Download as PDF

Debates of the Senate (Hansard)

2nd Session, 35th Parliament,
Volume 135, Issue 46

Tuesday, October 29, 1996
The Honourable Gildas L. Molgat, Speaker


Tuesday, October 29, 1996

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


Visitors in the Gallery

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I should like to draw your attention to the presence in our gallery today of a very distinguished group.That group is a delegation from the Parliament of Finland, led by Speaker Uosukainen. The delegation is accompanied by His Excellency, the Ambassador.

Welcome to our Senate.

Pages Exchange Program with House of Commons

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, two House of Commons pages have been selected to participate in the exchange program that we began last year. They are here with the Senate for the week of October 28 to November 1, and have taken their places at the back of the Senate on this occasion.

Christopher Gray, from Sidney, British Columbia, is enrolled in the Faculty of Social Sciences at the University of Ottawa, majoring in political science.

Kathleen Jackson is pursuing her academic career at the University of Ottawa in the Faculty of Social Sciences with a major in political science. Kathleen is a native of Simcoe, Ontario.

I welcome these two pages from the House of Commons. I hope that they will enjoy their week with us.



National Menopause Awareness Week

Hon. Erminie J. Cohen: Honourable senators, for the first time in its history, the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada launched a four-week national public awareness program on menopause during the month of October entitled "Menopause - Let's Talk About It!" It culminates this week of October 28, which has been proclaimed National Menopause Awareness Week. Health care partners in this initiative, which is a first in North America, are the Osteoporosis Society of Canada, the Heart and Stroke Foundation and the Canadian Pharmaceutical Association.

Throughout the month of October, the four-week program focuses on health promotion, disease prevention, quality of life beyond the fifties and, through a public education campaign of cross-country dialogues and fora, allows women and men to look at menopause issues together with their caregivers.

Author David Foot, in his best seller, Boom, Bust and Echo, in reference to baby boomers warns:

...get ready to be inundated by a flood of articles about health issues related to ageing. Prostate problems, already mentioned, will be big news - menopause, which affects the entire female population, will be even bigger.

Honourable senators, by the year 2000, 4 million Canadian women will enter or experience menopause. The impact on our health care system will be staggering. Women - baby boomers in particular - will be demanding more information and more focus on them as they struggle with this major transition period in their lives that, in varying degrees, affects their physical and emotional well-being.

Public information is needed in specific areas of concern; in particular, lifestyle changes, hormones and cancer, cardiovascular disease and osteoporosis, so that all Canadians have the opportunity to exercise informed choices and learn to distinguish between fact and fiction.

Political recognition of menopause as a fast growing public health issue is crucial and will translate into increased health care demands and costs. Therefore, on Thursday, October 31, my colleague Senator Lise Bacon and I will host a breakfast in the Parliamentary Dining Room for members of this chamber and the other place to highlight this anticipated burden on a thinning budget and to encourage government and Canadian society to enter into meaningful dialogue about key health care issues. The presentation on Thursday is entitled: "Menopause: Issues Expected to Dominate Canada's Future Health Care Agenda." Please join us and let us talk about it.


Scrutiny of Regulations

Third Report of Standing Joint Committee Tabled

Hon. P. Derek Lewis: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table in both official languages the third report of the Standing Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons for the Scrutiny of Regulations, which deals with Public Lands Mineral Regulations, C.R.C., c.1325.


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

That when the Senate adjourns today, it do stand adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, October 30, 1996, at one thirty o'clock in the afternoon.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Motion agreed to.


National Unity

Referral of Constitutional Issues to Supreme Court of Canada-Government Position

Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I should like to ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate if the three constitutional questions that pertain directly to Quebec have been referred to the Supreme Court of Canada, as announced by the Minister of Justice on September 26?

Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I cannot answer that question. However, I will obtain a reply for the honourable senator immediately.

Position of Prime Minister on Quebec's Place in Confederation-Government Position

Hon. Gerry St. Germain: Honourable senators, my question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Today, I read with interest the Liberal Party briefing note in regard to its criticisms of the Reform Party. The briefing note encourages Liberals to say that the Reform Party is pitting one region against the other, pitting the rich against the poor, pitting anglophone against francophone. It goes on to state that that is not a plan for unity but a reckless recipe for chaos, and that the Reform Party has exploited the conflict and divisions of this country for their own political purposes, rather than working to bring Canadians together.

I am forced to agree with all of that. However, we are most likely witnessing here the best case in Canadian political history of the pot calling the kettle black. Unless my memory fails me, I believe it was the current Prime Minister who exploited this issue for his own political purposes during his leadership race for the Liberal Party when he joined the likes of Clyde Wells in 1990 to speak out against the concept of Quebec as a distinct society.

In 1986 Mr. Chrétien held the same opinion that is now held by Mr. Manning with regard to the recognition of Quebec as a distinct society. In fact, it was only when the country was on the brink of collapse, almost a year ago to this day, that Mr. Chrétien embraced the concept.

Does the Leader of the Government in the Senate agree that Mr. Chrétien's concept of Quebec as a distinct society has changed since he first spoke out against it in 1986? Will she also concede that Mr. Manning and Mr. Chrétien once stood together in opposition to the Meech Lake Accord and, in particular, to the distinct society clause?

Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, my honourable friend will know that Mr. Chrétien has always been one of the strongest supporters of the special nature of Quebec within Confederation. He had differences of opinion with others regarding the Meech Lake Accord.

With regard to the relationship between the views of Mr. Chrétien and Mr. Manning, Mr. Chrétien has spent a lifetime trying to keep this country together with Quebec as an equal and strong part of Canada. This is something he will continue to do during his mandate as Prime Minister, and for as long as he is in public life.

Mr. Manning's party has fluctuated on some of its national unity views over recent years.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: What about the Liberals?

Senator Fairbairn: Our party takes exception to the views of the Reform Party of Canada, not only on this issue, but on many others, including its total about-face on its fiscal policy, its social policy or whatever policy one could name.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Let us talk about Liberal policy.

Senator Fairbairn: We watch the progress of the Reform Party with great interest. We are also taking the opportunity to try to explain it as best we can to other Canadians, including ourselves.

Senator St. Germain: Honourable senators, the minister has talked about fluctuations. The present government has fluctuated greatly on NAFTA, the GST and other issues. If fluctuation is a pastime, then the Liberal Party has excelled at it in the last three years.

I was at the Liberal convention in 1990.

Senator Doody: Shame!

Senator St. Germain: I was there as an observer for my party.

Some Hon. Senators: Oh, oh!

Senator Graham: Did you learn anything?

Senator St. Germain: I actually saw the hugging session that took place between Mr. Chrétien and Mr. Wells when he was being congratulated for killing the Meech Lake accord, something which, unfortunately, he did single-handedly.

Does the government have a plan to deal with the unity issue over and above its reference of the questions to the Supreme Court of Canada? If there is a plan, can she explain to us in a nutshell what they are doing besides criticizing the Reform Party, although that party should be criticized, and criticized aggressively for the position it has taken against a united Canada? Is there a plan in place and, if so, would the Leader of the Government explain it to us?

Senator Fairbairn: Honourable senators, my greatest sadness is that my honourable friend was not an observer at our recent convention.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Once bitten, twice shy!

Senator Fairbairn: He would have been more than welcome. Indeed, a number of people from the Reform Party were observers at our convention.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: They will go anywhere.

Senator Fairbairn: We are keeping an eye on Senator St. Germain. I carry a blank membership card in my pocket in the idle hope that he might see the light and want to sign up.

The honourable senator asked me to explain our national unity plan in a nutshell, apart from the reference to the Supreme Court of Canada. I regret that he was not at the convention because a summary of our program was given by the Prime Minister himself, not once but twice, as well as the frequent speeches and comments by Stéphane Dion, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

It would take me a long time to outline all the things we are doing on the national unity front. The one thing that was very clear at our meeting over the weekend was the absolutely fundamental desire on the part of the Prime Minister, and the thousands who attended, that this country stay united, with Quebec playing a pivotal role in the unity of this nation. We are ensuring this in a number of ways, some of which have been passed in this chamber as a result of commitments made in the referendum. The Prime Minister has expressed his intention to move ahead at the appropriate time towards entrenchment -


Senator Lynch-Staunton: When is the appropriate time?

Senator Fairbairn: - of the legislation or the resolutions that have passed through Parliament in the last year.

In the meantime, a great many other things - practical, everyday things - are being done by this government in collaboration with the provinces - including the Province of Quebec - to help renew this federation and to make it work more efficiently, more directly and more effectively for Canadians in every province.

I will not burden the house with a lengthy dissertation on exactly what those areas are.

Senator Berntson: Please do.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: We want to know what they are.

Senator Fairbairn: You know many of them: labour markets, labour market training, mining and forestry.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Clyde Wells and Elijah Harper want to know what they are. Can you not be more specific?

Senator Fairbairn: I would be pleased to be more specific. However, I do not think that Question Period is the time to do it.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: To give answers? You are correct.

Senator Fairbairn: I would be prepared to stand here for half an hour and give an answer, but to respond to Senator St. Germain's question, the federal government is not waiting for the "big conference" to set forward a saving strategy for Canada. It is doing just that every single day, and providing good government and fair government and renegotiated processes in the areas in which provinces can handle the responsibilities better than the federal government can. We are working with the provinces and with the people of Canada to keep this country together every day of the week.


Hon. Pierre Claude Nolin: You did not answer Senator St. Germain's question. If we compare statements made by the Prime Minister at the time of the Meech Lake Accord and the wonderful resolution you adopted on the weekend, there is definitely a big difference.

So I will put to you again the question asked by Senator St. Germain: What caused this late conversion, the conversion of Jean Chrétien, the Prime Minister of Canada?


Senator Fairbairn: Honourable senators, I thank Senator Nolin for his comment. He was at the Liberal convention on the weekend, so he was able to get the flavour of the deliberations there.

Senator Nolin: I was watching.

Senator Fairbairn: I am sure, if he listened carefully to the Prime Minister's speech, that he must have picked up the message that was given.

It was very evident in that room that there has been considerable movement in this country, outside Quebec and off Parliament Hill, towards flexibility and accommodation on some of these difficult constitutional issues. The Liberal Party is aware of that. The Liberal Party is working towards that accommodation. The Prime Minister of Canada is certainly leading the way in trying to reach the kind of accommodation that will have our country working together, not just on the basis of two or three words but on the basis of the value to be found in every part of this country, and the value of Quebec to every part of this country.


Role of the Prime Minister in Defeat of Meech Lake Accord-Government Position

Hon. Pierre Claude Nolin: You know we are not fooled by your rhetoric. It is getting late. Quebecers can see through your conversion. There were people at your convention who personally killed Meech Lake, members of your party who today are members of the House of Commons.

This late conversion to recognizing the unique and distinct character of Quebec has astonished some people. The motivation you showed on the weekend for supporting this motion unanimously was, in my opinion, more a matter of playing to the voters than of looking for long-term solutions to preserve the unity of our country. You had to be there to see this chorus of praise for Quebec's distinct society, which must be protected. But where was Mr. Chrétien in the years that preceded the defeat of Meech Lake?

Senator Hervieux-Payette: In the private sector.

Senator Nolin: Sure, working behind the scenes with Canadians who were supposed to be defending Canadian unity. Today they tell us that Mr. Chrétien wants to rally Canadians around the cause of Canadian unity. That is completely untrue, and you know it. This is just a lot of electioneering. You were opposed to Meech Lake. It is too late now. Quebecers want more today. It is too late. It is your fault. It is too late today for you to say: "Let us rally around this principle."

Many Quebecers looked forward to the day when this accord would be adopted. I can see here people who personally worked to get it adopted and others who worked to make it fail.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, what is the question?

Senator Nolin: Could you tell us whether your Prime Minister's change of heart is not just electioneering?


Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I am happy to place my rhetoric side by side with that of my honourable friend any day of the week. He is giving us a message today in this chamber that it is too late for Canada. We respond, through our Prime Minister and our party: Not at all! This is the time for every Canadian and every Quebecer to feel at home and welcome in this country. We are developing the kind of atmosphere and the kind of meaningful policies that will make the everyday life of Quebecers, Albertans and Newfoundlanders, as the Prime Minister has said, the most productive in the best country in the world.

Senator Berntson: You are saying that the last referendum was too early?

Senator Fairbairn: My friend's rhetoric - and I do not believe he means it for a minute - tells us that it is too late for Canada. I say that, going into the twenty-first century, we are probably in the best position that we have ever been in, in decades, to lead this country forward: strong, united and independent.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Senator Nolin: It is too late to support the "distinct society." Quebecers want more now. It is too late now. What you passed as a resolution on the weekend was already contained in the Meech Lake Accord 10 years ago. Quebecers want more than that now, and it is your fault. That is what I meant.

Senator Fairbairn: Honourable senators, my honourable friend said earlier, with reference to the Meech Lake Accord or some other part of his rhetoric, that "you had to be there." Well, we were all there. That was not the be all and end all for Canadian unity in this Confederation; not at all.

