Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Issue 27 - Evidence - May 9, 2007
OTTAWA, Wednesday, May 9, 2007
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which was referred Bill S-4, to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (Senate tenure), met this day at 4:14 p.m. to give clause-by-clause consideration to the bill.
Senator Donald H. Oliver (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, I call the meeting to order. I do not see Senator Nolin.
Senator Stratton: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I move a motion that this committee give clause-by-clause consideration to Bill S-4.
The Chairman: First, I will make a few remarks.
Senator Stratton: There is a motion on the floor.
Senator Baker: The chair can make a few remarks.
The Chairman: I would like to give a little background, if I could, Senator Stratton, after which I will deal with your motion.
I would like to thank honourable senators for all the hard work and the thoughtful questions they have contributed to this committee's study of Bill S-4, to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (Senate tenure.) The bill was introduced in the Senate on May 30, 2006. A special committee was created by the Senate on June 21, 2006, to study the subject matter of the bill. That committee heard from 26 witnesses and sat for close to 30 hours holding public hearings with many recognized constitutional experts and experts on issues of Senate reform. Among these witnesses was the Prime Minister of Canada, who appeared on September 7, 2006, and described this bill as proposing ``a modest but positive reform'' for the Senate. All of the evidence of the constitutional experts forms part of the record of our committee.
We are rapidly approaching the one-year mark that this bill has been before the Senate, and I would like to urge honourable senators not to allow this bill to languish in committee any longer. This committee began its study of the bill on March 21, 2007. We have heard from 21 witnesses, during more than 15 hours of testimony.
All members of this committee were afforded an opportunity to contribute names of witnesses in order to draw academic, legal and constitutional experts from across Canada. We have completely exhausted our list of witnesses. The result was a lively and thorough exchange of ideas that has provided senators and Canadians alike with the wide breadth of opinions on what place this institution has in the Parliament of today.
I know that all honourable members of this committee join me in my wish to promote this institution and the important role that we can play in the minds of Canadians. It would be a great disservice to not perform our role as parliamentarians by not proceeding with this bill.
I remind honourable senators of rule 90 of the Rules of the Senate of Canada, which states, ``A standing committee shall be empowered to enquire into and report upon such matters as are referred to it from time to time by the Senate . . .'' Further, rule 98 of the Rules of the Senate of Canada states, ``The committee to which a bill has been referred shall report the bill to the Senate.''
We have now reached the end of our deliberations on Bill S-4 and in order to fulfill our mandate, the time has come for the committee to proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. It is during this phase that honourable senators can propose amendments or suggest observations.
I had intended to turn to Senator Milne, Deputy Chairman of the Legal Committee, but Senator Stratton has put a motion on the floor.
Senator Milne: Is it open for debate, Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman: Yes, it is.
Senator Joyal: Senator Stratton, could you repeat your motion, please.
Senator Stratton: I move that the committee now give clause-by-clause consideration to Bill S-4. There are only three clauses, so it will not take long.
Senator Milne: As you know, our caucus has been conferring over the last two weeks on this matter, and we have agreed that we are very concerned by the implications in the letter that Premier Graham sent to this committee, along with the accompanying legal position. We believe strongly that this committee should send this letter, along with the all of the provincial evidence presentations made to the special committee, and to this committee, to all premiers of Canada. For example, I believe a previous communication from the Province of Manitoba should be sent, along with all of the evidentiary material, to all the premiers of Canada.
We are not trying to delay this bill any more than absolutely possible and request the premiers respond before May 31. As a result, we will vote against this motion to proceed to clause-by-clause consideration.
The Chairman: Senator Bryden, Senator Baker had his hand up first. Do you mind?
Senator Bryden: The letter is a significant part of what has happened in the last week or two and I would like to propose that the letter from Premier Graham and his government's position paper on Bill S-4 be appended to the proceedings of the committee. It is not unusual to do so.
The Chairman: The document has been appended because it was submitted to the committee and already forms part of our record.
Senator Milne: It is part of the documents of the committee, but not appended to the committee proceedings of the day.
The Chairman: It is part of the records of this committee in its study of Bill S-4. It forms part of that record.
Senator Bryden: It is in a different bin than normal proceedings of the committee.
The Chairman: What difference does it make what bin it is in?
Senator Bryden: Maybe it has something to do with where I come from.
This is certainly one of the most significant submissions we have received. It is a very detailed submission by one of the smaller provinces. Senate-wise it is the same size as your province. We have 10 Senate seats and Saskatchewan has six. I am just trying to lighten this up. I would like to have it appended to the proceedings of today's meeting, if no one has any objection.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, is there agreement? Senator Andreychuk?
Senator Andreychuk: I have not heard of that being done. We allowed the letter to come into our hearings before. It has been in the newspapers. I do not quite understand what we are appending it to, today. I understand where you are coming from on it, but that is not where I am coming from.
Senator Bryden: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do not want to prolong this. If we get back to the chamber with this issue, then I may ask the chamber, with its permission, to allow me to read the submission into the record. I assume I can do that.
Senator Andreychuk: Yes.
Senator Bryden: I was trying not to take up time.
Senator Andreychuk: Fair enough.
Senator Baker: Mr. Chairman, in support of Senator Milne's motion, I was somewhat surprised when I read the letter from the New Brunswick premier. He made reference to this committee and to another committee of the Senate, and their findings. He took great exception to the bill that is before us. It would be a worthwhile exercise to solicit opinions of the other premiers and allow them to read the very thorough opinion of the government of the Province of New Brunswick. It also puts a date on the record. We had never placed a date of reference on this legislation. If I understand Senator Milne correctly, May 31 is the deadline. If the premiers do not wish to respond, then their views will not be taken into consideration. It certainly sets a deadline, and at that point we will know where the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador and the other premiers stand on this issue, so we can then make a thorough reference of this bill to the Senate.
The Chairman: Thank you, Senator Baker. Senator Milne, could I have a copy so I could see the wording.
Senator Milne: This is what I read and I have just my notes.
The Chairman: I did not hear the date before, but Senator Baker referred to a date. Could you read it again?
Senator Milne: We will send a letter to the premiers of the provinces inviting their input on this matter, giving them a cut-off date so we can receive the reply before May 31. In a package along with this letter with suggested wording, we will send along copies of Premier Graham's letter and the legal opinion. We received letters from Premier Danny Williams, and the testimony of four different provinces and the report of the special committee. They have all the information with a request to reply before May 31.
