Bill C-43 (Historical)

Senate Appointment Consultations Act

An Act to provide for consultations with electors on their preferences for appointments to the Senate

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.

Senate Appointment Consultations Act

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague asked a number of questions just now. I will start by addressing the last one because it is extremely relevant. It shows how important the Bloc's presence is here in Ottawa as long as Quebec is part of the Canadian Confederation, which we hope will not be for much longer, but that is the subject of another debate.

The member is right. In 1979 or 1980—I do not remember exactly when the vote took place—73 or 74 Liberals voted for this bill. As far as I know, three members—two Liberals and one Conservative, Roch LaSalle, the member for Joliette, if I may remind the members—voted against it. At that time, nobody in the House of Commons—except for a few individuals—was particularly concerned about protecting Quebec's rights as a nation. Now we have a political party that represents a large proportion of the people of Quebec, who believe that they are a nation and that that nation should have everything it needs to develop fully, including a country of its own.

The Bloc Québécois' presence here has done away with the schizophrenia that existed back then. Had the Bloc Québécois been around for that vote, there might have been 50 Bloc Québécois members voting against the unilateral patriation of the Constitution. Obviously, this debate is ongoing in Quebec and is far from over.

I would like to clarify something else. We do not want to reform the Senate. We are not here to reform Canadian institutions. We want out. We will not stop amendments that may be relevant on a democratic level—like the amendment to the Canada Elections Act concerning campaign financing—but we are not here to make major changes to federal institutions. We are here because we want out.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to rise and speak on this very important bill.

I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission.

When we talk about the Senate, it brings out a lot of emotions in Canadians. That is because the Senate is becoming a dinosaur of an institution on the Canadian democratic scene. That is not because of the individuals who are in the Senate. They are very fine individuals and are dedicated and committed to public life for the betterment of Canada.

We are talking about an institution that shackles these individuals and stops them from using their full potential to contribute to public life in Canada. That is because over a period of time the way the institution has been managed has been manipulated and has slowly come to the point where today Canadians do not wish to have this institution.

Right across the country we are seeing debate about abolishing the Senate. Right across the country we are seeing that Canadians either do not want the Senate or they want to reform it.

When I was campaigning in 1997 in Calgary and I talked about the Senate, there was an immediate anger from Canadians. This institution did not represent their point of view. It did not represent what people normally would feel, which is that they have an elected representative in the Parliament of Canada. What they had was not an elected representative. What they had in the Senate was somebody who was in the Parliament of Canada but who was not speaking for them.

That is something that Canadians and anyone in a democratic institution understands, and they say that it is not acceptable. As a matter of fact, even today Tony Blair is trying to bring reform to the House of Lords because he knows that these institutions have outlived their usefulness. That is the way it is. For our institution here in Canada it is the same, but I want to make sure we understand that we are not talking of putting down the senators now.

Both the Liberal Party and our colleague from the Bloc, as I just heard, are saying that the bill does not bring about proper reform. The Liberals are saying that we should do a full reform, that this is what they want to do. Yes, we all agree that there is a need for reform, but that, as we know and as they know, is not going to happen because of the way our Constitution is set up. We need to take incremental steps toward achieving that goal.

Canadians want this. They are demanding that something be done about this institution. Regretfully, I would say that this institution is a blight on democracy in Canada because of the way it is set up. Again I want to say this: it has nothing to do with individuals there.

Around the world, Canada has a very stellar reputation for democracy. We go out preaching democracy, just as I have done many times myself. The foreign affairs committee is doing a major study on democratic reform and how Canada should go ahead and promote democracy around the world. This is one of our very strong values when we go out into the world. CIDA does it. Everyone else does it. It is a strength that Canada has. People around the world respect Canada for this institution and for what we do in the promotion of democracy.

On many occasions I have had the opportunity to speak members of opposition parties who have come to Canada to see how Canadian democracy works. What has been amazing during many of the times that I have gone overseas and have talked to parliamentarians in other parts of the world is that they really do not know how our Senate works. They think our Senate is an elected Senate. They think our Senate is something very powerful, like the American senate.

