Hon. Lois M. Wilson: Honourable senators, I rise to inform the Senate
about the ongoing work of the Humanities and Social Sciences Federation of
Canada and the thousands of researchers whose work it supports. Quite recently,
senators as well as 301 members in the other place received a brochure from this
body, and I wish to highlight its importance for all Canadians.
On November 5, at the National Gallery of Canada, the Natural Sciences and
Engineering Research Council of Canada hosted its awards gala — awards of
excellence, fellowship and prizes. Canada honoured ecologist David Schindler
with the award of the Herzberg Medal, Canada's biggest scientific prize.
Equally important, although not as well known, is the work of the Humanities
and Social Sciences Federation of Canada. I will provide two illustrations of
the importance of its work.
Today, we all speak of the global village, a concept created and written
about by Marshall McLuhan, who earned his MA at the University of Manitoba and
later taught at St. Michael's College, University of Toronto, from 1946 to 1979.
When discussing the demographic shift and its profound societal effects, we
commonly refer to the boom, bust or echo generations, concepts created and
written about by David Foot, Professor of Economics at the University of
The writings of these two notable Canadian researchers, as well as those of
the more than 18,000 faculty in Canadian universities who work in the humanities
and social sciences, are precious national treasures. Their research advances
our understanding of the histories, the attitudes and the values shaping human
behaviour. It allows individuals, communities, organizations and societies to
better understand the major social and cultural transformations affecting us.
The tragic events recently in the United States illustrate the essential
contribution humanities and social sciences research make in our everyday lives.
We cannot go a day without seeing a media outlet quoting from an interview they
conducted with researchers in the fields of either culture, religion,
international relations or psychology, to name but a few.
Our political system also benefits from their research. The majority of
academic experts we call upon to provide testimony at our parliamentary
committees are researchers active in the humanities and social sciences. We
honour research excellence, particularly lifting up the important work done by
the researchers who work in the humanities and social sciences in Canada on a
consistent and a continuing basis.
Hon. Tommy Banks: Honourable senators, I wish to thank honourable
senators on all sides of this house, members in the other place and members of
the parliamentary staff for the extreme kindness you have all shown to Ida and
me during the past few difficult weeks. The clearly heartfelt nature of your
messages of condolence to us has been very comforting. I want you to know how
very grateful my family and I are for that. Thank you.
Hon. Tommy Banks: On a much happier note, honourable senators, I wish
to refer to a matter that Senator Wilson has already mentioned and to ask you to
join me in congratulating a brilliant scientist, a quality teacher, an advocate
for environmental integrity, a man who chose to make Canada and, I am proud to
say, Edmonton his adopted home.
On Monday, David Schindler, as Senator Wilson said, added to his lengthy list
of awards the prestigious Gerhard Herzberg Canada Gold Medal for Science and
Engineering. That list of awards fills this page. I will not bother to read them
The Gerhard Herzberg award is meant to celebrate Canada's most outstanding
scientists and engineers and to raise public awareness about the major
contributions that Canada's top researchers make to international science and
technology and to bettering people's lives. The prize is $1 million. It is
typical of Mr. Schindler that, when he received that prize, he said, in effect,
"Now I can really get down to work."
He is currently the Killam Memorial Professor of Ecology at the University of
Alberta and a consultant on many environmental studies across Canada, during the
course of which he has succeeded in making industry and all levels of government
exceedingly angry at one point or another — so he must be doing something right.
Mr. Schindler is a native of the United States, but in 1992 he took out
Canadian citizenship, expressing his love for our country and its environment,
calling himself a kind of "ecological refugee." He continues to warn us:
...not to take for granted the relatively pristine lakes and streams, the
wildlife in the forest, and the fresh air because they sure don't have any
more of it where I come from.
Mr. Schindler is not one to back down from controversial matters. We hope he
will continue to follow that pattern. Please join me in congratulating David
Schindler, a brilliant and creative person who demonstrates that bright and
innovative brains drain into this country.
Hon. Jean Robert Gauthier: Honourable senators, the Canadian
Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commisssion, CRTC, brought down its
decision yesterday, November 6, 2001, concerning the rebroadcasting of the
debates of the House of Commons by CPAC, the Cable Public Affairs Channel.
This extremely important decision will have an impact on the entire country,
because it will make it possible for viewers to have access to the debates of
the House of Commons and its committees, and in the official language of their
The Commission also announced its intention to amend the regulations so that
class 1 and 2 licensed broadcasting retransmission undertakings using direct
satellite distribution must retransmit the debates of the House of Commons and
the various committees. It also required this to be part of its basic service
and in both official languages. The modified regulations will take effect on
September 1, 2002, or less than a year from now.
