Download as PDF

Debates of the Senate (Hansard)

2nd Session, 36th Parliament,
Volume 138, Issue 69

Tuesday, June 20, 2000
The Honourable Gildas L. Molgat, Speaker

Table of Contents


Tuesday, June 20, 2000

The Senate met at 2:00 p.m., the Speaker in the Chair.


New Senators

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I have the honour to inform the Senate that the Clerk has received certificates from the Registrar General of Canada showing that the following persons, respectively, have been summoned to the Senate:

Betty Kennedy, O.C.

Raymond C. Setlakwe


The Hon. the Speaker having informed the Senate that there were senators without, waiting to be introduced:

The following honourable senators were introduced; presented Her Majesty's writ of summons; took the oath prescribed by law, which was administered by the Clerk; and were seated:

Hon. Betty Kennedy, O.C., of Milton, Ontario, introduced between Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau, P.C., and Hon. Landon Pearson.

Hon. Raymond C. Setlakwe, of Thetford Mines, Quebec, introduced between Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau, P.C., and Hon. Lise Bacon.

The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that the honourable senators named above had made and subscribed the declaration of qualification required by the Constitution Act, 1867, in the presence of the Clerk of the Senate, the Commissioner appointed to receive and witness the said declaration.


Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, it is my pleasure to extend a warm welcome to our two new colleagues, Senator Betty Kennedy and Senator Raymond Setlakwe. Both new senators have contributed significantly to their communities, to their regions and to their country.

Today, it is my great honour to welcome to the Senate an Officer of the Order of Canada, Senator Betty Kennedy. Senator Kennedy is a distinguished broadcaster, journalist and author. I have no doubt that her experience on the award-winning Front Page Challenge will assist her during her time with us in the Senate. Perhaps it might even help me with Question Period.

Her background in journalism will serve her well in this place, allowing her to quickly adjust to her new surroundings. We can expect her to become an active contributor to our work in the Senate.

In addition to her many achievements, Senator Kennedy has given freely of her time to many charitable and voluntary organizations. These include honorary national chair of the Canadian Cancer Society, honorary chair of the annual fundraising luncheon of the Canadian Save the Children Foundation, and an ambassador for the St. John Ambulance millennium celebrations. She was the first non-medical member of the Complaints Committee of the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons, and a member of the college's 1990 Task Force on the Relationship Between Physicians and the Pharmaceutical Industry. All of these past experiences will no doubt assist her as she begins with this new challenge.

Senator Kennedy, we congratulate you on your appointment. We offer you all our best wishes as you assume your new responsibilities.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Senator Boudreau: Honourable senators, Senator Raymond Setlakwe is a successful entrepreneur and lawyer. He is President and CEO of A. Setlakwe Ltd., a retail chain with 17 stores and boutiques throughout Quebec. He is also President and CEO of Saint-Hilaire Inc., an importer of men's and women's ready-to-wear fashions.

Although he is busy, Senator Setlakwe has time to contribute to many voluntary organizations. He is honorary chair of the fundraising campaign of the CÉGEP at Thetford Mines, a member of the Thetford Mines Hospital Foundation, a member of the Bishop's University Foundation and has been involved in the Laval University Foundation fundraising campaigns.

Senator Setlakwe can also count among his many achievements being a director of the Research Fund of the Montreal Heart Institute, a member of the Sherbrooke University Corporation and a member of the Bishop's University Corporation.

Senator Setlakwe, your strong commitment to public service will assist you in our work here in this red chamber. Welcome to the Senate of Canada.

Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I wish to join with the Leader of the Government in the Senate in welcoming our two new senators. However, I regret that notification of the swearing-in ceremony only reached us in caucus a little over an hour ago. Therefore, it has been impossible to prepare appropriate remarks. Suffice to say that after hearing the resumés of our two new colleagues, there is no doubt that they will bring talents from which we shall all benefit.


Honourable senators, on behalf of all opposition senators, I offer my sincere congratulations on your appointment and wish you good luck in your new responsibilities.


The Honourable William M. Kelly

Tributes on Retirement

Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, while it is easy to find fault with any prime minister whose term in office is marked by constant controversy, even the most critical and biased observer can find in him or her some positive decisions. What better example of this than the Honourable William Kelly, whose summons to the Senate in 1982 resulted from a flash of genius on the part of Mr. Trudeau. His good judgment has been vindicated ever since.

Only a month from now, Senator Kelly will reach the mandatory retirement age. I wonder if it is wishful thinking that in looking for a replacement, the present prime minister will be inspired by his predecessor.

Among the many characteristics that set Senator Kelly out during the past 18 years, the one that strikes me the most is his lack, or even distaste, for partisanship. He is, and I say this in the most objective sense, of the old school, that diminishing one which believes that sober second thought, harmony, goodwill and collegiality should be the hallmark of this place, something that has not always been true over the last few years.


Bill succeeded Orville Phillips as a PC caucus whip. The contrast in approach could not have been sharper. Orville's was best exemplified by his well-used cat-o'-nine-tails that left many scars, particularly during the GST debate.

Bill, on the other hand, believed more in a quiet and courteous approach, which was so successful that on more than one occasion, he did not even show up for the vote that he had whipped for.

Bill's non-partisanship served Senate committees well, particularly National Finance, Energy, Internal Economy and Banking. He took a special interest in terrorism and in Canadian counterterrorism activities as an active participant and chairman on three special committees addressing the issue, the last being the Special Senate Committee on Security and Intelligence, which reported in January 1999. The government's response last December testifies to the diligence of the committee and, in particular, of its chairman. The government said, in its answer, that the committee report will serve to guide government action aimed at further strengthening Canada's national security measures.

Bill, you have brought to the Senate outstanding experience in private business and in community affairs, which has been of immense benefit to the Senate. We are all most appreciative. I should like to wish you and Betty the very best as you prepare to leave us. You will be sorely missed.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham: Honourable senators, I think it is true to say that it is a tough job to begin to list all of Senator Bill Kelly's accomplishments and contributions to his chamber, to his beloved province and, indeed, to his country. As someone who has truly admired and respected Senator Kelly's well-known fair-mindedness, his commitment to principle and his determination to get things done over the years, I find it rather difficult to imagine Senate committees without him.

Senator Lynch-Staunton paid tribute to Senator Kelly's work on committees ranging from National Finance and Energy to National Defence and Internal Economy, and, more recently, to the Standing Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders and the Subcommittee on Human Resources. When one considers his remarkable life in totality, it becomes clear that for Bill Kelly, to use William Van Horne's famous words, nothing has been too small to know; nothing has been too big to attempt.

Senator Kelly has served as director of the Council on Drug Abuse. He has served as chairman of the Board of Governors at Ryerson Polytechnic University. He was co-chairman of the 1984 task force on Crown corporations. In the business world, he has been director of numerous national and international companies and financial institutions. He has stood as governor of Canada's Sports Hall of Fame and a commander of the Order of St. Lazarus of Jerusalem.

Senator Kelly gained extensive international experience in energy-related consulting services around the world. That international experience was broadened between 1994 and 1997 when he served as rapporteur and delegate of the second committee to the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly in Vienna.

Honourable senators are all aware of Senator Kelly's lifelong interest in the study of terrorism and his dedication to the very critical objective of strengthening the safety and security of Canadians. We all followed the outstanding work that he did as chairman of the Special Senate Committee on Terrorism and the Public Safety.

I think all of us, as a by-product of Senator Kelly's forceful yet always constructive and tightly reasoned analysis, have been prompted to reflect very seriously about the problems of individual nations in dealing with national security in cyberspace, a virtual world where boundaries disappear. As someone who led two committee studies on terrorism in the 1980s, one of which included the still-unsolved bombing of the Air India jet, Senator Kelly has become an experienced voice of reason in an area that most people try not to think about until a serious calamity erupts. His has been a continuing voice, calling for vigilance in the defence of the values and the freedoms Canadians hold dear and yet which Canadians too often take for granted. The message: Be alert, be watchful, because in the era of terrorist incidents, such as the Oklahoma City bombing and the nerve gas attack on the Tokyo subway system, vigilance in the defence of freedom must become a natural reflection in the lives of all of our people.

As I reflected upon Bill's contributions to this area, I thought back to a young lieutenant, William Kelly, of the Second Field Engineer Regiment during World War II. I thought of the wonderful regiment's role as put in the words of the field engineers themselves. Simply stated, the two roles of engineers are to assist friendly troops, to live, move and fight, and to assist in denying the same abilities to the enemy, and to fight as infantry when required.

Senator Kelly, you have spent many years in the service of your country, living up to your regiment's role. You have counselled vigilance in a world where virtual realities have turned traditional concepts of security upside down. Always you have tried to deny the ability to live, move and fight to the enemies of our country and the democratic freedoms and institutions that we as Canadians hold dear.

Honourable senators, I believe all of us, on both sides of this chamber, have been moved by the depth of your commitment in the continuing struggle for what is right.

I think now of an old friend of yours, former premier Bill Davis of Ontario, who once said that to be Canadian is to live in relative calm and with great dignity. As we say goodbye to a very fine senator and friend, I think of words like "calm" and "dignity" and the traditional very fine attributes of a true Canadian gentleman. I think of a quiet dignity and wonderful good humour and fair-mindedness that carried through all of Bill Kelly's time with us.

It was once said that no person was ever honoured for what he received. Honour was always the reward for what he or she gave, so let us add "honour" to the long list, Senator Kelly, because over an action-packed tenure in this chamber, you have given so much, and we shall always be in your debt.

Hon. Lowell Murray: Honourable senators, as has been noted, Senator Kelly, a Progressive Conservative, was appointed to the Senate in 1982 by Prime Minister Trudeau, a Liberal. Thereby hangs quite a tale. Time does not permit me to do full justice to it today, but I shall try to give honourable senators a brief outline of the plot and a sketch of the main characters.

It all started, as many of Mr. Trudeau's initiatives did, with a quite harmless, indeed laudable, constitutional theory. The theory was that the effective functioning of our parliamentary system required not only an upper house, although we should be grateful for such an acknowledgement from the Chrétien government today, but an upper house in which Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition had a critical mass, and I do mean critical. The numbers on the opposition side had been declining for some years. Prime Minister Trudeau undertook to replace any Progressive Conservative who retired with another Progressive Conservative who would be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons, who, in those days, was a Conservative.

Under this rubric, the opposition ranks were strengthened and the Senate itself was enhanced by the appointments of such distinguished Canadians as the former Nova Scotia premier G.I. Smith and the former Manitoba premier Duff Roblin. The working arrangement was that when a vacancy occured due to a Tory senator's retirement, the Tory leader would submit a list of names from which the Prime Minister would choose the new senator.

When the time came in 1982 to fill the Ontario vacancy, some of the leading political luminaries in the country became engaged in a process so labyrinthian and Machiavellian that even Mr. Trudeau would have admired it if he were following it, which I very much doubt.


The Right Honourable Joe Clark was involved, of course, and he had his own favourite nominees for the vacancy — Senator Kelly not among them. His chief of staff swung into action on his behalf, interfacing, as they say now, with his counterparts in the Trudeau PMO. The chief of staff was Peter Harder, who has since vanished into the mists of the senior federal bureaucracy.

In Toronto, the fabled Big Blue Machine was activated. Bill Kelly had been a charter member, a close advisor to Premier Davis and, indeed, the chief bag person for the provincial Tories. Their immediate strategic objective was to ensure that Mr. Kelly's name was on the list that Mr. Clark submitted to Prime Minister Trudeau — that is all they asked — and it was strongly implied that the honour of being on the list would be sufficient for a person as modest as Bill Kelly was — then.

This presented no great difficulty for Mr. Clark and his faithful emissary, Mr. Harder. After all, there would be five Tory names on the list, and ample opportunity for Mr. Clark and Mr. Harder to indicate, with a wink and a nudge, to Mr. Trudeau that some candidates were more welcome, if not more worthy, than others. It is, of course, well known, even in Liberal circles, that Mr. Trudeau was not always as sensitive as he should have been to winks and nudges. However, winks and nudges were the specialty of his chief of staff, who was Tom Axworthy. A more winkable and nudgeable operator never graced the PMO — with the possible exception of Jim Coutts, who was his predecessor, mentor and idol.

The federal Tories were serene and confident, not for the first time, that our universe was unfolding as it should. Trudeau and Axworthy would surely not be capable of treachery. Perhaps not, but what about Bill Davis, Ed Stewart, his deputy minister, Norman Atkins, and notably, famously, notoriously, the indefatigable Hugh Segal, now vanished into another mist, the apolitical, non-partisan Institute for Research on Public Policy? Segal went to work. This was in the aftermath of the patriation caper of 1982, and federal Liberals could be forgiven if, in their euphoria, they thought there might be other issues on which they and Queen's Park could make common cause, thereby marginalizing the federal Tories. Hugh Segal was not one to discourage their optimism. He may even have fed it. I have no doubt that Michael Kirby was enlisted, perhaps even Michael Pitfield, maybe even Joyce Fairbairn. This was no mere political cabal; this was a major megaconspiracy of federal-provincial proportions.

So it came to be that on December 23, 1982, just before Christmas, William McDonough Kelly was summoned to the Senate, just a couple of weeks after the aforementioned Pitfield and just a couple of years ahead of the aforementioned Kirby, Fairbairn and Atkins. Axworthy has gone to his reward in Montreal, and of the original co-conspirators, only Segal is left pressing his nose to the senatorial window. Perhaps it is that conspiracies, like revolutions, devour their children. In any case, with Senator Kelly leaving shortly, it is not too late for Prime Minister Chrétien to bring Segal in out of the cold as we approach the eighteenth anniversary of patriation.

By way of postscript, let me say that I do not recall all of the other three or four names on the list that Mr. Clark submitted to Mr. Trudeau. I do remember one of them. It was that of Hal Jackman, Prince Hal, later to be named Lieutenant-Governor of Ontario, and more recently to metamorphose as the Bay Street guru of the egregious Canadian Reform Alliance Party. Think of it, colleagues! Instead of bidding farewell today to our esteemed colleague, Bill Kelly, we might be enduring the pontifications of our first CRAP senator, Senator Hal Jackman, who would today still have another six or seven years in our midst. The thought is enough to inspire me to say thank God for Tom Axworthy and Pierre Trudeau.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Senator Murray: Thank God for Hugh Segal and Bill Davis.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Senator Murray: I shall go so far as to say thank God for Bill Kelly.

Honourable senators, let me say that the process has worked. Parliament has had the services of an excellent senator these past 18 years. I acknowledge that, at times, I found it slightly galling that, having arrived here under such blatantly political auspices, with such a conspicuous political background, he proceeded to lecture us on the virtues of a non-partisan Senate. However, one day, in December 1990, Liberal senators saw him rise in his place, out of turn, but did not protest, thinking he was about to subject us to another homily on non-partisanship. Imagine their chagrin when it turned out to be a commando-style procedural intervention that succeeded in putting an end to the filibuster and passing the GST bill. This and future generations of bean counters in the Finance Department, led by Paul Martin, will be eternally grateful.

I hasten to add, as Senator Lynch-Staunton has mentioned, that during part of my time as government leader in this place, Bill Kelly served as caucus chairman and chief government whip. I was always grateful that he succumbed to the entreaties of Prime Minister Mulroney, and mine, to take on this thankless task. As we all know, the function of whip is indispensable to our parliamentary system. It requires sound judgment, integrity, loyalty and discretion, qualities that Senator Kelly possesses to a high degree, indeed qualities that he exemplifies. He has been an adornment to the Senate, a valued colleague, and at all times a very good friend, and I am most grateful that we have had the benefit of his skills, his experience and his dedication to what is best for Canada.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Hon. Colin Kenny: Honourable senators, I also rise to pay tribute to Senator Kelly. We served together in the Senate for 15 years, through rough times and smooth. We served together on Internal Economy, the Personnel Subcommittee, the Security Subcommittee and the Audit Subcommittee. I served on two of his three Terrorism and Public Safety Committees. Working with Bill, we discovered he loathed partisanship — surprising for a Tory. Bill was always thorough, logical, hard-working and capable.

On a personal basis, occasionally we disagreed, but far more often we were of the same mind. Bill has always had a sense of humour and, more important, a sense of perspective. The best way to characterize Bill is as a true gentleman. The words one would associate with him are integrity, courtesy, honour and courage.

Bill, you are a good friend and we are going to miss you.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Hon. Marcel Prud'homme: Honourable senators, Senator Graham has described Senator Kelly as "A true Canadian gentleman." I also want to join with what has been said by Senator Murray and others.

On a personal note, the first time I really spoke to Senator Kelly was when I arrived in the Senate. As you may well remember, I arrived under a terrible cloud given to me by one party that was not, of course, the party of Senator Kelly. He was at that time the chief government whip, and it was at the end of a tenure of office of a government and he had to find me accommodation. Of course, the other whip was not too happy to see my entrance in the Senate as an independent senator. I tested right away who is who that day when I was appointed.

I must say, for the benefit of the new senators, yes, I have been 40 years a Liberal, was appointed by a Conservative prime minister and sit as an independent. However, if Mr. Trudeau was daring by appointing a Conservative to the Senate, the Right Honourable Prime Minister Mulroney must have had something else in mind when he chose a Liberal to sit as an independent, because I am sure I was the first one who succeeded in sitting as an independent. Many others tried before, but they had to sit as Conservatives; otherwise, they would not have been appointed to the Senate. This is a small part of history.


I was well received and well treated. He treated me as he treated everyone. On the very last day he said, "Marcel, I cannot find accommodation for you. Every door is closed. Only a little office at the entrance is empty. It is sometimes used by the guards. At one time, former senator van Roggen used that place." I did not say a word. I was afraid to lose it if I showed too much enthusiasm. I knew that room inside out. For years and years, I sat down at night with Senator van Roggen, who was then chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee while I was chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Commons. We dealt together. We organized meetings with Gorbachev, and so on. I knew that room well, and I knew that it was a prime place, even though my staff had to be located on the sixth floor. I wish to thank him for that.

The second time I got to know him is when I had the great honour — and, do not get excited about this — of seconding the motion that created the famous special committee on terrorism and security. I was the one who seconded the motion and attended the meetings, although as a non-member because the issue regarding independent senators had still not been resolved. We want to work, but that issue has not yet been resolved. Senator Kelly gave me good advice. However, the authorities of the day have not yet found a solution to the question of independent senators being members of committees.

