Document Information

Date: 1955-07-12
By: Canada (Parliament)
Citation: Canada, House of Commons Debates, 22nd Parl, 2nd Sess, 1955 at 6003-6014.
Other formats: Click here to view the original document (PDF).

6003

SUPPLY

The house resumed, from Monday, July 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. Harris for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Rowe.

SENATE REFORM

Mr. G. C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings): Mr. Speaker, when I adjourned this debate at one o’clock yesterday, I had sketched briefly the history of the Senate. The subject matter of the amendment before this house is that a committee of both houses of parliament should be appointed to study and report on the possible changes which might be made in that other place.

I had indicated some of the accomplishments of that body throughout the years. I had suggested something of the changed conditions which had taken place which warranted an investigation at this time. I had referred to the tremendous increase in the government services, the increased life of governments or the length of life of governments, as compared with the short lives which prevailed at the time of confederation in the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada. I had also referred to the enhanced prerogatives of the Prime Minister in so far as appointments are concerned.

I think there is another change which has also taken place, and which perhaps militates against perhaps not the usefulness but the value which many people attach to that organization, and that is this. As I pointed out, originally the primary purpose of the Senate was to guard against sectional differences and also to act as a protector for racial and religious groups and minorities. I think throughout the years a change has taken place so that in so far as sections, at any rate, are concerned—and I refer to geographical sections—there is now no feeling that they might be oppressed or might suffer injustice at the hand of a strong central parliament here.

I think it is a good thing that has happened. Any injury a section might suffer today—and I am thinking particularly of the maritimes— would not result from any warranted or predetermined action of this parliament. It is something like the fear we express with respect to communism; that is, it is a matter of the infiltration and the indirect approach rather than open attack. They suffer today perhaps from the changes of centralization in industry and other matters such as that rather than any fear that the parliament of Canada or any part of Canada would do anything which would deliberately prejudice their position. Because of that, these areas

6004

which at one time attached a great deal of importance to the Senate probably do not have that same strong feeling which at one time they had.

Of course in so far as groups are concerned, racial and religious, there is no question that the Senate is today and always will be looked upon as the bulwark; though I am sure nothing ever would be done to interfere with them at any time by any conceivable government. And if a government should attempt to do anything to interfere with them, I am sure the majority of the members of this house would intervene. As has already been said in another debate, we are members first. It would be inconceivable that anything would be done which would affect the situation. But even so, the Senate is there and to that extent-and probably only to that extent- today it does serve the historic function for which it was created. I therefore think the time has come when study should be given to these changed conditions in order to see what new functions and new duties that body could perform.

I have just been glancing through the report of a dominion-provincial conference in 1927, and I see that Hon. Ernest Lapointe, the representative of the Canadian government at that time, lists a number of proposals for changes:

Among these proposals were, first, abolition; second, the adoption of the elective principle direct or indirect; third, a combination of both the appointive and elective principles; fourth, a fixed and limited term of office; fifth, an age limit with possible superannuation; and sixth, a bringing of relations between Canadian upper and lower chambers into accord with the relations between the House of Commons and the House of Lords in Great Britain.

In other words there have always been numerous proposals, such as some of those which were made yesterday during this debate, as to what might be accomplished. This afternoon I am not going to discuss any of those specific proposals. Personally I can say that I have given some thought to the possibility of a certain number of appointments being made by the provinces. If the committee is set up I think that is one matter which undoubtedly it would consider. We are faced with the problem of constitutional change in this country. We have sooner or later to evolve a pattern whereby we can amend our own constitution. We have not made a great deal of progress in the solution of that problem, and we shall not make progress in that direction until we get the accord of the provinces and can work out a system whereby the provinces and the dominion can co-operate to that end. It has sometimes occurred to me that if, for instance, the provincial governments were responsible for the appointment of, we will say, one-third of the senators so there would be at least one-third there presumably representing the provincial viewpoint, then possibly the provinces would be willing to agree to some system of constitutional amendment whereby on a two-thirds vote of both houses the Canadian constitution might be amended. At least that is a thought in that direction which I think is worthy of study as, if and when the committee is set up.

Of course that suggestion does give opportunity for the appointment of various groups and for different political parties coming into the Senate, something which is impossible now. Although that is true, certainly if this were made a term office rather than a life office, I think there would be a good chance indeed of some of this group disappearing within the next few years. We would not want appointments there from a dead and distant past representing a party which had ceased to exist. But I think the greatest criticism which can be levelled at that other place today—if a criticism is to be levelled against it—is the imbalance or lack of balance between the political parties represented in the Senate.