This decision by the CRTC is the result of an investigation by the
Commissioner of Official Languages, a study by a parliamentary commission and a
public notice by the CRTC, Public Notice 2001-115, in which everyone recognized
from the outset the importance of all Canadians having access to the debates of
the House of Commons and its committees.
In this decision, there was only one dark cloud, the absence of the Senate.
Not a word was said of the Senate's broadcasting needs. We know that the
agreement with CPAC expired last year. Negotiations are underway, and we have
less than a year to make important decisions and to send the message to
Canadians that Parliament has two chambers, the House of Commons and the Senate.
The Senate is also involved in the debates and must be a party to the
decisions taken in this Parliament.
Hon. Laurier L. LaPierre: Honourable senators, on Sunday evening,
November 3, an event took place at the National Arts Centre, an event of great
national importance. I am speaking of the gala honouring the recipients of this
year's Governor General's Performing Arts Awards, honouring Mario Bernardi, the
founder and first conductor of the National Arts Centre Orchestra in 1969; "Old
Rawhide" himself, incarnated this time as Max Ferguson; the exquisite Evelyn
Hart of the Royal Winnipeg Ballet; Christopher Plummer, who illuminates the
theatres of Canada; Anne Claire Poirier, a pioneer in film-making; Thea Borlase,
who has taught us that volunteer time is more important than money; and Édouard
Lock of La La La Human Steps.
I remind honourable senators of this event and of these Canadian artists to
impress upon everyone the fact that, as Richard Monette, Artistic Director of
the Stratford Festival, told his staff at the end of 2001 season: Art provides
communion in the midst of confusion; it provides order and sanity when there is
chaos; it brings beauty when there is ugliness; it is redemptive in the face of
fear; and it heals through laughter and through tears.
Hon. Mira Spivak: Honourable senators, I also wish to pay tribute, as
Senator Banks has done, to David Schindler, Canada's most famous freshwater
scientist. As Senator Banks mentioned, on Monday, Professor Schindler received
the prestigious Gerhard Herzberg Medal. This was not the first of his honours.
He is also the recipient of the $150,000 Stockholm Water Prize, which is the
equivalent of a Nobel Prize in that area, and also a Volvo Environment Prize,
among many other honours.
It has often been attempted to muzzle the warnings of this scientist and
ecologist regarding acid raid. No one has criticized his research on water
pollution, but the government often did not want him to speak publicly about
grave problems. For example, he spoke publicly on the issue of acid rain during
the free trade negotiations, even though the government was worried that it
would jeopardize the free trade deal.
His approach to persuade doubters was ingenious. He hung a plastic curtain
down the middle of the lake to demonstrate the impact of phosphates on lakes. He
used small lakes in Ontario to illustrate how acid rain kills lakes.
After leaving the public service, Professor Schindler went to the University
of Alberta where his research continued in similar directions. He studied how
DDT and other poisons evaporate from farm soils, drift to the Arctic and stay
there because it is too cold for them to evaporate again, thus impacting
northern people and wildlife disproportionately.
David Schindler has appeared often on Parliament Hill, before committees and
in fora, and his testimony has been invaluable. His research on the lakes and
boreal forests of Canada show how the combined assault of overcutting in
watersheds and the climate change impacts of mining and oil and gas wells allow
UV rays to damage lakes. It was most important in the forestry subcommittee
study of the boreal forest at risk, which Senator Taylor chaired.
David Schindler is a national treasure. I know that all honourable senators,
as Senator Banks has said, will join in offering him congratulations on a
Hon. David Tkachuk: Honourable senators, there is a long-standing
practice that the Minister of Finance does not interfere in the conduct of
monetary policy in Canada. However, in 1993, the Liberal Party said that it
would, then changed its mind after 1993 and said that monetary policy is the
exclusive purview of the Governor of the Bank of Canada.
Yesterday, in response to a reporter's question about the half point cut in
the U.S. Federal Reserve rate, the Minister of Finance said:
...that's obviously going to have an effect on our economy. Obviously,
there are measures that we have to take here — the Bank of Canada and the
The key words are "have to take." Is the Minister of Finance telling the Bank
of Canada that it must take further monetary action?
Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Government): The answer to that
question is very simple. It is contained in the same article in The Globe and
Mail, from which I assume the honourable senator is quoting, in which a
spokesman for Mr. Martin said last night that the minister's comments should not
be interpreted as interference: "The bank makes its own independent judgments."
