Previous Sittings

Order Paper and Notice Paper

Previous Sittings

Journals of the Senate

Previous Sittings

Debates of the Senate (Hansard)

Debates of the Senate (Hansard)

Download as PDF

Debates of the Senate (Hansard)

2nd Session, 35th Parliament,
Volume 135, Issue 82

Thursday, March 13, 1997
The Honourable Gildas L. Molgat, Speaker

Visitors in the Gallery
Pages Exchange Program with House of Commons

SENATORS' STATEMENTS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
QUESTION PERIOD
ORDERS OF THE DAY

THE SENATE

Thursday, March 13, 1997

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

Prayers.

Visitors in the Gallery

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, before I call for Senators' Statements, I would like to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of a group of students from Vermont University who study Canadian history and political issues. They have come to Ottawa on a field trip, led by Mr. John Preston and Professor André Sénécal of the Canadian Studies Program at the University of Vermont. They were welcomed in Ottawa earlier today by Senator Prud'homme who, for the last few years, has been the host of Vermont University students in the Canadian studies program on their annual field trip here.

I bid you welcome to the Senate of Canada.

Pages Exchange Program with House of Commons

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I would also like to introduce to you the House of Commons page who has been with us this week. Megan Turner is from St. John's, Newfoundland, and is currently studying in the Faculty of Arts at the University of Ottawa.

SENATORS' STATEMENTS

Human Rights

International Day for Elimination of Racial Discrimination

Hon. Jean B. Forest: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the fact that March 21 marks the anniversary of the Sharpeville massacre in South Africa when, on this day in 1960, peaceful demonstrators against apartheid were wounded and killed. In commemoration of this tragic event, the United Nations, in 1966, declared March 21 the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

On March 21, 1986, the Prime Minister proclaimed in the House of Commons Canada's participation in this commemorative event and said:

Let us all work toward the day when racism and racial discrimination become history and when every Canadian can participate fully and equally in the life of our country.

Last week, in Edmonton, I spoke on behalf of the Government of Canada at the launching of Northern Alberta's "Campaign '97 - Toward the Elimination of Racial Discrimination." There, I met a number of people whom I had met a quarter of a century earlier while serving on Alberta's first Human Rights Commission. They were, at that time, new immigrants, members of visible minorities, who were experiencing difficulties in their new home.

(1410)

Last week, I marvelled at the tremendous contribution which they have made to our community in the intervening years. I rejoiced in the realization that, as Canadian citizens, they were doing their part to eliminate racism in Canada. Unfortunately, their efforts, along with ours, are still badly needed because, sadly, racism is still alive and well in Canada, and it still hurts.

Sadly, it is not just our new immigrants who are being hurt; it has been, and still is, our aboriginal people, First Nations people who were here long before us, who suffer from the most shameful and pervasive discrimination in Canada. This was brought home to us in a speech given at the conference by Dr. Chester Cunningham, a member of the Order of Canada and a highly respected citizen of aboriginal ancestry who spoke of discrimination that he and his people have suffered and continue to suffer today.

Racism can be stopped if each and every Canadian makes a commitment each and every day to try to live and work in harmony, and tries to understand, respect and, indeed, appreciate our differences.

I recall when Dr. Max Wyman, Chairman of Alberta's first Human Rights Commission, retired. He was asked by a reporter, "What have you found to be the most important factor in resolving human rights issues?" After a thoughtful pause, Dr. Wyman, who was himself no stranger to racial discrimination, replied -

The Hon. the Speaker: I regret to interrupt the Honourable Senator Forest, but her three-minute time period has expired.

Honourable senators, is leave granted to allow the honourable senator time to complete her statement?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Forest: Honourable senators, Dr. Wyman replied, "For me, the most important factor has been recognizing and coming to grips with the personal prejudices I never thought I had."

Since a change of attitude is key to eliminating racism, perhaps a personal reflection upon this fact is the first important step that all Canadians should take as we approach March 21, the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

Fisheries and Oceans

Update on Plight of Orca Whales Captured by Japanese Fishermen

Hon. Pat Carney: Honourable senators, earlier this week, I raised in this chamber the plight of a pod of orcas which had been captured in Japan and separated from their family unit. Some of those captured are being offered for sale to entertainment centres in Japan, while others have been released.

I explained that we were in a dilemma because Canada, having withdrawn from the International Whaling Commission after we ceased the commercial exploitation of whales, had no formal diplomatic method by which to convey our concerns.

The Leader of the Government in the Senate told us that she would take this question to her colleagues to see what could be done. I would advise her that, while it is too early to give specific details, we have found methods of communication on this issue. The Vancouver Island municipalities have conveyed their concern directly to Japan. I will keep this house informed of our progress on the fate of the orcas.

Goods and Services Tax

Harmonization with Provincial Sales Taxes-Effect on Atlantic Taxpayers

Hon. Gérald J. Comeau: Honourable senators, I should like to take this opportunity to speak out on the impact that the blending of sales taxes will have on Atlantic provinces.

This measure in no way fulfils the promises made by the Liberals during the 1993 election. Canadians were promised by then leadership hopeful Jean Chrétien that, if elected, he would abolish, scrap, kill the GST. We are nearing another election and the GST is still in existence.

It is important that Canadians recognize the about-face that the Liberals have done on this issue, as well as others. This is not surprising, given the flip-flops they have had on other issues, such as free trade, UI, cuts to the CBC, and the list goes on.

Canadians who voted for the Liberals in 1993 based on their promise to abolish the tax have been short-changed. This attempt to blend the tax with the provincial sales tax cannot be mistaken for the fulfilment of an election promise. If anything, the federal Liberals have exploited their close ties with their friends in the three Atlantic provinces, kicked in some bribe money and, knowing Premiers Savage, McKenna and Tobin would never say no, have used Atlantic Canadians as their scapegoat.

The PC Party fully supports the concept of true tax harmonization. What we cannot support is the convoluted way in which the Liberals have tried to achieve this objective by Balkanizing the Atlantic provinces and placing an added tax burden on their citizens.

The evidence we heard while travelling in Atlantic Canada was overwhelming. We heard from seniors, students, low-income Canadians, and many people from many walks of life. They all told us the same thing: "This tax will hurt." Our region of the country cannot withstand this new type of tax.

Estimates are that the BST will kill even more jobs - some 2,000 jobs in the construction industry alone.

It is unfortunate that not many of our Liberal friends across the aisle could participate in our recent hearings. Had they taken the time to do so, I am sure they would have a much different point of view.

It is sad that Liberal senators, particularly those from Atlantic Canada, would not come to hear what the people they represent had to say about this tax. I believe that leadership hopeful John Hamm, the leader of the Nova Scotia Progressive Conservative Party -

[Translation]

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senator, you have gone three minutes over your time. There is a problem because Senators' Statements cannot concern an item on the Orders of the Day. Given that we will be voting on this matter today, I suspect your statement contravenes the rules. I would ask you to be careful.

[English]

Senator Comeau: Honourable senators, I invite senators across the aisle who did not wish to participate in hearings with Atlantic Canadians concerning the proposed changes, to read some of the testimony given to Atlantic Canadian senators in the past few weeks. If they do, they will see just how much this will change -

[Translation]

The Hon. the Speaker: I am sorry. I must ask you to stop. As I mentioned, this matter is on the Orders of the Day to be voted on later today. Furthermore, you have exceeded your time, I regret to say.

[English]

Human Rights

Nigeria-Action of Minister of Foreign Affairs

Hon. Consiglio Di Nino: Honourable senators, I often stand and criticize the government on a number of issues, and that is something I will continue to do when I feel it is appropriate. Today, however, I should like to congratulate the government.

Honourable senators, the stand that this government is taking in dealing with Nigeria, and in particular the stand of Minister Axworthy, is commendable. I am delighted to see that we are finally facing this problem in a manner which, I believe, will result in helping those who cry out for freedom and human rights.

I should like to extend my congratulations to Minister Axworthy. In so doing, I would suggest to him that there are many other places in the world where similar action could, and should, be taken.

Alberta

Congratulations to Progressive Conservative Party on Election Victory

Hon. Ron Ghitter: Honourable senators, now that the results of what some thought might have been a close election are in, I know I speak for all members of the Senate when I congratulate Premier Klein on his impressive victory. I hope Albertans demonstrate the same level of intelligence when they go to the polls in June and again vote for the Progressive Conservatives.

(1420)

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

Criminal Code

Bill to Amend-Report of Committee

Hon. Sharon Carstairs, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, presented the following report:

Thursday, March 13, 1997

The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs has the honour to present its

TWENTY-SECOND REPORT
Your Committee, to which was referred Bill S-10, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal organization), has, in obedience to the Order of Reference of Tuesday, December 10, 1996, examined the said Bill and now reports as follows:
Your Committee recommends that this Bill not be proceeded with further in the Senate at this time.
Your Committee notes that any Senator who wishes to have a Senate committee conduct a special study on organized crime may propose a motion to that effect in the Senate.
Respectfully submitted,

SHARON CARSTAIRS
Chair

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

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

Private Bill

An Act to Incorporate the Bishop of the Arctic of the Church of England in Canada-Bill to Amend-Report of Committee

Hon. Sharon Carstairs, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, presented the following report:

Thursday, March 13, 1997

The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs has the honour to present its

TWENTY-THIRD REPORT
Your Committee, to which was referred Bill S-15, An Act to amend an Act to incorporate the Bishop of the Arctic of the Church of England in Canada, has, in obedience to the Order of Reference of Tuesday, February 18, 1997, examined the said Bill and now reports the same without amendment but with the following recommendation:
Your Committee has concerns about the types of situations in which Parliament is being asked to deal with issues of private incorporation. It therefore recommends that the Government review the law of general application with respect to corporations, with a view to providing petitioners with alternatives to private Acts of Parliament, where these alternatives do not currently exist.
Respectfully submitted,

SHARON CARSTAIRS
Chair

The Hon. the Speaker: When shall this bill be read the third time?

