Debates of the Senate (Hansard)

2nd Session, 36th Parliament,
Volume 138, Issue 65

Tuesday, June 13, 2000
The Honourable Rose-Marie Losier-Cool, Speaker pro tempore

---

Table of Contents

• New Senators
  • Introduction

• SENATORS' STATEMENTS
  • Philippine National Day
  • Mr. Bill Allen
    • Tribute
  • National Public Service Week
  • Church Community
    • Indian Affairs—Financial Effect of Lawsuits by Former Students of Residential Schools
• ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
  • State of Domestic and International Financial System
    • Interim Report of Banking, Trade and Commerce Committee—Government Response Tabled
  • Foreign Affairs
    • Emerging Developments in Russia and Ukraine—Budget Report of Committee on Study Presented
  • Agriculture and Forestry
    • Present State and Future of Forestry—Budget Report of Committee on Study Presented
  • Committee of Selection
    • Seventh Report Presented
  • Broadcasting Act
    • Bill to Amend—First Reading
• QUESTION PERIOD
  • Transport
    • Marine Atlantic—Future of Jobs Located in North Sydney, Cape Breton
  • Environment
    • Possibility of Increase in Funding for Freshwater Research—Request for National Freshwater Policy
  • Atomic Energy of Canada Limited
    • Possibility of Privatization
  • Delayed Answer to Oral Question
  • National Defence
    • Replacement of Sea King Helicopters—Possibility of Imminent Announcement on Procurement
  • Pages Exchange Program with House of Commons
• ORDERS OF THE DAY
  • National Defence Act
    DNA Identification Act
    Criminal Code
    • Bill to Amend—Message from Commons
  • Income Tax Conventions Implementation Bill, 1999
    • Message from Commons
  • Business of the Senate
  • Canada Labour Code
    • Bill to Amend—Point of Order—Speaker's Ruling—Motion to Declare Null and Void Adopted
  • Canada Labour Code
    • Bill to Amend—First reading
  • Business of the Senate
  • Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization and Dissolution Bill
    • Second Reading—Debate Adjourned
  • Income Tax Act
    Excise Tax Act
    Budget Implementation Act, 1999
    • Bill to Amend—Second Reading—Debate Adjourned
  • Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Bill
    • Third Reading—Debate Adjourned
  • Citizenship of Canada Bill
    • Second Reading—Debate Continued
  • Budget Implementation Bill, 2000
    • Second Reading
    • Referred to Committee
  • Business of the Senate
  • Bill to Change Name of Electoral District of Rimouski—Mitis
    • Second Reading
    • Referred to Committee
  • Bill to Change the Name of Certain Electoral Districts
    • Second Reading
    • Referred to Committee
  • Aboriginal Peoples
    • Committee Authorized to Examine Opportunities to Expand Economic Development of National Parks in the North
  • Adjournment

THE SENATE

Tuesday, June 13, 2000

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

Prayers.

New Senators

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: 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:

Raymond G. Squires, C.M.

Jane Marie Cordy

Introduction

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

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

Hon. Raymond G. Squires, C.M., of St. Anthony, Newfoundland, introduced between Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau, P.C., and Hon. Bill Rompkey, P.C.

Hon. Jane Marie Cordy, of Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, introduced between Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau, P.C., and Hon. B. Alasdair Graham, P.C.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore 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 Jane Cordy and Senator Raymond Squires. Both have contributed tremendously to their local communities, to their regions, and now have been asked to contribute to their country with their respective appointments to the Senate of Canada.

Today, it is my great honour and pleasure to welcome a fellow Nova Scotian, a Cape Bretoner and a long-time personal friend to the red chamber, Senator Jane Cordy. While this is Senator Cordy's first day in the Senate, I am confident that with her long-time background in education and community service, along with her well-seasoned political experience, she will quickly adjust to her new surroundings and become an active contributor to the work of the Senate.

Senator Cordy has taught for 30 years in schools throughout Nova Scotia and has distinguished herself as a dedicated educator. She is also a social activist and community volunteer for a number of important causes, such as Phoenix House, a shelter for homeless youth, the Dartmouth Book Awards, Colby Village Elementary School, and her local church in Dartmouth, St. Clement's.

I expect that Senator Cordy's experience with children and families, along with her commitment to public service, will allow her to make a significant contribution to the work of this place.

On a personal note, I look forward to working with Senator Cordy on issues particular to Nova Scotia and to benefiting from her knowledge, expertise and commitment about those issues important to our home province.

Senator Cordy, welcome to the Senate of Canada.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Senator Boudreau: Honourable senators, Senator Squires is no stranger to public life. He has been a civic leader in the St. Anthony community for 20 years. Senator Squires had the distinction of serving as a town councillor for 12 years and as a mayor for eight of those 20 years.

Senator Squires' volunteer service included two years as President of the St. Anthony Chamber of Commerce, two years as President of the St. Anthony Lion's Club, and four years as Chair of the Finance Committee of the Grenfell Regional Health Services of Northern Newfoundland and Labrador.

Senator Squires is a successful entrepreneur, starting Squires Garage Ltd., a gas and automobile service station, back in 1955. He also owned and operated the St. Anthony Motel for a period of 10 years.

Senator Squires has been recognized numerous times for his contributions to his community and to his country. These include being a lifetime member of Lion's International of Canada and of the St. Anthony Lion's Club. In 1997, he was recognized as a Member of the Order of Canada.

His strong commitment to public service in his community and in his province will make Senator Squires a strong representative for his region in the red chamber.

Senator Squires, we welcome you and your addition to the Senate of Canada.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I am pleased to join with the Leader of the Government in the Senate in welcoming our two new colleagues who, as he pointed out, bring with them an experience in public life that will no doubt be beneficial to all of us. It is regrettable, however, that in Senator Squires' case, this will only be true for less than a year. As one who was also involved in municipal politics, I am naturally prejudiced in favour of those who have served on town councils, as decisions taken there impact more immediately on daily lives than those at the provincial and federal levels.

If the St. John's press report is accurate, Senator Squires has said that he has yet to take a decision about what is euphemistically called the clarity bill. This is not legislation —  I know he will agree — that can be decided on overnight. I am sure he would find wide support in his new caucus were he to urge that the bill remain in committee during the summer in order to allow him and others adequate time to assess its merits, or lack of same, as the case may be.

Honourable senators, Senator Cordy also has an extensive background at the local and regional level, and the sentiments regarding those expressed to our other new colleague apply to her as well. I note, however, with some envy, I readily admit, that she will be around somewhat longer than just about the rest of us, another 26 years or so, unless, like another recent arrival from Nova Scotia, the song of the Liberal siren seduces her into seeking a seat in the other place in the next election.

If the Halifax press reports are accurate, Senator Cordy is enthusiastic about the clarity bill or, as some of us prefer to call it, the obscurity bill. Sober second thought is the hallmark of the Senate and its members indulge in it constantly. As Senator Cordy examines the issue more closely and has the benefit of the wisdom of a number of her colleagues, some of them just across the aisle from me, Senator Cordy may also seek more time to come to a final decision on the Prime Minister's legacy.

In any event, whatever their decision on this and other bills, let me extend warmest congratulations to both Senator Squires and Senator Cordy. They have the official opposition's best wishes as they assume their new responsibilities.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

---

(1410)

SENATORS' STATEMENTS

Philippine National Day

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham: Honourable senators, in the final few decades of the over 300-year period of Spanish colonial rule in the Philippines, a brilliant young Filipino student studying in Europe began to write political novels which had a dramatic impact in his homeland. José Rizal's passion for nationalism was not revolutionary in tone, yet when he returned to the Philippines in 1892, he was quickly arrested by the suspicious, overly fearful Spaniards, and finally executed in 1896.

Nearly a century later, in February of 1986, I left my hotel room in Manila to walk in the park across the street. I was part of a historic electoral mission sent to monitor the snap elections called by then president Ferdinand Marcos. It was the first and largest international election-observing mission of that magnitude in the world. I was overwhelmed by the tension gripping the capital city. Those of us who were witness to the one-million strong rallies held for the courageous Cory Aquino were in no way prepared for the rampant violence and terrifying intimidation that was about to be unleashed, and which would shock public opinion across the globe.

As I walked, sleepless and reflecting on what was to come, I noticed a monument dedicated to José Rizal, the Father of Philippine Independence. I wrote the words down on a scrap of paper, which I have kept until this day. I quote:

I wish to show those who deny us patriotism that if we know how to die for our duty and our convictions, what matters death if one dies for what one loves for native land and for adored beings.

Honourable senators, yesterday was Philippine National Day. On June 12, 1898, the Philippines won independence from Spain in an outburst of nationalist fervour partly inspired by the tragic death of young José Rizal.

The election-observing mission I was privileged to be a part of established standards for the world. It was a mission that not only changed the world, but changed the lives of all of those who were part of it. Massive disenfranchisement, the theft of ballot boxes and blatant irregularities in the vote count, along with violence and political killings made this election one of the historic turning points in the conscience of the global community.

We watched as The National Citizens' Movement for Free Elections, or NAMFREL as it was called — a kind of citizens' army that organized over 500,000 volunteers to show the world the magnitude of the rampant vote buying and intimidation —  risked their lives for the future of their children and their children's children.

Honourable senators, in the early dawn of this new century, we often find ourselves chillingly accustomed to the outbreaks of ethnic hatred and the horror of civil wars which continue to haunt our planet.

Today, as we reflect upon the enormous significance of the struggle for Philippine Independence — a struggle which began over a century ago and reached its culmination in the landmark elections of 1986 — we think of this proud and talented people and the lessons they have taught the world about the sheer power of the human spirit. We think of the fine contribution so many Filipinos have made to Canadian life and Canadian society. We think of the steely determination I was privileged to witness on this complex and strikingly beautiful archipelago nearly 15 years ago.

The display of people power in 1986 opened a new chapter in the struggle for real democracy in our time — but it was a new chapter in an evolving story about democratic development and human rights. That struggle continues. I pray that all Canadians will continue to cherish and nurture the seeds of freedom across this planet, not only as a testament to the values we ourselves hold dear, but as critical path to the creation of a better world for our children and our children's children.

Mr. Bill Allen

Tribute

Hon. Thelma J. Chalifoux: Honourable senators, when the Fathers of Confederation struggled with the role of this upper chamber, they took into consideration exactly what the role would be. One of the major roles of this house is to represent the regions, the minorities and the people who really do not have a voice.

Since being in this house, I have noticed that the staff of the Senate have taken on that role as well. Our staff volunteer in many worthwhile projects that are often left in neglect. It is through our staff that many things have been addressed.

Today, I am standing here before you, honourable senators, very proud to talk about one such member of our staff. Bill Allen, a member of the bull gang of the Parliamentary Precinct Services Directorate, has a great concern regarding young people. When he came to my office, we discussed Operation Go Home. Operation Go Home is an organization that works with our homeless children, children who have run away from home and who have suffered. It is through this organization that these children are given the opportunity to reconnect with their families, to work out their issues and to return home.

It is a voluntary organization. I have been honoured to flip flapjacks and hamburgers down in the market for them, but Bill Allen has gone far beyond that. He decided that he wanted to have his head, beard, and eyebrows shaved to raise funds.

I would like to recognize Bill Allen, who is sitting in the Senate gallery.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Senator Chalifoux: Through Mr. Allen's efforts, we have been able to raise $4,190. We are still hoping to reach the $5,000 mark. That really says a lot about our Senate staff.

Once again, thank you, Bill. By your efforts, you have made a great impact on all of us, and especially your son.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

National Public Service Week

Hon. Marie-P. Poulin: Honourable senators, I wish to follow up on what our colleague was just talking about, the quality of the Public Service of Canada. Yesterday, most Canadian newspapers carried a message from our Prime Minister, the Right Honourable Jean Chrétien which read:

National Public Service Week is much more than an occasion to celebrate the skill, wisdom and talent of the members of the Public Service of Canada. It is an opportunity for us to reflect on the professionalism and dedication of those men and women who have chosen to serve Canadians and whose many contributions continue to give us an unparalleled quality of life.

I am constantly struck by the commitment to excellence of the members of the federal public service. Each brings to his or her work an individual perspective and a diversity of experience. They give of their considerable talents to deliver service to Canadians, to develop the policies and laws by which we are governed and to protect and represent their nation.

During this week, please join me in extending thanks to the members of the Public Service of Canada in every department and agency across the country whose devotion to their work better serves us all.

It was signed by the Right Honourable Jean Chrétien.

[Translation]

(1430)

Honourable senators, I had the honour and pleasure of serving our country as a public servant and as an employee of a public agency for close to 25 years. I have worked alongside men and women from a broad range of professional backgrounds but all sharing a dedication to serve Canadians from coast to coast to coast. The quality of our public service, of our human infrastructure, is internationally renowned.

In order to ensure that this quality continues in years to come, the public service is busy not only renewing itself, but also bringing itself fully into the computer age so as to make it more efficient, available and uncomplicated.

This computerization will attract young Canadians who will see in the Canadian public service not only numerous opportunities to work within stimulating teams but also opportunities to excel themselves.

[English]

Honourable senators, as parliamentarians, let us celebrate this week and recognize publicly the quality of Canada's public service.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

[Translation]

Hon. Jean-Robert Gauthier: Honourable senators, following on the remarks by Senator Poulin, I, too, would like to make a few comments on the public service, since this is National Public Service Week.

We are justly proud of it, for it is the best one in the world. I can say this, because I spent several years representing the interests of the Public Service in the House of Commons. Our public service is ideal for the kind of country we are. The public servants are the ones who keep the machinery of government rolling and who continually provide services to the Canadian people. They bring to their jobs their own perspective and their variety of backgrounds. Together, that is what makes up our strength. There are some 187,000 Canadian public servants in close to 70 different departments and agencies, if we include Revenue Canada. Of that number, 96 per cent believe that they play an important role. Of the 52 per cent of them who are women, 51 per cent work in the following categories: executive, scientific and professional, or service and administration. Only a scant six years ago, that figure was 40 per cent. The theme of the week is: Let us celebrate together our commitment to our work and to the pursuit of excellence.

I invite all of you to show recognition of the excellence and professionalism of these Canadians who provide us with professional and non-partisan services.

[English]

Church Community

Indian Affairs—Financial Effect of Lawsuits by Former Students of Residential Schools

Hon. Lois M. Wilson: Honourable senators, on June 10, 2000, thousands of people across Canada gathered in their own regions to celebrate the seventy-fifth anniversary of the United Church of Canada established by act of Parliament in 1925. It was the first such union in the world to bring together, rather than divide, various Protestant traditions. In this we rejoice and ask you to rejoice with us.

However, there is a current matter that calls not for rejoicing but for creativity — the legacy of the Indian residential schools, which not only the United Church but the Anglican, Roman Catholic and Presbyterian Churches are seeking to address. It is widely estimated that more than 10,000 individuals are suing governments and churches for cultural and racial assimilation policies that collapsed a culture and virtually destroyed native language use. The current situation arises from the historic and, in retrospect, misguided social policy of assimilation designed by the Canadian government of the day and managed by the churches, and it requires a creative social policy response. It represents an issue of enormous social importance to the whole country.

Last weekend, while with a group of Ontario citizens touring the Parliament Buildings, I was interested that the tour guide proudly pointed out to us the sculptured frieze in the foyer of the House of Commons. "There is a religious," he said, "educating an Indian child." I piped up, "And those same religious are now being sued."

We now know that the dominant ideology of colonialism and assimilation of Indian people, supported and endorsed by the Canadian government and churches, reflected public opinion as well at that time. The policy was expressed through many government-mandated instruments, including Indian residential schools. The need for a just settlement is one of the most urgent priorities facing Canada today.

Much has been made of the fact that some churches, because of current and future litigation, may be headed for greatly diminished financial resources or even bankruptcy. A more serious complaint is about the litigation-based response which guarantees that many plaintiffs will die before their claims are settled because they took place 30 to 50 years ago; that the compensation they ultimately receive will be dwarfed by the cost of that litigation; and that the adversarial nature of the legal system makes it impossible to redress the wrongs of residential schools through litigation.

If Canada can adopt a more creative approach than litigation, we may yet demonstrate the capacity of Canadians to bring justice, healing and reconciliation between aboriginal people and the dominant society in this nation, in somewhat the same spirit as South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission. What a great opportunity at this juncture in our history to establish ongoing, just and healing relationships among Canadians.

---

[Translation]

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

State of Domestic and International Financial System

Interim Report of Banking, Trade and Commerce Committee—Government Response Tabled

Hon. Dan Hays (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I have the honour of tabling the Government of Canada's response to the fourth (interim) report of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce entitled "Export Development Act."

[English]

Foreign Affairs

Emerging Developments in Russia and Ukraine—Budget Report of Committee on Study Presented

Hon. Peter A. Stollery, Chairman of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, presented the following report:

Tuesday, June 13, 2000

The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs has the honour to present its

NINTH REPORT

Your Committee, which was authorized by the Senate on May 9, 2000 to examine and report on emerging political, social, economic and security developments in Russia and Ukraine, taking into account Canada's policy and interests in the region, and other related matters, respectfully requests that it be empowered to engage the services of such counsel and technical, clerical and other personnel as may be necessary; and to travel from place to place within and outside Canada.

The budget was presented to the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration and in its Tenth Report, the Committee recommended that an amount of $74,637.00 be released for this study. The report was adopted by the Senate on Wednesday, June 7, 2000.

Respectfully submitted,

PETER A. STOLLERY

Chairman

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, when shall this report be taken into consideration?

On motion of Senator Stollery, report placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting of the Senate.

