This week, I changed much of the tech behind this site. If you see anything that looks like a bug, please let me know!

House of Commons Hansard #24 of the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was senators.

Topics

Aboriginal AffairsOral Questions

11:55 a.m.

NDP

Niki Ashton NDP Churchill, MB

Mr. Speaker, suicide prevention should be a national priority. Tragically, Canada's aboriginal youth suicide rate is five to six times higher than the Canadian average.

We know that providing healthy alternatives is the key: investments in education, recreation centres and the necessary programming. Prevention requires investment and does not mean waiting for the suicide rate to go up in communities.

When will the Conservatives work with aboriginal communities, listen to the needs of aboriginal young people and stand up to build hope for so many of these people across our country?

Aboriginal AffairsOral Questions

Noon

Nunavut Nunavut

Conservative

Leona Aglukkaq ConservativeMinister of Health and Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency

Mr. Speaker, too many Canadian families have to deal with the anguish of losing a loved one to suicide. That is why our government is funding programs to build their strength on protective factors, such as ensuring that family and community supports are there. In budget 2010, $75 million was spent to implement the national aboriginal suicide prevention strategy to assist over 150 community-based projects.

Monarchist SymbolsOral Questions

Noon

Bloc

André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are clearly impressed by princess stories and seem willing to spare no expense to impose monarchist symbols: displaying the Queen's portrait at the Department of Foreign Affairs and in embassies, installing a stained glass window in the Senate, redesigning passports to include the crown, adding “royal” to the designation of the air force and navy, spending millions of dollars on royal visits, and I could go on.

Instead of applauding, is the already discredited President of the Treasury Board not ashamed to be spending so much money on archaic symbols rejected by the Quebec nation, when he is imposing such drastic cuts on services to the public?

Monarchist SymbolsOral Questions

Noon

Ottawa West—Nepean Ontario

Conservative

John Baird ConservativeMinister of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Speaker, I know that when this member first arrived in Ottawa, he put his hand on the Bible and took an oath to Queen Elizabeth II and her rightful heirs and successors. He did not do it once; he took an oath to the Queen at least for four or five times, and so did each member of the House.

Queen Elizabeth II is our head of state. I know there is great enthusiasm for the great work the Minister of National Defence did in going back to the old symbols of the Royal Canadian Navy and the Royal Canadian Air Force.

We are also very pleased that portraits of Canada's head of state now proudly adorn the walls of all of our museums around the world.

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions

Noon

NDP

Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC

Mr. Speaker, I do have a point of order. I know that the Minister of Foreign Affairs is having a bit of a hard day today as he shuffles through all his business cards, trying to figure out which one he is actually using, gold or not. I know he might be happy that a certain member is not here today, but I would gently remind him that he does know the rules of the House, that he should not refer to a member who is not present in the House. I would just remind him of that. I know he is having a hard day today.

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions

Noon

Ottawa West—Nepean Ontario

Conservative

John Baird ConservativeMinister of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the wise counsel from my friend from Vancouver East. If the President of the Treasury Board or his family or any of his constituents were offended by my unacceptable actions, I apologize.

Presence in GalleryOral Questions

September 30th, 2011 / noon

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

On two occasions this week, during statements by members, once by a member of the government caucus and once by a member of the official opposition, individual members took it upon themselves to recognize special guests who were in the galleries. I want to remind all hon. members that it has been a long-standing practice in the House that this is a prerogative of the Chair.

As O'Brien and Bosc's House of Commons Procedure and Practice states at page 284:

Only from the Speaker’s Gallery can distinguished visitors (such as heads of state, heads of government and parliamentary delegations invited to Canada and celebrated Canadians) be recognized and introduced to the House, and only by the Speaker. Members other than the Speaker may not refer to the presence of any visitors in the galleries at any time.

Only distinguished visitors can be recognized and introduced to the House, and only by the Speaker.

I ask for the co-operation of all members in respecting this approach, as it ensures fairness and safeguards the time of the House.

Treaties and AgreementsRoutine Proceedings

Noon

Mississauga—Erindale Ontario

Conservative

Bob Dechert ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table in both official languages three treaties.

They are: first, exchange of notes between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America, constituting the agreement amending Chapter 4, Annex 4 of the Treaty between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America concerning Pacific salmon, done at Washington on December 21, 2010; second, third protocol amending the Treaty of Amity and Co-operation in Southeast Asia, done at Hanoi on July 23, 2010; and third, agreement between Canada and the Hellenic Republic concerning youth mobility, done at Athens on May 28, 2011.