I noticed in the press this morning that, according to the figures given there, there are 7 representing the Progressive Conservative party, 73 representing the Liberal party, and 22 vacancies. Up until 1945 there were never more than 65 at any time—that was the greatest number—representing one political party. I do not think there ever were the number of vacancies that exist today. In a statement made the other day by a distinguished and prominent Liberal senator—I refer to Senator Farris of Vancouver—I notice that he said:

But I predict with great seriousness that if the Liberal party remains in office, and the policy with respect to appointments that has prevailed since confederation is maintained, so that the house consists of a solid body of Liberals, nobody on earth will ever convince the public that the best interests of the public are being served.

As I said, that is the statement of a Liberal senator and I think it is a perfectly rational one. If there is criticism of this body, apart from its protective functions and perhaps the lessening necessity for that, it is largely because of this matter of balance as between the parties. I think it puts a great challenge up to the Prime Minister in this matter.

As I said, under our constitutional system, as it functions, the prerogative has increased, and properly so. I am not criticizing that aspect of it. One of the unquestioned prerogatives of the Prime Minister is that of the making of appointments to the Senate. We

6005

have seen reports in the papers—in fact, we heard speeches not so long ago in this place —which might indicate that appointments will be made there in the very near future. Certain appointments which are made or which have been suggested as being made from this place I am sure would add strength to the Senate and maintain the tradition of service of the Liberal party. But as I said, I think there is a challenge here to the Prime Minister for two reasons.

In the first place his party, the Liberal party, has been the great exponent of Senate reform throughout the years. His predecessor spoke often and at great length on what would be done in reforming the Senate, and talked of that body as it was then constituted in language which I am quite sure you, Mr. Speaker, would not permit us to use at this time. I notice that the other day in a debate the government leader in the Senate referred to a private conversation with Mr. Mackenzie King, in which he said he had hoped to be able to do something about the Senate but he had been too busy to deal with it.

The Prime Minister is now at the peak of his career and has a long record of public service. Although he intimated the other day that he has no immediate intention of retiring, obviously the day comes to all of us when we do retire, and his retirement will come in the not too distant future. I suggest that he has an opportunity to do something now and in the immediate future toward the strengthening and rectification of the Senate. His present situation is such that he is in a position to do it.

I think the situation has changed from what it was a few years ago. Certainly one has always recognized the fact that political appointments are made. One recognizes political loyalty. One recognizes that there comes a time when the man who has served his party long and faithfully in this place and, as happens to most members of parliament, has become very poor and hard up, looks for some reward in the form of an appointment, and in the past it has been perhaps the natural thing to consider that appointments should be made elsewhere.

I think the inauguration of our pension system has changed that principle to a substantial extent. True, a pension of $3,000 a year is perhaps not on the same plane and would not be so appealing as an appointment to an office which pays substantially more. But I am saying the Prime Minister is facing a different position from that which has confronted any previous prime minister. He has a greater opportunity than has been given to any previous prime minister. He has a tremendous number of vacancies with which to deal, and I think he can greatly enhance his reputation by making the type of appointment which will please the public, redress the lack of balance existing in the other place today, and altogether strengthen our parliamentary system.

It is high time it was done. It does not reflect credit upon our parliament—and the Senate is a part of our parliament—that there should be such a number of vacancies existing there. It does not make for public support, as Senator Farris says, if you have the tremendous lack of proportion that exists today. From the point of view of the short-term rectification of the problem, I suggest the challenge and the opportunity is there for the Prime Minister. I suggest he should intervene in this debate. I do not know anything more important, even at this late hour of the session, than consideration of the fundamental functioning of our parliamentary system.

For the long-term problem the solution obviously lies in the appointment of this committee. I grant you they could not study the matter at this time, but if we recognize the principle now, if the government is prepared to accept the fact that a committee should be set up, then at another session of parliament a conscientious and comprehensive study can be made of the problem. I am sure if that were done we would go a long way toward improving our parliamentary system and adding to the respect which I am afraid the public do not feel toward it at the moment.

Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak at this time in support of the amendment now before us.—I admit I am not in complete agreement with all of the amendment, but it is the best that can be moved at this time.

If I will not be out of order I should like to make a very brief suggestion. I suggest that while our procedure in the House of Commons can be of use in the provincial legislatures, the procedure in those legislatures can also be of use in the House of Commons. At this time I should like to make a suggestion to you, Mr. Speaker, which I hope you will put into effect. I suggest that Routine Proceedings and Orders of the Day should not only contain the motions before the house but also amendments moved to those motions. As it is now, a member has to look back through Hansard covering a period of a month or two months, sometimes, to find out the actual amendment that Is being discussed. Under provincial procedure

6006

you find amendments on the orders of the day, on the very day the subject is being discussed.

