The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, I regret to inform you of the death of one of our former colleagues, the Honourable Senator Jacques Flynn. I would ask that you all rise and join me in a minute of silence.

Honourable senators then stood in silent tribute.

[English]

Visitors in the Gallery

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to a special delegation of the Kuwaiti Canadian Parliamentary Friendship Group from Kuwait led by Dr. Nazer Al-Sane, Chairman, and accompanied by His Excellency Mr. Majdi Al-Dafiri, Ambassador of the State of Kuwait in Canada.

On behalf of the Senate of Canada, I wish you welcome.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, I also wish to welcome Sven-Roald Nystø, President of the Norwegian Sámi Parliament. Welcome to Canada.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

SENATORS' STATEMENTS

The Late Claude Bissell
The Late Murray Ross

Tribute

Hon. Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: Honourable senators, allow me to conclude a tribute to the late Claude Bissell, former president of the University of Toronto, and the late Murray Ross, former president of York University and a dialectician on values. Both would have agreed with the late Harold Bloom of Yale University, who wrote that most imaginative work The Western Canon on the importance of the study of literature at the core of education and the recovery of meaning. Let me quote one small passage from Bloom's mesmerizing critique:

The West's greatest writers are subversive of all values, both ours and their own. Scholars who urge us to find the source of our morality and our politics in Plato, or in Isaiah, are out of touch with the social reality in which we live. If we read The Western Canon in order to form our social, political or personal moral values, I firmly believe we will become monsters of selfishness and exploitation. To read in the service of any ideology is not, in my judgment, to read at all. The reception of aesthetic power enables us to learn how to talk to ourselves and how to endure ourselves. The true use of Shakespeare or Cervantes, of Homer or of Dante, of Chaucer or of Rabelais is to augment one's own growing inner self. Reading deeply in the canon will not make one a better or a worse person, a more useful or more harmful person. The mind's dialogue with itself is not primarily a social reality. All that The Western Canon can bring one is the proper use of one's own solitude, that solitude whose final form is one's confrontation with one's own mortality.

(1410)

Let these words serve, honourable senators, as a modest elegy and eulogy for the late Claude Bissell and for the late Murray Ross, as tranquil reminders of the gossamer essence that lies at the heart of the age-old debate on values and the importance of first educating oneself to face at least the understanding of meaning and, at a bare minimum, the humility of one's own mortality.

[Translation]

Community Foundations of Canada

Quebec—Our Millennium Project

Hon. Lucie Pépin: Honourable senators, I request leave to distribute a document related to my statement.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Pépin: Honourable senators, I rise today to draw to your attention a most original initiative which is evidence of a great sense of citizenship: the Our Millennium initiative of the Community Foundations of Canada. The Community Foundations of Canada have entrusted the Fédération des centres d'action bénévole du Québec and its network of 109 action centres to promote Our Millennium in Quebec.

Our celebrations of the arrival of the year 2000 were marked somewhat by concerns for a potential bug, against which we were warned but which never manifested itself. The Community Foundations of Canada and the Fédération des centres d'action bénévole propose that we be bitten by a real bug for the year 2000: to be truly and broadly committed to a renewed involvement in our society, or in other words, community spirit through community action.

The underlying concept of Our Millennium is a very simple one: local action for global impact, or to put it another way: grouping together locally to influence society as a whole. This means, as you will have concluded for yourselves, that Our Millennium fits within a perspective of governance to restore to community and volunteer groups their rightful role within their community.

Our Millennium involves values. First of all, solidarity: solidarity toward others and toward one's community. Solidarity implies openness, trust and respect, compassion and understanding, the desire to help and to share. Solidarity means acknowledging what we have in common with each other, while respecting our differences. It means taking on collective undertakings, affirming a desire to live and act together. Solidarity is wanting to change life, to make it more beautiful and more human.

The Community Foundations of Canada and the FCABQ propose a whole list of ideas to make this program a reality. These ideas include the education of girls, in particular, promoting their access to science. Under Our Millennium, women scientists would be invited to talk to young girls in schools, to let them know that they also have a role to play in science. Our Millennium also promotes help for seniors, the planting of trees for future generations and the development of community structures for recreational activities. Identifying the community's needs and taking action to improve its quality of life are the primary objectives of that initiative.

Honourable senators, I invite you to take part in this project. Conditions for participation are very flexible: only two people are required to form a team, initiate a project and implement it. The thousands of initiatives that are generated will be listed in a national register — provided, of course, that they were registered in the first place. I have already participated in two projects: the 2/3 walk, which was held last May in Montreal; and the project called Fleurir notre millénaire, in my district of Trois-Rivières.

Honourable senators, I encourage you to read and to distribute this document.

[English]

Prostate Cancer Awareness Week

Hon. Erminie J. Cohen: Honourable senators, the week of September 15 to 21 is designated as Prostate Cancer Awareness Week. I want to alert my colleagues to the deepening concern about this disease with its mortality rate second only to lung cancer.

In a 1997 Health Canada report, the National Cancer Institute told us that more than 19,800 Canadian men would be diagnosed with prostate cancer and that 4,100 will die of the disease; that 1 in 8 Canadian men will develop prostate cancer during their lifetime while 1 in 27 will not survive. These are startling statistics.

Because prostate cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer among Canadian men, I urge my colleagues to "spread the word" and deliver the clear message that early detection increases the chance of a cure and makes treatment easier, thus improving the quality of life. Early detection includes not only physical examination but also PSA testing, which is credited for a current increase in early diagnosis. The PSA test is just a blood test that detects prostate-specific antigens.

Honourable senators, we can all reverse the tide of this major illness by raising awareness starting right here in this chamber. Male colleagues should heed this message and female colleagues should hound the men in their lives. We must discuss this disease the way we address breast cancer — publicly, constantly and without embarrassment.

My husband is a cancer survivor because his disease was discovered with PSA testing. As my colleague Senator Carstairs recently said to me, "Maybe we have to make prostate cancer a woman's issue in order to raise the awareness." Maybe she is right.

Honourable senators, we must make the issue of prostate cancer more visible. Please do your part and, as my honourable colleague just asked, make this your project.

Police and Peace Officers National Memorial Day

Hon. A. Raynell Andreychuk: Honourable senators, I wish to draw to your attention the fact that September 24 is Police and Peace Officers' National Memorial Day. On Sunday, at 11:00 a.m., the twenty-third annual memorial service for police and peace officers who have died in the performance of their duties will be held on Parliament Hill. We will have an opportunity to pay tribute to police and peace officers who have made the ultimate, tragic sacrifice to keep our communities safe. We can also express our appreciation for their dedication and professionalism while performing their duties under often unpleasant or adverse circumstances.

Police and Peace Officers' National Memorial Day had its sad beginnings in the murder of an Ottawa rookie constable, David Kirkwood, on July 11, 1977. Following this senseless killing, Ottawa police officers vowed to keep his memory alive and to assure that Canadians would never forget his sacrifice or the sacrifice made by others like him. Constable Kirkwood's murder generated a response that grew into a nationally recognized ceremony honouring police and peace officers killed in the line of duty.

A two-gun salute opened the first special service and tribute on September 24, 1978. The ceremony was later expanded to honour all other police officers, correctional officers and peace officers murdered or killed in the line of duty. Now all areas of law enforcement are included.

In 1998, the Government of Canada officially proclaimed the last Sunday of September every year as Police and Peace Officers' National Memorial Day. It is a lasting tribute to those brave men and women who have died in the performance of their duty.

Honourable senators, Police and Peace Officers' National Memorial Day is an occasion to honour Canadian law enforcement personnel who have lost their lives in the service of their communities, in the service of our communities. It is also a way of showing their families that they remain in our thoughts and prayers.

As the words inscribed on the Canadian Police and Peace Officers' Memorial remind us, "They are our heroes. We shall not forget them."

World Alzheimer's Day

Hon. Catherine S. Callbeck: Honourable senators, today is World Alzheimer's Day. It is said that this disease will affect approximately 300,000 people this year in Canada, whereas 30 years from now that number will more than double to over 750,000 unless an effective remedy is discovered. Certainly the need for greater support systems for patients and their families is very pressing; however, today I wish to share with you some positive news associated with this debilitating disease.

(1420)

Honourable senators, some of you may know of the recent findings made by Dr. George-Hyslop and Dr. Goldgaber and their team of researchers from the University of Toronto. These scientists discovered the trigger in Alzheimer's patients that is responsible for releasing the toxins into the brain. Such toxins cause the high level of tangles and nerve cell death that are characteristic of this disease. This discovery has the potential to mean a better quality of life for Alzheimer's patients in the future. Moreover, it has also led to expectations that an effective drug therapy will soon be discovered to arrest the toxic buildup in the brain that causes the disease. Until that time, it is important to support Alzheimer's societies across Canada as they continue to raise awareness and funds.

If any senator wishes to read about the positive developments associated with this disease, they were detailed in The Globe and Mail of September 7, 2000, and also published in the scientific journal Nature.

[Translation]

Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission

Ruling Affecting French Language Broadcasting

Hon. Jean-Robert Gauthier: Honourable senators, today, again, I wonder about the reasons that led the CRTC to create an obstacle to the expansion of Canadian and French language television in Quebec. This denial does not serve public interest. Yet, on its Web site, the commission states:

Our mandate is to ensure that programming reflects our linguistic duality.

The word "duality" is the key word in this context, because there are two official languages in Canada and because language policy treats them as equal. This refusal is not in keeping with spirit of the letter and Canadian broadcasting policy. This refusal isolates French language communities by limiting their right to communicate with each other. It is hard to understand the refusal on the basis of public interest and to deny Canada's largest minority, Quebec francophones, access to a French language Canadian television service offered as an option and at a reasonable price.

As I said yesterday, I have instructed my lawyers to ask for the Supreme Court's leave to be heard in this matter. It is a question of law and of fact. This is a constitutional matter based on sections 15 and 16. It is a matter of law, namely, whether sections 41 and 42 of the Official Languages Act are declaratory or directory. This must be determined clearly.

The CRTC is a federal institution, a quasi legal body and subject to the Official Languages Act. The CRTC has erred in law, in my opinion, by failing to honour its obligations. Its primary mandate is to promote the growth of francophone and anglophone minorities in Canada, to support their development and to promote full recognition and the use of French and English in Canadian society.

It is hard to explain the refusal to carry TFO by cable and optionally, unless it is to defend commercial rather than consumer interests.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, the time set aside for statements by senators has passed. Three senators wish to make a statement. Is leave granted for them to continue?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

[English]

The Honourable Joyce Fairbairn, P.C.

Congratulations on Receiving Lifetime Achievement Award for Efforts to Promote Literacy

Hon. Colin Kenny: Honourable senators, according to Statistics Canada, 22 per cent of adult Canadians have serious problems dealing with printed materials. An additional 24 or 26 per cent of Canadians can only deal with simple reading tasks.

We have amongst our number an individual who has worked tirelessly for the cause of illiteracy. Her name is Joyce Fairbairn. I wanted to draw to the attention of this chamber that, just in the past day, she received a lifetime achievement award from the Ottawa Citizen Literacy Foundation. I should like to paraphrase what the publisher had to say about her. He said that Senator Fairbairn has been probably the main spokesperson for literacy at the national level for as long as he has been in the field. He further noted that the only other individual to receive a lifetime award for literacy was Peter Gzowski.

Honourable senators, I congratulate Senator Fairbairn. I notice that she is not in the chamber at this moment, perhaps out of a sense of modesty, but I think we all support her and her efforts in this regard.

[Translation]

Flag of Franco-Ontarians

Twenty-fifth Anniversary

Hon. Marie-P. Poulin: Honourable senators, September 25 will mark the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Franco-Ontarian flag. This will be an occasion to remember with pride and honour the achievements of our community, which has played a key role in building our great country and helping it to take its place in the world. For generations to come, the green and white banner will remain a tangible reminder of our heritage and of those who preserved and enriched it.

A flag is so much more than just a piece of fabric decorated with colours and forms. It is the very incarnation of our beliefs and values, and the embodiment of our collective attachment to these beliefs and values. The flag is a sort of representation of what we are. With you, honourable senators, I pay tribute today to the men and women who worked so diligently and enthusiastically for the vitality and diversity of our language, our culture, our services and our rights in francophone Ontario.

As a Franco-Ontarian, I join with Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier in celebrating the quarter of a century of our flag's existence. We both, by the way, display the flag on our office doors.

[English]

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

Coalition Group Requesting Environmental Assessment of Proposed Landfill
at Adams Mine, Timiskaming District, Northern Ontario

Letter to Minister of the Environment Tabled

Hon. Mira Spivak: Honourable senators, with leave, I should like to table the supporting documentation for the report I shall present under the next item.

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

Hon. Dan Hays (Deputy Leader of the Government): Is the honourable senator tabling a report?

Senator Spivak: I am presenting a report under the next rubric on the Order Paper, and I cannot table a report then.

Senator Hays: Could my honourable friend please explain?

Senator Spivak: This letter occasioned the subject of the report. It is the supporting documentation. I merely wish to table it because I cannot table it with the report. I am not allowed to do so under the Rules of the Senate.

Senator Hays: It is a letter of some kind that has prompted the report.

Senator Spivak: It is a letter from a coalition group that is the subject of our report, and honourable senators will hear that in a moment.

Senator Hays: I have no objection.

Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): It is out of order.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, is it agreed that we table the document?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

[Translation]

Western Canada Telephone Company

Report of Committee

Hon. Lise Bacon, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, presents the following report:

Thursday, September 21, 2000

The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications has the honour to present its
SEVENTH REPORT
Your Committee, to which was referred Bill S-26, An Act to repeal An Act to incorporate the Western Canada Telephone Company, has, in obedience to the Order of Reference of Wednesday, June 28, 2000, examined the said Bill and now reports the same without amendment.
Respectfully submitted,
LISE BACON

Chair

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

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

[English]

(1430)

Sales Tax and Excise Tax Amendments Bill, 1999

Report of Committee

Hon. E. Leo Kolber, Chairman of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, presented the following report:

Thursday, September 21, 2000
The Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce has the honour to present its
NINTH REPORT
Your Committee, to which was referred the Bill C-24, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act, a related Act, the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Budget Implementation Act, 1997, the Budget Implementation Act, 1998, the Budget Implementation Act, 1999, the Canada Pension Plan, the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, the Cultural Property Export and Import Act, the Customs Act, the Customs Tariff, the Employment Insurance Act, the Excise Act, the Income Tax Act, the Tax Court of Canada Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act, has examined the said Bill in obedience to its Order of Reference dated Wednesday, June 28, 2000, and now reports the same without amendment but with the following observations:
The Committee would like to record two particular concerns that have been expressed regarding Bill C-24. The first concerns the timeliness of legislation brought forward before Parliament. This Bill contains a number of "housekeeping" measures that have the undesirable effect of retroactively amending legislation. Improved timeliness in the future would reduce the need for such retroactivity.
The Committee notes that medicine has evolved considerably in the last 30 or 40 years. Many relatively new medical practices are not accounted for by traditional classifications of medical care. The Committee believes that, in light of new medical developments here and in foreign jurisdictions, the government should reconsider the underlying principles that determine what constitute medical care exempted from the GST.
Respectfully submitted,
E. LEO KOLBER

Chairman

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

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

Canadian Tourism Commission Bill

Report of Committee

Hon. Michael Kirby, Chairman of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, presented the following report:

Thursday, September 21, 2000
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology has the honour to present its
TENTH REPORT
Your Committee, to which was referred Bill C-5, An Act to establish the Canadian Tourism Commission, in obedience to the Order of Reference of Wednesday, June 28, 2000, has examined the said Bill and now reports the same without amendment.
Respectfully submitted,
MICHAEL KIRBY

Chairman

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

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

Environmental Assessment of Proposed Landfill at Adams Mine, Timiskaming District, Ontario

Report of Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources Committee on Study Pursuant to Mandate Presented

Hon. Mira Spivak, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, presented the following report:

Thursday, September 21, 2000
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources has the honour to present its
FIFTH REPORT
Your Committee, which was authorized by the Senate on December 1, 1999 to examine issues relating to energy, the environment and natural resources generally in Canada, has heard testimony from a coalition of interested parties who have petitioned the Honourable Minister of the Environment for a full environmental assessment of the proposed landfill at the Adams Mine in Timiskaming District of Northern Ontario. The Committee heard that the proposed project meets three of the necessary triggers for such an assessment. They are — the site is on federal lands for which there is an outstanding aboriginal land claim; the project's potential effects cross provincial boundaries; and finally, leakage from the site could harm fish and fish habitat.
Your Committee supports this petition and recommends that the Minister respond positively to it.
Respectfully submitted,
MIRA SPIVAK

Chair

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

Senator Spivak: Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 58(1)(g), I move that the report be adopted now.

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

Hon. Dan Hays (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I believe our practice has been — and Senator Kinsella is not here — that we consider these matters at the point on the Order Paper at which they fall, rather than at the stage notice is given. I would not have any objection to the report being considered later this day if called at the appropriate place on the Order Paper, but I do not think it is good practice to consider the report, as Senator Spivak has asked, at this point.

Hon. Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: Honourable senators, this is the first I have heard of this report and its conclusions. Since it affects the City of Toronto, I should like an opportunity to review the report. I should like to stand the motion so that I have an opportunity to review the report and perhaps deal with it at a later time.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, leave is not granted to consider the report later today.

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

Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group

Report of Canadian Delegation to Forty-first Annual Meeting Tabled

Hon. Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table the report of the forty-first annual meeting of the Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group, which took place along the Mississippi River from May 19 to May 23, 2000.

Banking, Trade and Commerce

Request for Authority to Study Subject Matter of Bill to Establish the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada—Notice of Motion

Hon. Leo E. Kolber: Honourable senators, I give notice that on Tuesday next, September 26, 2000, I shall move:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce be authorized to conduct a comparative study and report on the findings of its report entitled: A Blueprint for Change: Response to the Report of the Task Force on the Future of the Canadian Financial Services Sector, tabled in the Senate on December 2, 1998, and the subject matter of Bill C-38, an act to establish the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada and to amend certain acts in relation to financial institutions, or any matter relating thereto; and
That the committee present its final report no later than March 31, 2001.

(1440)

Social Affairs, Science and Technology

Request for Authority to Study Current State of Personal Information Protection in Electronic Communications—Notice of Motion

Hon. Michael Kirby: Honourable senators, I give notice that Tuesday next, September 26, 2000, I will move:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology be authorized to examine and report upon the developments since Royal Assent was given to Bill C-6, an Act to support and promote electronic commerce by protecting personal information that is collected, used or disclosed in certain circumstances, by providing for the use of electronic means to communicate or record information or transactions and by amending the Canada Evidence Act, the Statutory Instruments Act and the Statute Revision Act; and

That the Committee table its final report no later than December 31, 2000.

Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group

Forty-first Annual Meeting—Notice of Inquiry

Hon. Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: Honourable senators, I give notice that Tuesday, October 3, 2000, I shall call the attention of the Senate to the forty-first annual meeting of the Canada-United States Interparliamentary Group held along the Mississippi from May 19 to May 23, 2000.

QUESTION PERIOD

Fisheries and Oceans

Burnt Church, New Brunswick—Dispute Over Fishery—Alleged Offer of Incentives Not to Fish

Hon. Gerald J. Comeau: Honourable senators, my question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I watched CTV News 1 last night and was particularly interested in the coverage of events in Burnt Church, New Brunswick.

Can the minister tell this chamber if any compensation or incentives were offered to New Brunswick fishermen in return for their agreement not to fish in and around areas currently being fished by native lobster fishermen?

Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I am not aware of any compensation having been paid, but I shall inquire.

Is the honourable senator inquiring about compensation for not fishing in a certain area rather than compensation for the purchase of licences?

Senator Comeau: Honourable senators, that is correct. I did see that CTV News 1 and today's Le Droit do speak to that point. I saw last night that three fishermen walked out of a meeting, indicating on national television that they had been offered an incentive of $10,000 to $12,000 not to fish in the area around Burnt Church.

Is that in fact the case? Was such an incentive offered, either by the government or by the interim mediator, Mr. Bob Rae? If so, would the Leader of the Government in the Senate not agree that it is inappropriate for the government to undertake to bribe fishermen not to fish?

Senator Boudreau: Honourable senators, I am aware, as is, I am sure, the honourable senator, of a program to purchase licences in order that that capacity will be available to allow the First Nations to participate in the fishery. As I indicated, I am not aware of any specific program to pay fishermen not to fish irrespective of their licence status. I shall make inquiries of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and provide his response to the honourable senator.

The Senate

Possibility of Royal Assent Ceremony

Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, would the Leader of the Government in the Senate confirm or deny the rumours that we can expect a Royal Assent ceremony later today? This is Thursday and we are not sitting next week. Therefore, many senators have made travel arrangements. However, if there will be a Royal Assent ceremony, many of us are willing to adjust accordingly. Will the minister tell us whether we can expect one?

Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, we would be happy to have one, but the answer to that question may depend more upon senators opposite than those on this side. It may depend upon how we proceed with respect to Bill C-37, the one bill that is potentially eligible for Royal Assent.

Legislative Progress of Bill to Amend Parliament of Canada Act and Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act

Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, therefore, the minister is telling us that it has been decided to ram Bill C-37 through. Notice of Royal Assent has been given to Government House and elsewhere, and any discussion we have on it will be fruitless because the die has already been cast.

Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, clearly it is the wish of the government side to see Bill C-37 given third reading today. I am not aware specifically of what arrangements have been made for a Royal Assent ceremony, but I would assume that such arrangements can be made quickly. Some preliminary arrangements may already be in place, but they will certainly depend on whether the Senate passes Bill C-37.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Honourable senators, can the minister explain why a bill that was rushed through the House in two days, with no discussion other than a presentation by the sponsoring minister, should be rushed through here in the same indecent manner? What is the need for this bill to be rushed through and given Royal Assent before we leave today? What is the urgency for this particular bill?

Senator Boudreau: Honourable senators, the issues involved in that bill are very specific. They are known to senators who have taken an interest in the bill. Looking at our legislative agenda, I believe that the balance of legislation will be before committee next week. The issue then becomes whether we would return next week to deal with one bill. In any event, the government has indicated that it wishes to have this bill dealt with as quickly as possible.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Honourable senators, is the minister telling us that what the government wants the Senate will do, and that, therefore, we should wait for a daily Order Paper from the Langevin Block and act accordingly? Is the minister losing complete authority over the workings of this place? Does he not accept the honoured tradition of this house of examining legislation as carefully as possible and eventually reporting it back? Am I to understand that he has instructions from someone on the other side, or across the street, that they want this bill on Thursday regardless of what happens?

Senator Boudreau: Honourable senators, the decision on how the government will proceed and how this side of the Senate will proceed —

Senator Lynch-Staunton: We are not the government. We are the senate of the government.

Senator Boudreau: — is made in discussion with my colleague the Deputy Leader, myself, our colleagues and some senators opposite. In any event, the decision has been taken. We believe that the bill can be disposed of today. We gave notice yesterday that that is how we wish to proceed.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: So much for respect for the Senate.

Finance

Possibility of Lowering of Fuel Tax

Hon. Leonard J. Gustafson: Honourable senators, I have a question for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. There has been much discussion about alleviating fuel taxes for truckers and there is some indication that the government may take some action on this very serious problem and give some support to truckers.

I am sure that the minister is aware that every farmer starts nearly every morning at the fuel tank. Nothing is accomplished on the farm without fuel.

Would the Leader of the Government in the Senate make representations to cabinet about the importance of fuel tax cuts being extended to the agricultural community?

Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, the issue of oil prices has been discussed in some detail over the last few days by the Minister of Finance. He has indicated that he has had the matter under review for some time. Any policy to alleviate taxes or otherwise deal with increased fuel costs must be carefully considered. I am confident that the Minister of Finance is currently doing that and that the issue the honourable senator has raised will form part of his consideration.

Senator Gustafson: Honourable senators, will the Leader of the Government in the Senate assure us that he will raise the importance of this matter in cabinet? The Government of Canada receives 42 per cent of the cost of a gallon of diesel fuel in taxes. That is a significant amount.

(1450)

Given that there is a surplus budget today of some $12 billion, would the leader undertake to ensure that the Prime Minister and cabinet consider the importance of this matter to the agricultural field?

Senator Forrestall: And to fisheries.

Senator Boudreau: Honourable senators, I am confident that those considerations will be before the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister, but I will undertake to relay the honourable senator's concerns in this particular area to my colleagues.

The challenge here is to ensure that any measure taken does not disappear instantly in the retail chain without being passed on to consumers.

Hon. Terry Stratton: Honourable senators, I have a supplementary question.

In talking to the president of a trucking company this morning, I was informed that trucking costs have increased by 14 cents per mile. Their profit is pennies: four cents per mile. There is a high sense of urgency. The trucking company president could not stress more emphatically the need to deal with this issue.

Would the government leader assure me that not only will he talk to the Finance Minister but stress the urgency with respect to this issue?

Senator Boudreau: I will give the honourable senator that assurance, but the best assurance is the statements that the Minister of Finance himself has made in response to questioning. He is indeed aware of the very serious challenges and hardships higher fuel prices are putting on truckers, farmers and the general consumer. I am assured by his comments that he appreciates the situation, but I will forward the senator's concerns to him.

I may not have the exact figures but my impression is that since July of 1998 the price increase is something like 20 cents; and of that amount, the vast majority, 18 cents or so, resulted from increases to the oil price rather than to taxes. I want to make sure we get this right and that any relief that is contemplated gets to the consumers.

Hon. Nicholas W. Taylor: Honourable senators, I have a supplementary question as well.

The GST for truckers and farmers is reclaimable, is it not? They are in business; therefore, they can claim it back. The truckers and farmers do not pay GST. The truckers pay a road tax on gasoline. Could the Leader of the Government clarify my point? I understand farmers do not pay road tax because they use the gasoline off the road. What tax do the farmers pay, if they claim GST and do not pay road tax?

Senator Boudreau: The honourable senator raises a good point. I do not claim to be an expert in the field. It is my understanding that any increase has resulted from the GST operating on the increased prices. I am not sure if businesses, including farmers, pay it initially and reclaim it, or if they are exempt right from the point of purchase. In any event, in both of those cases, it should be reclaimable.

