Download as PDF

Debates of the Senate (Hansard)

1st Session, 36th Parliament,
Volume 137, Issue 85

Thursday, October 22, 1998
The Honourable Gildas L. Molgat, Speaker


Thursday, October 22, 1998

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



Women's History Month

Emily Murphy-First Woman Magistrate

Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, today, in commemoration of Women's History Month, I would like to present to you Emily Murphy. Emily Murphy is well known as the leader of the Famous Five who took the Persons Case all the way to the Privy Council of Great Britain in order that women, too, might be considered persons under the Canadian Constitution. However, there is much more to the story of Emily Murphy than just that, for she was Canada's first woman magistrate in 1916 and was, in fact, the first woman magistrate appointed in the British Commonwealth.

Although her family was of a legal background, she herself did not study the law, albeit she certainly showed a flare for it. She was well-educated and showed particular interest in the improvement of opportunities as well as basic justice for women. She married Arthur Murphy in 1887, a parson with the British Missionary Society. He travelled widely for some years, during which time Emily Murphy became an accomplished writer. When the society ran out of money, Arthur Murphy decided to become an entrepreneur in Manitoba, and the family moved to Swan River. In 1907, the family moved to Edmonton, and it was there that Emily Murphy made her mark.

Like many western cities at the turn of the century, Edmonton was a hotbed of activity for women, particularly for those who believed in extending the right to vote to women. She became active in church organizations, particularly those that provided help to destitute women and children. She worked with Indian families and recent immigrants who spoke no English. She soon became a leader of the franchise movement.

In June of 1916, the Law Committee of the local Council of Women began a crusade to set up a women's court, whose purpose would be to try cases involving women. Emily Murphy, who had taken a special interest in criminal justice, was asked by the government of the day to become the first woman magistrate. Many applauded the appointment, but there was some controversy. At her very first sitting, her legitimacy was challenged. Defence counsel argued that she was not a person and, therefore, she had no right to be holding court. According to a precedent in 1867 under British common law, women were persons in matters of pain and penalties but not in matters of rights and privileges, and therefore, since the role of magistrate was a privilege, Emily Murphy was not eligible and no decisions of her court were binding. However, no one actually challenged her right to the position to a higher court, and she continued to hear court cases.

As a magistrate, her style was certainly different. She often invited the women on trial to dinner in her home, and often engaged in friendly conversation with them. On one occasion, she had an accused murderess released to her custody, and after she ordered a perfumed bath and a new gown for the distraught woman, the story emerged about the degradations imposed upon this woman by her husband. She received a light sentence, perhaps the first case in which battered wife syndrome was used as a defence.

Better known for her work in the Persons Case, Emily Murphy also contributed enormously towards women's issues in other capacities, most notably as our first woman magistrate.

Louis Riel

Anniversary of Birth at Red River Settlement

Hon. Thelma J. Chalifoux: Honourable senators, today is a very significant day in the history of our nation. Louis Riel was born on this date in 1844 - a great Canadian, a dedicated leader and a fighter for the rights of First Nations, Métis and the minority immigrants who came to this harsh land of ours.

Thanks to this great man and the work of the Métis provisional government of the Red River, the Manitoba Act was able to be negotiated, which brought Manitoba into Confederation rather than joining the United States to the south. Also thanks to Louis Riel, the French language is enshrined in the Manitoba Act.

Louis Riel was elected to Parliament three times, but due to the discrimination of the ruling political party, he was never allowed to take his rightful place in the House of Commons. This is one of the most shameful events of Canada's history. All Canadians, including our children, should learn about the struggle of this man and his involvement in the development of our country and as one of the proud heroes of Canada. Louis Riel was a true Canadian who fought for the rights and freedoms of Canadians even when the central government of this country exiled him. He was still proud of his French, Métis, Canadian heritage. He truly was a hero of Canada.

Happy birthday to a great Canadian, Louis Riel.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!


Judges Act

Bill to Amend-Report of Committee

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

Thursday, October 22, 1998

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


Your Committee, to which was referred Bill C-37, An Act to amend the Judges Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, has, in obedience to the Order of Reference of Tuesday, September 22, 1998, examined the said Bill and now reports the same with the following amendments:

1. Page 1, Clause 1: Delete Clause 1 and renumber subsequent clauses accordingly.

2. In the French version, Page 3, Clause 6: Replace line 4 with the following:

"de la rémunération des juges chargée".

3. Page 3, Clause 6: Add after line 7, on page 3, the following:

"(1.1) In conducting its inquiry, the Commission shall consider

(a) the prevailing economic conditions in Canada, including the cost of living, and the overall economic and current financial position of the federal government;

(b) the role of financial security of the judiciary in ensuring judicial independence;

(c) the need to attract outstanding candidates to the judiciary; and

(d) any other objective criteria that the Commission considers relevant.".

4. Page 4, Clause 6: Replace line 14 with the following:

"a report of the Commission within six months after receiving it.".

5. Page 6, Clause 9: Delete Clause 9 and renumber subsequent clauses accordingly.

6. Pages 6, 7 and 8: Clause 10: Delete Clause 10 and renumber subsequent clauses accordingly.

7. Page 8, Clause 11: Delete Clause 11 and renumber subsequent clauses accordingly.

8. Page 13, Clause 21: Replace lines 1 to 3 with the following:

"21. Sections 2, 3, 7 and 14 to 20 come into force on a day or".

Respectfully submitted,



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

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



Hon. Sharon Carstairs (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, October 27, 1998, at 2 p.m.

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

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Motion agreed to.


Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group

Meeting held in Washington, D.C.-Report of Canadian Delegation Tabled

Hon. Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table the report of the visit of the Canadian co-chairs of the Canada-United States Interparliamentary Group to Washington, D.C., in July of this year.


Solicitor General

Commission of Inquiry into Treatment of Protestors at APEC Conference by RCMP-Refusal to Fund legal assistance for Students-Assurance of Due Process-Government Position

Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Acting Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, given the decision of the government to deny legal assistance to the students involved in the RCMP Public Complaints Commission hearings, my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate is this: What steps, if any, will the government now take to ensure that the right to due process will be respected during the commission's hearings?

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, the government has confidence in the ability of the commission and its members to ensure due process. The commission's counsel has already assured the Canadian public that due process will be carried out.

Senator Kinsella: As honourable senators know, one of the elements of due process that must be present at any hearing, no matter how informal the given hearing may be, is the right to be heard. We have the wise insight of those learned in jurisprudence, such as Justice Sutherland of the United States Supreme Court, who stated that the right to be heard would be of little avail if it did not include the right to be heard by counsel.

Will the government agree and concur with the RCMP Public Complaints Commission if it decides to use its budget to fund the students involved in that hearing?

Senator Graham: Honourable senators, I do not believe that the commission, under its present rules, would be permitted to use its budget to fund legal counsel for the complainants.

On the point my honourable friend raised with respect to the esteemed justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, we must remember that this is not a trial or a court; it is a fact-finding body. That is very important to remember as the commission continues to go about its work under very difficult circumstances.

Honourable senators, Senator Kinsella asked the other day if I might table the correspondence between Minister Scott and Mr. Gerald Morin with respect to funding the complainants of the APEC hearing. I would be tabling, therefore, the initial letter, in both official languages, from Mr. Morin and the other two members of the commission to Minister Scott, a news release from Minister Scott, and Minister Scott's letter to Mr. Morin.

With permission, honourable senators, I wish to do so at the present time.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is it agreed, honourable senators?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Commission of Inquiry into Treatment of Protestors at APEC Conference by RCMP-Examination of Role of Prime Minister's Office in Security Arrangements-Government Position

Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Acting Deputy Leader of the Opposition): To cut to the chase, honourable senators, will the RCMP Public Complaints Commission hearing be able to inquire into whether persons in the Prime Minister's Office gave instructions to the RCMP relating to suppressing the rights of assembly and the rights of expression of opinion of Canadians enjoying that APEC meeting?

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, that would be up to the commission members. They know what their mandate would permit, and I presume the answer would be in the affirmative.

I should point out that, although counsel for some of the complainants walked out earlier, I understand one of them is back. The vast majority of the complainants and witnesses are continuing to take part in the commission's work. I understand that, at last count, 44 out of 50 complainants and 105 out of 128 witnesses are continuing to participate. It is also worthy of note that none of the complainants who left the hearing room last week have actually withdrawn their complaints.

Commission of Inquiry into Treatment of Protestors at APEC Conference by RCMP-Ability of Commission to Fund Defence of Students-Government Position

Hon. Pat Carney: Honourable senators, I wish to pursue the same subject and ask for a further clarification of this issue.

Over the past few days, we have been discussing the fact that the Public Complaints Commission has been provided with more than $1 million for this inquiry, which will make it the most expensive in Canadian history. There is some confusion about whether this money can be used to fund the students. In the other place, the Liberal government has said the commissioners have the right to give some of these funds to the students for legal counsel. Meanwhile, the commissioners are saying they do not have the right to use that money to fund the students' lawyers.