On motion of Senator Nolin, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for third reading at the next sitting of the Senate.

Nuclear Safety and Control Bill

Report of Committee

Hon. Ron Ghitter, Chairman of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, presented the following report:

Thursday, March 13, 1997

The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources has the honour to present its

NINTH REPORT
Your Committee, to which was referred the Bill C-23, An Act to establish the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, has, in obedience to the Order of Reference of Wednesday, March 5, 1997, examined the said Bill and now reports the same without amendment, but with the following recommendation:
The Committee unanimously recommends that the government direct that the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and Atomic Energy of Canada report to separate Ministers in order to reflect the important distinction between the regulatory aspects of the legislation and the research, development and marketing organization for nuclear energy.
Respectfully submitted,

RON GHITTER
Chairman

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

On motion of Senator Taylor, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for third reading at the next sitting of the Senate.

Appropriation Bill No. 4, 1996-97

First Reading

The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that a message had been received from the House of Commons with Bill C-87, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1997.

Bill read first time.

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

On motion of Senator Graham, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 57(1)(f), bill placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading later this day.

Appropriation Bill No. 1, 1997-98

First Reading

The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that a message had been received from the House of Commons with Bill C-88, granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1998.

Bill read first time.

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

On motion of Senator Graham, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 57(1)(f), bill placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading later this day.

Parliamentary Delegation to Lebanon, Jordan and Yemen

Report Tabled

Hon. Brenda M. Robertson: Honourable senators, the parliamentary delegation which went to Beirut at the invitation of the National Assembly of Lebanon; to Amman at the invitation of the Senate of Jordan; and to Sana'a at the invitation of the Parliament of Yemen from March 30 to April 10, 1996, has the honour to table its report.

Canada-Japan Inter-Parliamentary Group

Fifth Annual Asia Pacific Parliamentary Forum-Notice of Inquiry

Hon. Dan Hays: Honourable senators, I give notice that on Tuesday next, I will call the attention of the Senate to the report of the Canada-Japan Inter-Parliamentary Group on the fifth annual meeting of the Asia Pacific Parliamentary Forum held in Vancouver, British Columbia from January 7 to 10, 1997.

Agriculture and Forestry

Fact-Finding Mission of Committee to Washington-Notice of Inquiry

Hon. Leonard J. Gustafson: Honourable senators, I give notice that on Tuesday, March 18, 1997, I will call the attention of the Senate to the fact-finding mission of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry held in Washington, D.C., from February 25 to 27, 1997.

Goods and Services Tax

Removal of Tax from Reading Materials-Presentation of Petition

Hon. Consiglio Di Nino: Honourable senators, 75 Canadians from British Columbia have petitioned the Senate to the effect that the application of the 7-per-cent GST to reading material is unfair and wrong. Education and literacy are critical to the development of our country. A tax on reading is regressive and hampers Canada's development.

w(1430)

They quote from a letter from Prime Minister Jean Chrétien dated September 1992 which says that applying tax to books and periodicals discourages reading, that the Liberal Party has passed a resolution calling for the removal of the GST on books and periodicals, and that, they will do. It is signed by the Prime Minister. It goes on to urge the Senate to adopt Bill S-11 to free reading from the burden of the GST.

QUESTION PERIOD

National Defence

Search and Rescue Helicopter Replacement Program-Request for Update

Hon. J. Michael Forrestall: Honourable senators, I have some questions about maritime patrol aircraft I should like to direct to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. First, I make the comment that I find it a little startling that this government would come forward and ask us for nine months' spending authority and not bother to tell us when the election will be.

In the government's Main Estimates tabled a few weeks ago, the chapter on defence issues contained the following quotation:

The last few years have imposed significant cuts to the capital program of the Canadian Forces. As a result, the Air Force faces a serious risk of obsolescence and capability degradation in a number of key areas.

How do they reconcile that with another quotation taken from the same document? It reads:

To preserve maritime air capabilities, a replacement for the operationally obsolete CH124 Sea King helicopter and an update to the CP140 Aurora maritime patrol aircraft is vital. Fleet replacement of the Sea King helicopter is planned under the auspices of the Maritime Helicopter Project. An update of the CP140 Aurora is planned through the Aurora Life Extension Project. Both projects are schedule to commence in 1997-98 and are awaiting Government approval to proceed. Delays in commencement will result in a continued erosion of operational capability and escalating maintenance costs.

We have two serious statements: One indicates that we vitally need the new Sea King and Aurora projects to go ahead, and then, on the other side of the coin, they leave us blank and wondering whether there is any truth to the suggestion current among defence watchers in Canada today that the Government of Canada has indeed decided, as a policy matter, that there is no longer any threat to Canada's security from sub-maritime aircraft and, as a result, there is no longer any need for a seaborne helicopter, nor any great rush to update and bring on the Aurora refit program.

Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I certainly have no knowledge of any change in government policy which would justify the rumours or reports that my honourable friend has conveyed.

In the case of the search and rescue helicopters, my friend knows that the interested bidders on those contracts will have until May of this year to submit their proposals. The government certainly intends to move ahead in that area.

I will take my honourable friend's question in its entirety to my colleague the Minister of National Defence and try to come up with a more complete answer.

Replacement of Sea King Helicopters-Government Position

Hon. J. Michael Forrestall: I thank the minister for her assurance with respect to search and rescue equipment.

It is the Sea King to which I am directing my comments now. The failure of the government to move with respect to replacement of the Sea King must lend some credence to these rumours, and I would again ask the Leader of the Government to indicate to us whether there is any policy change. We noticed today, for example, the conflict between one group of current advisors and the minister's academic advisors as to the role of the Canadian Armed Forces. Is there any discussion in cabinet or any policy change contemplated that would rule out Canada's description of her requirement for defence capability dealing with anti-submarine warfare?

Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, my honourable friend will appreciate that I cannot share with him discussions that may or may not go on in cabinet. However, the Sea Kings remain a component of the re-equipment program identified in the Defence white paper of 1994 and certainly in the committee study.

I cannot enlighten my honourable friend on advice that is being given to the Minister of National Defence, other than to say that he has been seeking advice from a variety of sources, and that he will be putting that information together and presenting it to the Prime Minister at the end of this month.

The Economy

Possible Targets on Reduction of Debt-Government Position

Hon. Donald H. Oliver: Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Mr. Martin's latest federal budget indicates that it is the goal of the federal government to put Canada's debt-to-GDP ratio on a permanent downward track and that this goal is finally within our reach. Despite these details, the Liberal government has failed to outline in the budget a long-term plan to deal with the debt, including debt reduction targets.

Why is the government unable to set debt reduction targets when the deficit is being reduced much faster than the government's set targets? What are the government's plans regarding Canada's huge debt problem?

Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, the government's plan to approach the debt problem of this country is, first and foremost, to eliminate the deficit. My honourable friend indicates that we are succeeding more quickly than we had set out in our goals. I simply remind him that the numbers are not all in, and that the Minister of Finance is sticking with his forecasts until the books are closed.

Indeed, in the past three years, we have exceeded the speed with which we have been able to reduce the deficit, but the battle is not over. That is a primary goal, and the Prime Minister and certainly the Minister of Finance in his budget have made that very clear. Their first priority is to balance the budget, eliminate the deficit, and then build toward the reduction of the debt.

Senator Oliver: Honourable senators, the government's inability to set debt reduction targets in the budget is one clear indication that this budget does not offer Canadians a long-term vision. In addition, no unemployment reduction targets are given in the budget. Canadians want to know what the government has planned for the future. A long-term vision is needed for this country, and Canadians are not getting one from the government. What is the long-term plan for Canadians, or must we wait until the next federal election to find out?

(1440)

Senator Fairbairn: Honourable senators, I believe the government has already outlined within its budget statement the programs that are being put forward by various ministers in the areas of youth, education, technology and trade. The essence of the Canada of the new century lies within those areas, but we still have a job to do in laying the proper foundation, and that goes beyond the reduction of the deficit. The honourable senator expresses his frustration that we have not set goals for reduction of the debt, but I would point out to him that we have, and a major goal for the reduction of the debt is to eliminate the deficit. We have managed, through, I think, prudent and sensible management on the part of the Minister of Finance, to reach the goals we have set, and I have every confidence that, as success is ultimately reached in the eradication of the deficit, we will move ahead, in the same determined and prudent fashion, towards the eradication of the debt.

National Defence

Testimony of Major Armstrong-Curtailment of Somalia Inquiry-Government Position

Hon. Terry Stratton: Honourable senators, my question for the Leader of the Government in the Senate does not have to do with unemployment generally, which is at 9.7 per cent, nor with youth unemployment, which is at 17 per cent, and the sad fact is that it appears those figures will remain high. My question today is on the Somalia inquiry.

