Twitter
FacebookMay
- MP
conMay 09, 2013 7:35 am | Saskatchewan, Regina—Lumsden—Lake CentreMr. Speaker, I will be extremely brief. Suffice it to say that there is clearly no privilege in this case.
No privileges of any member have been impugned because, as I pointed out in my intervention, procedurally, we are—“we” being the House—absolutely within our rights to give instructions to a committee to expand a bill.
I gave the one reference and the one example in my intervention of the 1959-1960 bill by Margaret Thatcher. The intent of that bill was to allow members of the press, and only members of the press, to attend committee hearings. Mrs. Thatcher wanted to expand that to allow members of the general public to also attend hearings. Therefore, the House gave instructions to that effect to the committee, which then made the proper amendments, and the resulting bill allowed both members of the press and the general public.
The point is that the House has the complete authority to give instructions to a committee to allow it to expand the scope of a bill. That is the procedure of this place. Therefore, there is no privilege argument to refute that.
- MPconMay 09, 2013 7:15 am | Saskatchewan, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
Mr. Speaker, I rise in response to the interventions made by the hon. members for Toronto Centre and Saint-Lambert concerning the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.
This report contains the request that the committee be granted the power to expand the scope of Bill C-425, an act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces), such that the provisions of the bill not be limited to the Canadian Armed Forces.
One member suggested that the report itself is out of order, while the other suggested that the recommended instruction is deficient and, therefore, out of order.
I disagree with both of these assessments.
Let me address the first of these objections, the one put forward by the hon. member for Toronto Centre.
At the core of his presentation, he argued that Standing Order 97.1 excludes the possibility of a committee seeking an instruction in relation to a private member's bill, because that Standing Order enumerates three reports—not two as the honourable and learned member said—that a committee may present within 60 days of an order of reference.
The hon. member made reference to one approach to legal interpretation in support of his view. On the other hand, I would offer a different school of thought on interpretation, the mischief rule; in other words, what problem or mischief was being remedied when a law was enacted.
To this end, I would refer members to the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented during the first session of the 36th Parliament, back in 1997.
In the section on the disposition of bills by committees, the report observes:
A number of private Members' bills that have received second reading and been referred to committee have unfortunately disappeared and never been heard from again.... We are not in a position to comment on specific cases, but we do wish to prevent this situation from arising in the future.
There you go, Mr. Speaker. The intent was not to interfere with or restrict the manner in which a committee can consider legislation, but just that a committee cannot sit on a private member's bill indefinitely.
This was echoed in the Private Members' Business Practical Guide, 9th edition, which was published in October 2008 under the authority of the Clerk of the House of Commons. At page 16, under the heading of “Committee Consideration of Bills”, one reads that:
A votable Private Members' bill follows the normal procedure for a bill: if second reading is agreed to by the House, the bill is referred to a committee for the hearing of witnesses, clause-by-clause study and possible amendment.
The guide then discusses the rules that are particular to private members' bills: deadlines to report and proceedings on recommendations not to proceed further.
Nothing is suggested in this publication of the House to suggest that these types of bills are exempt from procedure on instructions.
I would further argue that Standing Order 97.1 has also not been circumvented by the eighth report. The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration remains seized by Bill C-425, and it remains subject to the 60-day sitting deadline established by that standing committee to dispose of the bill. Indeed citation 684.1 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms of the House of Commons of Canada, 6th edition, advises that:
The Instruction should not be given while a bill is still in the possession of the House but rather after it has come into the possession of the committee.
Therefore, it follows that the committee remains seized with Bill C-425 and, consequently, has not made, yet, any of the reports required by Standing Order 97.1.
Having demonstrated that Standing Order 97.1 does not exclude the ability of the House to give an instruction to a committee on a private member's bill, as argued by the hon. member for Toronto Centre, I will now turn to the argument advanced by the hon. member for Saint-Lambert about the requested instruction itself.
Instructions are not common in our contemporary practice, which page 752 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice explains:
Motions of instruction derive from British practice during the second half of the nineteenth century. They were carried over into the practice of the Canadian House of Commons, although they have rarely been used.
