Debates of the Senate (Hansard)
Debates of the Senate (Hansard)
2nd Session, 36th Parliament,
Volume 138, Issue 70
Wednesday, June 21, 2000
The Honourable Gildas L. Molgat, Speaker
Table of Contents
- SENATORS' STATEMENTS
- ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
- QUESTION PERIOD
- ORDERS OF THE DAY
THE SENATE
Wednesday, June 21, 2000
The Senate met at 1:30 p.m., the Speaker in the Chair.
Prayers.
SENATORS' STATEMENTS
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I should like to draw to your attention that I already have six names on my list for statements. I remind you that there is a three-minute limit for each statement, and I shall have to exercise a strict control on those who make statements. I ask senators to please follow those directions.Farewell Remarks
Hon. Calvin Woodrow Ruck: Honourable senators, as my term in Ottawa draws to a close, I wish to express my thanks to all of those who have helped me along the way. I came here knowing very little, if anything, about the operations on Parliament Hill. My time spent here has been a wonderful experience. My wife has been with me all the way. She has been my right hand and she has done a very good job.I have learned a great deal about the federal government in Ottawa. As a boy growing up in Sydney, Nova Scotia, I was always aware of the Liberal presence. Many Cape Bretoners, for whatever reason, were Liberals. However, when people asked me what party I supported, I could not say because I had little experience in politics.
My experience here has been very good. I have met some wonderful people who helped me along the way. I trust and pray that the Liberal Party will continue to be a light shining here in Ottawa. The party has made a difference, and I am sure it will continue to do so in the best interest of all Canadians.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
(1340)
The Senate
Comments by Leadership Candidate for Alliance Party
Hon. Marjory LeBreton: Honourable senators, yesterday in the June 20, 2000 edition of the Winnipeg Free Press there was a report on a speech by Alliance Party leadership candidate Stockwell Day and his offensive attempt at humour at the expense of the Senate.Senator Kinsella: Shame!
Senator LeBreton: I quote from the article:
(Did you hear the one about the senator who had a heart attack in the senate chamber? The paramedics rushed in and dragged out four senators before they got the right one.)
Honourable senators, Mr. Day thinks this is funny. Is this the attitude he would bring to the leadership of the Alliance Party? This is all the more shocking because Mr. Day blatantly parades around the country extolling the virtues of so-called Christian values.
Someone should sit Mr. Day down and tell him, in no uncertain terms, that there is nothing funny about heart disease and nothing funny about playing out a scenario whereby a joke can be made about a serious medical emergency occurring at any organization, be it a legislative forum or otherwise. Senators in this place range in age from their late 40s to their 70s and, as such, are statistically not unlike their fellow Canadians in the heart risk category. Our esteemed colleague Dr. Wilbert Keon has dedicated his life to saving the health and the lives of victims of heart disease.
Senator Kinsella: He does a good job!
Senator LeBreton: As one who personally sat in an emergency room, watching doctors work to save my own husband's life from a serious heart attack, I can only say to Mr. Day that if you want to debate the merits of the Senate, fine, let us get on with it, but your distasteful, callous, cruel and ignorant remarks about a disease that is the number-one killer of Canadians is unforgivable and should not be tolerated by anyone, especially from one who aspires to leadership.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
[Translation]
National Aboriginal Day
Hon. Aurélien Gill: Honourable senators, June 21, National Aboriginal Day, is not a day like any other. The profound meaning of this day could not be any more ancient, because June 21 marks a natural passage, a real step by the earth on to the path of light. In the days of our ancestors, we met together to dance and to celebrate. The first day of summer was a time for community, a time for meeting, a time when everyone celebrated the pleasure of being together. I feel it is wonderful and highly significant that this date has been selected for National Aboriginal Day. We are the first Canadians, going back to ancient times in this land. Nevertheless, it must be known, and it must be repeated, that our special day is for all Canadians, because it celebrates getting together, light and solidarity. The oldest Canadians invite the newest to a joint celebration.I have said many times that it was wrong to conceive of Canada as a country with two founding cultures. Canada cannot be built on the principle of forgetting our existence. This celebration of June 21 is therefore an important event. In a way, it is the start of a sequence that represents what we all are, as modern Canadians. Canada starts with us. Canada's celebrations start with us. They continue with June 24, St. Jean Baptiste Day, and end with July 1, Canada Day — three parts to a single celebration. To be Canadian is to be Dene, Anishinabe, Siksika, Gwich'in, Mi'Kmaq or Inuit, to have pride in our cultures and our identities, to be comfortable in a country to which our existence is a source of pride, to be happy that our celebration is shared by all. I must stress that point. If the special celebration of one founding identity does nothing but divide and isolate us, then I say there should be no celebration. We are celebrating the fact of being who we are, within a greater whole which is our shared country. June 21 serves as a reminder to all Canadians of who we are, who we have been, and particularly who we will be in the future of this country. June 24 happens to be the celebration of all of this country's francophones. It, too, is celebrated everywhere in Canada. For a francophone to be able to speak French in the Yukon or in the Northwest Territories, and to be able to celebrate "la Saint-Jean" there, is something quite wonderful for our country.
St. Jean Baptiste Day, like the celebration of the summer solstice, represents to us another manifestation of shared joys, an event that clarifies and illuminates. The triptych is completed with July 1. Canada Day unites what has already been recognized and celebrated on the other two occasions, and adds the last element to close the circle.
By celebrating the First Nations on June 21, Canada is assuming symbolically the true historical sequence of its own creation.
British Columbia
Vancouver—Queen Elizabeth Elementary School—Refusal of Parents of Anglophone Children to Accept Francophone Children
Hon. Jean-Robert Gauthier: Honourable senators, yesterday, I mentioned a statement made by the Commissioner of Official Languages, Dr. Dyane Adam, regarding official languages.Today, I am going to tell you about a specific case. I draw your attention to a case involving young francophones in British Columbia. I shall do so in English, because the article I read today was in English.
[English]
Seventy elementary-age students from British Columbia who will be going to school this fall are not welcome by some anglophone parents to Queen Elizabeth Elementary School because parents say that these French-speaking students will be separatists. How can 11-year-old people be separatists?
I quote from The Vancouver Sun dated June 19, 2000:
While some anglophone parents are welcoming the French students to Queen Elizabeth elementary, saying they will add diversity, others charge the newcomers will be separatist.
One parent advisory committee representative said they may have a "tenacious domineering attitude" and that they are from low-income families.
So they are French and they are poor.
The kindergarten-to-Grade 3 students, children of francophone parents, take their schooling in French under the publicly funded B.C. Francophone Education Authority...
The private Catholic school building that housed the students of L'École Rose-des-vents is slated for demolition, so the authority has been searching for another public school space in Vancouver to rent from the board.
I quote again from the article:
Many parents at Queen Elizabeth said they were angry they weren't consulted. At a public meeting last week, some said they don't want anything to do with the French school and that they disagreed philosophically with providing space for a school founded on the idea of maintaining a separate identity.
According to the article, one parent wrote to the school board that:
...the French students will have a bad effect on the west-side school, and he wrote, erroneously, that the French teachers would prohibit their students from interacting with English-speaking kids.
"This separatist pattern may indicate a tenacious domineering attitude in ethnic and day-to-day affairs," wrote Wozny...
"In addition, they are low-income families...and very likely will need other forms of support."
Honourable senators, if you want to read the full article, you may refer to it easily by searching through the Parlmedia Web site in The Vancouver Sun of June 19, 2000.
(1350)
Those who would refuse access to francophone children by accusing them of being separatists or poor people should be ashamed of their attitude and behaviour. Francophone Canadians are not asking for more or for less than what the Constitution of this country gives them.
I know that education is a provincial matter, but the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in article 23, adopted in 1982, some 18 years ago, is the law of the land and should be respected. All children should be entitled to have their education in this country in the language of their parents and the official language of their choice.
