Hon. James S. Cowan (Leader of the Opposition):

Honourable senators, here we go again. We have seen this movie before. This is essentially the same bill on Senate tenure that was extensively studied by this chamber only two years ago. At that time, serious issues as to the bill's constitutionality were raised by provincial governments and by a significant number of eminent Canadian constitutional experts. After considering these views — in contrast to the Harper government, we listen to Canadians — we suggested that the government ask the Supreme Court of Canada whether the bill was constitutional; but, the government was not interested in hearing from the Supreme Court. It had decided that the bill was constitutional and no one — no constitutional expert, no provincial government, not even the Supreme Court of Canada — was going to tell it otherwise. How ironic.

Under the guise of its supposed "commitment to strengthen our democratic institutions," as Senator LeBreton put it last week, the Harper government is doing an end-run around our Constitution and the Supreme Court of Canada.

Our Constitution, honourable senators, is the bedrock of our Canadian parliamentary democracy and federation. The Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of our Constitution. However, this Prime Minister is not interested. He knows best what our Parliament should look like and how it should work and has only disdain for any Canadian who dares to disagree. Is the bill constitutional? He says it is, and that should be enough. Who cares what the experts and the provincial governments and the Supreme Court say? I have heard various names for that kind of government, but "strengthened democracy" is not one of them.

Can the Senate be improved? Of course it can, but reform of one of our houses of Parliament deserves to be done seriously, not by cheap political ploys designed to appeal to a particular political constituency. I would welcome the opportunity to engage in serious discussion of ways to improve this place. Frankly, I believe that those Canadians who advocate for Senate reform want and deserve serious proposals. However, this bill is not serious. It does not even pretend to address the real issues of concern to anyone who cares about Senate reform.

No one believes that if only we had term limits, then finally the Senate would be able to "fulfil its potential as a democratic institution," to quote Senator LeBreton again. The Leader of the Government in the Senate was refreshingly frank when she spoke here last week about this bill. She admitted that term limits are not the real issue of concern to those desiring Senate reform, but she says that, under present day circumstances, real Senate reform is not "doable" — "there is no climate now for those discussions."

Senator Comeau: You are in full spin now.

Senator Cowan: In other words, honourable senators, this government knows that this is not a serious proposal. Mr. Harper has no interest in presenting any serious proposal. Why, you may ask, would he table this bill again? The obvious answer is that it is yet another attempt by the Harper government to deflect Canadians' attention away from its mismanagement of the truly pressing issues of the day — to change the channel. I suspect it is also an attempt to appease its so-called political base that is increasingly unhappy with Mr. Harper's government.

Some Hon. Senators: Shame.

Senator Cowan: Honourable senators will have their opportunity to participate in a minute.

How disrespectful to Canada to treat the Constitution and fundamental institutions of Canadian democracy as a political bone to be tossed to unhappy constituents. How insulting it is to those constituents to believe that they can be manipulated so easily.

Although the essence of Bill S-7 is the same as Bill S-4, which the Harper government tabled here on May 30, 2006, there are some curious differences. I was intrigued to see the proposal in Bill S-7 that a person whose term as senator is interrupted may be summoned again to fill the remainder that senator's term. Does that mean we may have the pleasure of Senator Fortier's return to this chamber?

I found the retroactive provision in clause two interesting. It must come as a surprise — I suspect an unpleasant surprise — to our 18 new colleagues to learn that their tenure here may be shorter than expected.

An Hon. Senator: We will miss you.

Senator Cowan: Unlike Bill S-4, this time the eight-year term limit is not renewable and the mandatory age of retirement remains at age 75.

Honourable senators, we took Bill S-4 seriously. Our Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs spent many hours studying the bill. Witnesses flew in from across the country, including numerous prominent constitutional lawyers and scholars who took time from their busy schedule to give us their considered views of the bill. Provincial ministers and even premiers wrote thoughtful and serious analyses of the bill detailing their profound concerns with its constitutionality.

Let me quote from the committee's report to this chamber:

The overwhelming weight of testimony that our committee heard supported the conclusion that there are significant constitutional concerns if we proceed as proposed by the current federal government and pass Bill S-4 pursuant to the amending powers set out in section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

The committee recommended that the Senate ask the government to refer the bill to the Supreme Court of Canada to determine whether it is constitutional. The Senate agreed. Indeed, when the vote took place on the committee's report, the record shows that the decision was unanimous — no dissenting voices. After belated protests from several honourable senators opposite, the vote was recorded as being on division.

