This bill is from the 39th Parliament, 1st session, which ended in October 2007.
Peter Van Loan Conservative
Second reading (House), as of May 7, 2007
(This bill did not become law.)
This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.
This enactment provides for the consultation of electors in a province with respect to their preferences for the appointment of Senators to represent the province.
Part 1 provides for the administration of a consultation, which is exercised under the general direction and supervision of the Chief Electoral Officer.
Part 2 provides for the holding of a consultation, initiated by an order of the Governor in Council.
Part 3 provides for a process whereby prospective nominees may confirm their nominations with the Chief Electoral Officer.
Part 4 addresses voting by electors in a consultation.
Part 5 sets out the rules for the counting of votes pursuant to a preferential system, which takes into account the first and subsequent preferences of electors as indicated on their ballots.
Parts 6 and 7 deal with communications and third party advertising in relation to consultations.
Part 8 addresses financial administration by nominees.
Part 9 provides for the enforcement of the enactment, including the establishment of offences and punishments for contraventions of certain provisions.
Part 10 contains transitional provisions, consequential amendments to the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act, coordinating amendments and commencement provisions.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-43s:
Senate Appointment Consultations ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker Royal Galipeau
The rule of thumb is very easy. If I can understand the hon. member that I have recognized, then everything is fine, but if I cannot, then I must ask for the cooperation of all members, and this is what I am doing.
The hon. member for Kitchener—Waterloo.
Andrew Telegdi Liberal Kitchener—Waterloo, ON
Mr. Speaker, I look back with fondness to the days when the Reform members were actually civil in this House and not using a mob-like mentality.
I want to get back to the Senate. If we were to have elected senators with votes that mean a lot more in one province than say in Alberta, British Columbia or Ontario, that would undercut representation by population. However, beyond that, it would give the Senate the kind of power that it does not have now.
One can just imagine what would happen to this chamber of democratically elected members from roughly equal constituencies, and I say roughly because we have some changes to make, and all of a sudden we have these bogus re-elected senators, who would not truly be recognized in the Constitution, holding up a bill of the House of Commons and not backing off when the House of Commons sends the bill back for the second time. The institution of the House of Commons then must prevail.
I mentioned that because this bill does absolutely nothing to deal with that issue.
I want to talk about a possible elected Senate that is amended by the Constitution and what I could support. I could support an elected Senate that is dealt with by the Constitution but that the powers of the Senate and the House of Commons must be very well defined. The ultimate authority of the House of Commons must prevail.
We also need to find a way of reflecting minorities in our country who might not be represented in the House. We must ensure that the Senate has the kind of knowledge base that is not necessarily reflected in this House. We need people from the arts and people with great expertise from social services, social sciences and the hard sciences. We also need to ensure we have people like Senator Roméo Dallaire who has expertise in the military. Those types of people are very important.
However, when we put that package together we must do it within the confines of the Constitution. Otherwise, as the premier of the province of Ontario said, to do otherwise would have the province of Ontario calling for the abolition of the Senate which, in the end, would be a mistake.
I would challenge members opposite to go back to Alberta, to go back to their constituencies in Ontario or to go back to their constituencies in British Columbia and ask their constituents if they think it is fair that their province is under-represented. I do not think the members will be surprised by the reactions they get. I believe the people will say that they think it is unfair and that if we are to have elections, we need to have a Senate based on representation by population.
The Senate has worked well for the most part because it has tried to be non-partisan as much as possible given the fact that Brian Mulroney appointed 57 senators and given the fact that most senators are political appointments.
However, I can say that the decorum in the House of Commons could do well to look to the decorum in the Senate. The displays and discourtesies that we have in the House, such as those afforded by the member for Cambridge, do not represent the kind of behaviour they have in the Senate.
If we want a Senate that is partisan and a Senate that does not work as effectively and efficiently as it does now, then we would want to pass this bill. However, I think most Canadians, on a sober second thought, not a knee-jerk reaction to a particular poll that might be done in the same fraudulent way as the consultation on the Wheat Board was done, would want us to leave well enough alone.
I know former Premier Peterson of the province of Ontario quickly learned that Senate seats are not given away for the province of Ontario, particularly when it is under-represented.
We should not be having this debate because what we are debating is a way to go around the Constitution. The reason we have a Constitution is because we consulted widely with all the stakeholders. Constitutional change is not easy but if we are going to amend the Constitution of this country, we need due diligence and a comprehensive approach where the problems are thought out and term limits are actually looked at.
I know there is debate on having term limits of 8 years, 12 years or 15 years. If, at the end of the day, our aim is to make the Senate as non-partisan as possible, a Senate that manages from time to time to do great work, then we would not want a senator having to run in an election every eight years. We might want the appointment to be for a longer term of maybe 12 to 15 years. If we were to do that, then we would ensure that the people have the background, the expertise and the experience in the Senate to make it happen.
It should come as no surprise to the government that Bill C-43 will be defeated because it does not have the support of the House. I will be looking forward to voting against the bill when the time comes.
Myron Thompson Conservative Wild Rose, AB
Mr. Speaker, I kind of remember one thing the member said in his speech but most of his speech was pretty bungled up. I do not even know if he knew for sure what he was talking about. However, he made a couple of comments about the days when the Reform came in and he was right on. I do not think I have changed since 1993 when I came in as Reform member.
However, when we arrived here there were a couple of things we recognized. First, Brian Mulroney was the first prime minister to appoint an elected senator, Stan Waters. Stan Water was a Reformer. Is that not amazing? Brian Mulroney belonged to a different party but he appointed the choice of the people.
