Proceedings of the Special Senate Committee on
Senate Reform
Issue 1 - Evidence, September 6, 2006 - Afternoon meeting
OTTAWA, Wednesday September 6, 2006
The Special Senate Committee on Senate Reform met this day at 2:01 p.m. to consider the subject-matter of Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (Senate tenure), and the motion to amend the Constitution of Canada (Western regional representation in the Senate).
Senator Daniel Hays (Chairman) presiding.
[Translation]
The Chairman: I would like to welcome our invited guests and our viewers to the first meeting with witnesses of the Special Senate Committee on Senate Reform. For the benefit of those tuning in, I will briefly explain the purpose of these proceedings.
[English]
During the last federal election, the Conservative Party of Canada promised that, if elected, their government would take steps to reform the Senate. As the first step, the government introduced Bill S-4 in the Senate on May 30 of this year, proposing that terms for new senators be limited to eight years.
Our committee looks forward to hearing expert opinion on this issue.
As well, on June 27, Senator Murray, seconded by Senator Austin, introduced a motion in the Senate that would increase the number of Senate seats in the Western provinces.
[Translation]
This is the first time since 1992 that the subject-matter of Senate reform has come before Parliament. In light of the proposed changes and their importance to the future of our country and to our institutions, the Senate ha struck a special committee to conduct an in-depth review of the proposed reform and all related matters. We expect to present our findings and recommendations to Parliament and to Canadians in the form of a report at the end of September.
[English]
To learn more about the Special Committee on Senate Reform, its membership, upcoming meetings and future transcripts, we invite viewers to visit the committee's website.
This afternoon we are privileged to have as our witnesses Professor Janet Ajzenstat and Professor Roderic Beaujot. Ms. Ajzenstat is Professor Emeritus in the Department of Political Science at McMaster University. Her current research interests include comparative constitutional law, Canadian democracy and Canadian political history. Mr. Beaujot is Professor of Sociology at the University of Western Ontario and is also director of the Population Studies Centre at the university.
[Translation]
Our meeting should last until 4 p.m., more or less, and I would ask participants to formulate their questions, comments and responses as succinctly as possible. At this time, I invite my colleague and vice-chairman of the committee, Senator Angus, to say a few words.
Senator Angus: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I concur with your preliminary remarks. However, I would like to say a few words in my capacity of vice-chairman of the committee for the government party.
[English]
In my respectful view, the Senate of Canada has served Canadians well since it was first established in 1867. Hundreds, indeed thousands, of distinguished Canadians have passed through our upper chamber, rendering valuable service to Canadians in a variety of ways.
However, our institutions should, and in many cases do, evolve with the times. It is time for the Senate to be renewed.
Bill S-4 is but the first stage of the necessary Senate reform the present government has undertaken to carry out. We trust these hearings will afford Canadians a unique opportunity to hear informed debate on the specific issues involved with Bill S-4 and, indeed, on a wide range of other related matters in the area of Senate reform.
It is high time we bring the Senate into the 21st century and enable it to go forward and carry out its role in our democratic system efficiently, effectively and in a balanced fashion.
[Translation]
We sincerely hope that these meetings are only the first stage in a process leading to a reformed and renewed Senate able to carry out its role as a chamber that reflects on legislation and formulates excellent public policies for all Canadians in every region, riding and province of Canada.
The Prime Minister of Canada, the Right Honourable Stephen Harper, is committed to achieving these results and has agreed to attend tomorrow's meeting of this committee to share with us his vision of a renewed, reformed Senate.
[English]
Without further ado, Mr. Chairman, thank you for that opportunity and let us get on with the work of the committee.
Janet Ajzenstat, Professor Emeritus, Political Science McMaster University, as an individual: Senators, my field of expertise is the study of the arguments of the Fathers of Confederation and the ratifying legislators because, as I am sure you know — although it is surprising how many political scientists do not and I did not know until some time in the 1990s — after the Quebec Resolutions were drafted, the draft went to the provincial parliaments. For the late- joining provinces, the document on the table was, of course, the British North America Act. For the provinces before 1867, it was the Quebec Resolutions.
They did not have to approve the resolutions; they had to approve their colony, their provinces, uniting with the other provinces. They had a ``yea'' or ``nay'' vote. If they said ``nay,'' that province could not join; so it was ratification on the basis of their reading of the original resolutions.
Those resolutions gave the Senate two roles which it exercises to this day. It represents the country's regions and it exercises the power of the check — a term used constantly in the debates in the provincial parliaments — on cabinet and on the House of Commons.
Let us think first about the representation of regions. The founding fathers' idea of representation resembles that of Edmund Burke — members of Parliament speak for a particular territory; senators sit for a region; and members and senators also sit for the country as a whole.
In the debates on Confederation in the Canadian Legislative Assembly, 1865, Joseph Cauchon argued that our Constitution is constructed upon the model of the British Constitution. Each representative, although elected by one particular county, represents the whole country — he means, of course, the whole country of Canada, Upper and Lower Canada in one province — and his legislative responsibility extends to the whole of it. MPs represent a riding and the country as a whole. Senators represent their region and the country as a whole.
In the 1908 debate on the Senate of Canada, Ambroise Comeau made the point in these words:
The supreme usefulness of this Chamber —
— the Senate —
— depends...upon...its ``national character,'' upon the ``broad outlook'' of its members; upon the maintenance of a just and equitable consideration, not only of the rights of every class of men and industry, but of each and every portion of the Dominion as well.
It is sometimes said that provincial premiers do a better job at putting forward provincial interests. They certainly articulate those interests in no uncertain terms often, but they do not articulate them in an arena that represents every portion of the Dominion as part of the Constitution of Canada. The Senate is an arena of deliberation. The obligation to represent both locality and nation poses difficulties — I am sure I do not have to tell you — but it would be wrong to see this vital aspect of parliamentary representation as a weakness. It is a feature that enables — supremely —senators to bring regional interests into national debates. As I read the debates of last June on this bill, I could see that senators understood very well that they indeed speak for both region and nation. The provincial premiers express and hold forth; senators deliberate in the authoritative and constitutional institutions of the nation.
The second function of the Senate is to exercise the power of the check. The Senate is to delay or obstruct legislation when it appears that the government of the day is attempting to use its majority in the Commons to silence political debate and to suppress political minorities.
John Stewart Mill summarizes in Representative Government, published in 1861, a happy time. Almost everyone in every arena considering the Quebec Resolutions, and later the Constitution Act of 1867, was acquainted with Mill's arguments. It was the latest thing to have read. A majority in a single assembly, when it has assumed a permanent character, when composed of the same persons habitually acting together and always assured of victory in their own house, easily becomes despotic and overweening if released from the necessity of considering whether its acts will be concurred in by another constituted authority.
Here is James Gray Stevens, in the New Brunswick House of Assembly, in June of 1866: ``The Constitution of Great Britain had received the plaudits of all writers of history. The reason of this is because of the admirable checks which one branch has on another. We should therefore endeavour to prevent the usefulness of the upper branch being done away with by any remarks calculated to bring them as an independent branch into contempt.''
It is wrong to suggest, as historians often do, that the Fathers of Confederation were not democrats. The system of checks and balances described in the Constitution Act, 1867, the former British North America Act, is supremely a formula for liberal democracy. No party, clique, faction, no would-be oligarch or populist governs unchallenged.
John A. Macdonald put it this way:
We will enjoy here that which is the great test of constitutional freedom — we will have the rights of the minority respected. In all countries the rights of the majority take care of themselves, but it is only in countries like England, enjoying constitutional liberty, and safe from the tyranny of a single despot, or of an unbridled democracy, that the rights of minorities are regarded.