Having said that, I was very honoured to sit with Senator Kelly even in the in camera meetings. I am not sure that some of the greatest people in security told us the whole the truth. As we were unable to prove that they were lying to our faces, we could do nothing. However, I am positive that we were lied to by some of the highest people in security services.

Senator Kelly did a fabulous job. I would say to the new senators, especially, that these reports of that committee which was chaired by Senator Kelly should be read again with an eye for the year 2001. You will then understand what Canada and the world will have to face.

I was happy and honoured to meet with Senator Kelly. I totally endorse what Senator Graham has said. This shows that some senators do listen to what is being said by their colleagues and do not only make speeches. I listened attentively to what Senator Graham said.

I have met a true Canadian gentleman in the person of Senator Kelly. I salute him. I hope to see him as long as he so wishes.

Hon. Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: Honourable senators, the lamented looming retirement of the Honourable William Kelly will leave the Senate leaner, lighter, looser, and less learned. Bill, as we have heard, was a life-long Conservative. Before Bill was called to the Senate by the Right Honourable Pierre Elliott Trudeau, he was already a legend in my home province of Ontario. He was a legend in Ontario politics.

Bill was a key engineer who helped to construct, motivate and run the Big Blue Machine that was so successful for many decades in Ontario. If the truth is now to be known — since we are now making mea culpas — the truth is that the little red machine in Ontario was modelled on the Big Blue Machine, with not inconsiderable success.

Bill was always a graceful and honourable opponent. He was tough, but fair. He was a strong, silent and influential advisor to successive provincial governments and premiers — governments and premiers who always clung or hung on to the middle road in Ontario. The fight in Ontario has always been for the middle ground and, dare I say, the progressive liberal middle ground. Bill was always a leader in moderation in all things, including in politics and in the Senate.

In his duties here, Senator Kelly approached his work with precision, passion and principle. Above all, he was a man of clear common sense. His work on committees, especially the committees dealing with intelligence, security and terrorism —  that malignant disease of the last part of this century — is well known to all. He believed that Parliament had to play a more important and crucial role in its oversight on matters of national interest such as intelligence and security. He felt — and I believe he is right — that Parliament had not properly provided that oversight to which the public is it entitled.

What is less known about Bill is his work on behalf of Canada overseas, particularly at the OSCE, where 55 countries, including Canada and the U.S., are voting members. As a rapporteur at that very distinguished body, he was responsible for drafting multifaceted, complex policy papers and then dealing with amendments that flowed in from 55 countries. Again, in Europe, Bill led the way with concision, skill and diplomacy. He navigated the ever difficult and complex shoals of international clashes. In the process, honourable senators, he raised respect for Canada across the face of Europe.

Bill, the Senate will miss you and your astute talents and capabilities. You helped to reconstruct and burnish the quiet reputation of the Senate, true to its mandate, as a chamber of sober second thought. Bill, you leave the Senate with a repository of distinguished work. Canada remains indebted to you for your outstanding qualities of passion and reason, all in the service of the Canada you served so well in war and peace. You will remain in my mind always as an officer and a gentleman. Bill, may the wind always be at your back. God speed!


Hon. Roch Bolduc: Honourable senators, I have known Senator Kelly since I first came to the Senate 12 years ago. Senator Kelly is a businessman of experience, and a person who expresses his ideas on public policy with conviction and whose sense of public interest will accept no compromise.

At his invitation, I enjoyed the most interesting experience of sitting on the board of a major company. He was chairman of the board and as such showed his ability to ask pertinent questions of the senior executives, whether these related to production problems, marketing, administration or investments.

Senator Kelly is a man who triggers heated discussions and who possesses a keen sense of efficiency when it comes to the decision-making process. This disciplined and pragmatic man counts among his accomplishments here the attentive eye he has kept on Canada's defence and security activities. He does so not only in Canada but also in such international forums as the Atlantic Council.

Although Senator Kelly is leaving us, I know he is not taking retirement. I wish him and his wife many happy days to come.

Hon. Pierre De Bané: Honourable senators, I should like to add my tributes to those that have already been paid to Senator Kelly. An engineer by profession, Senator Kelly was extremely active in the energy field in Canada, Europe, Asia, the Far East and Oceania.

He then developed an interest in major political issues, European security in particular. Remarkably, even before coming to this institution, he was also extremely active within various charitable organizations.

What I have been most impressed by in Senator Kelly is the fact that he has always assumed his duties in the Senate in an extremely high-minded manner, putting the public interest well above political considerations, although remaining an important figure in the Progressive Conservative Party.



I want to pay tribute to you, Senator Kelly, because you are one of the people who, when you join an institution, are not honoured; rather it is the institution that is honoured by your joining. Thank you very much.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Hon. Peter A. Stollery: Honourable senators, I did not know Senator Kelly before he came here, though we both come from the same part of Ontario. What a decent and honourable senator he has been. Unlike some senators, he has participated in the activities of the Senate and has made his mark on public business in Canada. That is not something I would say about everyone. He is a man who will be missed by the Senate. I am not suggesting that other people are not also honourable senators, but Senator Kelly has come here and has made a tremendous contribution to Canadian public life, and I, for one, will miss him.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Hon. Joyce Fairbairn: Honourable senators, this is a sad day for me. I can honestly say that Senator Bill Kelly has been one of my finest friends and colleagues in the Senate since I came here 16 years ago.

I listened carefully to Senator Murray. Over the years, my friend Mr. Trudeau has often been accused of being Machiavellian; however, I must say that Senator Murray's story indicates far more devious and complex machinations from the other side of the issue of the appointment of Senator Kelly than I am sure the former prime minister could ever have thought.

Apart from his politics, I always liked Bill Davis. I was confident that, at the time, when having the opportunity to put in a word, he would come up with the name of a pretty good fellow. I did not know Senator Kelly at the time. I was a little curious when I heard that Mr. Davis was dispatching his premier bag person to fill this role. I expected perhaps a portly chap in pin-striped trousers, puffing away on a cigar. We did get the cigar-puffing, regrettably, but there he was, trim and gracious, full of warmth and good humour — up to a point, of course. Senator Murray, again, has brought up a rather painful memory of the day that Senator Kelly rather forcefully snookered our side during the GST debate. After my original outrage, I never really held that against Bill personally. I thought he had had an unfortunate lapse, probably brought on by the long hours and pressures of the GST debate.

Senator Kelly has not only made a contribution of work to this place, but his personality and his character have, time and time again, shone through in our debates and indeed even in some of our disagreements. Many of us will leave our position in the Senate with old Hansards full of speeches, but Bill Kelly can walk out of this place having done something tremendously substantial. That is the work that he did on not one, not two, but three committees that focused on an issue that, in the beginning, was deemed too hot to touch. He had one heck of a time putting together the committee that first studied the issue of terrorism and public safety.

I listened to Senator Kenny saying what a congenial group this committee was. I guess it was, but I do remember the battles of two titans, between Senator Kenny and Bill Kelly, and thinking that I would never again want to be on a committee with the two of them. Nonetheless, Senator Kelly led that committee with the military precision and efficiency learned in his past. He did it meticulously. He did it carefully. The topic was very difficult and controversial.

I shall always remember, Bill, one of the conclusions that came out of your work, a conclusion that had an impact all across this country. That is the emphasis you placed on police forces working together, working together in times of crisis, working together to share training opportunities and information and expertise. I believe that, in this country, and certainly in your province of Ontario, there has already been evidence that the spotlight that you put on this issue has had a favourable effect, which will likely only grow as the years go on.

You have left us a legacy. We shall miss your presence here; I shall miss your presence here. I simply wish you all of the happiness you can find. I shall not even use the word "retirement" because I do not think you ever will retire. I believe you will go on to make public contributions and to support the principles by which you have always abided in public life. We are all the better for having had you here. Thank you.

Hon. William M. Kelly: Honourable senators, this has been a rather difficult afternoon for me. I can only say that I wish you had said nice things like that when I was alive. On a serious note, however, thank you very much for your remarks.

I want to correct one thing, though, in Senator Murray's dissertation. I want to explain to Senator Fairbairn, too, who was shocked at my fall from grace in apparently engineering the termination of this endless GST debate. I think Senator Fairbairn's first sense was that I had been corrupted by Senator Murray, because a decent chap like myself would never have done a thing like that, and that is perfectly true. It was all Murray's idea. It was too late by the time I realized I had been led down the path.

Honourable senators, I shall not go on endlessly. I thank you again. It has been an honour for me to serve with a group like this; it really has. The talent that sits in this chamber is beyond anything I have been associated with since I left school.

If I have one concern it is a concern that is shared by other honourable senators, and that is the general attitude held by people toward this chamber. I do not believe the Jack Aubrys of the world, and their comments do not bother me in the least, nor should they bother you. You do wonderful, wonderful work here. You always have. Instead of struggling away to change the small minds that yip every now and again, continue to do what you are doing. That is all that is necessary. You are just great. I thank you so much for the time we have spent together.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!



Distinguished Visitor in the Gallery

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I call your attention to the presence in our gallery of a distinguished visitor, His Beatitude Ignace Moussa I Daoud, Patriarch of Antioch, and spiritual leader of the world's Catholic Syriacs.

Your Beatitude, on behalf of all senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada and wish you a pleasant stay in our country.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!



Air Canada

Cost of Transferring Air Miles

Hon. Erminie J. Cohen: Honourable senators, these days, whenever we enter this chamber, someone has another frustrating Air Canada story to relate. A letter to the editor in today's Globe and Mail has prompted me to add to the running list of Air Canada horror stories.

When Peter Dawson's father died recently, he discovered that Air Canada Aeroplan points are inheritable as property. However, there was, of course, a catch. To transfer the points to the widow's account, Air Canada imposed a whopping $107 service charge, including GST. As Mr. Dawson of Annapolis Royal in Nova Scotia pointed out, an electronic transaction of this type is done by our banks for generally a few dollars.

Is Air Canada's monopoly so chintzy that it allows the organization to reward their loyal customers by gouging their heirs when they die? Surely, as Mr. Dawson stated, these people will be the first to fly with new competitors when a range of choices become available, and, honourable senators, so will we.


Official Language Minority Communities

Hon. Jean-Robert Gauthier: Honourable senators, the Commissioner of Official Languages, Dr. Dyane Adam, had stern words regarding the official languages in Canada. According to Dr. Adam, the government is not meeting its obligations toward its linguistic minorities:

Neither the federal government, nor the provinces, nor the leaders of Canadian society have properly fulfilled their respective responsibilities toward the official language minority communities.

The commissioner made these remarks at an annual meeting before a panel of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada on the report by Senator Jean-Maurice Simard entitled "Bridging the Gap: From Oblivion to the Rule of Law."

Senator Simard's report, coupled with the remarks by the Commissioner of Official Languages, Dr. Dyane Adam, are serious cause for concern. We do not take disturbing remarks lightly. In my view, we must take action to refocus our efforts on this important issue.

In an article that appeared on June 18, Montreal's La Presse reported:

Dr. Adam launched into a vitriolic, all-out attack on Ottawa, which she accused of having failed to meet its constitutional obligations toward official language minorities.

The enlightened leadership that we so sorely need is lacking. Dr. Adams also said that:

...too concerned with putting its fiscal house in order, the federal government has neglected its commitment to linguistic minorities and fallen into "silence and indifference."

In order to bring linguistic duality back to the forefront, we need a new and effective communications strategy. The hour is late. Dr. Adam said:

Linguistic divides are widening and the official language minority communities, despite all their efforts, are constantly losing ground.

That is what we call "assimilation."

As senators, we can take a serious and constructive step. At the present time, matters relating to official languages are examined by the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages. I must admit that the committee has done excellent work since its inception in 1979, but there always comes a time when change becomes necessary, and it is time to modernize the structures in place and to make some changes to them.

For some time now, the committee has become extremely partisan because of the presence of people who do not have the interests of their minority language community at heart, who are not familiar with its needs.

It is time the committee was divided in two, since the Senate's mandate is to represent the regions and minorities, and it would therefore be capable of striking a serious committee with a progressive agenda, with the support of the government, the Commissioner of Official Languages and representatives of linguistic minority committees and associations.

We shall have to redirect our resources and develop modern federal policies that are adapted to the changes in Canadian society. The senators on this standing senate committee could work without partisan bias on the advancement of language matters. I have already proposed that such a committee be struck, independent of House of Commons partisan politics. I trust that, in the fall, we shall be able to roll up our sleeves and meet the challenge, making language matters again a priority.

In closing, I should like to quote something the Commissioner of Official Languages said this past Saturday:

In addition, the key players, the federal government and the communities first of all, must agree on a strategic plan and a set of tactical measures that include specific deadlines, performance indicators, and control and evaluation mechanisms.

As Senator Simard has said, time is rushing by. We must act quickly. The vitality of our linguistic communities depends upon it.


Sudbury—Contribution of Francophone Community

Hon. Marie-P. Poulin: Honourable senators, today, June 20, 2000, the Carrefour francophone de Sudbury is celebrating its fiftieth anniversary. This centre for the young and the not-so-young offers something for everyone. It brings together people who want to work, discuss, learn and laugh in French.

As you know, honourable senators, a successful project starts with a good idea. The idea of founding a youth centre together with a summer camp on Île-aux-Chênes came from the late Father Albert Régimbald, a Jesuit. With you, I pay tribute to him and thank the boards of directors and the many volunteers who made it possible for the Carrefour to play a key role in the lives of French-speaking children in Northern Ontario.


Pages Exchange Program with House of Commons

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, before I proceed to the next item on the Orders of the Day, I should like to introduce to you the pages from the House of Commons. The fact that the House is not sitting gives us a bonus in that instead of the usual two pages, we are fortunate to have three pages with us today.


First, I should like to introduce Annick Beauséjour. Annick comes from Ville-Marie in Quebec. She is enrolled in the Faculty of Arts at the University of Ottawa. Her specialization is translation.


Philippe Delparte is from Calgary. Philippe is in the Administration Faculty at the University of Ottawa, and his specialization is accounting.


Annie Galarneau is studying psychology at the University of Ottawa's Faculty of Social Sciences. Annie comes from Cornwall, in Ontario.

On behalf of all senators, I welcome the House of Commons pages to the Senate. We hope that your week among us will prove interesting and instructive.



The Estimates, 2000-01

Second Interim Report of National Finance Committee Presented and Printed

Hon. Lowell Murray: Honourable senators, I have the honour to present the eighth report of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance concerning the Main Estimates 2000-2001.

(For text of report, see today's Journals of the Senate, Appendix, p. 750.)

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.


Social Affairs, Science and Technology

Notice of Motion to Authorize Committee to Study Health Care Services Available to Veterans of War and Peacekeeping Missions

Leave having been given to revert to Notices of Motion:

Hon. Michael A. Meighen: Honourable senators, I give notice that on Thursday next, June 22, 2000, I shall move:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology be authorized to examine and report on the health care provided to veterans of war and of peacekeeping missions; the implementation of the recommendations made in its previous reports on such matters; and the terms of service, post-discharge benefits and health care of members of the regular and reserve forces as well as members of the RCMP and of civilians who have served in close support of uniformed peacekeepers;

That the Committee report no later than June 30, 2001; and

That the Committee be permitted, notwithstanding usual practices, to deposit its report with the Clerk of the Senate, if the Senate is not then sitting; and that the report be deemed to have been tabled in the Chamber.



Agriculture and Agri-Food

Nova Scotia—Infestation of Brown Spruce Longhorn Beetle

Hon. J. Michael Forrestall: Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I have discussed this matter with him. Prior to his response, I wonder if the minister might include as well any thoughts he has on a moratorium of the lighthouse matter, but of course more important is the pressing situation with respect to the brown spruce longhorn beetle. We understand now that there are probably as many as seven — hopefully not more — sightings of this beetle outside or off the peninsula of Halifax.

Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, with respect to the lighthouse issue that Senator Forrestall raised yesterday, I indicated that I would speak to the ministers directly involved. I have not had an opportunity to do that yet, but I shall do so and return with a response for the senator before we break for the summer.

With respect to the question concerning the brown spruce longhorn beetle, I have a fairly detailed response. As the honourable senator has indicated, we have had an opportunity to discuss what is a very serious problem in Halifax. This problem most directly affected Point Pleasant Park initially, a park that has long been a favourite spot for all residents of that metropolitan area and beyond. However, it is also a problem that has consequences, at least potentially, for an area far broader.

Honourable senators, I should like to take a couple of moments to discuss this matter. I also intend to provide a written report to Senator Forrestall, Senator Oliver and to any other senators who might be interested.

In giving an update, I can inform honourable senators that the federal, provincial and municipal governments have established a task force. The three levels of government are working closely with the task force to share information, discuss the significance of the brown spruce longhorn beetle, pest management options and communications to the public. Members of the task force include the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Natural Resources Canada, the Canadian Forest Service, the Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources, the Halifax Regional Municipality, the Point Pleasant Park Advisory Committee, the Maritime Lumber Bureau, the New Brunswick Department of Natural Resources and Energy, and Dalhousie University. The first meeting of the task force was held on Monday, June 5, 2000, in Halifax. Subcommittees of that task force are currently following up on a five-point action plan, which includes conducting an inventory of the affected trees, determining options for local containment and eradication, discussing options for ecological restoration of Point Pleasant Park, and establishing a communications network.

The subcommittees reported back to the task force at its second meeting on Monday, June 12, 2000, in Halifax. A third meeting of the task force took place on June 19, 2000, to discuss the costs of eradication and the concerns of citizens opposed to the removal of infested trees. As the Honourable Senator Forrestall will know, certain members of the community have raised questions about the most appropriate method of dealing with the potential threat. The next task force meeting is scheduled for June 27, 2000.

As the honourable senator noted, this beetle has been detected at a total of seven locations outside of the Point Pleasant Park geographical area. I believe the most distant location was in the area of the Armdale Rotary, about which the honourable senator would be familiar. This area is approximately three kilometres away from the park site.

