Debates of the Senate (Hansard)
1st Session, 36th Parliament,
Volume 137, Issue 44
Thursday, February 26, 1998
The Honourable Gildas L. Molgat, Speaker
Thursday, February 26, 1998
The Senate met at 2:00 p.m., the Speaker in the Chair.
The Honourable Richard J. Doyle
Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition)
Honourable senators, I doubt if anyone here was surprised that
media reports of last week's decision by the Senate to suspend
one of its members gave priority to the fact that a number of
senators were absent when the vote was taken. This allowed our
flourishing cottage industry in Senate-bashing to renew its
campaign to convince Canadians that the only criterion for
evaluating the contribution of senators is the number of times
they are present in the chamber. Attendance is attainment;
absence is abdication.
In the minds of these Senate pit bulls, whose excessive
rhetoric is surpassed only by their ignorance of the workings of
this place in particular, and of Parliament in general, tally sheets
of attendance form the sole valid record by which one is to be
evaluated. No longer is what a senator does a measure of
responsible participation; it is the number of times one's name is
recorded on sitting days - not what do you do but why were you
not there? A death in the family, a seriously ill spouse, a teenage
child suffering from substance abuse, attending to a patient in the
intensive-care unit, membership in an official delegation abroad,
participation in a committee seeking views across the country on
important proposed legislation: These and similar personal
preoccupations and political responsibilities are not to interfere
with what the self-styled promoters of Senate behaviour have
determined to be acceptable senatorial conduct.
As a result, none of us is immune from the wrath of these
misguided parliamentary purists, whose pocket calculators at this
very moment are no doubt updating our attendance records.
Take Senator Doyle, for instance. During his time here, the
Senate will have sat 902 times, and he will be recorded as having
been present only 790 times - a paltry attendance record of
87.6 per cent.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
Senator Lynch-Staunton: How the ever-vigilant anti-Senate
SWAT team has managed to miss Senator Doyle from its hit list
is a mystery. It must be an oversight, particularly when one
examines what he was up to while playing hooky. He was an
active and conscientious member of the Joint Committee on Free
Trade. He was an active and conscientious member of the Joint
Committee on Canada's International Relations. He was an
active and conscientious member of the Joint Committee on the
Library of Parliament. He was an active and conscientious
member of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and
Constitutional Affairs. He was an active and conscientious
member of the Internal Economy Committee and chaired its
Subcommittee on Budgets and Personnel. He was an active and
conscientious member of the Standing Senate Committee on
Foreign Affairs. He was an active and conscientious member of
the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and
Technology. He was - but enough. The list of his non-chamber
activities continues, but I fear that what already has been
revealed is already enough to arouse our detractors.
In any event, why should anyone be surprised at Dic Doyle's
record when one recalls that he was named to the Senate by none
other than former prime minister Brian Mulroney who, as we are
repeatedly reminded, gleefully filled vacancies here with such
party hacks and blind loyalists as Senators Beaudoin and Keon?
Just look at his background. His entire career was involved
with journalism, starting with the Chatham Daily News until
1942, when he joined the Royal Canadian Air Force and served
overseas with the RAF in Bomber Command until the end of the
war. He then returned to the newspaper business and joined
The Globe and Mail in 1951, where he occupied many senior
positions, including those of managing editor, editor,
editor-in-chief, and Editor Emeritus.
In 1983, when he was made a member of the Order of Canada,
the following citation was read:
As managing editor and, since 1979 until recently,
editor-in-chief of the Toronto Globe and Mail,
Richard Doyle has been the guiding intelligence behind the
development of the influential editorial policy and the
national and international coverage of Canada's leading
English-language newspaper. Largely through his guidance,
the paper has set high standards of writing and ethics in
Colleagues may be interested to know that since 1967,
3,848 Canadians have been inducted into the order, and fewer
than 100 are identified as journalists. I will resist a temptation to
speculate on why this profession has been given so little
recognition by the selection committee except to comment that it
certainly must be nigh impossible to find many in this field who
can match the ethical standards which Dic Doyle brought to a
profession to which he is so deeply attached.
By the way, of the 100 present members of this chamber,
10 are members of the Order of Canada. I thought I would throw
that out as more grist for the mill of the Senate reformation
One of his close colleagues on The Globe and Mail describes
Senator Doyle while at the newspaper as being renowned for a
conservatism that was heavily coloured by compassion, a social
conscience, a strong civil libertarian streak, and a catholic love of
humanity. Fortunately for us, these principles guided him here,
too, to the benefit of both sides of the chamber. In addition, as
caucus colleagues, we have had the benefit of his wisdom and
sage advice. Many are the times his counsel avoided us taking a
course of action which, in time, could well have been regretted.
The Globe and Mail's founding goes back to George Brown
who, to many, is the real father of Confederation. If you have
been to Senator Doyle's office, you will have noticed that Brown
is very prominent on its walls. Senator Doyle makes no effort to
hide his admiration for his distinguished predecessor, and
mention of his name will inevitably lead to a learned discourse
on his hero and regret at his not receiving the wide recognition
that he deserves as a key architect of Confederation. In his book
Hurly Burly, Senator Doyle quotes the then-editor of the Globe,
John Willison, as believing that,
Brown would have been a better politician if he had not
been a newspaperman and a better newspaperman if he had
not been a politician.
Brown would certainly have been delighted to know that
Senator Doyle was and is an excellent politician and
newspaperman. We will miss the benefits that we all derived
from his being so competent in both. We will miss his stern
warnings, his generous counsel, and his marvellous sense of
humour. We will miss his hand-written notes with their cryptic
observations - an appreciation for a speech well given, caustic
references to erratic performances, including the recipient's, and
always encouragement and support, particularly when things
were not going well.
In particular, we will miss his reminding us of our
responsibilities as parliamentarians - the need to avoid excesses
in our carrying them out and to avoid restraint in upholding
them. Somerset Maugham once wrote of conscience as being the
guardian of community rules. Senator Doyle was the guardian of
Senator Dic Doyle gave all of himself to this place, even when
the last few years were not kind to him physically. While we will
all miss him, we wish him many years of a well-deserved
retirement as he looks forward to spending more time with his
family, of whom he is so fond - his most charming wife, Flo,
their two children Judith and Sean, and their granddaughter
Kaelan. Nearly four years old, Kaelan sat in Dic's chair last week
and announced that she, too, would be a senator some day. If she
does make it, we can only hope that she will learn and profit
from her grandfather's attendance record.
Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government):
Honourable senators, Edmond Burke once said that there are
three estates in Parliament, but that the fourth estate was more
important than them all. When Senator Richard Doyle first
joined the Senate in 1985, he brought with him the gifted and
inquiring mind of a critic and reformer, of an editor of rectitude
and honesty. As someone who had fought politicians of all
stripes, he would have heartily agreed with the old expression
that, "The day you write to please everyone, you are no longer in
journalism. You are in show business."
Show business was never Senator Doyle's style. An Officer of
the Order of Canada and a distinguished member of the Canadian
News Hall of Fame, Senator Doyle always made conscience his
guide. In this sense, the decision of the University of King's
College in Halifax, as well as that of my own alma mater,
St. Francis Xavier University in Antigonish, Nova Scotia to grant
Senator Doyle honorary doctorates of law were clearly most
appropriate. Honourable senators will agree, I am sure, that the
Senate is a far better place because Richard Doyle has remained
in heart and soul a member of the fourth estate and a deep
believer in an educated public which serves as a juror over it.
Bruce Hutchison once called the creation of a daily newspaper
a daily miracle. Senator Doyle, who knew by the age of seven
that he wanted a newspaper career, translated his childhood
dreams into an important career in which he would serve as
editor and later editor-in-chief of The Globe and Mail for over
two decades, and therefore understood the daily miracle of
production from the bottom up.
Starting as a copy editor in 1951, he experienced the dynamic
impact of George McCullogh's pioneering leadership at the helm
of one of Canada's most important newspapers, even if, one
remembers, it was founded originally by, as mentioned by
Senator Lynch-Staunton, the brilliant George Brown, a Father of
Confederation. For all you senators here today who may have
forgotten, and something which Senator Lynch-Staunton did not
mention, George Brown was a clear Grit to boot.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: We will not hold that against him.
Senator Graham: Senator Doyle went on to work with
Howard Webster -
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Who was not a true Grit.
Senator Graham: - succeeding the great Oakley Dalgeish as
editor. His advice to the fourth estate, of which he was such a
distinguished member for so many years, was always the same. It
was that news writers should never judge political issues in print.
That was a job for commentators, he said. The educated public
would vote as it pleased without editorial advice.
One of the funniest and most insightful books of our
contemporary history remains Hurly Burly, Senator Doyle's
account of his time at the Globe. This is an insider's view of
Canada's life and times which flows from his experiences
with the 115th Squadron, RAF Bomber Command during
World War II, through his struggles with governments over the
decades and his firsthand accounts of some of the greats in print
As an editor, Senator Doyle led the battle for a free press that
would police itself. As an editor who long grappled with
misplaced convictions and inaccuracies in print journalism, he
understood the crucial role of the public in serving as
independent editors and jurors over the democratic process; over
the ongoing events of the Canadian body politic.
In a recent series of reflections published in The Globe and
Mail on the coming millennium, Senator Doyle made the
important point that watching, in the political sense, is one of the
most useful services the citizens of this country can perform. He
argued that ordinary citizens must engage in the process of
reform, and must take the time to serve as watchdogs over our
children and their right to be protected by governments.
"Perhaps" he said, "we should pledge ourselves to visit the
Indian reserves closest to our homes to see for ourselves whether
they are getting a fair share - and pass that information on to
However, at the depth of this distinguished critic, editor and
reformer, so jealous of our rights and freedoms, as shown by the
acute and insightful commentary we have been so privileged to
hear in this chamber, lies a wonderful love for Canada and a
passion for his country which comes from the heart of a
distinguished RCAF veteran who flew with Bomber Command.
Winston Churchill once said that the only guide to a man is his
conscience: the only shield to his memory is the rectitude and
sincerity of his action.
In defending many of his old comrades in the RCAF, those
airmen who opened the windows of freedom over Nazi-occupied
Europe, he denounced the distortions of recent docu-dramas in
this country which he felt spoke from narrow points of view, and
were so often and so sadly mistaken for the real story. He wrote
movingly that distortion and despair are no tribute to the
46,000 Canadians who died in World War II, 13,000 of them
from the RCAF. He reminded us that per ardua ad astre or
"through travail to the stars" is the motto of a proud and
distinguished service in which over 5,000 Canadians won
individual decorations for gallantry.
On that issue, as on some others, he has enlightened this nation
and this chamber. Very few would know better than
Richard Doyle the fundamental truth of Ben Bradlee's famous
remark that news is the first rough draft of history. We really only
have one chance to get it right, no matter to which estate we are
Senator Doyle, you have made a very significant contribution
to the work of this place. I know that your mind and your pen
will continue to be active in pursuing justice and truth. You and
Flo and your family take from this place our warmest best
wishes, and we hope that you will keep in touch and come back
Hon. Lowell Murray: Honourable senators, Senator Doyle's
speeches in this place have elevated many a debate and enlivened
many a dull day. His prose adorns the pages of Hansard, there to
delight the future scholar who may come across those gems
while ploughing through the more arid oratorical efforts of the
rest of us.
His prose also has a special place in my files. Over a period of
years Senator Doyle has sent me dozens of personal and private
memoranda - pithy, pungent, irreverent, iconoclastic,
not-quite-libellous commentaries on politics and certain
politicians, on parliamentary perks, on his interpretation of
sacred scriptures, on journalism and certain journalists, and on so
much else. I am saving these memoranda for possible future
publication and profit, a source of supplementary income if ever
my financial situation becomes unbearable.
Needless to say, I will give first refusal on these documents to
Senator Doyle himself. He will have motive and ample means to
bid for these documents as he will soon be living high on the
hog, not only on the lavish annuity bestowed on him by
Lord Thomson of The Globe and Mail, but also on his "obscene"
I like to think that the Senate has been quite an education for
Senator Doyle. He came here thinking himself worldly-wise,
without illusions, the hard-nosed newspaperman who had seen
everything and tried most of it. A few months into his
apprenticeship on the Internal Economy Committee with Senator
Colin Kenny revealed Senator Doyle to be a terminal naïf, an
innocent abroad, a young man who still had a lot to learn. He
turned for comfort and reassurance to Senator Lavoie-Roux,
herself a veteran of Montreal and Quebec politics but she, too,
had never seen anything like it. Senator Doyle came here
suspecting that power corrupts, and found only that it
Honourable senators, Senator Doyle's participation in the work
of the Senate has been distinguished not only by his elegant and
eloquent prose but by the quality and substance of his
contribution. There has been wisdom and moderation but also a
passion for fairness, justice and respect and, not surprisingly for
one so revered in his profession, a passion for truth. He has been
an asset to the Senate and, needless to say, to this political party.
Before bidding him au revoir, I wish to acknowledge the debt
of my personal gratitude, deeply felt, for his many acts of
kindness and consideration. I have been many times renewed,
indeed revived, by his thoughtful encouragement and support,
extended, as he must have known, when it was most needed. I
know I am not alone in this chamber in my warm appreciation of
his generous friendship.
Hon. Joyce Fairbairn: Honourable senators, saying farewell
to Senator Doyle today is very difficult for me, because it is no
secret to anyone in this place that we are kindred souls. We have
regularly expressed our admiration and affection for each other,
and neither Mike nor Flo cares because they understand it
Dic and I are not just old friends; we are scribes of the old
school - ink-stained wretches who truly believe that the greatest
time of our lives was spent knocking around a newsroom through
all hours of the day or night; out on assignments that were filled
with pith and substance, but earned only a couple of paragraphs
and no by-line in whatever notable publication we called home.
We share that special, almost mystical feeling that newspapers
then, at least, were living, breathing creations with a heart, a soul
and a conscience. We were privileged to be allowed to be part of
Senator Doyle has always believed that journalism must be
about fact and truth, and not about speculation and rumour.