Agriculture and Forestry

Present State and Future of Forestry—Budget Report of Committee on Study Presented

Hon. Ross Fitzpatrick, for Senator Gustafson, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, presented the following report:

Tuesday, June 13, 2000

The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry has the honour to present its

SECOND REPORT

Your Committee, which was authorized by the Senate on November 24, 1999 to examine the present state and the future of forestry in Canada, respectfully requests that it be empowered to engage the services of such counsel and technical, clerical, and other personnel as may be necessary; and to adjourn from place to place within and outside Canada.

The budget was presented to the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration on Thursday, April 6, 2000. In its Tenth Report, the Internal Economy Committee recommended that an amount of $184,275 be released for this study. The report was adopted by the Senate on Wednesday, June 7, 2000.

Respectfully submitted,

LEONARD J. GUSTAFSON

Chair

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, when shall this report be taken into consideration?

On motion of Senator Fitzpatrick, report placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting of the Senate

[Translation]

(1430)

Committee of Selection

Seventh Report Presented

Hon. Léonce Mercier, Chairman of the Committee of Selection, presented the following report:

Tuesday, June 13, 2000

The Committee of Selection has the honour to present its

SEVENTH REPORT

Pursuant to rule 85(1)(b) of the Rules of the Senate, your Committee submits herewith the list of Senators nominated by it to serve on the following committee:

SPECIAL SENATE COMMITTEE ON ILLEGAL DRUGS

The Honourable Senators Carstairs, Kenny, Nolin, Pépin and Rossiter.

Respectfully submitted,

LÉONCE MERCIER,

Chairman

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, when shall this report be taken into consideration?

On motion of Senator Mercier, report placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting of the Senate.

[English]

Broadcasting Act

Bill to Amend—First Reading

Hon. Sheila Finestone presented Bill S-24, to amend the Broadcasting Act.

Bill read first time.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the second time?

On motion of Senator Finestone, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading on Thursday, June 15, 2000.

---

QUESTION PERIOD

Transport

Marine Atlantic—Future of Jobs Located in North Sydney, Cape Breton

Hon. J. Michael Forrestall: Honourable senators, my question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, who is one of my favourite Nova Scotians. I welcome the new Nova Scotian to our chamber and wish her every success as she carves out yet another career in the public service. I know that she will be an asset to this chamber.

As the Leader of the Government knows, the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, and a Liberal leadership contender, is tossing around a lot of negative rhetoric with regard to the fate of Marine Atlantic's headquarters in North Sydney, with as many as 250 jobs and services, including provisioning of the ferries now currently done in Nova Scotia by Nova Scotians. There is a view that Marine Atlantic is solely a Newfoundland and Labrador company and that all jobs in Marine Atlantic — and I quote some Newfoundlanders — "save two persons to tie up the ferry in North Sydney, belong to Newfoundland and Labrador."

Will the minister for Nova Scotia assure Nova Scotians that the operation's headquarters personnel, reservations, purchasing and stores, and stevedoring personnel are maintained in North Sydney where they have been for generations upon generations? Will he ensure that any new employees taken on by this Crown corporation will be judged by their qualifications for the job and not the province of their residency?

Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government): I thank the honourable senator for his question and I thank him for his generous remarks of welcome for our new senator and colleague from Nova Scotia. I suspect at one time she may have been a constituent of the honourable senator.

Senator Forrestall: That she was.

Senator Boudreau: I am not sure where she was at that stage in terms of personal support, but I am sure she was well served by the senator when he was a member of the other place.

With respect to CN Marine, I could not agree more with the honourable senator. It is a company with a national importance and its employees should not by definition come from any area of the country. I have received representations from people in North Sydney concerned about the future of jobs located in North Sydney. One of those representations came from the local MLA, who is also named Boudreau and who succeeded in winning the seat that I used to hold. I like to believe it is because of the association by name, but there may have been other reasons as well. In any event, he, union representatives and some workers have all raised the issue with me.

I have sought assurances from the ministers involved, and I have been assured that no positions which are presently at North Sydney will be moved anywhere.

Senator Forrestall: Honourable senators, I welcome and appreciate that response. Perhaps it can be strengthened a bit with the response I get to my next question.

As the minister knows, unemployment in Cape Breton is 16 per cent to 17 per cent officially and, regretfully, much higher unofficially. We cannot afford to lose any more jobs in Cape Breton, as the minister well knows. The province needs and wants a clarification on the status of Marine Atlantic. Is it just a Newfoundland and Labrador company, or is it a Crown corporation serving the interests of both provinces?

The Premier of Nova Scotia is so concerned about the bickering that he has written the Prime Minister and copied the letter to the Leader of the Government in this place without, I might add, any response.

Will the minister from Nova Scotia assure Nova Scotians that the operation's headquarters personnel, reservations, purchasing and stores, and stevedoring personnel will be maintained in North Sydney and that any new employees will be hired on the basis of their qualifications and not their place of residency?

Senator Boudreau: That is the assurance in general form that I sought, honourable senators, and it is the assurance I have been given by the minister.

I quite agree with my honourable friend, and I also emphasize that no jobs should be given automatically to a Canadian as a result of place of residence. CN Marine is not only a Newfoundland and Nova Scotia company; it is a Canadian company.

(1440)

People from all across this land use it regularly to visit Newfoundland, and vice versa. It belongs to the whole country. That is not to say that, traditionally, certain jobs have not been located in certain areas. The assurance that I have given those concerned is that I have spoken to the minister, and he has indicated that no jobs will be moved from North Sydney.

I am also aware of the letter written by the premier to the Prime Minister, and I am confident that the Prime Minister will give him that same assurance, but I will also be discussing it with the premier.

Senator Forrestall: Honourable senators, would the minister inquire of the Prime Minister whether he might cause a written response to go to the Premier of Nova Scotia?

Senator Boudreau: Honourable senators, the Honourable Senator Forrestall makes a good suggestion. I will do that.

Environment

Possibility of Increase in Funding for Freshwater Research—Request for National Freshwater Policy

Hon. Mira Spivak: Honourable senators, my question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

I have asked questions recently about Dr. David Schindler who, as honourable senators know, is one of Canada's most respected scientists, whose research on acid rain in the 1970s and 1980s helped write environmental legislation all around the world, and who received the equivalent of two Nobel prizes from Swedish foundations. He has just written a study, which will be published shortly, about the state of Canada's fresh water, and his study has been reviewed by John Smol, a prominent freshwater scientist at Queen's, who said that Dr. Schindler hit the nail on the head.

Dr. Schindler predicted that the combined effects of climate change, acid rain, human and livestock waste, increased ultraviolet radiation, airborne toxics and biological invaders will result in the degradation of Canadian fresh water on a scale hitherto unimaginable. He says that without increased funding for freshwater research and a national water strategy, fresh water will become Canada's foremost ecological crisis early in the 21st century.

I have been regularly asking questions about research. Of course, the minister knows that acid rain research, particularly with respect to the Experimental Lakes, was cut back severely when the government began its attack against the deficit.

What are the chances for an increase in the funding for freshwater research, the kind of research for which Dr. Schindler could not get any funds from the government because of needed partners in industry? In addition, what are the chances for a national freshwater policy for Canada?

Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I thank the honourable senator for her question. We have had discussions on this general point, as she points out, in the past in this chamber. I will not repeat the overall initiatives —

Senator Spivak: Please don't; I know them very well.

Senator Boudreau: — on research and development that this government has undertaken, regardless of how worthy and how significant those programs are.

I assume that the honourable senator is asking for a dedicated program specific to the integrity of the freshwater supply in this country. Of course, I will await the report that Professor Schindler is preparing and releasing soon. Obviously, in view of some events that have occurred in this country recently, the environmental integrity of our freshwater supply is a very important and timely topic, one that will have to be considered seriously at both the provincial and the federal levels.

Senator Spivak: Honourable senators, the important point that Professor Schindler makes is that fresh water is multi-stressed. A combination of factors that were not present before make this an urgent matter.

With respect to the second part of my question concerning a national water policy, which has been hinted at by various governments — I think a bill even died on the Order Paper —  and since in recent days the Minister of the Environment has said it is not a federal responsibility, is the government contemplating such a policy? The peace, order and good government clause is always available to be used.

Senator Boudreau: Honourable senators, I did not mean to ignore the second part of the honourable senator's question. I certainly will consult with the Minister of the Environment to seek his views and his plans as to whether a national strategy will be developed.

I must say in passing, as a neophyte in this particular area, that if the fresh-water supply of Canada is at such risk, imagine what it must be like in the rest of the world.

Atomic Energy of Canada Limited

Possibility of Privatization

Hon. Lowell Murray: Honourable senators, I should like to ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate whether the government has taken a policy decision to privatize some or all of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited.

Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I am not aware of any such policy decision at this point in time, but I will ask the minister and return to the honourable senator with the information.

Delayed Answer to Oral Question

Hon. Dan Hays (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I have a response to a question raised in the Senate on June 7, 2000, by Senator Forrestall, regarding the replacement of Sea King helicopters and the possibility of an imminent announcement on procurement.

National Defence

Replacement of Sea King Helicopters—Possibility of Imminent Announcement on Procurement

Hon. Dan Hays (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, since the question is time-sensitive, I shall read the answer. The Minister of National Defence has not reserved the Charles Lynch pressroom for Tuesday, June 13.

[Translation]

Pages Exchange Program with House of Commons

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, I am pleased to introduce to you the pages from the House of Commons, who are here this week as part of the exchange program with the Senate.

Natalie Courcelles is already at work as you can see. She comes from Ste. Agathe, Manitoba, and is studying Spanish in the Faculty of Arts at the University of Ottawa.

Karine Rozon, from Cornwall, Ontario, is studying mathematics in the Faculty of Arts at the University of Ottawa.

On behalf of all the honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate. I hope you will find your week here with us interesting and instructive.

---

ORDERS OF THE DAY

National Defence Act
DNA Identification Act
Criminal Code

Bill to Amend—Message from Commons

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore informed the Senate that a message had been received from the House of Commons returning Bill S-10, to amend the National Defence Act, the DNA Identification Act and the Criminal Code, and acquainting the Senate that they had passed the bill without amendment.

[English]

Income Tax Conventions Implementation Bill, 1999

Message from Commons

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore informed the Senate that a message had been received from the House of Commons returning Bill S-3, to implement an agreement, conventions and protocols between Canada and Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Algeria, Bulgaria, Portugal, Uzbekistan, Jordan, Japan and Luxembourg for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income, and acquainting the Senate that they had passed this bill without amendment.

Business of the Senate

Hon. Dan Hays (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, as the first item for consideration, I should like to call the matter standing in my name under Motions with respect to Bill C-12.

[Translation]

(1450)

Canada Labour Code

Bill to Amend—Point of Order—Speaker's Ruling—Motion to Declare Null and Void Adopted

On the Order:

Motion by the Honourable Senator Hays, seconded by the Honourable Senator Mercier,

That, notwithstanding Rules 63(1) and 63(2), the proceedings on Bill C-12, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (Part II) in respect of occupational health and safety, to make technical amendments to the Canada Labour Code (Part I) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, which took place on Thursday, June 1, 2000, be declared null and void; and

That the Standing Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders review and make recommendations concerning the procedure described in Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, Twenty-second Edition, at p. 545, as follows: "If a bill is carried to the other House by mistake, or if any other serious error is discovered, a message is sent to have the bill returned or the error otherwise rectified."

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Last Thursday, June 8, the Deputy Leader of the Government, Senator Hays, moved a motion with two objectives. The first seeks to nullify the proceedings thus far on Bill C-12 respecting amendments to Part II of the Canada Labour Code. The second objective is to refer the subject of messages between the two Houses and defective bills to the Standing Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders. Once the motion was moved, the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Lynch-Staunton, promptly rose on a point of order to challenge its procedural acceptability. His remarks were followed by numerous interventions from different senators. During the course of these exchanges, a variety of objections were raised concerning the motion in addition to what Senator Lynch-Staunton had raised. As well, there was some discussion about the Senate's practices regarding the suspension of the rules, rescinding decisions and multi-purpose motions.

[English]

I have reviewed the Debates of the Senate of last Thursday. I have also studied Canadian and British precedents and consulted my procedural advisors. I am prepared to give my ruling. In so doing, I will try to deal with each of the different issues that were raised.

One question is whether this motion is legitimate procedurally because it seems to deliberately thwart certain explicit rules of the Senate. It must be noted, however, that rule 58(1)(a) allows for this. Any senator is entitled to propose a motion, after notice, to suspend any rule or any part thereof. As I read this, the motion of Senator Hays seeks, in part, to suspend the application of rule 63 that provides a mechanism for rescinding decisions. Instead, the senator wants to completely nullify and void the proceedings relative to the introduction and first reading of Bill C-12.

[Translation]

I am not certain, in this case, that this is really a substantive issue. In speaking in defence of his motion, the Deputy Leader of the Government indicated that the reference to rule 63 was made out of a sense of caution. In his view, the introduction of a bill and its first reading do not strictly speaking come within the ambit of rule 63. I find this to be a reasonable assessment.

[English]

Rule 23(2) states:

The Introduction and First Reading of Government, Public and Private Bills are pro forma stages of consideration and shall be decided without debate or standing votes. In such cases the provisions of rule 65(3) shall not apply.

[Translation]

This means, in effect, that the introduction and first reading of a bill do not really involve a decision of the Senate. Whenever a bill is introduced, the entry in the Journals, since 1991, simply states that a bill was read a first time. As an ancillary matter, an order is then adopted fixing the day when the bill will be called for second reading. Consequently, a motion to nullify the proceedings for the introduction and first reading of a bill does not properly involve the use of rule 63 which pertains "to an order, resolution or other decision of the Senate." If the nullification motion were to be adopted, the order fixing the date to begin second reading of the bill would be discharged and stricken from the Order Paper since it would be a nullity.

[English]

As I noted, there was considerable discussion last Thursday about rule 63. Although I do not believe that this rule is directly relevant to the motion of Senator Hays, I should like to take this opportunity to make a comment relating to a reference made by Senator Boudreau. In his intervention, the Leader of the Government cited section 36 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which states that "Questions arising in the Senate shall be decided by a Majority of Voices..." Normally, as Speaker, I would have no authority to involve myself in this kind of question. However, this case is an exception because section 36 is also rule 65(5) word for word.

[Translation]

To my mind, there is a conflict between rule 65(5) and rule 63 and also rule 58(2), both of which set a two-thirds majority vote to rescind or correct orders, resolutions or other votes of the Senate. Given the source of rule 65(5), it might be appropriate for the Standing Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders to determine the validity of any rule which appears to conflict with an explicit provision of the Constitution.

[English]

There was also some discussion about the complexity of the motion. An objection was made suggesting that having more than one proposition invalidated the motion procedurally. I do not accept this argument. While there may indeed be two distinct propositions contained in this motion, it does not render the motion unacceptable. In this particular case, there appears to be a relationship or connection between the two of them, and the motion is not out of order because of this.

As I have explained, I find the motion proposed by the Deputy Leader of the Government to be procedurally acceptable. Its effect is to nullify all the proceedings connected with the message that was received June 1 concerning Bill C-12. It was widely acknowledged and admitted last Thursday that the purpose of the motion was to provide an opportunity to bring in a corrected version of the bill. Apparently, there were some textual errors in Bill C-12, as originally transmitted from the House of Commons to the Senate. Once this error was discovered by officials in the House of Commons, the bill was reprinted in its correct form. The Senate must now be seized of this information so that it can do its work properly with the right bill.

[Translation]

In speaking to the point of order, Senator Lynch-Staunton argued that the proper traditional way to do this is by message. The Leader of the Opposition maintained that there was an obligation for the House where the error occurred to send a message to recall the bill. The Leader of the Opposition cited numerous cases in the British Parliament where bills transmitted from one House to the other that were defective were recalled through a message. As it happens, this process is also known to Canadian practice. There is a precedent dating back to 1913 relating to a bill respecting a canal company. On that occasion, a bill was sent to the Senate from the House of Commons that was defective. On February 20, 1913, the sponsor of the bill in the Commons secured the adoption of a motion recalling the bill from the Senate because it had not been printed as passed.

[English]

I am in complete agreement that messages between the two Houses provide the proper formal way to deal with problems of this kind. Furthermore, I am in sympathy with what I perceive to be the irritation underlying much of this point of order. Nonetheless, as an occupant of this Chair, my obligation is to maintain the rules and practices of the Senate. In this specific case, I must note that there is a valid alternative to deal with this problem. This alternative possibility is admitted in the passage of Erskine May that has been cited by both Senator Hays and Senator Lynch-Staunton. At page 545 of the 22nd edition, it is stated:

If a bill is carried to the other House by mistake, or if any other serious error is discovered, a message is sent to have the bill returned or the error otherwise rectified.

[Translation]

The motion of Senator Hays seeks to implement this alternative to rectify the problem of the printing error in Bill C-12. In pursuing this approach, he is doing what was accepted last month when we confronted a similar problem with Bill C-22, a bill dealing with money laundering. Honourable senators will recall that on that occasion, Senator Hays moved a motion on May 11 to declare the proceedings with respect to the introduction and first reading of Bill C-22 null and void. As noted in the Journals of that day at page 594, the motion was adopted after a brief debate. Later in the same sitting, a message was read leading to the introduction and first reading of Bill C-22. Of course, this message contained the corrected text of Bill C-22.

[English]

(1500)

The procedure used with respect to Bill C-22 was reasonable and procedurally acceptable in every way. In the absence of a message asking for the return of the defective bill, there is no reason why the approach proposed in the motion of Senator Hays cannot be used as an alternative. I would also note that the second element of the motion of Senator Hays, if accepted, would mandate the Standing Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders to review this issue and to provide possible recommendations that might prove more satisfactory in dealing with matters of this kind in the future.

