Download as PDF

Debates of the Senate (Hansard)

2nd Session, 36th Parliament,
Volume 138, Issue 78

Wednesday, October 4, 2000
The Honourable Gildas L. Molgat, Speaker

Table of Contents


Wednesday, October 4, 2000

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


The Late Right Honourable Pierre Elliott Trudeau, P.C., C.C., C. H., Q.C.


Hon. J. Bernard Boudreau (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, for five days our entire country has been in mourning. Tributes to the late prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau have poured forth from Canadians from all walks of life, all economic circumstances, every region, ethnic background and even political persuasion. I cannot begin to match the depth and impact of all of those tributes. Indeed, most of the speakers following me today will have known him better than I and will speak of him with far more eloquence.

As Leader of the Government in the Senate, I wish to acknowledge Pierre Elliott Trudeau for his incomparable contribution to the life of our country. His accomplishments have already been recited, but one wondered over these last five days what accounted for this unprecedented national expression of affection and respect.

My 21-year-old son called me late last evening. He had obviously been watching the funeral. We were not very long into the conversation when I could sense that he had been really moved by the experiences of the day, so I asked him, "You have never met Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Before you became interested in public life, he was gone from the scene. Why now are you so moved at his passing?" His response to me was, "Dad, more than anyone, he made us proud to be Canadian." I think that says it all.

For that great gift, Prime Minister Trudeau, our nation will be forever grateful. Thank you.

Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, while Pierre Trudeau was viewed as much a private person as a public personality, he tried, not always with success and, I sense, when sometimes politically convenient, with not much effort, to separate the two. Certainly, those of us who knew him before he entered federal politics quickly realized that behind this very private, shy, reserved individual lay an inseparable public determination to get things done. After all, what was Asbestos all about; and his attacks on clericalism in Quebec and on the Duplessis government; and the very virulent attack in 1963 against the Pearson government's reversal on nuclear policy; and his constant condemnation of nationalism, whatever its form?

At the time, his was one of those lone voices crying out in a regimented, even cowed society, the voice of one who never abandoned the search for fairness and equality and the application of the rule of law.


For him, this fairness and equality could only be ensured through the entrenchment of a charter of rights and freedoms. Only a man with his intellect and his desire to seek justice as he defined justice would ever have attempted to impose a charter of rights in a political system where Parliament is meant to be supreme. His ability to negotiate the supremacy of the Charter in a parliamentary democracy more than anything illustrates to me the agility of his mind to meld two competing concepts. As we look at his efforts in this area, almost two decades later, we can say that his efforts have been well rewarded as the Charter has, for the most part, been a success.

His entry into federal politics and his dominance of it for so many years, even after he left the prime ministership, seemed somewhat inevitable when one recalls the determined, highly principled yet realistic activist of his day who had yet to make his mark nationally.

One will argue endlessly about the Trudeau governments' policies, many now abandoned, and about his own stand on issues which he so much took to heart, such as his extraordinary participation in the Meech Lake Accord debate in this very place in 1988.

One may well ask: How is it that one person no longer in office can have such an extraordinary impact on public opinion? My answer is that he personified in life, as he does in death, the enthusiasm and idealism arising from the centennial celebration of 1967, when, in one glorious year, Canadians set aside their petty differences and quarrels to celebrate their uniqueness and all that they have in common — a reality too often subjected to challenges, never so brilliantly resisted as they were by Trudeau.

Trudeau was one of a tiny handful of Canadian leaders with whom Canadians identified so emotionally and in whom they put their trust so strongly. The outpouring of grief that we have witnessed in the last few days is largely an expression of this heartfelt sentiment which transcends all partisanship, as all see in him what André Laurendeau saw when he summed up Trudeau as follows: "It is his taste for freedom. He demands its risks and its advantages."

For this alone, we owe him an eternal debt of gratitude. May he rest in the peace he so richly deserves.

Hon. Dan Hays (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I rise with those wishing to pay tribute to Pierre Elliott Trudeau. I wish to say how grateful I am — and I know I share that sentiment with those Canadians who spoke so eloquently by their actions and words since Thursday last when he died — for the public service that he rendered to Canada during his lifetime and for the public service that will continue as his memory lives within us.

I am also thankful to him for the privilege of serving in this place. As one of those who was named a senator by him, I have been extremely proud to conduct myself in a way that I hope and believe is consistent with his values.

I extend my deep sympathy to his family, and I thank them for the way in which they have celebrated his life with us since his death on Thursday.

Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, no words can ever match the eloquence of the tribute expressed over the past few days by Canadians and others at the passing of former prime minister Trudeau. We on this side of the Senate chamber pay our respects to a distinguished parliamentarian and a brilliant and passionate Canadian. He not only wished Canada well but also worked to make Canada well. Over these past few days, a caring society reciprocated with its national love.

Each member of this honourable house has his or her special remembrance of Pierre Trudeau. For me, I salute his human rights legacy and would like to mention three separate files on which I had the privilege to discourse with him personally.

The first was over the War Measures Act, upon which we disagreed. The second was the Lovelace case, which I was successful in taking to the United Nations against Canada and concerning which he told me that academically he supported but as prime minister it posed some difficulties for him. The third file was the patriation of the Constitution with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a time at which we in New Brunswick were in agreement with the prime minister. I had the opportunity to be present and to be sitting to the left of then premier Lévesque in the room upstairs in the Conference Centre down the street when Prime Minister Trudeau manifested his brilliance and was able to present a proposition to the premier of Quebec which, as we know, led to the breakup of the "gang of eight."

It is now, honourable senators, that we all trust that Pierre Trudeau, who dreamed of a just society for Canada, sleeps the sleep of the just in the bosom of Abraham.


Hon. Gérald-A. Beaudoin: Honourable senators, those who spoke before me mentioned a number of aspects of the illustrious life of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, and those who will follow me will do the same.

In the few minutes that I have, I want to deal specifically with one aspect of Mr. Trudeau's life, namely the enshrinement of a charter of rights and freedoms in our Constitution in 1982.


A constitutional charter of rights was the dream of his life. This is the field of law he was teaching at the University of Montreal, and his destiny was to become, in 1982, the father of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Trudeau was of the Jefferson school of thought. While ambassador in Paris in 1787, Thomas Jefferson wrote to James Madison in Philadelphia to congratulate him for the Constitution of the United States. Jefferson stated that the Constitution was a very good one, but there was one weakness: a bill of rights was missing. James Madison and his colleagues adopted a bill of rights rapidly.


The 1982 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was considered by Chief Justice Brian Dickson of the Supreme Court of Canada to be the single most important event since the birth of federalism in 1867. In addition to traditional rights, the Charter also includes language rights.

The Supreme Court has already issued 400 rulings based on the 1982 Charter of Rights. This is an incredible amount of work, and I congratulate the Supreme Court. That constitutional charter will be discussed for a long time, just as the 1867 Constitution is still discussed nowadays.

A charter of rights enshrined into the constitution of a country regulates the life of every citizen, every day of the year. It is at the core of constitutional law, just like federalism and parliamentarism. It protects citizens, even against the state.

Let us not forget that a basic constitutional document, such as a constitution and a constitutional charter of rights, transcends political parties and leaves a lasting legacy. It clearly transcends political parties.

In 1982, I was active in academic circles. I joined a number of colleagues, including Walter Tarnopolsky, who was later appointed a justice of the Ontario Court of Appeal, and several others in authoring a major collective book on the 1982 Charter. A copy of that document was given to Prime Minister Trudeau in his parliamentary office. He was very impressed and said to me: "A book on the Charter, the very year that it was adopted."

Since then, several books have been written and many more will follow.

In my opinion, Mr. Trudeau was more than a great prime minister and more than a statesman. He was also a great thinker and a true philosopher, as witnessed by his Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which has already begun to significantly change Canadian society.

The great legacy of Pierre Trudeau will not die. Historians will write that Pierre Elliott Trudeau was the father of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I offer my deepest sympathy to his family.



Hon. B. Alasdair Graham: Honourable senators, I want to begin by telling a little story which illustrates, I believe, in simple terms, the kindness and thoughtfulness of Pierre Trudeau.

In 1978, the day following my re-election as president of the Liberal Party of Canada, my family and I were having lunch in the old Canadian Grill at the Château Laurier Hotel. Hearing that we were all together downstairs, the Prime Minister slipped out the side door of his suite upstairs, unknown to his security team, came down the stairs on the indoor fire escape and into the grill to thank my family one by one.

In the course of those conversations, the youngest of our ten children, then eight years old and in second or third grade, expressed concern about her absence from school back in Sydney, Nova Scotia. The Prime Minister immediately asked the nearest waiter for a piece of paper and quickly scrawled the excuse, a copy of which I have here today: "Dear Teacher, Thanks for letting Anne-Marie come to the convention. P.E. Trudeau, February 1978."

Honourable senators, over the last few days and nights, Canadians have engaged in a monumental, passionate and unparalleled national celebration of the life and times of the Right Honourable Pierre Elliott Trudeau. We have applauded his courage, his self-discipline and his strength under fire. We have admired the enigmatic magician and the dashing prince who brought Canada to the world stage. We have reflected on the just society and multiculturalism and a nation which, when challenged by the audacious Mr. Trudeau, discovered the wonderful reality of its soul.

We have all heard stories about the kind and compassionate human being who was Pierre Trudeau. We have heard about the formidable, philosophical gunslinger whose incisive intellect could cut and thrust like no other. We have begun to understand the profound depth of his spirituality and his devotion to his family. We have thought back to his irreverence and his style and the romance of a restless dreamer. Pierre Trudeau inspired and sometimes vexed us, and he taunted us and teased us to follow the magic, to follow the vision. If and when we faltered, he encouraged us with words like "hope" and "faith" and "dreams that will never die." He made us proud to be Canadian.

He piloted this country through the excitement of self-discovery. With Mr. Trudeau at the helm, we portaged the tough terrain towards a society based on the rights and freedoms of the individual.


We redrew the map of the country. Francophone, anglophone and allophone communities now live in harmony.


We ran the rapids of the promise of Canada, opening new waterways and experiencing the kind of adventure and exhilaration many of us had never known.

When we explored the world, we Canadians spoke with a moral voice of authority. Our federation became a symbol to the world of the common bonds of our humanity; a pluralist, polyethnic land of diversity, united in the values that made us one, values such as peace and cooperation, values such as tolerance and compassion, a nation with a human face, a nation which was and is a shining light in the international struggle for a better world.

Wherever I have travelled in my own commitments to democratic development, ordinary people from Nicaragua to the Philippines, from Namibia to Bulgaria, have always asked about Mr. Trudeau. As I spoke with President Carter on the steps of Notre-Dame Basilica after the funeral mass yesterday, he reiterated his praise of Pierre Trudeau as a wise and perceptive ally in the exercise of his responsibilities on the world stage, a point that President Carter had made on other occasions.

In one of my election-observing missions, I recall working with the renowned Hodding Carter who once wrote: "There are only two lasting bequests we can hope to give our children. One of those is roots, the other wings."

For all of us who watched his wonderful children take up the challenges of the past week, overcoming the enormity of their personal ordeal with grace and with the deepest humanity, there was no question that those two lasting bequests — roots and wings — had been given to Justin and Sacha. In many ways, those two bequests have been passed on to all of us, to our children and to our children's children.

Pierre Trudeau gave us the normative foundations of the level playing field in this country. He gave us the passion and the idealism of a cerebral springtime which changed us forever as a nation. May all Canadians fly higher and stronger with the winds of his timeless wisdom beneath our wings.

Rest peacefully, dear friend.

Hon. Joyce Fairbairn: Honourable senators, what a roller-coaster ride all of us across the country have had in the last five days, with non-stop waves of emotion, of affection, of pride, and of memories.

Each one of us has our own memories. In every corner of Canada, in our own way, we have grappled with the reality of human mortality as we dealt with the loss of a very special member of the family. Pierre Elliott Trudeau — who was a very heady mix of French and Scot — truly propelled us all at the time of our one-hundredth birthday, a pivotal time for Canada, towards the unknown mysteries of a new century that are really just opening up to us now.

He was a lawyer, a teacher, a man of deep and private faith. He was an adventurer, both at home and abroad, and later a statesman throughout the world. He was an athlete and, at the same time, a lover of music and the arts and books and, of course, literacy, which we certainly had in common. He was an activist who was as tough as nails — stubborn, outspoken and unbending in his fundamental principles. He was a gentleman —  kind, gentle, courteous and very loyal. He was a scamp, full of laughter and a lot of fun. All in all, he was a different kind of guy than we were used to having as the leader of our Canada.


As each of us reflects today on the place in our lives that Pierre Elliott Trudeau held, I must admit at once that I have a deep personal bias and a profound love for the man. We shared a friendship over 35 years, 14 of them working together in this building, which became a home after all those years during his terms as Prime Minister and as Leader of the Opposition in 1979. I wrote about him, as did my friend Senator Carney, during the 1960s. We used to share, in those simpler days, breakfasts at the main table in the fifth floor cafeteria. He would eat boiled eggs and brown toast, and I was so gripped with trying to get to know him that I cannot remember what I ate.