The Chairman: Do you mean May 31, 2007?
Senator Milne: Yes.
Senator Baker: Get that on the record.
Senator Hays: You also have Premier MacDonald's response to the special committee.
The Chairman: I wish to read a copy of the letter that was sent to the premiers. This letter is dated March 13, 2007, and addressed to the Honourable Dalton McGuinty, Premier of Ontario. I would like to read three paragraphs honourable senators so you can see what this committee has done.
As you know, the Government of Canada has introduced Bill S-4 in the Senate to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 by introducing renewable eight-year terms for all new senators to replace the current formula whereby senators serve until age 75. Current senators would continue to serve to age 75. The government is of the view that this change can be implemented by Parliament acting alone, and the Prime Minister has indicated that this bill is the first step in a more comprehensive reform that will include Senate elections.
On June 21, 2006, a special Senate committee was struck to study Senate reform, and after hearing testimony from expert witnesses from across Canada, submitted a report in October 2006. The order of reference on Bill S-4 was subsequently referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on February 20, 2007, and accordingly, the committee will begin its examination of Bill S-4 on March 21, 2007.
The Rules of the Senate stipulate that provinces or territories having a special interest in a matter before the Senate should be invited to make a written or verbal representation. The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs has the added benefit of incorporating the prior testimony and/or submissions that were made to the Special Committee on Senate Reform as part of its current study, but nonetheless, the members of the committee would welcome any additional submissions that you might have if you could provide them to the clerk of the committee no later than Friday, March 23, 2007.
For additional information, please feel free to contact the clerk of the committee, Shaila Anwar at the address as follows.
It was signed by Shaila Anwar, the clerk. An identical copy of this letter has been sent to every premier of the provinces of Canada. The letter is dated March 13, giving a deadline of March 23, 2007.
Senator Fraser: The issue is that a very significant number of senators have found that the response by the Government of New Brunswick has cast a new and different light on this matter. A significant number of senators — many of whom have been following this issue very closely for months now — thought that it would be appropriate to go back to the provinces to say, ``We have this new submission, which you may wish to consider.'' I respect that view.
We cannot demand that they respond. Some of them may not respond at all; some of them may send a letter saying that their opinion is unchanged. Others may wish to consider the very reasoned and detailed arguments put forward by the Government of New Brunswick. I think it is important to respect the sense that the opportunity should be given. As Senator Milne suggested, we are not talking about a long period of time. We are talking about three weeks, or less. We have come this far and surely it is worthwhile to take that one final step.
Senator Andreychuk: I find all of this to be highly unusual. The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs was given the bill to study its constitutional and legal implications. I think we have discharged our duties. We called the witnesses. We made an agreement that the evidence from the other committee would be applied. It has the same full weight. We respect our colleagues on that committee. We added the evidence of witnesses who put different perspectives on the subject. We finished hearing the witnesses.
First, we heard from senators opposite that they needed time to consult. We were then told that there would be a caucus meeting, and then there was a second caucus meeting. We were assured that we had come together and in fact, we talked about it. I raised the point that we were looking for a compromise. I said that our job is to dialogue, to debate, and to try to reach a consensus and compromise, but if not it should go to the House.
The work of the committee is to put forward any amendments that it deems appropriate. We do not know if you are going to put amendments in it or not, but our work of examination must stop at some point.
I have the benefit of 14 years experience in the Senate and I do not recall an instance where government business was held up because our side could not come to an agreement. The new wrinkle really offends what I think the committee should be doing. We invited premiers, as we do, to give their points of view. Some did; some did not. We respect those who did; we respect those who did not.
Premier Graham sent a letter to Senator Oliver. It was distributed to us. We have had time to deliberate on the letter. I do not think it is our role — in fact, I find it highly questionable that our role would be to send out the letter to the other premiers and ask them what they think about it. It is not our job to confront one premier with the point of view of another premier. It is simply not a negotiation with premiers.
I respect that others may think that certain constitutional provisions involve the provinces. I respectfully think this is a bill that does not have that in it. I respect your differences, but I think we cannot engage in a consultation process between premiers. To me, that is outrageous, and it has not been done before.
With respect, Premier Graham has put his opinion in writing. I am reflecting on it, but I think it is time to move on and have a debate on the evidence that has been presented to the committee; otherwise, we will always get more evidence to deliberate.
I do not put Premier Graham's comments aside; I take them very seriously. I think the letter and the attachments speak for themselves. I think we should report to the House where the differences can be aired. We will not gain anything from delaying any further.
I find it very unusual that we were told, ``Well, maybe Wednesday. Maybe Tuesday,'' and now May 31, only to get replies back, and then to meet. We already adjourned once over a summer. I do not think that this is the way the Senate and, in particular, this committee normally operates. We either agree or disagree, but I think it is time for our opinion, not other people's opinions.
With respect, I will support the motion of Senator Stratton for some other reasonable approach of time frames, but not to engage in cross debate between premiers. That is not our job.
We have to decide how this chamber, will operate. If we are going to tweak and say that one of the premiers does not quite agree and, therefore, we should not act, with respect, I do not think that is what we have done in the past, and I do not think we should do it now. We should seriously consider their comments, but it is time to move on. I cannot see that we can delay this committee any further. Otherwise, it would mean that we would never decide on anything.
Senator Tkachuk: I was a member of the first committee, ably chaired by Senator Hays, which studied this matter and brought forth recommendations. I came to this committee because I would like to vote on this matter.
Senator Hays, there were many times when we did not want to vote and you could use closure — and we did many, many times — to force a vote on an issue. We all happily voted, although maybe disagreed with some of the timing on it. To use a majority in the opposition to prevent a vote was a serious thing, but that is what you are doing. You can call it anything you want. We invited provincial government representation in the first committee, I do not know how long ago. They had many opportunities to make presentations or to come before us, and some did. Ontario came and there have been others.
You did the same when you started the committee here. People made representation. I agree with Senator Andreychuk. There seems to be nothing to gain by saying, ``My, this is so brilliant we want to share this with you to see what you think.'' If he is concerned about the matter, the premier could have sent that to other premiers in the country and let them deal with it.