My question to the Leader of the Government is extremely simple. Can the RCMP Public Complaints Commission use its own funds or the funds provided by the government to provide legal aid for the students?


Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, let me again be within the realm of the good judgment of commission members. I can say that in both 1990 and 1996, the federal Department of Justice provided Treasury Board with an opinion that the Public Complaints Commission could not fund lawyers for complainants.

Further to that, Senator Carney, I believe it was in 1997 that the Public Complaints Commission sought an outside legal opinion which indeed confirmed that the panel did not have authority to pay the legal costs of complainants. That decision, I believe, has been confirmed by the Federal Court, in July of this year.

Commission of Inquiry into Treatment of Protestors at APEC Conference by RCMP-Request for Particulars of Mandate and Numbers of Counsel Reporting to Prime Minister's Office-Government Position

Hon. Pat Carney: Honourable senators, possibly the information that we have been provided with here could be provided to the Solicitor General. It is Minister Scott who continues to raise the possibility that the commission can fund the students. He is the minister to whom the RCMP reports.

In addition to the many federal government lawyers representing the RCMP at the commission, and also the government, it is my understanding that the federal justice department has a team of lawyers reporting directly to the Prime Minister's Office. That is in addition to the ten lawyers at the hearing. There is a nest of vipers over at the Langevin Block assisting the Prime Minister. The "forces of darkness" have gathered in the Langevin Block to assist the Prime Minister's Office on this issue.

Some honourable senators on the government side are laughing; they think this is funny. I hope that those honourable senators who have been appointed on the Liberal side and who have a career and a lifelong interest in human rights think that this is amusing, too.

My supplementary question is this: Could the Leader of the Government tell us just how many federal government lawyers are reporting to the PMO on this case, and what is their mandate?

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): I take your question very seriously, Senator Carney. Certainly, you would know where all the bones and the bodies would be in the Langevin Block from your distinguished career in a previous government as minister of trade and president of the Treasury Board. You probably know your way around the Langevin Block better than I.

Senator Berntson: Or any other block.

Senator Graham: My information is that there are three, possibly four, lawyers acting on behalf of the Government of Canada. I am not aware of any others.

Senator Carney: Then the total comes to 14, anyway.

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Conference

Meeting to be held in Malaysia-Possibility of Prime Minister making statement on Human Rights Record of Host and Other Participants-Government Position

Hon. Mabel M. DeWare: Honourable senators, this year the APEC conference will take place in Malaysia. It is soon to begin. The Right Honourable Prime Minister will be attending that conference, representing Canadians and Canadian values.

Can the Leader of the Government in the Senate assure us that the Prime Minister will take open and direct measures to communicate Canada's displeasure over human rights abuses in countries such as China, Malaysia and Indonesia?

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, the Prime Minister of our country has indicated publicly both in Canada and abroad, be they Team Canada missions or APEC meetings, his concerns about human rights abuses, even in the country where he happens to be.

It is extremely important that we are mindful of what has taken place and what is taking place. It is important that Canada be on the world stage and be a member of the world community. Whether it be at OECD or APEC or the World Trade Organization, Canada should be there making our unique contribution based on our stature as a modern and a very respectable country in the world.

Senator DeWare: Honourable senators, can the Leader of the Government determine whether the Prime Minister will ask the president of Malaysia to clarify his position on human rights in that country? It would be in the best interests of all Canadians if we could have that clarification.

Senator Graham: Honourable senators, the Prime Minister's attendance at APEC could provide an excellent opportunity to express views on the subject directly to the President of Malaysia.

Meeting to be held in Malasia-Intention of RCMP with respect to carrying firearms while guarding Prime Minister during attendance at conference-Government Position

Hon. Mabel M. DeWare: Honourable senators, my question is this: Is Senator Graham aware whether the Prime Minister's complement of security officers will be allowed to carry firearms while protecting the security of the Prime Minister and, if so, will they?

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): I am not aware of any final plans that have been made in that regard because, as I indicated the other day in the chamber, there have been reciprocal arrangements made with respect to the RCMP, who have the responsibility for protecting our Prime Minister, to carry arms in other countries. By request and agreement, reciprocal arrangements have been made whereby those responsible for the protection of the leaders of other countries have been granted the status of temporary peace officers in that country.

Solicitor General

Treatment of Protestors at APEC Conference by RCMP-Transparency of Government Response to Complaints-Government Position

Hon. Ron Ghitter: Honourable senators, I have a question for the Leader of the Government. This entire APEC situation is such a mess. It is such an embarrassment to Canada. It involves the suppression of rights. It involves the suppression of freedom of speech. It involves the suppression of freedom of assembly. Fair-minded Canadians who believe in the democratic system have been viewing with dismay what is occurring, and has occurred in Vancouver. It is fundamental that we get all of the facts into the open to ensure that this sort of situation does not occur again.

Is it the government's intention to hold back on information and facts so that Canadians will not know what really went on at that time?

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, the government clearly recognizes that it has an ongoing obligation to provide all the relevant documentation that should be available to the commission. The government has made every effort to respond to the commission's request for documentation relating to APEC.

It is the responsibility of commission counsel, as I understand it, to determine what documentation is relevant to the hearing and when it should be made available. In that respect, the government, as I understand it, has fully cooperated, Senator Ghitter, with the Public Complaints Commission on producing the documentation, and will continue to do so.

Senator Ghitter: As a supplementary, does the government not understand the one-sidedness of what is occurring when government lawyers are coming to this hearing with their abilities, their knowledge and their wisdom to scrutinize documentation and to understand the issues while some university students are coming almost naked to the proceedings without any assistance whatsoever? If it is the government's desire to bring the facts out appropriately in this situation, how can they deny the students access to trained minds in order to ensure that their position is protected, and that all of the facts will emerge?

Surely the government's refusal to provide legal assistance to these students tells Canadians that the government is unwilling to see that all the facts come out? Indeed, the government seems willing to allow the students to stand alone against the battery of lawyers that the government is putting up on the other side. Is that fair and appropriate? I would suggest that the government should be embarrassed by their conduct in this matter.

Senator Graham: The Honourable Senator Ghitter mentioned in his earlier question the suppression of rights and the suppression of freedom of assembly. If you follow carefully and fairly the events as they unfold - and it is important for us to watch and listen to the testimony that comes before the commission - you will find that every effort was made to provide an appropriate space for the students to assemble and to make their protest.

As I mentioned at an earlier time - I do not believe you were in the chamber, Senator Ghitter - that request had been made through the president of the University of British Columbia, on whose campus the conference was held.


All of us have lessons to learn from this particular event. As a matter of fact, the world can learn from this event. I would never, for one minute, deny the right of people to demonstrate or to be heard. I think it is terribly important for us to be conscious of what those young people are going through in their lives. At the same time, we must remember that the host country is responsible for the protection, the security and the orderly conduct of those meetings.

We have been assured by the commission counsel that he will be able, with the help of those who are assisting him, to ensure that all the facts will come out and that everyone will be treated fairly. It is very important that we allow the commission to continue with its work. Perhaps in two or three weeks or a month from now, we will be able to make an assessment of how that work is progressing.

Senator Ghitter: Honourable senators, I know Senator Graham to be a fair-minded man. What he has expressed has been expressed in all sincerity and he has presented the government's position today. However, this is not a matter of providing space for people, and it is not a matter of saying that the independent counsel for the commission will be able to do the job. I have sat on these commissions and I have acted as counsel on them. I have never seen a complainant walk in before a fact-finding tribunal, an inquiry, a judicial commission, or whatever, without counsel. The position of the independent counsel is to see that the facts get out, but he is not in an adversarial position. He is not there representing a particular person. The government is represented to the nth degree, but you are leaving these students without representation. I find that reprehensible.

International Trade

Failure of OECD Multilateral Agreement on Investment-Review of Cost to Sovereignty of Chapter 11 of North American Free Trade Agreement-Need for Transparency in Dispute Settlement Panels-Government Position

Hon. Mira Spivak: Honourable senators, according to press reports yesterday, the Minister of International Trade has declared the Multilateral Agreement on Investment a dead deal. Some of us might cheer, some of us might not, but the talks have broken down because the deputy secretary of the OECD said that the stumbling block was the treaty's impact on sovereignty - specifically, its conflict with the sovereign right of countries to pursue health, environmental and labour objectives and their right to protect culture.

The vast majority of OECD countries are not accepting this limit on their sovereignty but Canada has already accepted it on a scaled-down basis in the NAFTA.

My question is this: Given that Canada is learning the hard way through the NAFTA panel ruling on MMT and other new challenges what investment treaties really mean, is the government planning to review publicly the full cost to our sovereignty of NAFTA, chapter 11 before it is extended to the WTO, the Free Trade of the Americas Agreement, or any other multilateral or bilateral treaty? There is also the question of transparency, the lack of which has been criticized a lot in these dispute settlement panels.

I should like to know if the Leader of the Government in the Senate can provide us with the government's feeling or thinking now that the MAI is no longer on the front burner?

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, with respect to negotiations, it is quite clear that the OECD negotiations are over. That does not change the fact that Canada is a great place to invest and remains so.