When he left Ottawa 16 years ago, he certainly did not leave the public mind. I must say that our friendship has simply strengthened and carried on ever since, bound by memories of events, both historic and personal — events that will never be forgotten.

As others have said, honourable senators, millions of words about Pierre Trudeau have poured out over the years, and certainly so in the last few days, dissecting who he really was or, perhaps more to the point, who others thought he really was. In truth, that may seem a bit deep, but it is not really very complicated. When he was asked some years ago how he would wish to be remembered, his instant response, without a second of thought, was, "As a good father to my children." Then he added, "As one who loved this country and its people." The emphasis was always on people. That is pretty much to the point, and it is just the way our remembrance of him turned out.

His love for his children was deep and proud and joyous, and they returned that love absolutely in kind. We have seen that every minute of the last few days most particularly at the basilica in Montreal yesterday. The boys, Justin and Sacha and dear Michel, and his wonderful young daughter, Sarah, meant everything to their dad. They were at the heart and the core of his life. Yesterday, Justin, the eldest, rocked the soul of our nation with his tribute to his father, Sacha with his scripture, and Sarah with her dignity and attention to every word that was said. The remembrance by his other "family," the people of his country, would have touched him to the core.

Honourable senators, words or film cannot describe adequately what happened in Canada over the past few days. In every community, on the lawns and in the Hall of Honour on Parliament Hill and, perhaps most movingly, in the City Hall of his hometown, Montreal, and again in the streets of that great city around Notre-Dame Basilica, he was given such a magnificent send-off to glory.

His devotion and pride in this land and Canadians in every corner of it filled his thoughts and his hopes and his dreams to the very end. Every part of Canada meant something special to him and fostered, early on in his life, that fierce determination to do everything within his reach and power to secure the unity and the independence of his country and to ensure that each individual citizen had the confidence of protection of their personal rights and freedoms within a strong and vibrant democracy.

Thoughts of patriation, of our Constitution and of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms — which drew, I might say, a huge round of applause among the crowd outside the basilica whenever it was mentioned yesterday — did not just begin when he became a member of Parliament back in 1965. As Justin said yesterday, those thoughts did not come out of any textbook. They were deeply embedded in his beliefs and clearly central to the decision that these beliefs could be driven forward and moved if he entered politics and public life.

Not everyone in this chamber agreed with his views or his methods or his politics, nor by any means did everyone in this country. However, I would venture to say that few would dispute the strength of his commitment to furthering those goals because in the end they were goals for everyone in Canada as well.

Honourable senators, some have suggested, even in recent days, that the conventional impression of Pierre Elliott Trudeau was of a man with no shades of grey. It was all black and white, agree or disagree, like or dislike, patrician and aloof — in short, he could not really be considered as a man of the people. I find that astounding — a mythology perhaps built up through the political battleground or perhaps in the pillars of academic thought, or, indeed, maybe a quick or superficial commentary. In truth, there was an extraordinary level of direct and personal connection from the very beginning of his somewhat reluctant entry into public life, and it played itself out in the minds and hearts of people of all political persuasions across this land, who granted him the respect of a person who steadfastly worked for the greater cause of Canada at home and in the world.

Having travelled extensively in that world, Mr. Trudeau looked at Canada with an especially sharp and loving eye. He passionately believed it to be, not just the very best, but the most special combination of persons and cultures of any other place. His respect and friendship for our First Nations was profound —  those people who were here before any of our ancestors ever came near to these shores and who protected and cared for this land until the time came to share it. He never forgot them, and they were there in Montreal yesterday in great numbers, as were aboriginal friends in this chamber, to pay their respects.

Honourable senators, Pierre Trudeau gloried in the beauty and the enormous potential that this country offered to those who had had the courage to settle and stay and build a future for their families under incredibly harsh conditions.


He wanted every Canadian to share those feelings, to understand their country, to care for it, to protect it, and to become involved in its life. He wanted everyone to have a fair chance to do that in Canada, and he always believed that those who, for whatever reason, did not have that fair chance should be offered a helping hand, be it from the state or from each and every one of us.

Pierre Trudeau enthusiastically encouraged and welcomed people from every part of the world to come here and join this family. Many of the most poignant messages that were left here in those books of remembrance, or out at the Centennial Flame, or at the front door of his house on Pine Avenue in Montreal, were written by those who had listened to what he said, had taken his advice, had come to Canada and had made it their home, and they were saying, "Thank you very much."

In his never-ending determination to maintain a strong and united Canada, Pierre Trudeau vigorously followed the initiative of his predecessor, Prime Minister Pearson, and urged us to share not only our founding cultures but our founding languages. That has happened and is happening in a second generation of young people all across this country, young people who have found that speaking both French and English is an enormous asset in their personal citizenship. In conversation with him, even most recently, I often felt that my stories of the great successes of that bilingual program — now almost viewed as conventional in many parts of this country — touched him perhaps more than anything else. It touched him to know that children are now learning our languages in kindergarten in Canada and that my own community, Lethbridge, in the southwest corner of Alberta — which was never a hotbed of support for these programs in the beginning — now has its first totally French school, L'école La Vérendrye. That absolutely delighted him.

Policies come and go, sometimes with approval and sometimes with heavy opposition. Some policies remain, however, and change the face of a nation. Many of his have done that, without a revolution but with great opportunity for our young people and our future leaders. Canadians are remembering that with respect and great appreciation, which in itself becomes a part of his legacy.

I do not believe, honourable senators, that Pierre Trudeau fully realized how deep and personal that public feeling goes. He does now. There was no doubt in my mind that he was wandering through the crowds across this country, here on Parliament Hill, and in Montreal. He was wandering through those lines of folks, listening in on those conversations they were having, looking over their shoulders as they were writing messages, and he was sniffing the roses. Michel was there with him sniffing roses as well. Pierre would have smiled at the children who were not quite sure why they were there but who sensed the occasion with a little bow and a gentle touch of the flag.

Honourable senators, he would have thanked the security teams, who permitted a free and steady flow of all those thousands of citizens as they had come forward. He would have thanked the Armed Forces for their participation in his vigil. He would have thanked everyone on the Hill for going through the crowds and reaching out to those who could not move easily, who were in wheelchairs, and bringing them up to the front of the line. He would have liked that a lot.

He would have been so proud of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police detail that treated him with such care and loyalty, as they had every day of his life for so many years; and would he ever have loved that train ride. It would have brought back memories of past campaigns, with all the waving flags and the friendly faces along the tracks.

It is really so hard to let him go because, as Justin so powerfully and pointedly reminded us yesterday, this time he will not be coming back. The son issued the same challenge that we had heard so often from the father: This is not the end; it is now up to all of us to carry this country forward.

That, honourable senators, means all of us who have had the privilege of being sent to this Senate by various prime ministers — myself, of course, with great thanks, by Pierre Elliott Trudeau. — we have a most special platform in this country from which to fight for Canadians, for our future, and for the future of those kids who were in those lines. It is that kind of commitment that will carry forward the fundamental goals of nationhood for the benefit of all our citizens. That was his dream.

To Mr. Trudeau's sister, Suzette Rouleau, and to Margaret, I offer my deepest sympathies. To Justin and Sacha and Sarah, they will always be part of our family. We share their sadness and their loss today, and we offer our love and support for tomorrow.

As for my old friend Pierre, his spirit will be with me always, as it will be forever in the history of this country. We will never forget.

Hon. Sheila Finestone: Honourable senators, as I arrived at my sister-in-law's home in Montreal last Thursday night she was waiting at the door. We were getting ready to celebrate Rosh Hashanah. "Have you heard?" she asked, with a trembling voice, "Pierre passed away." I received the news with a pang in my heart, tears in my eyes, and frankly, it was as if a personal loss had occurred. In our minds and in our hearts, the people we love and admire will live forever.

Today, I stand to deliver a eulogy for our beloved friend and great statesman. The thoughts are many and so are the memories, but every word that comes to mind seems too small to describe such a grand man. Everywhere in the media he has been eloquently remembered, and here on the floor of the Senate there have been very moving tributes. He was the statesman who made us young, made us proud, made us dream.

"A nation grieves," says The Gazette, "A reflective politician, a thinker willing to act," says the Tribune, "United in grief, the nation plunges into mourning," reads The Globe and Mail. As well, CBC Newsworld, in its retrospective and fulsome coverage, provided a much appreciated history lesson for many Canadians.

Perhaps the most poignant comment of all was the respectful and reflective quiet on the grounds of Parliament Hill on Sunday night when I visited. Thousands of people had gathered to pay their last respects to the Right Honourable Pierre Trudeau. For millions of Canadians, Pierre Elliott Trudeau will be remembered as the founding father of our modern nation, the man who patriated the Constitution, with its Charter of Rights and Freedoms, accelerated social changes by promoting bilingualism and multiculturalism, and leaped over conventional wisdom, for he was an innovator and a visionary.

He clearly understood the needs and aspirations of the Canadian people, captured the politics of the global scene, and shared with all of us his vision of Canada's future. He was the man who believed in working hard, playing hard, loving his family and saluting the flag. He made all of us proud of being Canadian.

Like many honourable senators, I had an opportunity to meet with Mr. Trudeau many times, at cocktail parties, luncheons, dinners and book launchings. On those occasions we had pleasant exchanges but nothing of substance. However, I do have other memories. I do have the memory of the 1980 referendum. As a member of the executive committee for the No in Quebec, I joined senators and members of Parliament on the platform in the Paul Sauvé Arena as we awaited the arrival of Mr. Trudeau. I can tell you that the tension that filled that arena was palpable. When Mr. Trudeau arrived, it was as though electric sparks went through the arena. There was a sense that someone had come to give hope and guidance and that his will would prevail. It was an absolutely amazing moment.


When I was approached to run as the candidate for Mount Royal, which had been held for the previous 16 years by Mr. Trudeau, I felt deeply honoured, yet very humbled, by this awesome prospect. Although I found the challenge daunting, I accepted. As the campaign proceeded, arrangements were made for Mr. Trudeau to canvass with me in some shopping centres. As the day of our first joint campaign undertaking approached, I became increasingly nervous. What could I say to this very important man, this great intellect? How could I thank him appropriately for joining me on the campaign trail?

Mr. Trudeau's limousine arrived at my house and his chauffeur opened the car door for me. As I took my seat, I managed a few words and a tentative smile, trying to look capable of the incredible task ahead of me. Mr. Trudeau took one look at me with his piercing blue eyes and said, "Why on earth do you want to run?" His question left me speechless, a rare occasion for me. It took me several seconds to recover but I did say what I wanted to say. I said, "I want to run because of you, Mr. Trudeau. You brought the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a charter on multicultural rights and on women's rights, into sharp focus as human rights." I and my family believed in that philosophy and had worked toward those goals for many years. I had been working for partnership, fairness, equality, and respect for all.

Mr. Trudeau brought us this exciting mechanism for democracy, this Charter. Canada would be strengthened through it and Canada would become a better and a more fair place. We just heard from Senator Kinsella about the 400 decisions that have been made as a result of the Charter. The Lovelace case began the move toward fairness and equality for women that was so important.

I told Mr. Trudeau that he had given such strong constitutional guarantees for equality that all men and women, all cultures, all people, all races, and all religions, in their diversity would be respected as equals. His was a vision of justice for all. I told him that that was why I wanted to run. I wanted to help his vision and the Charter become a reality.

When I was the critic for communications and cultural policy for our party during the free trade debates, following Mr. Trudeau's legacy, I voiced my personal concern and that of our party for the promotion and protection of Canadian cultural products and industries. We must never forget that, among his many qualities, Mr. Trudeau was the fervent and passionate architect of our renewed Canadian identity. Through critical investments in the arts for museums, book publishing, filmmaking and television, he embarked on a cultural nation-building process with the belief and determination necessary to make it the reality it is today.

Two wonderful examples of this are the two museums on either side of the Ottawa River here. Under Mr. Trudeau's leadership, Canada experienced the birth and development of new cultural industries and products which, by repudiating the 19th century rhetoric and stereotypes, reinterpreted the notion of being Canadian to being part of a vigorous, young, dynamic, pluralistic society.

Trudeau's vision was deep and broad. He communicated his vision to the Canadian people in a very distinctive personal voice — engaging, persuasive, sometimes witty, always challenging, and always skilfully coordinating all the parts of his thoughts toward a well-conceived conclusion. Today, as his heirs, we have learned that the sum total of his deeds is greater than his parts.

Pierre Trudeau's son Justin gave an amazing eulogy to his father yesterday. In response to his eloquent and moving tribute I say, "We understand that your dad will not be coming back any more. It is up to all of us now." I hope that I am right in telling Justin, Sacha and Sarah that they will not find us wanting.

