Bill C-7 (Historical)

Senate Reform Act

An Act respecting the selection of senators and amending the Constitution Act, 1867 in respect of Senate term limits

Part 1 of this enactment establishes a framework for electing nominees for Senate appointments from the provinces and territories. The following principles apply to the selection process:
(a) the Prime Minister, in recommending Senate nominees to the Governor General for a province or territory, would be required to consider names from a list of nominees submitted by the provincial or territorial government; and
(b) the list of nominees would be determined by an election held in accordance with provincial or territorial laws enacted to implement the framework.
Part 2 alters the tenure of senators who are summoned after October 14, 2008.

Senate Reform Act

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, I do not know if I am really that proud to rise today on the debate of Senate reform because we are not getting Senate reform at all. We are getting Senate stay as it is with a few changes behind the cloak and dagger of what is perceived as Senate reform.

Let me get this straight for the people watching. Only the Conservatives can come up with this. We are going to make the provinces pay for elections. By the way, 40% of people do not vote in a federal election now. I cannot imagine the percentage of people who would love to vote in a Senate election.

Let me get this straight. We would get wonderful people, put their names forward for a Senate election and make the provinces pay for it. For example, if Mr. Smith was elected to be the senator from Nova Scotia, the Prime Minister could say, “No. We don't like that Mr. Smith, the elected person from Nova Scotia. We'll pick someone else.”

Folks will have to help me out with this because I really am missing the so-called democratic reform of this one. If one is going to pick someone else, do it in the first place. It is already being done. Why go to the waste of a sham of a so-called election?

The reality is that every single one of the people in the other chamber is a decent person. I think of Senator Dallaire, Senator Mahovlich, Senator Lang, Senator Meighen and Senator Baker. There are all kinds of them. They are really decent, hard-working, honest people. The premise of the chamber, the so-called chamber of sober second thought--mind, that is not completely gone--is that senators are supposed to peer review legislation that comes from the elected House to ensure that it meets the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of Canada.

In theory, that actually sounds pretty good. We select learned people from around the country to go into the Senate. These are people with life experience in a variety of fields. We use their expertise to peer review our legislation. Then, because they do not have a constituency, per se, they can report on issues facing the country. For example, the Kirby report on mental health was quite good. However, we have to ask ourselves, do we need a publicly funded Senate to produce a report like that? There are probably a lot of private entities out there that may have been able to produce the same report. Senator Kirby also did the 1982 report on the east coast fisheries, and that did not go very well. There is good and bad in both of those reports.

Having said that, they get to peer review executive legislation from the House of Commons. But do they peer review executive legislation from the House of Commons? No, they do not. A classic example is Bill C-311 in a previous Parliament. I am looking at some of my colleagues who were here. It passed the democratically elected House of Commons, went through the committee stage, went through third reading and passed, not once, but twice. Bill C-311 then went to the Senate, where it was supposed to be reviewed, but Bill C-311, the environmental bill from the NDP, did not even get to first base. It did not even get to the clubhouse. It did not even get to the parking lot. Some senators stood and said no. There were no witnesses, no discussion, nothing and the Conservative senators absolutely killed it.

If constituents of Canada vote, they take democracy seriously. We have to ask ourselves, where was the democracy in that? I can guarantee that if that happened to a Conservative bill and New Democrat senators killed it, the Conservatives would be screaming from the rafters. They would be doing what Randy White did, with the mariachi band, in 1995 or 1996, standing in front of the Senate, doing a Mexican salsa. I remember those days very well, how they ridiculed the Senate because a certain Mr. Thompson spent most of his time in Mexico.

[An hon. member]

It was 1997.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Sorry,1997.

I remember when the Reform Party or Canadian Alliance was against the Senate. It wanted a triple-E Senate. That is all gone now. It is finished when the husband of a sitting cabinet minister can be put into the Senate, along with a fundraiser.

This one is beautiful. This one I really love. Fabian Manning--and do not get me wrong, he is a really nice guy, a decent guy--ran in an election and won. He became a member of Parliament. When he ran In the next election, he lost. The Conservatives said, “Don't worry, Mr. Manning, we have a seat for you in the Senate”. The constituents said they did not want him to represent them anymore. However, the Prime Minister said there was a seat for him in the Senate.

