Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Issue 5 - Evidence for February 2, 2005
OTTAWA, Wednesday, February 2, 2005
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which was referred Bill C-304, to change the name of the electoral district of Battle River; and Bill C-302, to change the name of the electoral district of Kitchener—Wilmot—Wellesley— Woolwich, met this day at 4:10 p.m. to give consideration to the bills.
Senator Lise Bacon (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Today we are studying Bill C-304, to change the name of the electoral district of Battle River, and Bill C-302, to change the name of the electoral district of Kitchener—Wilmot— Wellesley—Woolwich.
Appearing before us are Mr. John Reynolds, the sponsor of Bill C-304 in the House of Commons, and Mr. Lynn Myers, the Member of Parliament for Kitchener—Wilmot—Wellesley— Woolwich.
The Honourable Lynn Myers, M.P. for Kitchener—Wilmot— Wellesley—Woolwich, and Sponsor of Bill C-302 in the House of Commons: Madam Chair and honourable senators, I want to thank you for providing me the opportunity to appear before you today. You can see by the name of my riding that there is a little difficulty with respect to it.
The Electoral Boundaries Commission, in its wisdom, decided after the redistribution process to name the new riding that I represent in Parliament ``Kitchener—Conestoga'' for the last election. All members of political parties, myself included, fought the election based on that name. Subsequent to that, we discovered that a bill had proceeded through the House and the Senate with respect to the name change that contained an error. There had been some discussion with respect to the changing of ``Kitchener—Conestoga'' to ``Kitchener—Wilmot—Wellesley— Woolwich,'' but it was not proceeded with as it was not deemed appropriate, given the length of that name. It was my understanding at the time that we would maintain ``Kitchener—Conestoga'' as an appropriate name for the electoral district.
I must admit, Madam Chair, that I was greatly surprised when I was notified that that name change had taken place. I do not propose to get into pointing fingers with regard to how or why that happened. I am just looking to you, honourable senators, to help me correct the error that was made and to have the name revert to what it was intended to be, that is, ``Kitchener—Conestoga.''
If there are any questions, I will entertain them.
The Chairman: We will hear from Mr. Reynolds and then we will ask our questions.
The Honourable John Reynolds, M.P. for West Vancouver— Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, and Sponsor of Bill C-304 in the House of Commons: Thank you, Madam Chair and senators. It is a pleasure to be here.
I am the immediate past House leader for the official opposition and in that role I sponsored this bill. I am here today representing David Chatters, the member of Parliament for this affected electoral district. Mr. Chatters sends his regrets. He could not be here today due to illness.
When the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, Bill C-5, passed, it created the new electoral district of Westlock—St. Paul, comprised of parts from Athabasca, Elk Island, St. Albert, Yellowhead, and Lakeland, which contributed the major portion. The remaining portion of Lakeland and its new territory was named Vegreville—Wainwright. Leon Benoit, the Member of Parliament for Lakeland, submitted a proposal to change the name ``Vegreville—Wainwright'' to ``Battle River'' as a simpler name for the electoral district.
On February 23, 2005, the government introduced Bill C-20 with the support of all parties and it was fast-tracked through the House. I am aware that the Senate had some difficulties with the bill and that this committee had three meetings to discuss it.
Unfortunately, shortly after the election, we discovered that Bill C-20 contained an error, in that it changed the name of the electoral district of Westlock—St. Paul — not Vegreville—Wainwright — to Battle River. Keeping the name Battle River would be similar to calling the electoral district of Ottawa Centre ``Niagara Falls.'' The name is based on a landmark that is not within the boundaries of the electoral district.
Upon discovering the error, David Chatters and I started working with the government House leader's office to correct it. Unfortunately, it has taken us six months to get to this point.
Mr. Chatters has made Jean-Pierre Kingsley, the Chief Electoral Officer, aware of the situation. Mr. Kingsley has agreed not to print any official documents of the electoral district until this bill passes. We would like to request that you support this bill so that the name can be restored to ``Westlock—St. Paul.''
Senator Joyal: Welcome, Mr. Reynolds and Mr. Myers.
I want to commend you, Mr. Reynolds, for the work you did as House leader of the opposition. Even though our chambers are separate, we nevertheless look over the fence sometimes. I know it is a difficult job. As parliamentarians, we appreciate it when people devote their energy, talent, knowledge and background to helping Parliament function, and I think you did that. As a parliamentarian, I appreciate that.
