[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, December 7, 1995
.1135 
[English]
The Chairman: Order, please.
At our last meeting we were considering the question of a report to the House along the lines suggested in the draft report. Mr. Ringma, you asked for time to consider. Can you tell us what your consideration is, sir?
Mr. Ringma (Nanaimo - Cowichan): Having talked it over in a bit of detail with some of my colleagues, I found there's more background to this issue than I had realized. There's more interplay between previous governments - between the government itself and the House and the Senate.
The conclusion I came to on all of this is that I'm still not happy with where we are. We're talking about a lot of different issues here. We're talking about interplay between the committee and the Senate, the committee via the House to the Senate, and the Commons to the Senate.
I finally concluded that to air the thing properly and make sure we don't stumble over anything I would really like to see a meeting between the Senate committee and this committee, with the Senate committee properly represented by both Progressive Conservative and Liberal members, because I think there's some factual stuff there as well.
In other words, it's more complex than I had visualized. I'd like to pursue the whole business before getting into too much acrimony between the House and the Senate to find out what their views are and examine the background on them.
The Chairman: With respect, Mr. Ringma, are you saying you don't want to concur on this report today?
Mr. Ringma: Yes, that's it. Before concurring on a report like that, I'd like to examine things in detail with the Senate members.
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): We could do that as a subcommittee of this committee and a subcommittee of the Senate and meet as a liaison. I understand there are situations where that does occur.
Mr. Boudria (Glengarry - Prescott - Russell): I'm almost tempted to ask if we're not in the process of doing exactly what we are trying to tell the Senate committee not to do, which is keep things in committee longer than required. It's crossing my mind at this point.
Mr. Ringma: If you remember our last discussion, there are two issues here. There's Bill C-69 on the one hand, and then there's that whole business of the improper relationship one can establish between the Senate and the Commons, or the Senate and Commons bills. So I think you have to examine those two disparate issues.
The Chairman: What's the wish of the committee? Dr. McWhinney, this was your idea originally, and I'm sure Mr. Langlois may have views on this. What do you want to do?
Mr. McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra): We are in an area where there are precedents but they're ancient ones and we can create our own.
My objective, as I think I explained privately to my colleagues opposite, was to simply use this particular bill, which is the charge of this committee, as the occasion for exploring a larger approach to reform of federal institutions, which I think is the most pressing need of the age. I didn't think we could do it without having something that's within the competence of our committee. If it had been another committee, such as the one considering the Pearson Airport bill, we could have done it through there.
I have no objection at all to exploring a way for joint deliberations as a prelude, if the results of a strong démarche were unsatisfactory - a strong statement to the Senate and a joinder of issues.
I wonder about a subcommittee. I wonder if we shouldn't have a meeting of the two committees together. Would there be any problem? That adds numbers, but I think in principle, Mr. Chairman, subject to your advice, I would accept the suggestion in the spirit in which it's offered.
.1140
I think I can say from my knowledge of the members opposite that it's not a stalling tactic or anything of that sort. I understand their views. It may well be that this would advance the process. In a way it's a new precedent of our own. If we were unsuccessful in such a result and felt frustrated by it, we would presumably come back with renewed vigour to the other issue.
I think we are probably approaching a rendezvous between the House and the Senate as such, but the preliminary steps need careful attention. If you would accept the notion of a joint meeting of the two committees as such, and leave it to issue if the Senate committee wants to form a subcommittee and come back, we can consider that, but I'd rather have the committees as a whole meet and see what happens. In that spirit, I would be prepared to recommend that to you,Mr. Chairman.
There may be issues I haven't properly considered, and I respect the much superior knowledge of House practice of my colleague Don Boudria and yourself. But I accept the suggestion to reform an outmoded parliamentary institution in the spirit of good will and genuine commitment in which I think it's made. Why not?
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois( Bellechasse): I think that the committee should respond with as much consensus as possible. Mr. Ringma's way of addressing the issue brings about a new element that we had not considered. I thank him for this find.
