Download as PDF

Debates of the Senate (Hansard)

1st Session, 36th Parliament,
Volume 137, Issue 89

Tuesday, November 3, 1998
The Honourable Gildas L. Molgat, Speaker


Tuesday, November 3, 1998

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


Remembrance Day

Restored Paintings in Clerestory-Rededication Ceremony

Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I ask that the speeches of the Honourable Gildas L. Molgat, Speaker of the Senate; the Honourable Fred Mifflin, P.C., MP, Minister of Veterans Affairs; and the Honourable Barney Danson, P.C., delivered earlier today at the rededication ceremony for the war paintings displayed in the Senate chamber, be printed as an appendix to the Debates of the Senate of this day.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

(For text of speeches, see appendix `A', p. 2129.)

Visitors in the Gallery

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I wish to call your attention to the presence in our gallery of a group of parliamentarians from the Komi Republic, in Russia.

Welcome to the Senate of Canada.


Mothers Against Drunk Driving

Project Red Ribbon-Tenth Annual Campaign

Hon. Marjory LeBreton: Honourable senators, this week, MADD Canada is launching a red ribbon campaign asking Canadians to tie one on in the campaign against drunk driving.

There are two good reasons to tie a red ribbon on to a motor vehicle: First, to show respect to the thousands of Canadians who have lost their lives or been injured due to alcohol-related crashes. The second reason is to remind people to drive sober during the holidays and throughout the year.

Project Red Ribbon is a commitment by Canadians to drive safely and soberly. It is a highly visible public awareness program which depends on volunteer participation to promote the message that impaired driving deaths are needless tragedies and totally preventable.

Each year, from the beginning of November to the first Monday after January 1, MADD Canada volunteers across the country ask motorists to tie a red ribbon to a visible location on their vehicles. However, one is not restricted to vehicles. One may tie the ribbons to briefcases and luggage as well. The simple act of tying on a ribbon has become MADD Canada's most successful public awareness effort.

Sadly, four to five Canadians are killed every day as a result of alcohol-related crashes. There are hundreds of Canadians injured daily and every day thousands of Canadians mourn losses due to impaired driving.

Approximately 42 per cent of all traffic fatalities are alcohol related. The direct and indirect costs of crashes are estimated to be $9 billion annually.

MADD Canada launched its first campaign 10 years ago, in 1988, in Windsor, Ontario. Project Red Ribbon soon spread from town to town until it became the nationwide campaign that it is today. Last year, more than 4.5 million red ribbons were distributed during the holiday season. This year, we are hoping to substantially increase the numbers.

After the Remembrance Day poppy campaign is over, we will have MADD red ribbon boxes at all Senate entrances. Thank you in advance for your support of this effort.

Remembrance Day

Rededication Ceremony for Restored War Paintings in Clerestory

Hon. J. Michael Forrestall: Honourable senators, may I say how pleased I was to hear the Deputy Leader of the Government move her motion. Honourable colleagues who were not in the chamber this morning missed a moving ceremony.

Today's ceremony dealt with the rededication of the murals which hang on our walls and which have been there since the early 1920s. Like many of you, I continue to admire their beauty. The Senate's effort to restore the paintings was timely and correct, and a decision of which we can all be proud.

Honourable senators, this morning's ceremony was beautiful. The timing of the ceremony was perfect, being so close to Remembrance Day. The paintings are in their ideal resting place and are so much more beautiful to look at now.

It was wonderful to see so many veterans of the First World War adorning the aisle between the seats as a testimonial to the heroism of Canada's turn-of-the-century generation, and its soldiers, sailors and air crews, the very Canadians who brought this country of age in the fields of battle.

What Canadian could forget or fail to recognize the heroism of Vimy? I was particularly struck by the picture showing the arrival of the First Canadian Division in France, the Black Watch. Many here will know the Black Watch was for many years based in Atlantic Canada and was an Atlantic Canadian regiment. Indeed, many highland regiments came out of the Maritimes and gave sterling service in battle. They, like other members of Canada's First Division, the best division in the entire Western Front, departed from Halifax for Europe, and sadly from which, of course, so many failed to return.

In conclusion, honourable senators, it is fitting that these beautiful paintings, commemorating such past sacrifice, adorn the walls of our chamber.

I thank all honourable senators for supporting this restoration, the experts who did such a spectacular job, the people who organized an impressive ceremony, and those who participated, including the very brave and still very healthy-looking group of First World War veterans, now off to celebrations marking the 80th anniversary of the end of the First World War in Europe.

Interprovincial Relations

Applicability of Subpoenas Issued in Relation to Commissions of Inquiry-Adoption of Senate Motion by Uniform Law Conference

Hon. Wilfred P. Moore: Honourable senators will recall that on May 6, 1998, this chamber unanimously adopted the following motion which arose over the Westray Mine Public Inquiry:

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.

The Clerk of the Senate sent a message to the assemblies of the provincial and territorial legislatures to acquaint them accordingly.

In addition, a copy of that motion was sent to the Uniform Law Conference of Canada, which held its annual meeting in Halifax, Nova Scotia, on August 16 through 18 last. That body is made up of, and this meeting was attended by, representatives of all provinces and territories. I am pleased to advise honourable senators that the Uniform Law Conference of Canada saw merit in that motion of the Senate, and unanimously recommended that clause 1(a) of the Uniform Interprovincial Subpoena Act, found in its 1974 proceedings, be struck out and replaced with:

(a) "court" means any court in a province and, where a board, commission, tribunal or other body or person in a province has the power to issue a subpoena, includes that board, commission, tribunal, body or person;

It is the obligation of the individuals who attended that meeting to return home and present this recommendation to their respective ministers of justice and to urge those ministers, where appropriate, to amend their respective interprovincial subpoena acts.

I am pleased to report to honourable senators the progress of this motion of the Senate.


Declaration by Toronto City Council as National Disaster

Hon. Erminie J. Cohen: Honourable senators, I should like to bring to your attention the Thursday, October 29, 1998 edition of The Toronto Star which reported that the City of Toronto council unanimously passed a motion urging the federal and provincial governments to declare homelessness a national disaster - strong words.

Hoping to avoid the deaths that occur in the cold streets, the city has implemented what it is calling disaster relief: more hostel beds, increased street patrols, and emergency loans for women and children facing eviction. As a city councillor reminded his colleagues:

We are the only country in the developed world that has no national program to put a roof over the heads of the most vulnerable, low-income people in our community.

It is interesting, honourable senators, to hear that message at this time, as the federal government and our national NGOs are preparing to appear before the United Nations committee on compliance with the Covenant on Social, Economic and Cultural Rights. The situation of the homeless in Canada has for many years been a concern to this UN committee, and they have rapped our knuckles in the past for not complying with the convention and addressing the problem of homelessness in our wealthy but cold land.

Honourable senators, the City of Toronto has taken the lead in sounding the alarm and alerting Canadians that homelessness is a national disaster. The federal government must take heed and action. We can no longer turn our backs on the poor.

National Defence

Plight of Lower Ranks of Military Personnel-Need for Establishment of Committee

Hon. Gerry St. Germain: Honourable senators, I rise today in the spirit of Senator Forrestall's eloquent speech on the rededication ceremony that took place here earlier today.

Today I saw a headline in a newspaper that spoke of poor soldiers being forced to wait. It is on that basis that I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate, to take to cabinet immediately the plight of our military. We have reports that, basically, homelessness exists within the rank and file of the military. Food banks are a part of the lives of some of the people who hold lower ranks in the military. I believe this is totally unacceptable in a country such as Canada, when our military has so valiantly risen to every occasion when they have been called upon in the past.

I urge all honourable senators to consider seriously the suggestion that has been put forward by some senators, that a committee be established to deal with defence issues in this country - a full committee, not a subcommittee of another committee such as Foreign Affairs, one that would deal only with the issues that confront our military and the personnel who are forced to use antiquated equipment and who are badly underpaid.


City of Montreal

Re-Election of Mayor Pierre Bourque

Hon. Marcel Prud'homme: Honourable senators, tomorrow I will speak at greater length about the re-election of Montreal's Mr. Bourque to the office of mayor of that city. For four years now, I have been supporting him and all his candidates. I am awaiting further information so that I can tell you what really went on in the election.

I am glad that the public did not listen to the destructive outside forces from the media and elsewhere who did their utmost to defeat Mayor Bourque. In my opinion, he is an excellent mayor.


May I also take this opportunity to remind honourable senators, on behalf of Senator Whelan, that at five o'clock tonight there will be a briefing session of the Canada-Russia Parliamentary Group by people from the Department of Foreign Affairs, in the room usually used by the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration.

Tomorrow I will say more about that municipal campaign. I hope that the senators from Montreal will give their support to this new administration.

Honourable senators will remember that four years ago we graciously welcomed in our gallery Madam Eloyan, who was the President of the Executive Council. I really take exception with RDI, the French-Canadian news network that kept saying all night that she had been defeated, when she got the highest number of votes in Montreal, winning in every poll. They did not even apologize for the mistake they made. I shall talk about that tomorrow.

Pages Exchange Program with House of Commons

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, before I call for the next item of business, I should like to introduce to the Senate our two visiting Pages from the House of Commons.


First, there is Maria Mach from Aldergrove, British Columbia. She is enrolled in the Faculty of Social Sciences at the University of Ottawa, majoring in psychology.


Rhéal Lewis-James, from Guelph, Ontario, is pursuing his studies at the University of Ottawa's Faculty of Social Science, where he is specializing in political science.

