Making Life More Affordable for Canadians Bill

Honourable senators, I’d like to make a few comments on this bill, retrospectively on Part 4, but on the bill as a whole, as well.

However you might feel about the way in which the debate went and the votes fell, I think we can all agree that we had a good debate. I certainly learned a lot about many of the niceties of the Canada Elections Act.

Some of us are — I am — disappointed that a number of the amendments didn’t go through, but the failure of an amendment to go through should not be seen as a failure of the Senate to raise important questions about the bill. There’s a notion sometimes that the only way in which the Senate can be effective is if it defeats a bill or if an amendment has gone through. Indeed, there are some people who say that the Senate cannot be a true Senate unless it’s willing to defeat a bill. This is a position taken by our friends in the opposition sometimes. This is manifestly not true because sometimes simply raising the question in debate, asking the questions in committee and proposing an amendment that fails all raise awareness about a problem that is perceived to exist in the bill that may well change the course of future policy.

This is a contribution to what I call the arc of legislative debate, which is where we should focus the Senate’s contribution rather than focusing on the specifics of an amendment or whether we vote for or against the bill. The arc of legislative debate includes not just what we do in here but also what we do in committee, what we do before the media, what we say to our friends and what we do in the public domain when we talk about the merits and demerits of the bill.

There are broader lessons that can be gleaned from tonight’s debate and our debates over the last couple of weeks on this bill. Some of these have been aired here tonight already. They have to do with the complementary role of the Senate vis-à-vis the House and the extent to which we should curb our enthusiasm for amendments that we think are necessary, but which may run in the face of perhaps unanimous support from the House of Commons.

There are questions around the appropriateness of amending government bills in particular — bills that either have the support of the electorate through the Salisbury convention or bills that may not have that support.

But there’s another lesson I want to draw our attention to tonight: In the few weeks of debates that we’ve had on this bill, the opposition to the bill has come from non-partisan senators in the Canadian Senators Group, the Progressive Senate Group and the Independent Senators Group and from non-affiliated senators in this chamber.

Opposition to this bill has not come from the so-called opposition in the Senate. That is not a problem in and of itself because a partisan caucus is a legitimate caucus in the Senate. But what is not right is for this opposition caucus to then say that they are the only legitimate opposition in this chamber, and the rest of us are lackeys of the government. If anything more is needed for that idea to be proven to be untrue, it is tonight’s debate on Bill C-4.

And a corollary to that, colleagues, is if it is not true that the so-called opposition is the true opposition and is the only opposition, then that opposition — that partisan opposition — should not have the special privileges and benefits that it enjoys in this chamber. A group consisting of 10% of the senators at full capacity should not have the right —

Your Honour, we’ve heard many comments tonight about the broader institutional issues around the debate on Bill C-4. I am bringing up one additional institutional issue that is central to the way we operate. I will be finishing very shortly, so if you allow me to continue, I promise it will be over soon.

My point is there’s a lesson in the debate around Bill C-4, and we may well have the same lesson on Bill C-12. A partisan caucus is a legitimate part of the Senate, and we welcome senators who may choose to be partisan. Perhaps there will be a Liberal caucus in the Senate before too long, but there should be no —

Let me remind all senators that the debate is on the motion for third reading of this bill.

I would remind senators that the Senate is master of its proceedings. We are now on the motion for the third reading of this bill. Please wrap up, Senator Woo.

I thank senators for their indulgence, and I look forward to the vote on Bill C-4.

Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

An Hon. Senator: On division.

(Motion agreed to and bill, as amended, read third time and passed, on division.)