Debates of March 5th, 2013

Service Canada

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development]

Mr. Speaker, Service Canada recognizes how important foreign workers are to farmers in Canada.

I can confirm that the program will continue and that Service Canada will meet our producers' needs as soon as possible.

Presence in Gallery

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I would like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of Ms. Zhanar Aitzhanova, Minister of Economic Integration of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I would also like to draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of Rachel Homan, Emma Miskew, Alison Kreviazuk and Lisa Weagle, winners of the 2013 women's national curling championships at the Scotties Tournament of Hearts, who will be representing Canada at the world championships.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion--Senate

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. When question period started, the hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington had the floor. He has 10 minutes left to conclude his speech.

Order. I will ask members who wish to carry on their conversations to do so outside of the chamber. The hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am picking up where I left off before question period. I got about 10 minutes into a 20-minute talk, and as I have said on more than one occasion in this place, there is nothing like an hour-long break in the middle of a 20-minute speech to allow one to concentrate their thoughts a bit.

Here is what I have done. During question period, I gathered some materials from my office, and also from the library, to allow me to elaborate a bit more on two of the themes I had been addressing before the break. I think I dealt well with the spirit of bicameralism and the importance of it, and I had two remaining issues to deal with. The first was the question of the amending formula that is appropriate for dealing with the Senate and for different aspects of the Senate question. The second topic was dealing with having appropriate documentary evidence available to allow those who are advocating before the Supreme Court on this issue to advocate intelligently, and those on the Supreme Court who are trying to make the decisions, to do so in a fully informed manner.

Let me start with the question about the appropriate amending formula. I want to indicate just how complex this question is. One of the things we have to deal with is the question of property qualifications. A second question we have to deal with is the question of the age to which senators can serve. Other questions deal with their requirement not to be in a state of bankruptcy. The question of what is meant by independence needs to be dealt with. Senators are to be independent. The questions, as members can imagine, go on at some length.

These questions have required us in the past to determine whether or not constitutional amendments were necessary and what kind of constitutional amendment was appropriate. Let me give an example. In 1965, the Constitution of Canada, the British North America Act, as it then was, was amended to terminate the practice of appointing senators for life and replace it with appointment to age 75.

The Constitution, as it now reads in section 29(1) says:

29. (1) Subject to subsection (2), a Senator shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, hold his place in the Senate for life.

That allowed all existing senators at the time to remain in the Senate for life. Subsection (2) reads, “A Senator who is summoned to the Senate after the coming into force of this subsection”, meaning after 1965, “shall, subject to this Act, hold his place in the Senate until he attains the age of seventy-five years”.

That amendment was permissible because of the fact that in 1949, the U.K. Parliament passed an act called the British North America (No. 2) Act, 1949, which is its formal name. That stated that the Parliament of Canada could unilaterally amend certain aspects of the Constitution of Canada, though not all aspects of the Constitution.

That provision, which is no longer part of the Constitution, was the only amending formula in our constitution, in fact between 1949 and 1982. It read as follows:

It shall be lawful for the Queen by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons Canada...the amendment from time to time of the Constitution of Canada except as regards matters within the classes of subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces, or as regards rights or privileges by this or any other Constitutional Act granted or secured to the Legislature or the Government of a province, or to any class of persons with respect to schools or as regards the use of the English or the French language or as regards the requirements that there shall be a session of the Parliament of Canada at least once each year, and that no House of Commons shall continue for more than five years from the day of the return of the Writs for choosing the House.

I am sure that is completely incomprehensible to just about everybody here. What is going on is a list of things that Parliament cannot unilaterally amend, and that includes most of the important stuff. It says that it is all classes, except all the important things we have listed. However, in the remaining class of things were changes to the structure of the Senate. That was the authority under which the House of Commons and Senate were able to unilaterally amend the Constitution of Canada, in 1965, to change the tenure of senators so that they were appointed only to age 75.

