The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to
draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of
six parliamentary officials from Commonwealth countries who
are in Ottawa as participants in the Parliamentary Cooperation
Incidents at Bakovici Mental Hospital in
Bosnia-Investigation Conducted by Regiment's Own
Hon. Donald H. Oliver: Honourable senators, my question
for the Leader of the Government in the Senate is about alleged
incidents at the mental hospital at Bakovici, Bosnia, in 1994.
In July, 1996, General Baril, as head of the army, announced
an investigation into misconduct at the mental hospital at
Bakovici. He promised to personally root out the problems and
that the "investigation would be clean, fair and just."
The regiment being investigated was the Royal 22nd. General
Baril is a member of that regiment, as is the Vice-Chief of the
Defence Staff, Lieutenant-General Roy, and Brigadier-General
Couture who headed the investigation.
Their board of inquiry blamed the one officer not connected
with the Royal 22nd, Lieutenant-Colonel Moore, the same officer
who persisted for two years that an investigation should be held
into the activities of the 22nd at Bakovici.
Is this merely a coincidence, or is it a form of cover-up to
protect the Royal 22nd?
Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government):
Honourable senators, I am sure it is not a cover-up. I will attempt
to determine whether it is a coincidence and, in that regard, I will
seek further information from the appropriate authorities.
Senator Oliver: Last month, a Special Career Review Board
totally exonerated Lieutenant-Colonel Moore.
Would the Leader of the Government in the Senate agree that
those in authority demonstrated poor judgment by having officers
of the 22nd lead the investigation of their own regiment?
Senator Graham: Honourable senators, I would not want to
reach any conclusion on that personally because the Royal 22nd,
as my honourable friend knows, has an historic and admirable
reputation in this country and abroad. At the same time, my
friend has raised a legitimate concern, and I would be happy to
seek further information.
Difficulties with InterProvincial Trade
Agreement-Effect on Investment and Job
Hon. James F. Kelleher: Honourable senators, my question is
for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. On February 18,
of this year, TheGlobe and Mail reported that the Minister for
Industry and the Minister for International Trade publicly
disagreed on how to resolve the problems associated with the
agreement on internal trade that the Prime Minister had signed
almost four years ago. I may say, to this day, it is in an awful
mess and remains unresolved.
The Minister of International Trade suggested that the federal
government should use its constitutional powers to break the
logjam, but the Minister of Industry has publicly disagreed with
this position. The meagre results of the Minister of Industry's
meeting with his provincial counterparts at the end of February
demonstrate that his consensus approach is ineffective, and
hurting investment and job creation here in Canada.
Will the Leader of the Government in the Senate ask the Prime
Minister to resolve this public cabinet dispute and clearly state
whether he agrees with his International Trade minister that the
time has come for the Government of Canada to exercise its
constitutional responsibilities and show some leadership on the
interprovincial trade matter?
Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government):
Honourable senators, I believe that the Government of Canada
has shown leadership with respect to the interprovincial trade
matter. I do not recall the specific article to which my honourable
friend refers. If he is talking about hurting job creation, obviously
that is not the case, because job creation is on the upswing and
unemployment figures are on the downswing.
Senator Kelleher: May I suggest to the honourable leader that
the upswing in jobs would be higher and the downswing of
unemployment figures would be more dramatic if we could
resolve this dispute?
Difficulties with InterProvincial Trade
Agreement-Failure to Reach Agreement on
Hon. James F. Kelleher: I would also draw the leader's
attention to the interprovincial trade agreement. When it was
signed on July 18, 1994, under article 1811 of the agreement the
parties agreed to conclude negotiations on the energy chapter by
June 30, 1995 at the latest. Almost three years after this deadline,
the energy chapter still remains a totally blank page.
I would ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate to
consult with the Prime Minister and ask his advice as to why his
government has failed to respect this deadline, and when
Canadians can expect to see the benefits flowing from the freer
interprovincial trade in energy that he promised us back in 1994.
Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): I
would be pleased to bring the concerns of my honourable friend
to the attention of my colleagues, and indeed to that of the
I do not know how adversely interprovincial trade is being
affected, particularly in relation to the chapter to which Senator
Kelleher refers as the "energy chapter," but I would be happy to
review the situation and bring forward some more information.
Solicitation by Canadian Forces Personnel Support
Hon. J. Michael Forrestall: Honourable senators, I have a
question for the Leader of the Government in the Senate on
military matters. Recently, there has come to my attention the
existence of the Canadian Forces Personnel Support Agency.
This agency is now writing to Canadian business groups and
corporations, soliciting contributions. A donation of $7,000
would allow your company to become a major sponsor in a
Canadian Forces support program; $5,000, an official sponsor;
$3,000, an official supplier; Canadian Forces photographic
contest, $5,000. Perhaps that gets you a picture of Minister
Eggleton on a tote bag or something. The announcement tells us
that there is a benefit package enclosed.
To sponsor the Canadian Forces Annual Military Family
Calendar costs $3,000, and for Canadian Forces entertainment
show tours, $25,000. I suppose that would be offshore, overseas.
To sponsor the Canadian Forces Perspective magazine, $1,000;
for a full-page ad, $500, and on it goes.
We learn, at virtually the same time, that the soup kitchens for
the Canadian Armed Forces - a shame and a disgrace to this
nation - are depleted.
Can the minister tell us whether the Department of National
Defence is in such tight financial straits that they must resort to
these tactics, as opposed to coming clean with the Canadian
people by saying that they need some money, and putting
forward a supplementary budget?
Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government):
Honourable senators, I am wondering what kind of contribution
it would take to get the official insignia that my honourable
friend has promised, which would designate me as a full-fledged
Seriously, I am not aware of the subject to which my
honourable friend refers. I would need to seek more information
for him on that.
Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Deputy Leader of the
Government): Honourable senators, I have a response to a
question raised in the Senate on March 25, 1998, by the
Honourable Senator Ethel Cochrane regarding millennium
scholarships and restrictions on funds for students studying
Millennium Scholarships-Restriction on Funds for
Students Studying Abroad-Government Position
(Response to question raised by Hon. Ethel Cochrane on
March 25, 1998)
The Government of Canada is committed to providing
Canadians with access to education and access to
knowledge. Such access is imperative in order to succeed in
the modern economy of the 21st century.
The Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation is the
Government of Canada's way of celebrating the millennium.
Rather than commemorating this thousand-year event by
building monuments of bricks and mortar, we decided to
invest in Canadians.
As the 1998 Budget documents noted, the Canada
Millennium Scholarship Foundation "will help recipients to
study away from home, particularly outside their province,
and support terms of study in other countries."
Bill C-36, the Budget Implementation Act, 1998, reflects
this commitment. Part 1 of the Bill would allow the Canada
Millennium Scholarship Foundation to provide scholarships
to students pursuing a portion of their program of studies
outside of Canada, provided that they are enrolled at an
eligible educational institution in Canada.
It would not be possible for the Foundation to award a
scholarship to a person enrolled only at an educational
institution abroad. However, the Foundation would provide
scholarships to students who are studying outside of Canada
as part of their Canadian program of studies while enrolled
at an eligible Canadian institution.
