Debates of the Senate (Hansard)
Debates of the Senate (Hansard)
2nd Session, 36th Parliament,
Volume 138, Issue 38
Thursday, March 23, 2000
The Honourable Gildas L. Molgat, Speaker
Table of Contents
- ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
- QUESTION PERIOD
- ORDERS OF THE DAY
THE SENATE
Thursday, March 23, 2000
The Senate met at 2:00 p.m., the Speaker in the Chair.Prayers.
[Translation]
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
The Estimates, 1999-2000
Report of National Finance Committee On Supplementary Estimates (B) Presented and Printed
Hon. Lowell Murray: Honourable senators, I have the honour to present the third report of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, which addresses Supplementary Estimates (B) for 1999-2000.I request that the report be printed as an appendix to today's Journals of the Senate.
The Hon. the Speaker: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
(For text of report, see today's Journals of the Senate, Appendix "A", p. 425.)
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this report be taken into consideration?
On motion of Senator Murray, report placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting of the Senate.
[English]
Report of National Finance Committee on Main Estimates Presented and Printed
Hon. Lowell Murray: Honourable senators, I have the honour to present the fourth report of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, which deals with the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000.I request that the report be printed as an appendix to today's Journals of the Senate.
The Hon. the Speaker: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
(For text of report, see today's Journals of the Senate, Appendix "B", p. 428.)
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this report be taken into consideration?
On motion of Senator Murray, report placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting of the Senate.
The Estimates, 2000-01
Report of National Finance Committee on Main Estimates Presented and Printed
Hon. Lowell Murray: Honourable senators, I have the honour to present the fifth report of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, which deals with the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2001.I request that the report be printed as an appendix to today's Journals of the Senate.
The Hon. the Speaker: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
(For text of report, see today's Journals of the Senate, Appendix "C", p. 430.)
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this report be taken into consideration?
On motion of Senator Murray, report placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting of the Senate.
[Translation]
Appropriation Bill No. 4, 1999-2000
First reading
The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that a message had been received from the House of Commons with Bill C-29 granting her Majesty certain sums of money for the Public Service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 2000.Bill read first time.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the second time?
On motion of Senator Hays, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading at the next sitting of the Senate.
[English]
Appropriation Bill No. 1, 2000-01
First Reading
The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that a message had been received from the House of Commons with Bill C-30, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Public Service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 2001.Bill read first time.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the second time?
On motion of Senator Hays, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading on Tuesday next, March 28, 2000.
Asia-Pacific Parliamentary Forum
Eighth Annual Meeting—Notice of Inquiry
Hon. Sharon Carstairs: Honourable senators, I give notice that on Tuesday next, March 28, 2000, I will call the attention of the Senate to the eighth annual meeting of the Asia-Pacific Parliamentary Forum held in Canberra, Australia, from January 9 to 14, 2000.Canada-Japan Inter-Parliamentary Group
Tenth Annual Bilateral Meeting with Japan-Canada Parliamentarians Friendship League—Notice of Inquiry
Hon. Dan Hays (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I give notice that on Tuesday next, March 28, 2000, I will draw the attention of the Senate to the tenth annual bilateral meeting of the Canada-Japan Inter-Parliamentary Group and the Japan-Canada Parliamentarians Friendship League held in Toyko, Hiroshima and Shikoku, Japan, from November 6 to 13, 1999.Visitors in the Gallery
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I should like to draw to your attention a group of young Canadians in our galleries. It is the group known as Forum of Young Canadians. They were received this morning in the lobby of the Senate. A number of senators attended.[Translation]
This morning they had a session in the Senate chamber and sat in your seats. For that length of time, they were senators.
Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
[English]
The Hon. the Speaker: On behalf of all senators, I wish you welcome to our galleries this afternoon.
QUESTION PERIOD
National Defence
Sea King Helicopters—Level of Flight Training for Pilots
Hon. J. Michael Forrestall: Honourable senators, I have a question or two for the Leader of the Government in the Senate having primarily to do with the maintenance of flying proficiency for helicopter pilots and co-pilots. The minister is aware of the very high level of unreliability of the Sea King. Coupling that with the fact that it needs some 30 hours of maintenance for every hour of flying time makes it relatively unavailable for things like flying training. Bear in mind also, that, as with anything, you must use it frequently — you must train on it, you must practise with it, and you must get used to the variables. Even on new equipment, this is necessary. It is especially necessary on aging craft such as the Sea King.My concern is with the growing shortage of funds for maintenance and, therefore, the unavailability of the aircraft for the amount of flight training that is desirable. I know pilots are getting a basic amount, but they need practice in handling an aging aircraft with eccentricities such as those developed in the Sea King, with leaking fuel lines and so on. How does the government intend to ensure that the pilots and co-pilots of the Sea King maintain a very high level of flight training?
Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, we have all seen evidence in the recent budget of a recommitment to additional funding for our Armed Forces.
Specifically with relation to the Sea King, as we have discussed on many occasions in the Senate, this military equipment is obviously reaching the end of its useful life. It does require a high number of hours of maintenance for each hour of flight time. However, we are assured by both our military personnel and by the company that is primarily responsible for servicing and ensuring that the aircraft is available, ready and safe for our Armed Forces that the maintenance is being done.
With particular respect to the number of hours of training which are available to the pilots of the Sea King helicopters, I am not aware offhand of those current levels. Nor am I aware of whether or not they have gone down and there are fewer hours of flying training this year than there were last year or the year before. However, I can make the appropriate inquiries with the Minister of National Defence. I can ask him whether or not there have been any dramatic reductions in the amount of flying hours by Sea Kings and their pilots.
Replacement of Sea King Helicopters
Hon. J. Michael Forrestall: Honourable senators, this government promised Sea King replacements by the end of the decade. We are now three months past that deadline, as we are all aware.We saw the skill with which a helicopter pilot in East Timor safely landed in the ocean and was able to start his plane and fly back to his base. That incident can tell anyone who wants to think about it several things. First, that pilot was damn proficient. However, why did he shut off the fuels? He shut off the fuel because someone had told him about something, but he had never practised it. He had never gone out in a plane and tried that out. It might work in some aircraft, but it does not work in ancient combatants like Sea King helicopters.
When will we get some indication from this government that they will at least open the project office? We now know that Cougars, Cormorants and Sikorskys are in contention. We now have enough of a body of informed opinion or intelligence on the construction of these aircraft to know they are safe and can handle nicely.
When will we get the project office open, and when will we give the military an indication that it is now time for the Government of Canada to replace the Sea King helicopters?
Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, the particular incident in East Timor to which the honourable senator refers is an example of what some initially thought was equipment failure. After investigation and report it seemed that the unscheduled landing was as a result of activity undertaken by the pilot.
(1420)
What this illustrates is that no matter how well-trained our personnel may be, occasionally minor errors can occur.
Senator Forrestall: That was not a minor error.
Senator Boudreau: We are extremely fortunate that we have a well-trained military. I am confident that the Sea King pilots are all professionals and are well able to perform the duties assigned to them. I wish that we had newer helicopters, as does the honourable senator. I can only reassure him once again that the Minister of National Defence shares our wish, and hopefully this matter will move forward in the near future.
Replacement of Sea King Helicopters—Funds in Main Estimates, 2000-01
Hon. Terry Stratton: Honourable senators, the Main Estimates were reviewed yesterday in the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. On perusal, it would appear there is nothing in the Estimates for the next fiscal year for helicopters. Is that accurate?Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government): As the Honourable Senator Forrestall has pointed out in the past, and as he will point out to me again if I am not clear about this, the actual expenditures to bring new aircraft on stream will be a multi-year endeavour. In fact, it may well be that if a decision were made to proceed full speed ahead tomorrow morning, there would be no large expenditures of money in the next fiscal year. It is a multi-year commitment, and one that we hope will be underway as soon as possible.
Senator Stratton: Is the Leader of the Government in the Senate informing us that in the fiscal year 2000-01 there is no money? None? That means that we must wait for the following fiscal year to have any money whatsoever to begin replacing helicopters and that five years later we might get a helicopter. Is that true, yes or no?
Senator Boudreau: Honourable senators, the answer must be no to the the honourable senator's assumption. I have said that it is a multi-year process and not something we can decide upon and implement in one year. Honourable senators know that. The procurement process itself will take a period of time to ensure that as we replace the Sea King helicopters, we get the best and the most appropriate piece of equipment for use by our Armed Forces.
Senator Kinsella: You had it.
Senator Boudreau: In fact, there may be activity. What I have said is that there will not be any major expenditures. Supposing the process began tomorrow morning, we would not look at any major expenditures in the next fiscal year.
Health
Restructuring and Revitalizing System
Hon. W. David Angus: Honourable senators, today Canadians are looking for two vital things from their government — a revived and revitalized health care system on the one hand, and lower taxes on the other, both of which would provide an increase in the standard of living for all Canadians, especially young Canadians. Unfortunately, this government has provided little of either. Our health care system needs a great increase in cash transfers back to 1994 levels and, more important, it needs an infusion of new ideas and innovative thinking.This Liberal government has been completely incapable of providing this kind of leadership and vision. In fact, the government's injection of cash for health care in the recent budget was smaller than the amount of grants that HRDC doled out in the 1999 fiscal year. Some of the grants were allegedly made to help companies in the Prime Minister's own riding pay off bank loans.
Senator Perrault: The honourable senator is being very partisan.
Senator Angus: To the Leader of the Government in the Senate, I ask the following question: Why is it that with our elderly population in the process of doubling over the next 15 years, his government seems to be more interested in squandering taxpayers' dollars on questionable grants and shady business deals than in restructuring our health care system to accommodate the different needs and higher costs this change will bring about?
Some Hon. Senators: Oh, oh!
Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I will ignore some of the preamble to that question.
Senator Graham: Ignore all of it.
Senator Boudreau: Honourable senators, the reason for that is we have had a debate here about the need in this country for government to intervene in order to bring the dignity of work to our citizens who are in less fortunate circumstances than some of us sitting in this chamber.
Senator Angus: More spin.
Senator Boudreau: I will not apologize for that. As well, I will not address the question at any length because my honourable friend and I have spoken on this issue in the past.
As to the question of health care, I am aware more specifically with respect to Nova Scotia because that is my home province. If we look at the last two federal budgets, two things happened. Significant funding was placed back into the CHST and the equalization formula was changed. The number will come into effect over a five-year period because equalization agreements are for five years, as are the contributions. Over $1 billion in new money will be coming to the Government of Nova Scotia.
Honourable senators, I have not examined in detail the numbers for the other provinces, but I very much expect that they will be similar, particularly in regard to benefits that come under the equalization agreements. Therefore, a great deal of new money has been and will be brought into the provincial budgets, which is available for use in the field of health care.
The problem is — and I think many people believe this, perhaps even the honourable senator — that shovelling more money at health care will not yield the solution we need in this country. The status quo, even if it is fuelled by more dollars, is not acceptable and will not be acceptable in the years to come.
Honourable senators, we must be more imaginative about this problem. Admittedly, the federal government must take a leadership role. In saying that, we also must recognize the Constitution of this country, which places the delivery for health care clearly in the hands of the provinces. The provinces are the deliverers of health care.
I welcome the honourable senator's interest in this area. Health care is probably the biggest challenge government has in this country in the next 10 years. The Prime Minister, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Finance have all said that we must come together because this is a joint area of jurisdiction. On the night of the budget, the Honourable Paul Martin said:
Let's come together, let's deal with the problems and the challenges of the health care system, and we will be there with the money.
Senator Angus: Honourable senators, I hope the Honourable Paul Martin will be there to help out.
I thank the government leader for that answer because I do have a deep and abiding interest in this field. That is why I used nice words such as "restructuring" and "revitalizing". Yes, imaginative solutions are required, and I am delighted to hear that the government is addressing that issue. The honourable leader can count on my cooperation and on the cooperation of my colleagues.
Auditor General
Government Support Programs—Accounting Controls
Hon. W. David Angus: Honourable senators, I have an item hot off the press from Auditor General Denis Desautels, who this morning was able to discuss in another place some of the issues surrounding the HRDC grants. He indicated that the problems with the job creation grants are not limited or confined to the Department of Human Resources Development. He expressed great frustration as to how these grants are handled in general.Without getting into the rhetoric we sometimes slip into by accident in this place, and trying to be nice, of course, could the Leader of the Government at least share with honourable senators what these other departments are, where the problems are and where the frustrations arise?
(1430)
Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, in any area of government activity based on the belief that government has a role to intervene, we run the risk of, on occasion, not dealing with things as effectively and thoroughly as we would hope.
It would not surprise me if that were the case with some regional development initiatives, whether it be with the Western Regional Development Fund or the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. However, if such is the case, then the solution is to bring a stricter control and a more diligent approach to those programs, to find out if there is money that is not properly accounted for, to locate it, and to rectify the problem. The solution is not to eliminate the program. My mother had an expression: Don't throw out the baby with the bath water.
[Translation]
Referendum clarity bill
Application of Terms
Hon. Jean-Claude Rivest: Honourable senators, last weekend, at the Liberal Party of Canada convention which, as we know, was an opportunity to exchange ideas on Canada's future, Jean Chrétien said in his speech that Bill C-20 provided a guarantee to Canadians that, should there be another referendum, it would necessarily be on the secession of Quebec from the rest of Canada. Did I understand correctly? Do Canadians have, with Bill C-20, a guarantee that the question will be clear and will deal with the secession of Quebec from the rest of Canada?[English]
Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, that question is quite timely because I anticipate that later in the day we may be engaged in debate of that very piece of legislation. Obviously, the purpose of that legislation, in its three clauses, is to ensure that if a question is put, not only in Quebec but in any province that may be considering separating, it is put clearly. A clear question involves the option, not of entering negotiations on some sovereignty association or some variety of semantics, but of secession and independence.
[Translation]
Senator Rivest: My question is specific. Does the bill guarantee to Canadians that this will be the case?
[English]
Senator Boudreau: Honourable senators, we will address that in the debate, but the bill quite clearly indicates that that in fact has to be the case before the Government of Canada will enter negotiations with respect to the constitutional requirements for any separation.
[Translation]
Senator Rivest: Therefore, if Canadians have that guarantee with Bill C-20, this supports the claims of people like Mr. Charest, the leader of the Quebec Liberal Party, and Mr. Ryan, who are saying that this bill infringes on the freedom and prerogatives of the National Assembly. Would the National Assembly not be in a position to ask a question other than the one proposed by Bill C-20?
[English]
Senator Boudreau: Honourable senators, later in the afternoon, I will be addressing that specific issue in my speech. Let me say, though, that the legislation of the Parliament of Canada will not restrict the legislature of Quebec from asking any question, and framing it in any way they want. However, the legislation will say that there is no obligation on the people of Canada and the Government of Canada to sit down and talk about secession unless that question is clear.
[Translation]
Senator Rivest: Therefore, there is no guarantee provided to Canadians that the question will be on secession. It is a case of "to be or not to be".
[English]
Senator Boudreau: The National Assembly of Quebec, the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, or the Legislative Assembly of Nova Scotia can ask any question on any occasion and word it in any way they wish. We do not wish to interfere with that. There would be no point. Why would we? I will be referring later to some very distinguished Canadians who believe that Bill C-20 in no way infringes upon the rights of provincial legislatures to do as they wish in framing questions.
