Bill C-20 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  The single transferrable vote system is a system designed to reflect as closely as possible the preferences of voters. It works in single ridings where you only have one person, in which case it transforms itself into something else called an alternative system—but it works there as well.

Bill C-20 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  It's not an election process, that's correct, in the way we would normally conceive of it. It is really a consultation process. The idea is that the people who are selected from this will have a democratic mandate, but it is not an election process; in fact, the bill is constructed to make sure that the actual selection process and the criteria for selection remain as they are now, because to change to a fully elected process would require a complex constitutional amendment, which this bill doesn't do.

Bill C-20 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  As I understand it, I believe the government's position is that they do favour an elected Senate. I believe it's been articulated in their platform, and they have stated so publicly as a policy intention; however, given the difficulty in achieving an elected Senate--which has its own complications, because of the nature of the amending formula--this alternative provides for a democratic process so that Canadians can be involved in the selection process.

Bill C-20 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  It seems to me that the title of the bill is actually the appropriate way to refer to it. It's a senatorial selection process, a consultation process. Either one, I would think.... The formal title is “An Act to provide for consultations with electors on their preferences for appointments to the Senate”.

Bill C-20 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  No, I don't believe we've reduced it. I think the age requirement to be a senator is 30, and that's what's maintained here.

Bill C-20 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  This one may take a little while, so with your indulgence....

Bill C-20 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  Yes, that's correct. The way the process works is that, first off, it depends how many places are being consulted upon for a particular province. It may be the case that there's only one, in which case obviously it becomes somewhat irrelevant because there's only one name that will appear on the list of the chief electoral officer.

Bill C-20 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  Thank you, Madam Chair. We are pleased to be here today to discuss Bill C-20 — the Senate Appointment Consultations Act. We would like to review with the Committee the policy framework for the bill, as well as discuss the structure of the bill, and any details of this legislative proposal.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  I think there wouldn't be a problem, given the fact that you've deleted the—

Procedure and House Affairs committee  There would not be a problem in particular with deleting this, given that you've deleted or intend to delete the vote in advance of the day before the formal voting day. There may potentially be some issues with respect to the pilot project should that amendment be carried, but those potentially could be dealt with in other ways as well.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Mr. Chair, we believe the current wording in the Election Act would apply appropriately without amendment. The Election Act wording, section.... Non, 140 s'applique.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  I'm Dan McDougall, director of operations for the Privy Council Office, legislation and House planning.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Mr. Chair, if I may, my colleague is speaking to the subsequent ones, where the government amendments are being made to change the parenthetical expressions. The rationale for why they weren't is as he said. I would note that in the proposed amendment here the parenthetical expression is not being changed, as I recall, which is why the government version is trying to achieve the same goal, but it's drafted in a slightly different way in order to put that parenthetical expression back in, in a manner that is consistent with the subsequent ones.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Mr. Chair, it's technically not necessary. The parenthetical expressions are for clarity purposes only. They do not have substantive effect. The reason they weren't included in the original draft for that clarity is that it's the policy of the Department of Justice drafters that only when the substantive provision is opened before a proposed amendment are the clarifying provisions then changed.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Mr. Chair, if I may, just a point of clarity. It is with the same consequential amendments that were passed with the original NDP to which these.... So it would be NDP-5, NDP-8, NDP-9, NDP-10, NDP-12, NDP-13, and NDP-14 as amended appropriately consistent with what was passed with NDP-3.