He was speaking in the Canadian Legislative Assembly in March of 1865.
By the rights of ``the minority'' he does not mean ethnic or religious groups as some commentators have supposed. The phrase ``the minority'' in this context refers to the political opposition, the opposition party or parties.
To reiterate, the great benefit of Parliament is that it protects the right of dissent and thus preserves conditions for fruitful legislative deliberation.
No doubt the Parliament of Canada has often fallen short. No institution of human construction is without flaws. It remains a fact that the parliamentary system of checks and balances, with bicameralism at its heart, is the world's greatest political invention. Every free nation today enjoys a form of government derived from the original English Parliament of the 17th century. I include the American congressional forum, a noble branch on the parliamentary tree. Of course, I am not saying that the parliamentary system deserves our allegiance because it is English. It deserves our allegiance and respect because it is good. It has proved exportable. You do not have to think or dream in English to benefit from that old English Constitution.
I come to the question of reform or renewal. I like that word ``renewal'', which I noticed was favoured at the other end of the table by Senator Fraser. This general aim of reform should be to look back as well as forward. We should be prepared to undo reforms that were introduced in the name of efficiency as often as we introduce renovations. Tyrants aim at efficiency and Parliament encourages inclusive deliberation. I allowed myself in print recently to dream about introducing second chambers at the provincial level as a way of restraining the vaulting ambitions of premiers. That has nothing to do with this committee but would it not be a good idea?
In a short piece I wrote for the Canada West Foundation, I argued that the election of senators is perhaps the one innovation to consider at this time. Many people want it and have wanted it more or less patiently for a long time. However, we should not introduce this reform in the name of democracy. Canada is already a democracy and a second elected house will not make us more democratic. It should not make us more democratic in a simple sense. As the independent chamber of second thought, the Senate must be able to resist ill-considered popular demands emanating from the Commons.
I am prepared to answer questions but I believe you first want to hear the second presentation.
Roderic Beaujot, Professor, Sociology, University of Western Ontario, as an individual: My comments follow on the motion from Senators Murray and Austin that British Columbia and the Prairie provinces be considered as separate regions, represented separately in the Senate.
Basically my presentation has two parts. First, I want to comment on the question of regionalism in Canada, how we define the regions of Canada. Then I want to talk about the population change that has occurred in the past and the potential for the future for those regions of Canada.
In terms of my personal association with these kinds of questions, let me note that I am from Saskatchewan. I was visiting my parents just a couple of weeks ago. They live in that now-special place called Kipling which is famous for its paper clip, as you may well remember. I have two brothers and two sisters who farm in that community. I went to graduate school at the University of Alberta but have spent my entire professional career in Ontario.
I also feel I have some association with Quebec as I speak French and took the classics courses at Collège Mathieu in Gravelbourg, Saskatchewan.
My association with demographic questions relates in particular to two books I have written — Population Change in Canada: The Challenges of Policy Adaptation and Growth and Dualism: The Demographic Development of Canadian Society.
I began my career at Statistics Canada where I was associated with the first series of projections of population based on the 1971 census.
Let me start with the question of defining the regions of Canada. In Growth and Dualism, my co-author and I focused on Quebec and the rest of Canada as the two major demographic regions of the country that have different backgrounds based on their history, fertility levels and immigration patterns.
However, when we looked at the regions in a different way in the chapter entitled, ``Population and the Problem of Regionalism,'' we observed that regionalism can be studied from many perspectives. In fact, there are books on regionalism in geography, economics, history, politics and sociology.
Following on some other people, especially geographers, we tended to divide Canada into six regions: Atlantic, Quebec, Ontario, Prairies, Coast and North. Those are the divisions we used in our book in 1982.
We highlighted what we call the ``population factor'' in the regionalist equation, focusing on the settlement patterns over history and the fact that the long thin ribbon of population is broken twice, once by the Shield and once by the Rocky Mountains.
In this 1982 book, we also noted that the settlement history brought fairly different populations to different parts of the country. For instance, Newfoundland at the time was 94 per cent of British origin and Quebec was 79 per cent of French, while the Prairie provinces were about half of origins that were neither French nor English.
We concluded that population movements through internal migration had largely not served to blend the people of the various regions. Movements were found to rarely cross Ontario going east or west.
Also, movements between urban areas were largely separated into four sections: the West was centred on Vancouver, Ontario on Toronto, Quebec on Montreal, and the Atlantic cities formed a somewhat fragmented pattern.
We concluded, and I have since maintained that conclusion, that there are four interrelated factors underlying regionalism in Canada: first, geographic questions, especially the breaks in settlement imposed by the Shield and the Rocky Mountains; second, economic questions, especially the inequalities of natural resources; third, political questions, inequalities of power especially between the centre and the periphery; and fourth, demographic questions such as the unequal size of populations, absence of migratory exchanges spanning the country and unequal distribution of ethnic groups.
The book that we published in 1991 focused on many of those same questions but the regional analysis tended to pay attention to the provinces. The title of the chapter was ``Population Distribution, Internal Migration, and the Regions.''
We found that unequal distribution of population lies at the very heart of regional problems in Canada. We proposed — and I still feel this way — that regional questions will not become any simpler once natural increase becomes less important as a source of population growth, that is, where net international migration becomes more important to population growth, and we will see some regions declining in size while others grow more rapidly.
In the second edition of Population Change in Canada, my co-author Don Kerr and I focused on the four large urban areas that the 2001 census was identifying as marking the geographic character of the country: first, the extended Golden Horseshoe, which had 22 per cent of the country's population; second, Montreal and the adjacent region with 12 per cent; third, British Columbia's Lower Mainland and southern Vancouver Island with 9 per cent; and fourth, the Calgary-Edmonton corridor with 7 per cent of the population.
Compared with the total population of the country which, over the five-year period from 1996 to 2001 grew by only 4 per cent, the population of those four major urban regions grew by almost 8 per cent. In fact, the provinces that did not include one of those major urban regions either declined in total size or grew by, at most, 1 per cent over the five- year period.
The 2001 census also highlighted the role of immigration in population and regional dynamics. In the 1991 to 2001 decade, net international migration accounted for 60 per cent of the population growth while this figure had been closer to 25 per cent for preceding decades.
In the 2001 to 2004 period, net international migration comprised two-thirds of population growth. Since immigrants are attracted to specific areas, international migration is continuing to play a significant role in the uneven distribution of population and ethnic groups over space.
Let me turn to my second question of treating population and Senate seats. There are six tables that you may have already looked at in the chart I provided. Table 1 shows the population of the various provinces in 1871, 1915 and 2005. I chose 1915 as that was the last time Senate seats were reallocated in a significant way.
We see major differences across the provinces in the rate of growth over that 90-year period, with growth being highest in British Columbia at over ninefold, Alberta close to sevenfold and Ontario at 4.6-fold. All other provinces grew less than the average with 3.5-fold for Quebec, somewhat more than doubling for Newfoundland, Manitoba and New Brunswick, and about 1.5-fold, or a 50-per-cent increase over 90 years, for Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan and Prince Edward Island.
You will see in Table 2 that I have regrouped these provinces into the four regions used in the current Senate, and we see that Ontario and the West stand out with each having a growth of 4.6-fold over this 90-year period, compared with, as I said, 3.5-fold for Quebec and 1.9-fold for the Maritime provinces.
What one sees across these four regions is that the Maritime provinces as a region grew much less and the Western provinces grew much more, so that now the West, as defined by four provinces, comprises 30 per cent of the Canadian population.
