Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders

Issue 9 - Evidence

The Standing Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders, to which was referred Bill S-7, respecting the declaration of Royal Assent by the Governor General in the Queen's name to bills passed by the Houses of Parliament, met this day at 12:10 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.

Senator Jack Austin, P.C. (Chairman) in the Chair.

[English]

The Chairman: We have invited the sponsor of Bill S-7 to speak with us today to provide us with his insights and to allow members of the committee to ask questions with respect to the proposed legislation. Senator John Lynch-Staunton is our first witness on Bill S-7.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: I do not have a formal presentation as this issue has been debated in great detail in the Senate on a number of occasions. I appreciated the participation of colleagues. Not all were in agreement with the bill, but I think we are all in agreement that the Royal Assent ceremony, as we witness it, does not do justice to the significance of Royal Assent, the third and last step in a long legislative process. The Constitution does specify that Parliament is made up of three entities: the upper house, the House of Commons and the Crown. The Crown is neglected and, I would even say, demeaned by the way in which the Royal Assent ceremony is carried out. It is usually at the end of a parliamentary week when parliamentarians, quite rightly, want to get home after a busy time here.

The Governor General is seldom available for the ceremony. The Deputy Governor General is sometimes hard to find and, when he or she is found, can be kept waiting as the Senate finds itself involved in a prolonged debate.

It has recently been the case that in the delegation from the House of Commons there are no Members of Parliament except for the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker. The galleries are empty, with reason. Many senators cannot be present, so we sometimes see a majority of empty chairs.

As well, a stranger in the gallery would be hard pressed to understand what is happening as the clerk moves to the Speaker, moves back, and reads out the titles of the bills. There is then a pause, after which the Speaker, if the bill being given Royal Assent is a supply bill, will address the Deputy Governor General. It has become so much routine that most people who attend do so out of duty rather than out of a sense of appreciation of how legislation proceeds through Parliament to the final step.

The purpose of this bill is to substitute, on many occasions, a written declaration for the traditional ceremony in order to have fewer Royal Assent ceremonies than we now have, because I find that the way in which they are currently conducted is demeaning. This bill is meant to offer an alternative, while continuing to conduct the Royal Assent ceremony at least once a year. The bill has stimulated discussion. There are other solutions. If there could be found a way to re-establish the ceremony as it should be conducted by giving it a higher profile, I would be in favour of that.

I have seen it reported repeatedly that this is a bill to abolish the Royal Assent ceremony. That is not the case and I would never dare suggest that. The purpose is to give it more significance by having the ceremony on fewer occasions and by making it, on those occasions, more than just a routine exercise. That is the purpose of the bill and the reasoning for it. I believe that most colleagues share my sentiments on how the ceremony is carried out.

That is all I wish to say at this time, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Senator Lynch- Staunton.

Senator Di Nino: Would the change you are recommending require a constitutional amendment?

Senator Lynch-Staunton: No. The present ceremony is found in a document prepared by the Senate. The Senate determines how the ceremony is carried out.

Senator Di Nino: You are saying that this would be an alternative method of accomplishing the same end, as opposed to changing the ceremony itself. In that way it will not require a change to the Constitution Act.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: That is right.

Senator Di Nino: If the ceremony were held at the beginning of each session, for example, at 2:00 p.m., would that give you a different feeling?

Senator Lynch-Staunton: There is no question about it. If we could have the Governor General and the Prime Minister here to do it at a time when the House and the Senate are in session, as well as the members, I do not see why you could not interrupt both sessions to emphasize that there is another party involved in the process. At the moment, we do it at the tail end when the two parties have left and the third one is present in front of an empty audience.

Senator Di Nino: The senator's point -- and I should like it clarified -- is that he is concerned about the demeaning of the ceremony by the procedures that we are using and the lack of interest on the part of the House of Commons and the Senate and even the Governor General, more often than not. Is that your main concern?

Senator Lynch-Staunton: That is one of them.

The Chairman: I understand from my own consideration of the bill and all that has proceeded it, going back to Senator Frith in 1983 and to the McGrath report in 1985, that there has been a great deal of focus on the issues from time to time.

One of the critical issues to some people, including some of our colleagues, is the belief that any change in the current procedure would diminish the relevance of the Senate or its ability to advertise itself as a part of the parliamentary process. That I must say is a starting point. However, Senator Lynch-Staunton points out that members of both Houses seem to vote on that issue with their seats. In other words, they do not come to the process and therefore the process itself is in decline as a way of maintaining the role of the Senate as a symbolic part of the parliamentary process.

To repeat what Senator Lynch-Staunton has said, by sending a deputy, the Governor General is also engaged in de-emphasizing the process of Royal Assent. People involved in the process, parliamentarians and the Governor General, undoubtedly have excellent reasons for not being able to attend on call every time the government schedules a Royal Assent. Of course, the government's focus is on legislation being brought into law, and it will be quite inconvenient to any government, from time to time, to have to await a procedural step in order to move forward with legislation that may have been long fought and is considered by the government to be badly needed.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: When we have emergency legislation, such as back-to-work legislation, it is sometimes hard to find a deputy to attend. This alternative would allow the bill to be given Royal Assent immediately.

The Chairman: As was mentioned by you previously, one house may not be in session. It may take additional time while the House of Commons is not in session for the Senate to deal with a bill. The government then has to call that House back into session to have Royal Assent.

The principle question is whether a change in the procedure of Royal Assent is desirable at this time. It is clear that no one is removing the Governor General from the process of Royal Assent; nor could they. The Constitution Act requires the Royal Assent to be given by the Governor General or by the monarch.

The second question is how to effect that procedure, and it can be effected by Parliament itself. There is nothing constitutional in the way in which the Royal Assent is given. I think all colleagues are aware that the procedure we now follow has been changed for some long time in other traditions that follow Westminster. The British tradition, as well as the Australian and New Zealand traditions, all have in some form or other a transmission to the Governor General at the Governor General's residence, or to the Queen at Buckingham Palace, where the Royal Assent is given and returned to the legislatures.

Is it desirable to change the practice? I say "change", but the bill would not change the practice; it offers the government of the day an alternative practice. Is that fair to say?

Senator Lynch-Staunton: That is right.

The Chairman: The government of the day can at any time use the full procedure if it wishes. Thus, what is being offered to government is an alternative, a more summary way of proceeding, but it would be mandatory that once in each year the full ceremony as it is now practised be followed, just to maintain it as an efficacious ceremony. I make those remarks to stimulate, hopefully, some discussion.

Senator DeWare: I agree with you. I think the bill is timely. The first time I saw Royal Assent happen, of course, was in the New Brunswick legislature, and I was thrilled to be part of it and to see it happen. I have also been on the other end as caucus whip saying to some of my members, "There will be Royal Assent at six o'clock on Thursday evening," and they are all on their way home. The only people here are those in leadership positions, and it is important for us to be represented. You feel badly for the people who are coming. They then go over to the House of Commons and try to resurrect a few bodies over there, and usually it ends up that those who attend are speakers and staff from the House. You have to have a couple of members to make it legal. I should like to see a change in the timing. I think the time for Royal Assent is wrong. If we had it, as someone suggested, at two o'clock in the afternoon, or if the time were set, it would make the situation much better.

The Chairman: The problem is that it is the prerogative of the government to choose the timing. You cannot legislate that prerogative away.

Senator DeWare: Does there have to be Royal Assent for supply bills?

The Chairman: Yes, absolutely.

Senator DeWare: That usually falls on the last day of March. Since that is a time when we have to have it, that could be one of the prescribed days and we could incorporate others into such a schedule. There are many factors that come into play here. What would happen in an election year? There are many things to think about. If the ceremony could be a little more productive, and everyone concerned could play a role, then it would be much better.

The Chairman: Could I just opine that we are dealing with individual choice; legislation does not work. You cannot make it grander if people will not come, if they are not attracted to it.

Senator DeWare: It would be grander if it was Tuesday night instead of Thursday.

Senator Kroft: I approach this with a less fervent view than others in terms of the role of royalty in our system overall. I do not want to get off on that debate because even if we had a different type of party in Government House, we would still be facing the same question. I would not presume to suggest a change in our parliamentary structure.

I also am inclined to feel that, when things fade away with the passage of time, it is usually because that is the life cycle of those things. That is supported by what we have seen in practice in other countries. For whatever reason, people have just fundamentally lost interest in a way of doing things. It is difficult to force an issue that does not have an inherent vitality or a will to live on its own.

My question is a more parochial one. Perhaps we could look at the interests of the Senate itself. Rather than looking at the macro picture of Parliament, let us for a moment look to see if we doing the best thing for the Senate in terms of the narrower objectives of wanting to preserve the role, interests and effectiveness of our particular institution. Frankly, I am more inclined to dig in if the Senate itself would be losing an opportunity to play a role. That is my particular focus. I am looking at it rather opportunistically and parochially in that way. Do you have any specific thoughts along that line, senator?

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Do you feel if there are fewer traditional ceremonies, the Senate's role as a result is affected?

Senator Kroft: I have put it to you in the form of a question.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Since there is no media coverage of a Royal Assent ceremony, most Canadians are probably not even aware that there is Royal Assent, or what it means, or that it is even held in the Senate. That is one of the problems of Royal Assent. There is perhaps not total ignorance but general ignorance of, if not disinterest in, the whole affair. I say that because it is done in such a passive and amateurish way. When it is explained that it is in the Senate because the Crown cannot go to the House of Commons, and members of the House have to come behind the bar, many people say that it is archaic. To some it is a revelation of how our system works. At the moment, I do not think the Senate is affected one way or the other. I do not think reducing the number of ceremonies would affect the status of the Senate.

Senator Losier-Cool: In my first year here, I did many presentations to high-school students in which I talked about the Senate. I still do them, but not as many. When I explained the three main issues that we need for a bill to become a law, the Royal Assent aspect was very intriguing. The high-school students asked many questions about what Royal Assent is, what it means and how it is done. Of course, I tried to put a little grandeur into the event when I answered questions. Now, I am not looking for questions on that issue. I am ill at ease with the way the Royal Assent ceremony has been conducted recently.

Have there ever been any discussions with the main parties, that is, the House of Commons, the Governor General's office and the Senate, as to the preoccupations that we have and the disappointment that we sometimes have in the ceremony itself? I know this is not the first time there has been a bill on this subject. Have the three groups involved met to discuss the issue? Do they know that we would like to see the ceremony in a different way?

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Yes, they are aware of that. Any conversations I have had were off the record and informal. I would not want to reveal anything I have discussed with the Governor General's staff. They are following this issue with interest.

I wonder if at one point, and perhaps it would have to be done in camera, we could invite the participants involved in this process to come before us. Perhaps they have solutions and recommendations of which we are not aware. I do not want to go any further than that in terms of any privileged conversations I have had with them.

The Chairman: Senator Lynch-Staunton and I had a discussion earlier today about the very point that you have raised, Senator Losier-Cool. There was a suggestion in the McGrath report, if I recall correctly, that the matter be dealt with through a joint resolution of the House of Commons and the Senate. The ultimate way of dealing with it would be through a joint resolution.

In my personal view, it is awkward to send a bill, without consultation, to the other place and say, "Here it is. Take it or leave it." I do not think that will get us to the final destination to which we are headed, whatever that is. In my view, the bill serves a useful purpose in helping us decide what it is that we want. After that, we will need a process for addressing the other two parts of Parliament.

One problem in asking someone from the House of Commons to appear before us in camera is that, under their rules, as under ours, the respective house needs to give consent for a member to appear as a witness in the other place. I think that is raising the profile too high. What I suggest is that we have an informal discussion in camera, but not a formal session of the committee. That may also serve for speaking with, perhaps, the principal secretary to the Governor General in an informal way and not in a way that would commit anybody to anything. It would simply be to canvass the issues and see whether we could draft a joint resolution that could be accepted by all parties.

Your question hits the nub of the process, senator.

Senator Grafstein: Mr. Chairman, you have dealt with the process issue. Before we worry about process, we should worry about a consensus plan. In other words, what is it our desire to propose? The question then is the calling of the participants to see whether they agree with our plan, which would be useful. However, to have a meeting without asking them to react to something specific would be interesting, but not efficient.

I have broken this issue down into four categories and two divisions. I want to separate one division from the categories, and that is emergencies or extraordinary times when Parliament is not in session. I should like to deal with that as a separate issue, quite frankly, because before we can get to extraordinary issues we have to talk about what is the normal course. I think we can always handle the extraordinary issues, as we have in the past. The real question is what do we do with the ordinary issue -- the assent itself and the ceremony.

One reason I do not agree that it is useful to stack them is that, in a way, instead of making the ceremony more meaningful, it would make the ceremony less meaningful, if all of a sudden you became a machine and spit out 10 acts.

The first of the four issues to which we should direct our attention is the timing. This goes back to the thesis that if you build it at the right time, they will come. It is a question of scheduling and when and how often. Timing is an important issue.

The second important issue is the presence of the Governor General herself. I believe that if the government, using its executive power or prerogative, requested the Queen's representative to be present, she would attend. She comes when she is asked to come by the government. She is obliged to come. If you want to get the Governor General, it is a question of whether or not the government chooses to request her to attend. The presence of the Governor General is a problem, but it can be solved if the government has a mind to do that.

For me, the question of timing relates to public education so that it becomes not a meaningless ceremony but a meaningful ceremony, at the appropriate time and with the appropriate television publicity. The good news is that we do have CPAC. The Senate does have a right, as a partner in CPAC, to demand that they come for particular events which then can be programmed live and delayed. We have not used that particular process because -- Senator Lynch-Staunton is quite correct -- the timing and the way we do it would prove to be embarrassing. No members of the House of Commons show up. No members of the Senate show up. The government is deleterious about it. You do not want to have something on camera live without being satisfied that the ceremony is a meaningful ceremony.

Finally, there is the question of public education about the content of the bills themselves. There is the ceremony and there are the bills. I made my point about that earlier. We churn out laws, and the public does not know about them. We have a public responsibility to inform people about the content of the laws. The narrow segment of people interested in the law knows, but the general public does not.

Let me come back to the issues. On timing, my suggestion would be that you fix a time, and the convenient time for everyone would be sometime between 12:00 p.m. and 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday. I say that because, as far as the government is concerned, caucuses meet. The Prime Minister has said over and over again publicly that that is the most important day of his life and he is always here unless there is some extraordinary event. If we fix the time on Wednesday, the Prime Minister would be here. It would be an easy thing at that moment, in terms of the government representatives, to finish caucus and to spend half an hour walking down the hall to fulfil the ceremony. If we did it at that time, it would answer the question of time. It would not be embarrassing. Normally you get the fullest number of members here on Wednesday, not Tuesday or Thursday. That would solve the question of physical presence. It would be televised on CPAC. Hopefully, at the government's request, if the dates were fixed, they would know that those are the fixed dates. You meet those fixed dates with content, or you do not do it because there is nothing to program that particular week. I think there is no difference to the government if it is Thursday night or Wednesday of the following week, none whatsoever. Nothing impinges upon it except in extraordinary circumstances, and then we have to set up a method to deal with extraordinary circumstances.

With respect to the public education and the Senate, I agree with you. I mean, members of my own family ask me from time to time, "What does the Senate do?" I have explained it to them, and they do not quite understand. We could do this on a regular basis, on CPAC, and it could go to every school in the country. That would be easy to arrange because they are all now interconnected. You could say, "Wednesday at noon is Royal Assent," and you could make it a public event. You could circulate it in every newspaper. There could be a small ad in the newspaper, or it could be something on television, or it could be a scheduling event. You could ask the CRTC to make a public announcement. However, at the end of day, you would have at least school children across the country, or some of them, if no one else, watching this event. I think we do not utilize the networks that are available. By the way, it would not cost the Senate a nickel. It is a question of scheduling and using the existing networks to publicize that.

When you have the Royal Assent, you must make it meaningful, and not just by the ceremony. That could be followed by a half-hour of the chairmen of the various committees or the people who have presented the bills giving a three-minute explanation of what the bill is all about, with some reaction. By the way, if it were a divided bill, you could say, "Here is the issue." We now have the clarity bill and the Nisga'a bill. We have many interesting bills that the public does not really know about or understand.

You could combine it all in a massive one-hour or 90-minute event once every three months. The Prime Minister would not be put out. Her Excellency would not be put out because we would say, "Plug this into your schedule." In that way, we could make this ceremony come alive.

By the way, less is not necessarily better. If you did it four times a year, it would accomplish everything. If the government wants to call a special event for a special ceremony because they need emergency legislation, there is nothing wrong with that. The government can do that at any time. Nothing we say here prevents the government from doing that.

I think we can combine everything that Senator Lynch-Staunton wants. We could make the ceremony, as he says, more meaningful, more prestigious, more fulfilling in terms of the roles of the various players of the Senate, and we could do it easily. A TV producer could produce this for us in no time. Obviously, it would be in both French and English and it could be quite an important ceremony. It would bring the Senate much more to the centre of public affairs.

The Chairman: I am interested in your comment. The problem, however, is that everything you say would need to be a government measure. You would need to talk a government into organizing itself, because the government controls the Royal Assent.

Senator Grafstein: The government does not control the timing.

The Chairman: The government controls the timing. The government controls whether the Governor General attends or not. By custom, the Governor General can send her deputy. I have never heard of the government commanding the Governor General. I do not believe you can command. You can request. By custom, the Governor General herself may not come but may send a deputy. The whole suggestion, while interesting, presumes a change of mind on the part of governments.

Just to look at operations, Senator Grafstein, you have the problem that the House meets at 2:00 p.m. for Question Period. Lunchtime is a very important time for ministers to meet the public, for the Prime Minister to meet the public, and to prepare for Question Period. There is a routine that, I think, would need to be changed, and it could be very hard to persuade for that change. I think that you have not accepted yet that you cannot change the culture.

Senator Grafstein: Mr. Chairman, I should like to change the culture because the existing culture is decaying, and this is where Senator Lynch-Staunton is right.

Senator Corbin: As you know, I am for the retention of the ceremony as much as possible in its present forms and means and with the participation of people in high places.

I can see the Governor General's residence from my office. When the Governor General is in residence, there is a flag on top of that pole. I can see that flag, unaided by binoculars. On days when we have had Royal Assent in the past, the flag was there. The Governor General was in and probably otherwise occupied. How occupied, I do not know. I attach a great deal of importance to these ceremonies.

Are we in camera here by the way? There is a certain thing that I should like to say but I will need to skip it to protect my source.

I attach a great deal of importance to national symbols. There is the flag, there is Canada Day and there are other things. However, in terms of our legislative life, Royal Assent is the high point. It is part of the process. It is more than just a ceremony and more than just a symbol. Royal Assent is the final legislative act, without which all you have in front of you is a large amount of paper.

I am a little bothered by the fact that more and more the importance of the Parliament seems to have shifted from the inside of the building to the front lawn. There are numerous gatherings out there that are very noisy at times. Some of them are significant in terms of what our nation is all about while others much less so and could be performed otherwise. Surely, though, Royal Assent is very much the high point and I think we can talk about the mechanics. I am a reasonable person. I know Senator Lynch-Staunton does not intend to do away, nor does this bill, with Royal Assent.

We must be practical. In four or five years we will need to find a way to accommodate sittings in the West Block, and that will be very inconvenient for many people. If there are few attending now, there will be fewer or none attending then. We must accommodate those situations.

As to the run-of-the-mill ceremonies, they do not happen that often. I went through some of the comments made in the McGrath report with respect to reform of the rules. He had figured out that a total of approximately 90 minutes -- can you imagine -- of the Commons' time had been wasted by walking to Royal Assent in the other place. I am not scandalized by that. They waste much more time in many more ways than that.

This it is a matter of self-respect. If you dedicate so much of your effort around this place to producing, by way of compromise most of the time, the best possible laws for the good of the country, then you should have enough self-respect to attend the final ceremonial act that gels those laws in place so that they become part of the life of the nation.

I will not say more. That is my position. I have an open mind, and I will go along with some of the suggestions that have been made, but I should very much like the ceremony to be kept. That does not mean I am a monarchist. By the way, in the argumentation we always say that most countries of Westminster obedience have abandoned this type of ceremony. How factual is that? Do you have the list?

The Chairman: We will give you the briefing book.

Senator Corbin: I have read that. That is a general statement; however, I have not seen country by country that that is the case. We cite only Westminster, Australia and New Zealand. I do not doubt your word, but I should like to be reassured that that is the case. Some Commonwealth countries are republics, so that shifts the picture somewhat. If you could get me additional information along those lines, I would appreciate that.

Senator Robichaud: Like Senator Corbin and others, I have a tremendous amount of respect for Royal Assent, the ceremony itself, if it is practised the way it should be; but it has become a shame.

I am not using the expression "shame" without having given it some thought. I remember a particular time a few years ago when we had Royal Assent. By the way, I attend Royal Assent practically all the time. I need a pretty good excuse to miss the ceremony. Some years ago, we had Royal Assent, and there were only a handful of senators and a handful of members from the other place. I remember a newly elected member from the Bloc Québécois leaving after the ceremony and almost screaming: "Quelle honte, c'est humiliant." What a shame, it is humiliating. He said it in French. I was angry, but he was not that far from being right, because it was a shame. There were fewer than half a dozen people present. If we have that much respect for the ceremony of Royal Assent, why are we not there?

Now, there is the question of timing. That could be improved. If we are to continue with the ceremony of Royal Assent, let us make it meaningful. Let us impress the people. Let us impress ourselves, first of all, and then the members of the other place to be present. Whether it is a question of timing, whether it is a question of having an orchestra to draw them, having a show, I do not know. No, I am exaggerating. However, we must improve upon the format.

I will finish my remarks by asking this question: What is the difference between your formula, Senator Lynch-Staunton, and that submitted by Senator Royce Frith a few years back? Do you know?

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Yes, and I quoted him in my speech as the instigator of all this. I do not think he got that far. He made the recommendation but did not come down with a concrete proposal, as I recall.

Senator Grafstein: That is right. He talked in generalities, in principles.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Yes, as did the McGrath report and the Molgat committee. They thought there should be a joint resolution, as the chairman has said, and of course we must work in tandem with the House on this, but if this is a spark plug, fine.

The Chairman: As reported in our briefing note of November 8, 1999, former senator Frith, in April, 1983, tabled a notice of inquiry. He did not present a bill. He essentially launched a debate but did not make any proposals in legislative form.

The point was that Royce Frith was in favour of establishing alternate procedures for Royal Assent, and he noted the changes in Parliamentary practice in other Commonwealth countries. It was his view that Royal Assent in writing might be adopted in Canada. Therefore, he follows the general provisions that are now in Bill S-7.

Senator Robichaud: There could be an alternative that only utilizes the mail or a messenger by the speaker of the Senate and the speaker of the House of Commons going to Rideau Hall. I do not believe that that would be sufficient. That is done for prorogation, when the Prime Minister goes to Rideau Hall, and that is very important. Prorogation is more important than any bill. The Prime Minister does that just by a visit to Rideau Hall.

I think we should have more than that, but I am not sure what it should be. I do not think I would go as far as Senator Grafstein did, but we should go a long way.

A senator suggested that the Governor General is too busy to attend. I do not buy that. I think the Governor General should find time to come here for Royal Assent, instead of delegating a judge of the Supreme Court.

Senator Rossiter: I like some of the things that Senator Grafstein suggested. CPAC would be a great method of communication. Tapes could be made available for education departments -- not necessarily to be sent out to schools, but so that someone knows that they exist.

Like Senator DeWare, I, too, remember the first time that I saw the Royal Assent ceremony. I felt like saying, "Is that all there is to it?" In my home province, the Lieutenant Governor still comes to receive the Reply to the Speech from the Throne. I do not think timing is the problem. As Senator Robichaud said, the Governor General is part of this whole parliamentary process. Therefore, unless, there is something really drastic, the Governor General should be able to come here once a year. When the legislative schedule is being set up, an agreeable time could be arranged in consultation with the Governor General's office. There are many days for the Speech from the Throne debate, and that would be one way of defining a set date.

Senator Kroft: The whole procedure that Senator Grafstein outlines is simply overwhelming in terms of getting some kind of commitment to that sort of frequency. If we feel there is a fundamental stake in making a point of the symbolism here, do you think there would be value in doing it as you suggest, that is, reducing it? For example, after all the compromise back and forth, let us say that it is held only once a year, but once a year there is a major symbolic reminder of the process. Would that be agreeable?

Senator Grafstein: I thought about that. That is big on symbolism, but it is less on public education. For example, all of a sudden, you have 10 bills and they are all stacked up. We have produced more legislation in this era than previously. The Province of Ontario meets 40 days a year and the amount of legislation is not very thick. Our legislation, however, is getting heavier and thicker. It took me one week to read a bill that the chairman recently tabled. If you stack them up too high, it diminishes the importance, the substance and the content of the bill. That is why I am suggesting four times a year.

I do not accept what the chairman says about there being a whole change in culture, and so on. Today, there are four luncheons to attend. However, you chose to attend the event that is most important to you. If it were scheduled four times a year, they probably would not use it four times a year because of lack of content. At the end of the year, it would probably get down to three or possibly two ceremonies that would be much more meaningful. You could still use the extraordinary issue, because when you need them, you need them. You could also have a different ceremony for emergencies because they must be done.

I remember when we were called back in the midst of the summer for a national emergency, which no one felt was a national emergency. Bills were passed at that time. The country focused on that for a moment in time because it was an important moment. Somehow, we must heighten public education. Having a ceremony without the content is like having a meal without the full course.

Senator Di Nino: I have a great deal of sympathy for Senator Lynch-Staunton's position. He has identified the issue quite succinctly. Your suggestion intrigues me. You are talking about more than Royal Assent. You are talking about a forum <#0107> hopefully, an educational forum -- with a market through the schools or through whoever may be interested. As you know, CPAC is continuously repeated. Every time you appear on it people say that they saw you on TV, although the show may be a year old. However, there is some value in using it to educate and instruct. It would not entertain necessarily, but it certainly it would have some value to a number of different constituencies.

You are suggesting four times a year. Are you suggesting a combination of what Senator Lynch-Staunton is saying and what you are saying? That is to say, do you agree with Senator Lynch-Staunton that there should be opportunities where his method would be used, but four times a year there would be ceremonies with the participation of both the House of Commons and the Senate? Both would participate <#0107> say for three minutes each and maybe in a 10-minute debate -- and you would use that as an educational tool for those who have an interest in these issues to take a look, now and again, at what Parliament is doing. It would be a combination. That is to say, we would not leave it as is and let the bills pile up and hold Royal Assent only four times a year, because you would then have the same problem of having five, six, seven or eight bills with which to deal. Am I correct?

Senator Grafstein: It is a balance. I said four because you cannot have the ceremony all the time. I said that four seems to be a minimum number. It might not be used the first time in the fall because there is no legislation, but I am suggesting one early in a session, one midterm, one in the winter, and one in the spring. There also might be one in order to catch up at the end of a session. That would mean a total of five ceremonies. I do not think it is a big change in practice; it is a change in timing. You could call it Royal Assent day. You publicize that it will be a Royal Assent day, and the press would say, "It is a Royal Assent day." You can change public perceptions and practices much more readily today, with Internet and CPAC, than you could 20 years ago. It does not take long to establish a new pattern of conduct.

Senator Di Nino: Mr. Chairman, I like the idea well enough to suggest that if we are to have an informal in camera meeting with members of the other place and other interested parties, that is something that could be explored, notwithstanding the valuable comments that you made regarding the difficulties that this kind of system may encounter. I think Senator Grafstein's idea should be explored through informal discussion with some of the other stakeholders.

The Chairman: I appreciate your comment. If we could revive interest in the Royal Assent ceremony on the part of the Governor General, on the part of the House of Commons and on the part of the government, that is very much to be desired. I think it is a long shot, but it is worth trying. I will try to organize those particular discussions.

Do you have comments on the bill and on the background to the bill, Senator Joyal?

Senator Joyal: Mr. Chairman, Senator Rossiter's comment on the role of the Governor General in our legislative process is very important, because we want to adjust the principle of the constitutional monarchy in its legislative aspect to the symbolism embodied in the presence of the Governor General when he or she sanctions a bill. How many Canadians would understand that? If we were to conduct a poll of members of both Houses, I think we would be surprised at the responses we would receive.

It is important for each one of us to understand the system in which we live. There are many biases about this system. Some people think that the Queen costs too much money for Canadians. One can imagine the list of things we might hear if we polled Canadians on this subject.

I am in total sympathy with the objectives of this proposed legislation. We must not let things continue as they are. We must ask ourselves this: As parliamentarians, what is our responsibility?

It would be helpful to our committee if we could hear David Smith from the University of Saskatchewan. He has done extensive reflection and publication on the very character of our constitutional monarchy. It would be helpful if we could seek his input on the subject of how our system could be made more visible to Canadians.

It would also be helpful if we were to meet with our counterparts in the other place. It is always frustrating to engage in such a discussion, where you feel that the level of ignorance of people participating is almost a bar to a fruitful result. I say that with the greatest respect. I do not pretend that I know everything on this subject, I assure honourable senators.

As Senators Corbin and Robichaud mentioned, when we are dealing with institutions and symbolism, we must know exactly what we are doing and the implications of that. It is timely to address the matter of Royal Assent. Something is being done within our walls and we are not satisfied with it. I feel frustrated when I attend Royal Assent, when I feel that nothing is happening.

