Speech (House debate)

{
    "time": "2008-02-12 12:40:00",
    "attribution": {
        "en": "Mr. Gord Brown (Leeds\u2014Grenville, CPC)",
        "fr": ""
    },
    "content": {
        "en": "<p data-HoCid=\"896501\" data-originallang=\"en\">Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak about Bill <a data-HoCid=\"3095164\" href=\"/bills/39-2/C-20/\" title=\"An Act to provide for consultations with electors on their preferences for appointments to the Senate\">C-20</a>.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"896502\" data-originallang=\"en\">Electoral reform is something that I hear about often from my constituents in <a data-HoCid=\"78536\" href=\"/politicians/gord-brown/\" title=\"Gord Brown\">Leeds\u2014Grenville</a>. Always at the top of their list is what we are going to do about the Senate. I would like to take this opportunity to give a bit of the history of discussions about changing the Senate in our country.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"896503\" data-originallang=\"en\">First, dissatisfaction with the Senate as produced for us by the Fathers of Confederation--the Senate being something which they spent more time talking about than any other subject at the conferences leading up to Confederation in 1867--began almost immediately.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"896504\" data-originallang=\"en\"> In 1874 there was an extensive debate in the Parliament of Canada about reforming the Senate and in particular, the appointment process, but nothing happened. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"896505\" data-originallang=\"en\">In 1887 at the first interprovincial meeting of premiers, there was a call for an elected Senate, but nothing happened.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"896506\" data-originallang=\"en\">In 1906 through to 1909, there were extensive debates in both federal houses about Senate reform, but again, nothing happened.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"896507\" data-originallang=\"en\">In 1921, Liberal leader Mackenzie King included Senate reform in his party's election platform. This was followed by extensive debates in both houses in 1924 and 1925 on the need for reform of the Senate, and again, nothing happened.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"896508\" data-originallang=\"en\">At the 1927 Dominion-Provincial Conference, Senate reform was a main topic of discussion. All the politicians said there was a need for reform, but again, nothing happened. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"896509\" data-originallang=\"en\">There were extensive debates in the Senate in 1951 and in the House in 1955 on the need for Senate reform. Again, nothing happened.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"896510\" data-originallang=\"en\">In 1965, the Pearson government, following up on a bill introduced by the previous Diefenbaker government, was able to have passed through Parliament an amendment reducing the terms of senators from life to age 75. That was not very revolutionary, to say the least. And that was it. There has really been no change in the formal structure of the Senate since that time.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"896511\" data-originallang=\"en\">In 1972, a special joint House and Senate committee, the Molgat-McGuigan committee, held extensive hearings across the country and recommended the need to reform the appointment process for the Senate, if nothing else. Again, nothing happened.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"896512\" data-originallang=\"en\">In 1978, the Trudeau Liberal government proposed a bill which would abolish the Senate and replace it with a new body to be known as the house of the provinces, with at least half of the members chosen by the provinces. Again, in the end, nothing happened.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"896513\" data-originallang=\"en\">After that, there was a series of commissions and studies: the Pepin-Robarts committee in 1979; the Quebec Liberal Party beige paper in 1980; the House-Senate joint committee, the Molgat-Cosgrove committee in 1984; the Macdonald commission in 1985; the House-Senate joint committee, the Beaudoin-Dobbie committee, in 1992. All recommended basic reform in the appointment process, with election most often as the preferred option, but again, nothing happened.