The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, as all honourable senators are
aware, tomorrow, June 21, is a very special day in the Canadian tradition. It
has been declared National Aboriginal Day.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
The Hon. the Speaker: Last week, the Senate unanimously decided that
our new committee room will be named the Aboriginal Peoples Room.
Today, we will have a number of statements by various senators in this
regard. I wish to advise honourable senators that Senator Adams will be speaking
in Inuktitut. Translation of his speech into English and French will be
Honourable senators, we have the honour this afternoon of having in our
gallery distinguished representatives of the aboriginal community of Canada.
Honourable senators, I have the pleasure to draw your attention to the
presence in our gallery of these distinguished visitors. They cannot all be here
today. Some of their representatives are with us. First, I would like to
introduce Mr. John Kim Bell.
He is the founder and chair of the National Aboriginal Achievement Awards.
Mr. Bell, a Mohawk, is a distinguished conductor and composer. He initiated the
conferring of these awards.
We are fortunate to have with us today four recipients of these awards. In
the gallery is Mrs. Rose Auger from the province of Alberta. I might say that
Mrs. Auger sat in the Speaker's chair this morning and made a speech, something
that is not usually done by Speakers.
Also in the gallery is the youth recipient of the award, Mr. Robert Johnson
from Nova Scotia. From the province of British Columbia we have Dr. Frank Calder
and, from that beautiful part of Canada, the Yukon, we have with us Mr. Albert
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators,
it is with enormous pleasure and pride that we will celebrate for the first time
National Aboriginal Peoples Day which has been proclaimed for tomorrow, June 21.
It will honour the contributions of aboriginal peoples to Canadian society as
our first peoples, and it will recognize their different cultures.
I want to recognize, as the Speaker has, our friends in the gallery, winners
of the National Aboriginal Achievement Awards and that remarkable gentleman who
has done so much in this area, Mr. John Kim Bell. You honour all of us by your
accomplishments. We offer each of you our warmest congratulations.
This special day is important to us because aboriginal issues are of major
interest and concern to the Senate of Canada. One of the pillars of the Senate's
mandate is to speak as the voice of the regions and of minorities. The formation
of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples in 1990, and the
unanimous motion passed last week that the new Senate committee room be named
the Aboriginal Peoples Room, are a testament to this.
I am particularly pleased to confirm today, jointly with the Leader of the
Opposition, Senator Lynch-Staunton, the intention of this house to honour the
memory of the late James Gladstone, the very first aboriginal senator to be
named to this place. He was appointed by Prime Minister John George Diefenbaker
in 1958 at a time when aboriginal Canadians did not even have the right to vote,
a right which was extended to them two years later by the Diefenbaker
Senator Gladstone was a treaty Indian, a member of the Blood Nation which is
part of the Blackfoot Confederacy and Treaty 7 in the province of Alberta. His
personal history, senators, reached back as a chief scout interpreter with the
Royal Northwest Mounted Police, a mail carrier for the Blood Indian Agency, and
as a rancher and farmer near Cardston, Alberta. He went on to become the
president of the Indian Association of Alberta. He was a strong and vibrant
voice for his people in his own province, his own region and certainly here in
Ottawa as important decisions were being made on aboriginal issues.
In recognition of the contribution of aboriginal representation in this place
and to Canada, the Senate intends to commission a bust of Senator Gladstone
which will be displayed prominently on our premises.
His appointment led the way for others. We are enormously proud in this
chamber to have as colleagues Senator Willie Adams, Senator Charlie Watt,
Senator Len Marchand and, from my own province of Alberta, Senator Walter Twinn.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
Senator Fairbairn: The contribution of each of these colleagues to the
work of the Senate is essential, both in terms of their unique perspective on
national issues and the degree to which they teach us about the history and the
culture which are fundamental to the understanding and full appreciation of our
National Aboriginal Day, honourable senators, is a new opportunity for
individuals and communities to get together across this country, to get
acquainted, and to get involved with each other. May our understanding grow so
that our first citizens will truly have equal opportunity to contribute to and
participate in this remarkable country.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable
senators, I am pleased to join with the Leader of the Government in
congratulating this year's recipients of the National Aboriginal Achievement
Awards. I urge all our colleagues to familiarize themselves with the reasons
leading to this recognition. You will, as I was, be most impressed with the
achievements of the recipients and with their backgrounds. They are a great
credit to their communities and to their country.
While this form of recognition is to be applauded, as those who are its
beneficiaries are so deserving, while declaring that henceforth June 21 will,
each year, be declared National Aboriginal Day, and while Senator Phillips'
excellent initiative to name a Senate committee room Aboriginal Peoples Room
received enthusiastic and unanimous support in this chamber, these developments
and others similar to them should never be a substitute for meeting our
responsibilities to face up to the long-standing legitimate demands of
aboriginals, demands which, for the most part, arise from commitments made over
100 years ago.
The Liberal Red Book cannot be more plain, and we cannot agree with it more,
when it states that a Liberal government will act on the premise that the
inherent right of self-government is an existing aboriginal and treaty right.
Previous governments have made attempts in this direction, with limited
success, for reasons we need not go into today. The issues are complex. They
raise emotions to great heights, and misunderstandings and suspicions too often
result. It is understandable that, under such conditions, a government is
tempted to tiptoe around the problem rather than face it head on.
The problem, honourable senators, is not the creation of one segment of the
population; it is the doing of all of us and those who came before. Ignoring it
only compounds it.
Let us hope that marking the first National Aboriginal Day this year will
incite the government to more pronounced efforts to satisfy aboriginal demands
within the undertakings of long ago, so that in future years marking this day
will take on the significance that it really deserves.
Hon. Willie Adams: Honourable senators, before I begin my address in
Inuktitut, I should very much like to thank our Speaker for his kind remarks in
welcoming the recipients of the National Aboriginal Achievement Awards.
[Editor's Note: The honourable senator continued in Inuktitut -
Honourable senators and guests, on the eve of the first National Aboriginal
Day, I stand today to invite all Canadians to share in the accomplishments of
the aboriginal communities. This recognition is not just for recent
accomplishments. Aboriginal people have maintained their identity throughout the
periods of the early fur trade, the whalers, the missionaries, the RCMP, the DEW
line and federal government interests. We are now forming native businesses,
both as a part of and outside the land claims process. The key land claims were
the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement of 1975, the Inuvialuit Land Claim
Settlement of 1984, the Yukon First Nations Land Claims of 1994, the Gwich'in
Claim of 1992, and the Sahtu-Dene Claim signed in 1994. Other claims are now in
I understand the intention of National Aboriginal Day is for Canadians not
only to share in this celebration, but to use the opportunity to learn more
about the Inuit, Indian and Métis peoples. This celebration can be local, be it
in the far North, my homeland of Rankin Inlet, or Nunavik or Kamloops, or
Sawridge and parts east.
As of now, there are three aboriginal MPs and four senators. I was appointed
19 years ago, but the first aboriginal senator was James Gladstone, appointed in
1958. I represent N.W.T. by accident. I was on the ship that relocated Inuit
from northern Quebec to the high Arctic in the 1950s, but I was kicked off in
Fort Churchill for being single; they were only taking families. I then moved to
the Keewatin in the early 1960s. I also served as a member of the Legislative
Assembly of the N.W.T. in the early 1970s.
Before that time, Stuart Hodgson, who was appointed Commissioner of the
Territories, oversaw that assembly, which oddly enough held its sessions in the
Centre Block. These are minor accomplishments against the backdrop of such
events as the striking of the influential Committee on Eskimo Affairs, which
included the elders Abe Okpik and George Koneak; the election of the first Dene
MP in 1972, Wally Firth, representing all of the N.W.T.; and the first Inuk MP,
Peter Ittinuar in 1979, representing Nunatsiaq. One of the more dramatic events
was the Nunavut Land Claim Agreement of 1993 which is taking us to the
establishment of Nunavut Territory, expected for April 1, 1999.
I am sure the other aboriginal senators will agree on the importance of
advancing National Aboriginal Day to make known our presence in the cultural,
political and artistic make-up of Canada.
Honourable senators, I wish to thank the translator who has been translating
for me for a number of years.
Earlier in my speech I mentioned the DEW line which came into being around
1955. At that time, I was living in Churchill, Manitoba, and working for the
military. All of a sudden, aircraft were landing in Churchill 24 hours a day.
They would then fly up to Alaska and all the way over to Labrador.
The building of the DEW line meant that there were good jobs available for
operators of heavy equipment. In fact, the men who operated the D-9s and the
D-6s built the DEW line. There were also jobs available maintaining the base.
People from the south moved to the Arctic, and they would work in conditions
where the wind-chill factor would be between -70 and -80 degrees.
I remember one day a heavy-machine operator from down south saying that he
was too cold to operate the machine, and an Inuk replaced him on the job because
he could withstand the cold temperatures. That is the history of the Inuit.
Today, a lot of them are still good mechanics, like my colleague Senator Watt,
and it all started with the DEW line.
It was not until 1975 that all members of the government of the Northwest
Territories were elected. Up until that time, most representatives were
appointed by the Minister of Indian Affairs in Ottawa. I was elected to serve as
a member of the Assembly of the Northwest Territories for about four years from
1970-74. At that time, nine of us had been elected and three were appointees.
Today, all 24 members are elected, with aboriginals in the majority.
Much progress has been made in a few years. Before the government stepped
into our communities, the attitude was that our people were hunters, and living
happily, and that we did not need schools and the like. However, the government
recognized that aboriginals had to be taught, and it started developing schools
The government in Ottawa used to say that the people of the north lived in
igloos and did not need big houses. However, the construction of one-bedroom
houses started in the 1950s and 1960s. Beside the front door was the bathroom,
and although there was a bathtub, there was no running water. The houses all
contained plastic tanks which we would fill with ice and, when the house was
heated, the ice would melt. That was our water supply. We had no trucks bringing
We called those houses "matchbox" houses because they were so
small. Many parents raised 13 or 14 kids in these one-bedroom houses.
In 1966, our representatives realized that they had to do something for the
people who lived in our communities. They began to build houses and airstrips.
In 1970, the budget for the government of the Northwest Territories was about
$100 million a year. Today, in 1996, it is over $1 billion a year.
Times have changed, honourable senators. We have made a lot of progress since
the 1950s when the government stepped in, and I am proud of that. We have even
changed the way we trap and hunt. Sadly, we no longer trap because furs and seal
skins are not worth much today. Consequently, we have to live like the people
Thank you very much, honourable senators, for listening to me today. I hope
to see all of you again in a year's time when we can celebrate Aboriginal Day
Hon. Len Marchand: Honourable senators, every day is Aboriginal Day!
I want to thank Senator Fairbairn and Senator Lynch-Staunton for their words,
and His Honour the Speaker for his kindness in providing a tour for the
recipients of the National Aboriginal Achievement Awards.
I want to recognize the recipients of those awards who are here today. John
Kim Bell, who was the founder of the Canadian Native Arts Foundation, is
celebrating the tenth anniversary of this organization. It was about three years
ago that John had the idea of establishing the National Aboriginal Achievement
Awards. The goal was to recognize and showcase the immense talent that exists
amongst our people.
Among those recipients is an old friend of mine from British Columbia, Frank
Calder. Some of you may know Frank; he was elected in 1949 in the provincial
riding of Atlin, and later was elected several times to the legislature of
British Columbia. Louis Riel, of course, was the first aboriginal ever elected
to a Parliament in the mid-1880s. Frank was next. He was elected as an NDPer,
then switched over to the Socreds and served in the cabinet of the late W.A.C.
Robert Johnson is Micmac. He will be the first Micmac medical doctor. There
are now 52 aboriginal doctors practicing in Canada, if that is any index of
achievement among our people. I believe most of those doctors are Mohawk - at
least that is what John Kim Bell tells me. The Mohawks have been pretty
aggressive throughout history, as you know.
Albert Rock is quite an achiever in his own right as an inventor. He sells
mini-computers worldwide. He was telling me about the way he has made his mark,
and is now selling his invention to many countries.
Rose Auger is a medicine woman, and a very respected elder. Native medicine
is still practised among our people. There are some very good medicine men and
women, and some who are not so good. I believe in the profession of medicine one
would call them quacks. However, Rose has a wonderful reputation among her
I thank all of my colleagues for the naming of the Aboriginal Peoples Room,
and for the recognition of James Gladstone as the first aboriginal senator, with
the establishment of a bust in his honour. I do not know how many of you can
really feel or understand just what that appointment meant to us. Frank Calder
is a little older than me; he would know. Willie Adams is about the same age as
I am. I worked for the federal vote in my lifetime. Our lives have spanned that
much of aboriginal history. Frank Calder goes back a little further.
In the early 1970s, a comedian by the name of Duke Red Bird used to say that
an Indian reserve is a place for the government to keep Indians, and every time
the Queen comes to visit, the government brings them out to sing and dance. In
other words, we were out of sight and out of mind. The federal vote, which was
granted in 1960, brought a whole new day for our people. Finally we were able to
come into the mainstream of life in this country.
I have read a little about the reason for John Diefenbaker's appointment of
Senator Gladstone. I do not know how true this is, but apparently he wanted to
kick South Africa out of the Commonwealth, and Canada could not participate in
that exercise while we still had apartheid back home and were not allowing
aboriginal people to vote. Whatever the sequence of events, our people were
immensely thankful that we could finally vote in our own wonderful land, 93
years after Confederation.
Sometimes we may get a little angry. You may hear some angry voices from our
people. I do not think you can blame us for getting a little mad now and then.
We raise a little hell because the history of this great and wonderful land was
not always that great for us.
I do thank you again for your kind words and for your support in this place
for our issues.
Congratulations, again, to the achievers who are in our gallery today.
Hon. Walter P. Twinn: Honourable senators, thank you for recognizing
National Aboriginal Day and bringing it to the attention of all Canadians. It is
most appropriate to have, in our presence, recipients of the National Aboriginal
Achievement Awards. I am very proud of these distinguished Canadians. I am also
very grateful to our government for establishing National Aboriginal Day.
As I speak, this action has been well accepted. There have been pow-wows,
rodeos and baseball tournaments set up for tomorrow. I have accepted invitations
to be present at two events tomorrow, so I will not be here to vote.
I would like to say a few things about the past. We hear many negative things
about the past, but it has not always been negative. I understand from my people
that there were some good guys among the missionaries, the Royal Canadian
Mounted Police and the fur traders. Some would write letters for us, and we
trusted them to write appropriate letters to Ottawa or to the Indian agent on
whatever matter was important to the tribe or the group.
On that positive note, I face the future with anticipation and confidence.
For us to gain true equality we must also be contributors. That is what we want
Hon. Jack Austin: Honourable senators, I will be brief but to the
point. Our colleague Senator Len Marchand is much too modest about his own
achievements. He said nothing about the fact that he is the first Privy
Councillor from the aboriginal community and the first member of a federal
cabinet from that community.