National Defence

Replacement of Sea King Helicopters—Costing Elements of Procurement Competition

Hon. J. Michael Forrestall: Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. The switch from "best value for the dollar" to "lowest price compliant" for the Maritime Helicopter Project has more problems associated with it than just merely the cutting of the EH-101 from competition. The procurement of 28 bare-bones helicopters is a big, complex program. No one has a crystal ball. With utmost certainty, no matter how hard people try to define all the detailed specifications for a program, things will get left out that are later needed, things which will have a profound operational impact on the aircraft. Right now, because it is lowest price compliant, there is no reason for any of the companies to help out the government with solutions to problems that come before delivery. They make money, in fact, by cutting corners to be compliant, not finding solutions to operational needs. Who will bear the costs associated with these necessary operational adjustments to the bare-bones aircraft in the event that the government does not make changes to the process?

We note that the deadline has been extended to September 29. There is still room to change it. Who is going to pay for it? Would the government not make the changes that are required to circumvent this before the deadline date of September 29?

Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I am not 100 per cent certain I understand the point the honourable senator is making. If there are changes in specifications, requirements and so on, I would assume that those would ultimately be to the account of the government.

In any event, there are still questions that need some clarification. They perhaps may be clear to the competing companies; I am not sure. I had some conversations with them in the relatively recent past, but I am not sure how every issue was to be dealt with such as the ongoing cost of maintenance and repair.

I have asked for a more detailed update from the Minister of National Defence as a result of the honourable senator's other questions. I hope to be able to have that next week.

Senator Forrestall: It will not do us much good next week as we will not be here.

I am making the point that we have lowest price compliance. There will be no professional judgement involved in the selection process. It will be the lowest price. What happens if there has been a mistake in the specs? Once the tender has been awarded, who will pay the costs for that? How is that adjusted and how does that assure a level, fair playing field? If the bid is compliant and lowest price, then the helicopter, as I have suggested, will simply be selected. There will be three prices and they will select one.

Why is it that the government excluded the military selection team from that process? Those who would determine best value for the dollar should be able to say so because they know what is the best value for the dollar. Those who have to fly the helicopters in the dead of night, out at sea, in the freezing rain, those with professional judgement and lives hanging in the balance, are being excluded from this process. Is it because they would not pick the cheapest, that they might pick something else, such as the Sikorsky or the EH-101? Is that why you excluded them from the final selection process?

Senator Boudreau: Honourable senators, I cannot confirm the details of the final selection process and, indeed, whether they are excluded or to what extent they participate with respect to advice or consultation. Obviously, they will not make the final decision. That responsibility will ultimately rest with the Minister of National Defence and the government.

(1500)

I am confident that the judgement, the experience and the expertise of our military personnel will be relied on quite heavily.

Senator Forrestall: Honourable senators, somehow I am not being terribly clear here. I am concerned about two things. First, who will pay for the hole in the light panel where the compass is supposed to be? Who will pay for such a mistake? Second, why did we exclude from the process those very professionals whose lives depend on this piece of equipment being in a good, safe operational state? It is compliant upon the lowest cost. The minister and I could probably do a better job than anyone else. The fact is that there is no choice. It is on a piece of paper in black and white and the professionals have had no input.

Senator Boudreau: Honourable senators, there will be input to decide whether any given successful tenderer or proponent meets the qualifications. Having done that, the present approach, quite correctly, is that, once determined, the issue of price will come into play. I am sure it will not be as simple as that, but that will be a governing factor, once compliance has been confirmed.

No matter what approach is taken, if the Government of Canada requires changes after the contract has been signed, the Government of Canada will pay for those changes. That would only be reasonable.

Senator Forrestall: What does that have to do with the issue of lowest compliance?

Senator Boudreau: As to the issue of the lowest compliant price, I appreciate that people might want the best equipment available anywhere in the world for a particular function. I would, perhaps, appreciate having a Jaguar to drive me back and forth to my various responsibilities. As a matter of fact, the Government of Canada does not provide those vehicles, even though they may be better than the ones we are using. We have a responsibility to meet the requirement, but not to buy a Jaguar.

Senator Forrestall: Honourable senators, the minister is not in tune with this current process. I know he is very busy and wants to be elected to the House of Commons where life, apparently, will be a little easier for him. We are not talking about Jaguars and Cadillacs; we are talking about a functionally, operationally safe aircraft. There is no question that the Cougar is a great aircraft. The minister and I should have one to go back and forth to Halifax instead of having to fly Air Canada. However, in terms of function and its primary role, which is its mission, the Cougar is not the right aircraft. There is no question that it will meet compliance and the issue of lowest cost. While it is not the Jaguar, the Jaguar is not the Rolls-Royce either. One would have to pay a lot of money for that Jaguar, and it would not do the job.

Can the minister tell us why there has been a delay of one week or 10 days in the deadline for industry submissions in this respect? While he is at it, would he keep in the back of his mind that we have a fishing industry when it comes to taxes on gas and diesel fuel?

Senator Boudreau: Yes, honourable senators, on the last question first, there is no doubt that that is true. With respect to the increase in taxes that has occurred as a result of the increase in prices, the same status relates to fishermen as relates to farmers in that either they are exempt initially or they get a refund on the GST.

To address the first question, I must do so peripherally. Wherever I may sit in the future, I do not expect it to be any more exciting than this particular institution has been for me over the last year.

Senator Forrestall: When are you leaving us? Tell us that!

Senator Boudreau: I think that we may have a fundamental difference of opinion. The government has said that it will be the lowest compliant price. It will be compliant with standards that have been established in consultation with the appropriate experts to determine what the role of that particular piece of equipment will be and what is required. Once that standard has been established, and if people comply to that standard, then the issue of price comes into play. I do not see anything terribly wrong with that approach.

If, for example, three helicopter submissions were submitted, all three complied, and one of them was three times as expensive as the other two, even though that helicopter did a little more, I do not know if it would make sense to buy it.

[Translation]

Human Resources Development

Employment Insurance Fund—Lack of Support for Seasonal Workers

Hon. Jean-Claude Rivest: Honourable senators, my question concerns the situation of Canada's seasonal workers. Yesterday, in Chicoutimi, two to three thousand seasonal workers staged a protest against the changes to the Employment Insurance Act. They expressed their dissatisfaction with the government's indifference to their situation. This protest was of exactly the same nature as one by the people of the North Shore and Charlevoix, where the number of hours required was changed by changing the zones so that workers could be eligible for employment insurance. Their concerns are along the same lines as those of thousands of seasonal workers across Canada in agriculture, fishing and tourism. During the winter months, these people and their families have a very hard time of it, and they cannot understand why the Canadian government remains so insensitive to their plight while it is accumulating a surplus, much of it from the contributions paid by these very workers as a result of changes to the employment insurance program. How is it that they cannot gain the support of their government?

[English]

Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, the Honourable Senator Rivest raises an important issue. It has been raised by my colleagues on this side of the Senate as well as by my colleagues in the House of Commons.

It appears that we will have a much larger surplus than was initially predicted, which is not terribly unusual. As a matter of fact, I think that is good news. However, some of that surplus will be applied to reduce the national debt of this country, which will allow for money that presently goes to pay interest to go to programs. The surplus is good news. The fact that it will be applied against the debt of this country and reduce debt servicing costs will translate into actual programs for the people of Canada.

(1510)

Let us get back to the specific issue of changes in employment insurance and the impacts on seasonal workers. The Prime Minister has committed to a personal review of those impacts. The changes have been in operation now for some time so an assessment can be made. I am hoping to hear the results of that review very shortly.

[Translation]

Senator Rivest: Honourable senators, the Prime Minister must realize that the impact of these measures on workers is obvious. The government needs to react now, not in two months or in five.

Winter is coming on. These workers will be let go in the next few weeks and they need an immediate response. When, exactly, will the government be responding to the expectations of these workers?

[English]

Senator Boudreau: Honourable senators, I am confident in saying that the issue is before the Prime Minister as we speak and that he will give it his attention.

[Translation]

Delayed Answers to Oral Questions

Hon. Dan Hays (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I have a response to a question raised in the Senate by Senator Bolduc on June 20, 2000, regarding the consequences of a decision by the World Trade Organization on the Auto Pact.

I also have a response to a question raised in the Senate on June 27, 2000, by Senator Prud'homme, regarding the Summit of the Americas 2000-2001 — invitation to the President of Cuba.

[English]

Industry

Auto Pact—Impact of World Trade Organization Ruling

(Response to question raised by Hon. Roch Bolduc on June 20, 2000)

The economic impact of the elimination of the Auto Pact will be negligible. Eighty-five per cent of the vehicles sold in Canada are made in North America, and will continue to come into Canada duty-free under the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) rather than the Auto Pact. Those vehicles imported from Mexico will still be subject to a 1. 8 per cent tariff. Only those vehicles produced outside of North America will be subject to the 6.1 per cent vehicle tariff, and the bulk of these will be luxury vehicles.
It should be noted that the Big Three support the maintenance of the 6.1 per cent vehicle tariff, despite the fact that their non-NAFTA vehicle imports (Volvo, Mercedes, Saab, et cetera) will be subject to the tariff. Furthermore, government consultations with industry have indicated that the loss of the Auto Pact and the maintenance of the vehicle tariff will not significantly affect Canada's automotive operations.
Canada's position with respect to automotive production has evolved since the Auto Pact was introduced 35 years ago. Automotive companies invest in Canada for reasons independent of the Auto Pact. A highly-skilled and productive labour force, competitive labour costs, and an excellent business climate are just some of the reasons why companies from many sectors, including the automotive industry, choose to invest in Canada.
Canada's auto sector is very strong, internationally competitive and highly productive for reasons independent of the Auto Pact. Production and employment are at record highs. During 1999, the industry produced approximately 3 million vehicles and employed more than 160,000 people. The government is confident that this sector will continue to perform strongly.

Foreign Affairs

Summit of the Americas 2000-01—Invitation of President of Cuba

(Response to question raised by Hon. Marcel Prud'homme on June 27, 2000)

The Summit of the Americas is a process that is driven by decisions adopted by consensus among its members. The countries of this hemisphere have together endorsed a position that sees Cuba excluded from participating in the Summit process until the Cuban government demonstrates an acceptance of democratic principles and norms respecting human rights.
The Cuban government's political behaviour since early 1999 — particularly its ideological tightening, its harassment of political activists and its lack of progress on basic rights such as freedom of expression — runs contrary to a process dedicated to democracy and economic integration.
Canada supports this hemispheric consensus. Indeed, one result of our policy review toward Cuba last year was to limit any Canadian support for deepening Cuba's involvement in the hemisphere until Cuba displays a will to proceed with political and economic reform.
Canada, however, still strongly believes in working with the Cuban government and Cuban society to encourage political and economic opening. Canadian engagement is designed to provide Cuba with the kind of assistance needed for a transition to a society where respect for human rights, genuinely representative government institutions and an open economy are fundamental.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Business of the Senate

Hon. Dan Hays (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, under Government Business, I should like to call No. 2 as the first item, debate on Bill S-25.

Defence Production Act

Bill to Amend—Second Reading

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Rompkey, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Taylor, for the second reading of Bill S-25, to amend the Defence Production Act.

Hon. J. Michael Forrestall: Honourable senators, Bill S-25, to amend the Defence Production Act, is an excellent and much-needed piece of legislation. It is my opinion and the opinion generally of this side that this bill will ensure the security of our defence production capabilities and our close relationship and special exemption status with the United States under International Traffic in Arms Regulations, known as ITAR.

The most important foreign policy relationship for Canada is the management of our relationship with the United States of America. This is a fact of life. This bill only affects Canadian civilian companies as there are agreements between governments with regard to military technology. However, this is an important foreign affairs bill as it harmonizes Canadian and American laws with respect to the control of unrestricted military-related technology and its transfer domestically and export overseas.

Despite Minister of Foreign Affairs Axworthy's claims about decreasing the export of Canadian military-related goods and materials, controlled unrestricted defence-related technology was being sent by private companies in Canada to places where it should not have been sent. For example, I have heard it suggested that components of our frigate program found their way to the People's Liberation Army of China. Additionally, there was no provision under Canadian law to prevent controlled unrestricted technology, including data and other information, from being transferred between civilian companies and others within Canada.

This state of affairs — an insecurity, if you will, in our defence production sector — caused grave concerns for our friends and partners in the United States. To protect their own national security, the U.S. threatened to relieve Canada and Canadian business of its special exemption for licences under the ITAR list. The United States government removed many of our preferential exemptions under ITAR Part 126.5 on April 12, 1999.

The loss of the exemption would have placed an undue hardship through long delays on responsible Canadian businesses in the defence sector. The government had to act quickly to remedy this serious lack of law.

The maintenance of a strong, integrated North American defence industrial base is key to our economic well-being. For example, as honourable senators know, Canada has one of the world's foremost aerospace industries. Canadian aerospace industry is a major contributor to Canada's international economic success. The Canadian aerospace industry is the fifth largest such industry in the world and has surpassed all other international aerospace industries in sales over the last five years.

Between 1995 and 1997, the Canadian aerospace industry grew by 23 per cent compared to the United States at 18 per cent and France at 15 per cent. Total sales for this key domestic industrial group amounted to approximately $17 billion in 1999, with exports dominating the industry's total revenues to the tune of some $12 billion. Indeed, the aerospace industry is Canada's leading advanced technology exporter and has realized a trade surplus since 1990 of some $15 billion.

Aerospace research and development amount to approximately 12 per cent of sales or $2 billion in investments that keep our aerospace firms on the cutting edge of high technology. This accounts for 15 per cent of all industrial research and development in Canada. Projected sales from this investment in research and technology will result in an estimated $40 billion in future sales and will create another 9,000 high-paying jobs.

What would happen to this key industry if it had to get licences, from which they are now exempt, through the time-consuming licensing processes in the United States? It would be, I suggest, an economic disaster.

