Download as PDF

Debates of the Senate (Hansard)

1st Session, 37th Parliament,
Volume 139, Issue 51

Thursday, September 20, 2001
The Honourable Dan Hays, Speaker


Thursday, September 20, 2001

The Senate met at 1:30 p.m., the Speaker pro tempore in the Chair.


The Late Honourable Joseph-Philippe Guay, P.C.


Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, on July 30 of this year, Manitobans lost a dear friend and an exceptional representative, the Honourable Joseph-Philippe Guay.

Senator Guay represented St. Boniface, in my home province of Manitoba, as a parliamentarian for 22 years. His dedication to his constituents and to all Canadians was legendary. Because of that, he never lost an election and won several by acclamation. He was first an alderman and went on to become Mayor of the Town of St. Boniface. He was a strong voice for the Franco-Manitoban population and objected strongly to the amalgamation of St. Boniface with the City of Winnipeg, feeling that it would lessen the independence of his community.


Senator Guay was the only member of Parliament from among his contemporaries to have held so many positions throughout his career, sometimes concurrently: MP, Parliamentary Secretary, Chief Government Whip, Minister of State for Multiculturalism, Minister of National Revenue. As a senator he continued for a time to serve as a minister without portfolio and was extremely active on a number of committees, particularly the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration and the Joint Committee on Official Languages.

Senator Guay often stated publicly how proud he was of the Right Honourable Pierre Elliott Trudeau's policies on minorities and what an honour he considered it to represent the francophone community, the values of multiculturalism and his own heritage as a Métis and relative of Louis Riel.


Senator Guay was publicly recognized by a wide variety of groups that bestowed honours upon him, from the Boy Scouts of Canada to the Canadian Wildlife Federation to the Royal Canadian Legion. In 1957, he was knighted as a member of the Order of Saint Gregory the Great by Pope Pius XII. However, none of these professional accomplishments can encompass the larger-than-life spirit of Joe Guay.

Senator Guay was well loved by his many staff members and well regarded by his peers. Employees in other offices would often be aware of his impending arrival because they could hear him singing down the hallways.

Joe once told his constituents that he was "proud to be their loudmouth in Ottawa." His resounding voice was his trademark, but his ability to listen to people was renowned. He would have an endless stream of people in his offices, both in Manitoba and in Ottawa, describing their personal problems and requesting his help. He always made time for anyone who knocked on his door.

As a young man, Joe was a navy chief instructor in Manitoba and then became a shoe salesman. In the course of his travels, he would often meet people in rural Manitoba who were too poor to buy shoes, people who wrapped their feet in cloth as protection from our harsh Canadian winters — so he would give them a pair.

Honourable senators, Joe had a big heart and a big family. He had six children of his own, and he adopted his sister-in-law's child when she died in childbirth. He never missed going home to his family and his beloved constituents on weekends despite the long hours required of his various positions.

His retirement from the Senate prompted numerous and lengthy tributes from his colleagues. A former colleague, the Honourable Royce Frith, stated at that time, "It is absolutely impossible not to like him." Another former colleague, my dear friend Gil Molgat, said that it was impossible to understand how much Joe was loved unless you walked around the streets of St. Boniface with him.

Honourable senators, I should like to convey my condolences and those of all my colleagues to his wife, Marguerite, to his children, Rénald, Claudette, Marjolaine, Gérard, Gilbert, Lanyse, Rémi and their families.

Hon. Terry Stratton: Honourable senators, Joseph-Philippe Guay was a man who served his community, his province and his country with a blunt straightforward approach, much to the consternation of those who sat opposite him and generally cheered by those who sat next to him.

Senator Guay was in politics at one level or another for 35 years and was a powerful voice through his four terms in office as Mayor of St. Boniface. His confrontations with the Mayor of Winnipeg over of the proposed amalgamation of the two municipalities were numerous, but that was a battle he was not destined to win.


Turning his eye toward national politics in the late 1960s, his first victim on the federal scene proved to be a Liberal front- bencher, Roger Teillet, then Minister of Veterans Affairs. Joe snatched the rug out from under his feet, taking the nomination and going on to win three consecutive elections before being appointed to the Senate in 1978.

His decade in the House of Commons, during which he served at various times as Chief Government Whip, Minister without Portfolio, Minister of State and Multiculturalism and Minister of National Revenue, provided him with an excellent background for his 12 years in the Senate.

Joseph-Philippe Guay never forgot his roots, both political and personal. I think we can all appreciate the additional stress and demands on our time that involvement in politics requires. As stated by Senator Carstairs, it is also important to note in this context that he and his wife had seven children.

While people generally laud the accomplishments, they remember the man, Joseph-Philippe Guay, as one who will not soon be forgotten. While I did not know the man — I only met him on a few occasions — my thoughts are with his family today.

Hon. Joyce Fairbairn: Honourable senators, I should like to add my own thoughts to those of Senator Carstairs and Senator Stratton on the passing of an old friend. I knew "Joe," as everyone called him — whether he was a member of Parliament or a minister or a senator, it was just "Joe" — when I was first working over on the House of Commons side. All of the attributes he brought to his work on Parliament Hill, which he thought was a calling that he had achieved beyond his wildest dreams, whether it be in the House of Commons or the Senate, went back to where he came from and the history of his family.