As I understand your presentations, these two bills are before us because there were mistakes in a previous bill that we adopted. I can only repeat a position that we at this committee have put forward many times for many years. In fact, I have a report from this committee dating back to 2000 that recommends a procedure be followed when we change names outside the normal process of electoral boundaries designations.
I would want this bill passed for the sake of simplification and because one of the names is attached to a site not even within the boundaries of the riding, but I think this committee should restate its previous recommendation on the process that should be adopted when Parliament exercises its responsibility to change riding names.
I will support your request wholeheartedly, with the proviso that this committee restate its recommendations made when we discussed a similar request in the past.
The Chairman: We will hear from Mr. Kingsley, who could not appear today. We will mention that to him, too.
Senator Joyal: We have other questions for him as well.
Mr. Reynolds: I have sympathy for what you are saying. When Mr. Kingsley appeared before the other House, we asked him to make some recommendations to us. We think that the process for doing some of these things is not acceptable.
The last time the name of my own riding was changed, they could not process it quickly enough, so we had to fight the election under the old name. People in my riding do not understand why the riding name has ``Sea to Sky Country'' at the end of it, because we just had an election without using that.
The Procedures and House Affairs Committee has asked Mr. Kingsley to review the process and to make recommendations. Any help you can give us in speeding him along would be appreciated by all sides in the House of Commons.
Senator Mercer: I think you can count on this committee trying to speed Mr. Kingsley along on a number of matters.
Can we anticipate other bills? Have both of your parties and all members of Parliament taken time to review the changes that are now in place to ensure that they conform to what they thought was being done? We have two mistakes before us here. Might there be other mistakes out there?
I am sponsoring Bill C-302, to change the name of Mr. Myers' riding, and I am in support of both bills, but I am curious about the process in the other place.
Mr. Reynolds: The House leaders did canvass their members as to whether any other changes needed to be made. These were the only ones that came through.
Mr. Myers: I concur with that assessment. It is my understanding, too, that there are no others such as these.
Senator Nolin: As you know, the process for reviewing the boundaries and the riding names is an independent one.
It could be seen as capricious when MPs want to add the name of a village or a part of their riding to their riding name. That is the process that concerns us. We do not question the legitimacy of having a name that is recognizable to as many people as possible who live in the riding. However, we sometimes feel that riding name changes are done lightly.
Now that we have two respectable gentlemen from the other place with us, what is your feeling about that? Should we just let MPs' wishes go through, or should we adopt a more systematic process to have the names of ridings changed?
Mr. Reynolds: I can speak as a House leader.
Senator Nolin: That is what my colleague, Senator Joyal, is referring to.
Mr. Reynolds: My experience has been that, every Parliament, members will be asked if there are any changes they need, but they have to go through a battle within their own party to get to that stage. Where the Senate can play a useful role is in looking at this independent way in which we select ridings and decide the size of them. My riding happens to be the largest one in the country now. My province, I believe, should have had one more seat. Even if you averaged it out after that, we would still have larger ridings than other provinces. Because of that, it takes me a five- and-a-half-hour drive and two ferries to get to an area that takes 20 minutes in a float plane. They removed a little part of Pemberton, north of Whistler, from my boundary, and gave me 10,000 more people in North Vancouver; and part of Pemberton they gave to Chuck Strahl, who represents Chilliwack down to the border. He has a thirteen-and-a-half- hour drive. If the people in Pemberton see him once a year, they are lucky. Pemberton is the bedroom community for Whistler. They should not have taken it away. We told them that. We went to a committee of Parliament. All parties agreed with me. Yet, when I brought the map and showed them what should be done, this independent commission, for whatever reason, did not listen to any of the recommendations of the parliamentary committee. I think there is something wrong with that. We should have more control.
I find in our House, and I am sure you find in your house, that when we sit down as House leaders, we usually end up in agreement, using common sense. Back in 1972, I represented a riding called Burnaby—Richmond—Delta. It was all of Richmond and all of Delta. If you understand British Columbia, you will know that the Fraser River is between them and Burnaby. I had to drive through two other ridings to get to Burnaby. It made no sense. I asked why it was done that way. The people doing it just looked at a map. It looks close on a map. I think that is the way these things are sometimes decided. They are not based on common sense. The way it was done last time in British Columbia was not correct. If you wonder why there is Western alienation, they wonder why they have such big ridings compared to other places in Canada.