Senator Tkachuk: If the Minister of Finance has to date ruled out any
stimulus package, as he has called it — indeed, it may have been in the same
article in The Globe and Mail in which the Minister of Finance was
reported as still rejecting any kind of stimulus package — what did the Minister
of Finance mean when he said that the federal government must take or will take
measures that "we have to take"?
Senator Carstairs: The Minister of Finance has clearly indicated that
he will bring down his budget early in December of this year. That will set
forth the government's policy both as to its spending and its programs for the
future. That will be the clearest indication to Canadians of what the Minister
of Finance has in mind.
Hon. Donald H. Oliver: Honourable senators, my question is to the
Leader of the Government in the Senate. It relates to the softwood lumber
In today's Globe and Mail, there is an excellent article by Donald
Mazankowski and Clayton Yuetter, who have represented both countries in the past
in trade disputes. They came up with a proposed solution about which I should
like to ask the minister.
They said in their article that some U.S. lumber producers believe that
Canadian softwood lumber is subsidized, therefore giving an unfair advantage to
the U.S. market. The specific argument is that Canadian governments have
inordinately low stumpage fees for the logging of public lands.
They came up with a solution and wrote:
What we need is for both governments to focus on a creative, flexible,
long-term mechanism for resolving these issues in a North American context. We
need a market- oriented agreement that fosters competitive pricing throughout
the lumber cycle, while also properly protecting forest ecosystems.
What specific steps is the Government of Canada now taking to produce a
market-oriented agreement that fosters competitive pricing throughout the lumber
Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Government): The honourable
senator has asked an important question about an important industry. That is why
it is number one on the agenda of the Honourable Minister Pettigrew, but also
very high on the agenda of the Prime Minister, who, just this morning, spoke
with the President of the United States about how to resolve this very important
conflict between our two nations.
Clearly, it will take working together by each government to ensure that we
have an agreement that benefits both nations.
Senator Oliver: What new ideas did the two leaders come up with that
the Leader of the Government can relate to the Senate at this time?
Further, I should like to know whether, in these negotiations, the Canadian
government is making clear the difference between Crown-owned lands across
Canada and privately-held lands, which would not have inordinately low stumpage
Senator Carstairs: Honourable senators, I am sure the honourable
senator knows I would not be privy to a conversation between the Prime Minister
of Canada and the President of the United States. I do not have a direct line to
either office, and certainly not one that I can connect to a three-way circuit.
In terms of the honourable senator's question, which was very specific about
Crown-owned lands vis-à-vis privately-owned lands, that is certainly a dispute
among Canadians. Operators within Crown-owned lands would say that they are
paying fair stumpage fees. That issue has been under dispute before and has been
ruled upon in our favour. We were charging fair stumpage fees, obviously.
One of the reasons Atlantic Canada was excluded from some of the previous
arrangements was because the lands are privately owned, and the American
government did not see the same problem.
Hon. Leonard J. Gustafson: Honourable senators, my question to the
Leader of the Government in the Senate is with regard to the low Canadian
The Minister of Finance continues to tell us that the fundamentals are right.
Is it the opinion of the Leader of the Government in the Senate that the
fundamentals are right even when so many things seem to be collapsing around us?
Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators,
I am surprised at the doom-and-gloom forecast coming from the honourable
senator. I think the fundamentals are correct. I think Canada is doing very well
at holding its own, particularly in relation to those with whom we engage in
great trade. I suspect Senator Gustafson is referring specifically to the
agriculture sector. I think he would join with me in hoping that the WTO round
beginning later this week in Qatar will be positive in the matter of unfair
Senator Gustafson: Honourable senators, for once, I am not referring
directly to agriculture. I am referring to Merrill Lynch, one of the world's
largest operators in the financial area. The company is talking about selling
its 1,000-person network of Canadian brokers. We read again today that we are
losing the baseball team from Montreal, the Expos, because the owners cannot
afford to finance them. This is not a question about agriculture, but I will get
to it shortly. We also lost our NBA basketball team from Vancouver, the
Grizzlies, because the team was unable to compete financially due to the strong
Many commercial enterprises tell us that they are worth much less today — up
to 40 per cent of what they were a few years ago. Farmland, according to two
farmers I spoke to in Ontario, is also worth about 40 per cent less than it was
five years ago. This figure varies. In Saskatchewan, it might well be 50 per
Honourable senators, without a doubt, we have lost a great deal of value and
we have lost more equity than we have gained due to the low Canadian dollar.
Does the minister still believe that the fundamentals are right, given the
situation that we are facing? Canadians are losing out in this case.
