37-1
37th Parliament,
1st Session
(January 29, 2001 - September 16, 2002)
Select a different session
Proceedings of the Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament
Formerly: The Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders
Issue 6 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Wednesday, May 9, 2001 The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met this day at 12:05 p.m. to consider matters pursuant to its mandate under rule 86(1)(f) of the Rules of the Senate. Senator Jack Austin (Chairman) in the Chair. [English] The Chairman: Honourable senators, I call the meeting to order. A Quorum is present, and we are ready for our session that is not in camera. It is a public session. First, there have been questions about our lunch. I appeared before the Internal Economy Committee yesterday to discuss our budget. So far as I know they did not take action against our lunch! I understand that the official who is responsible for making those arrangements forgot to do so. The parliamentary restaurant is now hustling up whatever it can for us and bringing us lunch. It will be later than usual. Here it comes. I have a few small items of procedure and agenda to discuss before we start with Senator St. Germain. Next week, the Official Languages Commissioner will be appearing. Senator Stratton will chair next week's meeting. I will be in Washington with the Foreign Affairs Committee next week. The whole of next week will be given to the testimony of the Official Languages Commissioner. In the week following that, we will have an in camera discussion on procedure on official languages. We will have an in camera discussion on May 31 on Senate committees and the way we will move that agenda forward. Likewise, on June 6, we will discuss Senate committees and some other items. On June 13, we will come back to the item discussed with us in camera by Mark Audcent. On June 20, if we are still sitting, we will do a wrap-up of where we are and what our priorities for the fall should be. The steering committee is suggesting a special meeting of the Rules Committee on the Tuesday and Wednesday of the week of July 9. During that time we will spend two days dealing with the issue of committees and trying to put our conclusions together so that staff can write our draft report. I have asked Gary O'Brien to see if we can have Meech Lake House, O'Brien House or Wilson House at Meech Lake for a day and a half for that kind of discussion. The clerk will be asking members of the committee if they will be able to attend. If we can get a substantial number, I would like to move forward, because we have a great deal of work to do on the organization of committees. [Translation] Senator Losier-Cool: My question concerns the Commissioner of Official Languages' testimony. Was she asked to make a targeted presentation on the striking of a committee or will she present the latest report on official languages? When she testifies at the Official Languages Committee, she usually presents her report, which is always a lengthy process. Our committee is restricted in time. If she does the same type of presentation, we won't have enough time to ask her questions. Were any directions given to her concerning her presentation? Mr. O'Brien: I gave her all the proceedings of the Senate Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament dealing with Senator Gauthier's motion, as well as the text of the motion. I advised her to focus her discussions on the joint committee's efficiency and the consequences of a Senate Committee on Official Languages. Senator Losier-Cool: Fine, that is the mandate of our committee, not the examination of the whole report on official languages. [English] The Chairman: Thank you for that very useful question, Senator Losier-Cool. Our research assistant, Mr. Robertson, will be preparing briefing memos for senators, with a line of questions. Senator Gauthier: To go back to the original point, you mentioned that there might be a committee meeting or a subcommittee meeting in July. I heard today that tomorrow or this week, that the other House will be tabling what they call modernization of house rules. Are we aware of what they are proposing to do? Perhaps we could take that into consideration when considering our changes here. The Chairman: We are certainly aware of the process. Once we see their report we will present a briefing note to members of this committee, with a view to what relevance their modernization has to our work. Senator Gauthier, we have on our agenda an analysis of our rules that will begin with a presentation by Speaker Hays. We will get to that when we are able. That will probably be in the fall. In the meantime, I understand that the House committee will report in the first week of June. That will give us time to have a discussion here if we feel it is useful to do so. Honourable senators, I have invited Senator St. Germain to appear today as a witness regarding the orders sent to us: That the matter of officially recognizing a third party, within the procedures of the Senate, be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders for consideration and report. We received this on March 22, I believe. Senator St. Germain, thank you for agreeing to appear. I invite you to present your issues and ideas to us and I hope that you will accept questions. We will give the rest of the session to the question of third parties. Please proceed. Senator St. Germain: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will gladly accept questions, although I do not know whether I will answer them. First, I wish to apologize for the fact that, due to lack of resources, I was not able to have the documents I circulated translated for you. There may be facilities within the system that would have provided that translation, and as a staunch supporter of a bilingual country I ask for your forgiveness for circulating these documents in English only. Honourable senators, thank you for allowing me to present my case before you today. I believe that each of you agrees that creating and modifying the rules that govern this house is a solemn task that cannot be taken lightly. For the past few months I have been endeavouring to make a point. I believe that senators need to make this place more reflective of the changing face of our nation and its politics. While I am an appointed senator, and humbled by that appointment, I recognize the need to accommodate change in this place. We are, in fact, one of last remaining appointed upper chambers in the world today and we do struggle to convince Canadians that we still carry out important and legitimate activities on their behalf. I believe that if we are to protect the Senate's values, traditions and purpose from the abolitionists, we must adapt. And, I also believe that the eventual and necessary adaptation will ultimately involve democratic Senate elections. In the meantime, I content myself with trying to make the chamber work better within the present structure. My recent motion or question of privilege, regarding the determination of the official opposition in the Senate is part of this work. I believed it was unlikely that prima facie would be granted under the present circumstances. However, I put the question to shine a light on the fact that, in some areas, the way we operate here needs to be modernized. Ever since the Fathers of Confederation created the Senate, there have been proposals to reform it. The most common complaints have been with numeric representations in some provinces within a region. There comes a time when review of operations and procedures is necessary. We should not try to create an answer to resolve all complaints at once, but rather resolve ourselves to fix those things that we can. The simplest course of action is to do the things we are able to do ourselves, here