Honourable senators, there is a bit of an age difference
between Senator Doyle and myself, but that is of no account.
There is also that slight distinction that he has held every
possible newspaper position, ending up at the height of power as
the editor-in-chief of the mighty Globe and Mail in Toronto,
while I was but a working stiff who, by several quirks of fate,
ended up at a ridiculously early age writing about the awesome
activities of this Hill from the Parliamentary Press Gallery. None
of that matters. He teethed on the Chatham Daily News and I on
The Lethbridge Herald. We learned a lot of very special things
which transcend any consideration of age or titles.
It was with great expectation that I learned he would be a
senator about a year after I entered this place. I accepted with
regret, of course, but no surprise, that he chose to sit as a
Conservative. Many were startled by this appointment. They
wondered what allure this chamber could possibly offer after the
incredible rush of life at the pinnacle of The Globe and Mail.
I, however, knew exactly what Dic Doyle would do - he
would work hard. He would do it with skill and accuracy, with
eloquence and tenacity, with humour and with honour. No one
could have anticipated also that in the face of a frightening
illness he would be forced to work on with immense courage and
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
Senator Fairbairn: Honourable senators, we have shared
duties. My personal favourite was on the Standing Senate
Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. I treasure the
memories of our cross-country tour with the late Senator
Earl Hastings as we - perhaps naively - sought the grass-root
views of inmates in federal penitentiaries on the merits of
changes to the Parole Act.
Senator Doyle has been a loyal and constant supporter of the
cause of literacy, which has become a major part of my life on
and off Parliament Hill. I thank him profoundly for that. He has
fought fiercely for the rights of victims of the tainted blood
tragedy, as outlined in the Krever inquiry, and I congratulate him
Altogether, honourable senators, Dic Doyle has been a truly
fine senator, as he continues to be a truly fine journalist. He is an
unabashed patriot for his country, a proud veteran, and a strong
and persistent voice - Lord was he persistent during Question
Periods - for his province of Ontario and the city of Toronto.
Senator Doyle is a very kind gentleman, and I cheerfully admit
that I will always have a crush on him. I will miss him very
much. To he and Flo, I wish happy years ahead; full of music,
writing and instructive sessions with his granddaughter, Kaelan,
who wants to be a senator just like him!
Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Acting Deputy Leader of the
Opposition): Honourable senators, it has been my good fortune
to have been the seat-mate of Senator Doyle. I am, however, not
privy to the reason why he had the misfortune to have me at his
right. Perhaps it was penance for some unpublished deed.
For some time now, Senator Doyle has been keeping on his
desk copies of the wonderful mural inscriptions that adorn the
Speaker's chambers. The following is a passage from Seneca:
Nihil oridinatum est quod praecipitatur et properat - nothing is
well ordered that is hasty and precipitate. Perhaps this is the
lesson he has been struggling to teach me.
Certainly by his thoughtful interventions in this place over the
years, Senator Doyle has been attempting to teach us the wisdom
of prudence and careful consideration. He has been a good
teacher, and I wish to place on the record my deep appreciation
for the many lessons he has taught us. His speeches were
pregnant with good lessons, for he did not merely present to us
information that we did not have, but, rather, he would remove,
for those who listened, the blinkers of repression that often
prevent us from knowing what we potentially already know. This
former flying officer would readily engage us in a militant
operation against the forces that create all those blinkers,
repressions, clichés and prejudices - for all of this, we are
indebted to Senator Doyle.
Honourable senators, the art of the English language finds
creative expression in the writings of this Officer of the Order of
Canada who has presided over The Globe and Mail. This Editor
Emeritus, like all editors, compiled, garbled or cooked up
materials into literary shape. We have often been, as has been
alluded to by others this afternoon, the recipient of his cryptic
and not so cryptic notes, all of which underscore his mastery of
In saluting my friend and seat-mate, I wish to turn to some
lines from J.R. Smart's poem entitled The School Magazine
The Editor sat in the Editor's chair;
Paper and pen and ink were there;
(Not in the chair: that wouldn't be fair
On the Editor's case!) On the table round
They lay; and the Editor looked and frowned,
And carking care, and black despairs
seemed settled for good as the Editor's share;
On trousers and boots, pulled out by the roots,
Were crumpled-up masses of Editor's hair!
`Now riddle me one and riddle me two'
(Which meant what only the Editor knew),
`By all that's blue, if ever anew'
I take the job of a School review!
I'll eat my hat, and swallow my bat,
Ere ever again I proof such a flat;
For nobody cares how the magazine fares,
Or what trouble the Editor anguishes through!
Honourable senators, the readership of The Globe and Mail
and the members of this chamber are fortunate that
Senator Doyle cares deeply about his country and the system of
governance wherein the practice of freedom has been kept
To you, my friend, God's speed: Ad moltos annos.
Hon. Philippe Deane Gigantès: Honourable senators, I have
had the privilege of knowing Senator Doyle longer than any of
you. I worked for him back in 1956, 42 years ago. He was my
boss, one of the best I ever had, and as such always showed good
judgment and a great sense of fairness. Any of the faults that you
have seen in me since then are not his. He did not teach me any
of my bad habits.
He was able to deal with the fractious lot that journalists are,
to keep us in line, and to make sure that we did our duty without
pushing the limits of fairness, of knowledge and of decency. It
has been mentioned here that while he was editor of
The Globe and Mail, it was rated as one of the 10 best
newspapers in the world. He made it what it became. It is a
newspaper that is quoted around the world - at least it was
when he was there.
He reproached me in his book for kissing his wife's hand. How
could I help it? She was - and is - so enchanting. She did not
seem to mind. I think he did.
I have long admired him, and I still do. You are a great guy.
Hon. Consiglio Di Nino: Honourable senators, I am pleased to
rise to pay homage to someone who is universally respected for
his integrity, his intellect and his common sense.
Senator Doyle has championed causes on behalf of Canadians
which have not always been popular or had the full support in
this chamber, even among his own colleagues, and those who
have offended his sensitivities for fairness, justice and truth have
felt the sting of his prose.
For me, Senator Doyle has been a teacher and a friend, and I
am richer for having known him.
Dic, I pray that you and Flo enjoy a long and fruitful
retirement in the midst of your loving family. We will all miss
your wisdom and your wit.
Hon. Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: Honourable senators, I would
like to pay tribute to our colleague Senator Richard Doyle on the
occasion of his departure.
Honourable senators, when Senator Doyle was offered and
accepted his appointment to the Senate in 1985, he decided to sit
on the PC side of the floor. The legend is that his sympathies for
minorities prompted him to do so. His appointment was
applauded by all. Senator Doyle's reputation as one of Canada's
foremost journalists held the promise of the new senator touching
this institution with his wand of distinction. Indeed, he has.
As editor of The Globe and Mail, Senator Doyle was not
politically active before he became a senator, but he certainly
was politically powerful. When he came to the Senate in 1985,
he had to learn the ways of Beauchesne, but he was not a
complete stranger to parliamentary procedure.
Some senators in this room are certainly aware that Senator
Doyle has the dubious distinction of being the only senator to
serve in this chamber who has been censored by Parliament. It
will come as no surprise to learn that the incident, which
occurred in 1977, revolved around freedom of the press, and the
public's right to know.
This same concern for the public's right to know prompted
him to persuade his Senate colleagues to open the doors of our
Internal Economy Committee to the public at a time when the
lack of transparency of the committee was being seriously
questioned. It was at the time of our work together on the
Internal Economy Committee that I first developed a true
appreciation for Senator Doyle's many outstanding qualities.
Today, I wish to take the opportunity to thank him publicly for
his wonderful and constant support, his wisdom and his total
integrity. Senator Doyle's strong sense of duty in wanting to
support this institution and his colleagues is surpassed only by
his sense of responsibility and duty to the taxpayers of our
country. It has always been evident that he holds a very strong
belief and deep concern that Canadian citizens must be our first
and greatest concern as parliamentarians.
Senator Doyle's service to our country and its people has been
outstanding. In the Second World War, he served in the Royal
Canadian Armed Forces in Bomber Command, and retired in
1945 with the rank of Flying Officer. He has made literary
contributions as author of two books of which many of you
know: The Royal Story and Hurly-Burly: A Time at the Globe, to
which reference was made earlier. Senator Doyle was also
appointed an Officer of the Order of Canada in 1983. His
prominent career, most notably as editor-in-chief of
The Globe and Mail certainly speaks to his service to the people.
His talents as editor have also been of profit to the Senate.
Senator Doyle's facility with words and his strong capacity for
analysis have undoubtedly distinguished him among the rest of
us. We have had countless opportunities to hear Senator Doyle
speak in the Senate, and to appreciate how he has both mastered
the English language and given us an appreciation for its
I recall an incident when we were working on the Special
Senate Committee on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide. Senator
Doyle was not a member of that committee but he followed its
work. During a discussion on assisted suicide, Dic slipped me a
note on which was written a sentence that struck me with its
depth of meaning. Our concern was for the impact that legalized
assisted suicide would have on the social conscience. The
sentence, as I recall, read:
Is one form of suicide linked to another - at least by the
bond of increased acceptance?
That was a sort warning against accepting assisted suicide
because then this link would be too easily made. Dic's note
captured the idea that the acceptance of assisted suicide threatens
to reduce to triviality the notion of suicide.
For your innumerable contributions, Dic, only a few of which
I have touched upon today, I wish to thank you most warmly and
wholeheartedly. You have so many talents. I am sure they will
remain with you in your retirement years and continue to make a
difference in the lives of those around you. Your granddaughter,
Kaelan, is most fortunate to be a beneficiary of her grandfather's
wisdom and qualities.
Although I speak of retirement, I have more than a sneaking
suspicion that we have not heard the last of Senator Doyle. I am
certain that his watchdog habits and deep feelings for Canada
will be ceaselessly monitoring political events.
We welcome you to be in contact with us, particularly, if I
might make the request, with respect to social issues.
May you find more time to enjoy your extensive music
collection, as well as more time to enjoy Flo, your family and
your close friends.
Dic, I want to assure you that for the years I will continue to
serve in the Senate, I will always be faithful to the goals and
principles we share in common. I will endeavour to hold high
your banner of justice and fairness, and transparency in the eyes
of the public.
To have known you and worked with you has made my time in
the Senate worthwhile.
Thank you for your friendship, your confidence, and your
constant support, sometimes through difficult times.
Let me assure you that you have a good friend in Quebec and
that you will always be welcome there. My wish for other
colleagues is that they may have as positive and meaningful an
experience as I did, in working with someone of your calibre.
Dic, thank you for everything.
I thank you for everything you have contributed to the Senate
and to your fellow citizens for these many years. I wish you well.
You will certainly be greatly missed, as many have said before.
But, as the song says "We'll meet again." We will be seeing
each other soon.
Hon. Gérald-A. Beaudoin: Honourable senators, I should like
to say a few words about the remarkable contribution of Senator
Doyle, as a member of the the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs.
I was appointed to the Senate in 1988, nearly ten years ago.
From the beginning, I was fascinated by the Standing Senate
Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, of which I
became a member. Senator Doyle was already sitting on that
committee. Members of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal
and Constitutional Affairs must have a certain expertise in law,
but it also includes people who have different training, like, for
example, Senator Doyle. I shall say that the work of Senator
Richard Doyle in the legal committee has been very regular and
Before coming to the Senate, our colleague was editor-in-chief
at The Globe and Mail, a highly regarded daily that has been part
of the history of Canada since the time of George Brown, whom
both sides of the floor have praised this afternoon. A good
editorial writer must have both good ideas and a knack for
putting them down on paper. Our colleague Senator Doyle
possessed those qualities, and, of course, he continued to
demonstrate them in the Senate. His speeches here have always
been very interesting.
Among his honours, he was made a member of the Canadian
News Hall of Fame in 1990.
Senator Doyle is a man of great humour, of very sound
judgment, d'une logique impeccable, «une tête bien faite», as we
say in French, and much more, a philosopher! We need people
like him on every committee and in the Senate.
If you ask me, Senator Doyle will be a hard man to replace.
Hon. A. Raynell Andreychuk: Honourable senators, it
appears that I am the only senator who hesitated and did not want
to speak at this point about Senator Doyle. I did not want my
words compared with his, as I understand he will get the last
As I have spent many hours reading and rereading his
speeches, I find that many others, particularly mine, pale in
comparison. In this house, no one has had the ability with words
and the sincerity to live by those words on a daily basis as has
When I first came to the Senate, through the same nefarious
route as apparently he did, as well as Senator Beaudoin and
Senator Keon, I went to Senator Doyle on many occasions for
advice, for comfort, for the occasional scolding, for the
occasional dose of optimism. Like Senator Fairbairn, a slight
crush was developing on Senator Doyle. I thought that this was a
unique experience for me, perhaps because of the route that I had
taken. However, I was not here for very long before I learned that
that kind of special relationship that Senator Doyle had with me
was not so special. He kept it for all senators.
There are many examples of good senators in this chamber.
We have heard, as Senator Doyle would say, quite enough about
Senator Doyle's success and his contributions to this chamber. I
wish to underscore his position as a role model, as a friend and as
an example to all of the senators here. The fact that he gave of
his time to the rest of us not only exemplifies his own integrity
and commitment to the Senate but, I think, through his various
methods - his small notes, his humour, his questioning - he
has made all of us better senators.
I wish him well. I know that he will continue to be a friend to
the Senate and a friend to the democratic process, however he
sees it. I know he has spent many hours and many days
pondering, not how politicians perhaps will see Canada but how
individuals will see Canada. Long after many of us retire, many
people will continue to respect the Senate as they read and quote
from the words of Senator Doyle.
Senator Doyle, I extend my best personal wishes, and I trust
that most of us can live up to your example.
Hon. Richard J. Doyle: Honourable senators, you have heard
what I have heard. You have heard the evidence; so I say to you:
Four more years!
At the same time, I wish to remind honourable senators that
there are two sides to every story. You have heard one and now
you will hear another.