However, I would like to ask the honourable member for Nanaimo - Cowichan what timeframe he foresees for the meeting with the members of the Senate, if we struck a subcommittee to meet either with the members of the full committee responsible for legal and constitutional affairs or with the members of the Senate subcommittee.
[English]
Mr. McWhinney: I'm wanted in the House, I'm sorry to say. Excuse me.
[Translation]
Mr. Ringma: I think that it can go in several directions, because there are precedents here dating back several years. I also see there are truly fundamental issues with respect to the Senate, and in terms of jurisdiction, with respect to the Commons. If we debate the issues strictly from our point of view, we won't know what objections the others may raise.
To be fair, while I believe that the Senate as a political structure must be reformed, it is nevertheless an existing body, and I have to be aware of its members' arguments in order to make a decision on what to do.
Mr. Langlois: Mr. Ringma, my question concerns the date. Do you see us doing this before the adjournment, next week?
Mr. Ringma: Yes, if there is a way to have it done next week.
Mr. Boudria: Let's be realistic. If we were to meet with a Senate committee next week, assuming that one is available, and then report back to this committee, we would then have to draft the new report or an amended report to be tabled in the House and then inform the honourable senators. Do you think it's possible to do all that over the next five days? Come on!
We have to make a decision. Are we going to go ahead with what we have or not? As there are only five sitting days left, that's the only decision we can make this morning. The rest would mean delaying everything until February. That's what it means.
Mr. Langlois: I would like to ask you something else, Mr. Milliken, as your parliamentary experience vastley exceeds my own.
.1145
Mr. Boudria, in practice, if we adopt this report on division and it is tabled by Mr. Milliken in the House at the earliest opportunity, let's say tomorrow, the motion for concurrence becomes debatable. So we don't have time to debate it either. One way or the other, regardless of the hypothesis, we cannot speak on it.
Mr. Boudria: If the three parties do not agree, that is what we'll have to conclude since there is so little time left. That is what we're facing. Either we agree and we go ahead, or there is dissent and we can't go forward. Like we say in Hawkesbury, we are stalled.
Mr. Langlois: I trust your experience. We more or less agree on the substance of the issue, and I would like to hear our chair on that, of course. Mr. Paradis is here this morning and he may have a different point of view, but two days ago we all agreed.
Which of the two means available to us is the best? Should we use a revolver or a rope to commit suicide? If we have to choose between two ways of committing suicide, I prefer the quickest way: adopting the report right away, knowing that a political analysis will be done. I would like to hear some or all of my colleagues' points of view on that. I'm willing to support anything that makes sense.
The Chairman: Mr. Paradis.
Mr. Paradis (Brome - Missisquoi): First of all, Mr. Chairman, I have some questions. I imagine that this is the logical result of the letter I received which had been sent by members of the committee, all parties combined, and which refers to it.
It seemed to me that more or less everyone agreed to tell the Senate: "Don't get involved in that, it's none of your business, politically speaking; it is about the boundaries of the electoral map." I see this report as being a logical follow-up to the letter written to Senator Beaudouin, who is the president of the Senate committee, and to which everyone agreed. It would even be possible to use the content of the letter for the report this morning. I think almost everyone has already approved and signed it.
I must remind you that I have been campaigning for several months. I started with a convention at this time last year, followed by elections, and then by a referendum campaign. As for the citizens out there, the majority of people in my riding find the Senate too costly, inactive and a good example of something we should get rid of.
I mentioned this to my deskmate, the independent member for Beauce; he told me that three out of every four people in the Beauce are in favour of abolishing the Senate.
So, Mr. Chairman, I would fully agree if we just took the content of the letter which has already been approved by all of the political parties, by everyone around the table, and put it in report form.
The Chairman: The report is very close to the content of the letter. There is not much difference between the content of the report and the content of the letter that I sent to the chairman of the Senate committee.