within the Senate. For example, I am here specifically to talk about what rules should be in place to recognize a party and its caucus here in the Senate. Such rule changes can be implemented here in the Senate. This is an important issue. Methods must exist for the accommodation of new voices in this chamber. If we can make a place for minority voices here, perhaps those voices will not feel so frustrated by the Senate or our governing system as a whole. Honourable senators, approximately half of the voters in this country are not represented in the Senate. Those who voted for the Canadian Alliance, Bloc Québécois or New Democratic Party have no real voice in the Senate. As the lone Canadian Alliance senator in the chamber, I am responsible for speaking on behalf of one in four Canadian voters, 25.5 per cent of the electorate. The Liberals and Progressive Conservatives, who collectively represent 53 per cent of voters, hold all but a handful of seats in the Senate. The other 22 per cent of voters have no representation at all. Western Canadians sent 64 members of Parliament to Ottawa last fall with half of all of the votes in Western Canada. Those 1.9 million voters have but one voice in the Senate. Is this the way we are to govern ourselves? Is this democracy? There are three ways of dealing with dissent. The first two methods are to attempt to muzzle or ignore it. The third method is to accommodate the voices of dissent so that they feel included in the system and not excluded by it. Let me quote Professor John C. Courtney, the author of one of the few papers on the issue of party status in Parliament and a primary source for the research done for the Parliamentary Library on this topic. According to Professor Courtney: ...to place restrictions or to grant privileges in such a way as to impede natural changes in the party system would be unwise for no other reason than it could generate unnecessary tensions in society. If, shortly after World War I, the farmers' protests had not been allowed to take the form they did (in the establishment of the Progressive Party) because of statutory and regulatory barriers weighted in favour of the existing parties, what avenues would have been available to those whose moves were prompted by such profound dissatisfaction with the policies and leadership of the two older parties that no reconciliation was at that time possible within the two party system? Accommodation is something both chambers in this Parliament must begin to practice. The struggles over parliamentary reform in the other place are a prime example of the healthy debate that needs to take place to accommodate the many voices in our great country. With regard to the question at hand, there are several matters that need examination by your committee. The first is the experiences of the other place. The second is the fundamental principles that should be applied to our deliberations. The third is the experiences of other nations. The fourth is the experiences of the Canadian provinces. The fifth matter that needs to be examined concerns the factors of particular validity relative to the Senate. And the final point, based on this evidence, is what recommendations can be made. As a copy of my remarks has been provided to you through the chair, in the interest of time, I will provide abbreviated summary comments about the experiences of other nations and provinces. My detailed comments on these matters, numbered 3 and 4, have been appended to the text of my remarks. I will briefly address the six areas just mentioned. Canada's House of Commons set its requirement for minimum party status at 12 members of Parliament. The rule was adopted in 1963, when both the New Democratic Party and the Social Credit Party each had reasonably sized caucuses. The numbers were 17 and 24 members of Parliament, respectively. It has been argued by some that the minority government of the day set the limit at 12 in order to placate both minor parties and hopefully to encourage them to prop up the minority government. At the time that the rule was adopted, the House of Commons had 265 members of Parliament. The limit was approximately 4.5 per cent of the chamber's composition. The 12 member rule has not changed as the House has grown. Today, the 12 member limit reflects just under 4 per cent of the chamber's membership. The establishment of a minimum limit emerged as the size and nature of government grew to the point where members, their parties and their respective leadership, needed additional resources to fulfil the requirements of the job. Additional remuneration for leadership roles was provided in recognition for the extra duties and responsibility party leaders must take on in order for our adversarial system to work. According to the late Stanley Knowles, who was the New Democratic Party House Leader during the affair: The extra work of those involved deserved to be covered, and we agreed that it was time to recognize a reality, namely that the House of Commons had become a multi-party system. I submit to you, honourable senators, that some 40 years later it is time a similar reality was recognized in the Senate. Yet to provide additional resources to any member who sets himself or herself up as a political party or faction is obviously unworkable. As well, providing equal access to question period and committees for sole independent members could possibly have the effect of paralyzing the system. Thus, a minimum limit was selected. Next I turn to fundamental principles. I do not know the complete rationale - the records of debate do not include the discussions outside the recorded chamber or committee rooms - that was used to come up with the figure of 12 members in the lower chamber. I do, however, suspect that the needs of the minority government played a role. Regardless, I believe that some fundamental principles should be kept in mind before any decision regarding party status is made. It is important that the criteria we use for creating party status in the Senate be seen as fair and not arbitrary. Therefore, I submit that the following principles need to be adhered to in any decision that is made. The first principle is protecting the democratic rule of the majority. The allowance for smaller parties or caucuses in the Senate must not be such that they can inordinately thwart the will of the majority. The business of the Senate must be able to proceed in a reasonable manner. Next is protecting the voice of the minority. Allowances for additional parties and groups should ensure that provisions are made for minority voices to be equally heard in all critical areas of Senate business. These areas must include such arenas as question period and committee work. Remember that the government and the opposition parties in the Senate represent only a little over half of the voters. That figure is 53 per cent. How does this place speak for and accommodate those outside the structure? How are the minority voices heard here? Much of Western Canada is excluded from the debate in this place. They are like outsiders in their own country, where they can only participate in one of their parliamentary institutions by listening at the keyhole. Next I turn to the importance of the party. While the existence of political parties may not be formally recognized in many aspects of our parliamentary system, there can be no question as to the fundamental importance of a party to the organization and the operation of the Senate. Party membership dictates who sits where and who asks questions of whom. It dictates who gets priority in committee placement. It affects the remuneration of some positions and more importantly, it affects the provision and allocation of research resources. The selection of leaders, deputy leaders, whips and committee chairs is all based on party affiliation. Although