Bill C-20 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  Mr. Reid, much as you want me to respond to what you would like to respond to, let me just repeat what I've said: that the attempt to do an end run around the constitutional amendment processes in the Constitution Act of 1982 supersedes any of the cases you have mentioned. It is

Bill C-20 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  Okay. Let me be clear. Let me try to be as clear as possible. First of all, you're wrong in saying the conventions are no longer valid things to think about. You're absolutely wrong about that. The patriation reference case was based on conventions, and because the preamble to o

Bill C-20 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  As a member of the Canadian Bar Association, I completely agree with the suggestion by the Canadian Bar Association. I think the simple question that could be asked is what I've said in my presentation: Can you do indirectly what you cannot do directly by amending the Constitutio

Bill C-20 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  As I said, if this bill is passed and the advisory elections take place and the legislation is then struck down, what is the status of those senators who were elected? That is a risk you face by passing this legislation. None of us knows for sure what the Supreme Court of Canad

Bill C-20 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  We passed legislation that said that in future constitutional amendments we would have the consent of the regions of Canada after the 1995 referendum, and that includes Quebec. You could basically override that by saying that we'll do it indirectly so we don't need the consent of

Bill C-20 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  As I said, I'm not going to sink to the level of Mr. Reid. I think he's demonstrated his ability to stay mature as a legislator in this hearing. What I will address, though.... I did ask the same questions in this hearing. I asked the same three questions, so I'm glad you raise

Bill C-20 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  But can I interrupt? I want him to keep on abusing me, because it's a sign that someone who sinks to the level of abuse has lost the argument. So please continue with your abuse, Mr. Reid.

Bill C-20 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  Your question actually gets me to reveal what I think should be the proper way to go about this. First, I agree with my colleague John Whyte that there should be proper consultations done with all the provinces. To my knowledge that hasn't been done, despite the fact that the f

Bill C-20 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  When I appeared before the Senate on what was then Bill S-4, I basically said that the two bills have to be considered together because they're part of a plan by the present government to amend the Constitution by--and I'm going to use a word that I refrained from using--stealth.

Bill C-20 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  Mr. Moore, I presume your constituency is in British Columbia.

Bill C-20 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  My simple answer is that the bill should be scrapped. It is completely unconstitutional.

Bill C-20 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  In New Brunswick. Would you be happy with an elected Senate that does not reflect the equality of the regions of Canada, where part of that elected Senate really acts as gridlock against the consensus of all of Canada from the House of Commons? Would you be happy with that situat

Bill C-20 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  Let me begin by saying that not only is Professor Hogg wrong, but he's not yet on the Supreme Court of Canada. You as legislators have to take into account the risks entailed in passing legislation. If one of those risks includes the potential for legislation to be struck down

Bill C-20 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  My advice would be both: kill this legislation, but also--

Bill C-20 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) committee  Yes, that is right.