I have known Senator Len Marchand for a very long time. He joined the staff
of the Honourable Arthur Laing in 1964 or 1965 as a special assistant, having
graduated in forestry from a university in the State of Washington. Len has been
a contributor to public life in British Columbia and in Canada through all those
years. He is fiercely proud of his record, and justly so.
I would like to say about Senator Willie Adams that I feel as if I have known
him forever, because I came to Ottawa in 1963 as executive assistant to the
Honourable Arthur Laing, then Minister of Northern Affairs and National
Resources. Amongst Senator Adams accomplishments is that he is the first
aboriginal oil man. He became a director of Panarctic Oils and served for
several years in that capacity.
I met Senator Charlie Watt in 1963 in a place then called Fort Chimo. Senator
Watt translated most ably in a meeting attended by the Honourable Arthur Laing,
as minister, and by the elders of that community.
Senator Watt played a very strong role in resisting efforts by René
Lévesque, who was then a minister in the Quebec government, and others who
attempted to persuade the Pearson government to transfer total control over the
aboriginal community in the province of Quebec to the provincial government.
Both Senator Adams and Senator Watt have made magnificent contributions to
the development of their people, and that development is being honoured today.
Hon. Marcel Prud'homme: Honourable senators, I think it is appropriate
for me as a French Canadian - a phrase I always take pleasure in using - to rise
on this historic day.
I am speaking in French for a very simple reason: it is my language. All my
life I shall remember something that happened in Vancouver during the
conferences on the Constitution organized by the Right Honourable Joe Clark.
There in Vancouver, I was trying to explain most passionately what I was,
what my French Canadian people represented. I was fighting a losing battle,
really, exhausted after three days of explanations. Then a woman, an Indian
chief, stood up to speak.
Although I felt badly, I knew I had to accept being called to order by an
aboriginal leader because their ancestors were the people my ancestors met when
they came to this country in the 1600s. I have always felt humbled by the fact
that my predecessors settled in a land where there were already indigenous
Understanding my feelings towards our aboriginal people, a lady came to my
rescue and asked the leader to desist in her attack on me. She told her that,
when I had been chairman of the National Liberal Caucus, I had organized the
first meeting of all the Indians in the Railway Committee Room, a meeting that
she remembered. I have always treated aboriginal people as I would treat members
of my own family.
If people would reflect on that, I think there would be more understanding in
this country as to what the debate is all about.
All that French Canadians want is to save their cultural heritage.
To save our own cultural lives, we must understand the pride of others. The
others are those who were here before. Senators Marchand, Watt and Adams know
that I am sincere in these remarks, because we have discussed this matter at
length. Only by respecting each other's heritage and culture can we live in
Earlier Senator Marchand expressed his appreciation for the recognition of
this special day. To him I would express my thanks for his patience in waiting
so long for this recognition to be given. To all our aboriginal senators in this
chamber I say, "You have more friends than you realize."
I have already been in touch with some leaders in Quebec and they have
accepted to meet with me in June. Together we can build this country.
I will speak later to the few insults I received yesterday from some
colleagues as a result of my vote. I do not take those remarks lightly. However,
I do believe that we, as senators, should strive to build some harmony in this
country. We must not forget that we have a responsibility to our aboriginal
Honourable senators, I understand that some members in the other place are to
move a motion today against the Senate. That does not bother me. I will stand up
for what I believe in and I will boo them from the gallery, if necessary,
especially the Bloc members. I will stand up for what I believe in and attack
those who want to destroy every Canadian institution.
Honourable senators, if we stand together, regardless of our cultural
heritage, Canada will shed a ray of hope on an otherwise troubled planet. If it
can be done here, it can be done anywhere in the world.
Hon. Erminie J. Cohen: Honourable senators, I should like to add my
voice to those of my colleagues in celebration of National Aboriginal Peoples
Day. It was a long time coming, and the aboriginal communities worked long and
hard to make this a happening. So, now and forever, June 21 of every year will
be a day set aside for Canadians to celebrate the contributions of the
aboriginal peoples to Canada.
My grandson is part Nisga'a and part Jewish. As his grandmother, I am proud
that he wears the mantle of two ancient cultures, and I am glad that his
aboriginal cultural heritage is finally being acknowledged with a national day
We have not often treated them as such, but aboriginal peoples are our first
They were here long before the arrival of Europeans, and had already
developed strong and thriving cultures, spiritual systems, the art of consensus
building, and local economies that many times provided models for others.
Today, people appreciate, and ecologists adopt, the aboriginal way: respect
for the land and waters around us; and a belief in the creator that gave us all
the gift of nature, a bounty to be protected preserved and managed efficiently
as much as to be harvested.
Congratulations to the aboriginal communities and to the award recipients.
This is a special day for all of us.
Hon. Marie-P. Poulin: Honourable senators, today we join Canada's
celebration in recognizing the valuable contributions of our aboriginal peoples
to the uniqueness and to the progress of our country.
I want to say to our four aboriginal colleagues that you bring to the work of
our institution a way of working and a way of living that enriches every
legislation and every investigation - therefore, every Canadian. Each one of us
brings a specific region of the country to this chamber with its concerns, its
culture and its aspirations. Many of us represent a specific group of
minorities, as I do. Each one of us brings a different professional experience
from politicians to doctors, lawyers, entrepreneurs, teachers and many more.
What we are doing together today permits us to rise above our political
differences, our cultural differences, our religious differences and our
language differences. We are uniting today, as senators, to celebrate through
National Aboriginal Day our country, our Canada.
Hon. Consiglio Di Nino: Honourable senators, I should like to add a
few words to those expressed about this wonderful historical event. A few of us
were here in the chamber earlier when the medicine woman, Rose, was asked a
question. In answer to the question, she invited all of us to go and live with
the natives and spend time in their homes. If we were to go and spend time where
the natives live, we would better understand the aspirations of the aboriginal
Honourable senators, I should like to share with you my experiences. I have
visited the Arctic in both winter and summer, mostly on the land. It is only
through those personal experiences that I have come to appreciate the spiritual
value and attachment that the native communities have to the land. It is
probably the reason why I have attempted to be supportive of their causes. I
invite all of our colleagues to take the opportunity, when it arises, to visit
the homes and lands where our aboriginal Canadians live. I am sure you will, as
I did, find it a very positive experience.
Hon. Philippe Deane Gigantès: Honourable senators, what happened
yesterday was not serious. Nevertheless, on the way to the hospital in the
ambulance, I thought that I had better look at the silver lining in case it was
serious. It consoled me that should I have to vacate this seat, Prime Minister
Chrétien would fill it with another remarkably talented woman.
It is instructive to see the operation of our honourable whip. As I was going
to the hospital, he phoned an elegant, beautiful and witty friend of my late
wife, who came and sat with me in the hospital. He organized the life, the
feeding and the walking of my dogs. You do not get that from a Tory Whip!
However, what you do get from a Tory doctor is magical. Senator Keon gave the
ambulance driver a little note which, I think, said words to the effect that I
was his friend, for which I am forever grateful and, indeed, flattered. When I
arrived at the hospital, it was like a swarm of bees. A doctor was looking in
one ear and another doctor was looking through the other. I wonder if they
actually saw one another through my empty head! They probed me and stuck various
round, sticky things and wires into me. They examined me more than I have ever
been examined. There also were two magnificent, competent and amiable nurses
who, at end of a 12-hour shift, managed to look wonderful and beautiful - and
wore the appropriate perfume! How can we do better?
What happened yesterday, I think, is due to my liberal education. When I was
five, my mother started reading me the editorial of the Liberal paper every
morning, and father, at every opportunity, would say, "Tories have black
hearts because their hearts are their wallets." I was so conditioned that
it was inevitable that when someone who had been my friend - and, I still
consider him a friend - one of the happy GST warriors, voted against us, that I
would choke and faint. That is what happened.
Hon. Michel Cogger: Honourable senators, on a point of order, it has come
to my attention that apparently there is a rumour circulating that I was paired
yesterday. I think it requires an explanation inasmuch as my having voted
yesterday - indeed, if I had been paired - would have been in breach of a given
word. I find that rather offensive. I want to assure honourable senators that in
no way was I paired. I had given no commitment to anyone on the other side.
Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators,
today it is a very special honour for me to pay tribute to my colleague and
friend, Senator Keith Davey.
That he is a political legend is undeniable. That he has made an enormous
contribution to the political life of this country is undisputed. That he is
leaving this place a bit early, after a mere 30 years, is hard for us to accept
From his earliest days in school, and at the University of Toronto, he set
his sights on a political career and an involvement with the media. He does
confess to a short period during his time at the University of Toronto when he
was not completely sure whether he was a CCFer! However, that weak spell quickly
passed and his liberalism has never wavered. He defines it simply as trying to
help people to help themselves.
He worked at the very heart of Liberal organization on the University of
Toronto campus and Toronto riding politics during the fifties, as the Liberal
Party was picking itself up from a massive defeat at the hands of John George
Diefenbaker. Senator Davey came to Ottawa as the national director of the
Liberal Party in the early 1960s to further the rebuilding process which led to
victory and the formation of the Pearson government.
Three years later, when Prime Minister Pearson named Keith Davey to the
Senate - the youngest person ever appointed to this chamber at the time - The
Toronto Star published an editorial proclaiming: "Poor Keith
Davey...extinct at 39." Well, how very wrong they were.
In addition to his remarkable political contribution over the years, Keith
has truly been a voice in the Senate for his province and his beloved city of
Toronto. He has championed the cause of cultural industries in this country.
When he departs this place, they will lose a voice of the real fighter for their
interests in Parliament.
Senator Davey has served steadily on our Standing Senate Committee on
Transportation and Communications and he has worked on the National Finance
Committee, but surely his greatest achievement in the Senate was his leadership
of the special committee which undertook a landmark study of whether, in Canada,
we had the media we needed or simply the media we deserved.
What the committee called the "insidious effect of journalistic
monopolies" is as valid in today's uncertain situation as it was when the
report entitled "The Uncertain Mirror" was released in 1970. That
report acknowledged the dominant role of the United States in our daily life,
For all our similarities, for all our sharing, for all our friendships, we
are somebody else.
Indeed we are, and Keith Davey has laboured long and hard to make all
Canadians aware of the need to be vigilant in the protection of our identity.
As recently as last December, in the Sports Illustrated case, he
argued forcefully in favour of closing the loophole that had opened up in our
30-year-old policy of protecting the advertising base of Canadian magazines. He
pointed out that Canadian magazines are important to us and are deserving of
protection because they "foster in Canadians a sense of themselves."
Keith has not lived in political isolation. He has always made time for his
love for, if not his obsession with, the sports world, particularly baseball and
hockey, especially the Toronto Blue Jays and the Toronto Maple Leafs. He also
enjoyed 56 magic, but turbulent, days as Commissioner of the Canadian Football
League, which might indeed profit from his experience now that he has extra time
on his hands.
Perhaps, honourable senators, what were most precious to him in the course of
his long career were the strong and close relationships he had with both Prime
Minister Pearson and Prime Minister Trudeau. Each was unique, but they both
shared Keith's commitment to liberalism and to this country. They were
profoundly grateful for his enthusiasm, his loyal support, and his friendship in
political sunshine or cloud.
Describing himself as a "wide-eyed pragmatist," Keith wrote:
In politics, you begin life as the new guard. If you win, you become a part
of the establishment. If you keep winning, you become part of the old guard. I
am probably the only backroom boy in Canadian history who has gone through that
He has been truly a "happy warrior" for the political party system,
for the Senate, and for Canada.
To him and his beloved wife Dorothy, we wish long and happy years ahead. We
know that he will never be very far removed from the national life of our
You can count me in, Keith, for more of those special political breakfast
sessions at the Park Plaza and the warmth and friendship and wisdom that go with
Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable
senators, in expressing my appreciation of our colleague Keith Davey, I wish to
begin with an anecdote from the public record.
In April 1956, as the editors and publishers and representatives of the
Canadian Press lingered over their after-dinner brandies, their guest speaker
told them about himself. He said:
In my present post, I often meet professionals about whose work I know next
to nothing. I am a sort of professional gate-crasher. I am often where I have no
business to be; I frequently talk when I ought to keep still.
No, that was not Senator Keith Davey at the podium, although some of Senator
Davey's contemporaries in my party might say, "Prove it." Well, prove
it I shall. The words of gentle self-effacement belong to another famous
Canadian Liberal from Ontario, Vincent Massey, who parlayed his mastery of
nothingness into the Governor Generalship and the universal affection of his
That is the job that brought Vincent Massey to the gathering of newsmen at
the very time when Keith Davey, having risen to one of the much sought after
vice-presidencies of the Toronto and York Liberal Association, was eating his
heart out over a resolution that would twit Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent for
his failure to put even one of Toronto's nine Liberal members of Parliament into
his Olympian cabinet.
Thirty years later, Keith Davey, safely transported to the Senate, produced
his cabbages-to-kings biography called The Rainmaker. The first chapter
of this tour de force of political savvy is entitled "The Real World,"
and it begins with this sentence:
My mother still asks me when I am going to get a regular job.
There is more, much more, in the book which was, as they say in the trade, a
respectable best seller - not to be confused with the numbers that inflate the
dandy little docudramas we get from the likes of Canada's leading muckraker. It
is a book I might even recommend to the leader of my party for its account of
what Keith called "the trauma of September 4, 1984, the massive rejection
of John Turner and the Liberal Party."
He deals with the humility of living with a New Democratic Party which was
confident that it would replace the Grits as official opposition.
In a chapter entitled "Down But Not Out," and in a style Mr.
Charest might find exemplary, he concludes The Rainmaker in this way:
It is time to replace fear and loathing with that sense of optimism and
excitement which is at the very core of Liberalism. We have provided this
country with proud leadership ... We must do it again. It is time for every last
Grit to come to the aid of the party.
Partisan? Of course it is, but partisanship, like politics, need not be a
dirty word, and survival of vigorous debate remains one of our principal
concerns in both Houses of Parliament.
We have had 10 years to argue the career "reflections" of Keith
Davey. We have had 26 years to ponder the three volumes of The Uncertain
Mirror, the report of the Special Senate Committee on Mass Media. With good
reason, the 1,117 pages of essays, vignettes, tables, and analyses are known as
the "Davey Report," and, along with a more recent but less penetrating
exercise in 1981 by another Liberal observer, constitute the only organized
examinations by government of the major institutions of the so-called Fourth
Estate in Canada.