there is some presumption about equal rights and privileges of senators, in point of fact, by the nature of the intrusion of the party system, some senators are more equal than others. Party and party affiliation have become the arbiter of power. Senators who have chosen to sit as independents and are thereby not affiliated with the two traditional party caucuses in the Senate are disadvantaged and are less equal than their peers. The denial of party status to a senator or group of senators is, in effect, a diminishment of their rights in this place. No one can argue that all parties need to be equal. Someone must be the government and someone must be able to pose the first question to that government. However, the relative inequality of parties is another reason why rules must exist regarding smaller parties and their roles in the Senate. I turn next to international and national experiences. My staff has arbitrarily examined a number of democratic parliamentary bodies across Europe and Canada. They have done this to garner a sense of the approach taken in the matter of official recognition of political parties. An examination of the party status rules from several jurisdictions reveals some common threads. First, representation in terms of percentage ranges from 2.5 per cent to 10 per cent, although most jurisdictions fall in the 3 per cent to 5 per cent range. Second, minimum party status is something that all bodies examined seem to have a rule for. All parliaments examined seem to recognize that those smaller factions or groups need to be recognized to some level. The makeup of the smaller groupings in terms of party affiliation or faction is generally left to the group concerned. The rationale behind the various party status rules is not altogether clear. Generally, it seems the various parliaments and assemblies have tried to set a reasonable threshold to ensure that independents do not take advantage of the system. On the other hand, it seems necessary to ensure that any reasonable size of the population, whether measured by popular vote or seats achieved, not be excluded from the political discourse of the nation. It is important to remember that a democracy considers the demands of these minorities sufficient because it is the very nature of democracy to recognize the will of the majority while protecting the voice of the minority. Many of these nations have had troubled pasts, troubles that are often the result of the exclusion of some voices from the nation's political discourse. The question, of course, is: What constitutes a legitimate minority voice? There are other factors to consider. One is the Senate's role as a defender of regional interests. The Senate's role is twofold. The first is to act as a chamber of reflective deliberation on matters raised in the lower chamber. The second is to represent the regional, sectional and minority interests of the country. Any decision regarding minimum party status in this chamber should consider these obligations. Therefore, they should consider what support a political party has amongst the general population and the support a particular party has in particular regions and provinces. How does the Senate propose to accommodate emerging voices in our country? How does it propose to accommodate Westerners and Quebecers, whose aspirations are not always heard? If Canada's parliamentary institutions cannot accommodate these opinions, how will they be heard? Western Canada wants a place in this country. The citizens of Western Canada have never taken to separatism as a method of extorting this country. On the other hand, our attempts at working within Confederation to achieve our aspirations have been rebuffed time and time again. I turn now to the subject of fairness to provinces and territories. In any discussion regarding the minimum size a party or faction needs in order to qualify for recognition in the Senate, it is our collective duty, as intended by the Fathers of Confederation, to act as protectors of regional interests. The Province of Prince Edward Island has only four senators. To set the bar above that amount would, in effect, diminish the political strength of one province in Confederation. If the minimum number of senators required were not set at four, Prince Edward Island would be the only province unable to present a provincial block in the Senate. A similar argument could be made for the three senators representing our Northern Territories. Some may argue that similar discrimination already exists in the lower chamber. However, the lower chamber is designed to represent constituency interests, not regional interests. A senator's area of representation is defined more by province than by constituency, which in many cases we select ourselves. As well, provinces gain greater parity in the lower chamber through the composition of the cabinet. No such opportunity exists in the Senate. There is a need for rules that protect both the majority and minority. As I stated earlier, the recognition of a minority need not necessarily impair the ability of the majority to govern. The recognition of a minority and the willingness of the majority to allow minority voices to be heard are the critical elements of democracy. Therefore, when considering minority interests in this place, mere numbers of senators might not be sufficient criteria. The nature of this place is such that lone senators, like myself, may speak for 25 per cent of the electorate, while some larger caucuses may speak for a substantially smaller electorate. Given this situation, I believe that recognition of minority voices in the Senate requires us to look beyond the simple composition of the Senate. The nature of our selection as senators means we must be open to considering what constitutes a legitimate minority voice. Based on arguments and my research of this issue, I would like to submit the following recommendations. They need not be taken as a whole and may be considered in isolation. First, for a political party to be recognized in the Senate, the party should reflect the minimum percentage of the popular vote in the most recent federal election. A reasonable limit may be 5 per cent or 10 per cent. Second, the political parties in the Senate should reflect the need of equitable balance for the regions and the equality of provinces. The minimum caucus size should be no more than three or four based on the Senate representation of the Northern Territories and the Province of Prince Edward Island. Third, consideration should be given to the relationship between the upper and lower chambers. Any party seeking official status in the upper chamber should be required to have official party status in the lower chamber. This requirement is a reflection of democratic will and the role the lower house plays in the formation of the government ministry. To allow a party to have official status in the upper chamber without official status in the Commons undermines the importance of opposition parties in our system of government-in-waiting. Fourth, rules should be clear about selecting the leadership of parties in the Senate. Are the leaders to be appointed by the respective party leader in the lower house or selected by the caucus in the upper chamber? Fifth, the speaker's role in resolving disputes about the nature of party status needs to be clarified and enhanced. The speaker should be given authority to determine whether a group qualifies for party status, and should be in a position to arbitrate such disputes. Such a role is afforded to both speakers in the British Parliament. By providing the speaker with this role, the tyranny of the majority with respect to eroding the rights of smaller caucuses would be diminished. A future Senate would not be able to arbitrarily remove or change rules on the party status. I am pleased that the Senate