Bill C-20 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) Committee on April 16th, 2008

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

Mr. Hogg, do you want to add a comment?

[Prof. Peter Hogg]

I don't think I can add anything to that. I accept what my colleague says.

[The Chair, Liberal, Albina Guarnieri]

Thank you.

Mr. Maloney.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

Is the system broken, and does this bill remedy that? Is there a compelling need to implement a hybrid Senate? Will its operations be any different, except that it's going to cost the taxpayers of Canada $150 million a panel to have this system implemented?

What are your comments? Will anything be different?

[Prof. Peter Hogg]

Of course it will take a long time, because all existing senators are grandfathered and will be there until age 75, but eventually you will have a Senate in which people retire at the end of every eight years, assuming you pass Bill C-19, and a consultation is held to appoint a replacement.

They will feel that they have the political power of an elected body. That takes us to the questions that were worrying Mr. Murphy at the beginning, that the Senate will eventually become a more assertive and powerful body because of that. I think that will be a consequence.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

And leading to the potential of a deadlock, which this act doesn't provide a formula to resolve.

[Prof. Peter Hogg]

Exactly.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

Mr. Gélinas.

[Prof. Fabien Gélinas]

Again, that's deadlock in the sense that a bill will not be adopted as an act of Parliament, which in a sense resolves the deadlock. I think that's an important clarification.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

Mr. Angus was delving into the area of the role of the Senate as representing regional interests and also minority interests. Does this legislation diminish, augment, or increase that role? Or will it just be the same? Or is there any way to ensure a better regional representation or better representation of minorities?

[Prof. Peter Hogg]

This is just speculation, but it is possible that as the Senate evolves into a more completely elected body, the influence of political parties will become stronger than it is now, and it's already pretty strong now. As I said earlier, I don't think party discipline and the protection of minorities are really consistent things. The tendency, I think, will be to follow the national policies of the party whose support led to the election.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

Is this increased partisanship a good thing or a bad thing, in your opinion—the increased influence of political parties?

[The Chair, Liberal, Albina Guarnieri]

That's a really political question.

[Prof. Peter Hogg]

That, I think, takes me outside the envelope of my limited knowledge.

[The Chair, Liberal, Albina Guarnieri]

You'd make an excellent politician.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

A 2007 U.K. white paper on the House of Lords favoured a combination of elected and appointed lords, arguing that a fully elected House would tend to resemble the House of Commons. It would tend to increase the level of partisanship in the House and would risk turning it into either a permanent block or a rubber stamp for the policies of the government of the day.

We're talking about a hybrid. Have you ever considered an elected and appointed body?

[Prof. Peter Hogg]

You'd have that for quite a long time, you know, because all the existing senators are grandfathered. So as consultations are held to bring people into the Senate, you're going to have a mixture of people who were selected under a consultation and people who, before the passage of the bill, were appointed in the normal way. So it's going to provide a bit of a social laboratory, if you like, as to how that works. Perhaps sometime in the future it might be determined that that's not a bad body to have.

Again, that's a question that's very difficult to answer.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

Mr. Gélinas.

[Prof. Fabien Gélinas]

I just want to add something about diversity. If my recollection is correct, the Senate, at least in the recent past, has had more diversity than the House of Commons, and this is an effect of party politics, obviously. So if we have a system where senators are elected or appointed on the basis of a consultation that involves party politics and the machinery thereof, it seems to me there is a fairly serious risk that diversity will go down in the Senate. In my view, this is a reason why I would not personally vote for the reform.

[The Chair, Liberal, Albina Guarnieri]

Thank you, Mr. Gélinas.

We'll proceed to Mr. Goodyear, who will have the last round of questions.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Through you, Chair, thank you to our guests for coming. I've enjoyed the discussions we've had on this bill.

I have a comment and then a question.

I've had the opportunity to travel with the parliamentary Commonwealth group, which has given me a great opportunity to meet some of the smaller countries in the Commonwealth: Barbados, the Turks and Caicos, and so on. What I noticed there was that we have countries that are run, frankly, by small numbers of members of Parliament—15, and in some cases 8 or 11. As good a job as they do, it became clear to me that to have a second upper chamber, an area of second thought to go over some of the decisions made by the members, was probably a good idea. But when we have a Parliament as large as ours, with 308 members, with all the facilities offered to us—the researchers, the analysts, witnesses, the funds to bring in experts like you—I remain unconvinced that we need a Senate to continue.

As you had mentioned, institutions tend to change in time, and perhaps it's time. That's a decision we are wrestling with and will continue to wrestle with, but it's a point that I make.

The question I have here is that as I read through Bill C-20, I understand the issues with constitutionality, but I'm gathering from you, for the most part, that at the end of the day this is not in direct violation of the Constitution. Would you say that this is a significant move in democracy, in a democratic way, toward a Senate that reflects better the nation and the needs of the nation, the opinions of Canadians, and a move toward reforming the Senate in a democratic way that does not violate the Constitution? Would you agree with that statement?

[Prof. Fabien Gélinas]

Personally, I think the move is significant to the extent that it is likely to change the expectations of the people. It will change the expectations in a way that relies on a notion of democracy that has not been fully worked out, in my view. But this, of course, will be mostly lost, it seems to me.

For example, issues will arise as to whether most of the cabinet members might come from the Senate, issues such as that, or the relative role of the Senate in the House of Commons. It doesn't seem to me that we've quite worked it out, and at the same time, we will most likely change the expectations of the people fundamentally regarding an elected Senate.

[Prof. Peter Hogg]

I think it is a move towards an elected Senate. Other federal countries typically do have an upper house. They typically are elected. Australia and the United States spring to mind.

As for your small countries, I was on a visit to the Bahamas a few years ago and I visited their Senate. Their Senate meets in a room about half the size of this one. There are about 10 of them, and they were debating whether Oprah Winfrey should be shown on Bahamian public television. It was very, very interesting. They were certainly fulfilling a sober second thought there.

And they were elected.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Point well taken.

[Prof. Fabien Gélinas]

I would venture to say that the senates of sunny countries get more visitors.