Honourable senators, Canada needs a mechanism to control these defence-related technologies and their data when being transferred between Canadian companies and their clients at home or abroad. We must be a responsible global citizen and ally. Canada reached an agreement with the United States in October of 1999 to reinstate the exemptions under ITAR by promising new legislation to fill the gaps in Canadian law.

The government chose to use the old Defence Production Act as its vehicle to control unrestricted military-related technology. To do so, it drafted amendments in the form of Bill S-25 to the old Defence Production Act as enabling legislation. Part 1 of the old act remains the same, with the exception that the penalties contained in Part 1, sections 26 to 29, were repealed. In their place, the penalties were moved to Part 3 of the act and were then updated to be more consistent with current law.

In Bill S-25, a Part 2 was added to the Defence Production Act that would establish a new control regime for unrestricted military-related technology on the export control list to be administered by the Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada for the regulation of access to these goods.

Part 2 does not apply to government personnel or certain classes of individual, such as an approved exempted foreign visitor.

Clause 37 makes it an offence under Canadian law to allow access to or transfer of technology to any person not registered or exempted under the act. This clause also allows the government to target corporate officers who might choose to hide behind their corporations for breaches of the law. Those who would be given access by Canadian companies to items on the export control list have to be registered and/or given an exemption at the discretion of the minister in clauses 38 and 39 respectively. The minister decides who is registered or exempt through background checks and screening procedures and, under clause 41, the government puts in place inspectors to ensure that the registration process is complied with.

Part 3 of the amended act lists the offences and punishments for violating the Defence Production Act.

(1520)

Previous penalties were old, out-of-date and needed to be significantly increased. Summary convictions under the amended act will receive a fine not exceeding $100,000 or imprisonment for not more than two years or both. Indictable offences will be punishable by a fine not exceeding $2 million or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or both. If an offence is committed on more than one day, the offender will be charged with separate offences for each day of the breach of the law.

Honourable senators, I have talked with various affected groups from the aviation and aerospace industries — the Canadian Defence Industry Association, for example — and they are all agreed that this bill is much-needed. We do not yet know the form that regulations will take, and I am told that they are being drafted as we deliberate. The committee may wish to request them for its examination.

Monday's Ottawa Citizen story about the transfer of two F-5 aircraft from a Canadian museum to private hands is a case in point as to why we need Bill S-25 in place as soon as possible.

In summary, I support Bill S-25 and would suggest that, if the government cared to do so, the matter go to committee as soon as possible. In that respect, we believe that, while it is apparently a Foreign Affairs item, it is equally important to industry and, perhaps, some consideration should be given to sending it to the Banking Committee.

Motion agreed to and bill read second time.

Referred to Committee

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

On motion of Senator Hays, bill referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce.

Parliament of Canada Act
Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act

Motion to Allocate Time Adopted

Hon. Dan Hays (Deputy Leader of the Government), pursuant to notice of September 20, moved:

That, pursuant to Rule 39, not more than a further six hours of debate be allocated to dispose of third reading of Bill C-37, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act and the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act;
That when the debate comes to an end or when the time provided for the debate has expired, the Speaker shall interrupt, if required, any proceedings then before the Senate and put forthwith and successively every question necessary to dispose of the third reading of the said Bill; and
That any recorded vote or votes on the said question be taken in accordance with the provisions of Rule 39(4).

He said: Honourable senators, I understand there may be some questions on this motion. The rules provide that I have 10 minutes, as do other honourable senators, with the exception of the leaders who have half an hour, to speak to a motion such as this.

This is an unusual motion, one with which I have not had much experience. This is the first time I have arrived at this stage with a time allocation motion. In the past, we have discussed them but not used them. This time, it has come forward because we have a disagreement on how to deal with this bill. It is essentially a question of whether or not the bill should be given further committee study.

I believe that there is such an argument. I have listened to it. The fact of the matter is that we are dealing with one of these sensitive pieces of legislation involving compensation to parliamentarians — not in this place, I might say, but in the other place — that draws the attention of a group of people who are very difficult to please in terms of their view of what parliamentarians should receive by way of compensation or pension benefits.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: The Canadian taxpayers.

Senator Hays: I think that explains to some degree why it did not receive a lot of committee attention in the other place, and I will concede that that is one of the reasons it is not receiving a lot of committee attention in this place.

Our rules provide for a period of time, as was read out in the motion, for debate on this motion, and we have provision for a vote, all of which, if we follow the full course of opportunities available, can take quite a lot of time.

Another opportunity for me to say something will arise when the order is called, assuming that this house passes the motion. I draw that to the attention of honourable senators.

As I said, honourable senators may wish to put questions to me as the deputy leader and the mover of this motion that I have not covered or will not be able to cover in my brief remarks. It is probably more useful for me to allow for those questions and respond to them within my 10-minute time frame than to give a speech. Accordingly, I will take my seat.

Hon. Lowell Murray: Honourable senators, I have not taken part in the debate on the bill in question and, frankly, I have not followed it closely. What is being proposed now is, in effect, a closure motion to limit further debate to six hours at all stages. There must be some justification, if only in a moral or political sense, for resorting to rule 39. The normal justification would be that honourable senators have prolonged the debate and prolonged the consideration of the matter at hand beyond what might be considered reasonable by reasonable persons. Another possible justification is an emergency.

For the record, will the Deputy Leader of the Government tell us how much time was spent at second reading, committee and third reading on this bill in the other place? I will be satisfied with ballpark numbers, as will, I think, the rest of the Senate. More pertinently, will he tell us how much debating time has been spent on this bill at second reading and in committee in this place? Surely that information will be sufficient to justify a resort to closure.

Senator Hays: Honourable senators, I will do the best I can to provide that information to Senator Murray.

(1530)

I do not have a detailed answer, other than to acknowledge that not very much time was spent in committee in the other place.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: It did not go to committee.

Senator Hays: Honourable senators, I do not believe there was much time spent on either second or third reading. I acknowledged the reason for that, and I made a comment to the same effect in my speech at second reading, which took 17 minutes. There were other speakers but how long they took I do not know. We probably spent no more than an hour at second reading. The bill was referred to the Banking Committee which held one hearing that would not have been longer than an hour or two. They heard witnesses from the department and Minister Boudria. Why?

Senator Kinsella: Cover up!

Senator Hays: The answer is that this bill essentially represents a negotiation between all parties in the other place with respect to addressing two principle issues. One is an anomaly in the treatment of members of Parliament elected in 1993, as opposed to all other members of Parliament, with respect to receipt of a severance allowance.

Senator Kinsella: They didn't want to go to Stornoway either.

Senator Hays: I have forgotten the exact amount of the severance allowance. I believe it is $16,000. However, members do not receive it if they receive another benefit. Those elected in 1993 have a small benefit, which would prevent them from obtaining the severance allowance either by leaving through their choice or through their electors' choice. MPs elected at other times would receive the full amount. The so-called "class of '93" would not receive the allowance.

Honourable senators, the bill addresses that and, hence forward — I am not sure from Royal Assent or from a time specified in the bill — all members of Parliament will be seen as members of the pension plan. Some, as you know, opted out before. The bill also provides for opting in.

That is my recollection of the content of the bill. It is the kind of legislation that I can understand would not remain in committee for a long time, either in the other place or here.

Honourable senators, I am sure there are critics. The bill was commented on in the media at the time of its passage and perhaps will be commented on again when it is dealt with in this place.

That, Senator Murray, is the best answer I can give. I know I have not been precise on the time frames at the various stages of consideration, but I have tried to elaborate a bit on how the bill evolved and why the time frames were short.

Senator Murray: Honourable senators, that pretty well confirms one's worst suspicions about the bill. One need not have strong views on the substance of the bill, although I think it is fair and pertinent to remark that the Progressive Conservative Party in the other place opposed the bill and voted against it.

Honourable senators, we should all have strong views — and I think we all do — about the credibility and reputation of Parliament, whether members of the other place or of this place. Sometimes I think members of the other place are their own worst enemies to rush through something in order to feather their own nests, and to do so, as my friend has said, as a result of some kind of secret negotiations behind the curtains. They are rushing it through second reading, committee and third reading.

Honourable senators, that is bad enough. Those who hatched the bill, those who supported it and passed it, must ultimately answer to the electorate for their actions, that is true. What they have done, however, is further denigrate their own institution and bring it into disrepute. I think it compounds the felony that we should be complicit in such an exercise.

I have not been privy to whatever negotiations took place between the leaders on either side of this chamber, but I have heard nothing from this side to indicate that the Leader of the Opposition or Deputy Leader of the Opposition were seeking some open-ended guarantee in terms of debate. As I understand it, they quite properly felt in June that the government abused its majority in the committee by rushing this thing through, and now that the bill has returned here, they are looking for leave to pass it at third reading immediately. Such a bill should receive proper consideration in committee, or perhaps in Committee of the Whole, and, if not, certainly at third reading. That need not take forever. It seems to me that we do the reputation of Parliament no good at all, and a great deal of harm, by our complicity in this matter.

Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, first, I should like to say that all honourable senators should be concerned about what has been taking place in terms of the relationship between the other House and this house. It seems that the other place is attempting to exclude this place from doing what it was intended to do by the Fathers of Confederation.

First, we have been seeing bill after bill coming forward from the other place where they seek to exclude the Senate in the review processes. Indeed, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs himself came into the committee examining the clarity bill and gave a list of examples of legislation that was enacted after excluding the Senate from deliberating on reports, et cetera. That is one whole process of exclusion that has occurred. The other place is also excluding the Senate from any deliberative function in the matter of constitutional resolutions going to referendum, which was the subject matter of the serious issues contained in Bill C-20 last spring.

We now have the house managers in the House of Commons putting the pressure on the house leaders in this place to exclude the Senate from the opportunity of a 133-year tradition of sober second thought. They wish now to exclude us by ramming through a piece of legislation that is really not in the public interest, but a piece of legislation that is in the personal and private interests of a number of MPs. Many of those MPs are members of the official opposition in the other place, who originally came to town on the mantra of not looking for pensions, et cetera.

Of course, honourable senators, they said they would not occupy the residence that the people of Canada had set aside — properly in my judgment — for the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition in the other place. Then they refused the practical provision of transportation for ministers and leaders within our parliamentary system, which is also provided to senior managers throughout the bureaucracy. We should not allow ourselves to be drawn into that charade.

This legislation speaks directly to a private interest. It is not a matter of public interest and I find it difficult to understand why we should do this kind of bidding on an issue that is not in the public realm but, rather, in the private realm of the members of the other place.

(1540)

Senator Murray has already alluded to the timeline. On the last day before our summer recess, the Banking Committee had a quick meeting, rammed the bill through, brought it in here, and now members opposite are trying to whistle it through. I am sure that most honourable senators thought that the most reasonable thing to do was to leave the bill in committee over the summer months where witnesses could have been heard and where the committee could have done what this institution is supposed to do, namely, give sober second thought to legislative initiatives.

The motion for third reading was put on Tuesday. The Leader of the Opposition rose, with no delay, and began to speak immediately on the motion at third reading. Because of the treatment the bill received in committee, the Leader of the Opposition reasonably advanced the proposition that perhaps we should send this bill back to committee.

Honourable senators, even though we are currently debating time allocation, it seems to me that a timeline will be set and the majority will impose time allocation. Perhaps within that three- or four-hour period we should send the bill back to the Banking Committee and have the members, if they are not already in Toronto, hear from some witnesses this afternoon. If they are in Toronto already, perhaps a Committee of the Whole could immediately be convened and witnesses brought in.

If none of that is appealing, then the jig is up. For reasons yet to be explained, the government is ramming this bill through. Senators opposite are fully aware that they are simply responding like puppets to the people in the other place who seem, more and more, to control this place.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is the house ready for the question?

Some Hon. Senators: Question.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Some Hon. Senators: No.

Some Hon. Senators: Yes.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Will all those honourable senators in favour of the motion please say "yea"?

Some Hon. Senators: Yea.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Will all those honourable senators opposed to the motion please say "nay"?

Some Hon. Senators: Nay.

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

Motion agreed to.

Business of the Senate

Hon. Dan Hays (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, we now come to the last item on the Orders of the Day under Government Business, Bill C-37 at third reading stage. Before calling it, I should like to make a statement, with leave.

We are accustomed to sitting Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. Occasionally we sit other days. I have asked leave to revert, as I normally do, for the purposes of the adjournment motion. The thinking is that because we have no legislation before us from the other place and nothing on the Order Paper that is imperative to deal with next week, the Senate will not sit. However, if I call Bill C-37 and we are not finished with it by 5:30 p.m., the rules provide for a vote at 5:30 tomorrow afternoon, a time when, I am told by my whip, not many of my colleagues will be here. Accordingly, my choices are either to stand this item and deal with it next week or to ask for leave of colleagues that we vote on this when the debate is concluded, notwithstanding the rule which provides that, if we proceed past 5:30 p.m., the vote is to take place at 5:30 p.m. on Friday.

I have had a brief discussion with my counterpart on this matter. I am asking for that leave now.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is leave granted?

Senator Hays: Honourable senators, I will recap what I have proposed. When debate concludes under Government Business, Order No. 1, third reading of Bill C-37 and an amendment thereto, the question will be put, and if a division is requested we will take the vote after a 15-minute bell.

Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, this side is a bit confused about what is being proposed.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is the Deputy Leader of the Government asking leave to proceed with debate on third reading of Bill C-37 until 5:30, at which time there will be a 15-minute bell?