Debate on the motion can now proceed.

Hon. Dan Hays (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, in speaking to this motion, I refer to the fact that much has been said about this matter. Accordingly, I believe it is in order for me to be brief.

I simply ask honourable senators to support the motion to declare the first reading and printing of Bill C-12 currently on our Order Paper a nullity. In other words, this resolution will clear the Order Paper for the introduction and first reading of the corrected parchment for Bill C-12 that has been delivered from the other place.

This is a difficult matter and one in which none of us have taken any particular pleasure. It is always better if everything is done correctly. From time to time, errors are made in this place and in the other place. When that happens, the errors must be addressed. I am pleased that we can now bring this matter to conclusion.

The motion also asks the Standing Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders to look into this matter and consider the various options that are available to the chamber in these situations.

With that, honourable senators, I conclude my remarks in support of my motion. I would be happy to answer any questions.

Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I did not intend to participate in the debate; however, Senator Hays in his remarks has anticipated what happens after the disposition by the house of his motion. His anticipation speaks to the supposed message that will come from the other place with a parchment. It may be helpful for all honourable senators to understand the form and substance of that message that we will be receiving.

Is it a new message? What is the authority of that message? We could consider that when it happens, after the disposition of this particular motion, but perhaps honourable senators have some views on that. We are anticipating somewhat what happens after the disposition by the house of this motion.

Senator Hays: Honourable senators, I will treat that as a question and answer as best I can. While I have not physically held the second parchment, my understanding from the comments by Her Honour is that the other place has forwarded to us a parchment signed appropriately and regular in all respects.

This whole matter arises out of the fact that we have already given first reading to a similar document which we received.

During debate on the matter, the question came up, "How do we know this one is correct?" I can only answer Senator Kinsella by saying that it is very rare that there is a parchment error. We can only operate on the assumption that what we receive from the other place is correct, particularly in this kind of situation. There was a parchment error and the House of Commons opted to deal with it by sending to us a corrected parchment. The language used was "the bill as passed" and "the reprint of the bill as passed."

We are awaiting the opportunity for the Table to bring forward, in the manner provided for in our rules, the reprint of Bill C-12 as passed by the House of Commons on May 31 of this year.

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

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Hon. Anne C. Cools: On division.

Motion agreed to, on division.

[Translation]

Canada Labour Code

Bill to Amend—First reading

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore informed the Senate that a message had been received from the House of Commons with Bill C-12, to amend the Canada Labour Code (Part II) in respect of occupational health and safety, to make technical amendments to the Canada Labour Code (Part I) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Bill read first time.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the second time?

On motion of Senator Hays, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading two days hence.

[English]

Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): On a point of order, honourable senators, can we receive advice on where that document will be tabled and when it can be examined by the opposition?

Hon. Dan Hays (Deputy Leader of the Government): Speaking to the matter of order, honourable senators, I believe it is fair to say that this item will receive the same treatment as all bills that are introduced and given first reading in accordance with our rules and printed in our Order Paper and that the document will be available at the Table for examination. Hopefully, that will be helpful to Senator Kinsella.

Senator Kinsella: The document is available from the Table for examination, is it?

Senator Hays: Yes.

Business of the Senate

Hon. Dan Hays (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I wonder if I might use my prerogative now and call as the next order of government business, item No. 4 under "Bills" which is consideration of Bill C-11 involving the Cape Breton Development Corporation.

(1510)

Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization and Dissolution Bill

Second Reading—Debate Adjourned

Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government) moved the second reading of Bill C-11, to authorize the divestiture of the assets of, and to dissolve, the Cape Breton Development Corporation, to amend the Cape Breton Development Corporation Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

He said: Honourable senators, Bill C-11 represents a milestone, a turning point, for the people and the economy of Cape Breton. The bill is part of a balanced approach that recognizes that the people of Cape Breton do not want to live their lives looking into a rear-view mirror, but would rather pursue the opportunities the future holds for them and for their community with confidence and in a climate of certainty.

The essence of Bill C-11 is to provide legal authority for Devco to sell all, or substantially all, of its assets to the private sector. The direct involvement of the federal government in coal mining operations, which began in 1967 with the creation of Devco, will come to an end. However, the end of the government's direct involvement in coal operations does not mean the end of the government's commitment to the people of Cape Breton. That commitment will continue.

The history of Devco and of coal mining in Cape Breton is well known to senators because in 1996 the Senate established the Special Committee on the Cape Breton Development Corporation, and in 1997 its mandate was revived in order to allow further hearings. In view of that work and the reports that were tabled, I do not intend to delve into the past in any great detail, but a context for this legislation is important.

In 1965, the Dominion Steel and Coal Company, which operated most of the region's mines, was near bankruptcy and made it known that it wanted to withdraw from all of its mining operations. At that time, employment in the coal fields was approximately 6,000 people.

In 1967, the federal government stepped in by establishing the Cape Breton Development Corporation, or Devco. Devco had two operating divisions: the Coal Division and the Industrial Development Division. The Industrial Development Division had a mandate to stimulate job creation elsewhere in the economy as the coal industry was rationalized. In 1988, its responsibilities were transferred to the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation, which is not affected by this legislation.

Devco's other division, the Coal Division, took over the leases of Dominion Steel and Coal Company in 1968. Since then, the federal government has heavily subsidized its operations, even as coal production and employment have fallen.

Beginning in 1984-85, Devco was told to develop a commercial orientation and focus more strongly on commercial business principles in an effort to reduce continuous operating losses. In 1991, the corporation was given a mandate to achieve financial self-sufficiency by 1995. Notwithstanding everyone's best efforts, that goal eluded the corporation.

In 1999, on the recommendation of Devco's board of directors, the government agreed to phase out operations at Phalen, one of Devco's two remaining mines, and to privatize the corporation's remaining assets. At the time of the announcement and in the months following, the government agreed to forgive $69 million in loan obligations and to provide an additional $150 million in funds to maintain operations until March 31, 2000. Undoubtedly, additional funds will be required from the treasury for this fiscal year. As well, it is safe to assume that potential environmental liability to date will remain with the Government of Canada.

This latest injection of capital to keep Devco's coal operations functioning is in addition to the almost $1.6 billion that the government has invested since 1967 as Devco's sole shareholder. In only one of the last 32 years has Devco's coal operation not received financial assistance from the government. By any measure, successive federal governments, including the current one, have gone to great lengths to support the coal industry in Cape Breton.

When the government announced early last year its intention to privatize Devco, it was unequivocal about its determination to do two things: first, to support the employees of Devco, and second, to assist Cape Breton through a difficult transition period. My colleague and immediate predecessor, Senator Graham, argued strongly and successfully that, in the difficult circumstances Cape Breton faced, justice and fairness demanded an approach that addressed the needs of both the miners and the community in which they live.

As a result of the planned closure of the Phalen mine and the privatization of the remaining assets, primarily the Prince mine, the workforce engaged in coal mining would be reduced from approximately 1,600 people to 500 people. To assist those remaining 1,100 employees to make a successful transition, the government announced a $111 million early retirement and severance package. When Devco decided, for geological and safety reasons, to shut down the Phalen mine a year earlier than originally planned, the government announced that it would re-evaluate that package.

In that context, it agreed to the union's request for binding arbitration under the Canada Labour Code and to the union's selection of Mr. Bruce Outhouse as the arbitrator. Mr. Outhouse is generally regarded as one of the most experienced, respected and knowledgeable arbitrators in Nova Scotia. Earlier this month, he released his final report, which called for expanded eligibility for early retirement benefits and enhanced medical benefits. This decision will increase the human resources package for the 1,100 miners by approximately $50 million to over $160 million in total. By any standard, this is a significant amount of money.

Honourable senators, the privatization of Devco's operations and the closure of the Phalen mine will have an impact not only on the miners and their families but on the community as a whole. This was clearly recognized by the government when it announced that, in addition to the human resources package to which I have just referred, there would be $68 million in federal funds for economic development in Cape Breton. These funds, of course, were in addition to the normal government funds utilized for the purposes of economic development. Specifically, this is in addition to what has already been provided by the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and by Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation. In fact, since 1967, ACOA, ECBC, and Devco's former industrial development division have received more than $500 million from the federal treasury for economic development purposes in Cape Breton. I have not referred to programs such as those offered by Human Resources Development Canada which also has made significant commitment over the years to economic development on the Island of Cape Breton.

The purpose of the new economic development fund, $68 million, which has been augmented by $12 million from the provincial government of Nova Scotia, for a total of $80 million, is to promote and invest in long-term, sustainable economic growth. It will encourage and enable the people of Cape Breton to look into the future with some measure of confidence in the knowledge that they are not making the journey alone and that the federal government will be there with them, just as it has been in the past.

To ensure that this fund will be something more than Ottawa imposing its own views of economic development on the people of Cape Breton, extensive public consultations were held late last year across the island. Two hundred and fourteen presentations and 210 written submissions were made to a consultative panel which, by the way, included our own former colleague, Senator Peggy Butts. The panel's report, which was released earlier this year, shows that the people of Cape Breton are not lacking in either confidence or ideas for the future.

In my view, that confidence is not misplaced. Just this past March, with an investment of $7 million from the economic development fund, Electronic Data Systems announced that it would be establishing a new customer service centre in Sydney that would create up to 900 new jobs. The process of constructing the facility and hiring the staff is going on even as we speak.

(1520)

Honourable senators, this is an example of a very productive return on government investment for the people of Cape Breton and for the economy as a whole. A $7-million investment from the economic development fund leveraged an additional $25 million in funds that will result in the creation of over 900 jobs in a region of the country that needs them badly.

Though I have emphasized in my remarks the human resources package for Devco employees and the economic development fund, this is not to say that coal mining will cease in Cape Breton. It will have a future, and approximately 500 people will have employment in a new and reinvigorated coal industry. The industry will not be as large as it was, it will not play the central role in the economy it once did, and the government will not own it. The coal industry will, however, for the first time in many decades, be viable and continue to provide ongoing employment.

In June of last year, Devco hired BMO Nesbitt Burns Incorporated as its financial advisor to assist in the privatization process. Nesbitt Burns has held public information meetings, consulted with community and stakeholder groups, and evaluated proposals submitted by prospective purchasers of Devco. The privatization process is now approaching its final stage, and any final agreement of purchase and sale must be approved by Devco's board of directors and the federal government. However, without the authority contained in Bill C-11, there can be no sale.

Honourable senators, it is time to take the uncertainty out of the equation so that the employees of Devco and their families can get on with their lives. To do that, we must pass Bill C-11, which is an important part of a balanced approach for Cape Breton. With this bill, we will be turning a page and moving into the future. I am confident that the people of Cape Breton are ready for the challenge.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Hon. John Buchanan: Honourable senators, I will spend a little time debating this matter today and then adjourn the debate until tomorrow in order to review some of the reports and to review the remarks of the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I will then confer with other people, and I believe the Leader of the Government knows who I mean.

Let us not hold anything back here. There is a significant amount of interest in this bill in Cape Breton. There is a significant amount of interest throughout the media in Cape Breton. The Leader of the Government in the Senate knows that just about every media outlet in Cape Breton has been calling about this bill; therefore, there is a lot of interest in the bill.

I have no difficulty in agreeing with Senator Boudreau that Cape Bretoners are confident, intelligent, hard-working, and always have been. The minister is a Cape Bretoner, I am a Cape Bretoner, and we both understand and appreciate that fact. However, I oppose some features of this bill.

First, coal mining has been an integral part of the economy of industrial Cape Breton since the 1700s. There are honourable senators in this chamber who understand and appreciate that many senators would not be in their positions today if it had not been for the coal industry. Senator Graham is well aware of that, as am I.

My grandfathers were miners in the old Port Morien mine, Dominion 1-A, in the Caledonia colliery, and my father worked for the coal company from when he was a teenager until his death. Therefore, I am aware of the fact that the economy of Cape Breton through the years tended to be either up or down according to the coal industry and the steel industry.

Let us not be naive. All honourable senators know that the coal industry over the last number of years has diminished. A number of years ago, 14,000 men were employed in the coal mines of Cape Breton. Over the years, through new technology, retirements, and coal markets, that number has been reduced substantially to a point where today we have approximately 1,200 people employed in the industry, and that number is being reduced. That same situation applies to the steel industry. We who grew up near those two industries can understand that fact. It is difficult to recall what they were and compare it to what they are today, but it is understandable.

If, as the Leader of the Government said, coal mining will continue in Cape Breton, that is fine. However, the minister also says that there will be a new vista of coal mining opening in Cape Breton without defining that new vista. The new vista of coal mining is certainly not the Prince colliery, which has been in operation for years. Its longevity is something in the range of maybe 12 to 15 years or a little longer.

Honourable senators, I tend to be careful in the use of the word "longevity" because we heard the Devco officials just a few years ago tell us that the longevity of the Phalen colliery was anywhere from 12 to 20 years, which was reduced to 15 years and then to 10 years. Suddenly, its longevity was only three years, and it closed completely a little over a year ago.

Honourable senators, no new vista for coal mining in Cape Breton exists under this particular bill. What is in this bill is the plan for the closure of Devco and the privatization of its assets. I will not object to that. Privatization is coming and has been for years. However, I do object to the treatment of the existing miners.

Honourable senators, I know the Devco act well. I was in the Nova Scotia legislature in 1967-68 when the Devco act was introduced. It was mirror legislation. For those senators who do not know, the Devco act was primarily brought into existence by Allan J. MacEachen, one of our former senators. He pushed for the Devco bill. One of Devco's first employees, Senator Graham, is sitting right across from me today. Thus, we understand the necessity of Devco. I watched the Devco act pass through our legislature when the coal mining interests of Cape Breton were to be taken over by the federal government through the Cape Breton Development Corporation. The coal mines in Inverness and the mainland were to be the responsibility of the federal government, and the steel industry was to be the responsibility of the provincial government. That was the genesis of the entire situation.

Honourable senators, it is interesting to note that the Cape Breton Development Corporation was founded at a time when the coal industry was going downhill. It was moving out. Markets were not as good as they had been for coal, and all of a sudden, as honourable senators will recall, the price of oil shot up substantially throughout the 1970s.

(1530)

The provincial government of the day looked at it and rightly said that it was ridiculous as the price of electricity was going through the roof. As a member of the opposition, I found it pleasant in a political sense. However, it certainly was not pleasant for the people of Nova Scotia, who had to pay higher rates of electricity because of the escalation of the cost of oil. We burned oil then, and not so much coal.

The opening of four new coal-generating plants and the refurbishing of a new plant in Trenton reversed that situation. Through those actions, we reached the point where 80 per cent of our electricity was generated from coal. The new Point Aconi, which was one of the finest generating plants in the world, and still is today, is also part of that development. It is a fluidized bed plant that reduces SO2 by 90 per cent.

Through the 1970s and 1980s, we were generating 80 per cent of our electricity from coal. Thus, the Cape Breton Development Corporation had to change its direction from closing coal mines, which they still were doing and rightly so, to opening new coal mines — Lingan, Phalen, Point Aconi and others. More coal was needed to fire up the boilers of the Nova Scotia Power Corporation. Devco entered into long-term contracts with the power corporation.

Today we find ourselves with a strange situation. If we did not have good thermal coal that could be mined in Cape Breton, of a quality required by the power corporation, I would be the first one to say that that would mean the end of the coal industry of Nova Scotia. It could not continue any longer. However, that is not the case.

Honourable senators, we must put this situation in perspective. First, we do have men in Cape Breton who are expert miners. They know their trade. They know the mining industry. In coal mining circles throughout the world, Cape Breton miners are known as the best to be found anywhere in this world. We have many good miners. Second, do we have the coal? Refer to any report from any company, including Montreal Engineering, Kilbourne Engineering, and the Nesbitt Thompson engineering report. All of those reports say that we do have the coal. There are millions of tonnes of coal that have never been touched. Most of that coal is in the harbour seam of the Sydney coal fields off the Donkin-Port Morien area.

Honourable senators, I know about those. In order to push forward the new mine in 1979, the provincial government of the day put in $5 million to bring drill ships up from the United States to drill bore holes, delineate the seams of coal, and to bring up some of the coal to be assessed. We found that some of the coal was excellent thermal coal, and some was excellent metallurgical coal.

The scene was set to open a new coal mine in Cape Breton, the first since the Lingan and Phalen collieries. In 1980, we had drilled the drill holes, had found the coal, and had delineated the location of the coal seams through expert people from Kilbourne Engineering and from the great mining engineers of Devco —  people like Steve Farrell and Dr. Bill Shaw of Antigonish, who probably know the Sydney coal field better than any other person.

It was ready to go. It was started by Allan J. MacEachen. Allan J. MacEachen and I met on many occasions. After he returned to government in 1980, he was determined that the new Donkin mine should proceed. Everything was in place.

Between the early 1980s and the late 1980s, the two tunnels were driven. Coal was taken out and assessed. It was assessed in the United States, it was assessed by Devco, and it was assessed in other areas. It was proven to be good thermal coal with a mixture of metallurgical coal, which made it better for thermal purposes. It was acceptable to the Nova Scotia Power Corporation. Some $85 million was spent to develop the two tunnels. Keep in mind that those tunnels are there today. Those tunnels are at the coal face, ready to go.

Many reports say that it will cost $400 million to develop Donkin. That is a lot of nonsense. Kilbourne Engineering, in the mid-1980s, set the levels of production. That mine could be brought into fruition and completion for $100 million, for about half a million tonnes of coal. An investment of $140 million would be the equivalent of about 1 million tonnes of coal. Senator Graham was on the committee when we looked through those figures.

