Bill C-20 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) Committee on June 4th, 2008

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Pelletier, thank you for being here today. Your comments have been very interesting.

What are the fears of the Government of Quebec with respect to modernization of the Senate? You talked about them a little earlier, but is there anything you would like to add?

[Benoît Pelletier]

First, as I just said, our objective would certainly be to see the Senate become a chamber of the provinces. Now it is very clear that even if, pursuant to the constitutional rules, we were to elect senators for the first time—in a hypothetical case where a constitutional debate would be ultimately followed by electing senators through federal elections—we would most certainly be deviating from our objective of having a chamber of the provinces. This would no doubt strengthen federal democracy. This might even strengthen central power, because we would have two chambers, both of them claiming democratic legitimacy. Nevertheless, the provinces, or at least Quebec, would be far from their objective, which is to change the Senate into a chamber of the provinces. We are afraid that this might be the outcome of this entire attempt to reform and modernize the Senate.

Nonetheless, we strongly support a debate on Senate reform. We understand the ambitions and expectations of some provinces, and other partners in the federation, as well as the expectations of quite a few Canadians who are apparently hoping for some kind of modernization, and there are even many Canadians who want to democratize the Senate. I think that any decisions regarding this must be made pursuant to established constitutional rules. We have nothing against a debate except that, let me repeat, as far as we are concerned, the objective is to establish a chamber of the provinces.

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

Regarding the chamber of the provinces, you said a while ago that history has shown that the Fathers of Confederation had wanted the Senate to represent the provinces.

How could we choose senators to represent the provinces?

[Benoît Pelletier]

For example, the Meech Lake Accord, which was proposed by a Conservative government, let us not forget, proposed, among other things, that senators should be elected or appointed by provincial legislative assemblies. This might be a mechanism to consider.

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

In this way, we would not have any constitutional problems?

[Benoît Pelletier]

The powers of the Senate should also be reviewed. We cannot allow a Senate that has been transformed into a chamber of the provinces to have an absolute power of veto on the adoption of federal bills. This would really have to be a suspensive veto rather than an absolute veto.

At this time, we are facing the same problem with Bill C-20, on a more or less short-term basis. Let us suppose that the bill is adopted and that the Senate, bit by bit, is transformed into an elected chamber. This Senate would claim its democratic legitimacy, and then we'll have to settle the entire issue of relations between the Senate and the House of Commons. The Senate's powers could indeed be challenged, in such a situation. There would be two chambers, both claiming democratic legitimacy. Some senators might even claim more legitimacy due to the fact that they have been elected by an entire province.

These issues must not be taken lightly. These are fundamental issues facing federal parliamentarians. Those who are sitting in the House of Commons should get to work on this issue on a more or less long-term basis.

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

The powers of the Senate could be interpreted in another way.

[Benoît Pelletier]

Excuse me?

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

If the situation that you described were to arise, should the constitutional powers of the Senate be negotiated between the House of Commons and the Senate?

[Benoît Pelletier]

It is extremely clear that if you wish to amend the powers of the Senate, a constitutional amendment is essential. This is set out in section 42 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Unless there is some nuance that I am not thinking about at this moment, a multilateral constitutional amendment would be quite unavoidable.

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

The position of the Government of Quebec seems quite clear with regard to the Senate. You are prepared to modernize the Senate. If another political party were to come to power... We know that the Bloc's position is to abolish the Senate. Does the Parti Québécois want to unilaterally abolish the Senate?

[Benoît Pelletier]

I cannot remember whether the PQ has ever publicly stated its position, but I wouldn't be surprised if the PQ takes the same position as the Bloc Québécois. I say this with reservations, because I have not been able to verify this recently.

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

So all the political parties in Quebec have not reached a consensus on modernizing the Senate.

[Benoît Pelletier]

History shows that unanimity is impossible when it comes to constitutional amendments or the reform of Canadian institutions. Can the political parties reach a consensus, even two of the three parties? I don't know. Is there a consensus among the public? It is possible.

I do not under estimate the difficulty of the constitutional amendment mechanism. However, we did not introduce Bill C-20. This bill presents a problem that affects us and to which we are reacting. I cannot say that these are easy issues or ones that elicit great public interest, particularly not in June.

[The Chair, Liberal, Albina Guarnieri]

Thank you.