Senator Hays: Perhaps I will make another try.

I am asking for leave of the house that we vote on Bill C-37 at the conclusion of debate on the bill, preceded by a 15-minute bell if a standing vote is requested.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: It would not be at 5:30 p.m. but at the conclusion of the debate.

Is leave granted, honourable senators?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Honourable senators, usually the time between the decision to have a vote and the vote itself is determined by the whips. I would not want the time for the ringing of the bells to be confirmed right now. Let us see what happens at the end of the debate. Perhaps we will want a 30-minute bell or perhaps we will want to take the vote right away. Let us not fix a time right now, please.

Senator Hays: That is a variation with which I am totally in agreement.

I should like now to call Order No. 1 under Government Business.

Parliament of Canada Act Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act

Bill to Amend—Third Reading

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Hays, seconded by the Honourable Senator Fairbairn, P.C., for the third reading of Bill C-37, to amend the Parliament of Canada Act and the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act,
And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Lynch-Staunton, seconded by the Honourable Senator Tkachuk, that the Bill C-37 be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce so that the Committee may hear further witnesses on this Bill; and that the Committee report back to the Senate no later than October 2, 2000.

Hon. Peter A. Stollery: Honourable senators, I should like to say a few words about Bill C-37. I have spoken on the subject previously in the chamber and at the committee.

I have a special interest it this subject because I voted for Bill C-83 in 1981, as did everyone else here who was a member of Parliament in 1981. It was passed unanimously in both Houses. Bill C-83 was the bill to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act, the Salaries Act, the Parliamentary Secretaries Act and the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act.

Honourable senators, I should like to remind everyone here of the important issue that is not addressed in this bill, and that is the issue of the formula that establishes salaries for members of Parliament, which expires with this Parliament. I remind everyone that there has been a formula for the last two or three years that raises the salaries of members of Parliament and senators in a modest way, which expires with this Parliament. No new formula has been proposed.

(1550)

Bill C-83, the bill that was passed in 1981, fascinated me because of the way it was abandoned. One member of Parliament voted against Bill C-83 in 1981, a bill that established a formula for raising members' income because inflation had become a problem. I remember the one member of Parliament who did not vote for it.

Senator Nolin: He is still there!

Senator Stollery: He is not there. He has not been there for many years. In fact, he was retiring then. I asked him, "Why did you vote against the bill? What was your reason?" He said, with great prescience, "Because they will never do it. The formula will be abandoned." He was right. I could not believe it, but he was right. It was abandoned. I think the reason given was that it was part of the fight against the deficit. I am not blaming any particular government, but it was abandoned. The result of the abandonment of the formula has left Canadian members of Parliament in the position of being among the lowest-paid parliamentarians in the world.

Let me read these salaries in Canadian dollars.

In Japan, the figure is $196,000 a year. In the U.S., it is $185,000 a year for congressmen and senators. In the United States, I believe the principle is that no public servant can be paid more than a congressman or a U.S. senator. They are required to raise the salaries; otherwise, they cannot get anyone to work in the public service over a certain level. In France, the figure is $121,000 a year; in Germany, $111,000 a year; in England, $96,000 a year; in Australia, $80,000 a year; and so it goes. These figures are from 1997, so they are a couple of years out of date. Canada was at $64,400.

I am not arguing, honourable senators, in favour of some number that members of Parliament should be paid. I have no idea what members of Parliament should be paid. However, what I am arguing for, and what I thought we had settled in 1981, is a formula that would look after this increasing problem, a formula that would treat members of Parliament in a reasonable way. I think that formula should be the result of work done by people whose profession it is to establish salaries, rather than getting former members of Parliament to do this, which I think is unprofessional. I think it should be done by people who are in the position of setting standards for compensation.

Before I sit down, honourable senators, I wish to mention salaries in the Canadian public sector. I think there is a real problem talking someone with a young family into running for Parliament. They have schooling and housing expenses, and all the rest of it. This serious issue must be addressed. At the moment, according to my list, there are 11 categories of GIC — Governor in Council — levels in the Canadian public sector. Members of Parliament would be at the lower end of the third category. Eight categories are paid more than members of Parliament. That does not count the executive level. All five of the executive levels are paid more than members of Parliament. I remind honourable senators that in the U.S. one of the reasons they have had to deal with their salary issue is because no public servant in the U.S. public service can be paid more than a congressman or a senator.

This issue should have been addressed in this bill in some fashion. I believe it will be a serious issue in the next Parliament because the modest formula that was put in place two or three years ago expires with this election. I hope that the next government will deal with this matter in a professional manner, that they will not get former MPs to do this, but will instead get people whose business it is to come up with figures for compensation. That will be an important benefit to people who are considering a move into elected public service who have, in many cases, small children and families that must be moved around, with all of the expense that entails.

Honourable senators, it is a question of what the people's representatives are worth. Canadians have said that they are not worth much. If we take the industrialized countries, we are at the bottom of the list. I do not think that is good enough, so I have taken the opportunity in this discussion on Bill C-37 to remind honourable senators that someone has to start this conversation or we will have great difficulty persuading people to enter national political life in this country.

Let me talk about time and distance. I am from Toronto and it takes me one hour to fly to Ottawa. I get on a plane on the island, not far from where I live, but think of the hundreds of people who have to leave their families to spend much of their life in airplanes. What happens is that they bring their families to Ottawa because of the difficulty of going back and forth. Then, of course, they get out of touch with their constituents, and it becomes more difficult to get re-elected. I do not think we compensate them properly for that inconvenience. I hope that this issue will be dealt with sooner rather than later.

[Translation]

Hon. Pierre Claude Nolin: Would the honourable senator agree to answer questions on the bill or simply on what he has just said?

[English]

Does my honourable friend want to take questions only on what he said or on the entire bill? I have specific questions but not on what he said. I agree with what he said. but I do have problems with the bill.

Senator Stollery: Honourable senators, if Honourable Senator Nolin has a question about something other than the subject I was discussing, I suggest he address it to either the leader or the deputy leader, who are probably more familiar with the details of the bill.

Senator Kinsella: They don't know anything about it. They're just puppets!

Senator Nolin: I will not ask the honourable senator a question, then, because I agree with what he had said. I understand what he wants, but it is not in the bill. What is in the bill is specific to pensions.

Senator Stollery: Which are related to income.

Senator Nolin: Yes, of course. My questions are in more detail.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Ask the question.

Senator Nolin: Will someone defend the bill itself?

Hon. Dan Hays (Deputy Leader of the Government): This is out of order. I know my time is up, but perhaps I could suggest to Senator Nolin that if, by chance, the house passes this motion, we will be on Bill C-37 for up to six hours.

Senator Nolin: Are we still on the motion?

Senator Hays: I will be happy to take a question, then, because I will get up and speak.

(1600)

Senator Nolin: We are on the motion now.

Senator Hays: Are we on the bill?

Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): You actually gave leave for a vote at the end. I was so engrossed by Senator Stollery's speech. It occurred to me all the time he was speaking that he was speaking at the wrong time, but he was speaking at the right time.

Senator Nolin: But on the wrong bill!

Senator Hays: I had intended to speak to the amendment proposed by Senator Lynch-Staunton.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Senator Nolin wishes to ask a question.

Senator Hays: I have 20 minutes now and would be happy to deal with questions.

As a preliminary matter, perhaps I could record a few thoughts in response to Senator Lynch-Staunton's concern.

Senator Kinsella: Is that a question for Senator Stollery?

Senator Hays: No, I do not have a question for Senator Stollery. I only laud his empathy for those in the other place. It may well be that he has people in this place in mind, too.

Senator Nolin: Of course.

Senator Hays: The only reason I can and will give for the bill not going back to committee, apart from those alluded to in speeches, is that we want to have this matter dealt with. We could refer it back to committee or we could have Committee of the Whole, but we should be reluctant to do that in this case because the Banking Committee in its wisdom, rightly or wrongly, has dealt with the bill and sent it here. Under Senator Lynch-Staunton's amendment, we would be referring it back to a committee that probably does not want it, for whatever reason.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: So? The tail wags the dog!

Senator Hays: I would be happy to try to answer Senator Nolin's question or a question from any other senator in the remaining time that I have.

[Translation]

Senator Nolin: Honourable senators, my question is rather simple. When we reviewed this bill in committee, Minister Boudria told us that, for one reason or another, some members of the House of Commons are not covered and are not getting the full severance pay that they should be getting when they leave the House of Commons and are under the age of 55.

So far so good. I asked Mr. Boudria who were these members, without actually naming them, and at what time they had been elected. Some were elected in 1988, others in 1993 and 1997.

Senator Hays did not mention any members elected in 1988, only members who have been sitting since 1993. I accept that. However, a member elected in 1988 cannot have problems with the severance pay, since he has been in the House of Commons for more than 10 years. When a member has been sitting in the House of Commons for 10 years or more, he is automatically entitled to at least 50 per cent of his pension. If he has been in the House of Commons for less than 10 years, he is not entitled to that benefit.

Who are the members elected in 1988 who are not entitled to 50 per cent of their pension? I do not understand this from a mathematical point of view. Unless the honourable senator can answer that question, I think we should have this witness come back to explain to us where the problem lies. Where are these members elected in 1988, who are they and why are we unable to solve this problem?

I have no problem with the bill. I am in favour of being as fair as possible, but our role is to ask questions and to look at the purpose of this bill. It is obviously not clear. The honourable senator does not have to name names, but why is it that a member elected in 1988 is not currently entitled to 50 per cent of his accumulated pension? I do not understand.

[English]

Senator Hays: It is a question to me from Senator Nolin. Is that right?

Senator Nolin: It is to you, yes.

Senator Hays: I will have difficulty giving a complete answer.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Send the bill to committee, then.

Senator Hays: My honourable friend correctly referred to certain qualifiers to receipt of pension benefits: age and years of service. I am not sure what the qualifiers are with respect to entitlement to the severance allowance.

Senator Finestone: Six years.

Senator Hays: I am advised by one of my colleagues that it is six years, which is more than one term.

Senator Nolin: Usually.

Senator Hays: Definitely, in that we have only five years for a government to sit, even with a majority. I am not sure how the members who were elected in 1988 — the beginning of the second term for Mr. Mulroney — are different from other members elected in 1984 or 1993.

Senator Nolin: It is more what they do not have.

Senator Hays: Or what they do not have. However, I am familiar with the issue involving those members elected in 1993. They do not have the same benefits as members elected in other years because of a specific provision brought in with the severance allowance that excluded people who were receiving other benefits. In the case of members elected in 1993, those benefits refer to a small pension accrued from a prior period. Maybe that prior period is the previous election of 1988.

In any event, they have an entitlement. For many of them, it is a small entitlement. Their pension will be triggered in the normal course when they reach the age of eligibility, provided they have the years of service in accordance with an actuarial determination.

Senator Nolin: That is true.

Senator Hays: The inequity that Bill C-37 addresses relates to people who are excluded. In providing for severance, the drafters excluded, for good reason, people who already had an entitlement for benefits, but they did not take into consideration this particular group whose entitlement is very small or is usually relatively small. Essentially, they are excluded for a technical reason. Bill C-37 does not add to the relatively small amount they receive. That is subtracted from the severance allowance. I am trying to explain my understanding of how the bill works with respect to the group of members you have identified.

I am, perhaps, not telling you all you would like to know now, but I have no remedy for that.

Senator Nolin: I have one.

Senator Hays: I know you do, but I cannot agree to that.

Senator Nolin: I understand your explanation. Clause 1 of Bill C-37 deals with the severance allowance. That severance allowance is calculated on the pension. It is one lump sum, say, 50 per cent of your salary. If you have reached that 50 per cent in your pension, then you are all right. However, if you have not reached that 50 per cent, you are not okay. That is why the allowance is built into Bill C-37, namely, for those who are under the age of 55.

(1610)

My question is: What about those people elected in 1988 supposedly being covered by Bill C-37? Why?

Senator Hays: It sounds from the question posed by Senator Nolin that they are covered.

Senator Nolin: They have already reached the 50 per cent.

Senator Boudreau: In which case they receive no benefit.

Senator Nolin: Why did the minister say that there were people elected in the 1988 election who would be covered by Bill C-37? That is my question.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Send the bill to committee!

Senator Hays: I was at the hearing. I do not remember the question and answer as well as the honourable senator recalls it. As a result of the briefing I had, I would hold out that the provisions of Bill C-37 are self-regulating. In other words, it is fairly complex and it involves more than one act, as I recall. In any event, it is a bill which has remedied issues of inequality that have been identified. Henceforth, it will open up the pension plan to all members. As well, it has provisions for members who are not now members to become members of the plan if they so elect. I am holding out to honourable senators that it is fair and there is no duplication of payment. The main purpose of the legislation is to avoid a hardship on some members who are missing out on an amount that would be received were it not for this technical deficiency in the legislation as it is, which is remedied by Bill C-37.

Senator Nolin: Would it be reasonable for me to assume that some people who were elected in 1988 and who have already left the House of Commons — and I do not know the answer to this question — would be covered by Bill C-37 and receive some type of retroactive payment? That is the question I want to have answered.

Senator Hays: I do not know the answer to that question either.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: And we will vote on this? We do not know what we are voting on.

Senator Hays: I will read the material I have. If there is further debate, I may be able to answer the honourable senator's question before debate is concluded.