Mr. Laurin.
Mr. Laurin (Joliette): Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like some information. I think that all of the steps we took in the letter were aimed at insuring that the Elections Act which applied during the 1993 election would be amended for the next election. That was the objective.
In the current situation, considering all of the deadlines it has to meet, is there any hope that one way or another, we will be able to amend the Elections Act which applied in 1993?
I thought it was too late now. Is there still enough time?
Mr. Arseneault (Restigouche - Chaleur): Even if it is too late, there is a principle at stake here.
.1150
Mr. Laurin: Yes, there is the principle of the Senate, but in practical terms, is it too late?
Mr. Paradis: Is it too late?
Mr. Laurin: That's what I'm asking. Is it too late, as we speak, to hope to amend the Act that governed the 1993 elections?
If the deadlines to be met mean that we cannot hope to have an amended Act for the next election, the deadlines are no longer important. We can agree with Mr. Ringma's suggestion and debate the other principle, the Senate intrusion in these areas.
Basically, we did not want to debate the interference of the Senate. We weren't in a hurry to do that.
[English]
The Chairman: It still has power to amend this bill. The bill is sitting in a Senate committee. The committee can make amendments. The bill is there because they have a message from this House accepting one of their amendments and rejecting two.
The committee would be free to suggest other amendments to the bill, and send another message, or recommend to the Senate another message be sent to the House amending the bill in another particular. One of the ways it could be amended would be to say it did not apply to the next election. The provisions would come into force in such a way that it not repeal the existing law but that it apply to redistribution subsequent to the one currently in process.
Such an amendment could be made to the bill by the Senate. This could come to the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker: This could be done anywhere in the next six to eight months?
The Chairman: It could be done tomorrow. Well, I don't think they sit tomorrow, but it could be done next week. The bill could be sent back to the House, and if the Senate amendments are then agreed to by the House, the bill becomes law like that. This could happen. Does this give you what you want?
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Yes, but I don't want anything in particular. I'm trying to understand. Assuming that...
The Chairman: Is that an indication that you will resign at the same time as Mr. Bouchard?
Mr. Laurin: Assuming that what you have just explained is possible, in practical terms, will that give us an amended Act for the next general election?
[English]
Mr. Speaker: I think the other answer to this question -
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Or is it too late, regardless of the procedure?
The Chairman: No, but the...
[English]
I'll explain it in English. The law applying in the next election, if the law were amended this way, would be the existing law, which is the boundaries about to be hatched in January. If Bill C-69 is passed, the question of which boundaries apply will be determined only when we know the date of the election.
Mr. Speaker: If you look at it in a five-year period from 1993 to October 1998 - and I don't think our government would want to have an election in 1998 - the way it's set up now, if they passed Bill C-69, it cannot take effect prior to December 1997. In a sense, I don't see how it can apply, unless the government drags their feet into 1998. Even then it's questionable, because you've got to give notice for the election.
The Chairman: We can't give you an answer because we don't know when the election will be. It's not a fixed date thing.
Mr. Arseneault: But it will be dealt with at this time. If the bill passes and if it can't be implemented, it won't be implemented in the next election but will certainly be implemented in the future.
I think we're missing the point here. The point is that the Senate is in contempt of the House of Commons. If we condone it with our silence, it's going to harm future Parliaments.
We're giving the Senate more power, as far as I'm concerned. We're giving them too much power. They're sitting back smiling and smirking. It's time we sent a direct message that we don't like what they're doing. If they go ahead and proceed and continue the way they are, at least we're on the record as not liking what they're doing. At least when the case happens again on another bill, we've made our point of view clear and the House of Commons has made its point of view clear. And then there's a case started. If we don't do anything, we've lost our first opportunity, and it will hurt us in developing a case in the future against the Senate.
.1155
Mr. Speaker: This is one of the points. But the other thing I think we should think about is just the common sense of trying to implement this new Bill C-69 in 1998. If we all have to go into the election with the bill being just implemented and boundaries not really determined, we have chaos on our hands.