That was exactly two years ago, June 19, 2007. This government, whether out of hubris or because it feared what the Supreme Court would say, chose to do nothing. Here we are two years later and we are absolutely no further ahead. Mr. Harper now chooses to table essentially the same bill. Absolutely nothing has changed.

Senator Comeau: No respect.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Order please.

Senator Cowan: Without a doubt, had the Harper government accepted our advice to ask the court for its opinion, the matter would have been settled long ago. We would have known if this bill is constitutional, or whether Prime Minister Harper's recipe for Senate reform must proceed along a different constitutional path.

As I said, our Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee studied Bill S-4 extensively. Eminent constitutional scholars and representatives of provincial governments — Senator Comeau, when you speak, I listen to you. I ask the same from you.

Senator Comeau: Have some respect for the Prime Minister of Canada, for crying out loud.

Senator Cowan: I have great respect for the office of the Prime Minister of Canada.

An Hon. Senator: Call him mister.

Senator Comeau: Show him some respect.

Senator Cowan: You will have your opportunity, Senator Comeau. I listen to you when you speak; I ask you to listen to me when I speak. You will have your turn to participate in this debate.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

Senator Cowan: Their views have been ignored, swept aside by the Harper government without even the dignity of a response. Mr. Harper did not like what he heard, so he simply pretended it never happened. Once again, we see that the Harper government listens only to those who agree with its positions. Scientists, constitutional scholars and, now, even the Supreme Court are ignored by this government — their views deep-sixed.

Indeed the Leader of the Government in the Senate told us that we should, "not let the deliberations surrounding the original Bill S-4 prejudice the important progress that we can achieve by moving this bill forward." Exactly what in those earlier deliberations would the government leader prefer that we not spend any time thinking about? Perhaps it is this observation contained in the committee's report on Bill S-4, which reminded everyone of the critical role the Senate played in the Confederation compromise of 1867. I quote from the report:

The place of the Senate within the governing framework of Canada was arguably the most important and contentious issue faced by the framers of our Constitution. Though there were some, particularly those from the most populous region, Upper Canada (Ontario), who would have preferred a unicameral parliament, a second chamber was critical for those from the less populous regions. As George Brown described it: "Our Lower Canada (Quebec) friends have agreed to give us representation by population in the lower house, on the express condition that they would have equality in the upper house. On no other condition could we have advanced a step." Alexander Mackenzie, who went on to serve as our second Prime Minister, observed: "The most important question that arises relates to the constitution of the upper house."

Honourable senators, proposals to reform the Senate have been put forward from the very day that the Senate was established. In 1978, the government of Prime Minister Trudeau asked the Supreme Court of Canada on a reference whether any or all of a list of changes to the Senate could be effected by legislation passed by the Parliament of Canada — in other words, without the involvement of the provinces.

One of the proposed changed was to change the tenure of members of that house. That was the well-known upper house reference. The court said:

At some point, a reduction of the term of office might impair the functioning of the Senate in providing what Sir John A. Macdonald described as "the sober second thought in legislation." The [1867 Constitution] Act contemplated a Constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom, where members of the House of Lords hold office for life. The imposition of compulsory retirement at age seventy-five did not change the essential character of the Senate. However, to answer this question we need to know what change of tenure is proposed.

At the end of its decision, the court summarized the law on what changes may and may not be made by the Parliament of Canada acting alone:

Dealing generally with Question 2, it is our opinion that while s. 91(1) [the relevant provision at the time] would permit some changes to be made by Parliament in respect of the Senate as now constituted, it is not open to Parliament to make alterations which would affect the fundamental features, or essential characteristics, given to the Senate as a means of ensuring regional and provincial representation in the federal legislative process. The character of the Senate was determined by the British Parliament in response to the proposals submitted by the three provinces in order to meet the requirement of the proposed federal system. It was that Senate, created by the Act, to which a legislative role was given by section 91. In our opinion, its fundamental character cannot be altered by unilateral action by the Parliament of Canada and s. 91(1) does not give that power.