About a year or two later, Mr. Manning did the honourable thing and quit. He said he should be an elected member in the House of Commons. That was a very honourable thing for him to do and it was pretty risky too. He ran in the 2011 election and was defeated again. Even though he had quit the Senate, the Conservatives have a revolving door at the Senate, and invited him back in at $130,000 a year. He was twice defeated, not elected by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, in the Avalon Peninsula, and was twice put in the Senate.

The Conservatives talk about Senate reform. It is an embarrassment to the country. Our democratic rights and principles make us a laughing stock. It is unbelievable that the Conservatives can hide behind this Senate bill, which is a sham.

Here is a novel idea: we could abolish it. Ten provinces and three territories operate their jurisdictions very well with one operating democratic body. Bring in proportional representation and have a true census of the vote. If we did that, my hon. colleague from the Green Party, sitting in my old seat 309, would probably have three or four more of her people here. That would be true representation of the popular vote.

We should not forget that even though the Conservatives got 38% of the voting public, 40% of eligible voters did not vote at all. Therefore, how many voters in Canada actually voted for those folks? A lot less than 38% when we consider the number of eligible voters out there.

If we were to bring in true proportional representation, we would have a true say in the House of Commons, reflective of Canadian society. We could do away with the Senate. However, if for whatever reason, the provinces were to say there had to be a Senate, and this is the if--I am a flexible kind of guy; some people call me Gumby--why do we not make the Senate truly independent of government? That would mean it would no longer caucus with the government. Senators would no longer be appointed by the government but by a panel of experts.

We should make the Senate completely independent so that we can get the best of the best and have it independent of Parliament. That way senators would not be beholden, or rubber-stamping legislation, or breaking election laws and having a plea bargain deal, paying the $52,000 and wiping their hands of it. We do not need that from the Senate. It happened.

This is what we get and it is an embarrassment. If we in the NDP were in government and the Conservatives were on this side, they would be standing up screaming at the top of their lungs about the bastions of power, the democratic withdrawal from this country, and shame on the New Democrats for doing that. That is precisely what they are doing. They think they can get away with it. Of course, with their smug majority and their dingwalling efforts, that arrogance is going to come back to haunt them.

My colleague from Calgary and I have been here the same amount of time and he knows what arrogance does to a front bench and what it does to the backbench. If the Conservatives think this arrogant piece of legislation is going to pull the wool over anyone's eyes, and no offence to the sheep out there, it is simply not going to work.

I ask the government to withdraw this bill, to get rid of it. We could save $100 million a year by abolishing the Senate. I mean no offence to the good people over there. I have said many times I have not met an MP or senator that I would not want as my neighbour. They are all decent people, but the chamber itself is a prehistoric institution and is no longer required. That would save us $100 million a year. What could we do with that kind of money? That is a debatable question.

The Prime Minister, with the economic action plan, appointed 27 senators in one year. Over 20 years, the cost will be $100 million. That is the economic action plan right next door for all their friends and neighbours.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I wish to congratulate my hon. friend from Sackville—Eastern Shore for being elected the most congenial of members of Parliament five years in a row. He reflected that in not taking any hits against any person named in the Senate, who are all good people.

I want to buttress his arguments slightly by going to Bill C-7. There really is no mandatory element that senators should come from this list. Clause 3 states that the Prime Minister “must consider names from the list”. Within the schedule, paragraph 1, we have the strange construction that “Senators to be appointed for a province or territory should be chosen”.

As a student of law, I learned that we look for discretionary language “may” or mandatory language “shall”. I have never before found a “should” in legislation.

I find this whole thing rather illusory that the government is requiring anyone to come from a list that is elected. Could my hon. friend comment on that?

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, the member from the Green Party is one of the finest people in our country and well-deserved of the Order of Canada.

Both she and I have been around union contracts for a long time and we know what those weasel words actually mean. At the end of the day, no matter what comes out of this, the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister alone, will have the final say on who sits in that chamber. Those are the facts, the truth and Canadians should know this. It does not matter what is done. The process is a sham. At the end of the day, one person determines who gets to sit in the chamber. I guarantee members it will be payback time for an awful lot of people who helped that man out.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the fact that, ultimately, a bill is being brought forward to keep the Senate and have basically the same thing we have now. As well, it will be more expensive in the short, medium and long terms than it is at present. It is often said that in a democracy, money is never invested badly, but in this case, are the Conservatives being good managers?