According to the CBC news last night and today's newspapers, in particular the front page of the Citizen, some rather amazing information has come out in the recent testimony of Major Barry Armstrong. It is reported that Major Armstrong testified before the inquiry that he told senior officers that the killing of the Somali civilian looked like murder. Major Armstrong is a military surgeon who examined the body of the Somali shortly after he was shot by Canadian soldiers. His testimony is powerful and relevant, and is providing the inquiry with some real answers in this terrible incident.

Could the Leader of the Government in the Senate advise us if Minister Young is still intent on shutting down the inquiry now that this information has been brought forward?

Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I can only confirm to my honourable friend that the Somalia inquiry is still set to conclude its hearings at the end of this month. However, the inquiry commissioners will have until the end of June to put together the considerable information they have amassed over the course of their hearings and present a report to the government. The government is confident that, at the end of June, it will receive a very valuable report from the Somalia inquiry commissioners.

Honourable senators, I am not in a position to comment on the proceedings that are taking place before the inquiry.

Senator Stratton: Honourable senators, we have the Minister of Defence calling for the inquiry to conclude, and Major Armstrong testifying about murder yesterday, and he is to be the last witness. Would you not think that the Minister of Justice would have serious concerns about shutting down an inquiry where a witness has come forward and talked about murder? Perhaps the Leader of the Government in the Senate would respond.

Senator Fairbairn: Honourable senators, as I indicated in my earlier response, I am not in a position to comment on the testimony heard by the inquiry. I must let my answer stand.

Child Poverty

Number of Children Expected to be Affected
by Initiative-Government Position

Hon. Fernand Roberge: Honourable senators, the recent federal budget announced $600 million in new funds to enrich the child tax benefit. This initiative is a welcome step.

My colleague Senator DeWare has asked many questions on this subject.

However, the Liberal government's measures ignore the fact that their policies have contributed to the exacerbation of child poverty in Canada. The number of children living in poverty rose by 110,000 in 1995. This is a sad testament to the economic record of the Liberal government.

The budget paper states that more than 2.5 million children will see an increase in federal child benefit payments by July, 1998. However, the government has failed to indicate what number of children they expect will rise above the poverty line as a result of the new child poverty initiative. Would the Leader of the Government in the Senate please provide us with that information?

Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I am unable to answer my honourable friend, and I am sure he would not expect a detailed answer on that question today. However, I would be pleased to take his question as notice and try to furnish him with an answer.

I would say to my honourable friend, though, that he is not alone in his concern on this fundamental issue. It is one of the major social issues - if not the major social issue - facing Canada today, and I think it is a credit to all of the provinces and the federal government that they have been able to sit down, put aside differences, and focus on bringing new hope to this segment of our population: families who are poor, and children of those families who are suffering from poverty.

Undoubtedly, $600 million is not enough. It is, however, a strong beginning, and I believe that, in good faith, all of the provinces will do the very best they can to work together to produce the kind of result my honourable friend would wish.

As far as the numbers are concerned, I am not sure whether an answer to that question is possible, but I will certainly put the question to my colleague.

Effect of Unemployment Rate on Plight of Children

Hon. Fernand Roberge: Honourable senators, we have had 40 months of Liberal government which has produced consistently high unemployment of over 9 per cent; in fact, about 9.7 to 10 per cent. We have 1.5 million Canadians with children living below the poverty line. We have had more than 40 separate tax increases, record bankruptcies, and all Canadians have experienced a decline in disposable income. Clearly, Canadians are worse off today than they were before the Liberals were elected.

Children are poor because their parents are poor, and the parents are poor because they cannot find work. With the dismal results the government's job strategy program has produced, how can the parents of children living in poverty improve their condition and their situation if they cannot find suitable employment?

Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I would remind my honourable friend that when we came into office, the unemployment rate was 11.4 per cent. This country had been faced with increasingly rising deficits, year after year after year. I can go into the rest of my regular response in this house about interest rates, which are now the lowest they have been in 40 years, and mortgage rates, which are the lowest they have been in 30 years. All of the indicators which had been in a slump have risen during the last three and a half years.

I know that none of the job creation statistics that I can offer my honourable friend will satisfy him, but the government, obviously, has not been sitting by blindly while Canadians have been having difficulty finding work. As I was saying earlier to Senator Oliver, we have tried to create a situation in this country, through prudent economic management, that will permit the growth of jobs - and we have had substantial growth, but not enough. That is clearly recognized by the government.

(1450)

With this particular budget, because we have been able to make progress on the front of fiscal management, we have tried to take the opportunity, with the aid of the provinces, to go to the heart of the matter. Obviously, that is of great concern to my honourable friend. We will continue to do that.

In terms of job creation, besides the deficit, that remains the most difficult problem for this government and, I would suggest, if one harks back just three and a half years, proved to be just as difficult a problem for our predecessors. One of the differences today is that we have brought that $42 billion deficit down progressively, year after year, and we will get rid of it. I am confident that the combination of all the fiscal management policies that the government has applied in three and a half years will increase job creation in this country. It is not a quick fix. It is something that must be done over time.

I know that from time to time senators on the other side make fun of the notion that we put an infrastructure program in place. I wish to tell my honourable friend that that initiative did have good results across the country; so much so that we were urged by the municipalities to come forward with an extension, and we have done so. That is another effort in the direction that my honourable friend, by the tenor of his questions, wishes to go.

Justice

Status of RCMP Investigation into Sale of Airbus Aircraft to Air Canada-Government Position

Hon. David Tkachuk: Honourable senators, I wish to follow up on my previous questions on the Airbus investigation. The Court of Appeal has ruled against such actions as attempts to seize assets held by Canadians overseas, and the attempt to get information from Swiss banking authorities - those kinds of dastardly actions which we tried to point out in previous questions. The Court has said that Canadians will be protected against unreasonable search and seizure, and that a search warrant of some kind will be required before a police force - or anyone else - delves into those kinds of issues, and into the private lives of Canadians.

In light of that ruling, I should like to know the following: What is the status of the RCMP investigation into the Airbus affair - which they still claim is ongoing? More specifically, are they still investigating Sergeant Fiegenwald, whom the RCMP undertook to investigate concerning his role in the leak to the media - that is, his leak to Stevie Cameron?

Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I have no knowledge on the second part of my honourable friend's question. On the first part of his question, the criminal investigation is still continuing.

Senator Tkachuk: It seems to me that, by settling the bungled affair with the former Prime Minister, and from what the Court of Appeal said today, it is evident that they have no evidence about anything. I think it is a legitimate question for us not only to ask but also to have answered as to whom the RCMP are investigating, and why they are investigating, which would probably be a more credible question. Could the Leader of the Government undertake to find out what they are doing with respect to the investigation of Sergeant Fiegenwald, which seems to be the only area in this whole case where they actually have some evidence of wrongdoing?

Senator Fairbairn: My answer to my honourable friend is a short one, and that is, no; I will not undertake to try to pry into the details of the ongoing criminal investigation by the RCMP.

Indian Affairs and Northern Development

York Factory Implementation Agreement and Nelson House Implementation Agreement-Status of Legislation

Hon. Janis Johnson: Honourable senators, I have a question for the Leader of the Government in the Senate concerning aboriginal issues. It relates particularly to the legislation with respect to the York Factory Implementation Agreement and the Nelson House Implementation Agreement. These two agreements affect certain First Nations people in Manitoba. It is my understanding that the legislation must to be passed by both the government of the Province of Manitoba and the federal government. I know that the province has already passed this legislation.

The federal legislation dealing with these agreements, Bill C-39 and Bill C-40, which are two pieces of legislation dealing with the settlement of matters arising from agreements relating to the flooding of land in Manitoba, have yet to come before the Senate. This legislation was tabled in May, 1996, in the House of Commons.

I should like to ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate when we can expect to have this legislation before us. The First Nations have been waiting for a very long time. Is it the intent of the government to deal with the passage of these bills before the next election? The First Nations citizens of Manitoba would be very interested in knowing. Perhaps the Leader of the Government could ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and report back to us before too much longer.

Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I thank Senator Johnson for her questions. I will make inquiries of the Minister of Indian Affairs, and also of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, to see exactly what the progress is, and what the plans are, on that legislation.

As far as her question about the election is concerned, I do not know when the election will be, so I cannot answer her question.

Aboriginal Peoples

Report of Royal Commission-Timetable for Implementation of Recommendations-Government Position

Hon. Janis Johnson: Honourable senators, I have a supplementary question with regard to a similar issue but in the area regarding the federal government's Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, which reported some time ago. I should like to ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate what the government's formal response is to the commission's report, and what action has been taken to fulfil any of the commission's recommendations.

Will the Leader of the Government please table a detailed response on this issue so that all honourable senators, aboriginal people and others, are clear on what the government has done, or will be doing, on this matter?

Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, the government has not, as yet, made a formal response to the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples because it is a mammoth piece of work. In fact, there are matters contained in that report - and perhaps this happened during the time that the royal commission proceeded with its hearings - that have already been accomplished by the federal government. However, I will endeavour to obtain more information on that issue for my friend.

Let me say that the government takes the report of that royal commission very seriously. There is no question of it merely being deposited on a shelf or on a back burner. It is a question of studying the report very carefully before making a definitive response, so that aboriginal people will have confidence that the response given is one that will stand, and also one that will be affordable to the Canadian government and, it is to be hoped, in the very best interests of our aboriginal community.