On Sunday, as I joined the hundreds of pilgrims on Parliament Hill, I thought how mystifying it was that the Right Honourable Pierre Trudeau passed away during the Yamin Noraim, the ten days of awe and repentance that start with Rosh Hashanah and end with Yom Kippur. For the Jewish people, this is a time for serious introspection, repentance and prayer, as we believe that on Rosh Hashanah the destiny of all mankind is recorded by God in the Book of Life. The book is then sealed on Yom Kippur. As I stood by Pierre's casket, wrapped as it was in our beloved Canadian flag, I said to him, "Thank you, Pierre, for all you have done for us. May God inscribe you in the Book of Life, for you are the eternal light in the heart of Canada."

Hon. Raymond J. Perrault: Honourable senators, who could have predicted the outpouring of affection and grief that we have witnessed during recent days? There was magic in the long line of people who came to pay their respects in the Hall of Honour. Together with many of you, my wife and I stood in line for five hours to pay our respects. It was a worthwhile wait because we had an opportunity to talk to many Canadians during that time.

Immediately in front of us was a young man who had come here from Toronto where he is studying at university to be an engineer. There were others who came here from the Prairie provinces and other distant points at considerable cost and effort. There was a woman waiting very near to us who was wearing a bandanna. She was obviously in the advanced stages of cancer. She had to sit down every ten minutes due to exhaustion, but she stayed in line until her turn came to pay her respects to a former prime minister. It was a phenomenal experience.

I was impressed as well by the thousands of people there representing the ethnic minorities in Canada. Obviously, Pierre Elliott Trudeau was very much loved by all Canadians, regardless of racial descent and regardless of how long they had been in this country. Pierre Elliott Trudeau made everyone feel welcome in Canada. He regarded all Canadians as equals.

Pierre Trudeau believed in democracy. I recall that when I was Leader of the Government in this place, some opposition senators confided in us that they were having difficulty being an effective opposition as they did not have enough members. A meeting was scheduled with Prime Minister Trudeau and he was told of the situation and the need to strengthen the opposition, that in order to do its important work the opposition had to be strengthened. He told me to leave it with him, and very soon thereafter additional Conservatives were appointed to the Senate, for Pierre Elliott Trudeau believed in the parliamentary system and believed in the necessity of having an effective opposition.

I well remember sessions around the cabinet table. Mr. Trudeau did not suffer fools gladly. He was an effective democratic leader of government. His attitude toward various issues invited many and varying opinions from members of cabinet. He listened closely to what ministers had to say. More than once, the majority view of cabinet was not his view, but he was democratic and fair and got people working together, and he welcomed new ideas.


Some truly magnificent speeches have been made this afternoon and in the days that have passed. These speeches have been some of the most eloquent oratory that I have heard in this place and elsewhere. This oratory has sprung from a real desire of Canadians to share with fellow Canadians their love and appreciation of this country and of the inspirational man who headed Canada for so long. I believe that a great deal of good may come as a result of this sad event — a new appreciation of Canada, its people and its standards.

Many other honourable senators wish to pay their respects, and I have appreciated this opportunity to say a few words.

Hon. Pat Carney: Honourable senators, listening to the speeches here and the tributes over the last few days, I am reminded that I knew Pierre Elliott Trudeau as a parliamentarian. There are not many of us in this chamber who knew him in that way. Senator Forrestall, Senator Perrault, Senator Stollery and Senator Joyal knew Pierre Elliott Trudeau as a parliamentarian. That list may include Senator Al Graham also, but he has been around for so long that I cannot remember in which House he sat.

It was as a parliamentarian that we should remember Pierre Elliott Trudeau. I sat in the House of Commons with him during the period of 1980 to 1984. I was a brand new member of Parliament from Vancouver Centre and was going to save the country. He was the re-elected prime minister who did save the country. I was a novice and he was an old hand, and I learned parliamentary manners from him. He understood clearly the role of the Westminster system of government. He understood that the government proposes and Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition opposes, and out of that tension comes better legislation.

That was true of the Constitution debates. In the original proposal to change our Constitution were measures entirely unacceptable to Western Canada. During the debates, some of those issues were changed for the betterment of the country.

I learned from Pierre Elliott Trudeau that if one asked a question in derision, one would be answered in scorn. As a Westerner, I opposed many of his policies. However, he remained gracious and rarely dismissive. I learned that if long questions were asked, he could tear the questioner to shreds. I learned that if questions were clear and concise, the question would be answered with courtesy and attention, if not with information.

Honourable senators, we could all practice these lessons in both this chamber and the other place. In that way, possibly, a greater clarity in parliamentary debate would be among his legacies.


Hon. Serge Joyal: Honourable senators, the people of Canada and the friends of Canada are in mourning. The man who, for more than three generations, was the incarnation of Canada, of the Canadian spirit, is no more. For some of us, myself in particular, losing him is somewhat akin to being orphaned.

Our national connection is rooted far back in history. Today, one of our most brilliant sources of inspiration is no longer with us. The feelings expressed by so many Canadians in recent days illustrate, and illustrate so movingly, what Henri Lacordaire wrote about public responsibility:

One cannot reign over men if one does not reign over their hearts.

Pierre Elliott Trudeau was involved in our national connection at a decisive moment in our history.

He was our leader, and a true leader he was. He is the one who showed us the path he believed the country needed to take in order to ensure the rights of minorities and the weakest members of our society, in order to guarantee that Canada, as a country and as a nation, would continue to live up to our shared ideal.

He reassured us, not with the weight of his authority as a leader, but by the forcefulness and rigour of his thought. His thought was clear:

Man's freedom remains the hardest thing for humanity to conquer.

His entire lifetime was devoted to defending the individual against political or religious dictates, against conventional wisdom, which keeps societies from progressing, against the fetters of narrow nationalism, which makes groups become risk-adverse and reactionary, against the power of the corporate consensus and against economic imperialism, which dominates the weakest.

Pierre Elliott Trudeau did not have two different ethics, one for his private life and one for the government. He was a man of one consistent, rational whole. He focussed his efforts on leading the debate to encourage us to be the best we could be, to remain consistent with ourselves, to push us to hold onto our principles without compromise and without side-stepping issues.

He was a firm man, but not a pitiless one. He was fair, particularly in victory. To him, as a Liberal, the individual is absolute. Societies do not exist for communities; they exist merely to provide each individual with the chance to share equally in the opportunities offered by the talents, the character, the aspirations of each and every one.

Collectivism serves no purpose if the individual is crushed. Pierre Elliott Trudeau fought cliques and the status quo. He sought to reform the fearful, those who saw themselves continually besieged; he worked to change institutions, in short to free people from constraint, be it money or thought.

For him, men and women were not of two sorts, the good and the others, the patriots and the traitors. There was but one sort of man, one who seeks personal freedom along the way, at times by trial and error. This is how he saw his political commitment.

Fifteen years ago, after he had stepped down, we were camping in New Mexico on a rocky peak, and he said to me one evening:

You know, there is no calling more noble than that of politician, because through it alone can one set the measure of a society's freedom.

He did not believe in weapons. He consistently defended peace over force, rapprochement over exclusion, dialogue over colonialisms. He saw humanity in grand terms; his dreams for us were in grand terms, too.

He had a very clear sense of the country. He transformed it. He took it to its limits. His view of francophones was rather flattering as well:

Had I not been French Canadian by birth, I would have been by adoption.

He identified with our secular spirit, our unbridled spontaneity, our way of enjoying life, free of inhibition and false modesty.

On the evening of the election in Quebec on November 15, 1976, he delivered the following message to the country on television:

I am confident that Quebecers will continue to reject separatism because they still believe that their destiny lies within an indivisible Canada.

Pierre Trudeau did not see any benefit to Quebecers in retreating into a sort of social or political ghetto. Why try to be unilingual when cultural borders are opening up? It was his profound belief that respect for the principle of the equality of both official languages, French and English, would allow us to share equally in Canada's potential and opportunities. If francophones made the effort to assume, with competence and integrity, the responsibilities of managing this country, nothing would threaten their development.

His vision of us was a broad one. It took in all the horizons of Canada, the West and the North, the places where, three centuries ago, the explorers, many of them francophones, were the first to venture. This man, who loved the wide open spaces and roughing it, could not see why we had to corner ourselves in and abandon a land of such abundance and potential.

He said to us:

Let us put down the signposts of our identity throughout Canada, and roll up our sleeves like our ancestors before us: Do we lack their fortitude? Do we have less faith in ourselves than those poor colonists who battled to survive the heat and the cold?

Canada was a part of him, with its challenges and its historic hesitations. He wanted to put it on a more solid and lasting footing, to ensure that it could grow in peace and justice.

Today, we must interpret the principles of the legacy he left us if we are to live up to his trust.

How did Pierre Trudeau define a just society in 1968?


I should like to quote from what he wrote in 1968 before he became the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.

The Just Society will be one in which the rights of minorities will be safe from the whims of intolerant majorities. The Just Society will be one in which those regions and groups which have not fully shared in the country's affluence will be given a better opportunity. The Just Society will be one where such urban problems as housing and pollution will be attacked through the application of new knowledge and new techniques. The Just Society will be one in which our Indian and Inuit populations will be encouraged to assume the full rights of citizenship through policies which will give them both greater responsibility for their own future and more meaningful equality of opportunity. The Just Society will be a united Canada, united because all of its citizens will be actively involved in the development of a country where equality of opportunity is ensured and individuals are permitted to fulfil themselves in the fashion they judge best.

Those were his convictions, the essence of our political legacy: First, that the rule of law is the fundamental guarantee of a free and democratic society; and second, that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is our inalienable heritage and, thus, we all share the responsibility to abolish its derogatory clause, the hole that was left from an unfinished initiative, because our rights and freedoms should be above any government initiatives. Rights are rights and should never be put at risk.


That one life, just one life, is worth all the efforts made to protect it from the law of retaliation. That we form a nation that is one, sovereign and indivisible. That our sovereignty is that of the Canadian people as a whole and that our destiny as a united country belongs to each and every one of its citizens, wherever they may live in this great country. That our true wealth is the diversity of our population and that we must work toward having that diversity appreciated by defining the best rules to guarantee mutual respect and confidence of its members in each other. That our commitment to serve peace and to bring people closer must rest on the fundamental respect of the dignity of people. That linguistic equality is a daily commitment that is never completely fulfilled, a commitment at each stage of the development of our society. That the integrity of Parliament and of our national institutions is at the core of our democratic development, and that equal opportunity is the basis of actions taken by all governments and of social cohesion.

He also wanted Canadians, all Canadians, to be able to control our country's destiny. He wanted to make Canada a country perfectly capable of determining its own future. With these commitments, with this true ability to control our destiny, Pierre Trudeau firmly believed that Canada would be: advanced from the point of view of social justice, prosperity and peace that to abandon it would be a sin against the spirit, a kind of sin against humanity.

When he left politics in the spring of 1984, he ended his public life at the Ottawa Civic Centre by saying, "Long live Canada, one and indivisible."

For him, this was the end of the first phase of a job begun over 30 years ago. Honourable senators, we have inherited this great dream. We now have to rise to the challenge that Pierre Trudeau left us. The sun does not set on Canada.


The sun never sets on Canada.

I thank honourable senators for their attention.


Hon. Jack Austin: Honourable senators, what can be said of Pierre Elliott Trudeau that has not been said by the tribute, the respect and the affection that has been paid by the people of Canada themselves across this vast and great land since the news of his death on September 28, 2000?

Personally, I am in awe of the tens of thousands who waited patiently on Parliament Hill for three or four hours just to touch his coffin and say a silent prayer. I am in awe of the tens of thousands of Canadians who, in the cities, towns and countryside, have spoken of their respect and admiration for someone they regard as a truly great leader of the Canadian family and nation.

History has claimed Pierre Trudeau, and history will, over the decades to come, evaluate his contribution to Canada. That judgment will come in the millions of decisions made every day by Canadians in the years to come about the values Canadians choose for their lives, their society and their nation. Pierre Trudeau stood for a united Canada — a Canada that was one, a Canada that was progressive, a just society. He gave his reason, his passion, his energy and his life for that cause. If Canadians make the same choices, then he will be seen by history as a truly great leader of this nation.

Once, when Pierre Trudeau and I were travelling together in Asia, he said in a quiet and reflective voice: "Do their leaders dream for their country and its people or only for themselves and their power?" Canadians have no doubt that Pierre Trudeau's dream was Canada.

I am a Canadian from British Columbia, and I am proud to represent my beautiful province in the Parliament of Canada as I was proud to represent British Columbia in Pierre Trudeau's cabinet, from 1981 to 1984. He loved our landscape and, in particular, our ski slopes. He married Margaret Sinclair, one of our beautiful daughters. His son Justin lives and works there, and his son Misha died in British Columbia in a tragedy that depressed him horribly. Pierre Trudeau had a deep connection to British Columbia.