When the Official Language Commissioner says that governments are silent and indifferent, she is also implying that there is a level of intolerance in this country which should be addressed.
I hope the Vancouver School Board, which will be asked to rule on this question, will resolve the problem as soon as possible.
National Aboriginal Day
Hon. A. Raynell Andreychuk: Honourable senators, it is with great pleasure that I rise in celebration of National Aboriginal Day. In conjunction with our many aboriginal organizations, the Government of Canada chose this, the longest day of the year, to recognize the profound contribution our Indian, Inuit, and Métis people have made to the development of this great country. Indeed, their contribution to Canada has helped make this one of the most vibrant and culturally diverse countries in the world.Aboriginal people have lived on this land for thousands of years. When those first European settlers did eventually land on Canadian soil, they found hundreds of brave and compassionate natives ready to welcome them and to teach them about food, medicine and survival. As this friendship sadly eroded over time, the aboriginal people relied on their distinct heritage, language, cultural practices and spiritual beliefs to unify and fortify their people.
Aboriginal people's contributions to Canada are profound. As we celebrate the summer solstice of this new millennium, let us rejoice in a new era of shared understanding and mutual respect.
Recently, a National Aboriginal Day poster competition was held to showcase aboriginal artistic talents and to provide a bold new image to commemorate this special day. I congratulate the winners and all those who entered the contest. Some 200 aboriginal submissions were received.
Honourable senators, today is marked by two opportunities: One is for these wonderfully talented first nation Inuit and Métis Canadians to showcase their artistic prowess and the beauty of their culture; and the other is for us to join in the festivities, hear their experiences, understand their history and grow together as Canadians.
Fellow senators, I invite you to join me in celebrating National Aboriginal Day and in particular to join with aboriginals to learn more about this great land that we call Canada from those Canadians who were here first.
Hon. Thelma J. Chalifoux: Honourable senators, it gives me great pleasure today to wish you all happy National Aboriginal Day. Today is about awareness, a time when all Canadians should realize that the aboriginal peoples of Canada are truly an important part of the mosaic that makes our country the best in the world.
Senator Kinsella: But they are still not at the table!
Senator Chalifoux: It is sad that so many of our communities do not have the opportunity to enjoy all of the amenities that so many Canadians take for granted. Many of our communities in the mid-Canada corridor have no medical services, and our children still go to school in horse-drawn wagons. Many social ills are rampant in these communities. There is between 80 and 90 per cent unemployment, while industry is developing all the natural resources around them. The aboriginal communities in urban areas are stereotyped as ghettos while other ethnic communities are viewed as tourist attractions.
I met a young woman today, and we were discussing the latent discrimination against aboriginal peoples in the government's hiring practices. She made an interesting remark. Her husband is from Guyana. When he applied for a job, he was given the benefit of the doubt. The potential employer assumed that he was well educated, which he was. An aboriginal person with the same qualifications is almost never given the benefit of the doubt. It is assumed that our people are uneducated and not reliable.
This is why National Aboriginal Day is so important, so that all Canadians can become aware that we are truly a part of the mosaic that makes up Canada. The contributions that the three aboriginal nations — the Métis, the Inuit, and the First Nations — have made to this country must be told, or Canada will never be able to stand tall, and our history as a country will suffer.
British Columbia
Vancouver—Queen Elizabeth Elementary School—Refusal of Parents of Anglophone Children to Accept Francophone Children
Hon. Marcel Prud'homme: Honourable senators:"What we hear most of the time, we hear people want to keep Quebec part of Canada — they love Quebec," said Monique Giard, the mother of two young children enrolled for next September. "That is so hypocritical."
Honourable senators, that quotation is exactly how I had intended to begin my statement on the matter that Senator Gauthier raised. If you want to know more, read The Vancouver Sun, final edition, June 19, front page, and you will understand. Prior to voting on Bill C-20, you might reflect on why people sometimes come to that kind of decision.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Aboriginal Peoples
Opportunities to Expand Economic Development of National Parks in the North—Budget Report of Committee on Study Presented
Hon. Thelma J. Chalifoux, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, presented the following report:The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this report be taken into consideration?Wednesday, June 21, 2000
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples has the honour to present its
FIFTH REPORT
Your Committee, which was authorized by the Senate on June 13, 2000 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, 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 Canada.The budget was presented to the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration on Tuesday, May 16, 2000. In its Tenth Report, the Internal Economy Committee recommended that an amount of $45,411 be released for this study. The report was adopted by the Senate on Wednesday, June 7, 2000.
Respectfully submitted,
THELMA CHALIFOUX
Chair
On motion of Senator Chalifoux, report placed on the Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting of the Senate.
Canada Transportation Act
Bill to Amend—Report of Committee
Hon. Leonard J. Gustafson, Chairman of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, presented the following report:The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the third time?Wednesday, June 21, 2000
The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Forestry has the honour to present its
THIRD REPORT
Your Committee, to which was referred Bill C-34, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act, has, in obedience to the Order of Reference of Monday, June 19, 2000, examined the said Bill and now reports the same without amendment.Respectfully submitted,
LEONARD J. GUSTAFSON
Chairman
On motion of Senator Wiebe, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for third reading at the next sitting of the Senate.
(1400)
Conference of Mennonites in Canada
Private Bill to Amend—Presentation of Petition
Hon. Sharon Carstairs: Honourable senators, I have the honour to present a petition from the Conference of Mennonites of Canada, of the City of Winnipeg, in the Province of Manitoba, praying for the passage of An Act to amend the Act of Incorporation of the Conference of Mennonites in Canada.QUESTION PERIOD
Transport
Lease Dispute Between Port of Halifax and Halterm Limited
Hon. J. Michael Forrestall: Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I am beginning to wish that the minister's colleague from Cape Breton were back in his seat.Honourable senators, I was somewhat taken aback by the response I received yesterday from the Leader of the Government in the Senate on the Halterm question. The minister had given what I had understood — and for which I expressed appreciation — as a firm undertaking to bring to an end the squabble between Halterm and the Halifax Port Authority.
When I read the blues last night, I could only assume that we are now into the third flip-flop: It was approved, it was unapproved, it was approved, whatever the sequence of events. The fact is that the matter is not resolved, and it does not appear it will be. Port operations, as the minister knows, are key to the city's, indeed the province's, economic well-being. Every day the dispute continues causes harm to Nova Scotia's national and international reputation among those who would use our port facilities.
Honourable senators, I made a facetious remark earlier, but I remind the Leader of the Government in the Senate that he is the minister from Nova Scotia. Nova Scotians do not have access to the minister, and neither do the members of the House of Commons. This is a special responsibility for senators on this side of the chamber. I ask questions about Sea Kings and about Halifax because Senator Boudreau is the voice of Nova Scotians in the Government of Canada.
Will the minister do something to resolve the dispute between the port authority and the principal tenant, Halterm? If not, what can we expect?
Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, in response to the question, I do appreciate the senator's concerns impacting Nova Scotia and I am always happy to respond. As I have indicated in the past, this dispute has arisen between the two parties much in the format of a commercial dispute. I believe it is in the best interests of everyone that the dispute be resolved as quickly as possible. The parties have decided on courses of action, and I have made my own views and the honourable senator's clear to the minister. At this stage one hopes this dispute will be resolved as quickly as possible.
Human Resources Development
Millennium Scholarship Foundation—Request for Grant by Second Wellington Nova Scotia Cub Pack
Hon. J. Michael Forrestall: Honourable senators, the minister was not able to do much about Sea Kings. The minister was not able to do much about getting funding for Highway 101. The minister has not done anything, and he continues to be hopeful about the port dispute. Devco has been left to go down the drain.I shall ask a simple question. The minister may be well aware of the following issue because he is our Nova Scotia minister.