Senator St. Germain: It sure would have helped.

Senator Fairbairn: When my friend says it is too late, I do not know for whom he is speaking. I should like to know if the people of Quebec believe it is too late to continue to be a strong part of this country -

Senator Berntson: You guys, you invented plan B.

Senator Fairbairn: - and to have this country embrace their distinctiveness, as Canadians across this country, month by month, week by week, are coming to understand better. I do not believe that we need to be as pessimistic and as fundamentally negative as is my honourable friend when he is talking about the future of the country. I do not believe that Quebec is well represented by negativism.


Senator Lynch-Staunton: Where were you one year ago?

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I should like to remind both sides of the house that we are in Question Period and not in debate.


Establishment of Canadian Race Relations Foundation-government Position

Hon. Donald H. Oliver: Last week, Heritage Canada was presented with a report entitled: "Strategic evaluation of Multicultural Programs." That report condemns the government's approach to multiculturalism. The minister in charge is quoted as having said:

...most Canadians are misinformed about multiculturalism and the blame for that falls squarely on the government.... In the past we have not done a good enough job in getting the message out and our policy is not clearly enunciated and I agree.

I also agree. However, the question is: What will the government do? Will the government continue to pander to the racists in Canada and lie low regarding multiculturalism, or will it take a strong, forceful stand and, at least as a beginning, establish and fund the Canadian Race Relations Foundation?

Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I am pleased to be able to tell my honourable friend that today my colleague Hedy Fry announced in Toronto the formation of the Race Relations Foundation. She also announced the government's renewed mandate for multiculturalism.

The Race Relations Foundation will be headquartered in Toronto. It will have a $24-million initial budget. Part of that will be to fulfil the commitment to Japanese Canadians. There is a 15-member blue-ribbon board. I shall be delighted to send to the honourable senator the list of names that was released by the minister this morning.

Canadian Race Relations Foundation-Request for Particulars of Board Members Appointed

Hon. Donald H. Oliver: Would the minister have with her the names of the membership of the board, and would she read them into the record so we may know who they are? Does the honourable senator know any other specific actions that the Government of Canada will undertake to outline their policies?

Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): If my honourable friend wishes, I can read the names of the board members.

Senator Oliver: Yes, please.

Senator Fairbairn: The chairman of the Race Relations Foundation is a good friend of ours, and I think of yours, the Honourable Lincoln M. Alexander.

Senator Doody: Good choice.

Senator Kinsella: Good appointment.

Senator Fairbairn: The executive director is Moy C. Tam, from Ottawa.

Members are Neil W. Baker, from Toronto; Nicole Beaudoin, from Laval, Quebec; Anne D. Enge, from Yellowknife; Yvon Fontaine, from Moncton, New Brunswick; Peggy J. Johnson from St. John's, Newfoundland; Andrew J. Hladyshevsky, from Edmonton, Alberta; Myer Horowitz, from Edmonton, Alberta; Pana Merchant from Regina, Saskatchewan; Arthur K. Miki, from Winnipeg, Manitoba; Maria Morellato, from Vancouver, British Columbia; Fo Niemi, from Montreal, Quebec; Subhas Ramcharan, from Tecumseh, Ontario; Carolyn G. Thomas, from Dartmouth, Nova Scotia; Sandra Wilking, from Burnaby, British Columbia; and Frank Joseph Zakem, from Charlottetown, Prince Edward island.


Route for Offshore Natural Gas Pipeline from Nova Scotia-Preference of Prime Minister-Government Position

Hon. J. Michael Forrestall: Honourable senators, does the Leader of the Government in the Senate believe that it is the intention of the government to endorse a Quebec route for offshore natural gas from Nova Scotia, as opposed to the most direct route, through the New England states?

Although the National Energy Board would seem to be at arm's length as an organization, the board must be under some pressure to make a certain decision, having heard the Prime Minister's preference publicly indicated three times. The Prime Minister is the one to whom they are beholden for their appointments.

We in Nova Scotia are somewhat edgy. We are feeling somewhat vulnerable, as you can well understand, because hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake. Indeed, the funding of the project is not on the most solid ground because of these statements and the confusion caused by them. This is not what developers had intended, or for which they did their financial planning.

Could the honourable senator tell us whether the Prime Minister has an agenda in the back of his mind? Is it his agenda to do for Quebec those things that in his judgment might be considered fair but will, at the same time, dislocate the feelings of the people in Atlantic Canada? Perhaps the leader could shed some light on that situation.

Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I will take my honourable friend's question as notice and look at it in detail.

I should also like to review what the Prime Minister has actually said on the matter. These decisions in the energy field are traditionally guided by the regulatory bodies and by the market.

My honourable friend is suggesting that there is a purely political linkage in this issue. I suggest to him that I do not believe that would have been in the Prime Minister's mind. Certainly, the Prime Minister would not wish to dislocate the stability for the people of Nova Scotia or anywhere else in Atlantic Canada.

Independence of National Energy Board-Government Position.

Hon. J. Michael Forrestall: Honourable senators, perhaps I could put it to the minister this way: Is the National Energy Board an independent body?

Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Yes.

Senator Forrestall: It is an independent body. Can the Leader of the Government in the Senate then give us the assurance that that board will act in that capacity and not be persuaded by the thrice-uttered preferences of the Prime Minister of Canada, who appoints that board?

Senator Fairbairn: The National Energy Board, wherever it is operating in Canada - and it certainly operates constantly in my area of Canada - is an independent regulatory board.


Changes to School System-Amendment to Term 17 of Constitution-Timing of Vote in Senate-Government Position

Hon. Noël A. Kinsella: Honourable senators, my question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Honourable senators will recall that in the latter part of June, as we were about to recess for the summer, the government was highly motivated to deal with the resolution relative to Term 17 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland and Labrador. There was agreement in the chamber that the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs would be seized with the matter and, under the able leadership of the Chair, Senator Carstairs, senators gave up their early summer vacation time and dealt with the matter. The agreement was that the report should be in no later than July 17, and that deadline was met by the committee.


I would point out to the Leader of the Government in the Senate that we have been dealing with this matter now for over three months. Some senators are concerned that the matter might not come to a vote in this chamber.

Some Hon. Senators: Shame!

Senator Kinsella: Therefore, I should like to ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate: Is it the intent of your government not to have this matter come to a vote in the Senate?

Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, my honourable friend is absolutely right in reviewing the progress of this very important issue, which has profound implications for the province that brought it forward. There are, as he knows, diverse views within this chamber on both sides of the house.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: There were in the House of Commons, too.

Senator Fairbairn: Indeed, as Senator Lynch-Staunton says, there were in the other place as well. We have a number of senators on this side who are still very interested in expressing their views in debate.

Senator Berntson: How many are you putting up today?

Senator Fairbairn: We will certainly want to hear from them.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: But will the government listen?

Senator Fairbairn: When all the debate is proceeded with, the house will reach a conclusion.

Senator Kinsella: I have a supplementary question. Given the fact that a day in the early part of December is the day beyond which any decision taken by this chamber would be irrelevant, my question is: Will the government undertake to ensure that honourable senators, exercising a free vote as the members of the other place were able to do, will be able to vote on this matter before the end of November?

Senator Fairbairn: Honourable senators, I am very well aware - we are all well aware - of when the deadline is for our constitutional responsibilities. It would certainly be our intention to meet those responsibilities within that deadline.

Senator Atkins: With a vote?


Route for Offshore Natural Gas Pipeline from Nova Scotia-Influence of Prime Minister on National Energy Board Decision-Government Position

Hon. Gerald J. Comeau: I should like to return to the question raised by my colleague Senator Forrestall regarding the Sable Island gas pipeline project.

The Prime Minister has, on a number of occasions, indicated publicly his preference for the Quebec route. Needless to say, I am quite sure that members of the National Energy Board have received a message from the Prime Minister indicating his preference.

I should like to ask the minister: What is the difference between the action of the Prime Minister in indicating publicly his preference for the Quebec route versus the maritime route and the action of the Honourable David Collenette, who had to resign his seat because he had sent a letter of inquiry to an appointed board?

Why is the Prime Minister not accepting the ethics guidelines that he has imposed on others? In other words, he is setting the limbo pole much higher for himself by having publicly endorsed a project that would see the gas pipeline go through Quebec rather than in accordance with the maritime project. If the Prime Minister made public his secret code of ethics, would he himself not be in worse violation of that code than his own former Minister of Defence, David Collenette?

Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, in reply to the honourable senator, I will repeat what I said to Senator Forrestall: I will certainly inform myself of precisely what it is that the Prime Minister has said, and I will review both questions now.

My honourable friend is raising a serious question, and I will take it seriously. However, I would underline the fact that, obviously, no decision has yet been made on this matter. The National Energy Board operates as an independent regulatory board, and -

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Sure. So does the CRTC.

Senator Fairbairn: - I will certainly follow up on my friend's question, as I will Senator Forrestall's.

Senator Comeau: Honourable senators, as a supplementary question, I wish to point out to the minister that the National Energy Board members are appointed by the Prime Minister and his ministers. Therefore, obviously, these people would be very much aware that, in order to keep their careers on the National Energy Board alive, it might be better if they did what the Prime Minister bid them to do. I am not suggesting at all that they will, but, obviously, they know who appoints them at the end of the day.

It might have been wiser for the Prime Minister to have kept his views private until such time as the National Energy Board itself had the opportunity to look at this important decision which, if it goes wrong, might create the kinds of problems that we have now between Newfoundland and Quebec with regard to Churchill Falls. The Prime Minister, who chose not to interfere in the Churchill Falls problem, has placed himself in a situation that could backfire on him, and on Atlantic Canadians.

Senator Fairbairn: Honourable senators, I will carefully look at the record and, after having done so, will attempt to find a response for my colleague.

I think that everyone in this house has great respect for the integrity of those who serve on the National Energy Board. I would not want anything that is said here today to imply that we in the Senate do not, and I do not think there has been any impugning of the integrity of that board at all. However, I want to make the point that they do have a strong record of judgment in a very important area of jurisdiction to all regions of this country. I think that all of us would respect that judgment.


National Finance

Discrepancy between Pre-Election Promises and The Main Estimates-Government Position

Hon. Roch Bolduc: Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. You probably know that the government spends some $5 billion, if I am not mistaken, on professional services. In the Red Book-not just any red book, not Mao's red book, - the Liberals promised to cut this spending by $600 million. However, the public accounts released last week show that spending, far from being cut by $600 million, actually increased by $163 million. Could the Leader of the Government tell us what is going on? Why did the government not fulfil its promise?

Senator Simard: Another broken promise!


Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I will need to look at that issue, and advise you later.


Senator Bolduc: Like the Mayor of Drummondville, we would like to know what is going on when it goes up that way when it is supposed to come down. We cannot make heads or tails of this.


Delayed Answers to Oral Questions

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I have a response to a question raised in the Senate on October 1, 1996, by the Honourable Senator Lynch-Staunton, regarding a referral to the Supreme Court of Canada - recent statements by the Minister of Justice; and a response to a question raised in the Senate on October 3, 1996, by the Honourable Senator Lynch-Staunton regarding a referral to the Supreme Court of Canada - efficacy of government action.

National Unity

Referral to Supreme Court of Canada-Recent Statements by Minister of Justice-Government Position

(Response to question raised by Hon. John Lynch-Staunton on October 1, 1996)

The federal government is not putting into question the right of Quebecers to decide their future. On the contrary, the government has long acknowledged that there could be no question of holding Quebecers against their will, clearly expressed in a referendum on a clear question, with the consequences explicit and known to all.

The government is proceeding with a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada to establish a framework of legal certainty and common understanding within which to address the important issues confronting it.

Such a framework in no way calls into question the democratic right of Quebecers to express themselves regarding their future. Nor does it consign Quebecers to a constitutional straight-jacket or prison.

What it does mean is that any change to the existing constitutional order must occur in an orderly fashion, through a process that is consistent with Canadian laws, traditions and values and that is respectful of the rights and interests of all.

Referral to Supreme Court of Canada-Efficacy of Government Action

(Response to question raised by Hon. John Lynch-Staunton on October 3, 1996)

A reference is a procedure by which the federal government refers legal or factual questions it considers important to the Supreme Court of Canada for the Court to hear and consider. The Court issues an advisory opinion in the form of a judgment. As a legal pronouncement from the highest court in the land, it has always been treated as binding.

At this stage in the process, the government will not speculate on the reactions of the Quebec government to an eventual opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The federal government has an obligation to all Canadians to provide social, economic and legal stability nation-wide. This obligation requires the federal government to seek legal clarification for all Canadians regarding some fundamental issues surrounding Quebec's possible secession well in advance of any further referendum.

Judicial clarification is especially necessary in light of the position that the Quebec government has taken in the Bertrand litigation - where it has effectively stated that it believes that Quebec can secede unilaterally from Canada and that the courts and the rule of law play no role in any possible secession. By so doing, Quebec has merely added to the uncertainty surrounding these issues.