That question could have been appealed to the Supreme Court; someone could have argued that it was inappropriate for the House of Commons and Senate to do that unilaterally. However, it was not appealed to the Supreme Court. We generally agree now that it was a legitimate use of power and constitutional authority to act that way, but it was then removed from the Constitution.

If members thought the wording there was confusing, I will turn now to the procedure for amending the Constitution of Canada, enacted as part of the Constitution Act, 1982. In very fine print in this particular compilation, it goes on from the bottom of one page all through a second page of text, and on through a third page, dealing with the subjects that can be dealt with under various formulae. As I mentioned before, there are five distinct formulae for amending different aspects of the Constitution of Canada, each of which involves a different combination of federal government and provincial legislatures. There is no single formula, and there is much lack of clarity. There is, for example, no consensus as to what formula is the one necessary to allow a province to secede. That was one of the subjects that was raised, but ultimately not answered by the court during the secession reference in the 1990s. The questions posed by the government to the Supreme Court of Canada in the reference, deal extensively with determining which formula applies for which aspect of Senate reform.

We see that the objective is to provide complete clarity where there has been a lack of clarity, in order to permit some avenue to be put forward. There is, of course, the government's legislative agenda, which has consisted of a series of measures for electing senators, looking at changing the length of their terms, and perhaps removing property and other qualifications. With regard to all of these things, we need to determine whether the Parliament of Canada, acting on its own, can do so, or is it restricted and required to go to the 7/50 formula? That would change dramatically what we could potentially do, and would change, depending on the nature of the answer, the kinds of initiatives the government would take.

Similarly, for the proposal to abolish the Senate, proposed by the New Democrats, there are numerous different ways we could do that. We could write the Constitution differently, to have the effect of removing the Senate from the Constitution. The question of whether any of these different ways of working requires unanimity or can be done using the default 7/50 amending formula, where seven provinces with half the population must give consent, would be determined as well. It would answer the question, as a practical matter, as to whether it is possible to make any change whatever, as they propose. There is no question that it would be difficult to use the 7/50 formula to change the Constitution, but it would be very nigh impossible to do so under the unanimity clause, if that is what the court were to determine is required.

These are important questions to resolve. They are all arguments for presenting questions to the Supreme Court, and they are arguments against voting in favour of the New Democratic motion.

I turn again to the matter of having an adequate documentary record available to the Supreme Court as it makes its decision. I, and a number of other people, under the Canadian Constitution Foundation, the CCF, an organization which seeks to expand Canadians' knowledge about their Constitution, have been working to create an online archive of constitutional documents, which will be called “OriginalDocuments.ca”. These will assist the court in all future decisions, but in particular on its decisions relating to the Senate.

The Senate and its predecessor, the legislative council of Canada, is an issue that has been debated, in one form or another, going back as far as the 1840s and 1850s. I have with me a volume that I dug up from the bowels of the Library of Parliament, in which there is a debate from 1856, over a bill to take the legislative council of Canada from being appointed to being elected. I would argue that an understanding of that debate is absolutely necessary in order to move forward, as we might create an elected Senate again.

I look forward to putting these things, and all the reference questions, on the record, and making them available to everybody so we can have a truly informed decision from the Supreme Court later this year.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker I wish to sincerely thank the hon. member for Lanark—Lennox and Addington. I know I am forgetting part of his riding's name; it is a bit long and hard to remember.

I really enjoy working with the hon. member. I admire his depth of knowledge, and he is always willing to share it with others, even opposition members like me. I want to say that I will be rereading his speech in detail, because it contains a lot of information that may be very useful.

I have a question for him about the reform his party has proposed, and I would really like to have his answer. At the moment, a senator must be at least 30 years old. The hon. member is a great believer in democracy. What does he think of the fact that if there were senatorial elections, people like me, between 18 and 30, who have the right to vote, would not be able to stand for election as senators? I would like to hear his comments on that subject.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question.

