Roger Gallaway

[Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) Act, May 4th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I am rising today to speak to the third grouping of amendments to Bill C-22, in particular Motions Nos. 9 and 11.

I want to say first that I support the bill. We all know there is a need that has been agreed upon both nationally and internationally to combat money laundering. It is a global phenomenon. Enabling and co-ordinating the efforts of different law enforcement agencies through a centralized body such as would be established by this bill certainly is not in question.

I should also say that the amendments I have proposed do alter the bill. I would ask my friends opposite who have proposed a subamendment to think about what my amendments in fact say because I do not believe that we are saying anything differently. I would ask them to consider the following points.

The reason I have proposed these amendments is that I have very specific concerns about the lack of a role for parliament, in particular the House of Commons, in the oversight of the centre established pursuant to the bill, and the limited accountability to parliament, in particular the House of Commons, on the part of the Minister of Finance for the centre's practices. However that certainly is not a criticism of the minister.

My amendments attempt to redress what I would characterize as an undermining of what some would call backbenchers' rights by a bill that allows for too little accounting of actions undertaken in the name of Canadian citizens by the centre. My amendments do not attempt to micromanage or second guess the daily activities of the centre. They attempt to provide a role for members of parliament to monitor the means used by the centre to fulfil its mandate and also to enable members to scrutinize periodically the effectiveness of the policy that underlies Bill C-22.

My first amendment modifies the reporting obligations of the centre's director. As it now stands the director must submit an annual report to the Minister of Finance on the centre's operations for the preceding year. The minister would then table the report to both houses of parliament within 30 days.

Merely tabling the report in parliament does not provide members the opportunity to seriously consider the effectiveness of the centre's activities. It does not enable them to question officials from the centre. It does not permit members to monitor the centre for potentially abusive practices. This is particularly troubling to me, given that some of the witnesses before the committee described the bill's breadth as excessive and the powers reserved for it as potentially sweeping. Legal experts testified that the danger of abuse of power is real and that the safeguards they foresaw in the bill might not be adequate to forestall such abuses.

My amendment proposes an additional step to the formal report made under the current legislation to the Minister of Finance, that it be reviewed by an appropriate parliamentary committee. I understand the desire of my friends opposite to have the bill say it is the House of Commons, but if we look at this, the amendment in fact says that it be reviewed by an appropriate parliamentary committee. It could be designated as a committee of the House of Common. It is very rare that a committee of the Senate would take upon itself such an activity. It could be referred to a committee of parliament that has been established for that purpose.

I would also point out to my friends opposite that the traditional role is for the finance committee to carry out those sorts of things. In some respects I can understand the fear they have that the Senate will come into this but our tradition shows that will not happen.

Requiring a committee to make a report of its own would obligate, I would suggest to my friends opposite, members of parliament to study the effectiveness of the centre. It also would permit concerns to be addressed to the director of the centre and his officials as well as raise any problems that may not have been seen when the bill was created. That is not a very radical idea. I am not in any way suggesting that members could ask who they are investigating, how they are investigating or anything of that nature. It would simply be about where the money is going, how it is being spent and whether it is working.

I have also proposed changes that would add a sunset clause to the provisions that would give effect to the bill limiting those provisions to a period of five years, just like the Bank Act. To quote from the proposed amendment, the sunset clause would require a parliamentary committee to “undertake a comprehensive review of the act, the regulations and their administration and submit a report to parliament including any recommendations pertaining to the continuation of, or changes to, the act, the regulations or their administration that the committee wishes to make”. This process already exists in the Bank Act. It would have to be completed so that new re-enabling legislation could be introduced to parliament. It is very simple. It would have to be considered, voted and acted upon within five calendar years of the time that this act is given royal assent.

Such a provision would allow members of this place to further scrutinize all the aspects of the money laundering act. The sunset provision would also allow changes to be made as new law enforcement techniques are discovered and more important, as different ways of money laundering emerge. There will certainly be techniques and ways we cannot even foresee or imagine today especially with the emergence of electronic technology. In short, I would call it a guard against statutory rust-out. It is a Ziebart provision, if I can call it that.