In Table 3, I put these together for the five regions proposed by the motion with the Prairie provinces and British Columbia shown separately. This table shows that the Prairies are growing at about the same rate as Quebec, that is, 3.3-fold for the Prairies compared to 3.5-fold for Quebec. British Columbia clearly stands out with an increase of 9.5- fold over that 90-year period, compared with the next largest region which is Ontario at 4.6-fold.
What I have provided in Table 4 is the current distribution of Senate seats as well as the distribution that we saw at Confederation and in 1915.
When comparing Tables 3 and 4, British Columbia might qualify as a full region with 24 seats when one notes that its 2005 population is 2.3 times that of the Maritimes. At the same time, the proposed 12 seats for British Columbia puts this proposed region in greater conformity with Alberta, which would have 10 seats as its part of the Prairie region. Nonetheless, the population of Alberta in 2005 is 1.8 times the size of the whole Maritime region.
Let me look briefly at population projections. First, I have a comment on the uncertainty of population projections and then in Table 5 I used some results from the first generation of population projections that went up to 2001 to show that, at the national level, the medium projections from Statistics Canada hit the target almost right on. They were just 1.2 per cent short of the actual population that we had in 2001. Our more recent experience with population projections is quite accurate at the national level but, as you see, it is not so accurate at the provincial and regional levels. Nonetheless, one can see that, at the regional level, it is not far off and I would say that the accuracy of the demographic projections is much stronger than the economic projections that one might have made over that 30-year period.
I present in Table 6 the last generation of population projections for Canada and the provinces divided into the five regions. This projection expects a decline for Newfoundland and Saskatchewan. By regions, the total growth would amount to 4 per cent for the Maritime region, 11 per cent for Quebec, 29 per cent for Ontario, 19 per cent for the Prairie region, and 29 per cent for British Columbia. That is for the period 2005 to 2031. This provides further evidence that British Columbia and Alberta are especially deserving of Senate seat adjustments.
I will finish by observing that this variation over the geographic regions of Canada is only one way in which to perceive differences across space in things that might influence people's interests and orientations towards policy in Canada. I think the differences between rural and small town areas on one hand, and larger cities and the largest metropolitan areas on the other hand, is often as great as, or greater than, the differences across these four or five regions in the country.
In particular, the largest metropolitan areas allow for more possibilities of two-earner families. They allow for more possibilities of children receiving their education and staying near to their parents as they move into the labour force. Especially when one looks at questions of work/life balance and the way in which governments need to support families, there are major differences in the orientation of people depending on whether they come from rural areas and smaller towns as compared to the metropolitan areas, especially because of the different potential to earn a living and for two-career families and such things.
I leave you with those comments on the questions of regional distribution and the growth of the various parts of the country.
The Chairman: Thank you. I now look to colleagues for questions and comments.
Senator Austin: Since I have a limited time on the first round, I will address my questions to Professor Ajzenstat. If there is a second round, I have many questions for our second witness.
I appreciate your presentation, Ms. Ajzenstat. I had the opportunity of seeing your article in Dialogues as well and looking at it carefully. I completely understand and support the idea of checks and balances as an essential role for the Senate, and I think the representation of regions as well as the resolution Senator Murray and I have introduced verifies that. The key question is whether Bill S-4, which seeks to create an eight-year term, possibly renewable indefinitely, several times over perhaps, undermines the checks and balances because it undermines the independence of the senators whose responsibility it is to serve as checks and balances. Would you comment on the relationship between the essential checks and balances and the aspect of the eight-year term renewable?
Ms. Ajzenstat: You hit the nail on the head exactly. It was not clear to me when I read Bill S-4 that the appointments, or indeed elections of senators, if that is how it turns out, will mean that the senator can have a second or third term. I did not know and I noticed in the June debates that it was never clarified to my satisfaction.
Senator Austin: I thought Senator LeBreton gave us positive assurances that that is how the bill was to be interpreted.
Ms. Ajzenstat: If that is how the bill was to be interpreted, why is it not in the bill?
Senator Austin: The other side of it is that there is nothing preventing it.
Ms. Ajzenstat: This is true. I suggested in the Dialogues article, and I was out on a limb here, that a nine-year non- renewable term would be appropriate. In my heart of hearts, I agree with Professor David Smith that 12 years non- renewable would be an excellent arrangement, but thinking of what is likely and what was possible, I decided on nine years, not eight years. As Senator Fraser said in her remarks, and others made this point too, that might very well lock the Senate election or the Senate appointment process into the election terms for the House of Commons. That would not be the best arrangement in my view. Even a one-year difference would surely mean that terms were coming up in between the national elections.
We need something to make the upper chamber more independent. It used to be wealth and why not. It used to be length of tenure. Now we are proposing to curtail it but we must be very careful. It used to be heredity. It has always been merit under the appointment system. We cannot do away with all of the marks of distinction.
I feel uncomfortable about an eight-year term, and I also feel uncomfortable about a term that can be renewed since I think it may give the appearance that some senators are not acting independently but are gunning for a second or third term.
The whole purpose of the Senate as it has evolved is not really so much to check the House of Commons as to check ambitious and aggressive governments and make them think twice. The very fact of the Senate and its composition does that. A government must always anticipate having to put a bill or measure through the second house. Really, senators hardly have to do anything, but I know from reading Senator Joyal's excellent book how very much you do.
There must be the two Houses of Parliament and they must be distinct. I share your worry on that point.
Senator Austin: On the question of institutional memory, the current system of appointment provides, perhaps by happenstance or maybe in part by design, that different senators have different terms. I have had three decades. Some senators have been appointed in their early 70s. One senator was appointed with less than a year to serve. The mixture creates a historic memory of events and I would suggest that lengthier tenure — I am still looking only at appointments because this bill only deals with appointments — creates, by its nature, an independence of action and character. Would you comment on that observation?
Ms. Ajzenstat: It is certainly said of the House of Commons that the terms are too short, that it lacks institutional memory. It is unlike the British House of Commons I believe, in this respect, although of course there are wonderful exceptions in the House of Commons.
Perhaps I will agree with you. I do know one senator-in-waiting from Alberta and he already has quite an institutional memory, having made himself familiar with what has been happening for several years although he will probably never sit in the Senate.
The institutional memory point is excellent. I noted it as I read the June debates.
Senator Austin: I have one last question under your paper with respect to representation of regions. I will not repeat your comments with which I am largely in agreement but I did want you to reflect on the role of the premiers. Are you saying that basically their work is not to represent national interests but a Council of the Federation, which is a recent creation and is, by virtue of its members, incapable of thinking in national terms because it is essentially a negotiating house — is it a trade-off of interests with one another? I do not want to put words in your mouth, but I want you to understand the texture of my question and have you react to the role of premiers versus the role of the Senate in terms of its national responsibility.
Ms. Ajzenstat: It would be a mistake for me to say that provincial premiers never think of the good of Canada. I would not want to say that. I know they can but they do not do it in a constitutional arena where it is required, where it is expected, where it has been part of the constitutional tradition for three centuries — it goes back to 1688. I truly think the premiers are more easily led into articulating and demanding changes that they then declare will be good for Canada. I know that senators might sometimes neglect the country for their region, but the whole structure of the Senate and its position in a parliamentary system means that senators will more often be required, and it would be demanded of them, to think of their country.