Maria and Rhéal, on behalf of all senators, I welcome you. We hope that your stay with us will be instructive and interesting.



The Estimates 1998-99

Supplementary Estimates (B) Tabled

Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Deputy Leader of the Government) tabled the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999.

Business of the Senate


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

That when the Senate adjourns today, it do stand adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, November 4, 1998, at 1:30 p.m.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Hon. Lowell Murray: Honourable senators, last Wednesday, in conformity with an identical motion, committees waited patiently for the Senate to adjourn before 3:30 p.m. However, 3:30 came and went. Those of us who were able to listen to the debates in the chamber found that Senator Joyal was holding honourable senators spellbound, but our committees and witnesses were kept waiting.

I should like to inquire, therefore, whether, with this motion, there has been some agreement between the two leaders that the Senate will in fact adjourn at some point before 3:30 p.m. tomorrow, if this motion passes?

Senator Carstairs: Honourable senators, a number of honourable senators were waxing eloquent last Wednesday on a number of very important issues and the Senate was not able to rise until 3:40 p.m. It would appear that our agenda this week will permit us to rise in time for the honourable senator's committee to sit and to begin hearing witnesses at 3:30 p.m.

Senator Murray: I take it that my friend is speaking on behalf of my friend on the opposite side as well, is that correct?

Senator Carstairs: Honourable senators, I would never speak on behalf of Senator Kinsella, but in this case I think we are in agreement.

Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Acting Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, when we arrive at the happy conclusion of a matter through usual channels, we are always happy to have the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate speak on our behalf.

Motion agreed to.

The Estimates 1998-99

Notice of Motion to Refer Supplementary Estimates (B) to National Finance Committee

Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I give notice that tomorrow, Wednesday, November 4, 1998, I will move:

That the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance be authorized to examine and report upon the expenditures set out in the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999, with the exception of Parliament Vote 10b and Privy Council Vote 25b.


Notice of Motion to Refer Parliament Vote 10b to the Standing Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament

Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I give notice that tomorrow, Wednesday, November 4, 1998, I will move:

That the Standing Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament be authorized to examine the expenditures set out in Parliament Vote 10b of the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999; and

That a message be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint that House accordingly.


Notice of Motion to Refer Privy Council Vote 25b to the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages

Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I give notice that tomorrow, Wednesday, November 4, 1998, I will move:

That the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages be authorized to examine the expenditures set out in Privy Council Vote 25b of the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999; and

That a message be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint the House of Commons accordingly.


National Defence

Options Available to Crews on Flying Labrador Helicopters-Contradiction with Evidence from Chief of Defence Staff in Committee-Government Position

Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Acting Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, the other day my colleague Senator Buchanan asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate about the situation with reference to our Labrador and Sea King helicopters. The Leader of the Government in the Senate stated that the pilots of these helicopters could freely decide whether or not they wanted to fly these helicopters. Senator Buchanan was curious to find out whether or not a pilot who decided not to fly those helicopters would find that his or her career had been jeopardized and that he or she would be transferred, or whatever.

The Leader of the Government in the Senate responded:

I assure you, Senator Buchanan, that they will not be punished in any way if they decide not to fly.

On Thursday last week, General Baril appeared before the Senate Finance Committee, and I asked him this question:

Are you able to assure this committee and the military personnel, particularly those involved, that the career progress of any pilot or crew member who refuses to fly a Labrador or Sea King on a mission because they make a judgment that they do not have confidence in that equipment, that their respective career progress in the military will in no way be negatively jeopardized?

The general responded as follows:

...somebody who decides not to fly a certain class of helicopter, it will have an impact on him because he must be retrained on another helicopter.

He went on to say:

If it is a search and rescue specialist who does not want to fly in them at that time, then there is a big chunk of his profession which cannot be exercised...

Honourable senators, it seems to me that we have a contradiction between what the Leader of the Government in the Senate tells us is government policy and what the Chief of the Defence Staff has told us.

My question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate is: Can he not see the contradiction between what he told this chamber and what General Baril told the Finance Committee, namely, that "pilots will be retrained on another helicopter."? If that is the policy, what other helicopters are they speaking about? As far as flight crews are concerned, what will they be reassigned to?

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I do not think there is any contradiction. Senator Buchanan was asking whether or not the career of a member of the Armed Forces who did not want to fly in one of the Labradors, which at that particular time had been cleared to fly, would be jeopardized or whether that individual would be punished in any way. I said "No."


I do not see any contradiction with what the Chief of Defence Staff is saying with respect to a member of the Armed Forces who agrees to be retrained to fly another helicopter. That is not punishing someone; it is retraining them. It might very well mean an advance in their individual careers.

Senator Forrestall: Tell them that in the mess at Greenwood tonight, and see what they have to say.

Search and Rescue Service-Possible Replacement of Labradors with Sea King Helicopters-Government Position

Hon. J. Michael Forrestall: Honourable senators, I have a question for the Leader of the Government in the Senate as well. It deals with the very same helicopters that we are discussing.

It goes somewhat against the grain to talk about 35-year-old Labradors and 35-year-old Sea Kings in the same breath, but inasmuch as we are having difficulty with respect to search and rescue, and I think the Leader of the Government in the Senate would at least concede that, would he consider taking back to the government of which he is a part the suggestion that the government immediately ground the entire fleet of Labradors and replace them with the 35-year-old Sea Kings?

I suggest this to you because the Sea King indeed has been flying search and rescue missions for many years, and it does more than a yeoman's task. This replacement would serve two or three purposes: First, it would give the government time to find out what caused the accident on the Labrador; second, it would reassure fishermen and others who are at peril in their environment that should they get in trouble, there is a plane that could probably come and get them.

Would you give some consideration to that proposal?

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I welcome Senator Forrestall back to the Senate chamber. With particular reference to the statement that he made earlier related to the ceremonies that were held in the chamber this morning, I note that it was indeed Senator Forrestall who first brought to our attention the condition of the paintings in this chamber. I know he will drop a few other shoes, but I say honestly and sincerely that it was Senator Forrestall who first brought to our attention the condition of the paintings and the necessity of having them restored. The restoration work, which was undertaken during the summer recess, was wonderfully done.

I would also congratulate our Speaker, who organized the ceremonies which took place this morning. I could not be here because I had to be in cabinet, but I congratulate and thank him as well.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Senator Graham: I missed Senator Forrestall when he was absent on Senate business. I note that he has already written to the Minister of National Defence suggesting that the Labrador helicopters be grounded. However, I think we should be reminded that the decision to restore the Labrador fleet to full operational availability for search and rescue operations was made, quite appropriately, by the Chief of Air Staff. Those operations are being restricted to proficiency training, and all non-essential flying is being kept to the absolute minimum.

I understand, and I made inquiries as late as this morning, that officials have narrowed possibilities with respect to the cause of the crash, but they are still some way from determining the cause. The flight investigation team is continuing its investigation.

I would also assure all honourable senators that the safety of our aircraft and our crews, as well as the safety of all other Canadians, is our utmost concern, and we will not be flying unsafe aircraft.

Senator Forrestall: Honourable senators, the fact and manner of ordering those aircraft back into the air is surely indicative of the way in which we address the difficulty faced by the families of the men and women who must fly in these aircraft.

I thank the Leader of the Government in the Senate for his kind words in the other respect.

I had asked the minister if he would consider grounding those aircraft until such time as we had discovered, and were satisfied, that the cause of the crash was not systemic and was not likely to happen in any of the other aircraft, to the degree to which it is an engine problem, if it was an engine problem. I am the first to admit that there is nothing wrong with the engines in the Labradors; it is the parts which are attached to them that have been going helter-skelter for the last several years. The machines are just not safe. They are simply too old.

Since we know that the number 2 engine was shut down on the Labrador that crashed on October 2, denoting an engine problem that probably led to a chain reaction of events that caused the crash; and since we know that Labrador 305 was engined with an old, unreliable and problem-plagued T-58 engine; and since we also know that there are four other T-58 Labradors still operational in the fleet, pending the upgrades, that very likely suffer from the same problem, will the government not ground at least those Labradors as a responsible precaution and as sound risk-management, pending their full upgrade to T-58 100s?

Senator Graham: Honourable senators, I understand that the Labrador engine upgrade program is being accelerated, and that the detailed maintenance inspection of every Labrador has now been completed.

As I have already said, and as I say again, the air crew will not be forced to fly the Labradors. We are sensitive to their concerns. If personnel are not comfortable with flying the Labrador, they will not be forced to do so.

Senator Forrestall said earlier, "Go to the Greenwood mess tonight and repeat what you have said." I would do that. Indeed, I was at the Greenwood mess after the ecumenical service which was held following the unfortunate crash of the Labrador in the Quebec wilderness.

Presently at Greenwood, there is one Labrador helicopter in service, and it has undergone a detailed maintenance inspection. As you probably read in the newspapers, a test flight is expected to take place this week. That decision was made by the wing commander at CFB Greenwood and the commanding officer of 413 Squadron. They have introduced measures to assist their Labrador crews to regain the qualifications necessary to conduct search and rescue operations.

I emphasize that the decision to fly was made by them and by them alone, I am sure with the permission and authority of their superiors.