On an immediate basis, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and NRCan have approved an interim measure to track the movement of the beetle within the park and surrounding areas, and, combined with that, announced the establishment of a bait log program. Starting Monday, June 19, log piles consisting of 100 logs each will be strategically placed through the park in an effort to attract egg-laying female beetles. There will also be five experimental log piles to test the effectiveness of the initiative and new methods of containment and eradication. The hope is to keep the beetles in the park and away from the healthy trees.

This is an interim measure until a task force can make a final decision about the next step in ongoing eradication efforts. The decision has not been made because a number of important details are still under discussion. These include the volume of trees to be cut down, whether or not trees that have not been infested will be cut down as a precautionary measure, concerns about public safety if trees are cut during the peak tourist season, concerns about cutting down trees while the beetles may not be dormant, and so on.

Honourable senators, this issue can have a major impact in the forestry sector all across the country. This is the first infestation in North America of this particular pest. As such, it is not a small matter and it must be dealt with carefully.

Honourable senators, I have asked the parties involved on the federal side, who are among the leaders of this initiative, including the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, if they would arrange a public information format to allow the public to present their views and to be informed in detail of what the federal departments are considering. I am informed that such a format will be set up in the very near future.

Honourable senators, I have communicated the honourable senator's ongoing concerns, and we hope, of course, that this pest can be contained without undue damage.

Senator Forrestall: Has the minister any knowledge with respect to what form that federal assistance will take? Will funds be available? What resources will the federal government make available?

I should also like to thank the minister for his report.

Senator Boudreau: Obviously, the lead federal agencies, namely the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Natural Resources Canada, do not have it within their normal resources to deal with what is quite an unusual situation. In fact, whatever resources are required will be brought to bear. I do not think there is any question that those agencies will be seeking additional funding from the central agency to enable them to conduct and fulfil their responsibilities.


Lease Dispute Between Port of Halifax and Halterm Limited—Request for Update

Hon. J. Michael Forrestall: Honourable senators, I have one final matter concerning an area on the edge of the same park. Last week, the minister gave this house the assurance that he would facilitate, to the best of his ability, a settlement between Halterm and the Halifax Port Authority with respect to the reference of a matter to the federal government and the federal cabinet's rejection of that motion. What has the minister from Nova Scotia been able to do about this issue? Can we anticipate it not being a lengthy, dragged out matter?


Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I believe the honourable senator raised a suggestion in our last discussion about this subject. He suggested that perhaps the parties might involve themselves in an arbitration process to try to resolve the matter. My response to him at that time was that I took his suggestion seriously and would pass it along to the minister responsible. I undertook to do that and did so.

Since we had that discussion, I understand that another court action has commenced that, perhaps, arose out of the decision. In any event, it is now being proceeded with. I am somewhat reluctant to comment in any great detail except to say that I share the honourable senator's view that the sooner this matter is resolved and the port can move on to other issues, the better off everyone will be.

Senator Forrestall: Honourable senators, do I take correctly from what the minister has said that his colleagues in cabinet, principally Minister Collenette, have now said no to any plea that the minister might have put forward? He sounded negative about it. This serious matter will affect 7,000 direct jobs. Good Lord, we do not want that port shut down.

Is the minister not nearly as hopeful as he sounded last week about a further intervention, with the end being that the matter would come before an arbitration tribunal or institution such as the Canadian Transportation Agency for resolution? The increase is just phenomenal.

Senator Boudreau: Honourable senators, the suggestion I relayed from the honourable senator to Minister Collenette, and I may have misunderstood precisely what the honourable senator was suggesting, was that if the parties were able to enter into an arbitration process that could resolve the matter, then the honourable senator was recommending that such a thing occur. To date, I cannot report anything positive on that point.

With respect to the Canadian Transportation Agency, the government has made its position quite clear, which is that the government believes and has indicated that the agency does not have jurisdiction in this area.

With respect to the parties coming to some understanding that they would embark on some other process of arbitration, it was a suggestion that I have relayed to the minister.


Agriculture and Agri-Food

Nova Scotia—Infestation of Brown Spruce Longhorn Beetle

Hon. Fernand Robichaud: Honourable senators, my question is supplementary to Senator Forrestall's. We are told that this insect arrived on some mode of transport. We also know that there is a considerable lumber trade between Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and other Atlantic regions. What measures has the government taken to ensure that this insect does not use some mode of transport to move beyond the region in which it has presently been sighted? It would be disastrous for New Brunswick if this were to happen.


Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, the Honourable Senator Robichaud is absolutely right, which is why the issue is not a local issue for Halifax. In reality, it is an issue for the country, but for Atlantic Canada first. The initial approach is to determine with as much accuracy as possible to what extent those beetles have spread currently. A thorough assessment is being done.

A course of action to eradicate the beetle on the site at Point Pleasant Park, insofar as it is possible, will be presented by the task force I have described. To date, it has been suggested, although I do not think anything has been finalized, that the course of action will probably involve massive cutting and disposing of the trees once they have been cut. A number of issues have developed, such as exactly how much cutting must be done, where it must be done, what is the best method of disposing of the trees, since the beetle will remain, what time of year is best to do this work, and whether it is necessary to wait until the beetle is dormant before the trees are cut down.

Honourable senators, there is no question that dramatic action must be taken. The government is committed to doing that and will be following a deliberate process to determine how that should be done.



Auto Pact—Influence of World Trade Organization Ruling

Hon. Roch Bolduc: Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Canada's appeal to the World Trade Organization concerning the Auto Pact was dismissed, which constitutes a victory for the European and Japanese manufacturers and, of course, a severe blow to the North American manufacturers.

Does the government have statistics on the potential job losses in this country as a result of this ruling, and how does it intend to counteract this economic shock?


Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, specifically with respect to the WTO and its impact on the Auto Pact, the Government of Canada has continued to monitor the situation. In the view of the minister, I think I can say that the impact will be manageable.

As to the details of any plans the minister has with respect to ameliorating the impact on the industry or the workers involved, I would have to seek that information from the minister directly and pass it along to the honourable senator.

Senator Bolduc: Honourable senators, a sudden 6 per cent increase is a big shock. It is not like 1 per cent or 1.5 per cent per year over 10 years, something which is manageable. Six per cent is a great deal in terms of construction costs. I hope that a solution can be found, otherwise some people in Oshawa, Oakville or Windsor will lose their jobs.

Senator Boudreau: Honourable senators, I am somewhat reluctant to provide a more detailed reaction at this point, as I should like to be more certain of the minister's views. I am aware that the minister and the government have monitored that situation and believe it can be managed.



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

Third Reading—Point of Order—Speaker's Ruling Reserved—Debate Adjourned

Hon. Dan Hays (Deputy Leader of the Government) moved the third 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.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Hon. Serge Joyal: Honourable senators, I rise on a point of order in relation to the debate on Bill C-20.

At this point in our debate on Bill C-20, there is an element which is, in my mind, very important, and one that I had the opportunity to raise in the speech I made in relation to the government prerogative.

In the speech I made on May 10, 2000, I argued that the Government of Canada has no prerogative to break the seal between the Canadian citizens and the Crown. I repeated that later on in my speech. I stated:

It is wrong, in my opinion, to maintain that the executive government has a prerogative or capacity to negotiate the dismantling of the sovereign will of Canadians to live under the rule of law and to enjoy the protection of their rights and freedoms under the Constitution throughout the whole of the Canadian territory.

I made it very clear at the opening of my speech that I did not believe that Bill C-20 was rightly based on a prerogative. The government's spokesperson, the Honourable Senator Boudreau, in his opening speech on March 23, took a different view. In fact, at the opening of his speech, he mentioned that the executive or cabinet has the prerogative on whether to enter into negotiations concerning constitutional amendments. He continued by stating:

In the legislation's absence, there would be no limitation on the government's prerogative.

He also stated that, in the absence of Bill C-20, the federal government would have an unfettered prerogative. He continued by stating:

In adopting the clarity bill, however, the Senate would be placing a serious constraint on the government's prerogative.

He repeated that point on many occasions in his speech.

When the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and President of the Privy Council testified on Bill C-20 on May 29, before the special legislative committee that was charged by this house to debate Bill C-20, Minister Dion stated:

The capacity of the government to enter into negotiation, including secession, has been confirmed by the Supreme Court reference in its ruling. The court has said that in our system it is elected representatives that initiate constitutional changes.

In a discussion with Senator Cools, Mr. Dion answered:

...prerogative is plenary and can be limited only by legislation.

In pursuing that debate, Minister Dion continued to maintain that it is a Crown prerogative by stating:

That prerogative is exercised by the government and limited only by legislation.

Honourable senators, let us look into the rules of practice of this house as well as those which apply in the other House. Marleau and Montpetit, at page 643, state:

Royal taken from British practice and is part of the unwritten rules and customs of the House of Commons of Canada. Any legislation that affects the prerogatives, hereditary revenues, property or interests of the Crown requires Royal Consent, that is, the consent of the Governor General in his or her capacity as representative of the Sovereign.

That is what Beauchesne also states in paragraph 726 at page 213:

The consent of the given by a Minister to bills...affecting the prerogative, hereditary revenues, personal property or interest of the Crown.

I would also refer, of course, to Erskine May. On the same issue, at page 603 of the 1997 edition, we see the following statement:

Bills affecting the prerogative, hereditary revenues, personal property or interests of the Crown...require the signification of Queen's consent in both Houses before they are passed.

This is in Great Britain, of course. Erskine May applies to the traditions and rules in the Mother of Parliaments.

I have carefully examined the course of Bill C-20, honourable senators, and I find that neither in this house, nor in the other House, in fact, nowhere, does it appear that Royal Consent accompanied the bill, and since the sponsor of the bill supports and contends that this bill is a limitation on the prerogative, I should like to draw your attention to the fact that no Royal Consent accompanies Bill C-20. Therefore, I would humbly request a decision from His Honour in that regard.

It is not my wish to prevent debate on third reading. I know that some other honourable senators want to participate in the debate on third reading, and they have expressed that desire. Perhaps the debate could continue as scheduled, pending His Honour's ruling.

Senator Hays: Honourable senators, since I am hearing of this for the first time, I have had no opportunity to prepare any comments.

As I understand Senator Joyal's concern, it is over a difference of opinion between whether or not the Royal Consent is a condition precedent to this bill being debated and dealt with in the other place or here. His position seems to be that, in the absence of Royal Consent, the matter is out of order and is not something with which we should be dealing.

I shall look at Marleau, Beauchesne and Erskine May, as I am sure His Honour will. I hope he will find, as I shall, either at the references given by Senator Joyal or elsewhere, that, where there is a dispute as to whether the matter is out of order and not properly before this place or the other place, and where there is a legal argument that would be determined by a court, it is the practice of this place to not have rules on those kinds of issues, but that they are determined after legislation is passed. They may be ultra vires or intra vires the Parliament of Canada, one or both Houses, although I believe Senator Joyal's point applies to both Houses. If it is ultra vires, then what the House of Commons has done is not properly before the Senate.

That issue was not raised in the other place. It is raised here. I suggest the reason it was not raised in the House of Commons is because it is that kind of issue that is not determined by a ruling of the Speaker. It may be determined by the members of this place or the other place in a vote, but it is not a proper matter on which to delay, awaiting a condition precedent being fulfilled, that is, getting Royal Consent. That is something that will be determined after the bill is passed, and not something which should delay our determination of whether or not we wish to pass the bill, amend the bill, or do what we are entitled to do under our rules with the bill.

Hon. Joan Fraser: His Honour will, of course, consider the parliamentary authorities in coming to his ruling. I thought it might be modestly helpful for the chamber, and His Honour, to know that, in the committee study of this bill, the question of the prerogative, although not in precisely this form, was raised and was discussed by several witnesses. The committee heard from, if memory serves, six professors of constitutional law and a former justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, as well as four political scientists, one of whom is considered to be among the ranking authorities on the role of the Crown in Canada and associated matters. None of them raised this point or anything remotely approaching this point as an objection to the bill.


Hon. Anne C. Cools: Honourable senators, because I was out of the chamber I was not fortunate enough to hear Senator Joyal's intervention. I should like to speak to this issue, so I wonder if Senator Joyal could, for the sake of those of us who were not here in the chamber, give us an idea of the thrust of what he is saying. I think what he is raising is very important.

Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): How do you know? You did not hear it!

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, that would not be a normal process of debate. Unless I am so instructed by the chamber, I do not think that I can ask Senator Joyal to repeat what he has already said.

Senator Cools: I was not asking you, Your Honour. I was asking if Senator Joyal could do so. I think this is an important question. I was not here; I am very sorry, but I cannot be in every place at the same time. It is just a question of common courtesy. If no one wants to do so, I can speak without that too, you know.

Senator Hays: Honourable senators, I can appreciate Senator Cools' concern and problem, but I should like to draw attention to Senator Cools' and to other honourable senators the precedent of requesting a repeat of something that has already been debated in terms of the point of order. I am sure that we would appreciate very much Senator Cools' contribution to this matter. She has raised the question of Royal Prerogative, and perhaps she could give us the benefit of her views on this point of order, but I would suggest to Senator Cools, to other honourable senators and to you, Your Honour, that to recap or summarize debate of one or two or three senators is a precedent that we should not follow or set.

Hon. Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: Honourable senators, I heard the Deputy Leader of the Government respond to Senator Joyal's motion. I have also heard the chairman of the committee. As I recall, it was Senator Cools who first raised this question at great length, both in this chamber and in the committee. Perhaps when the leader is doing his research, to enlighten the house, he could bring together those precedents that would support his suggestion that this is a legal as opposed to an important constitutional matter that goes to the heart of both this house and the other chamber. I think he has drawn a distinction between a procedural matter and the Constitution of this particular place and how it should proceed with its business as opposed to what happens if Your Honour or others or the House disagrees and it goes to court for further discussion.

It is my understanding of the procedures — and I hope I am not in error — that, first and foremost, an issue of this kind is for this chamber to consider. It is for you, Your Honour, regretfully, to deal with this issue — and, one hopes, as quickly as possible. We all understand the urgency of this bill. No one is seeking to hold up the bill. However, it is important, if this question is asked, that Your Honour look at the appropriate authorities and give us your view from a parliamentary practice aspect as opposed to a legal practice aspect. The two Houses are still the supreme arbiter of constitutional matters. I think it is first and foremost the responsibility of this place to deal with this matter as opposed to forcing it off on the courts.

Honourable senators, if the Deputy Leader of the Government either feels or can find that there is support for that contention, then we should have those precedents at our fingertips so that we can deal with them. I, for one, find it interesting because I think all of us — that is, Senator Beaudoin, Senator Joyal, Senator Cools, and others — were searching for the power of the government to proceed with this bill in the way that it has. We were given three answers. As I recall the evidence, one answer was that it was the plenary, undisputed Royal Prerogative of the Crown vested in the cabinet; the second was that it was the prerogative as exercised through one section of Constitution, namely, section 44; and the third answer was the exercise of the prerogative through the peace, order and good government. All interesting and vital questions that were raised were dealt with, but a conclusion was not reached because it was not raised in specifically this matter as a pre-condition to this very important legislation.

I have always contended, honourable senators, that when we deal with a matter dealing with the rule of law we, ourselves, should follow the rule of law.


Hon. Jean-Robert Gauthier: Honourable senators, I should like to have a clarification for a Canadian who is neither a lawyer nor a constitutional expert. As you will recall, I raised this point on second reading, and asked for clarification of the last paragraph of the preamble to Bill C-20, which reads as follows:

Now, Therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

This paragraph is followed by the three clauses of the bill. Honourable senators, could you explain to me whether, in a bicameral system such as ours, a bill is necessary —and I believe it is necessary and essential — or whether it would be preferable to wait until after such a bill is passed or rejected? Who would be called upon to make such a decision?


Senator Hays: Honourable senators, I did not comment on Senator Joyal's suggestion that we proceed with third reading debate while His Honour considers — that is, assuming there is no ruling from the Chair — his position regarding Senator Joyal's request for a ruling as to whether it is in order for us, as I understand his point of order, to consider this bill at all. I have no objection to that. I am quite happy to see us proceed while His Honour considers the point of order that has been raised, although I think that would be highly irregular. I am not sure that I have ever heard of that having happened before. Given my limited experience in these matters, however, that does not mean very much.

I listened carefully to Senator Grafstein, and I thought he made the point that I was trying to make very well, only he has a different view of it. He said that this is a legal matter, as opposed to a constitutional matter, and he referred to three answers. Once again, I wish to point out that, once that is said, it takes this matter outside of His Honour's power to rule and puts it right on the floor of this chamber. We can defeat it if we are concerned about it or we can amend it to correct an error, but I do not believe it is for His Honour to prevent us from dealing with this legislation. If we are wrong and this goes to the courts, then that will be the proper way for us to be proven wrong and not from a ruling from the Chair.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Honourable senators, I think we are getting bogged down in vocabulary here. This is a procedural matter. I maintain that it is like a money bill coming here without a Royal Recommendation. Someone says, "Where's the Royal Recommendation?" Senator Joyal is saying, "Has this met the test of Royal Consent?" Is it needed? This is a procedural matter, not a constitutional one. This is not requesting whether the bill is ultra vires or not. That is for another body to decide. It is for Parliament to decide whether it is proceeding within its rules and the authorities that guide those rules and support them.

Senator Cools: Honourable senators, I want to apologize for not hearing Senator Joyal's intervention. I had appealed to the magnanimity and charity of senators to find out what the issue was before us, because, as honourable senators know, I have raised this particular issue again and again. I think honourable senators should be very mindful that points of order can be raised suddenly, without notice, and it is very difficult for other senators to know that a particular senator is planning to raise a point of order.


Perhaps at some point in time we might wish to revisit our practices in respect of giving senators full opportunity to be able to respond to some of the issues as they are raised because the subject matter that Senator Joyal has raised is extremely important, central and pivotal to the question of Bill C-20.

Honourable senators, it was once said that there is no area of law more neglected and needing of study than the law of the prerogative and its sister, the law of Parliament.

The disadvantage under which one labours when one raises these questions is that many individuals pull down a shelter, shield or cloud of it being arcane, cryptic or unknown when, in point of fact, the Royal Prerogative is the cornerstone of an enormous amount of the practices of government. All government has its source or origin in the prerogative.