Report of Royal Commission-Efficacy of Implementing Measures Before Response Made to Recommendations-Government Response

Hon. A. Raynell Andreychuk: Honourable senators, would the government then undertake not to pass any legislation that may be contrary to the findings in the royal commission without the consultation and consent of the aboriginal peoples?

In other words, the government is taking actions now, particularly in relation to the amendments to the Indian Act, that are not on all fours with some of the recommendations of the royal commission. Why would the government proceed on those sorts of issues before having a full and exhaustive look at the royal commission report to ensure that the issues raised in that document are addressed first?

Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I cannot give that kind of commitment to Senator Andreychuk. Over the past year and a half in particular, there have been extensive consultations and negotiations between the Minister of Indian Affairs and aboriginal nations across this country. Some of those negotiations have resulted in agreements, and some have resulted in legislation. I could not give honourable senators a commitment that all of the work that is being undertaken with the approval and participation of First Nations in this country would come to a halt while a response was being made on the royal commission report.

w(1500)

This royal commission report is enormously far-reaching. I know my honourable friend appreciates that more than most people. However, it would be irresponsible for the government to commit itself to halting further progress in negotiations with aboriginal nations, who are participating at their own behest, until there can be a complete response concerning the royal commission report. Some very important areas require action, and the government must continue to meet its responsibilities.

Senator Andreychuk: Perhaps my question was not clear. It was certainly not my intention to encourage the government to stop legislation or consultations which have the agreement of the aboriginal people. However, when the aboriginal people clearly are not consenting, would the government undertake not to proceed? I am thinking particularly about the current statements relating to amendments to the Indian Act where there is not agreement with the aboriginal peoples.

Senator Fairbairn: Honourable senators, I certainly will be pleased to have a discussion with Mr. Irwin on this question. However, my honourable friends knows as well that there is a difference of view on some of these issues among the aboriginal leadership.

The current Minister of Indian Affairs has really gone out of his way over the last three and a half years to do more consulting and make more of an extensive effort than probably has been done in the past. He has worked very hard at that. These are incredibly difficult issues, and not just in the financial and legal sense; there are also some very difficult human issues. The minister is very conscious of that. There are disagreements and different points of view, and he tries to respond to those in his work as well.

I cannot give my friend any commitments, but I certainly will ensure that her views and the views of Senator Johnson are forwarded to Mr. Irwin.

Report of Royal Commission-Possibility of Meeting Between Prime Minister and Aboriginal Leaders-Government Position

Hon. Lowell Murray: Honourable senators, aboriginal leaders state that the Prime Minister refuses to meet with them to discuss the report of the royal commission. I find this statement almost incredible. Will the Leader of the Government in the Senate ascertain the facts and assure the Senate and the aboriginal people that the Prime Minister will indeed give their leaders an opportunity of having an early meeting to discuss this matter?

Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): I will certainly be prepared to ascertain those facts.

Fisheries and Oceans

Availability of Retraining Funds for British Columbia Fishers Displaced Under Mifflin Plan-Government Position

Hon. Pat Carney: Honourable senators, I am directing my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. It concerns the lack of funding to assist in the retraining of fishermen who have been displaced in British Columbia by the infamous Mifflin plan.

As you will recall, about 8,000 fishermen are expected to lose their rights to fish under this plan. I am particularly asking about the $30 million promised through the media by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in October of 1996 for retraining people now employed in the commercial fishery. The minister said that he would make available whatever it takes to retrain fishers.

I have correspondence and other presentations from union groups, including the United Fishermen and Allied Workers South Island Streams Project. Basically, they are saying that they have not seen any of this money. They have now been advised by Human Resources Development Canada that the funds which are available will cease on March 27.

These are people who have been laid off because of the Mifflin plan. They were either forced to sell their boats, or were deckhands on boats that were sold and which no longer have licences. Would the minister assist these people by finding out where this money is which had been promised? When will it be made available? How can the 120 fishers in this particular program receive the funds required for retraining?

Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I will certainly do my best to find that information.

Answers to Order Paper Questions Tabled

Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples-Cost of Commission by Standard Object of Expenditure

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Deputy Leader of the Government) tabled the answer to Question No. 162 on the Order Paper-by Honourable Senator Tkachuk.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

The Estimates, 1996-97

Report of National Finance Committee on Supplementary Estimates (B) Adopted

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the ninth report of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance (Supplementary Estimates (B) 1996-97) presented in the Senate on March 12, 1997.

Hon. David Tkachuk, Chairman of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, moved the adoption of the report.

Motion agreed to and report adopted.

Business of the Senate

Hon. Pierre De Bané: Honourable senators, may I have the agreement of the Senate to move second reading of Bill C-87 and Bill C-88 simultaneously, since I will be addressing both bills in my speech? If I have agreement, I will so move.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I think this presents a slight problem. We could agree, could we not, that the senator present his speech once, but I must put the questions separately.

[Translation]

Senator De Bané: Honourable senators, as I just mentioned, I would like to move that both bills be debated at the same time, since I will be addressing Bills C-87 and C-88 simultaneously. Is there agreement?

[English]

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, is there agreement that the one speech will cover both bills?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Appropriation Bill No. 4, 1996-97

Second Reading

Hon. Pierre De Bané moved second reading of Bill C-87, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1997.

He said: Honourable senators, the bills before you today, Appropriation Bill No. 4, 1996-97, which is Bill C-87, and Appropriation Bill No. 1, 1997-98, which is Bill C-88, provide for the release of the total of the amounts set out in Supplementary Estimates (B) for 1996-97, amounting to $816.2, and for the release of interim supply for 1997-98 amounting to $33.2 billion.

The Supplementary Estimates were tabled in the Senate on March 4, 1997 and referred to the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. These are the final Supplementary Estimates for the fiscal year that ends on March 31, 1997. Honourable senators, these estimates seek new authority to spend approximately $816.2 million. From a fiscal planning perspective, these amounts were first provided for in the last budget of March 6, 1996 and are consistent with the budget tabled February 18, 1997; they will not affect the achieving of the deficit target.

These bills also seek parliamentary authority to discharge liabilities that were provided for in the deficits of previous fiscal years. Although approximately $816.2 million must be approved by Parliament through this appropriation act, the net spending reduction of $559.1 million identified in the 1996-97 Supplementary Estimates (B) is a result of a reduction of approximately $1.4 billion due to a decrease in forecast spending pursuant to a number of statutory items that have already been approved by Parliament, and are included in the Supplementary Estimates for information.

You may recall that these Estimates were discussed in some detail with Treasury Board Secretariat officials during their appearance before the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance on March 5.

One of the major items in these Supplementary Estimates is $128.4 million for National Defence for contribution to the provinces under the Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements to provide assistance relief related to national disasters. For instance, $100 million of this amount was for the Saguenay flood.

There is $119.4 million for nine departments and agencies for separation programs for public service employees such as the Early Retirement Incentive and the Early Departure Incentive, including $61 million for the National Defence Civilian and Forces Reduction Plan.

[Translation]

(1510)

Third, there is $108.3 million for 16 departments and agencies so that they can meet operating requirements initially forecast in 1995-96. This amount is the result of a change in the government's approach to the operating budget intended to reduce year-end expenditures and improve cash management. It allows managers to carry over to the next fiscal year up to 5 per cent of the preceding year's operating budget. The operating budget includes salaries, operating expenditures and minor capital expenditures.

Fourth, $63.3 million for Citizenship and Immigration for grants to certain provinces to help them pay the costs of providing immigrant settlement and adaptation services.

Fifth, $61.7 million for Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada for the payment of grants under phase I of the program to help individuals and organizations adapt to the changes in the grain transportation system.

Finally, $54.3 million for National Revenue to implement the fiscal measures announced in the 1996 federal budget, to follow up on tax policy priorities, and to prepare for the harmonization of sales taxes scheduled to take effect April 1, 1997.

I would like to add that the balance of $280.8 million is divided among several other departments, agencies and Crown corporations, the names of which are given in the Supplementary Estimates.

The 1997-98 Main Estimates were tabled in the other place last February 20.

[English]

The Main Estimates for 1997-98 total some $149.2 billion in total planned budgetary expenditures for the upcoming fiscal year. This includes $106.4 billion stemming from existing legislation, and $42.8 billion in expenditures for which parliamentary authority must be granted.

This interim supply bill before you today is seeking $33.2 billion of spending authority to provide for government expenditures up to the end of the second supply period in 1997-98.

Honourable senators, should you require additional information, I would be pleased to try to provide it.

Hon. David Tkachuk: Honourable senators, I should like to add that the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance has examined Supplementary Estimates (B). We have agreed to dispose of these two supply bills this afternoon.

Motion agreed to and bill read second time.

Third Reading

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

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 58(1)(b), I move that this bill be read the third time now.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Motion agreed to and bill read third time and passed.

Appropriation Bill No. 1, 1997-98

Second Reading

Hon. Pierre De Bané moved second reading of Bill C-88, granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1998.

Motion agreed to and bill read second time.

Third Reading

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

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 58(1)(b), I move that this bill be read the third time now.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Motion agreed to and bill read third time and passed.

The Hon. the Speaker: In accordance with the agreement of yesterday, I would now ask that the bell ring until 3:30 p.m.

(1530)

Excise Tax Act
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
Income Tax Act
Debt Servicing and Reduction Account Act

Bill to Amend-Third Reading

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Graham, seconded by the Honourable Senator Bacon, for the third reading of Bill C-70, to amend the Excise Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the Income Tax Act, the Debt Servicing and Reduction Account Act and related Acts, as amended.