Senator Carstairs: Honourable senators, I wish to thank the Honourable
Senator Gustafson for his question. I will no longer think that he is just a
one-issue senator. Obviously, the honourable senator has a broader perspective
To answer some of his specific questions, if we lose the baseball team in
Montreal — and I think most of us would hope that we would not — we will lose it
probably because last year the Expos had their lowest attendance in 25 years.
The reality is that if Canadians are not interested in going to baseball games,
it is extremely difficult to keep a viable and expensive team going. Honourable
senators may not like that information, but that is the truth of it.
Professional sports teams require a great deal of public support — not just
financial backing — in the form of ticket sales. If the public is not prepared
to participate in great numbers — and, frankly, that also has a lot to do with
whether a team is winning or losing — it is hard for those involved in the
ownership of these teams to continue to keep them running at a deficit. We have
a situation in which Canadians have chosen not to support a team.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: Tell us about the Winnipeg hockey team. Why
did you not support it?
Senator Carstairs: You were the one who got into sports teams,
senator. You will now have to bear with me for a moment while I address the
The reality is that for the first time in many years we will once again have
the Rough Riders — perhaps by a different name — in the city of Ottawa.
Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
Senator Carstairs: Clearly, there is an interest in some professional
As to the honourable senator's comments about Merrill Lynch, the company
indicated today that it wished to sell its brokerage house in Canada. It is my
hope that it will be picked up by a Canadian company that wishes to continue to
serve Canadian customers like me.
Senator Gustafson: Honourable senators, I feel that we are at a point
where we must face reality. I have two grandsons who never missed a basketball
game in Vancouver, and they tell me that the seats were full to the rafters.
Senator Kinsella: It was the same in Winnipeg.
Senator Gustafson: Yes, that is true, but I did not go back that far.
We are paying a huge price in the fundamentals of what we, as Canadians, own and
what our assets are worth today.
I will give honourable senators an example in the area of agriculture. My
neighbour sold his farm on the U.S. border for $55,000 a quarter section. He had
five quarter sections. Across the line in Ambrose, North Dakota, that land is
selling for U.S. $100,000. That means that he got approximately U.S. $32,000 for
a quarter section of comparable, if not better, land. That is right on the 49th
parallel. When that happens, something is seriously wrong. I am told that the
same thing is happening in commercial enterprises and commercial real estate —
probably not to the degree that it is happening in agriculture, but it will have
an impact. If the only way to remedy the problem is to return to the days of a
17 per cent interest rate, then we are in big trouble.
Senator Carstairs: Honourable senators, with the greatest respect,
that is exactly why the government will not do what the honourable senator
seemed to be urging in one of his questions, namely, prop up the Canadian
dollar. Such action would lead to higher interest rates. That is not the way to
If the honourable senator is talking about the value of property vis-à-vis
the United States and Canada, there have always been differentials. One of the
major factors in that differential right now, as the honourable senator well
knows, is the subsidies that are paid to agriculture south of the border that
are not paid to agriculture north of the border. That is one of the reasons we
hope the WTO discussions this week go well with respect to reducing some of
The bottom line is that 62 per cent of Canadians, according to the Gallup
Poll, support this government. While the honourable senator may not think the
fundamentals are right and may not think the government is getting it right, the
Canadian people seem to think that it is.
Senator Gustafson: Honourable senators, I was just handed a news
release by our leader stating that the chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on
Agriculture today introduced a new farm bill that retains most of the current
subsidy system and offers new conservation programs for farmers.
Honourable senators, we have been losing that battle for a long time. For 20
years, I have been hearing that all would be fine if we could just get the
Americans and the Europeans off of their subsidies. Does the Leader of the
Government in the Senate believe that will happen?
Senator Kinsella: That is the question!
Senator Carstairs: That, indeed, is a question, honourable senators.
We can engage in certain international vehicles in an attempt to level the
playing field, not only between Canada and the United States but also between
Canada and Europe and, in the broader perspective, between Canada and the world.
We are a small country in comparison to the country south of the border. I
think that the opposition will recognize that we will never be able to pay the
kind of subsidies that the Americans pay. Therefore, we must do our best to work
a deal that will impact in a favourable way upon Canadian farmers.
Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable
senators, I always find interesting the lessons of economics that flow from this
discussion. It seems to me that what the Leader of the Government is arguing is
that when I go to buy my citrus fruit in the grocery store this winter, yes, I
will be paying more, but that is okay because the lower Canadian dollar means
that we will have greater exports. If that is the principle under which the
government is operating, why not lower the dollar to zero? Just think of the
increase in exports we could then have. Is this the government's policy?