Yesterday, we were speaking about Jean-Maurice Simard being such a great representative for Acadians in New Brunswick. Joe Guay was a tremendous representative for francophone minorities, certainly in that keystone province of Manitoba, but also those who were scattered across Western Canada in small areas where many people in Canada would not even believe there is that kind of history. History was very important to Joe Guay. In the battles over the years on issues such as national unity, one could not have found a fiercer fighter for Canada than Joe Guay, a Canada with a very proud Quebec in it.

Others undoubtedly remember Joe for an incredible sense of humour. The two new whips could take lessons from Joe Guay — a very affable guy, but tough as nails as well. While he was patting you on the back, he was also giving you a little shove in the ribs to ensure that you would be there for him.

Joe made a tremendous contribution to Parliament as a minister. When he came to the Senate, he made friends with everyone.

Going back to Joe's retirement from the Senate, former Senator Royce Frith read a quote from Joe about Canada. Joe said:

There is a richness which Canada will always have, which not too many other countries have: multiculturalism in a bilingual country. It's got to work.

It is a great memory of Joe. It is a memory for me of a wonderful friend, a little man with a very big voice. I send my warmest wishes and sympathies to his family. Indeed, I think the last time I saw him was at the funeral of Senator Molgat. He was in great spirits, and that is how we will remember him. He made a very fine contribution to this chamber.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

The Late Honourable Sidney L. Buckwold, O.C.


Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, it is with great sadness that I rise today to commemorate the life of the Honourable Sid Buckwold, who died this past June. While I did not have the honour to serve as a senator during the time when "Senator Sid," as he was fondly known, occupied a seat in this chamber, he left an enduring mark on this institution that is familiar even to those of us who arrived here after his departure.

Although Senator Sid was born in Winnipeg, it was Saskatoon that benefited from his career in public service. He attended university in that province and also studied at McGill. Upon graduating, he went into the family business, Buckwold's Ltd. During the Second World War, he served as an officer in the Royal Canadian Army Service Corps. After his military service, Sid was elected alderman in 1953, the first of several positions in political service to his countrymen.

Before he became the Honourable Sid Buckwold, Senator Sid was known as His Worship, Sidney Buckwold, Mayor of Saskatoon. He served 11 years as mayor in two separate terms and left an indelible mark on the city and its inhabitants. As Mayor of Saskatoon, Sid changed the profile and prominence of the city: He built the first freeway; he moved the railway tracks from downtown and built a shopping centre and Centennial Auditorium on the site; he supported the construction of Mount Blackstrap; he established the Mendel Art Gallery; and he brought the Canada Winter Games to Saskatoon in 1971.


Throughout his entire life, Senator Buckwold played an active role in the city and province of his birth. Among other things, he was a member of the Senate of the University of Saskatchewan and sat on the board of the Dr. Alvin Buckwold services for children with developmental disabilities. He was also president of the St. Paul's Hospital advisory committee.


The Right Honourable Pierre Elliott Trudeau appointed Sid to the Senate in 1971. Some years after that, as a member of the official opposition in the Senate, Sid was relied upon a great deal by the Liberal leadership, for he could be an indomitable but fair- minded opponent. He had a great deal of political experience and judgment, and he played an invaluable role in many political battles, especially in the GST debate when he served as Chairman of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce. He also served as Government Whip in the Senate and as Vice-Chairman of the National Liberal Caucus.

In 1991, after 20 years in the Senate, Sid retired to Saskatoon. His presence was greatly missed in the chamber, partly because he was a very able senator, involved in many issues still relevant today: issues such as privacy and security, labour relations within government, and the pressures of urbanization on the environment. He was a strong advocate of an elected Senate and called for less partisanship in the Senate and more representation of Canadian regions.

Senator Buckwold was honoured with many public awards, including honorary Colonel of the North Saskatchewan Regiment for his military involvement, honorary Chief Mountain Maker for the construction of Mount Blackstrap, and named Officer of the Order of Canada in 1995 for his service to his country. It was his personal experiences with others that are his real legacy.

Senator Sid was characterized accurately, I believe, as an old-time politician in the most favourable sense of the term. He was friendly and informal with those who were fortunate enough to meet him, and well known for his integrity and common sense. His middle name means "heart" in Hebrew, a name which he changed from a more formal name, and which better suited the warmth which was an intrinsic part of his personality.


Sid was a politician who genuinely liked people. He especially appreciated the liveliness and enthusiasm of children. Both of his brothers died at a young age, and his extended family gave him a great deal of happiness and fulfilment.

I should like to take this occasion to express my sincere condolences to Senator Buckwold's family, including his grandchildren. He is well remembered in this place.

Hon. David Tkachuk: Honourable senators, my remarks will centre on Sidney Buckwold, the man and member of the Saskatchewan community, as opposed to his federal politics, since many of you opposite worked closely with him and can speak to those important contributions.

Sidney Buckwold was Saskatchewan's gain and Manitoba's loss. Although he was born in Manitoba, he went on to the University of Saskatchewan and later McGill University but ultimately returned to Saskatchewan.

Known as Saskatoon's most popular mayor for 11 years, over two terms, his down-to-earth personality and warmth epitomized what westerners respect most: Despite being an all around good guy, he also made things happen.