An explanatory memorandum is included with each treaty. I have two copies of each treaty to table.

Canadian Human Rights ActRoutine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

Conservative

Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-304, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act (protecting freedom).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this House to introduce a bill entitled “An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act (protecting freedom)”.

Freedom of speech is a fundamental principle in our democracy and one which Canadians have fought and died for, for over a century. This is not a fight that one Canadian can take on himself, but rather an issue that all Canadians must engage in vigorously.

In this, I would like to thank my friends and colleagues such as Senator Finley and the member for St. Catharines, who have rigorously pursued a freer, more open society and resisted the tyrannical instincts of bureaucracy to censor speech in our great country.

Freedom of speech is the freedom that all other freedoms are built on. It cannot be restrained to the politically correct. The best way to fight bigotry is to ensure that we protect and enhance our fundamental freedoms in this great country of ours. That is why I ask all members in this House to support this bill that protects the fundamental building block of democracy: freedom of speech. God bless.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

National Public Transit Strategy ActRoutine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

NDP

Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-305, An Act to establish a National Public Transit Strategy.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges, to introduce a bill to establish a national public transit strategy for Canada.

I rise today to introduce this bill, which would establish a national public transit strategy.

The strategy would secure a permanent federal investment plan in innovation research. It would provide federal leadership in working with all levels of government to coordinate planning. This strategy would get Canada moving in line with other G8 nations by helping to provide public transit that is fast, accessible and affordable to all Canadians.

This would help move Canada forward.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Parliament of Canada ActRoutine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

NDP

Mathieu Ravignat NDP Pontiac, QC

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-306, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (political affiliation).

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, for seconding this bill and for the excellent work he has done for a number of years on bills that are important to Canadians. I am honoured and very pleased to introduce my first bill in this House regarding political affiliation. This bill follows up on one of my party's election promises: to ensure that politicians are held accountable for the choice made by their constituents, and to prevent them from playing politics to benefit their personal careers by changing political parties when they feel like it.

With it we are helping to fix Ottawa.

The bill provides that a member's seat in the House of Commons will be vacated and a by-election called for that seat if the member was elected to the House as a member of a political party, as the case may be. However, the seat will not be vacated if the member, having been elected as a member of a political party, chooses to sit as an independent.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

JusticePetitionsRoutine Proceedings

12:10 p.m.

Conservative

David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank one of my constituents for organizing this petition. I am honoured to present a petition to the Government of Canada which draws its attention to have offences against children broken down into categories such as inappropriate touching, pornography, assault, and battery and rape, with each carrying a sentence commensurate with the crime. Rape seems to cause the most damage psychologically and physically; therefore, the petitioners would like to see longer than three-year jail sentences, preferably 10 to 20 years for pedophiles with no chance of parole and no pardons.

ImmigrationPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

12:10 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give thanks to a constituent in my riding for providing me with this petition from Calgary which states that immigration processing time for sponsoring parents is causing great hardships and is preventing families from being together. Due to lengthy processing times in some immigration categories thousands of families every year are being kept apart. This picks up on the issue that I raised today in question period, which is that the government needs to have more of a caring heart in terms of speeding up the process of enabling parents abroad, in a fair and more timely fashion, to come to Canada as quickly as possible.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

12:10 p.m.

Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

12:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Is that agreed?

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

12:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

House of Commons Calendar, 2012Routine Proceedings

12:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer

Pursuant to Standing Order 28(2)(b), I have the honour to lay upon the table the House of Commons calendar for the year 2012.

Senate Reform ActGovernment Orders

12:10 p.m.

Edmonton—Sherwood Park Alberta

Conservative

Tim Uppal ConservativeMinister of State (Democratic Reform)

moved 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.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to begin debate today on the Senate reform act, Bill C-7. The bill has been a long time coming. Reform of the other place has been the subject of strong passions across the country that have crossed party lines for the better part of a quarter century. While the government's priorities are unchanged and the economy remains a top priority, we have an opportunity to take the first steps on this road.

Our government has always been clear about our commitment to bring reform to the Senate chamber. We pledged to do this in our most recent election platform and we repeated our promise in the Speech from the Throne. I am proud to present this legislation and to start the work in the House to fulfill our commitments to Canadians.

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

Unfortunately, the contributions of the Senate are overshadowed by the fact that senators are selected and appointed through a process that is neither formal nor transparent, with no democratic mandate whatsoever from Canadians.

Moreover, there are no strict limits on the number of years an individual can sit in the Senate. Under the Constitution, an individual can be appointed to the Senate at the age of 30 and serve until the age of 75. That means a senator could serve for as long as 45 years.