In addition, the Canada Student Loans Program allows
students to study at thousands of designated post-secondary
educational institutions in the United States and around the
world as well as in Canada. The Program for North
American Mobility in Higher Education and the
Canada-European Community Program for Cooperation in
Higher Education and Training support the development of
student-centred innovative projects to be carried out by
multilateral groupings of universities, colleges and technical
institutions across North America, and between Canada and
the European Community. These projects strengthen
cooperation in post-secondary education, training and
internship, and increase student mobility at the
undergraduate and graduate levels.
The Senate proceeded to consideration of amendments by the
House of Commons to Bill S-5, to amend the Canada Evidence
Act and the Criminal Code in respect of persons with disabilities,
to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act in respect of persons
with disabilities and other matters and to make consequential
amendments to other Acts:
Replace lines 8 to 12 on page 3 with the following:
"dependency and who, for a sexual purpose, counsels or
incites that person to touch, without that person's consent,
his or her own body, the body of the person who so
counsels or incites, or the body of any other person,
directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an
Replace line 12 on page 4 with the following:
"(c) the accused counsels or incites"
Replace, in the English version, line 40 on page 9 with the
"objectives the program, plan or arrange-"
Replace lines 11 and 12 on page 11 with the following:
"(2) Subsections 27(2) to (4) of Act are replaced by the
(2) The Commission may, on application or on its own
initiative, by order, issue a guideline setting out the
extent to which and the manner in which, in the
opinion of the Commission, any provision of this Act
applies in a class of cases described in the guideline."
Add after line 19 on page 11 the following:
"(4) Each guideline issued under subsection (2) shall be
published in Part II of the Canada Gazette."
Replace, in the English version, line 47 on page 11 with the
"request the Chairperson of the Tribunal to"
Replace lines 11 to 18 on page 13 with the following:
"(3) The Chairperson and Vice-chairperson must be
members in good standing of the bar of a province or the
Chambre des notaires du Québec for at least ten years and
at least two of the other members of the Tribunal must be
members in good standing of the bar of a province or the
Chambre des notaires du Québec."
Add after line 4 on page 28 the following:
"(4.1) A member whose appointment expires may, with
the approval of the Chairperson, conclude any hearing
that the member has begun, and a person performing
duties under this section is deemed to be a part-time
member for the purposes of section 48.3 of the Canadian
Human Rights Act."
Hon. P. Derek Lewis moved that the Senate concur in the
amendments made by the House of Commons to Bill S-5, to
amend the Canada Evidence Act and the Criminal Code in
respect of persons with disabilities, to amend the Canadian
Human Rights Act in respect of persons with disabilities and
other matters and to make consequential amendments to other
acts; that this be done without amendment; and
That a message be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint
that House accordingly.
He said: Honourable senators, it is my pleasure to speak to the
amendments to Bill S-5 made in the other place. The bill would
amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and the
Canadian Human Rights Act, and is intended to promote equality
of persons with disabilities, as well as other individuals and
Senators may recall that this bill originated in the Senate with
first reading on October 9, 1997. After extensive hearings in the
Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs,
it was reported back with one amendment on December 4, 1997.
Thereafter, the bill was passed on third reading.
Since the Senate approved the bill with an amendment, further
amendments were made in the other chamber. It has now been
returned to us. I believe these amendments also enhance the bill.
I would like to take a moment to go over the changes made in
the other place, bearing in mind the overall thrust of the bill to
improve the quality of access for persons with disabilities and
other individuals and groups.
Dealing with the Criminal Code and the Canada Evidence Act,
two amendments have been made to the part of the bill relating
to the Criminal Code. The first amendment would improve the
wording of the provision creating a Criminal Code offence of
sexual exploitation of persons with disabilities who are
vulnerable because they depend on a caregiver.
The purpose of the new provision is to ensure that persons
with disabilities will not be sexually exploited, while allowing
them, of course, to consent to sexual activities if they so desire.
The wording has been amended to convey more clearly the fact
that, for an offence to be committed, there must be some urging
on the part of the person in the position of trust or authority to do
something to which the person with the disability would not
consent, and not just mere asking.
A second amendment to this section makes it more clear that it
is the touching urged by the person in the position of trust that
must be without the actual consent of the disabled person, and
not the counselling or inciting.
Honourable senators, I believe that these amendments have
improved this provision.
Dealing with the amendments to the Canadian Human Rights
Act, some modest changes have been made to the part of the bill
that amends the Canadian Human Rights Act. First, an
amendment was added in respect of the Employment Equity
Review Tribunals under the Employment Equity Act to provide
for tribunal members to complete cases if their membership on
the tribunal expires before they have completed a case. Bill S-5
originally provided this only for the Human Rights Tribunal
members. It is now extended to Employment Equity Review
The amendment which has been added would ensure that
members of the Employment Equity Review Tribunal would
have the ability to complete cases which they have started to hear
should their membership expire.
The second change relates to the guideline-making power of
the Canadian Human Rights Commission. The amendment
would remove the power of the commission to make guidelines
in particular cases. The existing law allows the commission to
make guidelines in respect of "a particular case" and "a class of
cases" which are binding on the commission and human rights
However, the Canadian Human Rights Commission has never
made guidelines applicable to a particular case. Its guidelines
have always been of general application, applicable to a class of
cases. It is preferable that the commission continue to focus on
general guidelines leaving particular cases to be dealt with
through the complaint process established for that purpose.
I would add that if the amendments are made to this bill, the
new tribunal will operate in conformity with legal principles of
The last modest amendment made to Bill S-5 simply ensures
that a consistent approach is taken on the amount of legal
experience required for the legal members of the tribunal.
From the beginning, the chairperson and vice-chairperson have
been required to have at least 10 years at the bar or as a member
of the Chambre des notaires du Québec. The amendment will
make it clear that the other legal members do not have to meet
such a minimum. This will continue to ensure some degree of
legal representation on the tribunal to enhance its ability to deal
with the increasing number of complex legal issues, including
issues of evidence and procedure, while adding to the pool of
candidates with legal experience.
I welcome the changes made in the other place, together with
the changes that we have made in this chamber. I believe that we
have a better bill to promote equality of access for persons with
disabilities to the criminal justice system, to the federal
workplace, and to federally regulated goods and services. This
bill is evidence of the ability of both chambers of Parliament to
work together to produce worthwhile legislation.
I strongly recommend that honourable senators concur in the
amendments made to Bill S-5 in the other place.
Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Acting Deputy Leader of the
Opposition): Honourable senators, I rise to lend my support to
the amendments that have been proposed in the other place
which Senator Lewis has explained to us. The amendments that
speak to the Criminal Code are precise and particular. The
amendments which the House of Commons has made to those
provisions of the Human Rights Act are good amendments.
Honourable senators, you may recall that this bill is a
government bill which was initiated in the Senate. Following
second reading in this chamber it was examined by the Standing
Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.
When Bill S-5 was examined by that committee, evidence was
heard from a number of witnesses and the committee
recommended that a very important amendment be made to the
bill as drafted by the government. The Minister of Justice
appeared before the committee and the amendment proposed in
the Senate committee was agreed to. That amendment addressed
the prohibited grounds of discrimination being uniform
throughout various provisions of the legislation. Heretofore, the
affirmative action provisions of the Human Rights Act did not
apply to areas of positive remedy where the prohibited ground of
discrimination was sexual orientation. The amendment corrected
that. It was part of the undertaking made a year or so ago when
we were dealing with the Human Rights Act.