We are a federal government and a federal institution. The provinces have had plenty of opportunity to make a presentation to us on what I think is a matter of tenure. You may disagree with the length of the tenure. Make an amendment, but do not hide behind your larger numbers and tell me that I cannot vote in the Senate. If you disagree with the bill, let us bring it to the Senate floor and vote on it. It has been a year. If you do not like it, you can make an amendment, or you can vote it down. Bring it to the floor of the Senate. It is time this committee quit meeting on this issue. It has been talked about for a whole year now. I do not know how many more speeches we must listen to on the Senate floor about this issue. There are many senators; give them a chance to speak, too. That is what you are preventing on doing by taking this thing all the way down.
That is what I have to say, Mr. Chairman. I am very, very disappointed about what is going on in this committee, the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, that was asked to do the study, should have done that study and then brought their report back and not used your numbers to delay the vote. That is what is happening here, and no matter how you cover it, we all know it is happening.
Senator Andreychuk: It concerned me last week, when members were debating another inquiry or a motion and referred to this study. It seems to me that if we are to talk about Bill S-4, we should do so properly before the committee. I am not talking about the ongoing report from Senator Hays' committee. I am talking about the motion where the Prime Minister should be appointing more senators. Within that debate, they were referring to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. They referred to what this committee has been doing and to Bill S-4. It seems to me it is a disjointed debate.
With respect, we should conclude our work, and then there should be the full debate in the Senate. I felt very awkward that the debate about the content of the bill and its constitutionality was on the floor rather than being concluded here. We conclude our business and then have a fulsome debate in the Senate.
Senator Baker: What Senator Andreychuk said is not correct as it relates to the way the bill has been handled. The chair has clearly outlined to the committee what this committee did in relation to opinions from provincial governments, and he clearly outlined to the committee that all premiers received a letter. All premiers received a deadline for submitting a response concerning this bill; that deadline was March 23, as the chair said. All of the premiers had the same opportunity to respond. A month after that deadline, a provincial premier sent a very thorough response to this committee. We accept his letter and his thorough constitutional analysis. If we had rejected it by saying, ``Too late, a month ago was the deadline,'' that would have been one thing, but in accepting his presentation, there is such a thing, as you know, as procedural fairness. If he is to be given that opportunity, then at least this committee has a legal responsibility to go back to every other premier and say, ``Look, we accepted the premier of New Brunswick's submission after the deadline.'' It is called procedural fairness or natural justice.
Senator Stratton: That is absolute justice.
Senator Baker: In order to be fair to all these other premiers, we have to go back and give them the same opportunity. It is only three weeks, senator.
Senator Andreychuk: With respect, that is not the case. We can always add to the evidence. We could have not taken his letter in, but this committee does not operate that way, on this side or your side. We accepted it, and we gave it due notice.
Senator Milne: Our caucus considers the letter from the premier of New Brunswick to be so important to regional areas of this country that we feel it is incumbent upon us to poll the premiers once again. With the permission of the chair, I will distribute a copy of the letter that we suggest should accompany an information bundle forwarded to premiers of the provinces. I have the letter here in both official languages.
The Chairman: Could you tell us who wrote the letter and the essence of the message?
Senator Milne: The members of the committee wrote it.
The Chairman: The Liberal members of this committee wrote the letter.
Senator Milne: That is correct. It would have to be signed, of course, by both you and I and the chair of the committee, if it is accepted by the committee. Do you want me to read it out? I will do that.
The Chairman: Could you summarize it? You can circulate it, but I would like to hear the essence of it now.
Senator Milne: It reads as follows:
We are writing on behalf of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs to bring you up to date on the status of our study of Bill S-4 . . . . Since we first wrote you on March 13, 2007, our committee has heard testimony. . . . Last week, we received a detailed submission from Premier Graham of New Brunswick indicating his government's conclusion, based on the jurisprudence that the Parliament of Canada does not have the constitutional authority to proceed unilaterally with this proposed change. His government believes that the provinces must give their assent.
When the Senate was debating Bill S-4 at second reading, the major concern of many senators was whether Parliament has the authority to adopt this constitutional amendment unilaterally pursuant to section 44 of the Constitutional Act, 1982.
The Chairman: Is it in both languages?
Senator Milne: It is.
The Chairman: Are those all the points you wish to make?
Senator Milne: Yes, I wanted colleagues to have a copy of this letter.
Senator Joyal: I think this committee has had an opportunity to review the two main issues upon which we wanted to concentrate. The first issue is does Parliament under section 44 have the power to enact Bill S-4? The second issue is if it does not have the authority under Bill S-4, which aspect of Bill S-4 could be amended to meet the constitutional test? That has been the recurring question that has been asked of the 21 witnesses that we have had the benefit of hearing.
Many of those witnesses, especially among the legal experts, and I think there were 15, came with well-documented briefs that raised concerns about Bill S-4. They raised the constitutionality of the bill on the basis that the bill, as drafted, would have an impact on the essential characteristics of the Senate. Some witnesses expanded on the possible impact of Bill S-4 on the essential characteristics of the Senate; I refer especially to some of the political scientists.
When we terminated the list of witnesses we had agreed upon, Premier Graham sent us not only a letter but also a legal brief on behalf of the Government of New Brunswick. The title of his brief is, Position Paper of the Government of New Brunswick. This brief is from a government in one of the regions of Canada where the representation of minority interests and regional interests is important. New Brunswick and I do not want to offend senators from New Brunswick, is a small province in terms of population and has the opportunity to play a significant role in the Senate because of the number of senators from that province. They are very concerned about the constitutionality of Bill S-4.
If the provinces, witnesses and constitutional experts had arrived at the conclusion that the bill meets the constitutional tests of section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982, we would certainly not be in the position we are in today.
The bulk of experts and witnesses have told us that the bill as drafted raises major constitutional issues. For example, if the bill is to stand as is, a majority of experts and the premier of New Brunswick conclude that the bill is beyond section 44 of the Constitution.
If we come to the same conclusion I think it is fair that we offer the other premiers the same opportunity. Premiers that are directly challenged by Bill S-4 as drafted should have an opportunity to reflect and come back to us in a reasonable amount of time on the conclusions we have heard from the experts and from the Premier of New Brunswick.
As you have clearly stated, the Rules of the Senate invite us to do so. Appendix 1 reads:
That, whenever a bill or the subject-matter of a bill is being considered by a committee of the Senate in which, in the opinion of the committee, a province or territory has a special interest, alone or with other provinces or territories, then, as a general policy, the government of that province or territory or such other provinces or territories should, where practicable, be invited by the committee to make written or verbal representations to the committee and any province or territory that replies in the affirmative should be given a reasonable opportunity to do so.