Taken together, the Senate lacks any essential democratic characteristics. Its effectiveness and legitimacy suffers from the democratic deficit.

We must then ask ourselves the simple question. Is this good enough? Our answer and Canadians' answer is no. Our government does not believe that the current situation is acceptable in a modern, representative democracy, and neither do Canadians.

Our government has long believed that the status quo in the Senate is unacceptable and therefore it must change in order to reach its full potential as an accountable and democratic institution. The alternative is the continuation of a situation where senators are appointed to long terms without any democratic mandate. We say enough, and Canadians are with us in saying no to the status quo in the Senate.

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

While recommendations on how to reform the Senate have differed, and differ still, there is one consistent theme that runs throughout. Nearly all reports and studies agree that the Senate is an important democratic institution and that reform is needed to increase legitimacy in the context of a modern, democratic country. It is clear that while there may be different approaches to solving this problem, all parties agree that reform is necessary.

Senate reform of any kind has proven to be a complicated process. Under our Constitution, reforming fundamental aspects of the Senate, such as its powers or the representation of the provinces, requires the support of seven provinces representing 50% of the population of the provinces. Achieving the necessary level of provincial support for particular fundamental reforms is a complex and lengthy process with no guarantee of success.

Canadians do not want drawn out constitutional battles, battles that will detract from our government's focus on the top priority of Canadians, which is the economy. But a lack of agreement on large fundamental reform does not leave us with a lack of options if only we have the sufficient will to do so. If we are to begin the journey toward reform, we must do what we can within the scope of our authority in Parliament.

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

Through the bill, our government is taking immediate and concrete action to fulfill our commitment to Canadians to increase the effectiveness and legitimacy of our upper chamber and to work co-operatively with the provinces and territories.

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

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

Second, it introduces term limits for senators appointed after October 2008, which would ensure that the Senate would be refreshed with new ideas on a regular basis.

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

As I have already noted, our government has long been committed to Senate reform. Our commitment to reform remains as strong as ever, and we are now in a position to act on our commitment. We have consistently encouraged provinces and territories to implement a democratic process for the selection of Senate nominees. The Senate reform act will give clarity to our flexible approach.

The act would require the Prime Minister to consider the names of individuals selected from the holding of democratic processes with Canadians when making recommendations on appointments to the Governor General. The act would not bind the Prime Minister or the Governor General when making Senate appointments. Nor would it change the method of selecting senators.

Therefore, Parliament is able to enact this provision through its authority under section 44 of our Constitution. Under section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982, Parliament has the legislative authority to amend the Constitution in relation to the Senate.

The act also contains a voluntary framework, attached as a schedule to the act, for provinces and territories to use as a basis for developing democratic selection process to consult voters on the preference of their Senate nominees. The framework is based on Alberta's Senatorial Selection Act. The framework is meant to provide enough details to facilitate the development of provincial or territorial legislation, without limiting provinces and territories in the establishment of a consultation process or in the precise details of such a process, which may differ between jurisdictions as local needs may demand.

This is, after all, a co-operative venture. Provinces and territories would not be required to implement the framework precisely as written. Rather, they would be encouraged to adapt the framework to best suit the needs of their unique circumstances.

It is our hope that this built-in flexibility will further encourage provinces to provide a democratic consultation process to give greater voice to their citizens and their provinces in the Senate.

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

In 2007 the Prime Minister recommended the appointment of Bert Brown to the Senate. Senator Brown was chosen as a senator in waiting by Alberta voters in 2004 in a selection process held under the authority of Alberta's Senatorial Selection Act, which was introduced in 1989.

Senator Brown's tireless work on reform both inside and outside the Senate is greatly appreciated, not only by me and our government but also by the many Canadians who want Senate reform and who have campaigned for it for many years.

Alberta may have been the first province to pass this type of legislation and to see its nominees appointed, but it is not the only province that has taken steps to facilitate reform.

In 2009 Saskatchewan passed the Senate Nominee Election Act, which enables a provincial government to hold a consultation process on Senate nominees. Saskatchewan has not yet held a consultation process, but I encourage it to do so at the earliest opportunity. Our government continues to be welcoming toward discussion and co-operation wherever possible.

In British Columbia, the previous parliamentary secretary has introduced a bill that would provide the provincial government with the authority to hold consultation processes. I will be following the progress of the bill closely and would encourage my provincial colleagues in the British Columbia Legislative Assembly to support the passage of the bill.