No. 1.-Motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Buchanan, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Oliver, that the Bill as amended be not now read a third time but that it be amended. in Clause 93.1 on page 131, by replacing line 29 with the following:

"93.1 Section 5 of Part II of Schedule V to the Act is replaced by the following:

5. A supply (other than a zero-rated supply) made by a medical practitioner of a consultative, diagnostic, treatment or health care service rendered to an individual (other than a surgical or dental service that is performed for cosmetic purposes and not for medical or reconstructive purposes).

93.2 (1) The portion of section 6 of Part II".

No. 2.-Motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Buchanan, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Oliver, that the Bill as amended be not now read a third time but that it be amended on page 132, by adding the following after line 24:

"95.1 Section 9 of Part II of Schedule V to the Act is repealed.".

No. 3.-Motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Buchanan, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Oliver, that the Bill as amended be not now read a third time but that it be amended in Clause 136 on page 156, by replacing lines 30 and 31 with the following:

"provision of Part II of Schedule V and a service related to".

No. 4.-Motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Buchanan, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Oliver, that the Bill as amended be not now read a third time but that it be amended on page 157, by adding after line 20 the following:

"136.1 Part II of Schedule VI to the Act is amended by adding the following after section 40:
41. A supply of any property or service but only if, and to the extent that, the consideration for the supply is payable or reimbursed by the government under a plan established under an Act of the legislature of the province to provide for health care services for all insured persons of the province."

No. 5.-Motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Oliver, seconded by the Honourable Senator Kinsella, that the Bill as amended be not now read a third time but that it be amended in Clause 69:

(a) on page 91, by deleting lines 42 to 46;
(b) on page 92, by deleting lines 1 to 4; and
(c) by renumbering subclauses (2) to (12) as subclauses (1) to (11), and any cross-references thereto accordingly.

No. 6.-Motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Oliver, seconded by the Honourable Senator Kinsella, that the Bill as amended be not now read a third time but that it be amended on pages 95 to 98, by deleting clause 69.1.

No. 7.-Motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Oliver, seconded by the Honourable Senator Kinsella, that the Bill as amended be not now read a third time but that it be amended in Clause 149.1, on page 164, by replacing line 8 with the following:

"149.1 Schedule VI to the Act is amended by adding the following after Part X:

PART XI

READING MATERIAL

1. A supply of a printed book, but not including anything that is or the main component of which is

(a) a newspaper
(b) a magazine or periodical acquired otherwise than by way of subscription;
(c) a magazine or periodical in which the printed space devoted to advertising is more than 5% of the total printed space;
(d) a brochure or pamphlet;
(e) a sales catalogue, a price list or advertising material;
(f) a warranty booklet or an owner's manual;
(g) a book designed primarily for writing on;
(h) a colouring book or a book designed primarily for drawing on or affixing thereto, or inserting therein, items such as clippings, pictures, coins, stamps or stickers;
(i) a cut-out book or a press-out book;
(j) a program relating to an event or performance;
(k) an agenda, calendar, syllabus or timetable;
(l) a directory, an assemblage of charts or an assemblage of street or road maps, but not including,
(i) a guidebook, or
(ii) an atlas that consists in whole or in part of maps other than street or road maps;
(m) a rate book;
(n) an assemblage of blueprints, patterns or stencils;
(o) prescribed property; or
(p) an assemblage or collection of, or any item similar to, items included in any of paragraphs (a) to (o).

149.2(1) Section 4 of Schedule VII to the".

No. 8.-Motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Cochrane, seconded by the Honourable Senator Simard, that the Bill as amended be not now read a third time but that it be amended on page 365, by adding after line 40 the following:

"269.1(1) The portion of subsection 122.5(3) of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:
(3) Where a return of income (other than a return of income filed under subsection 70(2), paragraph 104(23)(d) or 128(2)(e) or subsection 150(4)) is filed under this Part for a taxation year in respect of an eligible individual resident in a non-participating province as defined in subsection 123(1) of the Excise Tax Act and the individual applies therefor in writing, ¼ of the amount, in any, by which the total of

(2) The Act is amended by adding the following after subsection 122.5(3):

(3.1) Where a return of income (other than a return of income filed under subsection 70(2), paragraph 104(23)(d) or 128(2)(e) or subsection 150(4)) is filed under this Part for a taxation year in respect of an eligible individual resident in a participating province as defined in subsection 123(1) of the Excise Tax Act and the individual applies therefor in writing, 1/4 of the amount, in any, by which the total of

(a) $407,
(b) $407 for a person who is the qualified relation of the individual for the year,
(c) $407, where the individual has no qualified relation for the year and is entitled to deduct an amount for the year under subsection 118(1) by reason of paragraph (b) thereof in respect of a qualified dependant of the individual for the year,
(d) the product obtained when $214 is multiplied by the number of qualified dependants of the individual for the year, other than a qualified dependant in respect of whom an amount is included by reason of paragraph (c) in computing an amount deemed to be paid under this subsection for the year, and
(e) where the individual has no qualified relation for the year, the lesser of

(i) $214, and
(ii) 4.3% of the amount, if any, by which

(A) the individual's income for the year

exceeds

(B) the amount determined for the year for the purposes of paragraph 118(1)(c),

exceeds

(f) 5% of the amount, if any, by which

(i) the individual's adjusted income for the year

exceeds
(ii) $25,921,

shall be deemed to be an amount paid by the individual on account of the individual's tax payable under this Part for the year during each of the months specified for that year under subsection (4).".

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, it was moved by the Honourable Senator Graham, seconded by the Honourable Senator Bacon, that Bill C-70, as amended, be read the third time now.

There are a series of amendments, honourable senators. There are two single amendments and then two sets of multiple amendments. By agreement of the Senate, we are to vote on these amendments in sequence. I will begin with the last amendment proposed.

First we will deal with motion No. 8 on the Order Paper, the amendment of the Honourable Senator Cochrane, seconded by the Honourable Senator Simard, that the Bill as amended be not now read a third time but that it be amended on page 365, by adding after line 40 the following:

"269.1(1) The portion of subsection 122.5(3)-

An Hon. Senator: Dispense.

Motion in amendment of Senator Cochrane negatived on the following division:

YEAS
THE HONOURABLE SENATORS

Andreychuk, Atkins, Beaudoin, Berntson, Buchanan, Carney, Cochrane, Cogger, Comeau, Cools, DeWare, Di Nino, Doody, Doyle, Forrestall, Ghitter, Grimard, Gustafson, Johnson, Keon, Kinsella, Lavoie-Roux, Lynch-Staunton, MacDonald (Halifax), Meighen, Murray, Nolin, Oliver, Rivest, Roberge, Robertson, Rossiter, Simard, Sparrow, Spivak, Stratton, Tkachuk-37

NAYS
THE HONOURABLE SENATORS

Adams, Anderson, Bacon, Bonnell, Bosa, Bryden, Carstairs, Corbin, De Bané, Fairbairn, Forest, Gigantès, Grafstein, Graham, Haidasz, Hays, Hébert, Hervieux-Payette, Landry, Lawson, Lewis, Losier-Cool, Lucier, Maheu, Marchand, Mercier, Milne, Molgat, Pearson, Petten, Pitfield, Poulin, Prud'homme, Riel, Rizzuto, Robichaud, Rompkey, Stewart, Stollery, Taylor, Watt, Wood-42

ABSTENTIONS
THE HONOURABLE SENATORS

Nil

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, next is motion in amendment No. 5 on the Order Paper, moved by the Honourable Senator Oliver, seconded by the Honourable Senator Kinsella, that the Bill as amended be not now read a third time but that it be amended in Clause 69:

An Hon. Senator: Dispense.

Motion in amendment No. 5 of Senator Oliver negatived on the following division:

YEAS
THE HONOURABLE SENATORS

Andreychuk, Atkins, Beaudoin, Berntson, Buchanan, Carney, Cochrane, Cogger, Comeau, DeWare, Di Nino, Doody, Doyle, Forrestall, Ghitter, Grimard, Gustafson, Johnson, Keon, Kinsella, Lavoie-Roux, Lynch-Staunton, MacDonald (Halifax), Meighen, Murray, Nolin, Oliver, Rivest, Roberge, Robertson, Rossiter, Simard, Spivak, Stratton, Tkachuk-35

NAYS
THE HONOURABLE SENATORS

Adams, Anderson, Bacon, Bonnell, Bosa, Bryden, Carstairs, Corbin, De Bané, Fairbairn, Forest, Gigantès, Grafstein, Graham, Haidasz, Hays, Hébert, Hervieux-Payette, Landry, Lawson, Lewis, Losier-Cool, Lucier, Maheu, Marchand, Mercier, Milne, Pearson, Petten, Pitfield, Poulin, Prud'homme, Riel, Rizzuto, Robichaud, Rompkey, Stewart, Stollery, Taylor, Watt, Wood-41

ABSTENTIONS
THE HONOURABLE SENATORS

Cools, Sparrow-2

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, the next question is on two motions in amendment, No. 6 and No. 7 on the Order Paper, proposed by the Honourable Senator Oliver. They are related and stand together, so it was agreed that they would be voted on together.

(1540)

Honourable senators, it is moved by the Honourable Senator Oliver, seconded by the Honourable Kinsella:

That the bill be amended on pages 95 to 98,-

An Hon. Senator: Dispense.