Senator Nolin: That is the point, having an independent and credible process to achieve the purpose of providing Canadians with a fundamental component of the electoral process, and ensuring that that component is fair and works properly. I remember having an experience with the word ``Toronto'' a few years ago. Who is entitled to use the word ``Toronto?'' Is it all the ridings there, or only those that are able to push hard enough to get the name? I am sure you know what I mean. We want that process. We definitely do not want a process that is open only to those who are able to push hard enough to win. It does not seem to be fair. I can make a question out of that if you want. I am sure you can share that message. You want a process that is fair, and we want that too. Definitely, we do not want a process that will see, at this end of the table, someone here because he wants the name of a small village of his riding to be recognized. We have a limit on the number of characters, thanks to technology. Otherwise, we would have ended up with names two lines long.
Senator Prud'homme: I am not a member of the committee, so I thank members for their kindness. I waited until the end. I want to join in the words of Senator Joyal. On your announcement, Mr. Reynolds, not only that you are stepping down but that you will not run, I want people across the land to know that I have always had a great deal of respect and friendship for you and your wife, who served very well, and your children, one of whom is a very promising student leader in university. I would like to put that on the record. His first name is Christopher. I very much regret that decision. You will be missed by us, but probably not by the press, because you could handle them so well.
This question has been animating me for 40 years and is very close to electoral reform and political deficits. I just returned from Mexico. If we were to adopt their kind of political system here, I think the country would go bananas. We have one of the best systems.
Having said that, I will not oppose this, and I will not say I am in favour, because I cannot vote, but I would ask you if perhaps the time has come to revise things. This is an old tradition. The electoral act used to say that we do not recognize political parties. That was the old days. Political parties were non-existent. Now they exist. A member of Parliament did not exist; they had the district's name. I can think of two French-speaking seats that are so difficult to pronounce for Mr. Speaker, and I can see the Speaker having to say, ``I now recognize the honourable member from Kitchener—Wilmot—Wellesley—Woolwich.''
Has there ever been any discussion, since I am a reformer by nature, about eventually calling members of Parliament by their own name? For the Speaker, that would be easier to remember than the name of a district. I am thinking for the future.
I also salute Mr. Myers, who has a great deal of interest in a country that I like very much, Cuba.
Mr. Reynolds: Thank you for your comments. I have no problem with members being called by their name. It may make it easier for the Speaker. My riding, West Vancouver— Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, is probably easier to say in English than in French. You may want to look at the recordings of Mr. Kingsley's visit to the House, because some of us asked questions like, ``Could you not keep the returning officers employed all year round so they can maintain records in their constituencies?'' I have had two returning officers in the last two elections, because one quit. The lady who took over this time did a superb job, but I do not think she wants the job again. I know her well, and the frustrations experienced in not having computers on time, not having lists on time, things being wrong. I thought his answer was interesting. I asked, ``Why not keep at least one office in each province?'' ``Well, it would be very expensive.'' I think he has over 300 employees here in Ottawa. If we broke that up into 10 offices with 30 each, we might get a better system. We asked him to look at that and what the costs would be.
We have to look at the whole system, because if we had an election tomorrow, I would hate to think of the mess we would be in; not that any of us want an election tomorrow. The system is not correct. It is fine for incumbents. I think I called it the ``Incumbency Protection Act'' at one point. If you have been around, you know how to get set up for the election, and you know what you can do and cannot do, but your opponents have a difficult time. I had the maps this time, but I did not recognize them. They were all wrong.
I visited the provincial Liberal Party in British Columbia last week and looked at their system for the next election. They have coloured maps for every constituency. It is an unbelievable background. It is all done by computer. They are totally organized. The opposition parties get the same thing from the government. We are not anywhere near that. We get black and white material that does not make sense.
They could not tell me to get into the car and drive to North Vancouver to try to find my boundary there. The way they drew it was crazy. There were little wiggles here and a few homes here. People did not have a clue about for whom they should be voting. We have to look at the whole system. It is time somebody looked at it and made serious changes.
Senator Kinsella: Of course, the bills before us are simply concerned with names and errors in the names. I think there is a consensus around this table that we can very quickly deal with this. These other issues are being raised because we have two distinguished members of the other House here. We also have a bill in the Senate dealing with an error as adjudicated by the Federal Court affecting the ridings of Acadie—Bathurst and Miramichi, where the commission made a terrible error in moving whole villages into what the court said were the wrong ridings when one followed the criteria laid out in the act, one being a community of interest. In this sense, part of the community of interest was clearly along language lines. They made a mistake.