Why am I talking about a new coal mine? The Nova Scotia Power Corporation uses about 2.5 million to 3 million tonnes of coal a year in its seven generating plants. From where would the coal come? This is the nub of this bill.

The pensions and the severance issues are important. However, it is probable that the Nova Scotia Power Corporation will buy coal from Columbia and from Hampton Roads in Virginia where they stockpile coal from Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Michigan to be shipped out. That coal will be coming into the Sydney coal piers to fire up the boilers of the Cape Breton thermal generating plants. Yet, we have our own coal right there ready to be mined. Why not mine it? The tunnels are there.

The problem is that we are being asked to pass a bill, and we do not know what will come after the bill.

Senator Taylor: Privatization.

Senator Buchanan: I have no problem with that. The honourable senator is a mining engineer, was on the committee and should know better.

We are being asked to vote on the bill blindly. We do not know what will happen with the coal contract between the Cape Breton Development Corporation and the Nova Scotia Power Corporation.

The Nesbitt Burns report says that the major assets available to interested parties who want to buy Devco are in the Prince colliery. That is absolutely right. The Donkin mine site and resource block is full of millions of tonnes of coal.

Honourable senators, we must keep in mind that the Government of Nova Scotia would need to approve any sale of assets before they could be transferred. I understand that some people here in Ottawa are starting to say that the province does not own those assets. The province does own them, and it has been proven.

The province owns the Donkin mine site and resource block, the railway and railway maintenance centres, the deep water port, the coal preparation plant of Victoria Junction, the lifting and banking centre, and the central maintenance facility. The Nesbitt Burns report lists investment highlights and goes on to describe the long-term supply agreement with Nova Scotia Power Corporation.

(1540)

What does that mean? It means that the 47 million tonnes of coal reserves at Prince and significant additional coal resources at Donkin are for sale. If an American company located in Florida were interested in buying all of these assets, my first question would be, "How many coal mines do they now operate?" I do not think they operate coal mines. Perhaps they do, but I do not think so. I think they are coal brokers.

A businessman looking at all these assets — and they will go for fire sale prices, there is no question about that — will say, "Here is this sweet Prince colliery. It is operating and producing coal. In addition, here is a long-term exclusive contract with the Nova Scotia Power Corporation to sell coal to them." How much coal? About two thirds of the requirements of the power corporation will be there for this new owner to supply.

Will the new owner develop the Cape Breton coal to fulfil those terms, or will they accept coal from existing coal stocks that they have in Hampton Roads, Virginia, Colombia, or somewhere else in South America? Will they be carrying coal to Cape Breton when we have all kinds of coal there now? Is there anyone in Cape Breton who will develop the new coal mine and use the $80 million that has already been spent? Yes. There is a group called Donkin Resources Limited, which is a private company made up of confident Cape Bretoners in the coal industry. There are coal engineers, coal mining engineers, geologists and business people from Cape Breton. They are ready to go. I have spoken to them every week or two for the last year.

Honourable senators, do you know what they need? They have to be sure that they will get the coal contract with the Nova Scotia Power Corporation. Businessmen here know that. You will not lend money or have a bank lend you money unless you have the security of something. That security is the long-term supply agreement with Nova Scotia Power Corporation, which is set out in Nesbitt Burns' report.

If there were no coal and if there were no requirement for it, if it were coming to an end, and it was decided not to subsidize the situation any longer, fine. However, we have not just a few million tonnes but upwards of 47 million tonnes in Prince and up to 1 billion tonnes in the Sydney coalfields in the harbour seam. That is a lot of coal.

I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate: Would it not be better to know who the buyer is and what the intention of the buyer is with respect to the coal in the ground in Cape Breton? Will they mine it? If so, fine. Even if it is a company coming from outside, that is fine with me. If they can do it and develop our own coal mines in Cape Breton and supply our own Nova Scotia Power Corporation, then that is fine. I do not know that, though. I am not about to vote for something which is totally unknown. What I do know is that there is a group out there which is ready to mine the coal in the Sydney coalfields at the harbour seam.

The other problem I have concerns the 900 miners. Someone said to me the other day in Halifax, "My goodness, why are they talking about the miners being treated miserably? I understand hundreds of them have run to the Devco offices in Sydney and Glace Bay saying that they want the severance." That is true. Some 404 miners are eligible for severance. Some of them will receive $20,000, others $50,000, while still others will receive up to $70,000. However, the tax will come off that. That is all right; it happens. After taxes, it will probably amount to one year's pay. For others, it will not equal a year's pay. What are they to do after that?

The Leader of the Government in the Senate and the leaders in the House of Commons say, "Well, we will retrain them." I have gone through this before. The provincial government has gone through it, too. They will retrain coal miners in Cape Breton. What they will do is give them jobs in the call centres. They are talking about taking a 48-, 49-, 50-year-old miner who has been working in the coal mines for 20 to 24 years, putting a headset on him and giving him work in a call centre. Come on, honourable senators, let us be realistic. They probably would do it; but I understand there are thousands of others who have already applied for those jobs.

They say, "Second, we will try train them to be carpenters and plumbers." What will they do? I have not seen too many construction cranes on the skylines of Glace Bay, New Waterford, Sydney Mines, North Sydney or Sydney. I do know that the coal is in the ground and it can be mined. They are able to mine coal. Someone says, "Why would they want to go underground?" That is their life. That is what they have done, and that is what they do. They are coal miners. It irks me when I hear people from Toronto say, "Why would those coal miners want to go down in the earth to mine coal?" One of the reasons is they do not work on Bay Street. That is what they do. They want to work in the coal mines when the coal is there.

There must be a better arrangement for those men who will be out in the cold. There has been talk about the 500 men who will operate the Prince mine. For how long will they operate it? What about the 400 men who after six to eight months will have nothing? They have no pension. They will have Employment Insurance for a period of time and that is it.

A section of the legislation which pertains to Devco, one which everyone seems to have forgotten, states that, before closing or substantially reducing the production of coal from any coal mine operated, the corporation will ensure that all reasonable measures are adopted by the corporation, either alone or in conjunction with the Government of Canada, Nova Scotia or any other agency, to reduce as far as possible any unemployment or economic hardship that can be expected to result from the closing or reduction in production.

Honourable senators, I shall have more to say about this bill tomorrow. Therefore, I ask that debate be adjourned in my name.

Hon. John G. Bryden: Honourable senators, I have enjoyed the amount of brown sugar that we have already got from the honourable senator. It is my understanding that on debate a senator has 45 minutes in reply. I assume that the clock was running. What is left of the honourable senator's 45 minutes?

Senator Buchanan: I only spoke for about 10 minutes!

Senator Bryden: It sounded more like 50.

My question is this: Is it legitimate for an honourable senator to say, "I will adjourn the debate and talk tomorrow on the same matter"? Can that honourable senator then expect to speak for 45 minutes tomorrow?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, in answer to the question raised by Senator Bryden, the Honourable Senator Buchanan spoke for 27 minutes. Therefore, he still has 18 minutes left which he may use tomorrow.

On motion of Senator Buchanan, debate adjourned.

(1550)

Income Tax Act
Excise Tax Act
Budget Implementation Act, 1999

Bill to Amend—Second Reading—Debate Adjourned

Hon. Marie-P. Poulin moved the second reading of Bill C-25, to amend the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act and the Budget Implementation Act, 1999.

She said: Honourable senators, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today at second reading of Bill C-25, the 1999 income tax amendments bill. I realize, of course, that budget 2000 was brought down in February. The measures in that budget, as honourable senators know, will be contained in separate legislation.

Most of the measures in Bill C-25 were announced in the 1999 budget in three non-budget measures. All measures in this bill deal with reducing the tax burden on Canadians and improving the operation and fairness of the tax system. Before discussing them in detail, I wish to take a few moments to set this legislation in context.

In designing changes to the tax system, the government has always been guided by its four fundamentals of tax policy. First, our approach to tax relief must be fair. Second, our initial focus must be on personal income taxes where the burden is greatest and where Canada wishes to readjust with other countries. Third, Canada must have an internationally competitive business tax system. Fourth, tax relief must not be financed with borrowed money.

Our first four budgets, those of 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997, provided targeted tax relief aimed at students, charities, persons with disabilities, and children of parents with low incomes, areas where relief would be most beneficial.

With the deficit eliminated in 1997-98, the 1998 budget began providing broad-based relief, again starting with those most in need, low- and middle-income Canadians. The 1999 budget builds on the tax reductions introduced in 1998. Both provided substantial tax relief for individuals and Canadians with families. Together, the 1997, 1998 and 1999 budgets reduce the income tax burden of Canadians by some 10 per cent, and we are going further. Combined with the measures that were announced in the 2000 budget, annual personal income tax reductions will total 22 per cent by 2004-05. As promised by the Minister of Finance in his fall update last October, the 2000 budget set out a five-year tax reduction plan, a plan similar to that with which the government tackled the deficit.

Briefly, the five-year tax relief plan indexes the tax system, reduces the middle tax rate, and cuts taxes by at least $58 billion by 2004, an average annual tax cut of 15 per cent, with even greater relief for families with children. However, as I just indicated, these measures will be introduced in another bill.

Today, we are dealing with measures from the 1999 budget, and I wish to turn now to the specific measures contained in this bill. Honourable senators will quickly see how these measures fall in line with our commitment to both tax relief and tax fairness.

[Translation]

Honourable senators, this bill includes three general tax relief measures relating to personal income tax.

First, the bill raises the amount of income on which Canadians do not have to pay tax. Once again, the additional amount announced in the 2000 budget will be debated separately.

Second, the basic personal supplementary tax credit for low-income people included in the 1998 budget was extended to everyone and raised $175. These two measures mean that all taxpayers will have a basic tax credit that allows them to earn up to $7,131 tax-free, an increase of $675 over 1997.

Third, the bill eliminates the 3 per cent general surtax for all taxpayers. Once accounts were balanced, the 1998 budget provided for the elimination of this surtax for taxpayers earning less than $50,000 a year, and its reduction in the case of those earning between $50,000 and $65,000 annually. This surtax is now totally abolished. Subject to this bill's passing Royal Assent, these measures took effect on July 1, 1999. Thanks to measures passed in the 1998 and 1999 budgets, some 600,000 Canadians have been removed from the tax rolls.

Furthermore, taxes have been reduced for all of Canada's 15.7 million taxpayers, with low-income taxpayers benefiting the most. For example, a typical one-income family with four children and an income of $30,000 or less annually will not pay net income tax on their income, whereas such a family earning $40,000 annually will enjoy a 15 per cent reduction in federal income tax.

Honourable senators, one of the many measures of this bill intended to improve equity in the tax system concerns the sharing of income with minor children.

Income is shared when an individual with a high income allocates some of his or her income to someone with a low income, generally someone close, in order to avoid tax. In most cases, only people earning high incomes with a dependent and certain types of income benefit fiscally from income sharing.

However, a tax system that allows certain taxpayers to share their incomes through a business structure while denying the same thing to others is unfair.

Accordingly, to increase the equity and integrity of our tax system, there will be a special tax intended specifically for the structures designed for the sharing of income with minors. Individuals 17 years of age or less will have to pay this special tax on taxable dividends and other benefits attributable to stocks not listed on Canadian and foreign markets, which they receive from a trust or a partnership.

In addition, the income they receive from a partnership or a trust and drawn from a firm operated by a relative will also be subject to this special tax. As a tax equity measure as well, Bill C-25 also deals with the application of income tax to retroactive lump sum payments on which individuals must pay tax in the year they receive them, even though these payments may in large measure apply to previous years.

Because of the progressive rate structure of the income tax system, the tax payable on these payments can be appreciably higher than it would have been if payments had been staggered and taxed upon receipt. Those who receive eligible retroactive lump sum payments of $3,000 or more will be able to calculate the tax under a special relief mechanism.

(1600)

This special relief mechanism will apply to certain office or employment income, superannuation or pension benefits, spousal or taxable child support arrears and EI benefits.

To improve the fairness of our tax system, Bill C-25 also changes the way income tax applies to Hutterite colonies —  which own property on a collective basis and typically carry on farming and related businesses. For income tax purposes, these Hutterite colonies qualify as communal organizations and are subject to section 143 of the Income Tax Act.

However, for communal organizations, the earned income is allocated to only one designated spouse per family, while wages and salaries paid to another spouse employed in farming and other businesses are tax deductible. In order to maintain a roughly equivalent level of taxation on income earned by Hutterite colonies and other communal organizations, the income will now be allocated to both spouses in a family.

Again, to ensure tax fairness, Bill C-25 also deals with misrepresentations by third parties. As honourable senators know, penalties are imposed when taxpayers attempt to evade payment of their fair share of taxes through fiscal misrepresentation. However, there is no specific rule for assessing the application of penalties to individuals who make false statements regarding the fiscal obligations of another taxpayer.

The bill introduces two new civil penalties applicable to third parties who make false statements that could be used for tax purposes. These changes stem from various recommendations made by the Auditor General, the public accounts committee and the technical committee on business taxation. One concerns tax shelters and other tax planning arrangements, while the other concerns advising or participating in a false tax filing.

A culpable conduct test, consistent with the types of conduct for which the courts have in the past applied civil penalties to taxpayers under the tax law, will be instituted. This test will apply to conduct which is tantamount to intentional conduct, shows an indifference as to whether the tax law is complied with, or demonstrates a wilful, reckless or wanton disregard of the law. The bill also provides a reliance on good faith exception to the culpable conduct standard. However, this exception will not apply to persons who promote or sell tax shelter arrangements.

In addition, at its headquarters, the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency will do a review before penalties are assessed on third parties. The agency will also seek the opinion of the private sector when drawing up guidelines with respect to civil penalties applied to third parties.

The next tax equity measure I will address concerns the tax situation which arises when the value of a registered retirement savings plan, or RRSP as we know it, or of a registered retirement income fund, or RRIF as we know it, is included in the income of an individual for the year of his death.

This inclusion in income is offset when the RRSP or RRIF is left to a surviving spouse, or to dependent children or grandchildren, if there is no surviving spouse. In such cases, distributions must be included in the beneficiary's income. Mechanisms still exist, however, that have allowed spouses or minor or disabled children to defer the tax on these distributions.

The 1999 budget deals with the situation where RRSPs or RRIFs are left to dependent children, even if there is a surviving spouse. The children, and not the estate, will now be responsible for reporting this income. This measure is designed to help dependent children at the time of a parent's death, since the tax rates for dependent children are not very high.

Honourable senators, tax relief for disabled Canadians represents an ongoing commitment of our government, and the 1999 budget continues the process of providing additional assistance.

The tax credit for medical expenses will be extended so as to cover the cost of group home care for seriously disabled individuals, therapy for such individuals, and tutoring for those with learning disabilities. In addition, audio books for individuals with perceptual disorders who are enrolled in educational institutions will be added to the list of material qualifying for a tax credit in the case of those who are disabled.

Still relating to tax credits, corporations producing electrical energy or steam to be used to generate electricity will now be eligible for the manufacturing and processing tax credit. This will help the electricity generating sector to be competitive, particularly in light of the changes and restructuring currently taking place in North America.

Honourable senators, Bill C-25 also remedies one other tax anomaly: underpayments or overpayments of corporate taxes. Corporations with complex returns often find themselves with new assessments simultaneously, covering several taxation years, as well as with income and expenditures that are deferred from one taxation year to another.

Under the present rules, interest on corporate tax arrears for a given taxation year may be calculated at the same time as interest on an overpayment of an equal amount for a different taxation year. Since interest on refunds is taxable, while interest on arrears is not deductible, this can result in a net cost after taxes for the corporation, and this is complicated by the different interest rates for refunds and arrears.

In order to remedy this situation, in future there will be a mechanism whereby a corporation could offset income tax refund amounts, which are taxable, against income tax arrears amounts, which are non-deductible, in calculating interest.

Honourable senators, this bill includes one other measure designed to assist the Canadian investment service sector in holding its own against international competition. Suppliers of Canadian services have reportedly had trouble attracting foreign clients because the latter fear that non-residents would have to be taxed in Canada under our tax rules. Under a new rule, and provided certain conditions are met, a non-resident investment fund would not be considered to be carrying on business in Canada solely by reason of engaging a Canadian firm to provide financial management-related services.

Finally, there are two other budget-related measures in this bill that relate to labour-sponsored venture risk capital corporations, LSVCCs, and the tax supplement applicable to major deposit institutions.

(1610)

The purpose of the measures contained in this bill is to encourage labour-sponsored venture capital corporations, LSVCCs, to focus more on small business investments and to clarify the rules that apply when an LSVCC is part of a merger or other corporate restructuring.

Bill C-25 also extends to October 31, 2000, the 12 per cent capital tax surcharge under Part IV of the Income Tax Act.

[English]

Honourable senators, there are three measures contained in this bill that were not part of the 1999 budget. With the passage of this bill, the federal government's tax-sharing agreements with self-governing Yukon First Nations will be given effect. In particular, this means that the federal government will then vacate 75 per cent of its income tax room on settlement lands for the Yukon First Nations governments to occupy.

Another measure exempts the income of the trust established by the federal provincial and territorial governments to provide compensation to hepatitis C victims from income tax.

The third non-budget measure deals with the treatment of demutualization, which is a process enabling mutual insurance companies owned by their voting policyholders to convert to ordinary stock companies owned by their shareholders. Cash demutualization benefits will be treated as dividends eligible for the dividend tax credit. There will be no immediate tax benefit for a policyholder receiving a share as a demutualization, but there will be a capital gain when the share is sold.

