Bill C-19 (Historical)

Constitution Act, 2007 (Senate tenure)

An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (Senate tenure)

This enactment changes the tenure of members of the Senate.

Constitution Act, 2007 (Senate tenure)

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I am not very verbose, but I do tend to use more than 45 seconds.

I want to go back to the point that the hon. Conservative member was making on using senators to fill positions of importance in the cabinet. To my mind, that goes against the principles of this institution. The people who elected members from Montreal were in a--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The member for Hamilton Centre should know that the clock has run out, but I will allow a short moment to respond.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will not abuse it except to say that the biggest problem with the issue was the government saying one thing before the election and doing something else afterwards. I answered it one way, but there is also that aspect.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are few issues that conjure up more debate within Canadian political circles than Senate reform.

In fact, in 1874 and in 1909, only a few years after the proclamation of the British North America Act, there were calls for Senate reform. This country was only seven years old when the issue of Senate reform first materialized. Despite calls for Senate reforms in 1874 to the present day, the institution remains essentially unchanged since its inception in 1867.

In fact, the only material change of note that has taken was in 1965 and that was a change under the British North America Act respecting retirement age. It was Parliament alone at that time which introduced the retirement age of 75 years for Senators who had previously served for life. Parliament was able to do this exclusively without the need for approval from the provinces under section 91(1) of the British North America Act.

The reality is of course that the introduction of the new retirement age in 1965 was essentially reasonable and would have found no substantial opposition from the provinces, as it did not dramatically affect the reform or function of the Senate.

The fact that there has been only one relatively small change to the Senate since Confederation clearly suggests to any reasonable person that reform is necessary. The real challenge, of course, in the context of Canada's unique political realities, is how to bring about this change.

Let me clearly state without equivocation that I do support Senate reform and I do believe in an elected Senate.

The Senate was, as most of us know, created as an institution of sober second thought. It is a place where laws and policy can be debated in an atmosphere that is less politically charged through the very nature of how its membership is determined.

This place of sober second thought is an aspect of the Senate that we should endeavour to retain. Indeed, even the current Prime Minister agrees with this concept, or at least I hope he still does. He stated before a Senate committee in 2006, “Canada needs an upper house that provides sober — and effective — second thought”.

It is for this reason that I am particularly concerned when the Prime Minister and his government make statements that the Senate needs to be reformed as they dictate or they will support the goals of our colleagues in the other opposition parties who want outright abolition.

This position hardly demonstrates a government with solid commitments to principle. I believe we need to reform the Senate, along with other institutions of our democracy, in consultation with Canadians and their provincial governments.

Within the context of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms we should also look at rules governing the succession of our head of state, as enunciated by the British Act of Settlement, 1701. It may be recalled that I tabled a motion in this House about the Act of Succession that discriminates against Roman Catholics and violates our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Indeed, I share the belief of many observers and scholars that the amending formula as outlined in the Constitution Act of 1982 requires the consent of at least 50% of Canada's population and at least seven of our provinces before the kind of significant change being proposed is allowed to proceed.

In section 42 of the Constitution there are four specific exceptions to Parliament's right to exclusively amend the Constitution as it relates to the Senate. These are: first, the method of selection of senators; second, the powers of the Senate; third, the distribution of Senate seats; and, fourth, the residence qualifications of senators.

I believe that at the very least Bill C-19 violates if not the letter then certainly the spirit of the exceptions as outlined in the Constitution Act.

We know that the Prime Minister is proposing that there be a term limits for senators of eight years. We know that the Prime Minister wants to institute a somewhat complicated and indirect electoral process for senators that in the end would have him or her, or whoever is the prime minister of the day, choose from the list of those put forward by virtue of this electoral process.

One obvious concern about this electoral process immediately comes to mind. Should prime ministers be fortunate enough to form more than two majority governments, they would by virtue of the eight-year term limit have effectively chosen every single senator by the time they would leave office at the end of their third mandate. I believe this is a very serious and potential affront to the concept of a Senate of a sober second thought.

Yes, there will be electoral choices put forward by voters, but in essence the Prime Minister would have chosen from these lists and effectively determined the composition of the entire Senate should he or she last in office for more than two majority terms.

If a prime minister were to remain in office for a period of over two terms, would all members of the Senate be in the position to obey his or her orders? My point is simply that this is inconsistent with the role the Senate should be occupying in our parliamentary process.