The key element, though, is that the people of Canada and the Government of Canada have no obligation. This is pursuant to, and consistent with, the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada, to sit down and negotiate secession, if that is the kind of question that the seceding province chooses to ask.
[Translation]
Senator Rivest: Honourable senators, if the National Assembly of Quebec or any other legislative assembly can ask whatever question it wants, then Canadians have no guarantee that the question will be about secession. I agree that the Government of Canada has the right to say that it wants the question to be on this. But why have a bill? Mr. Trudeau referred to this.
[English]
Senator Boudreau: Honourable senators, the bill clearly outlines the obligation of the House of Commons to indicate whether or not, in our view, the question is clear.
Senator Kinsella: The House of Commons?
Some Hon. Senators: Oh, oh!
Senator Boudreau: That issue, it seems to me, should be cleared up before Quebecers, Albertans or whoever goes to the polls on any such question. I cannot imagine why anyone, anywhere, except for the separatists in Quebec, would argue on behalf of confusion.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: That is what the bill does. Come on!
Human Resources Development
Employment Insurance—Effect of Intensity Rules on Seasonal Workers
Hon. Donald H. Oliver: Honourable senators, I have a question for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. It is a request that he comment on a report in The Chronicle-Herald entitled: "Ottawa backs off EI promise." It reads as follows:Human Resources Minister Jane Stewart is backing away from the prime minister's promise to fix problems with employment insurance intensity rules that punish seasonal workers in Atlantic Canada.
The article was dealing particularly with the province of Nova Scotia.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Ask for an audit first.
Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I was not party to any discussions that the Minister of Human Resources Development may have had, but I can say that the Prime Minister has indicated in a very public way his concern on this issue. He said that he would be reviewing it. I am confident that he means what he said.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Of course, just like the GST.
Delayed Answer to Oral Question
Hon. Dan Hays (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I have a response to a question raised in the Senate on March 2, 2000 by Senator Wilson regarding the government's commitment to alleviate poverty to the UN Human Rights Committee.United Nations
Government Commitments to Alleviate Poverty to Human Rights Committee
(Response to question raised by Hon. Lois M. Wilson on March 2, 2000)Canada appeared before the UN Human Rights Committee on March 26, 1999, in New York. The Canadian delegation was led by the Honourable Hedy Fry, Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and Status of Women.
The Committee examined Canada's fourth report on measures taken to implement the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in Canada from January 1990 to December 1994. The questions posed by the Committee were both pointed and fair, resulting in a forthright and positive exchange. The strong representation of the Canadian delegation helped underline Canada's continuing commitment to human rights in general and to the implementation of its international obligations.
Following its review of Canada's report, the Committee issued Concluding Observations that outline positive aspects of Canada's commitment and areas of concern and recommendations. The complete text of the Concluding Observations, as well as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and Canada's fourth report can be found on the Web site of the Human Rights Program of the Department of Canadian Heritage at the following address: www.pch.gc.ca/ddp-hrd/.
[Translation]
Visitors in the Gallery
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I call to your attention another group of visitors in our gallery. It is a group from the Eastern Townships called "Les étudiantes ambassadrices et étudiants ambassadeurs de l'Estrie". Its members come from South Africa, Algeria, Burundi, Colombia, the Congo, Gabon, Guadeloupe, Iran, Morocco, Mexico and Tunisia. They are graduates of the Université de Sherbrooke and Bishop's University. Once they return to their homeland, they will be ambassadors for the Eastern Townships. On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada and wish you an enjoyable stay in Ottawa.[English]
(1440)
Canadian District of the Moravian Church of America
Private Bill to Amend—Message from Commons
The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that a message had been received from the House of Commons returning Bill S-14, to amend the Act of incorporation of the Board of Elders of the Canadian District of the Moravian Church in America, and acquainting the Senate that they have passed this bill without amendment.ORDERS OF THE DAY
Business of the Senate
Hon. Dan Hays (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, under "Government Business", I request that the Senate deal first with No. 3, the second reading of Bill C-20.Bill to Give Effect to the Requirement for Clarity as Set Out in the Opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec Secession Reference
Second Reading—Debate Adjourned
Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government) moved the second reading of Bill C-20, to give effect to the requirement for clarity as set out in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec Secession Reference.He said: Honourable senators, I am honoured to rise in sponsorship of Bill C-20, arguably the most important bill for Canada that this chamber has been asked to consider in many years. A nation strongly united is the most important legacy we can leave to future generations. Those who would challenge that legacy have an obligation to be crystal clear about the alternative.
Bill C-20 demands clarity and transparency from any initiative that could lead to the separation of any province from our great country. Before the federal government would enter into negotiations on terms of any proposed secession, a clear majority on a clear question would be required in any referendum.
An observer not familiar with the Canadian political scene would no doubt be astonished to see a government legislating in order to ensure clarity, particularly on an issue of such critical importance as possible secession. However, the past has taught us, all too well, the pressing need for such legislation. I ask honourable senators to remember the referendums held in 1980 and in 1995.
Let me be clear: Nothing in this bill would stop the Quebec government asking its voters any question it wishes to ask. Nothing in this bill in any way affects or changes the absolute right of the Quebec government — or any provincial government, for that matter — to go to its voters on any question of its choosing. However, the bill demands that, before undertaking any negotiations that could lead to secession, the Government of Canada must be satisfied that the population of a province has clearly expressed its will to secede.
Why has the government introduced this bill now, when secession appears to be waning in popularity in Quebec? Many people, including several in this chamber, have raised this question. The government takes no pleasure in this action. There are many other issues that need to be addressed. However, the constant threat of a third referendum on Quebec secession in less than a generation leaves us no responsible choice but to act now, and before the crisis atmosphere of a referendum campaign. The Prime Minister of Canada asked the Premier of Quebec to agree to a commitment not to hold a referendum in the Premier's current mandate. The Premier refused, forcing the Government of Canada to proceed with this bill.
What would Bill C-20 do? First and foremost, as its title states, it would give effect to the requirement for clarity, as set out in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec Secession Reference. Those who have studied the Supreme Court's opinion know that the drafters have taken our highest court's advice seriously and to heart.
The Supreme Court confirmed that there is no right, whether under international law or under the Constitution of Canada, for the unilateral secession of any province from Canada. The court also stated, however:
The federalism principle, in conjunction with the democratic principle, dictates that the clear repudiation of the existing constitutional order and the clear expression of the desire to pursue secession by the population of a province would give rise to a reciprocal obligation on all parties to Confederation to negotiate constitutional changes to respond to that desire.
The Supreme Court elaborated on the clarity required in a referendum result that would give rise to this reciprocal obligation to negotiate. In particular, the court said:
The referendum result, if it is to be taken as an expression of the democratic will, must be free of ambiguity both in terms of the question asked and in terms of the support it achieves.
Honourable senators, this is precisely what Bill C-20 would ensure, namely, that the Government of Canada would not enter into negotiations on the terms of secession of a province, unless the question asked was clear and the support of the population for that question was also unambiguous.
I realize that many honourable senators are familiar with the provisions of the bill already, but I would beg your indulgence to allow me to outline it briefly. It is a short bill with only three clauses. The first clause addresses the clarity of the question. It says that the House of Commons must make a determination on whether a proposed referendum question is clear.
The bill sets out a strict timetable for this process. This determination must be made within 30 days of the tabling or other official release of the question by the province. Provision is made for extending this period by an additional 40 days, should the 30-day period fall during a general election.
Honourable senators, I know that some people have said this determination should not be made until after the results of the referendum are known. This government believes that nothing positive is achieved by waiting and, in fact, considerable harm could be done. A question is either clear or it is not. Quebecers should know, going into the polling booth, the impact of the vote that they are about to cast.
The bill goes on to specify what must be considered by the House of Commons in making the determination on whether a question is clear. In particular, the bill states that the House must consider:
...whether the question would result in a clear expression of the will of the population of a province on whether the province should cease to be part of Canada and become an independent state.
Subclause 1(4) states, very plainly, that this clear expression of will cannot result from either a question that merely focuses on a mandate to negotiate without asking for a direct expression whether the province should cease to be a part of Canada or a question that mixes in other possibilities in addition to secession from Canada. Experience tells us that this type of provision is necessary.
(1450)
I will read to honourable senators the question that was asked in 1980 of the Quebec voters. It stated:
The Government of Québec has made public its proposal to negotiate a new agreement with the rest of Canada, based on the equality of nations; this agreement would enable Québec to acquire the exclusive power to make its laws, levy its taxes and establish relations abroad — in other words, sovereignty — and at the same time to maintain with Canada an economic association including a common currency; no change in political status resulting from these negotiations will be effected without approval by the people through another referendum; on these terms, do you give the Government of Québec the mandate to negotiate the proposed agreement between Québec and Canada?
The question in 1995 was a great deal shorter but not much clearer. It stated:
Do you agree that Québec should become sovereign, after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new Economic and Political Partnership, within the scope of the Bill respecting the future of Québec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?
The separatist leaders in Quebec maintain to this day that both those questions were clear. I doubt very much that anyone in this chamber would support that view.
A poll conducted at the end of the 1995 referendum campaign revealed that almost one of every five Yes voters believed that a sovereign Quebec would remain a province of Canada.
Professor Maurice Pinard, Professor Emeritus in the Department of Sociology at McGill University provided extensive analysis of polls and studies to the legislative committee studying this bill in the other place. He stated:
In 1995, only about 50% of respondents realized that sovereignty did not necessarily mean partnership. The others believed that sovereignty would not be declared if partnership could not be achieved. In general, the confusion worked in the sovereigntists' favour both in 1980 and in 1995.
Bill C-20 would ensure that our Canada is not destroyed by such a question. If we are to be divided, it must be because that is truly what the people of a province desire.
Subclause 1(6) of Bill C-20 makes this explicit. It provides that the Government of Canada shall not enter into negotiations on secession if the House of Commons determines that the question would not result in a clear expression of the will of a population of a province on whether that province should cease to be part of Canada. That is clarity.
Honourable senators, let me reiterate: nothing in this bill purports to dictate to a province the question it may or may not ask of its voters in a referendum. The bill simply sets out clearly and precisely what the Government of Canada may or may not do, depending on the clarity of the question asked.
Some people have questioned whether the bill encroaches on the jurisdiction of the National Assembly. It does not. This is not merely my view or the view of the Government of Canada. In fact, this view is shared by figures as illustrious and diverse as Professor Peter Hogg, Dean of Osgoode Hall Law School; Professor Yves-Marie Morrissette of the Faculty of Law at McGill University; Mr. Bob Rae, former premier of Ontario; and Mr. Claude Castonguay, widely acknowledged as one of the fathers of modern day Quebec. Mr. Castonguay, one of our former colleagues, was very clear. He stated:
I have read the bill more than once. I have read the criticisms that have been made of it, and I still cannot see how this bill limits the jurisdiction or the prerogatives of the Quebec National Assembly.
Mr. Gil Rémillard, a lawyer and former justice minister in Quebec, said:
I consider the federal bill not only does not affect Quebec jurisdiction, but in fact confirms it in a way.
The second clause of Bill C-20 looks to whether the clear referendum question receives the support of a clear majority of the province. This assessment by its very nature must be made after the vote. The Supreme Court was very clear that this assessment involves more than vote counting up to 50 per cent plus 1. I will quote from that opinion, which states:
Our political institutions are premised on the democratic principle, and so an expression of the democratic will of the people of a province carries weight, in that it would confer legitimacy on the efforts of the government of Quebec to initiate the Constitution's amendment process in order to secede by constitutional means.
The final line is the one to which I draw the attention of honourable senators. It states:
In this context, we refer to a `clear' majority as a qualitative evaluation.
Such a qualitative evaluation cannot be made in advance. Indeed, the Supreme Court anticipated this, noting that it is an issue properly subject only to political evaluation. If the issue is one of simply counting up to 50 per cent plus 1, there is no political evaluation involved. We would not require the participation of "political actors." We could substitute a firm of chartered accountants.
Clearly, honourable senators, the Supreme Court recognized that something more than a mathematical formula is involved on an issue of such critical significance to the country as a whole and to the population of a particular province.
The third clause of the bill simply reflects what the Supreme Court stated in its opinion: there is no right under the Constitution of Canada to effect the secession of a province from Canada unilaterally. A constitutional amendment would be required. Moreover, such an amendment would require negotiations and those negotiations must involve "at least the governments of all of the provinces and the Government of Canada."
In other words, honourable senators, this bill, like the Supreme Court opinion, recognizes that the possible secession of a province would not simply affect that province; it would affect all Canadians from coast to coast.
As a Nova Scotian, I can tell honourable senators that the people in my province care very much about the future of this country. They deserve to have a voice and, with this bill, we will help to make it certain that they do have a voice.
Finally, subclause 3(2) of the bill enumerates some of the issues that would have to be addressed in such negotiations. This provision simply tracks the advice given this government by the Supreme Court.
(1500)
Secession would not be easy for anyone, honourable senators. The Supreme Court openly acknowledged this, and we know it to be true. As the Attorney General of Saskatchewan told the court:
The threads of a thousand acts of accommodation are the fabric of a nation.
Honourable senators, I am confident that these difficult negotiations will not be necessary. The honourable Stéphane Dion is convinced, as am I, that the people of Quebec want to remain a part of Canada. He has said that he supports Bill C-20 as a Quebecer because it is the Quebecois who risk losing their country through the lack of clarity.
Honourable senators, surely this country has held together, not through ambiguity, as the Right Honourable Joe Clark has advocated, but because Canadians want to stay together. Clarity is the ally of Canada while ambiguity is the friend of the Parti Québécois.
Since this is a critical piece of legislation, dealing, as it does, with the very existence of our country, it is not at all surprising that the role assigned to the Senate has been the subject of intense debate and close scrutiny. There has been much speculation and discussion about the Senate's current role, in light of the 1998 Supreme Court opinion, and its proposed role under Bill C-20.
I wish to begin with something on which I believe we can all agree, namely, that the secession of a province from our federation would require an amendment to the Constitution. As the Supreme Court pointed out:
The secession of a province from Canada must be considered, in legal terms, to require an amendment to the Constitution.... Under the Constitution, secession requires that an amendment be negotiated.
How would negotiations begin? What would trigger a call to amend the Constitution in such a way? The court provided the following answer in a paragraph to which I referred earlier:
The federalism principle, in conjunction with the democratic principle, dictates that the clear repudiation of the existing constitutional order and the clear expression of the desire to pursue secession by the population of a province would give rise to a reciprocal obligation on all parties to Confederation to negotiate constitutional changes to respond to that desire.
It would impose an obligation on all parties to negotiate. No one would disagree, I believe, that the parties to Confederation, as referred to here, are the federal and provincial governments. They would be the entities that would have the obligation to negotiate constitutional changes if the support for separation was clear. Historically, all the constitutional negotiations have taken place between those levels of government.
Who would make the determination about whether there was, in the words of the court, "the clear repudiation of existing constitutional order and the clear expression of the desire to pursue secession by the population of a province"? Who would determine that? This is important, because, failing such a determination, there would be no duty to negotiate.
The court unequivocally rejects the suggestion that it should decide, saying:
The Court has no supervisory role over the political aspects of the constitutional negotiations. Equally the initial impetus for negotiation, namely a clear majority on a clear question in favour of secession, is subject only to political evaluation, and properly so.
This paragraph indicates that both the decision to enter into negotiations and the negotiations themselves are political matters that are part of one continuing process. How would the process begin? Who would make the original evaluation about whether there was a clear majority on a clear question? Who, in the view of the court, are the political actors who would have the obligation to make such decisions?