We must be mindful that the prerogative has its origins in pre-history, almost. The prerogative is all of that law that we usually refer to as the inherent powers of government but the law that equips government to govern. It is called the lex praerogativa, the law of the prerogative. It has a name and it has been studied. Whether it is the Royal Prerogative in respect of making of coins, parens patriae, justice, mercy and clemency, the sovereign's appointment of ministers, the dissolution of Parliament or the proroguing of Parliament, it is a vast area of law, and it has suited this government's purpose to obfuscate some of the issues in respect of the Royal Prerogative.

Honourable senators, I am one of those who has asserted quite strongly that, when the Leader of the Government, the minister, the officials of the Privy Council have told us again and again that government has an unfettered right under the prerogative to negotiate any kind of agreement that it wants for any purposes whatsoever, there is no such prerogative.

Before I go to the question of Royal Consent, I should like to raise an important principle of responsible government. I would ask senators to be mindful of the lex parliamenti, the law of Parliament, which is another area of law in this country that is grossly neglected and begging study and attention. The principle I raise is as follows: That the sovereign ought not to be deceived about the character of the measure or the bill to which the sovereign is being asked to assent.

Honourable senators, the enabling clause of a bill always reads in the same fashion:

Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and the House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

Then the provisions of the bill begins.

It seems to me, honourable senators, that this is a bill in respect of the Royal Prerogative; therefore, Her Majesty's assent is needed in advance, as well. The Royal Assent in advance is frequently known as the Royal Consent. I am assuming that someone has already put the passages from Beauchesne's on the record about the Royal Consent.

In any event, what is crystal clear is that the government has told the chamber that it is relying on the Royal Prerogative, in essence, to alienate the Senate from the consideration of important questions of public policy.

In previous speeches, I have referred to one of the greatest jurists Canada has ever known, a Liberal named Edward Blake. He spoke of the mighty power of Parliament to advise.

I submit to honourable senators that any attempt by the government in the name of the Royal Prerogative to be able to circumvent, limit, frustrate or amend the powers of the Senate to exercise its power to advise the sovereign is a matter that deeply concerns the Royal Prerogative. Bill C-20 attempts to undermine the bicameral system. In addition to undermining the system of bicameralism, it also attempts to undermine the system of Parliament. The Queen is at the head of our Parliament. The executive function is one that is also supposed to live in harmony with the legislative function.

Having said that, honourable senators, I should like to say that Beauchesne's 6th edition, paragraph 727, states:

(1) The consent of the Crown is always necessary in matters involving the prerogatives of the Crown. This consent may be given at any stage of a bill before final passage...

The authorities show that such Royal Consent in the case of private members' bills is fundamentally different from the instance of government bills. In the instance of government bills, like Bill C-20, the minister should announce the Royal Consent at the outset of the debate, as in the instance of the Royal Recommendation in respect to financial bills and money bills originating in the House of Commons.

On the question of a bill that asks for Her Majesty's agreement and assent to limit the great power of the Senate to advise, I should like to put on the record a statement from the Supreme Court of Canada opinion in the 1980 patriation Reference Re Amendment to the Constitution of Canada. At that time, the court was asked to rule in respect of the Senate of Canada and the House of Commons passing addresses and resolutions.

At page 29 of that judgment, section 8 reads as follows:

Turning now to the authority or power of the two federal Houses to proceed by resolution to forward the address and appended draft statutes to Her Majesty the Queen for enactment by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. There is no limit anywhere in law, either in Canada or in the United Kingdom (having regard to s. 18 of the British North America Act, as enacted by 1875 (U.K.), c. 38, which ties the privileges, immunities and powers of the federal Houses to those of the British House of Commons) to the power of the Houses to pass resolutions.

In other words, honourable senators, the empowering provision of the BNA Act that enables the Senate to give advice by its resolutions and orders and addresses to Her Majesty is section 18. There is no power in any simple bill or in any other part of the BNA Act or the current 1982 act to limit that. I would submit to honourable senators that the same rests with Bill C-20.


Honourable senators, there has been much talk about the Royal Prerogative, but the funny thing is that no one will tell us upon what Royal Prerogative the government has been relying in respect of this entitlement to negotiate anything that it wishes. Senator Fraser has just said, a few minutes ago, that that question has been canvassed in committee. Honourable senators, I should like to counter that because the question has never been answered. No one will tell us what that prerogative is. As a matter of fact, the question was dodged. In some instances, the question was not even understood by many witnesses coming before the committee.

I submit to honourable senators that it is unspeakable by the law of Parliament to receive bills that so undermine the bicameral nature of Parliament itself. I am very well aware that, in this chamber and in this Parliament, members have been reluctant to defend the institution itself and the practices of this place from constant encroachment by members of government. We have in Bill C-20 an opposite approach, whereby, in point of fact, members of the Senate have been enjoined and enlisted in undermining the Senate.

Regarding section 18 of the BNA Act, the court's 1981 advisory opinion holds that there is no limit in any part of the Constitution. I would also submit that, by section 18, this Senate and our Speaker also has a duty to concur with the concerns of Senator Joyal.

Honourable senators, if one were to review the development of section 18, which grants to the Senate the power to advise Her Majesty the Queen, you would find that that question was hard fought for a century in Canada. It was a very difficult fight. The question bothered the colonial office in England. Those offices were reluctant to grant to any legislative assembly in Canada the full plenary powers of a Parliament. The powers of Parliament, as were finally given in section 18 and as encouraged by Sir John A. Macdonald, gave full plenary judicial powers to safeguard the institutions of the Royal Prerogative and to safeguard the institution of Parliament.

I would go further than Senator Joyal. I would say that the powers of this institution as given were enormous in order to protect against such encroachment. The Constitution Act, the BNA Act, far from being silent on the question of the breakup of Canada spoke loudly against such questions as acts of treason. If we know anything about the Royal Prerogative, we know that the king cannot countenance any dishonour to the king himself. The Royal Prerogative has some characteristics, the first of which is sovereignty, the second of which is perfection, and the third of which is perpetuity.

The first duty of the king's advisors toward the citizens, the subjects of the king, is to preserve the stability and the nation as it exists. In other words, they must preserve the territorial integrity of the nation as a whole. That is why the expression exists, "The king is dead. Long live the king." The king never dies.

I would submit, honourable senators, that the Law of Parliament, as it has existed and developed alongside the second, older form of law, absolutely forbids the contemplation of any potential deception or misleading of the sovereign. Furthermore, the Law of Parliament prescribes some severe and harsh penalties for ministers who would so violate the Law of Parliament.

Honourable senators, this morning I was chatting with another Senate colleague about Louis Riel, who, as you know, was hanged for treason, and not that long ago. That was only in 1885. Her Majesty the Queen has imposed upon us by our oath of allegiance — which we all must take when we come to this place — a duty of allegiance. The first duty of allegiance is the preservation of the nation and the preservation of the Constitution as we have found it, not as we should like it to be, not as some want it to be, but for the current state of things, so that the subjects and citizens of this land may continue their business on a day-to-day basis without fear of disruption and so that the country can remain as an intact, integral unit called Canada.

Many have said that the Constitution Act began with a preamble that articulated the provinces' expressed desire to federally unite. The federal union is one dominion. Honourable senators, this has been a much debated subject. I maintained then, and I maintain now, that that union is indivisible. Any simple bill that purports to alter that union is at once contrary to the Royal Prerogative and, at the same time, contrary to the law of Parliament.

Honourable senators, Bill C-20, even before it was introduced, should have met with a consultation with Her Majesty or Her Majesty's representative in Canada.

I urge honourable senators one more time. Do not believe for a moment that this subject matter is cryptic or beyond your reach or arcane. We are dealing here with the nuts and bolts of how governments run and how governments maintain themselves in power. Honourable senators, the first duty of the Parliament of Canada and the first duty of the Government of Canada is the maintenance and the sustenance of Canada as a whole as a nation, governed as it is by a bicameral system, being the Senate and House of Commons, backed up by the head of Parliament, a full constituent part of the Parliament, called the Queen.

I plead with His Honour to look at this matter. I tend to agree with Senator Hays in this particular instance that these matters should be rightly decided by senators because, in the long run, I sincerely believe that the Speaker of the Senate has no role in these sorts of decisions. I would also submit that my opinion on this matter has been ignored frequently. The Speaker is called upon again and again to make rulings, rulings that I think should really be resolved by debate among senators.

On the Speaker of the Senate and his role in the question of the Royal Prerogative, I remind us that, in the Senate, the Speaker of the Senate is the king's man and/or the Queen's man or the Crown's man. There is a reason for that. Senators were supposed to be elevated and be higher in precedence and so on than members of the House of Commons.


I should also just like to essentially situate this entire argument in its historical perspective and to say again that these are matters that the chamber should really be deciding. I know that I shall receive some support for that proposal from Senator Molgat because I remember from the GST debate, and many other debates, that one of the strongest proponents for electing the Senate Speaker was Senator Gildas Molgat, so I know he will lend some credence to what I am saying.

In any event, the fact of the matter is that this action should not be viewed as any delaying tactic by Senator Joyal. In all frankness, I believe that Senator Joyal has done a splendid job on the floor of the Senate on this particular question.

I really do believe that senators should take their role in a very serious way and come to terms with the fact that this is all part of the high court of Parliament, and that its judgments, especially of a judicial nature, are of the highest order. The very fact that Bill C-20 has come to us named as it is, an act to put into effect an advisory opinion of the court, also undermines the Royal Prerogative and the Law of Parliament. If we know anything about the Law of Parliament, it is that the Law of Parliament will permit no encroachment from any other court of the land.

In any event, I thank Senator Joyal. My apologies that I did not hear his presentation.

I would also commend to senators that they study those provisions of the Constitution Act, the BNA Act itself, which speak to the treatment for treason and the harsh measures that the law of Parliament meted out for any attempts to disturb the union.

Honourable senators, this matter of secession has come up again and again, and in Canada now it is race based. You should know that much of this touches me in a personal way because I belong to that group of people about whom a civil war was fought in the United States of America.

As a child growing up in the Caribbean, much of which has maintained its strong British links, the British system of Parliament was always upheld to me as the ultimate or penultimate solution politically for all social problems, for all social ills.

That is what I am asking His Honour to uphold — the Law of Parliament in respect of its enormous esteem for the Royal Prerogative. The first duty of this Parliament, of our Speakers' and of our members and senators is to remain loyal to our oath of allegiance. It is our own loyalty that we owe to the Queen and to this country that Senator Joyal is asking us to uphold.

Hon. Sharon Carstairs: Honourable senators, I think it is important in our study of the point of order raised by the Honourable Senator Joyal to recall a number of developments outlined in Beauchesne. To begin with, paragraph 317 indicates:

Points of order are questions raised...calling attention to any departure from the Standing Orders or the customary modes of proceeding in debate or in the conduct of legislative business and may be raised at virtually any time....

Clearly, Senator Joyal has done that in his question of whether Royal Consent or Royal Prerogative have been appropriate in that it has not been given for this particular piece of legislation.

Then I think we should turn to Royal Consent itself, which is very clear. Paragraph 725 states:

The consent of the given by a Minister to bills...affecting the prerogative, hereditary revenues, personal property, or interest of the Crown.

Paragraph 729 states:

The Royal Consent to a bill is not required unless it affects the personal property of the Sovereign...

I find it difficult to think that we are dealing with an issue of the personal property of the sovereign in this particular instance.

Finally, honourable senators, I think it is important to return to what is, in fact, a point of order. Paragraph 322 states the following:

When a bill is under consideration, points of order should not be raised on matters which could be disposed of by moving amendments. The same may be said about Instructions which can only be moved if they are within the scope of the bill. It is more advantageous to proceed by amendment on the third reading when, if the House divides, every Member's attitude is clearly shown. Points of order are justified when there is some flagrant misuse of the rules, but they are unfortunate necessities which should not be regarded as usual phases of procedure and ought not to develop into long arguments with the Speaker who, being in a quasi-judicial position, should not be drawn into controversial discussions.

Clearly, there is some controversy in this bill presently before this chamber. I personally think it would be better dealt with by discussion among the senators.

Hon. Nicholas W. Taylor: Honourable senators, I do not know if there is cross-pollination or a contagion with sharing seats with Senator Cools. I do not agree with her entirely, but she has a point. I might find my seat is removed tomorrow, but nevertheless, to the Deputy House Leader, I notice both Senator Carstairs and Senator Cools missed part of Beauchesne paragraph 727. When we read it all the way through, it says:

This consent may be given by a special message or by a verbal statement....It will also be seen that a bill may be permitted to proceed to the very last stage without receiving the consent of the Crown but if it is not given at the last stage, the Speaker will refuse to put the question.

Obviously, I think that would imply that debate could continue in stages, so you have some time, Your Honour, to form your opinion. The debate could continue.

As far as the Royal Prerogative is concerned, I have always felt that there are two types. Royal Assent is needed if you are intending to take away royalty's property, and that is covered quite adequately in Beauchesne, paragraph 729, as Senator Carstairs mentioned. The other Royal Prerogative is property held for the people of Canada in the right of Crown. You always hear, "You can sue the Crown," you can sue this and that.

Separation is where it gets a little bit hairy. If you separate and are not recognizing the Queen, of course you are changing the Queen's property. If you have sovereignty and you still recognize the Queen, you have not affected Royal Prerogative. I do not want to get into detail, but the Royal Prerogative comes up on a question of property.

The question is, Your Honour, quite clear from Beauchesne. The debate can continue because Royal Prerogative can be inserted into the process at any stage before the vote.

Senator Cools: Honourable senators, I should like to add to what Senator Carstairs had to say, because if anything, this debate is showing that there is a need for a thorough study of the law of the prerogative. I believe that Senator Carstairs was referring to the question of personal property of the Sovereign. That is one small, microscopic part of the prerogative, and it is not particularly relevant in this particular issue here.


When Senator Carstairs raised her points, I was not clear as to what personal property of Her Majesty in Canada, in addition to Crown-held lands, she was noting. I do not think that we have too many difficulties in Canada with the personal property of Her Majesty. However, we do have a lot of difficulty in Canada with the law respecting Her Majesty's exercise of her powers in respect of Parliament.

I wanted to note very clearly that the concept of the personal property of the sovereign is a microscopic part of the Royal Prerogative and not relevant here. The relevant Royal Prerogative is the prerogative of maintaining the Queen's peace and the prerogatives of making war. In addition, there is the prerogative of determining who should be the enemies of Her Majesty and at what point these enemies become traitors. It has always been held in the British common-law tradition that there are moments in time, for example, when two different opinions can gather enough strength to be viewed as enemies rather than as traitors.

However, no matter how one looks at this question, the fact of the matter is that the Queen is present in this chamber. The Queen is always present in Parliament, and the Queen is present in this bill.

Honourable senators, the question that must be answered is whether the interests in this bill are consistent with the Queen's interests in respect of Canada. That is the fundamental question that the government has declined to answer. The government has not assured us that this bill is consistent with the oath of allegiance, which we are all required to take in accordance with the BNA Act.

Interestingly enough, I put that very question to Minister Dion yesterday. I asked him what duty of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen and to the one Dominion of Canada he held in respect to Bill C-20. I would admit to honourable senators here that his answer was less than satisfactory.

The Hon. the Speaker: I want to thank honourable senators who have participated in the debate on the point of order. I believe that I have heard now sufficient discussion. With the agreement of the Senate, I would take this point of order under advisement.

The suggestion has been made that the debate might continue. If that is the agreement of the Senate, I would be prepared to call the next speaker on my list.

Is it agreed, honourable senators?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Hon. Richard H. Kroft: Honourable senators, I rise to speak today to Bill C-20. It is the first time that I have spoken to the bill in this chamber. While intensely interested, I have chosen to listen to others who have been here much longer than I and whose personal experience in matters relating to this bill is much greater. I have been amply rewarded.

Senators, both on second reading debate and in the special committee on which I had the privilege to serve, have been outstanding. We have been exposed to able and knowledgeable witnesses. No one will ever be able to say that this bill, with all the fundamental issues it touches, has not been dealt with superbly. Anyone who claims to understand or judge the Senate should first read the debates and committee proceedings on Bill C-20.

There are many issues raised by this bill. I wish to address the three that have most preoccupied me — the scope and purpose of the bill, the matter of Canada's divisibility, and the Senate's role as contemplated by Bill C-20.

First, I shall speak to the scope of the bill. While it is unquestionably true that Bill C-20 is an important bill, we should not read more into it than is there; nor should we attempt to hang things on it or expect more from it than is reasonable or correct to do.

Bill C-20 is designed to be only a step in what would be a long and difficult process. It is a direct response to the Supreme Court's decision on the Reference re Secession of Quebec, 1998. Its only purpose is to establish a process to determine the clarity of a referendum question and the clarity of the expression of the will of a province in a referendum vote that the court required. It is not to set the rules for a secession negotiation. It is not to establish criteria for determining the views of Canadians other than in the province in question. It is not to protect minorities or special interest groups, and it is not to determine who is represented in discussions or by whom. The provisions of our Constitution, other legislation and the political judgment of governments and legislatures of the time will determine those things, and many more. All that Bill C-20 is designed to do is to establish rules to apply at one stage of a process in the place of unilateral secession action that the Supreme Court has said is illegal. I strongly suggest that looking at Bill C-20 in terms of this more limited but crucially important function will eliminate many of the concerns that have been attached to it.

The second matter is divisibility. The Supreme Court, in its decision on the reference, stated clearly that under certain carefully defined circumstances, there is a constitutional right of a province and a constitutional duty on Canada to negotiate secession.

Honourable senators, leaving aside for a moment the issue of the force and the effect of the reference, the legal position is quite clear. To assert that Canada is indivisible requires saying that the Supreme Court was wrong in its decision. While anyone, of course, is entitled to express such a view, it is not easy to see where one goes with it, especially since the court has spoken to both domestic and international rights.

The special committee thoroughly examined the force and effect of the reference decision. Minister Dion was absolutely clear that the government considers the opinion to be binding. A variety of expert witnesses, including Professors Monahan, Garant, Magnet and Hogg, agreed and confirmed that it is the widely held view among authorities on the subject.

While the status of a reference opinion will probably continue to be the subject of some scholarly speculation, I submit that the reality is clear. The Supreme Court has said that Canada, in very carefully defined circumstances and following carefully defined processes, is divisible. That is the law of Canada.