Therefore, I will be referring to some of our older texts and United Kingdom authorities in addition to our contemporary procedural books.
Page 752 of O'Brien and Bosc states:
Once a bill has been referred to a committee, the House may instruct the committee by way of a motion authorizing what would otherwise be beyond its powers, such as...expanding or narrowing the scope or application of a bill. A committee that so wishes may also seek an instruction from the House.
Then at page 992, the manner for committees to obtain additional powers is described. It states:
If a standing, legislative or special committee requires additional powers, they may be conferred on the committee by an order of the House...or by concurrence in a committee report requesting the conferring of those powers.
Indeed, the chair of the citizenship committee cited this at the committee's meeting on April 23, and then added, “That's what...[the hon. member for St. Catharines] is doing with his motion”.
Citation 681(2) of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, sixth edition, observes that:
The purpose of the Instruction must be supplementary and ancillary to the purpose of the bill, and must fall within the general scope and framework of the bill. It is irregular to introduce into a bill, by an Instruction to the committee, a subject which should properly form the substance of a distinct measure, having regard to usage and the general practice of enacting distinct statutes for distinct branches of law.
Citation 222 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition, traces that proposition to an 1893 ruling of Mr. Speaker Peel of the United Kingdom House of Commons.
In the present instance, we are considering a proposal for the extension of the objects of Bill C-425. These types of instructions are explained in citation no. 686(1) of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, sixth edition. It states:
An Instruction is necessary to authorize the introduction into a bill of amendments, which extend its provisions to objects not strictly covered by the subject-matter of the bill as agreed to on the second reading, provided that these objects are cognate to its general purposes.
This statement, as distilled from citation 226(2) of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition, quotes at length pages 398 and 399 of the 13th edition of Erskine May. There is one portion of that passage that I would like to add to the record. It states:
The object of an instruction is, therefore, to endow a committee with power whereby the committee can perfect and complete the legislation defined by the contents of the Bill, or extend the provisions of a Bill to cognate objects....
Page 559 of Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, 24th edition, offers the same abbreviated advice we saw in Beauchesne's sixth edition. The British text then goes on to recite several examples of instructions to this effect. The first bill on that list offers a compelling parallel. It states:
The Public Bodies (Admission of the Press to Meetings) Bill 1959-60 was limited to the single purpose of admitting the press to meetings. An instruction was necessary to extend the bill to the general public.
The Chair may be interested in knowing that the bill was also a private member's bill. In fact, many of the bills on that list, as I understand, were private member's bills.
As a historical aside, members may be interested in knowing that the sponsor of that 1959 bill was a then young, up-and-coming member of Parliament by the name of Margaret Thatcher. To be clear, though, the text of the instruction in relation to Mrs. Thatcher's bill bears similarities to the case now before us. The British motion is found at column 1,064 of volume 619 of the United Kingdom House of Commons Debates for March 14, 1960. It states:
...That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they have power to make provision in the Bill for requiring members of the public other than representatives of the Press to be admitted to meetings of bodies exercising public functions, and for matters arising out of their admission.
In the case of Bill C-425, we have legislation that proposes to make two changes to the Citizenship Act with reference to the Canadian Armed Forces. The eighth report simply proposes that the citizenship committee be empowered to consider amendments that extend the application of those two objects to circumstances not involving the Canadian Armed Forces specifically.
As I understand the context, it became apparent at committee that the “act of war” is not defined clearly in either our domestic law or international laws, so that those references in Bill C-425 needed to be clarified. Amendments were to be proposed to address and clarify this.
Moreover, the committee heard suggestions about convicted terrorists in the context of the provisions for deemed applications for renunciation of citizenship. Amendments were also to be proposed in this vein.
I am further informed that there was an interpretation by the committee clerk that these amendments could be outside the scope of the bill. I am also told that the 8th report, which is now before the House, was drafted with the assistance of one or more committee clerks.
This report specifically addresses what committee members have been grappling with through their study of the bill, while at the same time being careful not to hamstring their own deliberations or to risk bringing forward a report with inadmissible amendments, as contemplated at pages 775 and 776 of O'Brien and Bosc.