I said at the beginning of my remarks that this bill undermines backbenchers' rights because we are creating it, giving it regulatory powers, and there is a reporting provision. We know this is not the only piece of legislation that has short-circuited the rights of members in this place. Over the past number of decades, we the backbenchers have witnessed a decline in means of participation in and influence on the great public policy debates. We have little ability to influence new legislation as it is being drafted in the faraway reaches of this place. Nor do we have a parliamentary committee structure that enables members to adequately influence the course of action taken or even to hold ministers to account.

It has become a common practice here to time allocate legislation so that it does not get bogged down in the House. While it is important to ensure against parliamentary gridlock, not having adequate time to debate legislation in some ways invalidates our roles as legislators.

These impediments do not only have implications for our jobs as lawmakers or legislators. Most important, it dangerously weakens the link between those who govern and those who are governed. Important questions about the true nature of democracy arise. In a parliamentary democracy like ours, we as well as our leaders must be aware that the elected members of the House of Commons are the repositories of democracy in this country. We must at all times be aware of the fact that our obligations must remain to our constituents, to national objectives and the ability for us to ask the kinds of questions that are expected.

In recent times these obligations have become misplaced. Increasingly as a body we are giving up our ability to question, to debate and to propose changes to legislation. By having the sunset clause we will bring that back to this place. The idea of depositing a report with the minister is fine and that minister's depositing it in this place is fine, but we need that other connection for us. That is the ability to bring the person responsible before a committee of parliament and allow us from this place to ask those questions. A committee report on the table here does not allow debate, does not allow questions.

I am simply saying that these amendments are not revolutionary. They just allow for the centre and its operations to be subject to the scrutiny of us in this place. The way it stands, that is not the case. For the department to resist such an amendment is not the correct thing to do. It enables us, the backbench members and those who will come here in the future to have some scrutiny of that operation.

[Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) Act, May 4th, 2000]

moved:

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-22, in Clause 72, be amended by replacing lines 1 to 9 on page 38 with the following:

“72. (1) This Act and the regulations made thereunder shall cease to have effect five years after the day on which section 98 comes into force.

(2) Within four years after the day on which section 98 comes into force, this Act and the regulations made thereunder shall stand referred to the committee of Parliament that may be designated or established for that purpose. The committee shall, within one year, undertake a comprehensive review of the Act, the regulations and their administration and submit a report to Parliament including any recommendations pertaining to the continuation of, or changes to, the Act, the regulations or their administration that the committee wishes to make.”

[Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) Act, May 4th, 2000]

moved:

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-22, in Clause 71, be amended a ) by replacing line 32 on page 37 with the following:

“71. (1) The Director shall, on or before Septem-” b ) by adding after line 40 on page 37 the following:

“(2) The annual report stands referred to the committee of Parliament that is designated or established for that purpose. The committee shall review the report and the operations of the Centre and report to Parliament within 90 days after the tabling of the annual report by the Minister or any further time that Parliament may authorize.”

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, April 10th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this report stage debate. I must say that if I were to believe everything that was being said about this bill, I would probably want to vote against it myself.

I heard reports today that it has something to do with adoption. It has nothing to do with adoption. Only the provinces can legislate with respect to adoption. Why would anyone in the House want to suggest to their constituents that it has something to do with adoption?

I have also heard today that this has something to do with the division of assets. Why would the House have anything to do with division of assets? That is clearly a provincial matter under our constitution. We could not legislate with respect to division of assets even if we wanted to. However, members opposite in the House today have spoken about division of assets. What a lot of nonsense.

The rhetorical question has been asked by one of the members opposite: What kind of society will we have? Just having listened to a number of speeches here this afternoon, if we follow the logic opposite, what we would have is the wrath of the majority against the minority. If we follow their line of reasoning, not only would the majority rise up against the minority but the majority could in fact rise up against aboriginal treaties, which are also part of our constitution. However, I dare say I could easily find a majority of Canadians who would prefer to eliminate treaties from being part of our constitution.

Let us look at where this law came from. This law came into effect because of a decision by the supreme court which said that this was the right, fair and equitable thing to do, notwithstanding it deals with a minority and notwithstanding the fact that it will not cost anyone any money for all the studies.

I have some questions for the members opposite who have spoken so vociferously, and might I say also viciously, against the minority covered by this bill. They may want to question their cousin, Mr. Long, one of Premier Harris' two chief advisors, who declared today that he will be running for the leadership of the Canadian Alliance. When he appears at their leadership convention they may want to ask him why somebody who purports to lead the Canadian Alliance would recommend that the Ontario government enact bill 5. Let us look at Bill 5. It amends 67 provincial statutes extending benefits under provincial law. Incidentally, Bill C-23 amends 68 statutes.