I do not know if honourable senators have made the connection, but Sid resigned as mayor in 1971 to accept Prime Minister Trudeau's offer of an appointment to the Senate. In political tributes, it may seem that reviews are glowing when someone dies. I am not sure if our friends and colleagues are happy when we die, but that is usually what happens. In Sid's case, his reviews were glowing even while he was still alive. I had not yet been appointed to the Senate, but I well remember the stories in The Leader-Post and The Star Phoenix regarding Sid's forced retirement from the Senate at age 75. Luckily for me, Senator Buckwold had to retire, thus opening up a seat for either Senator Andreychuk or Senator Gustafson, I am not sure which one. That meant that the next available seat came to me, and I got in, the last one from our province during the Mulroney administration.

Senator Buckwold received tributes his entire life, whether from family and extended family or from the City of Saskatoon, where he was awarded Citizen of the Year in 1971, or from the Governor General when he was invested at Rideau Hall as an Officer of the Order of Canada in 1996.

Sid was a businessman and an expert in municipal politics. He was taken aback by the antics of his fellow senators, especially during the GST debate. He was a gentleman more fitted to diplomacy than partisanship, although let there be no doubt of his Liberal roots. He adapted quickly during that debate and was able to partake in partisanship.

In the 1960s, Sidney Buckwold was sought after by the late Ross Thatcher to run provincially in Saskatchewan. When Davie Steuart, then the Deputy Premier of Saskatchewan, was asked by the premier, "Why isn't that Buckwold running for us?" Steuart honestly replied, "He doesn't like you." To which the premier replied, "What has that got to do with it? I don't like him either!"

Another former Mayor of Saskatoon, Cliff Wright, said that Sid Buckwold's greatest accomplishment, in his opinion, and I think in the opinion of most of the people in Saskatoon, was that he took a sleepy prairie agricultural town and imbued it with spirit and pride. Among other things, he was responsible for the Canada Winter Games coming to Saskatoon in 1971. When asked where the athletes would ski, he said he would build a mountain; and he did, albeit a small one, but it is being used to this very day.

Sid's vision of downtown Saskatoon was prescient to today's work on urban renewal. He convinced CN Rail to relocate its operations to the city's western outskirts. This enabled the building of the Centennial Auditorium. Cliff Wright said that Sid was responsible for the building from the very first, from the foundation to the last shingle on the roof. It is the cultural, political and musical centre of the city. I have gone to the auditorium many times for political rallies, concerts and cultural presentations. I even fell asleep once during a Nana Mouskouri concert at the auditorium.

The federal government was so captivated by this idea of rail relocation after Sid Buckwold and Saskatoon had done it, and were the first to do it, that the Liberals set up a federal program for the rest of Canada. They started giving grants to cities for exactly that purpose. Saskatoon, being the first to be successful with their relocation, missed out on the grants.

Through Sid's years of management of municipal finances, over two terms as mayor, the civil service of Saskatoon today is a place where workers are proud to work. That is part of Sid's legacy. Saskatoon's municipal workers provide professional, excellent service to the citizens.

To Senator Sid's family, his wife, Clarice, his children, Jay, Judith and Linda, grandchildren and extended family members, on behalf of all of us and the people of Saskatchewan, God bless you. Thank you for sharing Senator Sid with Canadians. He has left an indelible impression on this place and an impressive legacy for public figures from Saskatchewan.

Hon. Joyce Fairbairn: Honourable senators, these are truly sad days of losing old and valued friends. Sid Buckwold was certainly one of mine. When I came to the Senate in 1984, I was truly privileged to watch one of the best shows in town. I wish Senator Tkachuk had been here as well. Here we really had the four horsemen of Saskatchewan, and only Senator Sparrow remains with us. These were and are unusual men. We know that Senator Sparrow is a man of character, and a character in and of himself. His companions from Saskatchewan were Senator Davie Steuart, Senator Staff Barootes and Senator Buckwold. It truly was worth the price of admission to sit here and watch those fellows when they were going at it; good, close friends, but combatants such as you have never seen. Probably their most vigorous hours came during the GST debate.

Sid Buckwold, along with the other senators from Saskatchewan, had a characteristic which is I suppose Canadian, but there certainly seems to be something special in the air of that province that gives a biting sense of humour and the ability with words and wit that many of us wish we had.

When Senator Buckwold left this place, his friends such as Senator Barootes were sad to see him go. Indeed, I can recall Senator Barootes referring to him as probably the best mayor of any place in the country when he was leading the citizens of Saskatoon.

Senator Buckwold loved this place. He took it seriously. He worked prodigiously. When Sid made a decision on the route he would take, nothing would dissuade him. He taught me a lot. He contributed to a degree of public admiration through his activities that many of us would dearly wish to emulate.

Senator Buckwold and his wife, Clarice, were extremely generous. When any of us came to Saskatoon, we did not stay in a hotel, you ended up in their guest room and being looked after like a prince or a princess.

My thoughts go out to the Buckwold family. Sid was an irreplaceable man, a scholar, a businessman, a humanitarian and a very loyal member of the Armed Forces who gave proud service overseas. Those people do not pass this place twice, and I am happy today to remember him with great fondness.