During his political days, British Columbia both intrigued and puzzled Pierre Trudeau. He saw the potential of the land and its people but he wondered whether they knew how to dream or how to act on their dreams. In a now famous fundraising dinner for the Liberal Party in 1981, in Vancouver, he talked about the magic of being at the end of the rail, the start of the ocean and the necklace of mountains. He said that to see the top of the mountain was to see the challenge. When Quebec felt that they had a larger entitlement than they were receiving from Canada, Quebecers responded by seeking a greater presence in Ottawa. If British Columbia felt ignored, then his advice to its people was to send the best people to the Commons, to the public service. Don't grumble and do nothing. He challenged British Columbia to act. To quote Pierre Trudeau, "It is said that those who live at the foot of great mountains are the last to climb them." Some thought he was insulting them; others thought he was right to provoke them to action.

I knew Pierre Trudeau was deeply attached to British Columbia. When there was great controversy in the cabinet in 1982 over whether to support and fund Expo '86, including Canada Place, he made the decision to go ahead. He came to Vancouver to unveil the maquette of Canada Place. He came again to join the Queen, in March 1983, in a ceremony to witness the beginning of construction of Canada Place. When the InterAction Council, his group of former leaders chaired by Helmut Schmidt, decided to meet in Canada, Pierre Trudeau chose Vancouver for their 1996 meeting.

On my Senate office wall hangs at least 16 identical portraits of Pierre Trudeau, each shaded in different colours. The artist presented this portrait to Pierre Trudeau in two identical copies. One copy hangs in Mr. Trudeau's Montreal office. The other, given to me by Pierre Trudeau and which hangs in my Senate office, bears the following inscription: "To my colleague Jack Austin from a friend with many faces but one reality." I did not realize it then, but it was Pierre Trudeau writing his own epitaph.

I send my condolences to Margaret, Justin, Sacha and Sarah, and to all those who loved Pierre Trudeau.


Hon. Louis J. Robichaud: Honourable senators, my few words about Pierre Elliott Trudeau will certainly pale beside the eloquence of the senators who have preceded me and what has been written about him not only in Canada but worldwide. The newspapers, the television, the radio, all the media have been unanimous in their praise of an incomparable man, a political giant. A man known very well to many of us, less well to some, but admired by all. We admired Pierre Trudeau, a Pierre Trudeau who was a man of many parts: a man with a spirit of justice, of equity, a constantly alert mind, a man of great intelligence.


We believe that people are irreplaceable. However, I think we can say that some people are not as replaceable as others. Pierre Trudeau is in that category. It will be difficult, in years to come, to replace a man of his calibre, a man so complete.

Not long ago I read that a teacher in an elementary school had asked her six-year-old pupils to write a short letter and ask a question to God. There were several questions, one of which struck me. That question went as follows: "Dear God, why do you allow so many people to die, because you have to replace them? It would save you much work if you let them live much longer." It was signed, "Suzie."

Pierre Elliott Trudeau should have lived much longer. Then God would not have to replace him, because he would be here.


I knew Pierre Trudeau very well. He was truly aware of the needs of the less advantaged in society, whether individuals or communities. As an Acadian, I reaped the benefits of his broad vision. To relate one rather commonplace event, he had turned down a number of universities' offers of honourary degrees. The Université de Moncton, to which I have a personal connection, offered him one. Pierre Trudeau told me personally: "I have turned down honourary degrees, but I cannot turn down one from the Université de Moncton, the Acadian university."


I was present when that honourary degree was bestowed upon him by the Université de Moncton. This may be a commonplace gesture, but it was a symbolic one. He respected minorities. Without a Pierre Elliott Trudeau there would be no official languages and certain provinces would not be able to take pride in saying: "We are bilingual; we can speak English and French." Today, when we go to Calgary, Vancouver or Winnipeg, we can hear French in the streets. Before Trudeau, that would not have been easy. If French was spoken, it was in very limited circles. I would like to tell the family of Pierre Trudeau what they have heard so many times already: You have lost a great man, and Canada has lost a giant.

Hon. Lucie Pépin: Honourable senators, those of us who knew Pierre Elliott Trudeau well have been left, since his passing, with a bewildering feeling of emptiness, a void that we are all still wondering how to fill, and one that weighs heavy on us.

The death of Pierre Elliott Trudeau has brought down over us a veil through which we can still see the rich heritage he left behind: a heritage of beliefs, of ideas of what Canada should be, of examples and of actions. Pierre Elliott Trudeau is no more, but we are guided more than ever by his vision of Canada: a vision of a modern, bilingual, multicultural country devoted to protecting human rights and freedoms, a Canada of equality and justice.

Without a doubt, the Charter is the most concrete evidence of the concern for justice and equality that drove Pierre Elliott Trudeau. He was an intellectual who was a liberal in the philosophical and social sense of the word, a man motivated by social justice and equality. Let us remember that, under his leadership, the government passed legislation that laid the basis for women's equality, access to the pill and therapeutic abortion, liberalization of the Divorce Act, and decriminalization of homosexual acts between consenting adults. He brought us into the modern age. Moreover, women were appointed to positions until then reserved for men: in 1972, he appointed the first female Speaker of the Senate, Muriel McQueen Fergusson, followed by Renaude Lapointe; in 1982, he appointed the first female Supreme Court justice, Bertha Wilson. He also appointed the first female Speaker of the House of Commons, Jeanne Sauvé who, in 1984, went on to become the first female Governor General of Canada.

Honourable senators, all of this was vital to building women's citizenship, because it marks their transition to positions of representation instead of those of mere participants in the electoral process or players on the fringes of politics. In his eulogy yesterday, Justin Trudeau said that his father taught them to believe in themselves, to stand up for themselves. After that eulogy, honourable senators, I have but one wish and that is that the desire for excellence that Pierre Elliott gave to my generation will be passed on to the youth of our country so that anyone with a dream will be able to achieve it in whatever field of endeavour he or she chooses. That was one of the hopes that Pierre Elliott wished to leave to those who followed.


Hon. Michael Kirby: Honourable senators, I am thankful for the opportunity I had to serve as the senior public servant on the constitutional file that ultimately led to the patriation of the Constitution with the inclusion of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It was certainly the most interesting period of my life. For all the reasons described already by Senators Beaudoin, Joyal, Kinsella and others, that period had a very dramatic and lasting impact on Canada.

I asked Pierre Trudeau what he thought his greatest legacy was in public life. It is a question that the news media frequently asked and to which he always gave a non-answer. I am afraid he also avoided the question in private. However, I felt I had some insight into what Trudeau thought of the Charter's importance because of a speech he gave in New York City on the night of November 5, 1981. That was the date on which the nine provinces and the federal government reached an agreement to patriate the Constitution and to include the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

For many months, the Prime Minister had been scheduled to receive a Man of the Year award from the American Council of Churches in New York City. That afternoon, Mr. Trudeau flew to New York, as planned, with the text that the staff had prepared several weeks in advance; but, when he began to deliver his speech, he ad libbed the opening paragraph. He included two sentences that have always stuck in my mind as showing Mr. Trudeau's opinion on the rightful place of the patriation and the Charter in Canadian history:

In 1787 the founding fathers finished writing the United States Constitution in Philadelphia. In Canada we did it this morning.

That quote has not appeared in many places because it was not in the official text, but I believe it summarized the importance that Pierre Trudeau gave to the Constitution and to the Charter of Rights in particular, even though he would not openly admit it.

Indeed, honourable senators, it has always surprised me that the Charter has had such overwhelming support among Canadians. Even during the so-called constitutional wars of 1980 and 1981, never did less than 80 per cent of the population in any province support the Constitution. Indeed, in some provinces, the percentage of support reached the high nineties. We were never at less than 80 per cent, entirely independent of what the premier of the day was saying.

A public opinion poll was published within the last six months but, unfortunately, I could not lay my hands on it over the weekend. In that survey, Canadians were asked about their degree of support for a variety of Canadian institutions. The institution to which they gave the highest degree of support was the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is where it stands after the 400 judgments referred to by Senators Kinsella and Beaudoin.

I have always found it strange that a number of Canadians, including some senators on both sides of this chamber, have frequently criticized what they call the judicial activism of today's judiciary. It is particularly puzzling to me that people do that while simultaneously supporting the Charter.

Lest anyone have any false impressions, the first ministers, when they agreed to the Charter, absolutely understood that one direct consequence of the Charter would be a more activist judiciary and less authority for legislatures and for the Parliament of Canada. Indeed, on at least two occasions, there was lengthy debate in the private, closed-door meetings between first ministers and a few of their staff. In opposition to the principle of the Charter, two premiers argued strongly about the need for the supremacy of the legislature and the supremacy of the politician.

The end result of that debate was a comment by one first minister, whom I will not identify because it was said in a closed-door meeting. That minister summed up the debate as follows: "Given how poorly politicians have performed in protecting the rights and freedoms of individual Canadians, how could the judiciary possibly do worse?"

For those who think that judicial activism is an accident, it is not. Those who think that Pierre Trudeau did not foresee that consequence of implementing the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are wrong.


If being the architect of the Charter is Pierre Trudeau's greatest public policy achievement, as Senator Fairbairn said a minute ago, surely being an outstanding father is his greatest private achievement. Those of us, like Senator Fairbairn, Senator Austin and others in this chamber, who had the privilege of working directly for Pierre Trudeau had the opportunity on a number of occasions to witness the interaction between the father and his sons. One occasion I recall was Thanksgiving weekend, 1981. I remember it because it was three weeks before the final meeting of first ministers that led to the patriation of the Constitution. Pierre Trudeau and I were working on a number of things at Harrington Lake, just the two of us. His mind was totally and utterly focused, as only he could focus on an issue when he was intellectually engaged. In the middle of the meeting, one of his sons ran in with a minor problem. In an instant, Pierre transformed himself from being the powerful intellectual, the statesman, the government leader, into a father dealing with the problems of a 10-year-old child. The child was told that if he went outside and played, Pierre and I would come out and play ball when we were finished our work. When that two or three minutes had passed, in an instant Pierre was back once again as the focused, absolutely concentrated, intellectually powerful individual that he was.

I can think of a number of similar vignettes that were incredibly impressive simply because they showed the man's capacity to be all of the powerful government leader that the public saw him as and all of the wonderfully good father that all of us would like to be.

Honourable senators, as Canadians look back on the last four or five days, we are clearly grieving the loss of a former prime minister and many of us in this chamber are grieving the loss of a friend. But Canadians have also been extremely proud of the accomplishments of the public life of Pierre Trudeau. I suspect that, particularly after yesterday, if Pierre Trudeau himself could have watched these events, he would have said that his greatest accomplishment and the one of which he was most proud was his accomplishment as a father.

Hon. Peter A. Stollery: Honourable senators, I am proud to have been a political supporter of Pierre Trudeau, having been a member of that great Liberal caucus between 1972 and 1984. Actually, I supported Pierre in all five of his elections by working for Charles Caccia in 1968 and by being honoured by the generous electors of Spadina in Toronto to be their representative in 1972, 1974, 1979 and 1980. Of course, they did not vote for me, and I always knew that. Many MPs think the electorate votes for the candidate. They were not voting for me; they were voting for Pierre Elliott Trudeau. I just happened to be there.

What an experience that was, honourable senators. None of us who were there will ever forget the spirit in that caucus with our leader Pierre Trudeau. We marvelled at his ability to sum up at the end of the meeting whatever it was we had been discussing. It was an astounding business, and I saw it hundreds of times.

For much of the time, we were not high in the polls. I remember the figure of 27 per cent. There were some pretty low numbers over those years, but the caucus did not waver. We would go out the door after he spoke to us and pick up our spirits, knowing that we were supporting the right man for the country. It is a thing we are very proud of, and we talk about it when we meet.

At the reception yesterday after the funeral, I met a former MP from Quebec from those days, and we talked with such pride about the discussions that surrounded the Charter of Rights. We have heard people talk about the notwithstanding clause and what a terrible thing it is. I remember those discussions. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms did not all happen in one meeting of the caucus. We had quite a few meetings on that subject. Various versions of the Charter of Rights were brought to us. The argument was that the premiers would go for this but they would not go for that. Finally, Pierre said that we could get the Charter if we would agree to the notwithstanding clause; but the only way we would agree to the notwithstanding clause, he told us, was if it had to be put to the legislature every five years. He said that Canadians will not, on a long-term basis, support their provincial governments taking rights away from their citizens. That is how we got the Charter of Rights, and we feel pretty good about that.

Honourable senators, Pierre Trudeau was a friend of mine. I got to know him here in Parliament and also when he joined the Arctic canoe club to which I belong. He was a wonderful companion. Many senators here know what I am talking about when I mention the twinkle in his eye. He had that unusual way of discussing issues and of summing things up, and he did it not just in public conversation but also when we were chatting and discussing something that certainly was not an affair of the state.