Let us also ask why they are suggesting to people that we are sneaking this through parliament, that we are rushing this through parliament. Let us ask Mr. Tom Long at the Canadian Alliance why the Ontario government passed it in three days. Not only did it pass into law in three days, Ontario proclaimed it in three days. Why or how could they purport to ascribe to a party where one of the would-be leaders has been part of this? It took three days in Ontario but five months before parliament and we are accused of sneaking it through. What a lot of nonsense.

Let us look at the whole idea of debate. At Queen's Park there were six speakers over three days. There was no vote. It passed on consent. No one will ever know at Queen's Park where Mr. Long resides, who opposed it or who voted in favour of it because all three, including their philosophical cousin, Mr. Harris of the Progressive Conservative Party in Ontario, put it through. According to the Toronto Star on October 27, 1999, Mr. Harris let it be known that anyone opposed to the bill should be absent from the House when it passed on consent.

What kind of society will we have? Will we have an exclusive or inclusive society. What I am hearing today is that we will exclude certain people who we, the majority, define as being different. We will have a society where the majority rises up and says to the minority “Sorry, we do not like you. You are different. We will not in any way deal with you. We will not recognize you and we will not give you benefits”.

It is about intolerance. We will tell people things that are patently not true. We will tell those people that the government is rushing this through parliament, but the record shows that it has taken five months here and only three days at Queen's Park. We will say that we never know who voted on it. Every vote here is recorded. What did we see at Queen's Park? We do not know who was for bill 5 or who was against it.

I need to ask again what kind of society they want. Do they want a society where the majority will dictate? Will we have polls for everything? Will we have some sort of grassroots—which is their term—discernment of what the majority wants? If they want to go on that basis they could eliminate Indian and aboriginal treaties in this country. They could eliminate all sorts of things in this country because the majority is either being told a pack of nonsense or the majority does not like the minority who appear to be different.

Aboriginal people appear to be different from many of us in this place. They have a different colour. I acknowledge that. However, the reality is that we have entered into constitutional agreements. That is not to say that they have special rights to the exclusion of all others. We have recognized that this is the right thing to do.

Let me go to something even more primitive or more fundamental. Let us look at Prince Edward Island which has four members of parliament. That was a constitutional guarantee. I guarantee I could find a majority in this country who would want to wipe out that constitutional privilege. Are they in some way enjoying more privileges than the rest of us in perhaps Ontario or, dare I say, Alberta? Prince Edward Island has a constitutional guarantee of four senators. There are only six senators for the province of Alberta. Is that to say that it has a privilege that Alberta does not have? That is absolutely correct. Why does the majority not rise up and eliminate that right? This is a situation where it is the right thing to do. Sometimes we have to do the right thing in this place.

This is not about having a society that turns its back on the majority. We would have people telling us that the majority wants to exclude certain people. If we followed the line of logic from the members opposite, what other minority groups in this country do we not like? I could undoubtedly find many other people who have been stereotyped as ones who should not receive benefits.

In the House a while back an amendment was made to the Canadian Human Rights Act, Bill C-33. Members opposite gave the same sort of rhetoric with regard to that bill. They indicated that we were attacking marriage. They said, if I heard them correctly, that this was a slippery slope.

I want the member for Wild Rose to ask one of the would-be leaders of the Canadian Alliance why Queen's Park sneaked bill 5 through in three days. It amended 67 provincial statutes. Members on the other side cannot have it both ways. Why do they not ask the member from Queen's Park, who supported it, the member of their cousin party, the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, who issues licences to ministers to perform marriages? It is not this government. It is the provincial government. If one were to follow their line of logic, who is attacking marriage?

Let me back up and look at the real attack on marriage, which occurred in 1974 and 1986 when laws were passed across Canada which stated that if people lived together it was the same as marriage. That was a provincial law and that, I would suggest to the House, was an attack on marriage. Being fair to people because they happen to live together and file their taxes together does not make them somehow different. If those members opposite ever became a majority, I would live in fear of the majority rising up against people they believe to be different.