That is Appendix 1, a change brought to the Senate rules on May 30, 2005. It has been on the Senate book for a long period of time.
The Chairman: We have written to every province. I have read the letter sent to every province.
Senator Stratton: This is the third time, senator. The third time. Think about it.
Senator Joyal: The point I want to make, and honourable senators can disagree — I respect that — is that we have a province that concludes the bill as drafted does not meet the constitutional test. Provinces rely on the Senate as the chamber that embodies the federal principle of regional and provincial representation and they should have an opportunity to share that concern with the other provinces.
The draft letter we received today reads, ``Consequently, I respectfully request that you reply as soon as possible and in any event before May 31, 2007.'' That is not an outrageous deadline in terms of when provinces or territories are requested to answer. It is a limited deadline.
If honourable senators want to stand by their position, they may not even acknowledge receipt of the letters. Other senators may want to draw observations. Considering where we are in our work, I think it is a fair and reasonable approach to follow. That is why I think this letter seems to be reasonable and that we should move in that direction.
Senator Hays: I have not read the letter because I have been listening to the exchange.
My position is well known from my speech when we tabled the report at the special committee. I am pleased that I have had a chance to sit in as a member on the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. This is the first time in my time in the Senate to hear what has been brought forward with respect to the committee at second reading stage and when it was referred to the committee.
I will not part with my caucus on this matter. Having stated my view, which has not changed, we heard witnesses express a particular point of view as referred to in the report of the special committee. We have heard a series of witnesses who differ. I have read the opinions. Mr. Brown, recently from Gowlings, presented the committee with a strong opinion; much strong than the premiers opinion.
I have not changed my mind as to what that is. My colleagues still have doubts. I think we have to be clear, as Senator Baker pointed out, we invited input from the provinces on April 23. The only one that replied —
The Chairman: There were two provinces.
Senator Hays: One month later one province replied.
The Chairman: It was the same letter he sent to you as chairman of the special committee.
Senator Hays: For the record, we heard from Nova Scotia; we heard from Newfoundland and Labrador; we had an appearance by intergovernmental affairs ministers from Ontario, Quebec and Alberta. I do not think we heard from Manitoba or British Columbia. Interestingly enough, Premier MacDonald's says it looks okay to him, but not without the opinion of his attorney general's department.
The Ministry of Justice says one thing; the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of New Brunswick say another thing. When you carefully examine the two diametrically opposed opinions, you can come to some interesting conclusions. That is not where we are at today. Maybe we should be; I am not sure.
I think there is a good point to be made that this matter should come to a vote at some point. I have not heard from anyone from my side what the view is on that.
There is a request for additional time. Bill C-4 has been here for a long time; I think we should put our legislator's hats on, conduct ourselves that way and deal with it.
I have been listening carefully. The government side wants to deal with it today and our side wants more time. How much time I am not sure. I would benefit from a comment from Senator Bryden on that. I am not sure we will get more opinions or what they might be. We have asked twice and we have had a very good response. Three ministers of intergovernmental affairs and all but two provinces have responded, and we know what they have said.
The New Brunswick opinion is based on a scenario following Bill C-43 having been tabled in the House. We knew the potential for that when the special committee held its hearings. We are getting to the point where we should be making a decision and I think all members of the committee should be interested in knowing where we are at in terms of timing.
Senator Andreychuk: I thank Senator Hays for putting it more succinctly than I did. We have heard from constitutional experts.
With respect, Senator Joyal is saying that some of those witnesses disagreed with the constitutionality of the bill and that some of the most eminent legal scholars agreed that it was constitutional.
One premier said, based on the legal advice the premiers received, that his province is putting different weight on it. Senator Hays is correct. We are here as legislators to put our weight on it.
I do not think it will change my mind if one more premier gives us a scenario similar to that of New Brunswick. I can envision only that it would be a similar scenario, looking at the case law and the Constitution. Our job is to make a decision based on the evidence that we have heard. It cannot be open-ended until we can reach a consensus because I do not think that will happen at this point.
Obviously, Senator Joyal has listened to the witnesses and put different weight on their testimony. It is like three judges; two out of three will win. We are at a point where we must conclude the evidence.
With respect to Senator Baker's point on natural justice —
Senator Baker: I said procedural fairness.
Senator Andreychuk: Procedural fairness means that you put deadlines on submissions. Should we not have accepted? Last week we were given a letter and I asked, what would be fair? Would it be fair to say that the letter arrived after the cut-off date? Would it be fair to hear the comments and put weight on them? I choose to hear the comments and put weight on them.
Senator Bryden: I will be brief. It is true that this bill has been around for almost one year.
The Chairman: Yes, since May 30, 2006.
Senator Bryden: Our institution has been around for 140 years and for virtually every one of those years, someone has been trying to fix it, change it or abolish it. I am not overly concerned that we are taking this time to try to get it right before making a change that might have serious implications.
As we have progressed, we have also seen the development of an approach to constitutional reform, which is new, whereby this is a first step in an ongoing process, which is now being debated in the House of Commons. At least some of our witnesses see it as the preliminary to a third step, which would be a redistribution of the seats.
There is no question in my mind and in the minds of a number of others that the government is attempting to make reforms. They might be good and necessary reforms but to make them in a shortcut manner, rather than by constitutional amendment is not right. We cannot deal with Senate reform piece by piece, which was tried 20 years ago, with little success.
Many of the constitutional experts who appeared before this committee did not deal with Bill S-4 only, which is stand-alone situation. It was quite a different thing before it became obvious to everyone that Bill C-43 was being introduced and needed Bill S-4 to be able to function in the kind of advisory election program that will be introduced.
Other than perhaps a member of the government, I have not heard anyone indicate that Bill C-43 is constitutional. Most of the people who appeared before our committee told us that we would have to look at the bill the way the Supreme Court will look at it because it is a constitutional interpretation. They said the Supreme Court would look at the framework, the overall scheme, the purpose, the pith and substance of the bill. They told us that the intent is to move to an elected Senate in such a manner that we do not have to do it in terms of constitutional reforms as set out in the Constitution.
That might be all wrong but this is only a quick lead up to the following: This issue is important to many people. It is extremely important to those of us who come from regions that are less populous than Quebec, Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. The whole purpose of having a Senate was to give some counterweight to the smaller provinces, who knew they would always be outvoted in the House by the bigger provinces.
