I did not say that. I never said that.
House of Commons photoWon her last election, in 2015, with 82% of the vote.
Constitution Act, 2010 (Senate term limits) November 17th, 2010
I did not say that. I never said that.
Constitution Act, 2010 (Senate term limits) November 17th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, it is because of instances such as this that the Senate gets the bad name that it does. When we have people who deliberately hold up legislation, who deliberately avoid dealing with legislation, this is what contributes to the views that some people hold of the Senate.
However, when we have people like Senator Bill Rompkey, like Senator George Furey, like former Senator Joan Cook, like Senator Cowan and Senator Joan Fraser and the list could go on, these are people who make such a significant contribution and believe in what they are doing. To them, being appointed is the same as being elected, because they know that they are there representing the people of Canada.
Constitution Act, 2010 (Senate term limits) November 17th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, I did not hear a question. It was just a comment, I expect, from my colleague.
My experience with the Senate and the good people I know certainly in the Liberal Party who have made up the Senate is that these individuals make a significant contribution to our country. They make a significant contribution because of the work they do, which is something that here in the House of Commons we are able to make use of as well.
I know the senators from my own province of Newfoundland and Labrador who I have had experience working with have done invaluable work and given invaluable service to that province and our country. Liberals believe we need to reform the Senate, but it has to be with a good, sound public policy approach, not just saying it is eight terms and that is it. Let us have the discussion. Let us look at what is available to us in terms of individuals who have so much to offer to our country.
Constitution Act, 2010 (Senate term limits) November 17th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge the question from my colleague, but again it is a case in point of a government not listening. Liberal members have said we are open to Senate reform. We said the Liberal Party is open to Senate reform. Our issue is with what the government is proposing and the fact that it does not involve any consultation process. It is not listening to the provinces. The provinces are open to Senate reform, but it is a matter of consulting and listening.
What I just heard from my colleague across the way is that he did not listen. He said Liberals are happy with the status quo when in fact we have said pointedly that we are open to reform of the Senate. We need to have an important discussion with our partners throughout this democracy, people who have expertise and experience and can make a sound contribution to this whole debate. Unfortunately, it is those people who are being ignored by the government.
Constitution Act, 2010 (Senate term limits) November 17th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (Senate term limits), raises serious questions for the House just through its very title.
Bill C-10 limits the tenure of senators appointed after the bill becomes law to one non-renewable eight-year term. At the same time, it preserves the existing retirement age of 75 for current senators. It further allows a senator whose term has been interrupted to return to the Senate and complete his or her term. The bill also contains a provision for senators summoned to the Senate after October 14, 2008, but, before the coming into force of the act, they remain a senator for one term which expires eight years after the coming into force of this act. That is just a little bit of background.
The Liberal Party has repeatedly made it clear to Canadians that we support and have a continued interest in Senate reform. We also have adamantly insisted that any such reforms must reflect sound public policy and respect our most sacred of documents, the Constitution.
It is our hope that the committee will study and amend this bill before us today and return something to this House that respects the Constitution and the role of the provinces in democratic reform.
The bill is another attempt by the Prime Minister's Conservative government to dismantle the Senate piece by piece. What needs to be clear for all of my colleagues in the House, in the Senate and all Canadians is that this is not simply a cosmetic tweak of an old but venerable institution. The legislation before us today amounts to parliamentary reform, reform that arrived today without consultation with provincial or territorial governments.
We must make no mistake that this is nothing short of another attempt by the Conservative government to unilaterally transform our system of parliamentary democracy. The government has shown a blatant contempt for the Constitution and the federation to which it speaks.
This is not the first time that the government has targeted the Senate and, by extension, Parliament, with its so-called plans for reform. This bill has come before the House on two previous occasions. We have it today in its third incarnation. Perhaps the Prime Minister and the Conservatives were thinking that three was a lucky number or that the third time would be a charm. However, it is widely accepted that three strikes also means one is out.
The bill was originally introduced in the first session of the 30th Parliament as Bill S-4. At that time, the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs proposed several amendments to the bill. Specifically, the committee proposed that the duration of a Senate term be extended from an eight year term to a fifteen year term. The reason for that is important to the principles of parliamentary democracy within our Constitution.