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"896514\" data-originallang=\"en\">One of the reasons there was this continued pattern of engaging in public discussion of basic Senate reform followed by no action was that often the argument was made that such reform could only be tied in with other more comprehensive constitutional changes. Thus, attempts at that method, such as what happened in the Charlottetown efforts, failed. The other reason is that the government could then use all of that as an excuse for why nothing gets done.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"896515\" data-originallang=\"en\"> I am hearing the same refrain and the same arguments coming now from those who still do not want to reform the Senate, in particular, those in the Liberal Party. That is because continued inaction on this file is in their clear partisan self-interest.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"896516\" data-originallang=\"en\">However, this government, unlike all previous governments, has chosen not to hide behind these excuses and long history of non-achievement. We have decided to boldly move forward with that incremental reform that we know for sure the federal Parliament and government can initiate and accomplish on its own without going down the complicated path of formal constitutional amendments involving the provinces or some kind of wholesale reopening of the Constitution, something that we know would be very difficult.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"896517\" data-originallang=\"en\">In the first session of this Parliament, we introduced two quite modest bills to get the ball rolling in a very serious way to achieve Senate reform. There was Bill <a data-HoCid=\"2331924\" href=\"/bills/39-2/S-4/\" title=\"An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (Senate tenure)\">S-4</a>, to reduce the term of all future Senate appointees from the current potential of 45 years, something which my constituents find quite offensive, in that someone who is appointed at age 30 is able to sit until the mandatory retirement age of 75. We wanted to change the term to eight years. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"896518\" data-originallang=\"en\">The bill would provide for the ability of the <a data-HoCid=\"78738\" href=\"/politicians/stephen-harper/\" title=\"Stephen Harper\">Prime Minister</a> to consult Canadians on their preferences as to who should serve them in the Senate before making such appointments. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"896519\" data-originallang=\"en\">What is the actual atrocious record of Senate appointments that both major political parties, while in government, not including the current government, have been of guilty since Confederation?</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"896520\" data-originallang=\"en\">Sir John A. Macdonald, our first prime minister, in 19 years of office appointed only 1 Liberal and 1 Independent. The rest were all Conservative. I would personally not see that as a bad thing.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"896521\" data-originallang=\"en\"> However, as I go on, Sir Wilfrid Laurier in his 15 years in office appointed only Liberals.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"896522\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Sir Robert Borden, in his nine years of office appointed only Conservatives, except when he led a union coalition government during the war.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"896523\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Mackenzie King in his 22 years in office appointed 103 senators and all but 2 were Liberals.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"896524\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Louis St. Laurent in his nine years in office appointed fifty-five senators and all but three were Liberals.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"896525\" data-originallang=\"en\"> John Diefenbaker in his six years in office appointed thirty-seven senators and all but one were Conservative.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"896526\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Lester Pearson in his five years in office appointed thirty-nine senators and all but one were Liberal.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"896527\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Pierre Trudeau in his 15 years of office appointed 81 senators and all but 11 were Liberals.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"896528\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Joe Clark in his nine months in office appointed eleven senators, all of them Conservative.