The global investment rules would reduce the risks for Canadian foreign investment abroad which last year, for the first time, overtook investment in Canada. It increased from $188 billion to $194 billion.

With respect to transparency, I do not know if I should attempt to respond to Senator Spivak's very interesting question because there were many questions and opinions contained in her preamble. I should like to examine it more carefully and bring forward a more detailed and, I hope, accurate answer. If I try to give one today, I may live to regret it.

Failure of OECD Multilateral Agreement on Investment-Role of World Trade Organization in Investment Rules-Government Position

Hon. Mira Spivak: Honourable senators, people on this side are well aware of the benefits of free trade. To jog your memory, it was actually the Mulroney government that succeeded in putting in place the free trade agreement.

I understand that the transparency question is not one to which the leader can give me an answer today, but there is also the philosophical question in terms of sovereignty. You can have free trade and you can have some protection - certainly the United States succeeds at it admirably. It is the philosophy behind extending the chapter 11 business into the WTO. The WTO has sometimes been the saviour with regard to disputes within the free trade agreement in trade and the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas.

Can the Leader of the Government provide any enlightenment or can he determine the philosophy of the government on this issue at this point in time?

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, if I were a philosopher, I would go on and on and use up the balance of the time for Question Period.

Simply put, there is a new reality. We have worked diligently to get international trade rules from the World Trade Organization, and we believe that the WTO should be the home for international investment rules.

Possible Evaluation of Impact of Chapter 11 of North American Free Trade Agreement-Request for Copy of Report

Hon. Lowell Murray: Honourable senators, there must be in the files of the government somewhere a recent evaluation, conducted by its advisors and officials, of the impact of chapter 11 of the NAFTA on Canada's interests. Would the minister agree and undertake to let us see a copy of such an evaluation - that is, if one exists?

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, if such an evaluation does exist, I should be happy to bring it forward.

Delayed Answer to Oral Question

Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I have a response to a question raised in the Senate on September 30, 1998, by the Honourable Senator David Tkachuk, regarding security arrangements at the APEC conference and the responsibility for briefing the Prime Minister.

Solicitor General

Security Arrangements at APEC Conference-Responsibility for Briefing of Prime Minister-Government Position

(Response to question raised by Hon. David Tkachuk on September 30, 1998)

As stated by Government Counsel in his opening statement before the Commission:

"It was necessary for the Prime Minister's Office to work with the RCMP and other departments and agencies before and during the conference on security and other matters. However the evidence before the Inquiry will show that final decisions respecting security arrangements before and during the APEC conference were taken solely by the RCMP. They were taken for security reasons alone."

On this issue of security arrangements, the Commission will hear witnesses from PMO/PCO.

This matter is before the RCMP Public Complaints Commission. The Commission has the necessary powers to ensure that it hears all the facts that it needs.

It would be inappropriate to comment further.


Parks Canada Agency Bill

Third Reading-debate adjourned

Hon. Ross Fitzpatrick moved the third reading of Bill C-29, to establish the Parks Canada Agency and to amend other Acts as a consequence.

He said: Honourable senators, I am pleased to rise in the Senate today for third reading of Bill C-29, to establish the Parks Canada Agency.

I should like to take this opportunity to express my thanks to my colleagues on the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources for the interest and concern they have shown as we have studied this important piece of legislation.

The committee members' commitment to our national treasury was confirmed by our decision to report Bill C-29 without amendment. However, the committee has also reported certain observations. These observations are welcomed by the government and will be subject to further study so that we can continue to protect our natural and cultural heritage.

Our national parks, national historic sites and other protected heritage areas are a great source of pride and delight for Canadians and a precious heritage for all of us to protect and enjoy. The government has a strong commitment to these special places in that they are an expression of Canada and that the government intends that they be preserved and managed in a manner that leaves them unimpaired for future generations.

A key element of this commitment is the establishment of an organization dedicated to carrying out these responsibilities. That is why the government announced its intention, in March of 1996, to create such an organization, the Parks Canada Agency.


Bill C-29 will achieve several important goals. First, it will establish the Canadian Parks Agency dedicated to the management of Canada's national parks, national historic sites and other related heritage areas. Second, it will provide the Parks Canada agency with special abilities, ensuring continued quality service to Canadians. Third, it will maintain the momentum toward the completion of the national parks system and the expansion of systems of national and historic sites, marine conservation areas and other related protected heritage areas, thereby strengthening and reflecting Canada's values and identity.

A key element of the new agency is the emphasis on accountability. First and foremost, the Parks Canada Agency will remain fully accountable to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and to Parliament. The Minister of Canadian Heritage will retain current direction over the agency and its programs and activities. The Minister of Canadian Heritage will approve submissions to cabinet, including those to Treasury Board, and will table in Parliament key documents such as the corporate plan for the agency, management plans for the parks and sites, and the annual report on the agency's operations. As well, at least every five years, the Minister of Canadian Heritage will table in Parliament a summary report on how the human resources regime supports values established for management of human resources.

The chief executive officer will report directly to the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Treasury Board and the Auditor General will also have roles in the accountability structure. Treasury Board will approve the contents of the Parks Canada Agency corporate plan and will recommend approval to Parliament for appropriations for the agency through the Main Estimates and Supplementary Estimates. It will also approve the negotiating mandate for collective bargaining.

The Auditor General will audit and provide an opinion on the financial statements of the agency, and will evaluate its performance with respect to its mandate, objectives and corporate plan.

The creation of the Parks Canada Agency will ensure that employees have the tools to carry out their mandate of working toward the completion of the national parks system. Through the Parks Canada Agency, improvements are being sought in the following areas:

First, organizational stability: It is the intention to formally establish an organization that is firmly dedicated to, and focused on, its tasks.

Second, organizational simplicity: The agency will have a simple organizational structure creating modern and efficient service.

Third, financial flexibility: The agency will need innovative financial tools for peak performance within its budget.

Fourth, a dedicated human resources regime: The Parks Canada Agency will have its own human resources regime, one that can meet its special operational requirements.

The flexibilities and authorities that the legislation provides are designed to support the agency in delivering services within its budgets. The specific authorities which help to meet this goal are: one, the delegation of administrative authorities; two, the retention of revenue that will flow back into operations, and three, a more tailored human resource regime that will give employees the tools they need to effectively carry out the agency's mandate.

Operating revenues will flow back into parks and sites, creating part of the appropriations for establishing new heritage places. The retention of revenues from the sale of surplus fixed assets will be reinvested for establishing new heritage places. A biennial round table will permit interested persons to share their views on the agency, and to participate more fully in the management direction of our treasured places.

In conclusion, honourable senators, I trust that my comments have clarified the strategic direction and priorities of Bill C-29 to establish the Parks Canada Agency. The responsibility for managing these special places has a long tradition, stretching back to 1885 when the initial steps were taken to establish Canada's first national park. We must ensure that this tradition continues.

The new agency will ensure the continued fulfilment of this mandate of managing our national parks, national historic sites and other heritage areas which together reflect and celebrate the very best of what it is to be Canadian.

Honourable senators, I am proud to speak to this bill at third reading, and I am confident of your support in recognizing the importance of this legislation.

Hon. Ethel Cochrane: Honourable senators, I should like to make a few remarks about Bill C-29. I will focus on two particular concerns. The first is the fate of seasonal employees under the management of the new parks agency. The second is the need to ensure that the beauty of our national parks continues to be preserved and enhanced.

We know that all existing Parks Canada employees will be offered a transfer to the new agency with their existing wages, benefits and pensions. I understand that PSAC is not concerned about future job cuts in the parks service because those cuts have already been made over the past few years. However, I am concerned that there are no guarantees that the agency will employ the same number of seasonal workers.

At present, there are about 5,000 Parks Canada employees. About one-third of those are seasonal employees, and most of them are students. In many small communities in and near the parks, those jobs are very important both to the people who hold them and to the local economy. For many of the students, these jobs are an opportunity to gain valuable work experience in fields that are relevant to their area of expertise, such as biology and forestry. It would be, at best, a shame and, at worst, a very severe economic blow if the agency decided to reduce costs by cutting the number of seasonal jobs available.

My second concern is dear to my heart, that being the preservation of the beauty of our parks. The government has told us that it will deliver cost-effective and efficient services to visitors of our national parks. To many of you, those may be reassuring words but to me they are a little frightening. I am certainly in favour of efficiency, but I hope that the pursuit of cost effectiveness does not mean a future deterioration of the splendid hiking trails, the camping and other facilities, and the natural attraction that we find in our national parks.

Every year I make it a point to visit Gros Morne National Park in Newfoundland. Each time I return, I find that improvements have been made, and made in such a way that they blend in with the surroundings and enhance the clean and pure beauty of the park.

Over the years, the people who work in our park service have established standards of excellence for the maintenance and continuing upgrading of the parks. The results of their efforts are admired by visitors from all over the world. I would hate to see those standards relaxed and those efforts diminished in the pursuit of cost savings and efficiency.