Perhaps I will just say here that it was suggested in the debates on the amendment, on June 28, 2006, that certain seats be set aside for Aboriginals. It has never been a tradition in British parliamentary government to have corporate interests represented in government. The reason is that it is assumed that if Aboriginal peoples enjoy the benefit of the law, if they can incur the punishments of the criminal law, they are citizens of a country, and senators and parliamentarians can legislate. The argument used to be made about men and women. Did the men in 1867 legislate for themselves, men only? No, I do not think so. They had in mind the population of Canada, all those who are subject to the law. Similarly, if we have a majority of women in the House of Commons, which may happen, or a majority of women on the Supreme Court of Canada, which may happen, those women will not be incapable of legislating thoughtfully or adjudicating thoughtfully on behalf of the male population of the country.
Senator Austin: You have raised an interesting point. I have one question which can almost be answered yes or no. You have raised an interesting diversion with your comments about separate representation, professor, but I want to go back to the premiers. You would, therefore, in your thesis not support a Bundesrat for Canada — that is, the appointment of the upper chamber by the legislatures of the provinces or by the premiers of the provinces?
Ms. Ajzenstat: That would be an extraordinary change. What is wrong with staying with the constitution of the seventeenth century? Of course, we can alter it in some ways. The election of senators might not be such a vast change but it is an extremely successful arrangement for a federation.
Senator Angus: I would like to direct my questions to Professor Ajzenstat because Professor Beaujot has dealt exclusively with the issue of the demographic distributions relating to the Murray-Austin motion, which I would like to question on later.
In terms of Bill S-4 itself, I understand you find there are shortcomings with the eight-year term. You have pointed out what you think would impinge on the independence of senators and on the effectiveness of the chamber. Notwithstanding that, let us assume the government decided to go ahead with the bill as drafted. Have you given any consideration to whether Parliament has the jurisdiction and the power presently to do that if it wants to?
Ms. Ajzenstat: In my view, and I could be challenged, yes, it has as far as Bill S-4 goes.
Senator Angus: I thought you had because I have been reading some of your other writings. I take it, though, that you are unhappy with Bill S-4 as drafted because of the term. Hypothetically, if it were to be 12 years not renewable, how would you like that?
Ms. Ajzenstat: I would be happy.
Senator Angus: Would you be happy with eight years not renewable?
Ms. Ajzenstat: Eight years not renewable is what I thought Bill S-4 described.
Senator Angus: In that sense, would it be okay? It is not as good as 12.
Ms. Ajzenstat: It is not as good as nine. Ten is good. Eleven is a ridiculous number but 12 is good.
Senator Angus: I have the point. The only other thing I wanted to explore with you was the issue of independence. Let us say the term was eight years and it was renewable. We have been told that that is the intention. Is your problem with the independence issue that senators appointed or elected for eight years will be looking for the renewal and would not be objective? Is that the reason or is there another one?
Ms. Ajzenstat: In this room I did not like to say that outright. I said that some of their actions could be construed that way.
Senator Angus: Others said it this morning so do not be worried.
Ms. Ajzenstat: All right.
Senator Angus: Are there other considerations that I do not know about?
Ms. Ajzenstat: Great care was taken to ensure at Confederation that those senators would be of the people. The phrase is used over and over again. They are not extraordinary people. They are not hereditary lords. They have no rank. When senators go home from their meetings, they mingle with the population and they have to live by the laws that they themselves have ratified.
In 1867, the property requirement was intended to give them a little more of the aura of respect, being rather exceptional. They were not intended to represent business or any other corporate interest. The wealth was just to insulate them. There is a long history of bribery in constitutional countries and bribing of members of the House of Commons, no doubt the other house as well, so it was to ensure that you had truly independent minds at work in that upper chamber. We should be sure that nothing tarnishes that reputation.
Senator Angus: I like that. We have heard several suggestions as to why they put in that $4,000, which is now valued in present terms as somewhere between $750,000 and $1 million, but do we not have some belief in the wisdom and good instincts of the people who would be doing the electing of these senators? If they had to be re-elected and were not doing a good job or were not independent in their actions, we find the electors are not all that stupid every four or five years.
Ms. Ajzenstat: No, I do not think they are at all. At any rate, it is what we have and that is our system.
Senator Angus: It is what it is.
Ms. Ajzenstat: Canada was founded on popular sovereignty. I know historians say it was not, but it was. It was the subject of the debate in the debates, on a rigorous notion of equality of each and all, yes; we have to respect the mass of the people. They do not always show up well on Cross Country Checkup, or whatever it is called.
Senator Angus: They do not always show up at the polls either.
Ms. Ajzenstat: Well, I do not think high voter turnout is necessarily an indication of interest in politics. I am not sure about that. I do have things to say there, but yes, I would be happier with the eight-year term renewable if senators were elected.
Senator Fraser: This is a picky question, Professor Beaujot, and you can send me packing if you like but I have been looking at Table 1 and, as someone whose ancestors hailed from Nova Scotia, I wonder if in the columns for 1871 the numbers for P.E.I. and Nova Scotia may not have been inverted.
Mr. Beaujot: I sent a revised version.
Senator Fraser: I have not received it, but that is wonderful.
Mr. Beaujot: All three numbers are switched around.
Senator Fraser: You have obviously spent a lot of time thinking about the dynamics of Parliament and I wonder if you could talk a little about what you think would be the effect on the dynamics of Parliament if we had an elected Senate with the current powers. There is a view held by a number of people, including some eminent members of this chamber, that if you did not change anything else but moved to an elected Senate, you would rapidly find that Senate claiming at least equal legitimacy with the House of Commons and maybe more, in that each member of the Senate would have more electors in their constituency whatever electoral system was used and would be here for longer.
The short form of my question is: If we did not change the powers, would an elected Senate be eroding the present system of responsible government where the government is responsible to the confidence chamber, which is the House of Commons?
Ms. Ajzenstat: This was the question that John A. Macdonald and George Brown quarrelled over in the debates in the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Canada. Brown was in favour of an appointed Senate. He was a man of the left but he wanted an appointed Senate. John A. Macdonald, a Tory, wanted an elected Senate. Brown was defending the confidence chamber as the more democratic in the sense of populist chamber. He was of course immensely proud of the overthrow of the colonial oligarchies, the 1848 triumph over the Family Compact and the Château Clique. But Macdonald conceded the point and went with Brown on that subject and so you have the appointed Senate.
The argument was that if the Senate is elected they will just grab the power to reject. It is institutionalized though, in sections 54 and 53 of the Constitution Act, 1867. Responsible government is described, in essence, as it applies to taxing and spending measures and it says, though, only that the House of Commons must not be left out of the loop — that is, money bills must be introduced in the House of Commons. Is that protection enough? I think there is a good question there and I do not know how the dynamic would play out.
I have heard senators talk about this, eminent ones from a somewhat older generation, and they always say that the Senate defers naturally to the House of Commons in the end after hoping for reforms, after kicking up a fuss, after slowing things down, because it is not elected. Therefore the point is well taken; an appointed Senate is safer.
Senator Comeau: Professor Ajzenstat, I cannot help but refer back to the mention of the name Ambroise Comeau, who was appointed way back in the early 20th century by Sir Wilfrid Laurier and actually came from my village of Meteghan Station, so I could not help mentioning that.
My question is to Professor Beaujot regarding geography in order to respond to the proposals of Senators Murray and Austin. Have you heard of anyone looking at Senate reform not based on geography per se but based on community of interests rather than geography? The reason I mention this is that often regions may have more in common from further away than from a geographical area. For example, the coastal regions of British Columbia have much more in common with the coastal regions of Atlantic Canada than with the southern mainland.
I am not advocating this but should consideration be given to possibly looking at community of interests rather than straight geography if we were to look at a future Senate?