The Second Wellington Nova Scotia Cub Pack applied for a millennium grant to bring their cubs and their chaperones to Ottawa for Canada Day 2000. They needed $37,000 to make the trip. These kids from that small community raised $31,000 on their own. In seven months of waiting for an answer to a request for a grant from the federal government, they have heard nothing. No one sought any information from them as to why they wanted this additional money. No one sought to help them or be a benefactor to them.
Since three or four attempts have failed to get a positive response from the federal government with respect to the status of their grant, and because July 1 will be here in nine days, is there anything the minister can do about this miscarriage of simple justice? This group from Wellington, in the heart of Nova Scotia, needs just $6,000.
The minister does not seem to know where Wellington is located and he wants to run in Halifax County in the next election. God forbid. I apologize for asking the minister the question. Good Lord!
Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government): I thank the honourable senator for his helpful comments. I asked for the location because I assumed that the MP from the area would have been interested in bringing this matter forward to the minister in charge of the Millennium Scholarship Foundation. Either he did not do it, or he did not do it effectively.
In any event, the Honourable Senator Forrestall has taken up the cause, as it was left to him from the failing hands of the MP. I shall say that this request does indicate the tremendous popularity of the millennium program. I believe all senators are aware of the huge number of applications that are received from across the entire province of Nova Scotia, and some very worthy projects were not successful. In the case of this particular project, I shall be happy to investigate. Perhaps between the honourable senator and myself, we can do some of the job that the MP in question failed to do.
Senator Forrestall: Right on! I shall get it one way or another.
[Translation]
Canada-United States Relations
Negotiations on Favoured Exemption from International Traffic in Arms Regulations—Request for Update
Hon. Roch Bolduc: Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. The Minister of Foreign Affairs was recently in Washington to renew the NORAD agreement for a further five years. The minister also signed an agreement on the operation of commercial remote sensing systems via satellite. Will the signing of these agreements eliminate the problems encountered during the past year by the Canadian defence equipment and aerospace industries?According to the newspapers, 80 per cent of Canadian military exports will be exempt under American export permits. We are talking here about an agreement on the operation of commercial remote sensing systems via satellite. From what I understand, the issue of exports of dual-use technological equipment, which is used for both commercial and military purposes, is not settled. This is an industry which, in Canada, generates between $5 billion and $6 billion in contracts. It is a major industry. There are companies in Quebec and elsewhere, including Ontario. In my opinion, the renewal of the NORAD agreement can mean two things; a consolation prize for refusing to grant the exemption to Canada — which would be a disaster — or an incentive used by the Americans to try to change the Government of Canada's view regarding the national missile defence system.
[English]
(1410)
Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I am not specifically familiar with the particular agreement with respect to NORAD. As the honourable senator says, the minister is in Washington. I have not had an opportunity to date to be briefed on the agreement the minister signed. However, to the best of my knowledge, the NORAD agreement is separate and apart from the other problem, which has been the subject of an ongoing dialogue for some time.
I do not know if the other agreement that the minister signed deals specifically with that problem. I know discussions have been going on at the highest levels, including at the presidential and prime ministerial level. The tenor of those discussions was encouraging, and it was anticipated that we could resolve the issues surrounding access of Canadian subcontractors or, indeed, bidders to American defence opportunities and so on. I am not certain whether that matter has been resolved. I shall certainly make inquiries and supply that information to the honourable senator.
[Translation]
Senator Bolduc: It seems that between now and the month of September, about 80 per cent of the problems relating to export permits will be solved. This is already a major improvement. The other 20 per cent specifically concerns the production of technological equipment that can be used for commercial and military purposes, and represents some $4 billion to $5 billion in contracts. I would ask the minister to do his utmost to see that the government tries to settle this issue with the Americans.
[English]
Senator Boudreau: Yes, I can assure the honourable senator that discussions are ongoing with respect to that particular element. The most recent briefing I had — and I must confess it was not within the last couple of weeks — indicated that they were progressing well, and there was hope that the issue could be resolved in due course.
Business of the Senate
Hon. Douglas Roche: Honourable senators, my question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, but he may wish to refer it to his colleague, the deputy leader. Next Monday, June 26, is a legal holiday. Recognizing that senators flying to Ottawa from Western Canada on Tuesday cannot reach this place until mid-afternoon, has the government given any consideration to starting the sitting of the Senate at 4 p.m. on Tuesday, June 27?Senator Kinsella: There is no holiday in Alberta on Monday.
Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, the short answer to the honourable senator is that the Deputy Leader of the Government will be asking leave to make a statement to the Senate today about Senate business and our upcoming schedule.
Senator Kinsella: He does not need leave.
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 13, 2000, by Senator Murray regarding Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, possibility of privatization.Atomic Energy of Canada Limited
Possibility of Privatization
(Response to question raised by Hon. Lowell Murray on June 13, 2000)Government officials are studying an internal restructuring of AECL along three lines — reactor sales, nuclear research and the management of nuclear waste. No final decisions on restructuring have been made. Under all of the options being discussed, the company would continue to operate under the same management structure, including retaining the existing Board of Directors. The privatization of AECL's CANDU business is not under consideration.
However, consistent with the Federal Government's 1995 Program Review decisions, parts of AECL's business are being privatized — the Underground Research Laboratory in Lac du Bonnet, Manitoba and AECL's Accelerator technology.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Business of the Senate
Hon. Dan Hays (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, as the government leader indicated, I should like to make a statement to the house on the matter of house business. Accordingly, I ask leave to do so and to deal with any questions that arise out of my statement.The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Kinsella: You do not need leave.
Senator Hays: Thank you. I shall remember that for next time.
Honourable senators, we are approaching what we hope shall be a summer break. As you know, we have quite a busy time ahead of us to complete matters that are on our Order Paper, so I should like to take a moment or two to make a statement on this and to discuss with honourable senators any questions they may have. In particular, I invite my counterpart, Senator Kinsella, Deputy Leader of the Opposition, to bring up any matters upon which he might like me to elaborate.
To begin, as most of you have already sensed, or know, we shall be sitting on Friday of this week. I anticipate that we shall sit Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday as well, although not Monday because it is a holiday in Quebec.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: In Ottawa, too?
Senator Hays: It is a day of holiday in this place. That is the reason we shall not sit Monday. We shall need leave to adjourn to Tuesday.
I shall try to make a helpful comment for Honourable Senator Roche. The reason we would sit at 2 p.m. on Tuesday is because we have quite a lot to do. I heard someone in the chamber say that Monday is a holiday in Quebec but not in Alberta. I do not know if the honourable senator will be commuting from our home province this coming week or from Quebec. In any event, we shall make a decision on the time that we adjourn to on the last sitting day of this week. I shall raise this matter with my counterpart, and I have noted the honourable senator's concern. We shall determine what time we shall adjourn to, but at this point, I believe it most likely will be an adjournment to our regular sitting time on Tuesday, namely 2 p.m.
One reason is that the caucuses of the government and opposition parties normally meet on that day at noon. I appreciate that the honourable senator, as an independent, is not involved in those meetings, but they are important in terms of business of this place. Many of the bills we have before us will be reported tomorrow and will be at third reading stage. Thus, as I see it now, there will be the necessity to sit on Friday, to give timely consideration to those bills reported on Thursday. I could list them all, but they are on the Order Paper. They include, though, just for your information, honourable senators: Bill C-25, the amendments to the Income Tax Act, from the Banking Committee; Bill C-11, the Devco bill, from the Energy Committee; and the electoral name change bills from the Legal Committee.
In addition, we still have bills at second reading stage. I am not sure how they will progress. That will be up to this place.