Judges Act

Bill to Amend-Third Reading-Motion in Amendment-Debate Continued

On the Order:

Resuming the debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Bryden, seconded by the Honourable Senator Stollery, for the third reading of Bill C-42, to amend the Judges Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act;

And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Nolin, seconded by the Honourable Senator Doody, that the Bill be not now read the third time but that it be amended:

(a) in clause 4 on page 3:

(i) by replacing line 13 with the following:

approval of the Council.,

(ii) by replacing line 15 with the following:

granted pursuant to subsection (1), the chief, and

(iii) by deleting lines 23 to 31; and

(b) in clause 5, by replacing lines 11 to 45 on page 4 and lines 1 to 35 on page 5 with the following:

56.1 (1) A judge on leave of absence granted pursuant to subsection 54(1) may, with the approval of the Council granted pursuant to subsection (2), perform judicial or quasi-judicial duties for an international organization of states or an institution of such an organization and may receive in respect thereof reasonable moving or transportation expenses and reasonable travel and other expenses from the Government of Canada.

(2) Where a judge requests a leave of absence pursuant to subsection 54(1) to perform judicial or quasi-judicial duties for an international organization of states or an institution of such an organization, the Council may, at the request of the Minister of Justice of Canada, approve the undertaking of the duties.

Hon. Sharon Carstairs: Honourable senators, I rise to speak on the amendment to Bill C-42, a bill to amend the Judges Act, proposed by Senator Nolin. In so doing, I hope to persuade honourable senators, particularly my friends opposite, that Senator Nolin's amendment should be defeated and the bill be given third reading.

If I understand the motion in amendment correctly, it proposes that Bill C-42 be amended in two respects. First, it would amend clause 4 by transferring to the Canadian Judicial Council the authority that the Governor in Council now has to approve leaves of absence of over six months for judges. Second, it would amend the proposed provisions regarding participation by Canadian judges in international activities, essentially narrowing those provisions to situations where Canadian judges are allowed to perform judicial or quasi-judicial duties for an international organization or one of its institutions with salaries and expenses continuing to be paid by the Government of Canada.

Honourable senators, the first amendment contained in the motion before us is unacceptable for a very simple reason: It would place in the hands of the Canadian Judicial Council the decision as to whether or not a particular judge could be spared from ordinary judicial duties for a period in excess of six months. Such a decision can have significant implications for the ability of a court to perform its work. Honourable senators know that in many jurisdictions in Canada the courts are struggling with significant problems of backlog and delay. Judges and provincial governments have made great strides in addressing these problems, whether they be in criminal or civil litigation, but the balance between the number of judges available to sit and the number of cases that must be dealt with is a delicate one.

I would argue that it is essential that the Government of Canada have the ability to make the final decision as to whether a judge should be given a long leave of absence. It is the federal government that appoints and pays the superior court judges. The federal government should therefore have a say in deciding how those judges are to be used.

Honourable senators, I recognize and respect the concerns of those who have proposed this amendment. The issue of judicial dependence is an extremely important one. Every effort must be made to limit the areas in which government discretion can be exercised through ways that can benefit or, indeed, penalize judges. It is for that very reason that clause 4 of Bill C-42 has been proposed by the Minister of Justice. Its intended effect is to transfer from the government to chief justices the authority to approve leaves of absence of up to six months. Such leaves will allow the judiciary to deal with matters such as illness, maternity and parental leave, in which the government, quite frankly, should have no involvement. However, for leaves of over six months, the issue of the appropriate use of scarce judicial resources cannot be left to the judiciary alone without compromising the government's ability to account to taxpayers for how the judicial salary budget is used.

Honourable senators, that brings me to the second amendment contained in the motion before us, the amendment to clause 5 of the bill. I believe this amendment crystallizes the main issue with which the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs has been grappling over the last few weeks. The issue is whether Canadian judges can, and should, be used for a variety of purposes, including non-judicial purposes, outside Canada.

Before commenting further on the amendment proposed by the Honourable Senator Nolin, let me remind honourable senators of the reasons the government proposed the amendments contained in clause 5, and what their effect would be.

The impetus for bringing forward clause 5 of Bill C-42 at this time was, as honourable senators know, the decision in late February by the United Nations Security Council that Madam Justice Arbour of the Ontario Court of Appeal should succeed Judge Richard Goldstone of the Constitutional Court of South Africa as prosecutor of the International Tribunal on War Crimes for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. Madam Justice Arbour's name had been recommended to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, and by the outgoing chief prosecutor, Justice Goldstone. The government sees the choice of a Canadian judge as an honour for Canada, and one that has imposed on it, if possible, a duty to implement.

As was made clear in testimony by departmental officials before the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, the requirement of the UN that the prosecutor be paid directly by the United Nations and not by a member state created the need for an amendment to the Judges Act. For example, I should like to tell honourable senators that UN staff regulation 1.6 provides that "No staff member shall accept remuneration from any government."

The Judges Act at present does not contemplate leave without pay for Canadian judges, although as Professor Arthurs of Osgoode Hall Law School pointed out to the committee, there is at least one precedent from the early 1960s of a judge being given leave without pay. Mr. Justice Wilson served in Cyprus under a UN mandate from 1962 to 1964. Nor does the act appear to allow a Canadian judge to accept salary or expenses from any source other than the Government of Canada or a province.

Because of the significant implications for judicial independence of authorizing a Canadian judge to be given leave without pay and to work for the United Nations, the Minister of Justice consulted the Canadian Judicial Council in March of this year. He proposed to them two alternatives: either specific legislative authority for Madam Justice Arbour to accept the position on the United Nations' terms, or a general amendment that, subject to certain strict conditions, would allow future appointments with international organizations of states to be undertaken by Canadian judges with salary and expenses to be paid by the international organization. The Canadian Judicial Council responded by saying it preferred the general amendment.

Honourable senators, clause 5 of the bill would create a new section, 56.1, subsections (2) and (6) of which would allow a judge to be granted leave without pay to work for an international organization of states, or an institution thereof, and to accept a salary from that body. However, let us be very clear what the limitations are to these new, proposed provisions. First, the judge would need to request this leave without pay. There is no way that a judge's salary could be stopped except at the judge's request. I emphasize this point because of the concerns raised by some senators about the effect of the amendment of the constitutional requirement that Parliament fix and provide judges' salaries.

Second, a leave without pay can only be granted to a judge for the purpose of working for an international organization of states or an institution thereof. This covers such bodies as the United Nations, UNESCO, and La Francophonie. It does not include IBM, as some have hinted, nor would it include a single government.

Third, authorization to take leave without pay to work within an international organization requires the approval of the Government of Canada. This guarantees that no judge will be allowed to work for an international organization or institution in circumstances that would conflict with Canada's foreign policy.

Fourth, the minister would be required in each case, before the Governor in Council is asked to approve the leave without pay, to consult the chair of the Canadian Judicial Council. This requirement is included in the bill precisely because the government feels that the judiciary must be consulted on a decision which could have implications for the public perception of judges, or for judicial independence.

I suggest to honourable senators that this requirement for consultation provides substantial protection against misuse of the provision. In particular, I think it answers those who have suggested that judges will somehow be tempted to begin lobbying the government for international appointments.

Fifth, the resource implications of allowing judges to work for international organizations could be considered by the government and by the Canadian Judicial Council in each and every case. I suggest that such resource implications would, in fact, not be great for two reasons: Use of this provision will be extremely rare simply because the opportunities with organizations such as the United Nations will be very few, and the ability to have the judge's salary and expenses paid directly by the international organization will allow a Canadian government to appoint, if necessary, a replacement judge.


Honourable senators, the provisions I have just described relate to leave without pay to work for international organizations. The other purposes of clause 5 are to clarify the basis on which Canadian judges can undertake international activity and to allow expenses to be paid by an international organization.

The new provision would provide express authority for participation in international activities, especially in the area of technical assistance. It would apply whether or not a leave of absence was required. With respect to expenses, proposed subsection (1) would allow judges who undertook such activities to be paid their expenses by the Government of Canada or by an international organization. I emphasize that, in the latter case, the expenses would have to derive from an international organization or an institution thereof and not from a foreign government, a multinational company or an individual. This would allow Canada to save money. In my view, there is absolutely nothing in this provision that could possibly impact on the independence of a Canadian judge who would be performing these international activities with the approval of his or her chief justice and the Government of Canada.

During the hearings on this bill, the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee heard concerns expressed about the breadth of the term "international activities" and about the possibility that many judges would be permitted to engage in such activities to the resulting detriment to the Canadian court system. Honourable senators, it may be that the committee should monitor the application of this proposed new provision, calling the Minister of Justice and the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs before it in a year or two to discuss the use of Canadian judges abroad. Meanwhile, however, in the absence of any proposal to clarify the term used, I suggest that clause 5 is quite acceptable and is an improvement on the existing act.

Honourable senators, the Judges Act is at present unclear with respect to the ability of Canadian judges to participate in international activities. One purpose of the proposed amendments is to clarify just that. The wording of the act, and the precedents for its application, suggest that there is a very broad range of activities which judges can be authorized to participate in on behalf of the Government of Canada. There is, however, nothing specifically said about activities conducted outside Canada.

It would be desirable, in my view, to clarify the provisions of the legislation insofar as international activities are concerned. It is important to recognize that judges are capable of performing duties abroad in the present terms of the Judges Act, so long as they do so with the approval of the Government of Canada and are paid only by the Government of Canada. For example, it is under the authority of existing provisions that Madam Justice Arbour is currently serving as chief prosecutor, pursuant to an Order in Council. The problem is that the federal government must continue to pay her salary and expenses, even though the United Nations does not want that to be - in fact, it is contrary to their own rules that that be so. This situation that Madam Justice Arbour finds herself in is legal but certainly not ideal, particularly from the point of view of the United Nations.

Let me now turn to the effect I believe Senator Nolin's amendment would have on clause 5 of the bill. As I read it, the whole of clause 5 would be replaced by two simple provisions. Those two provisions, in essence, would provide authority for Canadian judges to begin leaves of absence of over six months to perform only judicial or quasi-judicial duties for an international organization or an institution thereof. The judge in question would continue to be paid salary and expenses under the Judges Act and could not be paid by the international organization. The approval of the Governor in Council would be contingent upon a request by the Canadian Judicial Council.

In short, the motion would gut the proposed section 56.1 almost in its entirety. A judge could not participate in international activities at the expense of international organizations. A judge could not be authorized to work for and be paid by an international organization. There would be no clarification of the basis for which a judge could participate in international activities and technical legal assistance programs.

I suggest that the proposed amendment could have the effect of limiting the scope of the existing provisions of the Judges Act so that Canadian judges would be precluded from participating in any international activities, including work for an international organization where the work is not strictly of a judicial or quasi-judicial nature. I say that because the act does not lend itself to clear interpretations. The addition of a specific authority for judges to serve abroad only to perform judicial or quasi-judicial functions could be interpreted as preventing participation in other kinds of functions in the international arena, even though they are now allowed to do so by the act.

Such an interpretation would rule out the participation by Canadian judges in most technical assistance programs where the judges do not judge but teach or help to establish new court systems. Such an outcome, I believe, would hold Canada up to ridicule among civilized nations, all of whom are doing their utmost to lend whatever resources they can spare, including judges, to help develop democracy and build key constitutional institutions, such as an independent judiciary.

Honourable senators, the motion before us would make it impossible for Madam Justice Arbour to continue as the chief prosecutor for two reasons. It would do so by restricting Canadian judges who work for international organizations to performing judicial or quasi-judicial functions. The role of chief prosecutor goes well beyond this. The motion would also prevent the United Nations from paying her directly as chief prosecutor, which is important because of the principle that the prosecutor must be independent of member states, including Canada.

Honourable senators, I believe the debate over this bill has boiled down to the issue posed by the second amendment in Senator Nolin's motion. The question is: Is it appropriate for a serving Canadian judge to undertake -

The Hon. the Speaker: I hesitate to interrupt the Honourable Senator Carstairs, but her allotted time of 15 minutes has expired.

Honourable senators, is leave granted to allow the honourable senator time to finish her remarks?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Carstairs: I thank honourable senators.

The question is: Is it appropriate for a serving Canadian judge to undertake non-judicial activities abroad while remaining a Canadian judge? The issues of whether leave without pay can be granted or what specific kinds of organizations can engage our judges have, in my view, now become secondary. I would suggest that the answer to that question lies in the heart of each and every senator.

Canada has an obligation as one of the most secure, democratic and privileged countries in the world to share its resources with other less fortunate countries. It also has an obligation to support international efforts to bring order to the world and to end genocide and war crimes.

If a Canadian judge has the ability to help, and can be spared for a time to do so, why should Canada not agree to lend him or her? What purpose is served by limiting the type of function that can be performed in the international field to a judicial one? The test should be whether the work done abroad will impair the judge's ability to return to performing judicial functions in Canada. That test should not hinge on whether or not the judge's international functions are judicial.