I have gone on visits with senators. I have seen red carpet laid outside for the senators. Some think that the Senate is the most important institution in Canada. When I tell them that there is something wrong in our democracy and that the Senate is an institution that is not elected by Canadians, that is the first shock. The second shock is that it is a job for life. Where would anyone get a job for life? The senators have nothing to fear. They have nothing to worry about. That is another shock for people. People ask me if I am telling them that senators are there for life and do not have to be re-elected. I tell them yes, they do not have to be re-elected and they are there for life.

They ask, “Who appoints them?” The Prime Minister, I say. What criteria are there to be in the Senate, they wonder. They ask, “Is it to be a buddy of the Prime Minister or what?” There are no criteria for who will be in the Senate, I tell them.

When they first hear about this, they actually start shaking their heads and say that we must be kidding or joking and I tell them no, we are not. It is a shock to them that in Canada, a land that promotes democracy out there in the world, we have an institution that is absolutely undemocratic. It is totally undemocratic. It has become undemocratic over a period of time because of the way it has been manipulated, the way that has been done.

Canadians today have absolutely no confidence in that institution. What do we do? Do we close our eyes? Do we say that we have an institution but there is nothing we can do because we want it to have complete reform? That is a cop-out. The Liberal Party would like to leave the Senate as it is because it is an institution that has benefited them the most, so now they say that we must have complete reform.

I just heard my colleague from British Columbia say that British Columbia is unrepresented in the Senate. They are all angry with the Senate. We just heard the member from Quebec talk about why the Senate is irrelevant as far as he is concerned. But we have to do something. We cannot just carry on. We cannot just carry on with our eyes closed and say that here we have an institution that is non-responsive and we cannot do anything about it, because it will never happen. We know how the Canadian political scene is. It will never happen. There are differences between provinces demanding all these things. Where will we get this unanimity between provinces? How many provinces will get what seats? Who will do what? Will it be an elected Senate?

However, do we close our eyes and let that institution carry on and be a burden on the taxpayers, who are getting nothing out of it? No.

Even better, in regard to the individuals who are serving as senators and are excellent people, we need their expertise. We need to give them legitimacy. We need to understand that. We need to know that when they are saying something people are listening to them. Right now nobody listens to them because of the way it is set up. They themselves are shackled. They are very fine individuals who have served Canada very well. They need to be heard. If they cannot be heard with this kind of institution, then they are muzzled, they are silenced, because nobody will listen to them.

Do we want an institution like that? No. We need to do an incremental step. Yes, this bill may not address many of the concerns that everybody has, those I have just outlined about the amount of representation and from where, and all of these other things that are a big flaw in this institution. We will not be able to do all of it. This may not go all the way, but it is a step in the direction of what Canadians want, which is that they will have voice in who will be sitting in the chamber. The bill provides them that voice. We have to be cognizant of the fact and provide them with that without changing the Constitution. As for any move to change the Constitution, believe me, it is not going to happen. We have seen this happening in the past. We have seen these things going on out there, with too much diversity of opinion to have unanimity on what to do.

I know that everybody in the House knows we need to make a change. I am urging all members to let us go on with this small, incremental step.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the hon. member's remarks and also to many remarks earlier in the day. I am absolutely amazed at how government members can stand there and say that certain things fit in with a certain perception of the Senate in this country.

I would ask the member to give us some specifics. He mentioned that Canada is seen as one of the best democracies around the world. That did not happen just because of this chamber. That happened because of both chambers. It is great fun in this House to attack the other chamber, it seems, but let us put some evidence on the table.

The member said that the Senate is a blight on democracy. Could the member tell me how? Could he explain specifically how it is such a blight on democracy? He said the Senate has become completely undemocratic, and I ask members not to give me the excuse that senators are not elected, because that is just an excuse.

As for whether senators are elected or not or appointed under certain conditions to do certain things and be a chamber of sober second thought, which they are, let us have some facts. The member went on to say that nobody listens to them, yet time and again I have heard members on that side of the House quote the Kirby report, et cetera.

