Statement made on 25 November 2008 by Senator Tommy Banks (retired)
Hon. Tommy Banks:
Honourable senators, in 1867, a property requirement of $4,000 in order to qualify for membership in the Senate of Canada was probably a sensible thing, because there is no doubt that in 1867 one of the reasons for this place was to stem the excesses of the rabble as well as to protect against the excesses of government.
Senator Segal: Hear, hear! That is still important.
Senator Banks: The former, one hopes, has now gone away. I hope this place has long since ceased to be a protection for the landed gentry and other landed interests.
However, the requirement still remains. One of the effects of the requirement is that if one were to be an apartment dweller, for example, that person would be excluded perforce from becoming a member of the Senate if he or she were so asked to do. That is an antediluvian requirement that may have made sense in 1867 and has never been changed. It makes no sense now.
We all know stories of people who, when they thought such an invitation might be extended, have had to go out and buy someone's garage or an acre of land in the back 40 somewhere in order to meet this qualification.
It is out of date. It is a means by which the Senate can fix itself in a small but not insignificant way. It is something that properly falls within the definition of the term "reform," I think.
Other efforts sometimes do not. Change is not necessarily reform, but this is reform. In one sense, this is bringing common sense of the 21st century to the Senate.
I hope we will have a debate on this and that it will be sent to committee to be considered carefully. An attendant motion having to do with Quebec is included to which I will speak briefly when it arises. However, I hope that we will deal with this, send it to committee and then send this bill to the House of Commons for consideration at the earliest possible date.
Hon. Hugh Segal: Would the Honourable Senator Banks entertain a question?
Senator Banks: Yes.
Senator Segal: I assume by the nature of the motion and its impact on qualification — and to that extent the appointment process — it is based on the premise that this chamber and our colleagues next door have the right to make those changes without a federal-provincial constitutional negotiation and without a direct reference to the Supreme Court of Canada. I assume it is implicit in this that the honourable senator believes this is the case.
Senator Banks: That is correct. As we know, certain things are set out in the Constitution. There is a fairly clear division about those things having to do with Parliament, which Parliament can change by itself. For example, we know that the question regarding the age of senators has been changed by Parliament itself without reference to the legislatures of the provinces or to any constitutional amendment beyond that done by Parliament.
Discussions have taken place about certain other motions made with respect to bills in this place and whether they fall on one side or the other of that fence. I believe this bill falls clearly within the purview of those things that Parliament can do to itself.
Senator Segal: I wonder whether it would be unfair on my part to expect from the honourable senator the same largess and open mindedness should legislation be presented to this place or to the other House about other aspects of the constitution of this body. Perhaps we could have the intellectual courage to move away from the prior position which was that if it involved something only within the federal jurisdiction, it still required a Supreme Court reference or federal-provincial negotiations.
All I am asking is that the principle underlying the honourable senator's very stout and admirable defence of the constitutionality of this proposition remain open for discussion in a constructive way should other reform legislation — small "r" — be presented to this chamber or the other place.
Senator Banks: All legislation presented in this place will, I hope, be given careful consideration. In my opinion, the answer and position on such a question will be "it depends, senator."