Motions in amendment Nos. 6 and 7 of Senator Oliver negatived on the following division:

YEAS
THE HONOURABLE SENATORS

NAYS
THE HONOURABLE SENATORS.

ABSTENTIONS
THE HONOURABLE SENATORS

Nil

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, next are four separate but interrelated amendments. They are motions in amendment Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 on the Order Paper, proposed by the Honourable Senator Buchanan. It was agreed that we would vote on them together.

It was moved by the Honourable Senator Buchanan, seconded by the Honourable Senator Oliver:

That the Bill as amended be not now read a third time but that it be amended in Clause 93.1 on page 131-

An Hon. Senator: Dispense.

(1550)

Motions in amendment of Senator Buchanan negatived on the following division:

YEAS

THE HONOURABLE SENATORS

NAYS

THE HONOURABLE SENATORS

Adams, Anderson, Bacon, Bonnell, Bosa, Bryden, Carstairs, Corbin, De Bané, Fairbairn, Forest, Gigantès, Grafstein, Graham, Haidasz, Hays, Hébert, Hervieux-Payette, Landry, Lawson, Lewis, Losier-Cool, Lucier, Maheu, Marchand, Mercier, Milne, Pearson, Petten, Pitfield, Poulin, Prud'homme, Riel, Rizzuto, Robichaud, Rompkey, Stewart, Stollery, Taylor, Watt, Wood-41

ABSTENTIONS
THE HONOURABLE SENATORS

Cools, Sparrow-2

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, the motion before the Senate now is for the third reading of Bill C-70.

It was moved by the Honourable Senator Graham, seconded by the Honourable Senator Bacon, that this bill, as amended, be read the third time now.

Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Some Hon. Senators: No.

The Hon. the Speaker: Will those in favour please say "yea"?

Some Hon. Senators: Yea.

The Hon. the Speaker: Will those opposed please say "nay"?

Some Hon. Senators: Nay.

The Hon. the Speaker: In my opinion the "yeas" have it.

Some Hon. Senators: On division.

Motion agreed to and bill, as amended, read third time and passed, on division.

Tobacco Bill

Second Reading

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Lewis, seconded by the Honourable Senator Landry, for the second reading of Bill C-71, to regulate the manufacture, sale, labelling and promotion of tobacco products, to make consequential amendments to another Act and to repeal certain Acts.

Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I doubt if any member of this chamber, or many Canadians for that matter, have not had the awful experience of witnessing and sharing first-hand the devastation caused by tobacco addiction on a loved one, whether an immediate relative or close friend or even both. Certainly no one can any longer claim ignorance of what has been known conclusively for over 30 years about the ravaging effects of tobacco, and every Canadian has an obligation to support measures aimed at discouraging smoking because of the lethal effects of carbon monoxide and tar. Even the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council recognized this, although in understandably less direct language, when its president appeared last December before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health. He said:

We acknowledge that there are health risks associated with smoking. For that reason we believe the decision to smoke - or not to smoke - is one for informed adults to make.
We will support, as we have over the years, any reasonable and workable proposals to discourage smoking by under-age Canadians and to limit their access to tobacco products.

Not exactly a firm commitment to what is contained in Bill C-71, I agree, but then what industry anywhere can afford to admit that its product contributes directly to fatalities. As The Economist put it in its February 1 issue, "Deaths from diseases linked to smoking, at present estimated at 3M a year, are rising."

The argument is not about the goal itself but about how to achieve that goal. On this point, may I remind honourable senators, as did Senator Lewis yesterday, that it was a Progressive Conservative government which first met the challenge head-on when, in November, 1987, the then Minister of Health, the Honourable Jake Epp, moved second reading of Bill C-51, the Tobacco Products Control Act. Nearly 10 years later, the present Minister of Health praised Mr. Epp for "his commitment to tobacco regulation and for his efforts in legislating in this area." Mr. Dingwall quoted from Mr. Epp's third-reading remarks to emphasize that at least on this issue the two national parties are as one.

The purpose of this bill is to provide a legislative response to a national health problem of substantial and present concern. It is intended to protect the health of Canadians in light of conclusive evidence implicating tobacco use and the incidence of numerous debilitating and fatal diseases.

Mr. Epp's legislation included a total ban on tobacco advertising in magazines and newspapers, on billboards and posters, and on retail signs. Various promotional activities were to be prohibited. Sponsorships of special events were to be permitted only with limited exposure. Labelling requirements were to be strengthened, including one to show the major toxic constituents in the product and in the smoke produced from the combustion of the tobacco product.

Introduced in April, 1987, the bill was finally given third reading in May, 1988, without a recorded vote, an indication of the overwhelming support for the legislation in the House. The Senate in turn began second reading in early June, with Senator Spivak as its sponsor, and Bill C-51 was passed here also without a recorded vote before the end of the month.

Parliament's will could not have been expressed more clearly. Of course, as honourable senators know only too well, the constitutionality of certain provisions of Bill C-51 was challenged and in September, 1995, the Supreme Court, in a series of majority opinions, agreed with the plaintiffs that many restrictions in the bill violated the Charter. This had the effect, for all intents and purposes, of gutting some of its most important provisions.

(1600)

Last December, when the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council appeared before the House of Commons Committee on Health, they made it plain that they are ready to go before the courts again. "Bill C-71 is open to legal challenge in a number of respects," said its legal counsel. Such a challenge will not come as a surprise - far from it - as the bill, if passed in its present form, will, in effect, give the government the right to intervene at every stage in the preparation, manufacture, packaging, retailing, marketing and advertising of tobacco products. Tobacco manufacturers would, in time, effectively become agents of the Government of Canada, which, in Bill C-71, is asking for the widest regulatory discretion possible to implement the proposed legislation.

There are those who claim that the delegated regulatory powers in Bill C-71 are no broader than those found in, say, the Hazardous Products Act and the Food and Drugs Act and that, given the nature of the product, the government should be given even more powers under Bill C-71 to be able to act quickly should ways be found to circumvent the legislation. I do not agree.

Over the past few years, there has been a tendency to formulate legislation more as a statement of general purpose than the expression of definitive intent. Obviously, regulations are an essential part of the proper functioning of government. Nonetheless, by accepting the argument that legislative solutions to major problems are more and more difficult to write into law because of their complexity, Parliament, in fact, gives up its legislative jurisdiction to its executive branch with little, if any, say in the regulations which result. I have always found it somewhat ironic that, in a country as decentralized as ours, we have, at the federal level, tended towards a centralization of decision-making and implementation which is usually found in countries where elections are either unknown or meaningless.

In addition, since 1982, much of Parliament's supremacy has been transferred to the courts when they are called on to interpret legislation against the provisions of the Charter, which even leads on occasion to interpretations which would not necessarily conform with Parliament's intent. This additional erosion of powers, when added to delegation through regulation, if not checked, should make us all reflect on what determining role Parliament will be playing in the not too distant future.

I would have thought that the least the Minister of Health would have done is table, with Bill C-71, a working paper on how the government intended to use the regulatory powers it is seeking. There may, however, be some solace to be found in the fact that Bill C-71 provides, in clause 42, that no regulation can be made until first laid before the House of Commons. The House committee to which the regulation is referred then has 30 sitting days within which it can make recommendations to the House.

This clause is most welcome, although it is not clear as to what extent the elected representatives will be able to make a full, independent assessment, as clause 42.1(2) reads, "...the committee may conduct inquiries or public hearings...." I direct the attention of honourable senators to the word "may." Certainly, it would be preferable to use the word "shall," in reference to an obligation to scrutinize, and to seek outside advice. This would be the best way to temper the overenthusiasm which all too often strikes the unelected when they write regulations to implement decisions initiated by the elected.

The obligation on the House committee to scrutinize proposed regulations under Bill C-71 is even more desirable when it is realized that they will result from various clauses in the bill which are so vague in their wording that their real impact will only be known when the draft regulations are made public. Only then will it be possible to say whether or not they infringe on the Charter. No doubt the drafters of Bill C-71 have done this purposely.

Freedom of expression can also be limited by regulations. That is why it is important for the House committee which will scrutinize them to concentrate its efforts on their constitutionality as they, too, like Bill C-71 itself, can be subject to court challenges.

I could give many examples where vagueness predominates in Bill C-71. Suffice it to say that, at this time, I trust that the minister and his officials will have precise answers to a precise question. How does the government propose to implement Bill C-71? Surely the health department has already drafted regulations, and these should be made available to the committee members who will be giving the bill careful scrutiny.

When former Minister Epp's Bill C-51 was being debated at third reading, the member for Cambridge, Mr. Speyer, said:

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that a blanket prohibition prohibiting the advertising of a legal product will be struck down.

Regrettably, he was proven right. Were he still in the other place today, he may well be echoing the same sentiments, although for different reasons because Bill C-71 does not include the blanket prohibition of which he spoke.

The Minister of Justice claims that "the government has carefully tailored the legislation with the benefit of the Supreme Court's guidance," and he is confident that it respects the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The minister has been very generous with his constitutional seal of approval when, on more than one occasion, it has not been held up to close scrutiny, particularly in this place. I believe I am no longer alone in finding that his assurances, by themselves, are not satisfactory.

Bill C-71, in its attempt to address some of the issues raised by the Supreme Court, will have to withstand the same basic arguments which felled its predecessor. Is it a valid exercise of federal power? If so, is it a justifiable restriction on the freedom of expression?