Though the court does not answer this question directly, when it again uses the words "political actors," it says:
...it is the obligation of the elected representatives to give concrete form to the discharge of their constitutional obligations which only they and their electors can ultimately assess....it would be for the democratically elected leadership of the various participants to resolve their differences.
It would, of course, be difficult to fit the Senate into this group of political actors, and it should be noted that, throughout its judgment, the court refers repeatedly to "elected representatives" and "democratically elected representatives."
I know I have gone on at some length on this point, but I believe it is important to place on record and to have it clearly understood that, historically, the Senate has not had the power to prevent constitutional negotiations from taking place and that there is nothing in the Supreme Court's opinion to suggest that it suddenly intended the Senate to have such a role.
Though the Senate has never had such a role, then again, neither has the House of Commons. Neither the Senate nor the House of Commons has ever participated in constitutional negotiations. Neither has ever been approached to give permission to the federal government before it chose to negotiate with the provinces. Neither needs to be consulted before the federal government enters into constitutional negotiations on any matter. That is the historical reality, and the 1998 Supreme Court opinion, in my view, does not change that reality.
At the present time, the executive, or cabinet, has the prerogative on whether to enter into negotiations concerning constitutional amendments, and though neither chamber has a direct role to play in that decision, our system of responsible government gives the House of Commons leverage that we in the Senate do not have.
The late Senator Eugene Forsey described responsible government as a system where the Queen or her representative acts on the advice of cabinet, which is —
...responsible, answerable...
and
...accountable to the House of Commons.... If the Cabinet is defeated in the House of Commons on a motion of censure or want of confidence, or on any motion which it considers of sufficient importance, it must either resign or make way for a new Government in the existing House, or else ask for a dissolution of Parliament and seek a new majority from the electors.... Where there is an Upper House, the Cabinet is not responsible to that House, and a defeat there does not entail either resignation or a request for dissolution.
According to the Supreme Court, the notion of responsible government, as we have seen described by Senator Forsey, is one of the central features of our democracy. I quote again:
Historically, the Court has interpreted democracy to mean the process of representation and responsible government and the right of citizens to participate in the political process as voters and as candidates.
As we have seen, "responsible government" assigns very different roles to the two chambers of Parliament, and there is nothing in the court's opinion to suggest that it was proposing a fundamental realignment with respect to the powers of those two chambers. The clarity bill respects those different roles and respectfully, I suggest, must be seen in this perspective.
In the legislation's absence, there would be no limitation on the government's prerogative to undertake negotiations on the secession of a province other than the confidence of the House of Commons, but that existing limitation or constraint that can be exercised at any time by the House of Commons is a very important one. It means that, though the government has the prerogative to embark on constitutional negotiations, it can be stopped at any time by a vote of non-confidence in the House of Commons.
(1510)
Therefore, far from seeing Bill C-20 as a measure which somehow diminishes the place of our Senate in the parliamentary system, I see it as a proposal that reinforces and builds upon the fundamental tenets of responsible government.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Well, let us shut this place down, if that is what they think of us.
Senator Boudreau: Those tenets have been the hallmarks of our democratic system of government since the time of Confederation. It does so by giving the House of Commons, to which the government is responsible and answerable, and which can force the government to resign and Parliament to dissolve, the power to prevent the government from entering into negotiations on secession following a referendum.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: This is the Senate, not the House of Commons.
Senator Boudreau: Bill C-20 should be seen as a proposal that provides a different mechanism to achieve the same end result, while respecting our tradition of responsible government that dates back to Confederation.
Honourable senators, another reality of our system of government that must be recognized and should be respected in both fact and spirit, is that, under our Constitution, the Senate does not now have a veto over constitutional amendments, even over amendments dealing with the Senate itself. Section 47(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, provides that the Senate can delay a constitutional amendment for 180 days, but it cannot veto it. The House of Commons, by contrast, has a constitutional veto, and it is absolute.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: So what?
Senator Boudreau: Formerly, the Senate possessed such a veto, but relinquished it in December of 1981 when it voted 59 to 23 to adopt what became known as the Constitution Act, 1982. When all was said and done, we patriated our Constitution, enshrined an amending formula, and put into place a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The new amending formula was critical because it changed dramatically the relationship between the federal and provincial governments, as well as the role of the Senate.
At that time, as minister of state, our colleague Senator Joyal, said, as reported in the House of Commons Debates of November 30, 1981, at page 13499:
Today we are on the eve of the most significant step in our constitutional history since Confederation, not only because we will soon attain full constitutional independence, but above all because we are going to ensure that provinces in the future will have the absolute right to play an essential role in this country's constitutional development.
The significance Senator Joyal placed on the new amending formula was not misplaced because it was that change in the role of the provinces that led to the change in the role of the Senate on constitutional matters. Senator Austin, who was also a minister of state at that time, spoke about this realignment on the day before the Senate voted to give up its constitutional veto. He described the change as follows:
...an arrangement under which some of the power that might have been exercised in the Senate for regional balance in the area of a constitutional change would now be exercised by the provinces directly through the amending formula. If we have not been superseded in constitutional matters, we have certainly been moved off to some degree, and while for this last moment we would legally and constitutionally deny our consent, I think there is no one here who would suggest or advocate that in the evolution of the Canadian nation that would be an appropriate step, or that we would have any political mandate from whatever part of Canada to do so.
The historic truth is that the power of the Senate to represent regional interests, consented to by the founding provinces in 1867, although legislated by Great Britain, has been in part returned to them in the arrangement of constitutional change which is before us. The provinces have a role today perhaps not envisaged by the Fathers of Confederation, but they have it.
The Senate retains, however, within that very great area of law-making which does not relate to the Constitution, still a powerful legislative capacity charged with representation of all of the parts of Canada and all of the communities and minorities of Canada to look after their interest in the federal law-making system.
Honourable senators, suggestions have been made that the Senate should have a role in Bill C-20 identical to that of the other place. However, to amend the clarity bill in order to provide a veto for the Senate in the decision on whether to enter negotiations on secession would effectively constitute a constitutional veto for the Senate. If the Senate could block negotiations from ever starting, there would never be any amendments for Parliament or any legislature even to consider. I have personal difficulty with the logic of a proposition that would give the Senate a veto over the government's ability to enter into negotiations when it does not now have a veto over the results of those negotiations. It strikes me as an attempt to do indirectly what the Constitution does not allow us to do directly, namely to veto constitutional amendments. How does such a proposition respect the spirit of the existing amending formula? How does it respect the existing role of the Senate on constitutional matters, as so eloquently expressed by Senator Austin in this chamber almost 20 years ago?
Though the Senate's role has evolved and changed since Confederation, I do have a great deal of sympathy for those who would see the Senate as a final hurdle or backstop against those who would destroy our country. The thought of Canada without Quebec — or any other province, for that matter — is so abhorrent to me that I, too, would consider almost any option to prevent it from happening. That, however, does not change the fact that this is a country that was born under the rule of law, and has thrived under the political and social climate of voluntary association, consensus, and mutual respect. What would happen to those principles if a province expressed what the elected members of the House of Commons and elected members of the provincial legislatures believed to be a clear desire to pursue secession and the Senate did exercise a final backstop role by vetoing any and all such negotiations? What would be the effect within Canada of such a decision by the Senate during what would undoubtedly be a time of extraordinarily high tension and anxiety?
If there is not a popular will to keep the country whole, it will not remain whole, no matter what the Senate may do. In my view, the possibility of the two Houses of Parliament, both having a veto, coming to different conclusions on such a fundamental question, thereby paralyzing Parliament, the government and the country, is fraught with danger, particularly when one of those chambers has neither the power to command the confidence of the government nor a way to be directly accountable to the electorate.
This is not to say that the Senate should be or is without a role in this process. As I have explained, in the absence of Bill C-20, the federal government would have the unfettered prerogative to determine whether there was a clear majority on a clear referendum question. It would be under absolutely no obligation to take into consideration the views of the Senate, though, as a practical matter, it would need to be sensitive to the views of the House of Commons because of the risk of a motion of non-confidence. If Bill C-20 fails to pass, that state of affairs will remain unchanged.
(1520)
In adopting the clarity bill, however, the Senate would be placing a serious constraint on the government's prerogative; a constraint that no government could subsequently remove without the express consent of the Senate through the adoption of new legislation. Furthermore, for the first time, it would be mandatory for the views of the Senate to be considered before that prerogative could be exercised and negotiations begun. Clauses 1(5) and 2(3) of Bill C-20 clearly state that the House of Commons "shall take into account...any formal statements or resolutions of the Senate..." on the clarity of the question and the majority. There is no discretion on that point; the views of the Senate must be taken into account before a decision is made whether or not to enter into negotiations.
Honourable senators, Canadians have never taken the narrow path. At a time when other nations believed that countries should be built by melting everyone into one national identity, our two founding nations established Canada on the principle of respect for cultural and linguistic diversity.
Today, once again, we are charting our unique path. With Bill C-20, we announce to the world that we are a nation of individuals who respect one another. We will not coerce the people of any province to remain within Canada, whether by force or by subterfuge. At the same time, however, we are confident that, if faced with a clear choice, Quebecers, along with other Canadians, will always choose Canada.
Has the process of moving forward with Bill C-20 been easy or without risk? Of course not. The Prime Minister told us just last weekend at the biennial convention of the Liberal Party of Canada how difficult it was to decide to proceed, and of his personal concern. It is not easy to lead, especially when the consequences of failure are so great. Leadership does not mean that you are not afraid, but it does mean that you will not make fear your master. The enormity of the task does not absolve us of the need to address it.
Witnesses who appeared before the legislative committee in the other place on Bill C-20 demonstrated the success that this bill has already achieved. Quebecers will no longer risk losing their country to a confusing question. They have an absolute right to be a part of this country that they joined in founding.
This government respects and will uphold that right, just as it does for all Canadians in every province and all territories. We will not roll the dice with the future of our country. This government looks at the serious issues squarely, confident that, when the question is clear, the answer will also be clear. That answer, for generations past, present and future is Canada.
Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I will restrict my comments, because I am astounded at some of the extraordinary interpretations that were given to the role of the Senate.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable Senator Lynch-Staunton, is it your intention to speak?
Senator Lynch-Staunton: I wish to ask the minister a question. Before putting my question, however, I wish to say that I will be very cautious in my preliminary comment on the extraordinary interpretation given to the role of the Senate in various fields by the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I can only feel, however, that those interpretations will bring joy to the hearts of people like Mr. Gallaway and Mr. Nystrom, who find this place completely irrelevant. Some of the arguments brought by the Leader of the Government in the Senate will certainly help them in their argumentation against the Senate.
That being said, the leader spent some time trying to explain why the Senate should have no role in the negotiations leading to an amendment and anything preceding it. However, the court has made no reference regarding who should evaluate both the question and the answer. The government has decided that only the House of Commons should play a role in that exercise.
My question to the Leader of the Government is: Leaving aside what occurs once the results are in, does the minister agree that the House of Commons alone — which means the government — should evaluate the validity of the question and the validity of the answers and that the Senate, in that exercise, should be nothing more than a consultant-in-waiting?
Senator Boudreau: Honourable senators, the Supreme Court opinion, which I thought was thorough and exceptionally useful and which created a base for Bill C-20, did not require that the House of Commons be involved or that the Senate be involved. The determination on the clarity of the question and the result could have been done by the executive branch of government. However, the executive branch of government wisely involved the House of Commons, a body that is composed of the elected representatives of the people of this country, and whose confidence is necessary before the Government of Canada can proceed on any course of action — certainly one as fundamental and as important as negotiating constitutional change.
Historically, there was no prior prescription required by either house regarding negotiating constitutional change. That does not mean, in any way, that the opinion of the Senate is not an important part of this process. I think the debate that would occur in this place and the result of that debate would be a powerful directive.
At the end of the day, under this legislation, the Senate does not have the ability — and I will be very candid about that — to preclude negotiations from proceeding, any more than they would have the ability to preclude a constitutional amendment that might arise from those negotiations.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: My question concerns neither negotiations nor amendments. My question is: Why is the Senate of Canada eliminated from participating in a decision regarding the validity of the question? The Senate's role is not that its views must be taken, which is what the minister said, but that they "shall" be taken. That means, "Give us your views. We shall then take them into consideration, but that is all we have to do with them."
Why does the Leader of the Government in the Senate and his caucus feel that the role of the Senate in the possible breakup of this country, particularly in the preliminary stages, when the validity of the question will be decided, is completely irrelevant? Is he telling us that the House of Commons, being the only elected house, should be the final authority? If what he is saying about this is true, then why is it not true about bills? What I heard him say is that it is the elected members who should have the final authority on the breakup of this country and on deciding the question and on deciding on the majority. If that is so, why are we here as part of this bill? Why bother bringing the bill to us if we have no role to play in it?
Senator Rivest: We are a pressure group!
Senator Boudreau: First, in the view of the Senate it is not a choice, it is mandatory.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: It is not mandatory.
Senator Boudreau: The word "shall" is a mandatory instruction. The views of the Senate will be taken into account after debate, and I can only believe that they will be taken into account very seriously.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: They can be rejected.
Senator Boudreau: Honourable senators, none of us hopes or believes that we ever will reach that stage, but if we ever get that far, the Senate will play the same role then as it would play under any other constitutional amendment since 1981.
(1530)
Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I have a question for the honourable senator. Will he share with the members of this chamber where in the opinion of the Supreme Court he finds justification for the remarks he has made that it is for elected representatives to determine the question?
The eighth paragraph of the preamble of the bill states, in part:
WHEREAS, in light of the finding by the Supreme Court of Canada that it would be for elected representatives to determine what constitutes a clear question —
Clause 1(3) refers to the House of Commons. The honourable senator said in his remarks that the drafters of the bill have taken this opinion to heart. Where in the Supreme Court's opinion does the Supreme Court opine that it is for the elected representatives to determine the question?
The court states in its opinion that it shall be for the "political actors" to determine the clarity of the question and the clarity of the majority. It states in another paragraph of the opinion that it will be for the political actors to determine what constitutes a clear majority on a clear question.
Where in the opinion of the Supreme Court does the honourable senators find reference to the "elected representatives?"
Senator Boudreau: Honourable senators, in the course of my speech I quoted a number of times directly from the Supreme Court opinion. The court specifically used the words "elected representatives." The Supreme Court opinion indicates clearly that this was the intention.
Based on some of the rationale I attempted to share with honourable senators earlier, the bill gives a particular role to the elected representatives who, in effect, at any point in any process of any negotiation, constitutional or otherwise, have the ability to deny the executive the opportunity or the right to continue such activity.
Senator Kinsella: Is not the honourable senator's argument that this bill is resting on the opinion of the Supreme Court? If that is true, then why has this bill not followed that opinion? It is only in paragraph 101 of the opinion that the court refers to third-phase negotiations. It states that the court may not be able to provide supervisory function over the negotiation process, but that that will be for "political actors" and, in the end, for the "elected representatives" who, again, are accountable to the electorate. That is referring to the negotiation process.
In its determination on the clarity of the question and on the clarity of the majority, the court has used the phrase "political actors", not the phrase "elected representatives."
Senator Boudreau: Am I correct in concluding from the question that the honourable senator agrees that the ability and the power to conduct negotiations is in the hands of the elected representatives? Is that what the honourable senator just said?