At this moment we are discussing the amendment moved by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe). I want to read it because I am afraid some bon. members may have forgotten it. It reads as follows: That all the words after “That” to the end of the question be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

“the government should give consideration to initiating the necessary consultation and inquiry respecting reform of the Senate including such matters as the method by which the members of the Senate should be chosen so that all appropriate steps may be taken in order that the Senate may more effectively discharge the constitutional function it was intended to serve as an integral part of our parliamentary system.”

I rise to speak in support of the amendment although in principle I stand for the abolition of the other place. I have found it very difficult to understand why it is necessary to have a second house in the senior parliament of Canada. In the majority of the provinces of Canada, which have a very important jurisdiction under the British North America Act, it has not been found necessary at all to have a second house. I have yet to hear any M.L.A. or M.P.P. in a province that does not have a second house speak in favour of having an upper house. To my own knowledge I have never known the citizens of any of the provinces of Canada that do not have a second house express a desire for one.

However, under the constitution the federal parliament of Canada has a second chamber. Personally I think it is completely unnecessary, but if it is required then I am definitely of the opinion it should come under controls similar to those of the upper house in Great Britain, so the will of the elected members cannot be stalled for more than one year by a non-elected body. If under our constitution and in the view of the house we have to have the Senate, then I say that reform is necessary; and in conformity with the amendment now before us I say that at no time should a non-elected body be able to supersede the wishes of the Canadian people as expressed through their elected representatives in the House of Commons.

Although it is my belief that we do not need a second chamber in the parliamentary system of Canada, I believe I could, strangely enough, put up an argument as to why it should be retained. In a previous discussion this morning I made reference to a study of bills initiated in the House of Commons and referred to the other place. From 1924 to 1953 inclusive there were 1,799 bills initiated and passed in the House of Commons and referred to the other place.

Here, Mr. Speaker, we have a most interesting study of what happened to those 1,799 bills so far as the other place is concerned. May I say that from 1924 to 1940 there were 18 sessions, and from 1940 to 1953 there were 16 sessions. Here, sir, is the record of what the other place did with those approximately 1,800 bills.

There were 292 government bills amended by the Senate, and 28 rejected. There were 1,245 passed without amendment and four were withdrawn or action was not concluded. In so far as the private bills initiated in the House of Commons from 1924 to 1953 inclusive are concerned, 31 were amended by the Senate, five were rejected and 153 were passed without amendment. There was one withdrawn or action not concluded. In so far as public bills initiated by private members in the House of Commons from 1924 to 1953 are concerned, three were amended by the Senate, 10 were rejected and 18 were passed without amendment. There were two withdrawn or action not concluded.

Taking the total of government bills, private bills initiated in this house and public bills initiated in this house by private members, we find that there were 326 amended by the Senate, 43 rejected, and 1,433 passed without amendment. There were eight withdrawn or action not completed.

This has taken quite a lot of study, Mr. Speaker, but I have had these figures confirmed so I know they are correct. They prove that the Senate has a function to perform, because out of 1,799 bills initiated in the House of Commons, passed by the house and referred to the Senate, the Senate amended 326, rejected 43 and passed 1,438, while 8 died on the order paper. Something very strange happened in the other place. I have been trying to find out what strange thing happened, but as yet I have not found out. It occurred in 1940.

I feel the record indicates that something occurred in 1940 which should be of serious import to us. I have referred to the record concerning House of Commons bills referred to the other place from 1924 to 1953 inclusive, and now I am going to draw a line at 1940. I am afraid, sir, I must ask hon. members to follow this rather closely, unless they would like me to have this chart filed and printed.

As I have said, between 1924 and 1940 there were 18 sessions, and between 1940 and 1953 there were 16 sessions of the House of Commons. Here is what happened to the bills initiated in this house during those two periods and referred to the Senate. I am going to give a breakdown of what happened during the 18 sessions from 1924 to 1940 when the Senate dealt with House of Commons

6007

his, and the 16 sessions from1940 to 1953. In so far as government bills were concerned, from 1924 to 1940 there were 1,164 his referred by the House of Commons to the Senate. The Senate made amendments to 197 bills. From 1940 to 1953, that is during 16 sessions, there were 635 government bills referred to the Senate and 95 bills were amended by that body. In the first period, 1924 to 1940, there were 28 government bills rejected by the Senate. Of the 635 government his referred to the Senate between 1940 and 1953, only one was rejected.

