Hon. Andrew Cardozo: I rise briefly to speak to Bill C-5 and to make two points. We talked a lot about the criticisms, but the bill is an important one, as my colleague just pointed out. We are certainly talking about lowering interprovincial barriers and building big things fast.
In terms of the first part of the bill, an act to enact the free trade and labour mobility in Canada act, I’m quite happy with that and I am in support of it. By and large, I’m in support of the second part, the building Canada act. My problem is with sections 21, 22 and 23.
First, I want to make a few comments on the “Henry VIII” clauses. They’ve been referred to often. When I raised it with the minister, she chided me for using colourful language. I have been chided elsewhere for that, too. However, I want to talk about the origin of that term.
In 1539 the English Parliament passed an act called the Statute of Proclamations 1539 some 500 years ago. The purpose of that act was to allow the king to rule by proclamation or decree and completely usurp Parliament. That was what Parliament allowed him to do. The English Parliament then repealed the act eight years later in 1547.
In Canada, as noted in Bill C-5, the consequences of “Henry VIII” clauses include the delegation by Parliament of its functions — and of our functions — to the Governor-in-Council and, in some cases, to a single minister.
The problem was certainly bigger with the original Bill C-5, but the House, in my opinion, has improved the bill considerably.
The opposition has placed some important guardrails and limitations on the bill, and I’d say that the opposition did the government a major favour in terms of improving the bill. Some of the improvements — as outlined by members such as Senator Dalphond and others — include the parliamentary review committee, the conflict of interest guidelines, national security review, Indigenous consultation and the annual review by the minister to be placed before Parliament.
I find myself in agreement with a number of the points that have been made. While I would have preferred to see sections 21, 22 and 23 dropped, they have been contained. If I can use a somewhat oxymoronic term, we now have a situation in which Henry VIII has been contained.
The second point I would like to share — and I beg your indulgence, colleagues — is that we have all received a lot of mail. It’s good for us to have the opportunity to speak to the people who have been writing to us. Certainly, I have been receiving a lot of mail because I had raised this issue of the “Henry VIII” clauses on a few occasions. As is the case with all of you, people are counting on me to vote one way or the other on this act.
Let me share my reasoning with you. I was inspired by the Salisbury convention, so I coined the term “modified Salisbury.” What is the Salisbury convention? It basically says that if a government implements policies that it ran on and that were part of their platform when they were elected, it is generally expected that the upper house — the unelected house — will support those policies whether or not we agree with them.
I have modified this somewhat as follows, and there are five steps to my reasoning. First, the Liberal Party generally promised in their platform to have the “build Canada” project. They didn’t talk about the specific clauses — the “Henry VIII” clauses — but they talked about doing big things and moving fast. Second, the government introduced a bill. Third, they heard criticisms. One can question whether there was enough time for that. Fourth, led by the opposition, the House of Commons made several changes to the bill. Fifth, the House of Commons passed a bill originated by the Liberal Party based on its platform and amended by the opposition parties. So we have a bill that has changed considerably from the way it was organized.
For me, on balance, these are significant changes that have been made. The guardrails have been put in place. These are useful and important, and for that reason, I’m willing to support Bill C-5. Thank you.