Senator Kinsella: Honourable senators, I would have asked this question in committee had I been able to attend. However, I was unable to attend that short meeting of the Banking Committee because we were dealing with Bill C-20 at that time in June.

My question might be of some interest to honourable senators who are in the situation of having served in the House of Commons for many years and who acquired or earned pension benefits there. They come to the Senate and, unlike those who have served in a provincial legislative assembly, they may not draw, if I am correct, on their pension entitlements as a member of the Senate. This bill is about equity. I think that is a great inequity because honourable senators — and I see some around me — who served with distinction in provincial legislative assemblies are not blocked from drawing on their earned pension having served in such an assembly.

What is the answer to that question, Senator Hays, given that I can only ask you? After all, I will not be able to ask the question in committee.

Senator Hays: If I understand the honourable senator correctly, he is referring to the so-called double-dipping issue as it relates to this place.

Senator Kinsella: Is that double-dipping?

Senator Hays: I think it has been expressed as a concern. However, it is a question of the doubling up of entitlements. The government of the day — both as it was elected in 1993 and in 1997 — has not only for parliamentary but also for Order-in-Council appointments, made it such that pension benefits are either deferred in the case of members of the House coming here until such time as they retire — and I assume it will work the other way — so that those members who are affected by this are not receiving their superannuation as well as the monies they are entitled to receive for working as senators. It is thought that that is something the people of Canada prefer, and that it is more fair than allowing them to be retired and receiving a pension while they are members of the Senate and receiving compensation as active parliamentarians.

I may have misunderstood the honourable senator's question. However, to the extent that it is an issue, that is the best answer I can give.

Senator Kinsella: It is not fair.

Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I know that whatever I say will fall on deaf ears, but at least it will be on the record. I believe that today it has been confirmed that whatever we debate, as long as instructions are sent to the leadership on the other side, any opposition or constructive criticism which is brought to government legislation will be hopeless.

I rely on an answer given today by the Leader of the Government in the Senate when he said about Bill C-37, "In any event, the government has indicated that it wishes to have this bill dealt with as quickly as possible."

I have no problems with that. When we were on the government side, we felt the same pressure to have bills dealt with as quickly as possible. However, we never engaged in such a ram-rodding, bulldozing effort as has been made in connection with this bill. There were two days of non-debate in the House of Commons with only the sponsoring minister and his officials appearing in Committee of the Whole. There was no one to contest the contents of the bill or to even question some of its clauses.

Here, as honourable senators will recall, it came to us on the second-to-last day before we adjourned for the summer recess. We passed it at second reading on the assumption — obviously not well founded — that the Banking Committee would, in the tradition of the Senate, take this legislation, as it does other legislation sent to it, just as legislation is sent to other committees, and give it the assessment with witnesses as it deserved. Instead, without warning, there was a meeting of the Banking Committee called on the Thursday, which was the day we left for the summer recess. Only the minister and his officials were called. Actually, the minister himself, if honourable senators read the transcript, happened to be in Saint Jean, was able to get on a plane and get to the committee in time to give his testimony around 11:00 or 11:30, officials having filled in for him up until that time.

The bill was given clause-by-clause consideration and reported to the Senate. When leave was asked for third reading the same day, of course we refused. Again, naively I guess, we assumed that during the summer the Banking Committee would take a week or a few days and have those who had indicated an interest in appearing to discuss the bill an opportunity to do so. That was not done.

We are now under instructions to pass this bill in the same indecent fashion as it was passed in the House of Commons. We are now becoming party to the blatant high-handed way legislation is treated in the House of Commons. Instructions come from the Langevin Block or from the Prime Minister's Office, or both, as the case may be, to the majority caucus: We want this done by a certain day. Do it.

This is what we heard from the Leader of the Government himself: the government wants this bill. Pass it. Honourable senators, we will have Royal Assent today on this one bill and this one bill alone. That has never been done before. It is a bill of secondary importance, of no benefit at all to the Canadian people. It is not a bill of urgency. It is not a bill of great national interest. In crude terms, it is a self-serving bill for a limited number of people who, quite rightly, I will agree, have felt that without this bill they will be financially penalized.

(1620)

I have never objected to the content of the bill. I sympathize with elected people who give up so much to come here. I feel that they should be well rewarded while they are here and well compensated when they leave here. If, as happens too often, they are defeated, then they should be entitled to a severance payment to allow them to adjust back into the life they sacrificed for their country.

I have no objection to that whatsoever. I do object, though, to ramming this bill through as though we have something to hide, as if there were something in this bill of which we are ashamed. It is as if we were embarrassed to say that elected members are entitled to adequate compensation, adequate severance, adequate pension. If they are not so entitled, we will not attract the people we should attract to the House of Commons.

We should be proud of what we are doing for these people. We should confirm the benefits found in this bill only after allowing its opponents and questioners to come before the Houses of Parliament to explain their problems with it and to suggest their improvements. In that way, all sides can decide, in the end, on an acceptable final product.

Instead, we are acting in a way that casts a shadow on this bill. We are not helping our elected friends by doing this. I stand to be corrected but, as far as I know, only the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation has formally indicated an interest in coming before a committee. We know they are opposed to the bill. So what? If they are opposed to pensions, if they are opposed to adequate compensation, and if they support the idea that an elected member should only get the minimum, so be it. We disagree, but let them have their say. They have a right to be heard and to be answered.

Hon. Lowell Murray: Let them describe some of the parachutes that exist in the private sector.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Exactly. Thank you, Senator Murray. Senator Stollery earlier compared the parliamentary salaries here with legislatures elsewhere. Let us compare hours of work by elected members with hours of work in the private sector. Let us compare stock options and merger rewards and pension benefits and expense allowances and sky boxes and whatever else. We have nothing to be ashamed of here in how we give the basic allotments to our elected and appointed representatives.

That is why I am distressed. We are ramming this bill through. It will be interpreted that the minister, the only witness, is forcing the bill through because there is something in it that is wrong or excessive or that we do not want brought out into the open. That is wrong.

I sympathize with the Deputy Leader of the Government, who could not answer certain key questions from Senator Nolin. Why should he? How can he? It is up to officials and other witnesses to do that.

There you are, on the other side, blindly following instructions to accept a proposal which may be beneficial but which has not been examined in a way that makes us all feel comfortable. The bill has been pushed through the House. It has been pushed through the Senate. Can you imagine that the one bill to be given Royal Assent is a bill which will be interpreted as protecting and increasing the financial interests of elected members? That is a false interpretation, but it is the interpretation that will be taken because of the way the bill has been handled.

We are asking for a simple amendment. Let the committee meet next week. Let it hear from the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation and anyone else. Let the committee report. We will have a vote. At least we will have given the bill serious consideration. As it is, the government does not want that. The government feels the bill should not be subject to public debate, so it is giving the impression it has something to hide. I find that insulting to those who are rightfully entitled to adequate compensation.

Senator Kinsella: No leadership.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Are honourable senators ready for the question?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: The motion before us, honourable senators, is a motion in amendment.

It was moved by the Honourable Senator Lynch-Staunton, seconded by the Honourable Senator Tkachuk:

That Bill C-37 be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce so that the committee may hear further witnesses on this Bill; and that the Committee report back to the Senate no later than October 2, 2000.

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

Some Hon. Senators: No.

Some Hon. Senators: Yes.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Will those honourable senators in favour of the motion in amendment please say "yea"?

Some Hon. Senators: Yea.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Will those honourable senators opposed to the motion in amendment please say "nay"?

Some Hon. Senators: Nay.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: In my opinion the "nays" have it.

And two honourable senators having risen.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, the whips have agreed to a 20-minute bell. The vote will take place at 4:45 p.m.

Call in the senators.

(1640)

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, the question before us is the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Lynch-Staunton, seconded by the Honourable Senator Tkachuk.

Motion in amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS

THE HONOURABLE SENATORS

Andreychuk, Atkins, Cochrane, DeWare, Gustafson, Keon, Kinsella, LeBreton, Lynch-Staunton, Murray, Nolin, Prud'homme, Simard—13

NAYS

THE HONOURABLE SENATORS

Adams, Bacon, Banks, Callbeck, Chalifoux, Christensen, Corbin, Cordy, Fairbairn, Ferretti Barth, Finestone, Finnerty, Fraser, Furey, Gauthier, Graham, Hays, Hervieux-Payette, Joyal, Kennedy, Kenny, Kroft, Maheu, Mahovlich, Mercier, Moore, Pearson, Pépin, Poulin, Robichaud, (L'Acadie-Acadia), Roche, Setlakwe, Sibbeston, Squires, Stollery, Taylor, Wiebe—7

ABSTENTIONS

THE HONOURABLE SENATORS

Nil

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Are honourable senators ready for the question?

It was moved by the Honourable Senator Hays, seconded by the Senator Fairbairn, that Bill C-37 be read the third time now.

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

Some Hon. Senators: No.

Some Hon. Senators: Yes.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: On division?

Senator Lynch-Staunton: No, call the voice vote.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Will those honourable senators in favour of the motion please say "yea"?

Some Hon. Senators: Yea.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Will those honourable senators opposed to the motion please say "nay"?

Some Hon. Senators: Nay.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: In my opinion, the "yeas" have it. On division.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Wait a minute. Hold on.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: I did not see two senators rising. I said "on division."

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

[Translation]

(1650)

Royal Assent

Notice

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore informed the Senate that the following communication had been received.

RIDEAU HALL

September 21, 2000
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Charles Gonthier, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 21st day of September, 2000, at 6:00 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to a certain bill.
Yours sincerely,
Barbara Uteck

Secretary to the Governor General
The Honourable
The Speaker of the Senate
Ottawa

[English]

Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): As a matter of information, could this honourable house be advised as to the time of that message from Her Excellency?

Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): What time did we get the message?

Senator Kinsella: Could the house be advised of the time at which this house received that message?

Senator Lynch-Staunton: How did it get here so quickly?

Senator Robichaud: E-mail.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, I must explain to the house that in the normal procedure letters are sent, and when the bill is adopted the time is put on the letter. That is the normal procedure. That is the way it has always been done.

Tobacco Youth Protection Bill

Third Reading—Debate Adjourned

Hon. Colin Kenny moved the third reading of Bill S-20, to enable and assist the Canadian tobacco industry in attaining its objective of preventing the use of tobacco products by young persons in Canada.

He said: Honourable senators, I rise to commence third reading debate on Bill S-20, the Tobacco Youth Protection Act. First, I would like to thank many of my colleagues who I see here. In particular, I would thank my co-sponsor, Senator Nolin, for all of his assistance in moving this project forward.

One thing that becomes apparent to when you sponsor a private member's bill is how little you can accomplish by yourself and how much you need the help of colleagues and associates, in this case from both sides of the chamber, to move that bill forward. I have been fortunate in that respect, with Senator Spivak chairing the committee. Senator Spivak has gone out of her way to accommodate the bill, as have all of the members of the committee.

Honourable senators, it has been quite an experience. We encountered expert witnesses from across the country and from the United States. I believe I speak for members of the committee when I say that we were astonished and surprised at some of the testimony that we heard. We were quite taken by the nature of the problem that currently exists in Canada. We heard testimony to the effect that youth smoking in Canada continues at a rate of 30 per cent — almost one child in three. We heard testimony to the effect that the number of deaths in Canada in the past year that are attributable to smoking-related diseases had risen from 40,000 a year to 45,000 a year. We heard testimony to the effect that the age at which 80 per cent of smokers started in Canada has dropped in the past year from 18 down to 16. In fact, we heard that most smokers were starting at the ages of 10, 11 and 12.

This 30 per cent youth smoking rate in Canada must be contrasted to the rate in the United States. The United States has similar aggregate figures.In those states that have put in place comprehensive tobacco control programs, there have been some remarkable results. Formerly, I would have described California to this chamber by saying that we have a 29-plus per cent youth smoking rate and they have an 11 per cent youth smoking rate. However, just in the past month Governor Davis of California issued a news release announcing that their 11 per cent youth smoking rate in 1998 had dropped to 6.9 per cent in 1999. That is a 35 per cent reduction in California in one year, and it is attributable to the quality of the program that they have in California.

Honourable senators, the principal reason for embarking on this whole exercise is that I cannot understand why we do not have the same sort of results in Canada as are being seen in the United States. We have some special problems and some unique problems. I am aware that those members of this chamber who are from First Nations know first-hand that they have huge problems. Approximately 60 per cent of Inuit or Indian children smoke. California has studied native populations, and they are addressing those smoking rates. They have had a success rate that I and everyone in this chamber would like to see duplicated in Canada.

Here is the issue as it appears to me: We have a government that has brought in some relatively progressive anti-smoking legislation, has introduced some interesting regulations and eventually has brought forward legislation that prohibits promotion. We do not have advertising of tobacco products in this country. We have new packaging proposals that are working their way through the courts. However, we have one major gap. The major gap is that there is inadequate funding for tobacco control in Canada.

We currently spend $20 million a year on tobacco control. That works out to 66 cents per capita. In Vermont, they spend $22 U.S. per capita. In Mississippi, of all places, they spend $18.95 per capita. In Massachusetts, they spend $14.50 per capita — and we spend 66 cents? With 45,000 Canadians dying each year, with 30 per cent of our kids smoking, all we can spare is 66 cents?

(1700)

Honourable senators, this is unacceptable and it must stop. It is time for us to take steps to do something about this problem — and the time is now.