Let us go to private bills initiated in this house between 1924 and 1940. There was a total of 1,164 his referred to the Senate during that period, of which 30 were amended. From 1940 to 1953 one private bill was amended by the Senate. From 1924 to 1940 five private bills were rejected by the Senate. From 1940 to 1953 no private his were rejected by the Senate

Let us take the public bills by private members. From 1924 to 1940, three were amended by the Senate. From 1940 to 1953, none. From 1924 to 1940, 10 were rejected by the Senate. From 1940 to 1953, none was rejected by the Senate. Sir, put these records together and it makes an amazing picture, and very definitely proves the need for some kind of reform in the other place and an explanation. of what has happened since 1940.

Can you understand it, Mr. Speaker? I have not the record here; I shall have to go through the figures in my own mind right now. From 1940 on not one government bill was ever rejected by the Senate. Go through the entire chart of government bills, private bills and public bills by private members from 1940, and you will see it is perfectly obvious, judging by this chart which I have checked, that the Senate is the stooge of the government since 1940.

Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf): Oh!

Mr. Winch: The Senate is the stooge of the government. Why? Why, sir, I do not know. I said I did not know after I got this breakdown and had it checked.

I have already said, Mr. Speaker, I believe in the abolition of the other place. I believe in that most sincerely. It is not required. Under the British North America Act the provinces, which. have just as serious responsibilities as the federal government in their own jurisdictions, do not require upper houses. I have never yet heard any requests for it. But as we have not that power I say, sir, that there is need for a reformation of the other place in line with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Dufferin- Simcoe. Apparently that is as far as we can go. I agree with him that there should be discussion on appointments to the other house and how they are made.

If we are to have another place, I agree with him that in honesty not only to the people of Canada but to the other place as well we should have a definite understanding and workable agreement as to the part they play in the government, and i the administration of government business in Canada. I go beyond the amendment, if I may, although it ties in with it, and suggest that if this house believes we must have another place there should be reform, but it should not be completely on the basis of asking the government to consider it. If we must have another place, it should be on the basis that next session there shall be an agreement between the House of Commons and the Senate in the first week we meet as to the appointment of a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons ta consider the position of the Senate, and ta draft recommendations and a report to both houses as to how they can do an improved and a better job as the non-elective representatives of the people of Canada. I also want to say it is imperative that it be known that at no time nor in any way can a non-elective, patronage-appointed group have any superior or veto powers over the elected representatives who sit in the House of Commons.

It may be necessary, sir, to have a body which is capable of giving second thought to legislation. I personally am very much in agreement with the views and the law in Great Britain. We have heard a lot today about the parliament in Westminster where the upper house can turn dawn the elected members once, but if the elected members twice say this is the opinion of the House of Commons, then they have to pass it.

Sir, I think we are faced in this amendment with one of the most important issues that can possibly come before us. I have expressed my opinions an the other place. If, because of our federal make-up, there are some provinces that still think, for reasons of their awn, that they need the protection of the upper place in order to safeguard provincial rights, with which I do not agree, may I say that this is the representative body of all Canada.

If an upper house is still felt to be necessary, then, sir, 1 want to support the amendrnent of the hon. member that there should be consultation and a reformation. A good job would be done for all of Canada if early next session the government would bring in a motion for a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons to consider—you may be surprised at this, Mr. Speaker—not only the responsibilities of the Senate but

6008

the responsibilities of the House of Commons in relation to the Senate.

Mr. J. W. Noseworthy (York South): Mr. Speaker, we shall support this amendment. Personally I would be more enthusiastic if the committee that is recommended were to study first of all what is the useful purpose now served by the other place.

The amendment assumes that the other place is essential, that it does perform a useful function and that it should be reformed and maintained. I would be more interested in the setting up of such a committee if its first function was to make an impartial. down to earth study of just what achievements could be placed to the credit of the other place during say the past 25 years, and just what purpose the appointed chamber has served that could not be served just as well by the elected House of Commons. In my opinion that is the first study that is required.

If the other place is serving a useful function in our government, then let us know just what is that useful function. The origins of appointed second chambers go back in history to the days when the upper chamber and those represented by that upper chamber wielded political power within the country. It goes back to the days when the elected representatives of the people could not be trusted to govern. Our second chamber exists today on that premise. Once you assume the position that the elected representatives of the people and they alone must assume responsibility for the governing of the country, and that the second chamber must under no circumstances be able to oppose indefinitely the will of that elected representative body, then you have cut from underneath the Senate the foundation on which such chambers were first established.

As has been shown, the other place has been most modest in amending and rejecting legislation passed by this chamber during the past 15 years. This is a simple indication that there is growing up in the public mind the belief that the elected representatives of the people can be trusted to govern and that no check is required upon them by an appointed second body. I suggest that the members of the second chamber know full well today that if they were to reject any important government measure or amend in any important respect any measure passed by this chamber, they would be signing the death warrant of the second chamber. I suggest that is the reason, with the passing of the years, the influence of the other place upon legislation passed in this chamber has been diminishing year by year.

