Bill C-20 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) Committee on June 18th, 2008

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Senator, we've had this issue come up before as well. In light of what seems to be--with some of these polls, including the one you've included--overwhelming support for our having some kind of democratic input from Canadians, on the principle that Canadians should have democratic input into their institutions, would you let maybe the lack of achieving a perfect consensus or perfection in legislation be a roadblock to our advancing the will of Canadians to have some input? We've had some witnesses appear who seemed to be suggesting that unless it's a perfect situation or a perfect formula, we mustn't do anything. If it's not perfect, we can't do anything. Anyone who's experienced a bit of life knows that nothing is perfect.

I'm wondering what your take is on that. Do you look at that as a roadblock--that if we can't achieve perfection, then we shouldn't move this agenda forward at all?

[Senator Bert Brown]

Through the chair again, no, I do not look at anything as a roadblock. I've been with this for a long time, so there have been all kinds of suggestions by all kinds of experts and pundits and people, and we're seeing them again as I go public with some of the discussions with the premiers.

I think it comes down to what I said. I think we should explore democracy in the Senate, and then it will take five to eight years to have a majority of senators who are elected, with vacancies occurring naturally as senators reach the age of 75. We have, as I said, 15 as of yesterday. We'll have 17 by the end of this year, and we will have 29 by the end of 2009. If we have elections to fill all of those vacancies, it will take five to eight years before you have a majority. That's five to eight years to find out whether people like me are even worthy of being in the Senate, whether we're better in any way than anyone else.

I don't want to infer again that there's anything wrong with the individuals in the Senate. There are some sterling people there. There is Dr. Keon, who's just been put in the Medical Hall of Fame and cares more than anybody I've met about young Canadians, poverty, and children, and this kind of thing. I serve on his committee, and I'm absolutely overwhelmed by his intellect and his commitment. I won't go on to try to name a whole lot of senators from there, because I'll end up leaving somebody behind. I just isolated him because he's recently been put in the hall of fame.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Albina Guarnieri]

Thank you.

Mr. Murphy.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

I wanted to get back, because my time ran out, to envisioning what would happen with an elected Senate and how those elected senators like yourself would feel. They would feel, I suppose, that they've been selected by the people to represent the people's interest, along the lines of what Rob Moore was saying. That sounds good. Canadians would accept that; I'm sure of it.

But on the House of Commons side, we have that already. We have people elected by the people. With this Bill C-20, in fact, I might argue that in my province of New Brunswick and Rob Moore's province of New Brunswick, each senator might have a bigger mandate--that is by votes--than each of us because their riding is the whole province of New Brunswick. So they might even feel more engorged with power, if you will. Then we come here with an elected Senate--say the senators from New Brunswick and the MPs from New Brunswick--and we're battling over a bill, let's say. The Constitution is not going to change with Bill C-20, so we will have, in fact, gridlock between the two houses with no mechanism to resolve that.

The words you spoke with respect to the Prime Minister's wish that the House of Commons maintain supremacy, while well-meaning on your part--and I take you as an honest, straightforward man who's been devoted to the cause for so long--seem hollow. The Prime Minister said to you that the House of Commons shall be supreme, yet the bill doesn't attempt to affect that, probably can't affect that without some sort of constitutional change. So is Bill C-20 just a waste of time? You believe--I think you do, and I can get your answer on this--that the House of Commons should be supreme to the Senate. Yet, if both houses are elected, I'll tell you, practically, I would think that elected senators might feel as powerful as elected MPs and in the fullness of time there might be quite a little fight over who has more power. The Constitution does not say the House of Commons is supreme.

If the Prime Minister meant what he said to you, I don't know why his Minister for Democratic Reform, the government House leader, didn't say that when he introduced this bill. I don't know why he didn't say that gridlock will not be an issue because we intend the House of Commons to be supreme. What are your comments on that?

[Senator Bert Brown]

My comment would be that it would take me, Madam Chair, back to.... I think I'm still failing here; I should be calling you the Honourable Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Albina Guarnieri]

I'm more interested in the flow of the discussion, so don't worry about it.

[Senator Bert Brown]

Thank you.

