Special Senate Committee on Senate Reform, Second Report (Murray-Austin Motion)
The speech below, given November 2, 2006 is extracted directly from the
Hansard.
Hon. Daniel Hays (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators,
I move the adoption of this report.
[Translation]
Honourable senators, today we are examining the second report of the Special
Senate Committee on Senate Reform, which deals with the Murray-Austin motion
proposing to increase Western regional representation in the Senate.
[English]
Honourable senators, although you are familiar with the Murray-Austin
motion, at least I assume you are, our report having been on the Order Paper
for a few days, I will explain for the record what provisions of the
Constitution it addresses and my understanding of how the motion will
proceed if adopted by the Senate.
Section 38(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, provides the general amending
formula for our Constitution. This section requires that the legislatures of
at least two-thirds, or seven of the provinces, representing 50 per cent of
the population, as well as the Senate and the House of Commons, pass
resolutions authorizing amendments such as the one proposed by the
Murray-Austin motion.
Furthermore, section 42 of the Constitution stipulates that an amendment to
the Constitution in relation to the number of members by which a province is
entitled to be represented in the Senate can only be made in accordance with
section 38(1). Should this motion be adopted by the Senate, the next step,
as Senator Murray noted on June 27, will be to refer it to the other
legislatures, which is to say the House of Commons and the provincial
assemblies who would have three years to consider it as stipulated by
section 38(1) of the Constitution.
Moreover, as Senator Murray underlined in his speech, provisions of what was
Bill C-110 and is now the 1996 federal Constitutional Amendments Act on
regional vetoes would not apply since the amendment is not proposed by a
minister of the Crown.
Senator Murray and Senator Austin introduced their motion because they
believe there is an imbalance in regional representation in the Senate that
should be addressed and they propose a constitutional amendment that would
create British Columbia as a fifth region and increase the number of western
senators. Accordingly, if the resolution passes through all the required
stages, British Columbia will have 12 senators from six, Alberta will have
10 from six, and Saskatchewan and Manitoba will each have seven from their
current six.
I believe the intention behind the Murray-Austin motion to be in keeping
with several precedents in our history. Indeed, since 1867 several changes
have been made to the number and distribution of Senate seats. As we said in
our report, most of these changes increased the size of the Senate as new
provinces were added to the federation, starting with two senators for
Manitoba in 1870, three senators for British Columbia in 1871 and four
senators for Prince Edward Island in 1873. In 1887 the territory then known
as the Northwest Territories was given two seats in the Senate. In 1905 the
newly created provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan were given four seats
each.
Moreover, the addition of new provinces prompted an increase in the number
of Senate seats assigned to some existing provinces while producing a
reduction for others. The most important change, however, occurred in 1915,
with the creation of a fourth division known as the west.
Other changes include the six Senate seats assigned to Newfoundland and
Labrador upon its entry into our federation in 1949, along with the addition
of two seats to the Northwest Territories and Yukon in 1975, and one seat
for the newly created territory of Nunavut in 1999.
Although several changes have occurred in the number of Senate seats since
1867, this institution, as Senator Murray noted on June 27, has not evolved
in more than 90 years with regard to western representation. Given the
important economic expansion and population increases in the west over the
last several decades, it certainly seems that the issue of
under-representation needs to be addressed sooner rather than later.
[Translation]
Honourable senators, although the members of our committee were not
unanimous, most support the Murray-Austin motion.
As our report indicates, the members of this committee urge senators from
all regions of Canada to support the motion, in order to give the government
and the legislative assemblies a starting point for providing the Western
provinces with more equitable representation in the Senate.
[English]
Besides addressing western representation our committee also dealt with the
issues of whether the motion went far enough, whether the distribution of
Senate seats was a serious cause of alienation and whether the proposed new
distribution would dilute representation of other regions of the country.
None of the concerns raised caused the committee to change its support for
the motion, although it did generate lively discussion.
To comment in passing, we are familiar with a number of modern proposals on
the distribution of Senate seats. The Triple -E movement that is basically
an Alberta movement for an equal, effective and elected Senate strongly
recommends a Senate that has equal numbers from each province. In fact, the
Charlottetown accord provided for equal numbers from each province but did
not pass the test of a referendum.
We in the committee heard interesting discussion of another proposal under
discussion. It was discussed primarily by Professor Resnick of the
University of British Columbia. It would involve a model different from
Triple-E or from the four or five regions proposed in the Murray-Austin
motion. It is a model somewhat like the German Bundesrat where the provinces
would be divided into the categories of large, medium and small and would be
allocated, as they are in Germany with respect to the Länder, a certain
number of seats according to their population. This model is very
interesting and important, and hopefully this will become part of our
longer-term discussion on this issue.
(1540)
I have also noted that since the reallocation of Senate seats 90 years ago,
we now have remarkable under-representation in the Senate from the West. It
is interesting to look at that in the context of representation by
population and, in particular, the effect of the constitutional guarantee of
seats in the House no less than seats in the Senate and the Representation
Act, 1985, which guarantees no fewer seats for a province than it held in
1976.
Honourable senators, if the Murray-Austin motion is adopted and then
submitted to the federal and provincial assemblies, it would officially
launch the amendment ratification process established by our Constitution
which, as I mentioned earlier, has provision for a three-year deadline,
along with the accompanying controversy and issues to which such a matter
would give rise.
However, aside from the motion's precise wording, an opportunity would also
arise for a full and open discussion that would not be constrained by
external deadlines. Some of the witnesses who testified before the committee
suggested that exploratory discussions take place to sound out the opinion
of Canadians and determine whether a consensus could be established on the
broader issue of Senate reform. Members of the committee were optimistic and
felt the time was right for such discussions, believing that the
Murray-Austin motion's proposal to increase Western representation offers an
excellent starting point.
In support of that, Alberta's Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Gary
Marr, demonstrated a degree of openness and optimism in this regard when he
appeared before our committee. He said:
...on previous occasions, when attempts were made to reform the Senate, we
came close, and compromise was made by all provinces. This situation, in the
right circumstances, may be the case again at some point in the future.
Time will tell whether this is that point. In any event, that is the spirit
behind the Murray-Austin motion and one which I applaud.
[Translation]
Honourable senators, the under-representation of the West in the Senate is a
matter that must be dealt with seriously. As indicated in our report, the
need to increase the proportion of seats attributed to the western provinces
is a recurring theme in most of the main proposals for Senate reform brought
forward over the past 40 years.
All the serious proposals since 1984 have had the goal of substantially
increasing Senate representation of the West.
[English]
That concludes my remarks. I would be pleased to answer any questions.