Examination of Reliable Alternative Aircraft for Search and Rescue Service-Government Position

Hon. J. Michael Forrestall: Honourable senators, I am concerned because there are options. We know that there are options. We know that there are Chinook aircraft available to us. Indeed, we sold a bunch of them a few years ago after we spent a bundle of money upgrading them. We know that the British are way ahead on their production run on the EH-101.

We know that in the private sector here in Canada alone, we could charter or lease any number of pieces of equipment, put our own professional SAR teams on board, and let them fill in while we get on with discovering the problem with the Labradors and determining whether they are fit to do any more service.


My point is that there are so many options, why gamble? Why not take one of these other available options? If the minister would like half a dozen or so names in this regard, I will be happy to call them for him. It is no trouble. They are more than pleased to speak with us. They understand our problem. They just do not understand why we have not asked for help.

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): The honourable senator is absolutely correct: there are other options. He mentioned the private sector. I should like to assure him that, as late as this morning, I discussed this matter with the Minister of National Defence.

We are now down to 12 Labrador helicopters. The Department of National Defence will indeed investigate the advisability of using civilian helicopters with civilian air crews to supplement and meet our needs in the field of search and rescue.

Senator Forrestall: Dare I ask when?

Senator Graham: The examination is under way at the present time.

Hon. Eric Arthur Berntson: Honourable senators, during the committee meeting last Thursday, this same question was asked. The general at that time said that the investigation had been completed, and that this alternative was not an option. We simply do not have the quality of crew in the civilian ranks to carry out search and rescue operations. We do not have time to train our military crews on a new piece of equipment. Is it not true that this decision has already been taken?

Senator Carney: Who is right?

Senator Graham: Honourable senators, that is a good question, and I will have to examine it further. On the one hand, I have been informed that this option is currently being examined as suggested by Senator Forrestall. Senator Berntson is now indicating that the Chief of Defence Staff says that this option has been examined and is not open at the present time. I need my information updated, and I shall do so immediately.

Solicitor General

Commission of Inquiry into Treatment of Protestors at APEC Conference by RCMP-Necessity for Establishment of Independent Inquiry-Government Position

Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Acting Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, we did not begin today's Question Period with another saga on the "forces of darkness," not because we have lost interest in that file but because it has become so confused and foggy that it is hard to know what is really going on.

Mr. Justice Howard Wetston of the Federal Court has just ruled that allegations of bias on behalf of the Public Complaints Commission chairman, Gerald Morin, and Solicitor General Andy Scott had to be dealt with by the commission itself. It is hard to know what this means. Will the commission panel investigate itself over allegations of prejudicial bias? Will the commission investigate the Solicitor General? When, if ever, will this commission be able to proceed with the complaints that are before it from the students?

In my opinion, the Federal Court ruling reinforces the need for this government to initiate an independent inquiry under the Inquiries Act, presided over by an independent judge, operating at arm's length, who understands the well-established principles of natural justice and equality before the law.

With the complete confusion now surrounding the RCMP Public Complaints Commission, would the Leader of the Government in the Senate now support the view that an independent inquiry into the alleged human rights violations is desperately needed now to clear the fog?

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, the answer is no. The Public Complaints Commission is handling this matter. It would be wrong for me to comment on the procedures that members of the commission, individually and collectively, may have developed. The Public Complaints Commission is independent of the government, and the current proceedings were initiated by the complainants, not by the government.

Senator Kinsella: Honourable senators, all we have to go on are the various reports that keep pouring into this town from the APEC inquiry sitting in Vancouver.

The commission's counsel, Chris Considine, is reported in The Globe and Mail of today as having stated that "he expects to recommend that Mr. Morin step aside while co-panelists Vina Starr and John Wright examine the bias allegations against him."

My question on the procedural line is: What happens if those two panelists disagree? This procedure is a mess.

Senator Graham: The best person to answer as to what is quoted as having been said is commission counsel himself, Mr. Considine. I understand that commission counsel has issued written directions on how the question of bias is to be handled. His reasons for proceeding in this manner are set out in the written directions, and I understand that these directions are readily available to the public.

The panel itself has decided to hear and determine the allegations of bias. That was a decision taken by the panel. The panel's decision in the future could be subject to further review by the Federal Court Trial Division and, ultimately, by the Court of Appeal.

Just so that we are perfectly clear, there are, as I understand it three allegations of bias. The first is that Mr. Morin made statements which would be prejudicial to the RCMP. The second is that the panel is what some would describe as inherently biased because of its reporting relationship to the Commissioner and to the Solicitor General. The third allegation arises out of the Solicitor General's alleged remarks on an airplane. One of the parties has also filed a Federal Court application alleging bias, but this application has essentially been subsumed by the second allegation to which I just referred.

Again, the decision taken by the panel is that it will sit, in the absence of Mr. Morin, to hear any allegations of bias which may be made against him.

Senator Kinsella: I am sure all honourable senators find this whole procedure quite confusing. We thank the Leader of the Government in the Senate for his efforts to try to bring some clarity to a very confusing situation. Is this not precisely why the matter should be given to a judicial inquiry under the Inquiries Act? The government should not have anything to fear from that, given its experience of being able to shut down public inquiries.

Some Hon. Senators: Oh, oh!

Senator Graham: Honourable senators, my answer to that question is that we should allow the Public Complaints Commission to do its work, as it has determined it should.

Commission of Inquiry into Treatment of Protestors at APEC Conference by RCMP-Revisit of Issue of Funding for Defence of Students-Government Position

Hon. Pat Carney: Honourable senators, in view of the road-map the Leader of the Government in the Senate has attempted to lay out before us - for which we are grateful, but even more confused - would he ask his cabinet colleagues to revisit the issue of funding for the students whose rights were violated at the start of this process, and who cannot be required to fund their own legal costs with any reasonable expectation, given this escalating horror story of the events surrounding that APEC conference?

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, in the absence of the Honourable Senator Carney last week, I read into the record the letter of Minister Scott in response to requests for funding for the complainants. His answer was clearly in the negative.


However, I would be very happy to bring once again Senator Carney's observations and representations to the attention of my colleagues.

The Environment

Ban on Export of Fresh Water-Possible Forthcoming Legislation-Government Position

Hon. Mira Spivak: Honourable senators, the federal government is not proceeding with undue haste in its plan to ban bulk fresh water exports. It is said that the delay may be putting Canada's water resources at risk. Immediate action was promised by Minister Stewart, Minister Axworthy and his U.S. counterpart, Madeleine Albright, who promised to consult with the International Joint Commission. The International Joint Commission has yet to hear from them.

Trade experts warn that once one company exports water, international trade rules will oblige Canada to allow foreign corporations to follow suit. In Newfoundland, unlike Ontario, the provincial government is not acting to stop the Gisborne Lake project in its plan to export bulk water, and there are corporations in British Columbia that wish to export fresh water as well.

The United States House of Representatives unanimously passed a resolution to ban the bulk sale of Great Lakes water, and that is going to the Senate.

Is the policy of the Government of Canada still to bring in legislation to ban bulk fresh water exports and, if so, when is this export law being introduced?

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I shall consult with my colleagues and bring forward an answer as soon as possible. However, it is my understanding that that is the plan.

Delayed Answers to Oral Questions

Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I have responses to questions raised in the Senate on October 22, 1998, by the Honourable Senator Mira Spivak and by the Honourable Senator Lowell Murray regarding the failure of OECD multilateral agreement on investment, review of costs to sovereignty of chapter 11 of NAFTA, and the need for transparency in dispute settlement panels.

I have a response to a question raised in the Senate on October 20, 1998, by the Honourable Senator Norman Atkins regarding the guidelines for security arrangements applicable to visiting foreign dignitaries.

International Trade

Failure of OECD Multilateral Agreement on Investment-Review of Cost to Sovereignty of Chapter 11 of North American Free Trade Agreement-Need for Transparency in Dispute Settlement Panels-Government Position

(Response to questions raised by Hon. Mira Spivak and Hon. Lowell Murray on October 22, 1998)

Canada has a long and proud history as a champion of the rules-based international trade and investment system. We benefit from a good and fair set of rules for international investment and this includes recourse to fair, transparent and cost-effective dispute settlement. The provisions of NAFTA Chapter 11 are not new and are common to many of the bilateral investment agreements which exist worldwide. They are especially important now when more and more Canadian businesses are investing abroad.

In 1997, for the first time, Canadian foreign direct investment abroad overtook foreign investment in Canada. Canadian companies are increasingly using outward investment to strengthen their operations, penetrate new markets and acquire new technologies, resources and skills. It is important, therefore, that Canadian investors operating abroad have predictable rules. This reduces the risk of arbitrary and discriminatory treatment and increases the ability of Canadian companies to compete on an equal footing with competitors.

The government is very much aware of the concerns expressed by Canadians over NAFTA Chapter 11. This is why Canada has taken the lead in seeking to achieve greater transparency in NAFTA investor-state dispute proceedings and to reaffirm the expropriation and compensation provisions of Chapter 11.

At Canada's initiative, it was agreed, in the course of the NAFTA "operational review" that a thorough discussion of NAFTA Chapter 11, including the investor-state provisions, be made a priority for the NAFTA work programme.

The NAFTA is consistent with Canada's sovereign right to regulate. We are not looking to reopen and renegotiate the NAFTA. Canada is working with our NAFTA partners to reaffirm that the rights of investors do not inhibit the sovereign responsibility of governments to legislate and regulate in the public interest.

The Government of Canada is committed to an open and constructive dialogue with Canadians on all international trade and investment issues. The Minister of International Trade has stated his support for openness and transparency in trade policy matters. The views of Canadians are taken fully into account in the conduct of our trade and investment relations.