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"896529\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Brian Mulroney in his nine years of office appointed fifty-one senators, some of whom are still sitting in the Senate today, and all but two of them were Conservatives. One of the two was Stan Waters, appointed as a Reform senator by Mr. Mulroney due to his election by the voters of Alberta in the spirit of Meech Lake, which we all know failed in the end.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"896530\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Jean Chr\u00e9tien in his 10 years in office appointed 75 senators and all but 3 were Liberals.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"896531\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Paul Martin in his 23 months in office appointed 17 senators, only 5 of whom were not Liberal.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"896532\" data-originallang=\"en\">Neither Kim Campbell nor John Turner appointed any senators, although Turner did Trudeau's bidding in that regard, as we know. It was something that was very prominent in the election of 1984.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"896533\" data-originallang=\"en\">I have had an equal opportunity to be a critic of both major parties that have held office. However, when it comes to the current <a data-HoCid=\"78738\" href=\"/politicians/stephen-harper/\" title=\"Stephen Harper\">Prime Minister</a>, we finally have a breaking of this historical pattern. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"896534\" data-originallang=\"en\">Since taking office only 21 months ago, the <a data-HoCid=\"78738\" href=\"/politicians/stephen-harper/\" title=\"Stephen Harper\">Prime Minister</a> has only made 2 appointments to the Senate, and there are currently 13 vacancies. One of those appointments, Senator Fortier, was to ensure that the island of Montreal was represented in the cabinet, with the commitment from that appointee that he would resign his seat in the Senate as soon as the general election was called, and seek election to the House.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"896535\" data-originallang=\"en\">The other was the recent appointment of Senator Bert Brown on the basis that he, on two separate occasions, was democratically chosen by the people of Alberta as their preference to be selected to serve in the Senate.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"896536\" data-originallang=\"en\">Therefore, the government has done as much as it can to break this pattern of no action on Senate reform. It is now up to the opposition parties in the House and the Liberal majority in the Senate to wake up and smell the political coffee. There will either be reform or Canadians might well choose abolition.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"896537\" data-originallang=\"en\">I have laid out quite clearly the history of what has happened in terms of efforts to reform the Senate, but the bill goes a long way toward moving the ball forward, which Canadians support. I I urge the other parties to support the bill.</p>",
        "fr": "<p data-HoCid=\"896501\" data-originallang=\"en\">Monsieur le Pr\u00e9sident, je suis heureux de pouvoir parler du projet de loi <a data-HoCid=\"3095164\" href=\"/bills/39-2/C-20/\" title=\"An Act to provide for consultations with electors on their preferences for appointments to the Senate\">C-20</a>.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"896502\" data-originallang=\"en\"> La r\u00e9forme \u00e9lectorale est un sujet dont me parlent souvent les \u00e9lecteurs de ma circonscription, <a data-HoCid=\"78536\" href=\"/politicians/gord-brown/\" title=\"Gord Brown\">Leeds\u2014Grenville</a>. Ils s\u2019int\u00e9ressent toujours au plus haut point \u00e0 ce que nous entendons faire \u00e0 propos du S\u00e9nat. Je profite de l\u2019occasion pour dresser la liste des discussions qui ont port\u00e9 sur la r\u00e9forme du S\u00e9nat au Canada.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"896503\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Je signale d\u2019embl\u00e9e que le m\u00e9contentement face au S\u00e9nat, tel qu\u2019il a \u00e9t\u00e9 con\u00e7u pour nous par les P\u00e8res de la Conf\u00e9d\u00e9ration \u2014 le S\u00e9nat \u00e9tant le sujet de d\u00e9bat auquel ils ont consacr\u00e9 le plus de temps au cours des conf\u00e9rences qui ont men\u00e9 \u00e0 la Conf\u00e9d\u00e9ration en 1867 \u2014 est apparu presque d\u00e8s le d\u00e9part.