The alarm bells in the Davey Report did not exaggerate the difficulties
examined in the Kent Report. If Senator Davey were to speak to the topic today,
we would be surprised to find him more sanguine than he was when the following
lines were published in the Davey Report in December, 1970:
Control of the media is passing into fewer and fewer hands and the experts
agree this trend is likely to continue and perhaps accelerate. The logical (but
wholly improbable) outcome of this process is that one man or one corporation
could own every media outlet in this country except the CBC. The Committee
believes that, at some point before this hypothetical extreme is reached, a line
must be drawn. The prudent state must recognize that, at some point, enough
To have moved from FP to Thomson to Hollinger provides few answers and fewer
assurances about independent voices in Canadian communications. We will feel
less certain here without Keith Davey to sound alarm bells when they are needed.
We should be grateful for the 30 years of service which Senator Davey has
rendered to his colleagues, his party, and his country. We hope he will not be
permitted to grow impatient and bored with such frivolities as baseball and
hockey and, heaven forbid, football. I hope those who seek to harness his
talents for future service make certain that he is permitted time to keep his
eye on press, radio and television services, and on the men and women who
provide them - not to spy on them, but just to watch them as they watch us.
Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable
senators, in his speech to the Massachusetts state legislature in 1961, John
Fitzgerald Kennedy said:
That for those to whom much is given, much is required.
President Kennedy continued:
And when at some future date the high court of history sits in judgment on
each of us, recording our success or failure in whatever office we hold, it will
be measured by the answers to four questions.
First - Were we really men of Courage?
Second - Were we really men of Judgment?
Third - Were we really men of Integrity?
Finally - were we really men of Dedication?
Let us be assured, honourable senators, that in the case of Senator Davey,
the court of history will, in all instances, answer a resounding yes. Yes to
courage, because for Keith Davey no river and no mountain was too hard to cross.
No political campaign was too great a challenge, no matter how trying or
insurmountable the odds. There will be a resounding yes to judgment because, in
his over four decades of service to his party and his country, Keith Davey's
common sense and basic wisdom were sought after by great Canadians from all
walks of life. Yes to integrity, as his vast array of friends and colleagues
from across the country will attest. Yes to dedication, because that has been a
constant and unerring source of inspiration to so many of us in this political
world, even if we do not come from Spadina.
Honourable senators, someone once said that the perfect political mentality
can be compared to the persona of a winning football, basketball, baseball or
hockey coach. The combination of the will to win with the belief that the game
is important is as much the key to success on the playing field as it is in
Keith Davey never backed down from a challenge because he was always a
believer - a passionate Canadian whose faith in this country never lagged; a
team player who never quit because he always understood the game plan. He knew
that Canada is not where we are now - Canada is where we will be tomorrow. With
that belief as his guide and with that commitment to tomorrow, it was always
understood that when the going got tough, Keith Davey never, never let down.
Hon. Lowell Murray: Honourable senators, I think the Liberal Party of
Canada is very fortunate. Any party would be to have someone of Keith Davey's
dedication and talents in positions of importance and responsibility during all
these years. Canada is fortunate because for Keith Davey, the Liberal Party has
been and is the vehicle for his service to the wider country. I think that he is
fortunate, and I think he counts himself to have had that opportunity.
Honourable senators, Keith Davey has been a most civilized, if ardent,
partisan with his adversaries in the campaign headquarters of other political
parties. He has maintained a relationship of warm cordiality, on occasion
thoughtful and generous - or as thoughtful and generous as the rules of the game
would allow - and always understanding. I have enjoyed my contacts with him over
a period of more than 30 years, and I have greatly enjoyed his company as a
colleague in this place. His place in the political history of our times is
assured. He and his family can be proud of his contribution to Canadian
politics, and I wish him and them the happy retirement that his years of
generous service have so greatly earned.
Hon. Richard J. Stanbury: Honourable senators, when I think of Keith
Davey, integrity, warmth, humour, conscientiousness, loyalty, vigour, courage
and strategic acuity are just some of the qualities that spring to mind.
An acquaintance for 40 years and a close friend for over 38 years, Keith and
I know each other very well. The Diefenbaker disaster to the Liberal Party of
Canada - I hasten to emphasize "to the Liberal Party of Canada" - in
1958 brought us closer together. Mr. Pearson had become our leader with the help
of a group of young people led by Keith. To us, Mr. Pearson was a great hero -
his nemesis, John Diefenbaker, was exactly the opposite. The disaster
eviscerated the Liberal Party and left the young people who were Pearson
devotees in charge of what was left. Keith quickly became president of Toronto
and York Liberal Association, ran a membership drive which attracted 5,000
people into the party, and then left for Ottawa to become national director of
the party. I inherited the presidency of Toronto and York Liberal Association
with both the healthy debt and the healthy membership which Keith had provided.
In three years, we converted "Tory Toronto", with no Liberal seats, to
"Liberal Toronto" with 17 Liberal seats, while Keith and Walter Gordon
were reinvigorating the party in every province by finding young leaders who
worked selflessly to bring Lester B. Pearson and the Liberal Party of Canada
back to power.
Honourable senators, Keith's leadership was the key. His admonition to
constituency executives "to work or quit" brought new vigour to the
party. His advice to ridings to seek out the best candidates based on their
local reputations rather than their party history ensured top quality
His "campaign colleges", unheard of in the past, were needed
because hardly any of the thousands of volunteers who flocked to the party, or
indeed their candidates, had ever been involved in politics or political
campaigns before. Keith's communication techniques had never been seen before.
Everyone felt that he or she had an open door or perhaps, more correctly, an
open phone line to Keith at any time, night or day, regardless of what time zone
the caller lived in. You will notice that Keith still has a telephone receiver
firmly affixed to his left ear.
Always positive, always optimistic, always with a touch of humour, always
with affection, Keith dealt with the most humble and the most important members
of the party. Those characteristics have followed him to this day. As everyone
knows, he has served on the most intimate terms with each Liberal Prime
Minister, as their servant of course, but, without exception, as their friend.
It is hard to imagine a more fulfilling political career. It is far from over,
but this is our last chance, as his fellow senators, to pay tribute to the
public life he has led and shared with us.
Hon. Norman K. Atkins: Honourable senators, yesterday we heard two
hours of tribute to Allan J. MacEachen. I wish to join those who spoke yesterday
by adding my best wishes to Allan, who is not here today. I wish also to urge
him to seriously consider writing his memoirs. I believe he owes it to Canadians
to tell us how it really was. It is bound to be a best seller.
Those people who know Keith Davey know that he loves to tell stories and
enjoys the art of putting people on. For example, two weeks ago at a dinner
honouring both he and Senator MacEachen, he related the story of how I sought
out the press after John Turner appointed him campaign chair in the middle of
1984 election and attributed to me the comment, "Now that Davey is back,
the campaign is going to be mean, foul, dirty, dishonest. Get ready." When,
the day after the dinner, I challenged Senator Davey, asking him to provide me
with proof that I had said those nasty things, he laughed, displaying that
wonderful, guilty smile, and admitted that he had made it all up.
For years people wondered why Senator Davey wore pin-striped suits. The
answer is perfectly obvious: He was a Yankee fan until the Blue Jays came to
Toronto. He claims to be a baseball expert, but his record in a yearly
non-partisan baseball pool would prove otherwise. As a non-expert, I have been
the beneficiary of some of his predictions.
On April 20, I was one of Senator Davey's guests celebrating his seventieth
birthday at a wonderful party held at the Ontario Club. We were all shocked and
saddened when he announced that evening that he was planning an early retirement
from the Senate, effective July 1. Senator Davey has had a remarkable career,
and deserves all of the compliments and tributes he will be receiving today.
I hardly knew Senator Davey prior to my appointment to the Senate in 1986,
other than by reputation. While I respected his talent and skills as a political
organizer, as one who worked on the other side I really considered him to be the
enemy. Obviously, my views have changed, and for many reasons. I have learned
that once a person moves on from the responsibilities of running campaigns,
their attitudes and appreciation for others who serve a party - any party -
changes. They gain a respect for those who are serving elsewhere. As well, I
will always appreciate the way in which he helped my son Peter, who was involved
in a human rights issue with the Toronto Fire Department and with City Hall.
I began to appreciate that Keith Davey is more than a partisan politician
working with and advising powerful politicians and running elections. He is also
a very sensitive, loyal, compassionate and dedicated person of high principle.
He is committed to serving his country, his community and his party while
preserving personal relationships that extend to his friends, understanding that
their commitment is important as well.
He is a dedicated family man whose children have had the benefit of his
guidance and understanding. His wife and companion, Dorothy, is just one great
lady. Incidentally, Keith loses no opportunity to remind her just how lucky she
is to be married to him. They enjoy a life together of which many would be
To Keith, Dorothy and their family, I wish all the best: the best of health
and continued happiness for many years. We hope that they will keep in touch
with all of us who hold them dear in our hearts.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
Hon. Paul Lucier: Honourable senators, I wanted to say that Senator
Davey, who I think is my friend - I do not know if he will be after I say this -
has been taking a great deal of credit for a long time for his work in the
Senate when those of us who really know what has been going on will know that
Doralen Amesbury, his secretary for 18 years, has really been the one doing all
About my own secretary, Ann Piché, I have said that the reason I am the
senator and she is the secretary is that she could easily do my job but I could
never do hers. I think that applies in Senator Davey's case as well.
Several senators have mentioned Keith Davey's knowledge and love of sports. I
have benefited greatly from his knowledge and love of sports because he is a
sucker for a bet on anything from Toronto: the Argos, the Blue Jays, the Maple
Leafs - anything. I have a drawer at home half-full of $5 bills that I have won
from Keith Davey, so I am very pleased with his knowledge of sports.
Honourable senators, Keith Davey is and will continue to be an example of all
the good things we who enter public life at municipal, provincial, territorial,
or federal levels believe. Our systems are not perfect but they have allowed us
to build a great country. I personally am proud to call Keith Davey my friend. I
wish he and Dorothy many continued years of success and happiness together.
Hon. John Buchanan: Honourable senators, I have only known Senator
Davey for the last six years, but I owe him. Let me explain.
Over my 24 years in the legislature of Nova Scotia, 13 as the premier of that
great province, I received many gifts and presentations from organizations, PC
rallies and PC annual meetings. How surprised I was when the Annapolis West
Progressive Conservative Association, at the conclusion of one meeting,
presented me with a book, The Rainmaker by Keith Davey. That proves that
even we Tories recognize good political strategies.
I presented Keith with an enlarged photograph of that presentation. I hope he
hangs it in his office or in his home somewhere, because it is rare for a
Conservative premier to receive a book written by the strategy king of the
I read that book from cover to cover, and digested everything in it. In the
ensuing election in the fall of 1984, a partial manifestation of my digestion of
that book was the victory of the Conservative Party. We won 42 of 52 seats in
the legislature of Nova Scotia with some 53 per cent of the vote.
I thank you, Keith Davey, for helping us out in the way you did. That massive
win was the biggest we have ever had in four consecutive elections. Today, for
the first time, the Liberal Party and members opposite in this place know and
appreciate why we won such a massive victory. Senator Stanbury, instead of
turning over Tory seats to Liberals, Keith Davey helped us turn Liberals seats
over to Tories.
Thank you very much, Keith. Well done!
Hon. William J. Petten: Honourable senators, I wish to be associated
with the remarks of senators who have spoken in tribute to our friend Keith
I first met the Honourable Keith Davey in the early 1960s at Liberal Party
Headquarters in Ottawa, when I attended meetings as a representative from
Newfoundland. Keith was then the national director of the Liberal Party of
Canada. During these meetings, a firm friendship developed. There were a few
little glitches here and there, but finally Keith began to understand me and we
became fast friends. He came to the Senate in 1966. I considered myself
fortunate to be invited to a dinner party organized by some of his friends here
in Ottawa so that I could personally congratulate him.
Shortly after my appointment to the Senate in 1968, Keith introduced a motion
in the Senate to form the special committee on the mass media. He is to be
congratulated on his initiative in establishing this committee. The members of
the committee, with the exception of the new boy - me - read like a "Who's
Who" of the Senate. Keith ran a tight ship and the work of the committee
was completed in record time.
When I was asked to become a member of that committee, I hesitated a bit.
Again, I was a "new boy" as one of our former colleagues would refer
At the first meeting, as the youngest member in service, although not in
years, I was drafted committee Whip. I was rather reluctant to take the
position, but I can now say publicly to Keith what I have said to him many times
in private: He did me a great favour. It enabled me to get to know my colleagues
much more quickly, and it was an apprenticeship which served me well in later
years. Once again, Keith, thank you very much.
During the sittings of the committee, Keith's greatest phobia was that at
some point we would lose a quorum. This never happened. However, on the last day
of the meeting, I went to see Keith with Marianne Barrie, the lady who really
ran the committee, despite what Keith might have thought. With serious
expressions we said that it had happened, that we had lost the quorum. If I had
had a camera, I could have won an award with a photograph of the look on Keith's
Keith does not know what I am about to say now. I will take this opportunity
to remind him of a lunch we had in London, England during our meetings with the
working press there. The waiter inquired if we would like a glass of cider.
Keith asked, "Is that alcoholic?" I said, "I don't think
so." After a glass or two - I leave the rest to your imagination.
Keith, it has been a privilege to be associated with you and to work with
you. I wish you well in your retirement. I hope it will enable you to spend more
time with Dorothy, your children and grandchildren. Every best wish for your
Hon. Philippe Deane Gigantès: Honourable senators, sometime before
1984, a young Liberal asked Senator Keith Davey why young NDPers and young
Tories seemed so much more zealous, and why Liberals were not as zealous, and he
answered, "Because we are nicer people."
This is very true of Keith, and it has served him marvellously in the role he
has played as a practitioner and strategist for Liberal victories. The Liberal
Party is the party of the centre. Therefore, it is a party of compromise, and,
therefore, it is a party where, in the fierce fighters that it had, like Keith
Davey, niceness is important.
Let us not forget that if he had not engineered the first Liberal victory in
the 1960s, Allan MacEachen would not have had his chance to do the things he did
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
Hon. Dan Hays: Honourable senators, happily, I find myself in the
Senate today and at the same time serving as the presiding officer of the
Liberal Party of Canada. I have the opportunity, in its name, to wish Keith
Davey well at this landmark point in his career. I say "landmark
point" because I do not see him retiring. Keith leaves the Senate as one of
its youngest members - if not chronologically, then in all other respects.
I was recently in the Netherlands with another person who served as President
of the Liberal Party, as have three of my colleagues here, and discovered that
the Liberal Party of Canada is one of the most successful political movements of
its kind in the world. If that is so, it is because of people like Keith Davey
who, at an early stage - and I can hardly believe Senator Fairbairn's suggestion
that Keith might have belonged to the CCF - in their career formed an opinion as
to what is the best way to make a contribution to their country and work within
that discipline effectively. Keith Davey has done that in so many ways. His
study of the mass media, his contribution to public life in this chamber, and
his fierce partisanship are things that have served him, his country, and his
beloved Toronto well.