Additionally, there was a view that this action was consistent with the intentions of the sponsor of Bill C-425, the hon. member for Calgary Northeast.
Ultimately, it is up to the House to decide what to do with Bill C-425. The discretion of the House and the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration remains unfettered. Should a motion to concur in the 8th report be moved, the House would have a concurrence debate and vote in which all members would have an opportunity to have a say on the proposed instruction. Should the report be concurred in, the instruction to the committee would be permissive; that is to say that the committee is not mandated to amend the bill in such a manner.
Should the committee report the bill with amendments consistent with the instruction, it remains up to the House to accept the amendments, reverse them or propose further amendments when Bill C-425 is considered at report stage. Alternatively, the House retains the option of defeating the bill.
In summary, the intention of the instructions sought by the citizenship committee is not overly broad and results in an intelligible outcome. It is consistent with instructions authorizing the extension of the objects of a bill. It is for a purpose cognate to Bill C-425. It does not import a different subject matter into the bill or seek to amend other parent acts.
Finally, it does not propose an alternative scheme contradictory to the principle of the bill adopted at second reading.
Therefore, I respectfully submit that the 8th report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration is admissible.
- MPconMay 09, 2013 7:10 am | Saskatchewan, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
- MPconMay 09, 2013 7:05 am | Saskatchewan, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to one petition.
- MPconMay 08, 2013 12:10 pm | Saskatchewan, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 11 petitions.
- MPconMay 07, 2013 7:10 am | Saskatchewan, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
- MPconMay 07, 2013 7:05 am | Saskatchewan, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 13 petitions.
- MPconMay 06, 2013 12:15 pm | Saskatchewan, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1229, 1231, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1237 and 1241.
- MPconMay 03, 2013 9:10 am | Saskatchewan, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 1224 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.
- MPconMay 03, 2013 9:05 am | Saskatchewan, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 50 petitions.
- MPconMay 02, 2013 7:10 am | Saskatchewan, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 1243 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.
- MPconMay 02, 2013 7:00 am | Saskatchewan, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(b), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to one petition.
- MPconMay 01, 2013 12:25 pm | Saskatchewan, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
- MPconMay 01, 2013 12:05 pm | Saskatchewan, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36.8, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 60 petitions.
April
- MPconApr 30, 2013 7:10 am | Saskatchewan, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
- MPconApr 29, 2013 3:10 pm | Saskatchewan, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
- MPconApr 26, 2013 9:05 am | Saskatchewan, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 1,220, 1,221 and 1,222 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.
- MPconApr 25, 2013 7:05 am | Saskatchewan, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 12 petitions.
- MPconApr 24, 2013 12:25 pm | Saskatchewan, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
- MPconApr 23, 2013 7:10 am | Saskatchewan, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
- MPconApr 22, 2013 12:35 pm | Saskatchewan, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
- MPconApr 19, 2013 9:10 am | Saskatchewan, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 1213 and 1218 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.
- MPconApr 19, 2013 9:05 am | Saskatchewan, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to five petitions.
- MPconApr 18, 2013 7:10 am | Saskatchewan, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
- MPconApr 18, 2013 7:05 am | Saskatchewan, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to five petitions.
- MPconApr 16, 2013 7:05 am | Saskatchewan, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
- MPconApr 15, 2013 12:15 pm | Saskatchewan, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
- MPconApr 15, 2013 12:05 pm | Saskatchewan, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 180 petitions.
March
- MPconMar 27, 2013 12:55 pm | Saskatchewan, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 1166 and 1169 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.
- MPconMar 27, 2013 12:45 pm | Saskatchewan, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
Mr. Speaker, this is for the benefit of my colleague opposite who is relatively new to this place and probably does not understand or does not know the rules and procedures. As we know, members are certainly allowed to present petitions, but they are not allowed to endorse or support publicly the petitions that they are presenting. I would mention that for the future.
- MPconMar 27, 2013 12:40 pm | Saskatchewan, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to five petitions.
- MPconMar 26, 2013 7:10 am | Saskatchewan, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
- MPconMar 25, 2013 12:20 pm | Saskatchewan, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
- MPconMar 25, 2013 12:05 pm | Saskatchewan, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(b) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 10 petitions.