The witnesses before the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee agreed that under the Supreme Court's decision, some reductions of tenure would be constitutional, like the change of lifetime tenure to retirement at age 75, but others would not. None of the witness, not even the Department of Justice's general counsel for constitutional and administrative law could say where the dividing line falls.

The evidence before the committee indicated that there are three critical characteristics that must be maintained in any proposed change of tenure for the change to be constitutional. First is the Senate's thorough independence. Second is the Senate's capacity to provide sober second thought. Third is the Senate's role as a means of provincial and regional representation.

Let me quote again from the committee's report:

Witnesses raised a number of concerns about the proposed 8-year term that related to these constitutional issues, including the fact that the term would allow a two-term Prime Minister to appoint every single senator in the Chamber. This would profoundly undermine the Senate's ability to fulfil its role as "a thoroughly independent body" of sober second thought. Virtually every expert who testified before us agreed that this is a significant problem.

Honourable senators, think about it: An eight-year term for senators means that a two-term prime minister could appoint every single senator. I cannot believe any of us in this chamber would seriously argue that this would be an acceptable state of affairs.

The Government of Ontario, in commenting on this issue before the committee in its submission to the committee, said:

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 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 appease or obstruct a government, creating an untenable situation.

Other problems with the proposed eight-year term were raised by witnesses. In the end, the committee amended Bill S-4 to change the proposed eight-year term to a longer one, which would not allow a two-term Prime Minister to appoint the entire chamber and thus utterly undermine its ability to perform its constitutional function.

Unfortunately, Mr. Harper has stuck with the eight-year term in Bill S-7. Apparently, this is precisely the result that he wants — to be able to appoint every single member of this chamber.

Our colleague Senator Oliver once, in another context, referred to the importance of upholding the Senate's ability to serve as a "watchdog" and not a "lapdog" of the Prime Minister. I am confident that my friend Senator Oliver will be one of the first to protest this proposed term of eight years.

That is an invitation, Senator Oliver.

Honourable senators, we are well aware that the Senate was created "as a means of protecting sectional and provincial interests," to quote from the Supreme Court of Canada's decision. However, nowhere in her speech on Bill S-7 did the Leader of the Government in the Senate even mention the word "provinces."

During questions and answers following her speech, she was finally forced to use the word "provinces," but only to say that they "have not involved themselves in the debate on a simple matter of Senate tenure." Their concern is restricted to "regional representation," which she told us is not relevant in terms of Senate tenure. I was surprised to hear her say that. Perhaps it is time she re-read the report of our Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee and the submissions received from the various provincial governments. Once again, this government hears only what it wants to hear.

Honourable senators, let me read to you from the letter from the Premier of the Province of New Brunswick, Shawn Graham:

An additional concern of the Government of New Brunswick regarding Bill S-4 in its current form is the ability of any Federal Government in power for at least two full mandates to completely replenish the ranks of the Senate using an as yet undefined process. This follows directly from the proposed reduction in the tenure of senators to only eight years. Again here, this can only lead to a dilution of the independence of the regional representation in the Senate. For a Province like New Brunswick, it is difficult to conceive how such a proposal could be favourable to its interests.

Honourable senators, the government is being disingenuous in presenting Bill S-7 to us as a stand-alone bill to effect a minor reform of the Senate. In fact, in a press conference announcing the tabling of Bill S-7, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform was very clear that this is only one part of the government's plan to reform the Senate. He said:

In the coming weeks we will introduce legislation to allow for nominees to the Senate to be selected by voters.

The Leader of the Government in the Senate confirmed this later in the same press conference when she said:

We will shortly, as Minister Fletcher mentioned, be introducing a bill to implement a Senate Appointments Consultation Process.

In other words, honourable senators, Bill S-7, just like its predecessor Bill S-4, is really part of a larger scheme — part of an overall design to reform the Senate. Indeed, just as the tabling of Bill S-4 was followed by the tabling of Bill C-43, the Senate Appointment Consultations Act, so we are told that Bill S-7 will be followed shortly by "a bill to implement a Senate Appointments Consultation Process."

Two years ago, this fact that Bill S-4, contrary to the government's representation, was not a minor, stand-alone reform of the Senate but rather was part of a larger plan, was an important factor for several constitutional experts and, as well, a number of provinces.