That amendment was reported back to this house by our Legal
and Constitutional Affairs Committee and the government bill, as
amended, was given third reading by the Senate and sent to the
other place. The improvement made to the legislation by this
chamber has been embraced by the members of the other place.
This is an example of this chamber being able to improve upon
draft legislation which was initiated by the government.
It is a very good case study of why it is a useful practice,
which enhances the quality of legislation, for the government to
introduce as many bills as it deems appropriate in this chamber,
so that the legislative agenda can be expedited.
With those remarks, honourable senators, I endorse the
comments made by Senator Lewis. Speaking for this side, we
would support the bill as amended by the other place.
Hon. Marcel Prud'homme: Honourable senators, this is
clearly an excellent example of an instance where the Senate has
a worthwhile role to play. I wish to subscribe to what has been
said, and to thank Senator Lewis for his speech and explanations.
The Senate need not have any hesitation. We need not be
intimidated or shy because some people in the other place do not
want us to exist.
Other projects discussed across Canada are a direct outcome of
the Senate's desire not to pass a bill on divorce. Look at what is
being done at the present time. I am perhaps speaking on behalf
of Senator Cools here. Look at what is being done across Canada
on the child custody issue. It is a direct outcome of the Senate's
wish to intervene on this important issue.
Remember what we did in amending clause 17 in the
Constitution to reform the Newfoundland school system. The
Senate prevailed over the House of Commons to at least give the
people of Newfoundland the chance to express themselves. We
did not win, and perhaps we did not get everything we wanted,
but the people of Newfoundland will remember that it was the
Senate which gave them the chance to be heard.
When the issue of Quebec's linguistic school boards came up,
the government immediately made use of the precedent we had
set in Newfoundland to hold hearings, which had not been the
case with Newfoundland.
I might add, with the utmost humility, if my suggestion of last
week on the controversial matter of hepatitis C had been picked
up on, we would not be having these problems in Canada. If the
Senate had picked up on certain suggestions by senators, for
instance to strike a joint parliamentary committee to study any
agreement between the federal government and all the provinces,
this project would not have died. We are all people of experience
here, more reserved and less excitable than the House of
Commons; perhaps less partisan too, I hope. We could have
immediately seized this opportunity and shown Canadians that
the Senate has a role to play until Canadians decide otherwise.
I hope that honourable senators will not back off from taking
the initiative. When we feel that something is good and should be
done, we should not hesitate for one minute to take the initiative
because a lot of experience resides in this place.
I will not repeat the speech I once made in reply to a member
of the House of Commons, other than to say that the position
taken was that senators could not even be elected as dog
catchers. I found out that over 50 per cent of senators once
served in their province at the provincial level, at the federal
level or at the cabinet level. I am looking at Senator Cohen, and
I could mention others. Man for man, woman for woman, we are
way ahead of the House of Commons. Why should we hesitate to
say it? Why should we duck? Why should we be afraid to stand
up at this time? We have to take the initiative.
Senator Lewis, I thank you very much. It is because of you
that I make these remarks today.
Motion agreed to.
Canadian Transportation Accident
Investigation and Safety Board Act
The Senate proceeded to consideration of the sixth report of
the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and
Communications (Bill S-2, to amend the Canadian
Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act and
to make a consequential amendment to another Act, with
amendments and observations) presented in the Senate on
April 2, 1998.
Hon. Lise Bacon moved the adoption of the report.
She said: Honourable senators, as Chair of the Standing Senate
Committee on Transport and Communications, I have the honour
to move the adoption today of the report on Bill S-2, to amend
the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety
Board Act and to make a consequential amendment to another
Act. Bill S-2 follows the review required by the statute.
These changes are proposed in the light of the experience
acquired by the board during its seven years of existence, and
reflect suggestions made by the interested parties. Many of the
amendments proposed are administrative in nature. There are
also proposals for improving the operations and independence of
the Transportation Safety Board.
The administrative proposals in Bill S-2 are intended, among
other things, to correct certain definitions in the legislation and to
clarify the provisions regarding pipeline occurrences.
The bill was reported with three amendments: The first
amendment was made to reassure the interested parties that at
least three members would be full time and achieve, at the same
time, the purpose of having part-time members, which was
impossible under the act.
The second amendment was made to give air traffic control
facilities the same protection of on-board recording that already
exists on the flight deck of an aircraft, bridge or control room of
a ship, cab of a locomotive, and control room or pumping station
of a pipeline.
This protection is there so that when the board conducts
investigations, it will have the advantage of a high degree of
cooperation from those involved.
They use recordings that are monitoring these facilities
constantly, and the information gathered by the TSB cannot be
used against any persons.
The third amendment was made at the request of the
government, which wanted a transitional provision included so
that any action launched before the amendments take effect can
proceed under the former rules.
In light of the testimony heard, the committee also felt it
necessary to make observations that we hope will be heard.
During his study of the bill, Mr. Jim Hall, who is Chairman of
the United States National Transportation Safety Board, appeared
before the committee and, among other things, informed the
committee of one of the shortcomings they faced during his
mandate, namely the lack of coordination and support for the
families when there is an aviation disaster. Congress responded
by passing legislation in 1996, the Aviation Disaster Family
Assistance Act, and giving their board the responsibility to
address the needs of families of passengers involved in aircraft
Your committee feels that the situation in Canada should be
evaluated and that the Canadian Transportation Accident
Investigation and Safety Board should look into the
shortcomings, including the consultation and support services
made available to relatives and friends of Canadians killed in air
accidents, in order to determine the corrective action required.
The committee also feels that the expertise of the board could
be valuable on major highway accidents, and that the board
should explore means by which it might cooperate more
extensively with other federal and provincial agencies with a
view to determining whether or not it might play a greater role in
the investigation of some of the more serious highway accidents
Honourable senators, I wish to say that Canada has an
outstanding reputation in the field of safety investigation, and
that the board is an important and critical part of our
transportation safety culture. As well, I wish to thank members of
the committee for the work done on this bill.
Hon. Mira Spivak: Honourable senators, I thank the
Honourable Senator Bacon for her remarks on the report.
Unfortunately, I was not present at the committee when these
amendments were drafted, and therefore I will be proposing an
amendment at third reading. However, I should like the
opportunity to speak now so that senators might be aware of the
reasons for these amendments.
Parliament had several objectives in mind when it approved
the legislation that Bill S-2 will amend. First, it wanted to restore
public confidence in the safety of Canada's transportation
system. Some very tragic and memorable accidents had damaged
that confidence - the 1985 crash of a DC-8 aircraft in Gander,
Newfoundland, that claimed the lives of 256 people; the 1986
train disaster in Hinton, Alberta; the 1989 air crash in Dryden,
Ontario. These and several other accidents affirmed the need to
improve our system of accident investigation and safety review.
Second, Parliament wanted to put in place something that
transportation safety experts had wanted for decades. A
1972 report on the state of Canadian accident investigation saw
the need for an independent board - a board that would be
independent of government regulators, and a board that would
investigate all modes of transportation.