I wish to take you back a bit, to when late middle age and
early ennui brought me to this shimmering place 13 years ago -
I thought it prudent to have both youth and experience identified
with my arrival. I asked to be dragged down the threadbare,
crimson carpet by Duff Roblin, the government leader and the
only Canadian I have ever known to wear the kilt and not look
silly. To assist him, I picked Lowell Murray, who, years later,
would lead a beleaguered Senate boldly and gracefully through
the GST crisis.
It was not my intention to spend more than one year, or two,
exhausting the opportunities that the upper house had to offer to
a wilted journalist; wilted and wounded. Someone - someone
opposite, I am sure - had his jollies during my welcome by
circulating a column I had written not long before at
The Globe and Mail. It started out innocently enough with a
mention of the fact that the editors of Playgirl magazine had
been in Toronto, my hometown:
...making it starkly evident that very little is left to chance in
the choice of centrefolds. They advertised for specimens to
appear in a photo layout on Canadian men.
Five hundred candidates appeared at the hiring hall at the
appointed hour, stripped to the waist, did whatever they
could with their pectorals and smiled for the camera. In
good time, the 500 were picked over and an even dozen
were chosen to pose in frontal altogether.
It is a puzzle to me that in so many aspects of Canadian life
the many aren't called before the few are chosen. Even
more puzzling is the fact that we accept such exclusivity of
choice when we obviously have no lack of confidence in our
capacity to compete for the worthwhile and fulfilling tasks
that need doing. Goodness knows, the editors of Playgirl
could do a better job of choosing senators than we do in this
country. The choosing here is the prerogative of the Prime
Minister and nowhere does he indulge his whims with such
abandon. Only occasionally does he take anyone's advice on
a Senate appointment. The last time Pierre Trudeau did, he
deferred to the Premier of Ontario who gave the lollipop to
his bagman. As far as the rest of us are concerned, we're not
even sure the fellow has pectorals.
Well, that is what this guy wrote, and for the first time in my
long career, I had people crying, "Author! Author!" Only the
whip of the day - that self-effacing friend of veterans,
Orville Phillips - recognized the dangers I faced. He seated me
between the two men in the Senate best equipped to handle
divine interference with my freedom of speech. Senator Phillips
put Dr. Paul David on one side of me and Dr. "Staff" Barootes on
the other. If the heart should explode, or the bladder splatter, I
was sitting pretty.
I used the time to learn something about bagmen other than
what I had picked up on the street and in newspaper washrooms.
Jack Godfrey was never embarrassed by his party-activated
acquisitiveness. Nor was he bashful when it came to flailing
outrageous absenteeism within his own party. Guy Charbonneau,
over here on our side, was one of the few champions we had in a
long spell of political drought in Quebec. For me, his calm
courage in the GST debate contributed mightily to our survival
of the crisis.
There are faults and weaknesses in the Senate, but the good
men who come to the pecuniary aid of their parties are not the
ones to be blamed.
Did I say "men"? Working with Nate Nurgitz and Derek Lewis
on the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional
Affairs, I rarely could fault the leadership of a woman, Joan
Neiman, or the pizzazz of Anne Cools. To have served on the
Rules Committee under Brenda Roberston was hard work -
productive and valuable. The high point of my 13 years - and
very often the most demanding experience I enjoyed - came
with a breathless stint on the Internal Economy Committee with
the help of Bill Doody and under the tight leadership of
Thérèse Lavoie-Roux. Anyone who called Lavoie-Roux "chair"
was off base. She was a whole damned houseful of parliamentary
furniture! In the great recession, she saved the Senate millions of
dollars without forcing the departure of a single employee of the
Any place in this farewell would be a good place to say
something about Lowell Murray. How he managed to run this
joint and serve as Brian Mulroney's point man on national unity
and comfort our new Tory senators - many of whom seemed to
be away from home for the first time - how he managed to do
all of these things simultaneously still astonishes me. Only one of
his qualities - and I suppose most of us could forgive it -
disgusts and infuriates. I am speaking, sadly of course, of his
capacity to leap to his feet without notice, and speak for an hour
without notes in baroque sentences that parse. My great friend
Senator Barootes used to say that Lowell stood out because so
many people around him spent their time trying to pick the fly
poop out of the pepper. My wife goes further than that. Just the
other, day she described Murray as a fine-looking man - for 36.
There are many of Senator Murray's accomplishments to be
noted, but none will stick in my mind longer than his remarks in
the chamber the other day when he apologized to the country for
the Senate's failure to act sooner in the Thompson affair.
In comments I made here earlier this week, I quoted at length
from speeches made by Senator John Lynch-Staunton. The
quotations had to do with Senator Lynch-Staunton's central role
in the Pearson affair. Like Senators Lazarus Phillips and
Grattan O'Leary before him, he believes that the real function of
the Senate is to see that the rights and the liberties of the
individual are respected and protected.
Not long ago, I had spoken up in the Senate to register my
admiration for another of our leaders. I am indeed a fan of
Joyce Fairbairn. Just the other day I remarked to my wife that
Senator Fairbairn is a fine-looking woman - for 32! Should I
confess now that there were occasions earlier on when, by
agreement, Senator Fairbairn and I both ignored party lines to
steer committees to the service of justice and the splendours
In this place, we should seek the truth and pray for justice.
What a terrible mess we all made on the Airbus affair, where our
former prime minister's accusers did not show contrition for
injury done, and his defenders did not secure a springboard to
fight back in the long haul. Brian Mulroney is the man who
"brung" me to this house of opportunities. I persuade myself that,
in the end, he will be freed of the efforts to dirty his name, and
will be accepted as one of the great ones of Canadian history.
I had hoped here today to more than just mention many others
to whom I am indebted. Raynell Andreychuk has bolstered my
hopes for a more conscientious Senate, and shares my concerns
for truth and justice. Jim Balfour does not need to raise his voice,
nor raise it often to be heard on both sides of this chamber. It has
been an honour for me to sit in the same room as Wilbert Keon,
whose contributions to Senate knowledge of the risks and
dangers facing health care may turn the Senate into new avenues
of advocacy. Don Oliver makes me stop and think. My buddy
Con Di Nino has made me argue until I am sure that I am right.
Bill Kelly and Trevor Eyton are my vicarious board rooms.
Gérald Beaudoin is the university I never attended.
Michael Meighen is the link with party heritage. Norman Atkins
and I mourn the passing of the same lost causes.
It has been a privilege to share this seating cluster with
Noël Kinsella and Eric Berntson, who have tried to educate me
in the lore of the East and the West, while leaving my heart in
Toronto where it belongs.
Janis Johnson, Mira Spivak, Eileen Rossiter and
Ethel Cochrane have kept me safely in line with social and
cultural causes from the great outside, David Angus
My good friend Duncan Jessiman remains in the Senate until
early summer. At that time, he will be unceremoniously kicked
out like the rest of us. However, in that interval of time, I depend
on him to take all my calls from the marijuana crowd.
I leave with a confession for my whip - the party loyalist,
Senator DeWare. It is time to tell you, Mabel, that Senator
Gigantès was my friend when I came here and remains my friend
today! What's more, I like Al Graham and I admire John Stewart.
And I wish Senator Lorna Milne well in the difficult job of
chairing the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and
Constitutional Affairs, my favourite committee over the 13 years
I have been in this place.
Marjorie LeBreton and I, for some time now, have been
publishing an underground newspaper. May it continue to
flourish and to participate in the pure and certain rise of Jean
When I first came to the Senate, committee clerk Paul Bélisle
took me by the hand and explained that most things in the Senate
on most days were not what they seemed to be. Paul, who began
his career as a Page in this place and is now Clerk of the Senate,
Clerk of the Parliaments and Keeper of the Flame for this
institution, is aided splendidly at the Table by Richard Greene,
Blair Armitage, Gary O'Brien, Heather Lank and Charles Robert.
They, I can tell you, could finish the rest of us in a day if they
chose to. Lord help me if my shy assistant, Cheryll Hannaford,
ever turned against me.
Make a list: Committee clerks, library staffers, department
heads, messengers, security officers, secretaries, researchers, all
those cheerful people in the restaurants and cafeterias, the good
people who keep the place spotlessly clean and shiny, the folks
who teach English and French and suffer when we get it wrong
in spite of their best efforts - they are all on my list!
I remember an incident that occurred a few years ago when a
noon-hour kitchen fire forced all of us down the staircases and
out into the precincts where it was trying hard to rain. Senator
David Walker, a lifer and a gentleman, not knowing what the day
would bring, left the restaurant with a freshly filled glass in hand.
Out in the cold, he looked around at the bunches of people who
were collectively the Senate and raised his wine glass in a gallant
toast. "What a fine lot they are," said he, and the lot of us agreed.
As for me, I have special reasons to be grateful for the
patience of the people who work here - inside the chamber and
out. The peculiarities of radiation treatment have blessed me with
a voice that is strained through pads of SOS pot cleaners and
you, my friends, have been kind enough to sit through the
I have news for you - Brenda Robertson and the Rules
Committee are on the brink of introducing an electronic device
that will come to the aid of the voice handicapped, thus removing
another of the dreaded barriers to public service. At the proper
time, Brenda and her committee-mates will announce the details.
Oh, yes, I have forgotten one thing. I must mention my old
committee adversary, Senator Colin Kenny. I have been charged
to do this. You see, my Grandmother Doyle, bless her soul, who
was born here in the Valley, was a Kenny. A family tree surgeon
tells me that Colin and I might be cousins. Will my debts to
Brian Mulroney never be paid!
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
DORDERS OF THE DAY)
Leave having been given to proceed to Order No. 1:
Bill to Amend-Second Reading
On the Order:
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable
Senator Taylor, seconded by the Honourable Senator Pépin,
for the second reading of Bill C-4, to amend the Canadian
Wheat Board Act and to make consequential amendments to
Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Acting Deputy Leader of the
Opposition): Honourable senators, on our side, we have
concluded the analysis of Bill C-4 at second reading and are
therefore supportive of the bill proceeding to committee.
Motion agreed to and bill read second time.
The Hon. the Speaker
: Honourable senators, when shall this
be read the third time?
On motion of Senator Carstairs, bill referred to the Standing
Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.
Committee Authorized to Meet During Sitting of the
Leave having be given to proceed to Motion No. 57:
Hon. Leonard J. Gustafson, pursuant to notice of
February 25, 1998, moved:
That the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and
Forestry have power to sit today at 3:30 p.m., even though
the Senate may then be sitting, and that rule 95(4) be
suspended in relation thereto.
Motion agreed to.
The Hon. the Speaker
: Honourable senators, I should like to
draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of a group of
Russian aboriginal leaders, who are in Canada to participate in
the institution Building for Northern Aboriginals of Russia
Project, sponsored by the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, Canada.
On behalf of all senators, I wish you welcome to our Senate
The Honourable Stanley Haidasz, P.C.
Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government)
Honourable senators, Senator Stanley Haidasz was born the son
of Polish immigrants who learned both our official languages in
school and went on to eke out an ability to understand Slovak
and Ukrainian. Stanley never forgot the proprietor of a small
shop who denied him a job because he did not like the sound of
his name, or a campaign official who tried to get Stan to change
his name in preparation for the 1957 election campaign when he
was first elected to the House of Commons.
There is an old saying that goes like this: In the country of the
blind, the one-eyed man is king. Senator Haidasz set out to
ensure that Canada was not to be the preserve of the one-eyed
king. By his side was his lovely Polish-born wife, Natalie, with
whom Stanley fell in love when he first saw her, and heard her
singing that great Polish melody When Irish Eyes are Smiling.
Natalie is in the gallery with their extended family today.
Together, they spent long hours working for a country where
openness of minds and openness of hearts was as much a part of
the social fabric as the air that we breathe.
As a medical doctor and a general practitioner for working
people, most of whom were from ethnic minorities, he
understood the costs of discrimination and poverty, and the need
to have a system of good health care available to all Canadians.
Shall we judge a country by the majority or by the minority?
"By the minority, surely," said Ralph Waldo Emerson. As a
member of Parliament, Stanley represented a tiny microcosm of
the planet itself. With evangelical fervour he began to take up the
cause of Canada's cultural minorities in Parliament. Speaking to
minority communities across the country, he praised their
determination to maintain their culture and their identity. He
praised their loyalty and dedication to their new country, the
virtues of sharing and service to others, commitments to family
values, and hard work and education for the young and, most
especially, commitment to the right to grow up equal. He
emphasized the fact that minorities, in many ways, often hold the
key to a better society, a better community, a better country. It is
only through those who are unafraid to be different, it was once
said, that advance comes to human society.
Appointed Canada's first Minister of State for
Multiculturalism in 1972, he fought for that right - for the right
to be different. He pushed for funding to develop the cultural
programs which enshrined that right, which became the
leavening agent of progress and advance in Canadian life and
society, enriching all Canadians and further strengthening
national unity in the process. He understood that national unity
was very much a question of strengthening and revitalizing the
values highway that links Canadians from coast to coast.
For Polish Canadians, most of whom immigrated here in
several major waves throughout this century, this was
particularly true. Poland is a country which suffered cruelly over
the centuries from occupation and division, perhaps the cruellest
being the Nazi occupation during World War II, and the
devastating Soviet invasion from the east which occurred in the
closing months of the war.
The young Karol Josez Wojityla may be one of the best known
world leaders to have fought in the resistance, but as the post-war
gates opened to a new wave of Polish immigrants to this country,
most had had experiences similar to those of His Holiness, the
present Pope John Paul II, knowing at first hand tales of suffering
and anguish, of hunger and family separation, of torture and
persecution and fear. Many had lost everything. They came to
Canada with hope and commitment. They brought with them a
special genius for music and literature, and a rich historic culture.
All sought a better life and new beginnings. They knew that
freedom is not a gift bestowed but a reward hard won.
Because of the values Polish Canadians so cherish in this
country, the values all minorities so cherish in this country -
values such as peace and cooperation, tolerance and commitment
to human rights; values which were themselves part of the
normative foundations of our nation - each new wave
strengthened the values highway, making our country very much
more than the sum of its parts.
