much to be affected by it. Nothing much to worry about”.

All I can say to the minister is, if it is not broken, we do not have to fix it. There is nothing broken about ethics in the Senate. There is no crisis of ethics in the Senate. We have an independent ethics officer in the Senate. We have an independent structure in the Senate. Senators are able to do their business. They do what they do.

Some of the things the Senate does, in my opinion, are very good. There are some outstanding senators who are in the upper house, and some of them are members of the Conservative Party, and some I count among my dearest friends. They do studies, work and travel widely. They issue reports on public policy, which have had a major impact on the public policy of the country going back decades.

That is the structure that we have been given. It is not the perfect structure. Do I think it is a wonderful structure? No, I do not. I do not think it is a wonderful structure, but it is what we have.

The member from Calgary says, “Let's change it”. I say to the member from Calgary that we have a Constitution. We go back to square one. The Constitution does not give the House of Commons the power to unilaterally dictate the conduct of senators. It does not give us the power to unilaterally dictate how they will run their affairs. They have an ethics officer who deals with issues. We have laws that deal with these questions. We have laws which apply to members of the House of Commons and members of the Senate.

There is no need for us to do what is being proposed. It is absolutely unnecessary. It is a classic case of changing the dial and changing the subject, and trying to make something out of nothing.

It is part of a bigger strategy on the part of the government. It is part of a bigger approach. That has to do with all that the Conservatives are seeking to do with the Senate. All I can say to the hon. members is that they are wasting their time and they are wasting our time.

It simply is not possible for the Government of Canada, for public policy, to achieve unilaterally, by one House voting one way or another, what cannot be achieved by a broader consensus of the country with respect to changing the Senate. That is why the Liberal Party will be opposing this legislation.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's comments carefully. I noticed that we have something in common. He was a member of Parliament in the 1970s, and I was born in the 1970s.

I also noticed that the member does not seem to be fully informed about the bill. He talks about unilateral action by the House of Commons. I do not know where this is coming from. The bill is going to go through, assuming it passes this chamber, both Houses of Parliament, and we are looking for the Senate to support this bill.

The Liberal Party just announced that they were opposing this bill, but in April 2006 they supported a bill with this provision in it. So they support it and they do not support it. The member opposite seems to be a bit of an anti-Senate reformist, defeatist.

He wants to open up the Constitution during an economic crisis. I do not think that is appropriate. What we are asking Parliament to do is to work together to improve the upper chamber. This bill does that, along with other pieces of legislation. It is absolutely constitutional and within the realm.

Instead of the Liberal Party opposing the government, it should support the government in its mandate that it received during the last several elections. I know the member has been around for a very long time, and he will know that the people of Canada want Senate reform. As a youngish person, I know young people want the Senate to reflect the realities of the 21st century. Why will the Liberal Party not reflect the realities of the 21st century?