I would close on one note. One of the proudest possessions that I have came
to me from Keith Davey during the GST debate when Senator MacEachen, whom we
honoured yesterday, asked Keith to organize something to bolster our spirits. It
was a dinner, and one of the things that was given out at that dinner was a
large badge which had written on it: "Liberal Senator and Proud of
It." Every time I am down, Keith, I pull it out and take a look at it.
Thanks for your style and spirit. I wish you well in your continued work.
Hon. J. Michael Forrestall: Honourable senators, some may wonder what
I am doing standing here honouring Keith Davey, because I am no friend of his. I
cursed him for 25 or 30 years as I apprenticed in the political back rooms of
I only want to say to Keith Davey, as he leaves here, that his presence will
be felt for at least another year and a half to two years, inasmuch as the
Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, of which he was a
long and distinguished member, has now approved the long-awaited and, I believe,
as does he, much-needed study on highway safety in Canada. It is a tribute to
his concern for a wide variety of matters that affect Canadians that makes him
the deserving recipient of the praise and honour that we shower upon him today.
I am pleased in a small way to join in those tributes and to let him know that
he will have to bear the brunt of irate truckers, and not I.
Hon. Peter Bosa: Honourable senators, I wish to associate myself with
the remarks that have been made by other senators in paying tribute to Senator
Davey. I became associated with Senator Davey in 1957 when I joined the
Davenport Liberal Association. Paul Hellyer was the member for that
constituency. That was my debut in federal politics in Canada. I must admit that
my beginning was a disastrous one because Paul Hellyer, notwithstanding the fact
that he was appointed Associate Minister of Defence in 1957, was defeated. He
was defeated again in 1958.
Our working relationship developed a little better when Walter Gordon ran in
Davenport. Both he and I have been worshipping the gentleman ever since.
Although Walter Gordon was elected in 1962, he did not make it into cabinet. He
was re-elected in 1963 and became a minister. I attribute to him the fact that I
was appointed special assistant to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
in 1963. In those years, there were not as many special assistants and executive
assistants on the Hill as there are now. It was much easier to rub shoulders
with important people like Keith Davey and Jack Austin and some of the others
who were here at that time.
Keith has been a moving force in the Liberal Party of Canada. He has always
been optimistic and enthusiastic. He has been an inspiration to me and to many
others, although we differ on certain things. Senator Lucier mentioned sports,
and I have some differences of opinion with him in that area myself. For
instance, I tried to explain to him that soccer, in comparison to football, is a
much more open game. The ball is always in view, whereas in football they try to
hide it and they push each other around. I could never convince him to come to
see a soccer game.
I believe, as Senator Hays said a moment ago, that this is not the end of
Senator Keith Davey's career. I think that he will go on to something else. Just
in case I am wrong in my prediction, I would like to wish him and Dorothy a
happy and enjoyable retirement.
Hon. Leonard J. Gustafson: Honourable senators, I rise to pay tribute
to Senator Davey. Because I am such a new member of the Senate, I hesitate to do
so, but there is one particular experience which I should like to relate.
I came to Ottawa in 1979 as a member of Parliament. I heard about this
Rainmaker, and thought that he would be a good fellow to get to know. On the way
to a hockey game of the NHL Old-timers, I thought I would pick his brain a
In those years, I was working to make Brian Mulroney the leader of the
Conservative Party. While we were on the bus, Senator Davey said to me,
"Brian Mulroney will win the next leadership convention, and he will win
the country." That was pretty prophetic.
Political perception is an integral part of being a Canadian, whether you are
a Conservative, a Liberal or of whatever other party affiliation. In the
Canadian scheme of things, Senator Davey has been a tremendous example. I have
found that he is not terribly biased. Although he would not leave the Liberal
Party for anything, he realizes that there are people on the other side of the
I congratulate him today, and wish him the best.
Hon. Herbert O. Sparrow: Honourable senators, I am sorry that Keith
Davey will not be with us for the next five years. I asked him to reconsider his
decision to leave this chamber because of the great contribution he could make
to it in an additional five years. Our loss is tempered somewhat by the
knowledge that someone else will gain from it. I must, of course, accept that.
In my time as a parliamentarian, I have known of no Liberal in this country
who did not know Keith Davey. I suppose the only ones in whose shadows he would
stand would be the Prime Ministers of the day. Cabinet ministers came and
cabinet ministers went; senators came and senators went, but Keith Davey was
always there, and always well known within political circles.
Sometimes political parties are condemned for being partisan. However, this
country would be nowhere if it were not for strong political parties. Every
party has its strengths, but the Liberal Party's strength was to bind Liberals
together throughout the entire country. Everywhere I travel, with the party or
otherwise, the name "Keith Davey" is well known and well respected.
All parliamentarians, particularly, of course, those in the Liberal Party,
knew Keith Davey. He was someone with whom we could all identify throughout the
years as we were coming and going.
Senator Petten and Senator Hays made mention of the special committee on mass
media. I, too, was on that committee very early in my career here as a
parliamentarian. I never will forget the manner in which the committee chairman
handled that process. I have chaired committees doing special studies, but the
study which Keith undertook of the mass media was the toughest subject-matter
one could take on in this country. When you are critical of the media, or it is
feared that you will be, they can come down very hard on you.
Keith managed that committee extremely well. His work and that of the
committee changed the actions of the media in this country. It was not a fast
process, and we can still see the changes happening which Keith foresaw at that
time. It is remarkable that that legacy should last so long. Keith set the
standard for Senate study. He raised the standard, and made it possible for all
Canadians to have input into a study. That is a legacy which bears recognition.
Another study which was of great consequence was Senator Croll's study on
poverty, which was done at about the same time. Those were very strong
committees which made great reports.
I extend my thanks and appreciation to Senator Davey for having given
Canadians that standard. He set the standard in this country of a stalwart
parliamentarian, a stalwart Liberal and a stalwart Canadian, for which I thank
Hon. Stanley Haidasz: Honourable senators, it is a great pleasure for
me to join you in this tribute to our colleague Keith Davey, who is leaving this
chamber prematurely. I want to pay tribute to him because no one in the Liberal
Party during our lifetime has been as passionate and as dedicated to the
policies of the Liberal Party, or as helpful to all our party leaders throughout
I first met Keith Davey in 1958 in his office at a radio station in Toronto
when I told him I would be supporting Paul Hellyer in the by-election of 1958. I
nominated Paul Hellyer, and it was my great privilege to work with Keith Davey
in helping Paul Hellyer get elected to the House of Commons.
I want to thank Keith Davey for his good example as a dedicated Liberal who
served his country well because of his passionate belief that the Liberal Party
can bring a better life to everyone in this country. Thank you, Keith Davey, for
your good example, your inspiration and your support. May you enjoy good health
and happiness in your retirement. May Dorothy remain with you to give you
encouragement, and to show you the warmth and love that you have shown to us in
this chamber, and to the Liberal Party in general.
Hon. Marcel Prud'homme: Honourable senators, I was unable to pay
homage to the Honourable Senator MacEachen yesterday as I was unable to be here
at the appropriate time. Therefore, I should like to pay tribute to both of our
departing colleagues today.
I had the honour of meeting Senator MacEachen when I visited, as president of
the student association, the Right Honourable Louis St. Laurent when he was
elected in 1953. I was very active with the young Liberals, and also in student
politics. On the occasion of the annual meeting of all national presidents of
student associations, we conveyed to the government of the day the views of
In 1958, I had considered quitting university. The Liberals were kind, and
suggested that I go see someone in charge of research. I must admit that I did
not speak English. I met Senator MacEachen's people and they decided to give me
a little assignment. My first assignment was to read a room full of clippings,
which dated back to the early 1920s, on a distinctive Canadian flag, and to
write a report. You can imagine my panic.
After three days of reading, I saw fit to go back to university. My two and
one-half page report concluded that the time had come for us to have a
distinctive Canadian flag. I then met Senator Davey during Mr. Pearson's
leadership of the Liberal Party. With no undue respect intended to anyone, I
always considered myself a Pearson boy. I am extremely glad to say that in front
of Madam Pearson here today. In 1958, as a young Liberal, I was part of those
who nominated Mr. Pearson at the Château.
Keith Davey discovered me. Eventually, I became a member of Parliament. Keith
saw something in me that many people did not see then and, I suppose, have never
seen since. He encouraged me to travel across Canada and speak publicly here and
there, and the reports of my efforts could not have been too bad, because he
asked me to do it again. For example, he asked me to speak in Foam Lake,
Saskatchewan, as well as in Alberta and Manitoba. That was the work of Keith
This is a page in the history of the Senate. I would even say, in the
presence of my good friend Senator Bacon, that a page in the annals of English
Canada is being turned today.
It is very important that this be emphasized. It is a great page in the
history of English Canada and of the Senate which we are turning today in this
new Canada which brings us more and more new citizens.
I think that Canada is certainly losing a valuable contribution.
Keith Davey may not be interested in running in the next election, but now
that we have a new redistribution bill - which I supported - particularly as it
relates to Nova Scotia, I look forward to Allan MacEachen running in the next
election because there is no mandatory date for retirement.
Honourable senators, I had the great privilege of knowing both Senator
MacEachen, as we worked under the leadership of Louis St. Laurent, and of
knowing Senator Davey, as we worked under the leadership of Prime Minister
Pearson, and those who followed. Their lives are great examples for us to
I read the reports of Senator Davey; and I had great admiration for Allan
MacEachen as Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Remember, honourable senators, that in the 1970 it was Allan MacEachen - and
I am sure he was unpopular for having said it - who, as Minister of Foreign
Affairs, said about the Middle East that war is impossible in the Middle East
without the participation of Egypt. I cannot be convinced that peace is possible
without the participation of Syria. In 1996, I think we are back to square one.
I learned a lot about the wisdom of Keith Davey.
I also learned a lot about his intelligence - especially in foreign affairs,
which is my domain, my life, my blood, my passion; some of you know about that
but those who do not should ask those who do. I travelled with him and I saw a
lot, for example, how he handled difficult world situations. I am not talking
here about difficult situations in the Liberal Party of Canada, because we all
know the history of Trudeau's comeback in 1979. I was there. We saw it, behind
the curtain, in caucus. Trudeau returned and was elected.
Having said that, I salute you, senator, and your family. I am honoured to
have been known by you and for having known both you and Senator MacEachen.
Hon. John G. Bryden: Honourable senators, I want to speak briefly on
behalf of some people who I do not believe have been recognized as having
benefited from the efforts of Senator Davey - that is, the dozens, probably
hundreds, of young people who have been able to be associated with him and have
been able to learn about politics and their party politics from him by working
with him. It is very appropriate that a lecture in practical politics is named
for him and will be given at his alma mater.
In 1974, as chair of the federal election campaign in New Brunswick, I was an
apprentice. I remember attending the first meeting that Senator Keith chaired.
At that time he was given much to plaid jackets and mismatched pants, or vice
versa. I remember a very highly respected marketing group coming in and giving
us an analysis. I can remember our policy people coming in and telling us what
issues we must address.
If you remember, honourable senators, there was galloping inflation in the
country at that time and very high unemployment. There was almost a consensus in
the room that the campaign must address those issues. However, Keith Davey said
that "If we run on those issues, we lose. Whether it is our fault or not,
the government is always blamed for a bad situation like this. There is only one
issue, and the issue is leadership. That is the issue that we run on, and that
is the issue that we will win on."
It was from him that I learned that an election campaign is not a democratic
process, it is a war. It may be a civil war and the cannon fodder may be the
candidates and the bullets may be ballots, but once the plan is determined and
the battle is joined there is only one general. At the time that I was involved
with Senator Keith Davey, everyone knew who the general was.
Best wishes, Senator Davey.
Hon. Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: Honourable senators, this has been a
rather long week for Liberals - first, Allan Joseph MacEachen and now Douglas
Keith Davey, Keith Davey. Those two wonderful, almost musical,
interchangeable names, spoken together or sung apart, have been a magical
rallying cry for Liberal activists in every corner of Canada, while they have
served as a dire warning to Liberal opponents for four decades.
A dashing presence, an ebullient voice, dazzling speeches, wonderful wit,
sagacious strategist, practical joker, perceptive reader of public opinion, a
passion for people and party, a reverence for Toronto, and a love of country -
these are just a few of the delectable, unmatchable trademarks of the Davey
charisma that I have been privileged to witness at close hand.
Keith believes - and, he has practised and preached it - that any person, any
Canadian, regardless of gender, age, religion or race, can make a difference.
All he asked for was energy, skill, dedication, loyalty, small "l"
liberalism. These would be the criteria that would allow them to enter into his
Keith radically reformed party politics in Canada. He created and adopted
modern election techniques and tactics which are now part of our accepted
practice. He injected "grassroots" and "bottom up" as the
organizing principle of the Liberal Party, as my friend Senator Stanbury said so
eloquently just a few moments ago.
Door-knocking, riding associations, riding elections, canvassing, riding
policy meetings, polling, campaign colleges, advertising, magnificent rallies
and campaign slogans were just a few of the rudimentary elements that he
perfected and were copied by others. Politics in the master hands of Keith Davey
became and were transformed into the politics of joy. There was never a moment
in politics with Keith that was not a joyous moment. He inspired, enlisted and
led three generations of party activists, as Senator Bryden said, and persuaded
numerous political leaders to take the political plunge. He was, at various
times, a confidante and a powerful advisor of Mike Pearson, Pierre Trudeau, John
Turner, Jean Chrétien, and a host of other political leaders across the
country, municipal and provincial. The Liberal Party, since his arrival in the
late 1950s, has never been the same.
If he had one small failing, it was that he offered so much to so many, but
that was part of his charm, for Keith believed every promise that he made would
be kept. He never held a grudge. He was almost too modest about his own
abilities. He does not have a mean bone in his body. He remains sensitive and
sympathetic to the feelings of others, even in the bruising, political battles
that he led. He always promoted others ahead of himself. He was, and is, the
consummate loyalist, always there when trouble struck. He is, in his own words,
a pro - perhaps the ultimate pro.
On a personal note, I will miss Keith dearly. Since 1961, when I first joined
the Liberal Party in Toronto, barely a week has passed when I have not called or
been called by Keith. He has become an extended member of my family, present at
each event in our family life from the birth of my sons to the arrival of my
grandsons. We must ask ourselves what we will do without the irrepressible,
irresistible, irreverent, irreplaceable Keith Davey, for we are all on this side
Keith Davey Liberals.