I fear that the agency may be tempted to contract out more work and services in order to reduce costs. If that happens, will contract workers have the same commitment to preservation of the natural beauty of the parks that the park service employees exhibit? Will private companies worry about ensuring that facilities blend harmoniously with the environment?


I fear that the new agency may be tempted, or even pressured by the government, to raise more revenues by allowing more commercial development in the parks. That, too, would threaten the natural beauty for which our parks are so famous.

Honourable senators, I hope that my fears will prove to be groundless, and that the standards of preservation and enhancement of our natural parks will be maintained for many years to come. I will continue to visit Gros Morne National Park every year and other parks in the future, and I hope the parks will remain as beautiful as they are today.

On motion of Senator Ghitter, debate adjourned.


DNA Identification Bill

Second Reading

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Bryden, seconded by the Honourable Senator Stewart, for the second reading of Bill C-3, An Act respecting DNA identification and to make consequential amendments to the Criminal Code and other acts.

Hon. Pierre Claude Nolin: Honourable senators, it is understood that Bill C-3 will be referred as quickly as possible - perhaps as early as today - to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. I will try to be brief.

Everyone is aware of the scope of this bill, which seeks to complement an initial step taken in 1995. At the time, amendments had been made to the Criminal Code to allow for the taking of DNA samples for investigative purposes, under the authority of a judicial warrant. This was the first legislative step in this area. Bill C-3, which provides for the establishment of a national DNA data bank, was tabled in the House of Commons in September 1997. It is the second step taken by the federal government to legislate the use of DNA samples to identify criminals.

Honourable senators, this is a historic bill and one of the most important in the area of criminal justice in the past 100 years, that is since 1898, when authorization was granted under the Identification of Criminals Act to take fingerprints to identify a person suspected of being responsible for a crime.

It is important to agree on a definition of DNA. If the committee wishes to get explanations from scientists, it will have ample opportunity to do so. I will not get into a scientific explanation since I am not an expert in the field but, from what I understand, DNA is a substance that contains the genetic code of an individual. Every individual has his or her own code, unless we are dealing with identical twins, in which case the genetic code would be the same for both.

The bill is aimed at the creation of a bank that would contain information relating to these codes. This is a very powerful tool with an impact not only on the efficacy of criminal justice, but also on the security of the population and of the state, on the private lives of Canadians, and on their relationship with government.

With this bill, the state gains considerable power, because it addresses an aspect of private life that has never been addressed since the beginning of human history. The state is now in a position to obtain information on people's daily lives, such as genetic, and therefore highly personal, information on individuals and their families, from computerized data banks and from cross-referencing information files - for instance, our income, our credit, our medical files, our academic records. The Canadian government could therefore, in the near future, be able to gain information on our predisposition to certain diseases, our academic abilities, our character, and even our predisposition to challenge social authority.

Before this latest intrusion into people's private lives, the state's use of electronic surveillance against people without their knowledge was considered the most serious offence under the Criminal Code.

It is, therefore, important for this new initiative against crime to be used with the greatest care for our constitutional and democratic principles and with respect for people's privacy and rights.

The purpose of this bill is to create a national DNA bank to help law enforcement agencies identify persons alleged to have committed designated offences, including those committed before the coming into force of this act.

The bill in question is based on two major principles, and it is vital for the coexistence of these two principles to be understood. The first is what I would call "the efficacy of the criminal justice system." It is acknowledged first of all that the protection of society and the administration of justice are well served by the discovery, arrest and prompt sentencing of offenders, and that this may be facilitated by the use of DNA profiles. No one here can deny our duty to provide the state and the law enforcement agencies with the means of attaining that objective.

There is a second principle - one the government recognizes in its bill - that I would call "the protection of legal rights," because the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms refers to this protection. The bill also includes two provisions for the protection of personal information. First, safeguards must be placed on the use and communication of, and access to, DNA profiles and other information contained in the national DNA data bank.

Second, safeguards must be placed on the use of, and access to, bodily substances that are transmitted to the RCMP commissioner for the purposes of the act. These two principles - vital to an understanding of the legislation - must coexist and complement one another. This is a tall order. On the one hand, we want the police to have all the available tools but, on the other, we want to make sure that, in exercising their new powers, the police respect the constitutional rights we demand. Parliament's challenge is to ensure that the legislation respects both principles.

Bill C-3 offers certain benefits. The administration of criminal justice in cases of serious crime or sexual assault will be more effective. If traces of DNA are found at crime scenes, the police will probably be in a better position to identify the perpetrator with absolute certainty. As well, a data bank will make it possible to solve crimes for which there have so far been no suspects.

I will use all three descriptions, even though the scientists do not like it when I mix them up, but I think you understand what I am driving at.


Using DNA will be useful in prosecuting and convicting those who really committed crimes and in proving the innocence of those wrongly convicted. Since it was first used in Canada in 1988, DNA evidence has proven extremely useful in correctly identifying suspects in a number of investigations.

This bill contains several flaws, and it will be the committee's job to identify these flaws and correct them where necessary, so that the two basic objectives of this bill can coexist.

In spite of this bill's benefits in terms of improving the efficiency of criminal justice and the police investigation process across the country, it has nevertheless raised concerns with respect to its potential impact on the concepts of privacy and security of the person. While most stakeholders who came before the House of Commons justice and human rights committee recognized that Bill C-3 strikes a balance between the need to ensure the security of the state and society and the need to protect individual rights and privacy, a number of them expressed concerns about the potential short-term effects of this bill.

The committee must conduct a detailed review of Bill C-3. We must make sure that, in keeping with the spirit of the bill, the two aforementioned objectives can continue to coexist without one overriding the other. It would be a grave mistake to become so absorbed in our quest to make criminal justice more efficient that we forget about the need to protect individual guarantees. By their decisions, the courts would show us the error of our ways.

It is our duty to ensure that, at the end of the legislative process, this necessary legislation respects the democratic constitutional guarantees we all hold dear.

I have concerns about the confidentiality of the information contained in the data bank and about the management of this data bank. I do not question the existence of the bank. The administration of this bill must be very carefully controlled.

I have concerns about access to the content of the bank and about the nature of the information kept there. As to the administration of the data bank, even if samples are destroyed, the profiles of the individuals acquitted would remain in the system. In other words, an individual is arrested, charged and acquitted. We would keep the profile, but the elements, the substances used to create the profile, would be destroyed.

Is the potential for recidivism noted in each case in order to justify such a decision? These profiles would be made inaccessible, we are told, so what then is the point of keeping them? The government guarantees that the link between the profile and the individual would be cut to avoid any connection between the two. It contends that the destruction of the profiles would pose a computing problem.

In this field, what seems insurmountable today will seem like nothing in three years. We need look only at the changes in computer science and the capabilities we have today compared to those of 10 years ago. When I hear people claiming that, for computer processing reasons, it would be impossible to do what you are suggesting, permit me to question it. It will be the duty of your committee to question senior officials, to go beyond this answer and explain the nature of this computer problem. We will go beyond a facile response in order to understand, I promise you that. If the government does not want to destroy the profiles and assures us that no link will be possible between an individual's name and the profile, why keep them? Our committee will look at the responses.

There is a troubling situation, too. During an inquiry, persons may voluntarily offer bodily substances from which their DNA profile may be derived. In an effort to facilitate an inquiry or to avoid being charged, individuals may voluntarily decide to provide a sample - all in an effort to help the police.

Under the bill, these samples must be destroyed immediately and are not to be used in investigations of other crimes. In examining the bill's provisions, we must make sure that the bill's objective is in fact respected.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, the 15 minutes are up. Are you going to ask for leave to continue, Senator Nolin?

Senator Nolin: If my colleagues would be kind enough to allow me a few minutes, I will be brief.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, is leave granted?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Nolin: Honourable senators, many things are done in the name of science. Science and research are magic words. Perhaps I am mistaken, but the creation of a data bank worries me. The control measures are clear in the bill. What guarantee is there that someone, not even a scientist, much less an ill-intentioned one, will not have access to this bank? Who can say that science will not have evolved sufficiently in a few years for scientists to have discovered the potential of a DNA bank such as this one right there for the taking?

It may become an object of considerable attraction for researchers, and one readily accessed. We must take steps to ensure that this bank is set up only for the purposes set out in this bill.

We need to draw on our experience to try to predict the future, for science is advancing even faster than we think. We hear about genetic manipulation. We find it interesting; we read about it in the newspapers. However, we need to realize that what can be done now with animals can be done with humans as well. You can see how far genetic manipulation can go. Far be it for me to suggest that such is the government's intention. What I do want you to understand is that access to a data bank can turn into a megaproject for a scientist. We must prevent this from happening, even if it means putting in supplementary protections that may seem excessive to us. The bill will be reviewed in five years and this is a great idea. If we find the additional controls excessive, we can water them down in five years.

I have some serious concerns about lobby groups. I am thinking in particular of the Canadian Police Association, which would like to see the bill amended as far as the timing of sample collection is concerned.