Being Pierre's friend was an experience. Many times I walked with him through the streets of Montreal. It was an odd and almost an unsettling business because sometimes people would not look at him, and I knew they were making a point of not looking at him. Other times people would come up and introduce themselves. I knew that I was in the company of a great man. How often do any of us have the opportunity to walk down the street in our home town with one of the great men of our history?

Honourable senators, I do not want to take up the time of the Senate. I think so much has been said that it becomes superfluous. Pierre Trudeau was a friend of mine. I had many, many experiences with him, and not just on Parliament Hill. I am greatly saddened by his death, and it is my wish that his soul rests in peace.


Hon. Lise Bacon: Honourable senators, on Thursday last, we learned that a giant of a man was gone.

During his lifetime, he did everything to bring us Canadians together. From coast to coast, Canadians of every linguistic and ethnic background united their voices in celebrating not only the memory of the man but his political achievements as well.

The legacy of Pierre Elliott Trudeau is enormous. In the past few days, we have taken a second look through the photo archives at both our youth and the birth of modern Canada. He gave form to the hopes and aspirations of a generation through his panache and charisma, and through his work and his action he marked Canada for ever.

Ask a Canadian to define modern Canada in a few words. There is a good chance bilingualism, multiculturalism and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms will be mentioned most often. These concepts and policies are the gems Pierre Elliott Trudeau has bequeathed to us.

Some of his adversaries in Quebec have often accused Pierre Elliott Trudeau of trying to crush Quebecers. Blinded by their goal, they never grasped the real meaning of Pierre Elliott Trudeau's political action. Far from wanting to demean Quebecers, Pierre Elliott Trudeau wanted to raise them and make them equal citizens with other Canadians. Instead of hemming them in within Quebec, he wanted them to be able to take their rightful place within Canada and then in the world, and he succeeded.

Like all of you, I was moved by the spontaneous outpouring of affection and respect for Pierre Elliott Trudeau. The extent of it expresses Canadians' feeling of being left somewhat orphaned today. At the same time, what all these Canadians have said gives me hope. They are showing that the dream of Pierre Elliott Trudeau lives on despite his passing. It is the duty of each of us to continue his work.



Hon. Anne C. Cools: Honourable senators, I rise to join colleagues in paying tribute to Pierre Elliott Trudeau. To me, he shall always be Mr. Trudeau, this exciting man, this exceptional man who touched us all and touched us deeply.

Honourable senators, last Monday morning, October 2, around 8:00 a.m., I watched as Mr. Trudeau's casket was carried away from these buildings. I reflected deeply that Mr. Trudeau had come to Parliament for the last time. I reflected on the fact that he was leaving forever. For those of us who knew Mr. Trudeau well and who served him loyally, that was a hard and difficult moment. I grieved. In media interviews about him I mused on the famous stanza from Robert Louis Stevenson's poem, Requiem. Poets speak where we so often fail and speak so eloquently. There are times to turn to the muses. The stanza I refer to from Requiem reads as follows:

Here he lies where he longed to be;
Home is the sailor, home from the sea,

And the hunter home from the hill.

Honourable senators, yesterday at Mr. Trudeau's funeral at Montreal's Notre-Dame Basilica, his son Justin referred to another very famous poem, often quoted by Mr. Trudeau, called Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening, written by Robert Frost. Some of us here will remember that poem. Its last stanza reads:

The woods are lovely and dark and deep.
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep.
And miles to go before I sleep.

Justin Trudeau played with those words yesterday, but I reflected on those words and the series of events that led up to Mr. Trudeau's use of those particular words. I recalled his May 22, 1979 defeat; his November 21, 1979 announcement that he was quitting politics; the December 13, 1979 Liberal defeat of Mr. Clark's government in a vote of confidence in the House of Commons; the December 18, 1979 redraft of Mr. Trudeau to lead the Liberals in the coming election; and Mr. Trudeau's stunning February 18, 1980 election victory, which returned him to power as prime minister. Mr. Trudeau said that he had promises to keep and miles to go before he sleeps. Mr. Trudeau sleeps now.

Honourable senators, I was one of the many who served Mr. Trudeau. I was one of his candidates in what many of us remember as a very deadly general election, the 1979 election. Many of us will remember that Mr. Trudeau was, literally, almost destroyed politically. One also has to remember that I am a black person. When I presented myself as a Liberal candidate in Toronto in 1978 and 1979 it was indeed novel; indeed, novel. I do not talk about these things very often, but that 1979 general election was such an ordeal; it was very rough. The predators were out to hurt Mr. Trudeau and to take him out, as they say, in the general election, but there is one private matter I would like to share with honourable senators. There were many enemies trying to hurt Mr. Trudeau, and one of the ways that one could have hurt Mr. Trudeau in those days was to try to demonstrate that there was so much racism against me that, of course, the voters would never ever vote for me. I see Senator Isobel Finnerty here. She remembers these events very well. I want you to know that whenever my campaign team encountered a sign on which someone had scribbled "nigger," or whatever, we raised no issue publicly. My campaign workers and myself went around in the dead of the night and replaced those signs personally, because we wanted no stain or scar on Mr. Trudeau. That is the depth of feeling I had about this man.

Honourable senators, in the lead-up to the 1979 general election, Senator Finnerty will remember very well that in October 1978 there had been a spate of by-elections across Ontario. There were seven, I believe. We lost every single one, and of the seven, there were five that we had previously held as Liberals. We lost all of those. Mr. Trudeau was discouraged and quite despondent.

Honourable senators, I remember at the time that Senator Royce Frith had been talking to me and had told me how despondent Mr. Trudeau was. I remember, honourable senators, that that was on October 16. Two days later, on October 18, an article written by John Hay appeared in the Ottawa Citizen. The headline of that article written by John Hay read: "Cools still waiting in Liberal wings." Remember, this was 1978 and the anti-Trudeau sentiment was rising. In that article, John Hay quoted me and wrote about me, saying:

There is also her deep attachment to Prime Minister Trudeau himself, a subject that animates her more than most things.

Then he quoted me:

"I have great admiration, affection and esteem for the prime minister... The man is a giant."

That is where that expression comes from: "The man is a giant."

My friends told me that this article was immediately placed before Mr. Trudeau that morning and that it was a great source of strength for him. I am sure that all of us here as party members understand what happens in a political party and a political caucus when the leader seems to be faltering.

Honourable senators, I would like to share one more example of what I consider to be a great act of loyalty on my part to Mr. Pierre Elliott Trudeau. I would like to share with honourable senators what I believe was my greatest act of loyalty to this particular man. Loyalty is very difficult to come by.

On October 1, 1992, at the Maison Egg Roll in Montreal, I attended the monthly meeting of the newly revised magazine Cité libre. I had attended that meeting to support Mr. Trudeau that night, as he was about to speak on the Charlottetown accord. The political context was the pending October 26, 1992 national referendum on the Charlottetown accord. Mr. Trudeau felt quite rejected by the Liberal Party, as the Liberal Party of Canada had rejected his conception and vision of Quebec in Canada and had chosen to support the Charlottetown accord.


In The Toronto Star of October 2, 1992, in an article by Patrick Doyle and Sandro Contenta headlined "Trudeau says No. Put emotions aside, voters urged" these journalists wrote about Mr. Trudeau, saying:

He then joined the small head table, which included his guests, Senator Anne Cools, Liberal MP Charles Caccia...

Honourable senators, Senator Jacques Hébert had extended that invitation to me, and Liberals, especially those appointed by Mr. Trudeau, were in very short supply. As a matter of fact, they were very scarce. Senator Marcel Prud'homme was there as well. At that meeting Mr. Trudeau denounced the Charlottetown accord with the words, "...they have made a mess and this mess deserves a big No."

Honourable senators, the results of that referendum are well known. It was defeated. The Charlottetown accord was defeated, and Mr. Trudeau's intervention was critical in that defeat. Mr. Trudeau told me himself that it meant a lot to him that I was there sitting next to him that night.

Honourable senators, I come to what in my mind is the greatest and the most memorable aspect of Mr. Trudeau's life. That night, at that Cité libre event, I was, as always, deeply touched by the close relationship between Mr. Trudeau and his son Justin. Yesterday at the funeral, I watched both Justin and Sacha as that close relationship with their father was made apparent to this nation. Canada joined in that closeness when Justin, in his eulogy, related his own account of his realization of the wonder of his father — the wonder of Mr. Trudeau as a man and the wonder of Mr. Trudeau as a father.

Honourable senators, Mr. Trudeau's greatest legacy is not his legal or intellectual activity, not his constitutional pursuits, not his political triumphs nor his defeats. Historical judgment is still out on the Charter, for example. His greatest legacy is not his encounters with nature and the outdoors. Undoubtedly his achievements are many. His greatest legacy is his encounter with parenting. For some time now, the imagery of Mr. Trudeau with one or all of his three boys — Justin, Sacha and Michel — has become the dominant image of this man.

Two years ago, when Mr. Trudeau lost his son Michel, the entire nation joined him and mourned with him. I can tell my honourable friends that today Canadians think of Mr. Trudeau primarily as a man who, despite his greatness as a statesman, despite all his important matters of state, had time, and a lot of time, for his three little guys.

Mr. Trudeau once told me that children came to him late in life, at an age when he could actually appreciate the blessing that they were. That is an astounding statement.

Honourable senators, in closing, I wish to say that Mr. Trudeau's greatest legacy is a personal one that resonates with all Canadian parents who struggle, sometimes in the face of adversity, to raise their children. His greatest legacy is that of being a parent. His greatest contribution to Canada has been his achievement as a parent and his contribution to fatherhood. His greatest achievement has been his excellence as a father, which is accompanied by the fact that despite a divorce he always supported the rights of the boys' mother and the boys' rights to have her as their mother. Of Mr. Trudeau, it can be said that he was the greatest father of them all. I am of the opinion that history will treat Mr. Trudeau as a father in the same vein as Saint Thomas More, who had a very unique relationship with his daughter.

Honourable senators, when Mr. Trudeau telephoned me in January 1984 to appoint me to the Senate, he told me many things. One of the things he told me in particular was that he liked my struggle never to be bound by race or gender. Then he also told me that he wanted me to promise him that on coming to the Senate I would continue to work with families in difficulty and families in conflict. As Justin said yesterday, his father kept his promise. Honourable senators, I am keeping mine.

Honourable senators, Mr. Trudeau's journey is over and his job is done. I celebrate his life. Mr. Trudeau has gone home to meet his maker and to give account of himself. I send my love and my support to his family, particularly to his sister and his children, and I also send the love of all of us. There were many who had the privilege to serve him, who served him in good times and who served him in the hard times, and that is the service that counts.

Hon. Charlie Watt: Honourable senators, I will begin in Inuktitut.

[Senator Watt spoke in his native language.]

The man who led us for a number of years has left us behind. He was a great man, a man with feelings, a man with whom I have interacted in a number of different ways. I did not know this man when I returned to my isolated community in 1965, but I came to know him very quickly when he entered federal politics and began to make sparks. I did not know what to expect at that time. I had just arrived back home after receiving an education in the south. When I arrived, I found a great mess in my community. My own survival was in jeopardy. In 1965, two levels of government were trying to get the Inuit under their jurisdiction. At that time, we had a very strong leader of the opposition, John Diefenbaker. Although I was only a young man, I had the privilege of dealing with him directly.

I believed that someone had to speak out to make the rest of Canadians understand us as a people and understand how we survive in the North. I knew that it was a big job, but I was full of energy. Some of my colleagues here today are fully aware of my efforts in those early years. Some of them were close to the Prime Minister at the time, and I had the privilege of dealing with them at that time as well.


There are two areas in which I dealt with Prime Minister Trudeau that I recall more than any others. The first was Bill 101, when I decided to take on René Lévesque with regard to the language issue. Every now and then I would read in the newspapers a quotation from Pierre Elliott Trudeau, and it gave me a great deal of encouragement to continue on behalf of not only my own people but the entire nation, because I could not accept having Quebec isolated from the rest of the country. In the same spirit as Prime Minister Trudeau, I believed that the country must remain united.

Honourable senators, I also had the privilege of dealing with Prime Minister Trudeau, directly as well as indirectly, leading up to the patriation of the Constitution. I remember one instance very clearly. I had an appointment to meet with him at 24 Sussex Drive, along with a few other politicians. I specifically remember that Senator Michael Kirby was there because the Prime Minister asked him whether what I wanted to do made sense.

During the negotiations preceding the patriation, there were first ministers meetings during which the Prime Minister repeatedly reassured me that I need not worry, that my demands would not be taken out of the resolution. However, due to his strong commitment to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, he eventually had to make some trade-offs, and he told me that. I am not sure how I responded, but it must have been effective because I had a meeting with him shortly thereafter.

My only request of him was to give us at least a week to see whether we could flush out the premiers. We wanted to take the battle into our own hands. I did not see the need for the Prime Minister to be directly involved because I believed that it was the fight of the aboriginal people.