Therefore, before we give this up, and this is my request, let us ensure that the provinces understand the implications of this first step as set out in Bill S-4. The document was prepared carefully by the Province of New Brunswick and is clear and as close as possible to layman's language, excepting the quotes.
The Atlantic region feels threatened. One of the major buttresses that we have is this institution, and anything we do to weaken it will hurt us in Atlantic Canada and probably in Saskatchewan and certainly in Manitoba. If we go to the tenure change to eight years and not change the reappointment reference, down the road, we will have another house comparable to the House of Commons, which is under the power of the Prime Minister's Office, no matter who the Prime Minister is. I believe, as directly as I can put it that I would rather take three weeks, until the end of May, to ensure I have done the best job that I can do for my region. That is why I am here; I am here to defend my region. Others might not think that their regions need defending. It is up to the will of the committee but we should be able to make a commitment. The end of May is the deadline, and the meeting after that, we will put the motion to give clause- by-clause consideration to the bill.
Senator Stratton: Are you telling us that you are giving date certain for clause-by-clause?
Senator Bryden: I cannot give a date certain.
Senator Stratton: I thought you did that.
Senator Bryden: Strange things happen on date certain.
Senator Stratton: If I may, we have been through this twice and we are now going through it a third time.
If I may ask a supplementary, what if a premier comes in after the deadline? What happens then?
Senator Bryden: We would not receive or consider those submissions.
Senator Stratton: What if it was a fairly significant letter, as you deem this one to be? What would you do then? I want it on record.
Senator Bryden: I would not accept it, if you are talking to me.
Senator Stratton: I am talking about your side. What would your side do, in your opinion? What would the opposition do? I want it on record.
Senator Bryden: Well, I cannot speak —
Senator Milne: I have already stated the cut-off date.
Senator Tkachuk: I do not want to beat a dead horse because you have heard what I said before and that still stands. Senator Bryden, this is your interpretation of the implications. I come from a small province as well. I come from a small province with six senators, not 10. I count 24 in three provinces.
The Prime Minister made it clear that this bill could be stand-alone. What have we been doing here for the last few months? Making a decision on Bill C-43? That bill is not before the Senate. It is before the House of Commons. Why are you studying Bill C-43? We do not know if it will pass the other place. It is a minority government.
Here we have a legal and constitutional committee, which the Senate has entrusted to look after a bill that has term limits, which the Prime Minister has said, if it is the wish of Parliament, can stand alone. The Prime Minister has been very open to amendments. Senator Joyal, this is your big concern, that somehow the Senate would lose whatever it is that you are so concerned about, which I do not believe it will if we go to an eight-year term. We are studying a bill that says eight years, that is it.
Your arguments about Bill C-43 and what will happen down the road are not before us. We will have an opportunity to deal with Bill C-43 if the elected members deem it necessary to pass that bill. We will have a go at Bill C- 43 to see if it passes the constitutional test. Do not wrap up Bill C-43 with one of the things wrong with this bill and then tell us that this is an unconstitutional bill.
Nonetheless, my view is there are many senators that want to deal with this matter — not just the privileged members of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee but also the privileged members we heard from in the first run. Under Senator Hays, we were very fortunate to hear many witnesses and we drew our own conclusions. Get on with your job and bring it before us so maybe the rest of the senators can have a kick at the cat and have a say on this bill, and then we could actually vote on it. I think that would be something all of you may think to be important to do after all this time.
I am not a big fan of waiting for a bunch of other premiers who have been asked twice to send submissions to be given a third chance. What will they think of us?
Senator Fraser: I would like to respond. I want to respond because we have had questions directed toward us. We have not discussed this in caucus. I am about to give you my strong personal view.
On the substance of this bill, many of you are tiresomely familiar with my position on it. It has not changed. However, I have been powerfully impressed by the impact that Premier Graham's submission has had on senators that do profoundly believe in their constitutional duty to represent their regions. I may not share Premier Graham's position; that is not the issue. He has, in fact, set serious doubts among a number of senators who have the same constitutional duty as all the rest of us do to do what they believe is necessary to represent their region and their province.
It seems to me, in light of that, entirely reasonable to say: Give everybody three more weeks for one final kick at the can. However, I must tell you that after May 31, my personal preference would be to move to a vote in this committee on this bill very rapidly indeed.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, Senator Stratton has moved that the committee do proceed to clause-by-clause examination on Bill S-4. Are you ready for the question?
Senator Stratton: I would like a recorded vote.
The Chairman: We will have a recorded vote, then.
Shaila Anwar, Clerk of the Committee: Senator Oliver?
The Chairman: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: Senator Andreychuk?
Senator Andreychuk: I am in favour.
Ms. Anwar: Senator Baker?
Senator Baker: No.
Ms. Anwar: Senator Fraser?
Senator Fraser: No.
Ms. Anwar: Senator Hays?
Senator Hays: No.
Ms. Anwar: Senator Joyal?
Senator Joyal: No.
Ms. Anwar: Senator Milne?
Senator Milne: No.
Ms. Anwar: Senator Stratton?
Senator Stratton: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: Senator Tkachuk?
Senator Tkachuk: Yes.
Ms. Anwar: Senator Cowan?
Senator Cowan: No.
Ms. Anwar: Senator Smith?
Senator Smith: I am just an observer.
Ms. Anwar: Yeas 7; nays 4.
The Chairman: The motion is defeated.
Senator Milne: I move that we send this draft letter along with a package consisting of Mr. Graham's letter and the legal opinion; the report of the Special Committee; and all presentations that have been made before both committees by the provinces to each premier of each province setting forth this cut-off date of May 31, 2007.
The Chairman: I will not be able to sign this letter. First, I have not read it carefully. There are a number of things in this letter that are offensive to me and that I would not sign as chairman. I first need time to read the letter. I was not consulted. I have not seen it or read it, but there are a number of things that offend me, so I will not be signing this letter as chairman of this committee.
Senator Milne: If you are directed to do so, sir, by the committee, I believe you must.
Senator Stratton: I do not think so. I think we need to give a date certain.
I move an amendment that, after May 31, the first meeting thereafter, namely on Wednesday, June 6, clause-by- clause be carried out with respect to this bill.
Senator Andreychuk: Senator Joyal, help me here. You have put it as a motion that this letter goes out, so this is an amendment that the letter goes out with two separate motions?
Senator Stratton: This is an amendment to the motion because they have stated that you must respond before May 31, 2007.
I am saying that after having done that and receiving the responses, we do clause-by-clause on June 6.