I will not make any snap judgments on what was said in the other place, but let us not lose sight of the fact that, since 1981, we have had a Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It may be a nuisance to us at times, but we cannot decide to have one just when it suits us. That charter contains protective mechanisms, guarantees. Should we be tempted to change the timing of sample collection, we would have some serious constitutional problems.

If you have six constitutional experts before you, three will say you will have problems and three will say the contrary. We are playing with the private lives of individuals, criminals or not. We have no right to advance into the unknown. If a measure may be unconstitutional, we must not touch it.

You have probably begun to receive documentation from the various lobbies, all well-intentioned. I am not questioning their motives, but I suggest you bear in mind that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms could be threatened by this bill.

The Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee will examine this bill very thoroughly.

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 Bryden, bill referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Implementation Bill

Second Reading-Debate Adjourned

Hon. Eymard G. Corbin moved the second reading of Bill C-52, to implement the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty.

He said: Honourable senators, I am grateful for the privilege and the honour to move today the second reading of the bill to implement the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty, which Canada needs in order to carry out its obligations under the treaty and which, once passed, will enable Canada to ratify the treaty.

Over 50 years ago, Canada had the capacity to manufacture nuclear arms. It decided, however, not to do so. Instead, we have devoted a considerable amount of resources and energy to developing a plan to free the world of nuclear arms while at the same time permitting the harnessing of nuclear energy for peaceful use.

Canada probably paid a political and economic price for sticking to its convictions; still it did not back down. For instance, time and time again we have chosen not to sell nuclear reactors to countries that were not willing to provide the necessary safeguards and honour their international obligations with respect to nuclear non-proliferation.

Unfortunately, the nuclear tests by India and Pakistan have revived the threat of proliferation and weakened rather than strengthened regional security. Sadly, by their actions, they may have set an example for other countries tempted to contribute to nuclear proliferation. As a result, we are running the risk of seeing a number of states decide that it is acceptable in international policy to defend the proliferation or build-up of nuclear weapons.

Such an attitude jeopardizes the progress made in turning back the nuclear clock. We must condemn this attitude if we want to achieve our ultimate goal of ridding the world of nuclear arms. The absence of international censure against India and Pakistan and, worse yet, their recognition as nuclear states will increase the pressure to expand the nuclear club. That is why Canada strongly condemned those tests and rejected the arguments invoked to justify them.

It is equally important that we constantly renew efforts to promote nuclear disarmament, the other indissociable part of the equation.

While we Canadians can take pride in the sustained and persistent efforts of our successive governments to extend the non-proliferation regime, through the extension, in 1995, for an indeterminate period, of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the coming into effect, in 1997, of the Chemical Weapons Convention, and the agreement allowing the international community to begin talks on a treaty prohibiting the manufacturing of fissile materials used in nuclear weapons, we must still continue to fight with determination.

The House of Commons unanimously passed Bill C-52. It is now up to us, honourable senators, to give our support, which will no doubt be unanimous.

The treaty is an indispensable component of the international regime of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. Its coming into force will put an end to nuclear testing, regardless of where such tests are conducted, thus improving world security. It is a fact that nuclear tests prevent us from achieving the fundamental objectives of disarmament and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.

It is ridiculous and paradoxical to see these objectives being jeopardized by states which seek to join the nuclear club for reasons of vanity. The comprehensive nuclear test-ban treaty is a more effective deterrent than any other previous disarmament treaty. It will help restrict the development of new nuclear weapons and the improvement of existing ones. The treaty will also provide safeguards to nuclear states, thus supporting the efforts made in the area of nuclear disarmament.

The treaty provides for an international monitoring system to detect any nuclear explosions that take place. The global network will include 321 stations and 16 laboratories using four different detection technologies: first, seismological monitoring to measure shock waves in the earth's surface; second, hydroacoustic monitoring to measure shock waves in water; third, infrasound monitoring to measure low frequency pressure fluctuations in the atmosphere; and, finally, radionuclide monitoring to measure the presence of certain radioactive fission products in the atmosphere, which will make it possible to determine whether they are the result of a nuclear explosion.

Fifteen of the 321 stations will be located in Canada, which will also have a radionuclide laboratory. The list can be found in a schedule to the treaty, which is included in the bill. All these stations will operate 24 hours a day. It is practically impossible to carry out testing secretly. States will have to think long and hard before resorting to clandestine activities.

Once the treaty is implemented, the organization responsible for its enforcement will be able to carry out on-site inspections should any suspicious events be detected by its own international monitoring system or other means.

No one should be in any doubt as to the reliability of the international monitoring system and the effectiveness of the technologies used to detect explosions. Although it is not yet fully operational, the international monitoring system nonetheless detected the recent explosions in India and Pakistan. This is already a sign of its effectiveness.

We are certain that, once the international surveillance system is fully operational, it will be practically impossible to carry out nuclear testing in secret on this planet. The test-ban treaty also limits the ability of governments to develop nuclear weapons and improve existing ones. The treaty will also put the brakes on vertical, or quantitative, proliferation and on horizontal, or qualitative, proliferation. Furthermore, the treaty sets for all countries, and this is perhaps its greatest strength, a general standard against nuclear testing. Its main virtue lies in the strong international consensus behind it.

With 150 countries as signatories, including five declared nuclear powers, the treaty carries with it the moral weight of the international community and can be felt even by countries that have yet to sign it.

We note that, because of the pressure of the international community, India and Pakistan have, since they conducted their tests, indicated their willingness to consider signing the treaty - testimony to its authority. We very much hope they will do so quickly.

Concluding the treaty had long been one of the aims of Canada, which made a very positive contribution to the negotiations. Despite the comments by some critics, our ministers and diplomats did everything they could do in an imperfect world, and we owe a substantial debt of gratitude to these devoted and hard-working officials.

If we want to continue playing an important role in this regard, our words must be accompanied by actions. We must ratify the treaty.

The bill before us contains the elements required for Canada to honour its obligations under the treaty. First of all, it will make it an offence to carry out a nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion in Canada for the purpose of developing or improving nuclear weapons; second, to set out the respective and joint responsibilities within the National Authority for Canada of the Departments of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Natural Resources, and Health in managing all matters relating to Canada's obligations under the treaty; third, to require Canadian industries to report to the National Authority any chemical explosion using 300 tonnes or more of TNT-equivalent blasting material that could be taken for a nuclear explosion.

The bill will not be difficult to enforce, since it does not make onerous demands on Canadian industry. In fact, implementation of the treaty provides some advantages for Canadian technology. There may be some extremely interesting economic advantages for Canada, given our expertise in the field.

Canada's national authority for implementation of the treaty will be made up of existing components of Natural Resources Canada, Health Canada, Environment Canada and the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. It will not be necessary to create a new bureaucracy. Canada's annual contribution to the treaty organization will represent most of the money needed to implement the treaty. It is provided that Canada's additional expenditures to put in place its component of the international monitoring system will be repaid by the treaty organization.

If the Senate approves the bill, it will enable Canada to ratify the treaty and give increased legitimacy to its efforts to prevent new risks of nuclear proliferation. Adopting this bill will make Canada one of the first major nations to ratify the treaty.

Canadians fervently wish the world to be freed of the nuclear threat. They want to take the lead in pursuing this objective. Ratifying the treaty will meet their expectations.

If passed by the Senate, this bill will send a clear message that our country remains committed to the objectives of non-proliferation and disarmament, objectives which Canadians hold dear.

Before I conclude my remarks, you may have noticed, honourable senators, that only one amendment was made in the other place to the bill as introduced by the minister. Under this bill, the Minister of Foreign Affairs will be required to table an annual report before the House of Commons within 15 days of receiving it. Why is he not required to table his report in the Senate as well? I do not know. The amendment was moved by the Bloc Québécois and unanimously approved by the House of Commons. It may be that someone was asleep in the other place.

In committee, I intend to move an amendment to have the department's annual report also tabled in the Senate for consideration by the honourable senators.

On motion of Senator DeWare, for Senator Andreychuk, debate adjourned.


Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Commemoration of Fiftieth Anniversary-Inquiry-Debate Adjourned

Hon. Lois M. Wilson rose pursuant to notice of October 20, 1998:

That she will call the attention of the Senate to the fiftieth anniversary year of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and its implications for Canada.

She said: Honourable senators, it is with both humility and pride that I take my place as a senator from Ontario in this chamber.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Senator Wilson: Many of you have far more political experience in policy-making in this country than I can ever hope to have. I want to learn from your collective experience. However, I am prompted also to acknowledge with pride that my appointment honours the ecumenical, interfaith and non-governmental communities in Canada with whom I work on societal issues.

Born, educated and nurtured in my formative years in the province of Manitoba, which gives me some claim to being a Westerner, I am pleased now to represent the regional interests of Ontario, having lived and worked extensively in both the northern and southern parts of that province for almost 40 years.


I apologize for having to speak English but I am far from bilingual. However, I pledge to learn French as soon as possible.