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, he is right. Let us think about all the money we are wasting right now on this topic when, at the end of the day, we are going to end up back in the same place we started, with a non-elected, non-responsible, non-accountable, self-appointed friends of the Prime Minister Senate.

The reality is we do not have to do that. The government could introduce legislation that I am sure, and I cannot speak for the Liberals or the Green Party, we would definitely support. It could be one line “abolish the Senate”. If that were brought forward, we would give it passage right through the committee, right on to second reading and onward.

If the government cannot do that, we have ways of vastly improving the legislation to the point where the senators are not an extension of the long arm of the government.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, Gumby, from Sackville—Eastern Shore, gave an eloquent speech.

At the end of the day, if we have elections for senators and the Prime Minister appoints somebody else instead of appointing Mr. Smith from Nova Scotia, what is the point of having elections or what is the point of having a Senate?

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it shows that the government is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of Canadians, yet the taxpayers are going to have to pay for this. Those individual provinces that decide to go into this scheme, which is really like a Ponzi scheme, will end up paying for something that at the end of day they will not get value for their money. It is quite clear that the prime minister of the day, whichever party, will decide who sits in the Senate. That has to stop.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Nova Scotia is a tough act to follow. That was one of the best speeches I have heard in the House. He was flying.

I am pleased to speak to Bill C-7.

If I understand correctly, what is being proposed seems to me to be an improvement on what we have now. For example, they are proposing that the law limit the terms of all senators summoned to the Senate after October 14, 2008, to a maximum of nine years. In my opinion, that limit is not a bad thing. As well, the provinces and territories would have the option of choosing to hold elections at their own expense to determine what names would be submitted to the Prime Minister for consideration. We are not living in a perfect world.

In a perfect world we would have the following. What the government has proposed is not a perfect world. In a perfect world we would have senators appointed for a limited period of time. They would be non-partisan and they would not represent specific political parties or be appointed as a reward for their services to a party. They would be distinguished people from most segments of society, such as first nations, business, labour leaders, the social sector, students.

In a perfect world a group of non-partisan people, an impartial board, would select individuals. If we were to do this, then in this perfect world we could have a chamber of sober thought consisting of respected people who would look at the work we do here and certainly not meet with the caucus of the governing party of the day, but, as the previous member said, be truly non-partial.

When we on this side speak out against what goes on in the Senate or what is proposed, we are not criticizing many of the honourable senators in the Senate. For example, I am pleased to see my former boss and friend from Yukon, Danny Lang, there and he is working hard. There are other folks like Hugh Segal, who has been championing poverty issues and rural poverty for many years. I certainly respect the work he and many of his colleagues do.

Unfortunately this is not a perfect world and it is an illusion or dream to think that we somehow could have in our democratic country a group of people, wise elders of our society, who would sit down and reflect upon what needs to happen and give its impartial advice. However, as my colleague from London—Fanshawe earlier said, it is not a reality and there is a contrast between what happens in the Senate, with its expenses, and all the effort that goes into maintaining that antiquated body.

If the Senate did not exist, we could inject more funding toward assisting people who are unemployed, the percentage of workers who do not have access to employment insurance. Many of us met with students in the last couple of weeks and know that, for example, the average student debt in British Columbia upon completion of university is $27,000 and tuition fees are rising. Yet other countries have made it a priority to have free tuition and health care and have strong economic engines, countries like Sweden.

In previous Parliaments I have been in since I was elected in 2006, there was actually a fair amount of debate on various bills and a fair number of witnesses would be brought to committees. There was much scrutiny, unlike now, when there is limited debate and closure on a number of important bills. Even after that time, when these bills would go to the Senate, under the direction of the current Prime Minister and his ideologically-driven government, they would be killed and often senators were told there would be no further debate whatsoever.

There was the climate change accountability act in the previous Parliament, Bill C-311, and the bill on generic drugs. For all the people watching this debate, a bill to help people suffering from AIDS so we could finally eradicate this devastating disease and take up the work done by Stephen Lewis and his foundation was before Parliament. Groups like the Grandmothers for Grandmothers, which I met with in Nelson a couple of weeks ago, is raising money to assist grandmothers in Africa who are raising children. There are millions of orphans due to this devastating disease. Parliament had a chance to pass that bill and, in fact, did so.