There are some bills that are worthy of special comment. One is Bill C-16, which is at second reading stage. I am not sure what the disposition of this bill will be. It is a bill that the government side would like to see dealt with, but we may not have agreement with the other side in that regard. We hope that bill will go to committee this week — perhaps even today. Bill C-19, dealing with the International Criminal Court, is another bill that we hope to get to committee today. Bill C-37 is the pension bill. We need to sit next week to determine what we shall do with it. We also have an appropriation bill, Bill C-42.
That brings me to one of the most important and difficult bills we have had before us, and that is Bill C-20. It is controversial. I am engaged in a negotiation with my counterpart as to how this bill should be dealt with. I shall put my negotiating position forward now. Senator Kinsella, I am sure, shall comment on what I am about to say with respect to how I envisage Bill C-20 will be treated.
(1420)
We should have a list of speakers. I would be happy to receive notice from independent senators of their intention or desire to speak, and I am sure Senator Kinsella would as well. We have as many as four or five sitting days, but it is reasonable to expect that quite a number of senators will wish to speak at third reading stage. There will be amendments, and it is important that we use our time well. In that context, it would be my intention to watch carefully the 15-minute speaking limit. At the second reading stage, we extended the time limit by half an hour, in most cases to deal with speeches and questions. I have had discussions with Senator Kinsella, and I am indicating to all honourable senators in the chamber now that when the 15-minute time period expires, I suggest leave be given for an extra 10 minutes or, at most, 15 minutes. That is justifiable because many senators wish to speak, and taking too much time will limit the time available to individual senators. If we are to sit into July, it would not matter, but I do not sense a disposition to do that.
I also give notice to honourable senators that it is my objective that the last two speakers before we move to the vote be the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Government. Many senators want to be near the end of the list or have expressed a desire to speak last. However, I believe that right should be reserved for the Leader of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition.
We are also awaiting a ruling on Bill C-20 with respect to the issue of Royal Consent.
In terms of getting Bill C-20 to a vote, the desire on the government side is that it be voted on before we rise for the summer, even to the point of giving notice of and moving a motion for time allocation. I do not intend to do that today.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Shame!
Senator Hays: However, I point out to honourable senators that this option is available to us. We would be prepared to use that option to get this bill to that stage
Those are my comments, honourable senators, as to how I see matters unfolding.
[Translation]
Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, the opposition is grateful for this brief prophetic overview. It is necessary to attempt to facilitate the timetables of all senators, starting with Bill C-20. I am in full agreement with Senator Hays. We are well aware that a number of senators have expressed the wish to take part in the debate at third reading stage. The calculation is a very simple one, and I think that, between today and next Thursday, we can accommodate all senators in the debate at third reading. We would agree with the government, under the Rules of the Senate, to designate next Thursday, June 29, as the day of the vote. We know that it is quite likely that amendments will be moved in the house by various senators. If it could be agreed on Thursday, June 29, to consider all amendments and proceed to a vote at third reading stage, we on this side are prepared to accept that decision. This would also be very important from the point of view of order.
If one honourable senator moves an amendment, the present Rules of the Senate require us to dispose of that amendment before returning to the main motion. However, if we are in agreement, we will be able to continue the debate by moving amendments, and senators will be able to speak to an amendment or to third reading.
With respect to Friday, June 23, we are very sensitive to the tradition of observing the eve of St. Jean Baptiste Day. For that reason, if we can determine the work to be done Friday morning, perhaps we could get that work done by working longer on Thursday evening, naturally without interfering with the work and the right of senators to take part in the debate.
Hon. Marcel Prud'homme: Honourable senators, the fact is that we could hold up Bill C-20. It seems to me that the die is cast and that your proposal makes a lot of sense, as does Senator Kinsella's. The important thing, for me, is that June 29 be the day we hold all the votes.
I share Senator Kinsella's view that the hours you wish to devote to your Friday legislation could be spread out over Thursday of this week and Tuesday and Wednesday of next week, by sitting later. We will be here anyway and we can continue without any problem or recourse to the Rules of the Senate. This might accommodate Senator Kinsella and those who do not wish to sit Friday.
[English]
Everyone is in a good mood to cooperate with the government. Once in a while, however, the Senate should show the other chamber that we are not here to be stampeded while they have adjourned and are away from Parliament Hill. I am very happy for them, but they should not always expect us to deal quickly with important bills such as the citizenship bill, Bill C-16. I have been involved in citizenship issues for 35 years. Many of us would like to participate in the committee hearings on this bill.
Senator Finestone participated last night in debate in this chamber on Bill C-19, but she was almost not able to read her entire speech because we had to hurry. I was most interested in her views on the international court.
I hope that senators will choose one or two bills that the government would love to see passed. We could prioritize them in a gesture of cooperation. The one that they really want and the Prime Minister wants is Bill C-20. We are in a good mood, and Senator Boudreau is also very happy. With two additional senators, there is no more trouble with the bill now.
(1430)
I should like senators on both sides, especially new senators, to have some respect for themselves and not let themselves be treated by the other chamber as they do in the National Assembly of Quebec. I was there two weeks ago when we were not sitting, and I was scandalized at the numbers. They sit less than three months a year and suddenly, in less than a week, they were sitting every night until midnight. It became a joke.
Do we want the Senate and Parliament to be a joke? I do not know. It is for each and every one of us to decide, new senators included, how we want to be treated.
I am not yet making my speech on Bill C-20 with respect to the importance of the Senate.
I shall not object to the program proposed by Senator Hays, but please do not try to pass the bill without delay. Rather, the bill should be dealt with intelligently in committee by those interested senators who may not be members of the committee.
Honourable senators, you know where I stand on this issue. I shall not make a speech on the non-existence of independent senators. New senators do not know, but we are nonentities. Even though we are all equal, we cannot sit on committees. We are too stupid or too ignorant or too lazy, even though we are seen every day on every committee. I am aware of my blood pressure again.
Senator Kinsella raised the matter. I should hope that all senators will be careful with the amendments to Bill C-20. Sometimes amendments can be contradictory. That is why, rightly so, the rules provide that before an amendment is disposed of, we discuss the amendment and then we proceed to the main motion unless amended again or subamended.
I should like honourable senators to be alert to the fact that we may be jammed by amendments that could totally change the tone of the discussion. It is for us to discuss. I say openly what I have to say.
As far as the vote is concerned, it would be well if negotiations took place publicly. We are all equals. I have been told by His Honour time and again that we are all equals. It is like the Catholic Church — some are more equal than others, but we are all equals.
Perhaps we could know the timing of the vote in relation to when the government side wishes to dispose of Bill C-20. We do not wish to be taken by surprise. This can be done between the leadership and the opposition in a gesture of cooperation.
Hon. Douglas Roche: Honourable senators, when Senator Hays spoke a moment ago, he made reference to a comment that I am an Albertan. With respect to the question I raised about the St. Jean Baptiste holiday, the first point is that I shall gladly abide by whatever hours are set by the Senate leadership. I have no problem with that.
The second point is that I live in Edmonton adjacent to a very sizable French Canadian community which observes St. Jean Baptiste Day with great animation. The fact that the French Canadian community in Canada extends far beyond Quebec is, indeed, a mark of the greatness of this country.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
[Translation]
Hon. Jean-Robert Gauthier: Honourable senators, the Rules of the Senate are rather clear and, judging by what I have heard today, they will be applied. It is stated that a period of 15 minutes is allocated for speeches, including questions and comments. That is it. Is this really what we are doing?
Some Hon. Senators: No.
Senator Gauthier: Second, I should like to state that St. Jean Baptiste Day is the celebration of all French Canadians. Who said it was exclusive to Quebecers?
[English]
Senator Hays: Honourable senators, I concede to Senators Roche and Gauthier my error. I thank Honourable Senators Kinsella and Prud'homme for their indication of general support and cooperation for what has been outlined in my statement and that of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.
We shall have to see about Friday. I, quite frankly, would have loved to have adjourned earlier this week, but we could not do that, for good reason. In any event, we shall do the best we can in our discussions with respect to Friday.