decided to consider the matter of party status in the Senate. A democracy can function only if it has rules and customs that protect minority voices. History is filled with unnecessary conflict resulting from the exclusion of some voices from political discourse. Denying any minority's voice is a sure path to tyranny. Western Canada wants to be part of this great nation, but it wants a voice that is heard in all institutions, including the Senate. The accommodation of that voice will go a long way in reducing calls for abolition of this venerable chamber. By constructing reasonable, equitable and fair rules grounded in sound rationale and not arbitrary whim, we will be strengthening the Senate and giving it the tools it needs to adapt to changing circumstances. Honourable senators, we are making a small piece of history here. Let future senators have no doubt that our deliberations and our actions were wise. I thank you for listening. As a postscript, I draw to your attention some additional comments appended to this presentation. They are a critique of the Library of Parliament's Preliminary Notes on Party Status and The Canadian Senate, a document that your committee discussed and has under advisement. I hope those remarks add to your thoughts as you wise senators deliberate on this important issue. Senator Murray: Let me say first that I am in favour of a more representative Senate. I have believed for many years that it would be good for the Senate, good for Parliament and good for the country. It would also be good if the New Democrats would come off its high horse and, to mix metaphors, swallow their principled objection to the existence of the Senate and do what the British Labour Party did many years ago. Like the Labour Party, they should accept that the upper house is here to stay, accept to be members of that institution and play a fuller part in the parliamentary process. I feel the same way about your party, if you are going to be a permanent fixture. Senator St. Germain: I did not know you wanted me back. Senator Murray: The emphasis was on the "if." Some years ago, when the ranks of the opposition in the Senate began to dwindle to dangerously low levels, Prime Minister Trudeau made an arrangement with the then leaders of the opposition, first Mr. Stanfield and later Mr. Clark. The arrangement was to receive five names from the leader of the opposition and to appoint senators from that list when there was a vacancy. Today, there are a number of vacancies in the Senate. If Prime Minister Chrétien asked your leader of the official opposition in the Commons, Mr. Day, for a list of five names for one or other of those vacancies, would he submit five names? Senator St. Germain: I cannot speak for the leader of the party. I do not know what he would do, Senator Murray. We would have to put that question to him. Senator Murray: I think you understand what the problem is. Senator St. Germain: I do understand. Senator Murray: The problem for your party is that it has taken a strong position against the Senate as presently constituted, that is, against the appointments to the Senate, and have favoured holding so-called elections in provinces when vacancies arise. That is not working within the system, and Prime Minister Chrétien has declined to appoint the winners of those elections. The Chairman: Really referendums. Senator Murray: Whatever they are, he has declined to appoint them. If you want an elected Senate, the way to get it is to persuade seven provinces with 50 per cent of the population and the Commons and the Senate to agree to it. He has not done it. It is an important question. Senator St. Germain: Whether you want to call it a referendum or not, I am sure they would present names, and I do not want to speak on behalf of the leader because he can speak for himself. I am sure they would be glad to put forward the names of elected representatives in Alberta. Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, if you recall, appointed Stan Waters, and there was not any constitutional requirement. In his generosity and wisdom in governing the country, he saw the need to appoint Stan Waters to the Senate, and it was an excellent appointment. Senator Murray: The Meech Lake process was in place then. All of the senators were being appointed when vacancies existed. All of the vacancies were to be created from lists submitted by provincial governments. You and I recall that process. Let us put it this way: If Prime Minister Chrétien decided to fill one or other of the vacancies in Ontario, Nova Scotia or British Columbia with an Alliance nominee, you do not know... There is no point speculating. Do you think members of the Bloc Québécois should be appointed to the Senate? Senator St. Germain: If we are going to argue that a party that is recognized in the House of Commons accepts an appointment, why should it be different from the New Democratic Party of whom you spoke earlier? If they were prepared to accept an appointment by virtue of the system we have now, I would say that they should be. Senator Murray: You and your party would defend such an appointment if it were made by Prime Minister Chrétien? Senator St. Germain: I will not defend anything. I am saying that if we are to be consistent, we cannot discriminate against anyone. We must be consistent if nothing else. Senator Murray: You are both consistent and principled. The Chairman: I have a supplementary on Senator Murray's line of questioning. One factor that has not been taken into account in Senator St. Germain's presentation is the term of service for senators once they are appointed. You have a snapshot of the House of Commons as it is today, but that will change from election to election and, therefore, because of the terms of senators to age 75, we will get an asynchronous Senate with the House of Commons in the next electoral process. Senator Stratton: This is a well researched piece, Senator St. Germain. It is well done. I always try to approach suggestions with the question: If we do agree in principle, how will we carry it out? While your descriptions have been good, the political reality raises more issues. Senator Murray has pointed out that we could adopt the Meech Lake standard for each province. As you know, I was a defender of the Meech Lake Accord and I still believe in that process because it is a step toward an elected Senate. And I believe that must take place. I do not necessarily believe in an elected Senate, but I believe the public wants it. How are we really going to accomplish this? Your party has 66 seats, although I am not sure of the status of all your people. That is roughly 20 per cent of the seats in the House of Commons. Does that mean your party should have 20 per cent of the seats in the Senate? If that is true, does that mean, if a vacancy is declared open in Quebec, that your party would get that seat by default? Or, rather, because your vote is focused primarily in the West, that you should only take any seats that become available in the West? How do we determine a party's representation in the Senate? I would like to hear more, in realistic terms, on how we can accomplish this. This is what we ultimately must talk about. The political will of the majority obviously wants to maintain the status quo. That drives folks like you and I rather off the deep end at times, but it is nevertheless the reality. Until you have another Prime Minister there, I do not believe we will accomplish any change whatsoever. What we are doing here becomes important to keep the pressure on and keep the public aware that change needs to take place in some form or other. Do you have any ideas on how we can do this? Senator St. Germain: First, I agree that the Meech Lake Accord was an excellent document. Unfortunately we lost it. Hopefully, somewhere along the line, someone can resurrect