[Competition Act, April 5th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I have very little time left, so I would say in conclusion that this bill has its roots in the consumer revolt of January 1995, but has its eye clearly on the future.

On a daily basis we are bombarded with the marketing campaigns of these federally regulated businesses. With the explosion of information technology, it is becoming far easier for these companies to bundle packages and increase the number of services provided.

Why must we as consumers remain ever vigilant to avoid paying higher fees for their additional services?

By defeating the Bloc's amendment and passing Bill C-276, we can protect all Canadian consumers from future negative option rip-offs.

[Competition Act, April 5th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on the amendment proposed by the Bloc to Bill C-276, an act to amend the Competition Act. It is a sad day for consumers in the province of Quebec because the member for Témiscamingue, as a member of the Bloc Quebecois, has proposed an amendment to exempt Quebec residents from the consumer protection measures contained in the bill. It is difficult to imagine why on earth we on this side would support such a cold hearted and callous proposal from the member opposite.

The bill would protect consumers from the deceptive marketing practice known as negative option billing which occurs when a company forces its customers to decline or opt out of new product or service offerings to avoid higher fees. This practice is a perversion of the traditional buyer-seller relationship. It relies on the concept of implied consent: if the buyer does not say no or register an objection with the seller or the vendor, he or she is deemed to have said yes and to have given consent to the purchase.

It is a rather sick way of doing business because it takes advantage of consumers from all walks of life whether they are young, poor, elderly or people on fixed incomes. With the proposed amendment the Bloc Quebecois would leave millions of consumers in the province of Quebec vulnerable to such marketing rip-offs.

I often have trouble following the twisted logic of the Bloc. In an attempt to humour our friends across the way, I will try to see how their amendment would benefit consumers who reside in Quebec or any place else in Canada, for that matter.

If we look closely at Bill C-276, as amended by the Standing Committee on Industry, we see that it has been improved. I would like to take the opportunity to thank and commend members of that committee for their hard work. In a four month period the committee heard testimony from 28 witnesses, including consumer organizations, industry groups, and officials from the government departments of finance, industry and Canadian heritage who appeared not once but twice before the committee.

The committee passed a number of amendments to bring Bill C-276 in line with recent changes to the Competition Act precipitated by the passage of what was called Bill C-20. Concerns over the viability of certain specialty television channels were addressed. A change was made to deal with the evolution of electronic commerce. Changes were made but the key elements of consumer protection have remained in this bill.

The bill still applies to federally regulated banks, telephone companies and cable companies. Here we see the irony of the Bloc's proposed amendment, the politicization of their proposed amendment. They would give a green light for federally regulated banks and others to essentially rip off consumers in the province of Quebec by way of negative option marketing. I am certain the Bloc's position has nothing whatsoever to do with their recent change of heart when it comes to accepting campaign donations from large corporations. I am sure this is simply a coincidence.

In any case, perhaps we should refer to what the experts who appeared before the committee have said. At the industry committee hearing on December 13, 1999 the head of the Quebec based consumer organization Action Réseau, Ms. Nathalie St-Pierre, was questioned by the member for Timiskaming. I will quote his question:

You are a watchdog organization involved in consumer protection in Quebec. At the present time, do companies under federal jurisdiction and subject to this bill comply voluntarily with the [Quebec] Consumer Protection Act?

Ms. St-Pierre in her reply stated “They do not comply with the Consumer Protection Act”.

In a letter to the CRTC dated October 8, 1999, Ms. St-Pierre exploded the myth that Quebec consumers do not object to negative option marketing. She referred to the 1997 launch of new specialty channels by the Quebec based company Vidéotron and I quote once again from her letter:

When the channels were launched, Quebec consumer groups, the Consumer Protection Bureau and Vidéotron all received numerous complaints, particularly about the marketing method used, which was negative option billing.

As the Bloc points out, Quebec's Consumer Protection Act prohibits negative option marketing. However, the Bloc does not say that it can only apply to areas of provincial jurisdiction. What they do not say is that their act specifically exempts federal jurisdiction. It in fact says it does not apply to cable.

I can only surmise that the member for Timiskaming has finally come to his senses on this jurisdictional question. Why else did he ask a Quebec based consumer group if federally regulated companies voluntarily comply with the provincial law? The fact is that the Bloc knows that the Quebec law does not, cannot, never has and never will apply to industries like banking, telephone or cable.