The Chairman: Potentially.
Mr. Speaker: Potentially.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: I won't repeat what Mr. Arseneault said, because I fully agree with it.
There is a twofold hypothesis, which means that there are two hypotheses. The first is that Bill C-69 gets adopted quickly, and in my view, we have a good chance of changing the boundaries for the next election, as legislatures, these days, tend to remain in power five years rather than four. This is a trend we've seen at the provincial and the federal level; government mandates are managed over a four-and-a-half or five-year period.
However, as he indicated the other day in the House, the Prime Minister can ask the Governor General to dissolve Parliament anytime before that. We have to be ready to face the two possibilities.
If the election were held in the spring of 1998, it would be in effect, if our request is responded to favourably. If not, the process which is under way and which is being studied by the provincial Commissions will be completed and we will use the process in force at the time of the dissolution.
But as Mr. Arseneault said, the debate on these two hypotheses must not cause us to lose sight of an important issue: the Senate is currently interfering in an area where constitutional conventions clearly indicate it has no business doing so. It should ratify, except in the case of blatant errors, what has been adopted by the people who are duly elected.
It is not the responsibility of a non-elected Chamber, whose legitimacy is questionable and must be challenged, to drag a bill dealing with the election of members of the House of Commons before one of its committees with impunity. That's the point we have reached, creating a subcommittee to go and deal with them. I say no deal: let's concur in the report in the House and send them a message: we won't deal with them.
My position on the Senate is quite clear; it has to be reformed or abolished, because it can't continue to exist in its current form. Everyone agrees that this will never happen because there won't be the required consensus. The 7/50 will never be met. And now, with Bill C-110, we need 22 out of 30 million people. We have complicated the process. We can no longer touch the Senate, and we're going to be mocked by them.
Most of the members here will be candidates for the 36th Parliament and will campaign in their ridings: Mr. Paradis, perhaps Mr. Laurin, Mr. Boudria. Mr. Boudria, how many times have you put your neck on the chopping block? Will it be the sixth or seventh time that you're run in an election? The ninth time? During that time, no one on the Senate side has ever put his or her neck on the line - not once.
They get the same allowances, for all intents and purposes, and the same salary. This is disgraceful given the state of public finances in Canada and the state of democracy in 1995. I think that there is broad consensus in the House on the following: either we elect them - this the point of view of François Langlois, member for Bellechasse, but not necessarily that of the Bloc Québécois - or we get rid of them. But it has to be done quickly.
Mr. Boudria: It is clear that Mr. Langlois has just said what a lot of people are thinking. I always listen closely to what he says on these topics, because he is well informed.
The fact remains, however, that for our report this morning, we have to take the following stand: if we can't adopt it unanimously, as is the custom, let's adopt it on division. Let's table it in the House. Of course we won't be able to have it concurred in, but at least we will have sent a signal on behalf of this committee. At least we will have done that much.
.1200
That is not ideal. The ideal solution would be to have the agreement of all the parties, to table it and to have it concurred in in the House. It would be stronger with the motion for concurrence. But between that and being totally powerless because we don't have agreement from all parties... I think we have to choose the lesser of two evils which means adopting the report notwithstanding the disagreement and table it in the House. I do not know what my colleagues opposite think about that.
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Chairman, there is something that bothers me in the procedure that the representatives of the Reform Party are suggesting. We have already informed the Senate of our unanimous opinion through the letter that you, Mr. Chairman, signed on our behalf. We clearly stated in the letter that we believe the Senate had no business being involved there and that it was delaying procedures. Today, Mr. Ringma is suggesting that we meet with them to hear their opinions and their arguments. Does that mean that we spoke too soon in the letter that we asked you to write?
If, after hearing their arguments, we changed our minds, we would have to tell the Senate: "Now that we have heard from you, disregard the letter that we sent you. We were mistaken. We thought that you had no business being involved in this, but all things considered, after having heard you, we believe you were right."