The United States made that separation between transportation
regulator and transportation safety reviewer in 1974 when it
created its National Transportation Safety Board.
In 1989, the Progressive Conservative government gave us the
Canadian Accident Investigation and Safety Board, otherwise
known as CTAISB. At that time, Ross Belsher, then secretary to
the Minister of Transport, said very clearly why we needed an
Can we expect those who write and enforce regulations to
conclude from an accident that they blew it, that the
regulations they wrote are wrong or at least inefficient or
that they did not enforce them properly? In such situations,
some will of course rise to the occasion and admit mistakes.
However, human nature being what it is, there is a clear
potential at least for conflict of interest when the regulators
of safety are also the accident investigators.
As the law creating the board wended its way through
Parliament, some government members saw that it had a huge
gap. The original act did give us an independent agency to
investigate air, marine, rail and pipeline accidents, but it failed to
give CTAISB the power or the funds to investigate the vast
majority of commercial accidents. By that I mean accidents
involving commercial trucks that travel between provinces and
between Canada and the United States. That is the reason I see
the need to have the amendment that I am proposing, and I am
not alone in seeing that need.
The original act also required a three-year review of the law. In
January 1994, a review commission concluded its study and
delivered its report, "Advancing Safety." Here are some of the
While trucks are involved in only 4 per cent of highway
accidents, these accidents account for 42 per cent of the
Canada-wide, the statistical information on the causes and
circumstances of highway deaths is fragmented and
While Transport Canada, the regulator, and the National
Research Council have done extensive works on highway
safety, the review report said, "it is now time to make that
role much more visible and to add the resources of the
accident investigation and safety review board."
These same commissioners said that "The human and
economic costs of not having facts to learn useful highway safety
lessons is simply unacceptable." They recommended that the
government bring in amendments defining extra-provincial
motor vehicle accidents and giving CTAISB the authority to
investigate them. The government's response, a full year and a
half later, was that it would give the recommendation a
"thorough review." It said amendments might be considered
when the act was reopened. Bill S-2 reopens the original
legislation, but it does not have the recommendations on
I had asked for details of the "thorough review" which the
government promised, and in February received some
information. I was informed that the review was internal, and
essentially comprised an overview of current collision data
collection and accident investigation. I was told that in October
1996, a council of federal and provincial ministers of transport
had declared that "Canada's vision will be to have the safest
roads in the world by 2001." Those are fine words, but we all
know the difference between a mission statement and actually
The facts speak for themselves. The facts are that deaths and
injuries resulting from accidents involving large trucks
outnumber those tragic human costs from accidents involving all
other commercial modes of transportation combined. Last fall,
our Senate committee was presented with the reality: In one year
alone, deaths from air, rail, ship and pipeline accidents
totalled 271. Deaths from big trucks were more than double that
number, standing at 578. Injuries from accidents involving
airplanes, trains, ships or pipelines totalled 265; injuries from
highway accidents involving large trucks were almost six times
Another report gave us a different perspective. A study by
Transport Concepts found that when it looked at the death-toll
from hauling freight across this country, expressed in billions of
tonnes per kilometre, more than seven people died from trucking
accidents for every death by rail transport. When common sense
is applied to those facts, common sense dictates that federal
investigators must have the authority to investigate truck
accidents and make recommendations on ways to reduce them.
In committee hearings on Bill S-2, we heard from officials of
the U.S. counterpart agency, the National Transportation Safety
Board. We heard that they do take the common sense approach.
We heard that the agency is very active in the highway field
because that is where most of the fatalities are, more than
90 per cent of them. Mr. Barry Sweedler, of the agency's office
of safety recommendations and accomplishments, said:
We feel we can have a great impact on the highways, and
we have...had an impact... through our very tailored accident
I am not suggesting that this board should investigate every
trucking accident on the highways. As the U.S. agency does, it
could be selective. It could launch an investigation when it
believes that there are lessons to be learned to prevent future
When our committee reported this bill, it made the following
observation, as you have heard:
The Committee feels that the expertise of the Board could
be valuable on major highway accidents.
The committee recommended that the board look at ways of
cooperating with other federal and provincial agencies and
deciding whether it could play a greater role in investigating
serious highway accidents.
Some very interested parties to this bill, including the
executive director of CTAISB, believe that Bill S-2 is opening
the door very slowly to giving the safety board the power it
needs. They believe that clause 11 will allow the board to make
agreements with provinces to investigate accidents on highways
if the province is willing to pay the cost.
I find that puzzling on two counts: First, clause 11 refers quite
specifically to transportation matters "within the legislative
authority of the province." Transport Canada tells us that road
safety in Canada is a shared responsibility. The federal share
concerns vehicle safety manufacturing standards under the Motor
Vehicle Safety Act, and the safety of extra-provincial commercial
carriers under the Motor Vehicle Transport Act. It has largely
delegated the authority under the MVTA to the provinces and
Under clause 11, perhaps the federal board could launch an
investigation into a trucking accident if asked by a province.
Perhaps it could make recommendations about commercial
carriers. Presumably it could say nothing about truck
manufacturing standards, which are within the legislative
authority of the federal government. In those matters, we would
still not have achieved that separation between the regulator,
Transport Canada, and the investigator, the safety board.
My second reason for finding that clause 11 and the committee
observations fall short of the mark is that other sections of
Bill S-2 make no mention of extra-provincial motor vehicle
accidents. They are not included in the definitions of a
transportation occurrence, or in the clause regarding the expertise
of board members, or in the hiring of directors of investigations.
If the government does intend to allow the board to launch
investigations on behalf of provinces that ask for them, surely we
have a duty to make sure that the board can have knowledgeable
people to perform the job.
My amendments, in part, would give the board up-front what it
needs if it is to do the job that some suggest the government is
leaning towards in clause 11. The amendments would also go
further. They would allow the board to recommend
improvements on matters still in the hands of Transport Canada.
They would not require the provinces to pay for an essential part
of ensuring safety nationwide.
Honourable senators, I believe that the integrity of our
transportation system and the lives of Canadians are much too
important to be mired in federal-provincial machinations. In
closing, I would like to recall something you may have seen on
the front page of a section of TheOttawa Citizen earlier this
month. It was a picture of a tractor-trailer registered to the
Solicitor General of Canada. This truck had lost all four rear
wheels on an exit ramp off the Queensway in morning rush-hour
traffic. Very fortunately, no one was injured. Similar accidents in
Ontario alone have caused at least four deaths in the last three
years. I certainly would like to have CTAISB have the power to
investigate this sort of repetitive accident if, in its wisdom, it
believes that there are lessons to be learned. As the law now
stands, the board does not have that authority, even when the
motor vehicle in question belongs to the federal government.
I hope honourable senators will agree that these amendments
present a common-sense solution to a very real problem and that
they will give them their full consideration and support.
Motion agreed to and report adopted.
The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Honourable senators, when
shall this bill be read the third time?
On motion of Senator Carstairs, bill placed on Orders of the
Day for third reading at the next sitting of the Senate.