First, I would like to explain to the House that my riding is called Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, and after redistribution, it will be Lanark—Frontenac. So, it is impossible to have a riding named Lanark—Lennox—Addington, because Frontenac is in the middle of the other counties.

But the question of the age of senators may be more important. It is true that there is an upper limit on the age of senators as well as a lower limit. In our Constitution, the upper limit is 75 and the lower limit is 30 for the youngest senators. I believe that a more modern, reformed system should eliminate both limits, but it will be up to the voters to decide.

I lived in Australia during the 1990s and, there, some elected senators were under 30. In fact, the party leader of the Australian Democrats was under 30. That shows that the ability to be a senator is not limited to those over 30. If it is possible in Australia, then it is possible in Canada.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there are so many outstanding issues before Canadians right now, and although it is somewhat of an important issue, we find it interesting that when Canadians are most concerned about our economy, jobs, health care, and so forth, the NDP and the Conservatives want to talk about constitutional reform. That is the essence of what would have to take place. In order to achieve the abolishment of the Senate, we would have to get agreement from all of the different provinces and open up the Constitution, at a time when I believe Canadians are more interested in other issues.

There is an alternative, that is, to look at the way in which appointments are being made. If good appointments are being made, I suspect there would not be the types of problems that have been talked about. For example, no one would question Senator Dallaire and the fine work that he does representing Canada either abroad or here. He is an outstanding senator, who has contributed immensely to our country.

My question to the member is this. As opposed to having this constitutional debacle or potential crisis that is being generated by the New Democrats, would he not agree that one of the ways to deal with this issue would be to make sure the appointments are of a high calibre?

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I suppose, in principle, that the answer to that question would be yes. However, in 1856, in the volume I brought from the library, they were debating the fact that they had an appointed upper house then and were not getting the highest quality appointments. One hundred and sixty years of failed attempts to have the best quality people be the only ones appointed to the Senate suggests to me that in reality, keeping with an appointed system is unlikely to produce the highest quality appointees possible.

I hasten to add that I mean no disrespect to the members who are there now, either the current ones or the previous ones. However, as a practical matter, I think we all understand that in this House, we would not improve the quality if we went for an appointed system. The same thing applies everywhere.

There were very few precedents in the 1850s and 1860s for elected upper houses. The Senate in the United States was not elected until the second decade of the 20th century. Exactly 100 years ago, it made an amendment. Australia did not move to an elected upper house until about 1901. The upper house in Britain is still not elected. That is a system that at the time seemed modern. I do not think it works so well now.

While I think the NDP proposal opens up the constitution, all the questions asked of the Supreme Court are about which amending formula could be used. How do we narrow this down so that we do not need the formal consent of every province, creating the danger that a province will say that it is not giving its consent unless we open up some other area to it? That is a particular fear. We would wind up having macro-constitutional reform. What we seek here, and this is the appropriate approach for any mature democracy, is micro-constitutional reform that deals with one issue at a time.

That is what I hope will be achieved here. What we are trying to find out from the Supreme Court is whether that is possible for each of the questions.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member speaks of micro-reforms. We all remember Preston Manning and Doug Roche, who was the MP in my riding before me. He is a wonderful man. They called for triple-E reform. Of course, that included equal representation.

By electing members of the Senate one time only, with really no accountability thereafter, and by retaining only eight senators in Alberta, how is he going to deliver more accountability for my province, which his party calls the economic engine of the country, which I would concur with?

Second, the policy of the government has been to have bills come from the unelected Senate, and we get the second look. Have we now been reduced to being the house of sober second thought?

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, based on our history in the 19th century, the first or second house having sober second thought at all was a marked improvement. We were the house of drunken first thought. I have the impression that when they said sober second thought in the 19th century, they literally meant that these people were actually not coming out of the tavern.

With regard to the first question, I have one small correction. It is actually six senators only for Alberta, not eight.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Then we are even worse off.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

The hon. member is quite right. Equality was the original idea proposed by the triple-E movement about 25 years ago. I could say a number of things about it. One is that equality by province was what they were thinking of.