I shall support the amendment, but I do suggest that if there is any attempt made to set up a committee for the purpose of studying Senate reform that committee should be asked, first of all, to set down in black and white just what contributions that chamber has made to the government of this country which could not have been made just as well by this chamber, and without the cost to the country of maintaining a second chamber.

Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, this amendment has been before the house for some days because other debates have intervened. The amendment was drafted carefully with the idea of providing for such procedure as the government may decide upon. We recognize perfectly well that if anything of this kind is to be done the government in power must decide the course that will be followed, must be prepared not only to decide the course but to accept it as a responsibility.

I should like to read the amendment again, because it is neither limited as to exact form nor suitable as a basis for proceeding upon at this time in the session. The amendment before the house reads:

That all the words after “That” to the end of the question be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

“the government should give consideration to initiating the necessary consultation and inquiry respecting reform of the Senate, including such matters as the method by which the members of the Senate should be chosen, so that ail appropriate steps may be taken in order that the Senate may more effectively discharge the constitutional function it was intended to serve as an integral part of our parliamentary system.”

I would point out that under this amendment it would be appropriate for the government to institute such consultation as might bring into the discussion all opinions which would bear on this subject. I have emphasized my own belief on earlier occasions that in this country the provinces have a particular and continuing interest in the structure of the Senate and its functions. In that respect there is a fundamental difference between the role of the House of Lords at Westminster and the Senate in Canada.

At Westminster the House of Lords is simply an upper chamber of review. It is true that in certain instances the initiative is taken in the discussion of various subjects, but it is appropriate to say that in most instances it acts merely as a chamber of review. As has been pointed out this afternoon, the House of Lords has been placed in the position where it cannot prevent indefinitely the adoption of legislation passed by the elected body. Nevertheless that does not render the House of Lords impotent. The fact that legislation can be held up for one year means that if the House of Lords does

6009

hold up legislation there is an opportunity within that year for public opinion to assert itself, and for the opinions of a free press to have their impact upon the elected body. In that way there is the protection of a second look during a whole year within which there is opportunity to arouse public opinion if in fact the legislation should not be adopted.

Here the Senate as an upper chamber is a chamber of review, but there is no doubt that the primary reason for the setting up of a second chamber was the protection of our federal constitution and the rights of the provinces under that constitution. It is only necessary to read the discussions which took place prior to confederation in 1867 to find that the province of Quebec and the maritime provinces made the creation of a senate a condition precedent to the acceptance of the general terms of confederation.

The reason for that was clear. It was thought that this would assure the greatest measure of protection to those rights which were being conferred upon the provinces by the British North America Act, our basic constitution. The fact is that in Ontario not the same importance was attached to the second chamber at that time, though I should think there would be as great an interest in Ontario as elsewhere in a properly constituted second chamber. I believe there must be a second chamber in Canada, no matter what arguments might prevail in any other jurisdiction.

I would point out that there is one correction to be made to a statement that was made in this house just a short time ago with regard to the provincial legislatures. It was said that no provincial legislature has shown any interest in a second chamber. Actually there is a second chamber in Quebec, which after all does embrace a very large part of Canada. There were second chambers until quite recently in other provinces as well.

I would point out that the reason for a second chamber in the provincial legislatures is not the same. The second chamber in the provincial legislature is simply for the purpose of review. There are no constitutional rights to protect, in relation to legislation adopted by the provincial legislatures. Here we must recognize—and when I say “we must” I do so in the belief that all of us do recognize—the necessity for respecting the fundamental principles of our federal system. There must be a second chamber if we are to avoid endless disputes about the whole constitutional structure in this country. Nevertheless there is a chance that we might come to the point where there would be an overwhelming demand for the abolition of that second chamber, unless that second chamber were more effective than it is today.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that without transgressing the rules I may use the term “Senate”, because I find that in all the discussions that have taken place in the past the word has been used in discussing this subject. It is difficult to use the artificial expression of “the other place” when we are in fact discussing merely the structural entity of parliament itself.

Perhaps if there is a single debate where the members might well say, “We have heard all this before”, it is in regard to Senate reform. No other debate could be instituted which has covered such an extensive period. In fact it has been going on for more than 70 years. Some discussion began very shortly after Canada became one country under the constitution. Sixty-nine years ago the position of the Liberal party was stated in the House of Commons-not in this same chamber, but in the Canadian House of Commons-in these words on another supply motion:

The purpose which a second chamber was intended to serve in our parliamentary system has not been secured by the Senate as it is now constituted.