Solicitor General

Guidelines for Security Arrangements Applicable to Visiting Foreign Dignitaries-Government Position

(Response to question raised by Hon. Norman K. Atkins on October 20, 1998)

In 1995, the RCMP determined that it needed to provide armed protection to the Prime Minister during foreign visits.

As a consequence, foreign security officers have also been permitted to carry weapons while they are in Canada.

The RCMP decides on a case-by-case basis the number of foreign security officers who can be armed and the types of weapons they may carry. The final decision rests solely with the RCMP.

Foreign Security Officers can only carry weapons in Canada if they are directly guarding their leader and are under the immediate supervision of an RCMP officer.


Judges Act

Bill to Amend-Third Reading-Motion in Amendment-Vote Deferred

Hon. Wifred P. Moore moved third reading of Bill C-37, to amend the Judges Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, as amended.

Hon. Anne C. Cools: Honourable senators, I rise to speak to third reading of Bill C-37.

The term "judicial independence" is a political term, not a legal one. It is a political concept, a constitutional convention, one of the many that support parliamentary responsible government and allow it to work. In Canada, the development of responsible government accompanied that of judicial independence, and both accompanied the development of political parties, particularly the Liberal Party of Canada. Responsible government is the system where the Queen's ministers of the Crown are chosen from the elected House and who, in their public actions, in raising taxes and spending tax dollars, are responsible to Parliament under sufferance of Parliament's confidence. Ministers are politically responsible to Parliament on pain of defeat by want of confidence vote. Conversely, the House enjoys the constitutional right to hold the ministers responsible for exercising this power in a manner consistent with the well-understood wishes, will and interests of the citizens who elected them to the House as keepers of ministerial confidence.

In Canada, the representative elected Commons, supported by the appointed Senate, are joint guardians of the national popular interest. Responsibility and ministerial responsibility are not legal concepts, they are political concepts, and they are enforced by politics and politicians in the opinion of the body politic. Constitutions are the social contract between those who govern and those who are governed; the consent of the governed. A constitution is a political relationship between politicians and the electorate, and enacted in the forum of popular sovereignty called Parliament. Thus the Constitution, being the political relationship between Her Majesty's cabinet, Parliament and the judiciary, is guided by political and moral behaviours called Constitutional conventions, one of which is judicial independence; another, ministerial responsibility; and yet another, constitutional comity.

Honourable senators, Bill C-37 is the result of a Supreme Court of Canada 1997 decision of the Matter of a Reference Regarding the Remuneration of Judges of the Provincial Court of Prince Edward Island, and is before us despite the fact that this Supreme Court judgment involved no federal or section 96 judges. In this judgment regarding the case of inferior court judges, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that judicial compensation commissions are necessary to the constitutional requirements of judicial independence. Recently there has been a plethora of cases and much commentary about judicial independence. The persistent debate in the court, judgments, judges' statements out of court and their continuous pressing of this debate, promotes serious questions, even doubts, about the very premise of that debate; questions which could undermine judicial independence itself.

That different judges, for example, Supreme Court of Canada Chief Justice Antonio Lamer, and then Supreme Court of Canada Justice Gerard La Forest, could take entirely opposite views about the meaning and interpretation of the term "judicial independence" raises serious questions. It raises serious doubts about the authority and the adequacy of their own and previous judicial formulations of the term "judicial independence." This debate in judgment raises serious questions about the meaning of judicial independence and its fitting determination.

Honourable senators, such doubts inevitably arise when judges trench on political ground, because the question of judicial independence is a political one, not a legal one. The questions can only be answered by adherence to the political morality and the politics of the nation from which it was born. The answers are undoubtedly political because judicial independence flows from the concept of the sovereignty of the people, as expressed politically by their parliamentary representatives. Judges adjudicate and interpret statutes in accordance with well-defined, trusted and identifiable legal principles. Their judgments should be legal, not political.

Honourable senators, on this relationship between the courts and the public general will, our own former Liberal prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau gave us his retrospective thoughts about the 1980 Supreme Court of Canada's majority decision in the Patriation Reference to the Supreme Court of Canada. In his 1991 speech at the opening of the Bora Laskin Law Library, printed in his book Against The Current, he spoke about this court's journey into politics and the political minefield of constitutional conventions and its consequence for Canada. Mr. Trudeau spoke to the court's politicization, telling us that constitutional conventions are political phenomena created, modified, terminated and sanctioned by political players. He said:

First, they had to find that the aspect of the reference dealing with conventions was indeed a matter on which the courts could legally pass judgment. Courts had often in the past refused to answer questions deemed unsuitable for judicial determination. In this case, because conventions are enforceable through the political process, the courts should not even have engaged in declaring their existence. In choosing to answer the question there is little doubt that the Supreme Court of Canada allowed itself - in Professor Peter W. Hogg's words - `to be manipulated into a purely political role,' going beyond the lawmaking functions that modern jurisprudence agrees the court must necessarily exercise.

Mr. Trudeau continued on constitutional conventions as politics, saying:

In Canada, too, the courts had previously made it clear that conventions could never be legally binding, and that they cannot have any effect on legal powers either. As C.J. Duff put it in the Disallowance Reference: `We are not concerned with constitutional usage...or constitutional practice....We are concerned with questions of law.' And for one fleeting moment, it looked as if the majority judges were going to escape undue politicization of the court...

Mr. Trudeau, in a damming opinion, expressed his retrospective thoughts about that fateful Supreme Court of Canada decision, that:

...they blatantly manipulated the evidence before them so as to arrive at the desired result. They then wrote a judgment which tried to lend a fig-leaf of legality to their preconceived conclusion.

Honourable senators, authority Professor Albert Dicey, in his book, Introduction to the Study of the Law and the Constitution, 10th Edition, defining constitutional conventions, wrote:

...the rules which make up constitutional law, as the term is used in England, include two sets of principles or maxims of a totally distinct character.

The one set of rules are in the strictest sense `laws,' since they are rules which...are enforced by the courts...


The other set of rules consist of conventions, understandings, habits, or practices which, though they may regulate the conduct of the several members of the sovereign power, of the ministry, or of other officials, are not in reality laws at all since they are not enforced by the courts. This portion of constitutional law may, for the sake of distinction, be termed the "conventions of the Constitution," or constitutional morality.

Honourable senators, for judges to interpret or construe words or to fill gaps in public will, that is, to make public policy so that the judicial function becomes a parliamentary function, is inconsistent with our political and parliamentary system. Judicial legislation-making is not contemplated by our parliamentary history, by our political and constitutional morality, by our Constitution, nor by our concept of judicial independence. Simply put, there is no legal, constitutional or political basis for the concept or theory that Parliament is subject to the judges, or that the judges may overrule Parliament or acts of Parliament. Judges must uphold the scheme of parliamentary sovereignty to express the political will of the elected by means of their representatives in Parliament. This political concept gives the judges their legal existence, and establishes the legitimate foundation to judicial review.

Mr. Justice La Forest had stated this strongly in his dissenting opinion. Judges or judicial decisions cannot undermine or weaken the essential, fundamental principles and political morality that found the notion of sovereignty of the people. The foundation for judicial review rests in this democratic representative principle, delivered by Parliament by the use of political parties, and by political rules of behaviour called conventions. Professor Dicey also said in the same book:

The conventions of the Constitution now consist of customs which...are...maintained for the sake of ensuring the supremacy of the House of Commons, and...of the nation. Our modern code of constitutional morality secures...the `sovereignty of the people.'

Constitutional conventions, particularly judicial independence, are united in their intention and character by the possession of a singular purpose: that of securing Parliament and the government as ultimately subject to the wishes of the electorate. Conventions were a means of harmonizing legal and political sovereignty.

Honourable senators, finally on this point of responsible government and the Liberal Party of Canada, I asserted that Liberal principles were closely intertwined with achieving responsible government, and upholding the convention of judicial independence. A major element in achieving this was the development of the political party, and party politics. Its political existence is largely unnoticed legally, yet our constitutional conventions depend on the party caucus for delivery and enforcement, as does the entire system of responsible government. This is a mystical process that has worked to deliver the liberties, as I quoted William Gladstone in this chamber on October 28.

To Senator Joyal, of whom I requested that this matter be given more time for discussion in the Senate Liberal caucus, I say the following: It is a maxim that a government functions as well as its party caucus functions. This is important, since political parties in Canada are under strain. The evidence suggests that no single party in Canada may be able to reconcile opinion, principles and interests across this nation.

Honourable senators, in Canada there is no formal or legal constitutional separation of powers between the judiciary, the executive and Parliament. The system is not one of separation of powers but one of fusion, one of harmonization. The fusion is by ministerial responsibility. The constitutional powers are fused through responsible ministers and the separation of powers is achieved by our constitutional convention of judicial independence.

In pre-Confederation Canada, the 1840 Act of Union uniting Upper and Lower Canada established the Consolidated Revenue Fund, and charged the judges' salaries against the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Its Article L states:

...the Union...shall form one Consolidated Revenue Fund...subject to the Charges hereinafter Mentioned....

Article LIII states:

...the Salaries of the Governor and of the judges shall be those respectively set against their several Offices in the said Schedule A...

