Evidence of meeting #7 for Bill C-20 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was senate.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
5:15 p.m.
Prof. Ronald Watts
I've lost where I was now, but as I say, I think it's urgent. I'm not a defender of the status quo. And for reasons drawn from the comparative study of federal systems, I think we need to do it.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Joe Preston Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
I'd like to hear from Mr. Heard and Mr. Simeon as to whether they agree with you on the ability to do a discrete opening.
5:15 p.m.
Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Simon Fraser University, As an Individual
I'm skeptical about the ability to have a discrete amendment. It can happen. I will be delighted to be surprised, but I think there are probably bigger priorities in terms of democratic reform that relate to this house rather than the upper house.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Albina Guarnieri
Madame Folco, you have the last round.
Sorry, Mr. Simeon. Do you have a comment?
5:15 p.m.
Prof. Richard Simeon
No, I agree with what my colleague just said.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
He has two colleagues. Which colleague is he in agreement with?
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Albina Guarnieri
I'm sorry.
Mr. Simeon, would you like to clarify what comment you agreed with?
5:15 p.m.
Prof. Richard Simeon
Well, I agree that it's urgent, that the weakness of our Senate is the largest single weakness in our federal system. And as much as I would like to be able to focus a big public deliberation on the Senate and keep it limited to that, I'm just afraid that given the way our constitutional politics have developed, that would be really hard to do, much as I would like to.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Raymonde Folco Liberal Laval—Les Îles, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Up to now, we have discussed fundamental questions. My question is more about the details.
Under the Senate election process as I understand it, a certain number of people would be allowed to stand for the position of senator in a given province. For example, if there were three vacant positions in a province, a certain number of people would be told that they could stand for election to those positions.
Under the present system of election to the House of Commons, when you run in an urban riding, the population density means that you can be elected to represent a lot of people in a small area. It is exactly the opposite if you run in a rural riding; the area is large but the population density is low.
I have already asked this question to other witnesses. It would be easier for me to stand for the position of senator if I came from Montreal, because I know a lot of people there who would vote for me. If I run in Val-D'Or, looking for votes is difficult because voters are spread over a wide area. It seems to me that there is a systemic injustice in the method of voting and the way in which different people come forward.
Do you have any comments on that?
May 7th, 2008 / 5:20 p.m.
Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Simon Fraser University, As an Individual
I think in the particular context of Quebec elections—
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Raymonde Folco Liberal Laval—Les Îles, QC
Excuse me. I wasn't thinking of Quebec particularly. I just took that as an example because that's where I'm from, but it could be British Columbia.
5:20 p.m.
Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Simon Fraser University, As an Individual
I don't know how one can avoid that problem in terms of who one is to represent as a senator and how one gets elected. I don't see an improvement over province-wide elections, as difficult as they are. I think they help create a larger focus in the Senate. I think we are meant to have community representation in the House of Commons and broader provincial interests represented in the Senate.
My own personal belief is that we should keep elections province-wide, to the extent possible, for senators.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Gary Goodyear Conservative Cambridge, ON
A point of clarification, Madam Chair. It was my understanding that unanimous consent was given to hear the answer from the previous question, not unanimous consent to start another round and stay beyond the bells?
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Albina Guarnieri
Okay.
Then I'd like to thank our witnesses for a combined century of wisdom and insight into our deliberations. Thank you.
The meeting is adjourned.