My next point is in the nature of an observation. While it has not always been obvious from media reports or even from the language of senators, few or perhaps none of us in this chamber have argued that Canada is truly indivisible. There has, on the other hand, been much analysis of how difficult it should be to divide the country. There has always been much discussion and soul searching as to whether we should actually say it is divisible in writing, in resolution, in ordinary legislation or in the Constitution.

I now want to turn to some of the theoretical propositions that have been advanced. I use the word "theoretical" with great respect and in the most positive sense.

Senator Joyal, on May 10, 2000, laid out with great clarity, in great detail and with admirable scholarship a theoretical framework for several aspects of this debate. Many others, before and after, have presented analyses and insights that have built on and around that framework. Others have come from different directions altogether.

Honourable senators, let me go to the beginning of Senator Joyal's speech, where he lays down the foundation of his case on indivisibility or, as it appears to me, near indivisibility.

He reminds us that, unlike in the case of France and "many other federations and unitary countries in the world," Canada's Constitution contains no explicit statement of indivisibility. Senator Joyal, in response to a question from Senator Lynch-Staunton, described how he tried, in 1981 and 1982 when co-chairing the Special Joint Committee on Patriation of the Constitution, to insert a statement of indivisibility. He told us that he was unsuccessful for reasons he explained and, judging from his words, which seemed to him to be understandable.

We then come to a portion of Senator Joyal's argument that leads me to serious questions. He calls our attention to the language of the Supreme Court, paragraph 62, where it is suggested that the word "democracy" does not appear in our Constitution because it is so obvious that it might have "appeared redundant, even silly" to have done so. He draws a parallel and suggests that the framers of our Constitution in 1865 and following would have felt that the concept of indivisibility was so obvious that its inclusion would have appeared similarly "redundant, even silly," and therefore "it was simply assumed." It seems clear to me from Senator Joyal's words that his entreaties to include an explicit statement of indivisibility in 1981 and 1982 were not rejected because the idea was "redundant or even silly." On the contrary, they were rejected because an explicit statement of indivisibility would have cut deeply to the core of Canadian sensibilities and put at risk the delicate balance that allows our remarkably rich, sometimes contradictory and always finely balanced confederation to function.


Honourable senators, let me test this analysis in the context of 1867 and the environment in which our Fathers of Confederation were working. They had a monumentally difficult task. The proposed parties — the provinces — brought widely differing histories, culture and political temperaments to the table. They faced large, difficult geography, which was to be even more vast in the great vision of John A. Macdonald and others with whom he shared it. Perhaps most important of all in terms of real politics, and unique among all other countries at birth, they had the example of the United States at their very doorstep. Like Senator Joyal, I look there for guidance and insight.

What were the compelling realities the United States example imposed? Not having the word "indivisible" in their Constitution, they certainly had experience with the concept. "In pursuit of the more perfect Union," to quote their preamble, they had endured on the very eve of our Confederation a bloody and terrible war. To make their Union indivisible, they lost the lives of more of their citizens than in any war before or since. Make no mistake, honourable senators, it was about indivisibility. It was the belief of the Union that only an undivided America could then have pursued its macroeconomic and social goals, based on freedom and not slavery and on the trade and industrial policy the Union sought to achieve.

While the United States courts had talked about indivisibility, it was the Civil War that sent a stark message to the drafters of our Constitution. It was the Civil War that presented the harsh reality of rigid indivisibility. It was the Civil War and its root causes where rights and powers heavily weighted to the states hampered efforts to build an even greater nation.

I therefore suggest with all respect for my colleague Senator Joyal that an explicit statement of indivisibility was not left out of our Constitution because it was so obvious not to be needed; it was left out because it was seen as inappropriate for the new Canada that was being created. Instead, reacting to the experience of the United States, our framers sought and found more subtle constitutional provisions. They assigned areas of legislative jurisdiction tilted more to the central government than in the United States. They granted their Canadian government the residual power. They mandated the Canadian Parliament to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada.

The framers of our Constitution were not ignorant of the ringing declaration of indivisibility in the French Constitution —  of course not. They were obviously aware of it. They were more moved, however, by the spectre of what such an immutable constitutional provision could mean.

I agree with Senator Joyal that the United States had the concept ingrained, even though the word was not there. However, I draw a different conclusion from that fact. In my view, it was enough to caution our drafters, already sensitive to the delicacy of their position. I suggest to you that in Sir John A. Macdonald's vision of Canada's future he saw more potential in the unifying power of a national railway than he did in a provocative phrase. He understood, I believe, that whether Canada would prove to be indivisible would be determined by the effectiveness and flexibility of its Constitution and the wisdom, generosity and efforts of its governments and its people rather than by a declaration in a document or a concept incorporated by implication.

Honourable senators, you now have before you two very different views of how we got to where we are based on two different readings of our history. Nothing I have said is intended to challenge or invalidate any of the technical arguments that have been made. However, I believe that a different constitutional reality has been built on our shared British heritage. I too cherish that heritage, which, in a modern context, has allowed continuous and fundamental constitutional evolution and even division in Britain itself.

I earlier observed that few or none in this chamber have advanced a case for absolute indivisibility. Rather, there has been a wide range of views on how rigid or difficult the process should be. The technical analysis leads to a notion of indivisibility and a high degree of rigidity. My approach suggests that, while fully understanding all of the constitutional powers, privileges and obligations that came down to them through history, our Fathers of Confederation were more heavily influenced by their knowledge of more contemporary events and the political realities they faced in Canada. Canada, I submit, was born of flexibility and the willingness to adapt constitutional theory to the work they had to do.

Now to today's problem. Since, as I have observed, few if any are saying there is absolutely no right of secession under any circumstances, the question really is: Where do we set the bar? Is it as simple, if I can use the word, as a constitutional amendment by one or the other of the formulae? Is it unanimity of provinces, with or without a national referendum? Or is it, as a very real possibility, the subject of a general election?

All of these are worthy of extensive debate and would no doubt receive that should the awful circumstances ever arise. However, in a very real way all these questions are beside the point and are not before us in this very short, simple bill, Bill C-20. If we said, I suppose, that the bill fails fundamentally because it envisages an event, the secession of a province, in which no circumstance whatsoever is possible under our Constitution, we could perhaps reject it. However, I do not read that into the constitutional position enunciated by the Supreme Court, nor do I hear that in this chamber. Nor, honourable senators, do I hear wide support in this chamber for the case that a national referendum must be held before negotiations could begin under the terms of Bill C-20.

The case of a national referendum was vigorously advanced in committee but was not supported by most of our expert witnesses. Its rejection was reinforced in an article in the National Post on Wednesday, June 14 by Professor Patrick Monahan. He dealt fully and directly with this question and emphasized that the concept of a national referendum prior to negotiation contradicts both the Supreme Court and the very principle of demanding clarity of question and result as a pre-condition to negotiation.

One of the most important things about our debate on this bill, and, indeed, one of the most important things about the Senate itself, is that we send messages to Canadians and beyond. My message would be that we have resolved from the day of our creation as a nation that we are a voluntary coming together of people organized in provinces and territories and united under certain principles. We rely on our values and our conduct to keep us together. We acknowledge that the inevitable consequence of an absolute denial of divisibility, should our ability to meet the needs and aspirations of a province ever be irrevocably lost, is a price that we are not prepared to pay. We must therefore accept that, if all else fails, a safe and reasonable approach to separation is what we would have to find. That is what the Supreme Court has told us and that is what I believe is right.

Finally, let me turn to the position of the Senate under Bill C-20. The role of the Senate envisaged by Bill C-20 has attracted a great deal of attention in this chamber, and no wonder. For a variety of reasons that have been advanced, and others that have been speculated upon, the government has decided that the role of the Senate under Bill C-20 should be limited to one of consultation without bicameral parliamentary process. The result has been great stress on this institution and on individual senators, including myself. It is particularly difficult because of the importance of the bill and its relevance to the historic role of the Senate.

I wish to describe how I have sorted my way through this issue and why I shall support the bill without amendment. From the start, I have been perplexed by the provisions to limit the role of the Senate. I find it particularly difficult because, like many in this chamber, I am strongly in support of the bill otherwise. I was in favour of the reference to the Supreme Court and was delighted and encouraged by the conclusions and quality and thoroughness of the decision. My inclination, therefore, has been to support Bill C-20 since it is designed to give legislative effect to the core findings of that decision.

To do so, I have had to find my way through the other problem, the Senate problem. I use the expression and have had to find my way with good reason. After reading Bill C-20 and realizing its provisions in terms of the Senate, I had difficulty in seeing how I could support it, in spite of my conviction about the bill's principles and purpose. I sought every opportunity to exchange views with others similarly preoccupied. I listened carefully to the speech of Senator Boudreau on introduction of bill in this chamber.


While I was not swept away by it or instantly converted, it did serve to turn my mind in new directions. More than anything else, it caused me to step back and look more thoroughly at the entire picture that might emerge in a provincial referendum situation and the various steps that would ensue.

I contemplated the complete sequence of events that would confront Canadians in the case of another referendum call through to, in the worst circumstances, a constitutional amendment process dealing with the secession of a province.

I then thought more about constitutional amendments and the Constitution Act, 1982. I read that act and articles and the speeches from that time, particularly in regard to the Senate. What comes through clearly is the major role the Senate played as part of the shifting of constitutional power to the provinces. Limited only to matters of constitutional change, by giving up its absolute veto and accepting the suspensive one, the Senate took a step in favour of a new order. That decision, agreed to after deep thought and I am sure conflicting feelings by senators of the time, did create the context for our dilemma today.

Without that decision, and the acceptance of constitutional evolution by the Senate in 1982, I would not be voting for Bill C-20 today. It would be difficult to accept a limitation in our role without there having been other fundamental constitutional events. However, 1982 and the evolution it represented in the affairs of our country did happen. Our role in constitutional affairs is clearly defined and is different from that of the other place, and therefore today I can, and indeed must, look at Bill C-20 in that light.

I accept that some debate will continue as to whether the decision on clarity would technically be part of an amendment process. However, it is obvious to me that the overwhelming expert evidence we heard was that the government is not exceeding its powers in treating it as such and in not involving the Senate as an active party until later in the amendment process.

In the course of this study, I have looked carefully to the powers of government, the Senate and the House of Commons in respect of constitutional change. I have also had the opportunity to listen carefully to Mr. Dion on the subject as well as to leading constitutional experts in committee. I have found credible the arguments that the Senate lacks the power held by the other place, the power to withhold confidence from the government.

Coupled with the unqualified right of the government to enter into discussions and negotiations with the provinces that may lead to constitutional amendment, there is a power relationship between the Commons and the government that simply does not exist in terms of the Senate. This, in turn, rests on the view, again strongly supported by evidence at committee, that a constitutional amendment on secession would be an amendment like that on other fundamental matters.

Acknowledgement of the right of the Government of Canada to enter into negotiations possibly leading to a constitutional amendment and subject only to maintaining the confidence of the House of Commons, is essential to acceptance of Bill C-20.

However, I submit the other side of the coin is equally true. Unless one can successfully advance a case against the power of the government in such circumstances, and oppose some new and different procedure, it is difficult to deny the right of the government to proceed as determined by the Supreme Court and incorporate it in Bill C-20. I have heard no one do that. The overwhelming weight of expert evidence in the special committee confirmed that the government has this power.

Even if one follows the suggestion of Professor Magnet that a secession amendment could require the unanimity formula, it makes no difference to Bill C-20. As several experts have observed, Bill C-20 comes too early in the process for that and other important matters to be at issue. It has clearly been established to my satisfaction that a national referendum is not a condition precedent to negotiations.

After all this, I still ask whether it had to be this way or whether other options were available. Many of us have struggled with this. I accept evidence given to the committee most explicitly by Professors Monahan and Hogg that the government has many options. Mr. Gibbins of the Canada West Foundation also agreed that the government has a choice of where to go for advice in this matter. On the one hand, it could have sought no legislative authority at all and proceeded on its own power to negotiate constitutional change, including secession. On the other hand, the government could have selected one or both houses of Parliament or some other group altogether to judge the matters of clarity of question and majority. The government opted to refer the question to the House of Commons.

There are two principal arguments offered in support of this choice; first is the fact of it being the popularly elected chamber to which the government is ultimately responsible, second is the concern about the two Houses coming to different conclusions, a deadlock for which the legislative process of amendment or defeat would not be available.

Based on these two arguments, the designation of the House of Commons alone is not an outrageous or irrational choice. In fact, I suggest that many of us would be comfortable taking that side of the debate, were we not senators.

Senator Cools: I do not think so.

Senator Kroft: However, that is hypothetical. We are senators and we do have a view, a feeling, and a responsibility on this matter not shared by others. Thus, we are placed in this dilemma. There may be some in this chamber, but I suspect not many, who believe the government's course of action is completely appropriate and acceptable without question.

For myself, I acknowledge it as legally correct and not in violation of any parliamentary or constitutional rules of procedures. On the one hand, I am driven to do so by the clear weight of evidence and learned opinion that has been placed before us and my own careful analysis of it. On the other hand, I do regret the government's decision.

While it is a legitimate and supportable option, within the range of acceptable alternatives, it is a lesser option. With the Senate fully involved, a more considered position and greater representation of broad Canadian interests would have been assured, even if special rules as to the Senate's response time had been imposed. Would this have been at the expense of some efficiency and certainty? Perhaps so, but depending on circumstances, and on who is in control of the House of Commons and what their view of Canada may be, some inefficiency or uncertainty might not be a bad thing.

If uncertainty and the fear of deadlock were too serious to contemplate, some sort of joint committee might have been devised. There were other possible choices. Government is always a matter of choices. That is the business of government.

Honourable senators, a decision has been made. Based on all that I have heard and read, I am satisfied that these are matters of political judgment on which the government has a right and responsibility to make a determination. They are not matters that impose on senators an obligation to defeat or amend this bill.

We must still ask ourselves about the rights and duties of the Senate and its place in the parliamentary process. Is there damage done here? That we must ask, since we were entrusted with the protection of this place. Will the future of the Senate be compromised? What will be different afterwards?

I cannot answer those questions for everyone here, obviously, but after many weeks of intense and objective study, I can answer it for myself. I do not believe the Senate will suffer. In fact, I do not believe there is any significant change from what has prevailed since 1982. It is simply a logical piece, resulting from the decisions taken at that time.

A decision was made in 1982 for our Constitution and, with it, for our Senate to evolve. The Senate is assured of its role in any constitutional amendment process if it would be required to give effect to secession of a province, as it would be with any other amendment.

In closing, I wish to state that my support of Bill C-20 rests on a personal conviction that it does not go beyond the Constitution Acts now in place or beyond the powers of government or the House of Commons granted by written constitution or convention. Bill C-20 represents absolutely no incursion on existing powers of the Senate. The Senate is not denied any rights or powers it now holds within the general scope of law-making or in the constitutional process. If I believed otherwise, I would not support it.


Beyond this, and of far greater importance, I strongly believe that Bill C-20 will prove to be an important and valuable tool in the cause of national unity. The decision in the Supreme Court reference denied legitimacy to arbitrary, unilateral secession by a province. Bill C-20 assures that our country will not be divided by accident or confusion. Honourable senators, I urge you to join with me in supporting Bill C-20 without amendment.

Hon. John G. Bryden: Honourable senators, I should like to make a comment to Senator Kroft. I have had the opportunity not only to listen to his speech but to review the transcripts of the testimony before the special committee dealing with Bill C-20. Much of it was instructive, and some of it was enlightening.

I want to say very clearly that the comments and questions that were directed by Senator Kroft during that time were the most cogent and directly on point of any of the questioners that I was able to review. I want to say also that a speech that I would have given, had I the opportunity to put it together and do it well, would have been the speech that Senator Kroft has just delivered. I concur with his clear analysis and his position. I may get an opportunity to speak later, but his is the clearest statement that I have heard. That is why I, too, will be supporting Bill C-20.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, so that there may be no misunderstanding later, because I realize that this is a very important bill, Senator Kroft spoke for more than 15 minutes. Under rule 37(3), being the first speaker after the sponsor of the bill, the sponsor being Senator Hays, Senator Kroft was entitled to a 45-minute allotment, under our rule. Senator Bryden's comments are within that 45-minute period. Others may speak within that 45-minute period without exhausting their right to speak at a later date. I just wanted to have that clear so that there would be no misunderstanding as to the procedure. If there are other questions or comments within the 45-minute period, it will not exhaust honourable senators' rights to speak again.

Hon. Marcel Prud'homme: The honourable senator said at first that he regrets. Well, any time someone starts by saying "I regret," I pay attention, because I know that the conclusion will not go with the regret.

He says, "Of course, we have reviewed." To that, I say, sure, So has everyone else in the country. The difference with everyone in the country that has views is that we have a constitutional view. We are the Senate of Canada. That some people disagree with the Senate or not could be a debate at another time. We have never gone to the country explaining what the Senate is all about.

Does Senator Kroft still feel very comfortable, even though he regrets having to go that way, that the Senate is being eliminated in the process? We know that until Canadians — only Canadians, not scholars, not the press, not lobby groups, but Canadians —  decide to change the institution, Parliament is two Houses: the House of Commons and the Senate. Here is a bill under which we senators will debase — perhaps another word is "diminish" — ourselves. We just decide that we do not count. We have not only diminished, we agreed to disappear in such a very important matter.

What is the honourable senator's view on that? Does he not see it as a diminution? It is more than that. I wish I had the vocabulary, but I want to speak his language.


This is doing more than diminishing our powers, it is doing away with the fundamental right of the Senate to take part in one of the major steps in the political life of Canada.


Senator Kroft: Honourable senators, I do not agree, obviously, and the point that I was trying to make is that we are not giving away, or whatever word it was the honourable senator would have chosen, any power that we now have. My analysis demonstrated that we shall remain with every power we have today after the passage of this bill. While the other place has, for the purpose of a consultation, been given a greater power within the terms of this bill, nothing has been taken away from us that we now have. Our role in any future legislation or constitutional amendment will be undiminished from what it is today. I do not have this challenge of conscience that Senator Prud'homme would like to impose upon me.

