Skip to main content
EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, December 5, 1995

.1109

[English]

The Chairman: Order, please.

[Translation]

Because we now have a mini-quorum, we can hear witnesses - which means we can begin. This morning, we have with us Mr. Tom Hopwood and Mr. David Miller, representing the Treasury Board.

.1110

The first point on our agenda is consideration of a draft report. It is a sub-committee report on the business of supply.

[English]

Mrs. Catterall, perhaps you would like to introduce the subject. Then if we need to hear from the witnesses we can.

I invite the gentlemen to come to the table as witnesses. We may or may not hear from you, but I expect we're going to. Mrs. Catterall has various tricks up her sleeve and we'll hear those.

Ms Catterall (Ottawa West): To copy your excellent presentations in the House, Mr. Chair, I have the honour to present the first report of the subcommittee on the business of supply.

We were asked by this committee to review a proposal by Treasury Board to change what is included in the operating expenditure vote for the next estimates. The committee held two meetings at which it considered this, with Mr. Hopwood and Mr. Miller as witnesses. This is our report to you. We felt it was inappropriate for us to say we approve of this change, so we have simply said that at this point we have no objections to the change.

We have expressed two concerns. Our first concern is that Treasury Board take note that we have some concern about what is defined as ``minor capital expenditures'' to be included in the new operating expenditures vote. Second, we have some reluctance about making this kind of recommendation without having gone a little further in our mandate. However, we believe it can proceed. We can consider whether we wish to make further recommendations on it as we proceed with our work.

There is some question about the proper procedure. What we have recommended, based on the advice of our committee researcher, is a simple letter conveying that opinion from you to the President of the Treasury Board. I understand there is now some feeling that perhaps there should also be a report from this committee to the House.

The committee could choose to report to the House for information, which is what I would recommend if it were a report for concurrence, but I don't think it needs the concurrence of the House. That would therefore be, in my view, an improper use of that route.

It is rather important to resolve this, because there is another issue Treasury Board has asked our subcommittee to deal with and to report to you on before Christmas: the change in the format of the information in the estimates, which is to be presented to Parliament on a trial basis for several departments.

Again, that is presenting us with a bit of a time problem, because we have only this week and early next week in which to deal with that. Nonetheless, we will cancel other witnesses, take care of that and report back to you next Tuesday. But I think the same issue about the proper process may come up here.

I should advise the committee - and I've just spoken to Mr. Langlois about it - that the Bloc representative has not been at meetings of the subcommittee and didn't have any input into this report, nor has the NDP member of our committee. They may have questions at this time. Mr. Williams from the Reform Party has been there and has participated in all our discussions.

The Chairman: To clarify the position, as I understand it - maybe I'm just slow - the subcommittee has reviewed the matter and has concerns, but feels it can address those subsequently and is recommending that we proceed with this change now. Is that correct?

Ms Catterall: We're saying the subcommittee has no objections to you proceeding.

The Chairman: Proceeding at this time.

Ms Catterall: Yes.

The Chairman: Okay. That's the position. Are there any comments on the subcommittee report or any questions members wish to raise in respect to this?

Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): I'll second the motion and call for the question.

The Chairman: The motion is for the adoption of the subcommittee report by the committee.

Motion agreed to

The Chairman: I'll send the letter.

.1115

Ms Catterall: We have to decide whether you have to report to the House or not.

The Chairman: Does the committee wish to do a report to the House, basically tabling the committee's report, with, I presume, the last paragraph out? Is that agreed?

Mrs. Catterall then moves that the committee submit a report to the House for information basically outlining the contents of this report, and that I send the letter as recommended.

Motion agreed to

Mr. Ringma (Nanaimo - Cowichan): Just to go back to your elimination of the last paragraph -

The Chairman: I'll send the letter, but I don't think it should be in the report to the House.

Mr. Ringma: We seem to have two different versions.

The Chairman: There were two versions. There was an early version and then an amended one. The amended one has:

Mr. Ringma: My colleague is up to date.

The Chairman: He tends to be.

There is one other matter that we could probably dispose of very quickly, which is the committee's budget. Maybe we could wrap that up, because I think the other matter on the agenda might take a bit longer.

Our hard-working clerk has produced a draft budget for the committee and our various and sundry subcommittees. I can tell hon. members that we are one of the more modest in terms of expenditure in committees. We haven't asked for any money over our $10,000 allotment, but, with the number of meetings we're having and the number of subcommittees that are sitting and the number of witnesses that have been appearing, here and in the various subcommittees, there's an expectation that we might incur additional costs. Unlike some committees, we don't want to spend the money before we've had our budget approved.