Mr. Beaujot: Yes, I think so. In the debates at the end of June, I liked that the Senate seeks to represent various kinds of diversity in Canada, including diversities of interest. It is rather more difficult to identify things by interest, though I do refer to distance, centre and periphery as key matters with regard to regionalism. In that sense, those further away from the centre have a common interest to be against, whether they call it the east or Ottawa or whatever it may be.
Senator Comeau: If you follow debates at all in both the House and in the Senate, you will often find that people from the rural communities of Canada tend to have a point of view which is much more common regardless of where they are from, than people from urban areas which have different issues and commonalities.
I come back to that point. My understanding is that Canada is now 75 per cent to 80 per cent urban versus 20 per cent to 25 per cent rural. The rural problems are so vastly different from the urban ones. Should we pursue this as an alternative to geographic reform?
Mr. Beaujot: As I said previously, there are other kinds of geographic differences that are perhaps as important. I would especially identify the three largest cities — Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver — as having different interests in a variety of things, and also with regard to population matters being much more growth-oriented, whereas the rural areas, the areas more distant in Northern Quebec and Northern Ontario, including the rural areas of the Prairie provinces, are subject to depopulation. My brother farms near Kipling. Already his child has to travel some 20 kilometres to go to a school where there are three or four people in the same grade. In a few more years, he will have to go 40 kilometres to find two or three children of the same age. There are all kinds of things that are rather different in the rural areas.
Senator Comeau: I am not proposing this as such but only raise it as a subject of debate. We have a House of Commons which is based on population and numbers. The House of Commons is generally capable of minding the shop for the more populous regions and the major urban centres, and historically the Senate has taken on the role of trying to present views that are not necessarily topical or of current interest to the national media. If we propose making the Senate another House based on population, are we not defeating the purpose of that aspect of the Senate?
Mr. Beaujot: Yes. It is important to raise that and I also mentioned it in my own comments. Population size is only one of the things to be considered here. I was pleased to see in the debates from the end of June that the Senate has a higher proportion of women, more visible minorities and more Aboriginals than the House of Commons.
By focusing on the four or five regions, there could easily be a situation where people from the metropolitan areas get to be in this chamber, rather than representing the variety within those regions based on as you say, Senator, size of the place of residence. I do not know how one does that politically or makes it work in terms of where people come from and how people are elected or appointed, but I think it is important to raise those things, as you are.
Senator Murray: I think Senator Comeau is raising the concept of making the Senate a kind of ``États généraux,'' or ``states general'' of some kind. I do not know how you would go about it in a country as diverse as this one but it is an interesting concept. It would be interesting to try to design one. It might be an interesting retirement project for Senator Austin and me. It is an interesting thought and it has come up before.
I have no questions for Professor Beaujot, but I want to thank him for his presentation and the body of material that he has left with us and the references he has made to the books and studies he has done. This will be very helpful to us, certainly to Senator Austin, myself and others, as the debate on our proposed amendment continues.
Professor Ajzenstat, if I followed your argument correctly, you have some problem with the idea of an eight-year renewable term for appointed senators because it would threaten to compromise the independence of senators. If it threatens to compromise the independence of senators, that would constitute a fundamental change in the Senate. If that is what is being proposed in Bill S-4, as I believe, then it is the contention of some of us that it is not within the power of Parliament acting exclusively to do this but, rather, it would take Parliament plus seven provinces with at least 50 per cent of the population. You may or may not wish to comment on that.
I want to return to the issue raised by Senator Fraser with regard to powers. Even the supposedly co-equal Senate that the fathers created in 1867 deferred, as you point out, to some extent to the House of Commons as the popular chamber, in particular on the question of money bills. In 1982, the then-fathers of the Constitution accorded a very limited role to the Senate in the constitutional amending process. We now have only a suspensive veto over most constitutional amendments as you are aware. More important, over the years, the conventions have grown up under which we normally defer to the elected House. We rarely defeat a legislative measure except in certain extreme circumstances. Even when we amend a bill, if the House of Commons insists several times on rejecting our amendment, normally we take the position that, at the end of the day, the House of Commons prevails.
Senator Fraser's point, and mine also, is that an elected Senate would be bound by none of those conventions. Indeed, because of the length and breadth of the mandate that the senators would have, each of them representing more voters, they could quickly become an elite body with primacy over the House of Commons unless steps were taken in the Constitution to limit the powers of the Senate and insist on the primacy of the Commons.
Ms. Ajzenstat: Traditionally, the Senate has had all the powers of the House of Commons but it has not always exercised them. The way you so admirably and succinctly put it amounts surely to this: We have two worries — one, that the Senate will not be independent enough and, two, that it will become too independent. Am I right?
Senator Murray: Yes.
Ms. Ajzenstat: I do not think I am the one to offer an opinion on this. Now that we have reached that point, perhaps it has clarified your dilemma. You want an independent Senate but one that is ready to step back just a little, but not on any particular block of powers. You do not say the Senate cannot legislate for this matter or that policy or this central idea. It should look like a true second chamber.
Senator Murray: A Senate with electoral legitimacy would, I think, have to have its powers circumscribed to ensure the primacy of the Commons as the confidence chamber. That would be my contention.
Ms. Ajzenstat: What powers would those be? What powers would you take away?
Senator Murray: Possibly only a suspensive veto. I do not know. I have not thought it through. They have done that already, as you know, in the first part of the other century in Great Britain with the Parliament Act of 1911.
Ms. Ajzenstat: Do not forget the story of the provincial premiers: they just did away with the upper chamber because they could do it. It was within their constitutional power to do it. In a crisis, you must have some safeguard against that.
Senator Murray: I appreciate that. Every now and then you hear people say, ``This or that provision goes back to 1867 and it is so old and antiquated.'' We forget that, in 1982, the first ministers had the opportunity to make changes. Not only did they not make changes in institutions such as the monarchy, and made very limited changes to the Senate, they made it that any change affecting the monarchy will require unanimous consent, and I think the abolition of the Senate would require unanimous consent. Those decisions were made in 1982, not in 1867. I think that is important.
Ms. Ajzenstat: There were other mistakes made in 1982.
Senator Murray: Other ``mistakes''?
Ms. Ajzenstat: I will not give you a list; that would be ridiculous.
The idea that the premiers and the government spoke for the people of the provinces is wrong. There is a very good case to be made that the Parliament, including where possible the two Houses, speaks for the people. You do not need a mass referendum. That was the decision they came to in 1867. However, in 1982 it was assumed that the government's approval was required. They did not necessarily have to put it to the legislatures.
Senator Murray: That was true in 1982, but post-1982, you have to go to the legislatures.
Ms. Ajzenstat: They corrected that mistake.
Senator Hubley: I want to refer back to some of Senator Comeau's and Senator Murray's comments. I am not sure that I feel comfortable with the representation that the regions will have. I may be looking at regions differently from you. We have looked at the divisions across our country, which were geographic parts. You have identified that there have been books written on economic regions, histories of areas, politics, sociology. However, in talking about community of interests, one thing that comes to mind, certainly in a small province such as Prince Edward Island, is the movement from the rural to the urban area and the dramatic impact that has on our province. Who will fill in that representation if the House of Commons is elected by population numbers as it is? Who then will be responsible for those areas that are sparsely populated? Is that a region now? Will the farming communities in our country now be regions? Can we refer to fishing areas as regions? If we can, how do we get representation within the Senate, because that is from where it will come, to responsibly have representation from those areas that are needed?
In the debate that I am hearing, we seem to be talking about populations. I am saying that the areas and regions of the country are not just geographic, but they do flow sometimes. We create areas or regions that need to have support and need to have representation.
What does the word ``regional'' mean to you? What is ``regional''?