Whether by accident or design, when our Constitution was drafted the aboriginal people were left out. In 1982 or 1983, section 35 was entrenched in the Constitution. That gave us a little more than we had previously, but a trade-off had to be made. The Prime Minister and the premiers decided that we could be brought back into the resolution by adding the word "existing," and that was done. To me, that was like a summersault. However, it was much better than what we had previously.

I have many good memories of my dealings with Prime Minister Trudeau. I will miss him a great deal because I have always known that when we encountered problems in this country he was not afraid to say publicly exactly what he thought. We have no one else like him in that regard. However, we heard his son yesterday, and I and many others from the North were very touched by what he had to say. Justin said that he was raised by his father to respect all people and to treat all people in the same way. Justin said that this is not the end, and I think we all understood what he meant.

We still have much work to do. Prime Minister Trudeau laid the foundation and now we must build upon it to make it work. We have to begin to implement what we have put together in the Constitution. That is the challenge for every one of us.

Aboriginal people in this country are not always considered to be responsible people. The fact is that among all peoples in this country there are those who are responsible and those who are not. It is that way with every society in the world. Let us not paint everyone with the same brush and engender feelings of hopelessness. There is always hope and our society will continue to move forward.

One of our colleagues here said that we feel empty. We may feel partially empty, but I do not think Pierre Elliott Trudeau would want us to feel empty. He has fulfilled our needs, and it is now up to us to move forward and live up to the goals that he set for this country.


Hon. Marcel Prud'homme: Honourable senators, I had the honour of meeting Mr. Trudeau as long ago as 1953. It was at the Canadian Institute on Public Affairs in Sainte-Adèle, where an annual meeting was held of those who were said at the time to have nothing in common except that they were all against Duplessis. There I was at age 18, meeting all the people who were later to become the movers and the shakers in the economic, political and social life of Canada.

Mr. Trudeau went on to become the leader of a movement that was called "le Rassemblement." This movement is not well known, but a few journalists have referred to it in recent days. I have my membership card to this day. It dates back before the 1960s and bears the signature of Mr. Trudeau.

You know, there are only three of us in Parliament that predate the beginning of Mr Trudeau's last career, his career in politics. Mr. Gray was elected in 1962, Mr. Chrétien in 1963, and I myself had the honour of replacing our Senate colleague Mr. Denis, with my election in February of 1964.

I could take all the rest of the day to speak to you of all the facets of this extraordinary character, of whom we have heard so much in the past few days.


Mr. Trudeau had a very personal way of working. This summer, I sorted through 200 of the boxes that will go to the national archives one day. I discovered once again the way Mr. Trudeau could operate on occasion, when he wanted to get results without direct involvement. I learned more than I knew about this myself from a book published in the United States in 1971, titled New Exile.


I will paraphrase parts of that book. It said that, in reality, even before The Washington Post appeared, Trudeau had indicated privately to a young Liberal Party MP from Montreal, Marcel Prud'homme, that he would not be against Parliament bringing pressure to bear against the immigration department's recent entry deserter policies. The book said that Trudeau apparently preferred to have nothing to do with it himself but was once reported to have said he would step in if Parliament did not. It went on to say that Prud'homme had awaited just such a signal from his party's leader and, thereupon, brought together 25 Liberal MPs who met with Minister MacEachen and urged him to change his policy.

The book's conclusion reads that after several more Liberal Party caucuses sponsored by Prud'homme and fellow MP David Weatherhead from Toronto, at which a party majority declared itself in favour of change, MacEachen finally announced on May 22, 1969 that if a serviceman from another country meets our requirement of immigration he will not be turned down because he is still in the active service of his country.

That is how I became involved in one of the most explosive issues of the day. I had never spoken in public about that issue and became the instrument in the hands of Mr. Trudeau to divide the Liberal Party so that he could then intervene. The Liberal Party of that day was totally opposed to admitting American deserters and draft dodgers.

In 1974, one of the most controversial years in the history of the United Nations, Mr. Trudeau did me the great honour of appointing me to the United Nations as a delegate of Canada.

Canada's ambassador to the United Nations at that time was Mr. Saul Rae, the father of John Rae and Bob Rae. The United Nations was under the chairmanship of Mr. Bouteflika, Minister of Foreign Affairs, who disappeared eventually. He is now back as president of Algeria. It was my decision to stand up to applaud Mr. Arafat, who was speaking for the first time at the United Nations.


This is when the world landed on my head and shoulders, and the caucus, in a rage, wanted me recalled. The entire Canadian press and Mr. Diefenbaker in Parliament were up in arms against me, saying that I should be recalled. And yet, Mr. Trudeau, with his usual patience, left me in my post at the UN until the end of my term, that is, until the end of December 1974.

On my return, I was very distressed because I saw my political future — which had never really begun in any case — disappear from the horizon. And then, in May 1975, Ms Viau, my very loyal secretary, a bit like Ms Bondar, in the case of Mr. Chrétien, whom I salute in passing, called me to say the Prime Minister wanted to speak to me. And so once again, discreetly, as everyone was thinking my career was truly over because of the outrageous things I had done, Mr. Trudeau asked me, being the last to respond to the invitation by Mr. Sadat, to be his official representative at the reopening of the Suez Canal in June 1975.

And so over the years Mr. Trudeau, who should have been putting me in my place by giving me the silent treatment, never discouraged me in my chosen goal, that of being a living witness to the truth in the Middle East. I could quote — but I will spare you because I will publish it — all of the events that have occurred since then. Among others, he asked me to accompany him to the United Nations, to the Conference on Disarmament.


Suddenly, I was supposed to disappear. He said that I was to accompany Mrs. Trudeau to Japan. I was honoured. Mr. Trudeau said, "You are going to come and meet Mr. Carter," whom I met yesterday and with whom I spoke for a long time.

That is the Mr. Trudeau that many members may not know and may have never known, but yet he truly existed. I was the chairman of the Quebec caucus. I want to remind colleagues, especially new colleagues, that I was always elected in a secret ballot. I could never have aspired to be chairman of anything if the ballots would have been open. I had silent encouragement, acknowledgement, and a magnificent series of letters from Mr. Trudeau that indicated to me that if I wanted to stand up I could stand up alone. That is what I did, and I am very thankful to Pierre Elliott Trudeau for that.

I have many witnesses who are still alive. I am not going to quote them, of course. So I was around without being right in the centre. Some honourable senators here were directly inside the circle, not of his friends but his circle of political advisers. I was there in the periphery of Mr. Pierre Elliott Trudeau's circle.

I know Madam Trudeau well. She agreed to do fundraising for me in unbelievable circumstances. It was during the last days of her living in Ottawa. I am thankful to her. I know her personally, and I offer her and her sons, as well as Mr. Trudeau's daughter, whom I do not have the honour to know...


I learned something from him that I would like to pass on to these young people. They should never be afraid to find themselves alone because they have said what they believed to be true — even though it may, at times, cost them dearly and even be devastating for them. If they are certain, in good conscience, that what they are defending is what must be defended, they will eventually succeed. This is what I remember of Pierre Elliott Trudeau.

I would have liked to be accompanied by other honourable senators when I looked at the 40 books made available to the public, behind the Speaker's Chair, ten tables on each side of the House of Commons and the Senate, two books per table, until four in the morning. You could have sat down and read the testimonies, which is what I did Saturday and Sunday until the middle of the night. I hope that someday — and I am asking this of Mr. Trudeau's estate — these books will be made available to the Canadian people, so that they can read directly what Canadians — I hate the word — both "official" and ordinary Canadians have written in them. I hate the word "official" because it seems to imply that there are two types of Canadians: those who have responsibilities and the others who put their trust into those who represent them.


I do not like the term "ordinary Canadian." It is unofficial and like something in the sky that does not exist.


I would like people to be able to read these testimonies, and I am asking the Speaker of this house to ensure that these testimonies are kept. Hundreds of testimonies are being lost. If you were to read them, you would find some extraordinary things. I hope that these numerous testimonies can also become part of a collection that would certainly be made available to Mr. Trudeau's estate and that would eventually become part of Canada's history.



Hon. E. Leo Kolber: Honourable senators, I rise today to talk about a man who touched my life in a very profound way. Pierre Trudeau appointed me to the Senate in 1983, and after he retired we began a series of world travels that included my wife, my son, Senator Austin, his wife and, occasionally, a few others.

Much has been written about Mr. Trudeau and the Constitution, Mr. Trudeau and Quebec, and Mr. Trudeau and many other matters. I would like to spend a few moments speaking of Mr. Trudeau, my friend, and my little essay could be entitled "Travels With Pierre."

We actually became quite friendly while he was still prime minister, but our real friendship with him truly blossomed after he retired. Each year he would choose an itinerary that somehow he always wanted to do, and Senator Austin and I would try to work out the logistics. Our modus operandi was that we would visit the ambassador of the country we wished to visit and tell him our intentions. The ambassador would then make suggestions as to the best way to proceed.

Our many trips included such fascinating things as being on the Trans-Siberian Railway for six nights and seven days and listening to Mr. Trudeau expand on geopolitics, while racing through the Siberian tundra. We made fantastic trips to Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. We attended the theatre in London and New York. We went with the Brazilian Airforce into the Amazon jungle, and we spent several days with the Yano-mani tribe, probably the most primitive group of people in the world.

I would like to highlight one trip that illustrates, in a peculiar way, the magic spell this man was capable of weaving. He had decided that he would like to follow the Marco Polo Silk Route from Pakistan into China, which took us through the Karakoram Pass and all these places I had never heard of. We met with the Ambassadors of both Pakistan and China. The Pakistani Ambassador was delighted because it seemed that Mr. Trudeau had tried to get Pakistan into the Commonwealth, albeit with no success. The Chinese Ambassador was thrilled, and he told us that we would be safe but reasonably uncomfortable for the first part of the trip.

For his part, Mr. Trudeau pointed out that he really wanted to make the trip, but agreed that going under the aegis of General Zia was pushing the envelope somewhat. General Zia was the head of Pakistan and welcomed us warmly. In fact, he was our protector for the Pakistani part of the trip. He made sure we were looked after, albeit primitively, wherever we went.

As we neared the Chinese border, which was at an elevation of 16,000 feet, a call came in from the General's office to tell us that a glacier had moved, and a big lake had formed that would be in our way. In true style Mr. Trudeau told the General that perhaps we could climb the mountain around the lake, to which General Zia replied that it was dangerous and not possible, and that he would make other arrangements. As we approached the lake in very misty foggy weather, we saw about 100 army engineers dressed in fatigues who had brought rafts for our crossing. We then boarded the rafts, with the jeeps, and with some of our Chinese hosts who had come to meet us. We then proceeded to the other side of the lake.

As we disembarked, we noticed a little yellow school bus on the other shore. As the engineers were unloading the jeeps and other equipment, we walked towards the school bus. Remember, at this point we were truly in the middle of nowhere — we were at 16,000 feet in the Himalayan Mountains, with no roads, no vegetation, and a lack of oxygen. To our utter amazement, there were 12 tourists from the province of Quebec trying to cross the other way. When they spotted and recognized Mr. Trudeau, you can imagine the utter astonishment on their faces. It was as though the Messiah had arrived. The shouts of "Mon Dieu, c'est Pierre. Qu'est-ce qu'il fait ici?" filled the air, and a sort of Canadian reunion took place. I cannot imagine anyone else pulling off such a stunt in this most happenstance way, but that was Pierre. He touched our lives in a very profound way. Speaking for my wife and myself, we shall be forever grateful.

Shalom, Pierre.

Hon. Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: Honourable senators, the hour is late, the evening draws nigh, the dreaded night is here, and so we come to honour Pierre Elliott Trudeau. How should we honour him? How he loved words, whether as a pamphleteer, essayist, teacher, satirist, memoirist, advocate, poet, or politician, he adored words. All his life he was most careful with his own words. Now, all we have to offer are our words to assuage the elusive feeling of loss to our own persona.

His crackling words first attracted our minds and our thoughts in the 1950s. Finally, even though we resisted, his persona captured our hearts. So we come to honour him for his words and his person.

In a strange way, looking back, it seems to me now, much of what I have said in the Senate was for a critical audience of one. I took care with my words in the Senate and relished his reactions in notes, encounters and conversations.

Why did he scorch such a significant space on the Canadian psyche? By the dint of his own energy and thoughts, he alone created a novus ordo seclorum, a new school of thought, a new lexicon of rights by the so-called breach birth of the Charter, a new uncommon Commonwealth. Surely, the final honour cannot be less than the accolade of acceptance by his most vitriolic opponents who, despite themselves, have adopted the Charter as their touchstone, just as his advocates have.

My first memories of Mr. Trudeau go back to the 1950s after I had first read his dashing essays on federalism. Our earliest exchange came in 1961, through a mutual friend, the late Jean David. We renewed more frequent exchanges during my first stint in Ottawa from 1966 to 1968.