On the issue of division of powers, even a layman has to ask if those clauses specifically concerned with the content of tobacco products and product standards may relate more properly to the property and civil rights power found within provincial jurisdiction. As well, as this bill applies to imported tobacco products, I raise a question as to how made-in-Canada regulations will affect imported tobacco products. I hope the intent is to treat all products the same, as different treatment may violate our international trade agreements.

There is another feature of the bill which raises serious questions: that of search and seizure. Clause 35(1) allows entry, without warrant, into other than a residence under very general conditions, and clause 39(1) allows seizure of tobacco products without warrant. Drug dealers have successfully challenged warrantless entries and seizures, yet the government inexplicably wants parliamentary sanction to use the same methods against a tax-paying industry engaged in a legal activity. This, to say the least, seems to be quite a stretch of the Charter.

As well as unusual search and seizure clauses, this bill contains a reverse onus provision whereby those accused of certain violations under this bill must prove their innocence. What has happened to the presumption of innocence? Tobacco use is not illegal. Draconian clauses such as these have no place in this bill. This is not the Criminal Code. This is a regulatory statute.

Moving to the issue of the linkage of advertising and tobacco use itself, one of the major reasons the Supreme Court struck down so many provisions of Bill C-51 is that the government was unable to establish a direct link between tobacco advertising and the decision to take up smoking, or between sponsorships and that same decision. Is there now conclusive proof of the linkage between tobacco use, or increased use and advertising and sponsorships? If there is research on this, it must be available to committee members for a better appreciation of the pertinent clauses affecting advertising and sponsorships.

As for sponsorships themselves, they have been the subject of a great deal of debate - much of it excessive and self-serving, by the official opposition in the other place. Whether one province benefits more from tobacco sponsorships than another is not germane to this debate. What must be considered is the purpose and impact in limiting sponsorship identity to the site of the event itself. Mr. Epp's bill allowed the sponsorship of cultural sports and community events by brand name, but only for sponsorship contracts at the time. No tobacco promotion as such was allowed in association with sponsorships. Bill C-71 goes to extraordinary lengths to erase any identification of a sponsor with an event except at the event itself. Any information on a tobacco-sponsored event prior to the event cannot, for all intents and purposes, include the sponsor's name. Not only sponsors but those who benefit from them have reason to ask: How will this ban reduce or even discourage the use of tobacco? To put it another way: Does Health Canada have convincing evidence that a concert, a fireworks display, a play, a jazz festival or an automobile race carrying a cigarette manufacturer's name stimulates a desire to take up smoking? The fact that the government has accepted, with little argument, that the sponsorship provisions of Bill C-71 will not take effect until October 1988, or after two summers, may provide the answer.

(1610)

No senator can ignore the concerns of the thousands of Canadians whose activities would not be possible, or at least would be seriously curtailed, without tobacco manufacturers' sponsorships. While the high profile professional events have been cited in the last few weeks, over 370 organizations last year received contributions from tobacco companies, according to a study by the Secor Group in September of last year. No one is suggesting that all will go under should public recognition of this support be severely curtailed, but many events will be jeopardized nonetheless, and a significant negative economic impact will result.

No doubt some think I am making too much of the possible negative impact of Bill C-71 and using it to weaken arguments in favour of the bill. Let me assure colleagues that this is far from the case. Indeed, I am invoking the negative economic impact argument in the same way as the government has already accepted it in the case of high performance competition vehicles. For the last three years, the Department of the Environment has, through regulations, allowed the use of leaded gasoline in hundreds of events in Canada involving racing cars, power boats, snowmobiles and motorcycles. As recently as December 28, 1996, the department published a notice in the Canada Gazette that it wished to extend its exemption for another year, through December 31, 1997. The reason given for the extension is the same as originally given:

...the use of leaded racing fuel is allowed in the United States and it would generate negative economic impacts on the magnitude of more than $75 million on communities across Canada that would result from the cancellation of international events.

I ask colleagues to reflect on this situation: The same government which allows the emission of a banned substance, one of the most deadly toxins known, strictly for financial considerations, rejects the same reasoning when it comes to events sponsored by an industry whose increased product usage has yet to be shown to be linked to those sponsorships. The Minister of Health and the Minister of the Environment are in direct contradiction with each other on this important issue. I hope that an explanation for this extraordinary contradiction within the same government will be forthcoming.

Honourable senators, not enough attention has been paid to the negative economic impact and loss of revenue which will be suffered by tobacco retailers, of which there are tens of thousands, particularly by small neighbourhood stores operated by two or three people. Representations are already numerous regarding the effects of Bill C-71 on them. Retailers will have to incur additional costs as proposed advertising and product displays will require changes in store layouts. Because displays will be limited, storage space will have to be created for the additional inventory. Advertising allowances will be eliminated. It is estimated that display allowances are worth $60 million per year to retailers, for which tobacco sales can represent up to 50 per cent of total sales.

If all these and any other preoccupations lead to anywhere near the financial losses and additional costs which are apprehended, they must not be dismissed simply as a regrettably unfortunate and inevitable result of a laudable goal. We must always keep in mind that passage of this bill in its present form will directly affect thousands of Canadians right across the country. Many have already been hurt by the passage of Bill C-51 in 1988. Bill C-71 may be less severe in certain areas than was Bill C-51, because of a Supreme Court decision, but the effects of Bill C-71 will have a negative economic impact which will build on that created by its predecessor.

A responsible society has a responsibility to establish and enforce laws to protect itself. In so doing, it must always be conscious of the rights of individuals who live within them. Finding the proper balance between collective needs and individual rights is never easy. Bill C-71 is but the latest example of where society as a whole recognizes and accepts that drastic measures can and must be taken in an area where many individuals will be directly affected. The Supreme Court has ruled on how far it will sanction that individuals can be affected in a constitutional sense. Parliament must be equally conscious that it must be sensitive and responsive to any economic damage this legislation can provoke.

In order to at least reduce the possibility of a court challenge, the government would be well advised to work with the industry, not against it. I will be accused of being naive for even suggesting this, but I believe strongly that the aims of the government, which we all share, will be better achieved by being a partner with the industry it wants to control, no matter how reluctant it might be, not an antagonist to it.

What is the alternative? A mass of regulations, some ignoring or misrepresenting Parliament's intent, some probably challenged; an army of inspectors with unheard of search and seizure powers; court challenges that can tie up resources better used elsewhere for years; and then, perhaps, another government in the future having to fix what an earlier one broke because it did not learn from the unforeseen failures of the first.

There are those, of course, who would interpret these cautionary remarks as nothing more than an attempt to delay the legislation so that it cannot be given third reading and Royal Assent "before the next election." This argument has a familiar ring to it. In December 1995, when we were objecting to certain features of the Firearms Act - more commonly and inaccurately known as the gun control bill - we were accused of wanting to delay the legislation until prorogation, which would have killed it.

Since when must Parliament abide by the timing of an event which need not take place in the immediate future? Prorogation was being bandied about not because it was required on a certain day by statute, but because, stung by the referendum results, the government hoped that it could make Canadians forget its ineptness by calling for a new session of Parliament and a Speech from the Throne.

Today I say, "What election?" The Liberal Party has been in office for less than three and a half years. Its mandate is for five. Why suddenly, because Liberal pollsters may be urging a June vote as most favourable, should Parliament's legislative business be disposed of accordingly? Surely, if Bill C-71 is a priority bill, if the Minister of Health is still determined to see this bill taken to a final vote during the current session, the Senate need not feel obliged to rush its examination of this bill simply because a June election date is more convenient to the Liberal Party's fortunes than a later one.

If this government has any sense of responsibility, it should see to the disposal of all its priority legislation first and foremost and then turn its attention to an election date. To do the reverse, to encourage obscene haste only to meet a favourable date, is to make a mockery of our democratic system.

While we have no intention of unduly delaying this bill, we certainly do not intend to be stampeded into a quick, rubber-stamp approval in order to abide by Liberal pollster conclusions. We will give this legislation the same objective and open analysis all government legislation has received since we have been in opposition, and we will decide after the committee hearings whether amendments intended to improve the bill are in order.

I have already listed some preoccupations, and others will no doubt be developed during the hearings. I will conclude by saying that the value of a Senate committee hearing cannot be overestimated, particularly as the other place is driven by the government majority to move legislation with the least public input possible.

We welcome the government's agreement to send the bill to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. It confirms that our preoccupations are not with the purpose but with making as certain as possible that what is given Royal Assent meets constitutional tests set out in the Supreme Court judgments. The bill in its final form must also minimize the negative economic impact on individuals who depend on the tobacco industry for much, if not all, of their livelihood as well as on the many activities which, owing to industry sponsorships, provide employment and entertainment to Canadians across the country. No matter what we may think of its product, the tobacco industry is a legal one, and it must not be pushed beyond limitations where other Canadians should not and would not be taken by Parliament.

Motion agreed to and bill read second time.