This was the achievement of the Whigs and reformers, and was even an advance over the situation of judges' salaries in the United Kingdom. The salaries of judges were ever problematic, and from the Act of Settlement 1701, were financed by court fees, sales of office, annual grants of Parliament and the civil list. In 1787, years after the Act of Settlement, then British Prime Minister William Pitt, on the influence of Adam Smith, set up the Consolidated Fund. Then, only part of the judges' salaries were charged against it. No total judge's salary was charged against it until 1830, and the process was not completed till 1875.

The notion of Consolidated Revenue charges for judges' salaries fuelled the reform `responsible government' movements, and the embryonic Liberal Party in the Canadas, and accompanied the Canadian reformers' drive to release the hold over public affairs that the judges held as speakers of the legislatures and as members of the Legislative and Executive Councils. The reformers strove to separate the judges from active politics and from political life, and from the legislative, law-making, statute-making, public policy-making functions. This political separation of function and powers is and was achieved by the political convention of judicial independence. This was a worthy purpose, and should be our purpose now.

Honourable senators, the public knows that certain judges have been altering the constitutional balance between the judges and Parliament, and have tilted it toward the judges and judicial supremacy. These judges have undermined their own legitimacy and public confidence. This is a serious and grave political matter. Political judicial activism and our concept of judicial independence are hostile to each other.

Honourable senators will recall Bill C-42 in 1996 and our Senate amendments to it. This chamber voted unanimously that judges' international activities were prohibited, and limited only to Madam Justice Louise Arbour. The House of Commons concurred. About this Senate amendment and obedience to same, Supreme Court Chief Justice Lamer, days later, in a CPAC interview on December 9, 1996, said:

...I was a little disappointed...when the Senate amended this Arbour amendment, because in was made general for the purpose of enabling go into countries...And that amendment would have made it more easy to meet the expenses because judges, as you know, were supposed to receive money only under the Judges Act, and it's a little dicey there, and that when the amendment was made...I was a little disappointed but I found another way and I'll be going to have lunch today with Madame Huguette Labelle, the head of CIDA then I think we're going to go through CIDA. Well, where there's a will, there's a way...I'm speaking to Madame Labelle. As I said, I'm having lunch with her today, then I will be speaking to the Commissioner of Judicial Affairs Friday. I'll have lunch with him Friday and I think we'll get the ball rolling very soon.

I repeat, he said, "Where there's a will, there's a way."

Again, in the August 29, 1997 article, "Canada's new global role: `Juges sans frontieres'", when Lawyers Weekly asked Chief Justice Lamer about the senators' objections to Canadian judges' off-the-bench foreign activities, Chief Justice Lamer responded:

I don't think that criticism was valid, and I don't think that most members of the Senate agreed with that criticism...

I strongly condemn this public political activity by Chief Justice Lamer of the Supreme Court of Canada.

Honourable senators, because certain judges, by judicial activism and other techniques, have privateered in Parliament's sea lanes, that piracy has corroded public confidence and undermined judicial independence. We must correct that. Judges deserve the support and respect of the public. We must uphold judicial independence and we must protect our judges.

Motion in Amendment

Hon. Anne C. Cools: Therefore, honourable senators, I move, seconded by the Honourable Senator Robertson:

That the Bill be not now read the third time, but that it be amended in clause 6, on page 4, by adding the following after line 14:

(8) Nothing in this Act abrogates or derogates from any of the privileges, immunities and powers referred to in section 4 of the Parliament of Canada Act, or section 18 of the Constitution Act, 1867 or from the authority of the Parliament of Canada to fix the salaries, allowances and pensions of judges under section 100 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

I would be happy to distribute copies of this proposed amendment to the leadership on both sides.


Honourable senators, the amendment is straightforward. It is clean and tidy.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, it is moved by the Honourable Senator Cools, seconded by the Honourable Senator Robertson:

That the bill be not now read the third time, but that it be amended in clause 6, on page 4, by adding the following after line 14:

(8) Nothing in this Act abrogates or derogates from any of the privileges, immunities and powers referred to in section 4 of the Parliament of Canada Act, or section 18 of the Constitution Act, 1867 or from the authority of the Parliament of Canada to fix the salaries, allowances and pensions of judges under section 100 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

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

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Some Hon. Senators: No.

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

Some Hon. Senators: Yea.

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

Some Hon. Senators: Nay.

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

And two honourable senators having risen.

The Hon. the Speaker: Will the whips advise me as to how long the bells will ring?

Hon. Mabel M. DeWare: Pursuant to rule 67(2), I ask that the vote be deferred until tomorrow at 5:30 p.m.

The Hon. the Speaker: Pursuant to rule 67(2), the whip of the opposition party asks that the vote be deferred until 5:30 p.m. tomorrow.

Parks Canada Agency Bill

Third Reading-Motion in Amendment-Vote Deferred

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Fitzpatrick, seconded by the Honourable Senator Ruck, for the third reading of Bill C-29, to establish the Parks Canada Agency and to amend other Acts as a consequence,

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

1. in the preamble, on page 2, by replacing line 29 with the following:

"(l.1) to effect the conservation of ecosystems and natural areas that extend beyond national park boundaries by working in co-operation with adjacent landowners, and being involved in research, environmental assessment and planning processes within the region, and".

2. on page 8, by adding after line 8, the following:

"12.1 (1) The Minister shall appoint a Consultative Committee consisting of 12 persons with expertise in park management and conservation biology and interested in matters for which the Agency is responsible to hold office for a term of no more than five years.

(2) The Consultative Committee shall, at least once in each quarter of the calendar year, meet with the senior management officials of the Agency for the purpose of discussing any issues of national interest related to the management of national parks, national historic sites, and other protected heritage areas and heritage protection programs.

(3) No member of the Consultative Committee may receive pecuniary gain or remuneration for service in connection with the Agency but members may be paid for any reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred by them for services rendered to the Agency.".

3. in Clause 32, on page 15:

(a) by adding the following after line 15:

"(1.1) The Agency shall, before any management plan referred to in subsection (1) is provided to the Minister under that subsection, hold a public hearing to hear all persons having an interest in and wishing to be heard in connection with the management plan.";

(b) by replacing line 18 with the following:

"protected heritage area every two years and"; and

(c) by adding the following after line 21:

"(3) A public hearing to hear all persons having an interest in and wishing to be heard in connection with any amendments made to the management plan shall be held before any amendments are tabled in either House of Parliament.

(4) The Agency has, in relation to any public hearing under this section, the powers of a Commissioner under Part I of the Inquiries Act.

(5) A public hearing under this section may be held at such place in Canada or at such places in Canada by adjournment from place to place as the Agency may designate.

(6) The Agency shall give notice of any public hearing under this section in the Canada Gazette and in one or more newspapers in general circulation throughout Canada, and in particular in those areas of Canada where, in the opinion of the Agency, there are persons likely to be interested in the matters to be considered at the hearing.".

Hon. Ron Ghitter: Honourable senators, I should like to express a few points of view with respect to the amendments that I proposed to Bill C-29.

In dealing with the matter of parks, if those of us who have had the opportunity to travel across Canada, as have members of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, have learned one thing, it is that when dealing with parks everyone has a point of view and the issues that come forward are often aggressively advocated by the various stakeholders. This can probably be seen to the greatest extent in the experiences we have had in Banff National Park, something to which I alluded in my remarks to the Senate on October 27.

The whole purpose of the amendments is to put into the legislation what the committee and the Senate has followed and supported over the last number of years. What we are endeavouring to do through the amendments is to incorporate public participation and recognition into the legislation, something which is not in the bill that is before us. We believe that to be an important aspect of the bill.

Those honourable senators who are familiar with the report of the committee entitled, "Report of the Committee's Travel to Prairies Sites, National Protected Areas Mandate," tabled by the Honourable Senator Carney, who was chairman of the committee at that time, and those who had the opportunity to travel across Canada to look at the problems dealing with parks, will well remember the testimony to which we listened wherever we went. I wish to refer to some of the wording in the unanimous report of the committee, which states, in part:

During the course of its trip to the Prairies sites the Committee heard one message more frequently than all others. In the creation of new protected areas and in the management of existing areas local people must be involved in the decision-making process. Without their on-going support, protected areas cannot be sustained. These areas do not exist in isolation, but are intimately connected to adjacent privately held lands. The way in which that surrounding land is used has a great impact on the protected area, and vice versa.

The report went on to make a number of recommendations to which I referred when I first addressed this bill on October 27. It dealt with the importance of having permanent advisory committees that could, on a continuing basis, give advice and information to decision-makers. Those individuals would be the stakeholders who are involved, namely, those with an environmental point of view, those who live in the park and those who carry on business in the park. Often, they have conflicting viewpoints. We saw that today when our committee met to deal with Bill C-38 which would establish a national park in the Western Arctic. We saw the typical, standard conflict that pits our desire to protect our parks, our environment, and our wildlife against the desire to permit our parks to become habitable places in which people can do business and create jobs.

There will always be conflict surrounding the decision-making within our parks system. The only way to deal with that conflict in a proper way is to allow the stakeholders to come together to express their points of view and to deal with the obvious conflicts which will arise. Only then can we come to a reconciliation of the opposing points of view. That is the transparency and the accountability that is important to have in many pieces of legislation, and which is most important when we are dealing with the management of our parks system.

That is the goal of these amendments. They do not come out of the blue. They come from the recommendations of the committee which were supported by both sides of the Senate chamber. The recommendations spoke of the creation of a consultative, advisory committee that could assist in the evolution of parks policy. They spoke of the creation of a requirement within the legislation that whenever a park's management plan is being prepared public hearings must be held. At those hearings, it would be required that the stakeholders be brought forward to express their points of view.