Honourable senators, it is a reality of the world's geopolitical situation, following the collapse of communism and the bipolar superpower bloc system, that Canada and the other industrialized democracies will be called upon increasingly to assist in the strengthening of the legal and judicial systems of a number of developing countries, such as South Africa, the People's Republic of China, Russia and Ukraine. The judiciary is in a position to be of particular help in this regard. This bill is particularly apropros as Canadian judges volunteer quite often during their vacation periods to give of their time to help Canada fulfil its obligations internationally. I suggest it is a moral responsibility.

If Bill C-42 is not perfect, it is certainly preferable to both the status quo and, with the greatest respect, Senator Nolin's amendments. The bill represents a major legislative improvement in what is Parliament's first encounter with a complex issue. I am heartened by the close attention to issues of judicial independence that has been paid by honourable senators on both sides during consideration of this bill. That attention is quite appropriate. The bill has been approved and is supported by the Canadian Judicial Council.


Not only does it not pose a threat to judicial independence, in fact, it provides added protections against interference with judicial independence.

Hon. Pierre Claude Nolin: Honourable senators, Senator Carstairs has referred to two fundamental documents: The rules of the UN and the Constitution of this country. How do we resolve the conflict between section 100 of our Constitution, which states that only the Parliament of Canada can fix and pay the salary of judges and pay the allowances, and the rule of the UN? How do we resolve that conflict?

Senator Carstairs: I think we do it exactly by passing the bill in its present form. If a judge is to serve outside Canada, then the salary and benefits of that judge should be set by the international obligation. Section 100 of the Canada Act says that we must set the salaries of Canadian judges. However, that individual has gone on an unpaid leave of absence, and is now working for and paid by the United Nations. Therefore, that individual is not under an obligation in the same way as he or she would have been prior to leaving to take up that appointment.

Section 100 of the Canadian Charter says clearly that judges' salaries and benefits are paid. However, they are not paid in perpetuity. They are paid while that individual is serving as a Canadian judge, and while that judge is not on an unpaid leave of absence. In the case of Justice Arbour, she would go on an unpaid leave of absence, and her salary would be picked up by the United Nations.

Senator Nolin: Are you telling us that the intent of section 100 is to permit part-time judges?

Senator Carstairs: As Senator Nolin knows, we already have, in essence, part-time judges. They are called supernumerary judges. That is considered, by most in the legal field to whom I have spoken, to be perfectly acceptable.

Senator Nolin: When I say "part-time," I mean having two jobs. Supernumerary judges only have one job. Instead of working full time, their workload is reduced.

If I understand you correctly, you suggest that the intent of the Constitution was to say, "We will have judges who will have two jobs." Is that your reading of the Constitution of this country?

Senator Carstairs: No, because while a judge is serving on an international organization he is not, at one and the same time, serving as a Canadian judge. He is still a Canadian judge on an unpaid leave of absence, but he is not serving as a Canadian judge while he is on that unpaid leave of absence.

Hon. Anne C. Cools: Honourable senators, I am heartened that some defence of the bill is finally being offered within this chamber, because the silence has been deafening.

If Madam Arbour is on an unpaid leave of absence, perhaps Senator Carstairs could explain to us proposed section 56.1(7) in Bill C-42.

Senator Carstairs: I do not have proposed section before me at this moment, so I cannot answer that, but let me answer the first part of your question. You say that there has been no defence of this bill. In the introduction of this bill in this chamber, Senator Bryden clearly outlined the strengths of this piece of legislation. We then heard from very eloquent speakers such as Senator Andreychuk, Senator Nolin and yourself, who raised concerns about the bill. Those concerns were certainly discussed and debated in the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. We had witnesses who clearly thought this was a good bill, and we had some other witnesses who clearly did not think it was a good bill. That is not unusual - at least not in my experience on that committee. That is what we should hear from both sides of any issue.

Senator Cools: If I could put my question again to Senator Carstairs, proposed section 56.1(7) may be called a deeming clause. Basically, it says that if the judge who is on an unpaid leave of absence happens to meet misfortune and die, he will be deemed to have been on the salary of the Canadian government for the period of the time away. Perhaps we could have an explanation concerning this.

Senator Carstairs: Honourable senators, I am prepared to discuss this with Senator Cools outside the chamber. I do not have the bill before me, and I will not go into a detailed explanation at this time.

Senator Cools: I have another question: Either a judge is on leave without pay or she is not. However, you cannot pass a law that says that a judge is on leave without pay and then, within the same law, insert another clause that says that the judge is then deemed to have been in receipt of remuneration. That is another issue.

The United Nations has many rules. They have, in some aspects, many expectations that do not meet local national governments' standards, wishes, or internal sovereignty. We are looking here at Canadian sovereignty and the locus of Canadian sovereignty in relation to public policy on the issue of the judiciary and Canadian judicial independence.

The United Nations has often asked Canada to change its internal policy regarding how it funds the military. There are persons at the United Nations who would like to see the Government of Canada fund the military in a different way. However, the Canadian government has taken no steps to alter the internal financing and funding of the Canadian military to meet any UN requests. Why, then, is it that, in this particular instance, the judiciary, the Government of Canada, and in particular the Department of Justice, are so willing, ready and able to oblige the UN when we have resisted them on so many other issues?

Senator Carstairs: First, Canada's record in support of the United Nations has been quite remarkable. In terms of both our funding obligations to the United Nations and our participatory obligations to the United Nations, I think Canada has led the world. I do not think anyone questions that.

Do we question some of the activities in which the United Nations engages? Of course we do. As a member state, that is our right. It is our responsibility to do exactly that. However, if an international tribunal is to have any credibility, the members of that tribunal must not only be independent but also appear to be independent. If they are having their salary paid by a member state and not by the international organization itself, then it is questionable to other member states whether they are truly independent.

Senator Cools: I think Senator Carstairs misunderstood my question. The point I was trying to make is that Canada's record is unimpeachable in terms of certain UN support. It is so unimpeachable that we need not bring it forward in rhetorical affirmations. The issue before us is very serious and extremely grievous.

The question I put was that, because Canada has stringent ways of funding its military in terms of estimates, votes, Parliament, et cetera, there have been many occasions when the UN has wanted Canada to loosen up the way in which it funds its military, and Canada has not given in. Therefore, if Canada can resist UN seduction in certain ways, such as in protection of Canada's own political systems and political sovereignty, why are we not doing so in this instance by protecting Canada's own judiciary? In other words: What are the different circumstances that apply in this particular case but do not apply in other cases of foreign policy?


Hon. A. Raynell Andreychuk: Honourable senators, Senator Carstairs has said that the constitutional section is not violated because the judge would not be receiving a salary and that, therefore, the leave is complete because the judge then assumes a totally different capacity, leaving his or her capacity as a judge at home to be resumed upon return. Certainly that is the way one thinks of leave without pay. However, when one considers that the perks of office follow the judge - as I understand would happen under the bill without the amendment - for purposes of pension and other benefits, does it not weaken the honourable senator's argument? Is Canada not in fact paying some aspects of a judge's wages, although not the direct salary?

Senator Carstairs: Senator Andreychuk, we have an obligation to our judges to ensure that their pension benefits, their health care benefits, are continued when we have agreed that they should participate in international service. That is why it has been maintained in that particular section of the bill.

Senator Andreychuk: The honourable senator's argument was that it is acceptable for a judge to leave Canada to go and work in the UN service. She claimed that the UN wants to remain pure, that it does not want to be paid by a sovereign state. How is it that one portion of the wages is acceptable to be paid and not another?

I am not arguing whether it is in the best interests of the judge to have those perks follow; I believe it is. However, the honourable senator's argument was that the UN will have none of it and that that makes it acceptable and in line with the Constitution. My point is that either we pay or we do not pay, if the honourable senator's argument is to remain strong. If we do not pay, then, yes, the judge leaves all of his or her capacities in Canada, has nothing to do with the Canadian system, carries on in a pure system with the UN and then comes back. However, if you leave all the entrails of employment, like pension and other benefits, you have muddied the principle that the honourable senator is trying to uphold. Is that not correct?

Senator Carstairs: Senator Andreychuk makes a very good point. I would have to examine it in more detail.

Senator Andreychuk: I have a question on the interpretation of the terms "judicial" and "quasi-judicial." If I understand correctly, the honourable senator believes that Senator Nolin's amendment is too restrictive. I happen to be one who agrees that judges should help in the establishment of good governance and democracy. I happen to believe that judges also should be involved in providing technical assistance in setting up other courts and other judiciaries. That is why I support Senator Nolin's amendment; it says "judicial" and "quasi-judicial." My interpretation of "judicial" is not qualified to just mean sitting on the bench. It includes all of the trappings that come with a court and with a judgeship. Surely, judicial education is part of what we believe to be judicial, as well as the activities of sitting on the bench.

It seems to me that Senator Nolin's amendment supports the kind of activity that I think is appropriate and necessary for judges. Surely the line we would draw is, if there is someone else to take on the assignment, why would we want our judges to do it? If we have capable people as prosecutors, legalists, economists, human rights advocates, these people should be encouraged to get involved. Why get into the whole field of judicial independence? Only judges are capable, competent and necessary in the fields of judicial and quasi-judicial matters.

In other words, I think the use of Canadian judges to help in Ukraine to set up an independent court is acceptable. However, I certainly do not think our judges should act as human rights activists carrying on dialogues with other governments.

I leave the question of whether prosecuting can be interpreted as quasi-judicial to the judicial council. In those delicate fields that are grey, surely we should turn to the judicial council. They can say, "If we want to stretch the definition, then let us stretch it." Why does the honourable senator believe that the definition of "judicial" is so narrowly interpreted? I have not run into that definition.

I would also want an undertaking that the UN does not have anyone on its payroll, nor has ever had anyone on its payroll, paid by a sovereign state and that in fact secondments do occur. It is an ideal that the international civil servant should conduct matters unfettered by concepts from the sovereign state. However, is it a reality in today's United Nations? My own feeling is that it is not, so why are we being asked to be purists in this case when the UN itself is not?

Senator Carstairs: Honourable senators, let me answer the last question first. The staff regulations are clear. They cannot accept such pay. I am not and do not pretend to be an expert on the United Nations. However, I do know that the staff regulations clearly state that the staff cannot receive remuneration from anyone other than the international organization.

Senator Andreychuk: Honourable senators, is the honourable senator saying that there are no examples of secondment where the salary continues to be paid by the state? Is she saying that in no instance is anyone's salary paid through the government and then reimbursed to the government? In other words, are there no innovative bookkeeping experiences existing within the UN today?

Senator Carstairs: Honourable senators, I do not have that knowledge. All I can do is quote from the staff regulation, which states that no staff member shall accept remuneration from any government. If there are violations of that regulation, I do not know of any. I am not an authority on the United Nations and cannot address that question, other than to tell the honourable senator what the staff regulation says.

Senator Andreychuk: Honourable senators, I am not saying that the United Nations is in violation. The honourable senator has pointed out the regulations for international civil servants. They have been argued and debated and put into the form of a handbook for international civil servants. However, this does not encompass the host of employees of the UN. Senator Kinsella is pointing out rapporteurs in the human rights field. I am personally acquainted with that situation and they are not international civil servants in the full sense of that word. There are other instances of people in the UN who are being paid in different ways from the one pointed out by the honourable senator. Am I correct or incorrect in my understanding?

Senator Carstairs: Honourable senators, my understanding only extends to the section I have quoted to you. In terms of the honourable senator's question with respect to quasi-judicial and judicial functions, we can agree to disagree. I think Senator Nolin's definition is too narrow. I think it should be broader.

Hon. Noël A. Kinsella: Could we ask that this document on staff rules, which has been referred to several times, be tabled so that we can examine it? I, like Senator Andreychuk, believe that its provisions do not apply to appointees to the United Nations, such as special rapporteurs, special commissioners of inquiry, et cetera. Rather it is a staff regulation that applies to international civil servants, the permanent employees of the United Nations. By definition, in this instance, we are dealing with an ad hoc appointment. At any rate, if we could see the document, it would be helpful.

Senator Carstairs: I will try to get the full regulation for the honourable senator.


Point of Order

Hon. Eymard G. Corbin: Honourable senators on a point of order, my understanding was that we extended time to the Honourable Senator Carstairs to allow her to conclude her remarks. I do not recall that time was extended or that time is automatically extended to allow honourable senators, following the conclusion of a speech, to enter into a question period. I find the questions interesting, but that is beside the point. The new rules were supposed to take care of abuse of situations involving the allotted time for debate in the Senate and other purposes.

I should like a ruling as to whether we extended the speaking time for Senator Carstairs or whether we allowed for unlimited questions and answers. I would like to get a clear picture of where we are at this precise moment.