- MPconMar 22, 2013 9:15 am | Saskatchewan, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
- MPconMar 22, 2013 9:05 am | Saskatchewan, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36.8 I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to six petitions.
- MPconMar 21, 2013 7:10 am | Saskatchewan, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
- MPconMar 20, 2013 12:20 pm | Saskatchewan, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.
- MPconMar 20, 2013 12:10 pm | Saskatchewan, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to 25 petitions.
- MPconMar 19, 2013 7:10 am | Saskatchewan, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 1157 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.
- MPconMar 19, 2013 7:05 am | Saskatchewan, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to eight petitions.
- MPconMar 18, 2013 12:30 pm | Saskatchewan, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 1113, 1122, 1129, 1130, 1131, 1135, 1139, 1140, 1141, 1142, 1143, 1149, 1150, 1153, 1154 and 1155 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.
- MPconMar 18, 2013 12:25 pm | Saskatchewan, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1137, 1144 and 1152.
- MPconMar 18, 2013 12:10 pm | Saskatchewan, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 50 petitions.
- MPconMar 07, 2013 7:05 am | Saskatchewan, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 10 petitions.
- MPconMar 05, 2013 10:20 am | Saskatchewan, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question, but frankly he weakens his argument. He is supposing that he knows the positions of the provinces. He does not. No one does. He does not even know what the constitutional arguments may be. That is why we referenced this to the Supreme Court.
It is entirely presumptuous for the NDP to think that it knows what Canadians feel and what the provinces feel about the role of the Senate. We need to engage them, but first we need to get a clear, concise, precise answer from the Supreme Court on what constitutional requirements there may be for any meaningful reform, including abolishment. To suggest, as the NDP has done, that we can merely abolish the Senate and have the full support of all provinces and territories is absolutely foolhardy and wrong.
- MPconMar 05, 2013 10:15 am | Saskatchewan, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
I am not sure that I would consider anything regarding the Senate reform package to be stupid. However, with respect to the member's initial comment as to whether electing senators could cause a problem by having partisan interests trump the will of the government, we have that now. Even though the senators are appointed as opposed to elected, we have seen that if there is a government that does not have the majority of the Senate, the Senate can block government legislation. That occurs in the current configuration. Therefore, going to an elected Senate as opposed to the current appointment process does not necessarily mean we would solve the problem that the member has identified.
- MPconMar 05, 2013 10:10 am | Saskatchewan, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
Mr. Speaker, to be quite honest, regardless of whether there were Senate elections or appointments, as we now have, one could argue that there would still be a partisan atmosphere. One could certainly argue that if one were appointed to the Senate, one would then be beholden to the person who made the appointment. Senate elections, one could argue, would be the same thing. If one were running on behalf of a particular political party and were elected, one would follow partisan or political lines. The argument can be made on both sides.
My point is simply this: I believe that there is more accountability if we elect senators, combined with term limits. When we put those two elements together, senators who are elected to represent the constituents of the region they reside in have to be accountable, because they were elected to begin with.
However, one of the reasons I think we need to debate the government's position on making non-renewable nine-year terms is that, one could argue, if it is a non-renewable term, there is no accountability, because at the end of nine years, they are gone anyway. If, on the other hand, there were renewable terms, perhaps that would take care of the entire accountability package.
I know that we have stated that we would like to see renewal. After nine years, we need to get new members with new ideas in. My only comment is that just because ideas are new does not mean they are necessarily better. We are elected, and we can be re-elected. I think we should give some consideration to whether term limits should be renewable or non-renewable.
- MPconMar 05, 2013 9:55 am | Saskatchewan, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here today to debate a topic that is quite relevant in today's society, inasmuch as it seems that the Senate has been dominating the news cycle for the last month or so. A lot of Canadians will be interested to hear what members of the chamber have to say about the relevance of the Senate and whether it should be abolished, as the NDP suggests, or be reformed, as our government is proposing.