The greatest compliment we can bestow now is only a small attempt, and, in
small measure, to follow in his giant footsteps and be true to the high personal
and political standards that he has set for friends and foes alike. Honourable
senators, I have a confession to make: For better or worse, Keith Davey invented
To Dorothy, his children, his grandchildren, Keith has left a remarkable
legacy which will earn him more than an honourable footnote, more likely, as
others have said, a chapter when the political history of Canada in this century
To Keith, good health and God speed to you and yours.
Hon. Peter A. Stollery: Honourable senators, I should like to add my
voice to those who have spoken about Keith Davey. I regret that he is leaving
the Senate. I think it is a sad day. I have known him for many years. I have
great regard for him. I join with all the other compliments that have been paid
to him here today.
Hon. Anne C. Cools: Honourable senators, I too rise to pay tribute to
Senator Keith Davey and to say goodbye to him.
Senator Davey, a great Liberal strategist, in private life had been a
businessman. When he entered politics, he brought with him those assets which
made his business career a success, those assets being perseverance,
organization, a keen sense of timing, loads of charm and wit, and an enormous
sense of humour.
Senator Davey is a long-standing and dedicated Liberal. He was appointed
national campaign director of the Liberal Party of Canada in 1961, 1962, 1963,
and 1965. He was the national organizer of the party and the executive director
until he was summoned to the Senate by former prime minister Lester B. Pearson
on February 24, 1966.
I have known Keith Davey for a long time. I first met him around the same
time that I met Senator Royce Frith. That was approximately 1976-77, when I
decided that I wished to enter politics as a Liberal candidate.
Keith Davey has served well and hard. He was a member of the famous Cell 13
which, as he tells us in his book The Rainmaker, was not called Cell 13
until many years later. Other members of that group include former Liberal
minister Judy LaMarsh, former senators Royce Frith and Dan Lang, and our own
member of this chamber, Senator Stanbury. Together, they worked to make the
Liberal Party in the Toronto area effective and successful.
I thank Keith Davey for 50 years of service to the Liberal Party. I wish him
a healthy and happy retirement. I also extend my best wishes to his dear wife
Dorothy, without whom the sun would not rise nor set for Keith Davey. I wish
them both great happiness.
I am pleased, Senator Davey, that your wife, Dorothy, has taught you to hear
the music and to smell the flowers.
Hon. Maurice Riel: Honourable senators, Senator Keith Davey has
already been showered with praise, but I want to take this opportunity to
express the great esteem I have for him, which can be summarized in one word:
Keith Davey is a gentleman par excellence. The word gentleman implies the
notions of generosity and class.
Keith Davey always displayed these two qualities, which he shared with Prime
Minister Trudeau. We all felt a special devotion and admiration for him.
I believe the Senate is losing one of the greatest players of the Trudeau
era, to which history will undoubtedly do justice when it is written.
I wish Keith Davey a prolific retirement. He is leaving a little before the
mandatory retirement age, and I am sure his colleagues and fellow citizens, and
the younger generation, will benefit from his vast experience.
Hon. M. Lorne Bonnell: Honourable senators, I could go on for an hour
or two, but I think all I need say is that I wish to associate myself with all
the good things that have been said about Keith Davey today. I could tell you
some things that were not said and with which I would not associate myself.
Keith Davey and I met for the first time in 1968 during the Pierre Elliott
Trudeau campaign. We were there for that great convention and on the campaign
trail afterwards. I was trying to raise a few pennies in Prince Edward Island,
and Keith Davey was telling me what to do with them. He has been telling me ever
since how to spend my money.
Thank you very much, Keith. I am glad I met you, glad to have had you here
with us, and hate to see you go. Have a good holiday, and come to Prince Edward
Island, the best place in the world.
Hon. Keith Davey: Honourable senators, I have 10 full days left in the
Senate of Canada. I will miss each one of you. I am frequently asked why I am
leaving the Senate. It is as simple as this: It is time for a change, and it is
time to slow down.
Honourable senators, I spent five wonderful years with Mr. Pearson, of whom I
spoke just the other evening. Many of you were at that event, but let me quote
that particular reference.
The Prime Minister was getting ready to retire. You will know that the Prime
Minister sent Coutts to Harvard, O'Hagan to Washington and me to the CBC. It
took some doing to persuade Mr. Pearson to move me into the Senate rather than
into the CBC. He thought the CBC would be more important, more significant and
more challenging. He never did understand why I wanted to be a senator.
I am, in fact, extremely proud of all my years as a senator. At times I have
not been a first-class senator - certainly not of the standard set by so very
many of you. Still, I did have my moments in the Senate; exciting, challenging
moments which I would like to think were worthwhile.
No doubt I was the first ever senator to become the commissioner of the
Canadian Football League. Okay, so it was only for 54 days!
One final moment. I was returning back to the East Block, having just been
turfed out of my CFL post at a meeting in Montreal, when, lo and behold, Mr.
Diefenbaker walked over about 15 feet and came and spoke to me most generously,
agreeing totally with my position on the CFL. What a gentleman! I have always
Honourable senators, the Canadian Football League is coming back, and it is
coming back totally Canadian - and in Montreal! Three cheers for Montreal!
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
Senator Davey: Then there was the Senate committee on mass media - 30
years older, mentioned here so often and, incredibly, standing up in many ways
today. My favourite media quotation from the report is on page 152 of The
Rainmaker, that remarkable book you all know about. Here is the quotation,
Geography, language, and perhaps a failure of confidence and imagination have
made us into a cultural as well as economic satellite of the United States. And
nowhere is this trend more pronounced than in the media.
We are not suggesting that these influences are undesirable, nor that they
can or should be restricted. The United States happens to be the most important,
most interesting country on earth. The vigour and diversity of its popular
culture...which is close to becoming a world culture...obsesses, alarms and
amuses not just Canadians but half the people of the world.
What we are suggesting is that the Canadian media... especially
broadcasting...have an interest in and an obligation to promote our apartness
from the American reality. For all our similarities, for all our sharing, for
all our friendships, we are somebody else. Our national purpose, as enunciated
in the BNA Act, is "peace, order and good government," a becomingly
modest ideal that is beginning to look more and more attractive. Their purpose
is "the pursuit of happiness," a psychic steeplechase which has been
known to lead to insanity.
Honourable senators, I had intended to speak about the current concentration
in the mass media involving Conrad Black. I think this is a matter that we
should all be concerned about. I hope you will have a continuing concern about
that particular problem.
Through all the years, I have been and remain a media junky. I clip
newspapers, all kinds of them, on a regular basis.
I had lunch with Doug Fisher yesterday. We have been sparring partners
through all the years. If I may, I will quote again from that remarkable book The
Rainmaker at page 254:
When it came to politics, Fisher often wrote that, at any given point in
time, I needed heroes to survive. That probably was true, but as I have grown
older I have learned to view even my heroes in perspective. Fisher was never one
of them, but I view him in perspective, too. He remains a better journalist than
politician, and an insightful political analyst, albeit a charter member of the
"Anybody but the Liberals" club.
I expect that some of those people are right here in this chamber.
If I may say so, I think it would be in the best interests of Canada to get
the Tory Party back into the game.
Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
Senator Davey: As far as Liberals are concerned, I would like to see
more and more liberal Liberals.
Next only to baseball - and, yes, the Blue Jays, not the Yankees - I am
blessed with a wonderful wife and family, including seven grandchildren.
In closing, honourable senators, I would be remiss if I did not say how very
much I will miss Doralen Joy Amesbury, who has seen me through all of the ups
and all of the downs. She remains a certain treasure in the Senate.
Finally, Joyce, forgive me for not speaking to each and every one of you. I
will never forget you.
Hon. Richard J. Doyle: Honourable senators, one more note on the mass
media while the Rainmaker is still with us.
It is fashionable, as this century winds down, to lay the blame for much of
our parliamentary discontent on a crop of news reporters whose scandalous
pursuits of scandal give muckraking a bad name.
Those of us who say - or perhaps "confess" is a better word -
"I used to be a newspaperman once myself," include the Leader of the
Government in the Senate and her colleague Senator Gigantès, and on our side,
Senator Simard and Senator Doyle. All of us know when to cringe and when to
search for the spoonful of sugar that makes the medicine go down.
Occasionally - only occasionally, mind you, lest, like senators, they
overdose on praise - young journalists remind us that traditions of a careful,
concerned and determined Fourth Estate are being upheld in a manner that gives
pride enough to be shared by all of us who "used-to-be." I want to
mention a couple of them today.
Honourable senators will have received this week the Annual Report of John
Grace, Canada's Information Commissioner. On pages 67 through 70, he deals with
the Somalia case, File 3100-7480-01. The man he is talking about is unnamed,
honourable senators. Let me introduce him. His name is Michael McAuliffe, and
this spring, at Rideau Hall, he received from the hands of the Governor General
the Michener Award for Public Service, which McAuliffe's efforts had won for the
Clark Davey, speaking for the Mitchener Foundation, described Michael's
"dogged pursuit, often in spite of deliberate military efforts to block
access." At the time of the presentation, McAuliffe said that the attention
to his file had been a special pleasure for his father, Gerry McAuliffe, who had
won, for TheGlobe and Mail, its first Michener Award for Public
While you are making note of the CBC's efforts in the Somalia affair, you
might want to give generous credit to the work of Paul Koring from The Globe
and Mail's Parliamentary Bureau. For weeks now, Koring has been inviting us
across the barricades and into the encampment of those responsible for the
terrible business in which the military of this country has become entangled.
The monitoring will continue until those responsible for atrocities or cover-up
have been separated from the vast numbers of those who serve their country with
integrity and courage.
In last Saturday's Globe, Koring undertook to compare the Canadian Armed
Forces with the U.S. military. It was a fine piece of work and I have mined a
few lines to enter into the record:
But it is well nigh impossible to find a senior officer who will admit, even
privately, that the fault lies with the very ethos of the Canadian military -
that the high command must, at all costs, never admit responsibility.
The Somalia saga may eventually spark a long-ranging renewal of the Canadian
military, as the Vietnam War did for the U.S. forces. Unless and until that
happens, Canada's most senior officers, unlike their American counterparts, will
not be held fully and quickly accountable for the transgressions of the people
Honourable senators, the next time I am out of patience with a newsman's
quibble, I will try to refocus on Messrs McAuliffe and Koring at work.
Hon. Finlay MacDonald: Honourable senators, I shall be brief. It seems
like an appropriate day to read from The Globe and Mail of Friday, July
11, 1993. That was almost exactly three years ago:
A group of rebel Conservative senators yesterday defeated a bill that would
force the merger of the Canada Council and the Social Sciences and Humanities
Research Council and send a stinging rebuke to the Mulroney government for the
way it has been taking the Senate for granted.
The group of five Tory senators, led by Finlay MacDonald, sided with Liberal
and independent senators to defeat Bill C-93. He was backed by Norman Atkins, a
former national campaign chairman for the Tories as well as Solange
Chaput-Rolland, Janis Johnson and Jack Marshall...
MacDonald said, "there is no reason for the merger, no one in the arts
or academic communities wants it. It is an insensitive, bureaucratic,
thoughtless and incredibly puzzling piece of legislation. As well, the entire
Cultural Relations Division of External Affairs is about to be transferred to
the Canada Council, a domestic agency, who don't want it and don't know what to
do with it.
The Globe continues:
It was the only time since Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and the
Conservatives took office almost nine years ago that the government has been
defeated in the Senate.
Those so-called rebels, honourable senators, took no joy that day in their
actions; only relief from what might have been. Yesterday in this chamber,
Senator Allan J. MacEachen said, as recorded on page 747 of the Debates of
I believed when I came into the Senate, as I do now, that the Senate has a
legislative role and the authority to amend and to defeat; but, in doing so, it
must make all those careful calculations that will ensure that it is not
bringing opprobrium upon itself in so doing.
I merely wish to remind this chamber that, sometimes, some senators are
prepared to make those careful calculations.
The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that a message had been received
from the House of Commons to return Bill C-8, respecting the control of certain
drugs, their precursors and other substances and to amend certain other acts and
to repeal the Narcotic Control Act in consequence thereof, to acquaint the
Senate that the Commons have agreed to the amendments made by the Senate to this
bill without amendment.
Civil Air Navigation Services
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, a message has been received
from the House of Commons returning Bill C-20, respecting the commercialization
of civil air navigation services, and acquainting the Senate that they have
passed the bill without amendment.
Hon. Paul Lucier: Honourable senators, I have the honour to present the
sixth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce,
which report deals with the examination of Bill C-36, to amend the Income Tax
Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial
Institutions Act, the Old Age Security Act and the Canada Shipping Act.
Thursday, June 20, 1996
The Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce has the honour
to present its
Your Committee, to which was referred the Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Income
Tax Act, the Excise Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Office of the Superintendent of
Financial Institutions Act, the Old Age Security Act and the Canada Shipping
Act, has examined the said Bill in obedience to its Order of Reference dated
Wednesday, June 19, 1996, and now reports the same without amendment, but with
the following observation:
The Committee wishes to note that it will call relevant Departments to appear
before the Committee to hear how those Departments are dealing with issues
raised concerning the administration of scientific research and experimental
development tax credits.
MICHAEL KIRBY Chairman
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read
the third time?
On motion of Senator Lucier, and notwithstanding rule 58(1)(b), bill
placed on the Orders of the Day for third reading later this day.
Study of European Union-Committee
Authorized to Extend Date of Final Report
Hon. John B. Stewart: Honourable senators, with the leave of the Senate
and notwithstanding rule 59(1), I move:
That notwithstanding the Order of Reference of the Senate adopted on February
28, 1996, the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, which was authorized
to examine and report, no later than June 30, on the consequences of the
economic integration of the European Union for the national governance of the
member states, and on the consequences of the emergence of the European Union
for economic, political and defence relations made between Canada and Europe, be
empowered to present its final report no later than July 18, 1996;
That, notwithstanding usual practices, if the Senate is not sitting when the
final report of the Committee is completed, the Committee shall deposit its
report with the Clerk of the Senate, and said report shall thereupon be deemed
to have been tabled in this Chamber.
Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement
-Lack of Notification to Parliament-Government Position
Hon. Marcel Prud'homme: Honourable senators, in view of the fact that we
are almost at the end of this session, and since I have learned from experience
that many things take place as soon as we go away, can the Leader of the
Government in the Senate tell us if the information is correct that cabinet is
about to sign, or has already signed, a free trade agreement with Israel?
Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators,
I am sorry, I cannot answer that question.
Senator Prud'homme: Honourable senators, that, of course, is the
preliminary. I had expected that answer.
Would it not be advisable to delay this signing, in view of the fact that the
situation has changed considerably since the Right Honourable Prime Minister
Jean Chrétien made overtures to Prime Minister Rabin, a man much respected for
his commitment to the peace process?
