Thank you very much.
Mr. Gibbins, I think sometimes some of the things we're talking about here may or may not be appropriate. I don't know if you are aware that the only way the Prime Minister could set up these elections without actually contravening the Constitution would be to do what he did, which was to suggest that after the elections he would use the list, from which he would draw appointments. In other words, he might or might not and would not necessarily. In fact he could not be bound by the elections, because he would immediately violate the Constitution.
So at the end of the day, we're talking here about semantics or something that is meaningless, because if you're going to have elections--which you're going to proceed to ignore, and which are going to cost an enormous amount of money in the first place--and then you may or may not listen to them, first and foremost you've subverted democracy. Secondly, you have created a set-up by stealth, as I think my NDP colleague said, in which you are trying to get an answer to something. You're involving Elections Canada. You are doing all of these things, and yet you're not going to listen to what the people say.
So that's the first question I have, because for me that is at the heart of what bothers me about this bill. It is a stealthy move. It is a move that, as one of our witnesses said, cannot be made legally, so you're trying to do it by the back door. That's the first thing.
Second is the fact that by doing this, the Prime Minister has actually ignored and disrespected the provinces to the extent that he has not seen fit to sit down first and discuss with them some things that are of fundamental importance, when provinces have weighed in on them and said personally how they feel about them. That is again something that doesn't sit well with the idea of trying to get good input, of trying to get something done here that will work, of making sure that even if not everyone is onside, we've made sure that we have at least done the respectful thing by talking to the people who are involved.
So the idea that you can ensure diversity through an electoral system when in truth you are not really looking at an election is a moot point.
But having said all that, I'm back to the diversity issue. You said that an election is a better way to achieve diversity than are appointments, and you said that it depends on the Prime Minister. Would it not be a wiser thing to suggest that in fact you amend in some way the way you elect the Senate, not by changing the Constitution but by suggesting that the Prime Minister must make a list of appointments that reflect the diversity of Canada--linguistic, regional, or whatever--and be bound by that so that you look at the kind of formula for that? Then as Canada changes, that formula shifts with it, so you make sure the appointments are done.
I know that Mr. Chrétien, when he appointed, did something we've never been able to do through elections: he managed to get almost 50% of the Senate to be women. And he has aboriginal people who were never in the Senate before. And he has visible minority groups who were not in the Senate before, and linguistic groups who were not in the Senate before.
I think you could do it by appointment if you really wanted to. So I want to put that to you.
First and foremost is the question of when is an election an election when it's not an election? Second is the point about the disrespect for the provinces. And third is the point about seeking diversity through appointment.