In the dark hours of Communist rule in his mother country,
Stanley kept hope alive. From the early years in which he was
Parliamentary Secretary to Paul Martin Senior, he kept up
Canadian-Polish contacts, whether as president of the Polish
Millennium Fund, through Canadian-Polish medical exchanges,
or through the fight to win rights for Polish airlines to charter
flights from Poland to Canada.
Honourable senators will recall as well Senator Haidasz's
attempts in the late 1980s to get more Canadian aid for the
Independent Trade Union government of Solidarity.
Today, we see a free Poland evolving from an unhappy past.
One of the children of this new democracy is Aleksandra Brylant
who came to Canada several years ago, at the age of two, for
life-saving surgery. She was born with three holes in her heart,
and was afflicted with Down's syndrome as well. While the
Herbie Medical Fund for disadvantaged children covered most of
the medical costs, Senator Haidasz was instrumental in bringing
little Aleksandra here for a new lease on life, as he has done for
so many others.
We all share the great pride, Stanley, that you justifiably felt
one week ago today when you were awarded, in Warsaw, the
Order of Merit of Poland.
Stanley, you kept the struggle alive in the darkest hours. Little
Aleksandra and the others you have helped will face a new
millennium in a country where new hope stirs and, because of
you, Canada is less a kingdom of the blind than most other places
on the planet. Your work has kept the one-eyed king in
permanent exile. Rather, it is a place to which little Aleksandra
can return one day; a place where openness of hearts and
openness of minds will be as natural as the air that we breathe.
Senator Haidasz, you are truly a man of passion, principle and
conviction. You have made an enormous contribution to this
chamber. You will be missed. All honourable senators join in
wishing you and Natalie good health and much happiness in your
Dovidzenia. Goodbye. Au revoir. Dovidenia. Dosvidania.
Hon. Consiglio Di Nino: Honourable senators, it is with
pleasure that I rise in tribute to the Honourable Senator Stanley
Senator Haidasz has ably served Canada, particularly his
constituents and his community, for four decades and then some,
both as a parliamentarian and as a fine medical practitioner.
During all these years, he has been faithful to his constituents and
to his beliefs.
The residents of the Toronto area of Parkdale elected Senator
Haidasz no less than six times. During his first two terms as a
member of the other place, I spent my formative years, together
with my family, in the Parkdale area. It was heavily populated by
recent immigrants, mainly from Northern Europe, but sprinkled
with the odd southerner - and "odd" is the key word there -
like myself. My boyhood friends were principally of Polish,
Ukrainian and Baltic backgrounds.
During these particularly trying years, Senator Haidasz was a
role model who made us believe in ourselves and inspired us to
strive for our goals. As the first minister responsible for
multiculturalism, he developed and articulated positions on
issues that better reflected the make-up of Canada then - no
easy task during a period when Canadians were still debating the
virtues of biculturalism.
Honourable senators, I have been both a witness and a victim
of those early days, when many of us were seen by too many of
our neighbours as some strange and substandard race. It was
leaders like Senator Haidasz who provided a ray of light and the
ray of hope needed to go on.
Senator Haidasz, I express to you my congratulations and
thanks, and I extend my best wishes for many more good years
surrounded by the love of your family and friends.
Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Deputy Leader of the
Government): Honourable senators, when I listen to tributes
such as these given today, I sometimes think we should pay
tribute halfway through the senator's career so that we may have
a better understanding of the capacity of the individuals with
whom we serve in this chamber.
As someone who is interested in the whole field of
multiculturalism, I knew of the contributions that Senator
Haidasz made to this important and significant undertaking in
this country. I experienced it firsthand several years ago, when
Senator Haidasz came to Winnipeg, to the opening of a newly
built church on the site of an old church, originally built in 1870,
of the Polish Catholic Community in the city of Winnipeg.
The opening of the new church, far more elaborate than the
older church had been - and very impressively decorated with a
series of leaded windows depicting the stations of the cross -
was a moment of very special and unique history in the city of
Winnipeg. The special guest of the day was Senator Haidasz.
I was amazed that every man, woman and child in that room
knew Senator Haidasz' name. They knew about his contribution
to their community, nationwide. They knew that he had kept
hope alive for so many of them in the dark days of Communism
in Poland. Their admiration, their affection and their outright
love for this man was very eloquently expressed - orally by
some, and just by the looks of admiration that they gave him as
they passed by in both awe and gratitude for the fact that this
man was in their midst.
Honourable senators, the Polish community of Canada is
indeed grateful for the eloquence with which he has represented
I will end my tribute on a humourous note. The other night, at
a party in honour of Senator Haidasz, he told us a bit of his
history that I did not know. Apparently in his early youth, he had
spent a year in the novitiate. That led to some interesting
observations by other members of the Liberal caucus, including
Senator Losier-Cool, who announced that she, too, had spent a
year in the novitiate. As you know, in service of the church, one
must take three vows, namely, the vows of obedience, poverty
and chastity. Somewhat to my surprise, Senator Losier-Cool said
that she had no difficulty with the vows of obedience and
poverty, but had real problems with the vow of chastity. She
wanted to know which problem Senator Haidasz had with
membership in the novitiate. Senator Haidasz smiled and said, "I
had problems with all three!"
Hon. Wilbert J. Keon: Honourable senators, I, too, rise to pay
tribute to our honourable colleague Stanley Haidasz. His
departure from this chamber will mark the end of a rich and
illustrious career as a parliamentarian and, more particularly, as a
When our honourable friend was first chosen by the
constituents of Trinity, and later Parkdale, Toronto, to represent
them in the House of Commons in 1957, his elected power, his
tireless efforts and his genuine concerns went toward Canada's
most vulnerable: newly arrived immigrants and refugees, war
orphans, prisoners in Nazi concentration camps and labour
camps, displaced persons, the elderly and the disenfranchised.
Indeed, his firm commitment to the disadvantaged, as well as his
continuous efforts to reinforce Polish-Canadian relations, must
have been fuelled by the same fire that led him to establish a
long, respectable practice as a family physician.
While gaining his licentiate in philosophy at the University of
Ottawa, Dr. Haidasz heard the call of medicine, at which point he
went to pursue his medical studies at the University of Toronto.
As a young intern of 28 at St. Joseph's Hospital, he would swiftly
move on to do surgical training at the renowned Shouldice
Hospital. This was later followed by qualifying in cardiology at
Chicago's Cook County School of Medicine and geriatrics at the
University of Saskatchewan. Indeed, our honourable friend's
medical devotion and contribution is something of great pride for
all of us, myself included, in the medical profession.
Dr. Haidasz ran his own medical practice in Toronto for the
last 40 years and was, until last May, operating a week-end
practice and making house calls to his older patients.
Needless to say, Senator Haidasz' endeavours in consolidating
his political and medical career for the betterment of Canadians,
Eastern Europeans, and all of humankind, are numerous and
outstanding. As a parliamentarian, both in the House of
Commons and, since 1978, in the Senate of Canada, he has been
an avid defender of rights overlooked. He has been a consistent
force towards establishing a market-place for affordable
pharmaceuticals, and was the pioneer in facilitating the import of
generic pharmaceutical products to less advantaged patients in
Poland and other countries.
In 1978, Dr. Haidasz represented our country as a senator at
the First International Meeting of Primary Health Care at
Alma-Ata in the then U.S.S.R., and in the same year established
a Canada-Poland medical exchange program. In 1984, as the
co-founder of the Polish Scoliosis Fund, at the Toronto Hospital
for Sick Children, Dr. Haidasz inaugurated humanitarian visits to
Polish centres, treating childhood scoliosis with the surgical
colleges providing support along the way.
Honourable senators, our colleague has proven himself to be a
staunch defender of access to medicine as a basic human right. In
initiating several bills, he has sought to safeguard motherhood
and the sanctity of human life. As a delegate to Bucharest for the
first UN International Conference on Population, in 1974, he has
endorsed the rudimentary right to life and brought forth the
necessity for primary health care development and an end to
exploitation of women by misinformation, mutilation, forced
sterilization, and abortion.
Forty-five years as a physician and politician, stalwart fighter
for preventive medicine, the honourable senator has waged, for
the last 40 years, an uphill war on tobacco. In directing
government policies towards countering nicotine addiction at its
inception, his private member's bill, S-5, was one step forward in
restricting noxious constituents of tobacco products. With
Bill S-71, the Tobacco Act, Senator Haidasz emphasized the role
of government to directly regulate nicotine content, carcinogens
and other toxic subjects. In addition, he strongly advocated tax
incentives for cigarette users to use off-nicotine therapies.
Today, with Bill S-8 before the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs, Science and Technology, Senator Haidasz's
combat against the abuse of tobacco products is as vigorous as
ever. With this initiative, he and many others, such as myself, are
anxious to see the reduction in the use of harmful additives
contained in the product, coupled with a clear display of nicotine
and tar content. As stated before, the battle against tobacco is one
in which physicians have been on the front lines for a very long
time. Dr. Haidasz has paved an extraordinary and exemplifying
path to follow.
Honourable senators, with these remarks, I stand here before
you in recognition of Senator Haidasz, whose countless and
tireless contributions to this chamber, to the Polish and Canadian
community, to the medical profession and to the plight against
tobacco, among many other things, are permanent marks of the
wisdom and expertise we have been so fortunate to have
encountered. Indeed, his presence in this chamber will be greatly
missed and we all wish him the very best.
Hon. Richard J. Stanbury: Honourable senators, I would like
to add a few words of tribute to those expressed to my long-time
friend Stan Haidasz. I do not wish to repeat what has been said
by others, because the fact that he has had such a remarkable
career, I think, is obvious to anyone who has ever read any of his
biographies, which are tremendously impressive.
Stan Haidasz is a scholar, a beloved physician, a respected
politician, a community leader, an international diplomat, a
wonderful senator, and a gentleman loved by all.
My own recollection of my relationship with Senator Haidasz
goes back to the election of 1957, when he resisted the first
Diefenbaker election success by being elected in Trinity.
Unfortunately, no one in the Toronto area survived the second
Senator Grafstein: But wait! That is not the whole story!
Senator Stanbury: It was not until 1962 that Senator Haidasz
had the opportunity to run again. By that time, I had the
responsibility for the Toronto area and Dr. Haidasz was one of
the leaders of the Pearson sweep, which brought 14 of the
17 Toronto ridings into the Liberal fold. That was the election
that converted Toronto from Tory Toronto to Liberal Toronto
and, may I say, we have never looked back.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: I cannot hear you, cannot hear a
Senator Stanbury: I will not attempt to quote the unending
list of positions, public and private, which Stan has occupied, nor
the many honours that he has received. Those have already been
mentioned substantially. All I can say is that whenever, as an
elected officer of the Liberal Party at the Toronto and district
level, the provincial level or the federal level, I needed support
from our members of the House of Commons, which was very
often, I always knew I would get enthusiastic help from Stan.
Again, when I was assisting in the Canada Business Council
and the Canada-Eastern Europe Trade Council to expand
Canadian exports, Senator Haidasz, who knows that part of the
world so well, was of tremendous help.
I want particularly to mention Stan's family and their
importance to him. Natalie, his bride of 48 years, has always
been a charming presence in Stan's public career, but I know her
importance to him is so much greater in their private life. I also
know how deep is Stan's devotion to the members of his family.
My wife, Marg, has asked me to include her in my tribute to
Stan and Natalie, and I do so happily. Our very warm personal
wishes to Senator Haidasz and to his entire family.
Hon. Anne C. Cools: Honourable senators, I join my
colleagues in this farewell tribute to Senator Haidasz. I was
deeply touched by Dr. Keon's remarks and, as he spoke about
Dr. Haidasz, I was reminded that Dr. Bonnell has only recently
left this chamber. With Senator Haidasz's departure, we will be
left with only one Doctor-Senator, Wilbert Keon. I encourage the
Prime Minister to appoint some doctors to this chamber in their
place. Doctors bring a special experience to this chamber.
Senator Haidasz's achievements and contributions are
numerous. He has been an enormous credit to his family, to his
race, to his community, to his province and to his country; this
country, Canada. He is a good man, a kind man, and a noble man.
Senator Haidasz's devotion to his church, the Roman Catholic
Church, is well known. His defence of the unborn and the
sanctity of life is notable and equally well known.
Senator Haidasz's force of conviction is to be admired by all of
us. He was also Canada's first minister of multiculturalism.
Honourable senators, I am honoured to have known
Senator Haidasz and to have worked with him. It may be said
that Senator Haidasz did much for many people. Senator
Haidasz, as physician healer, as politician minister, as a senator,
as a Knight of Malta, has truly spent his life in public service. It
may be said that he served God, Queen, and country.
I wish him and his family, his loved ones, in particular his
daughter, whom I know well, God speed and good luck.
Hon. A. Raynell Andreychuk: Honourable senators, I want to
add my wishes for Senator Haidasz in his retirement and his
future endeavours. I have not been fortunate enough to sit on any
Senate committees with Senator Haidasz. My knowledge of and
my involvement with the work of Senator Haidasz is in the
communities across Canada. As I come from one of the Slavic
communities, I am well aware of the balancing act between
trying to encourage people who have come to this country to
participate in the daily life and daily issues of Canada, and the
difficulty of maintaining a continued commitment to see change
in the country from where you have come.
It is often said in the Slavic community that you have to know
from whence you came to know where you are going. We have
often said that it is difficult to know our roots because we were
precluded in many cases from going to the countries from which
our ancestors came, or from which we came. We therefore
looked to role models and people within the community who
could excel and achieve in Canada, and continue to work through
the Canadian government to effect the changes in the countries of
our origin. Senator Haidasz is often referred to as a role model of
what Canada allows its people to achieve, and how it allows
Canadians to continue to contribute to the values and to the
issues that are important to us and to those of us who fight for the
issues in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
I am very pleased that Senator Haidasz has had the opportunity
to culminate a unique and very rewarding career as a
professional, as a community leader, and now as a senator. I trust
that he will continue to contribute to the fabric of Canadian
society, and to the citizens in Poland and their wish to continue
their democratic progress, and I trust that he understands that we
respect and certainly acknowledge the contribution that he has
made to the communities across Canada. As a role model, as a
spokesperson, and as a Canadian citizen, he has contributed to
Poland and other Slavic countries as an activist and as example.