An eight year term for senators would allow a party that has won two consecutive majorities to appoint virtually a whole team of senators, an entire roster of senators to simply rubber-stamp the party's legislation, instead of having the Senate serve for what it is known to be, the chamber of sober second thought.
The standing committee indicated that a 15 year term would ensure a Senate possesses the experience and expertise to offer that second sober thought as envisioned by the Constitution. The committee also made the important recommendation that this bill and its incarnations be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Liberal Senate caucus echoed this recommendation, asking the government to refer this bill to the Supreme Court to determine whether the legislation requires a constitutional amendment approved by seven of the ten provinces representing 15% of Canada's population, rather than a simple act of Parliament.
This legislation's history underscores the serious nature of the issue that is now before this House.
With this third attempt at parliamentary reform, the Prime Minister and the Conservative government once more betray their true feelings toward the Senate.
It seems that the Prime Minister either does not care or simply does not understand the character of the institutions he purports to be steward of. It is easy enough for the Prime Minister to flippantly say that he make the rules when he feels like saying that, but we rarely see evidence that indicates he is in fact committed to bringing forward the so-called rules in the form of sound public policy.
The Senate was established to protect and defend regional and provincial interests and rights. This was necessary to protect the regions against majority governments in the House of Commons. Now the Prime Minister is attempting to circumvent the provinces completely. This is another example of the Prime Minister ignoring the spirit of our federation.
Let it be known that contrary to Conservative spin and ideology, it is the provinces themselves that have expressed passionate concern about Senate reform. The Prime Minister prefers to forget that the provinces are our constitutional partners. Such arrogance and disregard for his provincial counterparts is neither logical nor fair.
Also let it be known that it is not only Liberal senators who have voiced concerns on the issue of Senate reform. Liberal senators and Liberal members of Parliament alike are committed to sensible and rational reforms that reflect the principles and spirit of our Constitution and fully include all provinces as equal partners with equal voices at the table.
No less than four provincial governments have publicly come forward to express their strong objection to the Prime Minister's unilateral interpretation of the Constitution and his unilateral attempt to reform our institutions. Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador have all made it clear that if they are not to be included in this discussion, they will have no recourse but to go to the Supreme Court.
If the Prime Minister insists on creating such discord through his unwillingness to hear opposing views, whether from Parliament, its committees or other provinces, how can he say he is engaged in democratic reform? How can the Prime Minister and the government stand in the House and claim, in good faith, to be undertaking these reforms in the name of democracy when the governments of the two largest provinces in Canada and the two smallest, representing more than 50% of the population of the country and three of the four regions described in our Constitution, have been flatly dismissed and ignored in their objections to these reforms?
The matter is clear. The Prime Minister and his government cannot constitutionally proceed unilaterally now as then. If the Conservative government is truly committed to fair and democratic parliamentary reforms, the Prime Minister must first ask the Supreme Court of Canada, in a constitutional reference, whether he can even undertake such authoritarian reforms. At the very least, the Prime Minister should engage the provinces in a meaningful consultation on Senate reform, as full and equal partners, and secure their consent under the terms of the Constitution.
Frankly, with the bill as it stands before us today, the Prime Minister is spitting in the eye of the spirit of the Constitution with this third time around legislation. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister seems to want nothing to do with either of these options. Here we find ourselves once again.
The House needs to remember that on July 28, 2006, all provincial premiers, through the Council of the Federation, said:
—the Council of the Federation must be involved in any discussion on changes to important features of key Canadian institutions such as the Senate and the Supreme Court of Canada.
Did the Prime Minister not get the memo, or does he simply have no interest in listening to anyone else?
I will reiterate the point I made earlier. What is being proposed here is nothing less than a full reform of our system of parliamentary democracy. Does the Prime Minister think that no one cares, or perhaps no one is paying attention? He made that mistake the last time he prorogued Parliament and we heard loud and clear what Canadians thought about that.
The Liberal Party cares. We care about the Senate because it speaks to the very core of our democracy and the principles of fairness, balance and common sense.
Let me draw the House's attention to section 42(1)(b) of our Constitution. It states, “Such constitutional amendments may not be made by acts of Parliament alone, but also require resolutions of the legislatures of at least two-thirds of the provinces that have an aggregate, at least 50% of the population”. As such, this proposed legislation represents nothing less than an attempt to change significantly the powers and the function of the Senate.