With respect to Senator Prud'homme's comments, I do not know that I can be more helpful than to just make the statement that I have listened to him, as has Senator Kinsella, and that his comments will be taken into consideration.
I recognize that Senator Roche was chiding me with respect to St. Jean Baptiste Day. I acknowledge that he will be here on Tuesday at 2 p.m., if that is when we return.
In response to Senator Gauthier's question with regard to the 15-minute time period, we will have to see how the debate unfolds. I would envisage that we would respect the 15-minute rule, with the probable modification that we would extend the time by 10 minutes or, at most, a further 15 minutes. The reason is, as I stated earlier, out of respect for the desire of many senators to participate in the debate. There is wisdom in applying such a practice and such a rule so that we have adequate time for all to be heard.
Senator Robichaud: You should stick to 15 minutes.
Senator Gauthier: I ask a second question concerning amendments. I have amendments. If I understood the deputy leader, all amendments will be stood, if that is the word to be used, until a day to be determined, at which time they will be dealt with by votes, by division. Is that a new way of playing the game? When there is an amendment to the main motion, the usual practice is that the amendment is dealt with and disposed of and then we go back to the main motion. If I heard properly, we shall not do that. We shall hold or stand the amendments, even though they may be important and could have a strong impact on the entire bill, until we start voting on them at a date to be determined. Am I correct in my assessment?
Senator Hays: Not only are you correct, Senator Gauthier, in your understanding of what I have said, but also in your understanding of what Senator Kinsella is saying. I would observe that we have done this on at least two occasions since I have been deputy leader. I shall decide later this week, perhaps later this day, but it appears that your description of how we shall proceed is correct.
For those honourable senators who wish to know when the vote will be held, that will be the subject of a house order I shall introduce either by way of notice of motion or with leave sometime later this week, I hope.
Bill to Give Effect to the Requirement for
Clarity
as Set Out in the Opinion of the
Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec
Secession Reference
Third Reading—Debate Continued
On the Order:Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Hays, seconded by the Honourable Senator Graham, P.C., for the third reading of Bill C-20, to give effect to the requirement for clarity as set out in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec Secession Reference.
Hon. Joan Fraser: Honourable senators, let me say first what an extraordinary privilege it has been to work with the special committee that studied this bill.
[Translation]
(1440)
I should like to acknowledge all of the members of the committee from both sides of the house, along with all the other senators — and there were many of them — who worked so hard to examine this bill in depth, with sobriety and intelligence. This was a classic example of the Senate's contribution to the quality of life and of the public administration of our country. I am very proud to be associated with it.
Since I speak more quickly in English, I will continue entirely in English in order to keep within the time limit.
[English]
When I spoke at second reading, I said that, not being a lawyer, I would follow the discussions of this bill's legal aspects with close attention and concern. I remain convinced that the bill is essentially political in nature, but that is all the more reason to be as sure as is humanly possible that it is legally sound. Having listened to testimony from witnesses, including some of the great legal minds of this country, I am now convinced that it is. I found the evidence overwhelmingly persuasive that Bill C-20 is entirely constitutional, in that it respects both the Supreme Court's opinion and the constitutional roles of the Senate, the House of Commons, the Government of Canada and, not least important, the provinces.
I was particularly interested in some of the questions that have been raised here in the eloquent debates on second reading and that were pursued in committee. Let me touch on a few of them. They include the rights of aboriginal peoples and of language minorities, the role of the Senate, the divisibility of Canada and the implications of requiring a national referendum before negotiations on secession begin, should we ever reach the sad day where the people of a province — my province — decided they wished to secede.
I turn first to the rights of aboriginal peoples. Aboriginal representatives told us that they would prefer to see the bill require specifically that they be at the table if a constitutional amendment were being negotiated on secession. I concur with the Assembly of First Nations, which told us that while it would like to see such an amendment, it was not essential, because the Constitution already guarantees in section 35.1 that aboriginal peoples would be at the table if their rights were affected by the negotiations. Other witnesses confirmed the weight of that guarantee, as did the minister.
Clearly, aboriginal rights would be affected if secession were being negotiated. Indeed, Bill C-20 specifies that no federal minister shall propose a constitutional amendment to effect secession unless the negotiations have addressed the rights, interests and territorial claims of aboriginal peoples. It is clear, aboriginal people will be at the table.
The protection of language minorities is particularly acute to me. I note with some comfort that the bill also requires the negotiations to address minority rights. That does not guarantee us a seat at the table, but it gives us a powerful lever to ensure that we shall, indeed, be protected, and I know, with utter certainty, that we shall use that lever.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: You and Bill Johnson.
Senator Fraser: I come now to a subject that has concerned many senators deeply, and that produced some brilliant moments in our debate at second reading, the role of the Senate.
It seems clear to me that Bill C-20 does not deprive the Senate of any power. We never did have the power to protect constitutional negotiations from the beginning, and we cannot lose what we never had. Our role comes later when a constitutional amendment is brought to Parliament. We then can, if we believe it necessary, exercise a suspensive veto that will give time for errors to be corrected, or for the Canadian people to be alerted to the dangers that we perceived. That is a very great power, never to be underestimated. However, I repeat, we have never had the power to veto constitutional negotiations before they even start.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Nor does the House.
Senator Fraser: I shall get to that, senator.
Honourable senators, imagine the result if we did have that veto power. By definition, we would be exercising it in a situation where the people of a province, my province, had said lawfully, democratically and in a way that both the National Assembly and the House of Commons had said was unmistakably clear, that they wanted to secede. Could you imagine how the citizens of Quebec would react if we in the Senate then said, "Oh, no, sorry, we shall not let you even open negotiations about secession." I put that question to Professor Maurice Pinard, who is the unquestioned expert on matters of Quebec public opinion.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: What was the question?
Senator Fraser: I am glad that you are listening, senators.
He said that that kind of division between the Senate and the other place would be "disastrous," that it would have "tremendous consequences," and that it would lead to "a very serious crisis." I think Professor Pinard is right. Some senators argue — and I would draw Senator Lynch-Staunton to this passage of my remarks —
Senator Lynch-Staunton: I am all ears.
Senator Fraser: Some senators argue, and I have great respect for their learning and convictions, that to create that power for the other place but not for the Senate is contrary to the fundamental nature of our bicameral parliamentary system. Authoritative witnesses told our committee that, even apart from the fundamental fact that it is the House of Commons that is the confidence chamber and has the power of the purse, it has not been uncommon for one of the two chambers to have a power or a responsibility that the other does not have. Sometimes, it has even been the Senate that was handed that responsibility. As Senator Kroft noted, for example, that was the case in the old Divorce Act.
A separate question is whether, in accepting Bill C-20, we are accepting bad precedent, starting a series of events that will eventually lead to a diminution of the Senate's powers. I cannot see how this bill, which addresses a situation so extraordinary as to be unique, can be a precedent for anything. We retain our full power to veto legislation, including legislation that would diminish our powers. As Professor Joseph Magnet pointed out to the committee, it is almost impossible for the government to adopt any policy of any weight or substance — some senators cited, for example, a new national energy program — without passing legislation. Our role remains undiminished. It was important for us to consider the bill carefully in that context, because we all have a duty to uphold the Senate, but it is clear to me that we are not diminishing the Senate in any way by passing this bill.
Let me come now to the matter that has been raised so passionately by Senator Joyal, the question of whether Canada is indivisible, and whether the whole people of Canada must, therefore, be consulted by referendum before secession of any province is negotiated.