What happened? The Senate limited debate and stopped it. As a result, we do not yet have a policy to assist those suffering with AIDS by having cheap generic drugs available. This is truly a shame.

Then we had the act to kill the Wheat Board rammed through Parliament by the Conservatives without any democratic vote by farmers, the people who are part of the Wheat Board. There was limited debate in Parliament with no economic analysis, no in-depth study and a limited number of witnesses. Now this bill will go the Senate. If there were an impartial Senate, if the Senate, in an ideal world, were made up of wise people from different segments of society, they would look at the bill, bring in witnesses and say that maybe Parliament has not done what it should have been doing. They would then send it back to us and tell us to get back to work and fix this or abolish it, because that is not the will of the people that the House of Commons has reflected.

Then there is the crime omnibus bill that we are all faced with now that has also been rammed down our throats. At a time when crime rates are going down, we will be putting more people in prison and, not only that, the provinces will be bearing the costs of the bill. Even American conservatives are turning away from putting people into prisons. They are saying that it is not cost-effective and that maybe they should be doing more prevention and more rehabilitation. At the same time, we are going against all of the evidence and the Conservatives are not even listening to their conservative friends in the United States or the Canadian Bar Association and judges.

Even though most of Canadian society and the provinces have asked us what we are doing, the bill has been rammed through by the government. Once again, if we were to have a Senate that truly represented Canadian society in an impartial way, it would tell the Prime Minister to take his time here, that this does not need to be rushed through.

We need to hear more witnesses and actually listen to what the Canadian Bar Association is saying. We need to listen to our provincial colleagues who say that the cost is a bit too much and that they cannot really afford it. We need to listen to the Canadian public and then, in an ideal world, the bill would be brought back here and we would be told to do something about it that truly reflects the values of Canadian society and not the ideology that the government is presenting to us in this Parliament.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am always intrigued by the NDP's position in regard to the Senate. It seems to be fairly straightforward and simple in the minds of many colleagues in the NDP and that is that we abolish the Senate, that there is no situation in which the New Democratic Party could envision where there would be any value whatsoever to Canada by retaining some form of a Senate.

If the majority of Canadians disagreed with the NDP and believed that there was some value in retaining the Senate, would the member be prepared to support the will of the majority of Canadians?

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I truly believe that we do need to listen to the majority of Canadians when we even attempt to change or abolish the Senate. I certainly would be prepared to support the majority of Canadians. For example, I talked about this ideal world where we could have a different way of having the chamber of second thought. It would be something to explore and we could maybe put something out to the public with different options.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of different aspects of the bill that are troubling. I spoke earlier in terms of the constitutional ways in which we become ensnared. However, we have not had an adequate discussion across Canada of the difference it will make to the house of sober second thought continuing under this legislation once it is able to claim some legitimacy through the quasi election process before the Prime Minister appoints them.

I wonder if the hon. member has any concerns that we might create much more of a system like the United States where there would be constant gridlock between an elected House and a quasi elected Senate.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I truly welcome my hon. colleague's presence here in the House. We will be collaborating on a bill that I will be introducing on the department of peace.

I think there could be problems with an elected Senate. When we are elected, especially if we want to be re-elected, sometimes the focus is not on the actual job but on being re-elected.

I would say that, if we are to retain a Senate, perhaps it should be people from all segments of society who are appointed by an impartial board. They could then focus on what they need to do for that period of time and not worry about whether they would be elected, re-elected or what the government is doing and be, as my colleague from Nova Scotia said, completely independent of the government of the day.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, even in the guise of reform, the bill is not really reform. We have heard several times that the Prime Minister would retain the right to decide who gets appointed. Therefore, it is really an appointed Senate.

The only real reform is the term limit, which would go from life to age 75, or now nine years. However, even that is a dog's breakfast of mixed up rules and regulations depending on when one was appointed. By my calculations, the number of people who could theoretically be elected over the next six years would amount to only 36 people. Therefore, 64% of the Senate would remain an appointed Senate in six year's time. Does the member have some comment on that?