He had a quick wit. On the day he finally announced his intention to run as leader of the Liberal Party early in 1968, he sent me an unsolicited photograph inscribed, "To Jerry. Next Year in Jerusalem. Pierre." Earlier, I had turned down his offer of a job. To this day, I am not sure what he meant by that note. Whether he wanted me to go or to stay, or would we meet in the "Promised Land." In any event, I left Ottawa in 1968, right after his election as leader. In October 1972 he called for help during that ill-fated "Land is Strong" campaign, which I answered. In the midst of that campaign, I organized and co-chaired a surprise birthday party for Mr. Pearson, who was then dying of cancer. The surprise party was held in the intimate surroundings of the Maple Leaf Gardens for 25,000 Canadians, and we convinced Mr. Trudeau to act as host. It was to be Mr. Pearson's last public event. I recall the final exchanges between Mr. Pearson and Mr. Trudeau on that evening. The rest is history.

From 1974 until 1984 he asked me as a volunteer to supervise all of his television and print campaigns and so we carried on regular written and personal exchanges on ideas and policies.

Too many personal anecdotes flood across my memory plain, many intersected on public events. Allow me to focus my thoughts on the Senate and make a very partial public confession.

When I received a call from Mr. Trudeau early in 1984 to inform me of his decision to appoint me to the Senate, he described, in a quiet and complimentary way, the various private memos, some controversial, I had sent him over two decades. None had ever leaked; none had ever appeared in the press. He concluded with this line, "We need you in the Senate." He asked whether I needed some time to think about it. I said, "No, no, no." I was prepared to accept right then and there. I considered the appointment to be the greatest compliment ever bestowed upon me. However, I did allow that I was curious about one thing. I asked him why he had said, "We need you in the Senate." Then I heard the phone drop and a sudden burst of laughter. He picked up the phone and he politely apologized. He told me he thought I was the first person that he had ever appointed who had asked why? I told him, "I am serious, Prime Minister. I accept, but I still want to know why." Why did he need me in the Senate? He then told me something that I have never forgotten.


Pierre Trudeau wanted me to use the Senate as a platform for my own ideas, the same ideas, he said, that I had relentlessly pressed upon him and others in the party. He wanted the Senate to be a "house of ideas."

Shortly after my appointment to the Senate, the first issue that struck my attention was the debate of apology and compensation to Canadians of Japanese descent who had been incarcerated and had their property expropriated during the Second World War. On April 10, 1984, I tabled a motion in the Senate and, on May 8, 1984, I made my maiden speech on this subject. Mr. Trudeau opposed this measure. We could not forever resurrect the past, he argued. We could only change the future.

I and others felt that the case for Canadians of Japanese descent was different and could be differentiated on its facts from other similar claims. Mr. Trudeau argued vehemently that such differences would be overlooked. To do so would be an invitation for a flood of attempts to rewrite history. All we could do is not to repeat the failures of the past. We agreed to disagree.

When an apology and compensation were ultimately made by Mr. Mulroney's government, Mr. Trudeau gently chided me about the floodgate of demands and the expectation that this had indeed triggered, just as he had predicted. He rarely forgot, yet he never resented a principled or reasoned stand.

The next event we recall was the Meech Lake debate in 1988, right here in the Senate chamber. After Mr. Trudeau's retirement, he was most reluctant to return to public discourse. I and others convinced him that the principles captured in the Meech Lake agreement were more important than his person and that if he came to the Senate, he could make a difference.

The two-nations thesis was embedded in Meech Lake. Pierre Trudeau had fought against such a revisionist view of history his entire life. "Special status" or "distinct society" were code words for the two-nations thesis, he explained. I agreed. This he and many of us here could not accept.

Honourable senators, the Senate chamber echoes this evening with the eloquence of his speech and his responses. He sat in this chamber that day and argued here, alone, in the Committee of the Whole, for well over three hours. I have the transcript here. To my mind, that day he kept Canada on the fragile "One Canada" and "Canada, one and indivisible" course.

When the last referendum came, we enquired whether Mr. Trudeau had been invited to participate. We were surprised that we had not seen him on the hustings. We were told by the organizers that he was reluctant to do so. As the polls drew closer, many of us still believed that Mr. Trudeau could make the crucial difference. Calls were made to the No organizers in Ottawa and in Montreal to see how this might be done. In the last days, the No side support slid further and softened. Polls showed that the two sides were within several points of each other, within the margin of error. Still no invitation.

I concocted what I thought was a marvellous and simple plan. Mr. Trudeau, on that last Sunday before the referendum, after all the official television advertising had been completed, would take a casual morning stroll and then sit on a bench in the park near his house in Montreal. A CBC television camera crew would accidentally wander by. He would then give a final interview on that crucial Sunday and own the media on that day and on Monday, referendum day.

While Mr. Trudeau was reluctant, since he had not been asked earlier, I had reason to believe that he could have been persuaded to do so, even at that late hour. The organizers in Quebec would have none of it. I believe Mr. Trudeau would have been worth at least five additional points on the No side and again history would have changed. Honourable senators, it is for learned historians to speculate on that.

After the referendum came a resolution presented in Parliament respecting the "distinct society." I had heard from others here on this side and in the another place that Mr. Trudeau was in agreement. I could not believe that, so I called him several times. He urged me to make a long and forceful speech against the resolution in the Senate. That was the only time from the date of my appointment that he ever asked me to do something. Others convinced me that the resolution was not important and that I should remain silent. The resolution would fade.

Honourable senators, on December 14, 1995, I made the shortest speech I ever gave in this place against the motion to recognize Quebec as a distinct society. Let me repeat it:

Come, let us now praise Canada, for Canada is a distinct society. The rest is commentary. Canadians, themselves, can count the ways.

This did not please Mr. Trudeau or anyone on this side or in the other place. I regret to this day that I did not follow his strong advice, for Mr. Trudeau believed that principles and practice march best when they march together.

Finally, honourable senators will recall the extradition bill and the discretion it gave to the Minister of Justice respecting the death penalty. Mr. Trudeau was delighted with the position some of us had taken against the measure.

When it came to the Nisga'a treaty, he again spoke quietly of his concern with respect to the compromise of some significant principles espoused in that measure.

I recount these events to demonstrate that from the time of his resignation 16 years ago as prime minister, he continued to actively follow events in Parliament, including the Senate, closely and with great and precise interest.

Honourable senators, how then are we to honour Mr. Trudeau? To hold fast to his ideas, ideas that many of us on both sides of this chamber share?

In 1979, after 11 turbulent years as prime minister, Pierre Trudeau's political fortunes had fallen to their lowest ebb. When the election started, the Liberals were lagging in the polls. The economy had been ravaged first by international then domestic inflation. The public had lost confidence in him. The regions were upset. The only area of public opinion where Pierre Trudeau still held an overwhelming lead was the leadership indices. Thus, I coined the phrase for the 1979 campaign: "A leader must be a leader."

Since that time, leaders of every political stripe in Canada, consciously or unconsciously, essay to measure themselves against the high standards set by Mr. Trudeau's innate and practised leadership skills and qualities. All others pale in comparison. Why so?

Pierre Trudeau came to politics and sought power, not for its own sake, but for a specific idea of Canada. His message was inseparable from his medium. The man became the medium. He envisaged Canada as a distinct society, a bilingual and multicultural society, and a just society fused by equality and inclusion. No one should be left out and no one should be left behind. Activist organs of government were to be re-engineered to be servants of the people. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom would transform the political landscape. The individual would be placed above politicians or Parliament. In the process, alone, as I noted earlier, he created a new school of thought for us — a new and different commonwealth. Pierre Trudeau energetically, creatively and repetitively hammered home his singular message with persuasion, passion and precision designed to forge an unbreakable link with each Canadian, whether or not one agreed with him.

It is not strange, then, that each Canadian should personally measure his or her life experience against the larger-than-life figure cut by Pierre Trudeau. It certainly comes as no surprise that, on his death, each and every Canadian feels an indescribable personal loss, as if somehow one's own persona were diminished. The power and depth of that response across Canada is still unfathomable and unmeasurable.

Honourable senators, we honour Pierre Trudeau because today's political discourse vibrates and resonates anew with his obsession for equality rights — the demand for rights by one group or another, by one individual or another. Each claims rights based on the individual rights and freedoms he embedded in the Charter. Pierre Trudeau had that vision. These ideas would forge Canadians together into an exciting new crucible of identity, and that has been done.

For those who were privileged to know Pierre Trudeau up close and personal or from afar, his ideas are alive. His belief in forging one Canada, one and indivisible, now and forever, has been reignited, whether it be in the Citizenship Act or other legislation to come. His ideas refuse to be diluted or diminished. He cannot be forgotten. Pierre Trudeau's heartbeat lives on.

Rereading Pierre Trudeau's early essays, as I have this weekend, is a fresh pleasure. From that electric first encounter almost 40 years ago in a Montreal bar, his penetrating intellect forced one to think harder and more clearly and to be better than we deserve. I urge all new senators to read and reread his Meech Lake evidence in the Senate as a powerful reminder of what the Senate can do if we have the collective political will.


Let me conclude on a personal puzzle. From whence sprang Mr. Trudeau's fountain of ideas? I often asked him and myself that question. What motivated him? I began to read and reread carefully the ideas of Mounier, Acton, Newman, Maritain, Gilson, Berlin, and even the poet Saint-Exupéry. Trudeau prided himself as a contrarian who went against the grain, an anti-nationalist, especially when people wrapped the mantle of nationalism around them, which they needed for their own insecure comfort and needs. I reread the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius and the Interior Castle, written by St. Teresa of Avila, and delved into the works of St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure. "Know thyself," "know thyself," these works proclaimed. Was it these thinkers or more simply the premature loss of a father we shared that forced one to think independently and differently, against the grain? We shared a fascination with the mysteries of China and the Lubavitch movement. Above all, he relished the expression of ideas and phrases, both written and spoken.

When he came to office, he surrounded himself with creative thinkers, like his closest friends Gérard Pelletier; Jacques Hébert; the late and most lamented Fernand Cadieux; the unsung McLuhan of French Canada; Jean LeMoyne, the poet he appointed to the Senate; Eugene Forsey; Jean Louis Gagnon, that great Quebec Liberal who, in the 1930s, stood up alone against the Duplessis tide; Rod Chiasson; or my old friend and confidant, now in England, Roy Faibish.

One hour with Trudeau, honourable senators, became a gruelling intellectual workout, like an inept middleweight sparring partner against a heavyweight champion. Amplified by Mr. Trudeau's capacious memory, for he could remember precisely what one had said long after one had forgotten, he could always sneak in a jab or a telling counterpunch.

He frustrated us with his excellence just as he inspired us. Just as he relentlessly drove himself to inner standards of excellence, he inspired each of us to drive ourselves intellectually and professionally well beyond our meagre talents. In the same way, he concentrated his own bundle of energy and singular talent to drive Canada to be better than even we could dream. The dream lives on, inspiring us anew. Trudeau's heartbeat is alive. The mystery of Trudeau's persona still eludes us. We hardly knew him. No one did.

Deo gratias. Deo gratias. Pierre, thank God for the pleasure of your company.

Deo gratius. Deo gratius. Visio est tota merces... Visio beatifica.

Vision is the full reward. Your vision is blessed.

And so, honourable senators, the beat goes on!

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I see no other honourable senator rising. Before I ask you to rise and join me in a minute of silence, I would simply like to say that it had been my intention earlier today to ask the Speaker pro tempore to take the Chair so that I could participate in the debate honouring my long-time friend, my leader, the man who appointed me to this chamber 30 years ago less three days, but the speeches have been so eloquent that I do not feel it necessary to do so. I simply want to join in the statements that have been made.

Would you now rise and join me in a moment of silence.

Honourable senators then stood in silent tribute.

Library of Parliament
Official Languages
Scrutiny of Regulations

Standing Joint Committees—Message from Commons

The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that the following message had been received from the House of Commons:

Wednesday, September 27, 2000

IT WAS ORDERED,—That the Standing Joint Committees be composed of the Members listed below:

Library of Parliament

Members: Assad, Catterall, Clouthier, Doyle, Finlay, Harb, Karygiannis, Lavigne, Lill, Malhi, Mayfield, Mercier, Plamondon, Redman, Reynolds, Ritz—(16)

Associate Members: Davies, Dumas, Tremblay (Rimouski—Neigette-et-la Mitis)

Official Languages

Members: Bélanger, Bellemare; Bonin, Bulte, de Savoy, Godin (Acadie—Bathurst), Grey (Edmonton North), Hill (Macleod), Kerpan, Kilger, Lavigne, McTeague, McWhinney, Muise, Plamondon, Proulx—(16)

Associate Members: Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic), Dumas, Mercier, Nystrom, Turp, Tremblay (Rimouski—Neigette-et-la Mitis)

Scrutiny of Regulations

Members: Assad, Bonwick, Bryden, Casey, Comuzzi, Cummins, De Villers, Grewal, Lebel, Murray, Myers, Nystrom, Pankiw, Pillitteri, Venne, Wappel, White (North Vancouver)—(17)

Associate Members: Bellehumeur, Dockrill, Guimond, Tremblay (Rimouski—Neigette-et-la Mitis)

That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours of the names of the Members to serve on behalf of this House on the Standing Joint Committees.