I wish you and your family well in your future endeavours.
Hon. Philippe Deane Gigantès: Honourable senators, Senator
Haidasz comes from a long tradition of the doctor-philosopher,
and statesman, and leader. They existed everywhere, but were
more noticed in corridor countries such as his country of origin,
where every monstrous invasion would go through, and in other
countries in Europe, and elsewhere, where the physician, not
asking for money, would tend wounds, help people, bring
children into the world, and try to understand and explain why
fate was so unkind at the time.
He is one of them, as was Senator Johnson's father, and as is
There is something else for which I would thank him. Because
of who he is and what he has been, older Canadians who were
here before us more recent immigrants have been conditioned by
people like him to think well of immigrants. I was welcomed in
this country mainly because Senator Haidasz and people like him
taught the people who then lived in this country that we, the
immigrants, could love the country and serve it. Thank you, sir.
Hon. Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: Honourable senators, I should
like to add words of tribute to Stanley Haidasz. I first met him in
1961 in his riding in the heart of Toronto, which was really a
Central European enclave. As President of the Young Liberals at
that time, I organized the Young Liberal organization in his
riding. It was in that process that I came to know him, his riding
organization and members of his family.
Shortly thereafter, the Toronto and District Liberal Association
established what we called the ethnic committee, which was
really a multicultural committee, to focus on multicultural issues.
I think that was the first time within the bosom of a national
party that a microcosm organization of this type was established.
The thrust of that organization really came from Stanley's riding
and from Senator Haidasz himself. It is interesting how ideas
filter up from a riding association, from the grass roots to the
senior echelons, and finally become part of the fabric of the
country. It was from those early days and that experience of
various groups working in a concerted area, from various ethnic
and multicultural groups led by Senator Haidasz and his
colleagues, that those ideas ultimately filtered up into the federal
government, and then into national policy.
Senator Haidasz was a pioneer at the grass-roots level, and one
of the originators of our multicultural policy. In that sense, when
we talk about the bilingual and multicultural essence of the
country, Senator Haidasz is one of the leaders in that formulation.
We also shared another interest. He and I have deep but
different roots in Poland. We share a common hero, Jozef
Pilsudski, who was the first leader after the First World War in
Europe, and at that time in Poland, who believed in the idea of
European federalism. Therefore from time to time, Stanley and I
have talked about our interests in the culture, the history, if not
the different pasts that we share with respect to Poland, and in
that sense I shall miss him.
To you, Stanley, I say you are a great gentleman, a great
scholar, a man of strong principles and stronger beliefs, and you
will be sorely missed.
Hon. Marcel Prud'homme: Honourable senators, before
talking about my good friend Senator Haidasz, whom I know
better, I did not want to take part in the tributes to Senator Doyle,
to keep our proceedings as short as possible. However, I want to
tell Senator Doyle that I appreciate having known him. Only
yesterday, when he replied to me, I realized I was having a hard
time keeping up with his wit. Only this morning, after reading
the transcript, did I realize everything he had said yesterday in
reply to my questions. He understood my point very well
regarding the issue of independent senators.
I wish him a nice time with his family.
If he would be kind enough to help me out before his
departure, he could give me the list of the senators in his party
who are considering joining the independents. I would be more
than happy to explain to them the difficulties they may
Senator Haidasz, I wish you the best of retirement. I know you
will enlighten us by continuing with your writing. I will shock
some Liberals by saying I favour The Globe and Mail by a mile
over The Toronto Star. I do not want to start a debate, but I have
always, like my father, read The Globe and Mail, and I find that
I usually disagree with The Toronto Star.
Having said that, I want to pay tribute to a man I know better.
I do not want to say more about him than the rest of you, but
when I came into the House of Commons in 1964,
Senator Haidasz was already a Member of Parliament. He helped
me out. It was not easy to come in alone. I did not come in at a
general election where everybody is on an equal footing.
Everybody wanted me to win that by-election and they knew that
a young Liberal, especially me, could be elected during these
times. Everybody was very kind during my campaign - not
before my nomination, but once I won the nomination - but I
was on my own as soon as I arrived in Ottawa. Such is life.
However, Senator Haidasz came to me and said, "Vous êtes du
Québec." I was surprised, having participated in many debates
across Canada, to hear him welcoming me in a very slow,
beautiful, charming French, "Vous êtes le nouveau député. Je
vous souhaite la bienvenue," and it always struck me that the
man was a real gentleman.
I know he ran in 1957 and was elected. Unfortunately, he had
to go back home in 1958 when there was a big Conservative
sweep, but he did not give up easily, and that is an example to
people. He fought and came back in 1962, if I am correct, and
then on into 1963 and 1965. Someday, you will have to write
We were sure to go to election in 1978. Many people were
appointed, and many by-elections took place because we did not
call an election, and Senator Haidasz's riding was lost. However,
immediately after the general election of 1980, even though the
Conservatives were elected, the Liberals retook that riding
because Senator Haidasz would not allow that seat to be in
foreign hands, "foreign" being non-Liberal.
I learned a lot from him. I learned that if you are a profoundly
religious person, you should not hide it. If you believe in God, if
you are attached to a faith, whatever that faith, you should be a
messenger among people. Senator Haidasz has done that in his
own way. He has always been that kind of light.
Senator Haidasz is a light in the darkness who never hesitates
to show his deep attachment to his religion. We know he is a
devout, well-known and honoured Catholic, who never
campaigned across the country to defend one faith or another, but
who affirms, in his own way, his affiliation with the Roman
Catholic church. I thank him for that. He is an example to those
who have problems affirming their faith.
I would like to say to you, Dr. Haidasz, that I profoundly
believe in your bill which was studied in committee this
morning. You knew my father. He was a doctor, and he delivered
9,000 babies. That has nothing to do with the debate on abortion.
We should protect people. They should not be forced to commit
acts that they would not otherwise be doing unless they were
asked to do it.
You can leave and rest, come back anytime, and be well
received by us. However, other senators will continue the work
you have started. I wish you the very best. I thank you for the
way you received me in the House of Commons on February 18,
1964. You made me feel welcome after I was introduced by
Mr. Pearson to the new chamber. Everyone was wondering about
the new member. Please, come back and see us. My office is
yours at any time.
Hon. Stanley Haidasz: Honourable senators, I am deeply
touched this afternoon by the many words of tribute, praise,
encouragement for the future, and your best wishes. I am deeply
thankful for these wishes.
As I leave this very beautiful chamber and this building where
I have spent almost 40 years, more than half of my life, it is with
great gratitude not only to providence but also to many people,
people like my teachers at the University of Ottawa and other
schools who inspired me to enter the life of politics, people who
helped me once I got here, people like you in this chamber, my
colleagues to whom I am very grateful for all their support and
Mention was made by Senator Carstairs of my year as a
novitiate. During that time, as well as my time at St. Joseph
Scholastica in east Ottawa, we who belong to the Congregation
of Missionary Oblates lived a community life, and our first
commandment was to love our neighbour. I remember living in a
big community of 300 to 400 students, and we were encouraged to
get down on our knees and confess our offences or sins against our
neighbour. Although I will not do it on my knees here at this time
but standing, I confess that I have probably irritated or offended
many of you here, and for all these faults of mine, I ask
I am very grateful also to people like Prime Minister Trudeau
who appointed me to this chamber. As many senators have
indicated, I came here first as a St. Laurent Liberal in 1957, as a
novice, a stranger almost, not to Ottawa but to this building. I
had only visited this building once when I was a student at the
University of Ottawa, one evening, in the company of my
classmate Jacques Rinfret, whose father was the Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court of Canada, Thibaudeau Rinfret. It was dark
here because there was nothing going on in the evening.
However, there was something going on in the other place. After
the debate in the other place, my friend brought me to meet the
first senator I saw in my life, Thomas Vien of Montreal, who sat
as the Speaker in that Chair from 1943 to 1945. That was my first
and only visit to this chamber.
I never dreamt of politics when I was a student in university or
in the seminary. I had other ideas and other duties. However, I do
not regret that somehow or other I was steered into politics. It
was a great opportunity for me to get to know my country better
from coast to coast to coast. I visited Newfoundland several
times; Signal Hill, for example. Every Canadian should have the
privilege of visiting Signal Hill and watching the waves of the
Atlantic hit those cliffs. During one visit to Newfoundland, when
I was the main speaker at the unveiling of a statue of the first
Methodist minister in that province, Joey Smallwood came along
at the end of the ceremony, and spoke for an hour, off the cuff,
about the early missionaries and the religious customs and fights
in Newfoundland. It was a great education.
I am grateful to those who brought me into politics because, as
I said, I got to know my country and its people and how the
country is run. I wanted to do something. I actually entered
politics, being talked into it, because of the then MP for Trinity,
Mr. Don Carrick, who gained his seat in a by-election.
C.D. Howe had promised him he would be the justice minister.
Don Carrick ran in a by-election because the previous member of
Trinity, Lionel Conacher, Canada's greatest athlete, played
softball on the front lawn with the press and tried to stretch a
triple into a home run. Turning around third base he fell and died
of a coronary, so never try to stretch a triple into a home run.
It was a great honour for me to represent Trinity at least for
one Parliament. I did not return until 1962. Unfortunately, in
1962 I defeated one of my best friends, Arthur Maloney, a great
criminal lawyer and a friend of Senator Atkins. He was a great
friend of mine, and I was most embarrassed when I defeated him.
I was embarrassed because he was a classmate of mine at
St. Michael's. I was also friends with his future wife.
Nonetheless, these things happen.
I only recall these things at this time to tell you how much I
appreciate the life of politics.
Once again, I say that it was a great privilege to serve in
Parliament. I am grateful to all those who helped me both before
I came here and when I came here. I see in the gallery one of my
former secretaries, Kay O'Meara, who was my secretary for
almost 17 years. I only had three secretaries. She was the second
one. She is here today, along with my wife and family, to whom
I pay my respects for their support.
As a physician I tried to be helpful in that field and bring in
some new ideas. I really entered politics to bring in medicare. I
was pushing my minister, Judy LaMarsh. I was her parliamentary
Then there was Allan J. MacEachen, the father of medicare. I
am very proud that my party brought in the Hospital Insurance
Diagnostic Act, then medicare, the Canada Pension Plan, the
improvements to family allowances, and many other pieces of
legislation. However, I think the most worthy and helpful to
Canada was the enlightened policy on multiculturalism
announced by Mr. Trudeau on October 8, 1972. After the election
of 1972, he asked me to be its first minister and to implement the
program of multiculturalism, which I did my best to do.
I also wish to pay tribute to the other ministers who followed
me. Many were from the party opposite. Actually, the
Conservative Party brought in the Ministry of Multiculturalism. I
believe that was the most enlightened social policy of any
Government of Canada.
It was a privilege for me to take part in the work leading up to
these policies, and I want to thank everyone who sat with me on
committees or on caucus task forces to bring in legislation that
would help to make Canada a better country in which to live.
I am leaving about a year and a half before the third
millennium, at a time when Canadians have their own crises,
worries and anxieties. I am talking about the spectre of another
referendum and the so-called sovereigntist movement in the
Province of Quebec, where I lived for four years among French
Canadians. I came to know them well and to love them. I am
sorry to see that they are unhappy. We have a challenge,
honourable senators, to make them feel happier in Canada so that
they will remain a part of this great country of which we are
proud and which we in this chamber serve.
Honourable senators, I throw you the torch to continue what
we have done here in the past 20 years. I truly hope you are
successful in your endeavours to keep Canada strong and united,
to keep the people of Canada happy, and to provide that to which
our young generations aspire or look forward - a better future
for everyone in this country.
In this work I say God bless you all, and I wish you a fond
farewell. Adieu and dovidzenia. Thank you for your assistance
and counsel. I will be back again, not to criticize you but to help
you in any way I can. I love Ottawa. I have spent so much time
here that I will not be able to stay away. Bear with me if you see
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
Civil Code of Quebec
Hon. Jacques Hébert
: Honourable senators, I would like to
draw the attention of this house to a legal case that has been in
the news here for a year and a half. The proceeding is calling into
question two basic democratic principles: freedom of expression
and the public's right to information. A writer and renowned
historian, Pierre Turgeon, twice a winner of the
Governor General's award, may well have one of his books,
which was to be released in the spring of 1996, banned and
destroyed. The work, entitled P.H. le magnifique, l'éminence
grise de Duplessis
, paints a lively and well-documented portrait
of the reign of the Union Nationale through the biography of one
of its greatest beneficiaries, Paul-Hervé Desrosiers. I would note
in passing that this information on Mr. Desrosiers may be found
in the biography of Maurice Duplessis published by
Conrad Black over 20 years ago.
Who then is seeking a permanent injunction against
Mr. Turgeon's book in Montreal Superior Court? Pierre Michaud,
the great-nephew of Paul-Hervé Desrosiers, who died in 1969,
and the president of Réno-Dépôt, a huge hardware firm with
annual sales of half a billion dollars. Réno-Dépôt grew out of
Val-Royal, a firm founded by P.H. Desrosiers, the great-uncle of
Pierre Michaud and a friend of Maurice Duplessis. Millionaire
Pierre Michaud is quoted in the Gazette of December 13, 1996 as
We are talking about political bribery. Maybe there was
some. I am not criticizing the source that said there was -
and in any case that was the practice at the time. But why
talk about it in a book? My employees are going to read that
Holy jumping! He was a bloody thief. He paid out money
to buy contracts.
That is not the image I want to present.
That is how Mr. Michaud put it in his delicate way.
What is Pierre Michaud's basis for demanding that a book that
took one of Canada's most renowned authors three years to write
be banned? According to a research and a publishing contract,
the details of which I will not get into, Pierre Turgeon never gave
Pierre Michaud any right to edit the book's contents, nor did he
ever transfer to him his inalienable copyright under the federal
Realizing how weak its contractual arguments were,
Réno-Dépôt decided to invoke section 35 of the new Quebec
Civil Code, which states that the privacy of a deceased person
cannot be breached.