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"896504\" data-originallang=\"en\"> En 1874, il y a eu un d\u00e9bat approfondi au Parlement du Canada au sujet d e la r\u00e9forme du S\u00e9nat, en particulier du processus de nomination, mais aucune mesure n\u2019a \u00e9t\u00e9 prise. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"896505\" data-originallang=\"en\"> En 1887, lors de la premi\u00e8re conf\u00e9rence f\u00e9d\u00e9rale-provinciale des premiers ministres, il a \u00e9t\u00e9 question d\u2019un S\u00e9nat \u00e9lu, mais rien ne s\u2019est produit.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"896506\" data-originallang=\"en\"> De 1906 \u00e0 1909, il y a eu de longs d\u00e9bats sur la r\u00e9forme du S\u00e9nat dans les deux chambres du Parlement f\u00e9d\u00e9ral, mais, encore une fois, cela est rest\u00e9 sans suite. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"896507\" data-originallang=\"en\"> En 1921, le chef lib\u00e9ral Mackenzie King a inclus la r\u00e9forme du S\u00e9nat dans le programme \u00e9lectoral de son parti. De longs d\u00e9bats ont ensuite eu lieu dans les deux chambres en 1924 et en 1925 sur la n\u00e9cessit\u00e9 de reformer le S\u00e9nat, mais, l\u00e0 encore, rien ne s\u2019est produit.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"896508\" data-originallang=\"en\"> \u00c0 la conf\u00e9rence f\u00e9d\u00e9rale-provinciale de 1927, la r\u00e9forme du S\u00e9nat a \u00e9t\u00e9 un grand sujet de discussion. Tous les politiques ont affirm\u00e9 qu\u2019il fallait une r\u00e9forme, mais, encore une fois, rien ne s\u2019est produit. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"896509\" data-originallang=\"en\"> De gros d\u00e9bats ont eu lieu au S\u00e9nat en 1951 et \u00e0 la Chambre en 1955 sur la n\u00e9cessit\u00e9 d\u2019une r\u00e9forme du S\u00e9nat. Encore une fois, rien ne s\u2019est produit. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"896510\" data-originallang=\"en\"> En 1965, le gouvernement Pearson, donnant suite \u00e0 un projet de loi pr\u00e9sent\u00e9 par le gouvernement Diefenbaker qui l\u2019avait pr\u00e9c\u00e9d\u00e9, a r\u00e9ussi \u00e0 faire adopter par le Parlement une modification r\u00e9duisant la dur\u00e9e du mandat des s\u00e9nateurs, qui allaient \u00eatre nomm\u00e9s non plus \u00e0 vie mais plut\u00f4t jusqu'\u00e0 l'\u00e2ge de 75 ans. Le moins que l\u2019on puisse dire, c'est que ce n\u2019\u00e9tait pas tr\u00e8s r\u00e9volutionnaire. C\u2019est tout ce qui a \u00e9t\u00e9 fait. Il n\u2019y a eu aucune modification de la structure formelle du S\u00e9nat depuis ce temps. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"896511\" data-originallang=\"en\"> En 1972, un comit\u00e9 mixte sp\u00e9cial de la Chambre et du S\u00e9nat, le Comit\u00e9 Molgat-McGuigan, a tenu des audiences exhaustives d\u2019un bout \u00e0 l\u2019autre du pays et a recommand\u00e9 la r\u00e9forme, \u00e0 tout le moins, du processus de nomination des s\u00e9nateurs. Encore une fois, rien ne s\u2019est produit. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"896512\" data-originallang=\"en\"> En 1978, le gouvernement lib\u00e9ral Trudeau a pr\u00e9sent\u00e9 un projet de loi visant \u00e0 abolir le S\u00e9nat et \u00e0 le remplacer par une Chambre des provinces, dont au moins la moiti\u00e9 des membres auraient \u00e9t\u00e9 choisis par les provinces. L\u00e0 encore, il n\u2019est finalement rien arriv\u00e9. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"896513\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Apr\u00e8s cela, il y a eu une s\u00e9rie de commissions et d\u2019\u00e9tudes: le Comit\u00e9 P\u00e9pin-Robarts en 1979; le livre beige du Parti lib\u00e9ral du Qu\u00e9bec en 1980; le comit\u00e9 mixte de la Chambre et du S\u00e9nat, le Comit\u00e9 Molgat-Cosgrove, en 1984; la Commission Macdonald en 1985; le comit\u00e9 mixte de la Chambre et du S\u00e9nat, le Comit\u00e9 Beaudoin-Dobbie, en 1992. Dans tous les cas, on a recommand\u00e9 une r\u00e9forme fondamentale du processus de nomination, le processus \u00e9lectoral \u00e9tant l\u2019option la plus souvent souhait\u00e9e, mais il n\u2019y a pas eu de suite l\u00e0 non plus.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"896514\" data-originallang=\"en\">Si la r\u00e9forme fondamentale du S\u00e9nat a constamment donn\u00e9 lieu \u00e0 des discussions publiques qui n'ont men\u00e9 \u00e0 rien, c\u2019est qu\u2019on a souvent soutenu, entre autres, qu\u2019une telle r\u00e9forme devait absolument \u00eatre li\u00e9e \u00e0 d\u2019autres modifications constitutionnelles plus exhaustives. C\u2019est ainsi que les tentatives de r\u00e9forme, comme on l\u2019a vu avec l\u2019accord de Charlottetown, ont \u00e9chou\u00e9. Il y a aussi le fait que le gouvernement pouvait se servir de tout cela pour expliquer pourquoi rien n\u2019est fait. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"896515\" data-originallang=\"en\"> J\u2019entends maintenant ce m\u00eame refrain et ces m\u00eames arguments de la part de ceux qui s\u2019opposent \u00e0 la r\u00e9forme du S\u00e9nat, en particulier des membres du Parti lib\u00e9ral. C\u2019est que l\u2019immobilisme constant dans ce dossier sert clairement leurs int\u00e9r\u00eats. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"896516\" data-originallang=\"en\">Par contre, le gouvernement actuel, contrairement aux pr\u00e9c\u00e9dents, a choisi de ne pas se cacher derri\u00e8re des excuses et une forte propension \u00e0 l'inaction. Nous avons d\u00e9cid\u00e9 de proc\u00e9der \u00e0 une r\u00e9forme progressive en ayant la certitude que le Parlement et le gouvernement f\u00e9d\u00e9ral pourront la r\u00e9aliser eux-m\u00eames, sans s'aventurer sur le chemin tortueux des modifications officielles de la Constitution n\u00e9cessitant la participation des provinces ou nous obligeant \u00e0 rouvrir la Constitution, ce qui, nous le savons, serait tr\u00e8s compliqu\u00e9.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"896517\" data-originallang=\"en\">Au cours de la premi\u00e8re session de la l\u00e9gislature actuelle, nous avons pr\u00e9sent\u00e9 deux projets de loi somme toute modestes pour lancer le processus de r\u00e9forme du S\u00e9nat. Il y avait le projet de loi <a data-HoCid=\"2331924\" href=\"/bills/39-2/S-4/\" title=\"An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (Senate tenure)\">S-4</a>, qui visait \u00e0 limiter le mandat de tous les s\u00e9nateurs nomm\u00e9s \u00e0 l'avenir. Actuellement, le mandat des s\u00e9nateurs peut aller jusqu'\u00e0 45 ans, ce que mes \u00e9lecteurs trouvent ahurissant. En effet, une personne nomm\u00e9e au S\u00e9nat \u00e0 30 ans peut y rester jusqu'\u00e0 l'\u00e2ge obligatoire de la retraite, soit 75 ans. Nous voulions limiter leur mandat \u00e0 huit ans.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"896518\" data-originallang=\"en\">Le projet de loi donnerait au <a data-HoCid=\"78738\" href=\"/politicians/stephen-harper/\" title=\"Stephen Harper\">premier ministre</a> la capacit\u00e9 de consulter les Canadiens pour conna\u00eetre leurs pr\u00e9f\u00e9rences au sujet des candidats au S\u00e9nat avant de proc\u00e9der aux nominations.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"896519\" data-originallang=\"en\">Voici le bilan atroce des deux principaux partis politiques sur le plan des nominations au S\u00e9nat depuis la Conf\u00e9d\u00e9ration, sans compter le gouvernement actuel.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"896520\" data-originallang=\"en\">Sir John A. Macdonald, notre premier premier ministre, pendant ses 19 ans au pouvoir, n'a nomm\u00e9 que des conservateurs, \u00e0 part un lib\u00e9ral et un ind\u00e9pendant. Selon moi, ce n'est pas une si mauvaise chose.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"896521\" data-originallang=\"en\">Or, sir Wilfrid Laurier, pendant ses 15 ans au pouvoir, n'a nomm\u00e9 que des lib\u00e9raux.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"896522\" data-originallang=\"en\">Sir Robert Borden, au cours de ces ses neuf ann\u00e9es au pouvoir, n'a nomm\u00e9 que des conservateurs, sauf pendant qu'il dirigeait un gouvernement de coalition durant la guerre.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"896523\" data-originallang=\"en\">Mackenzie King, durant ses 22 ann\u00e9es comme premier ministre, a nomm\u00e9 103 s\u00e9nateurs, tous lib\u00e9raux sauf deux.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"896524\" data-originallang=\"en\">Louis St. Laurent, durant ses neuf ans de pouvoir, a nomm\u00e9 55 s\u00e9nateurs, tous lib\u00e9raux sauf trois.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"896525\" data-originallang=\"en\">John Diefenbaker, durant ses six ann\u00e9es de pouvoir, a nomm\u00e9 37 s\u00e9nateurs, tous conservateurs sauf un.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"896526\" data-originallang=\"en\">Lester Pearson, durant ses cinq ann\u00e9es de pouvoir, a nomm\u00e9 39 s\u00e9nateurs, tous lib\u00e9raux sauf un.