The amendments that are before the Senate this afternoon merely take the recommendations proposed by the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources and put them in a legislative way. That is appropriate. The amendments are greatly needed. They will send a message to those involved in the ongoing process of creating a parks system of which we can all be proud. They will bring the stakeholders to the table to participate in the decision-making process.

Honourable senators, these amendments simply reflect the will of the Senate, as expressed in the report of the Energy Committee. It would be an admirable step for the Senate to bring some transparency and accountability into our parks system. It would be welcomed by all parties on both sides of this issue concerning our parks system. The environmentalists would welcome it, as we saw in our committee meetings, as would the business people.

It is a win-win situation if we push these amendments forward. They should be supported by the Senate because we support transparency and accountability and they would bring to the table stakeholders to discuss these important issues that affect all Canadians.

Honourable senators, I recommend these amendments for your consideration.


The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, is it your pleasure to adopt the motion in amendment?

Some Hon. Senators: Yes.

Some Hon. Senators: No.

The Hon. the Speaker: Will those honourable senators in favour of the amendment please say "Yea"?

Some Hon. Senators: Yea.

The Hon. the Speaker: Will those honourable senators opposed to the amendment please say "Nay"?

Some Hon. Senators: Nay.

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

And two honourable senators having risen.

The Hon the Speaker: Can the whips inform me as to how long the bell will ring?

Hon. Mabel M. DeWare: Honourable senators, pursuant to rule 67(2), I ask that the vote on the amendment be deferred until tomorrow at 5:30 p.m.

The Hon. the Speaker: Since the Opposition Whip has asked for the deferral under rule 67(2), the vote is deferred until tomorrow at 5:30 p.m.


Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada-Compliance with Recommendations-Point of Order-Speaker's Ruling Reserved

Hon. John Lynch-Staunton, pursuant to notice of September 24, 1998, moved:

That the Senate reaffirm its unanimous support of the following motion passed without dissent on June 18, 1998:

"That the Senate endorses and supports recommendation 1 of the Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada which calls upon provinces and territories to respond to the needs of those who suffered due to the management of the blood supply system;

That the Senate recognizes the leadership role played by the Government of Canada in formulating a Federal-Provincial compensation package for those infected with Hepatitis-C through the blood supply system between 1986 and 1990;

That, in view of the fact that Federal and Provincial Governments have agreed to revisit the original agreement to seek a greater consensus concerning our response to this national tragedy, the Senate urges the Government of Canada and the Governments of the Provinces and Territories to take positive action to address the needs of those who suffer ill-effects from Hepatitis-C contracted through the blood system; and

That a copy of this motion be forwarded to each federal, provincial and territorial Minister of Health."

Point of Order

Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I rise on a point of order. The matter raised by Senator Lynch-Staunton in motion number 84 is to ask the Senate to reaffirm unanimous consent on a motion which was passed unanimously in this chamber on June 18, 1998.

Honourable senators, rule 63(1) of the Rules of the Senate is quite clear:

A motion shall not be made which is the same in substance as any question which, during the same session, has been resolved in the affirmative or negative, unless the order, resolution, or other decision on such question has been rescinded as hereinafter provided.

Clearly, honourable senators, there has been no rescinding of the question or the order or the resolution, and it is also equally clear that we decided this matter in the affirmative.

Beauchesne's 6th edition, citation 558 states:

(1) An old rule of Parliament reads: "That a question being once made and carried in the affirmative or negative, cannot be questioned again but must stand as the judgment of the House." Unless such a rule were in existence, the time of the House might be used in the discussion of a motion of the same nature and contradictory decisions would be sometimes arrived at in the course of the same session.

Clearly, there is great logic in the reason for this particular citation, and for our rule. We would not want to have, in the same session, a particular motion first voted in the affirmative, then voted in the negative. That would not provide clarity to the Canadian people as to how we stand on any particular issue.

The motion before us is identical to a motion passed in June of this year, save for the words "that the Senate reaffirm its unanimous support of the following motion passed without dissent on June 18, 1998." Even the use of these words is support for the position that the motion is identical.

It is certainly not the intention of this side to arrive at a decision that is different from the one that the Senate took in June, and we hope that it is not the decision of the other side to change their minds on the motion that was put before them and voted unanimously on June 18, 1998.

However, I would ask the Speaker to rule on this matter, since it appears that this motion is out of order pursuant to rule 63(1) of the Rules of the Senate, and according to Beauchesne's 6th edition, citation 558.

Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I am very familiar with those citations. They are basic to some of the proceedings here. However, the citations quoted by Senator Carstairs are in the case where the Senate or the House of Commons, or any chamber for that matter, is being asked to rescind a decision which was taken previously in the same session. We are asking here to reconfirm a decision taken, and in this case in particular, let me remind honourable senators opposite that they were party to this motion. The initiative was taken by the Conservative side, and Senator Kirby brought some amendments which were acceptable on this side after some discussion, and so it was given bipartisan approval, one of the few motions which has been given bipartisan approval.

To substantiate my suggestion that the citations do not apply in this case, Beauchesne's citation 654 says:

...There should be no contradiction between the new bill and the decision taken previously.

There is no contradiction here. However, because of events this summer, which unfortunately saw the discussions between the provinces and the federal government not meet the wish of the Senate, and as we now see the discussions with the legal advisers of the victims not going very far, all we are being asked to do is to reaffirm our stand on this very important matter.

I would like to quote citation 558 of Beauchesne. I believe Senator Carstairs also quoted it.

...a question being once made and carried in the affirmative or negative, cannot be questioned again but must stand as the judgment of the House.

We are not questioning the motion; we want to reaffirm that it continues to stand as the judgment of the house.

Beauchesne goes on to quote Bourinot:

Unless such a rule were in existence, the time of the House might be used in the discussion of a motion of the same nature and contradictory decisions would be sometimes arrived at in the course of the same session.

We are not asking to arrive at a contradictory decision. We are asking to maintain a position, to reinforce it in the same wording, to bring it to the attention of the appropriate authorities, so that some resolution of this matter can take place.

I stress the fact that this house unanimously approved the motion. There was no division on it. Senator Kirby contributed by some amendments to improving - or certainly not destroying - the intent of the motion, because it keeps the key paragraph, which is to urge the government and the provinces to abide by recommendation 1 of the Krever report. All we are being asked to do today is to reconfirm that.

If a motion had come before the chamber saying, "No, we made a mistake and we want to change our motion to read that only those between 1986 and 1990 should be compensated," then I would agree that that motion would be completely out of order. However, in this case, it is in order. There is no contradiction with what was done in June. It has been brought back because the events have not proceeded to a resolution as rapidly as we unanimously wished it to proceed in June. By supporting and reaffirming this motion, we are telling the authorities that our concern still is maintained and reinforced. Therefore, Your Honour, I do not see any validity in the objections raised by Senator Carstairs.


Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Acting Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate relies on rule 63(1) in her point of order. I would refer honourable senators to the Rules of the Senate of Canada page 73. The exact words that are contained in that rule are as follows:

63(1) A motion shall not be made which is the same in substance...

Honourable senators, this whole question turns on those words, namely, "the same in substance." I am sure that when His Honour is examining this point of order - that is, after consultation and reflection - he will want to focus on rule 63(1) and those precise words. The first few words of that rule speak to its applicability upon which the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate is relying, namely the phrase "the same in substance."

What is the motion that was brought forward by Senator Lynch-Staunton? The substance of his motion is the word "reaffirm." The substance of his motion is to ask this house to make a reaffirmation. That is the action that would be activated by the adoption of this motion. That is radically different in substance from the subject-matter of a motion to which rule 63(1) might refer.

Honourable senators, there is a difference, not only in the substance but also in the effect. The effect of Senator Lynch-Staunton's motion is to reaffirm a proposition. That effect addresses circumstances of time that have passed since we adopted the original resolution. It is an act of reaffirmation. That is to say, we want to do something: As a legislative body, we wish to make reaffirmation. It is the act of reaffirmation that is the substance and the effect of this motion, should we adopt it.

Honourable senators, the reliance on that rule is very shaky, as my honourable friend suggests.

Senator Carstairs: Honourable senators, and in particular Your Honour, the very fact that Senator Kinsella puts forward his argument on the basis of the words "affirmation" or "affirm" would lead us right to rule 63(1). That rule states that if a question has been answered in the affirmative, it cannot be introduced again. That is what the opposition is trying to do, namely, affirm an affirmative question.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: That is quite right. You cannot introduce a motion or a bill that contradicts a decision on the motion or the bill during the same session. The rules are quite clear. It is to avoid the government - or the opposition, for that matter - from insisting on having its way and reintroducing, over and over, a bill that has been denied, and finally getting it through.

We are not asking here to contradict the decision taken in June. This is not a contradiction. The rule was put in to avoid inconsistencies and contradictions in decisions already taken, so that a decision taken during the session is maintained throughout the session. When a new session commences, there is a Speech from the Throne, the Order Paper is cleared, and we start all over again.

Your Honour, when you make your ruling, I hope that you will appreciate the intent of these citations from which we both quoted. We both agree with them. They apply to a case where someone is asking the chamber to change a decision or to modify a decision already taken during a session. It is not applicable to a decision already taken about which, as in this case, the Senate felt so strongly that it afforded its unanimous approval, and feels so strongly about it again that it wants to reconfirm what it said in June.