Some might argue that if there are only a few name change mistakes that might even be made at a clerical level in terms of the drawing of the lines, if there are only two or three mistakes out of 308, maybe the system is not that bad. However, that is only looking at it from a narrow perspective, I suppose.
I will just go back to the bills that we are examining this evening, and I do want to ask, because, Mr. Myers, you whetted the appetite but then you would not give us anything to drink, with respect to the executive summary, and without pointing fingers, how did that error happen in your riding?
Mr. Myers: What happened was there were discussions with respect to Kitchener—Wilmot—Wellesley—Woolwich, and I think the government House leader at the time thought that it should be proceeded with, unbeknownst to me. Unfortunately, that is exactly what happened, and obviously I regret that and am looking to you good senators, honourable people, to correct that.
Senator Kinsella: I think we are ready.
Senator Mercer: I definitely do not want to sound like I am defending Jean-Pierre Kingsley because that is not what I intend to do.
Mr. Reynolds, you talk about your maps. For nine years, I was the national director of the Liberal Party of Canada, and along with representatives of the Canadian Alliance, the Conservative Party and the other registered parties, we met on an ongoing basis with Mr. Kingsley in the committee that advises the political parties that advise Mr. Kingsley. If there was anything impressive in the briefings, it was the material that came from the people in the mapping department. The problem was that they are here in the Jackson Building, and it is sophisticated and interesting, and those of us at a high level thought it was quite good. However, when it trickles down to the riding level, first, you do not know about it, and second, it is not something that you know how to use. That is one of our issues that we will have to pursue with Mr. Kingsley.
My second point — anyone who has ever attended one of those committee meetings has heard me say this to Mr. Kingsley — is that in their hiring practices at Elections Canada, they need to find people who are willing to leave their party affiliation at the door. However, I would suggest that they need to hire people who have practical political experience, who may have worked for the Conservative Party, the Canadian Alliance, the Liberal Party or the Bloc Québecois. I do care where they came from, but it is more important that they have practical, on-the-ground experience of running elections at the riding level and understand that when you remove a piece of the riding at the top of British Columbia, it has a tremendous effect on how elections are run and how those people are represented. With all due respect to your colleague, they are probably not getting the same good representation as before because of the change in boundaries; it is an afterthought for him, where it was not an afterthought for you because it is part of the community of interest.
These are problems that I know I would like to move on to this evening, but we will have to come back to them. We all share some of these concerns with Elections Canada.
Mr. Reynolds: If I could make a short comment, I agree with what you are saying. The returning officer in my riding this time had been my provincial campaign manager years before, so she knew the riding well. I submitted her name to Mr. Boudria when he was looking for names and was not getting any from his own party. She is very good, and non- partisan, and I do not think any other parties would have complained about she ran it.
One of my thoughts on this issue is the Senate has a history of coming up with good reports. I can think of Senator van Roggen, when I was here in the 1970s, issuing a report on free trade that was very much in advance of its time but very well done by the Senate and appreciated by many business people across this country.
If the Senate took it upon itself to study how we do this and made some recommendations, I for one would be very pleased to see that. You do not have the same problems that we have in the other House, of what is happening with the government of the day. You can set your time and put some good people who have experience, like yourself and others from other parties, on a committee and come up with some strong recommendations. If you read Mr. Kingsley's report, you would get some ideas. I am not speaking on behalf of my party now; these are my own thoughts. You have some good people in the Senate who have good political experience. You could give us some good ideas on how we solve some of these problems. The rest of us get too busy worrying about the next election, and you do not always get the problems solved. Mr. Kingsley does a good job. It is a tough one. He has to get ready for the next election. How do you work on today's problems?
Senator Prud'homme: There is a vacancy in the Senate for British Columbia.
The Chairman: Any other questions, senators?
Senator Ringuette: I have a comment. Mr. Reynolds, I just cannot help but throw this curve ball at you. I appreciate that you think the Senate is a good body to do a study of electoral boundaries and how elections are conducted, even though we are not elected. I appreciate that. Thank you.
Senator Prud'homme: He never attacked the Senate.
The Chairman: We will have to deal with Bill C-36 before we adopt the three bills. That will be next week, February 9.
Mr. Kingsley is coming on the 16th. On February 9, we deal with Bill C-36. Mr. Bélanger will be here as a witness, and as soon as that is done, we will go ahead. We have to hear Mr. Kingsley first. That was requested by other members.