Why then do Bloc members stand in this place and demand a carve out, a big exculpatory clause for Quebec consumers? Why do they stand with the Canadian Bankers Association and others who like things just the way they are? No changes.

I do not know the answer to these questions, but I do see a ray of light over the Bloc members. It is the member for Portneuf, their official critic for Canadian heritage, who recently launched a public campaign against the distribution of a French language educational channel, TFO, which wanted to broadcast in the province of Quebec and was made in the province of Ontario. The member for Portneuf broke ranks with his pro-business colleagues and stood up for consumer rights and explained his views in a TFO interview which aired on October 28, 1999.

The member is going to try to shout this down, but I want him to hear what his colleague said. I quote:

Look, I have no objection if a Quebecer wants to subscribe to TFO. I have a problem with the CRTC, which is a federal organization, forcing all Quebecers who get cable to pay for TFO, whether they want it or not. That's wrong. That is not what I would call a free market practice.

If the—

[Taxation, March 31st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the recent death by suicide of Darrin White in Prince George, British Columbia, has sadly brought to the spotlight the story of an unrealistic regime of family law. How a father could be ordered to pay twice his income for child support and be labelled a deadbeat dad is a cruel indictment of a regime that is unresponsive and broken.

This immeasurably sad tragedy illustrates the need to accelerate change in laws that demand more money than can be reasonably be paid and labels impecunity as deadbeat.

Darrin White was not a deadbeat. He was a victim of a system that cries out for fixing. Most tragically, his children will never know a father who ended his life in a hopeless morass of impossible financial demands.

I can only ask: What can parliament say to the children of Darrin White today?

[Income Tax Act, March 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, this short speech comes as a result of a question I posed several weeks ago to the Minister of Justice. The question revolved around whether it was the intent of the 1997 child support guidelines to create a class of adult students who are supported, by court order, as children of the marriage.

In her response, the minister stated that such orders are not automatic. I am certain that the parliamentary secretary, who is here this evening to speak for her, will echo the idea that it is all about judicial discretion and that under the 1997 guidelines an order is not automatic when one goes to the court seeking support for an adult. Although the adult is called a child there is no right to this support.

If that is correct then I am inviting the parliamentary secretary, the Department of Justice or anybody watching this show to produce or to offer just one example of a case where a judge exercised that discretion and said “No, you are applying for support for a child at university and I am not going to give it to you. You are applying for tuition expenses and I am not going to give it to you”. I am looking for one case.

I can tell the members that there are some very basic and fundamental questions surrounding these orders and this law which concern a broad cross-section of Canadians. First, when is a child no longer a child, or when does a child become an adult?

As we know, generally in this country the age of majority is 19, and in some provinces 18, but it is in that range. We know that a 19 year old can marry without a parent's permission. We know that a 19 year old can enter into contracts and be bound by them. They can buy real estate and all sorts of things. They are adults and anything an adult can do they can do.

However, here we have, in a 1997 law passed in this place, the federal support guidelines which state that a child of divorce is entitled to support under circumstances which are widely applied to be post-secondary education.

Three years later what do we see? First, we see that an order is automatic. That is, if the custodial parent applies to the court and says that this child is in university, then the non-custodial parent must pay for those expenses. More importantly, we are seeing many recorded cases of so-called children who are 30 years of age whose non-custodial parent is in fact paying for their post-secondary education. We have Ph.D. students and MA students, some approaching middle age, who are still children as declared by a judge exercising his so-called discretion.

I have to ask how this can be. If we look at the law in this country we want it both ways. We know that under the Young Offenders Act a 14 year old can be declared to be an adult for the purposes of the law. We also know that for the purposes of the Divorce Act a 30 year old can be a child for the purposes of the law. How can this possibly be?

Second, I want to talk about fairness and equality because that is a big topic around this place. How can it be fair for a divorced parent to be compelled to pay but parents who are still married do not have to do anything? Even if the parents are millionaires, as long as their marriage is intact when the child is 19 they can say that they are not paying, and parents do that. However, a divorced parent does not have this choice. The court orders that parent to pay for the child up to age 30. We are waiting to hear whether the age will up any further.

I have one final point. Is the Divorce Act a law that is applied to create a social policy? That is exactly what is happening in this circumstance.