Hon. Noël A. Kinsella: Honourable senators, leave was granted to extend the time provided for the debate that we are engaged in, led this afternoon by Senator Carstairs. His Honour asked senators whether we agreed to extend the time and unanimous consent was given and the time was extended. There is no identified end point, other than the general provision that is found in the rules, which tells us what happens when the clock reaches 1800 hours.

Senator Corbin: That is your interpretation.

Senator Kinsella: Honourable senators, the honourable senator and I are disagreeing. He has raised a point of order and so argued. I am arguing the contrary. I do not think the honourable senator's interpretation of the rules is correct.

The point I raise for His Honour to consider in making the ruling for which Senator Corbin has asked, is that when unanimous consent is given, unanimous consent has been given.

Senator Corbin: Honourable senators, one would obviously have to be mischievous to interpret a request to be allotted extra time to conclude Senator Carstairs' speech as an open licence to enter into an endless question and answer period. That makes no sense at all. I think it is mischievous. I should like a clear ruling on it.

Senator Kinsella: Honourable senators, to counter that argument, this is probably one of the better debates we have had in the past number of days. This has been a good and helpful exchange. We have learned a number of new things about this bill that we are examining as a result of debate, followed by a series of questions and answers between the speaker, Senator Carstairs, and various honourable senators. We learned, for example, about the personnel document.

If anything is mischievous, honourable senators, it is this attempt to quash debate.

Hon. Anne C. Cools: Senator Carstairs indicated to all of us she wanted extended time. Time was given. I was one who agreed. The Senate has not acted to counter or correct that leave that was granted. Senator Carstairs' time is still running, the extension is still going, and it is Senator Corbin who is frustrating the Senate's will.

Senator Corbin: That is a totally inept interpretation of what I said, to say the least.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Mischievous!

Senator Corbin: Senator Kinsella has reiterated what I said. I said that this was an interesting exchange, but that that was beside the point. I asked for a ruling on whether or not an extension of time to a senator who has the floor and who requests additional time to conclude her speech, can automatically be transformed into a question and answer period for an indefinite period.

Honourable senators know that questions can go on until six, or tomorrow, or until eight this evening, if we so decide. To suggest that I am somehow trying to limit debate, is totally unfair. That is not my purpose. I want this situation to be clarified. If the Speaker is in the hands of this house on this matter, I suggest that it be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Where were you during the GST debate?

Senator Corbin: That is exactly why the rules were reformed, to prevent excesses of this kind.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: To bring order, not to be guided by you.

Senator Corbin: Rather than speaking from your seat, why do you not stand up and make your contribution to the point of order?

Hon. Eric A. Berntson (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, in the absence of any citation so far on this point of order, I would refer you to rule 37(4) which reads:

(4) Except as provided in sections (2) and (3) above, no Senator shall speak for more than fifteen minutes, inclusive of any question or comments from other Senators which the Senator may permit in the course of his or her remarks.

What we have asked for, Your Honour, is the extension of the allotted speaking time of Senator Carstairs. Senator Carstairs spoke for a period and asked for leave to extend her speaking time, which includes questions or comments following the conclusion of her speech. Leave was granted.

There is nothing to say that that is now limited to five minutes, two minutes, three questions, four questions, seven questions or midnight, although there is another rule that deals with six o'clock.

Honourable senators I think any fair-minded person looking at rule 37(4) on page 39 of our rules will quickly come to the conclusion that Senator Corbin is wrong.

The Hon. the Speaker: Are there any other senators who wish to speak to the point of order?

Honourable senators, I refer to rule 37(4). The matter is out of my hands. Honourable senators agreed to give leave. Rule 37(4) clearly allows a speaker an extension of 15 minutes inclusive of any questions. The questions are part of the 15 minutes. Once leave is given, I cannot control the matter.

The Senate might consider what it is doing when granting leave.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: We knew full well. It was Senator Carstairs who asked for leave. Do not blame us.

The Hon. the Speaker: I might make the point, however, that the rule refers to questions, not speeches. If honourable senators would limit themselves to questions then, in that regard, I can exercise some leeway. Too often the questions in this place are becoming speeches. Let us have questions and answers.

Senator Kinsella: With the greatest respect for His Honour -


The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable Senator Kinsella, the Speaker is standing. Could you tell me what points you are discussing? The ruling has been made. We are now on questions to Senator Carstairs.

Senator Bosa: Honourable senators, I should like to make an observation.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable Senator Bosa.

Senator Bosa: When leave is asked, we should extend the courtesy to the speaker.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable Senator Bosa, what point are you speaking on?

Senator Bosa: On the question of giving leave when somebody speaks.

The Hon. the Speaker: I am sorry, the ruling has been given. The matter before the Senate now is questions to Senator Carstairs.

Senator Bosa: When will these points be raised again?

The Hon. the Speaker: You can rise on a point of order.

Senator Cools: Honourable senators, before I go to my question, I think we should thank Senator Carstairs for answering the questions so far.

The Hon. the Speaker: Your question, please.

Senator Cools: Very well. I was thanking her. I think she has been doing her best.

My question is as follows: Bill C-42 gives chief judges of Canada an enhanced role in the business of international activity. In the appointment to the UN War Crimes Tribunal of Madam Justice Arbour, what was the opinion of Madam Justice Arbour's then chief justice, and who secured that opinion from him?

Senator Carstairs: Senator Cools, I cannot answer that question. I do not talk to chief judges. I make it a habit not to do so.

Hon. P. Derek Lewis: Honourable senators, I should like to make a comment with reference to rule 37(4). I notice that it says that time for speaking is 15 minutes inclusive of any questions.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Out of order.

The Hon. the Speaker: I am sorry, Senator Lewis, but you are out of order.

On motion of Senator Stanbury, debate adjourned.


Changes to School System-Amendment to Term 17 of Constitution-Report of Committee-Motion in Amendment-Debate Continued

On the Order:

Resuming the debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Rompkey, P.C. seconded by the Honourable Senator De Bané, P.C., for the adoption of the thirteenth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs (respecting Term 17 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada set out in the Schedule to the Newfoundland Act), deposited with the Clerk of the Senate on July 17, 1996.

And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Doody, seconded by the Honourable Senator Kinsella, that the Report be not now adopted but that it be amended by deleting the words "without amendment, but with a dissenting opinion" and substituting therefor the following:

with the following amendment:

Delete the words in paragraph (b) of Term 17 that precede subparagraph (i) and substitute therefor the words: "where numbers warrant,"

Hon. Landon Pearson: Honourable senators, as one of the members of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs who travelled to Saint John's to hear what the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador had to say about amending Term 17, it is my turn today to share my observations with this chamber.

I have listened to each of the previous speakers with considerable attention and a growing awareness that we are as unlikely to come to an agreement on the resolution to amend Term 17 as the witnesses we heard in St. John's. I regret this because I am personally convinced that, for the sake of the children who are the future of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Senate should no longer delay the passage of this resolution. Perhaps what I say will be able to advance the debate.

Each senator has brought a different perspective to bear on the constitutional issues raised by the resolution, and each perspective has its own validity. Yet, somehow, I feel something is missing. In my view, what has been missing are the students.

I fully respect, of course, the importance of historical precedents, constitutional processes and minority rights, but in the end, it is the children and young people of Newfoundland and Labrador whose education and prospects will be most affected by the resolution we are discussing, so it is on their behalf that I should like to speak.

Everyone recognizes that there have been serious problems with education in Newfoundland and Labrador, problems that have been well documented and described in detail in the Williams Commission report. The challenge for that province is to improve the life chances of every student within its jurisdiction with its limited resources. How can it ensure greater equity between children from Christian and non-Christian families? Is it possible to guarantee that francophone children will have the same opportunities for a sound education in their own language as anglophone children? How can the spiritual life of aboriginal children be better protected within the province's educational system? How can children who are disabled be placed on a level playing field with the able-bodied? How can children living in poverty be accorded the same opportunities as those who live in greater comfort?

I believe very strongly that when schools are supported by the public purse, as they are in Newfoundland and Labrador, then equity becomes a major issue. Can this issue be properly addressed within the current Term 17? The provincial government does not believe it can. It believes that all children in the province must be guaranteed the right to an education that will enhance their potential while respecting their differences - such an education as is described by Articles 28 and 29 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Article 29 of this important document, to which the government in Newfoundland has given its assent, recognizes the right of the child to an education directed to:

(a) The development of the child's personality, talents and mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential;

(b) The development of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and for the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations;

(c) The development of respect for the child's parents, his or her own cultural identity, language and values, for the national values of the country in which the child is living, the country from which he or she may originate, and for civilizations different from his or her own;

(d) The preparation of the child for responsible life in a free society, in the spirit of understanding, peace, tolerance, equality of sexes, and friendship among all peoples, ethnic, national and religious groups and persons of indigenous origin;

(e) The development of respect for the national environment.

When I went to St. John's last July, I was not at all sure why a constitutional amendment should be deemed necessary for Newfoundland and Labrador to reform its school system so that it could bring equity and new opportunities to its students. Surely, I thought, the parties who had protected status under the existing Term 17 could negotiate arrangements that would address the concerns raised by the Williams report and satisfy the requirements of the children's convention. However, as I listened to the witnesses - and as far as I can tell we heard from all the stakeholders, including some lively and refreshing young people who were studying in the system - it became increasingly clear that for a variety of reasons, there was little prospect of accommodation under the old Term 17. On the contrary, the power struggle, which, according to the Right Reverend Donald Harvey, the Anglican Bishop of Newfoundland and Labrador, had already "weakened and diluted" the province's capacity to provide the highest quality of education possible within its means for far too long, was certain to continue. Why? Why were some of our witnesses so convinced they would lose their constitutionally guaranteed rights, while others were equally certain that the amended term did not go far enough to respond to the dreams of many Newfoundlanders for neighbourhood schools and other child-friendly conditions?

I have studied the amended text of Term 17, and it is not possible for me to read it in the same light as either Senator Doody or Senator Kinsella. In paragraph (a), the text says, in black and white:

...schools established, maintained and operated with public funds shall be denominational schools, and any class of persons having rights under this Term as it read on January 1, 1995 shall continue to have the right to provide for religious education, activities and observances for the children of that class in those schools,

Those are the very conditions that the Supreme Court has judged necessary and sufficient to fulfil the education rights of a constitutionally protected religious minority. Yet those who spoke on behalf of the Roman Catholic and Pentecostal churches, as well as the Seventh Day Adventists, were not satisfied with this guarantee. Why not?


Listening carefully, what I heard in their testimony was concern that the power and control exercised by their protected denominations in overall school governance would be diminished. Under the old Term 17, concurrence of the denominations was required for school reorganization. Some reorganization did take place this summer - necessary reorganization. It did take place with that concurrence. Does that not prove that there is no need for the amended term after all?

I do not think it does. For example, would the denominations be so quick to concur in the establishment of a truly aboriginal school? We do not know the answer to that. Under the old Term 17, it never happened; under the new Term 17, the concurrence of the denominations would no longer be necessary. While that might represent a loss of power for the churches, it would almost certainly represent a gain for the aboriginal community.

One of my previous visits to St. John's in the mid-1980s was in conjunction with the publication of the Badgley report on sexual abuse against children. At that time, certain incidents in Newfoundland had aroused grave public concern. The people I met in St. John's during my visit - social workers, lawyers and representatives of women's groups - were distressed that certain authorities close to the incident seemed to be more preoccupied with protecting themselves than with protecting the rights of the child victims. Tragically, that is not an uncommon response in the modern world, and combined with other experiences I have had, especially during my years in the former Soviet Union, what I learned on that visit reinforced my concern for power that has no accountability. I truly believe that, in the long run, democratic institutions that can be changed by their electorates and kept accountable by the checks and balances of civil society are the most reliable repositories of power.

Whatever we may think of the resolution to amend Term 17, it came to us through properly designated constitutional channels consisting of elected legislative bodies. As an unelected legislative body, the Senate, appropriately enough in my view, has only a suspensive veto. Our role has been to examine the issues raised by the resolution with great care and to give them a full airing both in Ottawa and in St. John's. This we have done and are continuing to do. I think we have made a real contribution by this activity.

However, honourable senators, I see no merit in proposing a modification that has already been considered and rejected by the Newfoundland House of Assembly. I agree with Senator Milne that there is no flaw in the proposed amendment to Term 17 sufficiently gross to justify such a motion. As an elected body, the Newfoundland House of Assembly deserves our respect, and if you believe as I do that national unity will only survive in the context of flexible federalism, then we should not hold the children of Newfoundland and Labrador hostage to the history of what has happened in other provinces or the fear of what may happen again. This is a bilateral amendment to the Constitution under section 45, and I do not believe that we should either amend it or refuse to pass it.

In conclusion, honourable senators, I should like to return to the testimony of Bishop Harvey, who agreed that there are certain flaws in the resolution, but urged the Senate to "give it the necessary approval so that governance of our school system will come directly into the hands of our elected representatives." He continued by expressing the hope that the government with its new authority would then "listen to the dictates of its people as they attempt to frame a system which will embody the best of the past while providing for efficiency and consolidation to meet the rapidly changing demographics of this province. We owe our children no less."