I should begin by giving some of my personal observations and where I have come from throughout the years to finally maintain a position on the Senate. I have to be quite honest: before I was elected as a member of Parliament, I leaned toward abolishing the Senate. At that point in time I did not really see the relevance of the Senate, because I did not understand the role that the Senate played. I think that would be true of most Canadians. Unfortunately, although most Canadians may know we have a Senate and may know we have an unelected upper house, they do not truly understand the role the Senate plays in today's society and in today's Parliament. I was one of those.
However, since I was elected as a member of Parliament in 2004, I have changed my views. Over the years, I have seen that the Senate does play an important and valuable role. However, I do not think the Senate is currently constructed in the correct manner.
We have seen from time to time—and all members of the House could attest to this—that over the last 100-plus years since Confederation, Senate committees have been able to explore issues that are of importance to all Canadians. I can list many valuable reports conducted and completed by Senate committees that influenced not only Parliament in the lower House but also how Canadians view certain subjects throughout the country.
It is not quite fair or accurate to say that the Senate should be abolished because it has outlived its usefulness. I do not believe that, now that I have seen the Senate at work. However, it is imperative that some fundamental changes be made to the Senate to allow it to perform at its utmost capacity. What I am talking about, quite frankly, is reform.
Right now, as everyone knows, senators are appointed. Even though there is a life cycle to the time that senators can spend in the upper chamber, it is far too long. One theoretically could be appointed to the upper house as early as the age of 30 and could sit in the Senate without fear of reprisal for 45 years. That is wrong. We have to impose term limits on senators, although the length of time for which senators should be appointed is up for debate. Our government has suggested a nine-year non-renewable term, but that length of time could certainly be debated. Some flexibility could be shown by our government if we got into meaningful debate about meaningful reform. Unfortunately, we never seem to be able to engage in that meaningful dialogue with the opposition ranks.
In addition to the term limits, which I will talk more about in a moment, there is one more fundamental reform that I would like to see enacted in the Senate, and that is the way in which senators are brought into the upper chamber. Right now, as I mentioned, it is through appointment. That is the wrong approach, primarily because we do not have the accountability that is required for senators.
Right now, as we all know, senators are primarily responsible to represent the regions from which they come, but through being appointed, there really seems to be a lack of accountability. If a senator is appointed and then fails to adequately represent his or her region, how does one make the senator account for his or her behaviour?
They cannot be fired. I suppose they could be dropped from the Senate if they conducted themselves in an untoward manner, but even then, there are only a few circumstances in which an individual could be dropped from the Senate.
However, in this place, all of us are completely accountable to our constituents. Why? It is because we are elected. If we do not represent our constituents to their satisfaction, we could lose our jobs, because every four years or so, we face the public. We have an election. That is basically a referendum on our performance. If my constituents are dissatisfied with the job I have been doing, they have the right, at the next federal election, at their next opportunity, to vote in someone else and express their dissatisfaction. However, in the Senate, the constituents of the region a senator represents have no such ability. Once a senator is appointed, the constituents of the region that senator is supposed to represent have really no ability to force that senator to account for his or her actions. That is absolutely wrong.
Therefore, I firmly believe that there should be some form of election. Whether it be through Senate consultations or direct election is up for debate. However, we need to have a process in place that allows and forces senators to be accountable to the people they represent.
We, as elected representatives, have term limits. Sometimes the term limits are as short as 18 months. Sometimes they are as long as four and a half years, because the term limit is from election to election, not to a maximum of 45 years.
The first time I was elected, in 2004, it was by the staggering plurality of 122 votes. Be assured that from that moment on, I paid great attention to the needs and demands of my constituents, because I knew that if I did not represent the wishes and the feelings of my constituents, the next time an election rolled around, I might not be sent back to this place. That is accountability, and that is the type of accountability we need in the upper chamber. That is why we need Senate reform.
Unfortunately, we have seen, on a number of occasions, that reform packages we have brought forward for discussion and debate in the House have been ultimately filibustered or rejected by members of the opposition. Therefore, I think we have taken the correct and prudent course of action by asking the Supreme Court to give its opinion.