More broadly, I would encourage our colleagues in all provincial and territorial legislatures and assemblies to consider supporting and moving forward with similar initiatives.

Let us move on to the other major initiatives of Bill C-7.

In addition to encouraging the implementation of democratic selection processes for Senate nominees, the act would also limit Senate terms, which can span several decades under the current rules. Polls have consistently shown that over 70% of Canadians support limiting the terms of senators. When we began to talk about specific reforms, that amount of support for one particular provision is impressive and encouraging.

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

As with the earlier provisions, limiting the terms of senators would amend the Constitution, but, again, it is a reform that can be accomplished by Parliament, through section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Similarly, in 1965, Parliament acted alone to introduce mandatory retirement at age 75 for senators. Prior to that, senators were appointed for life.

As I have outlined, the Senate reform act presents practical, reasonable and achievable reforms within Parliament's authority. In order to do all that we can to ensure these reforms will be supported, our government has also consistently demonstrated our willingness to be flexible. We believe that we must work with our colleagues to ensure that change is achieved. Let me outline just a few examples.

Concerning the selection of Senate nominees, we have given discretion to the provinces and territories to develop their own consultation processes. As I noted, the Senate reform act includes a voluntary framework that is meant to provide a basis for the development of consultation processes. However, we have been clear that provinces and territories are not bound to the rules proposed in the framework.

For example, the framework proposes that consultations use an electoral system known as plurality at large, which is a version of our first-past-the-post electoral system applied to multi-member districts. Despite this, the Prime Minister has indicated that he is willing to consider the names of any nominee that is selected by voters in a democratic process. This means that provinces and territories are free to choose an electoral system that will ensure effective representation for their citizens and that will account for local or regional considerations as may be determined necessary.

Turning to term limits, our government has made a number of amendments to respond to comments made during previous examinations of this proposal.

One change was to increase the term limit from an eight-year term to a nine-year term. From the beginning, the Prime Minister was clear that he was willing to be flexible on the length of the term, as long as the principle of the bill, a truly limited term, was respected.

Our government decided to increase the term limit by one year in response to concerns that in the future, eight-year term limits could allow a two-term prime minister to appoint the entire Senate. In modifying the term limits, we are demonstrating our flexibility and desire to work with colleagues in order to ensure that this important reform is adopted.

I would note that this is not the only change we have made with respect to term limits. When the bill to first limit the terms of senators was first introduced in 2006, the bill allowed for senators to be reappointed for further terms and proposed elimination of the mandatory retirement age for senators. Following study of the bill, a number of concerns were raised that renewable terms could compromise the independence of the Senate, since senators might modify their behaviour to attempt to have their terms renewed by the government of the day. Therefore, our government responded to this concern and all subsequent versions of the bill have proposed a single term.

During its study of the bill, the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs recommended that the mandatory retirement age of 75 be maintained. When the bill was reintroduced in the last Parliament, the mandatory retirement age for senators was retained, illustrating our willingness to listen to our Senate colleagues. The Senate reform act would keep the mandatory retirement age for senators.

I raise these points because I want to be clear about our commitment to both change and flexibility. Our goal is to begin the reform process and we want to be as constructive as we can while ensuring we move forward.

I believe it is fair to say that, while many in this House agree that changes to the Senate are necessary, we sometimes disagree on the way forward.

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

For example, the official opposition would try to abolish the Senate. This position is untenable for a number of reasons.

First, there is no consensus among the provinces to abolish the Senate. To take away the Senate, without significant other reforms, would be to seriously damage the effective representation of large sections of our country in our Parliament.

A second reason why this approach is undesirable is simply because Canadians do not support this idea. Polls have consistently shown that this proposal does not garner popular support. Our second chamber, though flawed, can serve valuable democratic functions if we can reform it to make it more effective and legitimate.

We should have enough respect for institutions and our democracy toward the implementation of an institution in need of repair.

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

I reject Liberal obstructionism and encourage the them to join us in implementing constructive reforms that are reasonable and achievable.

Let us be clear. Our reforms are reasonable and achievable. They are absolutely within Parliament's authority to enact.

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

With the Senate reform act, our government is presenting modest but important and attainable changes that would improve the Senate by providing it with greater legitimacy in the eyes of Canadians. I consider the enhancement of our democratic institutions a significant responsibility and I am privileged to be working with my hon. colleagues to meet this common objective.

I encourage all my colleagues to work toward achieving these reforms, giving Canadians a stronger voice in determining who represents them in the Senate.