Senator Kinsella: I will clarify my question. In his speech, the Honourable Senator Boudreau told us that only members of the House of Commons would have a role in determining the clarity of the question and the clarity of the majority. He says that this bill rests upon the opinion of the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court states clearly in its opinion that the determination of the clarity of the question and the clarity of the majority is to be determined by "political actors." In another paragraph of the opinion, and I repeat, it states that it is for the "political actors" to determine the clarity of the question and the clarity of the majority.
The Supreme Court is not talking about clarity of question and clarity of majority; it is talking about negotiations. It is on negotiations that the court says, "We cannot provide a supervisory role. It will be for the political actors and in particular for the elected representatives, who will be held accountable by the electorate, to determine whether these negotiations are acceptable."
I must return to the honourable senator's statement and ask him for clarification. He presented an argument based upon the opinion of the court, and the opinion of the court does not say that. Would the honourable senator please explain?
Senator Boudreau: The position of the bill is entirely consistent with the opinion. If Senator Kinsella can point out inconsistencies, I would be happy for him to do so.
The definition of "political actors" and what the court means by that phrase is clear from the decision as a whole. I could reread the quotes that I cited previously with specific respect to the discharge of those responsibilities that, under this bill, are triggered by a resolution in the House of Commons. In my view, that is entirely consistent with the views of the Supreme Court opinion.
I would be more than happy to discuss this at great length with the honourable senator, if that is his wish.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Honourable senators, can the minister tell us that his opinion and that of the government is that the definition of "political actors" is the Parliament of Canada without the Crown and without the House of Commons? We have always considered that Parliament is made up of two houses, both of which contain political actors. The government is now telling us that in this case there is only one political actor, and it is not the Senate.
Senator Boudreau: Honourable senators, the issue is whether the Senate should be given the capacity by the legislation to exercise a veto on the negotiations. Under Bill C-20, that is not the case. By casting the opinion on whether a question is clear or the result is clear, that, in effect, is the issue of whether or not negotiations begin. In fact, that responsibility is given to the elected members.
Hon. Lowell Murray: Honourable senators, speaking of political actors, what is the government's response to the quite reasonable and moderate amendments suggested by the Assembly of First Nations? My friend will have received, as I think we all have, a letter from Mr. Phil Fontaine, Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, suggesting amendments that would include aboriginal peoples in the list of consultants.
Senator Boudreau: Honourable senators, I believe an amendment to that effect was moved and passed in the other place. I support it.
Senator Murray: Does the government agree with the position taken for the Supreme Court of Canada by some of the lawyers for the aboriginal peoples to the effect that there can be no change in the status of the aboriginal peoples of Quebec vis-à-vis the federal Crown and Parliament without their consent?
Senator Boudreau: I have not read any such opinion. From past experience, I never make decisions or give opinions on positions that I have not seen.
It is my understanding that the amendment that was passed gives aboriginal peoples a consultative role. In fact, their opinion will be received and reviewed.
Senator Murray: The question is whether the aboriginal peoples of Quebec can be transferred out of the jurisdiction of the federal Crown and Parliament without their consent. What is the government's position on that issue?
(1540)
Senator Boudreau: With respect to the aboriginal peoples, I can only repeat what I have already said: The amendment that was proposed involving aboriginal peoples in the process was approved, and I presume it will also receive the support of the Senate.
Senator Murray: Let me ask a question on another subject arising from the minister's speech. He placed on the record the admittedly tortuous questions put in the 1980 and 1995 referendums in Quebec. Is it the minister's position that 85 per cent of the voters of Quebec who turned out to vote in the 1980 referendum and 94 per cent of the voters of Quebec who turned out in 1995 did so because they were confused about what was at stake?
Senator Boudreau: I am sure that all of the voters regarded the questions seriously. I am not sure all of them understood the consequences of their vote.
Senator Murray: I think my friend insults the intelligence of the Quebec voters.
Senator Kinsella: In his address, the honourable senator discussed negotiations as being the third phase in the secession process. Should they be successful, it would require a constitutional amendment. Which constitutional amending formula would apply, according to the honourable senator?
Senator Boudreau: I am sorry. I was distracted when the honourable senator asked the question.
Senator Kinsella: My question is quite simply: Which Constitution-amending formula would apply after the negotiations in phase three of this secession process?
Senator Boudreau: I do not anticipate that those negotiations would ever take place but, if they did, it would be the amending formula at the time.
Senator Kinsella: If it were to occur today, there are three formulae. Which of the three would apply: unanimity, seven-fifty, or bilateral?
Senator Boudreau: The amending formula that would apply to the Constitution would be the one which —
Senator Nolin: The one applicable.
Senator Boudreau: The one applicable, yes.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Is that your final answer?
[Translation]
Hon. Pierre Claude Nolin: Honourable senators, I listened with considerable interest to the speech by the government leader at second reading. I remind the minister that the government did not want the Supreme Court to rule on the amending formula. We will all have plenty of time to address this.
On what constitutional authority is the government relying in introducing Bill C-20?
[English]
Senator Boudreau: Jurisdictionally, the executive has the ability through legislation to limit its own circumstance of activity. In this case, it chooses to place clearly in legislation the limits it will put on an ability that it normally possesses, which is the ability to negotiate constitutional amendments, as it has in the past.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: One should not confuse negotiating and its result. We have no problem with that, everybody agrees, Parliament has the right to participate, a posteriori, after the negotiations. The government introduced a bill under which part of Parliament would have, a priori, the authority to restrict the activity of the executive. This is your answer, and it is not complete. Your bill is based on constitutional authority. You said constitutional authority exists because the executive is putting limits on its own ability. It goes a lot further than that. Parliament has been asked to decide on the possible secession of provinces. On what constitutional authority is the government relying to introduce such legislation?
[English]
Senator Boudreau: The provision which the bill anticipates is the prescription or limitation of the executive's normal power to enter into negotiations or to enter into discussions. That limitation is contained in legislation that passed the other place and is now before us. Presumably it will pass here. Limits will be placed on the activity of the government with respect to some of its actions which normally it would be entitled to do, just as it may pass legislation which prescribes its executive activity in any number of areas.
Senator Nolin: I do not contest the executive authority to govern. No one is contesting that. The legislative body of the federal power is being asked to decide something. That means that you are convinced that we, as a Parliament, have the authority to make that decision.
You can negotiate whatever you want. After that, it will be for you politically to go to the electorate and be confronted with their opinion.
Now it is different. You are asking us, Parliament, to decide on something. I am asking you if we have the authority. If so, and I am sure that your answer will be yes, what is that authority?
Senator Boudreau: You are right; my answer would be yes. It would be the same authority with which an executive may prescribe or limit the scope of its activity in any number of ways. It may pass legislation which says it cannot enter into certain agreements with various provinces. It may prescribe what would normally fall within its executive powers in any number of ways, if it chooses to. I would say that that is precisely what is happening in this case.
Senator Nolin: I am sure the leader understands that in legislating it means that the Supreme Court will have a say. They said in their decision that they do not have a say. It is not up to them to decide; it is up to the political actors. Political action does not always equal legislation. The government has taken the route of legislation, which means that the court can enter into the debate and say that you have or do not have the right to do that. However, you took that decision. I want to know why the government took that decision and under what constitutional authority. I do not question your executive authority.
Senator Boudreau: Indeed, if we came to the day when these events all occurred and negotiations were a possibility, someone would have to decide. As I have said in my speech, how does one decide whether or not the conditions of the Supreme Court opinion have been met? The court does not want to decide. Although we cannot restrict people's access to the court absolutely, the court certainly does not want to decide.
In fact, in this case, the government chooses to prescribe its normally unfettered authority to enter into negotiations. It decided actively to circumscribe that approach and did so by bringing the elected representatives of the country into that process. I believe at least part of the rationale is that the people of the country will have the opportunity to express their views through their elected representatives.
Hon. Gérald-A. Beaudoin: The honourable senator referred to the 1982 amendment. It is true that the Senate has lost some power. However, that was as a result of a constitutional amendment, not an ordinary bill. The leader said that this bill is an ordinary bill, a bill on which this house has an absolute veto. It is true that if this bill is not accepted here, it will be killed.
In deciding to negotiate by the legislative path, the government is taking the risk that the result will face interpretation by the court.
(1550)
That is the first risk. The second risk, of course, is that both Houses of Parliament will be involved because this Parliament has two houses. It was possible for the government to negotiate at an executive level. I do not understand why that has not been done, as it has always been done since Confederation. However, the minute legislative means are used or the legislative path is taken, a power is given to this house. Parliament is composed of two houses.
My friend is right — in 1982, the powers of the Senate were restricted but, I repeat, by a constitutional act, not by an ordinary statute.
Has the reference case of 1980 on the powers of the Senate been considered? In 1982 our powers were eroded, but that was the only time. How can we say that we are not, by means of a simple statute, an equal legislative house?
Senator Boudreau: Honourable senators, first, the executive has the authority to negotiate constitutional amendments any time it wishes. It has done that historically. It could do so if this bill were defeated here on the Senate floor; they could continue to negotiate constitutional amendments. It could do so without reference to the Senate and without reference to the House of Commons either, but certainly without reference to the Senate.
In effect, this bill does not take away from the Senate a role that it otherwise would have had. Without the legislation, the Senate would have no role prior to negotiations.
Senator Beaudoin: Honourable senators, we are being asked to vote in favour of this bill, but that is very difficult to do. With respect to clarity, I generally agree. I want clarity in everything. I want to save Canada and I am a strong federalist. That is not my problem. My problem is the means the government has taken to reach that goal. I do not see how I, as a senator, can vote for a bill that will leave the Senate with no power. As a senator, this worries me.
Perhaps the bill can be amended. I want to see this house in the picture if I am to say yes to the bill.
Senator Boudreau: Honourable senators, this bill requires passage in both Houses, as does any other piece of legislation. If this bill did not exist, the Senate would have no role to play with respect to negotiations. It would have a role to play only when it came to the constitutional amendment, if negotiations ended up at that stage. We would have the same role we had yesterday or the day before or back to 1981. Our role would not have changed without this legislation.
The executive of the Government of Canada has said that our role will change. Normally, the executive would not require the blessing of the Senate or the blessing of the House of Commons to enter into negotiations, but it decided to place prescriptions on their own ability and authority to negotiate.
The prescription that the government chose to place on itself was the formal approval by the House of Commons. It chose to prescribe what is otherwise an unfettered right to negotiate. That remains the same as it was yesterday, last week or 10 years ago. No one is changing that. It is simply the act of negotiating. The government has chosen to prescribe its normally unfettered right in a particular way.
My honourable friend may not agree with the way the government has chosen to limit its prerogative. If the government wanted to prescribe its own unfettered right, he may have preferred that both the House of Commons and the Senate should vote and approve. That should be a prior condition. That may be his preference.
Senator Beaudoin: We are two Houses or two actors, to use the Supreme Court's phrase. We are being asked to speak in favour of the bill, but from now on, my honourable friend is no longer an actor.
Senator Boudreau: The provisions will apply so that a debate can occur here and a resolution can be passed. I cannot imagine that a government would take such a resolution lightly.
I say this with the greatest of respect. I respected this institution before I came here, and that respect has increased dramatically since then.
I beg to differ with Senator Beaudoin. The Senate is not the same as the other place when it comes to constitutional matters. Forget the bill. The House of Commons has the ultimate veto over any constitutional amendment and the Senate does not.
The other difference is that the people of the country, however indirectly, express their views through their elected representatives, and it is important that their views are expressed. That is what responsible government is all about. I think, however, that the Senate does have an important role to play here.
Senator Kinsella: What is that role?
Senator Boudreau: The Senate has a continuing and important role to play, but it is not the same role, in my view.
[Translation]
Hon. Jean-Claude Rivest: Honourable senators, I would ask the minister to exercise greater caution when he talks about Quebecers who supposedly did not understand the question. I believe Quebecers, both in the 1980 and 1995 referendums, were just as intelligent as the other Canadians. This comment applies equally to those who voted no and to those who voted yes. Some of the Quebecers who voted yes are supposed to have misunderstood the question, but 100 per cent of those who voted no understood it! This argument is rather strange. I understand what the minister said, but I would ask that he exercise caution when using this rather strange argument.
The minister said that the bill provided no guarantee to Canadians that the referendum will be on the secession of Quebec. It appears that this bill does not change article 1 of the Parti Québécois agenda, which has been sovereignty association or sovereignty partnership for the past 30 years. This concept may create some confusion; that I acknowledge. This bill is merely wishful thinking, the expression of an intent, a wish or a desire of the federal government. The minister says that if the question is not clear, there will be no negotiation. The problem is national unity. If there is a referendum, if it addresses sovereignty association — that being the agenda of the Parti Québécois — we know that the bill prohibits it, and the question will be unclear. If the referendum is lost, it is all fine and well, but if 3 million Quebecers vote for it and there is a majority, the federal government says there will be no negotiation. What is going on? What progress has been made on national unity? Are these 3 million Quebecers going to disappear?
I would ask the minister to reflect on this. This bill makes absolutely no contribution to solving the problem of national unity. The day after a referendum with an unclear question, with an unclear majority, with the refusal to negotiate, and so on, the problem will still be there. Quebecers will continue to elect separatist governments and to send separatist MPs to the House of Commons. This is a non-policy. Has the government thought it over? What will happen the day after a referendum? Nothing. No negotiation? Will 3 million Quebecers disappear?
[English]
(1600)
Senator Boudreau: First, with respect to my comments about Quebecers not understanding the consequences, I was quoting a study done by a professional, as I think I indicated at the time I made the comment. I suspect that Quebecers on both sides of the question did not clearly understand what the result of their vote would be. That is probably not unusual. In any event, I was quoting a professional who made a study after the fact. That was his conclusion. It is clear that we have an interest in ensuring that the question is absolutely clear. I do not think the honourable senator would disagree with that.
I agree that legislation alone will not preserve the unity of a country. He is quite right. However, in this case, legislation will clearly ensure that if a referendum question is to yield negotiations, it must be put clearly. I believe that in those circumstances the people of Quebec will give a very clear answer.
[Translation]
Senator Rivest: I understand that point of view but, without going further, I am telling the leader that I also want Canada to remain united, and so does everyone here. However, I strongly object to the government's policy on national unity. It is a very ill-advised policy, and that includes this bill and many other things.
Several federalists in Quebec have challenged that policy, which could mislead Canadians. Among others, the Liberal Party president in the riding of Berthier-Montcalm objects to Mr. Chrétien's leadership. This is not because he does not appreciate him, on the contrary, but because, like many other federalists in Quebec, he expects another policy.
As for the clarity of the referendum question, if you conduct a poll in the rest of Canada, you will see that the overwhelming majority of Canadians believe that, with this bill, the next referendum will necessarily be on secession. This is what the Prime Minister said. The leader is telling us that the bill does not say that — for us it is easy to understand if, honourable senators, we do a clause-by-clause reading of the bill. The day after the Parti Québécois asks its question, if there is another referendum, what will Canadians say? "Again! Mr. Chrétien lied to us. We thought the question would be on secession, when in fact it is on sovereignty association."
You will adversely affect Canadian unity with this bill. This is very bad legislation. Some federal Liberals think so.
[English]
Many members of the federal Liberal Party in Quebec are saying exactly the same thing as I said.
[Translation]
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I remind you that questions are allowed after a speech, but there can be no debate.