The central issue before the Standing Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and then for the Senate in considering the committee's report, was the constitutionality of Bill S-4. This involved examination of both the substance of the proposal and, as I have mentioned, there were serious concerns about the constitutionality of the proposed eight-year term, and also the proposed method of amending the Constitution.

Honourable senators, as we are well aware, our Constitution contains several amending formulae depending on the substance of the proposed amendment. These amending formulae were very carefully negotiated and drafted. It is critical that any amendment be effected in accordance with the proper formula.

The Harper government contends that the amendment set out in Bill S-7, like Bill S-4, can be effected under section 44 of the Constitution Act; that is, by act of the Parliament of Canada without involvement of the provinces.

Our Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee heard extensive testimony from prominent constitutional experts who advised that this issue is far from clear. They suggested that the correct formula could well be section 42 of the Constitution Act, the so-called 7/50 amending formula.

As I mentioned before, the Premier of New Brunswick felt that the change to an eight-year tenure in itself diluted the independence of regional representation in the Senate and, as such, was not an amendment that could be implemented at the federal level without any provincial involvement.

A number of constitutional experts similarly told the committee that this was not an amendment that could be made by the federal Parliament acting alone. For example, Professor David E. Smith of the Saskatchewan Institute of Public Policy, a highly respected scholar, who has written extensively on the Senate, told the committee:

Any proposal to alter the Senate, whose effect would compromise the Senate's independence and which, at the same time, has not met some standard of provincial concurrence for amendment of the Constitution — a set of circumstances, I believe, that echoes those leading to the reference opinion itself in 1980 — would undermine the essential characteristic of the upper house in my view.

The government maintains that the proposed change to a fixed term of eight years for senators in place of a mandatory retirement at the age of 75 may be implemented by Parliament acting alone under section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Honourable senators have heard contradictory testimony from constitutional experts as to the soundness of that position. Professor Smith stated:

My own view is that a fixed term for senators — whether renewable, or elected or appointed — challenges the principle of independence that the Fathers of Confederation sought to entrench in the structure of the Senate and which the Supreme Court of Canada reiterated in 1980.

The committee heard from expert after expert who expressed the same view. The fact that the tenure bill was being followed by a Senate appointments consultation process bill cast the constitutionality of using section 44 into even greater doubt.

Professor Joseph Magnet, a highly respected professor of constitutional law, testified that he believed there was "a real risk" that Bill S-4 would not survive constitutional scrutiny.

Roger Gibbins of the Canada West Foundation, who has been one of the most active proponents of Senate reform, testified the same day as Professor Magnet before our committee. To his own dismay, he found himself persuaded by Professor Magnet. He agreed that a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada was required. He said:

I would say that the test you have heard this evening has introduced more serious questions in my mind about the constitutionality of what we are doing, and I find that deeply depressing, but also somewhat convincing.

Professor Errol Mendes, another professor of constitutional law, agreed with Professor Magnet:

It is generally known that Bill S-4 is only a precursor to a larger attempt to have future appointments to the Senate come under a federally regulated advisory elections framework. In my view, if the two statutes or two attempts are linked, it profoundly is unconstitutional.

. . .

In conclusion, with all of the arguments I have presented, there is good reason to suggest that Bill S-4 should be withdrawn until further study is undertaken to understand what is really at stake in this piecemeal and dubious attempt to reform the Senate so that it is consistent with the principles of modern democracy.

I will not list all the constitutional experts who came to Ottawa to testify about the bill. Repeatedly, the committee was warned that the government's proposal to make piecemeal incremental reforms to the Senate using section 44 would not pass constitutional muster. At the least, the question should be referred to the Supreme Court.

Honourable senators, last week Senator LeBreton told this chamber:

The government's position is clear, honourable senators: Bill S-7 is constitutional and there is no need to further delay the reform process with a Supreme Court reference or any other obstructionist tactic.

She referred to the committee's request for a Supreme Court reference as a "stunt."

Honourable senators, in the view of the Harper government, that recommendation is "an obstructionist tactic" and a "stunt." I could understand such a statement if there was no question of a bill's constitutionality; but in a case like this one, where eminent witness after eminent witness urged us not to pass the bill without a reference to the Supreme Court, to call a request "an obstructionist tactic" is nothing less than insulting.