Senate Reform ActGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

Madam Speaker, my first comment for the minister would be this. Just because the government says that it will have reform, that does not make it good reform. We saw that with former Ontario Premier Mike Harris when he said that he would change the education system. The problem is that he made it worse. That is how we see this bill. It is reform, but it is bad reform. It takes us in the wrong direction.

My question is very straightforward. One of the key fundamental components of democracy is accountability. Given that no senator, under this law, is allowed to run for re-election, given the promises they make to get elected, how on earth are they ever held accountable for whether they kept those promises for the actions and the votes they did in office if the law prohibits them from being accountable? Where is the accountability?

Senate Reform ActGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

Tim Uppal Conservative Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB

Madam Speaker, first, it is obvious that the status quo in the Senate is unacceptable. Canadians have said this. Seven out of 10 believe it is unacceptable.

It is unfortunate. Although the NDP members talk about the reforms, they have not suggested any reforms that would be reasonable or practical, that could pass in this place and that would be a part of parliament's authority to move forward on. They have no ideas.

As for accountability in the Senate, the important thing is that the senators are not to be renewed. There would be one nine-year term limit. This would ensure that senators could not rely on a government to reappoint them. They could act independently, do their studies independently, they can speak independently and not have to rely upon a prime minister or a government to reappoint them. That is accountability.

Also, as term limits are over in nine years, this would continuously bring new and fresh ideas and new people in to the Senate, which is important.

Senate Reform ActGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Liberal

Stéphane Dion Liberal Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC

Mr. Speaker, up to now, the minister's co-operation with the opposition has been very good. I want him for that. He should be an example for many of his colleagues and the staff of the government.

On the contents, though, we have, for now at least, a very deep disagreement.

First, section 42(1)(b) of our Constitution states that changing the method of selecting senators requires a 7/50 formula. The title of the bill is, “An Act respecting the selection of senators”, so it is clearly an unconstitutional bill if it is done only by Parliament.

However, in relation to it, I would like to ask the minister this. Why is he willing to penalize his province this way? The very moment the Senate will be elected, since his province has only six senators, while New Brunswick, for example, has ten senators, it will be terribly powerful and unfair for the province of Alberta and the province of British Columbia. Why is he penalizing the west this way?

Senate Reform ActGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

Tim Uppal Conservative Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB

Madam Speaker, the member talked about the constitutionality of the Senate selection process. It actually does not change the Senate selection process. We are asking the provinces to provide nominees. The Prime Minister would consider those nominees in making recommendations to the Governor General. That process will not change.

Under section 44 of the Constitution, these Senate reforms are completely within Parliament's authority to do. I will give two examples. The Liberals, in 1965, changed the lifetime term limit for senators to a term ending when a senator turned 75 years old.

Currently, Senator Brown has been selected in this way. There are precedents for both reforms in the Senate reform act.

As for changing the number of seats, the hon. member well knows that would require us to open up the Constitution. Canadians do not want a long drawn out constitutional battle. They want us to focus on the economy and keeping the streets safe.

We have an opportunity to move forward and make some reforms that would bring the upper chamber into a 21st century democracy. By stalling and requiring us to open up the Constitution, the Liberals are just standing for the status quo in the Senate.

Senate Reform ActGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Simcoe—Grey Ontario

Conservative

Kellie Leitch ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour

Madam Speaker, in his speech my colleague had thoughtful comments and ideas about Senate reform.

He mentioned that over 70% of Canadians wished to have reform and flexibility. It is unfortunate that our colleagues across the aisle do not wish to have that degree of flexibility and opportunity for Canadians to bring forward a more robust democracy.

I would ask the minister about the great ideas and responses that he is hearing from Canadians and which need to be implemented.

Senate Reform ActGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

Tim Uppal Conservative Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB

Madam Speaker, it is important to listen to Canadians and to have a sense of what they are saying about the Senate. I had an opportunity this summer to travel from coast to coast to coast and listen to what Canadians are saying about the Senate. We are hearing over and over that the status quo in the Senate is not acceptable and that things must change.

Senators can serve terms of up to 45 years and they do not have a democratic mandate from Canadians.

Canadians want steps taken to have reasonable reforms to bring the Senate into a 21st century democracy.

Senate Reform ActGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

NDP

Alexandrine Latendresse NDP Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the minister for his speech. I would like to ask him a question.

The bill preamble states: “whereas Parliament wishes to maintain the essential characteristics of the Senate within Canada’s parliamentary democracy as a chamber of independent, sober second thought”.

Given that elections would make the Senate even more partisan, I am trying to understand how this reform could maintain the Senate as a chamber of independent thought.