Ms. Ajzenstat: Although senators formally represent a region, do not forget that they speak for Canada. They speak for the national interest. They do not bring corporate-defined separate interests into the Senate arena of deliberation. It is a problem of our politics generally today that too many people say, ``I am who I am and I want what I want and I want it now.'' There is no deliberation. You find it in universities.
It is a modern plague. We have no sense of discourse, dialogue and exploration. This explains my pleasure in reading those June debates. I had forgotten how fine it was to read the debates in an arena where people deferred to one another and were courteous. The more you have an idea that a senator or a member of Parliament represents a particular interest, women or what have you, you are detracting from the deliberative character of the arena. In my view, a senator from a city will feel obligated to look after rural interests and bring the Senate's attention to problems there. It will follow from his or her understanding of the nature of his obligation.
Mr. Beaujot: I agree considerably with my colleague. I like the way she put it in terms of representing the whole country in addition to areas, although I am not so sure when it comes to looking after the interests of people from a fairly different region that people will always do it properly. However, that is not my main comment on the question.
I was not bringing into question the current arrangement of the Senate that it is based on regions. It is smart to have a certain number of regions, four or five, that are about equally represented at the Senate level. These places could differ considerably by population size and that would be good because the House of Commons is more based on population size.
At the same time, there is a historical basis for the current arrangement of four regions. In my view, the current situation calls for five or six regions, the sixth one being the North, as being regions that constitute Canada.
If one was to redo things from the past, I would put Newfoundland as an Atlantic province rather than the Maritime provinces separately. You may have a rather different view, being from there yourself, senator.
We cannot really redo this and thus the proposal is not a bad solution because it creates another region for British Columbia without giving it the full 24-seat status. It expands the number of seats for Alberta especially, which is closer to British Columbia in population size. I was discussing this with various of my relatives from British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan. Where do these provinces belong? Are they Prairie provinces? Could we talk about the mountain provinces, which are Alberta and British Columbia, and then put Manitoba and Saskatchewan separately? I have a fondness of that point of view, being from Saskatchewan and feeling that Saskatchewan is unique and should be a region of its own, or with Manitoba. Alberta is rather different because it has so much oil. It is more similar to British Columbia, which has all the resources. They are not far from each other so during the winter people can go from Edmonton and Calgary to warmer places, or at least to retire, and many do.
It is difficult to know where to put the divisions. The idea of having two regions in the West makes sense.
Senator Hubley: How best can we achieve the appropriate representation from areas? Do we have more flexibility in addressing regional concerns if we have an appointed Senate over an elected Senate?
Ms. Ajzenstat: Yes.
Senator Munson: Professor Ajzenstat, I know you discussed minorities. You mentioned that we represent all Canadians and that is important. It has also been mentioned that the Senate has a higher representation of minorities and women than does the House of Commons.
In an elected Senate, do you have any fears or concerns about where women and minorities would fit in the great big machines of political parties and what they have to do to elect people? In other words, there could be 100 men in the Senate and there could be no minorities through an elected Senate.
Ms. Ajzenstat: That is how it was in the past. It did not work out badly. I am sorry. Of course, we have to have women in the Senate, but do you think you are going to corral them and put them in? It is often a problem getting a woman to run for a party or asking her to take a promotion or elevation in the ranks of the judiciary because she is deferring to the fact that her husband has a career. It is a pattern with women that I know, certainly.
Sometimes women have other things to do with their lives than to go into politics. It is just a pattern. One wants to see more opportunities open for women, but I know I have been called by every political party to run, and I mean the little ones as well, either in the province or federally. No, that is not how my career went. Women are busy creatures. This is heresy but I also think that one of the benefits of living in a liberal democracy is that you do not have to think all the time about politics. You can get on with careers in science. You can become a national figure skating champion. There are other things to do. Of course, in a moment of crisis, you should do your share. You should become involved. However, I am not as worried about low voter turnouts as some of my good colleagues in political science are.
Senator Munson: Are you not worried that there would be fewer women or minorities in an elected Senate? Prime ministers have appointed women and minorities of merit to be in the Senate to compensate for all these men.
Ms. Ajzenstat: That is fine. I am happy about that. When you receive a direct invitation and you do not have to run for office, why not take it? That is excellent.
Senator Angus: Are you available?
Senator Munson: This morning one of our witnesses said we do not know where we are going on this term-limits business and what the destination is. Do you share that view? In other words, there are critics who feel this is more a piecemeal approach to changing the Senate, yet we do not know what will happen at the end of the day.
Ms. Ajzenstat: People want change. They want renovation. They want a new reason to feel confident in Parliament. I will say that political scientists have not done the Senate a favour. They do not teach it any more. They do not discuss it. Institutions are not studied. Policy issues are studied endlessly. Political sociology is everywhere. We took that sociological turn in the 1960s and have never recovered. It is contributing to the demeaning of respect for Parliament and for the Senate.
It is so easy for a professor to stand before a class and tick off all the mistakes and problems. He or she feels superior and the students wonder, ``Why should I get interested in anything? Why should I care? Why should I have respect for these people?'' I see the problem goes back to 1908 and Senator Comeau.
Senator Munson: My major concern is whether I can run for the eight-year term when I turn 75.
Ms. Ajzenstat: I hope you are in good health.
Senator Watt: I am from the North and will speak from that perspective. I believe when you were describing the various regions in this country, you included the North as one of the regions separate from the rest of the provinces. We talk of regional representations. We do not necessarily all come from the same basic background in terms of what we mean by ``region.'' I have tried to look at a way not only to increase our voice but also to be heard within the central system, within the federation. That is in the House of Commons and also within the Senate. At times, it is difficult to get your message across, especially because you are dealing with partisan instruments. Whatever issues you might have, they become swallowed by the political matters rather than being judged on the merits of the case. Personally, as an individual senator I find that is a hard thing under which to operate.
I tend to think our country is very diverse and today it does not reflect that in the way the instruments are available to each one of us with a case to make from time to time for the purpose of social and economic matters.
At times, people who live in the North tend to get forgotten; the fact is they do exist and have the right to exist, and they have the same concerns as those who live in the South.
This is where the Senate becomes a very important instrument. When the House of Commons looks at what needs to be done for the benefit of the country, it tends to pass one law that fits all. When that happens, the Senate becomes a very important instrument for saying, ``Hold on for a moment. These are people who are trying to make ends meet and trying to build their economies. If you go in that direction, you will be forcing them to go into bankruptcy.'' I face that close to every day — maybe every week or second week, whatever that means.
How do you see the representation of the Inuit from the North? Can they increase their voice and be heard? What do we need to do within the central system, not only within the Senate itself? We also have to look at a need to reform the House of Commons, not only the Senate, if we are going to find a solution to the problem.
Right now, I cannot look at the way we are approaching Senate reform as anything more than a piecemeal basis which, in a sense, is to sort of rake the top of the apples or the oranges, but you do not go into it.
How would you analyze all that and how do we deal with it? What would be your recommendations so that the people in the North do not get forgotten? We have a great deal to contribute. We are even having difficulty today getting the message across to the world that climate change is not tomorrow. It is real. It is today. We are faced with that on a daily basis; we must try to make adjustments to our economic needs and social well-being, including our culture.
Senator Comeau mentioned the community of interests. That is one area with which I am concerned. I am also concerned with the people's interest. The way another senator describes a region is not necessarily the way I would describe it. I leave that with you to see what kind of recommendation you can make.
Ms. Ajzenstat: I think you are recommending that I should think this matter through again.
Senator Watt: I am not doing a very good job.
The Chairman: You did a fine job. Feel free to comment. We have several more minutes of Senator Watt's time if you want to comment.