Hon. A. Raynell Andreychuk: Honourable senators, I wish to say a few words about the late Senator Sidney Buckwold. My knowledge of Senator Buckwold goes back to when he was Mayor of the City of Saskatoon. When I was growing up in Saskatoon, every young person knew Senator Buckwold. He attended virtually every event in the community. He was a hard- working and very approachable mayor. Mayors are often preoccupied with the issues that preoccupy adults but, as mayor, Senator Buckwold took a great interest in the young people of the community.

After I had moved away from Saskatoon, I was surprised to learn on return visits that he had followed my career and those of many of my friends and counterparts from Saskatoon. He took an interest in our lives, and he felt that the concerns of everyone in the city were his concerns.

He had somewhat of a rude awakening when he ran for federal politics and lost. Many citizens of Saskatoon who had consistently voted for him as mayor told him that they did not vote for him when he ran federally because they wanted him in their community on a day-to-day basis. They wanted him as their mayor.

Many years after leaving the office of mayor, people still referred to him as Mayor Buckwold. At every event in Saskatoon he was either present or mentioned. He is truly an icon in Saskatoon. The contributions he has made to that community are legion.

Sidney Buckwold had a great respect for the Senate and the people who work here. His concerns and interests crossed party lines. He was as concerned about those sitting on the opposite side of the chamber as he was about those on his side.

When I came to this place, he immediately called me to say how delighted he was about my appointment. He said that I had erred in only one issue. That, of course, was in the side that I had chosen.

He remained in constant contact by telephone. He followed our debates and encouraged me to continue in the work that I was doing. Therefore, I have lost a mentor, a friend and a valued colleague.

In the coming years, there will often be mention of Senator Buckwold. He will live on in legend as an icon from Saskatoon and a great Canadian because of the contributions that he has made, which have been listed by speakers before me.

I extend my condolences from the floor of the Senate chamber, as I have personally, to Senator Buckwold's family. I express my gratitude for his work and his example to all of us in Saskatoon, in Saskatchewan and in Canada.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!


Stephanie McClellan

Congratulations on Completion of Cross-Canada Trip to Raise Awareness and Funds for the Disabled

Hon. Consiglio Di Nino: Honourable senators, on July 1, 2001, right here on Parliament Hill, Stephanie McClellan, a courageous young paraplegic athlete, started the second leg of a cross-Canada adventure on a specially designed three-wheel bicycle to raise awareness and funds for the cause of disabled people everywhere.

Let me read to you from what she recently wrote to me:

We did it! Vancouver, B.C. to Cape Spear, Nfld, 9018 kms. As I sat on the cliff and gazed out to the horizon where ocean met sky, I thought of all the people who became part of the "On Wings Like Eagles" dream. Like the waves crashing over the rocks below me, my gratitude tumbled upon itself at the shore for the people like you who meant so much to the success of our journey.

Honourable senators, I am sure you will join with me in telling Stephanie: It is we who thank you for your inspiration and courage.

The Late Carrie Best, O.C.


Hon. Donald H. Oliver: Honourable senators, I rise today to call to your attention the passing last July of a very great Canadian. Dr. Carrie Best died in New Glasgow, Nova Scotia. She was widely known as a human rights leader, a journalist, an author, a poet and a humanitarian. She was 97 years of age.

She was one of the most outstanding Black activists and crusaders in the last century, never afraid to stand up for the rights of our people. She was always breaking new ground. She is considered the first Black publisher in Nova Scotia and an outspoken advocate of racial equality. She wrote countless articles designed to expose systemic racism. An example of a story she covered in her journal was a dissertation on a Black baby that was denied burial in a white cemetery.

She frequently appeared before the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission and had a habit of winning most of her cases. She published her autobiography entitled That Lonesome Road and also wrote many books of poetry. St. Francis Xavier University and King's College presented her with honorary degrees and she ultimately was named a Member and, later, a Companion of the Order of Canada.

When she received her degree from St. Francis Xavier University in 1975, Reverend Dr. Malcolm MacDonell said the following of Dr. Best:

A woman of outstanding work, a tenacious crusader for good and noble cause, a gracious lady who has devoted her life and her generous gifts to the betterment of the human condition. She has given hope and dignity to her own race and is an example and inspiration to all people in both word and work.

I extend my condolences and sympathy to her family.


Study on Present and Future State of Forestry

Report of Agriculture and Forestry Committee Tabled

Hon. Leonard J. Gustafson: Honourable senators, I have the honour to inform the Senate that the fourth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, which dealt with the present and future state of forestry during the Second Session of the 36th Parliament, was tabled with the Clerk in the Senate June 29, 2001.

I commend the reading of this excellent report to everyone.


National Defence

Missile Defence System and Need for International Security—Notice of Inquiry

Hon. Douglas Roche: Honourable senators, I give notice that two days hence, I will call the attention of the Senate to the urgent need to consider the implications of a missile defence system for Canada's policies on keeping space free of all weapons and, in this context, to promote a cooperative and forward-minded approach to international security in the light of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.


National Defence

United States—Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001—Possible Retaliatory Measures—Contribution by Armed Forces

Hon. J. Michael Forrestall: Honourable senators, I should like to ask several questions of the Leader of the Government in the Senate. They are along the lines of the questions I posed yesterday with respect to Canada's contribution to our friends to the south.

