Bill C-20 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  Thank you, Madam Chair. Ladies and gentlemen, members of the committee, I will first of all introduce you to the person accompanying me, Mr. Jean-Guy Côté, who is the political attaché in my Quebec City office. I will begin by thanking you for your invitation to take part in the work of your committee in its deliberations on Bill C-20.

Bill C-20 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  Thank you. First, you are quite right in stressing the Senate's important role regarding the use of the French language in the Canadian Parliament. Of course, the Senate has a historical role regarding the presentation of Canada's linguistic duality, with the presence of two official languages, French and English, as both languages are used in many federal institutions, especially in the Senate.

Bill C-20 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  No, it did not. When we saw the first Bill, S-4, which was introduced in the Senate, we arrived at some idea of what might follow. We were not consulted on the content of the second bill introduced, and that bill in fact confirmed what we feared. We feared that Bill S-4, which dealt with the terms of senators, would not be an isolated piece of legislation but would be part of a more comprehensive operation.

Bill C-20 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  The two bills are part of the same operation, in our view. If there had only been Bill S-4... At the time, the Government of Quebec had indicated not that it necessarily agreed but that it was at least prepared to tolerate Bill S-4. But when the operation became further developed and took shape in Bill C-43, which then became Bill C-20, we began to envisage its scope.

Bill C-20 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  I will tell you that we are aware of the will to modernize the Senate that is being manifested across Canada, and to some extent we subscribe to that. The Government of Quebec is not against modernizing the Senate. We say that, if the Senate is to be modernized in a way that affects its fundamental characteristics, that modernization has to be carried out in accordance with established rules.

Bill C-20 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  Yes. Among all the constitutional models available for Senate reform, we would like one that would eventually transform it into a chamber of the provinces. Originally, the Senate was supposed to be a chamber of provinces, or a regional chamber. It has never really been that, since senators were appointed by the Governor General on recommendations put forward by the Prime Minister of Canada.

Bill C-20 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  I don't know. I just know that all parties have unanimously demanded that Bill C-20 be withdrawn, and that consideration of Bill C-19 be suspended. The reasons for that demand may be different. I don't want to say that all parties are unanimous in their arguments or their reasons, but I don't want to say the opposite either.

Bill C-20 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  It would be premature to say so with any certainty at this time. That is one option which is being considered, but no decision has yet been made. It would seem much wiser for the Government of Canada itself to ask the Supreme Court of Canada directly whether its bill is constitutional.

Bill C-20 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  Not officially. There have been exchanges of views. The provinces do not all take Quebec's position. For example, Ontario would be in favour of abolishing the Senate, which is not a position we take. On the contrary, as I said at the outset, we consider the Senate as an institution to be important in maintaining balance in the federation.

Bill C-20 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  First, as I just said, our objective would certainly be to see the Senate become a chamber of the provinces. Now it is very clear that even if, pursuant to the constitutional rules, we were to elect senators for the first time—in a hypothetical case where a constitutional debate would be ultimately followed by electing senators through federal elections—we would most certainly be deviating from our objective of having a chamber of the provinces.

Bill C-20 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  For example, the Meech Lake Accord, which was proposed by a Conservative government, let us not forget, proposed, among other things, that senators should be elected or appointed by provincial legislative assemblies. This might be a mechanism to consider.

Bill C-20 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  The powers of the Senate should also be reviewed. We cannot allow a Senate that has been transformed into a chamber of the provinces to have an absolute power of veto on the adoption of federal bills. This would really have to be a suspensive veto rather than an absolute veto. At this time, we are facing the same problem with Bill C-20, on a more or less short-term basis.

Bill C-20 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  Excuse me?

Bill C-20 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  It is extremely clear that if you wish to amend the powers of the Senate, a constitutional amendment is essential. This is set out in section 42 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Unless there is some nuance that I am not thinking about at this moment, a multilateral constitutional amendment would be quite unavoidable.

Bill C-20 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  I cannot remember whether the PQ has ever publicly stated its position, but I wouldn't be surprised if the PQ takes the same position as the Bloc Québécois. I say this with reservations, because I have not been able to verify this recently.