Do the Leader of the Government and her colleagues opposite fully understand the nature of the issues presented by the government's bill?

At one point during the press conference announcing the tabling of the bill, she said that the bill "allows us to change the tenure in the Senate without changing the Constitution." She really did say that. It is in the transcript.

Honourable senators, it is a simple fact that Bill S-7 would change the Constitution. The title of the bill says so: An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (Senate term limits).

In addition, while Senator LeBreton and Minister Fletcher appear to believe that the other proposed bill, to implement a Senate appointments consultation process, could also rely on section 44 to amend the Constitution, their caucus colleague, Senator Rivard, is on record as disagreeing. He appeared at the same press conference alongside Senator LeBreton and Minister Fletcher, and said:

As to an elected Senate and how to achieve it, that is different. We have to reopen the Constitution and that takes the agreement of 50 per cent of the population, represented by seven provinces.

Senator LeBreton: He was right.

Senator Cowan: Honourable senators, three people attended that conference on behalf of the government, and they had a difference of opinion as to whether the government can properly proceed as it proposes to do. Given this — and the government chose these people to represent its position at the public press conference — how can we be expected to trust the government when it assures us, contrary to the massive evidence heard by our Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee on virtually the same bill, that this bill is constitutional?

This brings me to the critical issue of the position of the provinces, our partners in Confederation. As I said before, I was struck by the fact that Senator LeBreton did not even mention the word "provinces" in her speech. Once again, this government has refused to consult the provinces on this proposal for Senate reform.

Contrary to what Senator LeBreton would have us believe, provinces have expressed a desire to be consulted. They have stated in crystal-clear terms that amendments such as those proposed by this government may not be properly made under section 44. Their position is that provincial consent is required under the Constitution, under the 7/50 rule.

To quote the Premier of New Brunswick in his letter to the committee:

The Government of New Brunswick does not accept the conclusions . . . that the Government of Canada has the constitutional authority to unilaterally proceed with this proposed change to the tenure of senators. . . . The genius of the Canadian Constitution is the careful balance that has been struck between the more populated and less populated regions of the country as well as between the rights of the majority and the protection of minorities. While a term limit of eight years might be appropriate as part of a comprehensive reform of the Senate, a piecemeal and unilateral approach by the Government of Canada to Senate reform has the potential to lead to a highly unsatisfactory and divisive result.

From one of the smallest provinces in the federation, we now go to one of the largest. The then-Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister Responsible for Democratic Renewal of the Province of Ontario wrote to the committee expressing her government's reservations regarding the unilateral nature of the Harper government's proposed Senate reforms. She said:

I believe it is appropriate under our constitutional federal system that significant changes to federal institutions are agreed to by both partners — the federal government and the provinces. All Premiers, in a July 28, 2006 communiqué, agreed that "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."

On the specific issue of the proposal set out in Bill S-4, she wrote:

Turning to the reforms proposed in Bill S-4, the Government of Ontario generally endorses the constitutional and other concerns outlined by Premier Graham in his letter of April 20, 2007 to your Committee. Piece-meal and unilateral Senate reform has "the potential to lead to a highly unsatisfactory and divisive result." I note that similar concerns regarding an incremental reform approach were raised by the Governments of Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, Danny Williams, wrote to the Prime Minister to express his government's view that Bill S-4 and Bill C-43 —

. . . 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 50 per cent of the population.

The Government of Quebec was equally blunt. Then-Minister Pelletier, himself an eminent constitutional law expert, wrote:

In summary, the Government of Quebec considers that the federal legislative initiative represented by Bill S-4 and Bill C-43 is liable to modify the nature and role of the Senate, in a manner which departs from the original pact of 1867.

Such changes are beyond the unilateral powers of the Parliament of Canada. They instead require a coordinated constitutional amendment formula, which in turn requires the participation and consent of the provinces.

The well-known legal rule that one may not do indirectly what cannot be done directly fully applies to the amendment process that is in question here with Bill S-4 and Bill C-43.