Since we introduced Bill S-13, new information has come to our attention. The Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta came forward with a report in August of 1999. The Atlanta centre is renowned throughout the world and respected everywhere in North America as being a reputable public health agency. After studying all 50 states for their tobacco control programs, they came forward with a template that laid out nine elements of any comprehensive tobacco control program.

As an aside, when approaching questions of tobacco control, it is critical not just to go at it from one direction. We cannot say, "Well, let's buy a few ads or put a local program in place or let's have a quick line." We must approach the problem from a multitude of directions simultaneously. Adolescents are very complex and very difficult to motivate. They do not make up their minds about what they will do based on one intervention. They make up their minds based on a multitude of interventions. Therefore, a comprehensive tobacco control program should put in place multiple interventions coordinated to relate one to the other so that a television campaign, for example, relates to a program that is happening in the boys' and girls' clubs or in the schools or in communities. If these are then tied together, we will start to see the same results we see in Massachusetts or in California.

In August of 1999, the Centers for Disease Control came forward with a template that outlined ranges of spending. For jurisdictions the size of Canada, it suggested that we should be spending, in Canadian dollars, somewhere between $9 and $22. For the purposes of this bill, we picked $12, which is in the bottom quartile of the amounts suggested by the Atlanta centre. This is not a gold-plated program. There are no bells and whistles attached to it. This is a modest, reasonable level. We are in the bottom quartile of what the Atlanta centre suggests we spend.

The levy in this bill is three-quarters of one cent per cigarette. That works out to 19 cents per pack or $1.50 per carton. That will generate $360 million a year, which works out to $12 per capita, the bottom quartile of what the Centers for Disease Control recommends — and we are spending 66 cents right now. That is wrong. It is absolutely wrong.

I should like to remind honourable senators of some of the interesting features of this bill. First, it has transparency. All of the decisions are made in public and all of the grants are announced publicly. California has transparency. They also have evaluation, and this bill has a 10 per cent set-aside for evaluation. This means that for every $100 that is given out in a grant, $10 is set aside to evaluate whether the program works.

The bill is outcomes-oriented. You must say what your programs will achieve before you are allowed to bring them forward. In California, the evaluation program and the evaluator must be selected before the program is approved. The same requirement exists in this bill. With this bill, we will have a chance to see whether the programs are working because there will be benchmarks and progress reports.

It is fascinating to go to Sacramento where they run the California program. Dr. Dileep Bal has a bookshelf about 12 feet wide in his office. He is quite proud of it. He says, "Take a look at this bookshelf." You look at it and he says, "Those are our failures, the ones we tried but which did not work." Then you look at the shelf below and it is much narrower — maybe three feet wide. He says, "These are our successes," and then he adds, "but we would not have had the successes if we had not had these failures first."

Californians have a very mature approach to this problem. We have a particular difficulty here in Canada when we run programs out of departments — and it does not matter whether the programs are Liberal or Conservative, federal or provincial. Every department in government has to be run perfectly. We know they are not. It is a bizarre situation. Public servants are paid to puff up good programs and dampen down bad programs. In a Westminster system, critics are paid to attack ministers and ministers defend to the last breath what is going on in their departments.

Tobacco control should not be politicized. There will be failures. We need to be mature and accept the fact that none of us has a good understanding of how adolescents function. Programs like this will have their share of failures, but we should accept them. How can we do that through a department? I do not believe we can. That is why the bill calls for moving this program into an arm's-length agency, very much like the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. In fact, we borrowed the exact wording on governance from the bill relating to that agency and put it into this bill. If the wording was good enough for the government to use for that agency, it will work well in this agency.

By keeping the agency at arm's length, we hope to depoliticize the process. It makes absolutely no sense that the Minister of Health should have to stand up every day in the House of Commons and defend medical research, whether it is a success or a failure. That is the importance of the arm's-length agency. It is important that people understand that concept and are prepared to defend it.

After travelling through the United States, honourable senators, I discovered that in every state that had a government program, the legislature or the governor had interfered with the program in one way or another. In some cases, they had cut off the funding. That happened in California, and the California Cancer Society had to sue the Governor of the State of California to have the funds restored. During the period of time that the funds were being diverted, youth smoking rates started to go back up, and when the funds were restored as a result of the lawsuit, youth smoking rates went down again.

(1710)

In Massachusetts, the governor decided to censor the ads. What does a governor know about censoring a health ad?

Why should a politician be calling the shots on how to motivate adolescents? These are health questions. It is important that this question should be at arm's length from government.

I am sure you have all heard the concern about a tax or a levy. We have worked diligently on this question. Honourable senators, I would draw your attention to the preamble of the bill as well as to Part III. These additions were taken from the old Bill S-13. They were inserted precisely to satisfy the Speaker in the other place. We examined his ruling very carefully. Those adjustments were made to get this bill past the Speaker in the other place, and I make no apologies for that. I want this bill to work.

The Speaker in this place ruled that the bill was in order last time, and it was. However, the Speaker in the other place did not share that point of view. To be practical, we have taken into account his concerns.

I believe that this bill is procedurally sound. I would go a step further. If by some chance it turns out not to be procedurally sound, the government has the capacity to cure that, if it chooses to do so. It is a question of political will. If there is a procedural problem in the other place, then we will see whether the government has the political will to pass this bill.

The question of dedicated taxes comes up from time to time. Ministers of finance — and I notice that we have Senator Boudreau here, a former treasurer — are very concerned about dedicated taxes. Such taxes do not allow much elbow room. They have little flexibility. They must have some flexibility if they are to do their job, and I understand that. As a general rule, we do not want to have many dedicated taxes.

Having said that, there are several matters things that are worth considering about in this particular case.

First, tobacco is a singularity. If you tried to introduce it into the market today, you would be unable to do it because it would not get past Health Canada. The sale of tobacco products would not be allowed. However, we have been living with it since the days of Sir Walter Raleigh; it is a reality. We know we cannot ban it. If we did, we would be stuck with a Roaring Twenties prohibition atmosphere.

We know that the solution lies in comprehensive education programs. A problem that has been facing the health community now for decades is spiked funding. One of the difficulties of taxing for this sort of program is that there is absolutely no certainty from year to year whether the funding will be available. If I were a member of the other place, I would have chosen a levy over a tax because taxes go from the taxpayer to the Consolidated Revenue Fund. It then gets voted out, and the people running the programs never know until the start of the fiscal year whether they will have the money to continue to run their programs. They need stable funding over a period of time to plan properly for the work that they do. That is essential to the functioning of this program. It is absolutely fundamental.

Second, because this is a singularity, because tobacco is unlike any other product, there are people who worry and say, "If we have a program like this, what will be next? Who else will bring in a levy? How can we afford to have every Tom, Dick and Harry coming forward with a levy?" The reality is that there is no other problem of the same order of magnitude facing Canadians as tobacco-related diseases. Forty-five thousand Canadians die each year from tobacco-related diseases. The next closest cause of preventable death is car accidents, including drunk driving, and that kills about 4,000 Canadians a year. Honourable senators, compare 45,000 to 4,000. There is nothing else in the same league. HIV, which we hear about all the time and realize is a very serious problem, caused about 870 fatalities last year.

We must address this issue. We must provide stable funding which will continue into the future.

I am not giving away any secrets. The committee met in my office at eight o'clock on the morning the tobacco companies were to appear. We rehearsed how we would to handle the questions. We went through a process of allocating questions. We wanted to do a good job. We wanted the Senate to shine. This was the first time that we had managed to get tobacco CEOs to appear before Parliament in over a decade. The proceedings were going to be televised, and we wanted to be sure we did things right.

No one in the room expected these people to support the bill. Nobody's jaw dropped further or faster than mine when Mr. Bexon said he was going to support the bill.

If we are worried about dedicated taxes, I would point out that we will not have a tax, we will have a levy. If we are worried about dedicated funding, I would say that we have the funding. Eighty per cent of the tobacco market is running ads in newspapers, not every day but twice a week, and will continue to do so for a few more weeks, stating that they are prepared to pay for it. My estimate is that it will be $360 million a year in perpetuity. They are estimating it to be $400 million a year. I will not quibble.

How can the government turn its back on tobacco companies that are prepared to write a cheque for $360 to $400 million a year in perpetuity to help us solve a problem that is afflicting one-third of our children, by saying it is a dedicated tax? This is not a dedicated tax. It is a gift. These companies are offering the money and there are no strings. They came forward and said, "We have a few ideas we would like you to consider." The committee said, "No, it is not going to happen. There will be no seat on the board, no adjustments to the bill." They were never consulted on the bill at all. They never saw a copy of the bill until it was tabled here. They were not part of the deal at all. It was taken as we wrote it. Frankly, we were all quite prepared to hold our own during that committee hearing. They surprised us.

To have a levy for industry purposes, one need not have those who are being levied agree with it. If you go back to the amendment to the Copyright Act, 1996, the same Prime Minister and the same Minister of Finance introduced a levy in that regard. There was no ways and means motion attached to it. That levy exists today. If you buy a blank tape, you pay an extra 26 cents. You pay an extra 60 cents on a CD. The money is to go to Céline Dion or to Shania Twain or to writers of the music.

We have other precedents. We have an oil spill levy. There was no ways and means motion attached to that. These levies exist. The bill is not here as a singularity; levies exist.

With regard to the blank tape levy, the manufacturers appeared before the Commons and the Senate and objected. None of them wanted it. It was passed anyway. They do not have to want it.

In this case, however, we have got ads running twice a week in our local papers telling us that the tobacco companies want this and are prepared to pay for it. I do not know why. I am suspicious. I do not trust what is going on. I think we have both reason not to trust and reason to be suspicious. Let us take the cheque but keep an eye these people. They have no control. They do not have a seat on the board. They asked for one but we said no. The committee said "Not on this board." We actually said more than that. We said: "You people came and testified before us before and you said that if you had any control over the foundation it would have no credibility." Far be it from us to give any credibility to these people.

(1720)

We are proposing a foundation that is truly at arm's length and one with which the tobacco companies have only one relationship, and that is to send a cheque once a month. If they do not send a cheque, they go to jail. It is in the bill.

I would ask honourable senators to consider this bill seriously. We have a crisis on our hands. We are wasting Canadian youth. We see a solution south of the border that works. We have found a formula that provides the right amount of money and does it in a vehicle that is transparent and that allows for evaluation so we can separate the successes from the failures in order that we do not repeat the failures again and again. It is important that it be at arm's length. The subject of dedicated tax is important as a theory but this case may be the exception that proves the rule. If we seize this occasion now, in three years from now we can achieve the results we are seeing in Massachusetts, in Florida and in California. I believe we will see results very quickly.

If the Minister of Finance is concerned about a dedicated tax, he can take comfort in this bill because it provides for a full parliamentary review five years from now. Surely he can hold his breath five years. Five years from now, if Parliament does not like this foundation, during its automatic review, it can change it, adjust it, or do whatever it wants to do. Surely it is worth a five-year run to see if the health community can bring the miracle of California to Canada and to give our kids the same chance that kids in California have.

On motion of Senator Nolin, debate adjourned.

The Budget 2000

Statement of Minister of Finance—Inquiry—Debate Continued

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Lynch-Staunton calling the attention of the Senate to the Budget presented by the Minister of Finance in the House of Commons on February 28, 2000.—(Honourable Senator De Ware).

Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I will just be a couple of moments on Order No. 17. When the debate concluded on this item, I had spoken and a number of honourable senators had posed questions, including Senator Murray, who had asked me a question that required some research. I believe I have sufficient time left within my allotted time to answer those questions Senator Murray raised and I will do that now.

He raised two questions. The first concerned the regulation of fuel prices in Prince Edward Island. Honourable senators, I can confirm that these are regulated under the province's Petroleum Products Act and have been for several years. The Government of Prince Edward Island regulates all aspects of the petroleum industry to provide assurance of product quality and to ensure that there is a reasonable network of outlets and reliability of supply. This includes the regulation of prices at both the wholesale and the retail levels. Retail prices are set by an independent commission once a month, providing minimum and maximum prices that may be charged, not just by product type, but by retailers. For example, Petro-Canada stations may not charge less than 73.3 cents a litre for regular unleaded fuel and not more than 74.9 cents, while the price range for Ultramar is 72.3 to 73.9 cents. Those prices are based on a dealer markup of 4 to 5.5 cents per litre for self-serve gas and 5 to 6.5 cents for full service. Heating oil is also regulated.

Honourable senators, I was recently told by someone who visited the Maritimes last summer that he had tanked up just before going on the Confederation Bridge on the assumption that fuel prices in Prince Edward Island would be higher than in New Brunswick and was surprised to find that they were about a dime per litre less. I would point out, however, that opinions vary on whether the maximum price has kept fuel costs down or whether the minimum price has kept prices from falling.

Senator Murray's second question concerned fuel taxes between 1980 and 1984. The first Joe Clark government was defeated on a budget proposal to increase the excise tax on gasoline by 18 cents a gallon, which works out to about 4 cents a litre. Mr. Trudeau promised Canadians, in his speech given on February 12, 1980, that "The Liberal price hike will be less than half of what the Tories planned to inflict upon you."

Honourable senators, our former colleague Senator MacEachen, at the time running for re-election to the House of Commons, ran an ad in his local paper declaring "Vote Liberal and the price will stay down." I commend that to the honourable senator who is now Leader of the Government and thinking about things in Nova Scotia.