I think first of all that the kind of Senate we're looking for is the Australian Senate. They thought they had a constitutional crisis because at one time--they had an equal number of senators, all elected, per state in Australia--they came to a point where there was a deadlock over something. And I don't know the specifics of the bill--I don't think it was the budget--but they got away with it because they just simply met and said, okay, we have to solve this problem; we don't want to dissolve the government and create a constitutional crisis.

That's why we came up with the override, to prevent that. If you have time, think about the override with one other condition: that the people elected to the Senate would represent provincial political parties. The reason we fought so hard for that is because there are other parties that are not now represented in the Senate, or in the House of Commons for that matter. The Parti Québécois would be able to run in Canada for the Senate. The B.C.---help me out; they were in power at--

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Yes, the Saskatchewan Party, etc.

[Senator Bert Brown]

Yes, the Saskatchewan Party. Good. Thank you. I was stalled there for a minute.

There is a party in Quebec that comes back to power every once in a while too, not just the NDP, but also the Credit Party something.... Pardon?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. James M. Latimer]

Action démocratique?

[Senator Bert Brown]

No, I'm talking about British Columbia.

[The Chair, Liberal, Albina Guarnieri]

Social Credit.

[Senator Bert Brown]

Yes, the Social Credit Party. Thank you very much. I'm sorry, I have a lot of things going through my mind.

If you had that many different parties and you were required to get your majority from that many different parties, the point we try to make is that that would be something very significant in the minds of not only people in one province, but in two or three provinces, and all the different political stripes. Included in there would be independents, because any time you hold an election, you have to let people run as independent as well.

I know I'm very excited about the Elton override, because I've read a lot of other things that are very complicated, but I really do believe this is the answer to maintaining the supremacy of the House of Commons and at the same time giving extreme influence to the Senate with the powers it now has.

Let me just close that statement by saying this much: I don't see the Senate vetoing a lot of bills, period. I see them amending some. I see them talking to the MPs of the day in the cafeteria and the hallways, which I think they do now, to say, “We're finding a lot of resistance across the board on this particular bill; why don't you amend it before we have to amend it?” Or whatever.

If you remember the GST, it was the first time I ever saw the Senate exercise real power. When it was introduced at 11%, there was a big outcry against...I think Mulroney was the Prime Minister at the time. All the MPs who were in power were called and threatened by their own constituents, “If you do this 11% stuff, we're going to vote against you in the next election.”

He dropped it to 9%, reintroduced it, and told his members of Parliament to sit down and shut up, and he went forward with it. The people of Canada went to the senators, started phoning them, calling them, faxing them, and did everything they could to oppose the GST at 9%. The Senate held the first filibuster that I have ever heard of. They were blowing kazoos in the Senate chamber, and one guy was reading recipes. This is all in the Hansard; you can find it if you have a mind to.

Then Prime Minister Brian Mulroney appointed eight extraordinary senators for the first time in the history of that clause in the Constitution. It allows two extraordinary senators per region so that a Senate that is trying to be obstructionist can be overcome by a majority of that party. He exercised that privilege, and he passed it at 7%—but he had lowered it another 2%.

[The Chair, Liberal, Albina Guarnieri]

Thank you.

Mr. Gourde.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I would like to thank Senator Brown and congratulate him for his lifelong work, and especially his work in the last 20 years, in promoting an elected Senate. I am sure that if Quebec one day gets on board and elects senators, we will one day see a member, or former member, of the Bloc elected to the Senate.

Senator, do you feel a lot of reluctance from your Senate colleagues to an elected Senate at the moment?

[Senator Bert Brown]

Yes, there is a lot of hesitation on the other side of the aisle. On my side of the aisle, I don't think there's an absolute majority of all the senators who are labelled “Conservative”. But I'm treated with respect. I'm not vilified. I don't feel that the others on the other side of the aisle are my enemies or anything like that. I feel quite comfortable, at least at this point. If I get too successful, my popularity won't continue.

I think one thing that everyone worries about is that elected senators will somehow come prancing in there and say, “We're elected, and you guys are nothing.” I don't think you're going to see that happen.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Of course, in an elected Senate, candidates for the position of Senator would have to stand for election.