I agree. If we fail to pass this resolution, we will only reinforce entrenched opinions and, as Bishop Harvey said, make the task of reconciling and rebuilding relationships even more difficult when our suspensive veto is lifted and the Constitution is amended. It is the children of Newfoundland who are paying the price.

Hon. Finlay MacDonald: Perhaps the honourable senator could clarify something for me. I did not quite understand. You referred to your previous visit to St. John's in the 1980s. I believe you stated that the purpose of that trip was to study child abuse?

Senator Pearson: Yes.

Senator MacDonald: You made reference to a lack of accountability. To whom were you referring?

Senator Pearson: I was referring to the Badgley report, which you will remember dealt with sexual abuses against children. At that time, not only had there been the incidents related to Mount Cashel but there had been other incidents related to abuse. I do not like to name names because I do not think it is right. However, these incidents related to certain persons within Newfoundland, and to cases that were, in fact, finally brought to court and in which the persons involved were found guilty.

At the time, the people were upset with the authorities. I am not just speaking about church authorities. There were other authorities such as the police. We know this about the history of Mount Cashel. They were trying to keep the incidents under control. As I listened to those people at that time, I felt that there was a problem of accountability. It was a "protection". They were coming around to protect the school at Mount Cashel, or they were coming around to protect the particular persons who were involved in the case that I was brought in to discuss. None of these people were elected. There was no way in which they could be accountable to the population, as I see a democratically elected group being responsible.

Senator MacDonald: Senator, you do not have to be elected to be accountable. I did not understand what you were driving at by making a reference to that particular time.

Senator Pearson: It is true that you can be accountable to your conscience, however, when I lived in the Soviet Union, my sense was that there was a lack of accountability to the population. This was one of the problems that created such a closed society. My argument is really in favour of an open society with open decisions, openly arrived at.

On motion of Senator Lewis, debate adjourned.


Criminal Code

Bill to Amend-Second Reading-Debate Adjourned

Hon. Fernand Roberge moved the second reading of Bill S-10, to amend the Criminal Code (criminal organization).

He said: Honourable senators, last June 18, I tabled a bill to amend the Criminal Code by adding a definition of the notion of criminal organization and certain provisions to combat this scourge. More specifically, this bill says, and I quote:

This enactment provides that everyone who, without lawful excuse, lives wholly or in part on any property, benefit or advantage from a criminal organization is guilty of an indictable offence and liable on conviction to a term of imprisonment of not less than one year and not more than ten years. A person convicted of this indictable offence will not be eligible for parole until three-fourths of the sentence has been served.

Such an amendment of the Criminal Code would give our police forces and courts new tools to deal with a situation that is becoming increasingly serious and complex with each passing year. These amendments would allow Canadian society as a whole to defend itself against an insidious and serious threat, because we are all victims of organized crime.

It is true that the bosses and most of the employees of these criminal organizations conduct their activities primarily in large urban centres. There are also ramifications and accomplices in all regions. What community, what town in Canada, can say that it has no drug traffic, no prostitution, no theft, and no fraud that is directly or indirectly related to a criminal network?

As taxpayers, we are all victims as well. It is estimated, for example, that the amount of money controlled every year by organized crime in Canada approaches $20 billion. This amount benefits criminals directly. It encourages illegal activity in many other sectors. However, the misappropriation of all this money that has been obtained and reinvested illegally also constitutes an enormous tax fraud, the largest loss of revenue faced by our governments.

At a time when all governments and all citizens have to make sacrifices in order to get our financial house in order and rebuild the economy, is it right that we tolerate the existence of an illegal informal economy? Can one of the most highly taxed countries in the world allow unscrupulous individuals to shirk their civic duty through illegal means, while enjoying all the benefits and advantages of Canadian citizenship? When over a million Canadians are unemployed and tens of thousands of families are living in poverty, are we going to let a minority of criminals blatantly amass wealth in this shocking manner? At a time when hospital beds are being closed, when funding for our children's education is being cut, are we going to close our eyes to the activities of criminals who are abusing the freedoms we have so dearly won and fought to preserve?

With the bill before you, we can answer all of these questions with a resounding "no."

We Canadians have every reason in the world to be proud of what we have accomplished together. For several years now, Canada has ranked first of all UN member nations for its quality of life. Millions of people everywhere in the world would give up everything they possess for a chance to become Canadian citizens. Our reputation rests on the integrity, solidarity and determination of generation after generation of Canadians who have come from all over the globe, and it is part of the heritage we wish to leave to our children.

However, are we taking all of the steps necessary to protect that heritage, to allow it to grow? Will our children inherit a Canada that is as peaceable, cities that are as calm, communities that are as harmonious, as they are now?

We senators have a special responsibility, since a bill similar to the one before us today was tabled in the other House last February, but was rejected by the government, thus preventing this vital matter from being discussed in the Canadian Parliament. Yet, it is the duty of Canada's Parliament to address this problem, which threatens the very basis of our society.

Our police forces are overwhelmed, and are calling for our assistance in combatting organized crime, which in some cases is better equipped than the police. Our courts cannot manage to pull of circulation certain individuals whose sole activity, sole source of income, is related to their connections with well-known criminal organizations.

Our police forces and legal authorities have often identified the major difficulties they face in their fight against organized crime: the abuse of the Charter, the length and prohibitive cost of police investigations and legal proceedings, the impossibility of getting to the crime bosses, the infiltration by organized crime of all institutions and the difficulty of confiscating the proceeds of crime. These problems are well known.

Yet, the Minister of Justice, while admitting that organized crime is a serious problem, looked the other way when the time came to act. Like many citizens, including the victims of organized crime and law-enforcement authorities, I deplore the Minister of Justice's lack of leadership.

True, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms contains specific provisions dealing with the presumption of innocence and the freedom of association. I support these provisions wholeheartedly. However, in a healthy democracy, people have not only rights and freedoms but also responsibilities and obligations. The first responsibility is to protect our rights and freedoms against those who violate the most basic principles of justice and do not respect the lives of others.

The Minister of Justice seems to think that, just because Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it cannot protect its citizens against criminal organizations. I suggest that he drag himself away from his law books and look around him. He would see other countries that are just as democratic as Canada have given themselves the means to fight criminal associations.

A democracy as venerable as Italy enacted a law against the Mafia. France, the cradle of human rights, provided itself with a law against crooks when it needed it. The United States of America, whose 1776 Declaration of Independence proclaimed that all its citizens were equal, passed the RICO Act.

Of course, we cannot use these laws as models, but we can certainly draw inspiration from the courage and wisdom of the legislators in those countries.

I would also remind this house that, like all freedoms, the freedom of association is not absolute and stops where it infringes on another freedom.

Montesquieu once said:

The law is generally human reason.

In December 1989, the Court of Appeal of New Brunswick ruled in Frawley v. The Queen that an association whose purpose is criminal cannot be protected by the Charter. It would be paradoxical at the very least for a charter designed to protect people's rights and freedoms to be used as a screen by those whose main occupation is crime, robbery, prostitution, drug trafficking and even murder.

In enshrining the presumption of innocence and the right of association in our Constitution, the legislator certainly did not intend to help criminals join forces to threaten our safety. Was it not as important to protect Daniel Desrochers, the 11-year old victim of the war between biker gangs in Montreal, as to constitutionally protect those who deal in crime on an everyday basis?

More than 30 people have been killed, often by bombs exploding in the middle of the street, because biker gangs are fighting over who will have the monopoly over drug trafficking. These gang members are killing one another in public places, in the midst of our communities, showing the same blindness and disregard for the law as American gangsters in the 1930s.

There is no doubt that the bill I am proposing today could be improved upon, and hopefully it will, if it means making it more efficient and facilitating its passage. What I wish above all is for us to have the opportunity to consider together, first at the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and then in this house, steps that could be taken to protect society against the actions of criminal groups.

I suggest that the committee not limit itself to considering the provisions of Bill S-10, but literally sit as a commission of inquiry on organized crime. We should invite representatives of police forces and of the legal profession to testify and to tell us, among other things, who is in these groups we are concerned about, and how they operate.


Should certain groups or individuals mentioned in the course of such an inquiry feel unfairly singled out, I think they should have every opportunity to appear before the committee to give their side of the story. We could also tap into the expertise of other countries in dealing specifically with this problem, could we not?

We will recall the work done by the Cliche Commission on violence in the construction industry in 1975 and by the Commission of Inquiry on Organized Crime. These two commissions were most useful in publicly identifying criminal elements who, of course, normally prefer to work under the veil of secrecy.


Canada is far from being the only country in the world that faces the threat of organized crime. Here is what the Secretary-General of the United Nations had to say on the subject in 1993:

Organized crime is nothing less than a massive attack on the fabric of society affecting practically all of its components at the individual, collective and institutional levels. It is also an insidious form of lawlessness which cynically exploits citizens' rights...for the purpose of reducing risk of detection and maximizing impunity. In this manner, organized crime threatens some of the most basic elements of a democratic order.

All countries, to varying degrees, are affected by organized crime. Most major countries have adapted specific legislation to counter this threat. Why is it that Canada, which prides itself on the protection it affords its citizens' rights and security, does not have such legislation?

This problem will not go away. On the contrary, in the latest Annual Report on Organized Crime in Canada, the chair of the Canadian Criminal Intelligence Service writes that in the future, Canada will experience the continued presence of expanded crime syndicates.

The major organized crime groups in Canada are well known to our law enforcement agencies: Asian organized crime, East European organized crime, Italian organized crime, aboriginal organized crime, outlawed motorcycle gangs and Colombian organized crime all have strong roots and ramifications in our big cities.

As to organized crime, I say: Let us oppose it with organized democracy. In the face of those who flaunt our laws and abuse our freedoms, let us show the resolve and the strength that made this country great and the haven of equality and safety for all its citizens. What a tragic irony it would be if a country that is known for its commitment to peacekeeping around the world was not willing, or capable, of ensuring safety on its own streets.

On those who act in the dark of night, let us shine the full light of public opinion and parliamentary scrutiny.


Three centuries ago, the French philosopher Diderot wrote:

Observance of the law, the preservation of freedom and the love of one's country are the rich sources of all great things and fine actions.

We all love our country. For the sake of this country, let us join together and do what we must to ensure that our laws are observed and our freedoms preserved.

On motion of Senator Losier-Cool, debate adjourned.

Broadcasting Act

Bill to amend - Debate continued

On the Order:

Resuming the debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Whelan, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Losier-Cool, for the second reading of Bill C-216, to amend the Broadcasting Act (broadcasting policy).-(Honourable Senator Bolduc).

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, this order stands in the name of Senator Bolduc; if he will allow Senator Simard to continue the debate today, there is no problem.

Hon. Roch Bolduc: I agree.

Hon. Jean-Maurice Simard: In my opinion, and after consulting experts in the field, after meeting with the Fédération des Canadiens-Français et Acadiens du Canada, after receiving and reading the letter of the Honourable Senator Gauthier on this issue, and after meeting with the CRTC's top official, I came to the conclusion that, in its present form, Bill C-216 is a bad piece of legislation.

From the outset, I felt that the bill would adversely affect francophones outside Quebec, but it goes further than that. I also thought that, in the future, specialty channels would not be accessible to francophones outside Quebec, or would be restricted. I now realize that access to channels currently available to Quebecers and francophones, honourable senators, will also be limited.

The intention of the sponsor of the bill, MP Roger Galloway, was laudable and acceptable. However, I think that Mr. Galloway erred in the wording of Bill C-216. I have nothing more to say for the time being. I will continue my research, along with my colleagues, who should take another look at this bill. I will come back to this issue.

I propose the adjournment of the debate.


The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators the debate is adjourned on behalf of the Honourable Senator Bolduc.

You spoke with his agreement. The adjournment motion must remain under the name of the Honourable Senator Bolduc.

On motion of Senator Bolduc, debate adjourned.


Employment Insurance (Fishing) Regulations

Report of Social Affairs, Science and Technology Committee-Debate Adjourned

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the seventh report of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology (Employment Insurance (Fishing) Regulations), presented in the Senate on October 28, 1996.

Hon. Mabel M. DeWare: Honourable senators, Senator Simard would like to make some comments. Therefore, I yield the floor to him.


Hon. Jean-Maurice Simard: Honourable senators, I have a few questions for the Chair of the committee, Senator DeWare. When the Senate concurred in the report of the committee on the motion by Senator Comeau, I thought the honourable senators had understood the essence of the motion.

In my mind, there was no question that the essence of Senator Comeau's motion was that, in giving a mandate to Senator DeWare, who chairs the Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, the Senate gave her the responsibility to review the regulations affecting, among others, fishermen from the Atlantic region, who will face a shortfall of $33 million next year.