We then had to wait a long number of years until we finally got the present Prime Minister who once again has appointed another great Canadian, Bert Brown, to the Senate. Those are people who were elected.
During those 14 Liberal years, I will bet a dollar to a doughnut that if I heard it once I heard it a thousand times coming from the Liberal benches that we should elect our senators. They actually said that in conversations outside and all around. The Liberal members of the caucus, through those years, said that it was a good idea to elect members to the Senate.
I cannot believe what I am hearing today. What happened to the good old Liberals who were here back in the days when the good Reform were here? What kind of a change have they had that they would do that?
I can go through a whole list of boondoggles that started changing the trend of thought in this place, all the way to Gomery through to the cancellation of the helicopters, time after time after time. It is no wonder we lose our decorum in this place when we find out about the billions of dollars that the people over there, when they were in charge, did.
I would ask the member to reconsider, to go back to the Liberal thinking that I heard in the early years of Reform, that an elected Senate is a good idea.
Andrew Telegdi Liberal Kitchener—Waterloo, ON
Mr. Speaker, the member must imagining things if he thinks he heard me talking about an elected Senate. I have never talk about an elected Senate.
I am glad the member for Wild Rose cited some examples where Conservative prime ministers appointed Liberals to the Senate. I must say that our last Liberal prime minister appointed a senator, Mr. Hugh Segal, to the Senate.
The member talks about a number of things. He did not answer the question which I raised in my speech as to what happened to voting for one's constituents that the member and all the Reformers were so keen on. That has disappeared. We even had a situation where a minister of the Crown, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, because the Prime Minister announced a policy to recognize the Québécois as a nation, resigned his seat in this House because he was not allowed to come into this House and vote his conscience.
When I was in a similar situation and resigned as parliamentary secretary, there was never a question that I would come into this House and vote against the legislation.
The member mentions Gomery--
Senate Appointment Consultations ActGovernment Orders
Gary Goodyear Conservative Cambridge, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am not really sure where to begin here. I am getting the impression that the member has no support for democracy whatsoever. The member mentions things that are advantageous to him, depending on the argument that he presents.
The member loves history. He was talking about the Reform Party. I will not mention what that member said at the University of Waterloo regarding an ethnic group. I will mention that the member walked into a function yelling and screaming because the audience there was representing and exercising their right to freedom of speech and he yelled against it.
The member is not interested in democracy. He is interested in anything away from election and democracy. He talks about listening to constituents. I want to remind the House that it was that member who was here during the Gomery scandal. It was that member who was here during sponsorship. It was that member who was here during the boondoggle. It was that member and his party who have gotten us to the point that has created the appetite for Senate reform through their partisan political manoeuvring.
The member brags about not voting with his government and not supporting his leader. Why would the people in his riding vote for him if he cannot even support his own party?
Andrew Telegdi Liberal Kitchener—Waterloo, ON
Mr. Speaker, I hope you will give me as much time to answer as the member got to ask questions. Let me say to the member--
Senate Appointment Consultations ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker Royal Galipeau
Order, please. In fairness, the hon. member should already know that I am giving two minutes per question and two minutes per answer.
Andrew Telegdi Liberal Kitchener—Waterloo, ON
Mr. Speaker, I will be quick. Cheap politics and slander will get the member nowhere.
In terms of being elected by my constituents, I have been elected five times with bigger numbers each time.
The member talks about Gomery. Let me talk about the eight cabinet ministers and MPs that in nine years were fined and convicted, some went to jail, under the Mulroney government.
He talks about Gomery. Let me talk about the book On the Take: Crime, Corruption and Greed in the Mulroney Years. The former Prime Minister was talking about patronage appointments and he said he was going to clean it up. Then he went to the Conservative meetings and was going to appoint everybody a senator or a judge. He said that eventually he would appoint a Liberal, but it was only after he appointed every living, walking Conservative. That is found in the book--
Senate Appointment Consultations ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker Royal Galipeau
Order, please. The hon. member for Kitchener—Waterloo should know that when the Speaker stands, he sits down.
I hope that the hon. member for St. Catharines is rising on a point of order and not a point of debate.
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
First, the member is using a prop in the House. Second, he is not even speaking to the topic that he originally started out with respect to his speech, and third, he never even answered--
Senate Appointment Consultations ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker Royal Galipeau
Order. When the Speaker stands up, the hon. member sits down.
The hon. member for Kitchener—Waterloo was not using a prop. He had a book in his hand from which he was reading.
The hon. member for Yukon should note there are two minutes left, one minute for the question and one minute for the response.
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Mr. Speaker, I want to quickly tame this down a bit.
Three of the newer Conservative members suggested the bill had to come forward because of partisanship in the Senate. Because the member has been here longer than most of us, I would like him to explain how the Senate is much less partisan than the House. In committee, senators are much less partisan and that is a benefit. Perhaps the members opposite should take that lesson from the Senate.
Andrew Telegdi Liberal Kitchener—Waterloo, ON
Mr. Speaker, may I say to my colleague and all members of the House that when I disagreed with a government bill strongly enough, I went with a Reform member and a Liberal member up to the Senate, to the committee dealing with the citizenship issue, and the Conservatives and Liberals all agreed with me on that committee. They would not let the bill come out of committee because they thought it was bad legislation that should be improved. I cannot point to a better example of having a chamber of sober second thought.