Instead of just attacking, could the member explain constructively all the points that are so bad about our Senate? Yes, it needs to be changed, but I ask him to explain it. He should not just cater to the perception that is out there. Let us have some facts.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing that the member is saying to show him what is wrong with the Senate and why Canadians are upset about the Senate. It is amazing. I can give a litany of things, aside from the fact that senators are not elected. Also, when the Liberals were in government it was a reward for their buddies and for the then prime minister's buddies. That is what is wrong with the Senate. It is because their buddies are in that institution--

[An hon. member]

Let's talk about their work.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

The member can listen to the Senate reports, but I can tell him what Canadians are saying out there and I can tell him what constituents are saying out there. They are saying, “They do not listen to me”.

Yes, the Senate is a blight because, aside from the fact that they are not elected, it is a job for life. Where else is there a job for life anywhere out there?

Third, let us look at the record of that party for its buddies who have been put in the Senate as a reward. That is the chamber of second thought? A reward for their buddies?

That is not what the issue is here. The issue here is that is we need to reform the Senate so that the people of Canada now can have a choice.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, for those watching at home I need to clarify the Liberals' position here. The question that was asked was, “What is wrong with an institution within a democracy in which no vote is cast?”

By most traditional definitions of a democracy, there is some sort of issuance of the public opinion, whereby the citizens of a country get to express their opinion and place in the stead of their voices the elected officials. That is what the foundation of democracy has been. The Liberals have somehow confused themselves with the notion that while the Senate is placed with well-heeled fundraisers and political friends that somehow represents a shining moment in the democratic process.

We disagree with much of what is being said by the government on this issue. We think this is a band-aid approach to a fundamentally flawed institution. Anybody who knows the NDP and has voted NDP knows that this has been a very clear policy for many years for us.

I have a question for my hon. colleague, who has said a wide range of things. On this value for money question, has he done any estimates on how much it actually costs to sustain this place of privilege, this place where appointments are given by fundraising capacity for a particular friend? Then that cost must be justified against his own government's appointment of its senator into cabinet when the Conservatives were unable to win a seat in the Montreal area and then chose to appoint someone into the cabinet. It seems contradictory in terms to use what we all agree is a terrible method. Now it seems that the government has hypocrisy in its midst. I wonder if he can explain that to Canadians.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we do not have hypocrisy in this. What we are saying is, as the hon. member knows and has said, this is a flawed institution. Therefore, we need to have a small incremental step moving toward that direction to improve this institution. That is all the bill would do. We have to move ahead and do something about this institution, and the bill is all about that.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-43, the Senate appointments consultations act.

If people are from western Canada, they will know that there are lot of strong opinions about the Senate. I grew up there and I was influenced by many of those opinions. Like every member of Parliament, I try to keep in touch with my constituents and when I do, from to time I hear some pretty strong sentiments about the Senate of Canada.

I was at a home show this past weekend for 20 hours or so and talked to hundreds of people on a lot of different topics, but the they had opinions about the Senate as well. It is pretty clear, at least in western Canada, it has lost some credibility among Canadians.

There are a number of opinions in the House as well. We heard Bloc members speak, but I am not sure if they have a coherent opinion or view on what the Senate of Canada should do or whether it should exist or not.

The NDP's position is pretty clear, that it should be abolished. It seems to me that misses the point. I believe the Senate does do some good work. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, I follow the work of the Senate committee as well and appreciate what it contributes to our work in the House.

I am starting to read through a human rights committee report from the Senate called “Children: The Silenced Citizens”. I appreciate some of the insights it is bringing to this. I do not think abolishing it is answer.

The Liberal position is a bit fuzzier. In my opinion they favour the status quo. They talk about favouring some kind of comprehensive overhaul of the Senate, whatever that might look like. We realize that is a very difficult thing to do. I think they conclude that it is better to do nothing than to do something, which is what we are going to do. They prefer the system we have now where senators are chosen based on either the party's support or the prime minister of the day. I do not think Canadians prefer that approach, as my colleague, the member for Calgary East, has said so eloquently, and we need to change that.