[Senate, February 24th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank everyone who has spoken, even the member from the fifth party, who, in my opinion, gave a very spirited speech which displayed why he is a member of the fifth party. He has made a very convincing argument about why this is the last place we can argue about the relevance of parliament. That is a very interesting perspective.

It was also interesting that a party which some would suggest has had chemical traces in the public opinion polls would want to defend that 45% of the Senate of Canada which it holds.

I congratulate the speaker from the fifth party for convincing me, and I hope others watching, that the fifth party does not get enough floor time to speak in this place and that it has shown very clearly why its members are having problems following the national agenda.

I appreciate the point of order made by the parliamentary secretary because there is something called relevance in this place. Indeed, there is something called relevance in politics. That party has clearly shown tonight why it might be deemed to be irrelevant at the ballot box.

I want to quote from a book written by a former occupant of the other place, Phillipe Gigantes. He wrote a book called Thin Book: Reforming the Senate . In his opinion “The evolution of the Senate as a more effective institution will be slow and will require changes in attitude from current senators and the House of Commons”—and I am sorry to reveal that to the fifth party—“but will be worth it. If we do not attempt to reform the Senate it will be abolished. If we persist in failing to address the shortcomings of the Senate there will come a time when it becomes impossible to justify its existence”.

This is a former occupant of the other place who said, notwithstanding what the fifth party says, that it must be done from within the House of Commons and the other place.

I have never pretended to advocate anything but the abolition of the Senate. However, on the issue of Senate TV, I think that former Senator Gigantes and other like-minded occupants and former occupants of the other place can make common cause with me in the effort to have the other place televised. With this in mind the televised broadcasting of all Senate proceedings could accomplish the following.

It could give Canadians the opportunity to judge for themselves whether they are getting their money's worth. They pay about $60 million to shore up the other place and keep it going. Are they getting their money's worth?

The occupants of the other place would no longer work in relative obscurity such as those members in this place who are in parties which do not get a lot of time to speak. In fact, I would be very surprised if the average Canadian could identify one occupant of the other place. If Senate proceedings were open to television cameras, a consensus might finally emerge on the issue of the Senate itself.

In the year 2000 the occupants of the other place can no longer hide behind the curtains and maintain the quality of their debates is higher. They say that the quality of their debates is higher in the absence of television coverage.

I am absolutely shocked that members of the fifth party in this place would use the House of Commons to defend the approximately 48 members in the other place who are there, who are not accountable and some of whom were given 35 years of uninterrupted service to this country by their former leader. I find it shocking that they would try to defend that in this place. This is a place of debate and they do not want to debate it and that is that.

[Senate, February 24th, 2000]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, all proceedings of the Senate of Canada in the Senate Chamber should be televised.

Mr. Speaker, this evening's debate revolves around Motion No. 98, which states that in the opinion of the House all proceedings of the Senate of Canada in the Senate Chamber should be televised.

While the House of Commons will not hold a recorded vote on this subject, it is my sincere hope that perhaps some senators are watching and may finally take action. Perhaps some senators are even watching tonight's proceedings live on television. Maybe they are working late on Parliament Hill. Maybe they have gone home and are watching a rebroadcast on CPAC.

If I say something particularly outrageous tonight they may see it repeated on television newscasts throughout the day tomorrow, but I would never do that. I must therefore choose my words carefully.

The point is that our debates in this Chamber are open to television cameras. We have nothing to hide in this place. To senators watching tonight this may seem surreal. We are in front of television cameras debating whether the Senate of Canada should allow television coverage of its debates. Currently the Senate forbids such broadcasting. Granted, it allows some cameras into selected committees, but the Senate of Canada is not a group of committees engaged in study after study. It is a legislative body. It is the other half of Canada's parliament and it is a chamber where unelected people debate proposed legislation. It amends bills. It adopts bills. It even defeats bills passed by this elected chamber.

Regardless of how one views our current set-up, whether we want it to be reformed, abolished or left alone, surely we want to be able to watch our senators in action. We ought to be able to watch them stand and be counted.

The Senate of Canada should draw back its dusty curtains and expose itself to the scrutiny of television. Perhaps I should contrast the Senate's approach to television with our experience in this place. The House of Commons reached agreement to go on the airwaves in 1977.

