 CANADA
Debate concerning
Motion to Strike Special Committee on Senate Modernization Extracted from the Hansard, 41st Parliament, 2nd session: May 8, 2014 2 with some "inked-in" comments relative to my essay "On guard in a global environment," v.E. Hon. Pierre-Claude Nolin, pursuant to notice of May 6, 2014, moved: 3 That a Special Committee on Senate Modernization be appointed to consider methods to make the Senate more effective, more transparent and more responsible, within the current constitutional framework, in order, in part, to increase public confidence in the Senate; 3-1 That the committee be composed of nine members, to be nominated by the Committee of Selection, and that five members constitute a quorum; 3-2 That the committee have the power to send for persons, papers and records; to examine witnesses; and to publish such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee; 3-3 That the committee be authorized to hire outside experts; 3-4 That, notwithstanding rule 12-18(2)(b)(i), the committee have the power to sit from Monday to Friday, even though the Senate may then be adjourned for a period exceeding one week; and 3-5 That the committee be empowered to report from time to time and to submit its final report no later than December 31, 2015. 3-6 He said: Dear colleagues, on April 25, in a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court of Canada responded to the reference submitted by the government in April 2013 with regard to the Senate. 4 The government asked the court to give its opinion on the amendment procedure applicable to the provincial consultative elections for appointments to the Senate, various formulas to reduce the length of senators' terms, changes to the real property qualifications of senators and the abolition of the Senate. 4-1 The Supreme Court reiterated the opinion that it delivered in December of 1979, regarding a similar series of questions and ruled that the Parliament of Canada cannot unilaterally amend the Constitution Act, 1867. 4-2 Based on the various amendment procedures set out in the Constitution Act, 1982, to varying degrees and depending on the amendment concerned, the consent of one, several or even all the provinces would be necessary. 4-3 The court found that: 4-4 The Senate is one of Canada's foundational political institutions. It lies at the heart of the agreements that gave birth to the Canadian federation. 4-5 The court briefly introduced the institution and then first noted that the upper legislative chamber, which the framers of the Constitution named the Senate, was modeled on the British House of Lords but adapted to Canadian realities. 4-6 Second, it noted that, as in the United Kingdom, the Senate was intended to provide "sober second thought" on the legislation adopted by the popular representatives in the House of Commons. 4-7 Third, it noted that the Senate played the additional role of providing a distinct form of representation for the regions that had joined Confederation and ceded a significant portion of their legislative powers to the new federal Parliament. 4-8 Fourth, it noted that, while representation in the House of Commons was proportional to the population of the new Canadian provinces, each region was provided equal representation in the Senate irrespective of population. 4-9 Fifth, it noted that this was intended to assure the regions that their voices would continue to be heard in the legislative process even though they might become minorities within the overall population of Canada. 4-10 The court noted rightfully the following with regard to the Senate: 4-11 Over time, the Senate also came to represent various groups that were under-represented in the House of Commons. It served as a forum for ethnic, gender, religious, linguistic, and Aboriginal groups that did not always have a meaningful opportunity to present their views through the popular democratic process: .... 4-12 In its ruling, the court repeatedly recognized that senators require independence in order to give legislative proposals the sober second thought that is both necessary and expected. 4-13 Dear colleagues, some people are disappointed by the decision, while others are delighted. 4-14 I am among those who are pleased that our institution has been recognized and defended in this way. The government has said that it is a decision for the status quo. It is certainly a "constitutional status quo." 4-15 The government also recognizes that the public clearly wants our institution to be much more effective, and we must all work to fulfill this legitimate aspiration. We must pursue this goal quickly and without delay. It may be status quo in terms of the Constitution, but the Senate's institutional transformation must move forward. 4-16 This paragraph leaves open to question what is meant by being "more effective". By what it does? By how it does it? n4-16 That is exactly what my motion proposed. It is important for you to know that Senator Ringuette, who moved a similar motion, and I have been in constant contact to analyze the text of our respective motions. Senator Ringuette understands and accepts the wording of my motion, which has a broader and less focused mandate. 4-17 Senator Ringuette introduced his motion on March 27, 2014. It reads: n4-17 That a Special Committee on Senate Transformation be appointed to consider: n4-17A 1. methods to reduce the role of political parties in the Senate by establishing regional caucuses and systems to provide accountability to citizens; n4-17B 2. methods to broaden participation of all senators in managing the business of the Senate by establishing a committee to assume those responsibilities, and to provide for equal regional representation on said committee; n4-17C 3. methods to allow senators to participate in the selection of the Speaker of the Senate by providing a recommendation to the Prime Minister; n4-17D 4. methods to adapt Question Period to better serve its role as an accountability exercise; and n4-17E 5. such other matters as may be referred to it by the Senate; n4-17F That the committee be composed of nine members, to be nominated by the Committee of Selection and that four members constitute a quorum; n4-17G That, the committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; to examine witnesses; and to publish such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee; n4-17H That, notwithstanding rule 12-18(2)(b)(i), the committee have power to sit from Monday to Friday, even though the Senate may then be adjourned for a period exceeding one week; and n4-17I That the committee be empowered to report from time to time and to submit its final report no later than June 30, 2015 n4-17J The motion was further discussed on June 4, 2014; October 8, 2014; December 4, 2014; March 10, 2015, and May 1, 2015. n4-17K Since I gave notice of my motion, a number of senators have shared their comments with me and some have even suggested amendments. 4-18 Senator Joyal, who generously agreed to second my motion, and I would like to see some sober second thought given to this motion. We also think it is important that the decision to appoint the special committee be made as soon as possible. 4-19 In order to satisfy as many colleagues as possible and allow all those who wish to continue their analysis in caucus or elsewhere to do so, I move adjournment of the debate. I will use the rest of my time on Tuesday. At that time, it is highly likely that I will propose some amendments to clarify, change, or adjust the wording following discussions that will take place in each caucus. 4-20 Found no evidence of Senator Nolin adressing the Senate on Tuesday, May 13, 2014. n4-20 Colleagues, thank you very much. I will ask for the adjournment of debate in my name for the remainder of my time so that everybody can have a proper discussion in their caucuses, or otherwise, to make sure that this motion is properly adopted as soon as possible and that we can move along and create that committee. 4-21 (On motion of Senator Nolin, debate adjourned.) 2 |
--
|
| top of page |
|
Participant: