Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Issue 37, Evidence
OTTAWA, Thursday, June 13, 2002
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which was referred Bill C-441, to change the names of certain electoral districts, met this day at 10:50 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Lorna Milne (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: I call this meeting to order.
Today is the committee's first meeting for the consideration of Bill C-441, an act to change the names of certain electoral districts.
We are meeting today with Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley, the Chief Electoral Officer. He is accompanied by Ms Davidson, who is the Chief Legal Officer and Executive Director for strategic Planning and Inter-jurisdictional Affairs, and Mr. Lesage, Director of Parliamentary Representation.
We will be hearing later on from Mr. Peter Adams, Member of Parliament.
Senator Joyal: On a point of order. Is Bill C-441 a government bill or a private member's bill?
The Chairman: It is a private member's bill.
Senator Joyal: I wanted that to be established at the beginning of our hearing.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley, Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada: Madam Chair, I would like to thank you for inviting me to appear before the committee today to discuss Bill C-441, the purpose of which is to change the names of some 14 electoral districts.
I have appeared before this committee on two occasions, on June 14, 2000, concerning Bills C-445 and C-473, and on February 3, 1999, on Bills C-445, C-464 and C-465. The purpose of those bills was also to change the names of electoral districts.
In my first appearance in February 1999, I outlined my position on the subject.
In June 2000, rather than reread my initial statement from February 1999, I recirculated that statement and underscored its important points. Today, once again, it is my pleasure to give you copies of that same statement and to emphasize its essential points.
Changing the name of an electoral district has certain financial consequences. It is important to draw a distinction between names with more than 50 characters and those with less than 50 characters.
A change in the case of a district whose name consists of 50 characters or less costs several thousands of dollars because a certain number of errata must be published to alter the existing maps and other relevant documents.
The adoption of names consisting of 50 characters or more requires that the computer systems be reprogrammed, which represents a cost of approximately half a million dollars. This is not the case for the moment because none of these names exceeds 50 characters.
[English]
Since the last representation order was proclaimed in 1996, the names of 57 electoral districts have been changed. With Bill C-441, presently before you, this number would increase to 71, representing 24 per cent of all electoral districts that would have changed names since the proclamation order came into force. The names of electoral districts are initially proposed by the Electoral Boundaries Commissions during the redistribution process. The commissions follow the guidelines established by the Geographical Names Board of Canada.
During the redistribution process, members of the House of Commons have two distinct opportunities to make their concerns known to the electoral boundaries commissions, with respect to the names of electoral districts. The first opportunity is at the time of the public hearings. The second is when the commission's reports are referred to committee of the House of Commons. Under the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, the current redistribution process offers these main opportunities for members of the House of Commons to make their views known with respect to names of electoral districts.
Changing the names of electoral districts may have repercussions other than the administrative ones to which I have alluded. It could be viewed as a source of confusion on some parts of the public, or it could be viewed as a clarification for some of them. This is also true of organizations that collect and publish data organized by electoral district including: political parties, Statistics Canada, Natural Resources Canada and Human Resources Development Canada. Therefore, there are a number of government agencies and other agencies that actually publish the names of the electoral districts.
I am meeting with them, the advisory committee of political parties — all the political parties at the federal levels whether they are represented in the House or not — tomorrow. I would be happy to explore the consequences of Bill C-441 for them and provide you with their feedback on Monday, if you so wish.
In closing, I would like to thank you for having invited me to appear before your committee today. We will be pleased to answer questions you may have at this point. I will mention that the work of the commission is proceeding. It is proceeding normally, and it is therefore proceeding well.
In light of the importance of these discussions regarding their work, I will ensure that the transcripts of all your deliberations — whether on the Senate floor or in committee meetings — will be transmitted to the 30 commissioners, that is the Chair and the two members of each commission, so that they will have a full understanding of any observation that any senator wishes to make on this topic.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Kingsley.
Senator Fraser: Mr. Kingsley, welcome again. You may recall that when you were here last time we did a batch of name changes. I was asking about the potential for confusion, to which you have alluded in your opening remarks. I asked then if you had done any research on the effect on voters of, in particular, of the very long riding names. You said, that you had not, but that it might be possible to keep track of at least any comments that you received from the public.
I know we have not had an election since then, but have you had any feedback at all? Have you done any work at all on this matter? Is there anything you can tell us?
Mr. Kingsley: With respect to that particular issue, I have not been privy to any feedback. You have alluded to the fact that there has not been a general election. In my view, that is when the advantages or the disadvantages of having changed a name in the course of the existence of the riding would come to the fore. Other than that, the average Canadian is not relating to the name of the riding. It is not something with which they are preoccupied. This will hit home come election time. Presumably, the member of the House of Commons seeking a change in the name is hoping that this is something that will clarify matters for the electorate. That is not known until there is an election, and it will not be easy to gauge, either.
Senator Fraser: We have the guidelines for the selection of federal electoral district names, which are extremely interesting.
Mr. Kingsley, as you look at this bill, do all of the proposed riding names match the criteria set out in the guidelines as far as you are concerned?
Mr. Kingsley: It is difficult for me to answer thoroughly, but it would appear as though there is nothing major that we can point to, on such short notice, that would be a clear indication that something is amiss in terms of those guidelines.
[Translation]
Senator Prud'homme: All my colleagues know my opinion on these changes. I am utterly opposed to any change between elections and censuses. This will definitely be the last if I allow the bill to pass without amendment. Moreover, I have an amendment to move.
You said it would cost several thousands of dollars for each district. There are 14 districts.
[English]
There is not a question of politics; there are five Bloc ridings, five Alliance, one independent PC, two Liberal and one NDP. At least we can go anywhere we want in principle, for the politics of it.
I am opposed to this bill because that I know, having been elected 30 times, I resisted changing my district name from ``Saint-Denis,'' to ``Saint-Denis—Parc Extension.'' Senator Fraser knows that well. There is no limit when you start changing. We know that these changes are done mainly for political reasons. If it did not cost anything, I would say, ``Go for it.'' However, I am a ``scrooge'' administrator. That is well-known. I was in the House of Commons as Chairman of the Board of Internal Economy.
[Translation]
I am very parsimonious when it comes to public spending.
You said this would cost a few thousand dollars. A few thousand dollars multiplied by 14 is nevertheless the salary — plus expenses — of a member of Parliament. We are here to try to draw members' attention to the fact that there should be no changes. Having said that, you will imagine all the political problems that creates. I have had the pleasure of speaking to a number of members, who beg me to let the changes pass.
Let us take the riding of Mercier. Historically speaking, Honoré Mercier is part of the history of Quebec. The riding would be called La-Pointe-de-l'Île. What point? Everyone has an island somewhere! I do not want to mock the change because it appears to be very popular. There is also some confusion with the provincial riding because the neighbourhood of Plateau Mont-Royal is called Mercier. At the federal level, Mercier is at the end of the island. Let us go ahead with that change.
The other change I would ultimately accept is the change — an intelligent one by the way — to the name of the riding of Lévis. It is a very complicated name that would be reduced to a single word, Lévis. It is historical and should be taken into account.
You are going to submit the views expressed here and the debates that have taken place to your 30 commission members. One day, Parliament will have to make a decision. It is political, but in choosing names, a commission member must be very prudent and select historical names that correspond to reality. He must also enable members who have representations to make to appear before the commissions.
I have always gone before the commissions and I have always won. Could you set guidelines that would be written down for name changes? Then it would be the legislators' work to say, once permission was granted, that it will be a final decision until the next census, which will bring in a new electoral map. This would enable us to avoid coming back here and being tortured by our friends, who often have good reasons to want to change names. Mr. Laliberté from Saskatchewan told me why he wanted a new name, and it's true there is currently some confusion.
[English]
For instance, there is confusion between Churchill, Manitoba and Churchill, Ontario.
[Translation]
Is it possible to have guidelines? Would an act be necessary to clearly establish that there will be no further changes once the guidelines have been followed?
Mr. Kingsley: The suggestion you make is easy to carry out. I will be pleased to transmit your comments and concerns to the commission member, as well as those of any other senator who would like to make any today. I will include the points you have raised in my transmittal letter.
I can not issue instructions to the commission, or even guidelines. We know they are already aware of the factors of the Canadian Permanent Committee on Geographic Names.
Senator Beaudoin: I agree we should favour historical names. Between Mercier and La-Pointe-de-l'Île, Mercier is the name of a great premier in the history of Quebec. That is my opinion.
It is the confusion that shocks me. It seems to me that the golden rule should be to make every effort to avoid confusion among electors.
Is it a fundamental rule? It is in my mind, but I do not claim to have any expertise in this field. However, it seems to me that we must avoid confusion at all costs because it is the people who have democratic power, and the people must never be confused. Is it too much to ask that all possible confusion be eliminated in all cases?
Mr. Kingsley: It is an entirely noble objective that no measure should be taken that could confuse electors or cause confusion among electors. I am also aware that, when they make proposals, members must be motivated by a desire to inform rather than confuse electors, so that their action is perceived in a positive way. We rarely see the contrary. For problem cases, you should perhaps ask the members to come and explain their actions. I can't say that one name rather than another would cause confusion. That requires regional knowledge.
Senator Beaudoin: Can the commissions fight against confusion?
Mr. Kingsley: Yes, traditionally, by requesting the opinion of the Canadian Permanent Committee on Geographic Names concerning the names proposed. It is the objective of the present system to prevent this confusion. There must be a valid reason for giving an electoral district a name.
Senator Beaudoin: I have one final point. The name of the district of Rimouski-Neigette-et-la-Mitis constantly comes up. I have always found that quite curious. Is anything being changed this time?
Mr. Kingsley: A lower case letter is being replaced by a capital.
Senator Beaudoin: That is all!
Senator Prud'homme: It is still going to cost a few thousand dollars.
Mr. Kingsley: The last time we changed the entry, a spelling mistake was made in one of the names. We're keeping the same name, but correcting that error.
[English]
Senator Joyal: I have some problems with the process of this bill and a report that we did as a committee, and that you did on behalf of the committee, two years ago, June 22, 2000. In that report, we made nine observations to the Senate. Among the observations, paragraphs eight and nine seem to be very clear. I would like, with your indulgence, to read them for the record.
The Chairman: Please do.
Senator Joyal: Paragraph 8 states:
While there are many valid reasons for wanting to change constituency names, your Committee believes that the ad hoc and frequent nature of such changes must be discouraged. It is confusing and there are costs associated with it. There needs to be a degree of permanency to the names of constituencies: they should not be changed whenever there is a newly elected Member or representation from part of a constituency. A clearly established procedure exists under the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, which should be followed. This also has the advantage that the decision rests with the neutral three-person commission, and there is opportunity for public notice and input. Since redistribution occurs every 10 years, it would not be inappropriate or inconvenient that name changes only be made in this context.
Paragraph 9 reads:
Your Committee understands that extraordinary situations can arise at other times that may require constituency name changes. Your Committee also believes that the process in such cases must be much clearer and more transparent. Your Committee received submissions that reinforced the need for public consultation and input to respect the fact that residents of a constituency strongly identify with its name. There should be a requirement for some form of public notice in the constituency, and provision for public comments. Guidelines to this effect could be adapted from the procedures set out under the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.
That cannot be clearer.
[Translation]
Two years ago, nearly to the day, we were engaged in exactly the same debate as the one we are conducting today.
[English]
The Senate is supposed to be an institution with an institutional memory. I think this is our institutional memory, Madam Chair. We could, in fact, re-enact exactly same report today word-for-word.
To the question raised by our colleagues Senator Fraser and Senator Beaudoin, it is quite clear that you have not even been involved in the evaluation of those names. Paragraph 6 of our report says,
The commissions are required to take into account the criteria established by the Canadian Permanent Committee on Geographical Names, and the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer also reviews the proposed names.
In other words, there is one procedure that is very clear. Then there is the side-step procedure, which really sets aside all the elements to come to a rational decision, namely, the procedure followed by the Canadian Permanent Committee on Geographical Names, your office, public input and so on. There are two ways to change names. This morning I see 71 names in less than a couple of years. I think this is an abuse.
I am not opposed to changing the name of a riding. I changed the name of a riding when I was a Member of Parliament myself from Maisoneuve to Hochelaga—Maisonneuve. Senator Prud'homme remembers that. However, there is a procedure, and we should follow that procedure, especially when our committee two years ago made exactly the same representations that we are hearing here this morning.
I feel we should decide, at some point in time, whether, when we speak, we are blowing hot air, which eventually falls down, and we will see you in two years time.
I strongly support the report we made two years ago. I would like to have some input from you on how to strengthen the procedure. We recognize that there might be a need to change a name, and paragraph 8 of our report mentions that. However, there should be a much stricter procedure than the one we have now to prevent both the waste of money and, of course, the administrative implications.
[Translation]
There is also the public's need to be involved in the electoral district, while maintaining a certain coherence in all this. Otherwise there would be a mixture of names that have no historical dimension. It becomes demagoguery. An attempt is made to enter all the names of all the little spots in the riding to ensure all parochial sensibilities are reflected in them. From the moment you adopt that approach, you include a lot of stakeholders. There must be criteria.
[English]
I think it is important that there is a system, and you, being the foremost office responsible for that, should have the last input in that procedure.
Mr. Kingsley: Madam Chairman, I would be pleased to play the role in accordance with the resolution of the Senate committee in terms of the extent that we can play our role and look at the names and provide you and the House of Commons committee with advice, if it wishes to obtain it. It depends where you want it to occur. It is not a role I would shun. I do not think we are the capital players in this issue.
[Translation]
Senator Joyal: Shouldn't there be amendments to the act to provide a structure for the procedure that should be followed when the name of an electoral district should be changed? We are making the exception the general rule. Our system must follow a certain logic.
Mr. Kingsley: I believe it would be preferable for the names to be decided by the boundaries commissions, based on concerns expressed, and that they come to a final decision. This would avoid having to change the names of the electoral districts. Why amend an act to create a procedure which would exist only for very rare exceptions, if any? Those exceptions can be resolved by following the rules from the start with regard to the manner in which the electoral districts must be named.
Senator Gauthier: I will continue on the same line of questioning. As they say in English, ``Been there, done that.'' I changed the name of my riding. The electoral boundaries commission has been appointed after each census. The 2001 commission has been appointed and is currently in operation. What is its report date?
Mr. Kingsley: Its report date has not yet been decided. We are currently consulting with the commissions to determine their final schedule, now that all the instruments appointing them exist. There may be some leeway. We expect the Ontario Electoral Boundaries Commission to report in mid-August. That report will undergo popular consultations before the end of October. That is what is unofficially planned, without the commission having made a final statement on the matter.
Senator Gauthier: Public discussions on the report will last approximately six months?
Mr. Carol Lesage, Director of Parliamentary Representation, Elctions Canada: The last time, for the Ontario commission, they lasted two months. It varies depending on the scope and number of electoral districts from one province to another. One commission is established for each province.
Mr. Kingsley: We expect it will take more time in Ontario in this case because there is no bill before the House to suspend the work of the commissions, which was the case the last time. This had an effect on participation by the public and by members and senators.
Senator Gauthier: They may make changes as they wish to redefine the ridings with a certain geographical redistribution.
Bill C-441 was introduced by the government whip, Ms Catterall, on behalf of 14 members. It is not a private member's bill; it is an omnibus bill. I doubt it's legal for a person to introduce a change to 14 riding names. The commission's right to reestablish the boundaries of ridings stems from section 51 of the Constitution. I would like to know your opinion as to whether this bill is legally acceptable.
Mr. Kingsley: I do not have the answer to that question. I will have to consult with Ms Davidson, the Senior Legal Counsel at Elections Canada, and will get back to you as soon as possible. The question is relevant and could have an impact depending on the answer.
Senator Poulin: Senator Gauthier raised a good question. Why did the government whip introduce this legislation as a private member? She said the whips from all the parties met and agreed that Ms Catterall, as an individual member, represented the intentions of all parties.
[English]
Senator Gauthier: As I have said, I have been there and I have done that. It is very difficult, under the old system, to change the name of your riding. You could sit before that commission for hours on end to try to convince them that what they were doing was wrong and they would never even listen to you.
In my case, they called my riding Ottawa East. I only had part of Ottawa East. They would never give me Rockcliffe because the chair of that commission lived in Rockcliffe. He would say to me, ``I am not going to associate myself with Vanier, you have to be kidding. I do not want to be part of your constituency.'' That would upset me. His name was Castonguay. I fought with him for years. Finally, we changed the name by a private member's bill. That is not easy. It is a long process.
They are now trying to short-circuit the whole thing by bringing in an omnibus bill and saying, ``Here, pass this. We have agreed to this.'' How do I know that Ms Catterall speaks for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière? I do not know that I would give my whip the authority to change the name of my riding.
That is my question: Is that legal?
The Chairman: It is a very good question, Senator Gauthier. I am not sure we can answer that right here and now. I take your point clearly that it is difficult for a member of Parliament to be heard sometimes by the commission that is appearing in their own riding.
Senator Moore: My intervention follows on the comments of Senator Joyal.
The Guidelines for the Selection of Federal Electoral District Names as put out by the Secretariat of the Geographical Names Board of Canada, dated December 2001, describe the characteristics to avoid.
Their tenth item refers to contrived names and recommends that ``federal electoral district names contrived from ... non-geographical sources should be avoided.''
The eleventh item says that ``imprecise geographical references are misleading.''
Clause 6 of this bill changes the name of the riding from ``Kelowna'' to ``Kelowna-Country.''
The Chairman: We have a corrective amendment coming up on that clause.
Senator Moore: I will wait for that, then.
Clause 13 changes the name of that riding from ``West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast,'' to ``West Vancouver—Sea to Sky Country—Sunshine Coast.'' What does ``Sea to Sky Country'' mean?
If anything, certainly this is a prime example of a contrived or imprecise name. Do you have any comment on these riding name changes?
Mr. Kingsley: No, senator, thank you.
Senator Moore: You do not support those; is that correct?
Mr. Kingsley: What do I not support?
Senator Moore: These name changes, such as ``Sea to Sky Country.'' What kind of a description is that for Joe Citizen out there? He belongs to a riding called ``Sea to Sky Country.'' What is that? We have these guidelines. You heard what Senator Joyal has said. Is anyone listening? I am not voting for that.
Mr. Kingsley: My point is that it is not for me to comment on that. You are addressing these names at this time. I will not express a view on that item.
Senator Pearson: In those provinces where the ridings coincide with the federal ridings, what is the implication of the change of the name from one to the other?
Mr. Kingsley: If I understand the gist of the question, Ontario is the only province where the ridings are absolutely the same as the federal. Nowhere else in the country is there any symmetry between them. In Ontario, there are 103 ridings, which is approximately 35 per cent of the ridings.
At one stage I heard that the MPPs from some of those ridings in Ontario were somewhat reeling under that, because they were not aware that the change was coming. It is important to remember that the Ontario legislature tied itself to the federal process in terms of the limitations and the names. However, that does not mean that there is no cooperation.
I will use this opportunity to apprise you of the cooperation. The Chief Electoral Officer of Ontario and I are in constant communication about the work of the commission of Ontario. I ensure that all three members of the commission met with the Chief Electoral Officer of Ontario when I was there several weeks ago. I hosted a lunch for them so that they could establish a rapport. We sensitized the commission to the fact that they may wish to hear MPPs as well as senators. They are well aware of the fact they are dealing with something different than the other commissions.
Senator Pearson: I recall that people did protest the name changes in Ontario the last time. Would you know to what degree the MPs had consulted with their provincial counterparts?
Mr. Kingsley: No, I do not know. I did hear the rumblings. It was reported that it was from several quarters.
The Chairman: Let me see how many of these ridings are from Ontario. There are several.
Senators, perhaps in partial answer to Senator Gauthier's previous question, I should read to you from the comments in the other place before this Bill C-441 came to the Senate. This is not dated. It was about April 19, 2002.
In the other place, the Speaker said: ``Does the hon. Chief Government Whip have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?'' It was agreed from some honourable members. The Chief Government Whip did have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion on behalf of all members.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: If the situation is as Senator Gauthier described it to us earlier, that validates the members' second speech when the reports arrive in the House of Commons. That's when a member can attempt once again to convince his colleagues, if he has been unable to make his comments before the commission or the commission has not seen fit to adopt his proposal.
When we drafted our report the last time, we believed in it and we still believe in it. I would like to have your opinion on the following scenario. You have the example of a riding name with which, unless someone seriously convinces me of the contrary, I clearly cannot agree. If the Senate were informed that the committee approved the bill, if we allowed the commissions to do their work, ensuring that, through your good offices, they received both our comments and those of the House of Commons made during the debate on the bill and they included that in the reports they have to produce and that will have to be studied by the House of Commons and the Senate, but in a legal process recognized by Parliament, could all that be done in a sufficiently acceptable manner to satisfy both your concerns — which I share when I read between the lines — and the electoral needs of the members of the Hosue of Commons?
Mr. Kingsley: A large part of the answer to that question will be determined based on the date of the next general election.
Senator Nolin: Let us assume the next general election is held in 2004.
Mr. Kingsley: After July 2004, the new names will prevail; before that, the existing names will prevail. The satisfaction rate will vary in the 14 electoral districts based on that.
Senator Nolin: If the committee came to that conclusion, they could always say that it was the Senate and not them that prevented the name change. They could use us as a scapegoat.
Senator Prud'homme: As usual.
Senator Nolin: That is feasible. If the election was held after July 2004, the entire boundary review process, including the review of names, if the commission and Parliament deemed it appropriate, everything could be done at the same time rather than in a piecemeal way, as it is being proposed it be done at this time.
Mr. Kingsley: The public sessions will begin this year. People could start making their representations to the commission if the process selected is deemed viable while you keep that suspended.
Senator Nolin: When you inform the commissions, I assume you will tell them that Bill C-441 is suspended and that it is up to them to decide whether they want to propose to change the name West Vancouver Sunshine Coast to West Vancouver Sea to Sky Country—Sunshine Coast.
Mr. Kingsley: Yes.
Senator Nolin: The population concerned will then be informed that a proposal has been made to that effect and that, if they wish to comment on it, they may do so at the commissions' public hearings.
Mr. Kingsley: The proposals should be published on the Web site so that people can give their opinions before they are presented. I reiterate that the commissions' proposals are also published on the Web site. Canadians will be able to see everything that is going on in four different stages: the present maps, the proposed maps, the amended maps and the final maps, as well as the names.
[English]
The Chairman: If I may interject here, and Senator Fitzpatrick can perhaps correct me, ``Sea to Sky'' is the name of the major highway in that riding.
Senator Fraser: Cornwall 401!
Senator Fitzpatrick: If I could just explain, Sea to Sky Highway is the highway from Vancouver to Whistler. It is a well-known name in British Columbia. Lately, of course, it has been associated with British Columbia's bid for the Olympics 2010. Perhaps that significance is what was behind the view of the Member of Parliament that proposed the name change.
That highway name is very well recognized. It covers one end of the riding to the other.
Senator Gauthier: Yes. I wanted to follow your statement that the House of Commons by unanimous consent adopted this bill. They can do anything by unanimous consent. They can declare tomorrow to be Christmas if, they like. That will not make it Christmas.
My question really is a constitutional interpretation in a sense. This whole process is based on section 51 of our Constitution. I do not care how unanimous they are in the House of Commons, they will not change the Constitution. They need some consent there.
The Chief Electoral Officer said that he wished the commission would maintain its position, and that they would be respected. Did you not, Mr. Kingsley?
Mr. Kingsley: My wish is that the commissions make the final determination for the 10-year duration.
Senator Gauthier: That is the same thing. The commission's recommendations should stick.
Is this process of presenting 14 riding changes legal? Does that meet with the constitutional authority under which this commission operates? Can the House of Commons do this?
The Chairman: I would assume that the House of Commons can do it because they have, and they have done so in the past. However, your question may be valid. I do not believe it is a constitutional question.
Senator Gustafson: First, I would like to relate an experience of change in the Assiniboine riding, which is a well- known riding in Canada.
I had a good experience there with the commission. When the boundaries were changed, the name was changed from Assiniboine to Souris-Moose Mountain — the Souris River running through the constituency and the Moose Mountains being there. There were some suggestions for ``Estevan-Weyburn.'' We felt that would leave out other towns and not be as fair. It was well-received
Rural populations are going down, down, down. Urban centres can have a lot of control. You can elect someone by changing the boundaries. It becomes a political issue. We in the Senate are above politics, but I do think that there should be some guideline or approach that would give some safeguard to the rural areas.
Does the jurisdiction of the commission have anything to do with the provincial boundaries? Is there an interchange there? How does this work?
Mr. Kingsley: For all intents and purposes, there is no interchange there.
The Chairman: Except in Ontario.
Mr. Kingsley: Which is what I described earlier. Other than that, the federal commissions look at the provincial boundaries. They look at them to see what impact it would have, but it is not an exchange between two bodies. They are looking at them just as they look at where the rivers are, where the highways are and where the lakes are. They look at all these things and they look at administrative boundaries we establish to better run ourselves.
Senator Gustafson: In Saskatchewan, if boundary changes were made to two ridings that included the City of Regina or the City of Saskatoon, it would change the electoral outcome of the province. There is no question about it.
This is becoming a greater problem as rural areas have fewer people. Of course, that puts the problem on the commission: some of the ridings have 100,000 people, where a rural riding might have 40,000 voters.
The Chairman: Senator Gustafson, I may interject here, perhaps for Mr. Kingsley. As long as the democratic system in Canada relies on representation by population, which it should do and always I hope will do, this will be a continuing problem for rural areas.
Senator Gustafson: It is not by population now. The chances are that Saskatchewan could end up with 13 MPs instead of 14 because of depleting numbers.
Senator Andreychuk: This has always been a factor. Whether it is right or wrong, there has been a debate driven by provincial boundaries — and now federally — regarding this practice of taking a city portion and tacking it on to a rural portion and justifying it. In a province where the vote seems to split between urban and rural, you can effectively utilize that technique of taking the city portion, which has large population and tacking on a rural portion. Doing this several times over would thereby effectively give the rural portion no say because the population density is in the city.
Traditionally we enlarged rural ridings, yet they remained substantially rural. Now you have a geographic rural but it is number driven. That has been a new form of gerrymandering much studied in Saskatchewan. Perhaps all parties do it. However, it is a new dynamic. It does not follow rivers or administrative units. It seems to be driven by sort of a geographic kind of mix. I do not know if that is legitimate within the rules or not. That is the debate at the moment.
The Chairman: Mr. Kingsley, I do not believe that this requires an answer. However, I will add to your comments, Senator Andreychuk.
The same problem appears almost in reverse in areas of Ontario, where when they carve out the urban ridings there are always sort of unrelated chunks of rural areas in between that get stuck together in ridings that make no geographical sense in that there is no centre for that rural riding. As my husband represented one of those, I know very well what it is like.
Senator Fraser: I am trying to come back to the process here. This bill will change the names of at least two Ontario ridings before the Ontario commission has reported.
Are there any other provincial commissions that have not reported where we are jumping the gun with this bill?
Mr. Kingsley: All of them.
Senator Fraser: If this bill passes, can the commissions then undo the work of this bill?
Mr. Kingsley: They could undo the work of the bill. It would depend on how they cut the ridings and if the name still made any sense. With population shifts, it is possible that they would have carved out a major section from a riding that would wipe out the significance of the name.
It may be valid. It would not necessarily be based on the objection to the change of name. It could be because the riding has changed — we have lopped off a mountain here — and therefore the name must change.
The Chairman: On the other hand, if there is no change to a particular riding, then whatever we pass here, the now existing names will probably carry on.
Mr. Kingsley: Yes. Keeping in mind that only approximately 10 per cent of the ridings do not get changed when there is redistribution. A goodly number — I forget the percentage — have relatively minor change and the rest are major. The majority have major change.
When Bill C-69 died, the redistribution every five years died. A significant problem with redistribution exercise at this time is that the changes that result from it are massive. It is understandable why this would be a concern of a member of the House of Commons.
I will make a pitch again. If Bill C-69 had passed without the retroactive feature, which was the bone of contention, then the changes would have been a 40-60 type of thing; 40 per cent and 60 per cent that year as opposed to 100 per cent at the end of 10 years. The changes would have been more palatable and acceptable to the people who represent the people in those ridings for all sorts of reasons, including machinery for election purposes, the executive and how a group organizes. This was the purpose behind the recommendations.
Changes will be massive to the ridings. Canada is urbanizing. It is not urbanizing in all the provinces at the same rate. There are provinces where it is going out of style. It is going so fast. We talk about places like Calgary, Edmonton and Toronto. Toronto always comes to the fore. There will be massive changes.
Senator Fraser: Did you say that the Ontario commission will report in mid-August?
Mr. Kingsley: Yes.
Senator Fraser: Can you give us a rough idea whether it will be around then for the other provinces or would it be much later for the other provinces? What would you be looking at roughly?
Mr. Kingsley: Again, it is with the proviso that we are consulting them right now. The tentative dates are all approximately the same. One province is already out there with its proposals. That is Newfoundland and Labrador, which has published its proposals in the newspapers. It will start its public hearings in the first week of August.
However, they are ahead of the pack. The rest are generally together and may stay together. We are waiting for them to confirm that.
The Chairman: I have here the calendar of events. The publication of notices through public advertisements comes April 2002 to June 2002. I am assuming that is complete. The public sittings begin in July of this year, and are supposed to be over by the end of October of this year.
For the completion of the report following the public sittings, the dates range from July 2002 to March 25, 2003.
Mr. Kingsley: I should mention that what you have in hand is a document we sent out initially that was a projection of what the work would be. We have given you information based on a closer approximation of the actual workload as they have reported in the past and how they foresee their progress. We are confirming with them if they accept those and if they are staying with the estimates.
Your schedule is slightly ahead of the actual and may not be totally on with respect to certain critical dates. Ours is much more accurate. Once I have official confirmation I will be pleased to provide you with a copy. The committee will then have the official calendar for all of the provinces that the commissioners have accepted, realizing that they can still amend it if there are circumstances they meet that in their vies requires more time.
With that proviso, I will provide it to you.
The Chairman: I was concerned when I got the proclamation establishing the Electoral Boundaries Commissions. This is aside from what we are really talking about today.
When I look at the one from Ontario, I notice that of the three commissioners, the farthest north is Kingston, Ontario. I have had heard several Members of Parliament from Northern Ontario have expressed their great concern about this. Why is there not a fairer geographical spread in the makeup of the commission in Ontario?
Mr. Kingsley: You may wish to convene the Speaker of the House of Commons to come and explain his choices to you.
The Chairman: That can always be done.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: Mr. Kingsley, I understand from your testimony that you are going to meet the political parties soon?
Mr. Kingsley: Tomorrow.
Senator Nolin: This is a process that is in place and that works well. Are you going to inform the commissions of certain consensuses that will be reached with the political parties regarding the boundaries and names of the ridings, if that's the case?
Mr. Kingsley: Our objective is merely to inform the political parties of the process. I asked you whether you wanted me to raise the question of the implications of the name changes to determine their position. In other words, how difficult is it for you, as political parties, to adapt to these changes. The benefit of this kind of consultation occurs whether there are 11 or 12 political parties, not with the five parties in the House of Commons, which all have at least one name to change. You could have an idea of what the Green Party, the Communist Party and the Christian Heritage Party, for example, think of that. They are nevertheless players. It is good to know what these people experience when changes are made. No one has ever asked them the question.
That was my objective. If you are interested, I will do it, but if you are not interested, I will simply inform them — as provided under the last redistribution. Late August and the first week of November have been selected for the two events.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you very much. We appreciate your coming before us. We will undoubtedly reflect some of your remarks in any comments we make.
Mr. Kingsley: I appreciated this opportunity, as did my two colleagues. We always come out of these processes enriched.
Senator Pearson: I think that the question was left hanging a bit about what you were going to say on our behalf. I was wondering whether at least we could clarify that the report that we did two years ago should be a model.
The Chairman: You will take our last report, our remarks today and any further report that may come out of this committee.
Mr. Kingsley: They will get a complete picture. If you wish me to do anything with the advisory committee of political parties tomorrow, I will expect to hear from you, Madam Chairman.
The Chairman: Our next witness is Mr. Peter Adams, Member of Parliament for Peterborough, Ontario.
Mr. Peter Adams, M.P., House of Commons: Madam Chair, I am grateful to you for giving me the time. I apologize for having to take your time because it is with regard to an amendment to the bill. My proposal is to change the name of the riding of Peterborough.
Do we proceed with the amendment first, Madam Chair?
The Chairman: I would suggest you tell us the wording of your amendment. It has to be moved by a member of this committee.
Mr. Adams: Thank you. My suggestion is that the riding of Peterborough, its current name, be changed to the riding of Peterborough and the Kawarthas.
Since Confederation, the name ``Peterborough'' has always been a part of the electoral map. However, as populations changed over that period of time, it has been Peterborough East, Peterborough West, City of Peterborough and County of Peterborough — various names of that type. It has been ``Peterborough'' for many decades, and there have been substantial changes to the riding during that time.
As the Chief Electoral Officer indicated, at every census there are changes in the ridings, substantial changes in the ridings in Southern Ontario, and Peterborough has been no exception. In the second-last census, the riding was substantially changed. Previously it was called Peterborough, but it was the city and county of Peterborough. If you can imagine it being a doughnut, with the city as the hole in the middle of the doughnut.
However, because of the drive of 100,000 people, plus or minus 25,000 people, parts of the county were taken out at the second last census. As a result, I now represent almost 120,000 people — approximately 70,000 in the city of Peterborough, the remainder in the county of Peterborough, it is not the entire county any longer. That is why it was changed from being the city and county of Peterborough, as it was years ago.
This has been a matter of concern to me for some time. When I appeared before the last boundary commission, I successfully argued that although the riding is very large — and is likely to become even larger in terms of representation by population — it was better from the point of view of community by interest and from the point of view of people relating instinctively to their riding, that more not be taken out of the riding. There was a suggestion that several more townships in the county be tacked on to neighbouring ridings. I successfully argued against that, saying that in modern times it is possible for a member to represent more people who relate to the riding than to represent a smaller number of people, where you would think the representation was better, but they do not relate to the riding.
The question is how to give the rural people and the two First Nations in my riding a better way of relating to the federal riding.
The Kawarthas can be viewed in various ways. We often think of the Kawartha Lakes, which is a loose body of lakes in our region. In Ojibwa, ``Kawarthas'' means ``shining waters.'' It was the name used when Samuel de Champlain came through the region. This was the Ojibwa word that was used for the region at that time.
In the city and the county there was considerable interest in adding the word ``Kawarthas.'' They thought it would be constructive. You should know that in Environment Canada weather forecasts, they say ``Peterborough and the Kawarthas,'' and it means roughly the area I represent. I mentioned the Aboriginal people use it, the city and county tourism bureau is called the Peterborough and Kawarthas Tourism Bureau, and there has been at least one book titled Peterborough and the Kawarthas.
For those reasons, I feel it is appropriate to change the name at this time. Although the riding has changed, the name has not changed for many decades.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Adams.
Senator Fraser: Did you consult with your colleague, the member for Haliburton-Victoria-Brock?
Mr. Adams: Yes, I did.
Senator Fraser: He wants to be the member for Haliburton-Kawartha Lakes-Brock.
Mr. Adams: Kawartha Lakes is the name of a city. It is the City of Kawartha Lakes. It has replaced the previous name of a township. Haliburton, Kawartha Lakes and Brock are the townships' official names. He should tell you why he is adding it, but what he is adding is the name of a city.
Senator Fraser: Still, it is the same word.
Mr. Adams: Yes.
Senator Fraser: Why do you wish to do this now rather than wait for the commission?
Mr. Adams: I believe that community of interest should be, wherever possible, more strongly represented in the act under which the commissioners operate. If there is not a natural community of interest, two things happen. One is that the people there do not relate naturally to their riding. For example, in the last election, people in the townships — which more than 10 years ago were put into that other riding — would phone my office and say, ``My name is not on the ballot,'' or whatever the case may be. The other thing that happens is, even after 20 years, I still do the other townships' routine political work.
By the way, the commission would not add them back. I said, ``Instead of decreasing the size of this riding even further and tacking them on to that long riding you mentioned before that they do not relate to, why do you not add them on to mine?'' That did not work. After consultation, we thought of some others. I did seriously think of putting in parts of the county in there. I thought it was a way of strengthening the community of interest in the riding that exists now.
I do not know what the other changes will be, but I will fight them again. By the way — and I know that it is gerrymandering — this includes townships that do not vote for us. I know they will chip away at a good doughnut- shaped, natural riding and tack these townships on to these amorphous units that are around us.
It is my interest to try to deal with this community of interest problem, which I believe should be dealt with in the act more strongly.
Senator Fraser: You want to do this now, before the commission reports, because you do not trust the commission?
Mr. Adams: They will do their job of creating units of 100,000 plus or minus 25,000. Then having done that, if the population base is very low or if the population base is very high, they will do this or this. They are driven by that, senator. They cannot change that. I do understand that.
A part of my job is to see that the people in my particular riding are well represented. For the two First Nations and the rural people who relate to it, this is a step in that direction, whatever changes they make. The city of Peterborough is not large enough to be a riding of its own given the present criteria, so there will be most of the County of Peterborough still in my riding, whatever they do. I will argue that they do not change it. I am quite honest with you about that.
[Translation]
Senator Poulin: You were present earlier when questions were put to Mr. Kingsley concerning the consultation process involving all the parties and whips. As a member, could you tell us what the process was in the House of Commons?
Mr. Adams: The discussion was very interesting.
[English]
In the House of Commons, it is a private member's bill — the Government Whip, Marlene Catterall. She circulates information to all Members of Parliament, and Members of Parliament are asked to respond. The members who are on the ball and efficient responded in time to be on the bill you have now — I responded too late. That bill then goes to the House, as we heard. It received unanimous consent, and it came here. That is it.
Senator Pearson: Having a lot of family living in your area, Peterborough and the Kawarthas strikes me as a natural name. That is not my question.
There is a little confusion about Kawartha Lakes and Kawartha. You have answered the question. Each person has their own question here.
My question is, did you consult with your provincial counterpart?
Mr. Adams: I have asked, but have not received a reply. I have received a reply from the ward of the county, the Mayor of the City of Peterborough and some individuals. I do not know what that reflects that I have not received a reply.
Senator Pearson: You did ask.
Mr. Adams: Yes.
Senator Pearson: It is a natural name for your riding. I do not have a problem with that.
Since there is an amendment to this, and there will be another amendment, whatever the procedure we pass here means that it would have to go back to the House. Given whatever happens I just wanted to say that on the record.
Mr. Adams: The bill would not have come here if it did not have the support of all five whips, as the senator mentioned. I would never say that I do not anticipate any problems. I hope there are no problems when it gets back to the House.
Senator Pearson: I wanted you to be alert to the fact that there might be problems. They would not be problems necessarily of our making.
Senator Joyal: I understand that this bill is a private member's bill. It is not a government bill, even though the Whip of the Government has introduced it. A whip is not a minister of the Crown, so it is a private member's bill.
Mr. Adams: Absolutely.
Senator Joyal: I understand that it was passed in the House of Commons according to the information provided on the cover on April 19, 2002, which is less than two months ago.
Are you, Mr. Adams, the chair of an all-party committee that had the responsibility to review the procedure that governs the way that private member's bills in the other place and Senate private member's bills should be dealt with in the House of Commons?
Mr. Adams: That is correct, Senator Joyal. I am Chair of Standing Committee on Procedures and House Affairs. It is responsible for what it says, including the standing orders under which private member's bills are dealt.
We do not have much legal responsibility, but we are also responsible for the Canada Elections Act. No one is responsible for Mr. Kingsley, but you understand what I mean.
Senator Joyal: I understand that you recently approved the new procedure to deal with bills labelled private senator's bills emanating from the Senate?
Mr. Adams: That is right.
The Chairman: There is no such thing as a private senators' bill.
Mr. Adams: Senators bills.
Senator Joyal: Senators bills. Is it right that when a bill comes from the Senate that has been previously introduced in the Senate by a senator, it will be put at the end of the list of all the private member's bills that will be introduced in the House of Commons?
Mr. Adams: Yes, I am glad of this question. You may or may not be, though. I had a very productive meeting with Senator Austin. One of the things that we noted was that there is provision for Senate-House conferences that has not been used for many years. He and I thought that there should be a regular meeting, perhaps between he and my equivalent or between our committees to discuss general matters.
On this matter of the private member's business, the report was tabled in the House of Commons only yesterday. It has not been concurred. Whether it will be concurred in I do not know.
It was tabled yesterday, so it was not possible for me to address publicly what was in it. For a number of weeks now I have been chairing meetings of my steering committee, which consists of the whips of all five parties, on these changes.
As soon as it was tabled, I wrote to Senator Austin. I did not know this question was coming so I do not have with me the report, but I would be glad to provide it to the Chair. I think it is very important.
I do have by coincidence the letter that went yesterday to Senator Austin. There may be some grammatical changes because I have the draft. I should explain this is what is proposed in this report, which may or may not be concurred in by the House of Commons. A lot of the things you have heard have come from the round-table discussion of all parties that we held in the House of Commons. Members were there on the record talking about their views of private member's business.
I could read this letter to Senator Austin. I only have it in English so I cannot circulate it.
Our proposal for reforming Private Members' Business provides that all items on the order of precedence will be votable unless the sponsoring Member does not wish, or a panel of MPs decides that the item is non- admissible.
It means for technical reasons it would not be admissible. This is a big change.
This means that all private member's motions and bills will now be votable in the House of Commons.
This automatic votability will remove an irritant to many Senators who previously complained that private Members' bills originating in the Senate had to be deemed votable by the Committee.
At the moment, we have a committee that does not exactly vote by consensus agree whether a bill is votable or not, but that condition is now removed.
We have retained the procedure whereby a private Members' bill originating in the Senate will automatically, upon receipt, be added to the order of precedence.
It will still be necessary for a Member of the House of Commons to agree to sponsor such a bill. We do not, however, anticipate that this will be a problem. Many Members are very supportive of private Members' bills originating in the Senate, and are keen to be associated with them. In addition, the automatic addition to the order of precedence is a further incentive for MPs to agree to sponsor such bills.
It goes on to indicate that there are 230 members who can do this.
To come to the senator's point, what happens is that now, if this report were to be accepted, members' names would be drawn; they would be put on an order of precedence; and their bills, subject to being technically okay, would come up for two hours of debate.
The Senate bill, at present, automatically goes on to that list. If the list were full, the Senate bill would then be number 41, but would come through fairly quickly in two-hour votes. The attraction for me, senator, in taking a bill of yours would be that I get on to that list of 40. Under this new suggestion, we would do a draw of 40, which would be the first ones on the list. If I sponsored your bill I would automatically go on to that list and it would come to the top relatively quickly.
That is the present procedure. That is what happens now, except that there is the complication that the committee has to agree on which are votable.
Senator Joyal: I have some difficulty with the principles of that of procedure. I would like to convey my concerns to you, because this issue is very important. It deals with constitutional issues, in fact, related to the very way that our country is structured and governed.
The Constitution of Canada establishes quite clearly that the House of Commons and the Senate have to concur in the enactment of any legislation. Both Houses are at par, and the very specific exceptions are spelled out in the Constitution. The main rule of the game — to put it in non-constitutional terms — is that the two Houses are on equal footing.
This has been done for a very specific purpose. The House of Commons, as the framer had it in mind, was to be based on representation by population, and we are dealing this morning with a bill that addresses that aspect of the structure. The Senate is based on the principle of equality of regions.
Therefore, when I speak, I speak for a district in a region. You, as a member of the House of Commons, speak for a specific constituency. This is at the heart of our Constitution. The House of Commons is elected to represent the ridings. We are appointed to represent regions and minorities. If I can refer to George Brown, who was at the origin of the compromise that led to that structure, he indicated that the sense of our compact — which is our agreement — is that the union shall be federal and not legislative. Our Lower Canada friends, Quebec, have agreed to give us representation by population in the lower House, that is the House of Commons, on the express condition that they will have equality of regions in the upper house.
When a bill is enacted by the Senate, it becomes a Senate bill. When the bill is sent to the other place, it has to be acted upon as a Senate bill, not as a private member's bill. When you establish the principle that it should be put in a draw and wait until it be considered at par with private member's bills, it hurts fundamentally the constitutional principle.
I read the letter of June 10 that Senator Austin sent to you on behalf of the members of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament. You read to us your answer to his letter. This is a very serious problem. We are dealing now with a ``private member's bill,'' coming from the House of Commons, but we treat it as a bill coming from the House of Commons. The proof is that this committee is seized with a private senator's bill. Senator Gauthier was here this morning with Bill S-41, and we gave precedence to your bill over that of Senator Gauthier. The date on the bill speaks for itself: April 19. We have had first reading, second reading and committee stage, and we are even ready, according to the note that I received this morning, to do a clause-by-clause, perhaps even to report it this afternoon. We do it expeditiously because it comes from the House of Commons.
When you take a bill emanating from the Senate, introduced by a private senator, it is no longer a private senator's bill, it is a bill of the whole Senate. Our house has considered that the proposal emanating from an individual senator is of such importance that it makes it its own. My colleagues and I — and I noted senators Andreychuk and Fraser attended the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament — had to question the procedure that we were informed that you were discussing and debating. I am happy to hear it has not yet been adopted, because I think it should be revised.
Senator Austin wrote to you in his letter of Monday:
...I fear that it will become extremely difficult for any private Members' bills from the House of Commons to come out of the Senate.
You can immediately see what will happen. You scratch my back; I will scratch your back. If you do not scratch my back, I will scratch your face — to quote a famous prime minister.
You understand that we work at par. We give as much, if not more, attention in this committee to private member's bills emanating from the House of Commons. I have been a senator now for five years. I remember the number of sittings we have had with some bills. We do not pass them in one afternoon. We have never done that, as long as I have been here, because we think that the issues coming from the House of Commons are very important and deserve a fair hearing.
I think you have had a fair hearing this morning. When we receive a bill that seems to be what I call a ``maintenance bill'' — ``Oh, change the name, Peterborough, Kawartha, that is no problem; there is no implication in that; let us adopt it'' — we do not treat it in that fashion. I do not mean you do so in the House of Commons. You must understand that we have a responsibility and we assume all the implications of that responsibility.
I have mixed feelings this morning. I want to do my job. I want to propose that bill to the Senate and have our Chair report it expeditiously so that we pay due attention to what you request from us. However, I also have a private member's bill in the Senate, Bill S-8, which is a very important bill. It deals with the institution of the Senate as such, with fundamental principles including the parity of the Senate with the House of Commons.
I understand that I will have to ask for you to be my sponsor, and that you may kindly put your name in the ballot box. You will lose your right to introduce another bill for that slot, according to the procedure. A member of Parliament sponsoring a Senate bill will lose his spot in any round. You will lose your turn to introduce your own bill for your own constituency and any professional interest that you might have, and then I will have to wait.
I am sorry. If the Senate accepts my bill, it is a Senate bill, whatever the subject is. In all fairness, the procedure is not based on sound principle. It does not reflect the parity and the role that each of our respective Houses has according to our Constitution.
I would like you to convey to the members and to the House the concern that many of us have had around the table that we are in a mixed position. We are damned if we do; we are damned if we don't. We want to resolve that. I am happy to understand that you are of such an open mind and that Senator Austin is in touch with you on behalf of the members of Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament, because that matter must be resolved.
Mr. Adams: I have some notes, but I assume the transcript will be available to me anyway for my use. This is a good example of what I said at the beginning.
Your concern is in fact with the existing procedure, which, as I have I tried to explain, is worse. The existing procedure is more demeaning. Incrementally, this is a big step forward for our private members. I would argue that because there is no committee that says whether the Senate bills should be votable, there is a slight progress. I have to say that I did not realize that your concern was with the existing standing orders. As I say, marginally — but only very marginally — I think this is better. That is the point I was trying to make to Senator Austin. I will convey this to the committee.
I would also say that I do not think that is enough. Someone like yourself or the chair of the appropriate committee should come and make the case for a change in the existing standing orders. I do not know if this change we are proposing will go through, as I explained to you. However, even if it does not, your arguments are still very valid. I would be glad to convey them.
Senator Poulin: As a supplementary to the important point Senator Joyal raised, I would like to apply it to today. When Ms Catterall approached me to sponsor this bill, my first reaction was that this is not a private member's bill. It is a House of Commons bill because the House has already voted on it. Therefore, if the same rules had applied in the Senate that were raised by Senator Joyal, I would have had to say to Ms Catterall that I could not sponsor her bill because I would lose my turn at being able to bring forward my own private bill as a senator.
That is why we feel that it is so important that we remain respectful of each other as two Houses. However, the terminology could be reviewed, Mr. Adams. When a bill begins in the House, before any first reading, it is a private member's bill. By the time it passes in the House, it could perhaps have a new term. It could be a House of Commons bill.
When we have a bill here in the Senate, we will have to review our own terminology. When there is first reading in the Senate, it is a private bill, but by the time it leaves our House to go to yours, it becomes a Senate bill instead of a private member's bill. That would be my recommendation.
Mr. Adams: To be honest, I have not realized this was Marlene Catterall's bill until I came here. It must be a device to avoid having 14 or 15 private member's bills. That is essentially what it is. I had not thought that out until I was sitting here today.
Senator Beaudoin: I am surprised by this matter. We are the Senate. We have bills coming from the House of Commons. We may amend the bill, but I cannot see how you may amend the bill.
Senator Pearson: Is he not going to amend it?
The Chairman: He cannot. This will happen on our consideration of clause-by-clause, if a senator on the committee moves the amendment.
Senator Beaudoin: However, I agree with everything that has been said by Senator Joyal.
The point is that, in my opinion, we cannot do that. We may say yes, or we may say no. A senator around this table may propose an amendment. I agree with that. However, that is not what you have in mind, if I am not mistaken.
Senator Pearson: That is what he has in mind.
Senator Beaudoin: Will he ask a senator around the table to amend the bill?
Senator Pearson: Yes.
Senator Poulin: It is coming.
Senator Pearson: There is another amendment coming as well.
The Chairman: There will be two amendments proposed by senators.
Senator Beaudoin: It is a strange way to proceed. That is what I think. I will not vote in favour.
Senator Andreychuk: I think Senator Joyal summed up the concerns and the discussion in the Standing Senate Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament yesterday in how this process is evolving. I do not think we have changed our process, and I think we were mindful of the dilemmas constitutionally and otherwise, but they were not brought to our attention until the House started to act.
While it sounds like an improvement to be one of 41, what is the likelihood of parliamentarians wanting to sponsor Senate bills — even on practical matters — let alone constitutional ones? I am not sure that the new process is more helpful than the old one was. In any event, there is a constitutional problem in that regard.
It was disconcerting was to hear that there is this new process where Marlene Catterall can say to all the other whips, ``We will just bunch all of your private member's bills together, put them all into one basket and bring it here as one bill,'' which drove us to treat it with great haste and sincerity as a House matter. It seems the House is starting to create efficiencies for itself that have an impact on us. Yet there has been no consultation with us.
I am pleased to hear there will be a conference or a discussion, but it should have occurred before anything ever hit the House of Commons for discussion, if we are to have a good, cooperative system.
I do not know whether the dilemma now is that you must scratch my back or do not scratch anyone's back, but it is a question of whether we are now trying to overcome impediments from you, and you will then be overcoming impediments from us. It would have been much better to work on a cooperative basis.
Therefore, where are we? You have a procedure that could be voted on, and will be, in our opinion, prejudicing us. It may not pass a constitutional test. We have this bill before us now, which is a private member's bill. Is it something new, a combined private member's bill? Should we be passing it or should we not? The question started in the Rules Committee, and it was very disconcerting, but all of a sudden it has had a ripple effect throughout.
The Chairman: Senator Andreychuk, I would point out that in my recollection, and probably more so in Senator Beaudoin's recollection, this is the third time that there have been these omnibus bills before this committee, while I have been on the committee. This is not a new procedure. This is something that has occurred at least over the last seven years since the first one that was brought forward during the time that I have been here.
Senator Andreychuk: It is new in this sense: It may be the third time around and I remember one other one. The dilemma is that I do not think anyone looked at it and asked, ``What is this process?'' We were looking at the content of a bill, the name problem, everything that I think is legitimately what the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs should be doing, and we put reports into it. However, I do not think we actually looked and said, ``What is this bill? Is it a private member's bill? Is it a House of Commons bill? Is it now this new combined effect?''
The alarm bells went off in the Rules Committee and the spillover effect is here, which is what to do now that we know.
The Chairman: This is now a bill that has some precedence before us.
Mr. Adams: Senator Andreychuk, I had assumed if it is not in the standing orders it is established practice, that is, what Marlene Catterall's bill is doing. With respect to the drive in the House of Commons, as you know there have been changes since Confederation in how private member's legislation is dealt with there. The drive is votability. If — and it is still a big if — this report changes the potential barrier to votability of House private members' bills and Senate bills will be removed. That is one step.
I understand the other point. I think there has to be a sponsor, we do realize that, and I do not think there has been difficulty getting sponsors from the House of Commons.
The Chairman: We do not want to penalize them.
Mr. Adams: Yes. Again, at the moment, you realize a house member could have 100 bills on the Order Paper. Now their name will be drawn, they will be on the list of 40, and any one of their bills — perhaps a Senate bill — could be the one they choose.
I would argue, Madam Chair, and to you, senator, that it is something with existing standing orders with the House of Commons as well as with this change, whether we agree this change is an improvement from the point of view of the Senate or not.
I accept that. I think I was the first Chair of Procedures and House Affairs to meet with my opposite number in the Senate, and I was pleased to do so for many years. As I mentioned, there is a provision for a conference — that is not actually what it is called — that has not been enacted for many years. I would urge that your other committee, like ours, push for that and once a year, whether we need it or not, there should be some sort of meeting between the two institutions. I would argue relatively informally, so that things can happen, and then later meetings that are on particular points, such as the one we are discussing now.
The Chairman: I would remind senators that we are going to proceed to clause-by-clause on this today, and we sit at 1:30.
Senator Grafstein: Chairman, I am not a member of the committee but I came in specifically to deal with this item because it affects me directly and it affects the other House directly, a bill we will consider later this day in the Senate.
Before dealing with the specifics of this matter as it relates to that bill, which is quite unusual, I want to reaffirm what others have said. In my view, when this matter came before the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament — and I member that of the Rules Committee — I believe the standing order is unconstitutional.
It is unconstitutional on the basis that it takes the Senate powers and essentially makes them functus by the House of Commons, because to treat a Senate bill in the same way that would you treat a private member's bill in the Senate removes the equality of the two Houses. Therefore I think strongly that this would be unconstitutional, and we have had ample review of this particular question. We have had an interesting discussion as it relates to the Senate.
The Senate has a different function from the House of Commons. It represents the regions and, as a result, it has a different constitutional function from the other House. The problem we have had in the few years, because the legitimacy of the Senate has been questioned because of our electability, people have moved away from the constitutional process, which is that we are an equal house with specific powers to represent the regions.
I will now come to the specific problem of how this standing order contravenes even the House procedure. I introduced a bill in the Senate several years ago. It is now in third reading in the Senate, called Bill C-18, which is called the clean water bill. Are you familiar with that bill?
Mr. Adams: I know it, yes.
Senator Grafstein: This bill took a very unusual course in that after I introduced it in the Senate, a number of members on the other side were enthusiastic about it. A resolution passed in May 2001. All parties, I think, save the Bloc, supported the principles of the bill and urged us to get this bill over to the other House.
That has never happened before in constitutional history based on recall. Therefore I now have a private member's bill sitting in third reading with a resolution on the other side saying, ``We want this bill, send it over to us,'' and the principles were adopted. I spoke to all the caucuses — you are familiar with that — and there has been overwhelming support for this bill because it is a crisis in the country.
We are now confronted with the situation that if the bill receives third reading today — and I hope it will — and it goes over to the other House, it will then be at the bottom of this lottery.
I had a similar problem with respect to the parliamentary Poet Laureate's bill. In my discussions with the House Leader and the Deputy House Leader, they revoked the subcommittee that put us in the same track as a private member's bill and said, as a question of comity, that they would move that forward and treat it differently from all other private member's bills. I went through this exact argument with the Deputy Leader and House Leader, and Derek Lee, who was the chairman of the committee at the time.
If the Senate later today decides to approve this bill — which in principle has already been adopted by a resolution of the other House — then the two members who have already asked to co-sponsor the bill, Mr. Ovid Jackson and Mr. Dennis Mills, will be put in the invidious position that they cannot proceed with their own matters.
I put this all on the record because it is very important that your committee deal with this. If in fact the House of Commons takes the position and proceeds with this standing order in the way that has been suggested — which makes the Senate functus — we have no choice as senators but to protect our constitutional position and take the appropriate steps with respect to bills that come from the other place.
I thought I should say that — in a manner a little bit more vehement than my colleagues — because I have spent two years on this particular bill.
Mr. Adams: Madam Chair, if I could, Senator Joyal put on the record the constitutional argument. It applies now and it would apply if this report, which was tabled yesterday but not concurred in, were adopted.
Madam Chair, to Senator Grafstein, I would urge — by the way, I do not know if it will be concurred in — that if your bill gets over there, the transition period is that we would run through the existing list until we get to a point where, for a trial period of a year, we try the new procedures. This is a pilot project being proposed and the present system would run through.
Now, the demeaning nature of it still applies because the committee that you describe, which under present circumstances has to declare the thing votable or note, includes parties that do not support the Senate, as you know. However, the constitutional argument still applies and I am glad it has been put.
I would argue strongly, senator, through you, Madam Chair, it applies to the existing standing orders as well as the new ones, and marginally, on the question of votability, the new one is better. It is still demeaning, I do not deny the point, but it is largely better.
The Chairman: I believe the point is, Mr. Adams, that it may be better for the House of Commons. It is no better for the Senate, in fact it is probably worse for the Senate.
Mr. Adams: With due respect Madam Chair, except for this one committee, to which the senator referred, which is a very awkward part of our present system.
Senator Fraser: Mr. Adams, I think there may be an element of which you were not aware, and that is that the Senate has never accepted what the House views to be the present system. In fact, almost all of our bills — whatever the standing orders may say — have been deemed votable. The only exception is a bill from Senator Kenny that was vetoed, I believe, by the Speaker on admissibility grounds. I cannot quarrel with your Speaker's right to do that.
We have never accepted the proposition that they were of similar status to a simple private member's bill starting from scratch in your chamber, any more than, as has been said, we have treated a Commons bill, whatever its origin, as anything other than a Commons bill that deserved and always received full consideration. This bill is being considered well ahead of quite a number of Senate private bills — not just by this committee but also by the whole Senate.
Mr. Adams: I understand.
Senator Fraser: That has always been our procedure because that is the principle we have upheld.
Mr. Adams: This proposal — and it is only a proposal — for a pilot project is a move towards your system.
Senator Fraser: We do not see it that way, Mr. Adams.
Mr. Adams: The part about votability, senator. We are moving for all bills to be votable.
The Chairman: Now that you have been lectured, Mr. Adams, and know how the Senate feels about this particular report, we will proceed to clause-by-clause.
Before we do, I will point out to the senators that it would hardly be fair to, at this point, change the rules of the game in how we have dealt with bills of this type before, when we have allowed Members of Parliament to change the names of their ridings if they so wished.
I would be rather unhappy if the Senate — the non-elected body — began to dictate to Members of Parliament what they could or could not name their ridings.
Senator Joyal: Madam Chair, I am not ready to move to clause-by-clause. We have heard the Chief Electoral Officer and we have listened to our witness with great attention. I would propose that we allow ourselves an opportunity to reflect, perhaps until the next meeting.
Senator Beaudoin: I am not ready to deal with the clause-by-clause. We have a problem before us that is more important than I thought when I came here this morning. I agree entirely with what has been said so far.
We are two different Houses. We have a parliamentary system that must be respected. We should avoid entirely any problems between the two Houses. We are mutually independent.
We should solve that problem first. Usually we act as a legislative house, and we have to do that under the Constitution. The House of Commons is doing the same thing. One should not intervene in the affairs of the other. The procedure this morning is not entirely respectful of the independence of our two legislative houses.
That being said, we should take the time to think about it before going clause-by-clause. That is what I propose. Of course, if you want to take a vote on it, you may. I will certainly vote against it.
Senator Poulin: I would agree with what the Chair said earlier. I fully understand the malaise that has been formulated today.
However, I do feel that the malaise is a bigger issue than this bill coming from the House of Commons, which has been voted unanimously by the House of Commons. It was in second reading for quite a few weeks so that all of those who wanted to speak on it were allowed to speak. I feel we have had time to reflect on it in the full house because of the time it was in the full chamber.
I would recommend that for practical reasons, it being the end of the month, and as we do not know for certain whether it will be the last meeting of this committee, I would recommend that we go clause-by-clause at this time out of respect for our colleagues in the other House, notwithstanding the fact that we all share the serious malaise that has been discussed with our colleague from the other place, Mr. Adams.
Senator Fitzpatrick: As you know, I am not a regular member of this committee. I am here to propose a specific amendment, which I hope I will be permitted to do.
I think Mr. Adams has had the views of the committee with respect to the issue we have just been discussing. He probably did not come here expecting this. However, I think it has been an opportune time to provide him with this information, along with the views of the members of this committee and, I should mention, other members of the Senate. I do not think at this point in time we should be prejudicing Mr. Adams' request for a change in the name of his constituency nor do I think that I should be denied the opportunity to make my amendment.
I think this issue, as Senator Poulin has said, is a larger issue than these specific corrections that we are pursuing, and I would urge the committee to proceed with clause-by-clause today.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: Senator Joyal has reminded us that this committee decided to report to the Senate on comments which we considered very important at the time. It is therefore right and reasonable for us to reflect on our decision, in view of the way in which the House of Commons has clearly disregarded our comments.
I understand the desire of the 14 members to see the names of their ridings. With all due respect to them, I would nevertheless have appreciated it if the House of Commons had read the committee's report two years ago when it was drafted. Consequently, I agree with Senator Joyal's proposal that we take a closer look at our decision.
It remains to be decided whether today's meeting will be the last. As long as Parliament has not been prorogued, we can meet — the steering committee is responsible for establishing the meeting dates. I am not at all pressed by the prospect of a possible prorogation. I will be available next week.
[English]
Senator Fraser: It has been my principle with these bills that, while I have disliked them and have made that plain, if there is an area where the Senate should pay attention to the will of the Commons, it is in matters concerning ridings. It has been our practice to pass these bills with, as honourable senators have heard today, trenchant observations. I should like to see more.
This particular bill is worse than the others that we have passed. I believe this bill comes very close to being in contempt of the Chief Electoral Officer's process. That said, in consistency with the principles I enunciated a few moments ago about mutual respect between the chambers, I shall hold my nose and sit still during clause-by-clause, but never again on this basis. Never again.
Senator Nolin: This is an important area that we should look at, at least twice. We ought to re-read the debate from 1995, when we looked at the new redistribution. If there is a group of individuals, though I have much respect for them, who are in a conflict of interest in this regard, it is the members of the House of Commons.
Senator Prud'homme: Unfortunately, I hold an opposite view to our esteemed colleague, Senator Fraser.
Under Mr. Pearson, we took away electoral gerrymandering and we gave that power to commissions. The time will come where matters pertaining to electoral districts and so forth should be taken away from the House of Commons and should reside — if there is one place to initiate — with the Senate.
The conflict of interest is so obvious that if you are in the House of Commons dealing with matters pertaining to the electoral map and the change of names and all that. It should not be there. We should continue in the tradition of Mr. Pearson to depoliticize the process as much as possible.
The Chairman: I have some qualms about accepting that remark when you took advantage of the system to change the name of your riding, as I believe you testified to earlier today.
Senator Prud'homme: No, I am sorry, Madam Chairman, I never changed Saint-Denis. I resisted the pressure, I said.
The Chairman: I am sorry; I missed that part of the translation.
Perhaps I should let Mr. Adams retire from the table.
Is it agreed, honourable senators, that the committee move to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-441, to change the names of certain electoral districts?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: No.
The Chairman: I hear a mixed reaction. Please call the roll.
I shall vote in favour of the motion.
Senator Andreychuk: No.
Senator Beaudoin: No.
Senator Fitzpatrick: Yes.
Senator Fraser: Yes.
Senator Joyal: No.
Senator Moore: No.
Senator Nolin: No.
Senator Pearson: Yes.
Senator Poulin: Yes.
Senator Rivest: No.
The Chairman: The motion is defeated.
At our next meeting of this committee, we will proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of this bill.
The committee adjourned.