Senator Grafstein: Honourable senators, Senator Kroft knows my view. We had the opportunity to listen to each other and ask questions. We do have a fundamental difference that I want to ask him about, and that difference relates to a view of the country.

I start with the proposition, which he opposes, that we did indeed come together in a voluntary manner. The various colonies came together in a voluntary manner through their legislatures and through votes. I agree with that. However, once we were joined in the mighty nation under one Parliament and under one Crown, it was clear to me, based on those early debates, that in fact we had passed from a voluntary, consensual relationship between the various constituent parts of Canada into a mighty union, an indissoluble, indivisible union. The words very carefully chosen, if I recall, by Sir John A. Macdonald, were, "under the Crown." He said, and I quoted his speech, that the desire of the parliamentarians of the day was to come together to form one people, one country, under the Crown — the Crown; and indivisible. He used the word "severance." In that same speech in 1865, which I quoted, he said that we could not allow any severance because we had vested all that power in the Crown.

My question is this: How does the honourable senator differentiate between that very appealing and difficult-to-dispute notion of voluntary joinder and the proposition that once we voluntarily join, we live under a constitutional rule of law and therefore are bound, not by opinion, not by assent, but by rules of law? How does Senator Kroft deal with that proposition, before dealing with others?

Senator Kroft: Honourable senators, I certainly did deal with it with a great deal of thought before delivering this speech, and there is no question, like many things in life, that getting out is easier than getting in. That is in the nature of our confederation or our union. I would not suggest in any way, nor do the constitutional rules that we have devised over the years, that one passes in and out of a collection of provinces that have come together in a union.


However, neither do any of the terms "rule of law," "mighty nation," or "under the Crown" mean to me the permanent forgoing of a right, under any circumstances and any conditions, to ever tear that asunder. Even if we go to the Mother of Parliaments under the Crown, the United Kingdom has found a way to meet its needs for division, separation and contrivances in between.

I agree that once pulled together as a mighty nation under the rule of law and under the Crown it should be difficult to separate, but I do not agree that we should press that point so there is no alternative other than force, which I do not think Canadians are prepared to accept as viable.

Senator Grafstein: I shall cite one short example and then leave it for another day, that example being Western Australia. The Australian states were brought together in a union not dissimilar to the way in which we were. In 1933, one very unhappy state, Western Australia, voted on a clear proposition that they wanted to separate from the other states.

That issue came forward to the Australian Parliament, and Parliament said that it had no power to deal with the issue. The matter then went to the House of Lords for a judicial determination. The House of Lords found that even if a state voted in favour of a clear question, with a clear majority, the Parliament and the government had no obligation to negotiate. Its reasoning was in terms of the Royal Prerogative to which Senator Cools has been referring. It was simple and straightforward that the only way there could be secession was if there was a vote of all the people, because true sovereignty did not rest effectively in the Crown but with the will of the people of the entire union. I should like to hear Senator Kroft's comments in that regard.

Senator Kroft: Honourable senators, first, the law of Canada has been enunciated for us by the Supreme Court reference. The procedure and the obligation to negotiate has been set out. Further, while I have tried to analyze and reject the obligation to call for the referendum before the negotiation on secession, which to me is a fundamental contradiction in terms, there is the potential, should it be the decision of the political leadership of the time, to later have a national referendum. Nothing in any of this rules that out or rules out an election.

In the early portions of my speech, I was saying that we should not build everything into Bill C-20 and that we should let everything mature in its time, while staying within the context of the law enunciated in the Supreme Court decision. Then, if it is the national consensus and if court decisions or a compilation of provincial referenda legislation comes to the fore, we may indeed have the effect of a national referendum. I see nothing to rule that out. I am only addressing what I feel is imposed in the proper legal processes under our Constitution and our judicial decision.

Senator Grafstein: I wish to address a comment to His Honour.

There was an issue earlier today dealing with the question of sovereignty and prerogative. I specifically wanted to address this question to my honourable friend to perhaps help you, Your Honour, examine as deeply as possible the very potent question raised by my honourable friend Senator Cools with respect to the nature and role of the Royal Prerogative as it applies to the indivisibility of Canada. My friend has been raising this and has joined issue on it. Regrettably, Your Honour, this is a question of the rule of parliamentary law, and you are now burdened with this awesome task.

Senator Cools: Sovereignty is indivisible. That is why, in the British constitution, sovereignty resides in the person of one —  the King or the Queen. Sovereignty must be and is indivisible.

My question has to do with the Liberal Party position, which Senator Kroft has adopted. In committee, Senator Pitfield expressed some surprise that the Liberal Party has now adopted a position that Canada could be dismembered, partitioned or divided.

First, what process did the Liberal Party of Canada exercise to arrive at such a Liberal Party position?

Second, former prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau, the leader of the Liberal Party, was compelled in 1980 to make the reference to the Supreme Court on the then patriation reference. He expressed his opinion of what the court did in that 1980 reference. Knowing what Mr. Trudeau has said about the Supreme Court's opinion of 1980, about which Mr. Trudeau has spoken extensively and from which I have quoted extensively in my speeches, how did Mr. Dion and other supporters of the current position arrive at the position Senator Kroft is now adopting? Most Liberal prime ministers of Canada have never adopted a similar position.

Senator Kroft: Honourable senators, I could not begin to tell you how former prime minister Trudeau arrived at his position or how Mr. Dion and the current government arrived at theirs. Today I was attempting to explain my position. It is my position based on an assessment of the facts, procedures, decisions and the arguments put before me. I should not presume to go beyond that. To the extent that this may have some impact on those senators here, I am grateful, but I shall have to leave it to others to address Mr. Trudeau's position.

Senator Cools: To put the question in another way, is the position that Senator Kroft and Mr. Dion have adopted consistent with Liberal Party history and the Liberal Party position for the last 100 years?

Senator Kroft: I am not capable of answering that question properly.

Senator Cools: That is a question that I am having enormous difficulty getting answered. Having been a loyal Liberal for several decades, I fail to understand how it is I never knew until recently that Canada could be divided in the way that is being proposed.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I must inform you that the 45-minute time period has expired.

Hon. J. Michael Forrestall: Honourable senators, I ask that the debate be adjourned in the name of Senator Fraser.

The Hon. the Speaker: It was moved by Senator Forrestall, seconded by Senator Beaudoin, that further debate be adjourned in the name of the Honourable Senator Fraser. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.


Senator Cools: On a point of order, I would note that Senator Fraser is sitting right here. There is some confusion. Senator Forrestall has just moved the adjournment in Senator Fraser's name, but Senator Fraser is sitting in her seat. Therefore, she could certainly have moved the adjournment herself.

Senator Forrestall: That is what I thought. That is why I sat still. It may very well be, honourable senators, that I misread Senator DeWare's handwriting. It looks like "Senator Fraser."

I would ask that the adjournment stand in my name.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, a motion has been made and accepted.

Senator Hays: Honourable senators, in readdressing the matter of the adjournment on Bill C-20, we should be understanding of the fact that, due to committee work, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is not here, nor is the whip. I want to take pains to ensure that we act properly in the matter of the adjournment of Bill C-20. My impression was that the other side would adjourn the debate and that is what Senator Forrestall is proposing. Accordingly, I would ask for leave to rescind the motion of adjournment in the name of Senator Fraser so that the debate may be adjourned in the name of Senator Forrestall, which would be the normal course for us to follow in debate on a matter such as this.

Senator Forrestall: Would it not be a matter of my simply withdrawing my earlier motion?

The Hon. the Speaker: I shall admit, honourable senators, that the motion posed by Senator Forrestall while the other senator is here is not a normal procedure, but it is certainly not out of order. The request that we rescind the previous decision requires unanimous consent.

Is it agreed, honourable senators?

Senator Cools: I do not agree.

Senator Hays: Perhaps I could consult with the leader in the absence of the deputy leader.

If it is in order to deviate from the normal practice of adjourning the debate in the name of a senator on the opposite side, then the adjournment standing in the name of Senator Fraser is entirely in order as far as I am concerned.

Senator Cools: Honourable senators, I had not realized, when I raised my objection to the fact that Senator Forrestall had done what he did, that the motion had been duly carried. If the motion is duly carried then it must stand. One cannot rescind motions of this chamber by simple leave being granted. Let it be recorded that I shall not give my leave.

On motion of Senator Forrestall, for Senator Fraser, debate adjourned.

Canada Transportation Act
Competition Act
Competition Tribunal Act
Air Canada Public Participation Act

Third Reading

Hon. Raymond J. Perrault moved the third reading of Bill C-26, to amend the Canada Transportation Act, the Competition Act, the Competition Tribunal Act and the Air Canada Public Participation Act and to amend another Act in consequence.

He said: Honourable senators, I had the privilege of introducing Bill C-26 in the Senate. I am pleased to rise in my place again today to endorse the bill as we begin third reading debate.

As honourable senators are aware, the bill is intended to enhance the existing legislative framework and contribute to ensuring a safe and healthy Canadian airline industry.

We are talking about the future of aviation in this country. We are served by two, or even more, outstanding airline companies. Canada has a worldwide reputation.

When the process of airline restructuring began almost a year ago, the government sought advice from various interested parties to ensure the development of the best possible framework for a restructured industry. The general public made its views known, and very vigorously, I should say, through thousands of letters not only to the Minister of Transport but also the Members of Parliament, whether they serve in the Senate or in the House of Commons.

We had a letter read earlier today from an irate traveller. Air Canada takes the position that it is going to take a while to work out all of the bugs and all of the problems. That may well be true, but we must have a means by which commuters can register their complaints and have them effectively dealt with. This is one of the points that we insisted on in the committee deliberations.

Honourable senators, the fact is that the Senate has played a major role in shaping this bill through the activities of our standing committee last fall and since the introduction of Bill C-26 by the Minister of Transport on February 17 this year. This has been a very painstaking and thorough study.

The result is a good piece of legislation. Perhaps it is not perfect, but it is a great start. It is a good bill that addresses the expectations of many stakeholders while preserving the principles of deregulation which have governed the domestic aviation sector since the year 1988. All the major stakeholders appeared in order to help our committee assess the value of this bill. There was good input not only from the government side of this house but also from the opposition side. A very constructive attitude was demonstrated by participants.

The Minister of Transport with his officials, the Canadian Transportation Agency, the Competition Bureau and the Commissioner of Official Languages gave their perspectives on the bill and took questions from the committee members. They were very deeply probing questions.

The two major carriers, Air Canada and Canadian, and other carriers, both their affiliates and their competitors, including foreign competitors, the Air Transport Association, the Travel Agents Association, consumer advocacy groups, affected employee groups and the Association des Gens de l'air made presentations and answered questions.

I must point out that along the way I hope that full consideration is given to the rights of the existing pensioners. Some have contacted me, as I am sure that they have contacted other members of the committee. They told me that they were pioneers in the airline industry. In particular, pensioners from Canadian Airlines told me that their pension rights were derived many years ago and that they are apprehensive about the future of their pension plan. We should seek assurance that these long-term pensioners will be treated fairly.

Let me just recall for honourable senators how this legislation responds to the 19 recommendations made to the minister by our standing committee last fall. The undertakings negotiated between the Commissioner of Competition and Air Canada have resulted in the implementation of four of these recommendations. The commitments made by Air Canada to the Minister of Transport implements two of the recommendations. Bill C-26 not only makes the undertakings and commitments enforceable, it implements three of our recommendations.

You may also be aware that the Minister of Transport recently announced the liberalization of Canada's international air charter policy which implements another one of our recommendations.

For the rest, the government has not chosen the approach which we recommended as a result of our committee work, but we do know that all the issues we identified have been addressed. Members of our Senate Standing Committee asked many questions of those who appeared before them in order to ensure that the proposed legislation does meet the expectations and needs of those who will be most affected by it. Questions were asked not only with respect to Bill C-26 itself but also with respect to the draft regulations setting out anti-competitive behaviour in the Canadian airline sector. In our view, there is just nothing like competition in this industry.

The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications in its report recommends adoption of this bill. I am pleased to propose speedy passage so that it can come into force as soon as possible. There is no doubt we need these new consumer and competition protection measures, and we need them right now.

Although the Standing Committee was prepared to support Bill C-26, members felt strongly about certain aspects of the impact of airline restructuring. The committee report includes a number of observations on which I shall say only a few words because I share these concerns as a member of the committee. There is concern about fares, both high and low. The whole area of setting fares seems to be a very mysterious process to many of us. I can buy a ticket in Vancouver and fly return to Manchester, England for $550, and yet it costs more than $3,000 to get from Vancouver to Ottawa. This is cause for at least mystification.


It can be said, of course, that the charter airlines make this process possible with the economy seat, which is true, but there are still some questions that have to be answered.

As I said, honourable senators, there is concern about fares, both high and low. You may have received complaints from people living in your area. If you receive complaints — and this applies to all of us, including myself, because I have already passed along some — let Air Canada know about the situation. They are establishing a complaint mechanism, which is supposed to help.

Honourable senators, the committee also expressed concern about service, especially service to smaller communities. There is also a concern about impacts on small airports. Committee members were also sympathetic to the concerns expressed by both the employees of Canadian Regional Airlines and the travel agent community. There are many questions that remain unanswered.

On the matter of official languages, the committee is urging the government and Air Canada to work more diligently "to promote in air transport in Canada a respect for linguistic equilibrium representative of Canadian reality, both as it applies to services, to clients and to the avoidance of discrimination in hiring practices." This was a matter that was discussed in committee for a substantial length of time. We believe that these norms have to be established.

The committee intends to do further work to follow airline restructuring over the next while. It intends to review the proposed regulations dealing with anti-competitive behaviour and it intends to investigate the impacts on small airports.

The committee also urges that monitoring be taken seriously and that when remedial action is recommended that action be taken quickly. The passage of this bill will help to improve the current situation by firmly establishing the framework within which the industry will operate; at least we hope it will. If there is any deviation from quality and good service, action will be taken.

We believe that passage of this bill will set the rules of the game and provide a more certain environment for Air Canada and its new and existing competitors. Passage of this bill will help encourage the development of competition by offering protection from anti-competitive behaviour on the part of the dominant carrier.

In this regard, we are already seeing evidence that the government's approach is starting to work. The first few days of this integration process were an absolute nightmare from coast to coast. There were many difficulties in Toronto, as honourable senators are aware; indeed, there were difficulties in all of the provinces. However, we are now seeing evidence that the government's approach is starting to work. Several existing carriers, both scheduled and charter, have begun their expansion or have announced plans to do so in the near future.

This is a fascinating process because there will be a competitive airline offering a quality of service — at least, they hope to establish such a level of service — comparable to Air Canada and offering the same kind of higher-class seats. Competition is out there, honourable senators.

The bill has provisions designed to deal with specific problems that consumers may face. This bill offers better protection with respect to pricing on monopoly routes, improved protection for domestic travellers with respect to terms and conditions of carriage, and protection for service to small communities. It requires Air Canada, where the demand warrants, to provide travellers with air services in both official languages.

The office of the air travel complaints commissioner — that is to whom all the mail setting out customer complaints should be forwarded — that will be created by this bill will have the power to review cases and mediate between the complainant and the airline involved. The complaint commission will probably have a site on the Internet as well.

Honourable senators, together with many other members of the chamber I support this bill. I believe that a strong vote in support of the bill will send a powerful signal to the industry and the travelling public that the government will play its proper role in a restructured airline industry.

By supporting this bill, honourable senators, we shall bring final parliamentary approval to legislation that will help to create a Canadian-controlled airline industry, one that will be able to take its place with the world's biggest and very best — an airline industry that will serve all Canadians with high-quality service at competitive prices.

I thank all honourable senators on both sides of the house who have offered such constructive advice and suggestions so that we may create this great airline.

Hon. J. Michael Forrestall: Honourable senators, there are one or two observations that should be made before I join with my colleague in wishing this bill bon voyage. I want to deal for a moment or two with the observations made by the committee —  observations that irritated me at the time; however, now that I have read them I think they are very sensible and I have come to see the light.

I wish to touch briefly on the draft regulations. Honourable senators, a poll taken in the last while and reported in the press today is less than flattering to our dominant carrier, and I think probably deservedly so. The Canadian flying public have had one heck of a two years. If it is getting better, it may be just because I fly Ottawa-Halifax and have the advantage of using Canadian every once in a while. I do not have to rely on Air Canada, no matter who owns both.

Finally, I should like to indicate that we shall keep a very close watch on the events over the next two years. We shall plead and urge strongly in this place for a full review of the legislation, and we all have reason to believe that the appropriate standing committee of the other place will want a full review of the legislation. I suppose that could be extended to include the government.

First, I wish to deal with anti-competitive acts and the regulations that have been drafted and will be available to the Competition Bureau in enforcing the clauses of this bill that are designed to protect against the gouging, overpricing and anti-competitive measures that usually come about when a dominant carrier, such as Air Canada, comes upon the situation that we have today. I should preface this remark with a brief story of WestJet going into Moncton, New Brunswick, as a good catchment area. It was attractive to WestJet for a number of reasons. One could attract customers from Charlottetown, Fredericton, Saint John, New Brunswick, from the Amherst and Springhill areas, and perhaps from even a little further than that. Air Canada noted this activity and proceeded to move swiftly by adding a significant number of additional seats. If that were not bad enough, for a young airline trying to get on in the eastern part of our country, Air Canada undercut WestJet's prices.

The point I want to make is that when this proposition was put to the assistant director of the Competition Bureau, he had this observation to make. He said that had the regulations proposed under this bill been in place, with respect to the actions of Air Canada, we would have been contemplating criminal procedures.


Honourable senators, I make that point because it loudly and clearly demonstrates the strength of the draft regulations. As Senators Perrault, Bacon and others on that committee have noted, whether this bill works will depend in large measure on the effectiveness of the Competition Bureau.

Senator Perrault: Hear, hear!

Senator Forrestall: Its effectiveness will be determined by the usefulness and strength of these regulations.

Anti-competitive acts provide for action where avoidable costs are somewhat hidden in order to gain a competitive advantage, such as increasing capacity on a route at fares that do not cover avoidable costs; ensuring that all costs must be included; or using a low-cost second brand carrier in a manner described above. In other words, one cannot do in the airline industry by one means that which one cannot do directly, an old and well-understood maxim.