Mr. Reynolds: Thank you.
Senator Joyal: I think in fairness to our witnesses today, one of the key reasons that I want to hear Mr. Kingsley is a statement that he made when he testified at the committee of the House. As you said properly, and as my colleague, Senator Ringuette, has mentioned, senators are appointed, but many of us have practical experience in the electoral field because we have been elected to one position or another or were involved in the life of a political party. We approach our work here on more of an objective basis, of course, than on a partisan interest looking-forward approach. We think that in the role that the two chambers play with one another, of course we pay attention and we pay deference to the initiative of the House in terms of the electoral process. However, it is when the two Houses join together that there is common wisdom, and that, finally, democracy is better served in Canada. Essentially, it is about the participation of voters in the electoral process. That is what we are after in such an initiative.
Therefore, we are very concerned to hear Mr. Kingsley. We read what he says when he goes to testify in your House; and when he comes to our place, we are in a better position to see the kind of input that we can bring to his work.
The Chairman: Thank you very much for your presence here; you will hear from us soon.
Mr. Reynolds: Thank you.
The Chairman: Senators, that is our agenda for the day. On tomorrow's agenda, we have the consideration of a draft agenda. Do you want to wait until tomorrow or do you have time to discuss it today? I am in your hands.
Senator Joyal: I am ready.
Senator Andreychuk: I think we are ready, except are there any members who were intending to come tomorrow? I just would not want to prejudice people who are not here.
The Chairman: Senator Milne was to be here tomorrow. We can wait until tomorrow morning.
Senator Andreychuk: We can do it now. It will not make any difference to our side, so we are ready to proceed. Does anyone want to take a stab at it? Senator Milne is a full member of the committee?
The Chairman: She is a full member. It is your decision, senator, not mine.
Senator Joyal: What do you have to propose to us in terms of an agenda?
The Chairman: The agenda that we have in front of us.
Senator Joyal: I think it would be helpful for all our minds to know —
The Chairman: Where we are going.
Senator Joyal: — the size of the pie, which seems to be growing each day of sitting in the Senate, whereby another bill or another issue is being sent to us.
The Chairman: Okay. We are finishing our study on Senator Lapointe's Bill S-11 on lottery schemes, and we have received some answers from some of the provinces, but not all of them. Ithink you all have the documents in your hands; they were circulated to the members. I think we should wait until we receive most of the answers from the provinces. There are still some missing, so we will have to wait to discuss them.
Senator Joyal: Do you have an idea how many we have received? I do not have my file with me.
The Chairman: There are just a few. Some said that ``We are not dealing with this; our colleague is dealing with this,'' so we will have to wait. There are still many that have to come. Quebec has not answered yet, and other provinces are still dealing with the matter and we will hear from them. You all have a copy in your office.
I think we would be in a better position to have a discussion about the position of the provinces on S-11 when we hear from them. Also, we have Mr. Bill Rutsey, a chartered accountant and a specialist on the gaming industry, who will appear before the committee on February 24; he could not appear before that date.
While we have discussed today 302 and 304, as I said, C-36 will be dealt with next week, with Mr. Bélanger appearing before us. Then, February 16, Mr. Kingsley, the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, will be available to appear.
We have Bill S-5 from Senator Banks, so we will hear Senator Banks on this bill next week. We also have a bill on electoral boundaries that was referred to us, Bill C-36, and S-13, Senator Oliver's bill regarding the Speakership of the Senate; and we have today S-20, the federal nominations act that was sent to us.
A bill that we should expect to be referred to us in a short time is Bill C-10, which will be an act to amend the Criminal Code, mental disorder, and which is still in the House of Commons. Bill S-21, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the protection of children, which is Senator Payette's bill, will be sent to us. Other bills that are still with the Justice Committee in the House of Commons at the present time are C-2, child protection; and the Criminal Code, C- 13; DNA identification act and the national defence act; C-16, amending the Criminal Code, impaired driving; C-17, on marijuana, is another one that is still with the Justice Committee in the House.
I mentioned the option of doing a pre-study to my colleagues, and I want to discuss it with you. Regarding Bill C-38 that was tabled yesterday, I think that we should maximize our operations in an attempt to not delay the debate on this issue. Maybe we could consider doing a pre-study; and at the same time, the House of Commons Justice Committee will study the bill and hear the witnesses. Some of the witnesses appearing in the House could appear here before us the same day. I am sure it would require some logistics, but I think it would be a good opportunity to be exposed sooner rather than later to the different arguments involved in this case. I am presenting this option to you for discussion. That would be an important one because we will have to deal with it anyway as soon as we can. I will come back to that.