Surely, we were all moved by Senator Joyal's eloquence, and perhaps given pause by his reasoning. For many of us there is an almost instinctive response, a yearning to have it somehow be true that this wonderful country can be guaranteed that it will not be divided. Honourable senators, it is not true. That is not the path that Canada has chosen. We are not like the United States, which, as Senator Kroft pointed out so well yesterday, fought one of the bloodiest wars in history to preserve its union. Let us not be mistaken, if we really believe that the country is indivisible, fighting a war to prevent secession must be the logical extreme to which we are prepared to go, should all else fail. Other countries have learned that dreadful lesson throughout history. It has been the great genius of Canada to see that unity cannot and should not be built on suppression.
Even if we believed that morally Canada should be indivisible, we would be left with the plain fact that the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that we are divisible, if rigorous conditions of legality and democracy are met. Every single witness to the committee, even those who disliked the court's opinion in the Quebec secession reference, agreed that that opinion is binding. It is now part of the law of Canada. We cannot evade it or wish it away.
Honourable senators, should we then turn to Senator Joyal's proposal that a national referendum be required before negotiations on secession may begin? I think not.
First, in legal terms, it seems to me that this is plainly counter to the Supreme Court's judgment. It was not a short judgment, narrowly focused on technicalities. It was a wide-ranging discussion of fundamental elements of national arrangements. Let us recall what the court said:
The clear repudiation by the people of Quebec of the existing constitutional order would...place an obligation on the other provinces and the federal government to acknowledge and respect that expression of democratic will by entering into negotiations...
The court stated that the negotiation process would be:
...precipitated by a decision of a clear majority of the population of Quebec on a clear question to pursue secession...
(1450)
The court also said:
...a clear majority vote in Quebec on a clear question in favour of secession would confer democratic legitimacy on the secession initiative which all of the other participants in Confederation would have to recognize.
The court did not say that the other participants in Confederation would have to negotiate only if other Canadians assented in their own referendum. Surely, if the court had thought that any such popular permission was needed to launch negotiations, it would have said so. It did not say so.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: They were not asked.
Senator Fraser: It said repeatedly that the duty to negotiate would be launched by Quebecers voting clearly in response to a clear question.
Honourable senators, suppose that we did have a national referendum and that Canadians outside Quebec, or even just Canadians in one of the five regions to which Senator Joyal would give a veto, said that there should be no negotiations? That would mean that Canada ignored the constitutional duty that the Supreme Court has said it would have to negotiate in response to the clearly expressed will of Quebecers. I have to believe that to insert this new roadblock would be unconstitutional.
It is worth noting one further comment from the Supreme Court:
Refusal of a party to conduct negotiations in a manner consistent with constitutional principles and values would seriously put at risk the legitimacy of that party's assertion of its rights....Those who quite legitimately insist upon the importance of upholding the rule of law cannot at the same time be oblivious to the need to act in conformity with constitutional principles and values, and so do their part to contribute to the maintenance and promotion of an environment in which the rule of law may flourish.
Honourable senators, I also believe that in political and moral terms it would be profoundly wrong, a terrible and tragic mistake, to try to create this new roadblock of a national referendum. What kind of a message would we send to Quebecers if we told them that no matter what the Supreme Court said, their own will was not enough, that their destiny was subject also to the veto of the other regions of Canada? We would, by that very act, be undermining the trust that millions of Quebecers have had in Canada's sense of democracy and fair play.
It is no exaggeration to say that one reason Quebecers have not felt they needed to secede is the assurance they have had that this democratic federation respected them and would not keep them against their will. That is certainly a crucial reason why the secessionist movement in Quebec has remained so adamantly democratic for more than 30 years.
Honourable senators, the secession of any province, let alone one as important as Quebec, would be a wrenching experience, far more so than most of us can imagine, with consequences that would echo down the centuries. We do not want it to happen. We want to protect Quebecers against secession that happens in confusion, that is not based on their indisputably clear will. If secession does come, Canada has the duty to insist on fair terms, including fair terms for minorities, and to negotiate toughly to ensure that they are achieved; but Canada does not have the right to prevent secession from happening, either directly or by creating new layers of conditions that make it practically unattainable.
It seems to me that some of us would like this bill to do the impossible: to guarantee that secession will never happen, or that if it does, everything we hold dear will still be protected down to the tiniest detail. No bill can do that. Even if we could predict the future, we do not have the democratic or constitutional power to control all events. We cannot, for example, force the Quebec government to ask the question we would like it to ask. We can only tell Quebecers the general kind of question that must be asked in order to trigger Canada's duty to negotiate.
Honourable senators, we cannot make the future turn out the way we want. We cannot ask this bill to do more than it is designed to do, but we can recognize that what it is designed to do matters. If we ever get to the day of turmoil and tragedy when the country does face a secession, this bill will help all parties to understand how the Government of Canada will begin to go about meeting its constitutional obligations. That is all it does, but it does do that. It is a legitimate goal, sought by legitimate means, and I think it merits our support.
Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I first want to congratulate Senator Fraser for the way that she chaired the committee's 12 or 13 meetings. It was not an easy task having voting and non-voting members. Senator Fraser had to put the hammer down on a number of occasions, which annoyed many of us, but she did the job and she did it well. I commend her for it.
The Hon. the Speaker: I regret to interrupt the honourable senator —
Senator Lynch-Staunton: This is a question.
The Hon. the Speaker: I realize that, but there was only one minute left in the speaking time of the Honourable Senator Fraser.
Hon. Dan Hays (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I propose that we give leave to Senator Fraser to deal with questions for an additional five minutes.
Some Hon. Senators: Oh, oh!
Senator Hays: For 10 minutes, then.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: More than that. She was Chair of the committee.
Senator Cools: Why not five minutes?
The Hon. the Speaker: What is the decision of the Senate?
Senator Hays: Honourable senators, I suggest that we give leave for the extension of Senator Fraser's time for 10 minutes.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: I have great respect for the academics that Senator Fraser quoted, but I am more impressed with the testimony, both before the committee and in writing, from the two people who were and will be called upon to be in the field. I am talking about Claude Ryan and Jean Charest.
In 1980, Claude Ryan was the leader of the federalist forces during the referendum campaign. He was asked what his reaction would have been had Prime Minister Trudeau introduced such a bill. He said that he would have gone to Mr. Trudeau and said, "Forget it. Forget it. We do not need this."
Jean Charest, who, if he is still there at the time of the next referendum, will be responsible for leading the federalist forces in Quebec and who was the key figure in the last referendum, wrote to the committee and said, "Forget it. We do not need it. You are intruding."
What this bill is doing — and this is my greatest concern and I am getting to my question — is dividing the federalist forces in Quebec. It is dividing the federalist parties in the House of Commons and in the Senate. It is bringing joy to the Bloc Québécois and the Parti Québécois. How can we envision such a bill when it will work against what we want, which is the unity of the country, when the only people who support it enthusiastically and unanimously are the separatists and the only people who are concerned with it are, for the main part, federalists?
Senator Fraser: Honourable senators, I am aware of the comments Senator Lynch-Staunton mentions. I must stress that I have very great respect for both Mr. Ryan and Mr. Charest.
In the case of Mr. Ryan, I note that we had a completely different legal situation in 1980. We did not yet have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Indeed, we did not have a patriated Constitution, and we did not have the Supreme Court opinion in the secession reference, which opinion has changed the landscape. I believe that this bill conforms quite carefully to the Supreme Court's opinion.
In regard to Mr. Charest, we are not interfering. Before I saw the text of this bill, it was one of my concerns that we might be intruding into provincial jurisdiction in a matter in which I believe we should not intrude. In fact, this bill rigorously respects the role and duty of both the federal government and the federal Parliament. While it is perhaps not fashionable in Quebec to admit that the federal government and Parliament have roles and duties in this matter, we do. In my view, that is what this bill is about.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: My point is how can you support a bill that divides federalists and brings separatists together?
Senator Rivest: That is the point. Answer the question.