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable
Senator Cools, seconded by the Honourable Senator
Johnstone, for the second reading of Bill S-12, to amend the
Criminal Code (abuse of process).-(Honourable Senator
Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Acting Deputy Leader of the
Opposition): Honourable senators, in speaking to Bill S-12 to
amend the Criminal Code, abuse of process, I think the best way
for us to proceed is to refer the bill to committee. I would
recommend that we refer the bill to the Standing Senate
Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.
The Senate proceeded to consideration of the eighteenth report
of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and
Administration (budgets of certain committees), presented in the
Senate on May 5, 1998.
Hon. Bill Rompkey: Honourable senators, I move the
adoption of this report.
Hon. J. Michael Forrestall: Honourable senators, may I be
permitted to ask a brief question of the chairman of the
committee on the report?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Forrestall: Summer is fast approaching. The
committee considered what is to be done in connection with the
paintings above our heads, and I believe the matter is dealt with
in the report. Could the chairman of the committee tell the
chamber what the fate of these beautiful paintings is to be?
Senator Rompkey: Honourable senators, the paintings are to
be restored during a time when the Senate is not sitting. It will be
done in a way that will involve the members of the public who
visit the chamber in light of the fact that this is, indeed, a national
treasure and part of our national heritage. The pictures require
refurbishing, and that will be done this summer.
Applicability of Subpoenas Issued in Relation to
Commissions of Inquiry-Motion-Debate Concluded
On the Order:
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable
Senator Moore, seconded by the Honourable Senator Butts:
That the Senate urge the governments of the provinces
and territories to ensure that their laws respecting the
enforcement of interprovincial subpoenas explicitly
provide that they are applicable, not only to courts of law,
but also to commissions of inquiry;
That the Senate also urge the government of any
province or territory to amend such laws where they are
not clearly applicable to commissions of inquiry in order to
remove any doubt; and
That a message be sent to the Assemblies of the
provincial and territorial legislatures to acquaint them
accordingly.-(Honourable Senator Watt).
Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Deputy Leader of the
Government): Honourable senators, it would be very difficult to
grow up in the province of Nova Scotia and be unaware of the
importance of mines. It would be impossible to grow up in that
province and be unaware of mine disasters. My first experience
with a mine disaster was when I volunteered during the
Spring Hill Mine disasters. For those who have lived through
such events, the Westray disaster brought back the pain
experienced when such an event happens to people in your native
Regrettably for these individuals and their families, there has
been no closure. There has been no closure because, despite the
best efforts of those who investigated the disaster and those who
conducted an independent study, they were unable to obtain
evidence from those who had the greatest knowledge of this
event; those who knew whether safety regulations had been
sufficiently applied and, if not, why not.
The reason for the failure to obtain this evidence is that, while
provinces recognize subpoenas in matters before courts of law,
they do not presently recognize interprovincial subpoenas from
inquiries such as the one undertaken in the Westray disaster.
Senator Moore's proposal is to ensure that this will not occur
in the future. He wishes to ensure that the laws of the provinces
and territories do respect interprovincial subpoenas to appear
before an inquiry of this nature. He is urging the provinces and
the territories to pass such laws.
I, too, would urge them to pass such laws, and I urge this
chamber to support Senator Moore's motion.
Hon. Wilfred P. Moore: Honourable senators -
The Hon. the Acting Speaker: It is my duty to inform the
Senate that if Senator Moore speaks at this time, it will have the
effect of closing debate on this motion.
Senator Moore: Honourable senators, I wish to thank those
who made interventions on this motion. I also wish to thank my
honourable colleagues on both sides who have spoken with me
privately and offered me their support and encouragement in this
I believe that this is a most important matter. It would be most
appropriate if the Senate saw fit to adopt this motion today, being
three days before the sixth anniversary of the Westray Mine
The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable
senators, to adopt the motion?
Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable
Senator Hays calling the attention of the Senate to the Sixth
Annual Meeting of the Asia-Pacific Parliamentary Forum,
held in Seoul, Republic of Korea, from January 7 to 10,
1998.-(Honourable Senator Oliver).
Hon. Donald H. Oliver: Honourable senators, I rise today to
respond to the excellent presentation made by Senator Hays on
the sixth annual meeting of the Asia-Pacific Parliamentary
Forum held in Seoul, Korea, from January 7 to 10, 1998.
In our fast-paced world, much of a conference's success can be
determined by its timing, by how current are the issues being
discussed, and by how relevant are the discussions to both the
current and future events.
We were not disappointed. The Canadian delegation arrived in
Korea when three major events were occurring: First, there was
the Asian financial crisis which was causing distress to the
economy; next, there was the possibility of renewed talks
between North and South Korea; and, third, Kim Dae-jung had
been elected President of South Korea. Indeed, those three issues
dominated much of the discussion and debate during both the
formal and the informal meetings.
This APPF forum was held at a time when the eyes of all the
world were focused on the Asia-Pacific region. The APPF
conference provided the Canadian delegation with an opportunity
to conduct frank and open discussions with our Korean hosts and
to share information with 190 representatives from 24 Pacific
Rim countries, including the U.S.A., Russia, China, Japan and
Asian-Pacific countries understand that their economic future
is interwoven with the success or failure of other countries in the
Asia-Pacific region. They use conferences such as the APPF to
build links between countries, links that they hope will have both
economic and political benefits for their citizens.
The Canadian government and Canadian investors have also
recognized the crucial role that the Pacific Rim will play for
future generations of Canadians. In the 12-month period prior to
the APPF meeting in Seoul, the Canadian government took
several important steps which underscore the importance of this
region to Canada, and the continued importance of APPF
meetings. For example, in January, the Prime Minister declared
1997 Canada's Year of Asia-Pacific. Later in the year, a Team
Canada trade mission toured the region and the Asia-Pacific
Economic Cooperation Forum was held in Vancouver.
The APPF conference in Korea added one more link in
Canada's ongoing effort to expand our nation's contacts
throughout the region, both at the parliamentary and the
governmental level. As the Honourable Sergio Marchi, Minister
for International Trade, noted on September 8, 1997:
One of the things we have learned this year is the
importance of developing personal relationships. Fax to fax
will never replace face to face.
Canadians understand and recognize that the Asia-Pacific
region is home to the world's fastest growing markets, and vital
to our trade interests.
The World Bank estimates that East Asian developing
economies need to spend between $120 billion and $150 billion
U.S. between 1995 and the year 2004 on power plants, water
systems, telecommunications networks, air and sea ports,
highways and other sectors in which Canadian industries are
China, for example, will spend more than $32 billion on
infrastructure investments in their paper industry over the next
15 years. Canada is well positioned to participate in this type of
investment opportunity. We have the skill and the capital.
Through meetings such as the APPF and other regional forums,
we are building the necessary contacts.
Canada has already made important economic gains in this
region. Today, Korea is Canada's sixth largest trading partner. In
1995, two-way trade reached $6 billion. Today, there are
10 Korean banks operating in Canada, seven in the Metro
Toronto area alone, and Canada has benefited from increased
tourism, up 95 per cent in 1994 to 78,141 visitors, and a further
increase in 1996 to 159,000 visitors.