[English]
Hon. Douglas Roche: Honourable senators, the heart of this bill is the determination of clarity with respect to the question, and the strength of the majority. If the government gets what it wants on a process to determine clarity, would it be open to an amendment clarifying which political actors will make this determination? Would the government be open to an amendment stating that the political actors in the determination of the question and the strength of the majority are the Parliament of Canada, which includes the Senate?
Senator Boudreau: I respect the honourable senator's point of view on that issue. However, the legislation is clear. There is no confusion about the body that is required to give such a view, and that is the House of Commons. The honourable senator may disagree and say that in his view that is not appropriate, but it is quite clear in Bill C-20. As I said, the rationale is that in seeking to prescribe its own area of normally unfettered activity, the executive is seeking to prescribe it in the way the bill suggests. It is giving the House of Commons a veto over the process moving forward, but it has not contemplated offering that veto to the Senate as well.
Senator Roche: Honourable senators, if the government is not open to an amendment stating that a political actor in this situation includes the Senate, would it be open to at least raising the Senate to a discrete category, as opposed to lumping it in with other bodies, as is done in clause 2(3), so that the Senate would be seen, as part of Parliament, to have a special role in the determination of the clarity of the question and the strength of the majority?
Senator Boudreau: Honourable senators, the players now involved along with the Senate in the requirement of consultation and expression of opinion are very important players. They include the provinces, the Senate, and now, with the amendment, the aboriginal peoples. I believe that the requirement as currently set forth is very significant. The bill will proceed in the normal course and further discussion will be held, but my view at this stage is that the role of the Senate, as it is clearly defined now, is the one that will likely remain.
Senator Roche: I did not say that the other bodies named are not important players. Of course they are important players — the aboriginals, the provinces, and so on. My question is whether it is true that the Senate, as a constituent body of the Parliament of Canada, is in a more elevated position, one would even say a supreme position. The Parliament of Canada is supreme and we are part of Parliament.
At the heart of the issue of who will determine the clarity of a referendum is the fact that, through this bill, the Senate has been downgraded.
(1610)
Thus, I am asking again — and I put this to the minister respectfully and sincerely: Would it not alleviate the genuine concern that is found in the chamber, to lift up the Senate from its present listing with other bodies into a discrete assembly in this bill?
Senator Boudreau: Honourable senators, I must confess that I am not exactly certain as to what the honourable senator has in mind. Perhaps we will have an opportunity to discuss that at greater length. If he means that the bill should be rearranged so that the Senate would have a veto over the process, then I would suggest that that is unlikely. It might be useful for us to have a discussion on this point so that I could better understand what the senator has in mind.
Hon. Anne C. Cools: Honourable senators, the minister has said some interesting and very novel things about the Senate today. When we had our celebrated GST fight in this chamber, it was our clear understanding at the time that were the Senate to defeat the GST, it certainly would have resulted in the dissolution of Parliament, or at least the resignation of the government. Not only did we believe that, but the government of the day believed that, and so did Mr. Mulroney and our leader, former senator MacEachen. My recollection is that the government used every means at its disposal to ensure that the GST was not defeated because a defeat in that instance would have meant a defeat of the government. The Leader of the Government in the Senate is clearly wrong when he articulates the position of the Senate in our Constitution.
Somehow, within these debates, honourable senators, we must find a way to crystallize the role of the Senate in general, outside of a debate on this bill. It puts many people in a difficult position. That was just by way of introduction to my questions.
I come now to my first question. The Leader of the Government cited clause 1(3), which says that the House of Commons shall consider whether the question would result in a clear expression of the will of the population, and on and on. He has told senators here quite clearly that the position of the Senate, constitutionally and politically, is not the same as the House of Commons. The clarification I am looking for is this: Is it not fair to say that, in our constitutional system, the opinion of the House of Commons is the same as the opinion of the Government of Canada?
Senator Boudreau: Honourable senators, that may or may not be the case. It depends, I suppose, on many circumstances. I could certainly imagine a set of circumstances where the opinion of the House of Commons might not be the opinion of the government. One thinks particularly of minority situations. The view that I have expressed is that, if we ever get to this horrible circumstance that none of us wants to see or perhaps even believes we will ever see, the Senate will play a significant role, but it will not have a veto over the process. I admit that freely, and that is the difference between the two houses in this case. The House of Commons, in effect, will have a veto over the process; the Senate will not have a veto over the process. That is exactly the same situation that exists for any formal constitutional amendment.
Senator Cools: What I was attempting to clarify was the relationship between the House of Commons and the Government of Canada. I was looking for some commentary on that particular, narrow issue. The scriptors of this bill would know very well that the opinion of the government is the opinion of the House of Commons and that that fact alone would be of critical importance to those who are looking into the future to be able to predict political outcomes. I have no doubt that any vote of the House of Commons on the initiative of the government would be under the party discipline of the whippers, or the whips as we now call them. That is a question, honourable senators, that has not been addressed. This is a method of obtaining a single opinion. It is a shortcut to a single opinion.
My second question has to do with political actors. Earlier in his remarks, the honourable leader spoke about elected representatives, and I believe it was Senator Kinsella who brought forth the entire question of elected representatives. The term "political actor" is a term that the court has created. It is unknown to law and it is unknown to the Constitution of Canada, let us understand. It is a specious term. That is another point. I am not a political actor, ladies and gentlemen. When I stand on the floor of this chamber, I am a parliamentarian.
Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
Senator Cools: When I go out to speak to individuals on a political basis, then I am a political person. An elementary reading of the Supreme Court of Canada judgment tells us that the use of the term "political actor" cannot be an accident. If the court had wanted to put clarity into the situation, the court would have spoken about the participants of the process in this country, which are the Queen or the Crown and the House of Commons and the Senate. The court, therefore, has not contributed to clarity.
Since the court has said that these questions of secession are questions to be considered by the so-called political actors and elected representatives, which you have then interpreted to mean an exclusion of the Senate because the Senate is not elected, my question to the honourable leader comes to be: How and where does the Supreme Court of Canada obtain the authority to make these political determinations that it has made in respect of the opinions that it has given us on the process and the method for secession, after having first told us that there is no law for secession and that the Constitution of Canada does not countenance secession?
How can the court use the standard that non-elected persons cannot make these determinations, when the court, in and of itself, has made a political determination, and when I last checked, the court itself was unelected?
Senator Boudreau: Honourable senators, it is difficult to conceive, but the court could have drafted a piece of legislation and included it as an example of how they might have thought things should work. They did not choose to do that, and I think that was a wise choice. They gave their opinion at the request of the Government of Canada. I think that is a legitimate thing for them to do.
By the Government of Canada choosing to do what they have done, choosing to put a prescription on their own normally unfettered ability to negotiate, I think it is incumbent upon them to be consistent with the opinion. They are not lifting the provisions of the legislation out of the judgment. The court did not write the legislation. However, the government believes — and I believe — that the legislation that has come down is consistent with the opinion given by the court in all respects. Whether or not you believe that it is good policy is another issue. Whether you believe that the Government of Canada should have limited the veto to the House of Commons or whether you believe they should have also extended that right of veto to the Senate, that is an issue of policy. They chose not to do so. There is a rationale for that, which I expressed in my remarks earlier. It does not, in any way, take away from the authority that the Senate of Canada currently enjoys.
(1620)
The Senate will play a major role under this legislation, if and when the time ever comes. Others may have written the legislation differently, to include other bodies, but, essentially, the House formalizes a veto over executive action, which the House of Commons has on a day-to-day basis, as a practical matter. That is what we call responsible government. They have that veto; we do not. At the end of the day, that is the justification that I would offer.
Senator Cools: If the court has said that there is no law by which to guide secession, then what is the law on which the government is basing its actions in bringing this bill?
Senator Boudreau: It is a judgment. First, it is based on, reflective of, and consistent with the opinion offered by the Supreme Court. It is based on the executive's decision. The executive has made a decision to prescribe their rights in this particular way. It is within their authority to do that. We have had some discussions constitutionally as to whether that is appropriate. In my view, it is. They have decided to act in this way.
Under the circumstances, on this very important issue — both in my earlier remarks and now in my responses to questions — I would ask all honourable senators to give that position thoughtful consideration.
Senator Nolin: Could the minister quote to me the paragraph of the decision where the Supreme Court is advising the government that it should legislate? The government asked for an opinion of the court. Can the minister tell me where the court states that, because he used that in answer to my colleague, Senator Cools. In which paragraph does the court state that?
Senator Boudreau: I said that the legislation is based on the opinion that the government received. It is consistent with the opinion, and I believe that to be the case. I challenge the honourable senator to indicate otherwise — that is, to show where the opinion is inconsistent with the action that an executive has chosen to take once they received an opinion that they requested.
Senator Kinsella: The honourable senator has devoted a fair amount of his speech to his theory of the place of the Senate of Canada under our system of governance. In my limited experience in this place over the past 10 years, it has been my understanding that one of the ways in which the Senate of Canada relates to the executive is through the office of the Leader of the Government in the Senate. The government communicates to this house through the Leader of the Government. It has been my experience in these past 10 years — and I have consulted with people who have been here longer than I, and it is their experience also — that, typically, the Leader of the Government in the Senate also sees his or her role as the conduit the other way as well.
I understand cabinet confidentiality and know that the government leader would be somewhat constrained in any reply. However, I must ask: Did he make representations on behalf of this institution as this process was coming forward, a piece of legislation that would relativize this institution?
Senator Boudreau: I fully agree with the honourable senator that the role of the Leader of the Government in the Senate is to be a conduit in both directions. I certainly believe that I have discharged that responsibility. It is my hope that I will continue to discharge that responsibility.
[Translation]
Senator Rivest: Honourable senators, to show how ludicrous this bill is, I should like to suggest two scenarios. What if the referendum question were "Do you want Quebec to become an independent state?" The goal is to avoid confusion, is it not? What if TV ads, billboards and sovereignist speeches everywhere proclaimed that yes, Quebec would be an independent state, but with an economic and political association, and it did not say so on the ballot, would that be legal? What appears on the ballot is important, but if Quebecers were told that what was being sought was an independent state with an economic association, they would be just as confused.
Here is another scenario. If the question were on sovereignty association, which according to the bill is inappropriate and would lead to a refusal to negotiate, and 70 per cent of Quebecers voted yes, how long would you be able to hold out?
[English]
Senator Boudreau: Honourable senators, the wisdom of the Supreme Court opinion is that these issues will be judged when they occur and that they will not be prejudged.
The fundamental responsibility of the Government of Canada is to ensure that the actual question put to Quebecers, if it is to lead to negotiations, is unequivocal and does not list an entire series of options. That is to say, it should not be like a menu. Pick the one you like, but no matter which one you like, if they all add up to a majority, then we are on our way to separation. I do not think that is how a clear expression of will can come about.
The arguments that the honourable senator makes differ to some extent from other arguments and other concerns that have been raised. From the arguments that the senator raises, I gather that he would be opposed to the whole idea of a bill of this nature coming forward in any event.
Senator Rivest: Yes.
Senator Boudreau: I thank the honourable senator for that clarification. We can discuss the issues differently, but when the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate rises, I hope he will share with us whether or not that is the position of the opposition here.
Senator Rivest: I disagree totally with this bill because I agree with former prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau. We must undertake a political battle in the referendum, not with a bill. It is completely irrelevant. Do the job. Pray for Canada! Plead for Canada and for Quebec! This is a political question, not a regular question.
Senator Boudreau: I agree that the people of Quebec will make the decision to stay in Canada — not because of any piece of legislation, but because they choose Canada. Our responsibility will be to ensure that the choice is clear.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Honourable senators, I voted in those two referendums. I do not think I was confused as to what I was doing. I agree that perhaps the question could have been a little clearer. However, I can assure the Leader of the Government that no one who voted was confused as to what was at stake, which is why the vote was so high in both cases. Word the question any way you wish. When one votes in a separatist-sponsored referendum, one knows what is at stake. We knew what was at stake. There was no confusion.
(1630)
I resent, as do those who voted, the implication by a smart academic somewhere that the question was vague and therefore no one understood it. I do not accept that. I think an apology or some kind of clarification is needed; otherwise, the millions of Quebecers who voted to stay in Canada, as well as those who felt they would be better off elsewhere, will be offended. They knew what they were doing and what their vote meant.
Senator Boudreau: The Leader of the Opposition gives me a clear opportunity to say that in no way did I intend to offend anyone who voted in the referendum. The study I cited was quoted in the other place. It indicated that some people were confused about the consequences of their vote. I cited that study from that point of view. However, I certainly did not mean to cast any reflection on the people who voted.
Hon. Joan Fraser: Honourable senators, is the government leader aware that not just one poll by Professor Pinard — one of the most eminent political scientists in the country — but dozens of opinion polls taken over a generation have shown consistently that approximately 20 per cent and sometimes as many as 30 per cent of the people who vote Yes or who say they would vote Yes if a referendum were held are, in fact, in a state of confusion about what sovereignty association would mean? It is my view that this does not in any way constitute an insult to Quebecers. It is a simple scientific fact. Every polling house that has ever asked the question has found that a fraction of voters in Quebec are confused about this issue. I blame that not on Quebecers, who I think are among the most sophisticated voters anywhere, but on the political party that has done its very best to maintain that confusion. Is the leader aware that there are many such studies?
Senator Boudreau: No, I am not. However, I thank the honourable senator for bringing them to my attention.
I have had the opportunity to read the question to any number of Nova Scotia voters, and those to whom I read it were confused as to what the consequences of the vote might have been.
[Translation]
Senator Rivest: Honourable senators, I am in complete agreement with our colleague. It is true that several studies have shown this. The Parti Québécois, regardless of this bill, will continue to promote sovereignty association. Confusion will remain. This bill does not settle the issue. It is bad policy. The problem for national unity is not the question, but the hearts of the men and women of Quebec who vote for sovereignty. We have to convince these people to remain within Canada. The question is not the problem. We are not dealing with 50 cranks.
[English]
We are talking about millions of decent people voting for sovereignty. We must convince them to stay in Canada, but certainly not with tricky bills of this kind or little things that mean nothing in respect of the problem. That is my point.
Senator Boudreau: I thank the honourable senator for his comments. As I have said before, I could not agree more that we need, on an ongoing basis, to convince individual Quebecers that they should remain in Canada. Those of us who live outside the province should take that responsibility seriously. I believe, given the clear choice, that Quebecers will in every instance choose to remain in Canada, particularly if we succeed in the kind of effort to which the honourable senator refers.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I have allowed a fair amount of leeway in the questions, much of which took the form of discussion. However, in view of the importance of the matter before us, I felt honourable senators would prefer to have that leeway.
On motion of Senator Lynch-Staunton, debate adjourned.
National Defence Act
Bill to Amend—Second Reading—Debate Adjourned
Hon. Landon Pearson moved the second reading of Bill S-18, to amend the National Defence Act (non-deployment of persons under the age of eighteen years to theatres of hostilities).She said: Honourable senators, I realize I am not the person you might expect to sponsor an amendment to the National Defence Act. However, the short clause that the government is proposing to add to the act holds particular significance for me, as it represents Canada's commitment to address, in an appropriate and constructive way, the growing exploitation in too many parts of the world of children as soldiers.
In the Speech from the Throne, the Government of Canada pledged to give increased prominence to human security in its foreign policy. Civilians have always been affected by armed conflict, but it used to be that most of the time they were the unintended, if inevitable, victims of military engagement. Now, they are frequently the targets of both state and rebel forces. Basic human rights are ignored. Women and children are especially vulnerable.
