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

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Choosing not to accept the candidate who was democratically consulted by the people is fine. Choosing not to hold a consultation process at all.... You're saying that this is so that we don't get into any constitutional problems. Is that it?

[Grégoire Webber]

I'm not passing judgment as to whether or not it is fine—

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

But your opinion is that this would be the sole reason that the Prime Minister can invoke or not invoke at will?

[Grégoire Webber]

That was the primary consideration at play for ensuring constitutional compliance, yes.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

For me, the issue of democratic form is based on the notion that the democratic vote actually counts. “Democratic consultation” went out with King John and Robert Mugabe. We're telling the Canadian public that they can participate in this consultation process, and the Prime Minister might choose them, but he might not; he might choose somebody else.

Do you think there's going to be a lot of public buy-in on this?

[Grégoire Webber]

An analogy could be drawn with the Referendum Act, in which a lot of the structure of thinking behind consultation in this bill is provided. A referendum, when held, does not bind any of the powers to which the referendum results are submitted.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Certainly, but in a referendum you can't take the second choice. You're going to recognize that there is a public will, right?

[Grégoire Webber]

As the voting method outlined in this bill provides for, the expression of the democratic decisions by voters—the simple transferable vote—is a democratic process in terms of expressing the preferences of voters, no more and no less than the results of a referendum on a yes or no question.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

But this isn't an election. This is a consultation about possible choices by the Prime Minister.

I have to ask you a question here, because I want to get it clear. We have one spot open in Ontario. What's the size of the quota that person needs?

[Dan McDougall]

It will depend on the number of completed ballots, to go back to an earlier question, whether or not someone could get in with x number of votes.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

So if 10% of the people vote, or 50%...?

[Dan McDougall]

The formula is the total number of ballots, divided by the number of vacancies, plus one.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Do you have a sense for Ontario? If there's one position open, what's the difference with a quota for six people?

[The Chair, Liberal, Albina Guarnieri]

This is your last question, because your time has expired.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Yes, I know. I'm just trying to get this clear.

[Dan McDougall]

If there is one position, you'd have to assume how many people voted. Let's say there are 10 million who vote. It would be 5 million plus a couple of voters.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

That would be the quota.

[Dan McDougall]

That would be the number of votes you need in order to—

[The Chair, Liberal, Albina Guarnieri]

Mr. Angus, please.

Mr. Hill.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

I find it unfortunate that when we have an issue like this where it should be so easy for us to be at least respectful, we have one committee member who decides he has to use terms like “puppet show”. I don't know how that feeds into our trying to operate in a respectful manner. Unfortunately, it's increasingly how the standing committees operate. I was hopeful that perhaps a legislative committee wouldn't be subjected to that. My apologies to the witnesses.

I'd like to pick up on some of the comments Mr. Angus made. I've been here for almost 15 years. I'm a strong advocate for Senate reform--I've said this before--and I find it extremely disturbing that the fallback position for many of my colleagues from other parties always seems to be that if you can't go all the way toward an elected Senate--in other words, change the Constitution.... We know all the hurdles. Many of us, even if we weren't here, certainly viewed the country seized with the machinations of Meech Lake and the Charlottetown accord and where all that led, frustratingly so, in the end.

I find it disappointing that we can't view this, discuss this, and debate this as an improvement, because that's how I see it. It's a step in the right direction. It's not the whole enchilada, so to speak, but at least it would give Canadians some choice.

Mr. Angus asked how do we know that electors are going to buy into this and suggested that perhaps there was no benefit. From my window, I think they will buy in because they're going to be given some choice that they don't have now at all.

The default position is to go back to the system we have, whereby traditionally a Liberal prime minister appoints Liberals to the Senate and a Conservative appoints Conservatives to the Senate. If we want that archaic system in this country, that's what we can have. But I think Bill C-20 is an honest attempt to do what we can, respecting the confines of the Constitution. That's what I hear from the witness as well.