Senator Milne: If we go about this letter and send it out, we will agree with June 6.
The Chairman: Could I ask this? Could we adjourn for five minutes so we can at least read this letter? Is that agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: We will suspend for five minutes so we can have a chance to read this letter.
The committee suspended.
The committee resumed.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, I presume that everyone has had an opportunity to read the letter. I have had an opportunity to talk to certain people in the Liberal party, and I have had a chance to talk to Senator Bryden about some of my concerns. I am now opening up the floor for senators to express their views on the letter or the letter as amended.
Senator Andreychuk: I will reiterate for the record what I said informally. This letter makes summations and conclusions on the evidence, which is the exclusive right of the committee to do by the determination process that we have in place, which is to have discussions and go to clause-by-clause. I will give take one example: Indicating that the constitutional concerns of senators have been reinforced by the testimony.
With respect, as I said, we have had debate. We have played devil's advocate. We have cross-examined, in some cases. We have invited witnesses to agree with our conclusions, all in the spirit of debate; however, we have not come to any conclusions. I could not tell you how Senator Fraser, Senator Baker, Senator Joyal or Senator Bryden feels about all of the comments. I have heard bits and pieces. To put out a letter that says how our committee or any senator here concludes is a breach of our parliamentary procedure. We have a process in place.
A valid point was made, which I was not biting on before, which was procedural fairness. However, if we are to be true to our rules, we could send this letter out simply saying that we received a submission Premier Graham one month after the deadline, and we are extending the same opportunity to all other premiers, with a deadline date. We could attach material if we wished, or not.
To put what we debated is selective. To put what our concerns are is presuming and pre-empting our responsibilities. The entire letter reads with certain conclusions that may or may not be reached. In other words, we will not have that usual clause-by-clause debate that we have with each other because it appears from the letter that some people have made up their minds. I will not put my name to a letter or agree to a letter that goes out that breaches my parliamentary privileges.
Senator Fraser: If it would win consensus in this committee, I would be glad to support Senator Andreychuk's suggestion. Alternatively, it seems to me possible that we could perfectly adequately take this letter, retain portions of it as written but remove paragraphs three, four and five, which are perhaps the most contentious paragraphs, based on conversations during our period of suspension. If it will win consensus, I will support the notion of a very short letter saying, ``We asked you for this. Since that deadline has expired, we have received one submission from a provincial premier. Therefore, we are extending you the courtesy, if you should wish to respond,'' with attachments of all the government submissions that either committee has received. That would do the trick.
It does not set out in long form the arguments that we have been concerned with, which the draft letter does, but one has to assume that there are clever people out there in the provincial governments who can familiarize themselves with our arguments.
The Chairman: I think that would be very much the kind of proposal that Senator Baker was going to make. Senator Bryden, would you mind if Senator Baker went before you?
Senator Bryden: Not at all.
Senator Baker: My previous submission was based on the principle of procedural fairness, which you are aware of, Mr. Chairman. You have taught it. In substance, it would be this: We wrote you on such and such a date and gave you a deadline of such and such to make submissions regarding Bill S-4. On such a date, we received and accepted a submission, a month after the fact, from the Province of New Brunswick.'' Then you could say, ``Attached is a copy of their submission. If you wish to submit an opinion, then we ask that you do so before May 31.''
Senator Milne: You have to get May 31 into the text.
Senator Tkachuk: Why?
Senator Fraser: Senator Tkachuk that is the commitment we are making.
Senator Tkachuk: Sure it is.
The Chairman: Thank you, Senator Baker. That is judicious and clear.
Senator Bryden: I think that sounds to me as though it would work. Certainly the trigger for this meeting and for doing the letter at all was the fact that the late submission came in. Then, in all fairness, out of an attempt at an abundance of fairness, the thought was we should send the other submissions of the other premiers along with it.
Senator Andreychuk: We should do that as an attachment.
Senator Bryden: I thought you said no, we were not going to do that.
Senator Cowan: No, we will include the other governmental submissions.
Senator Andreychuk: Federal and other.
Senator Bryden: Yes, and we should include the submission from the Department of Justice submission.
I think we are pretty close to what would probably work. It is a little unfair. We often report things to the house where there is a division and the government side and the opposition side do not agree. This is a little different process, but that is where we are. We have whatever number are here from our side saying we want to proceed in this manner, and the other side is saying, no, that is not really the way we do things here. We usually argue for a long time and then have a division. Then we go out and do whatever it is we do.
I will not attempt to hold it or change it or whatever if we can keep the kernel of it, which is basically saying we had a late submission and we accepted it, we are sharing it, and if people agree that it would be fair and helpful to send other submissions, fine. I do not care whether they go or not, but I believe some people genuinely thought it would be useful. There was a concern, and we should add to that one that is not on here, and that is the position of the Justice Department, who gave a pretty long presentation, and they have a written brief.
The Chairman: They submitted a second one after they heard the evidence, analyzing the law and upholding their position that it was constitutional. That gives them balance. That should be there as well.
Senator Bryden: That is right. It is only a short one.
The Chairman: That is right. It was very, very short.
Senator Milne: I suggest that colleagues look at this document and number the paragraphs starting at paragraph 1, and the last sentence is paragraph 11. I would suggest that we keep paragraphs 1, 2, 7, 9 and 11. Paragraph 7 says, ``Enclosed is a package of materials . . . .'' and paragraph 9 says, ``While we wish to ensure that provincial and territorial governments have any opportunity . . . ,'' and gives a deadline of May 31. Paragraph 11 thanks the readers.
Senator Cowan: Would you add to paragraph 9 ``Before May 31'' so that we will proceed to clause-by-clause consideration by June.
Senator Milne: No, that is none of their business.
Senator Fraser: We are prepared to make an undertaking.
Senator Milne: We have made an undertaking here, but it does not have to go out to the premiers.
The Chairman: Senator Milne, regarding May 31, we will be having a Senate break, and the first meeting of this committee after the break will be May 30. At our first meeting after the Victoria Day break, I would like to consider the response and go to clause-by-clause consideration.
Senator Fraser: We said we were not prepared until June 6.
The Chairman: I have never said that.
Senator Fraser: We did.
Senator Stratton: Nobody said that.
Senator Fraser: We all said it.
The Chairman: I am worried about the parliamentary break. We have other legislation. I would like to have this considered on the day this committee returns after its break, which is May 30.