Our position as a government is clear. We want to work toward an effective, independent and democratically elected body that equitably represents all regions. Bill C-43 is not the only part of our agenda in this regard. Bill S-4, a bill that is in the Senate, would put term limits on senators of eight years. The Senate has had the bill for almost a month, as has been said already in the debate, a bill that is a couple of paragraphs long, 66 words. We are having a hard time getting that out of there. However, it is an important part of the reform of the Senate.

The question before us as parliamentarians is how does Bill C-43 contribute to this goal of the government of an effective, independent and democratically elected body that equitably represents all regions?

Because I anticipate this question coming, let me say that we could achieve this goal through a major overhaul of the Senate. As we all know, subsection 42(1) of the Constitution Act makes it very difficult to amend the Senate. Seven provinces representing 50% of the population is needed to approve any amendment. This makes it very difficult, if not impossible to get there, at least in a very expeditious way. It requires a level of consensus that is very difficult to achieve.

What are our options? I suppose the options are to do what the Liberals propose, which is to do nothing. Our option is to take a practical, achievable step that will provide a solid basis for further reform so we can get all the way there.

We want to generate momentum. As the people who live in the provinces see how this works, that we allow a democratic process to be involved in who represents them in the Senate, they will recognize that we now need to take further steps to get where we need to go.

The bill gives Canadians a voice in choosing who represents them. The way that it works now, according to section 24 of our Constitution, is the Governor General from time to time summons qualified persons to the Senate, traditionally on the advice of the prime minister. In fact, it happens no other way.

As the member for Calgary East has said, it goes against the grain of what Canadians think should happen in a democratic system. In fact, it is unlike most other democratic countries that have a higher chamber. Most countries have gone to an elected body. Canadians want to have a say in who represents them.

This is just another in a list of Conservative democratic reforms. Under the government's leadership of Robert Borden, women received the right to vote. Under the government of John Diefenbaker, aboriginals obtained the right to vote. This is another step forward in having a more democratic Parliament.

The bill would provide mechanisms for consultations to be held in one or more provinces to seek the preferences of the electorate on individuals who offer themselves as potential Senate nominees. It is envisioned that this will happen usually at the same time as a general election, although there is a bit of flexibility built into the act so it could happen at the time of a provincial election as well.

The bill would provide for a single transferrable vote to give a certain element of proportionality. It is an important improvement to make it different from the House of Commons, which continues to operate with the first past the post system.

In my view, and I think in the view of constitutional experts, this does not require any constitutional change. It does not affect the Governor General's power to appoint or the prime minister's power to recommend. It is not a direct election of senators. It does not change the constitutional requirements of who can serve as a senator. Bill C-43 would simply provide a mechanism for the prime minister to hold a consultation with the citizens of Canada.

I have heard a number of objections already. One is that the Senate is a place where the representation of women and minorities can be more accurately reflected. If people were to take the House of Commons tour, as I have with constituents from time to time, and go to the other place, they will be told that the appointment of senators allows for more women and minorities. In fact, numbers have increased both in this place and in that chamber, but I acknowledge that there is more to be done in that regard.

The government is hopeful, as it starts down this road, that women and minority candidates will participate fully in this consultation process. I see no reason why that would not and could not happen. In fact, there still is a role for political parties to play in the nomination of potential Senate nominees, as here in the House of Commons, although a more limited role, which is as it should be in the Senate. Therefore, parties can take the initiative to work toward this as well.

In this bill the prime minister's prerogative to recommend qualified individuals remains. Should the prime minister felt it was necessary to take steps to address a particular imbalance, perhaps in one of these areas, he or she could continue to appoint a selected candidate to address the imbalance.

I am pleased to support this bill. Bill C-43 takes an important step toward improving and vitalizing the Senate as a national democratic institution. That is what Canadians want. They want an effective, independent, democratically elected body that equitably represents all regions. Bill C-43 takes an important step toward that goal.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Before moving on to questions and comments, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Richmond Hill, Foreign Affairs; the hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche, Passport Canada.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's comments on the Senate and this incremental reform were thoughtful.