The Fathers of Confederation sought equality by region. There were three regions of the country in 1867: Ontario; the new province of Quebec; and what they called the maritime region, which was Nova Scotia and New Brunswick only. They then expanded in two ways. First, they recognized a fourth region, the west, which at the time, in the early 20th century, was the smallest region. It became, of course, a larger region over time. The idea of equality between regions was what they were seeking. If we were to change the number of senators, we would have to talk about some kind of balance between the two.

However, that is very much a discussion that can only happen at the level of seeking consent from all the provinces. It is quite a complex question. That is why it has been left out of the package of reference questions and out of this round of attempts to democratize the Senate.

I made this point when Paul Martin was prime minister and we debated the same subject. We should not let perfection be the enemy of the good. If we seek a perfect solution that takes into account everything, we will find that we will not get anything. That leaves us with an appointed Senate, which is the worst of all possible worlds. Let us not, in our search for the best of all realistic worlds, lose sight of the fact that politics is ultimately the art of the possible.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I should mention at the beginning of my intervention that I will be sharing my time with the member for Vancouver Kingsway.

I really looked forward to this debate today, because as we know, it has been an ongoing debate since the beginning of our discussions about Confederation, going back to the 1800s. If members will recall, and there has been some mention by previous speakers, when we actually talked about an upper house, it was at a very different time.

One of the guiding principles in our Constitution, which guides us here in this place, is the notion of peace, order and good government. That idea was to help guide us in what we do. If members will recall, at the time peace, order and good government was actually contemplated, it was to ensure that we were going to be responsible in how we governed our country, our nascent country, at the time. If we are going to have this guiding principle of peace, order and good government work, it has to be tied to the notion of responsible government.

Inherent in the guiding principles of the Constitution is that each of us, as elected representatives representing our constituents, after having been duly elected, would come to this place and look for a group of people in this place to gain the confidence of the rest of the people in this place. That is basically how it works here. Elected people come here and organize themselves in such a way that one group, and we do it through political parties, gains the confidence of the rest of the House. They choose one person to be the first among equals and that person becomes our prime minister.

That is important to go over, because that is the notion of responsible government. We actually have the writ given to us by citizens. It is the notion that we actually have legitimacy given to us by our electors. That was something that was near and dear to the founders of Confederation. Going back to the conferences in Charlottetown and subsequently Quebec City, in 1864, the whole debate around the Senate took the most time. They were the most intense debates, certainly around the numbers, as we heard from my colleague. Should all provinces be given the same representation in the Senate?

There was actually another Macdonald, not Sir John A. Macdonald but Andrew Macdonald, from P.E.I., who said that we should fashion ourselves like the Americans and give each province the same number of senators. Of course, that did not fly. What we ended up with was based on regions, which we have already heard. In that case of the Maritimes, they would be equal to the other partners in Confederation. That was because we were looking at a very different setup. We were looking at provinces that were not fully vested with powers. They were not fully vested with what the provinces have been given through negotiations, constitutional debates and agreements over the years, such as oversight of natural resources and different revenue streams. These are all things provinces now have. That did not occur before. In 1864, it was the concern of the smaller provinces that they were going to have a voice.

Let us be clear. No one, during those debates, believed that the upper house, the way it was concocted, was a virtue. It was a compromise they had to have to get the Constitution agreed to.

Think of George Brown, the original reformer. George Brown, founder of The Globe and Mail, agreed to an appointed house at the time, simply because he did not want to give it legitimacy to challenge this House. I think that is important to acknowledge, because when we look back at the Reform Party of more recent times, it had this notion that we could just elect them and they would be equal. If we had that, we would have George Brown's worst nightmare; that is, we would have a lower house, with more legitimate representation, being challenged by the upper house.

Right now, both houses have primary mandates. That means that we are given the same powers, not through convention but by way of the Constitution.