Something here does not seem very serious: either we made an informed decision, or we were not serious when we unanimously asked the chairman to tell the Senate to mind its own business. If we were serious, I think we have to continue to think that way and tell the Senate that we do not need to meet them to maintain our position. If we meet them and we do not change our minds, we will have met them for nothing. If we change our minds, that will mean that we made a hasty decision when we wrote the letter.
I don't think we have much choice, Mr. Chairman, other than to be consistent with the position taken, to maintain it and to adopt the report today.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Ringma.
Mr. Ringma: All I would like to do, Mr. Chair, is a bit of a recap.
While I can absolutely agree with all of Mr. Langlois' opinion of the Senate, on this issue we have nevertheless already recorded our opinion to the Senate as a committee. We've done it in a letter. We've taken that step. We feel the way is quite clear.
To do this, to take it towards the Commons now and to make it the Commons - rather than a committee - versus the Senate takes it a step further or a different step. I think that's something that makes me hesitate.
I think we would maintain our position that if we're to make progress in the parliamentary process, it should be and can only be done by advancing things. That would be in a committee-to-committee encounter, and whether it be a subcommittee or not is irrelevant.
[Translation]
Mr. Paradis: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that I fully agree with the comments of the member for Bellechasse concerning the Senate. Secondly, we should perhaps ask the Reform Party if it can reconsider its decision.
If I understand the Reform Party's position on the Senate, they are in favour of a triple-E Senate. In that sense, they are also suggesting changes, in their own platform. They're not satisfied, I imagine, with the Senate as it currently stands.
In this spirit, and to move things along more quickly, Mr. Chairman, is it possible for us to come together on this, like we did on the body of the letter? The reports seems to fully correspond to the content of the letter they already agreed to.
I agree when Mr. Ringma says that taking this issue to the House is a step farther as compared to the committee's position, but we have to keep in mind that the Reform Party wants to go even farther by proposing a triple-E Senate.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Arseneault, please.
Mr. Arseneault: I just wanted to address the concerns of the Reform Party. I think the idea of a committee meeting another committee is good if the objective is that we want to pass Bill C-69 to get it in motion - things of that nature. That's immaterial at this stage of the game, though. They're going to make their decision on whether or not to pass it some day in the future.
.1205
I have all the respect in the world for the Senate. Whatever they have to do, they'll do. But as for the committee meeting to discuss the Constitution, in the sense of saying what rights they have and what they don't have, I think it's beyond a committee level - a committee on agenda and procedure, and a committee over there, finance, to discuss it and to maybe look at future solutions to these dilemmas. I think it's beyond a committee level.
I look at this as sending a message to the rest of the members in the House of Commons, a message that says we've protected their rights, we've started the first step and we've sent that message on their behalf. We sent it by letter and now we're moving to the next level to prepare our case so that when those discussions do take place the members representing the House of Commons will have the proper ammunition, if we can use that terminology.
I could see the committee working very well if we were trying to actually get the bill out of the Senate right away and pushed in and if there were some possibility of doing that. I don't think that is the ulterior motive. I think the motives behind what we're saying here are the principle and making sure that our case is well put forth. If we damage it by our silence or by not stepping up to the next level, it may damage our case in the future for Parliament, our case to make sure this doesn't happen again. That's my only point.
I think at this stage of the game Bill C-69 is immaterial. I think it's just something we're using at this stage of the game to make sure the rights of the elected House of Commons members are protected. At least we can make that case now so that if it ever happens again they'll have this case, another case and another case.
As Mr. Chrétien often says, the English law developed on precedents; they make mistakes ten or fifteen times, then it becomes law. I'll leave you with that.
The Chairman: Mr. Langlois.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Mr. Chairman, correct me if my recall is inaccurate, or if my understanding is as well.