The government, as I mentioned yesterday, has indicated that we, as Canadians, are prepared to stand shoulder to shoulder with our American friends in their war on terrorism. That may very well begin tonight. Australia has, as we now know, clearly started their role to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Americans. We have indicated publicly, but I gather not directly, to the United States our preparedness to supply or to make available CF-18s and/or the Royal 22nd Regiment.

I draw to the attention of the leader once again that the CF-18s are not supportable in this capacity. We have no way of getting them there. We have no way of sustaining them while they are operating over there. Indeed, it seems a useful gesture to offer them, but it is very difficult for Canadians to understand just what the CF-18s would do.

Can the minister tell us whether any specific new training has been initiated with respect to the use of CF-18s and the Royal 22nd Regiment in this regard?

Perhaps the minister, while she is dealing with that question, will tell us what she may know or may be able to find out about whether we have dispatched as yet or offered to our friends to the south the services of the Joint Task Force-2.

Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, the honourable senator has indicated his understanding and belief, which is shared by me, that Canada will indeed stand shoulder to shoulder with our allies, not only the United States but our other NATO allies, under Article 5, as has been well recognized since the terrible tragedy of last week.

As the honourable senator knows, the Prime Minister will be meeting with the President of the United States on Monday. At that time, and only at that time, will discussions take place as to what it is that Canadians can offer on the basis of what the Americans would like us to do.

Warnings of Terrorist Attacks

Hon. J. Michael Forrestall: Honourable senators, I appreciate that answer, but I caution the minister that in the past, when Canada has been faced with like decisions, the government has been severely criticized for failing to take into its counsel the chambers of Parliament and the public of Canada. I am fully aware of that.

Has the government been given any warning of likely terrorist attacks on or about September 22, this coming Saturday? If so, can the minister tell us the likely nature of these attacks and if Canada is likely to be targeted?

Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, the Government of Canada has in the past consulted with parliamentarians, and we consulted with parliamentarians Monday and Tuesday of this week when debate took place in both chambers with respect to the attack on the United States on September 11. There is no lack of will on the part of this government to consult with parliamentarians.

In terms of whether there is any forecasted attack on Canada, I am not at liberty to discuss that in this place.

United States—Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001—Possible Retaliatory Measures—Debate on Contribution by Armed Forces

Hon J. Michael Forrestall: Honourable senators, might I be so bold as to suggest to the Leader of the Government in the Senate that, yes, indeed, we may have been given an opportunity to participate in debate, and it was welcome because it did give us an opportunity to express our concern to our allies about terrorism, not just in the United States but worldwide. It gave us an opportunity to send our sympathies to the victims, in particular to their families.

While all of this is very true, it was hardly a debate when all we had to base our debate upon was CNN news broadcasts.

Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, frankly, I do not think that was the case. I certainly turned to CNN on a number of occasions during that period of time, but I most frequently watched CBC Newsworld. I did so because I thought that its work, often by accepting feeds from CNN — and I want to be clear about that — was excellent and well balanced. It was, after all, Canadian.

United States—Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001—Swearing Opposition Leaders to Cabinet

Hon. Marjory LeBreton: Honourable senators, I have a supplementary question to my colleague's comments about parliamentarians being afforded the opportunity to participate in this debate and keeping parliamentarians fully informed. Has the government considered doing what was done during the Gulf War when Audrey McLaughlin, then Leader of the NDP, was sworn in to the Privy Council for the purpose of reviewing private briefings with respect to Canada's security and participation in that war? Of course, the same courtesy was extended to the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Chrétien, who was already a Privy Councillor. He received briefings on a regular basis from the President of the Privy Council and the Deputy Minister of National Defence in a room adjacent to the cabinet room.

Would the government be prepared to extend that courtesy to the leaders of the parties in the other place and in this place as well?

Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I want the honourable senator to know that briefings have taken place. All of the leaders of all of the official parties in the House of Commons were briefed. It is my understanding that those briefings will continue where appropriate. Whether it will be necessary at some point to swear in some of those individuals as Privy Councillors I do not think has been determined at this point, but I will certainly take the honourable senator's suggestion forward.

United States—Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001—Possibility of Creating International Tribunal

Hon. Douglas Roche: Honourable senators, my question is directed to the Leader of the Government. Could she inform the Senate of the ideas and proposals that Canada is at this moment putting before the leadership of the United Nations in an effort to find a comprehensive set of measures to respond to the New York and Washington attacks? I have in mind, for example, the creation of an international tribunal to try the culprits once they are apprehended.

Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Government): I thank the honourable senator for his question. It would appear that the upcoming session of the UN General Assembly will in fact not go forward. It has been decided that the world is in such a state of tension that the dialogue might not be of the value that it should be.

In terms of the honourable senator's specific proposal of the creation of an international tribunal, I will bring it forward to my cabinet colleagues.


United States—Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001—Influence on Economic Situation

Hon. Terry Stratton: Honourable senators, my question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Wednesday's National Post includes the following in a report on a speech by CanWest Director David Asper. He gave a speech to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce expressing concern. The article reads:


Mr. Asper said business requires an environment of political, economic and democratic certainty, and a failure on the part of the Canadian government to take a harsh stand heightens a threat of loss of consumer confidence.

Does the government at all share Mr. Asper's concern that this failure to take a harsh stand has increased the chances that consumer confidence will fall further?

Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, it was just a very few months ago that David Asper made comments that did not meet with the approval of the other side of this chamber. At that time, I indicated that my understanding was that David Asper, a very accomplished young lawyer, was quite capable of making his own statements, but I was not associating myself with David Asper's statements. I am not associating myself with David Asper's statements today.

As to whether, in the view of the government, business requires certainty, I think that is a given.

Senator Stratton: Honourable senators, with the events of the last 10 days and with the economic situation deteriorating daily, why will the Minister of Finance not bring in a new budget instead of an economic statement? The concern is this: How does doing little on the part of the government in this regard help the confidence of Canadians? The confidence of Canadians is dropping daily with the hits the economy is taking. This uncertainty is driving us down, and nothing is being said by this government to instill confidence in Canadians with respect to the economic future of this country. Something should be said.

Senator Carstairs: Honourable senators, the Minister of Finance, in his economic update in May, indicated clearly that there would be a further economic update in the fall, probably early in the month of October, which is just a few weeks from now.

Two days ago, it was announced that there was a surplus of $17.1 billion, which has led to a substantial payment on our debt that will save us some $2.5 billion in interest payments each and every year.

Frankly, I do not agree with my friend opposite who says there is a sense of great anxiety among Canadians. I think they have stood shoulder to shoulder with their Prime Minister since last Tuesday —

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Senator Carstairs: — and they are confident that Canada is in very good hands.

Senator Stratton: I would ask then, honourable senators, why Mr. Asper received a resounding round of applause when he gave his speech. I would ask why and how the minister can respond in the fashion she did with the economy deteriorating daily. We have a problem here. Canadians do not need to hear about the past. That is history and we were done with that as of last week. We are in an entirely new world situation. The situation is completely different. Since when have we have faced anything like it? Some of us in this chamber remember the crisis of 1962. This is serious stuff, and to flip off and start quoting what happened in the past is not the issue here. The issue is where are we going and what our economic situation likely to be. We need something, minister.

Senator Carstairs: Honourable senators, that is exactly what my honourable friend will get in the economic update from the Minister of Finance. Frankly, I have never known a business community anywhere in this country that would not give a resounding round of applause for someone who made the statement, "business certainty."

Foreign Affairs

Comments by Journalist on Middle East Policy at Ceremony Involving Governor General

Hon. Marcel Prud'homme: Honourable senators, the Honourable Senator Stratton mentioned the name of Mr. Asper. I know that there is a good relationship with that gentleman. However, I am shocked. I would like the minister to convey that message to the cabinet. Her Excellency the Governor General should be saved the embarrassment of having to listen to a man attacking a minister of the Crown, a member of the Privy Council. I, too, am a member of the Privy Council. The vicious attack he made against the Minister of Foreign Affairs in the presence of Her Excellency was totally unacceptable.

This vicious attack on all foreign affairs public servants, attacking them as Arabists and anti-Canadian, in essence for their views on the Middle East question, was totally uncalled for and unacceptable. What I resent most is that this was done before Her Excellency the Governor General, for whom I have the highest esteem as a lady of immense class and talent. She does a fabulous job. It is like taking a prisoner and saying, "Now, you will listen to what I have to say." It was in the worst taste. If this is what we are about to see in the newspapers, 53 per cent of which are now controlled by the same group of people, the public is about to miss much of what is going on in this country. If we were to listen to what was suggested by the Ottawa Citizen today and yesterday, we would be at war with everyone because everyone now is included. Senators may have noticed that they forgot to mention North Korea and Cuba, so apparently now they are part of the people who should be disposed of. Canadians have more sense. If the minister could, with her sense of equilibrium, bring these views to the appropriate people, I think Canada will keep its good reputation.

Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I thank the honourable senator for his comments. I will bring his message to my cabinet colleagues. Clearly, our Governor General is doing a wonderful job. Her sense of understanding of this country is not only extensive but also extremely valuable to the role she plays. We live in a country where, I think the honourable senator would say, free speech must always be an absolutely protected value. Therefore, one cannot indicate, not even in the presence of the Governor General, that one can or cannot say this or that. I will certainly make the views of my honourable friend known to my colleagues.

The Senate

Possibility of Pre-study of Charities Registration (Security Information) Bill

Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, on Tuesday of this week, during the important debate relating to the tragic events of September 11, a number of concrete suggestions were made regarding steps that the Senate of Canada might undertake. One is related to Bill C-11, which I hope will be before the appropriate committee soon. It is the bill which deals with immigration. Our committee will be able to examine not only the general social dimensions of the bill, of which we had already been seized, but also some of the due process issues of the bill. In light of the tragic events that cloud our world of today, no doubt there is an interest in this chamber, which will find expression in that committee, in looking at needed amendments to either the bill or the Immigration Act relating to the more contemporary approach of the determination of landed immigrant status in Canada.


The second concrete suggestion for action by the Senate was that we consider making a pre-study of Bill C-16, which is now in the House of Commons. I understand that bill has been referred to a committee of the other place prior to its adoption at second reading. Can the Leader of the Government in the Senate tell us whether the government would be open to having the Senate examine the subject matter of that bill in relation to income tax treatment of those who raise money that finds its way directly or indirectly to terrorist groups?

