Stéphane Dion

[Main Estimates 2015-16, June 8th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, it would help the debate if our NDP colleagues would stop interrupting the debate with points of order that are irrelevant. If it is relevant to question the Duffy scandal, it is certainly relevant to question the NDP scandal.

[Main Estimates 2015-16, June 8th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, as a representative of what my colleague just called the old tired Liberal Party, I want to gently say for my colleague that the Senate will not be abolished because there is no unanimity in the country to abolish it.

Since my colleague knows that we need to improve what he called “this disgraceful institution”, does he agree that we need to do two things. First, we need to ensure that senators are not part of a caucus of members of Parliament, something that was done in the Liberal Party but not in the Conservative Party. Second, the process by which senators would be chosen would be non-partisan to protect the independence and the competence of the Senate.

Does he agree with these two reforms that happen to be supported by the leader of the Liberal Party, of this old tired party?

[MAIN ESTIMATES 2015-16, June 8th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I prefer to debate the NDP proposal with the NDP. However, since my colleague has invited me to debate the Liberal proposal with him, I think he does not have the right information.

In our proposal, the prime minister would still be accountable for his or her choice, but through a process that would inform the prime minister in order to have candidates who would be highly recommended. If the prime minister did not accept the short list that is proposed to him, he may reject it and ask for another short list. However, the prime minister would have to justify his or her choices, and in the end would have to look at Canadians in the eye and say, “I chose this legislator in the proper process, and this person is a great legislator”.

It would not be done anymore by a press release on a Friday afternoon. It would be done in the House officially, and the prime minister would have to be accountable for his or her choices.

[MAIN ESTIMATES 2015-16, June 8th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, every time there is a vacancy in the Senate, the next senator will be chosen according to this non-partisan procedure, which will ensure that senators are more independent and better qualified.

From what I understand, the Prime Minister has no desire to appoint any more senators, so the next government will have a lot of appointments to make. If it is a Liberal government, those appointments will all be made according to this non-partisan procedure, which will benefit all Canadians.

[MAIN ESTIMATES 2015-16, June 8th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, that is a different and complicated topic. It is about party discipline and what kind of party discipline each caucus decides to have within its own rules.

In the Liberal Party, it is very clear. We have party discipline for everything that is linked to the basic philosophy of our party, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and everything that is linked to budget issues and to the commitments we have made in our party platform.

[MAIN ESTIMATES 2015-16, June 8th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I will be very pleased to discuss this with my colleague during the election campaign. Is it really a public priority to nostalgically return to the time of the Charlottetown accord, as my colleague mentioned? Members need to understand that Canadians have no interest in reopening the Constitution just to deal with the Senate. The premier of Quebec clearly indicated that if the federal government approaches him about the Constitution, then he is going to put forward his demands for Quebec. Given the report published last week regarding aboriginal peoples in Canada, one can only imagine how long such a list could get.

We need to be frank with Canadians and tell them that a vote for the NDP is a vote for a huge constitutional negotiation with a very slim chance of success.

[MAIN ESTIMATES 2015-16, June 8th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague might be frustrated with the Constitution, but that is not going to solve the problem. To have an elected Senate, we need seven provinces and 50% of the population. To abolish the Senate, the provinces need to be unanimous. The member will have to ask his caucus and his leader whether in their plan to hold a referendum on this issue the required majority will be the majority in every province of our country. If the majority in some of the provinces vote the other way, then they will have veto power over the others. Does the hon. member really want to divide Canada in that way?

The other way to look at it is to realize that every great federation has two chambers. Our Parliament is not unicameral. There are two chambers, like in Australia, for example. Every federation has two chambers. Since we have an unelected chamber, can we come up with a way to ensure that that chamber is better chosen, in a non-partisan way, that it is more independent and that is better able to fulfill its responsibilities as the chamber of sober second thought, give careful consideration to the legislative work done by the House of Commons and propose useful amendments?

[MAIN ESTIMATES 2015-16, June 8th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague asked a very valid question. I wish he would have asked the question of his Prime Minister when he wanted to elect the Senate without addressing this difficulty.