Senator Milne: Senator Oliver, that is a separate item. We have to come back to that after we agree or disagree on the letter. Let us do one thing at a time.
The Chairman: The letter has May 31 as the deadline.
Senator Milne: Precisely. We should agree on what should go into the letter.
The Chairman: I am suggesting a change in the date.
Senator Baker: May 30.
Senator Stratton: What day is May 30?
Senator Andreychuk: Wednesday.
The Chairman: We meet on Wednesdays and Thursdays. When we come back, we have a meeting at 4:00 on Wednesday afternoon. Some of us will be here on the Monday and the Tuesday before that meeting. That will give us time to read and so on. Let us have it on the Wednesday.
Senator Milne: Wednesday is May 30, before the cut-off date.
The Chairman: I am saying we should change the cut-off date.
Senator Baker: Mr. Chairman, if I understand you correctly, our first day for a meeting after the break is May 30.
The Chairman: Yes.
Senator Baker: Senator Oliver, you are saying that the first item of business on our first day back, May 30, would be to look at all the submissions from the premiers.
The Chairman: Yes, if there are any submissions. I suggest that we do our do clause-by-clause consideration on the same day.
Senator Fraser: We did not say that.
Senator Baker: We agreed on June 6 for clause-by-clause consideration.
Senator Cowan: Senator Stratton said June 6.
Senator Fraser: We agreed.
Senator Tkachuk: I am very concerned about how we are going to look. Twice, we have asked the governments of every province to make a submission. What is it that we do not get? Now we are going to ask them a third time. What are we saying to them, that we do not like their submissions?
The Chairman: They will say that we are abdicating our responsibility.
Senator Tkachuk: They have all made submissions, with the exception of two. It is not that we have not had submissions or testimony before us. Only two provinces have not replied and we are sending them a third letter. We are the Senate of Canada, for God's sake. We are sending a third letter to premiers who have already been asked twice. They have either appeared before us or given us testimony through their intergovernmental affairs minister, as Ontario did, or have written letters to us. Now we are asking them a third time. If someone did that to me, I would wonder, what is it about my letter that he or she did not get the first time? I would wonder what they really want from me.
This reeks of bad form with which the Senate should not be associated. The premier of New Brunswick knows what is going on here. We have a committee that is studying the bill. Surely he can write letters to all the senators with his opinion. He can write the other premiers to alert them to this. It is not our job to do this; it is his job.
Senator Bryden: We are saying that we received this submission after the deadline and we accepted it, and we are sending a copy to others in fairness.
Senator Tkachuk: Why?
Senator Bryden: Why not?
Senator Tkachuk: Why would we not only say that we have accepted another brief, that you missed the deadline, and that we are going to extend it for two more weeks? Why do we have to send a copy of his brief? He can send a copy.
Senator Bryden: Why not?
Senator Tkachuk: Because the other governments also sent briefs or letters or gave testimony.
Senator Bryden: We are trying to be courteous. At least that is how I see it.
Senator Tkachuk: Courteous by giving them more time.
Senator Hays: This committee has written to all the premiers twice. The submission from New Brunswick is before us. Quebec, in the opinion of Benoît Pelletier, said that it is constitutional.
I am not sure whether the letter was written to the committee.
Senator Joyal: Except for the renewal.
Senator Hays: Is that what he said?
Senator Fraser: Yes.
Senator Andreychuk: He gave an opinion; I think that is the point.
Senator Hays: He gave an opinion. The Premier of Nova Scotia said he thought it was okay. That letter might have been written to one of the members of the committee.
Senator Cowan: The Premier of Nova Scotia wrote to all the Nova Scotia senators, at least, urging them to pass the bill. It was just a short letter.
Senator Hays: For the rest, Premier Williams wrote saying he was not going to appear, that anything involving the Senate should involve the provinces. It was not an opinion; it was just a letter saying that. We did not hear from P.E.I. From Ontario, Minister Bountrogianni said that the Conservatives promised to address the issue of under- representation in both the Senate and the House, and that is what they think should be our focus. That was the main thrust of her presentation. I think Manitoba had an exchange of correspondence with Senator Chaput saying that their position is that the Senate should be abolished. Saskatchewan responded simply to say they would not be coming. Alberta sent their minister and said that they have only one position on this, and that is a Triple-E Senate. They did not say much, although after the meeting Gary Mar, who is no longer the minister, said this is something they would negotiate on if it were an issue. B.C. has been silent.
Senator Bryden: Premier Williams was pretty clear in his letter. He made a statement that nothing that would affect provinces should be determined without the provinces' participation. He went on, in either that letter or another, to say do not forget that the Council of the Federation has passed a resolution ``. . . that no changes would be made in federal assets, including the Senate, without the agreement of the provinces.''
It believe that Saskatchewan sent a rather lengthy letter, the upshot of which was that we should not be doing this piecemeal, that we should be having a face-to-face discussion so that we can put everything on the table.
Senator Hays: I have not seen that letter.
Senator Bryden: I have a copy of it, although not with me.
It is not that all the world except New Brunswick is dancing on the table because we have this bill before us.
We have heard from New Brunswick. Certainly, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador are concerned about the whole process. We are almost back to where we started. Let us send the letter and let them know. The last submission that we received, which was well researched, can be made available without any further comment for information; it came in late after the deadline.
Senator Hays: The other legal work was also carefully considered and well researched. That is true of the New Brunswick Attorney General's department, and the Department of Justice has given their best opinion. We are going to make that clear in the materials accompanying the letter. The Department of Justice holds a different view than the view of New Brunswick. I do not have a problem with Senator Baker's message. It brings this to a conclusion. It is a good idea for us to have this matter brought before us, as a group of legislators, and deal with it. That is what Senator Baker and others are saying. I put that in for your consideration.
Senator Milne: Our side offered you a consensus deal: Send this letter out according to the way we discussed; for procedural fairness send it out with the closing date of May 31, and then June 6 we will review it in clause-by-clause.
It boils down to, do you want the deal or not?
Senator Andreychuk: I still have a problem with the letter. It is not the Senate's position to negotiate with premiers. It is rather interesting that we are obliged to transfer a letter written to us by Premier Graham. Such action on our part would establish unusual precedence. I have problems with the letter.
Senator Milne: This is what we were talking about but we were sidetracked.
Senator Andreychuk: If you compact the letter as has been discussed it gets rid of the difficulty. I would prefer it says, ``There is a majority.'' On principle we should not send it. I do not support a letter. I respect that you have withdrawn what I think are parliamentary privilege problems. Will we have a motion that says we will go clause-by- clause June 6?