We also have the special study — an order of reference for the non-derogation clauses regarding federal legislation and Aboriginal rights. I am not sure that we would have sufficient time to finish a complete study this session. Maybe we could begin our work whenever we have time, if the workload of the committee does not become too heavy. If we are too busy, we can create a subcommittee to pursue the study, if that is acceptable to you, because we said we could do that. We have to work on the budget too; and we hope that some of the members here who sit on other committees could understand the needs of the committee.
Let us go back to Bill C-38. I am putting this on the table for discussion. Do you feel that we could do a pre-study? The House of Commons will send the bill to committee after second reading, I am told, and we could have some of the witnesses appear before us at the same time. I think it would be interesting to see how many people appear over there, how many we need here; and at the same time, it would be much less expensive for us.
Senator Nolin: I am inclined to support that as long as we do not limit our list of witnesses.
The Chairman: We can have other people appear before us too. We will not have the same list, but we can use their list and see how many people we would want to appear before us.
Senator Joyal: Without having asked for research or the potential list of witnesses, there are certainly groups that would be the same and are people you have to listen to because they are part of the public debate. On the issue of some aspects that we might want to canvass, I think we might decide that we want to have some experts whom they might not have looked at themselves and to hear them first. We have a capacity to define for ourselves a list of experts — I am talking here more about experts than the general public coming to lobby us. That is another set of witnesses. There are witnesses we want to hear who are experts and can enlighten us on the way to understand the substance and the implications of the bill. There is, of course, another set of witnesses who are just people who want to be heard.
It is up to us to decide how we want to organize our work and who is a priority to be heard by the committee in its deliberations on this bill.
The Chairman: We could hear from experts and others with an interest.
Senator Joyal: I always have reservations on the issue of a pre-study because the Senate is the house of sober second thought. I have made that point repeatedly. We know what the essential elements of the problems are. Of course, we have the rulings of the Supreme Court and seven lower courts. We can review the subject without jeopardizing our capacity to study the bill once it has passed or been disposed of in the other place. I would suggest the approach of studying the principle of the bill on that basis.
Senator Andreychuk: My first inclination is to not be supportive of a pre-study, for three reasons. I participated in the pre-study of the anti-terrorism bill. Despite the fact that it was a pre-study and would not prejudice our full right to study the bill when it actually came before us, I came away feeling obligated to defend what I had said in the pre-study. There was a watered-down consensus, and when I went back to my initial positions, I was confronted by the government side, who said that I had agreed to something else in the pre-study. As well, there was less inclination to fully study some of the new dimensions that arose in the bill after the pre-study on the basis that we had already studied it. It became easy to want to conclude quickly at the time of legislation. I still believe that we did not have the opportunity to fully study the bill. I am mindful of that problem. I am not sure that we know all the dimensions to this bill, although we know what the Supreme Court has said. I am not sure that there has been a full and adequate debate, and whether the debate is on the bill or on people's perceptions formed before the bill was tabled. That is a political issue they will wrestle with on the other side.
I reiterate Senator Joyal's comment that we are the house of sober second thought. Is this so complex that we could not do it justice in the routine way that we handle bills from the other place? We cannot continue to put off the study of the non-derogation clause because we are coming to the point in this committee and in the Senate of being guilty of putting it aside. We accuse others of that, and I am thinking of the Aboriginal agenda. This is a significant issue and should be made a priority in our work. I cannot remember the number of times over the years that we have said we would deal with it and then found another agenda that was deemed to be more important. If I have to weigh the rights of Aboriginals against all these other rights and all the other bills we are looking at, I am leaning towards the rights of Aboriginals and clarifying the non-derogation clause.
The Chairman: I appreciate how you feel. That is why I mentioned that if we have too many bills to deal with, we could have a subcommittee help out. I was also a member of the anti-terrorism pre-study, and it posed different issues and contained different provisions. I do not think we can compare the two bills. Bill C-30 is much clearer on the issues than the anti-terrorism bill was. It was a complicated bill with which to deal.