The commissioner went on to say that companies ought not to pre-empt facilities or services because of their size, stature or dominance in the field. These facilities or services are required for the operation of other airlines. Companies should not be pre-empted from takeoff and landing slots required for the operation of other carriers to the extent not governed by other regulations that have to do with the allocation of slots. That is a question that is still before the standing committee.

Other issues include commission overrides or other inducements, such as using the offer of unusual awards or going on alternate networks or other infrastructure or facilities for the purpose of and with the effect of eliminating or disciplining the competitors or impeding entry or expansion into the market. Suffice to say that it is the regulations that will make this act work.

At the early stages of consideration of this matter last fall, we on this side argued and found a great measure of support on the government side for reviewing the role of the Competition Bureau. We believe the bureau should be given the tools and authority to do swiftly what the Canadian Transportation Agency sometimes took months to do because of its structure.

Things in all disciplines move very rapidly today. Knowledge is expanding at unbelievable rates. The same is true in the airline industry. If there is an opportunity and one does not move to take it this afternoon, it will not be there tomorrow morning. We must find ways of making it easier and quicker to give direction to the airlines with respect to consumers' rights and their protections. As well, we must give them more open and freer routes.

There is cause for rulings on a variety of matters ranging from mergers through to rates and international carriage.

Honourable senators, your committee appended to its fifth report a series of recommendations. I hope that these are closely read because they indicate our concerns about both low fares and high fares.

With regard to high fares on routes where there is no competition, it is not altogether clear to the committee whether clause 4 of Bill C-26, which will replace section 66 of the Canada Transportation Act, will be sufficient to deal with unreasonably high fares. Only by observation and close scrutiny will we be able to determine whether we are right or wrong.

Witnesses described other anti-competitive issues that may necessitate a strengthening of the draft regulations on predatory pricing. The committee had serious concerns about the welfare of the employees of Canadian Regional Airlines as they wait for a resolution of their status. Should Air Canada not bring those employees back into the family, they have no protection whatsoever. This is not in keeping with the reputation of Canada and Canadian labour laws, good business practices or the common decency of parliamentarians who make the laws under which these people act.

God knows we have concerns about service. I have had 1,100 complaints about service over the last three or four months. One of the airlines called me up and asked if they could have copies of the complaints. I laughed at them I said, "Are you kidding? They are verbal. Have you been outside your door yet? Go and stand on the sidewalk, talk to someone about flying in airplanes around Canada, and you will get a taste of the mood of Canadians."

We heard about pricing and the cost of services at airports. Landing fees are going up and making things very difficult, just as with Canada Ports Corporation when they were converted a year ago. What happens to the municipality when it loses that certain and sure grant in lieu of taxation? If it loses that grant, it must rely on its income to make that the difference

We are also seeing a consolidation to a dominant carrier. Where 20 flights a day used to be flown, 11 flights are now expected to do the job. That means only 11 fees for landings and takeoffs. They have lost the revenues from the other nine landings and takeoffs. That revenue paid local taxes, services, firefighting and so on.

Finally, I reiterate that this proposed legislation should be monitored closely. There are many questions in which the standing committee will be interested.


All agencies in government concerned with the offering of good travel arrangements to the Canadian public should monitor and report on the health of the industry.

It is quite a scene out there, honourable senators, probably the greatest change in aviation in Canadian history — perhaps even overtaking the addition of jets to the old propeller fleet — but we shall get through it. I am hopeful; I am not a pessimist about this at all. However, I do think it is going to be hard on the travelling public, and whatever we can do to make it easier, we should. One of the things we can do is pass the bill, get the regulations in place, and monitor the situation very carefully.

It has been a privilege working with you, Madam Chair, and with you, Senator Perrault.


Hon. Roch Bolduc: Honourable senators, I attended only one meeting of the committee that reviewed this bill. I had been told that there was a problem regarding, among others, the Association des Gens de l'air. I listened carefully to Mr. Martel, the association's representative, and I believe that his comments made sense. The company will have to make a special effort when hiring personnel. Honourable senators will remember that there were problems 20 years ago. After a lot of efforts, the percentage of francophones pilots climbed to 15 per cent.

A certain level of representation is to be expected from a company that provides services to the public. I am not in favour of quotas and I am not saying that if francophones account for 25 per cent of the population, then they should account for 25 per cent of all pilots. I would not go that far. However, in a company of this magnitude, the staff must reflect the population to some degree. For example, 5 per cent of the pilots at Canadian Airlines were francophones. That is indecent! I realize that the company did not serve all of Quebec, but such a percentage demonstrates an almost obvious kind of discrimination.

I am more or less the spokesperson for the Association des Gens de l'air in saying that there is a problem and that it is important that management at Air Canada take a serious look at this situation. The representative of the Association des Gens de l'air was not resorting to blackmail. He was a very decent person. You heard him. Senators Bacon and Forrestall were there. In fact, Senator Joyal would probably be in a better position than I am to discuss this issue, since he attended the committee meetings.

We are told that, in the case of a service of this kind to the public, competition will come with time. I am confident that we are promoting the creation of a number of Canadian companies in the airline industry. That is desirable. I know that there are companies in Western Canada that are doing rather well, with flights to Toronto and eventually further east, but we should not have to wait five years to have true competition. There was not only a management problem with Canadian Airlines, there were also other problems.

I do not wish to go into my personal experiences with them, but I have had enough! I am not a nationalist when it comes to aviation. I am quite happy to use Eastern Airlines or Northwest. I am proud of the Canadian flag but, if service is lacking, it will have to be provided using other companies. Air Canada must be aware of this at all times! For example, this week, there are no parliamentarians left in the other place and so there are no more 8 p.m. flights from Ottawa to Quebec City. It is 300 miles away! We are not going to Timbuktu! We are going to Quebec City! After 5 p.m., there are no flights out!

From 1954 to 1960, I taught at the University of Montreal. Every Thursday morning, I flew to the University of Montreal and it cost me $17 return. Now, it costs $600 to come to Ottawa. So there is a problem somewhere. I shall leave you with that, honourable senators. I do not wish to take up more of your time with it.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, is it your pleasure to adopt the motion?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Motion agreed to and bill read third time and passed.


Canadian Tourism Commission Bill

Second Reading—Debate Adjourned

Hon. Catherine S. Callbeck moved the second reading of Bill C-5, to establish the Canadian Tourism Commission.

She said: Honourable senators, I am happy to rise today to speak at second reading to Bill C-5, to establish the Canadian Tourism Commission. The goal of this legislation is to establish the Canadian Tourism Commission as a Crown corporation. It is presently a special operating agency located in the Department of Industry.

In telling you why this piece of legislation has my full support, I shall give you some background into the Canadian Tourism Commission and then tell you why the changes in this legislation are necessary.

The Canadian Tourism Commission was developed in 1995. It deals with the promotion and marketing of Canada as a desirable travel destination both in the country and internationally. Since its inception, the commission has been a success story in every respect. For most of the period since 1994, direct employment in the industry has grown faster than the national average. With last year's creation of 6,000 direct jobs, employment in the sector has now reached 525,000, and forecasts continue to be very positive. Between 120,000 and 130,000 new jobs are expected as a result of tourism between now and the year 2005.

Around the globe, tourism is also very big business. It is one of the world's fastest-growing industries, accounting for U.S. $444 billion internationally in annual revenues, and this figure is expected to grow at an annual rate of 7 per cent over the next five years.

Thanks in large part to the work of the Canadian Tourism Commission and its private-sector and government partners, Canada is getting a good slice of this business and will get more. If Canada achieves a 1 per cent increase in the share of international arrivals, it would mean 6 million more visitors to Canada, $5 billion more in annual revenues, and 158,000 new jobs. Honourable senators, there is no doubt that Canada can gain the extra share of the market. The most recent figures on the success of this marketing effort speak for themselves.


Canada's travel account deficit decreased to $1.7 billion in 1999, down 48 per cent from $3.3 billion recorded in 1995, when the commission was formed.

The trade deficit gap in this area is being closed. Last year, the total tourism spending in Canada reached $50.1 billion.

The key to the commission's success was the facilitation of partnering and cooperation among the various stakeholders —  federal, provincial, territorial, and business partners. This unique public-private collaboration has delivered valuable tourism marketing and information-sharing initiatives that have helped rejuvenate the tourism sector and Canada's appeal as a tourist destination.

Unfortunately, the current status of the commission as a special operating agency of the Department of Industry imposes legal and administrative restrictions which now prevent it from achieving its maximum potential as a partner.

Making the commission a Crown corporation will give it the legal, financial, managerial and administrative flexibility it needs to work more effectively with its partners. As a Crown corporation, the commission will be able to function as a fully integrated business entity, with the capacity to make its own decisions, to set its own business priorities, and to move more quickly to implement them as market needs dictate.

It is because the commission's work is closely tied into the private sector that it is necessary for it to operate in a more businesslike way, to have the administrative flexibility to function as a more businesslike partner.

Let me explain this point further by telling you what the commission cannot do as a special operating agency. It cannot enter into partnership contracts and manage partners' funds for joint undertakings; keep funds year over year, except for very limited carry-overs; keep revenues generated by merchandising and reinvest them in programs — such funds now become part of the government's Consolidated Revenue Fund — and open bank accounts, including accounts in foreign countries, to pay locally engaged staff and marketing contractors. The commission must now pay the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade to use its accounts or issue cheques in Canadian funds, which are not always accepted by foreign banks.

Bill C-5 is the result of extensive consultations with all the participants, and that includes staff unions. The corporation will continue to be subject to the usual federal statutes, such as the Official Languages Act, the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act.

The commission's professional and highly dedicated staff have contributed significantly to the successful work of the commission over the last five years. With the changeover to Crown corporation status, the employees would come under the Canada Labour Code. This means the commission would be free to hire the professional expertise it needs to respond to marketplace challenges as and when needed because it would not be subject to the complexities of the Public Service Employment Act.

Since the commission was established, Canada has steadily moved up in global ranking as a tourism destination and is now in eighth place in international tourist arrivals, and ninth in international tourism revenues.

All of us know that Canada is the best country in the world in which to live. If honourable senators give their consent to this legislation, the rest of the world will know that Canada is the best country in the world to visit.

On motion of Senator Kinsella, for Senator LeBreton, debate adjourned.

Sales Tax and Excise Tax Amendments Bill, 1999

Second Reading—Debate Adjourned

Hon. E. Leo Kolber moved the second reading of Bill C-24, to amend the Excise Tax Act, a related Act, the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Budget Implementation Act, 1997, the Budget Implementation Act, 1998, the Budget Implementation Act, 1999, the Canada Pension Plan, the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, the Cultural Property Export and Import Act, the Customs Act, the Customs Tariff, the Employment Insurance Act, the Excise Act, the Income Tax Act, the Tax Court of Canada Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act.

He said: Honourable senators, I should like to first thank honourable senators for allowing me to speak at second reading of Bill C-24.

The goals and opportunities underlying the legislation before us can be stated quite succinctly — to make our tax system simpler and fairer, not only for individual Canadians but for Canadian businesses as well.

Another objective of government that is supported by this legislation is to sustain and enhance our federal tax system in a manner that promotes federal-provincial cooperation and harmonization.

I trust that honourable senators would agree that few issues affect us as much as the operation of our federal taxation system. Taxes affect every Canadian and every family, every company and every organization. It impacts our standard of living as individuals and our ability to compete and grow as a nation.

The government recognizes that tax reduction is essential to improve living standards. It increases productivity, creates jobs and leaves more money in the pockets of Canadians. This is why, with the deficit eliminated and the debt burden falling, the government took action to begin reducing the burden of personal income taxes.

However, broad income tax reduction is not, and cannot be, the only area for action as we map out a plan for greater prosperity for all Canadians in the 21st century. From the start of its first mandate, the government has been active in ensuring that it provides a tax system that is fair. It has also worked towards a tax system that eliminates unnecessary complexity.

Further, the government wants to be sure that the tax system provides targeted assistance to those sectors and groups who deserve it — for example, charities and persons with disabilities. These are the objectives underlying the legislation before us. Bill C-24 does just that.

While this bill is primarily aimed at improving the operation of the goods and services tax — the GST — and the harmonized sales tax — the HST — it also contains other important proposals relating to specific taxes on certain products.

In this regard, Bill C-24 contains measures with respect to taxation of tobacco products. The government is committed to reducing smoking rates in Canada, particularly among younger Canadians.

It is also committed to providing leadership in the area of tobacco control. In that regard, honourable senators are no doubt aware of the National Action Plan to Combat Smuggling which was launched in 1994. The plan has had a significant impact on contraband so that the government has been able to increase taxes on tobacco products in 1995, 1996 and 1998, in cooperation with participating provinces: Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. The government has monitored each of these increases slowly to ensure that they do not result in renewed smuggling activity.

Today's legislation puts in place another increase of sixty cents in federal excise taxes per carton of 200 cigarettes on sale in Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, the five provinces that are our action plan partners. These provinces are also increasing their taxes on cigarettes by comparable amounts.

Excise taxes on tobacco sticks will also be increased in Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, re-establishing a uniform national tax rate on tobacco sticks for sale in all provinces and territories.

Furthermore, this bill proposes to make permanent the current 40 per cent surtax on the profits of tobacco manufacturing.

On a related issue, as outlined in the February 1999 federal budget, Bill C-24 contains measures to implement a reduction in the annual exemption threshold for the tax on exported tobacco products.


The intent of this measure is to reduce the supply of Canadian-made tobacco products in export markets that could potentially be available to smugglers. The proposals contained in this bill relating to the taxation of tobacco products reaffirm the government's comprehensive commitment to reducing tobacco consumption in Canada while maintaining vigilance in combating the level of contraband.

An important component of Bill C-24 reflects the government's responsiveness to the health and social needs of Canadians. For example, the government recognizes that many Canadians are providing care for family members, very often elderly parents or a disabled child. Bill C-24 proposes to provide a sales tax exemption for respite care. This measure exempts the services provided for the care and supervision of individuals who have limited capacity for self-supervision and self-care due to an infirmity or disability. For those Canadians who are striving to meet the growing demands of caring for family members with an infirmity or disability, this proposal will enhance federal support.

Senator Prud'homme: It is six o'clock.

Senator Kolber: Is there a question somewhere? I did not interrupt you.

Senator Prud'homme: It is not me.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, it is my duty to advise you that it is six o'clock.

Hon. Dan Hays (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I should like the consent of honourable senators to not see the clock for the completion of Senator Kolber's speech. As well, there are two items after his that I should like to deal with. If we can deal with them, it would be a big help to those of us who wish to move the agenda of the chamber forward. Accordingly, I ask for leave not to see the clock.

Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I was in the midst of making copious notes on Senator Kolber's speech. I certainly want to complete my note taking; therefore, we agree.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, is it agreed that I not see the clock?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Prud'homme: Honourable senators, I did not want to be unkind to Senator Kolber. I just wanted to indicate to him that Her Honour was on her feet.

Senator Kolber: For those Canadians who are striving to meet the growing demands of caring for family members with an infirmity or disability, this proposal will enhance federal support.

With respect to individuals with disabilities, the government is sensitive to the special needs of these Canadians and remains committed to providing meaningful assistance. The government has introduced numerous measures in past budgets to assist these individuals. Bill C-24 builds on those initiatives.

The proposals contained in Bill C-24 extend sales tax relief to the purchase of specially equipped motor vehicles for transporting individuals with disabilities. The proposed sales tax rebate will ensure that all individuals and organizations get tax relief on the additional costs of purchasing vehicles that meet their special needs.

Other measures in the area of health care contained in this bill include the continuation of the Goods and Services Tax and Harmonized Sales Tax exemption for speech therapy services. Under the GST and the HST, the list of exempt health care providers is made up of those that are regulated by the health care profession in at least five provinces. The proposals contained in this bill will allow the speech therapy profession more time to meet the eligibility requirements for the provision of tax-exempt services.

The bill also ensures that providers of osteopathic services are exempt from sales tax. In addition, Bill C-24 corrects an inequity with respect to providers of psychological services by ensuring that the sales tax does not discriminate against duly qualified psychologists.

I mentioned in my introduction that the government is committed to a fair tax system for Canadians. Bill C-24 reflects that commitment in a number of areas.

In regard to charities, the government recognizes the important role played by charitable organizations in helping Canadians and in enriching our communities. This bill addresses the special circumstances faced by charities whose main purposes include the provision of care, employment, employment training or employment placement services for individuals with disabilities. Specifically, this bill provides these charities the capacity to compete on an equal footing when selling goods and services to GST-registered businesses.

Bill C-24 also refines the rules for the streamlined accounting method for charities. In addition, it implements the decision by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to extend the 50 per cent rebate of the provincial portion of the Harmonized Sales Tax, which is already available to charities in that province, to certain public service bodies such as hospitals that are also charities.

The extended rebate would be available to those entities in relation to their activities undertaken in their capacity as charities. For example, a hospital authority in Newfoundland that is a charity might also operate a nursing home. The proposed amendment would entitle the hospital authority to a 15 per cent rebate of the HST incurred on expenses related to the nursing home.

A number of amendments contained in Bill C-24 will ensure consistency and fairness in the application of the Goods and Services Tax and Harmonized Sales Tax in a number of key areas. For example, this bill contains amendments aimed at clarifying the sales tax treatment of transactions between natural resource producers and exploration companies. Amendments such as these are aimed at clarifying and refining the application of our sales tax system.

I should like to take a moment to point out that the amendments in this proposed legislation were developed in consultation with the tax and business communities. As I mentioned earlier, this reflects the government's ongoing commitment to make the tax system fairer, more efficient and easier for businesses to comply with.

An illustration of the collaborative process between the federal government and businesses is in the energy sector. This bill proposes a number of changes to streamline the operation of the Goods and Services Tax and the Harmonized Sales Tax in that sector. For example, these proposed measures facilitate export transactions that involve exchanges of oil and gas between Canadian and foreign suppliers. The economy of today is increasingly global in nature. The changes proposed in this bill will help to ensure that Canadian businesses remain competitive in the national marketplace.

With respect to other international commercial transactions, this bill also proposes to make air navigation services provided to carriers tax free in relation to international flights and to refine the rules for exports of goods by common carriers.