(1500)
Senator Fraser: In democracies, we have opposition. That is what parliaments are about. We debate ahead of time. We are divided in our opinions until we reach our conclusions and then we accept the law of the land.
Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I wish to congratulate Senator Fraser and thank her for the manner in which she conducted the affairs of the committee, and I say so without any conjunctive "but." It was a pleasure to be the deputy chair of the committee.
Honourable senators, I have just received a letter dated June 19, which was Monday, over the signature of Grand Chief Dr. Ted Moses, addressed to the chair of the committee, which I should like to read and ask the honourable senator whether or not she received a copy of it. It reads:
Dear Senators:
I am writing in regard to the startling disclosures in today's newspapers (The [Montreal] Gazette, the National Post and the Ottawa Citizen) concerning a key study on Québec Secession by U.S. Professor Allan Buchanan. The study was commissioned by the Privy Council and was submitted to the government in 1999.
Professor Buchanan's study is highly relevant to the matters being addressed by the Special Senate Committee and is of central significance to Aboriginal peoples in the context of Bill C-20. To date, the Privy Council has unconscionably suppressed this important information from the Special Senate Committee on Bill C-20 and from all Aboriginal peoples in Canada.
In light of this newly disclosed information pertaining directly to Aboriginal peoples, I am writing to request that I, as Grand Chief of the Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee), be permitted to reappear as a witness before the Committee on Bill C-20. While we are respectful of the extremely tight schedule of the Committee, we are making this request on an urgent basis so that we may address the contents of this vital study.
My question to the honourable senator is: Did she receive a copy of this letter dated Monday, June 19, and, if so, why was it not tabled before the committee?
Senator Fraser: The answer is yes, I did receive it, but I am wracking my brain and I cannot tell Senator Kinsella precisely when. It is my recollection that I saw it only after we had concluded clause-by-clause study of the bill. I do not know whether I saw it that evening or the next day. I do know, because one of the senators or one of the witnesses in the committee had, at some point on Monday, made reference to this report of the study by Professor Buchanan. I did check the newspaper report, and while I have not seen the study itself, I did note that Professor Buchanan is a professor, not of law, but of philosophy in the United States, so I am not sure that I would take his reading of the Canadian Constitution as a certainty.
Some Hon. Senators: Oh, oh!
Senator Fraser: His opinion was one of complete and utter sympathy with the rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada, and I believe that every member of the committee was also in complete and utter sympathy with that fundamental philosophical position.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Except for the two members of the aboriginal community.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, there is only one minute left. I recognize Senator Carney.
Hon. Pat Carney: Honourable senators, I should like to congratulate Senator Fraser in absentia because I was not a member of the committee. However, like many senators, I followed the subject matter with interest. While I realize that this bill was drawn up with Quebec in mind, I would ask the honourable senator whether it applies to all provinces of Canada, and, if honourable senators wish, I shall add territories to that question, I shall add aboriginal states, and I shall add all the other aspects of Canada which are ignored. If it does apply to all these other aspects of Canada, were witnesses called to discuss how this would apply to bids by other provinces or territories or aboriginal states wishing to negotiate a different arrangement with Canada?
Senator Prud'homme: Good question!
Senator Fraser: Honourable senators, I shall answer that as quickly as I can. Clearly, the bill does apply to any province. It refers systematically to any province, not just the province of Quebec.
Senator Prud'homme: Oh, yeah?
Senator Joyal: The definition of province includes territories.
Senator Fraser: Plus territories. As Senator Joyal reminds me, the legal definition of province includes territories. We were at pains to have witnesses come from portions of Canada outside Quebec. One or two of them raised the question, in specific terms, about other provinces. We did not explore it in great detail, but we were all conscious that we were not talking only about Quebec. In fact, we did debate that point at some length. In my view, what this bill does is protect all citizens of any province from a secession that could happen by accident, but it also protects their rights, should a majority of the people of that province or territory ever decide that they wish to leave Canada. I think it is ultimately useful should —
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, unfortunately, the time is up.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Away you go!
Senator Kinsella: Ten more minutes!
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I recognize that there are many other senators who wish to add comments. However, I am limited by the leave that was granted. The leave has now expired.
Senator Kinsella: Ask for further leave!
Some Hon. Senators: Leave! Leave!
Senator Lynch-Staunton: She's your senator.
Senator Hays: Honourable senators, if Senator Fraser wishes to go on, it is up to her, but I would not give leave for more than a minute or two.
She does not wish leave.
Some Hon. Senators: Shame!
Senator Hays: Honourable senators, I should like to call, as the next item of government business, Bill C-16.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable Senator Hays, I hesitate to interrupt you, but I have a senator rising on a point of order.
Hon. Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: Your Honour and honourable senators, Senator Fraser is the chairman of a very important special committee. She has, in her evidence, drawn some conclusions from the evidence that she heard. Certainly in the circumstances it would be appropriate for us to spend at least another 15 or 20 minutes to question her —
Senator Cools: Absolutely!
Senator Grafstein: — as the chairman of that committee to deal with the substance of the evidence in front of her. It strikes me, Your Honour, that if this chamber is to be a chamber of relevant debate, this is certainly relevant.
Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I regret to say that the honourable senator does not have a point of order. He may have a legitimate request, but it is not a point of order under the rules.
Senator Hays: Honourable senators, I call, as the next order —
Some Hon. Senators: Shame!
Senator Hays: — of government business, item number 8, debate on Bill C-16.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Closure by stealth!
Senator Bryden: This is not a bully pit!
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Shame! Big flip-flop!
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable Senator Hays, I believe that the order on Bill C-20 is hanging at the moment. It is in limbo. I must have someone either speak to or adjourn the debate.
Senator Hays: Honourable senators, I shall resume my place. I spoke too soon.
The Hon. the Speaker: I must either have someone adjourn this order or speak to it.
Hon. Lorna Milne: Honourable senators, I move the adjournment of the debate.
Hon. Gérald-A. Beaudoin: I have a question, Your Honour, on Bill C-20.
The Hon. the Speaker: I am sorry. Let us be clear. I realize this is a highly charged issue but let us be clear where we are. Honourable Senator Fraser spoke on the third reading of Bill C-20. When her speech ends, either someone else speaks or it must be adjourned. It cannot be left in limbo. If someone wishes to speak, I shall recognize whoever gets up to speak. If someone wishes to adjourn, I shall recognize whoever wishes to adjourn. However, we cannot proceed to the next item until we conclude this one in some way. There can be no further questions to Senator Fraser because her speech and the period for comments and questions on her speech have concluded. We are now on to speeches or an adjournment.
Senator Milne: I move adjournment of the debate.
The Hon. the Speaker: I recognize Senator Beaudoin.
Senator Beaudoin: Honourable senators, I intend to speak, but later on. The only thing I should like now is to ask a question.
(1510)
The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Beaudoin, if I allow you to do that, you will lose your right to speak.
Senator Beaudoin: I do not want to lose my right to speak!
Senator Prud'homme: Point of order, Your Honour! On a point of order, on a point of order!
Your Honour has said exactly what a Speaker is entitled to say. It is very clear. I saw two people: One to get up to adjourn the debate, followed by a discussion again by Senator Beaudoin; and followed again by another senator who stood up to adjourn the debate. In all fairness, you have rendered the correct decision. At this time, the one who should be recognized is Senator Cools, who has said "I move the adjournment of the debate."
Senator Andreychuk: Senator Milne!
Hon. Anne C. Cools: Honourable senators, on another point of order, this can go on for a long time. What is our objective here, to delay? I thought our objective —
The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Cools, order, please!
Senator Cools: Senator Prud'homme just called my name.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable Senator Cools, you will lose your right to speak if you continue this way.
Senator Cools: No, I shall not.
The Hon. the Speaker: I need someone who wishes to speak on the third reading of Bill C-20 or someone who wishes to adjourn the debate.
On motion of Senator Milne, debate adjourned.