They discovered that a long time ago. Over long years this debate has been renewed on supply and other motions in an effort to begin an appropriate consideration of the necessary reform of the second chamber. If that was an accurate assessment of the situation in 1886, it would be at least 10 times as accurate today, and perhaps that is a very conservative estimate.

How can the government reasonably object to such a proposal? This is the only country with a second chamber which over an extended period has done nothing at any time to reform the upper house and bring it into a modern relationship with the operation of parliament, no matter how strictly the fundamental principles guiding that upper body may be respected.

There has been a fundamental change in the United States. Until as recently as 1913, from the formation of the United States the senators at Washington were appointed. Then by the seventeenth amendment to the constitution of the United States it was decided that they would be elected. They have been elected since then and presumably will continue to be elected.

In Australia the senate is elected. There have been substantial reforms there. The senate there has also been under very considerable criticism. In fact only a few years ago, when the whole question of the reform

6010

of the senate was being discussed, it was described, in words that were repeated on a number of occasions, as “a group of 60 completely undistinguished men”. I am not borrowing that quotation. I am simply pointing out that there have been other jurisdictions in which the need for reform has been recognized.

The House of Lords, of course, has been reformed over and over again; and the further reform of the House of Lords is under consideration at this very time, although there have been numerous earlier inquiries. One of the reasons I think if we were reviewing this subject afresh today we would still come to the conclusion that we should have an upper house is that each of those countries which emerged from the war and established new constitutions in a democratic form has established an upper house. In France, where they adopted a new constitution by a vote of the people after the second world war, an upper house was established. That was also true in Italy, where they established an upper house under a new constitution. The same is true in Germany, where an effective democracy is now in operation. I am sure we would come to the conclusion that a second house has many advantages, even if we were not merely bound by the considerations which had so much to do with the adoption of the upper house at the time of confederation itself. I do not need to repeat today all the impassioned arguments that were made by members of the Liberal party in the past in regard to the need for reform. It became almost a basic issue in itself. There was going to be reform that would bring the second chamber-

An hon. Member: Haven’t they done so?

Mr. Drew: —into consonance with the ideals of those who drafted our constitution at Quebec. When a Liberal government came to power the only reform that took place was a reform to make the Senate acquiescent with the House of Commons. That was never the intention of the fathers of confederation.

Mr. Winch: And since 1940 in particular.

Mr. Drew: It was in 1940 that the efflux of time achieved the result which the Liberal party started on its course some years earlier, the course that led to appropriate control over the Senate in 1940 begun in 1925. It was at that time that one of the most cynical acts that has ever been undertaken by any government in Canada was undertaken openly and without apology. After all the lofty sentiments expressed about the need for Senate reform the prime minister of Canada at that time settled the problem by demanding from new Senate appointees the pledge that they would support legislation passed by his government.

Mr. Speaker, that was not only a cynical disregard of the appeal that had been made, but I am inclined to think those members were never entitled to sit. By their own pledge they had denied their independence. Whether or not they were legally disentitled to sit, they were morally disentitled to do so. Every man and every woman who went into the Senate with a pledge that be or she would blindly support any legislation passed by this house was in fact undermining the whole independence of parliament. In that very acquiescence to the demand of the prime minister appointing them they most effectively undermined public confidence in the Senate. It is no wonder that Liberals themselves on other occasions have described the Senate as a blot on our parliamentary system. Those are not my words; they are the words of Sir Richard Cartwright years ago in describing his attitude toward that second body.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the day has passed when this government feels it is impelled to elicit such a pledge. I do not know that the pledge has been discontinued but, from a practical point of view, I recognize that it is unnecessary at this time. There is a good deal of discussion in the press, including today’s newspapers, about appointments that are to be made to the Senate. May I express the hope that no lady or gentleman in this country will accept a Senate appointment in the belief that by his or ber acceptance be or she is going to effectively contribute anything to a reform of the second chamber. In fact the appointment of a number of distinguished men and women may serve only to obscure the fact that there are fundamental reforms that are essential. In the surprise and pleasure of seeing a number of independent and distinguished people appointed to the Senate, many may acclaim that decision and discontinue the pressure for reform. I hope that will not occur. The appointment of men and women whose standing in their communities and whose independence of judgment would in themselves commend their appointment will not in any way overcome the weakness which has been continuing now for so many long years. For over 70 years the demand has been there for a reform of the upper chamber. There is no other country with a bicameral systern which, over that period of years, has failed to do something to make the second chamber a more effective part of the structure of parliament.