There is now a new government in Israel, whose true intention has not been
made clear - far from it. The first statements are extremely worrisome on
policies touching on Canada. Canada's policy has been yes to Resolution 425,
withdrawal from South Lebanon; yes to peace; yes to withdrawal from the Golan
The declaration of the new Israeli Prime Minister's cabinet is such that I
must ask the leader to transmit to the Prime Minister and his cabinet my concern
that it would be highly advisable that the signing of such an agreement not take
place. I do not say it should be cancelled, but it should at least be suspended
- that is the least we could ask - until we know the true intentions of this new
Senator Fairbairn: I will be pleased to convey the comments of my
honourable friend to the ministers involved, as well as to the Prime Minister.
Senator Prud'homme: Honourable senators, free trade is of immense
importance, and I know that senators are extremely concerned about agriculture.
This sort of agreement should not be considered without knowing what we are
getting into. Would it not be advisable for the Standing Senate Committee on
Foreign Affairs to examine exactly what we are getting into? Canada has such a
good reputation. This sort of agreement should not be signed, since we do not
know enough about it. There have been no public studies, just a few statements
made. I am of the strong view that cabinet has taken the decision to sign, and
that it is only a question of days before it will be announced.
Would you consider asking the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs to
look into this matter immediately, because will it change considerably - and I
repeat "considerably" - our trade pattern with the United States,
Mexico and, eventually, with Chile? Parliament should be fully informed prior to
the final signing of this deal.
Senator Fairbairn: Honourable senators, as I said initially, I cannot
answer or comment upon the honourable senator's question, as far as the cabinet
process is concerned on this issue.
On the question of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs looking
into this matter, I will be pleased to speak to Senator Stewart about that
Hon. Peter Bosa moved the second reading of Bill C-4, to amend the
Standards Council of Canada Act.
He said: Honourable senators, I have the privilege of rising in my place
today to address Bill C-4, to amend the Standards Council of Canada Act.
These amendments, the first substantive ones since the Standards Council of
Canada was established a quarter of a century ago, will revitalize the
organization and help it to meet new and evolving challenges.
The amendments will equip the council with the modern tools it needs to
effectively fulfil its responsibilities as the coordinator of Canada's national
standards system and the focal point for voluntary standardization.
The evolution of the global marketplace has underscored the pivotal role that
standards play. As international barriers to trade are being reduced, standards
are taking on increasing importance as a determining factor in market access.
Our ability to develop a standards system to meet the needs of domestic markets
and the demands of international trading partners is crucial to our ability to
compete in the global economy.
In this new competitive context, where both corporations and technological
know-how are increasingly footloose, what we produce and how we produce,
relative to our competitors, will play an increasingly important role in
determining our prosperity. These same trends are shaping our standards needs
and, by the same token, our standards system.
Standards help to establish the ground rules for commerce and to protect
consumers, labour and environmental interests. They also level trade barriers
and provide benchmarks against which to evaluate an organization's management
system. In short, standards have played a critical role in shaping the quality
of life Canadians have come to enjoy.
There is a reason that software developed by a Canadian high-tech company can
be purchased in Africa, loaded into a computer assembled in Taiwan from
components imported from the U.S. and Japan, and then have that computer plugged
into an electrical outlet in a Mexican hotel. The reason is standardization.
Honourable senators, the changes we are proposing today were designed with
the needs of tomorrow in mind.
Government can and must work with industry to create a balanced regulatory
framework which protects public and private interests. It is important that we
remain vigilant to developments elsewhere and to ensure that we have in place
the structure and mechanism to influence those developments. National and
international coordination in setting standards for products and services can do
more than just eliminate artificial barriers to trade which penalize both
producers and consumers.
Participating in the development of international standards can serve as an
important vehicle for technology development and diffusion and for best-practice
processes. Indeed, our ability to trade globally will depend in part on whether
the national standards we set meet the standards of our buyers.
The existing council includes six federal and ten provincial government
representatives. The 41 other members represent a variety of individual
companies as well as consumer, business and professional organizations. In its
present form, the council is too large to serve as a catalyst for effective
partnership between shareholders.
Accordingly, the government is proposing a significant streamlining of the
council. Under these proposals, the size of the council will be reduced from 57
members to 15. The majority of the membership, 11 members out of 15, will be
drawn from the private sector. The bill specifies that appointed members must be
representative of a broad spectrum of interests in the private sector and have
the knowledge and experience necessary to assist the council in fulfilling its
Under these proposals, there would be one federal representative on the
council rather than six. The federal representative will be mandated to speak on
behalf of the Government of Canada. Rather than 10 provincial members on the
council, Bill C-4 proposes that the number be reduced to two. However, the bill
establishes a mechanism that will allow provincial input to the Standards
Council of Canada. A provincial-territorial advisory committee on standards will
be established, the chair and vice-chair of which will represent the provincial
and territorial interests at the council.
The bill also modernizes the mandate of the council itself. It will have a
more explicit responsibility for promoting the broad strategic policy thrusts
identified as priorities by participants in the consultation process. It will
also reflect the priorities outlined in the federal plan "Building a More
Innovative Economy." These priorities include technology diffusion,
international trade, internal trade and regulatory reform.
In order to increase technology diffusion, we want the Standards Council of
Canada to improve its capacity to disseminate important standards-related
information and we want it to explore ways to enhance the participation of
Canadian business in the development of standards for their products, both at
home and abroad.
With respect to international trade, we want the Standards Council of Canada
to promote more aggressively the adoption of Canadian practices in international
standards and of international standards in Canada.
For internal trade, we want the Standards Council of Canada to serve as the
focal point for the development of common nationwide standards which encourage
the free flow of goods and services across jurisdictions.
Finally, in the area of regulatory reform, we want the SCC to promote the
greater use of the national standards system services by federal departments as
an alternative to costly regulations.
In addition, we are proposing that the scope of the council's activities be
extended to include such fields as services where voluntary standards have
become more relevant since the act was first proclaimed in 1970. These changes
to the council's mandate are long overdue.
To be successful, a revitalized SCC will have to be more strategic in its
outlook, more focused in its activities, better able to anticipate trends and
more open and responsive to the needs of its stakeholders.
It will have to facilitate the formation of new partnerships between
regulators and standards developers and among governments, industry, labour and
environmental and consumer groups.
I emphasize the fact that the federal government is committed to enhancing
Canada's competitiveness in rapidly changing world markets and has identified
standards policy at both the national and international level as critical to
The changes we are proposing are long overdue. I ask honourable senators to
support this legislation.
Hon. Jean-Maurice Simard: Honourable senators, I support the
government's initiative to amend the Standards Council of Canada Act. This bill
has been in need of review for some time. I liked Senator Bosa's suggestions. He
explained the nature of the bill. He mentioned that in future -
This deals with more than just government regulation or standardization. This
bill, if passed, will place the focus on voluntary standardization, which is
For the government to introduce this piece of legislation after three years
in government is not too soon. As Senator Bosa has said, I do not agree that it
is a startling bill. He said that this bill does not contain the first
substantive changes since the Standards Council Act of Canada was proclaimed in
1970. However, they are good changes.
We agree that this council must be streamlined, downsized and modernized.
With this bill, the government is going in the right direction. I am known as a
partisan senator, but when the government acts in the interests of the nation
and forgets its own partisanship, I applaud. This is a good piece of
legislation. I invite some Liberal senators to be less partisan at times -
perhaps in a few minutes.
In the process of reducing the size of this council, I hope that the
government, while choosing representatives from the private sector, will ensure
that not all appointments are Liberals. We know that they are not being paid,
but I want the representative of the private sector and provincial governments
to be open to change, open to new standardization, and open to the world.
Speaking of the world and the new partners that this improved act will draw,
I hope that the provincial government will play a stronger role. They have done
a good job in the past. Surely, this reduced council should be a real national
council. It should not be a made-in-Ottawa council. It should not be a council
of the federal government. It should be representative of the industry,
provincial governments, the federal government and other partners.
We applaud this measure. Speaking from our side, we are prepared to send the
bill almost immediately to the committee for study, but I would not try to limit
its study. Because we on our side are with the majority in the house and the
Senate, we should consult with independent senators. If it cannot be done
immediately, perhaps it can be done in the days and weeks ahead. There are those
independent senators who are quite informed. They often participate in our
studies, and they have made a valuable contribution. I am sure they will
continue to make a contribution toward improving bills and legislation and
support the government.
Honourable senators, I invite you to do your usual good work in committee. I
am sure there will be further debate at the report or third reading stage.
Again, before we send it to committee, we should check with some independent
senators as to whether or not they wish to have some input.
Senator Bosa: Honourable senators-
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I must inform the Senate
that if the Honourable Senator Bosa speaks now, his speech will have the effect
of closing the debate on second reading of this bill.
Senator Bosa: Honourable senators, I would thank Senator Simard for
the conciliatory words that he expressed regarding this bill. I can assure him
that we will invite the independent senators to the committee so that they may
express their views on the subject matter.
The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators to
adopt the motion?
Hon. Céline Hervieux-Payette moved the third reading of Bill C-36, to
amend the Income Tax Act, the Excise Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Office of the
Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act, the Old Age Security Act and the
Canada Shipping Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read third time and passed.
Federal Court Act
Tax Court of Canada Act
Leave having been given to revert to Item No. 2 under Government Business:
On the Order:
Resuming the debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Lewis, seconded
by the Honourable Senator Rizzuto, for the second reading of Bill C-48, An Act
to amend the Federal Court Act, the Judges Act and the Tax Court of Canada Act.
Hon. Anne C. Cools: Honourable senators, I should like to say a few
words on this bill. What we have before us is a bill which essentially attempts
to correct or to alter the eligibility for appointment to the Federal Court and,
obviously, to make an amendment to the Federal Court Act.
The bill is prompted by a worthy purpose, namely, to correct some errors that
have been made. I also think that it is a worthy purpose that these facts be
recorded in debate here. In particular, the issue is the appointments of two
judges: Mr. Justice Douglas Campbell to Federal Court Trial Division in 1995 and
Mr. Justice Dean Hamlyn to the Tax Court of Canada in 1990.
Basically, honourable senators, the bill is attempting to give their
appointments full validity and full legal force. One might question why this
sort of activity is happening retroactively and why there is need for a statute
at all. I posed these questions to members on our side. I had wanted the bill
put into committee for a more intense study. I have been persuaded that most of
us are of the opinion that the bill should pass. Therefore, I am prepared to let
the bill proceed.
I am especially persuaded by Senator Andreychuk, who has had much experience
in this field as a former provincial court judge, by Senator Nolin, the deputy
chairman of the committee, and by my deputy leader, Senator Graham.
With most of us in attendance here today, I take this opportunity to urge
honourable senators to pay more attention to these sorts of matters. There seems
to be commonly a sense that these changes involve technical details,
departmental needs or simply administrative house-cleaning and that they are
simply being dealt with in the form of bills placed before us. Quite often, they
are matters of significant change and of enormous profundity. I understand that
the business of making judicial appointments is extremely difficult.
I would also add that the Senate has made no attempt to examine the new
procedure of making judicial appointments through the judicial committees of
each province, which were implemented by the then minister of justice, the
Honourable Ramon Hnatyshyn in 1990 and expanded in 1993 by the current Minister
of Justice, the Honourable Allan Rock. I believe that those particular
initiatives are in serious need of examination. It had been my intention to shed
some light on that whole sphere of activity during the committee's study on Bill
There was a time when every judicial appointment had to pass the scrutiny, so
to speak, of the political minister of the particular province or the particular
city. I am no longer certain that internally, within the party processes, these
issues get the attention they need and deserve. I simply take this opportunity
to put these remarks before honourable senators.
It is important that these two judges be validated. I do not know either of
them, but Senator Andreychuk tells me that at least one of them is a fine
gentleman. I think this is a worthy legislative action and that the fineness of
that gentleman as a judge should be validated by us in statute.
However, I urge caution as we pass some of these bills. I especially urge the
Minister of Justice to proceed in these appointments with a greater sense of
caution and care. It is a serious matter when Parliament is called upon to pass
bills basically to correct mistakes or errors that have happened within the
political process of making appointments to the bench.
Honourable senators, while I am persuaded to let the bill proceed, I do hope
that we will revisit these important issues at some point in time within a
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I regret to interrupt, but
unless I have the agreement of the house, I have no alternative but to call for
the bells for the vote. Is there agreement?
Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable
senators, I believe that Senator Cools is in the process of wrapping up her
remarks. Perhaps we could have the indulgence of the Senate with unanimous
consent. It is our intention to proceed to third reading of this bill and then
have the ringing of the bells.
The Hon. the Speaker: Then it is agreed that I not see the clock.
Hon. Finlay MacDonald: Honourable senators, I have one question for
Senator Cools: Certainly. But this is not part of my time.
Senator MacDonald: Am I to understand that the validation, as you put
it, of this other gentleman will be personally conducted by Senator Andreychuk?
Senator Cools: Honourable senators, I am being advised not to answer
that question. Nevertheless, Senator Andreychuk is qualified to make many
I suggest that the Senate undertake some serious studies in these troubling
areas. One does not have to look too far in the daily newspaper before one reads
something concerning a judge or other judicial officials.
In conclusion, honourable senators, I shall let Bill C-48 pass today.
Hon. A. Raynell Andreychuk: Honourable senators, I wish to put on the
record three points with respect to Bill C-48.
First, I believe that when a provincial court judge is appointed to serve he
or she should have a broad knowledge of the law. That experience is worthy of
being constituted as a practice of the law as it would validate and give
provincial court judges some acknowledgement of their service and their
competence. This bill addresses that point.
Second, since my name was used in connection with one of the judges, I feel I
must clarify. I was a provincial court judge for 12 years. The gentleman named
here was a provincial court judge in British Columbia. I knew him to be much
concerned about judicial education and the quality of the court. I understand
why he was appointed. Concerning the other gentleman, I am not certain of his
qualifications; I did not have the opportunity to serve with him.
Finally, I think it is a shame that their names had to be raised. Surely, the
minister or his department could have addressed the issue in such a way that
this would not have occurred, saving the judges and the provincial court the
Therefore, in the interests of justice, I believe that pushing the bill
through quickly serves to save these people from undue harm because they have
gone through a judicial process. This amendment should have been made with the
attention required. It is the responsibility of the department and the minister
to do so.
I hope that this bill will lay to rest further problems of this nature in the
The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to
adopt the motion?
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Rompkey, P.C.,
seconded by the Honourable Senator Bosa, for the third reading of Bill C-12, An
Act respecting employment insurance in Canada;
No. 1.-On the motion of the Honourable Senator Murray, P.C., seconded by the
Honourable Senator Robertson, that Bill C-12 be not now read the third time but
that it be amended in Clause 15
(a) on page 23, by deleting lines 30 to 47;
(b) on page 24, by deleting lines 1 to 3; and
(c) by renumbering clauses 16 to 41.1 as clauses 15 to 41 respectively
and by renumbering any cross-references thereto accordingly.