We must also understand that Canada is a unique country born of unique realities that are reflected in our national institutions. The Senate is one of these with its unique characteristics.

How can the Prime Minister simply ignore provinces like Ontario and Quebec that have expressed concerns about his path forward? The founders of this country chose to have representation in the Senate which reflects the character and size of our regions. We did not choose for example the United States or Australian model or representation that ignores population size.

In the latter case of Australia, the region of Tasmania, with a population of 650,000 people, has the same senate representation as New South Wales with over 6 million people. This is not the experience that has or would serve Canada well.

We should also remember we have not for the most part witnessed the kind of interparliamentary confrontation between our upper and lower chambers that has for example been the British experience. Historians will tell us than in 1911 and subsequently in 1949 the parliament acts were passed in Britain to assert the power of the House of Commons over the House of Lords. This was as a result of the 1909 budgetary obstruction by the Conservative House of Lords against the Liberal House of Commons. At one point King Edward VII and his successor King George V were prepared to appoint hundreds of Liberal lords to resolve the issue. The Conservative House of Lords conceded and accepted the new reality.

My point is simply that we in Canada have for the most part had a productive relationship between the Senate and the House of Commons that has served Canadians well.

What we need is reform and not the Prime Minister's sword of Damocles which he tries to dangle over the Senate calling upon it to “accept my terms or be abolished”. As members may know from Greek mythology, the sword of Damocles hung by a single hair over its potential victim ready to drop at the first sign of refusal to comply. This is not the way to reform fundamental institutions like the Senate. It is not compatible with the consensus nature of our country's political heritage.

We do not have to repeat the troubled experience of past constitutional reform undertakings like the Victoria agreement, the Meech Lake accord or the Charlottetown accord. There is I believe a desire among Canadians for Senate reform. Indeed, poll after poll suggests this. Likewise, polls also indicate that Canadians do not want Senate abolition but rather Senate reform.

This leads me back to my original comments on this issue. Let us undertake real Senate reform. Let us consult Canadians and their provincial leaders. It is neither good constitutional policy nor is it consistent with our political traditions to push one version of Senate reform or else threaten abolition.

Let us have elected senators, let us have Senate reform, but let us make the changes in a manner that reflects Canada's history of consensus and that honours the traditions of our country's foundation and our nation's progress throughout history.

[James Moore, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics]

Mr. Speaker, what our government has endeavoured to do is put forward non-constitutional but effective reforms regarding the Senate, for example, consultation with the provinces and term limits. We want to limit the Senate term from a maximum of 45 years to 8 years, as this bill proposes to do.

My colleague has said, and I respect my colleague as a good friend, and a number of Liberals have persistently said over the years, they are in favour Senate reform. The Prime Minister joked in the last election campaign that the previous leader of the Liberal Party was not in favour of piecemeal Senate reform and was not prepared to engage in comprehensive Senate reform, but other than that he was all in favour of Senate reform. It has to be one or the other.

The Liberal Party, as my colleague must know, historically supported Meech Lake and Charlottetown, both of which had an elected Senate as part of their mandate.

It has opposed all of our efforts for electing senators. In the province of Alberta, where the new elected senator Bert Brown was just appointed, the Liberals in the province of Alberta and the federal Liberals opposed that Senate election. They did not want to get involved in that process.

Frankly, I am at a loss to understand exactly what the Liberals have in mind in terms of Senate reform. I think if we ask Canadians, they would vote 95 to 5 in favour of the idea of limiting Senate terms from 45 years to 8 years. It seems like a layup. However, I am still at a loss to find out exactly what the position is of the Liberal Party with regard to Senate reform.

In February of next year, my province of British Columbia, the third largest province of Canada, the fastest-growing province, is going to have three Senate vacancies. Half of our Senate delegation will be vacant. I am personally encouraging Premier Campbell to support the idea of electing senators in the province of British Columbia.

What is the Liberal position? Do the Liberals continue to oppose the idea that Alberta should have elected Bert Brown, having an elected senator appointed to the Senate?

When British Columbia has half of our Senate delegation vacated in February of next year, is it the Liberal position that the province of British Columbia should not have Senate elections in order to fill those seats?

Specifically, what is the Liberal position on Senate reform?