As Senator Grafstein has suggested, it would help if someone explained in a summary way the purpose of the bills that are receiving Royal Assent. The role of the Senate would not be diminished in that process, as the procedure occurs within Senate walls.

I should not like to be a part of diminishing the role of Parliament, inasmuch as I should not like to be unclear on any of the implications in relation to this bill. I feel there is a chance for consensus building that could occur between this house and the other chamber, and this bill might facilitate that in some way.

We must be very clear in the ramifications of this proposed legislation, for it also addresses the embodiment of the nation in the head of one person symbolized by the Governor General and the Crown. That is a very important element. I am not opposed to the bill in principle, but we must ensure that we have a real understanding of what is at stake and how we might use the opportunity afforded by Senator Lynch-Staunton to improve the context.

Senator DeWare: One of our senators today asked the question: What does the Senate do? I think we have been the best-kept secret for over 100 years. Communication is the key to opening the door to information. In the Internal Economy Committee, when making up budgets, we insist that an amount for communications be included. We do not have a handle on how that amount is used. We may have an opportunity to do something about communications and sending the message out to the public. Overall, we may be able to enhance our position with some of the suggestions that have been made.

The Chairman: In the United States, everyone knows that when an important piece of legislation is being enacted, it is the President who signs it. The President has perhaps 50 pens to give away, and he presents them ceremonially. Those procedures are often shown on U.S. television.

Senator Grafstein: I believe they also include an explanation of the bill in their ceremony.

The Chairman: Yes, the bill is not explained by the players around the table, but by the commentator, who says, "The President is signing this bill, which was fought over and ultimately is a compromise, and here is what the bill says." They have the mechanics for that. The action of proclaiming a bill into law is usually a bipartisan process.

Senator Lynch-Staunton, let me ask you to reflect with us on the comments of your colleagues.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: The comments of all honourable senators have been very valuable. I thank them all. It is quite obvious that we all share the same concerns.

I am a great admirer of the American system. I occasionally suggest we incorporate some of it here. As long as we have our system, we owe it the ultimate respect. If we can enhance the respect of the third party of the Parliament, then we will have achieved an important goal that has been neglected for too long.

The suggestion of hearing from a professor learned in the subject and inviting members from the House of Commons, perhaps at an early stage, will achieve something constructive.

I thank you for the opportunity to start it off here.

The Chairman: Leave the ongoing process with me. I understand what has been said here. I could sum up by saying that I see a total desire on all parts of this committee to make the process meaningful as well as more efficient. Consultation is the next step.

The steering committee, Senator Grimard, Senator Corbin and I, will have a chat, and we will decide how to address the consultation process with the other parts of Parliament, which, although they are constitutionally three, are in reality four. There is also a government that has a very large role to play in this. If we come at it in a way that includes them in the analysis and development of a response, rather than just presenting them with our view, I think we can make some progress, and I think that is what the committee will try to do, Senator Lynch-Staunton.

Senator Di Nino: I have a totally separate issue. Wednesday is caucus day. While I should like to stress that I, too, believe that committee work is probably the best work in the Senate, it is sometimes tough to get to committee at 12:00 p.m., particularly when your leader is speaking and you have to leave, so sometimes you are a little late. I think Wednesday has been a pretty good day and it has generally worked out well. I was sitting in caucus today and I decided I had better get out of there at 12:05 to come to this meeting. Senator DeWare left a little before me.

Has any thought been given to perhaps meeting on a Thursday when we do not have committee meetings and the sitting at is 2:00 p.m. instead of 1:30 p.m.? I do not want to push it. I am just finding it a little uncomfortable meeting on Wednesdays because our caucus usually goes to about noon. I understand that both sides feel that caucus is probably the most important meeting that we have as a group.

The Chairman: We inherited this time from the previous sitting of the committee. When we needed additional time for witnesses and questions of privilege, we were meeting on Tuesdays from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. That is certainly something that we could change to as a regular time, if colleagues wanted. Thursday morning is fine with me but there may be conflicts. I think the Banking Committee meets then.

Senator Di Nino: I meant Thursday at lunch.

Senator Kroft: I have committees until 1:00 p.m. on Thursday.

The Chairman: We will look into it.

The committee adjourned.