Statement made on 22 June 2011 by Senator Dennis Dawson
Hon. Dennis Dawson:
Honourable senators, I wish to speak today in response to the Speech from the Throne, which was delivered by the Governor General nearly a month ago.
I am sure that honourable senators will understand why I find exception to the government's policy, or tangible lack thereof, on these subjects. In the interest of time, I will keep my speech short and maybe sweet.
A year ago, I introduced a private member's bill, Bill S-227, which I had also introduced the year before. One Conservative member received it with disdain and contempt. The bill aimed to amend how election expenditure limits are calculated by Elections Canada.
Honourable senators, much ink was spilled and many tongues were wrung dry for such a simple bill, one that harkens back to the fundamental principle that elections, at least those held in Canada, should not be won by the size of a party's coffers but by the quality of its policies and ideas for the benefit of this great country.
With this proposed legislation, neither I nor the Liberal Party sought to restrict any individual's, collective's or organization's right to free speech. Rather, we aspired to enhance our democratic process by having parties focus on winning a battle of ideas and not a battle of dollars.
This principle should be applied at all times, but it is particularly essential in the situation we currently find ourselves in. Since May 3, 2007, as you know, we have had fixed election dates, which means that all the political parties know when to expect the next bout of election spending. In theory, elections are to take place on November 15, four years from now.
The Prime Minister has been known to change his mind; and I would not be surprised if it were to happen again.
It might delay him to 2020 or something.
However, any expenditures made in the months leading up to the election period are still not accounted for in the election spending totals of the political parties. In other words, the way it works now is that any party could spend as many millions of dollars as it wants, up until the end of September 2015, without having to count this as official election spending. I am sure that I am not the only one who sees a problem here.
Second, there is a rumour that the government will eliminate the per-vote subsidy for political parties. I believe that this represents a huge step backward for democracy in Canada and a step toward the Americanization of Canadian politics, which a number of my colleagues on the other side see as great progress — and I hope you know that I disagree.
Honourable senators, as per our mandate to soberly analyze bills coming from the other place, I believe we can agree that now more than ever, as we progress together as a country, we need to work to overcome the idea that politics can effectively dictate policy, when in reality policy should dictate politics. The first step in that direction is holding political parties appropriately accountable to their electoral expenses.
I will mention briefly the topic of Senate reform, given the tabling the day before yesterday of Bill C-7 by the Minister of State for Democratic Reform. Certainly, we will get back to this subject when the bill makes it to the Senate in two years, if Conservative senators decide to cooperate and bring it to this place.
The text of this bill states:
. . . a person . . . whose term is interrupted may be summoned again for a period equivalent to nine years less the portion of the term served after the coming into force of this section.
I know it sounds confusing, but that is how it is written. I will read it again:
. . . a person . . . whose term is interrupted may be summoned again for a period equivalent to nine years less the portion of the term served after the coming into force of this section.
Honourable senators, I would not dare to sign a bicycle rental agreement with language as vague as this is.
How are we supposed to interpret this text? According to an analysis by The Globe and Mail, if a senator who had already been elected wanted to run for a seat in the other place, he could interrupt his term in the Senate. That is becoming standard practice for the Conservative Party. What happens if that same individual loses the election and loses his seat or resigns from the other place? Is he invited to return to the Senate? In addition, would he be replaced during his absence, or would the seat remain vacant during that period?
There are so many questions to ask, not to mention the most important: why would an elected senator have a need to interrupt his mandate to run in the other place? It seems to me that when someone runs in an election, the intention is to win the popular vote and, therefore, to win a seat and carry out a mandate; not to be absent from work.
If the government and the minister think that a bill with such half-baked ideas written into it and with the potential to create numerous troublesome discrepancies will improve our democracy, then I believe it is only reasonable that we doubt their ability to organize mail services in Canada, let alone lead this country into the 21st century.