The problem we have on this side is that we have to catch up with the times. Provinces now have strong constitutional responsibilities and revenues. The concerns that existed back in Quebec and Charlottetown in 1864, when we were discussing, debating and looking at putting Canada together, are not the same concerns we have now.

If we ask any of our constituents who their senators are, we would get a question mark. Some of them might know them now, because they have been in the press recently, but that is not the same thing. That is the controversy of the day. Ask them if they ever ask their senators to do anything and if they represent them. I think we would get a puzzled response. They would probably say that they are not aware of who their senators are and that they have never contacted them. That is important, because if we are talking about responsible government in 2013, it has to be based on the legitimacy that this House and the house next to us is given by citizens.

The house next to us is appointed by the government of the day. It is not elected by citizens. I am sorry to say, and I hate to put a damper on the government's attempt to come up with a quasi-legitimate process, that it just does not work. It does not work, because the essence of this is that we cannot have a selection process that can be ignored by the Prime Minister, because that is unconstitutional. The Prime Minister could easily ignore, and has in the past, the options given to him or her under the selection process at the provincial level.

Finally, it comes down to what Brown's point was. There cannot be a body that is not represented as thoroughly as this House challenging this House.

What do we need to do? It is clear that we need to abolish the Senate, not just because it does not belong in its current state but because we do not need it any more. The committee work is something we should actually be doing a better job of here. They should be given more resources here. The Library of Parliament should be given more resources to enable our committees to be as strong as what we see south of the border and in other jurisdictions.

I am told that the Senate provides an opportunity for people to have oversight in terms of the government of the day. We have, and I know my colleague from Toronto—Danforth has, many solid ideas on how we can reform affairs. That can be done.

At the end of the day, what we need to do is abolish the Senate. For those who wish to come up with something else, that will not happen until we start afresh. Those who want to come up with another construction of the Senate need to acknowledge that we have to abolish the existing Senate. If we are to adhere to that notion of peace, order and good government, of responsible government and what John Stuart Mill referred to, back in 1861, when he wrote that it is only from the people that governments receive their right to govern, then in 2013, we can no longer play this game and say that we have a legitimate body next to us. We have to acknowledge that it is no longer acceptable to have laws passed here killed in the house next to us.

The people who vote for us expect us to represent their interests. When people are appointed by the government of the day, that not only undermines our ability to do our jobs, it undermines democracy and responsible government. That is the critical piece.

As my colleague said before, it is not about the people over there, although some of them need to be more accountable. It is about the construct of the Senate in 2013.

I will just finish by saying this. When peace, order and good government was given to us, it meant that it was connected to responsible government. As long as we have an unelected and unaccountable Senate next to us, we do not have responsible government in this country.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the motion starts out by talking about consultation with the provinces. If the majority of the provinces say they want an elected Senate, that would make the motion null and void, because it then becomes overly prescriptive by saying we are going to abolish it.

What would my colleague's opinion be if most of the provinces said they want an elected Senate?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would start with surprise. What we hear from leaders in provincial capitals is more about abolition. We hear it from Saskatchewan to Ontario to other parts of the country. The point of having consultation with the provinces obviously has to do with how we do this. That is the first important step. The member is speculating on what the answer would be. What we have heard so far is that many of the premiers, either past or present, believe that right now the only way to deal with this is abolition.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to hear Conservative speakers defending the very ineffective Senate across the hall from here. It really surprises me, especially hearing it from members from western Canada, a number of whom are former Reformers. A few years ago they wanted a triple-E Senate, which should be an elected Senate. Senators are sort of elected in different ways in different provinces and they are really not accountable to anybody at all.

Could the member talk about a few years ago when the Conservatives used to stand up for an elected, effective and equitable Senate?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for bringing that up, because there are still some in the House who were elected under the Reform Party banner. I even remember the ridicule that was placed upon the Senate at the time, the mariachi bands and all sorts of fanfare. In essence, those members came to Ottawa to clean it up, to bring in a new way of doing things with the Senate, and all we have seen are half measures that do not work. Ultimately, they failed.