In these days, it is my humble submission that we could take that concrete step. I understand this would be a pre-study. The government could choose to bring in a parallel bill or an improved bill, then mutatis mutandis a study of the subject matter would be an important step for the Senate.

Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Government): I do not believe that a pre-study of the present Bill C-16 would be particularly effective in that the bill has a very limited nature. The only act opened in Bill C-16 is the Income Tax Act. Some serious concerns are now being raised as to whether we should also be opening the Criminal Code to examine potential amendments there. That cannot be done with the present Bill C-16.

The Minister of Justice has indicated that she is examining that issue. It might be more useful for our new committee on national security to conduct a broader study rather than limiting a study to the topic of Bill C-16 in its present form.

Senator Kinsella: Honourable senators, I thank the minister for her reply. I take it, then, that the government is open to having the Senate study the subject matter of money being raised by organizations in Canada and finding its way directly or indirectly to terrorist organizations. In the examination of that subject matter, amendments to the Criminal Code or to other pieces of legislation may be needed in addition to the Income Tax Act. The government seems to share my view, and perhaps next week we can come back to this issue by way of a motion of referral to our new Standing Senate Committee on National Defence and Security, as I believe it is called, chaired by our distinguished colleague Senator Kenny. Have I understood the pith and thrust of the position?

Senator Carstairs: Honourable senators, I have indicated that the reference of that committee is sufficiently broad that it could undertake such a study.


Airline Industry—Effect of Terrorist Attacks on United States—Government Support

Hon. Lowell Murray: Honourable senators, what is the position of the government with regard to the $3 billion being sought by Air Canada to tide it over?

Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, as I indicated yesterday, the government has made no decision with respect to the request primarily because the airline industry is not the only industry that will be impacted by the events of last week. Canada 3000 has now made a similar request for help. We first must have a broader picture about the economic situation, not only with respect to air transport but also the trucking industry and other industries that may be affected.

Senator Murray: Honourable senators, with regard to the request from Air Canada or, if my friend wants to put it in a somewhat broader context, the requests from the air travel industry, can we be informed as to the options being considered by the government? Obviously, advisers to the government will have developed various options to put before ministers. It would greatly assist in our consideration if we could have some idea what those options are.

Senator Carstairs: Honourable senators, at this point I have to tell the Honourable Senator Murray that I do not think options have been developed. Those options will be ongoing as the economic situation unfolds.


Delayed Answers to Oral Questions

Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I have the honour to table answers to questions raised in the Senate on June 5 and June 6, 2001, regarding the project for the Maritime Helicopters Procurement Project, by Senator Forrestall, and the answer to the question raised in the Senate on June 5, 2001, regarding the helicopter procurement project by Senator Stratton.

National Defence

Replacement of Sea King Helicopters—Risk Analysis Prior to Splitting Procurement Process

(Response to question raised June 5, 2001 by Hon. J. Michael Forrestall)


When was Senator Carstairs informed that a risk analysis had been carried out by the government regarding a split procurement process and the related costs?


The Leader of the Senate receives briefings on key government issues on an ongoing basis and information on the Maritime Helicopter Project would be included in such briefings.

Replacement of Sea King Helicopters—Cost of Equipping Eurocopter Cougar for Naval Use

(Response to question raised by Hon. J. Michael Forrestall on June 6, 2001)

All potential airframe manufacturers will need to modify their helicopters for naval use in order to meet the requirement specifications for the Maritime Helicopter. The necessary modifications and related costs will be evaluated by all companies and will be reflected in the bid price submitted in response to the Request for Proposals.

Replacement of Sea King Helicopters—Sea State Operation and Ditching Requirements

(Response to question raised by Hon. Terry Stratton on June 5, 2001)

Operating limits and safe ditching limits are two separate issues and therefore have two different sea-state requirements.

Operating limits refer to the ability to operate from a ship. Ditching limits refer to the ability of a helicopter to float in an upright position, following an emergency water landing, to allow for normal exit of crew and passengers.

It is generally accepted that conditions between sea-states three and six are too severe to guarantee normal exit conditions for the crew following an emergency landing. Accordingly, crews are trained in emergency exit to enable them to safely exit the helicopter if it is unable to maintain an upright position.

Questions on the Order Paper

Request for Answers

Hon. Jean-Robert Gauthier: Honourable senators, since May 29, 2001, I have raised four highly important questions. I have yet to receive answers. I have noticed that answers are being given to questions raised in June, before answering those raised in May. Can I expect an answer soon? These answers are important for our work.


Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I asked my staff how many questions were outstanding. I was told one. I do not know whether it is Senator Gauthier's question, but I will get back to staff and try to facilitate that for him.

Senator Gauthier: To be more specific, the question is No. 16 and it has four parts to it. I would appreciate very much having an answer in the near future.

Senator Carstairs: I thank the Honourable Senator Gauthier for his clarification in terms of it being a written question rather than a question asked in the chamber. I will follow up, as I indicated I would do.


Youth Criminal Justice Bill

Second Reading—Debate Continued

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Pearson, seconded by the Honourable Senator Poy, for the second reading of Bill C-7, in respect of criminal justice for young persons and to amend and repeal other Acts.

Hon. Gérald-A. Beaudoin: Honourable senators, it is not easy to legislate in the domain of criminal justice for young persons. The Attorney General of Quebec has already challenged, before the Appeal Court of Quebec, the constitutionality of Bill C-7. A long list of experts have already made known their desire to appear before us.