As we approach the millennium, I join with others in this chamber in the hope of contributing a measure of wholeness to a world and a community that is experiencing much brokenness. Acknowledging that our lives and our efforts are limited, my focus will be on three priorities: Canada's foreign policy in international human rights and related subjects; support for the aspirations of Canada's aboriginal people; and facilitation of civil society as it emerges more and more strongly as a constructive partner with government on significant policy issues. Of course, underlying everything I do will be advocacy for a more equitable role for women. These issues provide a context for the development of government policy.

First, let me remind honourable senators that December 10, 1998, heralds the fiftieth anniversary of the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The declaration speaks not only of civil and political rights, around which we have made significant progress, but also around economic, cultural and social rights. These need much more attention from policy makers, particularly as one-fifth of the world's population lives in abject poverty.

The recently released United Nations Human Development index points out that Canada's standing in overseas development assistance, for example, remains at an all-time low of 0.32 per cent, far below the internationally agreed target of 0.7 per cent, which is reached only by Nordic countries at the present time.

For the fifth year in a row, the report rated Canada as the best country in the world. I rejoice in that fact. In my calling as Christian minister, ecumenist, university chancellor and author, I have travelled the world widely, and there is no country other than Canada in which I would want to live in.

However, several indicators factored into this report for the first time call our number one standing into question. The gap between the rich and the poor in this country, and the unequal distribution of wealth, called the poverty indicator, drop us to eleventh place. Some 9 per cent of Canadian families received food assistance in 1994, and half the children of single parents in Canada live far below the poverty line. Cuts in health, education and social spending have had a negative effect on the most marginalized in Canada - the aged, the ill, single parents and the unemployed.

While I am fully aware that much of the responsibility for the delivery of social programs is the responsibility of provinces, I am also acutely aware that the federal government has a critical role to play in ensuring wholeness in the life of the poor. We are, after all, a country; not just a group of disconnected provinces.

Literacy in Canada was rated by the report as 99 per cent. However, it is also noted that the so-called literate have such low levels of functional reading skills that they cannot understand the instructions on a bottle of medicine; nor can they meet the basic requirements of a society with changing competitive markets.

The social cohesion study of this chamber in the context of globalization and other economic and structural forces is very important in pointing the way to sound social policy for this country.

The issue of recognizing the aspirations of the aboriginal people of Canada is of much concern to the people of Ontario. The territory of the Nishnawebe-Aski Nation covers two-thirds of the land mass of Ontario. This territory stretches across Northern Ontario, encompassing all of the lands in the province that are drained by Hudson Bay and James Bay. The nation's government-to-government relationship with the Crown was initially formalized in Treaty No. 9 and Treaty No. 5. The Nishnawebe-Aski number over 28,000 First Nations people. They live and work in 50 First Nations communities across Northern Ontario. These people are both Ojibway and Cree and speak various dialects of Cree, Ojibway and Oji-Cree. Many still live in isolated communities.

Some 35 communities are inaccessible by road. Twenty-seven are unconnected to the Ontario Hydro grid. Many depend, in various degrees, on the land and its resources for food as the basis for their economy. Their culture is based on and thrives on their relationship to the land and their environment.


Grand Chief Charles Fox points out that both Canada and Ontario have recognized their inherent rights to self-government and the fiduciary obligations to protect their rights in instruments that they have signed. While they are still pursuing full recognition and implementation of their rights to self government in their territories, which in their view includes management and control of their lands and resources, they face some pressures that would remove lands from their control. That is partly why the Senate study on self-government of aboriginal people is so critical to Canada.

Last week I took leave of the Senate at the request of Canada's Foreign Affairs Minister to be an observer, along with federal parliamentarians and representatives of the Assembly of First Nations, of the elections in the State of Chiapas, in Mexico. I built on my experience of observing elections in El Salvador and Chile on other occasions.

Our purpose was to be passive participants but active observers. Our visit demonstrated concern and support for the indigenous peoples of Chiapas, assessing their participation in the democratic election process for local government under very current and tense conditions there. We also assessed the utility of conventional election processes in meeting the needs of people wishing to retain their traditional ways to choose their own representatives. In the process, we noted the grinding poverty, the geographic isolation and the fierce independence of a people whose leaders will doubtless be watching Canada's policy around aboriginal people and self-government.

The increasingly important role of civil society in partnering with government on the formation of public policy has been salutary in Canada around the landmines treaty of one year ago, as well as the International Criminal Court launched in Rome in July 1998. In both instances, the research networking, informed citizen input and the pressure of public opinion contributed significantly to Canada's ability to give splendid leadership in these two areas. A non-government organization, the World Federalists, coordinated the efforts of 200 NGOs in Canada to support the International Criminal Court initiative even though it was not supported by the U.S.A.

The United Nations Human Development Index emphasizes the importance of citizens in participating in decisions affecting their lives and affecting public policy. That report is filled with instances of this emerging trend. As Senate appointees, we forget this at our peril.

Here is a story to enlighten and enliven your weekend. Senator Bill Bradley, of New Jersey, was attending a political dinner in Washington, D.C., and shortly after they were seated, the waiter came around with butter and put one pat on the senator's bread and butter plate. "I would like two pats of butter," said the senator. "Sorry," said the waiter, "only one to a customer." "Well," said the senator, "I guess you do not know who I am." "No," said the waiter, "I do not." "I am a senior member of the United States Senate. Before that I was an all-star basketball player with the New York Knicks and before that a Rhodes scholar at Oxford." The waiter was unimpressed and replied, "I guess you don't know who I am." No, I do not," said Bradley. The waiter drew himself up to his full height and said proudly, "I am the guy with the butter."

My third priority is to remind appointed senators of who in Canada actually has "the butter" and to facilitate access for these groups to policy-making.

Finally, underlying everything I do in the Senate is my commitment to women. The United Nations Human Development Index rated Canada number seven in the world in terms of its ability to create real opportunities for women to participate fully in the economic and political life of this country. The World Council of Churches has just completed a decade-long program with women and has found that violence, whether verbal, physical, economic or political, is the commonality that women around the world experience. I wonder where Canada would stand if violence against women were factored into the next UN Human Development Index.

The situation of women may not be surprising when one reads in the same UN report a chart indicating the world's spending priorities: $6 billion on basic education; $11 billion on ice cream consumed by Europeans; $12 billion for reproductive health care for women; $17 billion for pet food in the U.S.A. and Europe; and, $740 billion on military requirements. Anyone who has managed a household budget knows that the world's spending priorities are badly distorted.

Honourable senators, Canada gave a splendid lead to the international community this past summer. At meetings to launch the International Criminal Court in Rome, Canadian delegates insisted and won the right of that body to be granted jurisdiction over war crimes that specifically affected women. The crimes identified were rape in conflict situations, sexual slavery, enforced pregnancy, enforced prostitution or sterilization. All of these used to be labelled as inhuman and degrading punishment but are now recognized as tools of genocide in a conflict situation.

After World War II, no charges of sexual violence were laid, although Korean women are now asking for compensation for the hundreds of their numbers turned into comfort women and enlisted forcibly to sexually service Japanese troops. After the Gulf War, no charges of sexual violence were laid against anyone. There were no legal structures to address the situation. The world is at last codifying violence against women and identifying sexual violence as criminal acts in international law.

I applaud the statements of the Deputy Leader of the Government about women's contributions to the political life in Canada. I wear a medallion today commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of the ruling of the Persons Case of October 18, 1929, when it was decided that women were persons with regard to appointments to the Senate. There is now a second persons case afoot that seeks to guarantee equal appointment of women and men to the Senate.

Upon my appointment, I was reminded that I bear the same name as the first woman senator, "Wilson," and I therefore have large shoes to fill. I will do what I can, in cooperation with honourable senators, to bring wholeness to a broken world. By addressing international human rights in its broadest sense, by standing with aboriginal people and by reminding members of who has "the butter," we men and women can together develop a strong and viable country for the next millennium.

On motion of Senator Carstairs, debate adjourned.

Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe

Parliamentary Seminar on Conflict Resolution and Democratic Development in the Caucasus held in Tbilisi, Republic of Georgia-Inquiry

Hon. Jerahmiel S. Grafstein rose pursuant to notice of October 20, 1998:

That he will call the attention of the Senate to the Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Parliamentary Seminar on Conflict Resolution and Democratic Development in the Caucasus, held in Tbilisi, Republic of Georgia, from October 3 to 6, 1998.

He said: Honourable senators, I was pleased to represent Canada as a member of the extended bureau of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, at a seminar for parliamentarians on conflict resolution and democratic development in the Caucasus, held two weeks ago in Tblisi, the capital of the new Republic of Georgia.

Members of government and parliament from Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan attended with members of the OSCE from Russia, Germany, Denmark, Poland, Ukraine, Romania, Greece, Turkey and others. I was asked to speak on the theme "Building democracies for open communication." I chose as my topic "Television and Democracy: Tblisi and Toronto." I have circulated these notes to all senators.

I spoke from the perspective of living and working in the pluralistic, multicultural cosmopolitan society that has become Toronto. I attempted to transmit what we have learned in Toronto in Canada on building an inclusive, pluralistic, civic society from the ground up.