Do you think that this is why some present senators hesitate? Perhaps Liberal senators would find it harder than being appointed. Being appointed is quite easy. You get appointed, no problem. But if you have to get elected, you have to go through a campaign and actually be known in the province.

[Senator Bert Brown]

Through the chair again, we don't envision the senators of the day being an enemy in any way. We've told a number of them that the first person from any province to resign and run would probably be elected in a landslide. Secondly, we are not trying to force any of them out, period.

We just want to fill vacancies. And the reason for that is that we want the Canadian people to have a timeframe to observe the work of elected senators and to see whether they think.... The only reason I know to have an election is that if you don't like the work that your member is doing for you, then you don't vote for them another time. I think that's the fundamental of democracy. I know that you people all live with that fact. You face an election every so often, and right now it's very tenuous as to whether there's going to be an election next week or next month, or whether it'll be next year.

But we also believe in fixed elections. We've said that we'd like to see senators elected for a six-year term, so that they wouldn't interfere with MPs' elections, most of the time. And if they are elected by the provinces, they definitely won't, because there are about three provinces per year who hold provincial elections, in which they can hold their senate elections at the same time.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Albina Guarnieri]

Mr. Reid, you have the last round of questions.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Senator, you've been talking about some changes that would necessarily involve a constitutional amendment using the 7/50 formula. And I would not dispute with you in any way that the kinds of things you're proposing—incorporating some provision like the Elton override, for example, or changes to the numbers of senators from each province—require an amendment under the 7/50 formula.

We've had some witnesses here who have suggested that this is the appropriate way to go with all Senate amendments of any sort, including the modest ones being contemplated in BillC-19 and BillC-20.

This gives me an opportunity to give a little editorial—which you're free to comment on when I finish—as to why it can be problematic turning to the provinces for their consent on these things.

Occasionally one of our witnesses will cite the way in which other countries have amended their constitutions. The Australians, for example, require the support of a majority of the states, so that's four out of six states. The Swiss require a majority of the cantons, and also a majority of the population. The Americans, of course, require the support of three-fourths of the states.

But in the Swiss and Australian cases, it's really the people of the states who decide the referendum. And in the case of the United States, just the very fact that there are so many states precludes what happens here in Canada, which is that you effectively are looking for the support of those individual premiers who, effectively, under our system, are elected dictators of their provinces, just as our prime minister is an elected dictator here, thanks to the strength of the party discipline in our system.

The consequence is that we can find ourselves being treated to the kind of thing we saw occur under the Meech Lake accord, and particularly the Charlottetown accord, where you essentially have them acting as feudal barons, horse-trading back and forth--“I will give you this provision if you give me that provision”, etc. Before you know it, you've created a cancerous growth like the Charlottetown accord, which effectively includes every imaginable provision—and the Senate is merely one part of this great tumour of a constitutional amendment you now have before you.

I worry very much that we would be unable to get the consent of the majority of the premiers, or of the seven premiers, representing half the population, without moving off the Senate and onto other topics. This fills me with some alarm.

I wonder if you have the same kinds of concerns—or perhaps you don't?

[Senator Bert Brown]

Yes, through the Honourable Madam Chair, I do not have concerns at all, because I've been through the process once, in Charlottetown, and we didn't have seven provinces out of ten; we had ten out of ten. We even had the territorials--there were only two territorial governments at the time.

The reason I don't have a problem is because we're asking for a stand-alone constitutional amendment. There have been two of them in this country, that I know of. There may have been more. There was one in Newfoundland over the separation of churches, and there was one in Quebec for the separation of bilingualism. They were both stand-alone constitutional amendments. Nobody asked that they bring in Aunt Martha to the Constitution, from any province. They all signed; they all agreed.

We can give them a five- to eight-year timeframe for seeing this thing evolve, and say, “Okay, you have a deadline coming up here. We're not exactly sure what it is, but you probably don't want to have an elected Senate that has a majority if you haven't dealt with representation and the powers.”

That's why we look at this as a staircase, with this being the first step, and it's a warning.

The reason we don't worry about premiers—and this is not an insult to premiers, it's just a fact of life—is that we've been through 59 premiers in this country since we started Senate reform.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Albina Guarnieri]

Are you finished with your questions?