Mr. Murphy.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Minister, thank you for coming. I am from New Brunswick and I am proud to be a neighbour of the beautiful province of Quebec. We also share a historic link as partners in Confederation, with Ontario and Nova Scotia.

I agree when you say that the Senate is an important historical element for these four provinces, who were the first provinces. Furthermore, since I represent an Acadian community, I can tell you that it's extremely important to protect the linguistic rights of francophones.

I have several questions for you with regard to your province's position. First, it's clear that you want the government to scrap this bill. Second, if the federal government does not scrap it, your government intends to appeal to the Supreme Court. However, I am not sure I understand the third point the Government of Quebec has made.

In the event that your government would not appeal to the Supreme Court, would you prefer Quebec to appeal to the Quebec Court of Appeal to get a ruling on this bill's constitutionality? Is that Quebec's position? Or is it too early to say?

[Benoît Pelletier]

It's too early because there has been no ruling in Quebec, but we are looking at the possibility of appealing to the Court of Appeal and then to the Supreme Court of Canada. There has not been a ruling on this issue, but anyone familiar with this matter knows full well that the government must consider that possibility.

I repeat that it would be much wiser, in our opinion, for the Government of Canada itself, if it still intends to move forward with Bill C-20, to ask the Supreme Court to rule on its constitutionality. I think that this would be the wisest approach. Furthermore, we are also taking action by making our position clear to federal parliamentarians, who will have a role to play in passing Bill C-20.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

I find that fascinating. I read about a senator who said that you intended to fight this bill at the Supreme Court level. Perhaps Senator Brown misinterpreted your sentiments, but he said it was impossible for the Province of Quebec to—

in English, “mount a court challenge for something that's going on in Saskatchewan or British Columbia”.

Do you intend to appeal to the Supreme Court or another court to ask for changes to be made to legislation in Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Alberta and New Brunswick? Is that the purpose of your appearance before this committee?

[Benoît Pelletier]

We haven't got that far, but we are aware of this new reality, in other words provincial legislation being passed to elect senators. Obviously, we are studying the consequences of all of those initiatives, but we are not at that point in our analysis where we are able to take a position on those specific issues. I cannot then confirm that we will ask the courts to rule on all those questions.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

A resolution adopted by the Quebec National Assembly last November states the following:

[...] that the National Assembly of Quebec reaffirm to the federal government and to the Parliament of Canada that no modification to the Canadian Senate may be carried out without the consent of the Government of Quebec [...]

What exactly do the words "no modification to the Canadian Senate" mean? Does this refer to changes to the number seats or the colour of the walls or, is it clear, in your opinion, that this refers to essential issues related to the nature of the Senate?

[Benoît Pelletier]

Clearly, this motion was inspired by the Upper House Reference of 1980. Obviously, we are referring to amendments to the essential characteristics of the Senate. To this end, we defer to the Upper House Reference, which is inspired by common sense. The Supreme Court stated that if it was a matter of changing the paint colour and this did not entail many consequences, the decision could probably be made under Ottawa's unilateral amending powers, but if it was a matter of making significant changes to the House, provincial consent would be required. Why? Because the House in question does not belong solely to Ottawa: it belongs to the provinces as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Albina Guarnieri]

Thank you, minister.

Mr. Moore.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for taking the time to be with us here today, Minister.

What do you think of the current process by which senators are appointed right now? Are you satisfied with it? Do you think it's serving Quebeckers and all Canadians well? What is your assessment of the current process?

[Benoît Pelletier]

I think the current process has some value. It brought to the Senate many prominent people, people who have served the country and people who are an asset for the federal Parliament. So there is some value, in my view, in the current appointment process.

At the same time, if you want to change the method of selecting senators, then it is clear that you get into something that needs a constitutional amendment. I'm not even saying this is the case with Bill C-20, because it's very subtle. What I'm saying, though, is that it is substantial enough so that it affects the fundamental features of the Senate, and for that reason the reforms should be done through a formal and multilateral constitutional amendment.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Minister, I think you've indicated that you prefer a system of consultation, if there's a change to the method, which directly involves the National Assembly of Quebec. Can you perhaps explain to the committee why you prefer that members of the national assembly of politicians that have been elected to the National Assembly of Quebec would be consulted, but not the people of Quebec in general, or the people in other jurisdictions in general?