Hon. Marc Gold: Honourable senators, most of the people that have spoken in this chamber are fairly clear in their positions, and it has been elegant and persuasive. I may be speaking only for myself, but I'm really struggling with this issue. I don't find this an easy one at all. I'm going to reserve the right to wait until I hear Senator Woo to finally decide, but I lean towards splitting and I'll tell you why.

It's not primarily — rightly or wrongly — out of a concern for governance. I think the arguments made in that regard are persuasive. Nor is it about the bill generally. You won't be surprised to hear this, but it is about the potential impact on areas of provincial jurisdiction. With respect, I don't think it's just a matter of speculation, and I will turn to that in a moment. I think we have a responsibility faced with a bill to take a hard and, dare I say, cold-eyed look at the actual text of the law to make sure that whatever the intentions of a current or future government are, the law itself is solid and clear and respects the principles of Canadian federalism and all the other values that we're duty-bound to consider.

But allow me to speculate for one brief second. I may be entirely wrong, but I can imagine a particular municipality or province or government or private investor finding, rightly or wrongly, inconvenient some aspects of an environmental law or a health and safety law or other laws because, let's face it, that slows projects down, and we often suffer as a result.

So I can imagine the possibility that, for the best of intentions, an agreement might be reached — an agreement that might never see the light of day because of confidentiality rules embedded in the bill — and that we will modify or ignore certain laws. Now, that is pure speculation and I offer it only as an example of my skepticism about always taking governments at their word.

Let me be more legalistic. As I read the bill, if the government chooses to make the bank an agent of the Crown for a particular project, as contemplated in proposed section 5(4)(d), and that project falls within an area that would otherwise be of exclusive provincial jurisdiction — expanding a university or building a highway — then I believe it would be correct to say that by virtue of section 17 of the Interpretation Act, the bank for that project would be immune by law from the operation of provincial laws, whether environmental, labour, health and safety, which would otherwise apply to it.

It would be politically foolish and costly to do so, to be sure, and that's why I frankly don't understand why, with the passage of these weeks, there has not been a willingness on the part of the government to simply amend or commit to amending the law to make it clear that in areas of pure provincial jurisdiction, provincial law would apply, as contemplated in the Interpretation Act.

So I lean towards dividing in the interests of — forgive me for saying this — putting some pressure on government to respond to this non-speculative and legitimate concern about the possible impact of this on provincial law.

But, honourable colleagues, I would also like to put this in the context — I share my struggles with you — of how I see our role in relation to the other place and in relation to this because it's all inextricably bound.

Our job is to identify problems in legislation, whether it is budget legislation or others, and suggest ways in which we could improve it, mindful of the conventions and practices that pertain to different kinds of bills. In this particular case, whether we divide the bill or insist in committee and come back — I'd be happy to substitute for anybody, if that's the will of the chamber, for the weeks to come — to propose amendments to improve the bill. But if the government, at the end of the day, decides to reject the division, or if the government decides to reject the amendments that we may or may not insist on in committee or in this chamber, I will defer when it comes back with the message.

I feel we will have done our job to have raised the issue. I believe we had the right to split the bill. I supported the Speaker's ruling notwithstanding my belief, and I believe we have the right to push hard back on the government to say, "Clarify your intentions," which I believe are in good faith, but you may not always be the government. If at the end of the day the other place decides otherwise, then I believe it would be our duty to defer to it. It is not our duty or responsibility or our job to hold up a bill of this importance to Canadians, but for the moment, I will conclude with where I began: I'm still struggling with this issue. Thank you for your indulgence.