Mr. McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra): This is one of the rare committees that hasn't scheduled a meeting in Bermuda in the spring or Rome in the Christmas season or a dinner at the Ritz in London. How come? I thought you had gourmet tastes.

The Chairman: It is more expensive in the Parliamentary Restaurant.

Mr. McWhinney: Ah! I think it is a matter of some pride that this committee has exercised restraint in terms of what it could with the budget with imagination, but perhaps less than proper responsibility. The spartan approach does great credit to you, sir, and to your members.

You didn't hear that compliment, sir. I don't throw compliments around very easily.

The Chairman: We have to squeeze every nickel until the Queen sweats, as they say.

Is there any objection to any part of this budget? Are there comments or suggestions for increases?

Mr. Boudria moves

[Translation]

- that the Chairman be authorized to request a supplementary budget of $14,544 for the rest of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1996.

[English]

Motion agreed to

The Chairman: Mr. Langlois, do you have a question?

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois (Bellechasse): No, it's on Bill C-69.

The Chairman: Oh, I see. Mr. McWhinney, would you like to start off the discussion about these letters?

[English]

Mr. McWhinney: I responded to Senator Beaudoin's letter to you. I wrote to you on November 3, in a letter that I marked ``personal'', but that didn't exclude the judgment by you and other people that at an appropriate time it might become public.

.1120

I haven't given a copy of this to Senator Beaudoin as yet because it remains correspondence between us, and now in the committee. Senator Beaudoin knows my views, however. He and I have lunched together and discussed for some quarter of a century issues of this sort, and I respect his views. I read his letter to you very carefully in terms of separating his professional opinions from his opinions, obviously, as chairman of a committee to which he must respond.

I've stated very clearly here the approach, and to refresh my memory and for the benefit of Bob Ringma opposite, I will say that I claim primacy here. I did give evidence to a number of joint committees and sole committees of the Senate or of both houses of this Parliament in the 1970s and 1980s. In the last evidence I gave in 1984 I did recommend the Senate be replaced by an elected chamber, directly elected on a five-region basis and with what's called a suspensive veto, a power to delay measures by the House of Commons for no more than three months but with much larger powers over control of review of government appointments, Order in Council appointments - ambassadors, heads of missions and the like. I mention that just as preface.

The central point here is that while in the English text ``a Constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom'', which is the starting point of the Constitution Act of 1867, the French translation is actually more than a translation; it's a slightly different version. It's even stronger: ``avec une constitution reposant sur les mêmes principes que celle du Royaume-Uni''. It's not an exact translation, but I think it has a stronger sense that we in essence march with the evolution of the House of Lords.

It is a fact that by the end of the 19th century the once equal powers of the House of Lords in relation to the House of Commons had disappeared. It was given legislative constitutional form in 1911 because of the crisis over the issue of home rule or self-government for Ireland - a very bitter political issue. When the House of Lords rejected twice measures passed by the House of Commons, the king of the day was persuaded by his prime minister to indicate that he would appoint, if need be, 500, 600, or 700 more lords to produce a situation where the lords respected the majority of rule of the House of Commons.

By the way, the Parliament Act established a two-year suspensive veto for the House of Lords; in 1945 this was cut down to three months. My recommendation as late as 1984 was a one-month suspensive veto. But the sum of the argumentation is that the Senate, as a house of sober second thought, is not there to wait till doomsday, or to reject or delay indefinitely measures passed by the House. It has the opportunity to indicate its views, but as a non-elected body must defer to the elected body.

I make this point both as the main issue and for the tolerability issue, about which I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, because there are remarks in the press attributed to two members of the Senate majority that indicate a certain jovial attitude of playing games with the House. I think this is unacceptable.

I've made a further point though, and this really goes to what in technical constitutional terms is called the enrolled bill rule: that legislative chambers themselves are the ultimate governance, the people who determine the scope of constituent power. That's how they're constituted. That is to say, the electoral issues are for the House of Commons to decide, subject of course to the Constitution and the Charter of Rights, as interpreted by the courts. An orderly process would see the Commons deciding and the courts reviewing under the Constitution where necessary. There's an ultimate contradiction when a non-elected chamber, a purely appointed chamber, purports not merely to offer advice but to dictate to an elected chamber how it should be constituted.