I will read the preamble of the committee report:

Your Committee, to which was referred the Employment Insurance (Fishing) Regulations made under section 153 of the Employment Insurance Act and approved on September 17, 1996, and any matter relating thereto, has, in obedience to the Order of Reference of Thursday, October 3, 1996, examined the said Employment Insurance (Fishing) Regulations.

This report is not very controversial, but it does not does not shed sufficient light on the discussions and the work of the committee. I would like to know more. Senator DeWare, what studies did members of the committee make of the regulations?


Senator DeWare: Honourable senators, the committee asked the Department of Human Resources Development to appear before it to answer some questions and explain to us what the procedure was for introducing the regulations under the Employment Insurance bill with regard to the fisheries industry. The witnesses were extensively questioned by members of the committee from both sides of this house. Assistant Deputy Minister Norine Smith told us that information had been sent to the fishermen and all parties involved, such as the human resources development departments in all provinces, the unions and the fishing organizations, around June 17 and again in September, as well as to members of Parliament. We informed the department that we also are members of Parliament, and that we did not receive the document.

Senator Simard: We did not receive it.

Senator DeWare: We reminded them that we are also members of Parliament.

After extensive questioning on the response received to the information given to the industry, the witnesses said that they had received no response; that they had not heard from any members requesting more information or anything related to the regulations relating to fisheries.

After this discussion, I asked the committee what it wished to do further. A motion was made that we have some members of the industry appear before the committee to be heard or, in the alternative, that we travel to hear their testimony. The motion was turned down by the committee. The witnesses from the Department of Human Resources Development said that that offer had been extended to the industry and not one response had been received. It was therefore decided that no more hearings were necessary at this time.

Senator Simard: That is shocking, honourable senators.

Is the Honourable Senator DeWare telling me that the only information with which members of the committee were provided was a list of people and institutions who were sent copies of the regulations? If I understood the honourable senator correctly, the government received no comments at all from anyone on that matter, either favourable or unfavourable.

Senator DeWare: That is correct.

Senator Simard: The honourable senator alluded to the fact that senators, who are members of Parliament, were not sent copies of the regulations. What explanation did the assistant deputy minister provide to the committee for the failure of the department to send us those regulations?

Senator DeWare: We just told them that we were members of Parliament. The document, which I do not have before me, states that the regulations should be tabled in the House of Commons. It does not say that they must be tabled in the Senate. We brought to their attention that we, too, are members of Parliament and deserve the same attention as those in the other place.

The Hon. the Speaker: I am afraid that we are getting into a rather irregular procedure. The proper procedure would be for the Honourable Senator Simard to make his speech and then have Senator DeWare respond. We cannot enter into a question and answer period during the course of normal debate.


Senator Simard, I propose that you ask all your questions and make a speech. You have 15 minutes to do so. Then, Senator DeWare can answer.


Senator Simard: Did you put a clock on me, Senator Gigantès? Are you keeping time?

Senator Gigantès: No; I would like to hear another voice.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, let us not argue needlessly. The table keeps time. As soon as a senator rises, the table starts the clock. We know when 15 minutes have elapsed.

Senator Simard: I intend to stay within my 15 minutes.

Senator Gigantès: That will be a record.


Senator Simard: Honourable senators, unless I am mistaken, a discussion took place among the Liberal senators on the committee, where the decision was made to forbid any trip, any hearing in Ottawa and in the provinces, whether in the Atlantic region or elsewhere. What happened, Senator DeWare? I thought that, on our side, we expressed a desire to hear members from the industry, fishermen, in Ottawa and elsewhere. What is the position of Liberal senators and others who may have objected to this usual way of reviewing bills and fulfilling the mandate given on October 3 to the Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology by the Senate to conduct an in-depth review of clause 153 of the Canada Employment Insurance Act?


The question is: Was there a discussion -


The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Simard, I believe there is a misunderstanding. What we have before us is a bill. You have 15 minutes to make a speech, but Senator DeWare cannot reply during that period. When you are done with your speech, she can reply as she wishes.


Senator Simard: Honourable senators, I will go the usual route. I will blame, criticize and give notice that, starting today and in the months to come, this fall, this winter, next summer, and before and after the election campaign that looms on the horizon, we, on this side, will invite voters to give their opinion on regulations affecting fishermen in particular.

I shall also remind voters that, last Thursday, it took five Liberal senators in committee, including three from the Atlantic region, namely Senator Bonnell, Senator Bosa and Senator Mercier, and Senator Losier-Cool to do this. Again, this arrogant government, which is represented here by arrogant Liberal senators from the Atlantic region and the rest of Canada, has kept people from being heard. The families of these fishermen, including their grandparents and their children, will be adversely affected.

We are far from the promised policies, from the commitments made in the Red Book by the Liberal Party of Canada to be transparent and to consult the people. This is what we will tell them endlessly.

We will pursue the former minister of natural resources and current defence minister, who has been instrumental in the development of these rules that penalize Atlantic fishermen.

So, what can we do? I think that the committee chaired by Senator DeWare was wrong. They did not fulfil the terms of reference this house gave them some time ago, on October 3. This is too bad.

According to statements I saw in newspapers published in New Brunswick and elsewhere, there is not the general agreement that might be predicted or imagined. We have been led to believe that the agreement was general, that there was no opposition, that everything was fine with these rules.

Need I remind my colleagues that it is not the first time Liberal senators, Liberal members and the Liberal government have refused to consult with the people and probably to amend Bill C-12 and the related regulations. The committee was directed by the Senate to study these regulations.

So what can I do? I think the Liberal senators who sit on the committee have shown contempt for democracy and for parliamentary tradition. They have shown contempt for the responsibilities they and other senators have accepted when they decided to come to the Senate.

All we can say, as the chair of the committee has confirmed, is that the committee has concluded its study of these regulations, as it was directed to do. So I would like to ask Senator DeWare if she is satisfied with the work of her committee.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senator, I am sorry but your 15 minutes are up.


Senator Simard: My 15 minutes are up, but I hope that other senators, even if they are not the chairs of the committees, will provide an answer.

Hon. Peter Bosa: Honourable senators, before I move the adjournment of the debate, I want to make one simple observation. I wish Senator Simard, who was around the corner from where the committee was sitting, would have stayed in committee so that he could have heard for himself the testimony provided by the officials from the Department of Human Resources Development.

On motion of Senator Bosa, debate adjourned.

Canada-European Union Relations

Report of Foreign Affairs Committee on Study-Debate Continued

On the Order:

Resuming the debate on the consideration of the second report of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs (Special Study on European Relations), deposited with the Clerk of the Senate on July 18, 1996.-(Honourable Senator Grafstein).

Hon. Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: Honourable senators, I was privileged to serve as a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs under the incisive leadership of our chairman, the Honourable John Stewart, in the extensive and complex work leading to a report entitled, "European Integration: The Implications for Canada."

Why Europe? Why now? The European Union has emerged as the richest market in the world. With a population of 375 million, and a GDP of $8.4 trillion U.S., Europe now exceeds the United States, which has a population of 260 million and a GDP of $7 trillion.

As the report points out, European Union exports and imports account for over one-third of total world trade. The EU is now the single largest exporter of services and the world's largest importer of goods. The EU is also one of the world's largest sources of foreign investment, rivalling the United States. By 1999, the EU will take a radical leap towards a single currency married to a common monetary policy. It is anticipated that the EU, now made up of 15 member states, will be enlarged by at least three and beyond in the next five years. Within two decades, it is estimated that an enlarged EU could have a population of close to a half-billion, third after China and India in absolute size.

Honourable senators, the EU is racing along a very fast track to a greater enlargement, greater convergence and ever greater growth. Meanwhile, since 1973, when the Foreign Affairs Committee last surveyed Canada's relations with Europe, Canada's merchandise trades accounts with Europe have declined in absolute and relative importance.

In 1973, our merchandise exports to the then nine-member EU accounted for 12.4 per cent of total Canadian exports while imports from EU represented 13.3 per cent of all Canadian imports. By 1995, Canadian merchandise exports to the EU had fallen 50 per cent to 6.4 per cent of our total merchandise exports. The merchandise imports from the EU have fallen 30 per cent to 10.1 per cent of our total imports - all this despite the EU's absolute enlargement from nine members in 1973 to 15 member states.


Our European trade has downsized to an ever smaller slice of an ever growing pie. Why? As the report points out, Canada's own trading patterns have changed dramatically in recent years in size and scope, especially with the advent of the FTA and NAFTA with the U.S. and now Mexico. The U.S. looms ever larger in our total trade picture. Today, we are much more heavily dependent on the U.S. than ever before. Our U.S. trade now represents over 80 per cent of our total, over a billion dollars daily. While we currently enjoy a comfortable trade surplus, Canada will increasingly find itself in a most dangerous and precarious position. It is precisely because of this precarious position that the committee concluded after intensive hearings in Canada and meetings in Dublin, London, Paris, Frankfurt, Warsaw and Brussels that there is pressing work to be done in Canada's national interest to diversify our trade patterns, especially with Europe.

Canada is a trading nation. We grow increasingly dependent on trade, honing and sharpening our comparative advantages in an ever increasing competitive trade world. More jobs now depend on foreign trade than ever before. More than 50 per cent of all jobs in Canada are now trade-related. Hence, the national urgency to diversify our sources and patterns of trade.

What storekeeper or manufacturer would depend on one customer and still feel secure about the future? This overdependence of trade on only one trading partner, albeit a robust trading partner, surely weakens our freedom of choice, diminishes our national flexibility and erodes our international manoeuvrability.

The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs made 25 succinct recommendations, ranging from calls for new statistical information on many of these areas to impact studies on European common currency and European monetary union.

"Facts first," we said. "Facts before policy." Of course, the strategic conclusions logically lead back to Canada, to the work necessary and yet to be done to eliminate the archaic, interprovincial barriers dividing Canada. We must modernize our own domestic marketplace and do it now.

It seems that Canada can make more progress in liberalizing free trade with our international neighbours than we can achieve at home. How silly and dangerous and lacking in political and business leadership. Harmonization at home should be our first priority. We must harmonize and modernize our own domestic marketplace. We have no other economic choice. Businessmen can lead public opinion on this front and they have failed.

In Europe, one danger lurks! One clear and present danger to Canada lurks in the continuing suffocation of access to the European market. Each European Union enlargement will inevitably result in diversion of trade and investment to the newer members of the European Union. As Canadian goods are displaced, the Canadian presence in Europe will contract even more. This has already happened at each step of EU enlargement. Canada's goods are being pushed off the shelf as room is made for new EU members.

To make matters worse, the common EU currency slated for 1999 could devalue European currency against our currency while decreasing the cost of capital to European based global players with whom our companies compete, all of which will add to our trade disadvantage. The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs concluded that Canada must be alert, better informed and prepared to counter sudden shifts and dislocation of trades and investment that will inevitably come with enlargement and convergence in Europe.

On the security front, deeper strategies lie buried and hidden in public changes to European security arrangements coming in 1997. The committee studied most carefully foreign security policies in Europe. We concluded that the linchpin of our security relationship in Europe still rests with NATO. However, the committee cautioned the Canadian government to assess each new application for membership in NATO on its own merits to ensure that each new country will serve both Canada and Europe's strategic long-term interests in the cause of peace.

Canada must ensure that NATO enlargement does, in fact, add greater security and stability in Europe. We must remember that each enlargement obligates Canada under NATO to defend each new member's borders against armed attack. There is little public understanding of the simply gigantic transformation in security and cost and strategic risks that will arise with each new addition to NATO. Change can provoke new and more dangerous risks.

The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs was concerned about the valid concerns aroused by Russia and hopes these can be resolved before an enlarged NATO is "deemed an irrevocable threat to Russia."

Honourable senators will recall that NATO arose as a counter to a palpable threat to peace and security in Europe posed by an aggressive U.S.S.R. in the 1940s. Today, Russia does not present such a threat. On the contrary, Russia is seeking to build slender bridges to the West. New thinking, new risk assessment must march in parallel to any enlargement in NATO to avoid a delayed incendiary to Europe's security. For example, any enlargement should take place simultaneously with a treaty with Russia. This is not to say that Russia should have veto powers within NATO, but to take advantage of Russia's current weakness is to court future instability and to create another "Versailles" in the mind of the Russia of the future.

We were the first country to recognize Ukraine. Where do Canada and the West leave the Ukraine in this strategic equation? There are serious strategic issues to be addressed before NATO enlargement proceeds.

We watched the EU grappling with common foreign and security policies. It is perhaps on this front that the EU has failed to achieve a unified voice. Clearly, on the convergence of economic, monetary, trade and investment policies, Europe is racing quickly ahead in surprisingly relative harmony. Only when it comes to security matters and foreign policy do we hear discordant voices. Recent events in the old Yugoslavia and elsewhere bordering the EU and Turkey are witness to this failure of consensus and political will.

Therefore, we must work harder to develop a stronger political will within the existing NATO to secure peace and stability. Much work remains to be done on this front within NATO.