6011

I think we can express the hope that the government might welcome this motion. It is drafted in a way that I believe makes it acceptable. Earlier this afternoon discussion took place which grew out of a motion which I had the honour to present several years ago, and which was adopted by the government. In that particular vote we have evidence that the government can adopt a motion of this kind without embarrassing itself in any way, simply by saying that the motion is acceptable to them. Surely if there. is any government anywhere that should accept a proposal that steps of this kind be initiated, it is a government formed by a party which for 70 years has been demanding Senate reform.

Mr. Speaker, a number of quotations have been put on the record, and I do not intend to repeat those quotations. However, I wish to go back to a statement made by Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1906, when he emphasized the special consideration that must be borne in mind here; and it did not relate alone to the emphasis that his native province places upon the second chamber. These were his words:

One consideration which, to my mind, is absolutely conclusive and paramount is that under our system of government a second chamber is an absolutely needed safeguard for the smaller provinces against a possible invasion of their rights by the larger provinces.

Mr. Speaker, it goes further than that. It is a guarantee of the constitutional rights of the provinces. It is a guarantee against the invasion of the rights of smaller provinces by the larger provinces; but above all, at a time when there is a greater and greater concentration of financial and political power in the hands of the central government, it may well be the only protection of the provinces against the increasing strength of the central government.

For all these reasons I believe the motion should be regarded as acceptable. Because of our own special considerations here in Canada I am satisfied that this is a subject about which the provinces must be consulted. That was recognized in 1927, when the dominion-provincial conference dealt with this subject.

As has already been pointed out, the then minister of justice, the late Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe, placed before that conference a number of considerations which should be examined, such as the possibility of an elected senate, or a partly elected and partly appointed senate, or a fully appointed senate, or even abolition of the senate.

As has happened so often, that conference reached no conclusion. Nevertheless, the very fact that this subject in detail was placed before a dominion-provincial conference at that time by a Liberal minister of justice indicates recognition that the provinces have a part to play in this discussion. I would hope that they will be brought into the consideration of this subject.

The amendment presented to the house, Mr. Speaker, is drafted in the way it is with that thought in mind, that after the house has been prorogued the government can appoint a commission or can call a conference at which representatives of the House of Commons, as represented by the government, the Senate itself and the provinces could meet to discuss this subject. Surely there is nothing surprising that this demand should be made after all these years. Long years ago a leading Liberal, Sir Richard Cartwright, called the Senate a blot on our parliamentary system. I think if it was a blot then it might well be described in even more emphatic terms today although, of course, outside the house.

But the fact is that it is extremely unfair to the men and women who have accepted appointment to the Senate to leave them in the position where they find themselves so unable to carry out the tasks which I am sure they would be ready to accept.

Mr. Zaplitny: Would the Leader of the Opposition permit a question before be concludes? Would he care to indicate what specific reforms be or his party have in mind when they speak of Senate reform?

Mr. Drew: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is appropriate to set up a body of inquiry and then tell the body of inquiry in advance what it should do. I have proposed a method by which a body of inquiry can conduct an objective investigation into the appropriate reforms that can take place, and I do not think it is necessary or proper for those who pass a resolution asking others to conduct an inquiry and present a report to tell them in advance what report they shall make. I pointed out that in the presentation of this subject to the dominion-provincial conference in 1927 an elected senate, a partly elected, partly appointed senate, and a fully appointed senate were considered, as well as abolition of the senate itself. All these subjects would be before such a conference or commission of inquiry if the government chose to set it up. I do not believe any bon. member in this house will challenge the fact that there are men and women in the other place whose training and ability has been demonstrated, and who unquestionably could give valuable service if reforms took place which made it possible for that service to be rendered in the way it could be rendered in an appropriately reformed upper house. I think it is

6012

equally unnecessary to argue that there would be many hon. members who would not recognize that the Senate is not held in that regard in which any part of our parliamentary body should be held by the public in general at this time. There have been too many cases where there has been sufficient reason to give at least some credence to the belief that the Senate has been used as a form of special pension for certain members of parliament.

Mr. Noseworthy: By both Liberals and Conservatives.

Mr. Drew: I am not suggesting there is any special virtue attached to any particular member of any party in this house, and I am certainly not going to assign any special badge of purity to the hon. members to my left. I feel sure this is something that calls for an examination of the subject without any suggestion that anyone can dodge responsibility for what has happened. But every hon. member here must accept some responsibility unless he asks that appropriate steps be taken to reform the Senate, including any method of reform that could be brought before such a body or committee of inquiry.

Mr. Winch: That is why I am supporting the motion.