The Hon. the Speaker: I am sorry, but I have to interrupt. Is
this matter currently before the courts? According to our rules,
matters currently in dispute before a court should not be raised in
this House. In this respect, let me quote Citation 505 of
Beauchesne, which states:
Members are expected to refrain from discussing matters
that are before the courts or tribunals which are courts of
record. The purpose of this sub judice convention is to
protect the parties in a case awaiting or undergoing trial and
persons who stand to be affected by the outcome of a judicial
inquiry. It is a voluntary restraint imposed by the House upon
itself in the interest of justice and fair play.
Therefore, if this matter is currently before the courts and has
not yet been decided, I believe, Senator Hébert, that we cannot
hear your statement.
If that is the case, I would ask you not to continue.
Senator Hébert: It is quite possible that the case is before the
courts; it has dragged on for three and a half years. I wonder
whether I might give an opinion, not on the case in question but
on section 35 of the Civil Code, which applies to everyone. It is
a section which, in my opinion, is an infringement of individual
rights, whether they be the rights of Mr. Desrosiers or anyone
else. It has nothing to do with the case.
The Hon. the Speaker: I would think we could debate a piece
of legislation, but not with specific reference to a case before the
Senator Hébert: If you had stopped me earlier, the case
would not have come up. Now it has. What I wish to say is that
my purpose was not to speak about the case but about section 35,
which, in my view, is extremely dangerous. I merely wanted my
colleagues to know that it is section 35 of the new Civil Code,
which does not mention Mr. Desrosiers.
The Hon. the Speaker: Very well.
Senator Hébert: So then, of all the ridiculous pieces of
legislation I have ever seen in my life, section 35 takes the cake.
If section 35 is enforced, it makes it impossible for the story ever
to be released. I would like to tell you about the life of
Jacques Cartier. It could be interesting, but wait, I must look up
all his descendants to find out whether they will let me.
The Hon. the Speaker: I am sorry but I must interrupt you
again because your three minutes are up. Is leave granted,
Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): No.
Senator Hébert: We understand why you say no.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: I will raise a point of order at the
The Honourable Lucien Bouchard-Politics in Quebec
Hon. Jerahmiel S. Grafstein
: Honourable senators, on
February 8, 1994, I drew the attention of the Senate to the
question of nationalism; on March 22, 1994, to the question of
nationalism and democracy; and then on June 8, 1994, to the
contradictions of Quebec nationalism. Regrettably, contradictions
continue to abound.
Last week, Premier Bouchard demanded from Quebec City
that the federal government, federal ministers or federal members
of Parliament, even from the Province of Quebec, should not
participate in Quebec provincial elections or Quebec political
issues. Sternly, he issued a warning of dire consequences if
federal politicians even so much as intervened in Quebec
provincial politics. Yet when Mr. Bouchard was a federal
appointee, federal member, federal minister of the Crown, federal
Leader of the Opposition, and the leader of the Bloc here in
Ottawa, he intervened freely and openly in Quebec politics every
day - first, from his perch overseas and then from his perch
here in Ottawa.
Last week, his federal colleagues in the Bloc raced from
Ottawa to attend on every provincial legislature across Canada,
and federal Bloc members continue to intervene in Quebec
provincial politics daily.
Turning - and I do this with some delicacy - to the
reference to the Supreme Court of Canada, Mr. Bouchard warns
the federal government that it cannot exercise its constitutional
duty and democratic right to even seek legal advice on questions
of constitutional process and the rule of law under the
Constitution respecting a unilateral declaration of secession -
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, the Honourable
Senator Grafstein is referring to a case that is before the Supreme
Court. It has not been decided yet.
Senator Grafstein: I am not referring to the case itself, I am
referring, by way of reference, to a premier who is referencing
that decision. I will not deal with subject-matter, as I will deal
with his comments.
The Hon. the Speaker: You may refer to the premier and to
any actions that you do not agree with, but not with reference to
a court case that is not settled.
Senator Grafstein: Let me go on to say that Mr. Bouchard
uses his sculptured thesis of democracy to support a unilateral
declaration of secession, without understanding or recognizing
that the very essence of democracy means equal treatment under
the rule of law. According to his thesis, equal treatment is not
applicable. Democracy can only be employed in his own way
and for his purposes, but not for others.
About two weeks ago, Mr. Bouchard thanked the people of the
United States, in an advertisement placed in a Boston daily
newspaper, for their help during the current storm crisis in
Quebec but failed to mention the help given by thousands of
Canadians through personal efforts, the emergency contributions
by the federal government, and the invaluable help given by the
Canadian Armed Forces.
Also two weeks ago, Mr. Bouchard claimed that the federal
government is acting beyond its powers in its reference to the
court and refused to participate in that trial. Last week, he
claimed that the very trial before the Supreme Court of Canada,
which he refused to recognize, was a mistrial.
Last week, Mr. Bouchard repeated the canard that the
1982 Constitution had no effect in Quebec and then, just last fall,
as all honourable senators will recall, he sent ministers, including
his Minister of Education and his Minister of Provincial Affairs,
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I am sorry to
interrupt the honourable senator, but his three minutes has
expired. Is leave granted for the honourable senator to continue?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Grafstein: They were sent to seek from the
Parliament of Canada an amendment to the Constitution on the
Quebec school question, that very same 1982 Constitution.
Also two weeks ago, Mr. Bouchard confused the youth of
Quebec even further when he attended at the University of
Montreal Law School to preach to law students that one
province's unilateral actions can alter the configuration of a
federation without regard to the rule of law under that
Honourable senators, it seems to me that if Mr. Bouchard can
only persuade the population of the Province of Quebec by
contradiction, surely that in itself is a contradiction of
democracy. Yet the contradictions continue. Stay tuned.
The Late W.O. Mitchell, P.C.
Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Deputy Leader of the
: Honourable senators, I know the hour is getting
late, but I could not let today pass without paying a very brief
tribute to W.O. Mitchell, an author from the west. He certainly
opened my eyes and ears to the Prairie provinces when I first met
him and was given a copy of his book, Who Has Seen the Wind.
Following that reading, I read Jake and the Kid
, and all the other
books with which this beloved author of Western Canada
endowed the people of Canada.
What is less known about W.O. Mitchell is the fact that he was
an orchid grower. I was also privileged to have been in his home
in the Rideau Park area of Calgary, in particular his greenhouse,
where I saw the magnificent orchids he grew.
Honourable senators, if you wish to have a somewhat better
understanding of Western Canada and Western Canadians, do
yourself a favour and read Who Has Seen the Wind.
Hon. Eymard G. Corbin
: Honourable senators, on this
occasion as two colleagues are leaving us who were great
defenders, each in his own way, of civil liberties and democratic
principles, and great exemplars of the highest patriotism, again
each in his own way, who served within an institution, one of the
roles of which is to defend the right to free expression, I could
relate one incident connected with Senator Haidasz. One day, he
rose to introduce a bill that no one would support. He could find
absolutely no sponsor for that bill.
In the name of freedom of expression, that hallowed basis of
democracy, I rose to second his bill. Otherwise, he would never
have been able to bring the question of concern to him before us.
And that was his absolute right.
Today, the lines are getting blurred between the jurisdiction of
the Supreme Court and that of the two Houses of Parliament.
Certain incidents have been raised, by Senator Cools among
others. She mentioned cases in which the Court appears to be
interfering in an area that belongs to Parliament. But the Court
strongly denies that is the case. We, however, question such
I believe that a senator's freedom of speech in bringing a
matter to our attention ought to be respected, absolutely.
Citation 505 in Beauchesne refers not to a strict rule but rather
to a voluntary restraint imposed by the House of Commons upon
itself. In my opinion, this is such an important matter that we
ought to ask the Senate Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules
and Orders to examine the application of Citation 505 with
respect to our absolute right to express ourselves within these
precincts on any question concerning the democratic interests of
Second Report of Standing Joint Committee Tabled
Hon. Céline Hervieux-Payette
: Honourable senators, I have
the honour to table the second report of the Standing Joint
Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations on sections 56 and 57
of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Regulations.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this
report be taken into consideration?
On motion of Senator Hervieux-Payette, report placed on the
Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting of the
Internal Economy, Budgets and
Thirteenth Report of Committee Presented
Hon. Bill Rompkey
, Chair of the Standing Committee on
Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, presented the
The Hon. the Speaker
Thursday, February 26, 1998
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets
and Administration has the honour to present its
Your committee has examined and approved the
supplementary budget presented to it by the Standing
Committees on Energy, the Environment and Natural
Resources for the proposed expenditures of the said
Committee for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1998:
Professional and Special Services
All Other Expenditures
: Honourable senators, when shall this
report be taken into consideration?
On the motion of Senator Rompkey, report placed on the
Orders of the Day for consideration at the next sitting of the
Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Deputy Leader of the
: Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate
and notwithstanding rule 58(1)(h
), I move:
That when the Senate adjourns today, it do stand
adjourned until Tuesday, March 17, 1998, at 2:00 p.m.
The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Motion agreed to.
Tobacco Industry Responsibility Bill
Hon. Colin Kenny
presented Bill S-13, to incorporate and to
establish an industry levy to provide for the Canadian Tobacco
Industry Community Responsibility Foundation.
Bill read first time.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this
bill be read the second time?
On motion of Senator Kenny, bill placed on the Orders of the
Day for seconding at the next sitting of the Senate.
Delayed Answers to Oral Questions
Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Deputy Leader of the
: Honourable senators, I have a response to a
question raised in the Senate on February 10, 1998, by the
Honourable Senator Ethel Cochrane, regarding the Young
Offenders Act; I have a response to a question raised in the
Senate on February 12, 1998, by the Honourable Senator
Leonard Gustafson, regarding the Wheat Board; and I have a
response to a question raised in the Senate on February 18, 1998,
by the Honourable Senator Mira Spivak, regarding the
cancellation of research study on seniors with osteoporosis.
Young Offenders Act-Request for Changes by Province
of Saskatchewan-Government Position
(Response to question raised by Hon. Ethel Cochrane on
February 10, 1998)
At the December meeting of the
federal-provincial-territorial ministers responsible for
justice, the provinces of Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario and
Prince Edward Island tabled a number of amendments to the
Young Offenders Act. They proposed lowering the age of
criminal accountability in selected cases to address serious
offences committed by children under the age of 12 years
and for those exhibiting a pattern of offending. Other
proposals include providing for easier transfer to adult court
to address serious and chronic offending; for
post-conviction publication of the identity of serious violent
and chronic offenders; for greater judicial discretion with
respect to the admissibility of statement evidence and for
the restriction of court appointed counsel to circumstances
where youths or their guardians cannot afford to pay for
The Communiqué from the 1997 Premiers Conference
states that "the Premiers, with the exception of the Premier
of Quebec, agreed that the federal government should move
expeditiously to introduce meaningful amendments to the
Young Offenders Act to combat youth crime, protect
communities and restore public confidence in the youth
justice system. Premiers also agreed that the federal,
provincial and territorial governments should cooperate to
improve preventative and rehabilitative programs for young
In 1995, representatives from federal, provincial, and
territorial governments formed a Task Force on Youth
Justice and worked cooperatively to propose changes to the
system. There is general agreement for alternatives to
incarceration and a range of specific measures that would
improve the administration of the Act.
All these recommendations, as well as those put forward
by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights,
are being carefully considered by the Minister of Justice as
she prepares to launch the Government's proposed strategy
on youth justice. Cooperative federal-provincial approaches
are essential in order to protect society and meet our
common commitments to children and youth.
Wheat Board-Amount of Unpaid Balance
(Response to question raised by Hon. Leonard J. Gustafson on
February 12, 1998)
The CWB currently has an outstanding balance of
approximately $6.6 billion in credit grain sales under the
Credit Grain Sales Program (CGSP). All countries with the
exception of Iraq are current on their repayments.
Where grain is sold under the Credit Grain Sales
Program, the full value of each sale is guaranteed by the
federal government and credited to that year's pool account.
Were there to be any losses they would be assumed by the
federal government and therefore there would be no losses
to producers. In cases where the Government of Canada has
agreed to reduce a country's debt for reasons of government
policy, the government of Canada has absorbed the cost of
the write down and the CWB has been fully reimbursed.
Yes. Any interest charges which accrue from credit sales
become part of the balance owing by the purchasing
country. These amounts do not have any negative impact on
the CWB pool accounts.
Cancellation of Research Study on Seniors with
Osteoporosis-Possibility of Restoration of
(Response to question raised by Hon. Mira Spivak on
February 18, 1998)
The federal government is committed to the health and
well-being of Canada's seniors and to research into seniors'
Osteoporosis is a major health concern for Health
Canada. Health Canada is aware of the significant cost to
women, to the health care system and to society of this
Health Canada provided $3.6M for the pilot and Phase I
of a research project, the "Canadian Multicentre Osteoporo
sis Study (CAMOS)" through the National Health Research
and Development Program (NHRDP) and through the
Seniors Independence Research Program (SIRP) which has
now terminated.The objectives of Phase I were to evaluate
the effectiveness of ultrasound measures of bone density in
comparison with more expensive technology, to provide
estimates of the prevalence and incidence of the main
fractures associated with osteoporosis, and to analyse the
socio-demographic and lifestyle risk factors associated with
this disease. Other partners are Merck Frosst, Eli Lilly, the
Medical Research Council (MRC), the Dairy Farmers of
Canada, Proctor and Gamble Pharmaceuticals and the
Osteoporosis Society of Canada. Funding commenced in
March 1993 and ends on March 31, 1998. CAMOS is now
requesting funding for Phase II of the project, bringing the
total request to $9M.