By way of background, I should say that the legislative chambers in all democratic countries and states have public galleries. Since the days of the Magna Carta the public's business has been seen by the public. If I flash forward from 1215, some 762 years later a debate occurred here in the House of Commons on extending the galleries by way of television, realizing that in the era of electronics and as the medium known as television matured it was the ideal and modern way of extending the principle of the public galleries in the Commons into Canadian homes.

On January 25, 1977 the House adopted a motion to broadcast live all of its debates and proceedings. In September 1977 our Chamber went on the air.

The concept of extending the galleries is based on some very clear and sound philosophies. First, as I have said, the public has a right to see its legislators debating the public's business.

Second, for our federal chambers to be relevant—and we have to be more relevant—debates and proceedings must be fully accessible to the public.

Finally, public broadcasting gives viewers firsthand experience of legislators at work, as opposed to what otherwise would be received through reports or commentaries prepared by journalists. Quite simply, it is not filtered and it cannot be construed or censored in any way.

It is interesting to note that today more than 100 countries broadcast their legislative chambers' proceedings on a daily basis, yet in this parliamentary precinct, which was the first elected chamber in the world to broadcast its proceedings, there is an exception and it is called the Senate Chamber.

I should tell the House that the only debate in that place on this issue took place on November 5 and December 3, 1975, 25 years ago, when senators expressed a majority opinion that the public should not view their proceedings by way of television. I will provide details on this later.

I draw the attention of the House to the Senate rule book, which is the equivalent of the standing orders of the House of Commons. Its rule book says that the televising of proceedings is strictly prohibited.

I should declare my own bias concerning the Senate. It will come as a great shock. It would be my preference to see it abolished. In fact, I have joined with other members of this elected chamber in circulating petitions in support of abolition. I want to read part of the official response to these petitions. This is an official response from the government, and it states:

The government shares the petitioners' concern about modernizing parliamentary institutions. However, a constitutional amendment would be required to abolish the Senate—

We know that.

A consensus does not exist on what the role and form of the Senate should be in the future, that is, whether it should remain as it is, or be reformed or abolished....In the meantime, the Senate will continue to play a fundamental role in the federal legislative process.

Let me repeat that. “The Senate will continue to play a fundamental role in the federal legislative process”.

Let us look around the world. There are 80 countries which televise all of their legislative chambers' proceedings, yet we in this parliament average 50%, one out of two.

The British House of Lords, for example, went on the air in 1985, about four years before the British House of Commons, and rather than affect the general demeanour of that place, public opinion polls suggest in Great Britain that it has clearly revealed two points. First, the public in Britain actually like the House of Lords. In fact, it became a rating success. Second, it is agreed among the British public that the quality of debate in the House of Lords went up, not down.

Finally, I want to repeat that we live in an electronic information age. I have to ask, is it not ironic that the other place, the Senate of Canada, is not available to Canadians through the medium known as television?

We can gain inspiration from the practice of televised proceedings elsewhere in Canada. It is alarming to realize that the Senate of Canada is the only major assembly not to televise its proceedings. I think it is odd that such a centrally important institution is effectively not open to the public. Other sorts of assemblies in Canada are required to bear the democratic weight of visibility. Why should the Senate not meet this democratic litmus test?

Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of Canadians are effectively barred from the affairs of the Senate. For the 30 million Canadians who do not live within the boundaries of the national capital region and cannot make it to the Senate public galleries, the lack of television coverage means that they are unable to follow the business that is being transacted supposedly in their names.

Why deny access to a key component of our legislative process? Whether someone agrees or disagrees with a unelected Senate, the fact is that it is a central player in our legislative process.

No government bill, private member's bill or finance minister's budget can be enacted without the Senate. The Senate signs off on every piece of legislation it receives from the Commons. Without the Senate's acquiescence laws could not be made. That is the law of this country. That is the way it is.

Under the constitution the Senate holds as much power as this place, the House of Commons. While it has usually been the practice of that place of the unelected senators to defer to the elected Commons, there have been occasions when it has invoked its constitutional prerogative to reject or to withhold approval of Commons legislation.

We know by our constitution, principally by the British North America Act, that the Senate is central in the lawmaking ability of what we call the federal parliament. Canadians need to have access to this component of the Canadian legislative process. It is 50%.

Not willing to televise the Senate places a shroud over an integral part of Canadian governance and, at worst—and I think this is becoming more common—it creates the perception that something is going on that the Senate is hiding.