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one thing is very clear, and I think it is important that the member is also aware of it. We are not in favour of abolishing the Senate. As well, we have never threatened the Senate with abolition.

The approach that has been taken by both the Prime Minister and the government concerns me greatly. On one hand they are saying they want reform, but they are also saying they might also abolish it at the end. I think that is a wrong way of approaching the issue. I think we need an approach that builds on consensus, that in fact engages our provinces, engages our population, and then we can move forward.

The government is coming out from the very beginning saying that it is not happy with the Senate, as though somehow it is the Senate's fault that the composition is the way it is. It is in fact a constitutional issue. The senators have a role to play, but so do we have a role to play. I do not think we should be getting all the blame for the way the nature of the composition of the Senate is at the very moment.

The approach has to be one of collaboration, cooperation, and engagement, specifically with our provincial partners. By approaching it in that constructive way, I think we can get a lot further.

This is a very important institution in Canada. If we are going to mess around with it, if we are going to in fact alter and change it, then we need to do in a respectful way, not in a threatening way, saying basically, “Do it or we are going to abolish you”. I am totally opposed to that approach, and I think most members of my caucus are also opposed to that approach.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I also find it odd to hear the Liberals talking about Senate reform and problems with the Senate. But before speaking about Senate reform, which, by the way, should be discussed as part of a constitutional negotiation including all the provinces—which is the point the Bloc Québécois is bringing up today—there is one thing that all the members in this House could do: stand up to non-elected Senators when they go against the opinion of this House.

I will give an example of something that affected me in particular: the transport bill passed last session. I worked very hard and encouraged the members of the Standing Committee on Transportation, Infrastructure and Communities to make amendments that strengthened the bill, in order to better protect our citizens against noise, vibrations and disruptions cause by trains travelling through our communities.

We held hearings during which people spoke about their particular situation and the difficulties they face. All the members of the committee unanimously reached a compromise to strengthen the bill, to be able to have real control over the railway companies. That was already a compromise. The Bloc Québécois members and I would have liked to have gone further, but we agreed unanimously.

The other place also held committee hearings, but exclusively with railway companies, without inviting those affected by this kind of problem, the people living near the railways. The Senate committee rejected every amendment unanimously adopted by the committee of this House. It rejected these amendments unanimously and returned them to this House.

As members of Parliament, we could have said that we are the elected representatives of the people and, as such, did not accept that these amendments could be rejected; and then, we could have sent them back to the Senate. No constitutional reform was required for that. No government bill was required for that. All we needed to do was to stand on our hind legs.

The Liberals failed to do so, and the Conservatives did the same. Both these parties grovelled to unelected senators. Here they are today talking to us about Senate reform and democracy.

Basically, the real solution is first and foremost to have real, honest to God members of Parliament who really represent their constituents, stand up to the senators and never yield on principles. Our democracy would be better served already if we took that approach.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

The reality here in Canada is that we have always had two houses. We have to respect the fact that these two houses make up our country's Parliament. The Senate is an institution that plays an important role in our democracy and in our democratic system.

My colleague's question was about Senate reform. I am in favour of it. After all, we can change our system, but we cannot abolish the Senate. I am against abolishing the Senate because it plays a very important role in our country. Canada has always had two houses, both of them important, in its parliamentary system. I still support that system.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the member's comments on the Senate and I am not clear where the party stands on the bill. What would he say to the position of the Ontario government, in particular the Liberal premier of Ontario? They are on the record that their position presently, unless it has changed recently, is the abolition of the Senate.

Has the member had conversations with the premier of Ontario, or for that matter his brother who sits close to him, about this issue? At the end of the day, if this does not work, if the real reform that is necessary is not limits of eight years but limits of zero years, does he agree with the Ontario government and the Liberal premier of Ontario that abolition of the Senate is the way to go?

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been quite clear in my remarks that I do not believe in the abolition of the Senate. It is a very important institution that has served Canada well, but it needs reform.

I do not want to speak for the hon. member or for the premier of Ontario, Dalton McGuinty. My understanding is the premier stated that abolition should be only the last stage if the solution is election. I think he probably prefers to maintain the system as it is.

However, I am stating quite clearly that the Senate is important. I do not support the NDP position of abolition of the Senate. If a poll were done, I believe most Canadians would oppose the abolition of the Senate. I think they would understand that there is a need for an upper House, for the Senate to be part of the parliamentary system of our country.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.