In 1996, Graça Machel, a distinguished African activist, the widow of the former president of Mozambique and now the wife of Nelson Mandela, reported to the United Nations on the devastating price paid by war-affected children during the preceding decade. Nearly 2 million children were killed and more than 4 million were disabled. One million were orphaned and over 10 million were left psychologically scarred by the traumas of violence against them and their families. This is to say nothing of the millions who had become refugees or were internally displaced.
Today, an estimated 300,000 child soldiers are serving, often against their will, in regular armies or as guerrilla fighters, members of rebel militia or rogue groups like the Lord's Liberation Army in Uganda.
These children are armed with guns that are light enough for an eight-year-old to carry and shoot, or with machetes sharp enough to slice off arms and legs. When they are not being made to kill or maim, they are being used as spies or as mine layers or as virtual slaves, forced to serve the physical and sexual needs of their leaders. This is the terrible reality we face.
While the problem is global, the worst concentration of child soldiers is in Asia and Africa. The Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers estimates that in Africa alone some 120,000 children under the age of 18 are participating in armed conflicts.
Honourable senators, I am pleased to say that since the Machel report brought this appalling situation to the attention of the United Nations, the international community has been moving to address it. One instrument that is being used is the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which was adopted in 1989 and ratified by Canada in 1991. This convention set the standard for voluntary and compulsory recruitment in the armed forces and participation in hostilities at 15 years of age. Right from the start, there were concerns that 15 was much too young, particularly since the convention's definition of the child for whom protection is required is "every human being under the age of 18."
In 1994, the UN Commission on Human Rights established a working group to draft a protocol to the convention to raise this minimum standard. I am happy to inform all senators that the international community has recently reached a consensus on the text of an Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child to achieve this objective. Under the terms of this protocol, the minimum age for compulsory military recruitment into the armed forces of state parties will be set at 18 years of age.
In addition, states parties who ratify the protocol will commit to taking all feasible measures to ensure that members of their armed forces under 18 do not take part in hostilities; and where persons under the age of 18 are recruited, joining the armed forces must be genuinely voluntary, done with parental consent and reliable proof of age and under circumstances where the recruit is aware of the duties involved with military service.
(1640)
Finally, the protocol urges all states parties to cooperate in ensuring that the victims of acts contrary to the protocol — that is, children who have been forcibly engaged in conflict — should receive appropriate assistance for their physical and psychological recovery.
The optional protocol will be presented to the United Nations General Assembly this year. Following this, nations will be in a position to ratify the protocol, later this fall it is hoped.
Honourable senators, having followed this issue closely for some years, I am proud to say that Canada has been a leader in working towards this optional protocol and that the government fully supports the outcome. I am also pleased to say that current policies of the Canadian Forces are already compliant with its provisions.
Canada does not practise conscription or any other form of compulsory service. However, the Canadian Forces do enrol members voluntarily who are under 18. Approximately 1,000 16— and 17-year-olds are recruited annually. The majority of these serve in the reserves, with some in the regular force, principally those attending Royal Military College.
These young Canadians are given a valuable range of educational experiences. Their leadership courses expose them to accountability and ethics. Their training imparts valuable skills, such as fire-fighting, basic medical skills and mechanics. A number of them have the opportunity to parade daily on Parliament Hill during the summer as part of the prestigious ceremonial guard.
Honourable senators, being able to recruit capable young Canadians is vital to ensuring that the Canadian Forces continue to be highly professional and well respected. A career in the Armed Forces is an honourable one, not only for the defence of our country and to fulfil our international treaty obligations, but also for the protection of human security abroad, a task that I predict will grow as our troops are increasingly sought out as peacekeepers. However, attracting and training those who are under 18 does not include sending them into danger. Current Canadian Forces policy precludes members under 18 from participation in hostilities or deployment to hostile theatres of operation.
Our recruitment practices already comply with the provisions of the optional protocol. However, entrenching this policy in legislation, as the government's proposed amendment to the National Defence Act is designed to do, will strengthen our position as a leader on this issue. When it comes to the exploitation of children as soldiers, Canada has never been part of the problem. We believe that if you are not old enough to vote a Canadian government has no right to send you off to war.
The Government of Canada is intent on making it clear to the international community that our refusal to send children to war is not merely a matter of conviction and policy; it is actually against the law of Canada.
Canada's overarching objective is to promote and protect the welfare and the rights of war-affected children. Although a great deal remains to be done, we are making progress. Next September we will host a major international conference to design clear strategies to address the issue and to generate the necessary political will.
Honourable senators, I encourage you to support this short and simple amendment to the National Defence Act as a way of sending a clear and strong signal of Canada's support for the optional protocol and its commitment to continue leading the fight against the abuse of children as soldiers.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
On motion of Senator Kinsella, for Senator Meighen, debate adjourned.
[Translation]
Canada Elections Bill
Second Reading—Debate Continued
On the Order:Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Hays, seconded by the Honourable Senator Adams, for the second reading of Bill C-2, respecting the election of members to the House of Commons, repealing other Acts relating to elections and making consequential amendments to other Acts.
Hon. Donald H. Oliver: Honourable senators, the size and scope of this bill make it rather remarkable. It is over 250 pages long and contains close to 600 clauses. It would be impossible for me to do it justice in one day, or even several. Therefore, with your indulgence, I will limit my remarks to one aspect of the text, third-party advertising.
To put this in context, I would remind honourable senators that it was in 1974 that the Trudeau government first passed legislation prohibiting certain forms of independent election advertising. Ten years later, the National Citizens' Coalition challenged these restrictions in an Alberta court and won. Because the federal government decided not to appeal the ruling, the 1994 and 1998 elections were held without any advertising restrictions. In 1992, the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing, the Lortie commission, recommended that these restrictions be restored. As many senators know, I was a member of the Lortie commission, as was my friend, Senator Pépin. The Mulroney government took note and, the following year, the Canada Elections Act was amended to include a ceiling of $1,000 on independent advertising expenses. Again, the National Citizens' Coalition challenged the legislation before an Alberta court. In 1996, the provincial Court of Appeal found the limit unconstitutional in Somerville v. The Attorney General.
Moreover, Quebec courts were faced with a similar case. Robert Libman, the leader of the Quebec Equality Party at the time, was challenging the Quebec Elections Act. He deemed unacceptable the provisions limiting the right of unaffiliated or independent individuals to participate in a provincial referendum. The case was to go right up to the Supreme Court, which handed down its ruling in 1998. What is of interest to us here is that the court made a wholly unexpected reference to the Somerville ruling, indicating its disagreement. It stated as follows:
[English]
While we recognise their rights to participate in the electoral process, independent individuals and groups cannot be subject to the same financial rules as candidates or political parties and be allowed the same spending limits. Although what they have to say is important, it is the candidates and political parties that are running for election. Limits on independent spending must therefore be lower than those imposed on candidates or political parties. Otherwise, owing to their numbers, the impact of such spending on one of the candidates or political parties to the detriment of the others could be disproportionate.
In the wake of this ruling, the present government decided to reintroduce the third-party clauses we have before us in this bill.
Very briefly, honourable senators, these clauses state that third parties will be allowed to spend up to a total of $150,000 during an election. This includes a maximum of $3,000 in any given electoral district. Any third party that spends over $500 will have to file a report listing its advertising expenses and contributions. This report must include the names and addresses of everyone who contributed more than $200. Third parties who wish to spend in excess of $5,000 on advertising will be required to appoint an auditor. Under no circumstances will third parties be eligible to issue tax receipts, nor will they be reimbursed for expenses. And like political parties, they will be prohibited from advertising during the final 48 hours of a campaign.
(1650)
This whole issue has provoked quite a bit of comment in the media and elsewhere. Once you separate the wheat from the chaff, you can see that most of what has been said centres on a few deeply held beliefs. Many of these beliefs are positive in nature. For example, all people have an equal right to compete for high office; freedom of speech is one of our most sacred rights; and freedom of association must not be unduly infringed upon. At the same time, and unfortunately so, there are some negative assumptions at work as well. These include the notion that wealthy Canadians never act in the best interests of the country, that business involvement in politics inevitably leads to corruption, and that elections and electorates can be bought by sufficient expenditures of money.
[Translation]
Honourable senators, I am totally in agreement that everyone ought to be able to aspire to the high office of an elected member of Parliament. I also agree, as I am sure you all do, that it is imperative to protect our right to freedom of speech and freedom of association. I do, however, find it totally unacceptable that business is seen as the devil incarnate. I do not believe that the connection between funding and votes obtained is a clear one. The election that was fought over free trade is proof of this. One might say the same of the Charlottetown referendum. If I remember correctly, those in favour of the referendum spent 13 times as much as their opponents. Yet, we know what happened.
The provisions in the bill relating to third-party advertising raise some important issues. For example, in a democratic society, is everyone entitled to take part in electing a government, or are there some exceptions? Is it acceptable for a society or a government to restrict the activities of certain groups, such as third parties? Are such limitations a threat to democratic principles?
[English]
There are no easy answers to these questions. As those of you who have been following the debate probably already realize, this issue pits two opposite and perhaps irreconcilable philosophies against one another. On one side are proponents of the idea that elections are a time of free public debate, that everyone should participate and should be allowed to do so to the full extent of their abilities and capacities. On the other side are those who are equally convinced that unfettered free speech during electoral periods inevitably leads to abuse, distorts the electoral process, and is fundamentally anti-democratic, and that society and government have a duty to minimize such abuse by limiting opportunities where it can occur. That, in a nutshell, honourable senators, is what we will be debating when we consider the third-party clauses of this legislation.
In the coming days, we will hear a number of arguments for and against third-party advertising. As we listen to them, it behooves us to keep four simple questions in mind: Are spending limits on third parties needed? If so, are they justified? If they are, are the ones that this bill proposes fair? Will they do the job they were designed to do?
Supporters of the idea of restricting third-party advertising will base much of their case on the notion of fairness. They will claim, for example, that the present situation is inequitable, that it limits the expenditures of political parties but allows third parties to spend whatever they wish. They will also insist that regulating third-party spending will make for a more level playing field.
Restricting third-party advertising will ensure that the electoral process is as transparent, democratic, and as fair as possible. The more radical among them will go even farther. They will suggest that third parties in fact have no right and no business trying to influence the public agenda, and so they should be banned.
Clearly, honourable senators, transparency with regard to those who donate money to influence the political process is a necessity. Secrecy in this area does nothing but undermine public confidence. However, I am not entirely satisfied that spending limits will automatically lead to a level playing field. As it stands now, third parties can spend more than political parties. All this legislation does is reverse the tables. This is good for the parties, but it does not make the field any more even. As for the idea that third parties have no right to involve themselves in elections, I disagree completely, and I think we all should.
As you can well imagine, opponents of third-party restraints have their own arguments. Some of the most trenchant of these have been expressed, and not surprisingly, by the National Citizens' Coalition. They argue, for example, that third-party clauses infringe on the right of Canadians to cast an informed vote and that, equally important, they unduly restrict the freedom of association and expression. These are guaranteed by section 2 of the Charter, which states that every Canadian has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of conscience and religion; freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; freedom of peaceful assembly; and freedom of association. Clearly the clauses in question do infringe on these rights, as the courts in Alberta have said twice, by declaring spending limits unconstitutional.
Another criticism of this bill that we will hear, honourable senators, is that limiting third parties to a maximum expenditure of $150,000 is punitive. It will all but eliminate them as serious contenders in the battle for public opinion during elections. I must say that I tend to agree with this. A $150,000 limit is unquestionably far too low. In fact, I think it is just plain unrealistic. Look at the math. Divide $150,000 by 301 ridings. That equals a little less than $500 per riding. You cannot buy much advertising space with that.
According to Elections Canada, political parties spent close to $35 million during the last election, and that is just the official figure. Fifty-five per cent of that $35 million was spent on advertising, particularly television advertising. By my calculation, 55 per cent of $35 million is $19.25 million. When you compare that to what is being proposed for third parties, it is obvious that their voices will be faint indeed.
Of course, none of this includes the huge amounts of money spent by parties in power on things like government and departmental advertising, and taxpayer-funded householders mailed conveniently just prior to the writ being dropped. Nor does it take into account the unaccounted for monies given to parties through riding associations or the untold hundreds of millions of dollars funnelled into Liberal ridings thanks to the largesse of the Human Resources Development minister.
(1700)
The disparities the third party clauses will engender give rise to the very real possibility that people will collude in order to get around them. The Chief Electoral Officer believes the provisions in the bill prohibiting collusion are adequate, but the Assistant Chief Electoral Officer has already admitted that the rules governing collusion are evolving. Before a committee in the other place, she said, "We will feel our way through our first prosecution." In other words, no one really knows what will happen, but just in case and just to be sure, we will infringe on the right of Canadian citizens to freely associate with one another during election periods.
Honourable senators, whatever position one takes in this debate, it is clear that third parties' ability to participate in elections will be impaired. They will not be shut out, but their activities will be seriously curtailed. How ironic that here we are as politicians telling Canadians they cannot spend their money as they wish during elections, and yet we do just that very thing — and using their money to boot!
This past weekend, I looked through some of the debate and committee testimony in the other place. I was hoping to find some evidence that third party advertising proffers unfair advantage during elections. However, there was a veritable dearth of quantitative evidence. One committee member repeatedly asked witnesses, including the minister responsible and the Chief Electoral Officer, to provide him with concrete examples of abuse. His question was something like this: "Can you tell me of any instance where candidates or parties were unable to properly defend themselves against third party advertising?" He never received an answer, or at least an answer that replied directly to his question.
Thus, I was left to ask myself: If there are no facts, why is the government pushing forward with these restrictions, especially in light of the different court decisions? What is fuelling all the rhetoric and the allegations? Why are we being told that third parties are bad and their involvement in elections unfair and dangerous? From what I can see, the answer is fear — fear of exclusion and fear of losing.
There appear to be three reasons for this. First, there is a belief out there that third parties are multinational companies armed with untold buckets of cash and that they are poised to defeat any candidate unwise enough to incur their wrath. Second, there is an assumption that all third parties are somehow evil. They are the bad guys out to ravage and slay the damsel of democracy. The idea that they could possibly have some sort of salutary effect on elections is dismissed out of hand. Third, there is an apprehension that without some form of regulation of third parties, Canadian elections will become U.S.-style elections — only the rich and well-connected need bother to apply. Each of these fears is in turn heightened by a feeling that third parties can make or break a candidate in close elections. This has never been proven. Nevertheless, the government has decided to reimpose spending limits — and this, as I said a moment ago, in spite of the fact that two courts have declared such limits unconstitutional.
Honourable senators, I must say that I find this somewhat troubling. It seems to me that, at its most fundamental, a democracy is about people, the rule of the people. It is about electing citizens to govern other citizens. This basic truth, if I may call it that, appears to have been jettisoned in this bill or, at any rate, it has been lost from sight.
There is a presumption among both the framers of this bill and those whose comments I have read so far that politics equals political parties. Political parties, so the argument goes, are the only valid and legitimate vehicles for the expression of political opinion. The views of political parties, their agenda and their spin on events should predominate. Third parties, if they have any role at all, should be limited to providing input to the political parties. In other words, they should be denied any direct connection to the electorate by way of advertising.