an amendment to our constitution that will be similar to the Accord. As far as the percentage in the house, we must live within the realities that face us. To say that we should have 20 per cent of Senate seats because we have 20 per cent in the Commons does not necessarily reflect reality. The question is what would happen if, after the next election, by chance, the Alliance Party became a minority government? Senator Murray: It would fill every vacancy in the Senate and do so very quickly. Senator St. Germain: The Liberals could have packed it before they left office. That has happened in the past. There would be nothing to do but to go to the Queen and ask for eight additional senators to establish some form of presence in the Senate. They would most likely go to the provinces that hold elections because their belief is in an elected Senate. Senator Stratton, you and I know, from the work we have done in the past, how an elected Senate is really part of the thought process in Western Canada. We must find a way to work with what exists right now. Where do we go from there? I am not sitting here as an expert. I never professed to be an expert. The two people with me today are not experts either. We work together, without resources, and we are struggling. We are putting our case forward based on the research that we have been able to do. I do not believe that because the Alliance holds 20 per cent of seats in the House of Commons, that we should be given the senators from Quebec. Under the present structure, it would not work. The Canadian Alliance will truly have to wait, unless the present Prime Minister does go to the leader of the Alliance Party and asks for and receives names. Then, who knows what will happen. The way it is structured now, it is at the discretion of the Prime Minister to name senators. We do have the anomaly in the system. I do not think we can change everything dramatically. If you read the text of my delivery, I am trying to provide a voice under the present structure without going to any extremes. I tried to be as rational as possible. Senator Stratton: My view is that until government changes, nothing will really happen. I do not see any reason whatsoever for the current party in power to make changes. They have no reason to change. In the West, Canadians do want change. British Columbia has six senators and there are 30 senators from Atlantic Canada. There is a disproportion there. I am sorry. We are looking for a process for this. It has to be a process that evolves into a minority government of, say, your party's political persuasion. How do you see your leader, whomever that may be, carrying out such a process? In reality, that is what must happen because you will then have the power to accommodate that. Senator St. Germain: Senator Stratton, these are hypothetical terms. I do not want to get into hypotheses. I am trying to address the realities of the day. I have just been asked by a member of Parliament who sits on the justice committee to follow through on a bill which is now in the House of Commons. I am asked to relate the concerns of all opposition parties in the House of Commons to this legislation. He hopes that somehow my voice can be heard on this. That is the reality I am facing. We can talk about what if we get elected or if you get elected. We may be together. You never know. This may be an act of redundancy. I am trying to deal with what we have. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I do not want to get into hypothetical situations because I cannot answer for other people. I can only answer for what I am trying to deal with. I would not be in this situation if people had sat down and talked to me after I made the move. All I wanted to do was discuss it, and they said no, you have to sit as an independent. I said, I am not an independent. I spoke to Senator Carstairs who said, "We are treating you as an independent." I said, "Senator Carstairs, with all due respect, when you were the lone Liberal Member of the Legislative Assembly in Manitoba, did they treat you as an independent?" She said, no. She looked at me and said, "You are right." The fact is, that is why I am here. I am asking you to put your brilliance together and come up with a reasonable solution. Senator Austin knows what Western Canadians are saying. He knows what British Columbians are saying about the Senate. Senator Bryden, I am sure, understands that there is great frustration in British Columbia where we have a population of four million people. At the moment, we have five senators, with one in waiting. I hope Iona Campagnolo, or someone like her, is appointed tomorrow morning. The Chairman: Honourable senators, we have had fun with the small "p" politics of this submission. However, what I would ask you to do is focus more on the methodology. There are really three questions here. This is the first question: Is this the time to establish rules for the presence of third parties in the Senate? If the answer to that is yes, then the second question is: What constitutes, to use the phrase in the House of Commons, recognized membership in third parties. By this I mean, how many do we feel is an equitable working number? Some people have suggested that the party must have a significant membership. It is suggested that the membership be large enough to cover a leader, a deputy leader, a whip, and someone to be whipped. The third question is: What are the other privileges and entitlements with respect to third party status, such as research, budget, order of speaking and other such issues? Those are the three questions. How we have a third party representative in the Senate is, at the moment, not something on which we need to focus. Senator Gauthier: Your whole paper is based on the Senate being representative of the House of Commons. You say that senators should reflect representation by population. Senator St. Germain: I said that. Senator Gauthier: Who named you to the Senate, and when? Senator St. Germain: Brian Mulroney, in June of 1993. Senator Gauthier: You were named as a Tory, were you not? Senator St. Germain: Yes. Senator Gauthier: You changed from the Tory party to the Alliance Party on your own, did you not? Senator St. Germain: No. I changed from the Tory party to sit as an independent. Senator Gauthier: If you were elected to the House of Commons as a Tory and decided to move to the Liberals, you would have to be elected as a Liberal, is that not right? Senator St. Germain: No, not necessarily. Senator Gauthier: Eventually you would have to do that, would you not? Senator St. Germain: In the next election, I would have to do that, sir. Senator Gauthier: You have within four or five years to get elected. Senator St. Germain: That is right. Senator Gauthier: In the Senate, we do not have that process. You are named until you are 75-years old. Suppose senators change, as you did, from one party to the other. What do you think would eventually happen? Would we have a representative from the Green Party? Senator St. Germain: Possibly. What is wrong with that? Have the dynamics and the politics changed? Things have been consistent here in Central Canada. On the other hand, Western Canada has changed dramatically. The demographics have changed. The political landscape has changed. I was appointed to represent the region, Senator Gauthier, of Western Canada. If someone decided to represent the Green Party, what would be wrong with that, sir? Senator Gauthier: I have no problems with regional representation. That is basically what the Senate is. Perhaps that is one of the problems that we will have to look at, and then make it more balanced as per the demographics, as you say. I am from Ontario. [Translation] I am a French Canadian living in Ontario. That's why I was appointed to the Senate. Two French Canadian senators are residing