We have brought forward a reference to the Supreme Court on four fundamental points that deal with the Senate and potential Senate reform. The first is term limits. We want the Supreme Court to advise Parliament on whether Parliament has the constitutional ability to set term limits for senators. We also want the Supreme Court to comment on the selection process and whether it would be constitutionally viable and achievable to have some selection process other than the current appointment process. Furthermore, we want the Supreme Court to comment on the number of senators for each particular region. We want it to talk about residency requirements. We also want the Supreme Court to comment on the issue before us today, which is whether the Senate could be abolished without the need for a constitutional amendment.
Anyone who has studied our Constitution, and we have many academics in the House who have become learned about the Canadian Constitution, would agree with one thing: while it is vitally necessary, it is also, and can be, from time to time an extremely complex and complicated document. There is still an argument, even with some of the basic questions about Senate reform, about whether constitutional amendments would be required to begin with, and if they were, what form constitutional amendments should take.
Some would argue that on certain reform initiatives, the 7/50 process would be required. For those people who are not aware, 7/50 simply means that certain constitutional amendments require a minimum of seven provinces, representing at least 50% of the population of Canada, to agree on a constitutional amendment before it could be put forward. However, others, even with the same democratic reform initiative, would argue that 7/50 is not the type of approach we should take and that we need unanimous consent. There is argument within the Constitution itself and debate among academics and constitutional experts, even within the democratic reform initiatives we have put forward. Does it require only a 7/50 approach, or will it require unanimous consent?
For us as parliamentarians to sit here and suggest that we know how to reform the Senate is, quite frankly, foolhardy. That is why we have asked the Supreme Court to give its opinion. I believe that once we had an opinion from the Supreme Court on a host of questions we have asked, we would be in a better position in this place to start moving forward. I do not believe, however, that we are currently prepared to even deal with the question put forward by the opposition today, the question of whether the Senate should be abolished, because we do not know, quite frankly, whether we have the constitutional ability to abolish the Senate. I do not know how many arguments have been proposed to date by members of the opposition, but I would challenge each and every one of them who suggest that we have the constitutional right and ability to abolish the Senate should we wish to do so. I challenge opposition members on that, because I do not believe we know if we have that ability.
The Supreme Court will render an opinion on that, hopefully sooner rather than later. However, even if it suggests to Parliament that we have, within certain guidelines, the constitutional ability to make fundamental changes to the Senate, such as abolishment, then and only then, I believe, should we start engaging in a debate on the future of the Senate. I firmly believe that we need to try to reform the Senate prior to abolishment and prior to even consideration of abolishment. As I mentioned at the outset of my speech, I believe that the Senate can perform a vital role in Canadian society, but we have to make some very obvious changes to the way in which it does business.
Opposition members seem to be suggesting today that there is no hope for the Senate, that its usefulness has outlived itself. I believe that they are shortsighted in their thinking. If they actually took a hard look at the accomplishments of the Senate over the past 100-plus years, they would understand, as I understand, that there is a vital role for the Senate to play. It has made contributions to Canadian society over the years, and I believe that it will continue to make vital contributions to both Parliament and Canadians across this country.
It is a difficult time for any parliamentarian right now to be talking about changing the Senate, in light of all the adverse media attention the Senate has been receiving. I recognize that. I understand that. I get that. However, I have to think that we need to set aside, if we can, just for a moment, some of the recent controversies we have seen occurring in the Senate and look over a longer period of time to see what the Senate has actually accomplished.
I would be the first to suggest that if, in my opinion, the Senate had not contributed vitally to democracy and the Canadian way of life that fine, we would do away with it. I do not share that view. I share the view of many other Canadians that the Senate can continue to play a vital role in today's society. We just need to make some fundamental changes, and that means reform.
Therefore, I would like to ask for unanimous consent to propose a motion, as I know some of my colleagues have done earlier today. I move that, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-7, an act respecting the selection of senators and amending the Constitution Act, 1867 in respect of Senate term limits be deemed to have been read the second time and referred to a committee of the whole, be considered in committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage, and deemed read the third time and passed.
I believe that if the opposition is truly interested in making the Senate a viable force in Canadian society, it will support this unanimous consent motion.
- MPconMar 05, 2013 7:05 am | Saskatchewan, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
follow