The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs replaced the Standing Committee on House Management which before that was the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. Is there a privilege which is more important than the privilege of the House as an entity, as a whole? A lot of importance is placed on members' privileges in the House. In this case, it is the privilege of the elected Chamber, representing the people, to have its preponderant voice reaffirmed in this country.
I think that the December 1995 date is important, because we can have consensus in saying that the will of the elected representatives of the people must take precedence over the will of another unelected Chamber, which we all want to reform, either by abolishing it or having its representatives elected. Regardless of what we consider, there's at least consensus on the need for change in that respect.
It would be harmful if we didn't have unanimity on this. I always seek unanimity, consensus, but in the absence of a consensus, I would settle for a majority. When my colleagues are ready, I would ask you to put the question, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
The Chairman: We've lost quorum at the moment. The whip has indicated he's sending somebody down, but at the moment we're one short for voting.
I don't know what members want to do. We seem to be in a position where we can certainly table the report in the House if the wish of the committee is that we vote it through. The report could be tabled and then we can wait to see if there is any agreement to confer on the report at a subsequent time. If that agreement were absent, it's unlikely it would be voted on. It might get debated for a little while.
I see we have another member now. Do you have a form?
Mr. Bryden (Hamilton - Wentworth): No, I don't have a form, but you could just take me at face value.
The Chairman: We can't.
Mr. Bryden: Okay. Do you want me to go back up and get a form?
The Chairman: I think you'll need to.
Mr. Bryden: All right, I'll do that.
The Chairman: I'm sorry.
Mr. Bryden: No, not at all. I'll be right back.
.1210
The Chairman: The committee can do what it wishes in that regard. It's unfortunate that there's not unanimity on the point, but if there isn't, there isn't.
In the meantime, there's one other item of business on our order, which of course we can't do until we have a quorum either, and that's the subcommittee on private members' business.
Mr. Langlois, do you want this held off until a subsequent time? This draft report is not a report of the subcommittee. Is that correct?
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Yes, there probably are some technical details to settle in subcommittee. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that since we are in no hurry to act... can Mr. Knowles confirm that for us?
Mr. Stephen Knowles (Procedural Clerk): We have until February 6, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Langlois: In that case, I would ask for up to the 5th, so that we can reexamine the issue and report on it by February 5 at the latest.
Mr. Laurin: On Bill C-69?
Mr. Langlois: Yes.
Mr. Laurin: On what subject?
Mr. Langlois: On the votable motions and bills.
Mr. Laurin: We come back on the 5th?
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Arseneault: Mr. Chairman, would it be possible to have a short summary of each bill recommended here, when the report is presented to the committee? Making a decision without being aware of the subject would be somewhat difficult. This bill may be embarrassing.
The Chairman: Yes, certainly, we could get that. But as the suggestion is to defer it until Tuesday, why not wait until next Tuesday?
Mr. Arseneault: Yes, that's fine. But when it is presented, we would like to have a short summary of each bill which is recommended and on which we will have to vote.
The Chairman: That's a good idea, Mr. Arseneault.
So we will have two documents on Tuesday.
[English]
I should also advise the committee that on Tuesday we have a request from the liaison committee regarding television, which will be on the agenda. Also I think Bill C-319, Mr. MacLellan's bill, will come back to the committee for review. As you know, we discussed that once before, and there were various arrangements made between the parties and some redrafting done. So we'll look at the bill and we may be able to report it. So there actually may be a fair volume of business, which I hope will move quickly, on Friday.
Mr. Langlois, are you moving that the draft report prepared be tabled in the House, presented to the House?
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: As our 108th report.
[English]
The Chairman: Okay, Mr. Langlois moves this motion that the draft report be tabled as our 108th report.
A voice: Mr. Chair will ask for a roll call, please.
Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 1
The Chairman: I declare the motion carried. So in accordance with these instructions, your chair will table the report in the House by tomorrow.
I believe that completes the business for today. I want to thank all members for their attendance.
I declare the meeting adjourned.