.1125

So I think the privileges of this House have been breached by this untimely delay, to the point of its being almost a circus operation, the untimely delay in disposing of measures passed by the House of Commons. The only one that directly concerns this committee is the issue of electoral boundaries, but other bills have been commented on elsewhere. My letter to you was designed to suggest that we set in motion machinery conveying to the Senate our concern about violation of the constitutional privileges of the House and of its members. Perhaps, if this is the feeling of this committee, we could examine the issue of how next to proceed.

I have indicated in the last line of my letter that corrective action is open. I don't think this is the place to canvass it, but I indicated in the House three days ago that I think the present amending machinery, from 1982, has put us into a straitjacket, but other avenues for constitutional change are open, some I have explored and at the appropriate stage would explore further, with, I think, optimistic prospects of achieving a result. But I think at this stage we're really concerned with whether the privileges of this House are affected.

[Translation]

I am quite aware of the comments made by our colleague, Mr. Langlois, on this matter. I am simply saying that the Senate exceeded its jurisdiction as a second chamber when it decided to proceed with a measured review of legislation already passed by the House of Commons.

I am a little embarrassed to see the kind of comments that have been attributed by the press to a couple of senators, who seem to be engaging in a kind of one-upmanship with MPs. I consider that totally unacceptable. In a way, their behaviour may give additional weight to the objections we have raised about the way the Senate has chosen to proceed.

I am simply expressing the view that this breaches the privileges of both MPs and the House of Commons itself, and that we should immediately take steps to inform the Senate that this is unacceptable to us. The Senate's actions exceed its constitutional powers.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Thank you, Mr. McWhinney.

As members will probably have noticed, we now have a copy of the draft report in front of us. You can read it while other members are making their comments, and if you wish to suggest some changes, we can discuss them after the first round.

Mr. Langlois, you have the floor.

Mr. Langlois: I don't intend to repeat what Mr. McWhinney has just said - at least not everything - because he has put his case very clearly and I fully agree with his position. Mr. McWhinney pointed out that the 1911 Parliament Act was passed in the United Kingdom as a direct result of the crisis over the House of Lords' refusal to sanction home rule for Ireland. When the King threatened to appoint as many lords as might be required to settle the issue in accordance with the government's wishes, the House of Lords had no choice but to relent.

Here we have a statutory and even constitutional provision that limits the number of senators that can be appointed. The Governor General cannot be asked to appoint an indeterminate number of Senators and thus simply ignore that constraint - although Mr. Mulroney did make use of the provision that allows a few additional senators to be appointed.

I think we have given this a thorough airing. I agree with the comments Mr. Boudria made the other day, and I would like therefore to move concurrence in the draft report, with the addition of a final paragraph that would read as follows:

The Committee requests that the House move concurrence in this report and that a message be sent to the Speaker of the Senate to acquaint their honours thereof.

.1130

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Langlois, if there were a concurrence motion adopted in the House, I think it would be normal to include those words in the concurrence motion - in other words, ``to move concurrence in the report and that a copy of the report forwarded to the Senate to acquaint their honours thereof'', or something like that. I think those words could be in it.

Mr. McWhinney: Mr. Chairman, I don't have a copy of your report, and my colleague doesn't have a copy of my letter.

The Chairman: The letter was sent to members' offices. The report is a draft and was prepared before.

I want to stress that if members feel the report is appropriate, that's fine. It was done in anticipation that we would do one, because we had considered doing one previously, when I sent my letter. This report is really based on what happened then, with a few additions to update it.

It's open to comment by members, but I hope, Mr. Langlois, to satisfy you. I think if there was a concurrence motion moved in the House, part of the motion should be that if the report is concurred in a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours thereof. That's quite standard, so I think we can cover it at that point, if that's okay with you.

Mr. Speaker: As a point of order or information, we are moving that the letter be sent to the Senate, and you're adjusting the format of the letter and then moving it become the property of the House. Then from the House it would again be sent to the Senate.

The Chairman: The letter has gone and that's finished. What I think is proposed today, although we haven't had a motion to do it, is to adopt this report. The reason I went ahead and had this prepared and circulated isn't because I'm saying we need to do this - that's up to the committee to decide and I'm happy to abide by the committee's decision. But in the general discussion leading up to today's discussion it was suggested we ought to do a report to the House on this matter so the House could express its opinion on the Senate's nonfeasance in this case.

Mr. Boudria (Glengarry - Prescott - Russell): I'll ask the fundamental question, because I think it's about time we started asking it. What happens if we win? If we scare off the senators, and they do relent and pass this, where will we be in our calendar and what will it do? What will the end result of winning be, assuming we would win? Will the end result be fighting the next election on the 1981 redistribution? How close are we to being in that position? Let's not forget if we win we might end up losing more than if we lose. At some point we will arrive at that. Where is that threshold now? That's important for us to consider.