Honourable senators, each measure contained in this bill improves the fairness and operation of our Canadian tax system. Each measure addresses an inequity, inconsistency or discrepancy in the tax system. There are no contentious measures in this bill. I urge all senators to accord this bill speedy passage so that we can move on to the additional tax relief measures that were announced in the 2000 budget.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

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

Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Bill

Third Reading—Debate Adjourned

Hon. Lucie Pépin moved the third reading of Bill C-23, to modernize the Statutes of Canada in relation to benefits and obligations.

She said: Honourable senators, it is with the same pride that I had on May 2, when I made my speech at second reading, that I rise today to defend at third reading Bill C-23, to modernize the Statutes of Canada in relation to benefits and obligations.

It is not my intention to repeat word for word the arguments that I put forward at second reading. My convictions remain the same. We must pass Bill C-23 for reasons of justice, equality among people, tolerance and openness to diversity, as well as respect for each other. This is what fairness is about.

The bill to modernize the Statutes of Canada in relation to benefits and obligations applies the same regime of benefits and obligations to common-law partners of the opposite sex and of the same sex. Honourable senators, I stress the fact that, with Bill C-23, same-sex couples may be getting benefits, but they are also having obligations imposed on them. Too many interveners in this debate have seen only the benefits and neglected to consider the fact that same-sex couples will now have obligations.

It is the duty of the government to guarantee the fundamental rights and freedoms of all Canadians; it must honour the provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as the courts have held in Miron v. Trudel and M. v. H. The first decision established that the government had to afford the same treatment to married and common-law couples equally by giving them the same benefits and imposing on them the same obligations. In M. v. H., the Supreme Court of Canada concluded that governments had to treat opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples equally. This is what Bill C-23 does, namely, first, extend to common-law partners, of the opposite sex or not, certain benefits and obligations that apply currently only to married couples, and, second, extend to common-law partners of the same sex the benefits and obligations that apply currently only to common-law partners of the opposite sex.

Today, I propose to update the main arguments the witnesses put forward before the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. This exercise will help us understand that Bill C-23 must be passed in a society that values equality, a value inscribed in the heart of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, an inescapable fact of Canada's political culture.

Before I go further, however, honourable senators, I must tell you something. When I examined the various briefs submitted to us on the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, I felt I was facing a bit of a backlash and it made me think of what historians now call the "Persons Case." In the second half of the 1920s, the question was raised as to whether women were persons under the meaning of the British North America Act, and consequently, whether it was the intent of the Fathers of Confederation that women should ever sit in the Senate. The Supreme Court of Canada at first said no, then the legal committee of the Privy Council in London contended the opposite. All that is to say, honourable senators, that, in committee, some witnesses doubted whether homosexuals were entitled to the respect due all human beings. I find that incredible!

On May 2, in this chamber, I stated my disagreement with the rule of interpretation providing that:

...the amendments made by this Act do not affect the meaning of the word "marriage", that is, the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

I then argued — and I repeat my position today — that this rule was completely unnecessary since, first, Bill C-23 has nothing to do with marriage and, second, the meaning of marriage is clear in law.

In committee, a number of witnesses — including the Coalition gaie et lesbienne du Québec and the Coalition québécoise pour la reconnaissance des conjoints et conjointes de même sexe, the Canadian Labour Congress, EGALE, the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, and Professor Winifred H. Holland — also concluded that the rule of interpretation was pointless. What is more, according to Professor Holland, one perverse effect of the rule would be to suggest, and I quote from her brief:

...that there is a difference between marriage and a common-law relationship: these relationships are not truly similar, and the latter is less deserving of respect. They are not truly equivalent.

A number of us are in complete agreement with Professor Holland: the rule of interpretation damages the fragile reasonable compromise that Bill C-23 made possible. While, at the outset, a sincere desire to include underlay Bill C-23, the rule of interpretation brushes this noble intention aside by imposing a different level of recognition and value — in short, by again dragging the issue of exclusion, which should have no place in modern society, into the legislative arena. As the Coalition québécoise pour la reconnaissance des conjoints et conjointes de même sexe pointed out, the rule of interpretation:

...reinforces the exclusion of gays and lesbians and turns it into a symbol.

(1620)

I agree with EGALE, who felt that the rule of interpretation exposes Bill C-23 to constitutional challenge. Before long — in fact, it is already happening — gays and lesbians will be asking why marriage is reserved only for heterosexual couples, and the courts will have to decide the matter.

A number of witnesses called for the rule of interpretation to be abolished. One of them, a far from insignificant one, the Canadian Bar Association, said the following:

Integrating a definition of marriage into Bill C-23 is superfluous; it does not fit in with the purpose of the legislation and constitutes an invitation to further challenges on the inclusion of gay and lesbian couples in Canadian society.

I share that opinion, honourable senators. That said, I move on to an analysis of the key arguments presented by witnesses. Generally speaking, recognition of same-sex couples polarized witnesses into those opposed and those in favour. Each made reference to clearly different rationales: the first justified their position based on precepts relating to what marriage and family ought to be, while the others referred to values such as equality, justice and openness to diversity.

A number of witnesses stating their opposition to Bill C-23 referred to the fear that it would be a death sentence for what we know now as the family. In their view, marriage involves one man and one woman, and particularly the possibility of having children. For a number of them, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops among them, it was precisely this unique and distinct contribution of marriage to the stability of the family and the future of society that justifies maintaining the distinction between marriage and other types of relationships.

Along the same lines, some witnesses argued that children born and raised in a two-parent heterosexual context, in which the parents were duly married, would have greater assurance of balance and success in life.

Honourable senators, I will not question these opinions, I shall simply quote Madam Justice L'Heureux-Dubé, who said the following in Canada v. Mossop [1993]:

It is possible to be pro-family without rejecting less traditional family forms. It is not anti-family to support protection for non-traditional families. The traditional family is not the only family form, and non-traditional family forms may equally advance true family values.

A document published in 1998 by Statistics Canada, entitled Growing up with Mom and Dad? The Intricate Family Life Courses of Canadian Children, revealed the diversity of Canadian families and, as the title of the document suggests, their complexity. In 1994-95, 76 per cent of children 11 years old or less lived in a family whose offspring were the biological or adopted children of the two members of the couple, 14.5 per cent were growing up in a single-parent family headed by a woman, 1.1 per cent were growing up in a single-parent family headed by a man, and 6.1 per cent were in a rebuilt or complex family in which the two parents combined children born of different parents.

In short, the "traditional" family dominates the family universe in Canada, although other family structures are appearing now, which, in my opinion, deserve the same recognition and consideration by the government. The very positive effect of Bill C-23 is therefore to eliminate this archaic distinction between so-called "legitimate" and "illegitimate" children.

Honourable senators, to give you an idea of how lifestyles have changed in Canada and how, consequently, the family structure has diversified, I want to draw your attention to another very interesting change. During the eighties, the percentage of Canadian children who were born of married parents who had not lived together before went from 60 per cent in 1982-83 to less than 40 per cent ten years later.

Moreover, that reduction was not offset by another phenomenon, that of a man and a woman living together but deciding to get married before starting a family. The document concludes by saying:

Rather, it is the rejection of marriage as an institution which, after having affected the lives of couples, is now affecting the lives of families.

When we look at these figures, we can understand why some people are concerned and try by every possible means to preserve the so-called traditional family. Will this have to be done at the exclusion, if not denigration, of other lifestyles?

Honourable senators, allow me to quote Justice Iacobucci who said, in the Egan case:

On a broader note, it eludes me how according same-sex couples the benefits flowing to opposite-sex couples in any way inhibits, dissuades or impedes the formation of heterosexual unions. Where is the threat?

Honourable senators, in committee we heard some very harsh comments on gays and lesbians, comments no person living in a free and democratic society thinks he or she will ever hear. These comments, some of which went so far as to associate homosexuality with incest and paedophilia, in contradiction with all statistical data, supported my conviction that it is imperative to pass Bill C-23. While it cannot be claimed that this bill will change mentalities, it will at least send a very clear message that everybody is equal before the federal state, regardless of sexual orientation.

In short, those who based their opposition to Bill C-23 on a somewhat rigid view of the family did so by rejecting the very values that underlie the bill to modernize the Statutes of Canada in relation to benefits and obligations: the equality of all before the law, tolerance and diversity, respect for the choices of others even if they are not the same as one's own.

Still in the camp of those opposed to Bill C-23, many insisted that the bill should apply to all relationships of dependency, such as a mother and daughter living together in a relationship of financial dependency. What happens when the daughter decides to enter into a common-law relationship with a man or a woman, or to marry the love of her life? Will the new couple thus formed have to assume financial responsibility for the mother, through support payments, for instance? Will the mother's pension be based on the couple's income? Will this pension have to be reported in the couple's income? On the mother's death, will the couple receive her survivor's pension?

The issues surrounding relationships of economic dependency are important and complex. They have far-reaching consequences for individuals and for society as a whole. More extensive studies are needed in order to determine whether, in all cases, or at least in which situations, familial relationships should be treated in the same way as those of married or common-law couples.

Far from preventing discussion of the issue of whether or not to recognize the nature and reality of many kinds of relationships of economic dependency, Bill C-23 will stimulate it. In fact, this reflection is already underway because the more general issue of relationships of dependency has been referred to a parliamentary committee for further consideration. Right now, however, one thing I think is certain is that there is a difference between marriage or a common-law relationship, on the one hand, and a relationship with another member of one's family, on the other. The implication is that it might not be possible to impose the obligations attaching to marriage and to common-law relationships on other relationships of dependency.

Indeed, while the benefits inherent to a dependent relationship would probably be welcomed in other types of dependent relationships, it is not sure that the legal obligations relating to marriage and common-law unions should be imposed on individuals with regard to the family members with whom they are living.

To conclude with the arguments against Bill C-23, some said that recognizing same-sex couples would be too costly for the public purse. Let us say, first, that according to the Department of Finance, the changes brought about by Bill C-23 will be financially neutral or nil. But above all, recognizing same-sex couples is a human rights issue, not a money issue.

(1620)

To quote EGALE:

Discrimination is unacceptable in a free and diverse society, and equality is not for sale.

As stated by Claudine Ouellet, of the Coalition gaie et lesbienne du Quebec, gays and lesbians have always been full citizens when the time comes to pay taxes; it is only fair that this full citizenship be recognized when the time comes to access the benefit package provided to the public by the federal government.

I now come to the arguments presented by the many witnesses who welcomed Bill C-23, with varying degrees of reservations. The reservations expressed by several witnesses, as I mentioned at the beginning of my speech — had to do with the fact that there was no need for the rule of interpretation. I will not dwell on this now. However, this rule is a real accomplishment in the sense that it managed to displease both the opponents to Bill C-23 and its supporters.

Numerous witnesses supported the government's judgment saying that Bill C-23 was first and foremost a matter of fairness and equality. The government has a duty to see that its legislation reflects these two values. When extending benefits, the government has to look to see whether there are corresponding duties, and whether it would not be appropriate to impose obligations in order to ensure that there is fairness and equality. The Modernization of Benefits and Obligations Bill is intended to apply the same set of benefits and obligations to common-law spouses whether they are of opposite sexes or the same sex. It goes further than that, however, because it makes it possible to bring the facts in line with the values, by putting an end to the inconsistency between the value of equality as expressed by section 15 of the Charter, on the one hand, and the numerous discriminatory provisions toward same-sex couples that were a part of a number of federal statutes until now, on the other.

That said, honourable senators, I cannot help but draw to your attention the fact that there are a number of ways of interpreting equality. On the one hand, some would say that equality consists in treating everyone in the same manner, regardless of who and what they are. That is the approach of equality of treatment, the one that is adopted in Bill C-23. The most obvious example of this is the goods and services tax. When people buy something, they pay the same sales tax, whether they earn $1,000 or $100,000 a year. Of course, the government has certain provisions to correct the inequality that this causes, for example a partial refund of the GST to low-income families. This understanding of equality does not take into account the fact that, in society, individuals are not equal because they do not benefit from the same living conditions. In that context, applying the same treatment to everyone cannot help but reproduce inequality in the guise of equality.

Another understanding of what is known as substantive equality involves taking into account the fact that, at the outset, people do not unfortunately enjoy the same conditions in society and developing strategies to help them achieve this equality. The best example of this is positive action. On the assumption that there exists an inequality to be corrected, the aim of positive action is to treat entities differently so that, in the end, equality may be achieved. Pay equity uses to the same rationale.

With respect to social sexual relationships, the government has understood that and regularly submits its decisions to a comparative analysis between the sexes. Does a decision have the same consequences on women and on men? Most of the time the answer is no. Why not do the same for heterosexuals and homosexuals? The Coalition québécoise pour la reconnaissance des conjoints et conjointes de même sexe made a proposal in this regard. They proposed:

...that the officials of the departments and government agencies concerned with applying the legislative changes for the legal recognition of same-sex couples be given proper training on heterosexism and lesbian and gay realities in order to better serve this new clientele.

(1640)

We need only think of the obligation involved, in claiming a GST refund, of revealing the identity of one's partner. Naturally, all the information given to the Revenue Agency is confidential. We all know that leaks are always a possibility, and, in certain circumstances, they may have very negative consequences. It is in this perspective that the Coalition québécoise pour la reconnaissance des conjoints et conjointes de même sexe recommended that the federal government apply the legislative changes arising from Bill C-23 with:

...flexibility, discretion and discernment...knowing that the revelation of one's sexual orientation may cause prejudice in certain circumstances.

I agree with this proposal. In a society that holds heterosexuality to be the norm, announcing that one's partner is of the opposite sex is a mark of conformity; saying that that partner is of the same sex might expose one to prejudices of all sorts. I will give you an example. Recently, I read in an article in Le Devoir that a social association for lesbians and gays had been formed at CFB Val Cartier in the Quebec City area. Although lesbians and gays are now allowed in the Canadian Forces, the person interviewed still wished to remain anonymous. This person also mentioned that the group had received all sorts of strange calls.

Canada claims to be an open, diverse and modern society. Allow me to say, honourable senators, that after all I have heard in the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, I now know that Canada also has certain pockets of resistance to homosexuality. I would even go so far as to say that there is localized homophobia in Canada. It is in response to this unfortunate state of affairs that I again share with you the proposal put forward by the Coalition québécoise pour la reconnaissance des conjoints et conjointes de même sexe, which recommended:

...that the federal government, in partnership with organizations defending the rights of gays and lesbians, undertake a public education campaign to counter homophobia and discrimination with respect to gays and lesbians, particularly in the workplace.

I shall not repeat what I said on May 2 with respect to young people who try to commit suicide, and who sometimes succeed, when they realize they are homosexual. According to many of those who appeared before the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Bill C-23 is a step in the right direction, because it sends a message that, before the federal government, all Canadians are equal, regardless of sexual orientation. You know as well as I, honourable senators, that although the legislation can help to change mentalities, this objective cannot be achieved without a public-education campaign.

Honourable senators, at some time or another, you have all heard jokes about homosexuals — about women too, no doubt! Some argue that these jokes are harmless and that trying to eliminate them is nothing more than political correctness. Recently, Quebec took a look — a very timid one — at this issue in the course of a certain public debate on humour and homosexuality. It is to be hoped that this debate will continue, that it will pick up steam and that it will extend to other social minorities. What is certain is that a public information campaign is desirable in order to eliminate the continuing widespread prejudices against lesbians and gays.

As the Canadian Bar Association pointed out, Bill C-23 follows a growing tendency across the country to recognize in legislation gay and lesbian couples. Bill C-23 is not groundbreaking legislation. Many municipal and provincial governments, and also major companies, have already extended to their employees who are in a same-sex relation the benefits enjoyed by heterosexual employees. It is to be hoped, as many witnesses have said, that Bill C-23 will spur other private companies and municipal and provincial governments that have not already done so to recognize same-sex couples.

Bill C-23 is synonymous with progress. It is the result of the evolution of Canadian society and we already know that new challenges lie ahead. As noted by some witnesses, including the Canadian Bar Association, Bill C-23 leaves in the dark bisexuals and transsexuals who, before long, will also claim their right to equality. Those of you who are Liberals know that the young people in our party voted in favour of recognizing marriages between lesbians and gays. Some witnesses who testified before the parliamentary committee raised the issue of the right of lesbian and gay couples to adopt children. Before long, some will raise the issue of lesbians and access to new reproductive technologies, which are still reserved for heterosexual couples. These are just a few of the challenges that the lawmakers will have to meet in the coming years.

Honourable senators, I am asking you to support Bill C-23. As I said at the beginning of my speech, this legislation must be passed for several reasons. First, it is a necessary measure to fight discrimination against lesbians and gays. It is also necessary for reasons of fairness: Homosexuals assume obligations, but they should also be entitled to the benefits provided by the Canadian state. It is necessary to pass Bill C-23, because it is a matter of fairness: Laws must comply with section 15 of our Charter. Finally, it is necessary to pass Bill C-23 as an expression of tolerance and openness to diversity, and respect for other people.

[English]

Hon. A. Raynell Andreychuk: Honourable senators, I wish to make a few comments with respect to Bill C-23. I do not question the need for this legislation. I think it is simply a question of justice to have had this bill. In fact, this bill should have been brought forward much earlier. The government should not have waited for the courts to rule. Once the issue of the extension of benefits to common-law relationships was recognized, it was only fair, just and legally binding that we move to recognize all common-law situations. I believe that is what Bill C-23 does.

I do not wish to belabour the point that I support the bill. However, I wish to make three comments about issues that have come up, particularly in the study of the bill before the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. The bill was supposed to be about same-sex benefits, but the introduction of clause 1.1, for the first time entrenching in a piece of legislation the definition of marriage, has made it somewhat political. Certainly, it is not good public policy. This issue inflamed both sides. Representatives of the gay community indicated that it was an invitation to a legal challenge, like waving a red flag in front of a bull. They were not happy with the inclusion of clause 1.1 in the bill, nor were those who wanted to uphold a more traditional definition of marriage.