Senator Watt: Although it would not solve the whole problem, as a person appointed to the Senate, I have no guaranteed seats. In other words, Aboriginal people do not have guaranteed seats. Going back to the early years, before 1982, there was the idea of guaranteed seats within the Senate for Aboriginal people as a whole. I am now not only talking about the Inuit per se but the First Nation, the Metis and the Inuit altogether. That was put forward at that time. Maybe that would be one way of looking at it, getting guaranteed seats within the Senate, because there is no certainty that I would be replaced by an Aboriginal person.
The Chairman: As there is no comment from the witnesses, I will now go to Senator Dawson.
Senator Dawson: In the past, we have had senators in cabinet. We would have a process in which elected senators or senators mandated for eight years could potentially be cabinet ministers. Some cabinet ministers become very powerful and there could be the situation of a very powerful minister sitting in the Senate not having to respond to questions in the House. He would probably have the advantage of not having to get elected after four years; he would look at the election coming up and say, ``That is not my problem; that is the problem of the guy in the other place.''
We have a minister in the Senate now but how do we look at reform of the Senate, knowing that the Senate has been used to appoint ministers in the past, and how do we box them in or constrain them considering the fact that they have eight-year mandates? At the same time you have four-year elections in the House of Commons, you have eight-year elections in the Senate. How do you try to manage that issue?
Ms. Ajzenstat: It will be an adventure. Is that what Professor Franks said this morning?
We do not know. The Senate is in a good position to think about these issues and to ask the government about them.
Senator Dawson: We might have an occasion tomorrow.
Senator Angus: You could be a minister one day.
Senator Dawson: I did not say I was against it.
The Chairman: I would like to raise a matter. I will address it to Professor Beaujot, but perhaps Professor Ajzenstat might comment. The Senate has evolved over time from the original three divisions to four. The number of Senate seats has varied throughout that period. I am not sure the extent to which demographics of the country have driven that change but my guess is that they may well have played a significant role. When B.C. and Manitoba originally joined in the 1870s, they started out with four seats and eventually went to six seats. I think Alberta and Saskatchewan in 1905 did not have a full complement of Senate seats. We have added seats for the three Northern territories. When Newfoundland came in, it was allocated six seats.
Earlier today, Senator Hubley, a good representative of an Atlantic Canadian province, was musing about adding seats to the Senate, diluting the influence in the second chamber of provinces that have secured positions that give them, if you look at the raw numbers, an overrepresentation in the Senate. The same provinces for the most part also have overrepresentation in the House of Commons.
As I understand it, provinces with those concerns have agreed in the past to going from the 24 seats for each of the three original divisions to adding 24 seats for a fourth division, and six for Newfoundland and another three, so the expectation is that they would agree to that again as it would require agreement of the provinces.
The driver — and you have talked about it in a helpful way — of the motion proposed by Senators Murray and Austin addresses this discrepancy, this under-representation in the West. Professor Beaujot, from your point of view as a statistician or someone familiar with statistics, can you comment on the relationship, if there is any to your knowledge, of changes in demographics and in the numbers of Senate seats? I tried to describe a few of them from memory; I do not have the precise numbers. Maybe this is not a question with which you can deal.
The other question, for Professor Ajzenstat, is the historic context of those changes as they occurred through our history where we added seats to the Senate.
Mr. Beaujot: Yes, the demographics are only part of this. As you put it, when the West was being populated, seats were foreseen there as the population would get larger. The three original areas of the country were seen to have equal size, or they were more equal in size once upon a time than they have been since.
I would like to come back to what Senator Watt was saying that we need to also think of the North as a region and maybe the North needs to be defined more broadly than just the territories. When the geographers define the North, they include as the true north strong and free much of the country — Labrador, of course, and a large part of Newfoundland, Northern Ontario and Quebec, et cetera. One could include people in remote areas who have similar interests, even in parts not in the North, to try to achieve representation in those parts, but the North as represented by the Inuit and Aboriginal populations, which are more concentrated there, have a special status as a region within the country with unique interests and a unique basis with, as you mentioned, climate change and such things being particularly relevant to them.
As this chamber is currently considering expanding the number of seats for the West, it should possibly do that for the North as well.
Ms. Ajzenstat: At Confederation they had a vision of water-tight compartments with respect to the division of legislative powers. The provinces were to take care of economic development and cultural life, all the contestable and difficult aspects of our common life.
Brown and Cartier were emphatic that only matters of concern to everyone in the country as a whole were to be debated — nothing particular. They shoved all the really difficult questions off onto the provinces, the ones that people feel very strongly about such as religious and ethnic differences and differences of origin. They were explicit about that. When you appeared in the Senate of Canada or the House of Commons, you did not appear as someone who spoke French or English, although of course you did. Your ethnic origin did not count, be it Scottish, English, Irish, Orangeman or Welsh. They thought of themselves as a diverse country and in a sense they were. Even your provincial origin had to be set aside to some extent while they considered questions like the criminal laws that were to have effect equally throughout the country.
Brown and Cartier were going to be able to meet as friends at last in the new legislature because they would not be meeting in an arena where they had to debate all the contestable issues they had been quarrelling about for so many years.
The local government is supposed to take care of so many issues of vital concern to the population and there should be a sharp distinction. We have muddled that completely and we can never return; that option is not open to us.
However, I cannot tell you how strongly they felt about this. George Brown thought the Canadian remedy was going to show Europe how peoples of different backgrounds could live together. He talks about the nationalist quarrels in Poland, Belgium, France and Italy. We had solved those problems with Confederation.
We have actually, have we not? We are a successful federation.
The Chairman: You are right, we are.
Ms. Ajzenstat: In the eyes of the world we are a successful federation. We look at it from the inside and see all the troubles.
The Chairman: I agree that Canada is a very successful country and answering the question of why is not easy. However, in constitutional matters, you mentioned the power of the check as the role of the Senate. The power of the check has taken on a different spelling and meaning in terms of dealing with the Constitution as it was drafted. Without changing the Constitution in any formal way, we see the development of what I would call concurrent or shared powers never envisaged at the beginning but necessary because of the demographic, economic, social and cultural changes. It worked well but it is very messy and difficult to be precise on how we arrived at the various end results.
Now this issue of institutional reform, institutional change, brings us into the same messy area of attempting to make needed institutional change to modernize our Parliament on some sort of incremental basis, some basis of avoiding provincial-federal or province-to-province confrontation. I will leave it at that.
Have you a final comment or advice on how to cope in the 21st century, albeit early 21st century, with this challenge?
Ms. Ajzenstat: I will not embark on that. At this hour of the day, I am supposed to embark on fiscal federalism? No, no.
[Translation]
Senator Prud'homme: Thank you for giving me the floor, Mr. Chairman. I am not a regular member of this committee. I have just come from the Security Committee that sat throughout the morning and from the committee examining the Ethics Commissioner. Therefore I apologize for arriving well into the meeting.
I have been in Parliament for 43 years and I have served on just about every Senate reform committee. As you no doubt know, the most significant committee, the one chaired by Senator Molgat in 1970, criss-crossed the country for one year. I was a member of that committee and I have to admit that where the Senate is concerned, the situation has evolved over the years.
[English]
When the Senate was created, we had 24, 24 and 24 seats.
[Translation]
Twenty-four divided by two resulted in 12 seats apiece for New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. I have observed that along with the gradual evolution of our country, the 24 seats in Ontario were all — I do not know if I should say it, but Senator Fraser will correct me — held by English-speaking individuals.
[English]
Every single one of them was English speaking. The 24 from the Atlantic were all English; there were no Acadians whatsoever at that time.