In terms of the Visitors' Rebate Program, I should like to take this opportunity to mention that the federal government is well aware of the importance of the travel and tourism industry to Canada's economy. The government has helped to promote Canada as a tourist destination and to support the tourism industry in the creation of employment. An integral part of the federal government's support for the travel and tourism industry in Canada is the Visitors' Rebate Program, whereby the government provides rebates of the Goods and Services Tax and Harmonized Sales Tax to non-residents on eligible goods exported from Canada, short-term accommodation and certain goods and services used in the course of a foreign convention.

As part of a review of the Visitors' Rebate Program, consultations with the tourism industry indicated that the program is generally viewed as an important tool in promoting tourism, particularly the accommodation and convention measures. As a result of the review, the 1998 budget contained several proposals to improve the Visitors' Rebate Program.

Bill C-24 proposes a number of enhancements to the design and delivery of the Visitors' Rebate Program to promote Canada further as a destination for tourists and a place to hold conventions, for example, by reducing the GST and HST costs associated with providing conventions to non-residents.

On the subject of tourism, this bill also proposes changes aimed at providing consistent tax treatment between tax-free international transportation services and various separate charges that relate to such transportation.

Another change will eliminate the requirement that payment for air travel from the United States to Canada be tendered outside Canada in order for the transportation service to be tax free.

I should like to take a moment to mention that the federal government recognizes the importance of consulting with the business community in improving the operation of our sales tax system. In that regard, Bill C-24 contains a number of proposals to improve the rules relating to certain business arrangements and to ensure that the legislation accords with the policy intent.

For example, in the area of financial services, as well as clarifying certain sales tax issues, Bill C-24 provides a more level playing field in the retail debt sector by repealing bad debt relief for closely related financing companies.

In response to industry concerns, this bill also proposes an important measure that will correct an inequity with respect to multi-employer pension plans.


The bill proposes that a rebate be provided to trusts governed by such pension plans, which will place them on a comparable footing with single-employer pension plans with respect to the sales tax they bear. I want to assure honourable senators that the government continues to work toward improving the administration and enforcement of our sales tax system.

Bill C-24 amends several provisions in these areas to update them relative to current administrative practices. Moreover, the bill proposes to achieve greater harmonization of certain administrative and enforcement provisions in the various tax and duties statutes. This bill also contains proposals to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the assessment, appeals and collection provisions overall.

With respect to split-run tax and tariffs, I mentioned earlier that Bill C-24 contains measures relating to other specific levies on certain products. In accordance with the 1997 decision of the World Trade Organization, this bill contains the amendment that repeals the provisions relating to the excise tax on split-run editions of periodicals.

With respect to customs tariffs, the bill implements proposals to increase certain duty and tax exemptions for persons returning to Canada after a minimum period abroad. These proposals will make it more convenient for travellers to clear Canada Customs. This is just another example of the steps we have taken to improve service for visitors and Canadians returning to Canada.

The government remains committed to enhancing aboriginal self-government and has indicated its willingness to put into effect taxation arrangements with First Nations interested in exercising tax powers. In this context, through the Budget Implementation Acts of 1997, 1998 and 1999, the government introduced legislation enabling certain First Nations to impose GST-like taxes on specific products, such as alcoholic beverages, fuel and tobacco products.

This bill proposes technical amendments to the acts I just mentioned to enhance the harmonization of First Nations sales taxes with the GST and to ensure that the definitions contained in these acts are consistent with definitions used in other federal statutes.

In conclusion, the measures contained in Bill C-24 that I have outlined here today propose to refine, streamline and clarify the application of our tax system. At the same time, this bill responds to social issues that are important to Canadians. I therefore urge honourable senators to support Bill C-24.

On motion of Senator Kinsella, for Senator Stratton, debate adjourned.

Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Bill

Second Reading—Debate Adjourned

Hon. Peter A. Stollery moved the second reading of Bill C-19, respecting genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes and to implement the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

He said: Honourable senators, I shall speak to second reading of Bill C-19, the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act. It is a great privilege for me to speak about the merits of this bill, for it is one that has import not only to Canadians but also to every individual of the global community.

Bill C-19 has two purposes. First, it will strengthen the legislative foundation for criminal prosecutions in Canada of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes; and, second, it will implement in Canada the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. This will allow Canada to join the other nations of the world that have already ratified the Rome Statute, which was adopted by delegates of the Rome Diplomatic Conference on July 17, 1998. Once 60 countries have ratified the Rome Statute, a permanent international criminal court will be created in the Hague that will hold individuals who commit the most offensive crimes accountable for their acts.

The establishment of the ICC will be a watershed moment in the history of the world. War and violence have been constant presences in our lives. The ICC will, unfortunately, not be able to scourge the world of these evils, but it will, once established, be a permanent reality that will watch over the international community to protect those basic values common to all peoples. It will also provide the international community with an effective, non-coercive, non-military institutionalized peace enforcement mechanism. The ICC will be an effective tool available to the global community in its fight against tyranny and repression.

The brutalities of the 20th century have dictated that we find appropriate means to counter the atrocities that have become all too familiar to us. The 20th century has seen many instances of genocide, of war crimes, and of crimes against humanity. We have also seen this century new and unfortunate trends, such as the targeting of civilian populations. Whereas once the casualties of war were the combatants, it is now innocent civilians who make up the majority of causalities in modern conflicts.

The ICC will provide humanity with more than a moral imperative; it will provide humanity with a permanent institution, the sole mandate of which will be to ensure that individuals who commit the most reprehensible crimes known to humanity will have to answer for their crimes. The international community has in the past reacted with indifference or inaction in the face of mass murder, rape and torture. The ICC will ensure that the resulting climate of impunity will be replaced with a culture of accountability.

Chivalry, the ideals of which have been modernized and codified in international law, will henceforth be enforced by a capable institution supported by the international community. The ICC will ensure that individuals will not escape justice. These individuals will instead answer to a court that will have the jurisdiction, mandate, power and resources to investigate and prosecute individuals who act contrary to the rules that the international community has agreed upon through the Rome Statute.

The permanence of the ICC provides the world with an ever-present mechanism of justice that will have a deterrent effect and assure that no individual henceforth will be able to feel safe in committing genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity.

The provisions of the Rome Statute set a very high standard for international justice. For instance, no individual, not even an acting head of state or senior government official, will be able to escape the jurisdiction of the ICC if there is sufficient evidence that they committed one of the egregious crimes outlined in the statute. This signifies the overwhelming and unprecedented commitment to universal justice that nations will make when they ratify the statute.

The provisions of the Rome Statute, however, succeed in achieving this commitment to universal justice without infringing on the sovereignty of nations, which has been a fundamental principle of statehood since the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia. A nation's sovereignty is protected through the principle of complementarity. Complementarity provides that individual countries will be responsible for the prosecution of individuals charged with crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes. It is only in those instances where a nation is unwilling or unable to investigate or prosecute someone charged with the most egregious crimes that the ICC will become responsible for that case. In a perfect world, therefore, the ICC would hear no cases; rather, it would serve as the institution that vigilantly watches over the world and ensures that all countries adhere to the highest standards of international law.

Our legislation, which has been heralded by human rights NGOs as being model legislation, is in fact an example of the domestic legislation that will henceforth be the norm of the community of nations.

As we all know, honourable senators, we do not live in a world that is even close to being perfect. I only have to mention the recent tragedies in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia and the still-developing tragedy in Sierra Leone to demonstrate that our world continues to serve witness to atrocities whose magnitude of depravity is difficult to fully appreciate.

The ICC will, I trust, prosecute the individuals who not only commit atrocities but those who profit from the commission of these heinous acts as well. This will be accomplished through provisions in the article that provide that individuals who profit from or are in any way complicit in the commission of genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity would also be subject to prosecution for their contribution to the commission of atrocities.

I have mentioned that the ICC will serve justice blindly. I think it is important to reiterate this point and to emphasize that everyone, regardless of rank, status or citizenship, will be subject to the jurisdiction of the court. The ICC will be a neutral court and will not be subject to any agenda or political machinations. A number of checks and balances have been put in place to ensure that the court's credibility and integrity are beyond reproach.

Among the more important provisions is that the ICC's prosecutor and its judiciary will meet the highest professional standards and will be elected by an assembly of member states parties. The ICC's judiciary will be composed of 18 judges, and no nation may have more than one judge at any one time.


The ICC will also be completely independent of any higher body, including the UN. This will ensure that the political wrangling of the Security Council will not impair justice. The independence of the ICC is one of the improvements over the war crime tribunals that were established in response to the travesties committed in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. While these tribunals were a step forward in the search for justice, they had certain weaknesses including substantial start-up costs and delays. These ad hoc tribunals were also reactive in nature and had no deterrent value. The ICC is a marked improved over the ad hoc tribunals.

Bill C-19 is reflective of the most progressive and meaningful advancement that has perhaps ever occurred in the quest for universal peace at the international level. The quest for this elusive and some would say Utopian peace has caused much ink to be spilled and much rhetoric to be eulogized. Unfortunately, the international community has always been unable to make its idealistic aspirations a reality. The ICC, however, once 60 countries have ratified the Rome Statute, will become a reality and it will serve the interests of those individuals who have written, spoken and prayed that peace would one day be a reality to all people. Canadians should be proud of our country's commitment to peace that will be made once Canada ratifies the Rome Statute.

Bill C-19 would ensure that Canada's ability to comply fully with the provisions of the Rome Statute is met. It ensures that consequential amendments are made to other acts. For example, it would replace the current war crimes provisions in the Criminal Code by creating new offences of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and breach of responsibility by military commanders and civilian superiors.

New offences would also be created to protect the administration of justice of the International Criminal Court as well as the safety of judges, officials and witnesses. New proceeds of crime offences and mechanisms to enforce the orders of the ICC for the restraint and forfeiture of assets are created. Money obtained would be paid into the Crimes Against Humanity Fund, established by the proposed legislation, and may be distributed to victims of offences under the proposed legislation or to the ICC.

Bill C-19 includes offences to protect the integrity of the processes of the court and to protect judges and officials of the ICC as well as witnesses. In particular, it includes offences of obstructing justice, obstructing officials, bribery of judges and officials, perjury, fabricating or giving contradictory evidence, and intimidation. Witnesses who have testified before the ICC would be protected under the Criminal Code from retaliation against them or their families.

Bill C-19 would also ensure that the possession and laundering of proceeds from these new offences would also be offences. This would ensure that proceeds for the worst criminal offences, like genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes located in Canada could be restrained, seized or forfeited in much the same way as proceeds from other criminal offences in Canada. The proposed legislation and the creation of the ICC demonstrate that Canadians and human kind are hopefully progressing.

Carl von Clausewitz, the great 19th century Prussian military strategist, once remarked that "war is a continuation of politics by other means." Clausewitz, however, lived in a time when might was right, when the realpolitik was the norm in international relations.

Since that time, we have seen many developments in international relations designed to bring peace to the world. We have seen the development of international law, the adoption of the Geneva Conventions, the creation and demise of the League of Nations. We have also seen the creation of the UN, which has given us, among other things, the Universal Declarations of Human Rights, a document drafted by a Canadian, John Humphrey.

All these initiatives have not led to peace. Despite these institutions, laws and documents, violence continues to be pervasive in our world. The ICC goes beyond principles. We hope that it will be an institution that will not be subject to political haggling. The Rome Statute is not a lofty document that is unenforceable. The ICC is different. It recommends the evolution of global civility and offers the world real hope that all people will one day know the peace that we as Canadians perhaps too often take for granted.

The ICC will help in the possibility that power as a means to an end will, in the future, become obsolete. The ICC is illustrative of the ability of nations to come together and develop institutions dedicated and devoted to peace and justice.

I am proud of Canada's long-standing commitment to peace and our contribution to ensuring that the ICC becomes a reality. Bill C-19 is Parliament's contribution to ensuring the creation of the ICC. Our ratification of the Rome Statute will be another statement to the global community of Canada's commitment to innovative solutions to our world's problems. Once Canada ratifies the Rome Statute, we shall join the other 12 nations who have already ratified the treaty.

I shall now take a moment to congratulate the Government of Sierra Leone, which, this week in New York, announced that they have domestically ratified the Rome Statute and that they would be ratifying the statute very soon. This means that once they deposit the instruments of ratification, they will become the 13th nation to ratify the statute.

This is a positive and important development for Sierra Leone and its beleaguered people. Sierra Leone has been the focus of substantial media coverage as of late and, unlike today's announcement, the media coverage has focussed exclusively on images that would offend any person. The images that have become ubiquitous in Sierra Leone include those of countless women and children walking the streets with no hands, young girls nursing babies that are the result of rape committed by rebel soldiers, and the stories of how the butchery that has been ongoing in that country has been financed by the trade in diamonds.

The individuals who committed crimes against humanity in Sierra Leone did so because they felt that they were above the law. Because they had the guns, they felt powerful and thought they could act with complete impunity. These individuals were mistaken. The ICC will not allow these cowardly criminals to escape justice. Instead, the ICC will be able to prosecute them and to ensure that justice is served.

The climate of impunity that has existed and contributed to countless tragedies will be replaced by an era of accountability. Those people who felt safe hacking off the hands of children, who felt it was their right to rape young girls and women, and those corporations who felt that it was their prerogative to do business with those who commit mass murder, rape and torture, will learn that the international community will not stand for their inhumane behaviour any longer.

In introducing Bill C-19, the crimes against humanity and war crimes bill, I hope that I have adequately conveyed its importance. This bill will ensure that Canada plays its part in replacing the climate of impunity that has victimized humanity with an era of accountability. It is important that we seriously consider this bill because it represents Canada's commitment to global peace and universal justice.

Honourable senators, I am pleased to support this bill at second reading.

Hon. Sheila Finestone: Honourable senators, the dawn of the new millennium has brought with it great opportunity and great challenge. The end of the Cold War destroyed the walls of antagonism and mistrust that divided the world. Our ability to build this understanding hinges not only on the prospect for global peace in the new century, but also in our involvement in deliberations on complex issues to pave the way and adopt certain blueprints for our cooperation into the next century and presents an important example, that is, the International Criminal Court.

The ICC promises to provide the missing link in the international justice system, remedying the situation where it was easier to bring someone to justice for killing one person rather than for 1,000.

At the beginning of the 21st century, there is a compelling need to undertake a comprehensive review of the application of the principles of international legitimacy with fairness and justice. If we genuinely believe that justice is a basic element to life, we must admit that the absence of justice leads to the total breakdown of all the principles and values in the lives of people.


Bill C-19 identifies one of the main challenges facing humanity and recommends ways to meet those challenges. As national parliamentarians represent the people and act on their behalf within their countries in international affairs and, more than that, through our involvement in the process of ratification of international legal instruments, we are actively participating in the international diplomatic process. We surely recognize that ratifying international treaties can have a long and lasting impact on global politics and on the course of negotiations.

Honourable senators, we shall make the progress we need only if people such as you and I, in addition to states, are involved. Parliamentarians are uniquely positioned to contribute. As representatives of the people and of civil society in general, we can bridge the gap between values and laws. It falls to us, for example, to ratify such essential international agreements as the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which gives us power and duty in equal measure. The International Criminal Court will presage a culture of accountability as an antidote to a culture of impunity. Ultimately, progress at the international level will depend to no small extent on how we address such issues nationally through our Houses of Parliament.

The establishment of the International Criminal Court that will bring to justice perpetrators of crimes against humanity has been a priority of the Canadian government. Canada has been active in the process leading up to the adoption of the Rome Statute. A Canadian official chaired the preparatory conference, Ambassador Kirsch of Sweden.

Senator Roche and Senator Andreychuk have been very active on this file, as has Warren Allmand, who brought to us a great deal of interest and enthusiasm for this approach. We, along with the Inter-Parliamentary Union and Parliamentarians for Global Action, held a very interesting open meeting in the Senate to hear from Ambassador Kirsch. I am very pleased that this bill was brought forward.

Honourable senators, Bill C-19, an act respecting genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes and to implement the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, is before us at a historic moment of remembrance and reminder, of witness and warning, at this fiftieth anniversary of the codification by the United Nations General Assembly in 1950 of the Nuremberg principles, which are symbol and substance, source and inspiration, of the revolution in international human rights law in general and international humanitarian law in particular.

The ICC will have juridical authority to indict individuals from any global killing field and, unlike the ad hoc character of the Yugoslavian and Rwanda war crimes tribunals, the jurisdiction of the ICC will not be chronologically or geographically limited.

It took the globalized horror of the killing fields of the 1990s — the horror of Bosnia, the agony of Rwanda, the brutalized women and children of Sierra Leone and Sudan, the emergence of the unthinkable, ethnic cleansing, and the unspeakable, genocide, as paradigmatic forms of armed conflict in the 1990s — to give the idea of an international criminal court the moral compelability and sense of urgency that it warrants.

Honourable senators, Bill C-19 is designed to implement in Canada the statute for an ICC, to provide a Canadian legislative foundation for the prosecution of war criminals so as to ensure that Canada will not become a haven for war criminals past or present, and to serve as an international model for Nuremberg legacy legislation.

On motion of Senator Kinsella, for Senator Andreychuk, debate adjourned.

Report of Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission

Motion to Refer to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee Adopted

Hon. Dan Hays (Deputy Leader of the Government), pursuant to notice of June 19, 2000, moved:

That the Report of the Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission, dated May 31, 2000, tabled in the Senate on June 15, 2000, be referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, pursuant to subsection 26(6.1) of the Judges Act.

Motion agreed to.

Business of the Senate

Hon. Dan Hays (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, it being later than our normal time of adjournment on a Tuesday, I should like to ask the consent of honourable senators to allow the remaining items on the Order Paper and Notice Paper to stand in their place.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is it agreed, honourable senators?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.


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 tomorrow, Wednesday, June 21, 2000, at 1:30 p.m.;

That at 3:30 p.m. tomorrow, if the business of the Senate has not been completed, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings to adjourn the Senate;

That should a division be deferred until 5:30 p.m. tomorrow, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings at 3:30 p.m. to suspend the sitting until 5:30 p.m. for the taking of the deferred division; and

That all matters on the Orders of the Day and on the Notice Paper, which have not been reached, shall retain their position.

Motion agreed to.

The Senate adjourned until Wednesday, June 21, 2000, at 1:30 p.m.