An elected Senate would be more powerful than the Senate of today. The under-representation of Alberta and British Columbia would be completely unacceptable with an elected Senate. That is why all of the prime ministers before the current Prime Minister were responsible enough to not propose to elect the Senate, as long as provinces did not agree between themselves about how many senators they may have by province. It was completely unreasonable and irresponsible for the Prime Minister to do so, especially as an Albertan.

[MAIN ESTIMATES 2015-16, June 8th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize.

The Liberal plan to reform the Senate will give us an upper chamber that will be a source of pride and confidence among Canadians—truly a chamber of sober second thought.

The time has come for bold actions. The time has come for an effective, non-partisan Senate. The time has come for a Liberal plan to reform the Senate.

[MAIN ESTIMATES 2015-16, June 8th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the review of the Senate budget should be done in a comprehensive way, not as an attempt to initiate an abolition of the Senate bit by bit, incrementally, as the NDP is trying to do today.

The Liberals strongly support any sound measures that increase frugality, openness and transparency in our parliamentary democracy. Our open Parliament plan specially called for a more detailed audit of the House of Commons by the Auditor General. It is our strong belief that House and Senate Boards of Internal Economy should work with the Auditor General to develop mandatory performance audits of the House of Commons and Senate administrations.

The Liberal leader and member for Papineau rightly said that parliamentarians had the privilege of serving Canadians, and Canadians rightly expected them to adhere to the highest ethical standards. This principle should guide all parliamentarians during a time when we really need to improve ethical standards in the House as well as in the Senate.

The Senate, in particular, needs to change. Not only is change needed to its rules around transparency and accountability processes, but the whole institution cannot stay the same. The status quo is unacceptable.

Three bold options to reform the Canadian Senate are on the table: abolish it, make it an elected body or make it more independent and less partisan.

Only the third option, proposed by Liberal leader, the member for Papineau, is the realistic option. The other two do not stand a chance. Why? Abolition or an elected Senate would both require constitutional amendments, as confirmed by the Supreme Court in its April 25, 2014, opinion. The court ruled that Parliament could not change the nature of the Senate unilaterally. Making it an elected chamber would require the agreement of Parliament and the concurrence of seven provinces representing 50% of the population of the provinces, the 7/50 rule. Abolishing the Senate would require the unanimous agreement of Parliament and the 10 provinces. Unanimity among provinces for abolition is out of reach. No more is there the majority concurrence required for making the Senate an elected chamber.

At least one province, Quebec, has declared that it will not enter into constitutional negotiations on the sole issue of Senate reform. There is an regional veto act that gives veto power over constitutional changes to the five regions of Canada. To abolish the Senate would require a referendum, constitutional negotiations and very likely a majority in every province of the country. Therefore, this will not happen.

That said, Canadians have had enough of the ethical and financial scandals created by the actions of certain senators. Canadians want no more of the favouritism and extreme partisanship that have tarnished the Senate’s reputation and reduced its usefulness, favouritism and partisanship pushed to unequalled and intolerable extremes by this Prime Minister.

We Liberals agree that reforms are needed to return the Senate to the role assigned to it: the chamber of sober second thought. We are committed to doing everything possible to ensure that the Senate does the best it can to fulfil the responsibility entrusted to it by the Fathers of Confederation: to scrutinize bills carefully and to identify errors, flaws and inaccuracies, and on that basis, to propose useful amendments.

We Liberals will ensure that the Senate plays its constitutional role as an upper chamber that is attentive to the needs and aspirations of the regions and to minorities in our diverse country, including the first nations and the official language minority communities.

We Liberals will ensure that we have the Senate that is needed, an institution that is more serene and more independent and is composed of first class legislators who are competent, ethical and highly qualified, and are chosen through a non-partisan procedure.

A more independent Senate: this is the challenge that the Liberal leader is committed to undertaking.

The Liberal plan has two components. The first has already been realized; the second will be if Canadians elect a Liberal government in the next federal election in 2015.