The potential of the Korean telecommunications market is
currently valued at about $4 billion and the agricultural products
market at about $10 billion. It is for these reasons, and the
potential that the Korean market holds for Canadian exports, that
the Canadian government has pursued aggressively new
economic ties and improved relations at both the political and
A thorough understanding of the region, its people and its
leaders is necessary if we are to enhance understanding of
common concerns. The APPF meeting allowed for an exchange
of ideas on issues relating to peace and security, human rights
and legal reform, environmental and social development, and
culture and education. It also provided delegates an opportunity
to meet the new South Korean President, Kim Dae-jung, who
addressed the conference.
Peace and security issues played a very important role in the
conference, especially the relationship between North and South
Korea. President Kim Dae-jung's election has introduced a new
and dynamic leader to the political scene. In addition, delegates
had many opportunities to exchange information and views on
the possibility of reconciliation between North and South Korea.
This discussion was very timely because of speculation that
North and South Korea will open negotiations in the near future.
Delegates to the APPF meeting were therefore not surprised to
learn that talks of reconciliation began last month in Beijing,
China between North and South Korea.
It was clear from our meeting of parliamentarians that
President Kim Dae-jung must not only deal with the internal
economic problems of South Korea but he must also be
concerned with security issues and the problems within North
Korea. Any sign of political instability in the Korean peninsula
and the potential for an outbreak of hostility between North and
South Korea places serious constraints on investment and
The previous government in Seoul had begun to break the ice
between the two Koreas when they recognized the necessity to
offer food and financial assistance to North Korea. In 1995,
150,000 tonnes of rice was sent to North Korea. This was
followed by an expenditure of $2 million on grain and $1 million
for powdered milk in 1996. In 1997-98, direct
government-to-government aid will reach $6 million for grain,
with a possible additional expenditure of $10 million for corn
and powdered milk.
These steps are essential to encourage stability as well as to
help build a working relationship with the north, a relationship
which, it is hoped, will translate into meaningful dialogue this
year, and a lasting piece. The Beijing talks will break new ground
in one of the most long-standing and bitter relationships in the
Other discussions at the APPF focused on how to provide
further progress in trade and investment liberalization and the
stabilization of capital and financial markets. Much of the
discussion focused on issues that were not only global in nature
but of high importance to Pacific Rim countries, including the
environment, climate change, El Niño and energy issues.
Additional motions were moved on such dangerous and
important issues as drugs, terrorism, money laundering and
President Kim Dae-jung outlined some of the difficulties
South Korea faced and his determination to overcome them.
President Kim Dae-jung was incredibly frank and direct in
recognizing the problems that exist in his country. He stated that
the underlying cause of the crisis lies in the collusive relations
between government and business, an economy dictated by
bureaucrats, and corruption and malpractice on the part of the
Chaibols. The 35 Chaibols, which are Korea's big business
conglomerates, continue to control 60 per cent of Korea's
economic output. President Kim Dae-jung signalled his intention
to insist on economic reform, and he has refused to accept recent
restructuring plans of the Hyundai group and the LG Group,
calling them "cosmetic."
The president clearly believes that collusion, corruption, and
malpractice are at the heart of Korea's economic ills. Those at
the conference had an unparalleled opportunity not only to meet
him but to evaluate him. One came away with the feeling that the
new South Korean president is a remarkable individual who has
overcome 30 years of adversity before becoming the president. If
anyone is able to restore political and economic stability in the
Korean peninsula, we hope that it will be President
Through the APPF, Canada was able to obtain new
information on the aims of the Asia-Pacific Rim countries. Our
parliamentary delegates were also able to forge new links which
will prove beneficial in the future. At the same time, we had the
opportunity to hear firsthand from one of the leading political
figures in the region.
I was proud and honoured to be part of the Canadian
delegation, and I thank Senator Hays and other members of the
delegation and all of our officials for their efforts on behalf of
The Hon. the Acting Speaker: If no other senator wishes to
speak, this inquiry is considered debated.
Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable
Senator Milne calling the attention of the Senate to the
legalization of industrial hemp cultivation; and to the credit
due the Senate for its role in ensuring hemp would be
planted in Canada this year.-(Honourable Senator
Hon. Mira Spivak: Honourable senators, I give credit to
Senator Milne for prompting the Senate to give back to Canadian
farmers the right to legally grow industrial hemp. It was at her
initiative a little less than two years ago that we passed an
amendment to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act no
longer forbidding farmers to produce this very promising crop. It
was through the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance
and Senator Milne's skilful prodding that Health Canada officials
were persuaded to finish the task by drafting regulations ahead of
schedule. Senator Milne has certainly demonstrated the fine job
that members of this chamber can do without a great deal of
fanfare. She has provided a valuable service to Canadian farmers.
Two years ago, I spoke in support of Senator Milne's
amendment. I recalled that, before 1938 - before Canada
followed lockstep behind the U.S. ban on hemp - Canadian
farmers did grow hemp crops for industrial use. In my home
province of Manitoba, hemp was both grown and milled. The
Manitoba Cordage Company took the hemp that grew on the
Prairies and turned it into rope and twine.
It is very likely that more than 2,000 hectares in Manitoba
alone will again be in industrial hemp production this summer.
Manitoba agronomist Dr. Jack Moes expects that, before long,
some 8,000 to 12,000 hectares in the province will be growing
Consolidated Growers and Processors, an offshoot of a
California firm, has opened a Winnipeg office. It is laying plans
to import the extremely low-level THC seeds from Europe and to
sign contracts with more than 100 farmers in Southern Manitoba
who have already expressed interest in growing the industrial
variety. The company is also looking at building a $500,000
processing plant in Portage la Prairie, or Carmen, or Morden. It
wants to produce insulation and panelling, specialty papers, and
Further west, West Hemp Enterprises Inc., a Vancouver-based
firm, is helping farmers in B.C. and Alberta to procure licences
and seeds. In a 100-kilometer region around Grand Forks B.C.
alone, some 75 farmers have expressed an interest in growing
Farmers would not be forging ahead and U.S. companies
would not be looking at making a $0.5-million investment unless
they were confident that a good market exists for hemp products.
In that regard, a recent article in The Financial Post stated:
Hemp is on the cusp of becoming a big business in
Canada.... North America's market for hemp is estimated at
US $30 million and is growing at a rate of US $8 million to
US $10 million a year.
The global market is valued at $100 million to
$200 million U.S. Hemp products have graduated from their
association with flower power and 1960s hippies, and are now
becoming chic. Companies like Giorgio Armani, Ralph Lauren
and Adidas are using hemp.
For economic reasons alone, I think we have been very wise in
speeding up the process to allow the legal cultivation of
industrial hemp in this country while the U.S. still stonewalls its
Two years ago, in supporting the amendment Senator Milne
proposed, I spoke of the almost endless potential uses of hemp.
Its Latin name means, literally, "the useful plant." I will not
repeat the long list now, but as someone who is very concerned
about what is happening to our forests, I am enthusiastic about
the prospect that hemp cultivation could save some of our trees.
I would also be very pleased if Ontario farmers who now grow
tobacco find that hemp is just as profitable and a much more
Two years ago, I also noted that, if farmers are to realize
hemp's potential, much more will be needed than the federal
government's green light. Nothing flies without good research
and development. I am pleased that last summer the Ontario
government announced plans to spend $500,000 on basic hemp
I hope the Government of Canada will also be amenable to
giving farmers and entrepreneurs the support they need to make
their plans work.
