House of Commons Debates VOLUME 146 Ï NUMBER 051 Ï 1st SESSION Ï 41st PARLIAMENT OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Tuesday, November 22, 2011 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer CONTENTS (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) 3371 HOUSE OF COMMONS Tuesday, November 22, 2011 The House met at 10 a.m. COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE HEALTH Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second Prayers report of the Standing Committee on Health entitled, “Supplemen- tary Estimates (B), 2011-12”. *** ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PETITIONS Ï (1005) CHILD CARE [English] Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present to the House today. AUDITOR GENERAL The first petition is with respect to child care. It indicates that The Speaker: I have the honour to lay upon the table the fall 2011 child care is often not accessible or affordable for Canadian families report of the Auditor General of Canada. and is often of an uncertain quality for young children. The petitioners call upon the government to legislate the right to Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)((g), this document is deemed universal access to child care and provide multi-year funding to to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on provincial and territorial governments to build a national system of Public Accounts. affordable, high quality public and not-for-profit early childhood education and care accessible to all children. *** The petitioners point out that the federal government must CITIZEN'S ARREST AND SELF-DEFENCE ACT establish spending criteria and reporting mechanisms that ensure accountability for how the provinces and territories use federal Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister of Justice and Attorney funding to ensure quality, accessibility, universality and account- General of Canada, CPC) moved for leave to introduce Bill ability, and that acknowledges Quebec's right to develop social C-26, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (citizen's arrest and the programs with adequate compensation from the federal government. defences of property and persons). ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo—Cowichan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the second petition deals with the Sisters in Spirit. *** The petitioners call upon the government to ensure that finances INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS are available for the Sisters in Spirit and the Evidence for Action campaign that is involved with the Native Women's Association of Mr. Russ Hiebert (South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, Canada. CPC): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report *** of the Canadian delegation of the Commonwealth Parliamentary QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER Association respecting three reports: first, the bilateral visit to the Caribbean, the Americas and the Atlantic Region Republic of Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of Trinidad and Tobago; second, its participation at the parliamentary the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I seminar for the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago; and third, its ask that all questions be allowed to stand. participation at the 35th Commonwealth Parliamentary Association The Speaker: Is that agreed? Regional Conference of the Caribbean and the Americas and the Atlantic. Some hon. members: Agreed. 3372 COMMONS DEBATES November 22, 2011 Government Orders GOVERNMENT ORDERS Third, Canadians' interest in this issue is growing. In fact, according to a survey conducted by Angus Reid in July 2011, 71% [Translation] of Canadians were in favour of holding a referendum about the future of the Senate. The same survey found that 36% of Canadians SENATE REFORM ACT are in favour of completely abolishing the Senate, which is a sharp The House resumed from November 14 consideration of the jump of 25% as compared to 2010. We therefore feel that Canadians motion that Bill C-7, An Act respecting the selection of senators and must be consulted on this issue since the Senate is their democratic amending the Constitution Act, 1867 in respect of Senate term institution and, as a result, they are the ones who have the right to limits, be read the second time and referred to a committee. decide what will happen to the upper chamber. Mr. François Pilon (Laval—Les Îles, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-7, An Act respecting the selection of This bill has some serious shortcomings in terms of legitimacy. senators and amending the Constitution Act, 1867 in respect of First, according to the provisions of the bill, senators will still not be Senate term limits. accountable to Canadians. This bill would limit the terms of senators appointed after October Ï (1010) 14, 2008, to a maximum of nine years. Furthermore, under this bill, the provinces and territories would have the opportunity to hold The fact that senators will only be granted one nine-year term elections, at their own expense, to determine the names that would means that they will never have to answer to the public for decisions be given to the Prime Minister for consideration. The problem is that made during their term. In addition, they will have the right to a the Prime Minister would not be required to choose senators from pension when they leave the Senate, paid for, of course, by the this list. This is yet another wonderful example of a waste of public taxpayers. money by our friends on the other side of the House. Second, passing this bill would create a strange situation in the What is more, if a nominee is not appointed to the Senate by the upper chamber. Certain senators would be elected and others not, so sixth anniversary of that person's election, a new election would be how would the unelected senators justify their legitimacy and actions necessary, resulting in even more public money being wasted. It is to their elected colleagues? fun to spend someone else's money, is it not? Third, as I mentioned earlier in my speech, the government has What we are proposing on this side of the House is clear. Our not consulted the provincial governments about the provisions in this party wants to abolish the Senate, which is a position we have bill. Neither has it consulted the public, and only 39% of people always held. We are calling on the government to hold a referendum voted for the Conservatives on May 2. Despite all this, those on the asking the Canadian public whether they are in favour of abolishing other side of the House are once again dumping the cost and the Senate. responsibility on the provincial governments and taking all the In addition, when this bill was introduced for the first time in credit. June 2011, the Conservative senators clearly said that they would oppose all attempts by the federal government to limit their terms. Finally, since the Senate would have roughly the same powers as And they are the ones who have the last word, as always. the House of Commons, an elected Senate would have more legitimacy in terms of tabling bills or opposing House bills. That The Premier of Ontario, Dalton McGuinty, and the Premier of could paralyze the political system, as is the case in the United Nova Scotia have publicly expressed their support for abolishing the States, where the House of Representatives and the Senate are often Senate. The Premier of British Columbia, Christy Clark, has said that locked in a power struggle that completely paralyzes the American the Senate, as an institution, no longer serves any useful purpose government. within our Confederation. The Government of Quebec has deemed this bill to be unconstitutional. In fact, it has stated that it will go to That summarizes a few of the arguments proving that Senate court if the provinces are not consulted before Bill C-7 is passed. reform, as proposed by the Conservatives, is problematic and that the Clearly, passing this bill without consulting the provinces would solution is to abolish the Senate. once again demonstrate the federal government's willingness to impose its views on the provinces, as it has so often done in the past To conclude, we have seen over the course of the past few minutes few months. how passing Bill C-7 would create a significant number of problems in our political system, and these problems could easily be Now, why are we in favour of abolishing the Senate rather than eliminated by abolishing Canada's Senate. reforming it? First, there has not been an upper chamber in any of the provinces since 1968 and their legislative systems have not crumbled I invite the hon. members to join with me and the members of the as a result. On the contrary, all the provinces are operating very well official opposition and vote against Bill C-7. without a senate. Ï (1015) Second, the idea to reform the Senate is not a new one. Since 1900, there have been no fewer than 13 attempts to reform the Mr. Claude Gravelle (Nickel Belt, NDP): Madam Speaker, I Canadian Senate, with a brilliant success rate of 0 out of 13. And no wish to congratulate my hon. colleague from Laval—Les Îles on his wonder, since the Senate always has the last word. speech on the bill. I have a simple question for him. November 22, 2011 COMMONS DEBATES 3373 Government Orders The Prime Minister is under no obligation to appoint someone Ï (1020) who has been elected by a province or territory. This bill therefore does not change how senators are appointed, since the Prime [English] Minister is still free to choose whomever he wants to appoint to the Mr.