The first component became a reality on January 29, 2014. Since that date, there have been no senators in the Liberal caucus; it consists of members of Parliament only.

The Liberal caucus and the Liberal Party of Canada no longer have a direct relationship with senators who, like any citizen, may belong to the political party of their choice.

Senators have thus been relieved of all partisan duties and are better able to devote themselves to their duties as parliamentarians and legislators. The Liberal leader did invite the Prime Minister to do the same in his own caucus. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, the Prime Minister refused.

We therefore now have a Liberal caucus with no senators, and senators with no partisan obligations. In a swift and decisive move, the Liberal leader accomplished the most important reform made to the Senate since Confederation. In a single morning, he did more to reform the Senate than the Prime Minister has done in nearly ten years in power, and the Liberal leader will go even further along the road to reform if Canadians elect him as their next prime minister.

The second component of Liberal reform of the Senate provides for the implementation of a non-partisan appointment process through which the upper chamber will at all times be composed of eminent, dedicated and highly qualified legislators. Some constitutional experts recommend setting up a senatorial advisory committee, somewhat like what has been put in place for the selection of certain members of the upper chamber in the United Kingdom.

The advisory committee would be responsible for providing the Prime Minister with informed and objective advice on potential candidates for the Senate. In my opinion, this model should be among those considered. In this model, the committee would base its recommendations on serious, objective, non-partisan criteria.

To be recommended, a candidate would have to show a long list of qualities: exceptional skill in his field; an indisputable connection to the province concerned; a record of exceptional service to his community; exceptional work habits; flawless honesty and integrity; open-mindedness; the wisdom and good judgment we expect from a legislator; and a thorough understanding of the role of a chamber of sober second thought. Senators would be expected to propose improvements to bills without challenging or usurping the legitimate and dominant role of the elected House within a democracy.

The committee would take care to ensure equal representation of women and minorities, including first nations and official language minority communities that have historic ties to the Senate.

How might the senator selection process take place? What I am describing is one possible way.

In accordance with constitutional conventions, the Prime Minister would make the final recommendation to the Governor General from a short list prepared by the advisory committee.

If the Prime Minister felt unable to appoint someone from the list, he would have to explain himself to Parliament and ask the advisory committee to come up with a new list.

An act of Parliament enacting such a selection process would be fully constitutional. It would not change the Senate's fundamental nature and role, a nature and role that, according to a 2014 Supreme Court opinion, section 52, Parliament has no right to alter unilaterally. In contrast, the court confirmed that making the Senate an elected chamber would fundamentally alter its nature and role, thus requiring that the 7/50 provincial approval threshold be met.

The court noted, in section 65 of its 2014 opinion, that the framers of the Constitution Act, 1982 extended the constitutional protection provided by the general amending procedure to the entire process by which senators were selected. This means that the entire process must be considered in order to assess if it changes the fundamental nature and role of the Senate.

If the entire process only aims to make the prime minister's choices less partisan and more objective, as the Liberal proposal does, it does nothing to change the fundamental nature of the institution. To the contrary, it reinforces the likelihood that the Senate will actually correspond with the court's definition of the upper house's fundamental nature.

The definition reads as follows, to provide “sober second thought” on the legislation adopted by the popular representatives in the House of Commons”, to be “a thoroughly independent body which could canvass dispassionately the measures of the House of Commons, and “a complementary legislative body, rather than a perennial rival of the House of Commons in the legislative process”. It would be removed “from a partisan political arena”.

I believe it would be wise to experiment with the new process before entrenching it in an act of Parliament in order to test its uptake.

In closing, I would just like to say that the commitment made by the Liberal leader, namely to give Canada a more effective, less partisan and more independent upper chamber, is entirely realistic and particularly necessary.

Without changing a single word of the Constitution, he will create a Senate made up of senators who have the competencies, knowledge and skills to carry out the task that the Fathers of Confederation entrusted to the institution: to scrutinize and improve the bills passed in the House of Commons. The Trudeau plan to reform the Senate—