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"896527\" data-originallang=\"en\">Pierre Trudeau, durant ses 15 ann\u00e9es de pouvoir, a nomm\u00e9 81 s\u00e9nateurs, tous lib\u00e9raux sauf onze.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"896528\" data-originallang=\"en\">Joe Clark, durant ses neuf mois de pouvoir, a nomm\u00e9 11 s\u00e9nateurs, tous conservateurs.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"896529\" data-originallang=\"en\">Brian Mulroney, durant ses neuf ann\u00e9es de pouvoir, a nomm\u00e9 51 s\u00e9nateurs, certains d'entre eux si\u00e9geant encore au S\u00e9nat aujourd'hui, tous conservateurs sauf deux. L'un des deux \u00e9tait Stan Waters, nomm\u00e9 comme s\u00e9nateur r\u00e9formiste par M. Mulroney en raison de son \u00e9lection par les \u00e9lecteurs de l'Alberta, dans l'esprit de l'accord du Lac Meech, qui a \u00e9chou\u00e9, comme nous le savons tous.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"896530\" data-originallang=\"en\">Jean Chr\u00e9tien, durant ses 10 ann\u00e9es de pouvoir, a nomm\u00e9 75 s\u00e9nateurs, tous lib\u00e9raux sauf trois.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"896531\" data-originallang=\"en\">Paul Martin, durant ses 23 mois de pouvoir, a nomm\u00e9 17 s\u00e9nateurs, dont cinq seulement n'\u00e9taient pas des lib\u00e9raux.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"896532\" data-originallang=\"en\">Ni Kim Campbell, ni John Turner, n'ont nomm\u00e9 de s\u00e9nateurs, m\u00eame si Turner a respect\u00e9 les volont\u00e9s de Trudeau \u00e0 cet \u00e9gard, comme nous le savons. Cette question a eu beaucoup d'importance durant la campagne \u00e9lectorale de 1984.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"896533\" data-originallang=\"en\">Je me montre aussi dur envers l'un et l'autre des grands partis qui ont \u00e9t\u00e9 au pouvoir. Cependant, gr\u00e2ce au <a data-HoCid=\"78738\" href=\"/politicians/stephen-harper/\" title=\"Stephen Harper\">premier ministre</a> actuel, nous avons enfin pu voir une rupture par rapport \u00e0 la tendance historique.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"896534\" data-originallang=\"en\">Depuis qu'il a \u00e9t\u00e9 port\u00e9 au pouvoir, il n'y a de cela que 21 mois, le <a data-HoCid=\"78738\" href=\"/politicians/stephen-harper/\" title=\"Stephen Harper\">premier ministre</a> n'a effectu\u00e9 que deux nominations au S\u00e9nat, qui compte actuellement 13 vacances. L'une de ces nominations, celle du s\u00e9nateur Fortier, visait \u00e0 faire en sorte que l'\u00eele de Montr\u00e9al soit repr\u00e9sent\u00e9e au Cabinet, et la personne nomm\u00e9e s'est engag\u00e9e \u00e0 d\u00e9missionner de son poste au S\u00e9nat d\u00e8s le d\u00e9clenchement d'\u00e9lections g\u00e9n\u00e9rales, pour chercher \u00e0 se faire \u00e9lire \u00e0 la Chambre.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"896535\" data-originallang=\"en\">L'autre nomination, r\u00e9cente, celle du s\u00e9nateur Bert Brown s'explique du fait que cette personne a \u00e9t\u00e9 choisie de fa\u00e7on d\u00e9mocratique \u00e0 deux reprises par la population de l'Alberta comme le candidat qu'elle voulait voir nomm\u00e9e au S\u00e9nat.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"896536\" data-originallang=\"en\">C'est donc dire que le gouvernement a fait autant que faire se peut pour contrer la tendance selon laquelle rien ne se fait en mati\u00e8re de r\u00e9forme du S\u00e9nat. Il revient maintenant aux partis d'opposition, \u00e0 la Chambre et \u00e0 la majorit\u00e9 lib\u00e9rale au S\u00e9nat de sortir de leur torpeur et de r\u00e9agir \u00e0 la conjoncture politique. Le S\u00e9nat devra \u00eatre r\u00e9form\u00e9 ou il se pourrait bien que les Canadiens choisissent de l'abolir. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"896537\" data-originallang=\"en\">J'ai trac\u00e9 assez clairement l'historique des efforts visant \u00e0 r\u00e9former le S\u00e9nat. Le projet de loi \u00e0 l'\u00e9tude constitue un progr\u00e8s consid\u00e9rable, ce que souhaitent les Canadiens. J'invite les autres partis \u00e0 l'appuyer.</p>"
    },
    "url": "/debates/2008/2/12/gord-brown-1/",
    "politician_url": "/politicians/gord-brown/",
    "politician_membership_url": "/politicians/memberships/1383/",
    "procedural": false,
    "source_id": "2314907",
    "h1": {
        "en": "Government Orders",
        "fr": ""
    },
    "h2": {
        "en": "Senate Appointment Consultations Act",
        "fr": ""
    },
    "document_url": "/debates/2008/2/12/",
    "related": {
        "document_speeches_url": "/speeches/?document=%2Fdebates%2F2008%2F2%2F12%2F"
    }
}