Clinical research, such as the CAMOS study, has always
been fundable by the Medical Research Council. For some
years, the National Health Research and Development
Program (NHRDP) also accepted such projects. However,
due to budget reductions in recent years and due to the
recommendations of Program Review II to avoid
duplication of efforts by federal agencies, clinical research
is no longer eligible for funding by the NHRDP. The MRC
continues to be the appropriate Canadian government
agency to address requests for clinical research funding. The
most recent applications from CAMOS to the MRC and
other funding agencies have been unsuccessful in obtaining
support, but MRC has encouraged CAMOS to reapply, and
has provided detailed assistance in the preparation of a
revised and improved application.
Health Canada has adopted a population health approach
to further its mandate to maintain and improve the health of
Canadians. This approach integrates action on a broad range
of factors that affect the health of all Canadians (such as the
physical, economic and social environments). Seniors'
health will continue to be addressed using this approach.
Internal Economy, Budgets and
Twelfth Report of Committee Adopted
The Senate proceeded to consideration of the twelfth report of
the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and
Administration (budget-Social Affairs, Science and Technology
), presented in the Senate on February 25, 1998.
Hon. Bill Rompkey: Honourable senators, I move the
adoption of this report.
The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable
senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and report adopted.
Ninth Report of Committee Adopted
The Senate proceeded to consideration of the ninth report of
the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and
Administration (expenditure plan 1998-99
) presented in the
Senate on February 12, 1998.
Hon. Bill Rompkey moved adoption of the report.
He said: Honourable senators, the Senate's proposed budget
for 1998-99 is $41,691,000, which represents an overall increase
of 9.8 per cent from the 1997-98 estimates. However, as my
remarks will detail, the actual overall increase in the spending
estimates under the control of the Senate is 5.9 per cent. When
compared to the proposed budget increase in the other place,
which I understand is above 10 per cent, I believe that the Senate
continues to show a large degree of restraint.
Very simply, after several years of reduction, the Standing
Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration is
to restore the Senate's budget to a reasonable level in order to
permit us to carry out our normal duties. Although some of the
reductions we implemented resulted from technological advances
and streamlining of operations, others were nothing but false
economies. We were merely deferring expenditures on items that
were continually deteriorating and which, inevitably, needed to
For example, we had experienced for many years a significant
deterioration of capital assets, including furniture, office
equipment, buildings, not to mention the carpet at the entrance to
the Senate. There was always a concern that health and safety
issues were not being properly addressed. Our staff had little
flexibility to deal with ongoing operations or to adapt to a
As I have stated, some of the 9.8-per-cent increase is for
matters beyond our control. For example, $1,106,000, or
2.7 per cent of the increase, is for employee benefit plans. This is
a statutory item, and it is calculated as a percentage of overall
personnel costs. The percentage is set at the beginning of each
year by the Treasury Board. Historically, the final percentage of
benefits to salaries has been increasing steadily from 10 per cent
to 17 per cent over the four years. Again this year, the Treasury
Board has indicated to government departments and agencies
that the budget should be set at 21 per cent of salaries for
1998-99. For the Senate, this translates into an increase of
Another increase in the budget is for security and other
operational costs involving the East Block, which again is
beyond our control. In April 1996, the Senate accepted from the
House of Commons the responsibility for overall security and
fire prevention at the East Block. This initiative is now in its
second year of implementation and the security coverage has
been extended to the refurbished 1910 wing, which has been
reopened this year, and the new freight entrance. These new costs
add at least 1.2 per cent to our 1997-98 budget.
Honourable senators, this is not a perfect budget from the
Senate's point of view. There are many areas which will continue
to be underfunded. For example, senators' research and office
budgets are still 22 per cent below authorized levels of funding.
The amount set aside for committees remains insufficient to fund
our ever-increasing committee activity which, as we all know, is
the hallmark of the Senate. Additional funds which may be
required to cover operational shortfalls in 1998-99 may need to
be the subject of a request for Supplementary Estimates later in
As far as future years go, although I cannot speak for the
Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and
Administration for next year, I think it is reasonable to assume
that additional increases will be asked for so that we can have a
phased-in approach to reinstate the Senate budget to its proper
What, then, are the significant changes in this 1998-99 budget?
There are a number of increases compared to last year's budget.
These include the budget items which were reduced last year to
reflect election year expenditure trends, such as senators' travel
and committees. These have been partially reinstated to
non-election year levels. As I mentioned, resource requirements
related to the Senate's takeover of the East Block security and the
reopening of the 1910 wing have been added. Budget items
related to the repair and upkeep of the Senate's capital asset base
have been increased.
As I have described, on the advice of Treasury Board the
Senate, like all government departments, has increased its budget
for the employer's contribution to the Public Service
Superannuation Plan, the Canada-Quebec Pension Plan,
supplementary death benefits and the employment insurance
Finally, additional moneys amounting to $500,000 have been
set aside to fund caucus research. While each senator has access
to a budget to cover staff, office expenses and research work, the
full amount is usually needed to fund the expenses related to
regular Senate duties, leaving little money to undertake special
research studies and other work on behalf of one's party.
In the House of Commons, recognized political parties are
provided with special funding. These funds are used for staff
salaries, research contracts and special services such as media
assistance. Party research offices are also given all necessary
office accommodation, such as equipment and telephones.
The Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and
Administration feels the time has come to provide some funding
to both party caucuses, as well as perhaps independent senators.
It was for this reason that it was agreed that a envelope should be
created within the Senate budget for caucus research, but that this
envelope would be decided on only after decisions are taken by
the individual caucuses in the next few weeks, and in
consultation with the independent senators.
Honourable senators, a summary of the Senate's 1998-99
expenditure budget was attached to the report of the Standing
Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
tabled in the Senate on February 10. Further detail can be found
in the document entitled "The 1998-99 Expenditure Plan
Executive Summary," also tabled on February 10.
Additional information on the operations of the Senate,
including its 1998-99 budget, will be found in the report on
planning and priorities, to be tabled next month shortly after the
government presents the Estimates for the coming fiscal year.
This document will focus on the priorities, plans and expected
results of the Senate administration in supporting senators and
the institution of the Senate of Canada. It will also provide
information on the remuneration, allowances and budgets
provided to individual senators. This, honourable senators, is
what the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and
Administration envisions as the Senate budget for 1998-99.
Are Canadians getting value for this money? As someone who
has sat in both Houses of Parliament, I can honestly say I believe
so. Many Canadians would not expect to hear that, on a per
capita basis, the Senate costs them far less than any other
legislative body in the country. The per person cost of the Senate
is $1.50, compared to $7.13 for the House of Commons. Even if
the Senate were the same size as the other place, it would only
cost Canadians $4.50. These numbers may be compared with the
per capita costs of provincial legislatures which range from
$6.97 to $17.79. Most, weighted by population, are in the
The Senate, while it appears as a legislature pas comme les
autres due to its unelected but nonetheless representative basis,
contributes a great deal to the public policy process of this
country. Many senators have developed areas of specialization on
social, economic and cultural matters - we have heard about
some of them today - and actively promote awareness of issues
about which they care. Veterans affairs, children rights,
education, literacy, and drug dependency are among the many
topics associated with individual senators.
Our committees have played influential roles in a number of
issues such as post-secondary education, the Cape Breton
Development Corporation, European integration, corporate
governance, the mass media, child poverty, transportation, and
veterans, to name only a few. As we are all well aware, our
committees investigate key social issues, make recommendations
for new policy initiatives, and help build social consensus around
possible solutions. One university professor, C.E.S. Frank from
Queen's, has written in his 1989 book that Senate committee's
investigations are "usually of a higher standard than those of the
committees of the House of Commons." There is no doubt in my
mind that the Senate is a vital part of our parliamentary system,
promoting better policies and investigating a wide range of
social, economic and cultural issues.
Honourable senators, I ask you to support the adoption of this
report. In closing, I thank all of my colleagues who have served
and are serving now on the Internal Economy Committee, in
particular Senator De Bané, who heads our Subcommittee on
Information Technology, and Senators Nolin and Poulin, who sit
with me on the steering committee. To all of you, I express my
Before I close, I also want to pay tribute to my colleague who
preceded me as chair of the Internal Economy Committee, that
relation of Senator Doyle, Senator Kenny. I believe it will be
acknowledged on both sides of the chamber that Senator Kenny,
during his period of stewardship, gave outstanding service to this
chamber as a whole and to the individual senators who serve in
it. The facilities that we have and the ambience within which we
work is much better as a result of the outstanding work that he
did, and I pay tribute to him today.
Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Acting Deputy Leader of the
Opposition): Honourable senators, I have a question of
clarification. The ninth report, which is a two-page document and
can be found in the Journals of the Senate, strikes me as an
executive summary. The chairman's speech just now provided a
great deal more detail. Is there a detailed report, and has that
detailed report been circulated to all senators?
Senator Rompkey: The answer to that is yes, it has.
Senator Kinsella: Some of us did not get a copy of it. When
was that detailed report circulated? It is my understanding that
what was tabled is a two-page document that is in the Journals of
the Senate. What was not tabled is the detailed proposal, and I
am wondering if we can get a copy of that.
Senator Rompkey: The executive summary was tabled, and
the detailed report is forthcoming and will be circulated to
Senator Kinsella: The detailed report has yet to be circulated.
It is forthcoming.
Senator Rompkey: That is right.
Senator Kinsella: We are being asked to approve a report, but
we are at somewhat of a disadvantage in examining the detail. I
do not recall whether this has been the practice in the past.
Perhaps others might participate in the debate so we are all very
clear on what is happening.
Senator Rompkey: It is my understanding that this is exactly
the same procedure as has been followed in the past.
Hon. John B. Stewart: Honourable senators, I have a
question. Is Senator Rompkey saying that, in the past, the motion
for concurrence in the report was accepted before the detail of
the report was made available to the Senate?
Senator Rompkey: I can only repeat what I said before,
Senator Stewart. The practice being followed now is exactly the
same practice that has been followed in the past.
Senator Kinsella: I understood that Senator Kenny wants to
speak. Perhaps he could provide more information that would
The Hon. the Speaker: If there are further questions to
Senator Rompkey, they should be posed now, and then I will
entertain another speech. Afterwards, I will not be able to
entertain questions to Senator Rompkey.
Senator Kinsella: It is my understanding that another senator
intervening and questioning the last speaker does not obviate the
opportunity for me to ask another question of the first senator.
The Hon. the Speaker: Not if that honourable senator is
asking a question, but if he is making a speech, then we are into
the next debate. If Senator Kenny wished to ask a question, that
would leave it open for anyone else to ask a question of Senator
Senator Rompkey: May I clarify? I will read again the
pertinent part from the remarks I just made.
A summary of the Senate's 1998-99 expenditure budget was
attached to the report of the Internal Economy Committee tabled
in the Senate on February 10, 1998. Further detail can be found
in the document entitled "The 1998-99 Expenditure Plan
Executive Summary," also tabled on February 10. Additional
information on the operations of the Senate, including the
1998-99 budget, will be found in the report on planing and
priorities to be tabled next month shortly after the government
presents the Estimates for the coming fiscal year.
Hon. Colin Kenny: Honourable senators, I would like to pose
a question. My understanding, Senator Rompkey, and correct me
if I am wrong, is that in the past, a fairly succinct summary has
been tabled in this institution. There have been large iterations
available to both sides on the committee and to the caucuses.
Would the honourable senator confirm for us that, in fact, what
he has tabled here today is the same as what has been tabled the
past two previous times, and provides the same level of detail
that we have had on those two occasions?
Senator Rompkey: Yes, I would like to confirm that.
Hon. Marcel Prud'homme: Honourable senators, I am torn
between calling for adjournment of the debate and asking a
I have not heard of this special item on caucus research. I am
not a member of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy,
Budgets and Administration, and nothing has been circulated to
me on that subject. I did see a document and inquired of its
meaning. I did make overtures to Senator Rompkey, the
esteemed chairman, requesting that independent senators be
addressed. However, I have no assurance that this will be done.
I am still not sure that agreement on this issue today will
complete the matter. Discussion about how to redistribute
research money may be a nice wish, but there may be no
decision. There might be a good understanding to redistribute it
according to pro rata of the official parties, or pro rata of the
senators in the Senate, or, if it is pro rata, by party. Of course,
you will eliminate those who are not yet appointed, and you will
eliminate those who are independent.
Does it make a bigger pro rata, or is it half-and-half to both
caucuses? I do not know. I wish to know more before I give my
consent. Senators may do what they wish; however, I can also
I did not hear about this until I heard a rumour that there was a
special item that could be of some interest to me. I had to discern
what the item of concern to me might be. No one informed me,
and I did not go to the Internal Economy Committee. I should
like to have a response to my query.
Senator Rompkey: Honourable senators, an amount was put
in the budget for caucus research. Absolutely no decisions at all
have been taken on how that money is to be spent or
administered. No decision will be taken until there is adequate
discussion within the caucuses.
I wish to assure my colleague, as I tried to do earlier this day
in an informal way, that in my own mind clearly the independent
senators must be given consideration. I do undertake to keep him
informed on the progress of the discussions, so that when the
time comes, his responsibilities as an independent senator and his
rights as an independent senator are fully considered.
Senator Kenny: Honourable senators, I have a question for to
the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy,
Budgets and Administration. I share the concerns that some other
members have about this particular item in the budget. I seek the
assurance of the Chair that he would bring that particular item to
the chamber so we could deal with it here.
I am happy with the rest of the budget. However, that
particular item merits further clarification and discussion. Is the
Chair prepared to entertain my proposal?
Senator Rompkey: Yes, I am, honourable senators. Clearly, it
merits full discussion in both caucuses and in the chamber. It is
an amount for senators and, therefore, senators should take the
final decision on how it is spent and administered.
Senator Prud'homme: Honourable senators, I wish to be very
clear: Earlier this afternoon, I walked into the Senate and
someone said that there is a line in the budget that might be of
interest to me. That is fine, but it confirmed what I had done
before. I am very pleased to have been informed earlier, as the
senator mentioned. I usually do not mention my conversations,
but since he mentioned it, I will repeat it. Earlier this afternoon, I
was given that line.
I am of the same opinion as Senator Kenny that the matter
should be discussed in this chamber. As the chairman, you may
decide that it is your wish that you will proceed the way you
have expressed, yet it may not be the wish of the committee.