None of these plans would be achievable without the
amendment that originated in this place. I congratulate Senator
Milne and all the other senators who supported her initiative.
The Hon. the Acting Speaker: If no other senator wishes to
speak, this inquiry is considered debated.
Effect of Federal Policies on Coastal
Hon. Pat Carney rose pursuant to notice of April 30, 1998:
That she will call the attention of the Senate to the effect
of federal policies relating to the West Coast fisheries on
coastal communities and on the fishermen themselves.
She said: Honourable senators, I draw your attention today to
the effect of federal policies on British Columbia's coastal
In the face of a critical shortage of coho and the threat of a
complete shut-down this summer of the Pacific salmon fishery,
the federal government is set to announce an aid program for the
West Coast which will balance the "son of TAGS" program in
the east. The program is reported to include a $200-million
licence buy-back as well as reciprocity in other program areas.
This is yet another program designed for the problems of the
East Coast. We want a West Coast solution. We still have fish. In
spite of the media reports about the coho, the fact is that the other
runs, including the sockeye, are expected to be plentiful this year.
The Pacific salmon fishery is a sunrise industry. We do not need
buy-back programs that will shut down the small communities
and accelerate the collapse of the coast. We do need development
funds to preserve the habitat and support our natural and human
In order to work, this program must address and correct three
The first issue is the decimation of the home fleets under the
Liberal government's Mifflin plan, which is still in effect despite
ruinous results. When it was announced in March of 1996, the
main features of this plan were a targeted, 50-per-cent reduction
in the capacity of the commercial salmon fleet, single-gear and
area licensing, and licence stacking. This forced fishermen to buy
additional rights to fish. Now, in 1998, the Mifflin plan has very
efficiently concentrated much of B.C.'s salmon fishing effort in
large boats based in urban centres. It has brought no conservation
benefits, because it has not reduced the fleet's capacity to catch
fish. It has wiped out many of the smaller fishermen and the
home fleets, putting people out of work and accelerating the
demise of some coastal communities along our 25,000-kilometre
The Mifflin plan has also been implemented in an
underhanded and undemocratic fashion, worsening already testy
relations between the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and
fishermen. Last fall, DFO authorized a fleet-wide vote on the
continuation of licence-stacking. The voting instructions
included a provision whereby any licence holder who did not
vote was considered a vote in favour of licence-stacking.
Honourable senators, this negative-option approach is
abhorrent to Canadians, whether it involves cable or fish.
After their tour of the West Coast communities this winter,
members of the House of Commons Fisheries and Oceans
Committee recommended in their interim report that the minister
immediately ensure that uncast ballots at all future voting are not
credited to the results one way or the other, consistent with
Canadian election and referendum laws.
The Mifflin plan is destroying the infrastructure of small
communities along our coast, and its effects must be reversed for
any federal aid program to B.C. to truly help in the development
and the long-term growth of those affected by this year's coho
crisis. I suggest that you wonder at the fate of those people who
mortgaged their homes and went into debt in order to buy rights
under the Mifflin Plan only to learn that their boats might be tied
up at the dock all summer.
The second basic issue is that any aid program for the West
Coast must take into account the failure to enhance and sustain
salmon habitat and stocks which are being adversely affected by
poor logging practices and the neglect of the spawning grounds.
It must also include training funds to train workers to do this
important work and add to the skills inventory in the fishing
industry. We are not talking about transitional funds. We are
talking about real work for real people.
In his 1997 report, the Auditor General confirmed the
importance of habitat restoration yet, this winter, the federal
government cancelled a mapping inventory program developed
on the coast to standardize essential salmon habitat mapping and
inventory services, and put displaced fishermen back to work.
This shows that the fishery has to be managed closer to the
In April of 1997, Prime Minister Chrétien and Premier Glen
Clark signed an agreement creating a new partnership between
Canada and B.C. for the conservation and management of the
salmon. In spite of this, the B.C. government has not been
consulted by either Fisheries Minister David Anderson in his
decision regarding this year's salmon fishery, or by the ad hoc
cabinet committee formed to decide on the East Coast and
West Coast compensation packages.
Personally, I have long advocated joint management of the
fishery. We accomplished this on the East Coast with the Atlantic
Accord in Energy when I was minister. That accord established
joint management of offshore oil and gas resources through
parallel legislation. It can also be done in the fishery in
The dilemma of the coastal communities is illustrated in the
fate of the fuel docks. When we lose our fish, we lose our
fishermen, and when we lose them, we lose the community fuel
dock. When that goes, so goes the neighbourhood. No other
marine traffic, be it other commercial fishermen, recreational
fishermen, American boaters, tug boats or other industrial users
come calling, and the community's infrastructure collapses. In
turn, coastal communities are required to sustain the overall
economic activity of the coast. The logging, the various fisheries,
including the recreational fishing industry, tourism, are all linked.
The demise of the fish stocks will have a tremendous impact on
the whole coast. Coast watchers tell me this is already happening
in Masset, Alert Bay, Kyuquot and possibly Ucluelet, and other
coastal communities which I toured on the West Coast during the
Any federal aid package must address this fact. We must also
remember that, during the last fishing season, Alaskan fishermen
caught hundreds of thousands of Canadian salmon, and the
federal government has been unable since then to provide any
further guarantee of the safety of our stocks.
This brings me to my third point: The federal government's
failure to get the United States to adhere to the "fair share" or
equity principle of the Pacific Salmon Treaty, which the
Americans accepted by signing in 1985, is directly linked to the
effectiveness of any federal aid package.
Yves Fortier, in his letter of resignation as chief Canadian
negotiator for the Pacific Salmon Treaty, wrote:
As you well know, the principle of equity - with
conservation one of the two fundamental pillars of the
Treaty and the primary raison d'être for its acceptance by
Canada - provides that each country shall receive the
benefits of the production of salmon in its waters.
As presented to me at the outset of my mandate, it was
Canada's position that, due to the excessive interceptions of
Canadian origin salmon in U.S. fisheries, Canada was being
deprived of the benefits of its salmon production.
Fortier called our position, "...valid, justified, reasonable and
practical." He added:
In the end Canada ran into the very obstacles that had
caused the impasse in the first place: greed and fear. Greed
on the part of the U.S. regional interests who, being in what
the MOU refers to as the "advantaged" position, and feeling
immune to any meaningful pressure, had little or no
incentive to reduce their harvests of Canadian fish. Fear, on
the part of a U.S. federal administration reluctant to exercise
the political will necessary to challenge those regional
interests so as to satisfy its national obligations toward
Canada under the treaty.
Those are strong words from a senior Canadian diplomat.
In December, Dr. David Strangway and William Ruckelshaus
made the following submission:
...equity must be implemented as a precondition to the
negotiation of long-term fishing regimes under the Treaty,
and doing so will definitely involve reductions in
U.S. interceptions (though not necessarily to the extent
demanded by Canada).