I'm not saying I like what they did, because I think it's just awful. But could you imagine us being in a situation where they delay this just long enough to make it totally unworkable and then let it go ahead? That would have the effect of our going back to the 1981 redistribution, which would create situations such as a quarter of a million people in the riding of Mrs. Parrish, and possibly others, and so on.

I wonder if someone could refresh our memories in terms of those dates.

The Chairman: The evidence we heard was that a redistribution under Bill C-69 would take about two years to complete. If the bill were adopted this month, one could expect new boundaries in place in December 1997.

.1135

Mr. Speaker: We're just about past. It can't take effect, in other words, pretty well.

The Chairman: Unless we have an election into the fifth year.

Mr. Boudria: Under Bill C-69, is there a set proclamation date or is it one proclaimed when the Governor in Council sees fit?

The Chairman: It comes into force upon royal assent. We changed that in the bill. I think the proposal that came to us gave a proclamation date, but the current bill says on royal assent.

Mr. Boudria: To follow that train of thought, say we win and at some point the bill goes through. Does this mean then that we could nevertheless continue with the present redistribution and proclaim this bill only the day after the next election, for the one after?

The Chairman: It could be done. It would require an amendment to the act, which could be done by the Senate and concurred in by the House.

Mr. Boudria: So if it passes unamended and the election is held even slightly sooner than that late 1997 date, we could be fighting it on the 1981 census.

The Chairman: If it were not amended, that's correct. We could. On the existing electoral boundaries.

Mr. Boudria: It's food for thought.

Mr. McWhinney: We've upheld that if there were an early election next year it would have to be fought on the old boundaries because neither would be in operation until 1997, one on January 1 and the other December. We are dealing with three possible scenarios.

When I discussed this with Senator Beaudoin we were not especially focusing on the electoral boundaries bill. In fact there were other matters before the Senate and it's an issue of constitutional principle. So my letter to you was not written specifically with consequences one way or another in mind. I think there's a basic issue of principle I've been concerned with for a number of years. Senator Beaudoin also has, and various other people.

Mr. Boudria: I'll just add to what Dr. McWhinney said. It's unlikely - nothing is impossible in politics - that an election would be held before 1997, but it's certainly possible that one could be held before 1998.

Mr. Speaker: The fall of 1997 is a very good possibility.

Mr. Arseneault (Restigouche - Chaleur): It could go to the spring of 1998.

Mr. Boudria: Oh, indeed. It could go to the fall of 1998 for that matter, because the last three mandates or so did last well past the four-year mark. I recognize that, but I'm simply looking at rules of likelihood. We're arriving dangerously close to that situation of what I referred to earlier of winning and losing simultaneously.

Mr. McWhinney: We could have an election as late as December 25, 1998. We could legally. It relates to the date the writs were returned after the last elections. I think only Mr. Vander Zalm in British Columbia did that, run to the extreme limit, but maybe there are other examples. Lord Bennett may have, who knows.

Mr. Speaker: Could you check the information?

Mr. McWhinney: Yes.

Ms Catterall: I understand Mr. Boudria's concerns, which he has certainly raised with the committee before, and I think it only emphasizes Dr. McWhinney's point of the Senate putting the House of Commons in a straitjacket on a matter that is of absolutely no concern to the Senate whatsoever as an unelected body. I resent being put in that straitjacket, but I think for Parliaments to come it's extremely important to press this point with the Senate and to do our best in fact to make that point on behalf of not only this chamber but of future Parliaments.

.1140

I would suggest we do this report if in fact we can succeed in having the Senate respect the jurisdiction of the House of Commons. Then it is back in our hands to deal with practical problems such as Mr. Loubier has raised. I would much rather see us doing that directly than allowing the Senate to do it for us by default.

I would suggest, however, a somewhat stronger wording in the second-last paragraph. At least we should ``request'' rather than simply ``hope''. ``Urge'' might even be better. ``Expect?'' The committee ``expects''...? No. But I do think ``hopes'' is a rather wishy-washy word there, and I would ask you to amend that accordingly.

The Chairman: I was going to say ``urges the Standing Committee - to proceed with Bill C-69 without further delay''.

Mr. McWhinney: It's a good legal phrase, without any suggestion that it's submissive.

The Chairman: Mr. Speaker is next on my list.

Mr. Speaker: From my point of view, I don't think I would be in favour of sending this report or taking it to the House at present, even though I have my concerns and we supported the letter earlier. It's on the basis of two arguments. First, I think Bill C-69 has pretty well set its course. I don't see it as being the guideline for the boundaries of the next election.