Hon. John B. Stewart: Honourable senators, I have a question for Senator Lynch-Staunton. Reference has been made to this old rule concerning the repetition of substantive motions in the same session. As I recall - and I have not checked this for some time - the real reason for this rule that we have now adopted in our rule book was, and is, the prevention of the repetition of motions and of the debates which followed those motions. Let me stretch it to the extreme - and I admit it is to the extreme. I will caricature in order to make my point.

We have a motion adopted unanimously, let us say, in the affirmative. If we then allow a motion to confirm that, and then we have another motion to confirm the confirmation, where do we end? One of the problems here is that a clever, perhaps minority opposition party, particularly in the other place, would simply use this device as a means of eating up time.

Has Senator Lynch-Staunton given consideration to what I think is the real origin of this rule? If so, what is his answer to the problem that I raise?

Senator Lynch-Staunton: I agree that it is in place to avoid repetition. Seldom is a chamber asked to reaffirm. Once a decision is taken, it is taken. However, there are exceptional circumstances. The only time I found that a senator asked that a position taken on a bill be maintained was when Senator Lamontagne asked the Senate to reaffirm its position taken on the Official Languages Act. That happened in 1976. I remember the debate that took place at that time. As I recall, the bill had already been passed. Therefore, it is not pertinent to our discussion today.

It has happened in the past that the Senate has been asked to reaffirm the position it has taken.

Senator Stewart: In the same session?

Senator Lynch-Staunton: I agree not necessarily in the same session, and I also agree that research has yet to find a case in line with the one before us. His Honour will have to rule on your theory of repetition. If there was a rule on repetition, our rules would quickly be changed to avoid it.

Hon. Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: Honourable senators, I had occasion to look at The Concise Oxford Dictionary and I draw the attention of honourable senators to the definition contained therein. There is the phrase "in the affirmative." The Concise Oxford Dictionary, Ninth Edition, states:

in the affirmative with affirmative effect; so as to accept or agree to a proposal; yes.

There seems to be a difference between the proposal and the verb.

However, on reading rule 63(1), it is clear to me that when it says "has been resolved in the affirmative," the proposal has been resolved in the affirmative. It strikes me, both on a clear reading of the definition and on the wording of the rule, that the Deputy Leader of Government in the Senate has expressed an opinion with which I would certainly agree.

When His Honour is dealing with this matter, I would ask him to take a careful look at not only the words but also the substance of the words, and the differentiation between the verb, in effect, the proposal. The proposal is there. Affirmation or reaffirmation is gilding the lily.

Senator Kinsella: Honourable senators, further to Senator Grafstein's intervention, my original point is that this motion is a motion standing on its own feet. It is calling upon this house to take a new action, an action of reconfirmation that there is meaning and substance to that act in and of itself. It is to be distinguished from a vote in the affirmative and another vote in the affirmative. They are of different species, I submit.


To Senator Stewart's point: A number of vehicles are available to deal with the possibility of a party in the assembly wishing to be dilatory. In effect, that motion would be, it seems to me, put under the rubric of a dilatory motion. The Speaker must decide these questions with an eye to the whole of the rules. The provisions for the assembly or a committee to change a proposition that has been adopted are in the rules. Often, an enhanced majority is required. The principle that underlies that mechanism on the enriched majority is to avoid the thing to which Senator Stewart alludes, namely, the business of the assembly being held up and encrippled by a series of such motions which would have as their end, as would be self-evident, the same effect of any dilatory motion.

In this instance, the substance and the effect of the motion that is brought here to this house is that we wish to take an act of reaffirmation in and of itself. The act of reaffirmation, which is the essence of the motion, per se, is a substantively different issue than the matter to which honourable colleagues have been referring. Obviously we would hardly see this as dilatory in this circumstance, so we should deal with it at face value, and I do not think that rule 63 applies at all.

Senator Grafstein: Honourable senators, the words "same in substance" make it clear to me that the resolution is the same in substance. I have already directed the Speaker to the dictionary meaning of "in the affirmative."

With all due respect to my learned friend, his argument is a distinction without a difference.

The Hon. the Speaker: If no other honourable senator wishes to speak on the point of order that was raised, I have looked carefully at the citations that were mentioned and at our own rule, of course. Based on those two sources, I would be prepared to rule.

However, there is a question of precedents. Honourable Senator Lynch-Staunton raised one, and I wish to see what other precedents there may be, because they will affect our decision here. I will therefore take the matter under advisement.

Judges Act

Bill to Amend-Third Reading-Motion in Amendment-Vote Deferred-Point of Order-Speaker's Ruling Reserved

On the Order:

Resuming the debate on the motion for third reading of Bill C-37, to amend the Judges Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, as amended;

And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Cools, seconded by the Honourable Senator Robertson, that the Bill be not now read the third time but that it be amended in clause 6, on page 4, by adding the following after line 14:

(8) Nothing in this Act abrogates or derogates from any of the privileges, immunities and powers referred to in section 4 of the Parliament of Canada Act, or section 18 of the Constitution Act, 1867 or from the authority of the Parliament of Canada to fix the salaries, allowances and pensions of judges under section 100 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I should like to refer back to the amendment that was proposed by Honourable Senator Cools, which has been deferred for a vote until tomorrow. I have already made one change in form because the motion I received said nothing about the bill not being read a third time now. I am now advised that there may be some further changes in form because the page references in the amendment may not relate properly to the proposed bill. With the amendments that were passed, the pagination has changed. The amendment will have to be changed to conform, and prior to the vote tomorrow I will have the proper wording.

Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): Your Honour, I seek clarification on that point. My understanding is that when an amendment is proposed or notice of motion is given, the Speaker has complete authority to, and usually does, read the amendment or read the motion, and, if he or she finds any flaws or contradictions or inadequate wording, can, at the time that the amendment is presented or the notice of motion given, suggest corrections, even to the point, if the corrections are not accepted, of having the motion or amendment withdrawn.

This amendment has already been accepted. I know His Honour is trying to be helpful, and I am sure Senator Cools appreciates it. However, the amendment is now out of Your Honour's hands as it has been put on our Order Paper for a vote tomorrow.

I am not challenging the correction that Your Honour wants to bring, but I am wondering whether those corrections do not come too late. It would be up to the sponsoring senator to heed Your Honour's good advice. She herself, if she intends to, can bring the corrections. If she does not, then a point of order can be raised on what was said today and a decision can be taken. I doubt whether at this stage, considering where the amendment stands, Your Honour can even discuss the amendment. It is behind us and will be until we get to that item on the Order Paper tomorrow.

The Hon. the Speaker: I hear what Honourable Senator Lynch-Staunton is saying, and I will look at the precedents in this regard. However, there is a problem with pagination which makes the amendment invalid as it is.

Committee of Selection

Motion to Convene Committee to Elect New Chairman Withdrawn

Hon. Shirley Maheu, pursuant to notice of October 29, 1998, moved:

That it be an instruction of this House to the Standing Senate Committee of Selection that no later than Tuesday, November 17, 1998, the Committee convene in order to elect a new Chairman, and that the Clerk of the Senate be empowered to call such a meeting.

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

Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Acting Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, on a point of order, this motion, notice of which was given on Thursday, is clearly out of order for the simple reason that the committee to which reference is made does not exist. There is no Standing Senate Committee of Selection. The list of standing Senate committees, can be found in the Rules of the Senate at rule 86. You will not find any committee called the Standing Senate Committee of Selection. Therefore, the motion is clearly out of order.

Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, the rule to which I think Senator Kinsella is referring is rule 85, which says:

At the commencement of each session, a Committee of Selection consisting of nine Senators shall be appointed whose duties shall be to nominate:

(a) a Senator to preside as Speaker pro tempore; and

(b) the Senators to serve on the several select committees.

It reports back to the Senate five days into the session, and their appointments are confirmed by the Senate for the duration of the session for which they are appointed.

However, custom in the Senate would also have a Selection Committee meeting, and it has met on a number of occasions, in order to nominate individuals to serve on special committees of the Senate. For example, the committee met in November of 1997, and the purpose of that meeting was to nominate senators to serve on the Special Joint Committee on Child Custody and Access. The report of the committee was then brought to the chamber and the names so put forward by the Selection Committee were affirmed by members of this chamber. There has been a history of ongoing activity of the Committee of Selection, not just in its initial instance where it would appoint a list of individuals to serve on the standing committees, but also, of course, to choose the Speaker pro tempore.

There has been within the chamber a dialogue among members of the chamber of a peculiarity that has come about as a result of the fact that there is not at the present time a chair of the Selection Committee. As there is not a chair, who calls the meeting of the Selection Committee? Our rules do not adequately address this issue.

However, we can look at precedent. Precedent is always an important thing to consider, Your Honour. For example, from 1991 to 1993, there were five meetings of the Committee of Selection. One of them, interestingly enough, took place on February 2, 1992, to replace Senator Phillips, who had been the chair of the committee, with Senator Kelly, who was elected the acting chair. This meeting was called through regular channels.


However, it is important that members of this chamber understand that when we attempted to follow those regular channels this time, there was some disagreement on the other side as to whether there was any authority to call a meeting. Certainly we have called meetings in the past.

In light of the fact that there seemed to be some disagreement on both sides as to exactly how a committee could be called, it was decided that perhaps the best way to proceed was by way of a motion. We then looked at the rules governing motions and, of course, motions can be made by any senator. In this case it was made by Senator Maheu, and motions are perfectly in order to direct committees as to the work committees might do. Therefore, I would suggest that there is no point of order in this case.