The Government of Quebec is not opposed to modernizing the Senate. But if the aim is to alter the essential features of that institution, the only avenue is the initiation of a coordinated federal-provincial constitutional process that fully associates the constitutional players, one of them being Quebec, in the exercise of constituent authority.

The Government of Quebec, with the unanimous support of the National Assembly, therefore requests the withdrawal of Bill C-43. It also requests the suspension of proceedings on Bill S-4 so long as the federal government is planning to unilaterally transform the nature and role of the Senate.

Honourable senators, I think you will agree that the Government of Quebec, in particular, was strong in its objections to the proposed reforms in Bill S-4, which, as I have demonstrated, are virtually identical to those in Bill S-7. If the Harper government believes that, on what it believes to be a serious constitutional issue, Quebec does not even have a say, let alone a veto, then it should come right out and say so.

As honourable senators can see from my brief overview, Quebec was not alone in that view. As the committee stated in its report:

In summary, your Committee received representations opposing the proposed unilateral Senate reforms contained in Bill S-4 from the governments of the two largest provinces in Canada and the governments of two of the smallest provinces and one territory. In total, these governments represent significantly more than 50 per cent of the population of the country, and three out of the four regions described in our Constitution. Only one province —

— Alberta —

— has come forward supporting the Bill. Other provinces have expressed at best ambivalence and more generally opposition to the proposed incremental approach.

Given the strong testimony and submissions received by the committee, it recommended that the government refer the bill to the Supreme Court of Canada on a Constitutional reference. This chamber agreed.

This was no "stunt," honourable senators. It was not an "obstructionist tactic." For Senator LeBreton and indeed for the Harper government to say such a thing demeans each and every witness who took the time and trouble to come before our committee to express their concerns. Was the Government of Ontario playing games? Was the Government of Quebec pulling a "stunt," and the Premiers of New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador and Nunavut? Does the Harper government simply dismiss the views of these governments — duly elected and with strong majorities, a claim that Mr. Harper cannot make? What nonsense.

None of these governments has ever had to shut down their legislatures to avoid a no-confidence vote. They have the confidence of their legislatures and of the Canadians they represent — the same Canadians whom Mr. Harper represents.

Senator Comeau: Mr. Harper; not Iggy.

Senator Cowan: Yet, when they deign to challenge a position of the Harper government — when they ask the Senate, the body established specifically to represent provincial and regional interests, not to pass a bill for constitutional reasons — that is dismissed by the Harper government as a "stunt" and "obstructionist."

Honourable senators, serious issues were raised about the constitutionality of Bill S-4. I fully expect the same issues to be raised about Bill S-7 because, as I say, nothing has really changed. We could have had an opinion from the Supreme Court by now, but the Harper government, in its arrogance, refused to refer the matter to the court.

Senator Comeau: Ontario Iggy.

Senator Cowan: That is the real obstructionist act here.

Senator Comeau: Count Iggy.

Senator Cowan: It is the government that is engaging in stunts by pretending to try to reform the Senate by introducing and re-introducing a possibly unconstitutional bill, while loudly proclaiming that this bill is constitutional but refusing to test that assertion in the Supreme Court and demeaning Canadians and duly represented representatives of Canadians — the government's constitutional partners in the Canadian federation — by accusing them of being obstructionist and of engaging in stunts.

Senator Comeau: Canadians are clamouring for this.

Senator Cowan: Honourable senators, this is not a serious effort to improve the Senate or its place in our parliamentary framework. It is a callous attempt to change the channel to direct public attention away from the real issues confronting Canadians. Once again, Mr. Harper has allowed his ideology and love of political gamesmanship to get the better of him.

Senator Mercer: He cannot help himself.

Senator Cowan: Fixed election dates, term limits for senators, a single ethics regime and mandatory minimum sentencing.

Senator LeBreton: All supported by Iggy.

Senator Cowan: They are simplistic solutions driven by ideology rather than common sense — quick fixes desperately in search of a real problem to solve and often missing the mark.

Senator LeBreton: Like Iggy.

Senator Cowan: Worse than that is trying to bamboozle Canadians into believing, at least for awhile, that they are more democratic or safer as a result. This is no way to strengthen our democracy.

Honourable senators, Canadians deserve better — much better — from this government.

Please click here to read the full exchange of this debate

Recent Statements from Liberal Senators