Honourable senators, many members of this chamber have done an exemplary job in connection with Bill C-45, and they deserve to be thanked for their dedication and effort. I have followed the debate from a distance, especially through the media, which has shown an interest in the high quality of work achieved in this chamber of sober second thought and in its committees. Their efforts resulted in over 40 amendments to the bill received from the House of Commons. The Governments of Quebec and Manitoba both invited the federal government and the House of Commons to accept the amendments adopted by the Senate on June 7, amendments that I voted in favour of.

Yesterday, we received the response from the House of Commons informing us that it had accepted many of these amendments but that it had rejected the one that prompted my colleague, Senator Carignan, to move his amendment. We must now think about our response and decide whether we should insist that the amendment that gives the provinces the power to regulate home cultivation be re-examined by the House of Commons. We must decide whether, as rule 16-3(2) says:

 . . . the Senate insists on any of its amendments . . . 

In my view, a response of the House of Commons — an elected House — calls for a high degree of deference from the Senate, since the elected members are ultimately accountable to the electors for their response.

Honourable senators, I submit for your consideration that the Senate should disregard the other house’s response only under very specific circumstances and never based on political opinions about the policy objectives of the contemplated legislation. That was done at first, second, and third readings. We are past all that now. Instead, the rationale must be that the principles governing relations between the two chambers demand that the upper house maintain its position.

In other words, we have reached a point where we’re not speaking about the content of this bill but the nature of the relationship we would like to establish between this house and the other house.

I submit that at this point we should only refer to criteria different than those I have listened to in the debate over the last few minutes. I know certain senators oppose the bill, and they have, in their opinion, good reason to oppose it, but this is no longer the object of the debate. The debate has moved way beyond this. We have to define the relationship.

Honourable colleagues, as an independent senator I humbly propose to you, especially those who are part of our group of independents, that we adopt, at this stage of the legislative process, a principle-based approach relying on objective criteria and not on personal political, economic, sociological or other views.

There were some previous statements in this chamber from experienced colleagues, far more experienced than me, I submit and acknowledge, and written texts by learned authors, such as Professor Thomas of the University of Manitoba. I believe we need to conduct a contextual analysis using the following criteria, and surely others.

First, if the response is accepted, will it result in legislation that clearly or most likely violates the Constitution or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? If the answer is unclear, shall the task of answering that question not be left to the courts?

Second, is the purpose of the bill an election campaign issue for the government, or is it an extremely controversial issue for which voters did not give the government the mandate?

Third, does the evidence provided to both houses unequivocally show that the bill is fundamentally flawed and that the response, in part or as a whole, is thus plainly unreasonable?

Fourth, does the response show that the majority is abusing one or more minorities, showing contempt for language rights, demonstrating favouritism for one region at the expense of another?

Fifth, does the House of Commons’ response reject Senate amendments designed to prevent unforeseeable and irreparable damage to the national interest?

The only point raised that would justify our insisting on our amendment following the House of Commons’ response is that it would be beneficial to clarify the validity of a law passed by Quebec’s National Assembly. With all due respect, it seems to me that my colleague, Senator Carignan, has shown that Quebec’s attorney general would have very strong grounds for defending the constitutional validity of the National Assembly’s law, were it to be challenged. Moreover, if the law is challenged, the courts, not senators, will rule on the matter. Determining the validity of the National Assembly’s law is up to the Quebec courts and ultimately to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court — not, I respectfully submit, to the Senate. I trust my former colleagues to do an excellent job on that.

For these reasons, honourable senators, I invite you to vote against the amendment and in favour of the House of Commons’ response. Thank you.