Honourable senators, the minister came before us and indicated that this was not a bill about marriage and that it was not a bill to define, extend or change in any way the concept of marriage. If that were true, and if, in fact, the rest of the bill has nothing to do with marriage, one wonders why the government of the day would have chosen, as public policy, to have introduced clause 1.1. What it did was to bring in, through the back door, an issue that I believe is emotional and highly charged and that could only be properly brought forward by a government by way of separate legislation. If the government wished to do something with respect to marriage, it should have done so and it should have been done through the front door. In introducing clause 1.1, I do not know which constituency the government was trying to please or whether it was trying to muddy the waters by trying to appease both sides. What it has done is destroyed the chance of having a reasoned public debate and the chance for education, both of which are very important when we move into human and social concepts.

Both sides appearing before the committee were adamant in their positions, sometimes even intolerant of the other side's positions — perhaps one side more than the other. However, the government did not serve the public debate of social justice in Canada by adding clause 1.1 to the bill. It deflected the true meaning of justice with respect to the rest of the bill, and, in my opinion, inflamed the issue in a way that is counterproductive in our pluralistic society.

I can only say that if the Liberal Party is so adamant on this issue of changing the definition of marriage, they should do so through the front door and they should do it as a public policy issue separate from the issue of same-sex benefits.

I believe that Bill C-23 as originally drafted was adequate and fair and should have been left without the inclusion of clause 1.1. As many groups pointed out to us, that clause was added at a late hour when they could not comment on it because they had already testified before the committee in the other place. Placing the bill before us at this late hour of this session put us in an awkward position because to delay it any further would have jeopardized what this bill intends to accomplish.

If this government was interested in bringing Canadians together, in rationalizing our differences, in trying to find some way, through education and dialogue, to accommodate a fairer and more just position on the issues of marriage and homosexuality, it certainly chose a poor method by adding clause 1.1. This clause is not in keeping with the traditions of good Canadian legislative practice espoused by any party in the past.

Honourable senators, I truly regret that clause 1.1 was added to Bill C-23. In fact, I would have moved an amendment but for the fact that many groups said that, because the bill came to us so late in our session, an amendment would have delayed the very just and fair provisions within Bill C-23 if it was returned to the House of Commons. I did not find sufficient support among colleagues to put the amendment, and consequently I did not.

I wish to raise two other points, both having to do with the aboriginal community. Again, in Bill C-23, we find that the Government of Canada has not lived up to its constitutional responsibility to consult the aboriginal community. Inserted in Bill C-23 are clauses 89 and 148, which will have Bill C-23 apply, first, to the Cree-Naskapi and, second, to the Indian Act.

While I think it is fair that same-sex benefits be uniformly applied across Canada, there is a constitutional requirement that the government consult with the aboriginal people before it moves on any issue. I have heard from the aboriginal community that they do want fairer benefits for their people and that they are not avoiding the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but the Charter speaks of the customs, practices and traditions of the aboriginals that must be respected, as well as of equal opportunity for all people. It is disappointing, if not outright shocking, that the government would not have consulted with the Cree-Naskapi before introducing Bill C-23, nor with the aboriginal community and the chiefs' organizations before introducing the clause with respect to the Indian Act.

In our committee, honourable senators, the Department of Justice stated, quite frankly, that it was not until the bill was in progress and reaching the Senate that any attempt to contact the aboriginal community seriously took place. It is to the credit of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs that it took the issue seriously. The chair, Senator Milne, wrote to the minister to indicate that this issue had to be resolved before we could proceed on those clauses. We received a letter from Minister Nault indicating that there would be full discussion with the Naskapi nation before the implementation of clause 89. That is not good enough. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms says that not only should they be consulted before any action is taken, but their position should be taken into account.

(1650)

Thankfully — perhaps thankfully for the government more than the aboriginal people — Senator Milne was able to get a letter from Minister McLellan. I will only quote from one part of her letter, where she says:

Thus, if after the regulations are discussed fully with the Naskapi Nation and the other affected Nations, no possible way can be found to draft those regulations in a manner which will satisfy the concerns of the communities and the Charter protections, without being inconsistent with the Agreements, then the Agreements would have to be amended, which of course would require the agreement of the parties. However, I continue to believe that there are ways of drafting regulations in connection with these amendments which can satisfy the concerns of the community in a manner that is consistent with the Agreements.

Based on the two letters the committee received, the committee's report tabled approval of Bill C-23 on the understanding that those two clauses, namely clauses 89 and 148, will not be implemented until the Charter is complied with.

Honourable senators, I have been in the Senate for seven years. Each and every time a bill affecting aboriginals comes forward, it is always in the late stages that the government hustles to say that they will consult with the aboriginal community and that they will take them into account in the regulations. Each time we are told that there was some error and that it will not happen again.

Honourable senators, I sat through the entire debate on the gun registration legislation, when there were not adequate consultations with the aboriginal community. We sat through Bill C-49 and were told that this would not happen again. Now we have Bill C-23 before us. With every bill that comes before us, it seems as though something goes on in the Ministry of Indian Affairs and Northern Development that causes these consultations not to take place. Is it a question of the Ministry of Justice? Is it a question of the Ministry of Indian Affairs and Northern Development? I do not know, but it is one government and one government only that must begin to take seriously its fiduciary responsibilities to aboriginals. It must live by the Charter and it must start consulting well in advance. This legislation did not come up suddenly; the government knew about it for a long time. In other words, there was ample opportunity to consult with the aboriginal community.

Having said that, I have consulted with the Cree-Naskapi, and they feel that they will once again accept the assurances of the government that it will not move without proper and adequate consultation. As I speak on this issue again, I trust that the government will understand that I, for one, will not pass another piece of legislation that comes before me that says "we will consult" with the aboriginal community. I will only pass legislation that says "we have consulted." That is a small difference, but it is a fundamental difference to the aboriginal community.

In that vein also, I will put out as a warning the fact clause 148 of the bill touches on the Indian Act. Again, we had to raise the issue that the plight of aboriginal women is not being addressed, for whatever reasons. We were told after Bill C-49 that there would be a review of the issue of property and women's rights —  everything that has been embedded in the Indian Act and requires consultation with the aboriginal community. I have yet to hear that the aboriginal community will not consult with the government. I would first need to know that the government has made attempts to consult. Again, we have been assured that Minister Nault has said — as did Minister Jane Stewart before him — that the government will start to address the issue of Charter implications in the Indian Act and that there will be a full study and consultation with the aboriginal community. I simply ask: How much longer do the aboriginal communities have to wait to get this matter sorted out? There has been a fundamental abridgement of the rights of aboriginal women and the rights of same-sex and common-law couples in aboriginal communities. These rights must be clarified. That can only be done jointly with the full cooperation and the initiative of the government. The government must take this seriously. These issues go on year after year, and I am in a position to say that seven years is long enough.

Honourable senators, I admire the aboriginal community for having waited much longer than seven years on this issue. These ancillary issues are fundamental issues that permeate Bill C-23 and so many other bills. I think it is good public policy that the government begin to address these issues in the aboriginal community. I hope that at least my intervention has some impact, and I thank the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for sharing my views on the importance of these issues. I hope that collectively we make an impact on this government to change its practices in this area.

Hon. Anne C. Cools: Honourable senators, in her remarks, Senator Andreychuk referred to a particular letter from the Minister of Justice. I believe she quoted from a part of it. Could she table the entire letter?

Senator Andreychuk: There are two letters: one from Minister Nault and one from Minister McLellan. I understood that they had been tabled along with the committee's report, but I have no difficulty, with the agreement of the Senate, to table them again.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, is leave granted to table the letters?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

On motion of Senator Cools, debated adjourned.

Citizenship of Canada Bill

Second Reading—Debate Continued

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Finestone, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Gauthier, for the second reading of Bill C-16, respecting Canadian citizenship.

Hon. A. Raynell Andreychuk: Honourable senators, it is a distinct honour to speak to Bill C-16 at second reading. It is my intention, on behalf of the opposition, to highlight several areas of concern and deficiencies that senators may wish to debate as this legislation moves through the chamber.

Honourable senators, Bill C-16 replaces Bill C-63, which died on the Order Paper with prorogation last year. The committee in the other place heard many witnesses when studying Bill C-63. The majority of the committee in the other place took the position to hear only a few witnesses under Bill C-16. The Senate, without the benefit of a pre-study, will be dealing with this matter for the first time.

Honourable senators, Bill C-16 is entitled "An Act respecting Canadian citizenship." Although revisions to the Citizenship Act are timely, we must all be aware that this bill does little to address what Canadian citizenship means to the entire body politic of this country, not just to Canadians who are recent immigrants.

At the start of this millennium, we should seek to unite Canadians with a sense of pride about being Canadian. As I travel, those outside Canada identify us with the values and the security of the rule of law not found often in their own countries. They identify with what it is to be a Canadian.

(1700)

Immigrants to this country have movingly talked of what it means to become a Canadian citizen and, yes, those of us born here count this gift of birth as a blessing.

Surely, a bill respecting Canadian citizenship in the year 2000 requires a preamble and an embodiment of what it means to all of us to be a Canadian citizen. In our opinion, Bill C-16 is a demonstration of this government's failure to understand and define what Canadian citizenship should mean and does mean to over 31 million inhabitants of this great land.

The need to define this country was best realized by Joe Clark who referred to it as a "community of communities" in the early 1970s, a reference to the tremendous cultural geographic and linguistic diversity of Canada. Nearly 30 years later, no other definition or euphemism has captured the simplicity and the accuracy of this characterization, this bill included.

Contrary to the principle of "community of communities," this government seeks to philosophically homogenize the peoples of Canada through revision of citizenship legislation and through the tests used to determine who is granted citizenship status.

Bill C-16 seeks to draw ever more sharply the distinction between citizens born in Canada and those who emigrated to Canada or gained status as refugees. While there may be need to have a public policy debate to gain an understanding and consensus of how stringent the rules of entry should be for immigration, including refugee rules, this is not the same as the Canadian citizenship rules. Surely, there is a duty to treat all Canadian citizens equally before the law.

Due process is something that we as Canadians need and, indeed, have come to expect as part of being a Canadian. This issue is further compounded in perception because we have not yet seen the proposed revisions to the immigration and refugee legislation. Are the ills of entry — if they do exist — a function of immigration and refugee rules, practices and procedures, or are they a misuse of citizenship?

In December 1997, then minister of citizenship and immigration Lucienne Robillard commissioned a review of citizenship and immigration issues. Some of the very contentious proposals following that report were the employment of a new residency test for citizenship applicants, language requirements for citizenship eligibility, and stripping the quasi-judicial character from the citizenship-granting process. These propositions were hotly debated and now form the bedrock of this bill.

In some quarters, there is a feeling that it is too easy to get into Canada and too difficult to remove abuses. I reiterate: These are issues quite distinct from citizenship. If all Canadians are deemed equal in the eyes of the law, we must ensure that, with the implementation of this proposed legislation, we do not undermine the security and well-being of all who acquire citizenship other than by birth. If the normal rules of law do not apply, if the process appears politicized, if the full right to defend one's self does not exist, then the taint of suspicion and unease hangs over everyone who was not born here.

That is the most questionable element of Bill C-16. When one reads Bill C-16, looking for expediency and efficiency clause by clause, it seems fine, particularly if the mindset is that there is a perpetrator lurking out there. However, if you value citizenship and wish all to be treated equally, then one understands the unease and disappointment voiced on behalf of and by naturalized citizens.

Canada's treatment of naturalized citizens, not to mention immigrants and/or refugees, is checkered at best. Often we have welcomed them — such as the Vietnamese boat people, for example — but such has not always been the case. We need only remind ourselves of examples like the internment of Japanese citizens during the Second World War, of Ukrainians and others during the First World War, of the Chinese head tax, or of the turning back of the S.S. St. Louis.

I am sure you all have family or friends who have shared the wrenching stories of how people fitted into this country while maintaining the cultural heritage of their background. Some faced obstacles known to all immigrants. Some saw outright prejudice. All landed and lauded the Canadian approach of multiculturalism and not assimilation.

Honourable senators, perhaps the greatest flaw with this legislation is that it suggests that immigrants and recently sworn-in Canadians are the principal objects of this legislative change. To the contrary, it is our position that any legislation that seeks to redefine and clarify what Canadian citizenship means should aim to inculcate a citizenship definition that is all-encompassing and does not discriminate based on time of arrival to our shores. Indeed, the legislation, as is, does not advance the belief that citizenship legislation affects all Canadians, be they just off the boat, so to speak, or in Canada for six generations.

Recent immigrants to Canada have just as much right to acquisition of citizenship status as do our landed citizens. In this regard, there should be no distinction in this bill or in any other proposed legislation. To do so abrogates our moral, ethical and legislative obligation to enact laws which speak to all Canadians and not just some of them.

Clause 12 is commendable in that it states that a citizen, whether born in Canada or not, is entitled to all rights, powers and privileges and is subject to all the obligations, duties and liabilities to which a person who is a citizen at birth is entitled or subject and has the same status as that person. I would have preferred a definition of citizenship that would have encompassed those born on our soil and those born elsewhere, but at least clause 12 tries to equalize both categories.

Against this backdrop, however, I would raise several major concerns. First, the loss or deprivation of citizenship is being moved into a bureaucratic and political realm of the executive with little or no scrutiny by the judiciary as a check or balance. Therefore, no objective test exists beyond the political realm of the day.

For example, the House of Commons amended the bill to include the words, "knowingly concealing material circumstance" in clauses 16 and 17. That was not in the government proposal. It would be meaningful to include the word "knowingly" so that people who may have misrepresented a situation or not filed material but who were unaware of the existence or the significance of that requirement would not be caught. The inclusion of the word "knowingly" makes it much fairer.

Clause 17, which is one of the most troublesome clauses, requires the minister to make a report under clause 16 when the minister is satisfied that a person has obtained, retained, renounced or resumed citizenship by false representation or fraud or knowingly concealed material circumstances.

(1710)

The minister, under clause 17, must then send a notice. However, it is interesting — and I hope the committee can explore this — that clause 17(1)(a) simply says:

...the person does not, within 30 days after the sending of the notice, request...

The bill continues. As the bill is not specific, are we to fall back on the Federal Court rules that there must be some knowledge of that notice by the person against whom it will be directed? It is not clearly stated here and therefore it raises the anxiety level of many who have looked at this bill.

The bill now excludes any appeal through the judicial process. Much was made in the other place and by government officials that there will be judicial reviews, but there is no appeal from the Federal Court, trial division.

We have come to understand in Canadian law that neither judges nor bureaucrats nor ministers are infallible. We have a situation before us where a minister makes a finding and gives notice against a person; in turn, that person can go to the trial division, where, once the trial judge makes a decision it is final. Judicial reviews are not equal to appeals. It would take me too long to differentiate and explain the same. Suffice it to say that, to have proper checks and balances, an appeal should be allowed.

Some argue that appeals are time-consuming. Yet, in civil and criminal cases, we have appeals. In minor criminal matters, people are entitled to an appeal because we understand that there can be errors and that these errors can be detrimental to people.

The deprivation of citizenship from a person is so grievous an issue that an appeal is warranted. I cannot think of many other cases in civil law that would meet the same gravity as removing citizenship from a person.

If it were one of us, it would be like walking on eggshells. Imagine a situation where one of us were the subject of a government order, with no appeal or due process, as we have come to know it? It sounds like those countries that many escaped from. We cannot be in such haste. Have we not learned anything in the criminal process? One trial does not always lead to a fair conclusion; sometimes an appeal is warranted.

A simple judicial review does not go into the substance of the issue; it simply looks at whether the government followed the law. However, in this case, the law will be stacked in favour of the department and the minister. The minister will make the initial finding, the minister and the department will prosecute the case, and the minister has said, "No appeal."

It is true that you can still appeal on humanitarian grounds, but that is a far cry from what would be a question of natural justice, in my opinion.

Another matter of some concern to me appears in clause 18 of the bill. Clause 18 allows a minister, up to five years after someone gains citizenship, to annul that order of citizenship. That is yet another area of anxiety for those who may be subject to that process. Again, there is no appeal, simply a judicial review. Again, there is the question of what 30 days' notice means.

We have short-circuited, for I presume efficiency and a question of costs, what would be a fundamental right of citizens to an appeal, to have some process, so that when we say to people, "You are a citizen," it means something. We would only take that away in onerous cases that were well reasoned and adjudged.

Why have we added false identity as a prohibition? Senator Wilson raised the point that many refugees, of necessity, use a false identity to get into Canada. False identity has been added to clause 28 — which falls under "National Security." Was it intended to imply that everyone who has used a false identity is somehow in the category that would be a risk to national security? The department needs to explain this area further.

Part 4 provides for the government to have the power to deny citizenship in the public interest. This is particularly worrisome. This is a new development. Not only is public interest not defined, clause 22(3) makes such an order not subject to appeal or review by the court. It is totally in the hands of the politicians, namely, the executive branch and departmental officials.

Honourable senators, while "national interest" has been defined and has been the subject of some judicial interpretation, it has not been defined in the sense that it will be utilized pursuant to this clause. It is no source of comfort to those who may be part of this process to know that there is some vague concept called "public interest" that is yet to be defined. If this concept is to be introduced, there must be specificity of the type that all people will know what it means and can govern themselves accordingly.

We must understand that we are not talking about threats to national security. That is covered in another part of the bill. This is a new clause that says that we are not moving against people who have committed crimes, who are subject to investigation by CSIS or by the police. Under this clause, the Governor in Council, in the public interest, can take away your citizenship. Think how one would feel. Perhaps it affects some of us in this room. At any time, the Governor in Council can, on their definition of what "public interest" is, take one's citizenship away. Is this what clause 12 was all about, equalizing? I do not think so.