What happened? Well, Mr. MacEachen became Minister of Finance and in his very first budget brought us the National Energy Program with its huge energy tax hikes. This included an alphabet soup of new and expanded taxes hidden so deep in the price that it was hard to tell with certainty the exact impact at the pump.

For example, the government introduced the PGRT, Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax, levied on all oil and gas production. The rate of this tax bounced around between 12 and 14.7 per cent and was charged long before the product hit the refinery. Then there was the IORT, otherwise known as the Incremental Oil Revenue Tax, which at various points ranged from nil to $3.75 per barrel. Then, honourable senators, there was the COC, the Canadian Ownership Charge, which was brought in to pay first for Petro-Canada's purchase of Petrofina, and then to bail out Dome petroleum. This ranged between $1.14 to $4 per barrel at various points in time. Finally, there was the PCC, better known as the Petroleum Compensation Charge, which at first had been set at $1 a barrel in 1978 to help pay for the Syncrude project. This was increased first to $1.75 a barrel in the summer of 1980, was re-christened as the Syncrude levy, and then hit $8.15 a barrel before dropping back down.

(1730)

The end result is that energy taxes were a major factor in gasoline price hikes between the 1980 and 1984 elections. They ranged from 76 cents per gallon in Regina, to 90 cents per gallon from Toronto, to $1.27 per gallon in Charlottetown. I might add that those price increases occurred without the benefit of the Crosbie budget's proposed energy tax credits. These credits were intended to offset the effect of higher energy costs on low- and modest-income families and would have provided $220 per year for a typical low- or modest-income family by 1984.

I trust that my honourable colleague will find this information informative.

Order stands.

National Defence

Need to Join with United States in Missile Defence Program—Inquiry

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Forrestall calling the attention of the Senate to the need for Canada to join the United States in National Missile Defence.—(Honourable Senator Taylor).

Hon. Nicholas W. Taylor: Honourable senators, once again it falls to me to provide the meat in the sandwich between 5:30 and 6 p.m. when the Crown shows up.

I regret that Senator Forrestall is not here. His inquiry calls the attention of the Senate to the need for Canada to join the U.S. in the National Missile Defence Plan. Because of the upcoming election in the U.S., the National Missile Defence Plan is on hold. It would have been better to call it an "international" plan because it would use stations in Canada, England, as well as possibly in the mid-Pacific.

The idea of the National Missile Defence program was to have a warhead that would intercept warheads that were coming in to attack the U.S. The argument was that rogue nations could send a bomb, possibly an atomic bomb, into the U.S. or North America. I suppose there are good reasons on that side because, as most people would be surprised to know, 38 countries in the world now have the capability of delivering a bomb partway around the world. Another way of looking at it is to consider that at least 38 countries have missiles. Many more countries have had bombers for over half a century. That did not mean that they would suddenly bomb someone they did not like.

The U.S. is asking us to join the National Missile Defence program. Senator Forrestall, who I think is speaking for the Conservative Party, feels that we should join it. I know for sure that the Alliance Party feels we should join it. However, there are three questions one should ask oneself before joining something like this. We must bear in mind that once this occurs the Russians, and other countries with whom we have signed nuclear disarmament contracts, will no longer have any reason to honour such contracts. In effect, we would be breaking our treaty with Russia by going ahead with these defence missiles.

There is not much question that over the last 15 years nuclear disarmament has progressed. The U.S. and the Russians are now down to about 10,000 bombs each, which is about one-half of what they had 15 years ago. Thus, we are moving in the right direction. However, when one stops to think about it, there are still 10,000 warheads available to both sides of this so-called issue. I suppose we can say that the Russians and the Americans are on different sides, although I am not sure that is any longer the case. The point is that these bombs are controlled by humans. God is not running this machinery. Things could go haywire. Therefore, we should continue to disarm and move to keep smaller and smaller amounts of them on hand.

The antiballistic missile treaty among the U. S., Russia, China and India was set up in 1972. For 30 years we have been reducing, or trying to reduce, nuclear arms. Of course, this plan would reverse that whole process. Russia, along with China, is worried that a system such as this is nothing more than a move by the U.S. military to control space. Whether we want one person having armed control of space is something that must be considered. I think many people would rather see nuclear disarmament continue rather than expand a new system, as this plan would do.

The second problem is the feasibility of one missile intercepting another missile. The argument we often hear from the U.S. is that there are rogue nations around the world, such as Korea, Iraq, and maybe even Iran and Cuba. The logic behind that argument is: Why would a rogue nation fire on the U.S.? With the system of defence we have now, we can detect when a rocket or missile is fired anywhere in the world. We can even immediately trace someone with half a carload of dynamite. Therefore, if you are a rogue nation, or just a plain rogue, and you want to fire a shot, you would have to have something loose in your head if you did it from your home. You would do it somewhere offshore. Perhaps you would even smuggle the missile into the U.S. Therefore, rogue missiles are not likely to come from a rogue nation. Seconds after it would be fired, all 10,000 missiles sitting in the U.S. would point back to that nation and it would be wiped out overnight. Therefore, the whole feasibility argument of handling these things in space does not make sense.

The last reason I want to present has to do with our relationship with the U.S. In 1958, we signed the NORAD agreement.

(1740)

These nuclear arms would probably be placed under NORAD so that the Canadian military, which I think is in favour of this, would be one of the fingers on the trigger.

Consequently, the U.S. has every reason to argue that our refusal to join them would be an unfriendly act. For instance, the Deputy Commander of U.S. Space, General Brown, says that, if Canada does not join, the U.S. will feel no obligation to defend Canada.

That remark is somewhat gratuitous because I do not think they ever did intend to defend Canada. The defence of Canada just comes as a natural adjunct to defending themselves. I do not think the U.S. will risk anything to defend Canada for Canada's sake. They may defend Canada because it is a gateway to their own country, but rogue attacks will not likely be hitting Canada unless they come at Grey Cup time in an attempt to influence the betting on the east-west game.

The fact is that rogue attacks will probably be focused on the U.S., rather than on Canada. That is no reason to leave our American friend hanging loose. I am not saying we should be forced to pull out of NORAD. We would need to think that through. NORAD was put together in 1958, not quite a half-century ago. Leaving would not be that catastrophic. The reasons for creating NORAD have gone. Although our military might miss the opportunity of going down to Colorado Springs to work with the Americans, in my opinion, membership is not critical.

To recapitulate, there are three reasons why Canada should not join the U.S. missile defence program. First, as I mentioned, nuclear disarming throws that out the window. We have been making very good progress in that regard. Almost everyone agrees that the fewer nuclear missiles and bombs there are lying around, the better the world will be. In complete reverse, Russia said they would consider this program to be breaking the nuclear disarmament agreement, and I think they are right.

I have no love for NATO, as honourable senators in this house know. I attacked NATO quite bitterly. I believe I was the only member of the government to do so. Our new leader, Senator Boudreau, became acquainted with me as soon as he moved here because I was fulminating, raising hell about NATO bombing in Yugoslavia. I have no love of NATO, and I must say that a number of NATO countries do not want this missile defence system to go ahead. They see it as multiplying nuclear dangers.

The second reason is feasibility for technical reasons. The system has been tested three times and it has been three times a flop. It reminds me of L'il Abner and some of the rockets those characters put together. So far the system does not even work. The Tories and the Alliance are rushing up to say we should participate in a system which cannot hit the side of a barn.

The last reason is our relationship with the U.S. It is always embarrassing when one is living, as former prime minister Trudeau said, next to an elephant and yet refusing to go and hunt with the elephant every day. One always feels the elephant may get a little angry if one is not cooperating. This is one time when it is valid to refuse to join the elephant.

In closing, I will read a paragraph from an article by Lawyers for Social Responsibility, a national organization — and, no, it is not an oxymoron. Yes, Virginia, there are lawyers for social responsibility. Their conclusions and recommendations are some of the best I have seen.

Canada's support is being sought for this program due to Canada's perceived high reputation in the world. But the Canadian government should not allow itself to be used by the Americans for such a boldly illegal, expensive and militaristic activity. NMD —

That stands for nuclear missile defence.

— imperils arms control achievements to date and will shatter hopes of further reductions. The overall Global Protection System, through its global collection of data but its extremely limited sharing of data collected, will build an international atmosphere of paranoia and distrust.

These systems contradict Canada's work to date in building an international legal framework, in striving for good relations with all states internationally and in working for reductions in nuclear arms. We need to call for an international system which builds reassurance and global political and economic ties. The solution lies in building trust through diplomatic negotiations and aid, not through a technological fix.

Canada, as a good neighbour, should now call upon the U.S. to abide by international law and cease work on this program.

Honourable senators, all I can say is "amen."

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: As no other senator wishes to participate in the debate, this inquiry is considered debated.

Business of the Senate

Hon. Dan Hays (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I ask leave at this time to suspend the sitting until 5:55 p.m., at which time the bells will ring for five minutes to call senators to the chamber for the Royal Assent at six o'clock.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is leave granted to suspend the sitting for five minutes?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Hays: I will deal with the adjournment motion properly after Royal Assent.

The Senate adjourned during pleasure.

[Translation]

(1810)

Royal Assent

The Honourable Charles Gonthier, Puisne judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, having come and being seated at the foot of the Throne, and the House of Commons having been summoned, and being come with their Acting Speaker, the Honourable the Speaker pro tempore of the Senate said:

I have the honour to inform you that Her Excellency the Governor General has been pleased to cause Letters Patent to be issued under her Sign Manual and Signet constituting the Honourable Charles Gonthier, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, her Deputy, to do in Her Excellency's name all acts on his part necessary to be done during Her Excellency's pleasure.

The Commission was read by a Clerk at the Table.

The Honourable the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give the Royal Assent to the following bill:

An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act and the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act (Bill C-37, Chapter 27, 2000)

The House of Commons withdrew.

The Honourable the Deputy Governor General was pleased to retire.

The sitting of the Senate was resumed.

[English]

(1820)

Adjournment

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

Hon. Dan Hays (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, October 3, 2000, at 2 p.m.

Motion agreed to.

The Senate adjourned until Tuesday, October 3, 2000, at 2 p.m.

Debates of the Senate (Hansard)

Debates of the Senate (Hansard)

2nd Session, 36th Parliament, Volume 138, Issue 77

Thursday, September 21, 2000 The Honourable Rose-Marie Losier-Cool, Speaker pro tempore

Table of Contents

THE SENATE

Thursday, September 21, 2000

The Late Honourable Jacques Flynn, P.C., Q.C.

Tribute

Visitors in the Gallery

SENATORS' STATEMENTS

The Late Claude BissellThe Late Murray Ross

Tribute

Community Foundations of Canada

Quebec—Our Millennium Project

Prostate Cancer Awareness Week

Police and Peace Officers National Memorial Day

World Alzheimer's Day

Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission

Ruling Affecting French Language Broadcasting

The Honourable Joyce Fairbairn, P.C.

Congratulations on Receiving Lifetime Achievement Award for Efforts to Promote Literacy

Flag of Franco-Ontarians

Twenty-fifth Anniversary

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

Coalition Group Requesting Environmental Assessment of Proposed Landfill at Adams Mine, Timiskaming District, Northern Ontario

Letter to Minister of the Environment Tabled

Western Canada Telephone Company

Report of Committee

Sales Tax and Excise Tax Amendments Bill, 1999

Report of Committee

Canadian Tourism Commission Bill

Report of Committee

Environmental Assessment of Proposed Landfill at Adams Mine, Timiskaming District, Ontario

Report of Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources Committee on Study Pursuant to Mandate Presented

Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group

Report of Canadian Delegation to Forty-first Annual Meeting Tabled

Banking, Trade and Commerce

Request for Authority to Study Subject Matter of Bill to Establish the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada—Notice of Motion

Social Affairs, Science and Technology

Request for Authority to Study Current State of Personal Information Protection in Electronic Communications—Notice of Motion

Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group

Forty-first Annual Meeting—Notice of Inquiry

QUESTION PERIOD

Fisheries and Oceans

Burnt Church, New Brunswick—Dispute Over Fishery—Alleged Offer of Incentives Not to Fish

The Senate

Possibility of Royal Assent Ceremony

Legislative Progress of Bill to Amend Parliament of Canada Act and Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act

Finance

Possibility of Lowering of Fuel Tax

National Defence

Replacement of Sea King Helicopters—Costing Elements of Procurement Competition

Human Resources Development

Employment Insurance Fund—Lack of Support for Seasonal Workers

Delayed Answers to Oral Questions

Industry

Auto Pact—Impact of World Trade Organization Ruling

Foreign Affairs

Summit of the Americas 2000-01—Invitation of President of Cuba

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Business of the Senate

Defence Production Act

Bill to Amend—Second Reading

Referred to Committee

Parliament of Canada Act Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act

Motion to Allocate Time Adopted

Business of the Senate

Parliament of Canada Act Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act

Bill to Amend—Third Reading

Royal Assent

Notice

Tobacco Youth Protection Bill

Third Reading—Debate Adjourned

The Budget 2000

Statement of Minister of Finance—Inquiry—Debate Continued

National Defence

Need to Join with United States in Missile Defence Program—Inquiry

Business of the Senate

Royal Assent

2nd Session, 36th Parliament,
Volume 138, Issue 77

Thursday, September 21, 2000
The Honourable Rose-Marie Losier-Cool, Speaker pro tempore

The Late Claude Bissell
The Late Murray Ross

Coalition Group Requesting Environmental Assessment of Proposed Landfill
at Adams Mine, Timiskaming District, Northern Ontario

Parliament of Canada Act
Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act