in Ontario, Marie Poulin and myself. Senator St. Germain: Only two? Senator Gauthier: Two out of 24, but I live with the system. I was in favour of the Meech Lake Accord. In my riding, Ottawa-Vanier, we won the referendum on the Charlottetown Agreement. I truly believe in an elected Senate, eventually, with appropriate rules and conditions. However, I don't understand that a senator decides not to be a member of the party that appointed him to the Senate and joins another party without exposing himself to some critics, like you're doing. I respect your decisions, but I think that creates problems. Senator St. Germain: The answer is simple: I represent a region with its political and demographic specificities. [English] Senator Gauthier: That was your decision. Senator St. Germain: That is correct. That was my decision. Now I am asking you to consider what impact my decision has on the Senate. Whether you agree with what I have done or not, this was not an easy decision for me to make. It is a still a tough thing to deal with when I look at my colleagues for whom I have so much respect. I am referring to colleagues such as Senator Andreychuk, Senator Stratton, and others. I made the decision, and the decision is what I am asking you to deal with now. Senator Andreychuk: I think the chairman touched on the three points that we should focus on. Is this the appropriate time? What do we do with third parties? There is one other question, of course. Senator St. Germain is saying that it is a question of representing minorities and the changing climate in Canada. My understanding is that it is the role of independents to represent minorities and to reflect the changing Canadian climate. Nowhere in his submission does he talk about the effect that recognizing third parties will have on the independents. Should it have any effect on them? Senator St. Germain: I have a lot of sympathy for the independents because I sat as an independent for a period of time. The difference is this: Right now, in the House of Commons, the official opposition is the Canadian Alliance. They are theoretically the government-in-waiting. A lot of the work that they do, and they have huge resources to do that work, they want reflected in the upper chamber. That is the difference. Independents operate as independents. That is the basic difference, Senator Andreychuk. Senator Andreychuk: You are representing the Alliance. Therefore, you can bring the Alliance Party concerns forward. With the independents, one can say they have some of the negatives of not being part of the party process. However, they also have some of the positives. There are trade-offs. They have much more time. I am reminded, as we create more and more caucuses, just how much time we spend in our different caucuses. I understand the Liberals have even more than we do. Even as a member of a caucus, there have been times when I have not been able to get on to a committee which is dealing with a bill in which I am extremely interested. I still attend those committees. I contribute to the committees, as any senator can. I wonder why you think that the voice of the Alliance should be heard in the Senate in a formal way. Senator St. Germain: It is simply because they are the official opposition in the House of Commons. Senator Andreychuk: The point then would be, when they are no longer that voice, they are then in a preferred position. You are contemplating that they will remain as the official opposition. Senator Austin pointed out that a senator is appointed until the age of 75. You cannot look at the minuses without looking at the pluses. Senator St. Germain: They are a recognized party in the country under the Canada Election Act. What is problematic about them continuing to be represented in the Senate? This should not be a problem even if the individual decides to sit as a member from the Liberal Party, the Tory Party, or from the Green Party. Politics is all about choices. Independents should have always had a place on committees. I have no problem with that. Senator Gauthier talked about their changing to other parties. Many senators have been appointed by various governments and then have sat as independents. I am not sure of the history, but has anyone changed sides from Liberal to Tory or vice versa in Canada's history? The Chairman: I can't think of anyone leaving one party for another, but I can recall senators who were Liberals and became independents. Senator St. Germain: I do not know if that answers your question, Senator Andreychuk. I am seeking the wisdom that exists within the Senate to come up with a rational solution. The only thing that really upset me about the whole process was the fact that when I made the choice, which was tough, they said that I was still an independent. They only had to sit down with me to try to figure it out. It was as if they wanted to ignore me in the hope that I would go away. That is the crux of the situation, and I am sure that in the deliberations, that astute legal mind of yours will serve us well. Senator Andreychuk: The issue of third parties, the changes in Canada and Canada's changing demographics are important factors. However, those issues are part of a larger debate on the House of Commons and how it works. That includes all kinds of Senate issues. Then, we are right back to the Meech Lake Accord, the Charlottetown Agreement, or the next round of how we change Parliament. It is not an isolated issue but a piece of so many other things. If we start working on this, do we have the ability and the authority to change all the rest? Perhaps Senator St. Germain's admonition is that we will do what we can within the rules that we have, bearing in mind that that may not be a full answer. Senator St. Germain: Who knows what will happen? If the Prime Minister is in office for another eight years, he may look around and find so few Liberal members that he may decide to request names from the Leader of the Opposition. In former Prime Minister Trudeau's era, if a senator were to leave before the end of his or her term, Mr. Trudeau would request the names of potential candidates from the Leader of the Official Opposition to replace the departing senator. Senator Murray: Generally, though not always, that was the case. The Chairman: Former Prime Minister Trudeau said that if a Conservative senator retired more than six months before the end of his term, he would consider appointing a Conservative of his own choice. Senator Murray: Mr. Trudeau also appointed Mr. Manning, who sat with us as a member of the Social Credit Party. If you look up his name, under party, it indicated Social Credit. Now, he was a member of committees, and I remember sitting with him on at least one. He was given positions on committees, and whenever he wanted to speak in the Senate, he spoke. Whenever you want to speak in the Senate, you are recognized, are you not? Senator St. Germain: I tried to rise in question period at the beginning of the sitting. There was a list and the time expired, and I never was recognized. That was the other thing that lead to my saying that if, in theory, the Progressive Conservatives could submit lists and occupy the time, then I would never have the opportunity to rise in the house. The accepted process is that the entire list is dealt with and then, if there is time remaining, independents and third parties could be recognized. That was one of the determining factors. Since then, I have been recognized, but I tested it right at the beginning, and that was what happened. The Chairman: My understanding of the process is that the Leader of the Opposition or the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has the right to put the first question. The rest of the list is based on the time in which you advise the speaker that you have a question you wish to ask. Senator Pitfield: Mr. Chairman, I do not think there is much argument that an approach to this question on a one-item-by-one-item basis is not nearly as useful and satisfactory as having a plan of attack. We must attack the subject of the constitution through a standard reduction of objectives, role, purpose, et cetera. Insofar as it is the role of people in active politics today to pass on the issues of what we believe about any particular item or issue, it seems to me that the politician, in whatever office he chooses, will want to keep his options open. You can be sure that we want to keep the door open to any flexibility that will open the renegotiations, or create an advancement in our thinking concerning our constitutional arrangements. It is simply unthinkable that we keep the present situation, unless we absolutely have to. Therefore, I do not see why we cannot adopt, for instance, the position of the Americans in respect of their upper chamber. The conditions for selection will be decided by the provinces. There is no reason that this must be done through the federal central system. It seems to me that there is no need to decide this now. If we get anywhere, it will be by keeping the number of substantive points in play at the lowest possible level. Yes, we get a reading of the attitudes of the members of the Senate regarding the representation of members, but only on those items that are strictly relevant to the discussion we are having. The Chairman: Thank you, Senator Pitfield. I certainly agree with you, that this issue can be dealt with much more narrowly than by reviewing the Meech Lake Accord and other items. Maybe we need to get some of these things out of our system in this discussion. Senator Grafstein: I will start at the systemic level and then come back to the specific problem. At the systemic level, I must agree with Senator St. Germain that there is again confusion in the minds of many as to the role of the Senate. It starts with the Supreme Court of Canada. When I went through the question of parliamentary supremacy versus legislative supremacy, Madam Justice McLachlin, now Chief Justice, said that she considers her role as a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada to be that of a minority voice against the majoritarian view in Parliament. That was her systemic analysis. I quoted from an article on the Judges Act. If you read the whole article, you will find it quite interesting. I concluded from that that our current Chief Justice does not understand the role of Parliament. Senator St. Germain brings up the important point of the role of a minority or regional viewpoint within the system. How is it to be respected? I think the system is clear. However, I feel that we must examine it very carefully. I start with the more specific point of essentially disagreeing with the Speaker. You should read the speaker's ruling very carefully. He concludes, on page four, that he does not agree that a prima facie case had been raised. When he said this, I said that it was not factually correct. He said: Our parliamentary system continued to function even though the Senate had an Opposition that did not match the Official Opposition in the House of Commons when it was the Bloc or the Reform Party. Parliament is flexible enough to accommodate this possibility. So he opens the door to possibilities and he also says that it is up to the Senate to decide. That is to the good. However, he then says: This is because, in large measure, the Senate and the House of Commons are, and remain, independent, auton omous bodies performing roles that are complementary to each other. From a statutory standpoint, that is not quite correct. From a constitutional standpoint, that is certainly not correct. It is as if we have muscles, but the real blood vessels essentially are the party. Senator Murray and I have had this discussion before. On the majority side, the speaker is appointed by the executive. If the power changes, the speaker will be of the governing party. Second, the Leader of the Government in the Senate is appointed by the leader of the party that holds a majority in the other place. The deputy whip, the whip and the house leader are all appointed. Therefore, on our side the party plays the absolute role of determining the role of the leadership in the Senate. Others have said that it goes further than that. The decision also goes to the executive to decide who the chairmen should be. At the least, the executive from our leadership will not appoint a chairman of a committee if it will displease the executive. That is a practical fact. It can be debated, but that is the way it works. On the opposition side, until recently the opposition had exactly the same role. Senator Murray: No, sir. Senator Grafstein: You can explain the opposition. I come back to the premise that party is important and Senator St. Germain represents a party that is the opposition in the other place. He seeks designation. I have no problem with him changing his designation. I remember that Mr. Manning designated himself as a Social Creditor. That is a start. I have said that the party plays an invisible but inordinate role through caucuses and all the rest. What is the balance that should allow a member who decides that he wishes to join the opposition bloc in the other place? In effect, he is giving that view a bigger voice in the Senate. I agree with Senator Andreychuk, that every senator is equal. Every senator can attend committees and every senator can participate. However, when it comes to funding, priorities and preference, there are unwritten priorities and preferences that are given to parties that are not attributed to someone who stands up and says, I am a party and I am not recognized. I start from the premise that we have an obligation to allow Senator St. Germain to designate himself, and then seek to give him some recognition. I begin by saying: Why should he not get some additional funding for research? Everyone else has a research budget. Why should he not get some additional money? He is one man who chooses to represent a particular viewpoint, and why should he not get some research funding? Senator Pitfield: Because there is no requirement to answer the question, for you to get into that issue. If you keep bringing in these issues, you will not be able to - Senator Grafstein: I begin by saying that if there is some recognition that parties play a role in the other place, is there not a concomitant responsibility for us to at least look at this objectively? It will not hurt anything. The Chairman: Would any independent senator not claim the same right for additional funding? Senator Grafstein: If he represents a party. The Chairman: Is this a party in the House, or just a party he declares he belongs to? Senator Grafstein: That is a more difficult question, Mr. Chairman. Quite frankly, we are brilliant here. We can set up foul balls to detract from an essential issue. We are confronted with the narrow and simple fact that Senator St. Germain has declared himself a member of a party that represents Her Majesty's Official Opposition in the other place. He is saying, as I understand him: "Please keep in mind that I am only one person, not three or four. Please give me some assistance. Help me to represent that minority viewpoint that heretofore has not been represented in the Senate." I think it obliges us to be honest with ourselves. I think we should at least give him the benefit of seeing whether there is some way in which we can deal with his specific case. I am not worried about the Rhinoceros Party because the Rhinoceros Party is not here. I am empathetic to Senator St. Germain, although I disagree fundamentally with what his party stands for. However, I cannot say that he is not entitled, under our system, to have that viewpoint represented here. The way to do that