On the flip side, pursuant to clause 9, the Governor in Council may grant citizenship. Clause 9 lays out some of the terms by which the government may grant immediate citizenship, on humanitarian grounds and otherwise. The Governor in Council may grant citizenship to reward services of an exceptional value. Who makes that determination, for what work and in what manner? One would hope that it would be the next Olympic champion, but what does that really mean? Again, we are to trust the Governor in Council that this clause has merit and value and should be included.

Imagine standing in a line, waiting to become a citizen, having followed all of the rules to get in, and reading in the newspaper that someone else, by the largesse of the government of the day, was granted immediate citizenship?

Taken together, both clause 9 and Part 4 deliver a feeling that one is at the behest of the government of the day. Honourable senators, I have worked in countries where the government took and granted citizenship. I, for one, will resist any attempt to have the government of the day dispense largesse that involves citizenship. We have progressed from the 1920s; surely, due process and defined rules will serve our country best.

(1720)

Honourable senators also may wish to have the government explain clause 23(5) and clause 23(6) of the bill. Both clauses are under the heading "National Security" and deal with the triggering of CSIS investigations. There are a number of provisions in clause 23(5) and clause 23(6). Those clauses use the words "as soon as practicable" and "The Review Committee shall, when it is convenient to do so...." Thus, a person would be under investigation as long as it is practicable and as long as it is convenient for the review committee to review that person. Would that be one month, one year, or a decade? These terms need to be defined. The government needs to explain why this latitude is necessary, even in cases of national interest.

Senator Wilson has raised two other serious concerns, namely, the right of nationality for everyone under Canada's jurisdiction, including the need to ensure that no one is left stateless and that there is compliance with our international obligations. I will not reiterate her comments, but I certainly concur with them. It is not only a concern for the statelessness situation in which some refugees may find themselves, but also it leads to vulnerability for children. This must be investigated fully.

Senator Wilson raised the issue of false identity, and I concur with her comments on those points.

It has been noted that the citizenship oath has been changed. The problem is that the oath is ambiguous and inexact regarding the monarchy. The new oath pledges loyalty and allegiance to the Queen, but it does not make explicit reference to loyalty to successors of Elizabeth II. It is significant to note, however, that the Interpretation Act specifically references that sovereignty automatically incorporates subsequent successors.

The question that begs asking is, why did the federal government propose this semantic change when it does not change the law? What is the thinking behind the word-shuffling? Could the Leader of the Government in the Senate explain the superficial change in the oath? Could he comment on the government's position on the continued existence of the monarchy in Canada?

It was pointed out rather eloquently in the other place that the oath could have been an opportunity to involve all Canadians because it is an oath that the minister encourages all of us to take. If it is an oath, it is a moment of pride and a moment of commitment, and it should have taken into account the deliberations of Parliament.

We passed the legislation regarding the flag after due debate. We should pass an oath with due debate and due involvement of all Canadians, if possible.

Bill C-16 also proposes to alter the citizenship decision-making process. At the present time, citizenship judges wield discretionary decision-making control under a chief judge. Bill C-16 would have these judges replaced and their duties taken over by public servants acting under the watchful eye of the minister.

Ceremonial duties that are now administered by judges would be taken over by citizenship commissioners appointed by the government. The result would be that active citizenship granting would no longer fall under the purview of the law. That is certainly lamentable.

Clause 31(7)(b) and clause 33(2)(d) indicate that these commissioners are to actively promote citizenship amongst those gaining citizenship. Would this be non-partisan? It remains to be seen. How do we ensure that these citizenship commissioners, appointed by the government, act in the best interests of all in this pluralistic society?

Honourable senators, Bill C-16 expands the residency requirements for the granting of citizenship. At the present time, the law states that an applicant must reside in Canada for a minimal period of three years. However, the rules that dictate what actually constitutes residency are vague, discretionary and non-uniform. I commend the government in attempting to clarify these rules. Most of the investigation caseload has been coming from confusion in the definition of residency.

Bill C-16 stipulates that an applicant must be physically present in Canada for three of six years in order to become a Canadian citizen. It is noted that there should be some physical attachment to the country as the best way to gain some loyalty and allegiance to the country. I am inclined to agree with that premise. The problematic aspect is that there is no means to monitor this restriction except through the honour system.

As Canadians, we pride ourselves on our intrinsic right of freedom to come and go from Canada at will, freedom to work outside the borders of our nation and freedom from the watchful eyes of the government. It is a dimension in this legislation with which we must come to grips. Moreover, this residency clause is problematic to those who would become Canadian citizens and have success in international business or are required to take intensive and long-term international travel. In this day of globalization we need to consider whether the new amendments are sufficient to allow the latitude for this kind of global competitiveness.

I will quickly mention several other points. While we understand that there will be further modern rules and regulations governing citizenship, we have yet to see these regulations. Again, we see much of what is important to Canadians being hived off into regulations. I question whether for something as serious as the citizenship bill we should not have had the privilege of seeing these regulations early.

There are other changes in the bill. I will not go into detail, but they include a number of things to do with foreign-born children of citizens and adoption proceedings. The committee should vet these issues with the involvement of citizens.

It concerns me that a parent-child relationship will be defined in regulations. This, of course, has great implications for provinces, and we should know where we are heading on this matter.

Honourable senators, Bill C-16 fails to recognize these distinctions and differences among all Canadian citizens and that this country was founded on the backs of those whose knowledge of language was outweighed by the desire to live, work and prosper in Canada. I am concerned by the talk regarding the adequacy of the language requirement.

One source of diversity in this country has always included the language issue. In Canada, we acknowledge and celebrate two official languages. Bill C-16, however, imposes knowledge of one of the two official languages as essential to receiving citizenship rights. Denying citizenship to those who do not originate from either French- or English-language countries is contrary to Canadian values of equality and fairness.

If this government is serious about protecting human rights, it should not violate Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states:

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as...language....

(1730)

It has never been imperative that one be able to speak either English or French to live in Canada. There is a sense of fairness lacking in this clause. It makes us question its logic and demands of us that we ask the federal government why it wishes to impose language requirements on people who seek a better life in this country and who have contributed, and will contribute, so much to the welfare and success of Canada.

It is important to remember that this country was founded by immigrants. A diverse group of hard-working individuals came to Canada to create a better life for themselves and their families. In the course of doing that, they created a better Canada. Not all of them spoke English or French. It is no secret that many learned the languages of Canada after receiving citizenship. How important is it in today's society to have as a prerequisite that one be able to speak English or French? We need to debate this issue fully.

As honourable senators have probably noted, the issue of citizenship is one that is dear to us all. Perhaps to the exclusion of members of the aboriginal community, not one of us can claim not to have come from immigrants or to have been immigrants. If we expect immigrants to accept their responsibilities and obligations, then we must give them the peace, security and assurance that they will be respected and honoured as citizens just as those of us who were born here undertake the responsibilities and obligations which we have as citizens of Canada. They should not have to feel that there may be something lurking in their past, however inoffensive, that may come back to haunt them.

In 1967, when I was a practising lawyer, I assisted some people in trying to get their Canadian citizenship. However, because of the fact that in 1944 they happened to have attended a dance held at a club funded by the Communist Party, they were noted by our security services as being a risk. For all those years they lived in Canada and contributed to our country, yet they were denied citizenship. One must know what is the evidence against them. There must be due process and a full and adequate opportunity to meet a case. This is not to say that there are not some naturalized Canadians who have been involved in nefarious activities. However, if one has come to Canada from a country in which the whims of politicians rule, then one may not understand the rules here.

We have a responsibility to share with these people and we must not start from a point of distrust, but from a point of trust. We should not act on evidence that will put us before the Federal Court where a decision will be made based on a balance of probabilities. The courts have said that the burden of proof should be higher than that. Whether it should be beyond a reasonable doubt, I do not know. I do know, however, that a simple 51 per cent is not good enough. Courts have said that we should have a higher test. Although these cases would be civil cases, the issue of citizenship is important to us all. Therefore, we should scrutinize this bill to see that it meets the test of fairness. In this way, we can assure people that we will not act against them in an arbitrary and partial way, but that we will act only when we have good and legitimate cause to do so.

I do not dispute that there should be a process. What I wish for is a fair and valid process.

Honourable senators, the Web site of the department has an interesting area that is entitled "Welcome Home." I do not know whether Senator Pearson had something to do with it or not. The Welcome Home campaign invited Canadian children aged 5 to 13 to create messages of welcome for the thousands of newcomers who will take their oath of citizenship in 2000 and 2001.

Honourable senators, I should like to read to you one of the letters that has been written. A young person named Hayley from Woodville, Ontario has put on the Web site this letter dated March 2000:

Dear Future Canadian:

I think you are making a good decision by coming to Canada. Canada is the fairest country I have ever been to, and I have been to a lot of countries. Since Canada has always been home, I have learned that Canada tries to give everyone an equal chance and all citizens are kind. I hope that when you come to Canada you make a lot of new friends.

Welcome again.

Honourable senators, as citizens of Canada we should look at this as a test to assess whether we are being fair to new citizens. Are we making new citizens welcome? Are we living up to the reputation that we have?

I believe there are shortcomings in Bill C-16. I believe that we must take a long and hard look to ensure that we can meet Hayley's test.

On motion of Senator Kinsella, debate adjourned.

Budget Implementation Bill, 2000

Second Reading

Hon. Francis William Mahovlich moved the second reading of Bill C-32, to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 28, 2000.

He said: Honourable senators, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-32, the 2000 budget implementation bill. This bill implements 10 measures announced in the 2000 budget, three of which are key to the nation's well-being. They involve our health care and education systems, better assistance to families with children, and financial assistance to students. In order to provide these benefits on time for Canadians, these particular measures must be in place by the summer. The remaining seven components of the bill do not face the same deadline. However, they are just as important for millions of Canadians and for the efficient operation of the government. However, before I discuss these measures in detail, I will put the bill in context.

In the February 2000 budget, the Minister of Finance set out four elements of the government's economic framework. The first is that the government will continue to provide sound fiscal management. The second is that the government will lower taxes to promote economic growth and to leave more money in the pockets of Canadians. The third is that to ensure equality of opportunity, the government will invest in providing Canadians with the skills and knowledge they need to get the jobs they want. The fourth is that together we will build an economy based on innovation, which is the only means by which a modern nation can control its future.

As honourable senators know, the government's plan that was established in 1993 to eliminate the deficit, to turn the economy around and to create new jobs has worked. The deficit is history and the government is projecting its third, fourth and fifth balanced budgets in a row, something that has not been accomplished in almost 50 years, but the government is not prepared to rest on this record. Our challenge now is to build on this new-found strength.

(1740)

As the minister said in the budget speech:

Make no mistake — the success we have achieved as a nation has come not only from strong growth, but from an abiding commitment to strong values — caring and compassion, an insistence that there be an equitable sharing of the benefits of economic growth.

For this reason, the first announcement in the 2000 budget increased funding for post-secondary education and health care, which are high priorities of both the government and Canadians.

Honourable senators, the federal government transfers approximately $40 billion every year to the provinces and territories through three programs so that they are able to provide vital services to Canadians. The largest transfer is the Canada Health and Social Transfer which supports health care, post-secondary education, social assistance, and social services in the form of cash and tax transfers. The Equalization Program enables less prosperous provinces to offer comparable public services to those in other areas of the country. The third transfer program — Territorial Formula Financing — provides for public services in the North.

The 2000 budget announced increased funding to the CHST. This is the fourth time that the federal government has strengthened transfers to the provinces through the CHST. Previous enhancements were included in the 1996, 1998 and 1999 budgets. For health care alone, the 1999 budget provided the single largest investment in the government's history — $11.5 billion.

Honourable senators, the legislation we are debating today amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to authorize payment of the $2.5-billion increase announced in the 2000 budget to the CHST for health care and post-secondary education. This supplement will be distributed to the provinces and territories on a per capita basis and paid into a trust that the provinces can draw down over four years beginning when Bill C-32 is passed.

Together with the investment from the 1999 budget, the cash component of the CHST will now reach $15.5 billion in each of the next four years, a 25 per cent increase over the 1998-99 level. This measure must be implemented quickly to ensure that this much-needed money gets into the health care system as soon as possible to deal with the pressing needs of Canadians.

Another measure that must be in place soon concerns the Canada Student Loans Program. Since 1964, this program has helped over 350,000 needy Canadian students each year to access post-secondary education. Until now, the program has been administered and delivered on behalf of the federal government by financial institutions. However, this arrangement will expire on July 31. Bill C-32 ensures that there will be money available for student borrowers after that date and that there will be no interruption in service.

I want to assure honourable senators and students that there will be no significant changes to the program. Students who have already consolidated their loans and are repaying them will not be affected at all. This measure must also be passed without delay so that the new program is in place by August 1 for those students who need financial assistance in the 2000-01 school year.

A third measure concerns child tax benefits and must be in place before July. By way of background, the 2000 budget fully restores indexation of the personal tax system as of January 1, 2000. Indexation will particularly benefit middle- and low-income Canadians because of bracket creep and because these are taxpayers who generally receive benefits under the Canada Child Tax Benefit and the GST credit. The minister stated in his budget speech:

I hardly need to remind this house that the cost of raising children is a significant expense. Ask any parent about the price of new shoes, or snowsuits. Ask any parent whose child plays sports or takes music lessons. Ask any parent trying to save for their child's education.

The purpose of the Canada Child Tax Benefit is help with these costs.

As honourable senators know, there are two components to the CCTB, the CCTB base benefit for low- and middle-income families and the National Child Benefit supplement for low-income families. To help families with the added expense of raising children, Bill C-32 increases CCTB benefits by $2.5 billion annually by the year 2004. The goal of the government is to increase the maximum CCTB benefit for the first child to $2,400 and to $2,200 for the second child by the year 2004.

Through this bill, the CCTB will be fully indexed. Both the base benefit and the NCB supplement will be increased beyond indexation. The income thresholds where the base benefit is reduced and the NCB supplement is fully phased out will be raised. The reduction rate for the base benefit will be lowered. These improvements will benefit nine out of 10 Canadian children.

At present, the CCTB benefits lower-income Canadians the most. These new measures will add to the benefit and extend it more fully for middle-income families. A two-child family with an income of $60,000, for example, will see its CCTB more than double from its pre-2000 budget level of $733 to $1,541 by 2004.

Honourable senators, low- and middle-income Canadian families are depending on their CCTB increases and indexed GST benefits this coming July. Let us ensure that these benefits will be there for them by passing this bill without delay.

This legislation contains another measure that also focuses on families. The 2000 budget does much for parents of newborn and newly adopted children by extending parental leave under the Employment Insurance Program and by making benefits more flexible and accessible. Including the two-week waiting period for benefits, the current EI program provides up to six months of maternity and parental leave benefits for new parents. That is 15 weeks of maternity benefits for recovery from child birth and 10 weeks of parental leave available for both adoptive and biological parents.

Under Bill C-32, the maximum amount of child-related leave will be doubled to one year. Parental leave, which can be claimed by either parent or split between them, will be increased to 35 weeks. Fifteen weeks of maternity leave, together with a standard two-week waiting period, will bring the amount of child-related leave to one full year.

Further, honourable senators, Bill C-32 makes maternity and paternal benefits more accessible by reducing the number of insurable hours that must be worked to qualify for a special benefit from 700 to 600. In addition, there will be more flexibility for parents to decide whether one or both of them will spend time at home with their new child, and only one waiting period will apply rather than two, as is currently the case. Parents will also be allowed to work part time while receiving parental benefits, a measure that will help mothers gradually return to the workplace and enable parents to maintain their skills and work contacts while on leave. Further, income earned while receiving parental benefits will be treated the same as regular EI benefits.

I should point out that this bill also amends the Canada Labour Code to protect the jobs of employees in federally regulated workplaces during the extended parental leave period.

Another measure in Bill C-32 directly affects registered retirement savings plans and registered pension plans, which are the primary source of retirement income for middle-income Canadians. Prior to the 2000 budget, several organizations, including the House of Commons Finance Committee, the Senate Banking Committee, and the Investment Funds Institute of Canada, asked the government to reconsider the current level for the limit on foreign property investments in RPPs and RRSPs. The minister stated in the budget speech:

...adequate incomes in retirement are a critical requirement for any society. Diversification of registered retirement savings plans and registered pension plans, in turn, is an important part of ensuring that income.

(1750)

Bill C-32 raises the foreign content limit on those investments from 20 per cent to 25 per cent for 2000, and to 30 per cent for 2001. These increases will provide better opportunities for Canadians to diversify their personal retirement savings investments through RPPs and RRSPs.

I would also point out that these increases also apply to investments administered by the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board.

Honourable senators, the Canada Pension Plan legislation —

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: I am sorry to interrupt Senator Mahovlich, but I would draw the attention of honourable senators to the clock. It is now six o'clock.

Hon. Dan Hays (Deputy Leader of the Government): May I request of honourable senators and you, Your Honour, that we not see the clock so that we may proceed? I am not sure how long it will take, but I would hope not too long. That will be the most efficient way to complete our business for today.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Mahovlich: Honourable senators, the Canada Pension Plan legislation will also be amended with the passage of this bill.

The provinces have borrowed money from the CPP. Bill C-32 responds to a request from the provinces that was agreed to by the federal and provincial ministers of finance last December as part of the CPP Triennial Review for an option to prepay their CPP borrowings. Provinces will now be allowed to prepay their CPP obligations in advance of maturity and at no cost to the CPP plan. This will provide provinces with fiscal surpluses some flexibility to look for ways to reduce their debts. It also means that more funds will be transferred to CPPIB and invested in the market at higher expected returns.