Second, there may be a more serious argument we should take into consideration. If we take this to the House as a report and we confront the Senate via that route, we're actually setting a major precedent. The Senate hasn't resisted legislation like this before. What we're really saying to the Senate, and what the Senate is going to say to us, is, look, we're taking our legal authority and we're going to press it further; we're going to create a greater intervention in the legislative process than we have ever done historically. By our sending a message from one House to the other House, it sets it as a precedent. In the future other bills will come forward into the Senate and the Senate will say we did it here, this is how we treated the House of Commons, we've done it once; we can do it again. I think we should consider that in our actions here.

The Chairman: Mrs. Parrish.

Mrs. Parrish (Mississauga West): I would like to go on record as being absolutely opposed to what the Senate has done. I agree with Mrs. Catterall that it's outrageous, particularly given the subject-matter we're dealing with, which is electoral boundaries, something they know nothing about and unfortunately don't have to get involved in. But I am very concerned about principle versus public perception and practicality.

I think Mr. Boudria gently pointed out that even if we do force this thing through and we do win this battle, the boundaries that are redrawn may look exactly like the ones we have today. So we will have spent another $6.6 million to go through a process to end up with exactly the same boundaries we have got right now. That's always a possibility.

I don't particularly care about fighting an election with 250,000 people. I like the buffer, frankly. The shift of a few votes doesn't hurt you quite as much. So I'm quite willing to do that again. But I'm wondering if British Columbia is willing to give up two seats, which they're entitled to during this redistribution, if it's held up too long.

So I have very serious concerns about what they've done, but I also have very serious concerns about again starting a process that's going to cost the taxpayers of this country $6.6 million, to come out with possibly exactly the same boundaries. Since the electoral commission hasn't reported back yet on all the objections we put in in the most recent report, why are we shooting in the dark? Is there some way, Mr. Chairman, of postponing making a decision on this until we get that report back?

The Chairman: Which report?

Mrs. Parrish: The report we gave to Mr. Kingsley. We've had a million objections...if he's going to be considering all those.

The Chairman: Oh, the reports of the commissions.

Mrs. Parrish: If those come back favourable to many of the objections that were made, again I ask most sincerely, what would be the purpose of starting the whole process again, to end up with those ridings?

The Chairman: Yes, we'll know that on or about December 30.

Mrs. Parrish: May I respectfully suggest we don't do anything until we get that report back?

The Chairman: Okay.

Mrs. Parrish: I'm continuing to object, of course, to the Senate's high-handedness.

.1145

Mr. Ringma: I'm wondering if there is a means of discussing the desirability of separating the two issues here, the actual passage of Bill C-69 with a principle of blockage in the Senate. This is an honest, open wonderment to the members of this committee. Is it desirable and is it possible?

Mr. McWhinney: We made the case that the Parliament Act crisis of 1911 stemmed from a specific case, the Irish referendum case. So you do need a case. However, there's nothing to compel executive action in follow-up of Bill C-69, if it should be adopted. The provisions of faculty, if not mandatory.... I assume executives take account of political realities, but I think in order to raise the issue of principle you have to have a case.

One of the problems here is the general disrespect for politicians and parliamentary institutions. The Senate and the public disrespect of the Senate are at the core of it. I shouldn't be preaching this point to you, but the fact is that people ask about the Senate. How come we have this strange body that isn't elected? How do you get there?

I think it's also important to remember that, while it's not necessary to go into them, there are methods outside the 1982 constitutional amending machinery, which, as I've said before and as I told Mr. Trudeau at the time, is a constitutional straitjacket and will never work.

There are methods of testing the issue constitutionally if it's necessary to do it, but what I think you have here in the report of the chairman of our committee is a very measured, gradualist approach. He's raising the issue with a particular case, but there's no implication that as a result of this somebody in the executive would be acting in vain and proclaiming and setting machinery and spending money on operation simply because the dispute was resolved. An element of common sense is always present at the executive level.

I feel the issue is basic. It has been contemptuous of the privilege of the House to have this and other bills kept indefinitely in limbo by the House. The mere fact that predecessors of the present government may themselves not have completely clean hands doesn't alter my view of the principle involved.

I think it is a modest report you've made, a deliberately modest report, Mr. President. In fact, the subtle understatement is there to the point where people have been suggesting that maybe you should strengthen it a bit.

The Chairman: We're of course open to suggestions. This is merely a draft.