Senator Berntson: Wrong, again.

Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, Senator Carstairs did not touch on the point of order. We are not arguing at this stage the merits or demerits of the motion. We are stating that the motion is out of order simply because it refers to a committee which does not exist. It refers to the Standing Senate Committee of Selection. There is no "Standing Senate Committee of Selection."

If you look at the definitions, a standing committee has a much different role to play in the workings of the Senate than an ordinary committee. To identify it as a standing committee is to distort its purpose. This committee has two purposes. It is to recommend to the chamber members of committees and to recommend the Speaker pro tempore.

That is beside the point today. That is the reason why it is not a standing committee. A standing committee is one which has an ongoing responsibility mainly to look at certain legislation which comes within its jurisdiction and which has been identified in the rules. This is not a standing Senate committee of selection.

I would urge the sponsoring senator to simply withdraw the motion, have it reworded properly, and then we can discuss its merits accordingly. At this point, we cannot discuss the merits because we are talking about a referral to a committee which does not exist.

Senator Kinsella: Honourable senators, to underscore Senator Lynch-Staunton's point, we are not dealing here with the Committee of Selection on which I think the Deputy Leader of the Government's remarks were based.

The notice of motion and the motion would give instructions to "the Standing Senate Committee of Selection." There is no such committee and there never has been.

Rule 86(1) provides that the standing committees shall be as follows, and you will not find in that list the Committee of Selection.

I am sure the reason we do not find it there is that it stands apart for the kinds of reasons which the Honourable Senator Lynch-Staunton has identified.

Should the senator wish to withdraw her motion and introduce it properly, we would be happy to consider it.

Senator Maheu: Honourable senators, I withdraw the motion and I will present it again tomorrow.

The Hon. the Speaker: Is there consent of the Senate that the motion be withdrawn, honourable senators?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Motion withdrawn.

The Senate adjourned until Wednesday, November 4, 1998, at 1:30 p.m.



Rededication Ceremony for Restored War Paintings in Clerestory

Honourable Gildas L. Molgat, C.D., Speaker of the Senate: Veterans of the Great War, Mr. Speaker Parent, honourable ministers both present and past, my colleagues in the Senate and the House of Commons, General Baril, and distinguished guests: On behalf of all honourable senators, I am pleased to welcome you here today to this important event: the rededication of these historic paintings.

We do so in the honoured presence of 17 veterans who served in the trenches over 80 years ago. On behalf of everyone, I salute you. Your bravery and steadfast courage, and that of all your comrades who have gone before you, were the inspiration for the creation of these magnificent paintings.

These canvases were originally destined for display in a separate, specially dedicated memorial building. That plan, however, was never realized. Instead, something far better happened. They came here to the Senate.

Following the fire of 1916, the construction of this magnificent Parliament Building began. Its solemn, gothic architectural design was adapted to serve two purposes: to acknowledge our parliamentary heritage and to serve as a memorial tribute to the sacrifice of the Canadian troops during those four terrible years of war.


The Peace Tower, site of the Memorial Chamber, is a key feature of this commemorative work, but not the only one. The Senate Chamber, with these works of art, is another tribute. Even the stained-glass windows above the paintings, with their crosses and blood-red centre, evoke the memory of Canadian soldiers who lie buried in far-away cemeteries.


Each day as we begin our work in this chamber, I read a prayer asking that divine inspiration "preside over our deliberations so that...we may serve ever better the cause of peace and justice in our land and throughout the world."

It was that desire for peace and justice that helped to inspire the brave Canadians who served and died in that Great War, the war that was meant to end all wars.


The presence of these historic works of art in the Senate are a constant reminder that generations before us fought for peace and for justice.


These paintings call to mind the terrible devastation of war, as well as its bravery. They portray an episode of our history that forged Canada into a nation.

Today we gather here to rededicate the war paintings following their restoration. On behalf of all Canadians, I thank all who worked on this project, and I thank the Canadian War Museum and the Department of Public Works for making it possible. As we rededicate these restored war paintings, we solemnly recognize, however, that the message of heroic bravery and sacrifice never needed restoration.

As we approach a new millennium, let us renew the pledge never to forget the bravery of these veterans and their fellow comrades in arms, and, indeed, those of a later generation who followed in their brave footsteps. May they be remembered forever.

Honourable Fred Mifflin, P.C., C.D., Minister of Veterans Affairs: Speaker of the Senate, my colleague Speaker of the House of Commons Parent, distinguished veterans, Mr. Danson, General Baril and members of the Canadian Forces, and distinguished visitors, when I stand here and look around me, I cannot help but think that this is a very special occasion for very special people at a very special time.

It is most appropriate, as we begin our pilgrimage to France and Belgium, that we stop here in Canada's house of democracy, for these wonderful Parliament Buildings of ours are the repository of our history, and of our heritage. Indeed, they are the very manifestation of our freedom.


As the mortar and concrete of these buildings are the physical symbol of our history, our veterans are surely its living embodiment. Theirs is the knowledge and the experience gained from a lifetime of building a nation; knowledge and experience forged in the fires of war.


We are here today to rededicate a group of paintings depicting scenes from the First World War. I must say what beautiful paintings they are. These paintings have grown old, just as people do; just as memories do. We felt it was crucial that we not let these memories fade with age. One tangible step in preserving the memories was to preserve the paintings. They have the power to evoke the understanding in a way that complements the words which, in themselves, cannot suffice.

We have with us today veterans from the Great War, veterans who are all approaching or have surpassed a century of life. They participated in one of the most spectacular, brutal, bloody, and devastating events in living memory, perhaps in history. It is only fitting that they are here to witness this rededication.

With us also is another generation, members of our youth delegation. We welcome them to this reawakening ceremony, for inevitably it will be the youth of our country who must learn the lessons of history and keep the memories alive.

As we look to the pilgrimage ahead, let us rededicate ourselves to the continued preservation of the memory of honour we hold for the veterans and for the fallen of that war, and in so doing, restore the vitality of our vigilance against tyranny and oppression wherever it may be. It will help us remember.

Honourable Barney Danson, P.C., O.C., Chair, Canadian War Museum: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, distinguished honourable senators, distinguished guests, and particularly comrades from wars long ago and some not so long ago, this is a special occasion. I am here representing the Canadian War Museum, which is the custodian of this art. I was to speak on the history of these paintings, but I see that it is beautifully covered in the notes for today, and I commend them to your reading.

I thought I would rather speak about the paintings and why they are here. Minister Mifflin covered it because he said that they are here to remind us, and bring back memories of battles fought long ago.

These paintings are but a part of the collection in the Canadian War Museum, a collection of over 12,400 war art paintings done by distinguished Canadian artists, artists who are common names today, such as Alex Colville, Bruno and Molly Bobak, and Lawren Harris. They cover the range from the Group of Seven to very contemporary painters who have distinguished themselves in their art. We store those in a place appropriately called Vimy House, which is just about as beat up as Vimy was, and I hope we can put them in some place much safer, soon.

Often when I go back to the battlefields of Europe - and I am more inclined to be in Normandy, where I was with you, Mr. Speaker, and with Mr. Mifflin and Colonel Marsh and others, when we saw le cimetière Beny-sur-Mer - I wonder, when we are gone, who will remember us? Who will visit these cemeteries?

I had that question partially answered for me this spring on a visit to Ypres, where the names are engraved on the graves, where In Flanders Fields is known to everyone and the children learn about it in schools, almost as a much as the Dutch children learn about our compassion and our soldiers. There, we were surrounded by military cemeteries, magnificently kept by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, and actual trenches at Hill 62 and Sanctuary Wood, which some of you from World War I might remember, but which I did not know. These are hallowed symbols and remembrances to the people who live there, and we do not have that.

Not only that, but in Ypres - which is depicted in a painting on the wall along here, The Cloth Hall, Ypres - the destruction has been completely restored. They look after their history. They know their history and they preserve it. In that Cloth Hall, they have a new war museum, probably the most moving, touching war museum I have ever visited. It is focused largely on World War I, and moves everyone who goes there. I urge you strongly to visit that museum if you can. The magnificent thing about Ypres is the Menin Gate. It is a huge triumphal arch on the main road as you come into the city, and in that arch is engraved the names of some 35,000 Allied soldiers who died in the Battle of the Somme, and are buried in unmarked graves. Every night at eight o'clock, 365 days a year, since 1928, there is a ceremony, a laying of a wreath, and the playing of The Last Post. The buglers of the local fire brigade come out and play The Last Post and someone lays a wreath. I had the honour of laying that wreath when I was there. I am sure Minister Mifflin has done that more than once.

They are not forgetting. We must not forget here. We do not have those same symbols around us. This war art helps us in our remembrance.

You might be interested to know that there is a display of war paintings which will be opened officially tomorrow by Minister Mifflin and others in the Hall of Honour in the centre of this building. There is also a magnificent display of medals from Veterans Affairs Canada, which I think you will find really exciting. If you cannot be here tomorrow, I suggest that after this ceremony and the reception that follows, you visit that display.

What is more important about the paintings, as Mr. Mifflin has said, is that they remind us of the sacrifices made, the young men - young in your war and our war - who never lived to be veterans, who earned these same medals that we wear so proudly but who never lived to wear them. They helped make this country great and preserved our freedom in this blessed country we have, and we must never, ever forget them.