[Translation]
Twelve and twelve, all English-speaking, and of the 24 seats in Quebec, 16 were held by French-speaking Canadians like myself and Senator Dawson, and eight by English-speaking Canadians. That was the situation initially. There were no women serving in the Senate and naturally, and unfortunately, First Nations were not represented.
Prince Edward Island joined Confederation but no new seats were added. Instead, both New Brunswick and Nova Scotia lost two seats, which were then given to Prince Edward Island. The arrangement held until Newfoundland became the tenth province.
[English]
The unbalance started there.
[Translation]
Instead of reassigning seats, as was discussed when I was a student, some were taken away, when in fact new seats should have been added. Later, new ones were added for Nunavut and so forth. Today, there are 105 seats in the Senate. I support the bill which proposes a term of eight years.
I disagree with the proposal to increase Western representation, not because I have anything against the West which I have visited over 250 times since becoming an MP and Senator. I do not deny that the West is underrepresented in the Senate. However, is this the real problem? I would venture to say that this is not the crux of the problem. The Senate is not assuming its proper role. However, I do intend to support the Prime Minister's motion to limit terms, whether it be to eight years or to ten years.
As a young MP, I observed Mr. Pearson's initial foray into Senate reform. I observed senators who were 95 and 98 years old. As a sidebar, to those who may be tempted to make fun of these old-timers, it was one such old-timer, Senator Roebuck, who succeeded, at the age of 92, in getting the Divorce Act amended. At the time, each divorce in Quebec and Newfoundland required a Senate bill. Adultery had to be proven, much to the delight of the old senators.
Photographs had to be produced, and good old Senator Roebuck decided that a constitutional amendment was in order.
Radio-Canada is scheduled to begin airing a series on René Lévesque shortly. In 1960, I was planning to run for office and a petition for divorce had been filed by René Lévesque. I agreed to let Mr. Lévesque run in my riding, the condition being that the petition for divorce be withdrawn. However, Radio-Canada will not be focusing on that incident. In due time, we will set the record straight for them.
People are unfamiliar with the Senate and senators do not realize the power that they could wield. For instance, when I was in British Columbia and Alberta, I heard public calls for the abolition of the Senate. To that, I say: Fine, I respect the will of the people. However, as the saying goes, be careful what you wish for.
In the case of Western Canada's two main provinces, the abolition of the Senate would leave Ontario in a dominating position. For those of speak of equality among the provinces, no one told me that Ontario would agree to have the same number of senators as Prince Edward Island.
If we could just manage to initiate a dialogue with Canadians on the importance of an independent, less partisan Senate and let the situation evolve over the next eight years, perhaps we could strike a fair balance on the issue of Senate reform.
Instead, we are told that the problem can be resolved by increasing the number of seats. That will not solve a problem that has been scrutinized for the past 40 years. Take abortion, for example. Members of the press report that the Supreme Court has struck down abortion laws. That is not true. The Supreme Court advised Prime Minister Mulroney to take action and he did, tabling legislation which provided for abortion on demand during the first trimester. When Bill C-43 made its way to the Senate, the resulting vote was tied 43 to 43. Consequently, there is no abortion legislation on the books.
Do you feel the Senate adequately uses the powers it does have and should a debate be initiated on Senate reform, when in actual fact, it is the House of Commons that should be reformed? Remember that I served in the House of Commons for 30 years.
[English]
Ms. Ajzenstat: There is an excellent book with which everyone in this room is familiar, edited by Senator Joyal, and more than one author of that book is in this room; it is being read and is having effect. It is correcting the situation in some political science departments at any rate.
You did raise the interesting idea of what if we had 10 senators from every province. There are two senators for every state in the United States. What about an equal number of senators for every province? Then we would not be quarrelling in the same way, or would we?
Senator Prud'homme: Ontario would not accept that.
Ms. Ajzenstat: Upper Canada accepted equal representation with Lower Canada, even though its population was growing.
Senator Austin: This is not intended to be a soliloquy on my part, but a question. As I see it, there are three issues before this committee that are posed by the constitutional resolution on Western representation and by Bill S-4. The first is the Western representation issue, the second is the method of selection of senators, and the third is the powers of the Senate. It comes down to those three questions and there are a variety of answers of course.
I want to thank you, Professor Beaujot, for your demographic work that you presented here and I echo the comments, obviously, of Senator Murray with respect to its value. The truth is that the population and economic growth of particularly British Columbia and Alberta have expressed themselves in a desire to at least move towards a more equitable balance of representation in the Senate as regions of the Senate.
The numbers we have are very similar. B.C. and Alberta represent 23.3 per cent of the population and the Atlantic provinces, for example, represent 7.2 per cent of the population. B.C. and Alberta have 12 senators and the Atlantic provinces have 30 senators. Senator Murray and I are not proposing to reduce the Atlantic provinces' representation, but to provide an enhanced answer to the question of equitable representation. We will simply not get constitutional reform of any kind unless the issue of Western representation is acceptable to the Western provinces. It is as simple as that. There will be no change.
Senator Murray and I are both seeking to find the basis for change and to unlock the debate in the country. We have heard a lot of views, and particularly Professor Ajzenstat, you were saying the country wants some form of renewal and let us take the thing that is obvious, which is electing senators. Could I put it to you that the country is not ready for change of the Senate? You also said that in your comments — that there needs to be more debate, that opinions are finally beginning to be effervescent at the academic level and in the political communities, and should we move ahead with Bill S-4 as a piecemeal step, not knowing where we are going beyond that? We may know far more tomorrow afternoon where the government wants to take us but until we know the meaning of electing senators and how it affects the question of powers, until that has been defined, until the country is aware of what powers we may be talking about, what regional representation we might be fighting for as a way of authority, is the debate really only starting or do you feel the country is ready for a Senate change today?
Ms. Ajzenstat: I actually think there are worse things than talking about reform endlessly; many, many worse things can happen in a country. This has been such an interesting afternoon. I hope it is well reported. I hope people enjoy it. I hope political science students enjoy it. I cannot answer all your questions.
Mr. Beaujot: I would like to say that I raised, and others as well, various issues with the motion about more seats in the West, various ways of being regions, how to represent various interests in the country and things like that. When you come down to it, you have to make a political decision. I personally think that this motion is well suggested, the idea of British Columbia having 12 seats and the Prairie region having 24 seats.
The Chairman: Before I express my final thanks, Senator Hubley wishes to make a small point.
Senator Hubley: Thank you for the opportunity because we are getting into the subject of numbers. If I might reflect on the province of Prince Edward Island, provincially, for a population of about 140,000, give or take a few, we require 27 persons to make the provincial government work, to establish committees. A critical number is required to become an equal partner with the rest of the country. Although we are small, the Fathers of Confederation realized that, in order to have an equal partnership for smaller provinces such as Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, a number was required. It was not just a matter of, if you give this many to this person or that province, you have to give the same number to another. There was wisdom that, for the Dominion of Canada and the provinces to work together, every province had to have a critical mass of representation. I believe that is why we as a small province have four members of Parliament and four senators.
I would like to move that idea on to the North and areas that are under-represented as far as having an opportunity to effect change and be adequately represented within our institutions, which I tend to defend sometimes more than others do.
The Chairman: That concludes our meeting.
To Professors Ajzenstat and Beaujot, thank you for bringing your scholarship to us, for taking the time to prepare for this presentation, for making the presentations, and for dealing patiently and helpfully with our questions.
Your contribution is invaluable to us. We appreciate it very much. As I have said before, if we do receive credit for doing good work in the Senate, it is because people like you are prepared to assist us in our work.
The committee continued in camera.