No. 2.-On the motion of the Honourable Senator Phillips, seconded by the
Honourable Senator Oliver, that Bill C-12 be not now read the third time but
that it be amended in clause 14, on page 22, by
(a) replacing line 1 with the following:
"(2) Subject to subsection (2.1), a claimant's weekly insurable
(b) adding, after line 29, the following:
"(2.1) In calculating a claimant's weekly insurable earnings under
subsection (2), weeks with less than 15 hours of insurable earnings and the
insurable earnings attributable to those weeks shall be excluded, but no week
shall be excluded where the exclusion would reduce the divisor determined in
accordance with paragraph (2)(a) to a number less than the divisor
determined in accordance with paragraph (2)(b).
(2.2) Weeks shall be excluded under subsection (2.1) in the order of number
of hours of insurable earnings, starting with the week with the lowest number of
No. 3.-On the motion of the Honourable Senator Cohen, seconded by the
Honourable Senator Doyle, that Bill C-12 be not now read the third time but that
it be amended in clause 5, on page 8, by adding immediately after line 22, the
"(d.1) the employment of a student who is in full-time attendance
at a high school, university, college or other educational institution providing
courses at a secondary or post-secondary school level and who has elected to
exclude the employment to which their first $5,000 of earnings in the year is
No. 4.-On the motion of the Honourable Senator Lavoie-Roux, seconded by the
Honourable Senator Oliver, that Bill C-12 be not now read the third time but
that it be amended in clause 14, on page 23, by replacing lines 1 to 29 with the
"(4) The rate calculation period is
(a) the period of 26 consecutive weeks in the claimant's qualifying
period to which can be attributed the most insurable earnings, or
(b) where the claimant's qualifying period consists of less than 26
consecutive weeks, the claimant's qualifying period,
but a prescribed week relating to employment in the labour force shall not be
taken into account when determining what weeks are within the rate calculation
No. 5.-On the motion of the Honourable Senator Simard, seconded by the
Honourable Senator Phillips, that the Bill be not now read a third time but be
read a third time this day, six months hence.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, under an order of the
Senate, with respect to this order we are to have a vote at 5:30. According to
the rules, I was to call for the ringing of the bells at 5:15. We are now five
minutes past that. Is it your wish that we have a 10-minute bell, or shall we
have a 15-minute bell, as the rules provide? Is there agreement from the Whips?
Hon. Noël A. Kinsella: The bells should ring until 5:30.
The Hon. the Speaker: Is it agreed that the bells should ring until
5:30? I must have agreement from the Whips. Unless I have an agreement, I will
declare a 15-minute bell and the vote will take place at twenty-five minutes to
Hon. Eric Arthur Berntson (Deputy Leader of the Opposition):
Honourable senators, I understand, and the order is clear, that the vote will
take place at 5:30, unless otherwise agreed to.
Hon. Marcel Prud'homme: Honourable senators, did I hear 5:30 for the
bells? It was agreed yesterday that the vote would be at 4:30. Tell us what
time. Make up your mind.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, apparently it is impossible
to reach an agreement. Therefore, the vote will take place, by order of the
Senate, at 5:30. In other words, in ten minutes time.
Call in the senators.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, are you ready for the
Senator Berntson: Honourable senators, there was an agreement to hold
the votes independently, one amendment after another, and then the final
The Hon. the Speaker: I was not here last evening, but I understand
that that is the agreement.
Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Deputy Leader of the Government): That is the
The Hon. the Speaker: We are voting on amendment no. 5.
Hon. Orville H. Phillips: My understanding from last evening,
honourable senators, was that we would vote on the amendments in the order in
which they were presented. This is important because amendment no. 5 may be
irrelevant if amendments 1, 2 or 3 are successful. I submit to you, with great
deference, that I specifically recall the Speaker pro tempore asking for
clarification last evening. The voting was to take place in the order in which
the amendments were presented. I raised a point of order and asked whether,
because there had been a ruling on an amendment, my motion would become a
sub-amendment. The explanation of the Speaker pro tempore at that time
was very explicit - no. The voting will be on the order in which the amendments
were moved. Honourable senators, I request that we proceed in that order.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I was detained on another
matter last evening. I am not familiar with the exact agreement. The normal
procedure is that the last amendment is the one voted on first. However, if
there is agreement in the Senate that we proceed with the first amendment, I can
put it that way. Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, the Honourable Speaker pro
tempore informs me that was his understanding last evening, and we will vote
on the first amendment proposed by the Honourable Senator Murray.
Senator Phillips: Honourable senators, last evening there were about
15 senators in this chamber. I am sure they have not read the debates. How can
they vote if they have not heard the amendment? I would ask that the amendment
be read in full.
The Hon. the Speaker: I understand that the wish from the Senate is
that we dispense and proceed.
An Hon. Senator: Dispense.
Motion in amendment by the Honourable Senator Murray negatived on the
Hon. Marcel Prud'homme: Honourable senators, I rise on a point of
privilege. I abstained simply because some years ago I was part of a
demonstration in Montreal of over 60,000 people against the arrival of Prime
Minister Mulroney on the same issue. I should like to show I have some
Motion agreed to and bill read third time and passed, on division.
The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that the following communication
had been received:
June 20, 1996
I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Antonio Lamer,
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor
General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 20th day of June, 1996,
at 6:45 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certains bills.
Judith A. LaRocque Secretary to the Governor General
The Speaker of the Senate
Leave having been given to revert to Government Notices of Motions:
Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable
senators, we will have Royal Assent at seven o'clock. The bells will commence
ringing at 6:45. We will carry on with the Order Paper, as long as any
honourable senator wishes to speak, until 6:45.
Accordingly, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 58(1)(h),
That when the Senate adjourns today, it do stand adjourned until Tuesday,
September 24, 1996, at 2 p.m.
The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?
Senator Graham: I should say, honourable senators, that it is
understood, of course, that the Rules of the Senate provide that we can
be recalled at any time at the request of the Speaker.
Hon. Gerald R. Ottenheimer: Honourable senators, I appreciate the
explanatory remark of the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate who said
that the Senate can be recalled at the invitation of the Chair at any time prior
to the date of September 24, presumably on the advice of the government. The way
it goes is that the government advises the Speaker, who then informs honourable
senators that the Senate will be in session on such and such a date.
Honourable senators, the point I wish to make is that, in my opinion, it is
important that shortly after the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and
Constitutional Affairs completes its work with respect to Term 17 and finalizes
its report this body deal with that report. I realize that the Senate can be
recalled to do that. I realize that this motion does not preclude that.
What I wish to know is whether it is the intention of the government to call
the Senate back shortly after - and I am not saying the day after or two days
after - that report has been completed. If the answer is "no," I
should like to be able to make a few other remarks. I can only speak once; but I
think it has been interpreted that I am asking a question and would have the
opportunity to continue briefly afterwards.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, it is now six o'clock. Is
it your wish that I not see the clock?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Hon. Jean-Maurice Simard: Honourable senators, I hate to be partisan,
again; however, this Liberal government can never do anything right. The latest
symbol of their not being able to do anything right is that the deputy leader
wants us to adjourn until Tuesday the twenty-fourth. There is no such date as
Tuesday the twenty-fourth. It is Tuesday the twenty-fifth.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I recognized Honourable
Senator Simard. However, the Honourable Senator Ottenheimer had asked a question
of the Deputy Leader of the Government.
Senator Simard: I asked a question, too.
Hon. Marcel Prud'homme: On the same question, honourable senators -
The Hon. the Speaker: Is yours a question as well, Senator Prud'homme?
Senator Prud'homme: It has to do with Senator Ottenheimer's question.
The Hon. the Speaker: Let us finish with the question that was asked
of the Deputy Leader of the Government by Senator Ottenheimer.
Senator Prud'homme: It is true that the report must be tabled by
Wednesday, July 17, whether or not the Senate is sitting. Everyone has an agenda
for the summer, one which is prepared long in advance. Could we at least have an
indication that, whatever the outcome, we will not be called before Tuesday the
twenty-fourth? I am not asking for a long time. In the summer, it is difficult
to plan for airlines. Some honourable senators are very far from this place, and
that does not mean that they are going to China.
Having said that, honourable senators, I am sure that the deputy leader can
give us at least some indication that if we are to be recalled, it will not be
before, I would suggest, Tuesday, July 22. Some of us are going away. We may
think that we may be recalled on July 18, the day after the report is tabled.
That would be quite a surprise.
Senator Graham: In response to Senator Simard, honourable senators,
perhaps the honourable senator and I have different calendars.
Senator Simard: I thought you said June; I am sorry.
Senator Graham: No, I said, Tuesday, September 24. We are now at June
When I move a motion for adjournment, I have to give a specific date. It is
customary for the Senate to return a week after the other place resumes. That is
precisely why I said September 24, which is exactly a week after the House of
Commons is due to return.
Senator Berntson: Quite properly.
Senator Graham: I have had discussions with the Deputy Leader of the
Opposition and explained that that date would be included in my motion. However,
we must understand, Senator Ottenheimer and Senator Prud'homme, that we will be
mindful of Term 17 and the committee proceedings. Indeed, I will be moving a
motion in the name of Senator Carstairs with respect to the work of that
committee later in the sitting.
It is understood, of course, that the Senate can be recalled at any time
between now and September 24. I wish I could be clearer on that. However, as
honourable senators can appreciate, it is impossible for me to be clearer at
this particular time.
Senator Ottenheimer: I thank the honourable senator for his answer. I
assure him that I am using the Gregorian calendar, not the Julian calendar, or
any previous one.
There has been some speculation, or supposition, that the determining factor
as to whether or not the Senate will deal with the matter shortly after the
report of the committee is tabled will depend on what the report of the
committee might be, or on the government's assessment of what the outcome of a
vote might be. It is that which I feel the Senate must avoid. Irrespective of
the result of the vote, whether members vote for or against the amendment to
Term 17 it should be voted on within a reasonable period of time after the
committee has made its report.
I am not asking the Deputy Leader of the Government to name a date. I am
asking him if he shares the point of view that the matter should be dealt with
within a reasonable period of time after the committee has made its report,
irrespective of one's judgment as to what the outcome of the vote might be.
Senator Graham: Honourable senators, I have not heard any of the
speculation to which Senator Ottenheimer alludes. He may be privy to more
information than I have. Perhaps he is closer to the situation, being a
distinguished senator from Newfoundland. I wish I could gaze into my crystal
ball and be more definitive. However, I suggest we let the committee, which has
already held two hearings, do its work.
As I said earlier, the Senate will be called at an appropriate time, if it is
deemed necessary, before the date which I outlined earlier.
Senator Ottenheimer: I am probably trying the patience of the Chair,
of the Honourable Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate and of other
honourable senators, but I will take that risk.
I do not know what agreements have been made between the leaders on both
sides. I am expressing my view, as a senator from Newfoundland, that it is
essential that the matter be disposed of, be it in the affirmative or in the
negative, within a short period of time after the committee reports.
The committee must report by July 17. We know that the Senate can be recalled
by the Speaker, upon the advice of the government, at any time before September
24. It may be that my understanding is faulty, but I do not think the Honourable
Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate has been as frank in his reply to
my question as he usually is.
Does he agree that, within a short period of time after the committee
reports, irrespective of its findings or recommendations, the Senate should have
an opportunity to vote on the matter?
Senator Graham: As I said earlier, I know that the committee will do
its work here and in Newfoundland and Labrador very competently. I regret very
much that I cannot be more definitive at this time.
Senator Ottenheimer: I have heard that the government is giving
consideration to a certain plan, and I hope that the Honourable Deputy Leader of
the Government in the Senate will be able to inform me that I am incorrectly
advised. Has a decision been made, or is serious consideration being given to
the following: If it appears that the recommendations of the committee would not
be in accord with the wish of the Minister of Justice, or if it appears that the
outcome of a vote in the Senate would not be in accord with the wish of the
Minister of Justice, that the Senate would not be recalled and the six-month
period which has already started running would be allowed to expire, precluding
the Senate from fulfilling its obligation of voting on the matter?
Senator Graham: Honourable senators, I regret very much that Senator
Ottenheimer has found it necessary to extend his remarks as he has. It would be
improper for me to comment on any rumours which Senator Ottenheimer may have
heard, which rumours I certainly have not heard, with respect to the
government's intention. I was as clear as I could possibly be. I said that I
regret very much that I cannot be more definitive at this time.
Senator Prud'homme: Would the deputy leader at least give us his
undertaking that the Senate will not be recalled the day after the committee
reports? This is an extremely important matter. Everyone takes it seriously, but
some are very emotional and passionate about it.
We want to have sufficient time to read all the testimony heard by the
committee. I am asking for only a few days to read and understand the testimony,
and to call more witnesses, if necessary, for more precision.
I would be willing to return on Tuesday, July 22. Give us some time to read
the evidence. We must show that the Senate is not like the House of Commons. We
must show that the Senate is more responsible than the House of Commons. As I
have said, I was in the gallery of the other place during the entire day on
which this matter was dealt with there and at no time was there a quorum. No one
called for a quorum count. There existed a happy, circus-like atmosphere.
The House of Commons now wants to attack the Senate. I am more than happy to
clash with them in public about their comportment as compared to ours. We must
show some seriousness.
I know that the Deputy Leader of the Government always favourably receives
reasonable proposals. Give us at least a few days to review the testimony that
will be given. That is not asking for the moon, and it does not force him to
Senator Graham: I thank Senator Prud'homme for his observations. I
assure all honourable senators that their concerns and views will be taken into
The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to
adopt the motion?
The Hon. the Speaker: Before we proceed to the next item of business, I
wish to make a statement with regard to our page program. The information comes
to me from the General Usher of the Black Rod who is responsible for the page
Unfortunately, two of our pages will not be with us after the summer recess.
Oneal Banerjee, who is from the province of Quebec, has been a page for two
years. He graduated this spring from the University of Ottawa with a degree in
Christine Lenouvel, who has been with us for three years, is from the
province of Ontario. She was a page for two years and the chief page for one
year. Christine is entering her fourth year of political science at the
University of Ottawa, so she will remain in the region.
The status of Kelsey MacTavish is uncertain at this time. Kelsey has been
with us for two years and is applying to be chief page. If she is chosen as
chief page, she will be back with us in the coming year. Kelsey is entering her
fourth year in political science at Carleton University.
Those pages who will remain with us are Erin Clow, from Prince Edward Island;
Gregory Doiron, Leigh Lampert and Andrew Barnsley, from New Brunswick; and
Natacha Leclerc, from the province of Quebec.
I take this occasion to thank all of them for their very good service, to
wish good luck to those who are leaving us, and to tell the others how pleased
we will be to have them back next year.
