Bill S-7 explained in plain English

On June 9, 2009, the Senate sat and proceeded through various routine proceedings, including tabling reports and presenting bills. The Senate also debated Bill S-7, concerning Senate term limits. The debate on Bill S-7 was adjourned. Other bills were read for the first time, and committee reports were presented and adopted. Senators also discussed various other matters, including the Canadian Navy, the anniversary of D-Day, and a proposed bill to protect children from tobacco advertising. Question Period addressed issues like the medical isotope shortage, a flu outbreak in Manitoba, and on-reserve housing.

This record details a Senate debate on June 9, 2009, concerning Bill S-7, which proposes to amend the Constitution Act, 1867, to establish term limits for senators. The debate focused on the principles and proposed changes within the bill, including non-renewable eight-year terms for senators appointed after the 2008 election, maintaining the retirement age of 75, and provisions for interrupted terms. The sponsor of the bill emphasized that these changes aim to modernize the Senate and increase its legitimacy in the eyes of Canadians. Senators debated the constitutionality of the bill, the process of amending the Constitution, and the necessity of consulting with provinces, with arguments presented for and against the government's approach of not seeking a Supreme Court reference on the matter. The debate also touched upon the retroactive application of the term limits to senators appointed after October 14, 2008, and the potential for fair severance packages for term-limited senators. The debate was adjourned, meaning the bill has not yet completed its second reading stage.

On June 17, 2009, the Senate continued debate on Bill S-7, an Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867, concerning Senate term limits. The sitting also included routine proceedings, Question Period, and debate on several other bills and committee reports. A significant portion of the sitting involved a debate on a question of privilege raised by Senator Tardif concerning the premature release of information about Bill S-7 before its introduction. The Speaker ruled that a prima facie question of privilege had not been established, as the events did not substantially interfere with the Senate's work. The debate on Bill S-7 itself featured strong arguments from both sides regarding its constitutionality, the process for amending the Constitution, and the implications of Senate reform.

This Senate debate record from June 17, 2009, primarily discusses Bill S-7, an Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867, concerning Senate term limits. Senator James S. Cowan, Leader of the Opposition, argued that the bill, similar to a previous one (Bill S-4), is constitutionally questionable and that the government is ignoring expert opinions and provincial concerns. He highlighted that an eight-year term limit could allow a Prime Minister to appoint all senators, undermining the Senate's independence and regional representation. He suggested the government should have sought a Supreme Court opinion, as recommended by a Senate committee, and criticized the government for pushing the bill without proper constitutional review and provincial consultation. Other senators, including Senator Gerald J. Comeau, engaged in debate, with some defending the government's position and others raising points of order. The debate also touched on procedural matters and other bills before the Senate, including the Maa-nulth First Nations Final Agreement Bill and the Canada-Peru Free Trade Agreement Implementation Bill.

On September 29, 2009, the Senate continued its debate on Bill S-7, an Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867, concerning Senate term limits. Senator Bert Brown spoke in favour of the bill, citing legal opinions that it is not unconstitutional. He argued that the bill does not alter the Senate's regional representation function and that partisan affiliation is a weakness of the current Senate. He expressed support for term limits, suggesting two six-year elected terms would be preferable to a single eight-year term to give voters more power. The debate was adjourned after his remarks. The sitting also included tributes, tabling of reports, question period on various topics including economic action plan and employment, and debate on other bills, including one concerning victims of human trafficking which was read a second time and referred to committee, and another concerning the Criminal Code which was also read a second time and referred to committee.