This view of the world is based on the idea that our democracy is hierarchical. The politician and the political parties are at the top. Then come the third parties, and at the bottom of the pile are the people. Surely, this is a strange way to view democracy. In fact, it seems to me to be a corruption of the very meaning of the word. To my mind politics is a forum. It is an occasion for a wide-ranging discussion of national issues involving all citizens. It is not a series of private debates between politicians.
We often hear today that people are turned off of politics. If the truth be known, I do not think we have to look much further than this bill to begin to see why.
[Translation]
Honourable senators, in our duties as parliamentarians we often refer to people, in the widest acceptance of that term. We extol the virtues of freedom of speech and democracy. We praise the Charter and so on. Yet, we have before us today a bill which, in many respects, undermines the ideals that we love to praise. We want to deprive Canadians of some information, on the pretense that it would be biased, this at a critical stage of the democratic process, that is, during an election. We are saying to Canadians that, because certain oral or written comments could have an impact that we are not in a position to control, we believe these comments should be restricted. Do we have the right to do that? Are elections the exclusive domain of politicians? Are young people asking us to think for them? Do they need us to tell them what is good or bad for them to hear?
I believe we must do everything we can to generate a public debate. It seems to me that the purpose of an electoral process should not be to restrict the voters' ability to participate. It should be the exact opposite. New ideas and differences of opinion are the two foundations of a sound and tolerant democracy. If we want people to participate — the participation rate is the lowest in 30 years — we must not raise barriers. We must stop wanting to control every aspect of the electoral process. With our habit of wanting to control everything, we have rendered elections meaningless. All that is left are short comments, clips and pseudo debates. It is no wonder that people have lost interest.
[English]
Honourable senators, the real issue here is not simply should we cap third-party spending. It is about democracy and the type of society in which we wish to live. As we debate this bill, we should be asking ourselves things like: Which poses a greater threat to our democracy, third-party advertising or legislation that all but eliminates it? Do citizens have the right to hear all viewpoints during an election? Will this bill limit people's ability to make informed decisions? As well, we should be keeping in mind that third-party advertisers have the same rights as every other Canadian. Before restricting their rights to freedom of speech and association, we owe it to ourselves to examine the facts. This is particularly so in the case where the facts appear to be in such short supply.
(1710)
Finally, honourable senators, as a chamber of sober second thought, we have a duty to offer protection, or at least a hearing, to those whose rights have been ignored or trod upon by others. We have an obligation to allow them to be heard and not to be unduly swayed by critical or partisan debate.
Over the past few years, the Senate has performed this role on a number of important occasions, including the Pearson airport legislation, the firearms registry, the employment insurance bill, the Divorce Act, Term 17, and the Harmonized Sales Tax Act in the Maritimes. This bill offers us a similar opportunity and a similar challenge. Like the devil in the Bible, we have heard much criticism of third-party advertisers, but we have heard relatively little, if anything, from the accused.
I hope that honourable senators will seize this opportunity to offer these people the opportunity to have their voices heard in a spirit of open-mindedness worthy of this chamber. We could all benefit, I think, from a frank exchange of views on this subject. It would go far to replacing some of the heat that has been generated by a little more light and understanding.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
Hon. Dan Hays (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I wonder if I might have permission to ask Senator Oliver a question.
First, I congratulate him on a thorough speech. I also wish to congratulate him for delivering portions of his speech in French. I have a question, however.
As I listened to the honorable senator, I sensed that his position is that the current situation is the preferable one, namely, that third-party spending is fine the way it is and it should be unlimited.
Hon. Norman K. Atkins: No.
Senator Hays: Senator Atkins is signalling me that I am wrong on that, but if that is the case, how does the honourable senator justify limits on spending by political parties during the electoral period? If he has a figure in mind for limits on third-party spending, then how does he relate it to spending by political parties? In other words, are the two comparable?
My first question is: If there are no limits for third parties, should political parties have no limits? Second, if there are limits, then what is the relationship between third-party spending and political party spending during the writ period?
Senator Oliver: I wish to thank the honourable senator for his questions. It is my view that this particular bill is wrong in relation to the treatment of third parties. It is my opinion that it is wrong because it limits them to an amount of $150,000. In this day and age, given what it costs to buy advertising, to do polling and other important things during an election, during the writ period, that is an inadequate amount of money. In my opinion, it is punitive.
I am aware that the honorable senator cited in his speech the same quotation from the court that I did, and that is only obiter dicta. If the government is to rely on the obiter dicta of one court to bring in a bill, surely it should be fair to third parties. I see third parties as groups other than the National Citizens' Coalition. I see them as community groups, and other groups in all of our provinces and all of our constituencies, who would like to have an opinion and be able to speak out on major issues that arise during an election. For us to limit those groups that may have national import to $150,000 is unfair.
I will be asking questions of witnesses in committee. Perhaps as a result of that I will come up with a figure larger than the $150,000 figure. The figure should be substantially larger in order to be fair.
Senator Atkins: As someone who has run two national campaigns, I have seen third-party advertising and support work both ways. My question to Senator Oliver is: Does he think that contributions to third parties take away from contributions to registered parties?
Senator Oliver: I do not know the answer to that, but I suspect that there are some people who do not contribute to political parties at all, and some of those people will contribute to certain third-party organizations. So, no, I do not think that takes away from money being given to third parties.
Hon. B. Alasdair Graham: Honourable senators, during the course of his well-researched presentation, Senator Oliver used the word "multinational". In response to a question from Senator Hays, he spoke about "third-party community-based organizations." I think we are all sensitive to that particular point.
Senator Hays also asked a question with respect to the relationship between the contributions that might be made by so-called third-party organizations and the caps that may be imposed upon political parties. Would Senator Oliver suggest that the multinationals to whom he referred might have unfettered, uncontrolled spending opportunities in the period of an election campaign leading right up to election day?
Senator Oliver: Yes. Banks and other major financial organizations have lots of money that they can give to major political parties. However, as a result of questions put in the other place to both the minister and the Chief Electoral Officer, they were not able to give any evidence of damage and harm that that has brought. That is why the two decisions of the Supreme Court found that it was unconstitutional.
Senator Atkins has served in two campaigns. I have been the lawyer for six national campaigns for the national PC Party. My job was to deal with election expenses and election law. I travelled across Canada on several occasions giving lectures on the law in relation to election expenses. That was my job for 26 years. I am not afraid to have all people of Canada participate in the political process because I think that is extremely important. I have seen few cases where money alone can buy elections. Therefore, I do not think we need worry about the so-called multinationals.
The context in which I once used the word "multinational" in my speech is that, for those who are afraid, they have a vision of these rich multinationals taking over the process. That is not my view. I was only stating another view.
Senator Graham: By extension, Senator Oliver would suggest that multinationals could spend even more than the political parties on one specific issue that they wanted to promote; is that correct?
Senator Oliver: It is possible that they could. I am saying that there should ultimately be a cap on third-party advertising but that the cap must be higher than the $150,000. It is too low. It is punitive, it is unfair, and it is not equal to the political process.
On motion of Senator Finestone, debate adjourned.
[Translation]
(1720)
The Budget 2000
Statement of Minister of Finance—Inquiry—Debate Continued
On the Order:Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Lynch-Staunton calling the attention of the Senate to the Budget presented by the Minister of Finance in the House of Commons on February 28, 2000. (Honourable Senator Kinsella).
Honourable Roch Bolduc: Honourable senators, as an introduction to the budget debate, I want to begin by pointing out that the government has no convincing economic policy at all. In the Speech from the Throne, for example, I was struck by a statement about what was called:
...the builders of Canada...
The speech then goes on to refer to the builders of the 20th century — artists, writers, researchers — everyone except entrepreneurs. I must say this took me aback, having always thought that Canadian Pacific in its day and Northern Telecom nowadays were also among the builders of Canada.
The speech went on about a dynamic economy, but with current tax rates in Canada we are not going to attract head offices here, or foreign investment. Nor will we keep our most mobile and most ambitious citizens.
All the rest of the Speech from the Throne consisted in pointing out once again the government's tremendous compassion for certain social groups, with other people's money. Faced with this, I said to myself that a Throne Speech may after all express a general political philosophy, one that distinguishes us from our neighbours to the south, for example, but the Minister of Finance will talk about the economy, with facts and figures.
What did he say in his Economic Update of last October? I will extract three of his assertions. On page 49 of the document, the minister said, and I quote:
Fiscal progress since 1993-94 has been due to a reduction in program spending and a growing economy.
This is not correct. The reality is that the recovery is 25 per cent due to reductions in spending and 75 per cent due to higher revenues from the partial de-indexation of tax parameters, higher taxes and moderate economic growth. The Minister of Finance should state the facts, not distort them.
On the same page of his document, the minister said:
Federal program spending as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) has fallen to 12.4 per cent, its lowest level since 1949-50.
He is playing with words. What matters to ordinary people is the ratio to the GDP not of spending programs but of total expenditure, including debt servicing charges. However, $156 billion out of $940 billion is 17 per cent. To this must be added provincial spending, so that it is a great deal more than 40 per cent of GDP that flows through government hands — this is an enormous proportion compared with 34 per cent in the United States, our main trade competitor.
A little further on, the minister spoke of the $42-billion deficit that the Conservative government had left him at the end of the recession in the early 1990s, or 6.5 per cent of GDP. He did not mention the $37-billion deficit of 1983-84 bequeathed by his Liberal predecessors, or 8 per cent of GDP at the time.
In its mission report on Canada in November 1999, the International Monetary Fund said, and I quote:
The anticipated surplus was partly the result of the systematic increase in the personal tax burden caused by lack of full indexation to inflation.
This could be called taxation on automatic pilot.
The Business Council on National Issues said in April 1999, and I quote:
[English]
Despite the progress of the past decade, Canada is underperforming in a number of key areas. Gains in productivity and in innovation are not keeping up with those of our major competitors. Our standard of living is in relative decline. The unemployment rate remains too high. Our currency continues to trend downward. Our global share of foreign direct investments is falling. Public debt is too high, personal taxes are too heavy. The real after-tax incomes of Canadians have stagnated. And Canada's ability to retain and build knowledge-intensive activities such as head office operations and research and development is being seriously challenged.
[Translation]
In its survey of the 20th century, The Economist provides an overview of countries and economic sectors. How does it characterize Canada? By high taxes, low productivity, underemployment and a brain drain. It even includes a table of locations around the world that are less desirable as places to live because of the taxes, and Canada unfortunately is there in the top rank. Pierre Fortin, in a well-documented study for the C.D. Howe Research Institute, sets out the same characteristics as The Economist. He says that we are underemployed, overtaxed and underproductive. We are far from the minister's boasts.
However, let us move on to the February 28 budget speech.
I want to start by congratulating the minister on the full indexation of tax parameters. The government should have abandoned partial de-indexation in 1993, but it preferred to sock away the revenue from this insidious form of automatic taxation so that it could brag of having vanquished the deficit. If only it had stopped throwing money around and ladling it out to various pressure groups, whose claims did not take the general good into account. However, the minister has not grasped that by distributing little bits of tax advantage to everyone, he has not tackled the Canadian economy's fundamental problem — our lagging increase in productivity. What we need is a tax policy whose primary objective is to regain the ground lost in relation to our neighbours, especially as regards increased productivity. We have to follow the example of Ireland in the European Union. We have to do better than our American competitors if we want to raise the standard of living of our poor and our middle class, and see a somewhat stronger Canadian dollar. The minister is not focused on growth and productivity; he is focused on the false redistribution of wealth so dear to the Liberal Party, which between 1975 and 1984 got us into this mess in the first place.
When a businessman like the minister cannot convince his colleagues that the primary issue is growth and not redistribution, you have to wonder about his leadership and his colleagues' sense of perspective.
[English]
The minister's budget is full of red herrings. It sets out five-year objectives and trumpets the potential results, but the reality for the year 2000 — which is what matters to us all — is a few very modest changes. Dust is being thrown in our eyes here because a budget is an annual exercise, whatever else may be said about it, when it comes to such things as tax rates and tax brackets.
The minister speaks of the year 2004 as though he thought his government would still be in power then, and with the same ideas. If there was ever a government undermined by bad administration, it is his; and if there was ever a party that changes its mind, it is his. Remember the debate over the GST and free trade. Why should we believe him today?
I do not understand why the minister, who was an astute businessman in another period of his life, does not grasp the primordial importance of a tax system that is competitive with our biggest competitor. If he had understood this, he would have taken radical steps to reform corporate taxation, which in Canada is the opposite of what it should be, according to Jack Mintz. It encourages investment in traditional sectors and discriminates against the high-technology enterprises that are the way of the future and the cornerstones of the new economy.
Like the great communicator south of the border, the minister has been speaking here and there in Canada for the past three months. One day he suggests he will do something serious about the national debt. The next day he is concerned about the problem of productivity in our manufacturing sector, which is hampering growth. The day after that he is on about nurturing high-tech enterprises, and then he is encouraging young people to stay in Canada. On yet another occasion, he says it is the family that must be supported.
What is the result? Titbits scattered all around, but above all new expenditures, at an annual rate greater than that of the country's economic growth, in sectors that are not all priorities and not necessarily within his jurisdiction, such as local infrastructures. If he had gone much further, he would have lavished even more on the Department of Human Resources. This is hardly credible, given what we now know about the way that department is managed.
The minister says to each group he meets what he knows that particular clientele wants to hear. In certain circles, they call that being a good politician. Honourable senators can see where this type of political exercise gets us. It leads to cynicism among the people, who no longer believe anything a politician says — and I say the people are right to be cynical. When politicians say one thing and do another, that is the end of their credibility.
Perrin Beatty of the Alliance of Manufacturers and Exporters is so right — the government had a chance to create incentives for investment that would generate jobs here, and it passed it by.
Mr. McCallum of the Royal Bank has said that all the elements are there in this budget — perhaps, but in the form of little bits doled out to every group. That is not the way we will increase productivity in Canada, which is our number one problem. The government has turned its back on the most urgent problem. The government has no priority. It has no priority in agriculture, health, defence, foreign policy, or aid to developing countries. It wants to be an activist just about everywhere except where it matters.
(1730)
Another example: the minister has made speeches saying that something has to be done about the public debt. He appears to be happy with it now because the debt-to-GDP ratio has gone down a little, from 63 per cent to 60 per cent, and the debt-servicing ratio in the budget has fallen from 30 per cent to 27 per cent. It is obvious that Canadians' efforts for one year will lead to this kind of result, by simple growth of the GDP. However, if inflation goes up a point or two, will the minister be any further ahead?
Let us take the main points of the minister's speech one by one, clarifying the preliminary remarks and assessing those points in terms of their contribution to increased productivity, which is the fundamental condition for real growth and thus a higher standard of living for Canadians.
With respect to personal income tax, the basic deduction is going up from $6,800 to $8,000 in five years. We are still far from a decent minimum, but the added disposable income will help people on modest incomes meet their basic needs.
With respect to intermediate tax rates, 24 per cent instead of 26 per cent is progress, as is the threshold of $35,000 instead of $29,590. Just between you and me, honourable senators, taking away a quarter of the income of people earning around $40,000 is still too much. Applying the 29 per cent rate to $70,000 and up is a little better than applying it to $59,000 and up, but it is not far from one-third of income handed over to the government, without counting what these middle-income earners pay in consumption taxes on things like retail sales, gasoline and entertainment.