I have not talked to Preston Manning recently, but I think he would acknowledge his disappointment or say he has given up on the project entirely. I would suspect that, if I were to have a coffee with him, he would suggest that abolition is the only way to go.

We cannot have a Senate with a primary mandate, because it would undermine the legitimacy of the House of Commons. I do not know of a place with a bicameral system that would afford the same powers, in a Westminster model that functions well and is democratic.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe the channelling of Preston Manning over here from the opposition benches. It is interesting.

I want to talk about Prince Edward Island for a moment. I listened to the member's intervention earlier. Is he suggesting that the complement of MPs in the House of Commons from P.E.I. and the fact that P.E.I. has its own legislature means it is sufficient enough to safeguard P.E.I.'s interests in our—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The member for Ottawa Centre.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do think members, regardless of their party affiliation, represent P.E.I. in a responsible way. I might not always agree with them, but I would not want to take seats away from P.E.I., as the member is suggesting. That would not be helpful.

It is important to make sure there is clarity and purpose here. The Senate is an unelected body. The government has failed in trying to reform it, so let us acknowledge that and abolish it.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to stand in support of the motion today:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government of Canada, in consultation with the provinces and territories, should take immediate steps towards abolishing the unelected and unaccountable Senate of Canada.

I want to start by talking about the original formation of the Senate. There is a phrase that the older we get, the better we were, and that applies to the Senate. There is a lot of romanticism about what the chamber is today and what it was intended to be, but there are different schools of thought on that.

My reading in law school and as a student in the political science department at the University of Alberta some time ago left me with a distinct impression of some of the less attractive aspects of the Senate when it was envisioned by the founders of this country.

First of all, the Senate was envisioned as a bastion of protection for the propertied and elite classes of this country. The propertied classes had a fear of the majoritarian democratic view at that time. At that time, of course, the concept of having directly elected legislatures, where the people of a country or a state would directly elect their legislators, was new and there was great fear of that direction, particularly by the classes that represented the nobility or the monied classes.

That is why in our Constitution, to this date, we have a requirement that a senator must own $4,000 worth of property in order to even sit in the Senate. Right off the bat, that disenfranchises millions of Canadians in this country, who by their own Constitution cannot take a seat in the Senate, because they do not own a piece of property. In addition, there was a fear of majoritarian rule and democracy. There were people who wanted to sit in the Senate and keep watch over what democratically elected officials would do in the House of Commons chamber.

Let us burst through some of that romanticism and recognize that the chamber has a very ignoble beginning, not one of sober second thought or of lofty ideals, but one of a fear of democracy, entrenchment of propertied classes and rejection of the idea of majoritarian rule in this country.

I want to move to sober second thought, because I have heard a lot of comment on that today. Any concept that the Senate chamber stands today as the chamber of sober second thought was burst two years ago when the House of Commons passed the climate change bill by democratic vote, and then it went over to the Senate, where the senators who are unelected and unaccountable to Canadians voted against that bill without any real substantive debate. There was no sober second thought on that bill.

It is an affront to democracy that a bunch of fundraisers and failed candidates, who do not have any mandate from the Canadian people to pass judgment on legislation, ended up overriding the democratically elected decision of the people in this chamber who do have a mandate from the Canadian public. Not only was it undemocratic, but my main point is that there was no deliberation done whatsoever. It was orders from the PMO that went into the Senate, and its members killed that bill for political reasons. So let us disabuse ourselves of any notion that the chamber stands as any kind of chamber of sober second thought in this country.

I want to talk about democracy. I heard my Liberal colleagues say the economy is on people's minds, and asking why we are wasting time talking about the Senate. With respect, I think Canadians are concerned about their democracy. I think Canadians are concerned about the institutions of government in their country. To make that a second-rate concern of Canadians and to try to make a hierarchy is unbecoming. We are a democracy in this country, and Canadians are proud that we live in a democratic structure. Whenever any parliamentarian or any Canadian wants to talk about improving the democracy in this country, that is an issue of first order of importance to the New Democrats, not second order of importance as it is to the Liberals, which is maybe why the Liberals never did anything to reform the Senate in their time in office.