Monsieur Arseneault, s'il vous plaît.

Mr. Arseneault: Mr. Chair, I would support our sending the report and adding the message part of it to the Senate. Some of the arguments that have been used against sending it could be turned around, I guess. The reason I support it is that the action of the Senate is actually setting a precedent on this very unique piece of legislation. It has to do with subject matter that should be the responsibility of the elected chamber.

I'm worried about the type of precedent they are in fact setting on this unique piece of legislation. I would hope that we would take action to protect the integrity of the House, the elected House, for future parliaments.

I wouldn't expect that once the Senate receives our message they're going to jump over the tables and say yes, let's pass it right away; my gosh, we're shivering in the dark. I think the process will just continue in a slow, general way, as it has, but we would have made our point.

So whether we wait until the end of December to table our report or until the end of January, I don't think it's going to matter too much to the Senate. I think it's important, though, that we make our point of view as soon as possible. If we wait too long, we're doing exactly what the Senate is doing and we are not fulfilling our responsibilities.

It's very important that we table this report and we send the message to the Senate of our displeasure, especially with regard to this unique piece of legislation. It is they who are setting the precedent, not us.

.1150

Mr. Solomon (Regina - Lumsden): I principally subscribe to Mr. Arseneault's comments. Another point I'd like to make, though, is that the New Democratic caucus opposed Bill C-69 in the House, for a number of reasons that I won't bother to regurgitate this morning.

What the Senate is doing is fundamentally improper and, as Mr. McWhinney says, unconstitutional. More importantly, it's unacceptable. If we drag our feet on this one and don't get some sort of communication to the Senate expressing the House of Commons position on it, then it could form a precedent that would be more detrimental in the future to other bills that might have more import to Canadians.

The final point I want to make is that our party has called for the abolition of the Senate for a number of decades now, because it is really a useless body. This is another example of why it should be abolished. I ask committee members to continue to think about that over the coming weeks and months, because it really has no accountability to the House of Commons or to the government of the day or, more importantly, to the citizens of this country. When you don't have accountability, you have abuse and you have all sorts of other problems arising.

So I support the proposition that we should communicate our unhappiness to the Senate and request that they deal with this matter as quickly as possible.

I also support Ms Catterall's recommendation that we delete the word ``hope'' and add something more substantive, such as ``request'' or ``ask''.

The Chairman: Mr. Solomon, I agree with your comments. Your party has supported abolition of the Senate for decades, until some period during the last Parliament, when there was a sudden volte-face. I recall speeches by members of your party supporting the Senate vigorously and urging it to defeat the GST bill. Some of us were quite shocked.

Mr. Solomon: None of them are here now.

The Chairman: Oh yes, Mr. Riis is still here.

Mr. Solomon: Just those of us who support abolition are here.

The Chairman: Mr. Riis is still here, and I urge you to remind him of my remarks this morning. He'll appreciate it.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to this motion because I voted against Bill C-69. But this legislation did originate in the House of Commons, and it seems to me that beyond any partisan considerations, the situation has reached breaking-point as regards the very important matter of the House of Commons' primacy in determining electoral redistribution. I agree that we should not yield before the exercise of a power that, as far as I'm concerned, relies on a dated constitutional convention.

I realize it could be argued that as far as legislation is concerned - given the ruling handed down by the Supreme Court in 1938, in reference to the power of disallowance and that power theoretically still exists, even though it no longer is part of our conventions. In my view, it will have to be reaffirmed.

Also - and this is a completely separate issue, as Mrs. Catterall so aptly explained a few minutes ago - if ad hoc legislation proves necessary because we realize that passing Bill C-69 would be worse than not passing it, we will make that decision in the House of Commons, rather than letting the Senate make the decision for us. Members of Parliament elected by the people of Canada will have to decide during the next election, pending passage of Bill C-69, whether or not we should take the interim step of accepting reports tabled no later than the beginning of January. We may decide to do that, but in the meantime, we mustn't let that stop us from reasserting our primacy when it comes to legislation on electoral redistribution.

[English]

Mr. Speaker: I just want to reinforce my earlier argument by saying that it's one thing for the Senate to snub this committee, in a sense, but it's another thing to snub the House. If we send our report and it snubs it and doesn't respond but just delays -

Mr. Arseneault: They're snubbing Bill C-69 already, and if we don't take action, we're condoning it.

The Chairman: I think the plan would be to have the report concurred in by a motion in the House so that it wouldn't be snubbing this committee, it would be snubbing the House.

Mr. Speaker: Exactly, and I don't agree with that. I think we're setting a certain precedent by allowing that to happen.