Senator Mercer: I am very much in favour of the pre-study. I respect the comments by both Senator Andreychuk and Senator Joyal on this being the chamber of sober second thought. I would not want to be in the position of receiving the bill following long debate in the House of Commons, because we would want to give it the attention that it deserves while some would pressure us to move it along to Royal Assent within a certain time frame. There is enough interest around this table and we likely have resources and ideas that differ from those of members in the other place in respect of witnesses to call upon. The pre-study makes some sense. I think that the suggestion of Madam Chair, to have a subcommittee work on other matters before the committee would be beneficial. This particular topic is before the public and we would want to get on with our deliberations.
The comment about costs was good, although I agree that our lists should not be the same as theirs. There will no doubt be some stealing back and forth. We will take names from their list and they will take names from our list. This will make the studies of both committees better. We are also sufficiently sophisticated, and this bill is not as complicated as the anti-terrorism bill. Surely none of us will have our comments from the pre-study thrown back at us when the bill comes before us. The details are not as broad and the bill does not affect as many other acts. It is an emotional and important debate, but one that we could get to fairly quickly. I do not want this committee to be limited in its debate by pressure to bring it to Royal Assent quickly. If we were to begin now, we could have our say and hear from people who could truly help us in our deliberations.
The Chairman: We could deal with the other bill at the same time.
[Translation]
Senator Rivest: I would not like to see our committee be taken hostage by this type of bill, that will involve several very active lobbying groups such as the Church and pro-life advocates. Let us leave it to the House of Commons to choose those groups it wishes to hear. However, as Senator Joyal pointed out, there are some groups that will be unavoidable.
In terms of our preliminary study, the Senate's contribution could be an academic one, in other words we could try to bring to the public debate two or three fundamental issues revolving around two parts of the charter. The first is freedom of religion as guaranteed under the charter and the second is equal access for all citizens to civil institutions, in this case marriage. This is the fundamental issue underlying the debate.
Another interesting contribution the Senate could make would be to have people in Canada present information to us on the nature of the relationship between civil society and religions, perhaps even giving us some historical background to provide us with some perspective.
What is the Parliament of Canada's stand on beliefs and religious faiths shared by its citizens? Those are two questions we need to ask, beyond deciding whether or not we should legalize gay marriages. And that is a legal issue. After having heard a certain number of unavoidable groups this would allow us to complete our preliminary study quite quickly, whereas the House of Commons will be debating this for several months.
If impartial people were to come before the Senate to speak to us about the legal, ethical and sociological aspects of these issues, then we would avoid contradictions later on and we would be making a contribution. When the bill comes back, at that time we can decide on the manner in which we will consider it, just as we would with any other bill.
Senator Nolin: I would just like to add that given the shared nature of jurisdictions in the area of marriage, it would be important to find out where federal legislation ends and where extensive provincial jurisdictions begin. We've started hearing arguments such as if we define marriage then we will have to define age of marriage. We are in the right place to calm down the debate; we may hear all kinds of outlandish statements. We are in the right place to bring the pressure down and to say just a minute, federal jurisdiction starts here and goes only so far; the rest falls under the provinces. We should say this as soon as possible. If we do it here and word spreads, then it may help calm down the debate and allow everyone else to make up their minds. We will be receiving a lot of mail.
The Chair: Yes.
[English]
Senator Pearson: I have a question. I do not think that I have ever been present at pre-studies. What is the process by which one would do it? Does one get terms of reference from the Senate? Does one have to get the approval of the Senate to do it, even though the bill has not been presented in the Senate? There is just the subject matter, and then you have to develop it, and as you ask for your terms of reference you can define very neatly what it is that you will look at.
I take with some seriousness the comments by Senator Andreychuk and by others, that unless we circumscribe carefully what it is we will look at now for our own proper use, to help us understand, there is always the risk that instead of studying it now, we will be overwhelmed and become the recipients of others' views. We will get them anyway.
The Chairman: We have a different way of doing things in the Senate. We do not approach the issues in the same way as on the other side. Our discussion is very interesting because we have all sorts of suggestions that have been made. I agree fully with that, because we have to be different in the way we handle the bill, so the pre-study could be helpful.
Senator Ringuette: I want to support a pre-study; because of the issues and lack of public knowledge. I think that we have a responsibility. We know how the issues are dealt with in the other place, and the major efforts and different lobbies coming from all over the place to make presentations. I think that we can move away from that, and the sooner we start, in our own way, trying to have an educated and intellectual discussion about the issue, the better the national discussion will be. If by doing that we can make that contribution to the discussion at hand, I think it will be viewed as positive for the Senate. I very much favour a pre-study.