Business of the Senate
Hon. Dan Hays (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, we are under Orders of the Day, Government Business, and I should like to call Order No. 8 next, which is a debate at second reading on Bill C-16. I believe Senator Beaudoin intends to speak.Hon. Marcel Prud'homme: Point of order, Your Honour!
The Hon. the Speaker: Will the Table please call the order and could we have enough silence so that senators can hear the order?
Senator Prud'homme: Point of order!
The Hon. the Speaker: If you are rising on a point of order, Senator Prud'homme, I shall hear you.
Senator Prud'homme: Could the leader of the house remind us that yesterday we made an agreement that we would adjourn at 3:30?
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable Senator Prud'homme, I regret that that is not a point of order.
Senator Prud'homme: At 3:30 it will be, though!
The Hon. the Speaker: Could we have enough silence so that we can hear the order, please!
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. Gérald-A. Beaudoin: Honourable senators, I rise to speak to Bill C-16.
[Translation]
The Government of Canada has indicated its intention to repeal the present Citizenship Act and replace it with another. This legislation, to be called An Act respecting Canadian citizenship, sets out new measures relating to obtaining and losing citizenship.
[English]
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I request that those honourable senators who feel that it is absolutely vital that they have conversations do so outside the chamber so that we can hear the honourable senator who is speaking.
Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
[Translation]
Senator Beaudoin: A person may be granted Canadian citizenship if he or she is at least 18 years of age, meets the residency criterion, has physically been in Canada for three of the last five years, has an adequate knowledge of French or English, has an adequate knowledge of Canada and of the responsibilities of citizenship, and is able to express that knowledge in French or in English without the help of an interpreter.
Bill C-16 also provides for the loss of citizenship under certain circumstances, including when the minimal conditions about residency are not complied with. Similarly, cabinet may revoke the citizenship of a person if it was obtained by fraud. Cabinet may also not allow a person to take the oath of citizenship for reasons of public interest. Finally, no person can be granted Canadian citizenship if he or she is subject to a probation order, on parole or confined in any detention centre; is charged with or on trial for an offence committed in Canada or abroad; is under investigation by the Minister of Justice, the RCMP, CSIS; has been convicted of an offence under the Criminal Code; has not obtained the required consent to be admitted to Canada; or as long as he or she is under a removal order.
Since it is not mentioned in any of the clauses relating to the division of powers, does the word "citizenship" come under federal residual powers? Must citizenship be linked to subsection 91(25) of the Constitution Act, 1867? In 1960, the learned Justice Rand wrote that, at the time of the federation, Canada was a state, but that citizenship was perceived in terms of allegiance. People talked about subjects, foreigners, aliens.
Nowadays, the status of citizen is both complex and important. Since it is not mentioned in the Constitution Act, 1867, it therefore comes under the residual powers of the federal Parliament.
That being said, I find some of the provisions of Bill C-16 hard to accept, namely those that deprive an individual of his right to appeal an unfavourable decision. Indeed, clauses 22 and 27 of Bill C-16 expressly provide that the decision is final and not subject to appeal.
Clause 22(3) of the bill provides that the order prohibiting the granting or resumption of citizenship is not subject to appeal to or review by any court. The decision is essentially based on an appreciation, by the Governor in Council, of the notion of public interest.
Clause 27(3) of the bill states that the Governor in Council's declaration that the grant or resumption of citizenship would be a threat to "national security" is not subject to appeal to or review by any court.
I do not like privative clauses. They prevent an individual from appealing or turning to the judicial system in order to have a decision reviewed. In extreme situations, I could understand that such an approach might be taken for reasons of national security. This could be considered a reasonable limit in a free and democratic society.
The privative clause in clause 22(3) of Bill C-16, however, does not strike me as acceptable. The notion of "public interest" is too vague, too imprecise. In R. v. Morales, the Supreme Court of Canada found that the notion of "public interest" was imprecise to the point of being unconstitutional. A comment on this decision is therefore in order.
R. v. Morales deals primarily with section 11(e) of the Charter in relation to sections 515(10)(b), 515(10)(a), and 515(6)(a) of the Criminal Code.
(1520)
Let us recall briefly the facts of this case. Morales had been arrested and charged with drug trafficking. He was a member of a major network to import cocaine into Canada. His release was denied. After a bail hearing, Morales applied for a review, and was then released under certain conditions.
Under section 515(10)(b) of the Criminal Code, there are two reasons that justify the pre-trial detention of an accused: first, the detention is necessary to ensure his or her attendance in court; and, second, the detention is in the public interest, or necessary for the protection or safety of the public. The Morales decision has to do with the second reason, which is subdivided into two components: public interest and public safety.
According to Chief Justice Lamer, writing for the court, the criterion of "public interest" infringes section 11(e) of the Charter because it authorizes the detention of an accused in terms which are vague and imprecise. This is its "fatal flaw." It is a case of applying the doctrine of vagueness, and I quote Justice Lamer:
In my view the principles of fundamental justice preclude a standardless sweep in any provision which authorizes imprisonment. This is all the more so under a constitutional guarantee not to be denied bail without just cause as set out in s. 11(e). Since pre-trial detention is extraordinary in our system of criminal justice, vagueness in defining the terms of pre-trial detention may be even more invidious than is vagueness in defining an offence.
An absolute definition is not necessary, but the terms "public interest" allow too much scope for arbitrariness, according to Chief Justice Lamer. He goes even further, stating:
No amount of judicial interpretation of the term "public interest" would be capable of rendering it a provision which gives any guidance for legal debate.
As a result, the public interest component of section 515(10)(b) of the Criminal Code violates section 11(e) of the Charter because it authorizes a denial of bail without just cause.
This violation is not justified under section 1 of the Charter. Even if the term "public interest" is capable of passing the threshold test of constituting a rule of law, the two objectives of section 515(10)(b) are sufficiently important to justify violation of section 11(e) of the Charter. However, section 515(10)(b) does not meet the proportionality test, for there is no rational connection between the measure and the objectives of preventing crime. As well, the measure does not impair section 11(e) rights as little as possible, because of its vagueness and excessive scope.
It is my conclusion that the "public security" criterion is compatible with section 11(e) of the Charter, according to the Supreme Court. This criterion provides just cause for refusal of release on bail, in compliance with section 11(e), according to Chief Justice Lamer. Returning to Bill C-16 itself, honourable senators, you will understand that I am not in agreement with the use of the concept of public interest in this bill, because it is overly vague.
It is, moreover, worthwhile pointing out that the courts may decide to intervene nevertheless, despite the existence of a privative clause, in the event of a serious violation of the principles of natural justice, within the process leading to the decision to revoke or restore citizenship. This is in keeping with precedent in administrative law.
For this reason alone, Bill C-16 merits careful and detailed study. The Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs seems to me to be the ideal venue for such an examination.
[English]
Hon. Anne C. Cools: Honourable senators, I move the adjournment of the debate.
The Hon. the Speaker: It was moved by the Honourable Senators Cools, seconded by the Honourable Senator Chalifoux, that further debate be adjourned until the next sitting of the Senate.
Hon. Dan Hays (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I think this bill is ready to go to committee. Senator Finestone is ready to refer the bill. Does Senator Cools have a short speech?
Senator Cools: The comments I have to make simply cannot be completed in five minutes.
Hon. Marcel Prud'homme: Honourable senators, I intend to speak to this bill as well. I have worked for 35 years on citizenship issues.
The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
On motion of Senator Cools, debate adjourned.
Business of the Senate
Hon. Dan Hays (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I note that the clock shows three minutes before the half-hour and we have an order to rise at 3:30 p.m. I request the consent of honourable senators to proceed to the adjournment motion, leaving all matters that have not been reached under Orders of the Day and on the Notice Paper standing in their place.The Hon. the Speaker: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Senate adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.