6887","static/chunks/6887-ccdfe176d8e60771.js","2958","static/chunks/2958-5bde9c6d896654a5.js","793","static/chunks/793-d1eb689d9edee967.js","5521","static/chunks/app/politicians/statements/%5Bid%5D/page-7e0f3867022802a1.js"],"Divider"] 45:T664,

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank my colleague for his speech. He explained in large part the government's position on the Senate.

It is important to remember why the Senate was created and how the Fathers of Confederation initially envisioned it. It was supposed to be a chamber of sober second thought. That is not the case today. The upper chamber is just as partisan as the House of Commons, if not more so.

I heard my colleague complaining about the partisan nature of the House of Commons and the role of the party system. The second chamber, the upper chamber, was in fact created to offset the partisanship in the House of Commons. I wonder if the government thinks that an elected upper chamber—which is what it is seeking and will argue in favour of in court in November—would solve the problem of partisanship. After all, if senators are elected, they will still have a political allegiance. This will not solve the partisanship problem that we take issue with when the upper chamber was supposed to function as a chamber of sober second thought.

Having elected senators will not achieve that and, what is more, it will create a dysfunctional chemistry between the two chambers. We will have two elected chambers with no clear sense of which is best positioned to draft bills. That is a whole other matter.

I would like the hon. member to elaborate on that.

Pierre-Luc Dusseault

Transcript

Government Orders

Discussions (0)