Honourable senators, the Caucasus lies sprawled between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea. Caucasia has been the playground for imperial powers for centuries. In the last era, the empires of Turkey, Britain, Russia, Germany and France all played what they call "the great game," a clash between avaricious imperial powers in this region. Each empire held territorial, economic and strategic ambition in Caucasia, the land bridge between Asia and Europe. I recalled that this ancient region always played havoc because of its simmering strategic and economic importance.

After the First World War, Georgia achieved independence for the first time in seven centuries. Then the Bolsheviks forcefully caused Georgia to be rolled back into the new U.S.S.R. in 1921 as a part of the transcaucasian federation along with Armenia and Azerbaijan. This was no accident. Stalin was born in Georgia. His first official responsibility in the Soviet government was as a commissar of minorities. From Moscow, he promoted a particular view to create hollow autonomous republics in Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia, melded in a synthetic transcaucasian federation in order to gain closer and tighter control via the organism of the communist party. In fact, his desire for total control and subservience even troubled Lenin. This led to a major dispute with Lenin. The "Georgian question" was the last dialectical battle Lenin fought, already helpless and disabled but alert from his final strokes. Lenin attempted to enlist Trotsky and others to divert Stalin but they demurred. Lenin wanted to create a voluntary, independent group of states to join the new entity he called the U.S.S.R. This dispute with Stalin led to what was called "Lenin's Last Testament." Lenin secretly dictated final notes from his sick bed. He noted Stalin's conduct and accumulation of power and sought to derail him as his successor, but Lenin died and Lenin's last directives, though known and circulated, were never followed. Put on his guard, Stalin had already pre-empted and outmanoeuvred Lenin, having shrewdly seized power at the central committee, and his views predominated. Together with his Georgian cohorts, including Beria, he seized autocratic control of all Russia. The name U.S.S.R. survived, but little else of the idea of federalism remained. Sometimes history takes strange twists and turns.


After 70 years of powerful prominence, the autocratic U.S.S.R. disintegrated in 1991. For the first time Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia achieved democratic independence. Today they are struggling to gain support in all corners of their own geography, control within their own borders, while grappling with crushing economic problems. The population of Georgia is about 5.5 million. Their average income is the highest of the three republics. It is about $800 U.S. a year. Many in the bureaucracies in Georgia have not received their pay, nor have national pensions been paid for several months.

"Separatists," as they are called in Georgia, have taken control in the Abkhazia region of Georgia. "Separatist" threats are faced in the Ossetia region as well. "Separatist" militias have usurped autonomy and have established local power. The "separatist" implosions have triggered a massive transfer of refugees; so in Georgia, separatism is equivalent to social disruption and economic chaos.

Added to 300,000 displaced persons from without, there are 300,000 Georgian refugees coming from the "separatist" region of Abkhazia. Some observers suggest that Russia, a peace-keeper in the region, is fomenting this unrest. Democratic friends have observed these concerns with care and attention as Russia itself is a member of the OSCE.

Two lessons I can bring back - the disease of "nationalism" and the dangers of elevating and exaggerating "nationalist" myths and "national" minorities impedes economic progress, unity and civic society. "Imperialist" ambitions can still foment divisions and unrest.

Policies of inclusion and pluralism remain the preferred path to political and economic cohesion and stability.

Honourable senators, let me say that President Schevardnadze, who himself has survived several recent assassination attempts, spoke at our meeting with passion and insight. He described the current "separatist" issues, the costs and dislocation of refugees, and the economic uncertainty in the region. On the other hand, he pointed to projects entitled "The New Silk Road" and a proposed pipeline traversing Caucasia from Baku, which reputedly sits in the centre of the largest oil reserves in the world, across Georgia to Turkey. Two pipeline routes are proposed through Georgia, but the Russians want another, a Russian route. He sketched economic visions and economic plans to modernize the Georgian infrastructure to better utilize these riches and resources of the region to the benefit of all their people. His economic vision for unity rose above the clashes and clamours for local "separatist" autonomy. There are high strategic stakes at play in that region, and these were all outlined with detail and care in his economic vision.

May I note the largely unpublicized and unheralded work on democratic development by the OSCE and its members and leadership under Madam Helle Degne of Denmark, the President, and its Secretary General, Spencer Oliver of the U.S. We now know that there is no quick, romantic fix from autocracy to democracy, particularly in these regions. Step by step, party by party, consensus by consensus, democracy will evolve. Advice and assistance is still useful at every step. This is the Georgian desire, and we, as members of the OSCE, should provide it.

Since I left Georgia last week, an abortive military mutiny put down and control reasserted by the government over western Georgia. It has been argued in Georgia that the ensuing unrest there is an attempt by Russia to weaken and divide these young democracies for a return to Russian hegemony and to divert pipeline investment from Georgia to Russia. This we should observe with concern and with interest.

Honourable senators, despite these setbacks, I was impressed by a taste of the legendary hospitality of Georgia and the passionate interest of members of parliaments from these three republics to listen, to learn and to move forward towards democracy and economic stability. We have much to learn from the problems of these regions. There is much we can do to help democracy along the way. Regretfully, we suffer from false cost economies in the Department of Foreign Affairs by our absence in this region.

Canada has no permanent representation in the Caucasus, in this incendiary and strategic gateway linking Europe and Asia. Canada has played little or no part in the gigantic $3-billion pipeline project, which is of vital and strategic significance to the West. We have deep and appropriate Canadian expertise, and we have simply not deployed it. I would hope that the Canadian government would see its way to open up at least one small office in the Caucasus to observe the needs of the citizens of that region and Canada in the anticipation of peace and stronger stability and building partnerships for peace. Better preventive assistance and economic partnerships than fire-fighting conflagrations.

When the report of the OSCE meeting is available from the extended bureau of the OSCE, of which I am a member, I will table it at the appropriate time in the Senate.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, if no other honourable senator wishes to speak, this inquiry is considered debated.

Solicitor General

Commission of Inquiry into Treatment of Protestors at APEC Conference by RCMP-Provision of Funds for legal counsel for Students-Motion-Debate Adjourned

Hon. Pat Carney, pursuant to notice of October 20, 1998, moved:

That the Senate supports the granting of funding for legal counsel to complainants at the APEC hearing in Vancouver before the RCMP Public Complaints Commission.

She said: Honourable senators, the Goddess of Democracy is a sweet-faced statue located behind the main library near the SUB, or the Student Union Building, on the University of British Columbia campus. She was erected by UBC students to commemorate the killing of Chinese students by Chinese soldiers who, acting on government orders, turned their tanks and guns on the student dissidents massed in Beijing's Tiananmen Square, a carnage which horrified the world in June 1989.

At a Goddess of Democracy rally following this event, one human rights activist and two parliamentarians stood on the UBC library stairs and to the enthusiastic cheers of students berated the Conservative government for its slowness in reacting to the Chinese action. They were Raymond Chan, now Secretary of State for Asia Pacific in the Liberal government, MP Svend Robinson, and myself, a Canadian senator born in China. Nobody pepper-sprayed us or inhibited our right to dissent. The only expression of concern was made privately by Canada's Minister for External Affairs, who happened to be my parliamentary roommate at the time. Our Charter-protected right to attack our government's actions on campus or anywhere else was unquestioned.

Now fast forward to September 22, 1997, two months before the APEC conference, to be attended by 18 Asia-Pacific leaders, was scheduled to be held at UBC. Then two students were arrested at the site of the Goddess of Democracy statue. Their crime? They had spray painted APEC FREE ZONE at her feet.

These two incidents reveal how our basic human rights have been eroded under this current Liberal government and Prime Minister Jean Chrétien. It was not the statue which was defiled, honourable colleagues; democracy itself was defiled by this government, whose chokehold approach to Canadians has been revealed by its stand on funding the victims of tainted blood, by false allegations against its political opponents - including our former prime minister Brian Mulroney, who this day is receiving Canada's highest honour, the Order of Canada - and a government which has repeatedly refused to use public money to provide legal counsel to the students who were arrested but not charged with expressing dissent. However, the government is providing the state and the police and the Prime Minister's Office with publicly funded legal counsel during the Public Complaints Commission hearings now underway in Vancouver.

The hearings into the RCMP actions against the students, which included pepper-spraying them, strip searching them and jailing them without charge, will be one of the most expensive ever undertaken by the commission - in fact the most expensive. The cost is estimated at over $1 million, including a $650,000 top-up by the government.

None of this money will be available to protect the rights of the students who brought the complaints or to provide them with the expert counsel they require to cross-examine the state's witnesses. Nor does it include the clutch of legal talent which has been assembled in the Prime Minister's Office - the Langevin Block across from Parliament - to help the Prime Minister's spin doctors undermine the evidence being presented during the hearings.

Observers at the hearings tell me that the presence of so many government lawyers arrayed against the inexperienced students has created a climate that is oppressive, ugly, ominous. All Canadians should be fearful of this process, this government, this policing policy. Who will be next?

The issue here is not the outcome of the process but the protest itself. The PCC itself has asked that the students be provided with legal counsel and the PCC's request has been refused. That is the issue before the Senate. Should the students be provided with the legal aid necessary in an adversarial process? We provide rapists, murderers and thieves with legal counsel in order to protect their rights. Why not students whose human rights have been violated?