The Special Import Measures Act will also amended with the passage of Bill C-32. These amendments will bring the Canadian countervailing duty laws into line with recent changes to the World Trade Organization Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.

The WTO Subsidies Agreement contained provisions that rendered certain foreign subsidies that satisfied very specific criteria immune from countervailing duty action. These non-actionable subsidy provisions lapsed on December 31, 1999, when WTO countries failed to agree to their extension. The amendments before us today will allow for the suspension of provisions in SIMA that implement these non-actionable subsidy provisions into Canadian law. These changes will bring Canadian countervailing duty law into line with these recent WTO changes and ensure that Canada is not treating its trading partners more favourably than they are treating us in countervailing duty investigations.

Turning now to the issue of First Nations taxation, the 2000 budget marks the fourth time that the government has indicated its willingness to enter into taxation arrangements with interested First Nations.

At present, the Cowichan Tribes, the West Bank First Nation, the Kamloops Indian Band and the Sliammon First Nation all tax on-reserve sales of certain products. Personal income tax collection and sharing agreements with the seven self-governing Yukon First Nations will now also come into effect.

The new legislation will enable 13 First Nations to levy a 7 per cent GST-style sales tax on fuel, alcohol and tobacco products sold on their reserves. First Nations sales taxes will be collected by the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency. In addition, the federal government will vacate the GST room where the First Nation tax applies.

Other interested First Nations will now be able to follow suit through an Order in Council.

The final measure in Bill C-32 amends the Excise Tax Act.

While there is generally a high degree of voluntary compliance in reporting and remitting the GST/ HST, there are cases where tax revenues can occasionally be at risk if a registrant is allowed the usual remittance period. Until now, the CCRA has been powerless to proceed with assessment and collection action if it suspected tax evasion in these circumstances.

As a result of Bill C-32, the Minister of National Revenue will now be empowered to take immediate action in these instances. The minister can apply ex parte — without notice — for judicial authorization to proceed with assessment and collection action in cases where revenues may be at risk if registrants are allowed their usual remittance period. The registrant will have the right to apply for judicial review of the court's decision.

I would also point out that the Income Tax Act contains a similar provision pertaining to the collection of income tax.

In conclusion, honourable senators, the measures in Bill C-32 build on the new-found strength that the minister talked about in the 2000 budget and are designed to improve the quality of life of Canadians.

None of the measures is controversial. As I discussed earlier, it is important that this bill be passed without delay because of three measures that must be implemented immediately. First, it is imperative that the much-needed CHST money gets into the health care system as quickly as possible to deal with the pressing needs of Canadians. Second, in order for Child Tax Benefits and indexed GST benefits to come into force on July 1, this legislation must be passed before the end of June. Third, there must be money available under the student loan program for students entering school in September.

The 2000 budget delivered what the Minister of Finance promised: help for low- and modest-income families with children; help for our health care and post-secondary education systems; and help for students who want to pursue higher education.

Now it is time for us to implement these measures. Let us not hold up this assistance. Canadians in need are waiting.

I urge all honourable senators to accord speedy passage to this legislation.

Hon. Terry Stratton: Honourable senators, I will begin by acknowledging, as Senator Mahovlich has stated more than once in his speech, that this is a time-sensitive bill. The government wants Royal Assent before we rise later this month so that it can pay increased Canada tax benefits in July and so that student loans can be processed under the new system beginning this August. My party does not oppose most of the specific measures in this bill per se.

However, we have a problem with the way those measures fit into the overall picture. Yes, the government will improve EI parental benefits. Allowing new parents to spend more time with their children can be a good thing, but this does not justify the government continuing to collect $6 billion a year more in EI premiums than it spends on benefits.

Yes, the bill increases the foreign content limit for RSPs and pension plans to 30 per cent from 20 per cent over the next two years, allowing Canadians greater opportunity to diversify their investments. As has been said by Senator Mahovlich, the Senate Banking Committee has been calling for this for years. Many on our side during Question Period have called for this for years. However, this does not justify the government continuing to pursue policies that drive Canadians to invest elsewhere. Canadians and their governments need not ask why, over the past several years, companies outside of Canada have earned better rates of return for their investors than companies inside Canada. They need not ask why other countries are more often a more attractive place to invest and create high-paying jobs. The answers have been given over and over again: taxes, productivity, anaemic R&D performance, regulatory overkill and a prime minister who does not understand the new economy. Those items top the list.

(1800)

I have news for the Prime Minister. This is not the 1960s, where tax rates mattered far less than they do today, where high tariff walls meant we could be as uncompetitive as we wanted, and where bits and bites were some kind of snack food. Thanks to former prime minister Mulroney and the Free Trade Agreement, we have now got that issue in hand with the tariff walls coming down.

Yes, honourable senators, this bill raises benefit levels under the Canada Child Tax Benefit and the National Child Tax Benefit. That is the good news. As I stated earlier in my budget speech, it also raises the clawback rates for benefits under the National Child Tax Benefit. If we add up all the clawbacks and taxes faced by a Manitoba family with four children and an income of $31,000, almost 90 cents out of each dollar of additional earnings is lost to clawbacks and taxes under the latest redesign of this program. Using the example of Manitoba again, that includes a new 24 per cent middle federal rate, the 15.6 per cent middle Manitoba rate, the 1 per cent clawback of the Manitoba tax reduction for families, the 33.4 per cent clawback of the National Child Benefit, the 5 per cent clawback of the Canada Child Tax Benefit, the 5 per cent clawback of the GST credit, and approximately 5 per cent of the net of tax credits for the CPP and EI. That sounds and looks rather ridiculous.

In committee, I should like someone from the department to explain why the government keeps adding clawback upon clawback every time it brings in a new program. Surely, it is possible to design these programs in a way that does not strip individuals of their incentive to work. Yes, this bill allows the government to contribute a further $2.5 billion over four years for health care. As a result, the federal government's annual cash contribution for health care and education will only be $4 billion short of what it was back in 1993. Therefore, there is no point in crowing about this; we are still a fair bit short.

Do we feel any more confident about the state of the future of our health care system than we did before the budget? Thus far, the polling shows Canadians are not any more confident. Our health care system is in crisis, and this government's response is to deny adequate funding and to shout down just about every proposal that has been made to fix it. Yet, this bill restores full indexation to the tax system. The government tells us that this is a tax cut, but the reality is that this bill is cancelling a planned $1.3-billion tax hike for this year and $2.2 billion for next year. As taxpayers, basically we will be left after inflation in the same position that we would have been with no inflation, and Canada will still be a nation where workers are taxed at income levels that fall below the minimum wage. Imagine being taxed on income for which you earned the minimum wage? That is incredible. Indexation raises the basic personal amount for this year by what? A whopping $100. That is a tax savings of about $17 a month, or approximately 33 cents a week. A person cannot even buy a cup of coffee for that. They must feel wonderful about that $100 — and my friends opposite shout from the rooftops about cutting taxes. I do not think so.

Canadian workers will still pay taxes on incomes as low as $7,231 dollars. Please tell me what the poverty level is? I think it is substantially higher than that. Is it not time for us to stop taxing the poor? At least raise the threshold to $10,000 or $12,000 and give these people a chance. That is doing something credible.

Honourable senators, $100 a year is nothing; 33 cents a week is terrible. Senators opposite must not feel very good about that. I know they do not. Do something about it!

Honourable senators, in mid-May it was revealed that when the books were closed on the 1999-2000 fiscal year and all the accounting tricks were played, last year's surplus was $8 billion. Just three months prior to this, back when the Minister of Finance delivered his budget, we had been told to expect only $3 billion, and only if the contingency amount was not needed. We should not be too surprised. This government and this Minister of Finance have a history of pretending that the books are worse than they are and then using this as an excuse to underfund health care, to inflate EI premiums and to postpone significant tax cuts. It boggles the mind that in May the government suddenly found that it has $5 billion more than it thought it had in February. Presumably, revenues this year and next will be $5 billion more than forecast as well, as the tax base is higher than expected.

Given the available funds, the single biggest flaw of this bill is that it simply does not do enough to fix our health care system and to make our tax system competitive. We can have our health care and a competitive tax system, but we must do more than the timid steps in this bill.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Motion agreed to and bill read second time.

Referred to Committee

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the third time?

On motion of Senator Mahovlich, bill referred to the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance.

Business of the Senate

Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I am quite prepared to speak to Order No. 1 under Senate Public Bills, but I can certainly wait until tomorrow or Thursday because the families and friends of our two new colleagues are awaiting them. It is traditional that they be welcomed in the Speaker's chambers. I would not want to be responsible for the delay. I would urge the deputy leader to propose an adjournment motion at this stage, unless there is some pressing business on the Order Paper of which I am not aware.

Hon. Dan Hays (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, that is an invitation that should be responded to in a positive way. However, there are a couple of items that we on this side wish to proceed with, namely, under Commons Public Bills, Bills C-445 and C-473 regarding constituency name changes, as well as a motion that Senator Chalifoux wishes to move involving the hiring staff for her committee's work.

(1810)

If we could go immediately to those, then I would think that Senator Lynch-Staunton's suggestion is an excellent one, one that we should accept. I will make the appropriate request, following items No. 2 and No. 3 under Commons Public Bills.

Bill to Change Name of Electoral District of Rimouski—Mitis

Second Reading

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Rompkey, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Robichaud, P.C. (Saint-Louis-de-Kent), for the second reading of Bill C-445, to change the name of the electoral district of Rimouski—Mitis.—(Honourable Senator Kinsella).

Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I should like to speak briefly to this bill. Bill C-445 is a terrible bill. The urgency that my colleague the Deputy Leader of the Government seems to attach to a bill to change the name of a constituency is a source of some amusement in my chair. I do not see the urgency; however, he says that it is urgent, and I will accept his word.

Senator Tkachuk: They want to draw an election map.

Senator Kinsella: I do wish, honourable senators, to point out a couple of serious problems. We have 301 ridings in Canada, and this is at least the forty-fifth name change since the last redistribution. The mathematicians here can figure out what percentage of ridings have had their names changed.

The question that we would obviously ask ourselves is whether there is any impact as a result of name changes. If so, what is the impact of a name change to a constituency? Is a change of name cost-neutral, for example? Does it cost anything to change these names?

My research shows that, yes, it costs a significant amount of money to change a name. For example, not only does Elections Canada have to reprint the maps, but they must also print what they call errata on the previous publications. Also, a large number of government departments and agencies need to reflect that name change in their publications. Also, in this house and in the other place, there are cost implications of riding name changes because various documents require reprinting.

The bottom line on this point, honourable senators, is that a constituency name change is not cost-neutral.

There is the matter of the technology utilized by Elections Canada. That technology has a built-in limitation in terms of how many letters it can handle. I believe it is 50 characters.

All of this was reported to us in evidence in the proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs in February 1999 by Mr. Kingsley. He testified that there are a number of administrative impacts as a result of an electoral district name change. For example, he drew our attention to the guidelines of the Canadian Permanent Committee on Geographic Names. A name change must be congruent with that committee.

To give support to my first argument, Mr. Kingsley also said that there seems to be an increase in the number of name changes now being sought. When he appeared before our committee in February 1999, 41 electoral district names had been changed at that time.

Mr. Kingsley also stated that he observed another trend over the last three representation orders, in that commissions are selecting longer electoral district names. This became problematic because the equipment they utilized can only handle up to 50 characters. Otherwise, there is a major cost to these changes.

Mr. Kingsley further made a few observations about the administrative implications of name changes. After the changes are proclaimed, giving effect to the representation order, Elections Canada is required by law to print as soon as possible geographical maps for the country. He mentioned several further consequences of these name changes. I will not belabour the point. We have the report of that committee available.

Let me raise a final point with reference to this bill. One of the ridings in which a name change is proposed is in the province of Ontario, where provincial ridings are congruent with federal ridings. I am advised also that, in metropolitan Toronto, at the municipal level, there is a symmetry between municipal districts and federal and provincial ridings. A name change can have implications not only at the provincial level but also at the municipal level. The committee that examines this bill ought to delve into those particular matters.

Hon. Dan Hays (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, Senator Kinsella asks a good question. Why are we wanting to proceed with this? The answer may not be acceptable to all senators, but it is based on the best information that I have received after asking the same question of government officials. I am speaking to both matters, although I am speaking now under Commons Public Bills, item No. 2.

If these ridings were to change names, it would be better that the name change is known before the summer break. If the matter went over to the fall and names were changed then, an expensive reprinting of maps would be required. That is the reason given to me for addressing these matters now — to be timely in terms of avoiding costs in the office of the Chief Electoral Officer.

On the issue of the number of characters, I believe that Senator Kinsella is right. My understanding is that none of the new names proposed in these two bills exceeds the number of characters that would involve added expense.

(1820)

I note Senator Kinsella's point about the Province of Ontario adopting the same riding boundaries and the same number of members as the federal ridings. These are not government bills, although we on the government side are pushing them for the reasons I have stated. There are objections and the bill may or may not pass.

The comments I have made are really directed to both bills, although we are on one bill. Senator Rompkey is the sponsor of both bills and hopefully we can now move to second reading so that the bills can be referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Motion agreed to and bill read second time.

Referred to Committee

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the third time?

On motion of Senator Rompkey, bill referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

[Translation]

Bill to Change the Name of Certain Electoral Districts

Second Reading

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Rompkey, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Austin, P.C., for the second reading of Bill C-473, to change the names of certain electoral districts.

Hon. Pierre Claude Nolin: Honourable senators, under Bill C-473, 12 electoral districts will be changing their name. Senator Kinsella spoke of the principles governing such name changes.

I have two points to make, and the first concerns the length of names. I would invite the deputy government leader in the Senate to again count the characters used in the name change of the riding of Verdun—Saint-Henri—Saint-Paul—Pointe Saint-Charles. There are 56 characters, because the Chief Electoral Officer said before the committee in the other House that the spaces and the hyphens also have to be counted. When we add it all up, we get 56 characters, and, according to Mr. Kingsley's testimony before the committee of the other place, this will cost half a million dollars.

There is another matter that should not be underestimated and that is the similarity of geographical names and bounderies in Ontario. In the Toronto area, the neighbourhoods of that mega city which follow the boundaries of federal and provincial ridings bear the same name.

Let us take the case of the riding of Charlesbourg in the Quebec City area, and the riding of Carleton—Gloucester in the Ottawa area. Two members have paid strict attention to one of the basic principles, that of allowing the public to create a feeling of belonging to a local community, and of allowing the member to be identified more readily with the community. If the bill is passed, the riding of Charlesbourg will henceforth be known as Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, and the riding of Carleton—Gloucester as Ottawa—Orléans. In both these cases, the members undertook lengthy consultations. The member for Charlesbourg sent a survey to 45,000 people in his riding to determine which of the names was the most popular. He consulted the provincial MLA, mayors, and representatives of paramunicipal organizations, although not required to do so by law. They reached the consensus contained in Bill C-473. I therefore enthusiastically support this amendment.The same thing happened in the case of the current riding of Carleton—Gloucester, where MP Bellemare also consulted his constituents, regional mayors, professors and the provincial MLA. The result of these consultations was his proposal that the name of his riding be changed to Ottawa—Orléans.

A problem arises in the case of Dennis Mills, the federal MP for the riding of Broadview—Greenwood, who consulted nobody and, worse yet, announced an event in his riding in the local newspapers, using the new riding name. If he had had the slightest courtesy, he would have consulted or at least maintained a minimum of cordiality with the provincial MLA, something he completely failed to do.

I have received correspondence from the provincial MLA and from certain of MP Mills' constituents complaining about his cavalier attitude. I fully intend to ask Mr. Mills to explain to us in committee why he acted this way. What gives him the right to announce the new name of the riding as part of an event that took place on April 29, in other words, before Bill C-473 was passed by Parliament? The role of the Senate is to examine all these bills. Mr. Mills pays no heed to anyone, not even the Senate, and the name of his riding has already been changed. There is therefore no question of my blindly going along with this.

Hon. Fernand Robichaud: He did not want to spend money.

Senator Nolin: Honourable senators, I would invite Mr. Mills to appear before the committee to explain his actions. Following his testimony, we will see whether the change should be authorized in the case of his riding. In the case of the ridings of Charlesbourg and Ottawa—Orléans, the changes respect the wishes of the population, but in the case of Broadview—Greenwood, Mr. Mills failed the test of civility and politeness. He must provide an explanation.

[English]

Hon. Dan Hays (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, Senator Nolin has raised a number of issues that the committee to which this bill is referred should and ought to review. That is the appropriate place for us, in our usual way, to consider these questions. I have nothing further to say other than to urge honourable senators to move the bill to committee.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Motion agreed to and bill read second time.

Referred to Committee

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the third time?

On motion of Senator Rompkey, bill referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

Aboriginal Peoples

Committee Authorized to Examine Opportunities to Expand Economic Development of National Parks in the North

Leave having been given to proceed to Motion No. 74:

Hon. Thelma J. Chalifoux, pursuant to notice of June 7, 2000, moved:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples be authorized to examine and report upon the opportunities to expand economic development, including tourism and employment, associated with national parks in Northern Canada, within the parameters of existing comprehensive land claim and associated agreements with Aboriginal Peoples and in accordance with the principles of the National Parks Act; and

That the Committee submit its report no later than December 15, 2000.

Motion agreed to.

Adjournment

Leave having been given to revert to Government Notices of Motions:

Hon. Dan Hays (Deputy Leader of the Government), with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 58(1)(h), moved:

That when the Senate adjourns today, it do stand adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, June 14, 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 14, 2000, at 1:30 p.m.

---