Referred to Committee

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

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

(1620)

Justice

Investigation into Sale of Airbus Aircraft
to Air Canada-Inquiry-Debate Continued

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Cools, calling the attention of the Senate to the Airbus Affair and the accusations against Former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney contained in a Department of Justice document that Mr. Mulroney was, "involved in a criminal conspiracy to accept payments for influencing Air Canada's decision to buy airplanes from Airbus"; and to the fact that this affair is causing deformity, embarrassment to and suspicion of the system; and to the handling of these matters; and to the erosion of parliamentary process; and to the damage caused to parliamentary government, to the Prime Minister's Office, to the principle of ministerial responsibility, and to Parliament, and to Senators, including myself, who voted on Bill C-129, the bill to privatize Air Canada, on August 4, 1988, in the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce; and to the belief that Parliament, in the interest of public confidence and integrity, should take cognizance of these matters and take these matters into Parliament's consideration.-(Honourable Senator LeBreton).

Hon. Noël A. Kinsella: Honourable senators, you can see this inquiry is in its 15th day of standing on the Order Paper. I should like to make a few comments and then take the adjournment in the name of Senator LeBreton.

Hon. Philippe Deane Gigantès: Point of order. Do the comments of Senator Kinsella count towards the 15 minutes of Senator LeBreton?

Senator Graham: No.

Senator Gigantès: Why not? I must ask these questions. Otherwise we go back on the slippery slope towards the 17 hours and 45 minutes when everyone votes to waive the limitation that you made in a rule.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable Senator Kinsella may proceed.

Senator Berntson: I am sorry I woke you up.

Senator Corbin: Keep your cool, Senator Kinsella.

Senator Kinsella: I thank the honourable senators for their help in my introduction to my address on this inquiry.

You will recall that this inquiry flows from a notice given by our colleague on December 11, 1996. The attention of this chamber was called to the Airbus affair and the accusations against former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney as contained in a Department of Justice document. The notice of inquiry also calls our attention to the fact that this affair is causing:

...deformity, embarrassment to and suspicion of the system; and to the handling of these matters; and to the erosion of parliamentary process....

When I looked at that notice and saw those words, I thought that it deserved special attention. Namely, our attention is being called to a matter which is apprehended by those addressing our attention to this matter to deform and embarrass and to cause suspicion of our system and to lead to the erosion of parliamentary process. Honourable senators, obviously those statements ring with great concern for each and every one of us.

The notice also went on to say that our attention ought to be drawn to the damage caused to parliamentary government, to the principle of ministerial responsibility and to Parliament. Clearly, the subject-matter of this inquiry could not be more serious a matter for all parliamentarians. Yet we have had only a few interventions on it thus far.

My estimation of the Airbus affair is based, quite frankly, on what I have read in the newspapers and upon the debate I have heard so far in this chamber. At face value, the Airbus affair appears to be a sad episode in the practice of Canadian freedom. It is also, in my opinion, a case wherein that long-serving principle of ministerial accountability and responsibility seems to have been tarnished.

The apprehension of that matter was laid out in the notice of the inquiry way back on December 11, 1996. Honourable senators will recall there was a similar inquiry prior to that date which had received some debate. That issue of ministerial responsibility did receive a fair amount of attention in the address of our colleague Senator Cools on December 17, 1996, where she took the time to share with us her research on responsible government and the dictates under which any minister of government who performs an act or at whose will an act is done is held responsible to Parliament.

The minister is responsible for every single act of a government. The government is a trust which cabinet discharges under the convention of ministerial responsibility. The principle of ministerial responsibility in the doctrine of responsible government, which describes the relationship between cabinet and Parliament and the terms under which ministers and senior servants of the Crown hold office, is part and parcel of this inquiry. It is the engine room of this inquiry.

In subsequent events, as reported, there was a decision from the court in which the former Prime Minister was exonerated. An apology was given by the Government of Canada to the former Prime Minister. All of that has been made public. In light of what has been said so far, the question cannot escape us about ministerial responsibility. If there has been such an apology, where is the accountability and where is the responsibility of the minister who was in charge of that file?

Any student of civil liberties or human rights worries about the exercise of the awesome power of the state. We worry particularly where we might see signs of abuse in the exercise of that power. With what we have seen in the Airbus case, with the apology that has been rendered and the lack of ministerial responsibilities or accountability associated thereto, perhaps we are dealing here with an abuse of the exercise of state power as it has been brought to bear on the freedom of a Canadian citizen.

It seems to me that this is a case where administrative authority recklessly slanders the reputation not only of a distinguished Canadian and his family but also brings into disrepute the good name of Canada and Parliament itself, if ministerial accountability for those actions is not a part of the equation.

Honourable senators, this is a very important inquiry, and I hope that it will receive further attention. It speaks to a number of fundamental values.

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

[Translation]

Transport and Communications

Committee Authorized to Meet
During Sitting of the Senate

Hon. Lise Bacon, pursuant to notice of Wednesday, March 12, 1997, moved:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications have power to sit at 3:30 p.m. on Tuesday, April 8, 1997 for its study of Bill C-216, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act, even though the Senate may then be sitting, and that Rule 95(4) be suspended in relation thereto.

Motion agreed to.

[English]

Social Affairs, Science and Technology

Committee Authorized to Monitor
Implementation of Divorce Act

Hon. Mabel M. DeWare, pursuant to notice of March 12, 1997, moved:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology be authorized to monitor the implementation and application of Bill C-41, An Act to amend the Divorce Act, the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act, the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act and the Canada Shipping Act, and the associated Federal Child Support Guidelines; and
That the Committee present its report no later than June 30, 1998.

Motion agreed to.

Adjournment

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

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 58(1)(h), I move:

That when the Senate adjourns today, it do stand adjourned until Tuesday next, March 18, 1997, at 2:00 p.m.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Motion agreed to.

The Senate adjourned until Tuesday, March 18, at 2 p.m.

Debates of the Senate (Hansard)

Debates of the Senate (Hansard)

2nd Session, 35th Parliament, Volume 135, Issue 82

Thursday, March 13, 1997 The Honourable Gildas L. Molgat, Speaker

THE SENATE

Visitors in the Gallery

Pages Exchange Program with House of Commons

SENATORS' STATEMENTS

Human Rights

International Day for Elimination of Racial Discrimination

Fisheries and Oceans

Update on Plight of Orca Whales Captured by Japanese Fishermen

Goods and Services Tax

Harmonization with Provincial Sales Taxes-Effect on Atlantic Taxpayers

Human Rights

Nigeria-Action of Minister of Foreign Affairs

Alberta

Congratulations to Progressive Conservative Party on Election Victory

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

Criminal Code

Bill to Amend-Report of Committee

Private Bill

An Act to Incorporate the Bishop of the Arctic of the Church of England in Canada-Bill to Amend-Report of Committee

Nuclear Safety and Control Bill

Report of Committee

Appropriation Bill No. 4, 1996-97

First Reading

Appropriation Bill No. 1, 1997-98

First Reading

Parliamentary Delegation to Lebanon, Jordan and Yemen

Report Tabled

Canada-Japan Inter-Parliamentary Group

Fifth Annual Asia Pacific Parliamentary Forum-Notice of Inquiry

Agriculture and Forestry

Fact-Finding Mission of Committee to Washington-Notice of Inquiry

Goods and Services Tax

Removal of Tax from Reading Materials-Presentation of Petition

QUESTION PERIOD

National Defence

Search and Rescue Helicopter Replacement Program-Request for Update

Replacement of Sea King Helicopters-Government Position

The Economy

Possible Targets on Reduction of Debt-Government Position

National Defence

Testimony of Major Armstrong-Curtailment of Somalia Inquiry-Government Position

Child Poverty

Number of Children Expected to be Affected by Initiative-Government Position

Effect of Unemployment Rate on Plight of Children

Justice

Status of RCMP Investigation into Sale of Airbus Aircraft to Air Canada-Government Position

Indian Affairs and Northern Development

York Factory Implementation Agreement and Nelson House Implementation Agreement-Status of Legislation

Aboriginal Peoples

Report of Royal Commission-Timetable for Implementation of Recommendations-Government Position

Report of Royal Commission-Efficacy of Implementing Measures Before Response Made to Recommendations-Government Response

Report of Royal Commission-Possibility of Meeting Between Prime Minister and Aboriginal Leaders-Government Position

Fisheries and Oceans

Availability of Retraining Funds for British Columbia Fishers Displaced Under Mifflin Plan-Government Position

Answers to Order Paper Questions Tabled

Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples-Cost of Commission by Standard Object of Expenditure

ORDERS OF THE DAY

The Estimates, 1996-97

Report of National Finance Committee on Supplementary Estimates (B) Adopted

Business of the Senate

Appropriation Bill No. 4, 1996-97

Second Reading

Third Reading

Appropriation Bill No. 1, 1997-98

Second Reading

Third Reading

Excise Tax Act Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act Income Tax Act Debt Servicing and Reduction Account Act

Bill to Amend-Third Reading

Tobacco Bill

Second Reading

Referred to Committee

Justice

Investigation into Sale of Airbus Aircraft to Air Canada-Inquiry-Debate Continued

Transport and Communications

Committee Authorized to Meet During Sitting of the Senate

Social Affairs, Science and Technology

2nd Session, 35th Parliament,
Volume 135, Issue 82

Thursday, March 13, 1997
The Honourable Gildas L. Molgat, Speaker

Number of Children Expected to be Affected
by Initiative-Government Position

Excise Tax Act
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
Income Tax Act
Debt Servicing and Reduction Account Act

Investigation into Sale of Airbus Aircraft
to Air Canada-Inquiry-Debate Continued

Committee Authorized to Meet
During Sitting of the Senate

Committee Authorized to Monitor
Implementation of Divorce Act