Let us open up the old heavy oak doors, part those old dusty curtains to allow the fresh breath of public transparency and the bright light of visibility into a place that has been, some would say, dark and stale for too long.

The Senate belongs to all Canadians and, while only a select few can trespass on to its royal red adornments, it is important to at least provide some degree of ownership to citizens over an institution that is key to the conduct of public affairs.

It is not as though what I am proposing can even be considered radical or trend-setting because legislative assemblies across Canada already broadcast their proceedings, as do municipal councils, school boards and all kinds of quasi-judicial tribunals. Even the Senate of Canada standing committees have been known on occasion to allow the public to catch a glance of senators at work in committee, although it should be noted that Senate committees involve only a dozen of the 105 people who occupy that place.

Not only in Canada, but elsewhere upper chambers have their proceedings televised. As I have said, the U.K., the United States, Australia and over 100 other chambers in countries around the world televise their proceedings. I should say that in my own municipality of Sarnia I can get the Sarnia city council, I can get the Chatham council, which is about 75 miles away, I can get two city councils, but I cannot, unless I have a Ouija board, get the Senate of Canada.

In the House of Lords of the United Kingdom daily sittings have been permanently broadcast since 1985. The opponents of Canadian Senate broadcasting wrongly argue that TV would destroy its deferential and so-called polite decorum at the very high level of civilized debate that we are told takes places in the Senate. One senator has even described the place as being serene.

In the early 1980s, when the House of Lords was discussing proceeding with broadcasts, some peers echoed a similar concern. However, the track record tells a different story. The decorum and the politeness of the lords' debates has not gone down, but has probably gone up. The Senate of Australia, an elected body, has been broadcasting since 1990.

The wonder of the Westminster parliamentary system is its ability to evolve toward greater democratic governance with stronger links to citizens. The history of parliaments in Canada and the U.K., and I assume elsewhere in the Commonwealth, has shown that they have never shied away from strengthening the link to citizens. Televising the Senate should be viewed simply as another logical step in that evolutionary process.

Even though television did not exist in 1867, the Senate, I would suggest, has a duty and a responsibility to adapt toward greater accountability and visibility so that the link with citizens is strengthened. Letting public business into the living rooms of Canadians is a good thing. Not only will it let citizens hold senators to account in a more effective way, it will also contribute to a heightened legitimacy of parliamentary institutions, this place known as the Parliament of Canada.

If, as senators maintain, they are truly effective and they make a positive contribution, they should not fear television. Their deliberations should be able to withstand the bright lights of TV cameras.

As I said, in 1975 the Senate debated the idea of televising proceedings. It decided against the practice at the time and since that time it has been loath in any way to discuss it.

In 1975 former Conservative Senator Martial Asselin provided insight into why the Senate is so apprehensive about televising its proceedings. At that time he said:

I will give you my own point of view, since I feel that the best way to get the Senate abolished is to permit television and radio coverage of our proceedings.

As the Senate Hansard showed, some hon. senators concurred by saying “aye, aye”. They obviously did not feel that the Senate's work at that time was all that valuable. He seems to indicate that it would not be able to stand up to public scrutiny and that upon seeing the Senate in action, or should I say inaction, the public would call for its abolition.

I think it is a sad state of affairs when senators themselves do not even have confidence in the work they do to hold up their institution to public attention. I think I speak for all members in saying that we certainly hope senators no longer believe this.

I would like to close by referring to an op-ed piece written by a senator who occupies that place at the moment. Senator Joyal lists his daily schedule and tells how busy he really is, or says he is. He may have chosen a busy day to illustrate his schedule. His examples are by no means an accurate composite of activities for all senators, nor does his schedule appropriately address the substance that a senator might encounter in a typical day's work. It was a criticism against a newspaper article. I think Senator Joyal's criticism should not be directed to a columnist's assertions that most Canadians would agree with, but rather should be directed to the institution and its members who have a massive credibility problem.

We know that 90% of Canadians would prefer to see it changed. Of them, half would support it being abolished and the other half would support it being elected in some way. We know that 10% have no opinion or like it the way it is.

It is an institution which has an incredible problem of legitimacy. I am saying that TV would encourage senators to respond to issues that Canadians care about, lest citizens judge them as completely useless.