I want to ask him a fairly big vision question. If this is an incremental step, what is it an incremental step toward? Will the Senate mirror the House of Commons in representative make-up, that is gender, race, linguistic and regional issues, and will it mirror the Commons in terms of its power? Is there a possibility of deadlock? The overall question is, if we are going to have two animals of the same sort, why not join in with the NDP, not that I agree with it, and eliminate the Senate?

What assurance could the member give the House and the people of Canada that the regions of Canada and the minorities of Canada, by linguistics and race, will be protected as they are in the Senate? What is wrong, as the Americans do, in giving small places representative power beyond their numbers? Who ever complained that a senator from Maine might be the president of the United States some day? What is so wrong with representing minorities and regions in a fashion that is not first past the post by the most people, which would result in a make-up like this chamber, which is primarily white and male?

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not see anything in the current approach to the Senate, either in the current make-up of the Senate or in the approach to actually appointing who is there, that would meet any of the goals the member seems to want.

If it happens there is a more equitable distribution there, of women for example, as reflecting the population or minorities, that only happens by accident. The prime minister of the day has no formula to follow as senators are appointed. I do not see there is any great difference here.

We have a formula now in terms of how many senators can come from each province or region. In fact, when we talk about equitability, I do not think I share the view of the member for Vancouver Quadra. We do have a problem in B.C., that we do not have the right number of senators, but not because there is only a certain number for the population of British Columbia. That would make it a proportional institution, something like the House, which runs counter to what the Senate should be like. It should be an equal number of votes for a region or province. It does not have to do with proportional representation based on population.

There is some work to be done. We need more senators from B.C. because the other regions have more.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was interested to hear the member's comments about representation of women. We know the House of Commons is failing miserably in terms of representation of women. In fact, in the 2006 election, the numbers here fell from 65 to 64, which is exactly 20.8% of the House.

I was interested to hear the member talk about the fact there was a possibility that representation of women could be looked at in the Senate. He also talked about parties and that they may or may not be involved. We know the parties, except for New Democrats, with 41% of their members being women, have also failed miserably.

Could the member comment on how he would see this proposed electoral Senate reform addressing the fact of under-representation of women in both chambers?

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about Senate reform and there are two ways built into Bill C-43.

First, the political parties can have a role in the nomination of Senate candidates and parties that choose to do so can work toward involving more women in those.

I do not know of any nomination events in our party, for example, that have excluded women simply because they are women. However, nor should they be included just because they are women. I do not think Canadians want it to work that way. However, parties can take a role in encouraging, nurturing and providing opportunities and so on.

The other way, as I said in my remarks, is that at the end of Bill C-43 when we have implemented this approach, the prime minister still has the power to recommend to the Governor General whomever he chooses.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-43, the Senate appointment consultations act.

As members will note throughout my remarks, the intent of the bill and the way in which it was done is typical of the new government's approach to doing things. It has a nice sounding name with kind of an empty slogan. It has good optics but it is just a smokescreen because, at the end of the day, it is the usual charade from the Prime Minister as he tries to leave the impression that he is doing something progressive but, in essence, he is following his undemocratic ways of making government policy.

It is great in perception but it is poor in reality. I maintain that this approach is dangerous in reality. What the Prime Minister is attempting to do is to change the Constitution by non-constitutional means.

Constitutions are important and they are there for a reason. They are the foundation on which we do things as a country. What the Prime Minister is trying to do in this instance is to go around the Constitution by one, two and three small steps. However, at the end of the day we could have a country that we do not quite recognize.

We all know the Prime Minister's love for the presidential style. We see how he operates with his podium. He kind of likes the U.S. Republican kind of system but we have a representative democracy in this country. We are based on the British system. We know where the Prime Minister really wants to go.

We just heard a shout from the other side. It is rather interesting how government members tend to fall in line and try to build on the lack of understanding of the Senate to make their point.

I listened as the parliamentary secretary to the House leader spend a lot of his time this morning attacking the Senate. He did not give much information on Bill C-43 but he spent most of his time attacking the Senate and using examples such as the Senate is not passing Bill S-4. One the lines he used was that the bill was only 66 words but that it had taken them 12 months. I believe the point he made was that it was five words a month. What does that have to do with the issue?