Why are their human rights so important? Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau explains it at page 77 of Ron Graham's book, The Essential Trudeau:

Certain political rights are inseparable from the very essence of democracy: freedom of thought, speech, expression (in the press, on the radio, etc.), assembly, and association. Indeed, the moment these freedoms suffer the smallest restraint, the citizens have lost their full power to participate in the organization of the social order. And so that each citizen may feel the benefit of the inalienable right to exercise his liberties - in spite of anyone, in spite of the state itself - to these rights two more must be added: equality of all before the law, and the right not to be deprived of one's liberty or one's goods without recourse to a trial before one's peers, under an impartial and independent judicial system.

So spoke Prime Minister Trudeau. He added:

These rights are so basic that they are regarded in democratic philosophy as inalienable...

Who are these students and what police actions were taken against them? Far more was done, honourable senators, than we see portrayed in a television clip involving far more students over a sustained and extensive period of time. Let us examine what took place using material provided by the media, including The Vancouver Sun, to show you that what happened on my campus went far beyond what we saw on TV.

This was not a case of a violation of the human rights of a handful of professional protesters as the government implies. This was harassment and intimidation of thousands of students who mobilized last fall to express their right of dissent.

I call this "my campus" because I am a UBC alumna. In fact, I was at Homecoming last weekend on the UBC campus. I am also an adjunct professor at the UBC's School of Community and Regional Planning in the faculty of Graduate Studies. Some of my students were involved in these protests.

I want to stress that planning is not a profession known for radicalism. If anything, planning and anarchism are at the opposite ends of the spectrum.

The APEC protest at UBC was a well-organized, sustained protest and quite a normal event for a university campus. Yet, on September 22, when the protest kicked off, two months before APEC, two people were arrested for painting "APEC Free Zone" around the Goddess of Democracy statue.

Every Wednesday prior to the meetings, protesters played ball hockey in the driveway of UBC President Martha Piper. Three people were arrested on Halloween last year for chalking graffiti on the atrium at President Piper's house. Do you know what they wrote, honourable senators? They chalked "Boo." For this transgression they were arrested. On subsequent days, protesters gathered to rally, to chalk graffiti, and to set up a tent city at the museum.

Four protesters were arrested at the tent city on November 22, after the federal government took control of the site.

Two protesters were arrested returning to the same site on November 23, still two days before APEC. One protester was arrested on November 24 on warrant charges in a take-down police said was designed to keep him out of the protest.

That evening, November 24, one protester was arrested at the flag-pole which is nowhere near the site of APEC but has a view of the motorcade. Police pepper-sprayed others as someone tried to place a flag on the pole. Later, three more protesters were arrested as they were walking towards the museum where the APEC was scheduled to meet. Five more were arrested at the flagpole for refusing to leave the security zone. This is the evening before APEC.

On November 25, the day of the meeting, 3,000 protesters gathered at the Goddess of Democracy statue to listen to speeches, music and to watch street theatre. They then proceeded to the security line.

One of the problems here is that the designated area which was prepared by the police was less than the area agreed to by the president's office at UBC. It was located next to the faculty of law building. It was set up by the police to give protesters an opportunity to be seen by APEC leaders. However, it was well away from the motorcade route and the protesters were penned into the law building by a nine-foot security fence which the police had erected across the entire UBC campus. That was like putting a red flag in front of a bull, according to the RCMP liaison to the Indonesian delegation. They were further shielded from the view of the APEC leaders by a row of trees that were planted shortly before the leaders' meeting at the museum.

At 12:00 p.m. on the day of the APEC conference, police pepper-sprayed protesters tearing down the security fence in an attempt to symbolically arrest Suharto. We are not arguing for or against this. We are simply saying there were far more people involved than we imagined.

Police formed a secondary security line with bikes and sprayed a second and third line of protesters.

At 2 p.m., students and protesters barricaded the motorcade at Marine Drive. Police pepper-sprayed protesters between this motorcade route and the Chancellor Boulevard motorcade route.

Shortly before 4 p.m., the protesters blocked the motorcade route in a sit-down demonstration. The RCMP, on short notice - estimated by the cameraman at nine seconds - used pepper spray on these students. Minutes later, a motorcade of 18 APEC leaders drove past.

The bottom line, honourable senators, is that thousands of students took part in these protests. This is not the work of rowdy anarchists. These were Canadian students, including my students, and they require assistance. It is our responsibility and our moral duty to see that they get that assistance.

I would like to read into the record the mandate of the RCMP Public Complaints Commission's current inquiry from the Notice of Hearing.

The commission will:

...inquire into and report on:

a) the events that took place during, or in connection with, demonstrations during the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation ("APEC") Conference in Vancouver, B.C. between November 23 and 27, 1997 on or near the UBC Campus and subsequently at the UBC and Richmond Detachments of the RCMP;

b) whether the conduct of members of the RCMP involved in the events was appropriate to the circumstances;

c) whether the conduct of members of the RCMP involved in the events was consistent with respect for the Fundamental Freedoms guaranteed by section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The records of the complaints commission show that there were 49 complainants in this case. The description of the complaints are shocking and I would like to read them into the record:

One of the first complainants is Donald Griffiths' and the date is November 25. The particulars of the complaints are as follows.

On the afternoon of November 25, 1997, on the University of British Columbia campus, Craig Jones was pushed to the ground, handcuffed and arrested by unidentified members of the RCMP. According to Mr. Griffiths, Mr. Jones had wheeled two chalkboards on to the grass outside the barricade, one board printed with the word "Democracy," the other with the words "Freedom of Speech." Mr. Jones obeyed an order of an unidentified member to move the signs back but, five minutes later, an unidentified member told Mr. Jones the signs had to be removed. Mr. Jones refused to remove the signs. He was then arrested.

The second complaint came from Steffan Riddell regarding events on November 24, the day before the APEC conference.

At about 1600 hours on November 24, 1997, at a flag-pole above the Rose Garden Parkade on the University of British Columbia campus, David Malmo-Levine was speaking to a gathering of students. Mr. Riddell says that Staff-Sergeant Stewart approached David and said something to him. David said he was not leaving. The staff-sergeant then pushed David's head against the flag-pole, grabbed his throat and twisted his arm. David was then pepper-sprayed two or three times. While David was on his knees, he was kneed in the head by the staff-sergeant. Then, without any warning, Staff-Sergeant Stewart pepper-sprayed the crowd. When Mr. Riddell asked for the staff-sergeant's name, Mr. Riddell was threatened with arrest. However, the staff-sergeant eventually gave his name. When asked why David was being arrested the staff-sergeant replied, "Because he's being foolish."

There is another complaint on November 24.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable Senator Carney, I regret to have to interrupt you, but your 15-minute speaking period has expired. Are you requesting leave?

Senator Carney: Yes, Your Honour.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Carney: I am not reading all 49 complaints but there are some here that we should be aware of.

At about 1600 hours on November 24, at a flag-pole above the Rose Garden Parkade at the University of British Columbia, a man was speaking to a gathering of students. Several RCMP members went through the gathering towards the speaker and toward a person who was climbing on the flag-pole. The person on the pole was pulled down. The person speaking said to the police that he had a right to speak. It was not a restricted zone until 1800 hours. An unidentified member of the RCMP twisted the speaker's arm until he screamed with pain. His throat was held and then Staff-Sergeant Stewart fired pepper spray into the speaker's face while he was being held. The staff-sergeant then sprayed eight to 10 other people who were standing at least 4 feet away - none of whom were obstructing the police. No warning of any kind was given.

There is a fourth one. This one occurred, again, on November 25, and is by Jamie Doucette. On November 25, he was an observer at the University of British Columbia reporting via walkie talkie to people at the student union building. While he was sitting watching events, he was approached by an unidentified RCMP member with a dog. Before Mr. Doucette could move, the dog bit Mr. Doucette's right arm causing an injury which required hospital treatment. Mr. Doucette said he was rescued from the dog by another student and has the names of witnesses.

There are 45 other complaints that the students have listed. I think I have given you a sense of their concerns.

Honourable senators, these students require aid because these students require legal counsel. We cannot trust the Public Complaints Commission, which does have the right and the power and the jurisdiction, because the commission and its counsel are bound by law and convention to maintain impartiality and neutrality. Furthermore, the commission was set up to deal with complaints dealing with neglect of duty, or personnel complaints, or improper search of premises, or policy and equipment services. It was not really set up for this magnitude of complaints.

I should like to close my speech with another quote from Mr. Trudeau, which sums up the reason why we are moving this motion. Prime Minister Trudeau said:

Democracy tends towards the good of community by encouraging each citizen and each group of citizens to protest against the defects of society and to demand justice.

That is what we are demanding: justice. Justice will be served by the government by providing funding for the legal aid of the students as they are providing funding for the legal aid of themselves.

On motion of Senator Carstairs, for Senator Graham, debate adjourned.

The Senate adjourned until Tuesday, October 27, 1998, at 2 p.m.