Mr. Drew: I recognize that is the case. That was clearly indicated, and we welcome that support because we welcome the sincerity expressed by those who hold a viewpoint different from ours regarding the function of the Senate. We do suggest, however, that the body of inquiry, whether it be a conference or a commission, shall not have its hands tied in advance as to the recommendations it will make.

Mr. Blackmore: Will the Leader of the Opposition permit a question? I have been listening with a great deal of interest. I am trying to find out just what it is that, in the hon. gentleman’s mind, makes the Senate unfit for doing the work we would like to have it do. The Senate is there. What is there about the Senate as it is now constituted which renders it unable to do the work it should do, and which could be removed by any other method of appointing members of the Senate or of getting them into office?

Mr. Drew: In the first place, Mr. Speaker, 1 think the evidence already presented as to the failure of the upper house to have any appreciable impact upon legislation in recent years is in itself one of the most convincing pieces of evidence of the need for reform. I also think we must recognize, and I am sure all hon. members do recognize, that the debates of the Senate have not been of a nature to leave a very strong impact upon the general public in recent years. That is not because of lack of ability in the Senate, but because there has been a substantial measure of unreality in debate largely going back to the pledge which I mentioned earlier in my remarks.

I also believe that the Senate can be a body where legislation of certain types, other than divorce legislation, can be appropriately initiated. I feel sure that the general business of parliament could be greatly expedited by the initiation of certain types of legislation in the upper house. I accept the proposition that in this country there are special reasons why a second chamber is essential, and starting from that point I want to see that second chamber as effective as possible.

Mr. Blackmore: May I ask another question?

Mr. Drew: I would prefer to conclude these remarks. There is one other reason why I think we must examine this question. After all, whatever expenditures may be devoted to defence and other activities of that nature, which perhaps change our ideas of the importance of dollars, the fact remains that we cannot entirely disregard the fact that the Senate is costing the taxpayers of Canada approximately $3 million a year at this time. I think from a business point of view we should seek to make sure that the $3 million for the upper house is well spent.

I believe there is also another point that would make it very desirable that such a committee be appointed at this time. In reading the press in recent days many hon. members will have seen suggestions that not only is there to be an early transition of some individuals from one part of the parliamentary body to the other, but also that the Senate may become a convenient place to dispose of the embarrassing services of some members of the government.

Whether or not there is anything in those suggestions, the fact remains that in the face of suggestions of that kind I would hope the government’s desire to maintain respect for the upper house would, in itself, perhaps encourage them to accept the suggestion that steps of this kind be initiated. Whether the government accepts the motion or does not, I do hope it will accept the responsibility for maintaining public confidence in our combined parliamentary system. This can only result from some inquiry of this nature which brings the provinces as well as representatives of both bodies of our bicameral parliament into consultation.

I would hope that once again, as on an earlier occasion to which reference has been made in an earlier debate today, the government could see its way clear to approving a

6013

motion from the opposition, and that at least after 70 years there would be a practical beginning on the reform of the upper house so, it might become a really effective part of our parliamentary system.

Mr. Knight: Would the hon. member permit a question? I have spoken on the subject, but I can ask a question. I may say that I feel the questions that have already been asked show the interest there has been in the excellent speech the Leader of the Opposition has delivered. One of the functions of the Senate, as he saw it—and I think he emphasized it as the most important—was the protection of the rights of the provinces. I want to ask him if this protection is exercised in any other way except by such power of veto or amendment as the Senate has over Commons legislation? I ask this question in view of the statement by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) that practically no amendment or veto power had been exercised by the Senate over the last 15 years.

Mr. Drew: I do not believe the lack of any veto power has been the result of anything but the change brought about by the cynical pledge which was demanded of those appointees from 1925 onward, to the effect that they would support any legislation brought forward by this government without consideration of their own convictions in relation to that legislation. I can only emphasize my own belief that this was an improper pledge, a cynical denial of the freedom of the individual within one of our parliamentary bodies. I would hope the reform that would take place would prevent; any such course as was adopted at that time.

Mr. Knight: In other words, in your opinion the provinces have ceased to have the protection to which they are entitled, for the reason you have stated?

Mr. Drew: Shall I put it this way. I do not think there is any convincing evidence since 1940 that their rights are adequately protected, and that is one o!fthe reasons I would hope that Senate reform would assure the measure of protection which was intended at the time our constitution was drafted prior to confederation in 1867.

The house divided on the amendment (Mr. Rowe) which was negatived on the following division:

YEAS

Messrs:

[…]-62

NAYS

Messrs.

[…]

6014

[…]-95

Mr. Pouliot: I was paired with the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.

Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.

Mr. Green: May I ask the Minister of Finance if it is firmly understood that one department will not be called?

Mr. Harris: Correct.