Bill C-20 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) Committee on May 14th, 2008

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

There are two things, Mr. Gibbins. First, you said earlier that we have to start the process, and as we go along we'll get the process to be better and better. I agree with that, but if I look at what we're doing here as a legislative committee, we are starting the process. In fact, the bill we have in front of us is that first step toward reforming the process. But our task as members of the legislature is to look at that bill and make the process already better at this level. That is why we're looking at the details of the bill. I can see that what we're doing falls in step with the kind of thinking you've been exposing to us, in terms of les grandes lignes, if you like. In our thinking, we have to take into consideration all the questions that have been asked here today and on the other days.

We've talked a lot about how you become a senator. But once you have become a senator, once that new Senate is elected, or whatever is done, and all the senators are sitting in that new red room, what is their relationship to the House of Commons? How do you avoid having two groups with the same amount of power jostling one another? What powers do you give to one that you don't give to the other? One necessarily has to supersede the other, it seems to me. One has to take precedence over the other, otherwise you're at a deadlock. It's one of the problems the United States have in their legislature.

Seeing that there's nothing in Bill C-20 to give us an indication of where the Conservative government wants to go in that, do you have some ideas on the relationship between that new Senate and the House of Commons?

[Roger Gibbins]

At the present time the Senate of Canada has an absolute veto on all forms of legislation, except constitutional amendments designed to change the Senate.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

But because of respect for the House of Commons they have never exercised it--or at least not in my lifetime, let's put it that way.

[Roger Gibbins]

They've come close.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Yes.

[Roger Gibbins]

They came very close on the free trade legislation, the GST, and others.

In the back of my mind is the danger of us getting into that confrontation with the existing Senate, because we have such different partisan distributions in the two houses. So I think there are some real risks.

If I were king for a day, I would like to have a House of Commons elected on the basis of representation by population, and get rid of some of the distortions we have right now as we try to accommodate regional representation within the House. It gets awkward. I would like to have a tie-breaking mechanism that gives additional weight to the House of Commons, because I think it reflects the most crystal-clear expression of the democratic will of the people. You want to get that right.

It requires a change from the status quo. People assume now that the Senate doesn't have power and legitimacy. It doesn't have legitimacy, but it does have power. I'd like to strengthen the legitimacy of the Senate but constrain its power. I think that can be done. There are mechanisms for doing so. I don't shy away entirely from the notion of deadlocks, confrontations, and so on, because democratic government tends to be messy. It's not clear-cut, but we have to sort those things out.

I come back to the responsibilities of this committee, as I see them. The questions that have been asked today that I have confronted seem to be extraordinarily important and thoughtful ones. These are not trivial matters that have been raised by people. I would hate to see the discussions shut down at this point by the committee, rather than pushing us—Canadians, the government of the day, whoever—to begin addressing those questions in a thoughtful fashion.

How you do that as a matter of parliamentary procedure is something I don't know. But rather than slamming on the brakes, I would prefer to raise those hard questions and try to think through a mechanism by which they can be answered. Because they are important questions, and Canadians would feel you were negligent in your own responsibilities if you went ahead pell-mell, without raising those questions and thinking through a mechanism by which we might be able to answer them. All those answers won't be found in Bill C-20 itself.

[The Chair, Liberal, Albina Guarnieri]

That will have to be the last word.

I'd like to thank Mr. Gibbins for his insights. I know that committee members will go into overdrive to digest your input. Thank you ever so much for coming.

We'll see you in two weeks. Thank you.

The meeting is adjourned.