It would appear that the government has not even read the Constitution. The changes that the bill proposes are far beyond the powers granted to the Parliament of Canada. The changes proposed require a coordinated constitutional amendment, which in turn must adhere to a specific formula as set out in the Constitution.
We could have had a Supreme Court ruling long ago and have advanced Senate reform in a meaningful, constitutional way. Instead the Prime Minister has elected to simply reintroduce the same bills, the same thing over and over. Instead of listening to his constitutional partners, instead of listening to the provinces or even the Supreme Court, the Prime Minister is choosing to fill the Senate with enough of his own supporters to force his preferred Senate reforms through.
The Prime Minister has tried to present his proposed reforms, such as a change to eight-year tenure terms for senators, as modest changes that would afford no trouble to anyone.
However, as numerous witnesses have testified, this change could allow a two-term prime minister to appoint every senator in the chamber, wiping out any opposition voices to any initiative, as the government of Ontario wrote. We know that this is a common event in the country. We know that we had two Liberal governments that had more than eight-year terms. We know that we had a Progressive Conservative government that had more than eight-year terms. Again, the probability exists that in fact every senator could be of that political party persuasion.
Bill C-10, on its own, would dramatically alter the real functioning of the Senate, detracting from its traditional role as an independent chamber of sober second thought. The Prime Minister's new power to appoint every member of the Senate over eight years would significantly expand his appointment power and impair the independent functioning of the upper chamber. The result would be indeed a partisan institution with nearly co-equal powers to the House of Commons and an institution that would be more likely to exercise those powers in order to freeze or obstruct a government, creating an untenable situation.
The Government of Quebec was unequivocal in its assessment of the impact of the reforms to the Senate proposed by the current federal government. Then minister Benoît Pelletier, an acknowledged constitutional law expert, wrote, “The transformation of the Senate raises some fundamental issues for Quebec and the Canadian federation in general...The federal bills on the Senate do not represent a limited change”.
The premier of my home province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Danny Williams, wrote to the Prime Minister to express his government's view that the proposed Senate reform bills. He said that they:
—represent attempts to alter the Constitution of Canada so as to significantly change the powers of the Senate and the method of selecting Senators within the meaning of Section 42(1)(b) of the Constitution Act, 1982. Such constitutional amendments may not be made by acts of Parliament alone, but also require resolutions of the legislatures of at least two-thirds of the provinces that have, in the aggregate, at least fifty per cent of the population
Democracy is all about that. It is involving our constitutional partners. It is making sure that we all have a say in how our country is run, so we do not just have a House of Commons with our elected representatives, but we also have the Senate where people are appointed on the basis that they are there to serve as a sober second thought to decisions that are made in the House of Commons.
The former premier of New Brunswick, Shawn Graham, wrote:
The Government of New Brunswick has carefully considered the proposed amendment...and is not able to support this amendment in its current form....Our review of jurisprudence on this issue, contained in the attached position paper, supports the view that the provinces must give consent to any change that affects representation in the Senate.
Let it be clear. The Liberal Party favours Senate reform. We have said so time and time again, but it is reform that must come through a consultation process. It is consultation with our partners in a democracy. It is reform that reflects sound public policy and respects the Constitution.
The Conservative government continues to try to change the channel from its spending scandals by cutting back on social programs, by having a deficit of $55.6 billion, by spending money unnecessarily on the G8 and G20 and by doing things that we all know is unnecessary.
I look at an organization such as KAIROS and the money it needs. The government has ignored it and in fact has said no to it. It is an organization that has worked so well on behalf of so many people, both in our country and throughout the world.
There is a problem when we have a government that does not recognize the importance of doing what is right, but instead focuses on doing away with the Senate or ensuring there are eight year terms that will serve no one's interest in terms of the democracy of the country.
Liberals will continue to demand that the government conduct meaningful conversations with the provinces on this issue. Provinces have been heard loud and clear. They have made their concerns known. What is wrong with listening to our partners? What is wrong with acknowledging that they have a part to play? What is wrong with acknowledging how important their input is into any democracy, especially if we believe they are indeed partners in this Confederation?