My concern is that Ottawa will fail to hold the line on equity
or fair share and will trade off this key demand in return for
U.S. concessions on other Canadian interests, because I know it
I am concerned that Canada will allow the Americans to split
the equity or fair share issue off from other treaty issues and deal
with it on a stand-alone basis. This separate-table approach
would doom the Pacific Salmon Treaty, in my view, because my
experience as Minister for International Trade responsible for the
free trade agreement negotiations with the U.S. showed that the
issue on the separate table never gets resolved. It is essential that
Canada maintain the position that all treaty elements, including
equity and conservation, are on the negotiating table, and that all
elements are addressed.
More than our fair share is at stake. The separate-table
approach would threaten the resource itself because Ottawa
would be unlikely to fund new conservation and habitat renewal
measures aimed at growing fish if Canada did not reap the
economic reward. Why should Canadian taxpayers grow fish for
The cancellation in February by the federal government of the
mapping and inventory program fuels our paranoia. Is it an early
warning signal that Ottawa will retreat on equity? My basic
principle has always been that the goal of any program should be
to use the resources of an area for the economic and social
benefit of that area. The government's West Coast program must
sustain and enhance the fisheries and the coastal communities,
not destroy them.
The recently released report of Parzival Copes, the West Coast
fisheries expert, has outlined the means of going to
community-based fishing. People will say that this is inefficient,
but it is more economical in the long run to use the resources of
the region for the social and economic benefit of the small
communities because they are the coast's lifeline. The
government must change its whole approach to the West Coast
fishery and to the communities which are sustained by them in
order to survive.
The Hon. the Acting Speaker: If no other senator wishes to
speak, this inquiry is considered debated.
Hon. Bill Rompkey, pursuant to notice of May 5, 1998,
That, in the opinion of the Senate, the Government, in
recognition of the tremendous contribution of the members
of the Canadian Forces to the protection of Canadian
sovereignty, United Nations peacekeeping missions, the
NATO alliance, humanitarian assistance, disaster relief and
search and rescue operations, should proclaim June 15 as
"Canadian Forces Day."
He said: Honourable senators, it speaks volumes that Senator
St. Germain has seconded this motion; there will be support on
both sides of the chamber.
It is most appropriate that this issue be addressed this month as
this is the anniversary of the Battle of the Atlantic. We celebrate
that in May. It was in World War II that the Canadian Forces, as
well as Canada, came of age. It was through our engagement at
that time that we really matured as a country.
Senator Phillips served in Bomber Command, so he was not
part of the Battle of the Atlantic. However, he recalls the pictures
of those corvettes going up and down in those gigantic waves
and wondering, when a corvette went down, whether it would
ever come back up again. No doubt Senator Jessiman will also
recall that scene. Perhaps he even served on those corvettes.
Canadians served in those ships, small and inadequate as they
were, and they sailed in convoys from North America to Europe.
Not only did our people serve and lose their lives in the Second
World War but, as a founding member of NATO, we served after
the Second World War. Indeed, we are still serving in
peacekeeping missions in Bosnia. We have been in every
peacekeeping mission since 1948. That is indeed a record of
achievement of which Canadians can be proud.
Not only have we served abroad, we have served at home. I
need not remind senators of the role of the Canadian Armed
Forces in Manitoba during the floods, or the role of the Canadian
Forces here in this province during the ice storm where
Canadians in the Armed Forces, in a very special and direct way,
showed the people of Canada that they are available, competent
and serving. They served with distinction. If they had not been
there to answer the call, who would have done that particular
job? They are indispensable.
I should not forget what is perhaps closest to my own province
and that is the search-and-rescue operation. If Senator Forrestall
were here, he could speak more eloquently on that subject than I
can. However, those "SAR techs," as they are called, are the
jewel of the Canadian Forces. They are eminently well-trained
and exhibit a high degree of courage. What would we do on any
of our three coasts or on the Great Lakes without the
I would conclude by saying that, at a time when national
symbols are in danger, at a time when many national institutions
are disappearing, at a time when Canadians are searching for
reasons to reassert their identity, it seems to me most appropriate
to simply set aside one day during the year when the people of
Canada recognize both past and present service in the
A similar bill is proceeding through the House of Commons. I
hope that senators on both sides will concur on this motion and
establish June 15 of every year as Canadian Forces Day.
Hon. Gerry St. Germain: Honourable senators, it is a
privilege and an honour to associate my name with the motion
put forth by Senator Rompkey. Senator Rompkey and I served in
the other place and we often worked on issues for the benefit of
the country. I can think of nothing more appropriate to work on
than the recognition of our Armed Forces.
The Armed Forces have gone through some very trying times.
As a result of these trying times, people have recognized their
real value. They have not shirked their responsibility, regardless
of what they have been confronted with in the nation.
I will not repeat all of the various campaigns they have served
in, from the Great War right through to the peacekeeping
missions, and to the assistance they have given during those
missions. We will never know how many lives they may have
saved during these recent disasters that have just taken place in
this country. I, along with Senator Rompkey, urge all honourable
Senators to support June 15 as Canadian Forces Day.
Let us build on this and allow the military to maintain their
traditions and help to give us the identity that we search for as
Hon. Marcel Prud'homme: Honourable senators, I was not
expecting this motion to be considered today. I could request that
debate be adjourned, but that might very well be misinterpreted.
In order to do justice to this motion, which I am most
delighted to support, I would have liked a little more time to
prepare my notes, not that that is an excuse, because one should
always be prepared.
I well remember the days when I was an officer cadet at
university. I was a member of the military police in Winnipeg.
I am sure Senator Carstairs knows what I am talking about.
These are not the most exciting places in Canada. However, that
was in the early 1950s, and I have since recovered.
I did not speak a word of English and not one of them spoke a
word of French. However, I trained them - the reverse of what
they thought they could do for me.
I regret two governmental decisions that were taken over the
years. The first is the disbanding of the Airborne Regiment. I
believe that could have been done differently. You must tackle
the bad people inside a regiment; however, you must have an
understanding of what a regiment means. The second decision I
regret is the closing of Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean. I
was not chairman of the Liberal caucus of Quebec then. In fact, I
was not in the caucus. If I had been, I would have fought with all
my might to overturn that decision.
Having indicated my two areas of regret, the initiative taken
by Senator Rompkey and those who support him, especially
Senator St. Germain, is to be commended.
This excellent initiative will at least boost the morale of our
troops. If I might take just a moment more, it is not enough to
express our appreciation. We know that, at the present time, the
Canadian Armed Forces are in a state of moroseness.
Honourable senators, we must think of the little people. The
little people are in a state of moroseness. For instance, a nephew
of mine was in the Montreal Police Force, as was his wife. After
13 years of service, he will receive almost the same salary as a
senator. I have no objection to that. However, when I compare
military service to the service of a police officer in any big city in
Canada, there is such a discrepancy. They see it, they suffer and
they are in a bad state.
I agree with Senator St. Germain when he said that it is not
enough to show our appreciation for what the military is doing.
Everyone is happy when the forces are at hand to help when
necessary. Everyone is against the police until they need a police
I do not think we praise enough, but it is not enough to praise;
we must pay attention, and to pay attention costs money. I would
hope that whoever is in charge of that Senate committee will start
paying attention to the morosity in the Armed Forces at the
The Hon. the Acting Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable
senators, to adopt the motion?