He asked, “How do we suggest the public would buy in?” I don't remember the exact numbers, but I think somewhere around 300,000 Albertans voted in a Senate selection there--far more than the 100,000 or so who ever voted for any single MP in a riding. We're lucky if we get half of the eligible voters out to vote any more.

I think this constitutes a good step forward, and it is a step toward democratic reform. We should try to discuss that within those confines.

I would like to ask the witnesses to comment further on this whole notion that somehow the public wouldn't buy in if they were given an opportunity. I think the experience in Alberta--and I don't think it would be dramatically different in other provinces--suggests otherwise.

[The Chair, Liberal, Albina Guarnieri]

Would you like to respond?

[Dan McDougall]

Perhaps I can respond on the last point about the public buying in.

Certainly any indications we have seen in terms of public will on Senate reform show that there's a very strong inclination among the public that the Senate be reformed in some manner. I think it's fair to say that following some unsuccessful constitutional reforms, the public was weary of reform and that maybe following on that they're now wary of reform. So incremental reform does seem to be somewhat appealing to them.

The government undertook some national consultations over the past year. One of the topics was Senate reform. There were citizens selected from across each province and from the territories to participate in a day-and-a-half session on democratic reform. One of the topics was the Senate. Overwhelmingly in those sessions there was a strong inclination expressed by the participants, who were randomly selected from the public, that the Senate be reformed. Indeed, they were wary of complex constitutional reform, fearing that it would end up, as many other attempts at Senate reform have done, going nowhere. That came out strongly right across the country, in every province.

Similarly, there was a corresponding national poll conducted to try to assess whether the views among the general public, which didn't participate in the forums, were different from those who participated. Again, the results were very similar. It was strong, as I recall, up in the 60% or 70% range. Here it shows that it was 79% of Canadians who support Senate reform in some manner. And there was strong support for incremental reform, that is, getting done whatever can be done.

[The Chair, Liberal, Albina Guarnieri]

Thank you for your insight, Mr. McDougall.

Unfortunately, we're running out of time. As I mentioned at the beginning, we're suspending at five to deal with committee matters.

We have two minutes left. Are there any quick questions?

Go ahead, Madam Fry.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'll be quick.

I think it's kind of sad, when we talk about respecting and disrespecting each other, that anyone who questions or disagrees with a particular point of view is seen as causing trouble. I have never seen it that way. I think there's room for disagreement around the table, and at the end of the day, we can come up with what we agree on. It should be done in a respectful manner, but disagreeing in itself is not necessarily disrespectful.

I wanted to ask a question, because I think the issue of democracy and democratic reform is obviously at the heart of what everybody is trying to talk about. I would suggest to you that when the majority of people said they wanted to see Senate reform, I think they meant they wanted to have a say in how senators get to where they are. I would think that most people would believe that this is an extraordinarily expensive way to find out what people think. To then have someone decide that they don't even like their choices, I think, is not democratic.

Second, it's very undemocratic to suggest that in order to run, you have to find $4 million. You're self-selecting a whole bunch of people who cannot run because they can't ever achieve that kind of money. So while I understand the need for reform, accept it, and understand that you don't want to go the whole route for constitutional change, I think there is a way of discussing how this can become more democratic.

To have people believe that the cost of going out and doing this is acceptable, they would have to know that it wasn't just, “Thank you very much, but I don't think I like any of these guys”. I know why they say you couldn't do that and that nobody would do that, but we have seen instances when this government has done things that we believe are undemocratic. For me, there's an issue of trust here, and there's an issue of actually being democratic.

[The Chair, Liberal, Albina Guarnieri]

That sounded like a comment. Thank you, Madam Fry.

On that note, I'd like to say that there is nothing more illuminating than a technical briefing, so I want to thank you for lighting up our Wednesday here. I'm sure everybody has many more questions. But you have enhanced our knowledge on the bill, so I'd like to thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Maloney.