As Sherry Cooper pointed out in her recent book, personal income tax is punitive in Canada. After taxes, our average per capita income is 40 per cent lower than it is in the United States. The average disposable per capita income in Toronto is barely that of Arkansas, which in turn is half that of Connecticut. When people realize that their personal disposable income is not going up, or is hardly going up, they become more aggressive, and strikes increase the number of working days lost, which of course affects productivity.
As for the so-called temporary surtax, it will be with us for a long time to come at the rate the minister wants it to disappear. The government should have the courage to rewrite its tax tables and say openly that it wants to increase the progressiveness of personal income tax because that is what it is doing anyway in its roundabout fashion. The government prefers to continue hounding the successful, just as social democrats would do. However, that is not how we build a strong society. Here in Canada, we discourage our brightest and best.
Now, honourable senators, let us take a look at corporate income tax. It has gone down by just 1 per cent for service and high-tech enterprises, falling from 28 per cent to 27 per cent. There is nothing there to make anyone jump for joy. The government has taken a baby step toward correcting a major economic stupidity in our tax rates, which are higher than in any other G-7 country. Since the 1960s, taxes on profits have been going up steadily. Last year I raised this in the budget debate, and Senator Murray asked me why, given the generous tax treatment for research and development, the operational results are not better. The answer is that corporate taxes are too high. This is the same reason that explains our slide in direct foreign investment.
[Translation]
The capital gains inclusion rate has been reduced to two-thirds from three-quarters. However, much remains to be done to attract investment. Here again the minister has been much too timid. Deferring taxation of profits on stock options until they are sold instead of when they are taken up is a start toward a measure that was needed to encourage talent to remain in Canada, but it is not sufficient in itself. Tax changes have to be quite striking to change behaviours, and among other things to raise the labour market participation rate. Losing the equivalent of half and more than half of one year's graduates in engineering, computer science and nursing is a serious matter. The president of Nortel was very clear about that.
With respect to RRSPs and RPPs, the ceiling on foreign investment has been raised 25 per cent. It was quite some time ago that the markets evolved instruments such as foreign index funds, allowing investors to get around the Canadian protectionism that simply reinforced the mediocre performance of overtaxed Canadian businesses and the Bank of Canada's fear of seeing short-term foreign investments increase, while businessmen were at the same time going in for direct foreign investment likely to speed the fall of the Canadian dollar.
After much hesitation, the minister is yielding to the evidence and putting employment insurance premiums at an appropriate rate for ensuring the system's equilibrium.
I should now like to draw your attention, honourable senators, to public spending. I will be returning a little later to transfers to provinces, which in my opinion must be rethought to give more encouragement to innovation. The government is adding financing for university research chairs; I have nothing against the addition of salaried researchers, but that is not the way that General Electric, Microsoft, 3M, Intel, CISCO, Hewlett-Packard, Hughes Aircraft, Lucent Technology and the other industrial giants get the patents and market the new products that ensure the dizzying increase of the American economy's productivity — over 3 per cent per year for the past three years. It is the American economy that attracts the talent and the foreign investment while we are losing them. Is this another new trend? I hope not, but in the meantime we have become net exporters of capital for the first time.
The government does not need to be innovative in expenditure programs that lead to scandals, but in taxation, in the way it encourages all economic agents — businesses, managers, scientists, operators — to do things as efficiently as possible. I would add that the more omnipresent regulation becomes, the more entrepreneurial freedom is compromised.
I am not the only one who thinks so — others include the Conference Board of Canada, the Canadian Chamber Of Commerce, the Conseil du Patronat, Mr. Cleghorn of the Royal Bank, and the Business Council on National Issues. Then there are highly regarded economists with the C.D. Howe Research Institute and others, such as Frank, McCallum, Migué, Fortin, and their eminent American colleagues, who have studied the phenomenon of growth, as have Barro, Lucas, Romer and Krugman.
Even Mr. Manley, the Minister of Industry, pointed this out two days after his colleague's budget speech. As well, the first Canadian to receive the Nobel Prize in economics, Robert Mundell, recently delivered the same message.
In short, the minister has wasted a golden opportunity for a change of direction that would have thrust us ahead. Instead, he is sprinkling tax benefit crumbs hither and thither to please young people, the middle class, parents, seniors, universities, et cetera. The minister has taken baby steps in all directions without a real about-face toward higher productivity. He is hoping the floating exchange rate will give us a feeble Canadian dollar that will subsidize manufacturers lacking competitive edge.
Frankly, honourable senators, I have never understood on the one hand why, in a market system like ours, governments squeeze everything they can out of the enterprises that are the engines of prosperity. On the other hand, I have never understood what kind of intellectual contortions can lead anyone to believe that cabinet ministers are more competent than businessmen when it comes to investing the latters' money in machines and equipment intended to help expand production capacity. As R. Martin said in The Globe and Mail of February 9:
[English]
Governments cannot pick winners but losers can pick governments.
[Translation]
I can already hear the typical retort from the social democratic Liberals, arguing that companies that do well should pay their share so the government can redistribute the money to those who need it more.
Redistribution — social justice as decided on by governments — has become an ideology used more to garner votes than to share the wealth. True redistribution is a minor part of the process, whose overall result is more a series of transfers to interest groups not made up of the most disadvantaged. Scarcely 10 per cent of this budget will benefit the poor. It is the classic story of temporary and successive coalitions that manage to gain from power struggles.
The real reply to my question is that the social role of companies is to make a profit and invest it, so that growth is assured. When we have prosperity we can afford generous social policies. Otherwise, they are just another attempt to make us all equally poor.
During a recent debate that Senator Ghitter launched on the value of subsidies to business, supposedly to create jobs, the Leader of the Government in the Senate apologized with sobs in his voice for this system of subsidies for business. Quite apart from any scandals that have resulted from expenditures without analysis, audits or common sense, I would like to say to our friends on the opposite side that it is in their best interests to look at certain research papers on government expenditure by a number of distinguished academics. What is the general finding of the empirical investigations by Professors Gwartney, Holcombe, Lawson, Mackness and others, recently printed in the Cato Journal and other recognized scholarly publications? The general finding is that there is a very clear inverse relationship between the size of government and economic growth.
In other words, the more government expenditure increases in relation to GDP — because of subsidies to business and other dubious redistribution measures — the more a country's growth slows down.
[English]
This holds true, for example, for the OECD countries from 1960 to 1996. This is a very important observation, which has been demonstrated over a 40-year period in terms of the economic evolution of 23 industrialized countries. What more proof could anyone want? I urge the government leader to read a few of these major research papers. Next time they would undoubtedly modify his "playing to the crowd" response to Senator Ghitter's solid arguments.
How can anyone still seriously maintain that this arbitrary redistribution has any value, after so many notorious instances of failure and scandal? The more public employment programs we have, the higher the unemployment rate.
(1740)
If the minister wants exact reference to the studies I have mentioned, I can provide them right away. In the meantime, I point out to you here today, honourable senators, that in the years and the countries where public spending was less than 25 per cent of the GDP, the growth rate reached 6.6 per cent. The larger the role of the state, the slower economic growth became, falling to 1.6 per cent in the countries in the years where public spending reached 60 per cent of the GDP. This summarizes the finding of Migué and Boucher in their recent study on taxation.
A drop of 10 percentage points in government expenditure as a percentage of GDP results in one additional percentage point of economic growth, according to the previously cited authors. Public spending explained 42 per cent of variations in growth, in their opinion. A deduction of 29 per cent in public spending would lead to an increase in 22 per cent in economic activity. Above 25 percent of GDP, the benefits of public spending are nil and add nothing to the population's well-being. An increase of 10 per cent in public spending leads to a decrease of 1.6 per cent in the rate of investment.
Examples confirming these assertions can be found in Ireland, the United Kingdom, New Zealand and — closer to home — Alberta and Ontario.
From 1960 to 1996, Canada increased its public spending from 28.6 per cent to 46.4 per cent, or an increase of 17.8 percentage points, about 5 per cent per decade, while the United States went from 28.4 per cent to 34.6 per cent, an increase of 6.2 percentage points over 40 years.
We should, therefore, not be surprised if the Americans have, over the past decade, rapidly increased their traditional economic lead over us. I do not say that all their progress is attributable to this factor. I know that other factors have helped fuel the superior growth in productivity of the American economy, but because public spending is lower there, taxes are lower and more resources are available for individuals and businesses for research and development, which in turn leads to innovation in products, services and methods.
This favourable climate for entrepreneurship attracts risk capital, high-performance management and brains with new ideas, and encourages rivalry among teams within and between companies.
For a number of years now, people on the government side have been saying that cuts in departmental spending are over. Indeed the government has begun once again to spend at more than the rate of growth last year.
Now, what did the authors I cited earlier observe? For the past 40 years, there has been a steady expansion in government expenditures and activities outside so-called essential services — that is, protection of people and property, conflict resolution, infrastructure construction, education. According to Grubel and Gwartney, the cost of these essential public services corresponds roughly to 15 per cent of a country's GDP, with 5 per cent going to defence and the police. In Canada, we devote only 1 per cent of GDP to these sectors. We devote 5 per cent to training or education and a final 5 per cent to highways, the environment, et cetera.
Let us say for purposes of discussion that the government's share of health care costs must remain what it is at the present time, 6.7 per cent of GDP, and that it must also ensure a public social safety net costing 7 per cent to 8 per cent of GDP. This would mean total government spending of 27 per cent to 30 per cent of GDP. However, in Canada, we are well above 40 per cent. How can the government claim that its spending cannot be cut further?
Yet we know the productivity declines as public spending increases, because the political process displaces entrepreneurial energy toward rent-seeking, the quest for hand-outs that results from the famous redistribution of income on which governments are so fixated.
Gwartney and his colleagues also observed that the higher a country's rate of government spending goes above the average of the OECD countries, the slower its economic growth becomes.
Had the United States over a long period, say 100 years, had a growth rate just 1 per cent lower, their per capita income today would be that of Mexico.
Among government expenditures, I would like to choose a category other than the one that has recently been the object of waste and patronage. My chosen category is transfers to the provinces. I realize that transfers are regarded as an essential element of Canadian federalism, but these transfers simply take the revenues of the richer provinces to give them to the poorer provinces. That is the theory, the justification for this type of redistribution. The practice is not perfect, however, since middle-income Canadians in the richer provinces are subsidizing well-off Canadians in the poorer provinces.
[Translation]
In addition, outside the equalization payment program the provinces are not always treated equally by the transfer system, which has a negative effect on labour market mobility.
Finally, government accountability is sacrificed in this process. As far as the social safety net is concerned, intergenerational transfers are not very equitable either. Like redistribution, they are far from perfect if you look at the cost-benefit ratio applicable to people of my generation as opposed to that applicable to my children. The young people who are being had in this process may be justified in being a little cynical. It is a classic case of politicking: you take money from all taxpayers and you give more of it back to one coalition of voters, in this case, seniors. The favours are distributed immediately and then, when it becomes apparent later that contributions are inadequate, you ask everyone to pay more, including young people. This has been going on here since 1998.
In this case, in addition, a fund has been created where premiums are compulsory and the monopolistic investment agency becomes a major player in Canadian and foreign businesses. By holding shares in private companies, the government expands its influence indefinitely into the market system.
Honourable senators, I tell you that this does not presage anything good for the Canadian economy and for the freedom of entrepreneurs.
One final spending sector that is always worrisome is that of health care. In 1996, 9.5 per cent of GDP was devoted to it in Canada, or $75 billion, of which two-thirds was paid by governments and one-third by people themselves or by insurance companies. In five years' time, not just 6 per cent of the population will be 70 and older, but 9 per cent.
From 1965 to 1999, health care more than doubled its drain on GDP. Since we know it costs four times as much — $8,000 instead of $2,000 — to care for people aged 65 and over than it does for people aged 45 to 64, we can already conclude that the cost of prescription drugs, which absorbed 8.8 per cent of expenditures in 1975 and 14 per cent in 1996, is going to push up the taxpayers' bill.
If you add to this factor social security costs, which have gone from 6 per cent of GDP to 10 per cent over the past few decades, with the result that instead of absorbing 15 per cent of GDP social policies are now absorbing 23 per cent, or $210 billion, it seems sufficiently obvious to me that reform is necessary — if governments have the courage to allow private capital and competition into the system, in the form of public insurance schemes.
I have one final reflection. The minister tells us that the debt-to-GDP ratio is dropping toward his goal of 50 per cent. I would remind you that to this $570 billion national debt we must add, for the same Canadian taxpayers, the provincial debts. That total is around 90 per cent of GDP, or $845 billion. This means that 8.5 per cent of GDP goes on debt servicing, which makes us particularly vulnerable to an American recession, for example, or to a jump in the inflation rate.
I am not saying that the Minister of Finance in his budget is not heading in the right direction. This was pointed out to him so often over the past year that he did not have much choice. What I am saying is that he is taking baby steps and that the public is letting itself be lulled to sleep by the results promised for five years from now. For me, those promised results are just good intentions. The realities are the baby steps, which in no way constitute sufficient incentives for a massive increase in domestic and foreign investment in Canada.
In addition, the reaction of the markets did nothing for the dollar, so the price of the imported machinery and high-tech equipment intended to boost our productivity remains the same, that is, too high. As a result, not enough of these tools will be imported to make a real difference in the way we operate. When I speak of the way we operate, I mean in the manufacturing of traditional products as well as in the new economy, for services like transportation, utilities, energy and telecommunications, not to mention government.
As Mr. Thomas d'Aquino of the Business Council on National Issues said, American competition is happening now, not in four years. At this rate, we are and will remain the most highly taxed G-7 country. In short, honourable senators, what I extract from the budget is that the Finance Minister has understood the blunt message from the business community but has not actually done anything much for the priority of priorities, increased productivity. The impact of the government's decisions of February 28 will thus fail to meet Canadians' expectations in any but the most minimal sense.
Instead of cutting taxes by let us say 20 per cent, the minister cuts them by half that and keeps the rest, not to pay down the debt, but to spend. The result is that in our contest with our main rival, the United States, we are no further ahead. The minister wants to spend money on all sorts of programs, but while he does so, the brain drain and the investment drain will continue. That is a pity.
I can already hear the minister retorting that more public money had to be invested in health care. I say no — what is needed is a change in the system, which will no longer work without private sector involvement. I am not often in agreement with the Finance Minister of Quebec, but for once I think he is right to say that the problem is mainly one of administration, as the Conference Board explains in its study on the performance of the Canadian economy in 1999.
In conclusion, I would sum up my thinking in four points. One, the government's economic philosophy is not convincing. Two, the government has not placed enough emphasis on the priority problem of increasing productivity. Three, it is only tinkering with the taxation system, and its changes will have scarcely any effect on our economic progress. Four — very typical of the Liberal government in its dealings with problems — money is being fired into the crowd without guidelines or targets. This is a pity. They could have done so much better with those billions which, let us not forget, belong to the people of Canada.
On motion of Senator Kinsella, for Senator Stratton, debate adjourned.
[English]
Business of the Senate
Hon. Dan Hays (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, after a brief discussion with my counterpart, I would request leave to stand all remaining items on the Order Paper and Notice Paper and ask that they remain in the position that they hold today.The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is leave granted, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Adjournment
Leave having been given to revert to Government Notices of Motions:Hon. Dan Hays (Deputy Leader of the Government), with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 58(1)(h), moved:
That when the Senate adjourns today, it do stand adjourned until Tuesday next, March 28, 2000, at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to.
The Senate adjourned until Tuesday, March 28, 2000, at 2 p.m.