What we have today is a Prime Minister who is anti-democratic, who does not believe that the provinces and the territories have a part to play. As he said, “he makes the rules”. In making the rules, he is deciding that he wants eight year terms for the Senate. If he had a majority government, he would stock that Senate with people of the same political persuasion to the point where that sober second thought, which is so important to any legislation, any decisions that we make in the House of Commons as elected representatives, would not exist anymore.
There is a serious issue here. The government needs to listen and not just assume that it has all the answers. There are people who can make a contribution. There are people whose experience and expertise are invaluable, both in the House of Commons and in the Senate.
It is true that Canadians' views of democracy have evolved since 1867. As Liberals, we are committed to ensuring that our institutions reflect those changes where appropriate.
The Senate is an essential component of Canada's constitutional democracy and we, as members of Parliament, are here because we have a commitment to improving our country through the democratic institutions of which we are privileged to be a part.
The Senate is an institution with a very proud history, an institution in which the members have done important work over the years. In fact, some of the most important reports that have been produced through the Senate and the senators who work very hard on them have been invaluable to those of us in the House of Commons who take our work seriously.
How we can just turn a blind eye to the Senate and the work it does? How we can just decide that it is not important or that the senators should serve eight year terms, thereby creating a situation where we would lose after that term people with invaluable experience, people with expertise who have so much to contribute, and want to contribute, to our country?
However, in order to do that it is our belief that we need to look at 15 year terms, not 8 year terms, where we see a change in individuals, where we do not end up with senators of all one political stripe, where we see some second sober thought. We had that intelligent debate, which used to happen when we had a Liberal majority Senate versus a Conservative majority Senate.
The Liberal Party is committed to a Senate in which the members can make valuable contributions to public life and the public good. Legislation to alter Senate term limits must keep within the spirit of this commitment.
While we are open to the committee's response to the legislation, we will only support a revised version of Bill C-10 if it reflects sound public policy and respects the Constitution.
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns November 16th, 2010
With regard to the government's financial assistance to the provinces and territories through the Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements (DFAA): (a) what is the total amount paid out by the government since the DFAA program began in 1970; (b) what is the total amount paid out each year to each province and territory since 1970; (c) what was the total amount paid out to the province of Quebec as a result of the Saguenay flooding in 1996; and (d) what was the total amount paid out to the province of Manitoba as a result of the Red River flood in 1997?
Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge the concern being expressed by my colleague in terms of the lighthouses and their importance, particularly to safety, for those who travel on the sea, whether they do it as tourists or for a livelihood.
While there are communities and organizations that will take on responsibility for these lighthouses, the question remains whether there is any kind of support for an organization or community that may wish to do so.
The problem is in a lot of these rural communities where these lighthouses exist the communities just do not have the financial resources to maintain them on an ongoing basis. They are saying that if we expect them to take over responsibility for a lighthouse, because they do not want to see it go by the wayside or see it fall into a state of disrepair, will we not at least offer something upfront in terms of making it possible for them to do that.
That is what we are asking the government to do. If it must insist on offloading what it considers to be surplus lighthouses, please—
Mr. Speaker, on June 17 I asked the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans a question regarding the government's wholesale dumping of lighthouses. Instead of protecting lighthouses, the Conservative government is identifying close to 1,000 that it considers surplus and is expecting communities or organizations to take responsibility for them.
People who are familiar with lighthouses and the value of lighthouses, both on the most easterly coast of our country in Newfoundland and Labrador and on the most westerly coast in British Columbia, are finding this deplorable. They are looking to the government to change its mind and see if we cannot come to some kind of resolution in terms of ensuring that these icons are protected.
Ironically, this announcement of the government's plan to dump approximately 480 active lighthouses and 490 inactive lighthouses across Canada came at the very same time the Conservative government was wasting taxpayers' dollars to construct a fake lighthouse in Ontario for the G8 and G20 meetings. While we see the government dipping into taxpayers' money for reckless and irresponsible spending that supports its own partisan objectives, the government turns it back on the heritage lighthouses that are so important and treasured in Canada's coastal communities.
The Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act came into force on May 29, 2010 with the stated purpose of ensuring the protection and conservation of heritage lighthouses. I contend that the Conservative government's announcement to get rid of close to 1,000 heritage lighthouses that it considers surplus is inconsistent with the intent of the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act. The federal government instead should be looking to preserve these Canadian icons, not get rid of them.