More does not mean better. An enlarged NATO complicates an already complex decision-making structure. Enlargement will inevitably diminish Canada's voice in NATO and in Europe. New strategic and tactical assessments of risk must be taken now before any enlargement.

Turning to bilateral relations with the EU, the committee stressed the urgency in concentrating our political will to quickly obtain a trade action plan that allows Canada direct trade access to the EU market. Canada needs a solid, fixed trans-Atlantic trade platform, a platform to pry open and keep open the closing trade doors of Europe. The U.S. has already negotiated and signed a trade platform. A Canadian action plan has been left out in the cold. Our "fish war" set back our action plan. Unless we can call on our European friends to complete first principles, Canada will find itself isolated and overly dependent upon its North American trade ties. This is not good for Canada.

Canada must revive its bilateral ties with member states in Europe and move quickly to build a strong multilateral trade bridge with the EU itself. Happily, there has been a fresh and energetic trade initiative on the Asian and South American fronts in Canada, but that is simply not enough.

Canada must be dealt into Europe and we must be dealt into Europe now. Trade must not be episodic with government or business. It should be an hourly and daily preoccupation of both government and business.

Honourable senators, we were surprised to find that our greatest friend in Europe today is Germany. Our traditional trade links with the U.K. and France and our close fraternal and cultural ties with other member states in Europe are being displaced by the magnetic and micro-pull of European convergence. Thick, multifaceted political and economic activity is preoccupying member states at every level, deepening and widening internal ties on their economic and trade fronts, leaving Canada behind and in the dark.

I ask myself, why has Europe moved so quickly on its path to convergence. What was the source of political will that galvanized this radical transformation within Europe? Jean Monnet and other visionaries after World War II concluded that a common market with common institutions, transborder consortia and shared sovereignty was the only true path to security and prosperity.

That was nearly scuttled by the U.S. Senate, jealous of American sovereignty. Yet Americans, led by Senator Vandenberg, who made a U-turn, were prepared to support the NATO charter, especially section 5, which shared responsibility for mutual security in Europe, which lead to the Marshall Plan of reconstruction, which in turn led to a common market and finally to the European Union.


Honourable senators, I observed an arresting paradox at the social and political level, seen through my particular Canadian prism. While Canada and Europe share common roots, common language and cultures, one very sad irony stands out. The heart of Europe, the "idea" of Europe, seems to be groping toward the federal idea, the cosmopolitan idea, a federation rooted in equality, in commonality, in melting divisions and barriers of history, language and religion that have so divided and devastated Europe in the past. Europe seems to have learned the lessons of history. There is a new Europe where governments are dedicated to sharing sovereignty, a new Europe arising, a different kind of European order.

We heard surprisingly common ideas and strong consensus at every level about a common currency when we visited the economic leaders of the Banque de France in Paris and Bundesbank in Frankfurt. The common currency, the so-called Euro dollar, the EMU, will give European states and European companies a distinct competitive advantage over North American firms. We heard common principles spoken when we met senior bureaucrats in Dublin and Warsaw and when we met with politicians in Ireland, France, Germany, the U.K., Belgium and Poland, on almost all issues.

All senators were surprised by the extent to which such diverse countries, former enemies such as France and Germany, Poland and the U.K., and neutralists such as Ireland, Austria and Scandinavia, were prepared to share sovereignty on such a broad range of economic and monetary issues.

Indeed, Europe has learned from its past, it seems. Meanwhile, we in Canada seem to be falling backwards into a quiet abyss, an asymmetrical federation, a pseudo-federation, where nostalgic notions of regional nationalism and collective rights undermine and supplant the federalist vision of individual equality now sprouting all over Europe - "the greening of Europe," I call it. While we note a "greening" of the European idea, we sense a continuing defoliation of the federal idea within Canada. Canada's movement toward the "equal" idea, the cosmopolitan idea, the transcendent federalist ideal, seems to be floundering while Europe's movement is on a faster track.

Europe with all the historic differences rooted in language, culture, identity, and the bloody experiences of war - the old Europe - appears to be getting its house in civilized order. A new Europe, a different Europe, is being created before our eyes, and almost faster than we can keep up. Beneath the surface, beneath the calm, Canada's house remains divided. Our regional schisms seem to keep growing despite our liberal history of commonality and sharing. Europe, on the other hand, appears to be propelling itself, pushing back and pushing away from its old cults of nationalism.

The "idea" of Europe, the ideal of a multi-faceted, cosmopolitan Europe, based upon French Revolution ideas of universality, a "community of citizens," a humanistic concept of the culture defined by Julian Benda as the "autonomy of the spirits," is blossoming everywhere in Europe. This idea of civic equality, a society of equality, which was almost drowned in the bloodbath of the Second World War, then rooted in the idea of one culture - a "Kulturkampf" - ideas of cultural purity and superiority, ideas deifying collectivity, seems to be supplanted and transplanted by a different civic idea defined by some as the revival of Erasmus's ancient hope, the project of European humanism.

Beneath the politics of common trade, the politics of common culture are being accepted in Europe.

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Grafstein, I regret to interrupt you, but your 15 minutes has expired.

Senator Grafstein: I would ask leave for an extension.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

The Hon. the Speaker: I am tempted to ask for how long, in view of the earlier problems we had.

Senator Bosa: To the end of his speech.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Senator Grafstein: While each member state in Europe continues to project its own vibrant face of culture, the new European school argues that no national culture was "pure." What does the new European school teach? It teaches that each national culture was "polluted" and "infected" with so-called "alien" sources and "alien" ideas. Yet the existence of any so-called national culture owes its presence to predecessor ideas. Ideas are never the monopoly of one people, or succeed alone in one ethnic group, one collectivity or one place. Each cultural idea had its hybrid roots some place else, so culture is the synthesis of the so-called alien influences where only the balance between their borrowing from afar and invention at home has varied the content of culture.

Vaclav Havel, that brilliant European leader, the Czech writer and now President of the Czech Republic, said it best:

All human cultures...have more in common...hidden somewhere deep in their sources and foundations.

Honourable senators, the idea of sharing sovereignty is at the heart of the European "idea." It has been the Canadian "idea." The idea of equality is the lifeblood of the new Europe. The notion of a shared culture and a diminished sovereignty opens the heart of its people to the "idea" of Europe.

The European "idea" is rising faster and quicker with greater mobility, greater freedom, greater economic activity and greater long-term growth and prosperity for each of its citizens.

Honourable senators, I urge a careful study of our report. I commend the chairman, the vice-chairman, and all members on both sides who worked so assiduously to produce a report of such great depth and vitality. I urge our leader in the Senate to bring the report to the attention of the Prime Minister and the various ministries named in the report. It is my hope that we will obtain from the government a detailed progress report card on our recommendations before we adjourn next spring.

Honourable senators, it would be appropriate if we could obtain from the government a formal response to our report, as is mandatory in the rules of the other place. I hope that the Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders will look at this matter so we can make it mandatory that our reports would obtain a response from government.

All senators are united in this regard. All senators concluded that a revival of Canada's interest and activity in Europe is of the highest national priority.

Honourable senators, I should like to extend my thanks to the members of the staff, the secretary of the committee, the researchers, so ably led by Anthony Chaplin, our coordinator from the Library of Parliament, our clerk, Serge Pelletier, and his assistant Josée Thérien, all of whose extraordinary efforts on behalf of the committee in preparing this complex report were invaluable.

Honourable senators, let me conclude by quoting a great Polish patriot, Josef Pilsudski, a proponent of avant-garde federalism who wrote shortly after World War I that newly liberated states...of Central and Eastern Europe need each other more than they need sovereignty. This was the heart of the idea of a new Europe. This was the vision that Pilsudski had for Poland and the other states in Europe, so mired at the time in the blood, the muck and the mud of those three miserable sisters: fascism, Marxism and nationalism.

Pluralism and progress cannot thrive without one another. It is only the shared embrace of pluralism and progress together that can lift social mobility and grasp social justice. This is the principle underlying Canada's need for greater pluralism in our trade practices and greater diversity in our trade patterns. We cannot afford to squander our present economic advantage. It is only temporary. If we allow historic trade and cultural bonds with Europe to atrophy and unravel even further, we will drive our next generation into a strait-jacket of overdependency, slowing our economic momentum only to be overtaken by those who are prepared to work harder and smarter than we are.

Canada wants jobs. Canada wants diversity. It is up to our political and business leadership to light the way. Our report is but one flashlight in the darkness. Let us use it and move on.

On motion of Senator Berntson, debate adjourned.

State of the Arts in Canada

Inquiry-Debate Continued

On the Order:

Resuming the debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Johnson, calling the attention of the Senate to the state of the arts in Canada.-(Honourable Senator Gigantès).

Hon. Philippe Deane Gigantès: Honourable senators, Senator Johnson performed a great service when she introduced this inquiry. Her defence of the arts - the reasons she gave for defending the arts and for suggesting that the arts cannot be neglected, even in times of fiscal restraint, and that the arts need public support - was a timely reminder of how important it is for any country not to neglect the arts, especially this one which sits right on the border of the United States.


In fact, throughout history, most of the things that have enriched us from the achievements of civilizations now gone by are the artefacts and the works of art they have left behind. Thucydides, the great Greek historian of the fifth century B.C., said that in centuries to come, people contemplating the ruins of Athens and Sparta would marvel at how small Athens had been, and would hardly believe how big Sparta had been, because Sparta would have left nothing.

Many of the advances in human thought came through artistic expression. The original defences of women's rights start appearing in the plays of Sophocles, and even more so in those of Euripides. The reason I bring this example forward is that in ancient Athens citizens were paid a day's wages to sit through a trilogy by one of these great tragedians. A trilogy took a whole day. The government of Athens - 25,000 citizens and 100,000 people in all - considered it important enough to pay for people to learn what art had to give them. It is still terribly important.

We have a speech in ancient Greek, written at that time by someone whose identity honourable senators would not know, but we classicists have nicknamed him the Old Oligarch. It sounds exactly like that part of the party of the honourable senators opposite that left and went to the Reform, when they speak about art. I do not know what art is, but I know what I like, and I do not like what I see. They are the ones who would like to give no help to the arts, to artists, to thinkers, and to universities. All should be a free market operation.

Honourable senators, some things will not immediately sell, yet they are useful because they are precursors. They open doors. These are points that Senator Johnson made, and they are important. If they are cultivated, strangely enough, they earn money. France, for example, spends enormous amounts of money on maintaining its heritage, its buildings, its museums and its performing arts.

Senator Corbin: And its churches.

Senator Gigantès: Only the artistic part of the churches - it is a secular state. I do not want to venture into this delicate area. They are not supporting religion, except perhaps some members of the government who send their children to Jesuit schools, but then the Jesuits have transcended religion and become good educators. I had the great privilege of studying under them. Let us not speak about the Christian Brothers, however.

France makes an enormous amount of money out of what tourists can find there, not only in museums, on archeological sites and amid the glories of Gothic art and the Renaissance, but also in the theatres where one can see great plays performed, new and old, and one can hear great singers.

An article appeared today in The Ottawa Citizen talking about theatre in Britain. There are tours, all of us know, in which some operator offers you a hotel, a number of days in London, and tickets to various plays. It is an industry in Britain, and it is an industry that pays a lot. If we neglect those things, we lose the money. However, even more seriously, we lose our identity.

I do not want to exclude American art. I watch American sitcoms. I watch violent American films on television. I also would like help for fledging Canadian artists, authors and musicians. This need not necessarily cost money. The copyright bill will help. As Senator Johnson so wisely pointed out, the CRTC regulation demanding Canadian content produced a flowering of Canadian popular music that has found its place in the world. Céline Dion is the diva of pop music around the world. Other Canadian artists in all fields of music and painting are known the world over. They, and others, got their start because, for example, there was help for enterprises such as little publishing firms that would take a risk to produce a book that would not sell very well. They got their start because the regulation imposed upon stations the necessity to play the music of these young Canadian artists, and they have since become famous the world over. We cannot neglect this.

In Britain, under a Conservative government, says an article in The Ottawa Citizen of November 23, subsidized companies such as the Royal National Theatre and the Royal Shakespeare Company are drawing in customers from around the world, and have launched plays that were so experimental that they could not possibly have been produced by an unsubsidized theatre. Is one to say that it is no longer worth playing Shakespeare on the stage? Is one to say that it is not worth reviving a great play by Chekov? Is one to say that it is not worth giving J.P. Priestly's great play on the class structure of Britain, An Inspector Calls, a revival, which no ordinary theatre company would dare undertake?

Honourable senators, Senator Johnson truly performed a great service when she pointed all these things out and urged us all to applaud and support any measure that will help our art, our artists, our writers and our musicians make their mark in the world. This is not chauvinism, nor is it excluding others; this is our contribution to world culture. From what we will produce, others will learn, just as we learn from what others produce. If we do not do that, honourable senators, we are small.

On motion of Senator Berntson, debate adjourned in the name of Senator Meighen.

The Senate adjourned until Wednesday, October 30, 1996, at 1:30 p.m.