The Chairman: I see. Okay.

Ms Catterall: I would like to try to change Mr. Speaker's mind, because this is a very important matter of principle and a precedent for the House.

.1155

What the Senate has essentially done is make the House of Commons's decision irrelevant. It has held up a piece of legislation to the point where perhaps it cannot be implemented. Whether one thinks it should or shouldn't be, and we've obviously had differences of opinion, it has made it close to impossible for the House of Commons to carry out a decision that the House of Commons made, and that is simply unacceptable.

I don't know if we can move the House or the Senate with a report like this that's adopted by the House. I think it's extremely important that on behalf of ourselves and all members of Parliament to come after us the House does express its opinion. By its silence it accepts what the Senate has done, the right of the Senate to make House of Commons decisions unenforceable and incapable of being acted upon, and I don't think as a House of Commons we can accept that.

I have very little illusion that this report is going to have any effect on the Senate. If, however, it does, and if they return Bill C-69 to the House, then it is up to us to decide whether to proceed with the provisions in that bill. But we as elected parliamentarians are making that decision. Right now, it is the Senate that is making that decision.

With respect to Mrs. Parrish's comments, the same thing applies. If we in fact see the report back from the Electoral Boundaries Commission and are satisfied that most of the objections have been satisfied, then we can simply take C-69 and amend it so that its date of coming into force is after the next election for the following redistribution. The House has then kept control of the situation.

The Chairman: There's one slight procedural wrinkle in this.

Ms Catterall: I know there's a slight procedural problem.

The Chairman: If the Senate accepts the message they now have, the bill is then ready for royal assent, and we will not get another chance to make any changes. In other words, if there were to be a change along the lines you've suggested, it has to be made by the Senate and then sent back to the House for approval. If that does not happen and the Senate for some reason approves the message currently before it, we'd be into royal assent immediately.

Ms Catterall: Let me clarify, if I can. Does the bill require proclamation?

The Chairman: It does not.

Ms Catterall: It does not. Could the House subsequently amend that bill as it can any other bill?

The Chairman: By passing another law, yes, it could, assuming the law of course gets approved in the Senate.

Ms Catterall: I think it's very clear that there's enough agreement among the parties about the jurisdiction of the House that it would certainly be possible to do that.

Mr. Richardson (Perth - Wellington - Waterloo): I'd like to move back a bit of the fog in my own head.

The options have distinctly been on the bill before the Senate. Elections Canada has conducted a review of boundaries and has drawn up a map, which we all looked at. Subsequently, we invoked the election amendment review. What was the name of the authority under which we conducted a recent review?

The Chairman: The Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, which is what the boundaries were drawn up under.

Mr. Richardson: The first time.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Richardson: Now, what we're looking at is the readjustment of those boundaries as submitted to us.

The Chairman: We have looked at that, yes, and sent our report.

Mr. Richardson: And we sent our report based on it.

There are two paths here, in my own mind, and maybe it's because I wasn't here from the start. There is this path that is chugging along under Elections Canada and that is moving towards new boundaries as reviewed on the census of 1991. The second one was the one we put in as Bill C-69. Bill C-69 doesn't make it. The electoral boundaries review doesn't make it either. They both go down the tube. Is that right?

The Chairman: No. The current Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act is in force and remains in force until C-69 is passed, when it is repealed and replaced. If it is repealed and replaced, all the work on those boundaries goes down the tubes and the new process is started, which will take two years to complete.

Mr. Richardson: Can I just make my last point, then? If C-69 doesn't get back, British Columbia will not lose its two seats.

.1200

The Chairman: If Bill C-69 is not passed, the current process continues, which will give B.C. two more seats and Ontario four.

Mr. Richardson: Okay.

Ms Catterall: What's the new process under Bill C-69?

The Chairman: It would also do.

Mr. McWhinney: Is it also possible to create two new seats for British Columbia by special legislation, and four for Ontario? There's no problem in legal terms. In fact the issue has been discussed academically at the executive level. My understanding is it would done if it were the only way of doing it.

Mr. Solomon: I didn't want to confuse the issue, but I think we should keep in mind the objective of the report we're putting forward. The objective is to send a signal to the Senate. What they're doing is unacceptable and not least of all discourteous. We can talk about the implications of the amendments, but I don't think it is appropriate at this point to take a decision on that. Nor can we.