is to give him some assistance. This is not to derogate anyone else's authority, but I believe that another voice of this nature makes this a much more substantive body. Senator Bryden: We are currently talking third party status because Senator St. Germain is a member of the official opposition, but he is only one person. Presumably, if he can become a member of the official opposition party, a half dozen others in our chamber could do the same. With the natural attrition that occurs, there may come a point at which that number exceeds the number of Conservatives who are currently considered to be the official opposition in the Senate. At that stage, do we go back to Senator St. Germain's original position, which was, I represent the official opposition in the House of Commons, and therefore, I want to be representative of the opposition here. The best that I have heard is that you do not have enough people. However, if you had enough people, I take it that that is where it would be; you would be the Leader of the Opposition. Yet, when the Tories had only two members of Parliament, and subsequently lost their majority position, they still remained Leaders of the Opposition in the Senate. Mr. Chairman: May I intervene for a moment? The question of how we choose an official opposition party is not really the issue that Senator St. Germain has put before this committee. We are looking at the question of what constitutes third parties in the Senate. To go to that broader issue would prevent us from resolving the question that is in front of us. Second, essentially, in Senator St. Germain's submission is the argument that to be an official party in the Senate, you must be an official party in the House of Commons. That is in his submission. However, as you have just pointed out, when the Conservatives had two members in the House of Commons and did not have official party status, they were the official opposition in the Senate. I think that argues strongly for a discontinuity between the two Houses in this Parliament. I would argue that later in respect of other areas as well. There is another anomaly, which is quite interesting. Senator Murray referred to Mr. Trudeau's era when the Conservative Party was the official opposition in the House of Commons, and today the Alliance Party is the official opposition. The question about whether Mr. Chrétien would hold the same position, that is, to renew present Conservative appointments to the Senate, is interesting. I do not have an answer to that, but it is another element in the question about the way in which we retain an effective working opposition in the Senate. Senator Murray: In the meantime, I wish that Senator St. Germain would list the problems that he has, in representing the Canadian Alliance Party in the Senate. I know that one of the problems is that he does not have an opportunity to sit on committees. That is the same problem for independents. Senator Andreychuk: He is a member of the Aboriginal committee, though. The Chairman: Yes, he is a member of one of the committees. Senator St. Germain: That was a specific arrangement; I was asked by the Tories to sit on that committee. Senator Murray: What are the other problems? I was not aware, frankly, that I should put my name on a list. I never did put my name on a list, and when I wanted to ask a question, I simply gave the high sign to the speaker. Eventually, he would recognize me. Senator St. Germain: Your excellent reputation precedes you. Senator Murray: I sit close to the throne, as it were. What are the other problems that could be solved without changing the rules, in the meantime? The Chairman: Maybe if you had given Senator St. Germain a closer position to the speaker, he would not have left your party. Senator St. Germain: In a nutshell, regarding the selection of senators and how we get there, I would like us to deal with the realities of what I am confronting. I have come to you about this, and about one million hypothetical situations that can be construed. Senator Grafstein said that you could hit foul balls all day on this issue. When I established myself as a Canadian Alliance Party senator, I was told that I would be treated as an independent. A letter was sent over by the then Whip of the Alliance Party requesting my status. There was a deliberation that took place, from my understanding, between the Liberals, the Conservatives and the speaker. I was not brought into these deliberations, and a letter of response was submitted to the Whip, John Reynolds, member of Parliament, at the time. The letter stated that I would be treated as an independent. From there, we have evolved to this stage. I had a subsequent meeting with Senator Carstairs and she told me that the rules had changed; independents would be able to sit on committees. Senator Carstairs asked me, "As an independent, what committee do you want to sit on?" I said, "I am not an independent, Senator Carstairs." Then we had the discussion that I described earlier. She said, You are right; you are not an independent. Thus, the issue was basically left, and I never ended up on any committees. Then I was approached by Senator Kinsella, and he asked me whether I would sit as a member of the Aboriginal committee. My understanding was that I was working with the Progressive Conservatives and occupying a seat on a committee that I have worked on for a considerable amount of time, with Senator Austin and others. However, unbeknownst to me, I was then sitting not as a member working with the Tory party, but as an independent. That was not the understanding that I had. Now, this is the evolution of the whole process and why I have come before you. I have asked you to deal with the scenario that is before us, so that I can better represent my region and my constituents, and so that I can represent the party in the other place. I would like to point out that in the House of Lords, in the 1930s, and I do not have the documentation with me, the Labour Party emerged as the official opposition in the House of Commons. There were people appointed to the House of Lords to represent the Labour Party in the House of Lords. This was done so that they would have representation in the House of Lords. I went so far as to seek out the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. This was driven by the fact that I was put into, what I considered to be, an untenable position. I have worked diligently to improve the plight of senators. The criticism of senators has diminished greatly in the last few months. I do not take all the credit for it, but I share the credit with other members of my party, as well as others. I will continue to work to improve the Senate of Canada, and I will always represent my region to the best of my ability. I ask you to exercise the greatest of flexibility and reason in dealing with this. The Chairman: I certainly try to bring the greatest reason and balance to this particular issue. I suggest to honourable senators that, as I said earlier in the discussion, the issues are relatively simple. Should we now establish rules for third parties? I favour it, but I do not know what our consensus is. We will have that discussion at our next meeting on this topic. What the appropriate number should be is quite interesting. There are also some numbers in the provinces that are interesting. There is also the question of what exactly we should apply to the privileges of a third party. Those are the issues. I am grateful for your presentation, which was most interesting, and for the discussion today. I would like to introduce two gentlemen from the Parliament buildings in Stormont, Belfast, who observed this session. They are Mr. Tom Evans, Clerk to the Assembly Commission, and Mr. Steven J. Graham, Clerk to the Social Development Committee. Thank you, gentlemen. The committee adjourned.