House of Commons Debates VOLUME 146 Ï NUMBER 219 Ï 1st SESSION Ï 41st PARLIAMENT OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Tuesday, March 5, 2013 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer CONTENTS (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) 14587 HOUSE OF COMMONS Tuesday, March 5, 2013 The House met at 10 a.m. PETITIONS CANADA POST Prayers Mr. Bev Shipley (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have a petition brought forward by a number of my constituents in Lambton—Kent—Middlesex regarding Canada Post reviewing every post office across the country to see if outlets can be ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS downsized to newer, smaller models. Ï (1005) [English] The petitioners' concern is that in developing this process, a better process for making changes to the retail and delivery network be GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS undertaken. Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, THE ENVIRONMENT pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to three petitions. Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions. *** The first petition is from residents of the Vancouver area calling CRIMINAL CODE on the government to put in place a legislated ban on supertankers on Mr. Mike Sullivan (York South—Weston, NDP) moved for the British Columbia coastline. As this House will know, a non- leave to introduce Bill C-482, An Act to amend the Criminal Code legislated ban has been in place since 1972. (telecommunication device identifier). [Translation] He said: Mr. Speaker, cell phone theft is a crime problem in my riding of York South—Weston and across Canada. Cell phone theft FOREIGN INVESTMENT is a growing and troublesome street crime, particularly for young people being mugged for their cell phones. It is a crime of Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): The second opportunity, because stolen cell phones can easily be reactivated by a petition was signed by residents of Salt Spring Island, in my riding, different carrier. as well as people from Guelph, Toronto, Prince George and Halifax. The legislation I am proposing today is the result of an initiative I The petitioners are calling on the Prime Minister and his cabinet to took last summer in response to muggings of high school students in refuse to ratify the Canada-China investment treaty because it will my riding for their cell phones. At that time, I called on the CRTC infringe on Canada's sovereignty and its environmental, labour, and the industry to develop a national database to track stolen cell health and other regulations and protection measures. phones. That is now being done, and this bill is the last step. [English] By making it illegal to tamper with cell phone identifiers, the unique number that is assigned to each cell phone, this legislation SEX SELECTION would make more effective the national database of stolen cell phones being developed here in Canada by cell phone carriers. It Mr. Rod Bruinooge (Winnipeg South, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would prevent the reactivation of stolen cell phones and so remove would like to bring forward this petition from constituents in the incentive to mug people for their cell phones. Manitoba. I hope all members in this House will support this important The petitioners are calling on the House of Commons to condemn crime-fighting initiative. discrimination against pre-born girls through gender selection and (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) are asking the House to support Motion No. 408. 14588 COMMONS DEBATES March 5, 2013 Business of Supply QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER could also be unanimous consent of the provinces along with the Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of federal Parliament. We will wait to see what the Supreme Court says. the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I We will be very interested to see what the Supreme Court says. ask that all questions be allowed to stand. The Speaker: Is that agreed? The key is to note that with either of those formulas—unanimous Some hon. members: Agreed. consent or 7/50—ultimately the Senate does not have to consent to its own abolishment. With either of those formulas, the Senate can resist, according to the 1982 Constitution Act, but it cannot ultimately block its own abolition, unlike the method the Prime GOVERNMENT ORDERS Minister is using with his Bill C-7, in which he is purporting to [English] amend the Constitution by only going to the Parliament with an ill- conceived scheme, when he knows that the Senate's consent is BUSINESS OF SUPPLY necessary. Under that form of amendment, amendment by the OPPOSITION MOTION—SENATE Parliament of Canada alone—which again is not applicable here, and the Prime Minister knows it; that is why he has finally gone to the Mr. Craig Scott (Toronto—Danforth, NDP) moved: Supreme Court to get clarity—we need the Senate's consent. 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. It is a nice turn that the Supreme Court will tell us which He said: Mr. Speaker, it is time to roll up the red carpet. It is my amending formula applies, and when we eventually work with the honour to rise today on behalf of my constituents of Toronto— provinces to get the necessary number of provinces and legislatures Danforth to speak to this motion, which I will restate: on board, we will not ultimately be blocked by our friends in the That, in the opinion of the House, the government of Canada, in consultation Senate. with the provinces and territories, should take immediate steps towards abolishing the unelected and unaccountable Senate of Canada. To that motion I would like to add that the official opposition is Like an Edsel, the Senate was obsolete almost from the moment it fully prepared and ready to co-operate with the government in this was built. Somehow, however, this one is still on the road. However, task of consulting with the provinces and territories. We have enough its lights are broken, the body is totally corroded, the wheels are experience with co-operation. Our leader, the member for Out- wobbly and the engine has all but been seized up by dirty oil. It may remont, has led the way in starting to talk to the provinces as a mode still have a very plush interior, but it is time to send it to the of co-operative federalism. The means by which the Senate will be scrapyard. abolished can only proceed through that avenue. The NDP has, since its very inception, been firmly in support of Ï (1010) Senate abolition. Indeed, calls for abolition also came from our predecessor, the CCF. The NDP has also long believed that the people of Canada should be consulted as part of the abolition The Senate has long ceased to have any meaningful connection to process. This remains important, but we need to start here, in the the supposed original reasons for its existence. One of those reasons House of Commons. We need to send an extremely strong signal that is the principle of representing the regions, four different regions, the time has come. We are at a historic moment. People have come to and the provinces within the regions. realize that the Senate is an archaic, otiose institution, but we have to start here, in the House of Commons, and send the signal and begin to work with the provinces and territories, something it seems our From as early as the 1930s, reaffirmed in the 1950s and the 1960s, Prime Minister seems allergic to. commentators noted that this never was a function seriously carried out by the Senate. It was not built for that. It did not operate in that Before I continue, I should say that I am going to be splitting my way. Indeed, over time, in fact, very early on, it was the Privy time with the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent. Council, and it was then taken over by the Supreme Court of It is important to note that the government has put a reference to Canada, that served as the institution that protected federalism within the Supreme Court of Canada, and the question of abolition is one of our constitutional structure. We do not need the Senate for that the questions. It is also important to clear up confusion. The purpose. Supreme Court will not be deciding one way or the other whether the Senate should be abolished. That is a political decision we are starting to initiate here, but it will tell us what the correct amending Only a handful of senators, 12, 15 or perhaps 20, make a serious formula under the Constitution is. There is debate on that. It is contribution to sober second thought, which is the other major almost certain that it is not less than 7/50; that is, seven provinces function. They do good work. They are assisted by good staff. They with 50% of the population. The Constitutional Amendments act are conscientious. I can bet that they resent the presence of many of will also come into play where certain provinces, including Ontario their colleagues in the Senate who have brought this institution down and Quebec, have to be involved in the amendment. However, it around their own ears. March 5, 2013 COMMONS DEBATES 14589 Business of Supply There are good senators.