I want to talk about the concept of electing senators, because there has been some talk about that. We have a problem with the Canadian structure if we actually have two chambers in this country that each claim democratic legitimacy, because it was not set up that way.

The Senate was set up with certain powers. On paper, it has the power to stop legislation, but senators have always recognized that because they have no democratic legitimacy, they do not have the ability to stop legislation that comes from the House of Commons. On rare occasions in the history of Canada, the Senate has overridden legislation, as we saw on the climate change bill or the abortion legislation at some point. However, generally, at least senators have recognized that they have no right to override legislation in this House.

If we elect senators and they feel they do have a mandate, what happens if we have a New Democrat or Liberal controlled House and a Conservative controlled Senate? What happens if we have gridlock, because that is exactly what we would have?

We are not like the United States, where it has a carefully crafted system with an executive branch of government that can often override the problems of having a stalemate. However, the United States and other countries do have such stalemates. Therefore, keeping a Senate and electing senators would lead to further gridlock in this country.

In terms of election, I keep hearing the Conservatives, in particular, say that senators do not represent provinces; they represent regions. They are saying that the Senate is about regional representation and not provincial representation. Of course, they are saying that because one of the problems with the representation in the Senate is that it is unequal. I have pointed out several times today that British Columbia, with 40 times the population of Prince Edward Island, has six senators and P.E.I. has four. Therefore, we have provincial imbalance. That is why the Conservatives then switched and said that it is not about provincial representation, but regional representation.

If that is the case, why are the Conservatives pledging provincial elections? Why are they not regional elections? How can a person be elected to represent the region of the west, but only be elected in Alberta? That disenfranchises the rest of the people in the so-called region that they are claiming those people represent. It shows the absolute hollowness and lack of thought that is going into some of the comments being made today by the Conservative side of this House. It has nothing to do with regional representation. It has nothing to do with provincial representation. It has to do with an unelected chamber that has no democratic legitimacy to anybody making decisions in government, and it has no place in a modern democracy in 2013.

I also want to talk a little about hope.

Any country should be able to look at its Constitution and improve it. A Constitution is a living, breathing document. The United States has amended its Constitution some 20 times. Yet in Canada, we have not amended our Constitution once since we repatriated it in 1980. In fact, the repatriation of our Constitution and the establishment of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was a sign that we can, as a country, make progressive democratic changes to our nation.

We in the New Democrats think we can do that. We believe we can think big. We can think of possibilities to improve our democracy. Yes, most likely it would require a constitutional amendment of some type, but all constitutional changes would require that. Even the changes the Conservatives are proposing would require a constitutional amendment. If we talk about electing the Senate or changing in some way its powers, we are going to have to talk about amending our Constitution. For my part, I believe that Canadians are ready to do that. We can look at our Constitution and update it just as the Americans have and many other people have as well.

I want to talk a little more about cost.

I have heard that the Senate costs $90 million a year. Actually, it is much more than that. The $90 million is the amount in the estimates for the actual running of the Senate. However, if we add in travel bills and staffing costs, it is actually more than $150 million a year. I would say that today, when we are talking about one-eighth of a billion dollars, Canadians would rather see that money spent on many other things than on partisan appointed senators who do not have constituencies, who do not have any accountability to the people of Canada, yet have the ability on paper to make legislation.

I believe that all members of this House want to improve democracy. I think we are all well intentioned, but we may have different paths on how we get there. However, it is important that we do not shy away from discussing fundamental issues of democracy and ways we can improve it.

We see people in Syria today who are fighting for responsible government. All over the world people are doing that. Surely we can have a mature discussion in our country about ways to improve our democracy and make it more accountable to Canadians. We can start by abolishing a structure, like four provinces have done, without any diminution or ability to govern, including Quebec and Ontario, when those institutions are not democratically chosen by the people of our country.