The wholesale dumping of lighthouses shows a complete disregard for the importance of these historical buildings. If the government had a plan or the intention to preserve heritage lighthouses, the minister had the perfect opportunity to share that commitment with Parliament in response to my question, which she chose not to do.
Instead, when I asked the question, she refused to say what financial assistance, if any, would be available to ensure that lighthouses do not fall into a state of disrepair once the government has washed its hands of them. This is frankly offensive to those of us who live in communities where a lighthouse is a well-loved symbol of our rich maritime history and our present maritime activities. It is further aggravated by the fact that the government spent money on a fake lighthouse in Ontario made out of a tree stump as part of the over $1 billion spent for the 72 hours of meetings for the G8 and G20 summits.
The federal government wants to offload these lighthouses and expects someone else to assume responsibility for them while it displays a complete lack of prudence and responsibility in spending taxpayers' money.
Many of these lighthouses are rundown. That is why the Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act received support in this House as it contains a commitment to set out a federal process to preserve heritage lighthouses.
A spokesperson for the Canadian Heritage Foundation, Carolyn Quinn, was quoted in the Moncton Times & Transcript as saying, “The intent was never that there would be a massive unloading. It really has undermined the intent of the act”.
Some of the lighthouses will be taken over by communities. However, in my own hometown of Grand Bank, where the lighthouse is a symbol of safety and is widely used, the town would more than likely take over the lighthouse than see it fall into a state of disrepair. But there is no indication at this point in time that the government is even willing to do anything to ensure that the lighthouse is in a state where it can be carried on and maintained in good condition by anyone who wishes to take care of it.
If the government is going to ask organizations and communities to take responsibility for lighthouses, I am asking it to seriously consider making money available so they can do so.
Petitions November 4th, 2010
Mr. Speaker, I rise today. on behalf of all Canadian women who are over the age of 40, to present a petition calling upon the Government of Canada to work with the provinces and territories to improve screening practice to reduce breast cancer mortality.
On the weekend, I attended the 2010 National Conference for Young Women Living with Breast Cancer. The guest speaker at that event was Yvonne Jones, the leader of the Liberal Party in Newfoundland and Labrador and the leader of the official opposition. Yvonne, who is just 42 years old, has just been diagnosed with breast cancer.
Breast cancer diagnosed in women in their forties accounted for an estimated 16.5%. or one in six of all breast cancer deaths. There are approximately three million Canadian women in the 40 to 49 age category. Mammographs, mammography and screening for that group for 10 years would save 2,100 lives.
However, significant differences exist across jurisdictions. They include policies regarding the screening of women 40 to 49 in high risk women. Breast cancer screening programs offered by Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador do not accept women age 40 to 49, while in British Columbia, Yukon, Northwest Territories, Alberta with a referral, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island do. Nunavut does not have an organized screening program at the moment
The women who signed this petition at the conference, and there will be other petitions coming, are asking the federal government to establish funding and programs so that all provinces and territories have an organized screening program, that women aged 40 to 49 be eligible for free-of-charge breast screening to begin at age 40, and that all women be able to self refer to each province's screening program.
The problem right now is that women cannot do that until they are 50 years old. Therefore, we are calling upon the federal government to work with the provinces and territories to improve screening practices to reduce breast cancer mortality in our country.
Sustaining Canada's Economic Recovery Act November 1st, 2010
Mr. Speaker, this goes back to getting our priorities right. The member is absolutely right about home heating. Seniors, for example, who cannot afford the cost of home heating and the cost of their medications, will have to sit down with their friends at a shopping mall in order to keep warm during the winter months.
This is about priorities. The whole idea of paying HST on poppies shows no respect for those who have worked so hard and who sacrificed so much on behalf of Canadians.
This goes back to what is important to Canadian families, not what is important to large corporations, especially at a time when it is unaffordable. Canada has the lowest taxation policy with respect to corporations compared to the U.S. and other countries, and that is thanks to a previous Liberal government, but it was at a time when we could afford to make tax cuts.
When we are looking at budgeting, we need to take the issues and concerns of Canadian families into account.