Senator Milne: You have it on the record.
The Chairman: We had it on the record that we were going to do clause-by-clause consideration today. That is what those undertakings meant.
Senator Tkachuk: We will have clause-by-clause consideration on June 6.
Senator Stratton: I will restate the motion that this committee do clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-4 on June 6.
Senator Milne: I want to make sure this letter goes out first. We do not have agreement on the letter.
Senator Tkachuk: We have five senators in agreement.
Senator Milne: If this letter goes out in the compact form then we have agreement.
Senator Stratton: If we compact it as discussed, will that satisfy this side? I have to ask each individual senator to respond. My view is that while we could not agree with it in principle you could pass it on division. That would be fair.
Attached to that then, Bill S-4 will have clause-by-clause consideration June 6.
Senator Andreychuk: This is despite the answers.
Senator Stratton: That is despite the answers from the premiers.
Senator Fraser: We will have had a week to think about the answers.
Senator Milne: It is important to get these things in order. If we have agreement on the letter, including paragraphs 1 and 2, and perhaps paragraph 6, because we must ask them something. The first sentence in paragraph 6 would read, ``We believe it is important at this time to give each provincial and territorial government an opportunity to evaluate, and if you so wish, to provide us with comments.'' You have to ask them for something.
Senator Andreychuk: Could we just say that we are giving each province an opportunity to respond?
Senator Milne: Yes, that is fine.
Paragraphs 7, 9 and 11 would go in.
Senator Stratton: Okay, paragraph 7 will go in.
Senator Milne: Paragraph 7 is the package.
Senator Stratton: What is paragraph number 9?
Senator Milne: Paragraph 9 gives the deadline for a reply of May 31. Paragraph 11 is the closing sentence.
The Chairman: You must add the Department of Justice's brief.
Senator Milne: Oh, yes. That is not written down in here, but we can add it.
The Chairman: The agreement of this group is that it will be included to give some balance.
Senator Fraser: Paragraph 7 should be adjusted to refer to the representations and submissions we have received to date from the federal, provincial and territorial governments.
The Chairman: It will also include the brief of the Department of Justice.
Senator Milne: All this committee has received is from the Federal Department of Justice.
The Chairman: That is what I am talking about.
Senator Joyal: Representation and submission. Additional material from the Department of Justice will be included.
Senator Baker: The second paragraph says, ``Since we first wrote to you on March 13, 2007. . .'' comma. I think we should insert the words: ``With a deadline for your response of March 23, 2007,. . .'' People would then read into it that last week we received a detailed submission and we are being procedurally fair in asking for a response now.
The Chairman: Good point. Is that agreed, honourable senators?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Is the letter, as amended, agreed to.
Senator Stratton: It is agreed with the proviso, that the steering committee, review it to their satisfaction.
The Chairman: The clerk could then sign it on behalf of the committee and send it out with the other papers.
Senator Stratton: Are we going to report and do clause-by-clause consideration June 6? Is that agreed?
The Chairman: Is that agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Baker: Did you pass his motion exactly as he put it? Yes?
Senator Stratton: It is also a Wednesday when the committee meets.
Senator Andreychuk: It is June 6, 2007.
Senator Fraser: No, that was not part of it.
Senator Andreychuk: We continually speak of the testimony and submissions before this committee. The first act of this committee was to take the special committee's evidence and include it in here.
The day we did that, the testimony and submissions from the special committee became our submissions and our testimony. We cannot make a distinction as to who testified where. It is all before us and deserving of the same weight and consideration. I have heard some people say that we heard only from officials of the Office of the Attorney General, when we heard from the Prime Minister. We did not call on some of the constitutional experts that I put a lot of weight on. No one seemed to disagree with them and their evidence was full. I did not have to have them before the committee because I can put as much weight on them as on the ones that appeared.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, the committee has reached agreement on the letter, on the date and on clause- by-clause. In my opening remarks, I referred honourable senators to rule 90 and to rule 98, which is what committees do once they hear from all their witnesses. One of the rules indicates that committees can make amendments. I want to know if this might be an appropriate time for us to consider what kinds of amendments we might want to make, notwithstanding the fact we might not hear from the provinces. We have heard from 21 witnesses, had many briefs submitted, heard a great deal of testimony. We have discussed this information with our respective caucuses. Would this not be an appropriate time to talk about whether the eight-year term as proposed in the bill is appropriate? Is there something else we might want to consider?
Senator Joyal suggested that we might want to discuss that subject before moving to clause-by-clause. Is that the wish of the committee?
Senator Joyal: Are you addressing me?
The Chairman: I am addressing the whole committee.
Senator Joyal: I will be the first one to answer. It is fair to mention that the committee has three issues under consideration. We are studying extending the eight-year term, making it non-renewable, which was mentioned often; and retirement at age 75. From the testimony, those are the three issues for which the committee could consider possible amendments.
The Chairman: The three issues would be interchangeable. For instance, depending on the length of one, you might or might not want to make it renewable.
Senator Joyal: Absolutely.
The Chairman: There might be two issues rather than three, depending upon the answers.
Senator Joyal: Absolutely.
The Chairman: Do other senators want to comment on the appropriateness of what the bill says with respect to an eight-year term?
Senator Hays: It might be a bit early to come out with a number, although I have suggested a number on many occasions. Senator Joyal put the three issues relevant to what this committee will undoubtedly deal with on the day that it gives clause-by-clause consideration.
However, it is a bit early to try to pin people down to the preferred number. Speaking from the point of view of a member of the Liberal caucus, that has not been resolved in terms of the party's position, which is an important part of this.
The Chairman: He was open to your suggestions after he heard the evidence.
Senator Bryden: I will live to fight another day on that particular issue.
Senator Fraser: I would agree that the broad lines we will debate are fairly clear and where we will line up does not have to be addressed today. If I may, this is protocol question. You said that the clerk of the committee would sign the letter to the premiers.
The Chairman: She signed the last one that went out.
Senator Fraser: Did she? Is that the format we followed?
The Chairman: Yes.
Senator Fraser: The objection is withdrawn. I had some qualms with suddenly having the clerk address the premiers of Canada. If the clerk is accustomed to doing that, I withdraw.
The Chairman: Are there any other matters to come before the committee at this time?
Senator Stratton: Just to say, do not plan any holidays in July.
The committee adjourned.