The only comment I want to make is with respect to the existing system and the boundaries review commission. Members may be holding out some kind of hope for changes from recommendations made through the subcommittees, through this committee and to the boundaries commissions of the provinces. I would caution you to restrain yourself. In the experiences I've had and others I've talked to have had over the past 25 years with federal and provincial boundaries commissions, very little change takes place. Maybe a name changes. Maybe one poll here and a line there changes, but nothing more substantial than this happens.

I think we have to do this discussion this morning in terms of making a decision on the report and on the basis of principle. The other is sort of added information. But I don't think it will have any impact on whether or not what we're doing as a committee and as a House of Commons with respect to the Senate will have an impact.

The Chairman: I'm in the hands of the committee. I sense the consensus is we do a report, but I don't know whether you want to have a question on this principle issue first. Or do you want to look at the document and run through it and see if we're agreed on wording?

We have Ms Catterall's suggestion for changing the word ``hope'' to ``urge.'' The last full paragraph would read: ``The Committee urges the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs to proceed with Bill C-69 without further delay'', and so on.

If it is agreeable, the clerk has suggested we might add a paragraph saying ``The committee recommends that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours of the contents of this report.'' Just in case the motion for concurrence is faulty, this sentence would cover the thing if it was adopted.

Are there any other changes members wish to report before I put the question on Ms Catterall's proposed changes?

Is this agreeable as a change to the report without deciding whether we're sending a report? Is that agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Is the change I've suggested agreed to, the one about saying a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Okay. I think we've got the form of the report. The first full paragraph on page 3 says:

The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, therefore, wishes to express unanimously its views that the delays imposed by certain members of the Senate in respect of a bill dealing...

What about the word ``unanimously''? Is this word satisfactory in respect of the views of the members of the committee?

Mr. McWhinney: I think you could strike it, because a committee by majority and the House by majority express the view of the collectivity. So ``unanimously'' reduces it to its political link, bringing the constitutional link to bear.

The Chairman: Okay, we'll take ``unanimously'' out and it will read ``wishes to express its view''. I think unanimously was in the letter too. So it reads ``wishes to express its view that the delays imposed'' - Is that agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Okay.

Ms Catterall: May I just express my appreciation of the next sentence, which says:

The Chairman: Okay. Are we ready for the questions?

Mr. Ringma: I have discussion in anticipation of the question. I have two sides. I don't want to be a procrastinator, but one side of me, the practical side, says let's just defer this whole thing. The other side of me says there's a question of principle here and I'd like to get at the Senate on it.

.1205

Trying to combine these two, however, I really would like to closet with my colleague. Can we leave it for a week, so either I can convince him or he can convince me this is the way to go on this thing? There is a real question of principle and there's a question of practicality here. I'm anticipating by those words, Mr. Chairman, we are headed for a vote to say we shall take this report to the House.

Ms Catterall: Are we meeting on Thursday?

The Chairman: We weren't planning on meeting on Thursday, because we usually have a subcommittee meeting. If members wish a meeting on Thursday or next Tuesday, I'm in your hands.

Mr. McWhinney: Would we need a big debate, Bob? If we could have this on Thursday, would we need a large debate? There is another subcommittee meeting. But if you'd have your position clear by Thursday and there was no need for extensive debate, I think it would be better to avoid the last week.

Mr. Ringma: It would not take more than just the nod.

The Chairman: Let me put one other point. It's worth getting agreement. If we do not, chances of having a concurrence motion adopted in the House are virtually negligible, because it would be a debatable motion. I don't think we'd have time to have a debate, given the legislative agenda for the next week.

Mr. McWhinney: Would meeting briefly on Thursday be acceptable to you?

Mr. Ringma: Yes.

The Chairman: What time is your subcommittee, Mrs. Catterall?

Ms Catterall: It is at 9:30. It's unlikely to be finished by eleven, but it only involves three members of this committee.

The Chairman: What if we call our meeting for 11:30 a.m., because we don't anticipate a lengthy one. Would this help you?

Ms Catterall: It would help.

The Chairman: Is this agreeable to members?

Mr. Richardson: There will be one item on the agenda.

The Chairman: Yes, there will be one item on the agenda on Thursday. It will be this item at 11:30. We'll have the report redrafted with the corrections. If members have any other suggested changes, we'd be more than happy to receive your comments.

Mrs. Parrish: I just have a technical question. The private members' business committee is meeting this afternoon and possibly tomorrow to give you a list of votable bills.

The Chairman: We can do that on Thursday as well.

Mrs. Parrish: I'm not going to be here on Thursday, so whoever is my designated hitter can do this as well.

The Chairman: Exactly. Agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Thank you for your attendance. I declare this meeting adjourned.

;