Hon. Marcel Prud'homme: Honourable senators, perhaps you would allow
me to add a word, not only to thank the pages - which His Honour has done so
elegantly - but to thank him for restoring civility in the Senate. This is very
important. The atmosphere in the Senate is changing.
Honourable senators, at the same time, I should like to thank the very
competent personnel: those who write patiently and those with whom we may
quarrel, the highly qualified staff of the Speaker's office and of all the
I am very happy to be a senator under your speakership. That does not in any
way detract from my friendship with the speakers who preceded you. I like the
atmosphere of discipline, and I know it must not be easy at times. I believe
that if we continue in this way, we may show that -
The Senate is much different from the House of Commons, and people will
eventually end up respecting us, as I believe they should.
Second Report of agriculture and
forestry Committee Adopted
The Senate proceeded to consideration of the second report of the Standing
Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry (budget-study on agriculture in
Canada), presented in the Senate on June 19, 1996.
Hon. Dan Hays moved the adoption of the report.
Motion agreed to and report adopted.
Present State and Future of
Forestry-Third Report of Committee Adopted
The Senate proceeded to consideration of the third report of the Standing
Committee on Agriculture and Forestry (budget-study on forestry in Canada),
presented in the Senate on June 19, 1996.
Changes to Term 17 of
Constitution-Report of Committee Adopted
The Senate proceeded to consideration of the twelfth report of the Standing
Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs (budget - Term 17 of the
Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada), presented in the Senate June 19,
Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Deputy Leader of the Government), for Senator
Carstairs, moved the adoption of the report.
The Senate proceeded to consideration of the second report of the Standing Joint
Committee on Official Languages (Implementation of Part VII of the Official
Languages Act), presented in the Senate on June 19, 1996.
Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Deputy Leader of the Government), for Senator
Roux, moved the adoption of the report.
Study of Canadian Financial
System-Budget Report-Report of Committee Adopted
The Senate proceeded to consideration of the fourth report of the Standing
Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce (budget - study on the financial
system in Canada), presented in the Senate on June 11, 1996.
Hon. Michael Kirby moved the adoption of the report.
Thirty-Seventh Annual Meeting Held
in Alaska-Report of Canadian Section-Debate Adjourned
Hon. Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: Honourable senators, with leave of the
Senate, I wish to speak to the report of the Canadian delegation on the
Thirty-seventh Annual Meeting of the Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary
The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?
Senator Grafstein: Perhaps I might explain, honourable senators.
I tabled that report Tuesday last and asked leave to speak to it later that
day. However, there was no opportunity to do so, and no opportunity to speak to
it arose yesterday. I have spoken with the house leaders and have been advised
that this would be an appropriate time to speak to the report.
Hon. Marcel Prud'homme: Where does it appear on the Orders of the Day?
I do not object to Senator Grafstein proceeding, but I wish to participate in
The Hon. the Speaker: If I understand correctly, the report was tabled
on Tuesday last, so it is in the possession of the Senate. However, it is not on
the Orders of the Day. The honourable senator is asking leave to speak to that
Senator Prud'homme: Is it understood that if I wish to speak on the
same subject, I will be able to do so at the next sitting of the Senate?
Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable
senators, at the conclusion of Senator Grafstein's remarks, I think it would be
appropriate that Senator Prud'homme take the adjournment.
The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Grafstein: Honourable senators, what do these well-known
Americans and lesser-known Canadians have in common? The Americans are Thomas
Jefferson, James Madison and his wife Dolly, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams,
William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Andrew Jackson, Henry Clay, Winfield
Scott, Zebulon Pike, Francis Scott Key. The Canadians are John Allen, Bishop
John Strachan, Charles Michel de Salaberry, John Beverley Robinson, Laura
Secord, John Dixon, Willian Hamilton Merritt. The Indian leaders I would mention
are Tecumseh, John Brant, son of Joseph Brant, Roundhead, Métoss and Blackhawk.
All these public figures were active players in the war between Canada and the
United States which erupted in 1812 and concluded three years later in 1814 with
the Treaty of Kent.
Honourable senators, all forged their political or historic reputation for
better or worse on the anvil of that ugly war. The war exploits of Harrison,
Taylor and Jackson led to their presidencies later in the century.
Francis Scott Key penned the words "the rockets red glare" watching
the fiery battle at Baltimore, so inspired that he then composed the American
national anthem "The Star Spangled Banner."
Bishop Strachan emerged as a leader of the Family Compact in Toronto and
became the first president of Kings College - later named the University of
Toronto, my alma mater - and was the founder of Trinity College. Allan and
Robinson became leaders and legislators in Upper Canada. De Salaberry, the hero
of the Battle of Chateauguay, became a legislator in Lower Canada.
Tecumseh and the other Indian leaders were transformed into legends, and
their ideas are still very much alive with us today. Tecumseh, you will recall,
was the very first Indian leader who united the warring tribes into a
confederacy that would straddle our borders.
For three years, battles and skirmishes were fought all along the Canada-U.S.
border, from the Great Lakes to the Maritimes, reaching deep into heart of the
United States, through the Midwest and down through Washington and beyond to New
Orleans. Pitched battles were joined in Detroit, York, now Toronto, along the
Thames Valley towards my home town in London, Ontario, at the fork of the
Thames, along the Niagara Peninsula and Montreal. Massacres were not the
exception. Pocket water battles were fought on the rivers and in the lakes of
Huron, Ontario, Erie and Champlain.
Washington, New Orleans and York - now Toronto - just to name a few, were
bombarded, burned and pillaged until the Treaty of Ghent produced what was
called "The Great Peace" in 1814.
In that treaty, the very first Canada-U.S. commission was established, the
first bilateral commission and the ancestor of our growing family of bilateral
commissions and tribunals. The different public philosophies in Canada and the
United States were given even greater definition in that war. Our civic
philosophies were forged and burnished. "Peace and order and good
government" was implanted in the Canadian body politic while, on the
American side, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" became the
American activist norm.
The problems on the bargaining table in 1814 are alive and with us today -
the fishery, Indian claims and trade. In 1814, our trade was mostly in fish,
furs, liquor and tobacco. Smuggling was a problem then and still is today. Our
rallying war cries - on the Canadian side, "Push on, York volunteers";
on the American side, "Remember the Raisin" - receded and then
disappeared into the shades of history.
Our politicians and citizens took up the task of building a lasting peace.
When the Great Peace came, we put down our muskets and took up our economic
cudgels. We sheathed our swords and unleashed our ledger books. We buried our
tomahawks and replaced them with tariffs. Since that time, we have shared the
longest undefended peaceful boarder in western history.
So it is that the Canada-U.S. Inter-parliamentary Group, an honourary
offspring of those days, met this year in the northwest for the thirty-seventh
meeting since its inception. Most of the meetings were held in Alaska.
The American hosts were led by Senator Frank Murkowski of Alaska and
Representative Amo Houghten of New York. We held meetings in British Columbia,
Alaska and the Yukon. Observers concluded that this appeared to be the best
attended meeting since the Group's inception 37 years ago. Senators and
congressmen from 22 states and two territories attended, matched by senators and
members of the House of Commons from every region of Canada and every party.
Over $1 billion per day in trade now passes over our border, likely the
greatest trading exchange between any two sovereign nations. Our mutual trade
benefits far outstrip the trade irritants; yet, the irritants tend to distort
the picture. In our working sessions while travelling along Alaska's waterways,
Canadian and American legislators reviewed each and every irritant, exchanged
views and developed a much broader perspective and understanding of every issue.
It was my pleasure as co-chair, honourable senators, to table last Tuesday
the report of the Canadian delegation which deals with every issue ranging from
lumber to steel, grain and energy and beyond. Obviously, there are many points
of contention between sovereign nations, many exasperations and irritants. I
shall review just a few.
A fundamental difference was grounded on the Helms-Burton bill. I urge
interested senators to review the relevant sections of the report since the
Canadians discovered, to their surprise, that the Americans shared a deep
awareness of the wider implications of this extraordinary departure from the
accepted rules of international trade as agreed in the WTO and NAFTA.
We gained, at the same time, a wider perspective from our American colleagues
about the vagaries of election year politics. We should not be surprised if,
after the American election, the damaging contours of this legislation were
moderated. We hope this week's retaliatory announcements by the Canadian
government will bring this unhappy legislative episode to a speedy resolution.
We have so much to gain together that we should not allow irritants to impede
our larger benefits.
Another lively exchange centred on the Canadian rationale for exempting our
cultural sector from our trade agreements. For Canadians, culture remains
indivisible from our national identity. We emphasized this to the Americans. We
told them that but for this exemption, there would have been no agreement on
NAFTA. For Canadians, cultural exemptions do not mean erecting a cultural wall
or interfering with the free flow of information across our borders. The
cultural exemption is designed merely to allow Canadians to enter on to their
own level playing field where production and distribution of Canadian cultural
ideas can take place on a fair, equitable and competitive basis in our domestic
marketplace. After our lively exchange, a ranking American senator told me that,
for the very first time, he clearly understood Canada's deep concern for its
If there is any continuing fundamental schism, it might be detected in our
different attitudes toward trade rules. Canadians believe that our survival as a
trading nation depends on multilateral, rules-based trade. Americans tend to
resort to mechanisms of domestic sovereignty, such as anti-dumping measures,
which impede the freer flow of trade between our countries. While we vigorously
debated this issue, it will take continued efforts on our part and on that of
other trading nations to convince the Americans to dilute this deep strain of
American trade philosophy.
When we reached Whitehorse in the Yukon for our closing meetings, Canada
saluted three great American ranking legislators who have been great friends of
freer trade and staunch allies of Canada in many of her concerns: Sam Gibbons of
Florida, Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee; Harry Johnson of Florida; and
Kika de la Garza of Texas. All three are retiring from the House of
Representatives after this current session.
While we respect each others' differing views, there is much more that we
share in common, not the least being warm hospitality extended to us by Senator
Murkowski of Alaska and Representative Houghton of New York, the Co-chairmen of
the American Delegation, and by the governments and citizens of Juneau,
Ketchikan and Skagway.
I extend special thanks to the Governor of Alaska on the American side and,
on the Canadian side, to the mayor and citizens of Prince Rupert and Whitehorse.
Their gracious hospitality and welcome were deeply appreciated.
Of course, I should not neglect to thank Richard Rumas and his staff here in
Ottawa who provided crucial and invaluable support to the Canadian delegation in
all its work and in the formulation of this report.
A closer working entente was constructed between our respective legislators
allowing for freer and informal access to the second branch of the American
political system and closer, friendlier ties between our parliamentarians and
The best, honourable senators, is yet to come.
Senator Prud'homme: Honourable senators, I would ask that the debate
be adjourned in my name.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, that presents a problem.
There is no motion before us. We may have to request that Senator Grafstein
propose a motion because we are having a debate on an item which is not before
the Senate. An inquiry should have been launched when the report was presented.
I am not sure how the Table will deal with this. Perhaps we can ask Senator
Grafstein to propose the report which he presented previously.
Senator Grafstein: I move that the report be tabled and taken into
consideration, which will allow my honourable friends to comment on this
The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to
adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
On motion of Senator Prud'Homme, debate adjourned.
Hon. Anne C. Cools rose pursuant to notice of Thursday, June 13, 1996:
That she will call the attention of the Senate to the life and times of Allan
J. MacEachen, a great Liberal and an outstanding Canadian from Cape Breton
Island, Nova Scotia; and to his parliamentary service as a member of Parliament
for 43 years in both the Senate and the House of Commons; and to his exceptional
contribution to the social and political life of Canada; and to his upcoming
retirement from the Senate on July 6, 1996.
She said: Honourable senators, what I propose to do, since we have so little
time left before Royal Assent, is to read a few words, perhaps give a summary of
some of the things I wish to say, and then, with leave of the Senate, I would
ask that my text be taken as read so that it will be on the record. Would that
be acceptable to senators?
Hon. Marcel Prud'homme: That is quite a precedent.
The Hon. the Speaker: I am sorry, Honourable Senator Cools. Obviously
the Senate can do what it wishes, but it has not been the practice to take
speeches unless they are given. It is a dangerous precedent, but it is up to the
Senate to decide.
Senator Prud'homme: Can I make a suggestion to Senator Cools? She may
give us a summary, and then she could be allowed by consent to speak the next
time, and not lose her place on the agenda.
Senator Cools: It is not that pressing. It had been my intention to
speak about Senator MacEachen in advance of a very important conference that is
being held in Antigonish, Nova Scotia. In any event, there is no time.
The Hon. the Speaker: There is nothing preventing you, Honourable
Senator Cools, from beginning your speech and adjourning the balance to another
Senator Cools: It seems to me the discussion is somewhat academic. We
have exactly three minutes to go.
The Hon. the Speaker: What is your wish, Honourable Senator Cools?
Should we let the matter stand?
The Honourable Antonio Lamer, Chief Justice 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 Deputy Speaker, the Right Honourable the Deputy Governor General
was pleased to give the Royal Assent to the following bills:
An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act (Bill C-33,Chapter
An Act to provide for the establishment and operation of a program to enable
certain persons to receive protection in relation to certain inquiries,
investigations or prosecutions (Bill C-13,Chapter 15, 1996)
An Act to establish the Department of Public Works and Government Services
and to amend and repeal certain Acts (Bill C-7, Chapter 16, 1996)
An Act to implement the Agreement on Internal Trade (Bill C-19, Chapter
An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on
March 6, 1996 (Bill C-31,Chapter 18, 1996)
An Act respecting the control of certain drugs, their precursors and other
substances, and to amend certain other Acts and repeal the Narcotic Control Act
in consequence thereof (Bill C-8,Chapter 19, 1996)
An Act respecting the commercialization of civil air navigation services (Bill
C-20, Chapter 20, 1996)
An Act to amend the Income tax Act, the Excise Act, the Excise Tax Act, the
Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act, the Old Age Security
Act and the Canada Shipping Act (Bill C-36,Chapter 21, 1996)
An Act to amend the Federal Court Act, the Judges Act and the Tax Court of
Canada Act (Bill C-48,Chapter 22, 1996)
An Act respecting employment insurance in Canada (Bill C-12,Chapter
An Act respecting Queen's University at Kingston (Bill S-8)
The House of Commons withdrew.
The Honourable the Deputy Governor General was pleased to retire.
The Hon. the Speaker: Before I call for the adjournment motion, I take
this opportunity to invite you, as usual, to meet his Excellency the Chief
Justice in my chambers. In view of the fact that this will likely be the last
time we shall meet, for a little while at least, I take this opportunity to also
invite the pages and the members of our staff who work directly with us here in
Also, I take this opportunity to wish all of you a very pleasant summer.
The Senate adjourned until Tuesday, September 24, 1996, at 2:00 p.m.