Bill C-7 repeals the existing Young Offenders Act and replaces it with a new system of justice for young people based first on making them accountable and protecting society and then on their potential for rehabilitation.



Bill C-7 is composed of nine parts: extra judicial measures; the organization of the youth criminal justice system; judicial measures; sentencing; custody and supervision; publication, records and information; general provisions; transitional provisions; and the consequential amendments, repeal and coming into force.

It is a considerable statute, to say the least, honourable senators.


The declaration of principle set out in clause 3 of Bill C-7 confirms that Canadian policy on young offenders is based on crime prevention. The youth criminal justice system must respect the principle of fair and proportional accountability but remain separate from the adult system.

Jurisprudence has recognized the role of Parliament in the preventing and reducing of crimes involving young offenders, while giving subsection 92(13) and section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867, very broad scope, thus confirming the jurisdiction of the provinces over the protection of youth.


This division of power in our study of Bill C-7 is fundamental for us. That is a point that Quebec has identified and raised in court, and we are governed by the division of powers.


In Sheldon, the Supreme Court ruled on the matter of alternative measures. At issue in this matter was the Government of Ontario's failure to implement an alternative measures program for young offenders under section 4 of the Young Offenders Act, based on shared powers and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Chief Justice Dickson noted, on behalf of the Court, that section 4 did not require the provinces to set up such a program. It was not a mandatory requirement, but a measure left to the discretion of the individual provinces. Furthermore, section 4 was valid, because it is under the jurisdiction of Parliament in matters of criminal law under subsection 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

In addition, jurisdiction to prosecute young offenders had been given to the provinces under section 2 of the Criminal Code. The discretionary power to implement alternative measures was corollary relief, according to Mr. Justice Dickson.

The statement of principle in section 3 of Bill C-7 seems to reduce the provinces' ability to prevent juvenile delinquency.


We should hear from the experts on that point.


Bill C-7 would bring about an important reorganization of the youth criminal justice system in Canada, basing it primarily on the protection of society and the accountability of young offenders, rather than on the principle of rehabilitation and reintegration, as is now the case. This is a paradigm shift.

The first objective, protection of society, would be satisfied through the imposition of fair punishments which are commensurate with the seriousness of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the young person. In addition, consideration should be given to regional harmonization for specific sentences.

The second objective, reintegration, should be considered so that the sentence given is as light as possible, so that it offers the best chances of rehabilitation and reintegration, and so that it encourages a sense of responsibility in the young person.

There is no doubt that one of the objectives of the Youth Criminal Justice Act must be to protect society. Should that be the primary objective? If so, this relegates the needs of the young person to second position. The absence of any notion of balance between the needs of the young person and the protection of society means that the youth sentencing system will be less and less distinct from the one for adults. However, it is important to remember that the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized the need for a separate youth justice system.

Pursuant to clause 155 of Bill C-7, the Governor in Council may make regulations "establishing uniform rules of court for youth justice courts across Canada, including rules regulating the practice and procedure to be followed by youth justice courts."

In the referral on the Young Offenders Act (PEI), the Supreme Court found that jurisdiction over the Young Offenders Act may be conferred upon provincial youth courts.

According to Chief Justice Lamer, the Young Offenders Act creates a specific legislative regime for youth which postdates the federation. That said, this jurisdiction may be conferred upon lower courts. This was sufficient for purposes of the referral, but Chief Justice Lamer adds that, had this jurisdiction predated Confederation, it would still have been conferred upon the lower courts because it does not constitute "a fundamental element of the jurisdiction protected by section 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867."


As the administration of justice, in particular, when it concerns the provincial courts, comes under the jurisdiction of the provinces pursuant to section 92.14 of the Constitution, it is surprising to see, in Bill C-7, that the Parliament of Canada will have the power to establish uniform rules for all provincial tribunals for young people. Probably, the Parliament of Canada will invoke its ancillary power to legitimize this intrusion into the provincial field. Parliament will no doubt have recourse to the argument of necessity. Again, this is a point that will be discussed in the Quebec Court of Appeal.

Some people have raised the point that Bill C-7 does not comply with our international obligations in the field of constitutional and international law. I must say that Canada has inherited, from the United Kingdom, the system of duality.


A treaty does not change the law of Canada until implementing legislation has been adopted by the proper authorities, that is, the Parliament or the provincial legislature, as the case may be. If no implementing legislation is adopted, the status quo continues to apply. This will also need to be studied in our Legal Committee. We also have an obligation to give effect to the treaties signed by Canada.


In conclusion, honourable senators, we find that the criminal justice system for young offenders is certainly in need of change. Bill C-7 represents an in-depth change in that the primary aim of the new regime is to protect society and to make young offenders assume responsibility. In the future, the objective of rehabilitation and social reintegration will be secondary. In my opinion, a thorough examination is required in connection with Bill C-7, because we have a duty to comply with the rules of our founding legislation and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

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


Leave having been given to revert to Government Notice of Motions:

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

That when the Senate adjourns today, it do stand adjourned until Tuesday next, September 25, 2001 at 2 p.m.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Motion agreed to.

The Senate adjourned to Tuesday, September 25, 2001 at 2 p.m.