The Clerk of the House of Commons


National Co-op Week

Hon. Catherine S. Callbeck: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak about the important role that cooperatives have played and continue to play in the development of many areas of Canada — not just economic development but important community and social development as well.

National Co-op Week will be held October 15 to 21. It is a time to celebrate what the cooperative movement has meant to so many Canadians. I am very proud of the level of involvement the people of my home province have displayed within the cooperative movement through the years. In fact, almost 28,000 Prince Edward Islanders are members of Co-op Atlantic organizations.

Co-ops and credit unions invest in the communities in which they are located, and the results of those investments are tangible. The investments remain in the communities and help to foster further development. They provide good jobs and good services to the communities, developing a very positive cycle of investment and return.

Across Canada, there are 10,000 cooperatives and credit unions, all providing this type of positive community development and investment. There is no question that Canada, as a whole, is much stronger because of these institutions. More than 135,000 Canadians are employed in co-ops and credit unions from coast to coast. In total, these institutions have over $100 billion in assets, making them a major force in the Canadian economy.

It is the people involved in the co-op movement who have made it such a force. In particular, I would like to take a moment to recognize a former colleague of mine who was recently recognized for his outstanding efforts in support of the cooperative movement in Prince Edward Island.

Leonce Bernard of Wellington was named Co-op Atlantic's member of the year at the organization's annual general meeting held in Sydney, Cape Breton. Mr. Bernard's tireless dedication to his home community is almost legendary in my home province. I would like to commend him for his good work.

Effect of Climate Change on the Arctic

Hon. Charlie Watt: Honourable senators, I have some information to share with you about what I personally encountered this summer. This may be shocking information to some of you, but I feel it is important enough to ensure that it goes on the record today. I have already spoken about the matter to the Liberal caucus and the Quebec caucus, including the national caucus, but I have not yet spoken about the matter here. It involves the climate change in the Arctic.

Honourable senators, we must seriously begin dealing with this issue because it is here now. I say that, honourable senators, because I have encountered a huge number of polar bears this summer where I have never witnessed any before. Why is that? It is because the ice is melting in the Arctic. The polar bears are roaming around inland, rather than staying out on the ice, because they have to eat somewhere.

For that reason, we have been flooded with a huge number of polar bears in Ungava Bay this summer. Our outpost camps all around the coast, from the Labrador site upwards, were full of polar bears. We managed to knock down some of them, but not all of them because we must respect the laws and we do not want to kill bears just for the sake of killing them. We only took the ones that were endangering human life. We opened up their stomachs to see if there was anything in them but we found absolutely nothing. That tells us that something serious is happening in the Arctic. I also encountered an early spring in the month of May. In May, caribou normally have calves that weigh between 4 pounds and 5 pounds. This year, they weighed between 2 pounds and 3 pounds. The calves could not even reach their mothers to milk.


For that reason, I took it upon myself to knock down a few to see what was happening to those cows who are full of milk and who no longer have calves following them. They are all drying up inside. I do not know what will happen to them.

As well, honourable senators, the vegetation in the Arctic is growing wild. Vegetation is everywhere, growing in places it has never grown before.

All kinds of insects, which were never before seen, are starting to appear in the Arctic. It is becoming a little scary to be out in a tent because we do not know what they can do and whether they are poisonous.

A great many unknown factors are occurring in the Arctic today. Our government — and, in fact, all political parties, even those in the international community — will have to take this matter seriously. It is here and it will not disappear.

Today, I had the privilege of having a short exchange with the Minister of the Environment. I pointed out to him some information I culled from the Internet this morning concerning Inuit observations on climate change. I put a figure to this situation.

If we continue trying to reinvent the wheel while not being able to identify the actual problem, then we will be repeating ourselves again, honourable senators.


Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders

Ninth Report of Committee Tabled

Hon. Richard H. Kroft: Honoourable senators, on behalf of Senator Austin, I have the honour to table the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders.

Honourable senators, the ninth report of the committee informs the Senate that the committee has revised the March 1996 edition of the Rules of the Senate. Since March 1996, there have been four rule changes.

Rule 137 was added on February 19, 1998. Rule 138 was added on June 9, 1998. Rule 1(3) was added on February 9, 1999. Rule 22 was amended on June 27, 2000. All of these changes are incorporated in the new rules book, which will be circulated to all honourable senators shortly.

Privacy Commissioner

Notice of Motion to Approve Appointment of George Radwanski

Hon. Dan Hays (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I give notice that tomorrow, Thursday, October 5, 2000, I shall move:

That in accordance with Section 53 of the Privacy Act, Chapter P-21 of the Revised Statutes of Canada 1985, the Senate approve the appointment of George Radwanski as Privacy Commissioner.

Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources

Committee Authorized to Meet During Sitting of the Senate

Hon. Dan Hays (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I move, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 58(1)(a):

That the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources have power to sit while the Senate is sitting today, and that Rule 95(4) be suspended in relation thereto.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Motion agreed to.


Committee Authorized to Meet During Sitting of the Senate

Hon. Gerald J. Comeau: Honourable senators, might I, too, ask leave of the Senate for the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries to have the power to sit while the Senate is sitting today, and that rule 95(4) be suspended in relation thereto?

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Motion agreed to.

Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation Bill

First Reading

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore informed the Senate that a message had been received from the House of Commons with Bill C-14, respecting an agreement with the Norway House Cree Nation for the settlement of matters arising from the flooding of land, and respecting the establishment of certain reserves in the province of Manitoba.

Bill read first time.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the second time?

On motion of Senator Hays, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading two days hence.

Canada-China Legislative Association

Report of Visit of Co-Chairs to China Tabled

Hon. Dan Hays (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Canada-China Legislative Association regarding the co-chairs' visit to China in May 2000.

The Senate

Notice of Motion to Change Rules of the Senate to Accommodate Clarity Act

Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I give notice that on Tuesday next, October 10, 2000, I will move a proposal for a Senate rule change to accommodate the Clarity Act. I shall move that:

1. Rule 26 of the Rules of the Senate be amended:

(a) by adding the following before section (1):

Constitutional Business

(1) Orders of the Day under rule 26.1

(b) by renumbering sections (1) and (2) and all cross-references thereto accordingly.

2. The Rules of the Senate are amended by adding the following after rule 26:


26.1(1) Immediately after the government of a province tables in its legislative assembly or otherwise officially releases the question that it intends to submit to its voters in a referendum relating to the proposed secession of the province from Canada, motions to refer the question to Committee of the Whole for consideration and report may be moved without leave at the next sitting of the Senate, and, if moved, must be considered and disposed of in priority to all other orders of the day.


(2) Immediately after the government of a province, following a referendum relating to the secession of that province from Canada, seeks to enter into negotiations on the terms of which that province might cease to be a part of Canada, motions to refer the subject of the clarity of the majority achieved in the referendum, to Committee of the Whole for consideration and report may be moved without leave at the next sitting of the Senate, and if moved must be considered and disposed of in priority to all other orders of the day.


(3) Notwithstanding rule 23(8), the Speaker shall call for motions under this rule as the first item of business after question period.


(4) In Orders of the Day, motions shall be considered and disposed of in the following order: a motion, if any, by the Leader of the Government; a motion, if any, by the Leader of the Opposition; motions, if any, by other Senators.


(5) Only one order of reference at a time may be made under subsections (1) and (2), and as soon as an order of reference is adopted, with or without amendment, the remaining motions fall from the Order Paper.


(6) When the Senate adopts a resolution in respect of a report received and considered under subsection (1), which shall be within 15 days of the commencement of proceeding under subsection (1), the Speaker of the Senate shall transmit copies of the resolution and of all proceedings held under this rule in the Senate and in Committee of the Whole, including an integral copy of every representation made under this rule, to the Speaker of the House of Commons and to the Speakers of each provincial and territorial legislative assembly in Canada.


(7) Where an order is made under subsection (2), the Clerk of the Senate, immediately following the adoption of the report, shall invite the government of every province and territory to make verbal or written representations to the Committee of the Whole, and every province and territory that replies in the affirmative shall be given reasonable opportunity to do so.


(8) Where an order is made under subsection (2), the Committee shall decide which representatives of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada and of the English and French linguistic minority population of each province and territory should be invited to make verbal or written representations to the committee, and every representative who replies in the affirmative shall be given reasonable opportunity to do so.


(9) When the Senate adopts a resolution in respect of a report received and considered under subsection (2), which shall be within 15 days of the commencement of proceedings under subsection (2), the Speaker of the Senate shall transmit copies of the resolution and of all proceedings held under this rule in the Senate and in Committee of the Whole, including an integral copy of every representation made under this rule, to the Speaker of the House of Commons and to the Speakers of each provincial and territorial legislative assembly in Canada.



The Senate

Absence of Leader of the Government

Hon. Dan Hays (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, our representative in the government, is unavoidably away due to cabinet business. Accordingly, I would offer to take notice of any questions that senators may wish to put.


Foreign Affairs

Summit of the Americas

Hon. Marcel Prud'homme: Honourable senators, I would like the budding minister to give particular attention to a question I recently put to the Leader of the Government in the Senate.


You can answer in English — that is my interpretation of the function of bilingualism — but to be clear, I speak in French.


Honourable senators, my question had to do with the Summit of the Americas to be held in Quebec City next spring. Canada is hosting the Summit of the Americas and it is up to the Prime Minister of Canada to issue invitations to participants.

The response to my question is completely unacceptable. Since this response was public and official, it may be consulted by anyone who is interested.

I wish to say that, while I am getting on in years, I am still an excellent organizer. I therefore fully intend to mobilize public opinion in Quebec so that the Government of Canada at least takes the initiative of including Cuba in the Summit.

The meeting yesterday with Fidel Castro was an extremely warm one and the crowd applauded both Mr. Castro and Mr. Carter. I spoke with Mr. Castro, and the Prime Minister greeted him and met with him afterwards. I must say that I am somewhat responsible for encouraging them to speak to one another, but I will say more about that, if necessary, when we debate the matter.

I return to my original question. The answer I was given is totally unacceptable, considering what is going on in other countries on the issue of human rights.

There is no need to mention what will unfortunately happen in the Middle East, where, perhaps, governments will use force or be defeated by the public opinion. This situation is very serious.

I believe the time has come for Canada to take the initiative and to invite Cuba to the conference. Should this be impossible because of a decision made by the OAS, the Prime Minister should still invite the Cuban head of state as an observer. That initiative would be a first step that would lead to Cuba's becoming a full-fledged member of that organization.

I will display the same determination here that I showed when I asked that North Korea be recognized, in spite of the fact that Canada's security services are paranoid about people who, like me, have been asking for a long time that North Korea be recognized. This will now be the case; North Korea will now be recognized.

At this Summit of the Americas, which will be held in Quebec City, people would find it hard to understand why the host country did not take the initiative of ensuring Mr. Castro's presence.

I take note of your commitment to refer the question to the powers that be today. I can assure you that I will be persistent about this issue, until the end of this parliamentary session.



Western Canada Telephone Company

Third Reading—Debate Adjourned

Hon. Dan Hays (Deputy Leader of the Government) moved the third reading of Bill S-26, to repeal An Act to incorporate the Western Canada Telephone Company.

Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I have been asked by my colleague Senator Oliver to move the adjournment of the debate in his name. He will speak to this item tomorrow.

On motion of Senator Kinsella, for Senator Oliver, debate adjourned.

Sales Tax and Excise Tax Amendments Bill, 1999

Third Reading—Debate Adjourned

Hon. Dan Hays (Deputy Leader of the Government) moved the third reading of Bill C-24, to amend the Excise Tax Act, a related Act, the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Budget Implementation Act, 1997, the Budget Implementation Act, 1998, the Budget Implementation Act, 1999, the Canada Pension Plan, the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, the Cultural Property Export and Import Act, the Customs Act, the Customs Tariff, the Employment Insurance Act, the Excise Act, the Income Tax Act, the Tax Court of Canada Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act.

Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I would like to move the adjournment of the debate in the name of Senator Stratton.

On motion of Senator Kinsella, for Senator Stratton, debate adjourned.

Canadian Tourism Commission Bill

Third Reading—Debate Adjourned

Hon. Catherine S. Callbeck moved the third reading of Bill C-5, to establish the Canadian Tourism Commission.

Hon. Noel A. Kinsella (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I have been asked by my colleague Senator LeBreton to move the adjournment of the debate in her name.

On motion of Senator Kinsella, for Senator LeBreton, debate adjourned.

The Senate adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.