The Chairman: Should I put people to work to prepare the terms of reference?
Senator Andreychuk: I would have to vote against it. I would like to have time to reflect on it and discuss it with our leadership and our deputy. I am in the position of either having to vote against it or abstain, for today.
The Chairman: I am in your hands. If you want to take a vote today, we can. It is your decision, not mine.
Senator Andreychuk: I am not the deputy on our side and I think there must be a discussion. I do not know.
The Chairman: Both leaderships have discussed that.
Senator Joyal: I hope we are not in camera. We are having an open discussion. I think the points raised by Senator Nolin, Senator Rivest and Senator Ringuette should be put to our research people in a small format, so that if we eventually have to consider terms of reference, we have — if I can use a word they have been using on the other side of the border — a road map that will help us to understand what we will be doing, to a point. That might be helpful for our next meeting, when we are in a position to consider the decision.
The Chairman: Since we were to discuss the agenda tomorrow, would you rather wait until next week to make a decision?
Senator Andreychuk: Next week.
The Chairman: In the meantime, we will try to prepare some terms of reference.
Senator Nolin: It will help the discussion amongst the two political groups to understand exactly what the road map is.
Senator Andreychuk: I think Senator Joyal and I were part of another problem. We come here as members knowing there is a steering committee, et cetera. I am still chafing from the last experience, so I would prefer to alert the deputy and say it is your responsibility to go forward.
Senator Joyal: I think the record of the intervention we have had on this will help the two leaderships to consider it, because they will know exactly what we are looking for. That might be helpful to people.
Senator Mercer: We are a much nicer group.
Senator Andreychuk: It had nothing to do with the group.
The Chairman: That is our responsibility as senators. That is why I wanted to put this on the table today for discussion. I thought that we could show the population of Canada that we can have a serious discussion here that would be a change from what they can hear in other places. It is helpful for the House of Commons, too.
Senator Pearson: The rest of the agenda that you proposed seems fine to me. We do not control them.
The Chairman: I do not know how many bills will come our way. There are some that are taking quite a lot of time in the House of Commons, but we will see what happens. Then the special study that we want to do is also very important. I can agree with you.
Senator Joyal: To follow up on Senator Andreychuk's point on non-derogation clauses, we have had one meeting, if I remember — Senator Nolin, I think, was in attendance at that time and he will remember — whereby the Deputy Minister of Justice testified. It will be helpful to shape our work in relation to that, for our research people to go through the minutes of the committee at that time, and again, more or less do the same kind of work for the non- derogation clause that we are talking about for the civil marriage, Bill C-38, to review the issues that we would want to consider under that study, so that we are not just hearing witnesses.
[Translation]
We can't just hear witnesses chosen at random and ask them any old question.
The Chair: No, we have to be consistent.
[English]
Senator Joyal: I would like our work to be well organized, so we know where we are heading and which points we have to delve into.
[Translation]
We need to know which points we should be focusing on. In order to do that we should have a proposal before us which is based on statements already made to the Senate and to this committee regarding the notwithstanding clause.
[English]
I would like to refer our research assistant to the Erasmus-Dussault report, which is an important report in that regard. We might want to have a briefing on the responsibility of the Crown in relation to Aboriginal people, so that we understand what our status is as Parliament and government in relation to Aboriginal people, and a list of the various questions that section 35 raises that are not being answered. That would help us to shape the work we will have to do.
I share Senator Andreychuk's view on this. I raised it myself this afternoon again on Bill C-15. It is still pending and has been pending for years. We are committed to efficiency on this. We cannot accuse the government of not coming up with a policy when we have not made recommendations to the government. To a point, we are co-responsible.
That would be helpful for our future reference.
The Chairman: The suggestion I have is that we could hear from the assistant deputy minister again, before we start our work on that. Would that make things easier for us?
Senator Joyal: If it is the same person, it would help, because the committee membership has expanded. Even though I have an interest in that issue, I would have to go back to what answers were given to me and reflect upon them. It would be helpful to everyone to have a fact sheet, more than anything else, so that we have in bullet form the points raised by the deputy minister.
The Chairman: We could hear from him.
Senator Joyal: Absolutely; there is nothing to prevent us. At least we would know where we are.
The Chairman: That would be helpful.
Is there anything else? You are free tomorrow.
The committee adjourned.