Committee members may wish to decide, in committee, that
funds will be shared between caucuses.
If you wish to have this report adopted today, perhaps you
should give us your commitment that this section will be
suspended from your budget, in order that it may be discussed by
the full Senate. It should not pass simply on the basis that if there
is agreement all round, there is no need for discussion. As a last
resort, I wish to ensure that it is not passed today. There will be
ample discussion because I know some members do not agree
with this measure. Members of both parties do not agree as to the
redistribution of that money. I do not know how the other
independent senators feel. Before I agree to this, I would
appreciate hearing some commitment that there will be ample
opportunity to discuss the matter in the Senate chamber.
Otherwise, I will ask for the adjournment of the debate and, if I
have someone second that motion, I will adjourn the debate and
speak much longer on the other items of the budget.
Hon. Pierre Claude Nolin: We discussed the case of
independent senators several times in committee. We did not
wish to impose the rule of the majority of two caucuses on three
or four senators, who had no chance to defend their point of
Unfortunately, you were not present during these discussions.
It was never the committee's intention to deny you access to this
money. The problem is finding the best way to do so. That is the
commitment you received from the Speaker earlier, and it is also
that of the entire committee.
Senator Prud'homme: I am certainly glad to hear I was not at
the committee meeting, since I am not a member. I have attended
more committee meetings as a non-member than senators who
actually are members.
I have been present in more committees than some senators
who are members of committees. That means I attended out of
goodwill, because I am interested. I cannot be told simply that I
was not at the committee. Please be advised that I am not a
member of any committee.
I still have an interest because I worked hard in the House of
Commons on their committee as chairman of the member's
services. I certainly have something to offer. Senator Kenny
invited me to all the meetings, provided me with all the
documentation and I cooperated with him, as I hope to cooperate
with Senator Rompkey. However, I will not use the excuse that I
did not go to as many committees as I should have because I had
a heart attack.
I am good friends with Senator Nolin and Senator Rompkey,
but I know people who have experience, and who seem to be
puzzled. If I see senators who are puzzled, needless to say that I
I do not want to have a full debate in public if we are all in
agreement; that takes care of it. If not, make a commitment here
that there will be a debate in the Senate as to how to redistribute
this research money.
I want a Senate that functions, and I believe major political
parties have the right to have caucus research funds because they
are carrying the majority of the work. I am not against it, per se.
However, I want a commitment that you will do what you say
you intend to do, but I want it to be very official.
Senator Rompkey: Honourable senators, in response to
Senator Kenny, I said that we would bring the item back to the
Senate before any expenditures were agreed to. There is a
notional amount in there. No moneys have been spent, no
decisions have been taken, and none will be taken until we bring
the matter back to the chamber.
In response to Senator Prud'homme, as far as the committee is
concerned, you have two-thirds of the steering committee here. I
think that is as solid an undertaking as we can give you that the
committee will continue to be sympathetic to your position as an
independent senator, and that we will keep you informed and
allow you to participate in the final decision of the expenditure of
The Hon. the Speaker: If no other honourable senator wishes
to speak, is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and report adopted.
Report of Aboriginal Peoples Committee Requesting
Authorization to Travel and Engage Services Adopted
Leave having been given to revert to Reports of Committees,
Order No. 4:
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable
Senator Watt, seconded by the Honourable Senator
Chalifoux, for the adoption of the second report of the
Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples
(budget-study on Aboriginal governance), presented in the
Senate on February 18, 1998.-(Honourable Senator
Hon. Eric Arthur Berntson: Honourable senators, this debate
was adjourned by Senator Kinsella yesterday or the day before.
He was seeking clarification as to what we were committing to in
terms of where this study on self-government is going.
Unfortunately, at the time we did not have all our horses here in
the house, and we got off topic. Instead of dealing with the
budget as it is against the overall study which may have one, two
or three phases - who knows - we got into the actual elements
of the study. That got us off track.
Last night we had a fairly lengthy committee meeting. Of
course, the vast number of our members were there, and many
questions were resolved. This phase-one budget is strictly to
provide for the fleshing out of the working document that we
have before us, to put together a work plan that we believe will
take us in the direction we want to go on the question of
self-government. If at the end of that exercise it is considered
that we ought to come back for a phase-two budget, that will
happen. However, by completing phase one, that in no way
obligates the Senate to go further. The decision will be made at
The Hon. the Speaker: If no other honourable senator wishes
to speak, is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and report adopted.
Rights of the Unborn Child
Motion to Establish Special Joint Parliamentary
Hon. Stanley Haidasz
, pursuant to notice of February 12,
That a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the
House of Commons, to be styled the Special Joint
Committee on the Unborn Child, be appointed to examine
and report upon the feasibility of legislating in the area of
fetal rights and the protection to the unborn child, with
particular reference to:
(a) the lack of protection in current Canadian law of
the unborn child;
(b) the interests of the state in providing some
measures to protect the unborn child, thereby securing
the well-being of future generations of Canadians;
(c) the application of the rights and freedoms
entrenched in the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms and how they relate to the unborn child;
(d) the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in
the 1997 case, Winnipeg Child and Family Services
(Northwest Area) v. G.(D.F.), which signalled a gap in
current Canadian law respecting the rights of the
(e) the comments made by the Supreme Court of
Canada, in the above-noted case, that any measures to
provide protection in law to the unborn child have
complex ramifications and, as such, should be
considered by Parliament, not the Canadian courts,
since Parliament is in a better position to assess the
desirability, the impact and the consequences of such
That the Committee take into consideration Canadian and
international law, and in particular, the Criminal Code
amendment, in 1969, to the homicide provision concerning
the killing of a child before or during its birth;
That the Committee report back to Parliament with
proposed alternative measures to protect the unborn child in
a manner that is consistent with the Constitution of Canada;
That the Committee also make recommendations to
Parliament respecting the desirability of establishing further
studies and inquiries into the feasibility of legislating
restrictions in the area of experimental treatment of the fetus
and of new reproductive technologies;
That the Committee be composed of seven Members of
the House of Commons and six members of the Senate;
That a quorum of the Committee be six members,
provided both Houses are represented;
That the Committee have the power to sit during sittings
and adjournments of the Senate;
That the Committee have the power to retain the services
of expert, professional, technical and clerical staff;
That the Committee have the power to report to
Parliament from time to time and that it present its final
report no later than December 31, 2000; and
That a Message be sent to the House of Commons
requesting that House to unite with this House for the above
purpose and to select, if the House of Commons deems it
advisable, Members to act on the proposed Special Joint
He said: Honourable senators, if you look at the text of this
motion, I think it is clear, simple and self-explanatory. I will not
make a speech on the motion; I will, however, put it into
perspective for you.
As you know, there have been three judgments of the Supreme
Court of Canada in the past two years dealing with the matter of
foetal rights. Each time, the judges of the Supreme Court stated
that it is up to Parliament - honourable senators in this chamber
and our colleagues in the other place - to draft some kind of
ruling, statement or legislation to fill the gap that exists with
regard to the absence of legislation dealing with foetal rights.
Hence, I am introducing this motion. I wanted to introduce a bill,
but my legal advisors were unable to come up with one.
This motion asks for a joint committee of the Senate and
House of Commons to study the feasibility of legislation insofar
as foetal rights are concerned and the protection of the unborn
child, including legislative restrictions in the area of
experimental treatment of the foetus and of new reproductive
The Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies
made their report about two and a half years ago, and we have
not heard from any minister of the Crown about any measures or
legislation recommended in the report. This motion, therefore, is
meant to replace the abdication of the government in this area. It
has done nothing on foetal rights and reproductive technologies,
as asked of us by the Supreme Court at least three times in their
I hope an honourable senator present in the chamber today will
adjourn this motion in their name and decide whether they would
like to take up my challenge to carry the torch of conducting this
This motion asks for a report by December 31 of the
year 2000; hence, you have a lot of time to study this very
important and crucial issue of foetal rights.
Thank you very much for your patience. Adieu and God bless
you in your deliberations.
Hon. John B. Stewart: Honourable senators, I should like to
ask Senator Haidasz a question.
Am I correct in thinking that the legal vacuum to which he has
made reference - not in those words - is the result of the tie
vote that took place in this house some years ago?
Senator Haidasz: On Bill C-43?
Senator Stewart: Yes. The government of the day did bring in
a bill and, for one reason or another, that bill did not pass this
Senator Haidasz: There is no law regarding the protection of
the foetus. The court, in three recent judgments, has asked the
Parliament of Canada to come up with some legislation because
it said that, at some point in the life of the foetus, the state has an
interest in the welfare of the unborn child. This has not been
resolved by the government nor by any minister with any
I took the initiative to begin a study on this very important
matter, a study to see what action is feasible to fill this gap.
Senator Stewart: As I recall the vote, those who were against
abortion at any stage voted against that government bill. Others
voted against it because they felt it went too far in restricting
what they thought of as the right to an abortion.
Does the honourable senator have any reason to believe that a
vote put to this house now would produce a different result?
Have the people who were adamantly against abortion changed
their position? Is that the implication of his motion, or perhaps
the people who felt that the previous bill was too restrictive will
now yield? Will we go through the same exercise, with the same
frustration at the end? Does the honourable senator have any
reason to believe, or any evidence to adduce that there has been a
change in opinion?
Senator Haidasz: Honourable senators, since the vote on
Bill C-43 about six years ago, there have been court cases
referred to the Supreme Court of Canada dealing with the rights
of the foetus. The latest one was a Winnipeg case where the
mother sniffed glue as a bad habit and she was harming her
foetus. The social workers took her to court. Another woman
here in Ottawa shot herself in the abdomen to try to get rid of her
foetus. There was a third case, also.
In each of those cases, the Supreme Court called upon the
Parliament of Canada to render some kind of direction or
decision for the court. Even Justice Martha Wilson believed and
stated in her judgment that, at some time in the life of a foetus,
the state has an interest. The court has asked us on three different
occasions to bring in some legislation.
I could not come up with any so I decided to suggest a study
on this case. We have since had the deposition of a report from
the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies. This
motion covers that issue. I am simply calling upon both houses to
set up a joint committee to study the feasibility and the
plausibility of possible legislation. We need some solution to
declare the rights of the foetus.
The Supreme Court said the state has an interest at some point
in the life of the foetus. No one has taken up the challenge. I tried
to do it with a bill but I could not, so I suggest this study on what
to do about foetal rights.
Hon. Philippe Deane Gigantès: Honourable senators, as I
understand the judgments of the court in those cases, the court
said that it is not up to the court to say something; it is up to
Parliament. They did not ask us to produce something. They
simply said that if someone is to produce something, it must be
Parliament. There is a distinction, in my view.
Senator Haidasz: I respect the honourable senator's
interpretation of those three judgments as published by the court.
My interpretation is that someone should take the initiative to
study this matter. New reproductive technology is a burning
issue. Parliament has done nothing. Will we abdicate our powers
of legislating? That is my challenge.
Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Acting Deputy Leader of the
Opposition: Honourable senators, I have a different dimension
from the kind of question posed by Senator Stewart. Mine is
from a federal-provincial perspective.
As you know, when Canada became a member of the
Organization of American States, one of its principal instruments
on human rights is the Inter-American Convention on Human
Rights. For the past eight years, the federal government and the
provincial governments have been examining the Inter-American
Convention on Human Rights to see whether Canada could ratify
As you know, before Canada enters into international treaty
obligations in areas of jurisdiction that affect the provinces, it
must respect the constitutional convention as established in the
1930s with the labour conventions case, which was a ruling of
the judicial committee of the Privy Council. That case establishes
that the provinces must agree before Canada, federally, can ratify
Therefore, there have been serious federal-provincial
negotiations on this convention. It is my understanding that one
of the major stumbling blocks is Article IV of that convention
which recognizes and predicates all of the human rights in the
Inter-American Convention of Human Rights to all persons from
the moment of conception.
Many provinces are having difficulty complying with that
section of the Inter-American Convention of Human Rights.
Does the honourable senator have any reason to believe that
provincial governments and territorial governments - because
they are involved as well as federal authorities - are close to
being able to deal with that issue, which speaks directly to the
matter he has brought before us?
Senator Haidasz: On that particular point, honourable
senators, I do not have a solution, but in view of the non-action
of the government on the recommendations of the Royal
Commission on New Reproductive Technologies - which is one
of the items in this motion - I believe there should be some kind
of initiative to at least study the recommendations of the royal
commission. Millions of dollars were spent on the study of
reproductive technologies. The government has not issued any
substantive, long-term statement. In my opinion, it is about time
that a joint committee of both houses at least studied the
feasibility of some kind of legislation in answer to the challenge
put forth to legislators by the commission members.
If there is no interest, then there is no interest. I could
withdraw my motion, ask for a vote, or ask someone to adjourn
the debate. As of this minute, I am leaving this place forever.
Goodbye. I have said my last word.
On motion of Senator Chalifoux, debate adjourned.
The Hon. the Speaker
: Honourable senators, the Speaker is
not supposed to speak when honourable members are retiring
from this chamber, but I wish to express my regrets and best
wishes to the two senators who are leaving us today.
I should also like to point out that there will be another
departure from the Senate. Our Chief Page, Greg Doiron, will be
leaving us. This is his last day of service. He will be close to the
Senate but he will not be here in the chamber.
Hon. Jacques Hébert
: Honourable senators, although we will
not be sitting for the next two weeks, the following committees
will be sitting during the second week: Banking, Legal,
Agriculture, Transport, Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders,
the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access and, I
believe, Foreign Affairs.
Hon. John B. Stewart: Honourable senators, we had intended
to meet during that week but, given the fact that the Senate will
not be sitting, there was some uncertainty as to the feasibility of
going ahead. However, if other committees are meeting, we, too,
Senator Hébert: We will add the Foreign Affairs Committee
to that list, then.
Hon. Shirley Maheu: Honourable senators, the Privileges,
Standing Rules and Orders Committee will be meeting during
that time period, too.
The Senate adjourned until Tuesday, March 17, 1998, at 2 p.m.