Senator Carstairs: Honourable senators, I have been careful to say
that there is a balance. When our exports are trading easily and quickly because
of their price, there is a negative impact on our imports. I have never denied
that. There is a negative impact on our imports. The point is that Canada is
primarily an exporting country. Therefore, it is to our advantage to be this
way. Is it all right? Clearly, the Minister of Finance has indicated that he
wishes to see the dollar at a better value. However, that is not his
determination to make alone. It is a determination based on the floating market
and international markets.
Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable
senators, I was convinced by the honourable minister's colleague, the chairman
of our Rules Committee, who argued that we should support the free trade
agreement with Costa Rica. That change of heart warmed my heart.
However, my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate is simply
this: Now that the Liberal government greatly embraces free trade and has great
affection for free trade, and given the tremendous success of the North American
Free Trade Agreement with the United States and Mexico and that our exports are
way up, has the government analyzed the situation vis-à-vis Canada and the
effect of its currency in this free trade marketplace, which is not the currency
of the marketplace? Has the government analyzed the relationship between this
free market area and our different fiscal policy?
Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Government): Let me begin by
saying that I do not think that the Liberals were ever opposed to free trade.
Were Liberals opposed to certain agreements? Yes. I was a provincial politician
at the time. I remember giving speeches in the province of Manitoba, and I
focused my speeches on the dispute settlement mechanism. I talked about it over
and over again, saying that the dispute settlement mechanism would not work.
Well, hallelujah! Unfortunately, I was right. I do not like being right about
some things, but I was right about that one. The dispute settlement mechanism is
just not working, and that is unfortunate.
As to the honourable senator's question about whether we need to have shared
fiscal policies and shared currencies, I certainly hope not. As far as I am
concerned, Canada is a sovereign country, and we make laws in Canada on fiscal
policy for Canadians.
Hon. J. Michael Forrestall: Does the leader think she could summon up
one quarter of that enthusiasm for one more helicopter question?
Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Government): Absolutely!
Senator Forrestall: Honourable senators, I indicated yesterday that I
have in my possession documents that clearly demonstrate that the government
split the in-service support costs out of the current helicopter project because
it would present a communications challenge to comparisons between the new
ship-borne aircraft and the current Liberal government's Maritime Helicopter
Project. Why was the government so concerned about the in-service support costs
for the 28 maritime helicopters? Why this sudden concern?
Senator Carstairs: Honourable senators, part of that concern is that
of all the aircraft we have, the ones that are most expensive and take the
greatest number of man-hours are the helicopters, and not just the Sea Kings.
Helicopters as a form of flying vehicle require a great deal of maintenance, so
in-service support costs are clearly of a great deal of importance.
Honourable senators, the honourable senator asked me for some enthusiasm, so
let me give you some enthusiasm on this issue. I have been waiting to share this
information with Senator Forrestall and other members of this chamber for some
time. I often watch the Commander in Chief of the United States, the President,
on television. He often comes from Camp David and lands on the White House lawn
in a helicopter. Can you tell me the name of the helicopter, honourable
senators? It is a Sea King! I would suggest, honourable senators, that Sea Kings
are still viable and functioning well in both Canada and the United States.
Senator Forrestall: Honourable senators, I must ask: How old was that
Sea King? How old would they permit it to get, and how many cycles are on it?
Then I would like answers to the same questions about our Sea Kings. Once all
the information is compared, I am sure the leader would not take such great
delight and glee at the expense of the men and women who have to fly the Sea
King. The comparison is odious. It is offensive to the members of the Canadian
Armed Forces who fly Sea King helicopters. It is offensive. If she does not
think so, I suggest she ask some of them.
Clearly the Liberal project will not be cheaper. We know that. We have been
told that. The in-service support for the new maritime helicopter is estimated
at $75 million to $125 million a year. The life of the program is 20 to 25
years. That is a reasonable lifetime for this type of equipment. What does that
cost? What does that add up to? It is around $1.7 or $1.8 billion. Why is this
figure not included in the cost estimates for the program?
Senator Carstairs: Honourable senators, the figures you have been
given are the figures that the government will stand by, that is, the savings
will be between $1 billion and $1.5 billion on this project.
In order to keep honourable senators informed, there is great defence of the
Sea Kings by family members, although we have constantly heard the opposite in
this chamber. I suggest that the honourable senator take a look at the Times
Colonist of November 4, 2001, in which the headline is: "Families Come to
Defence of Controversial Helicopter." They go on to say how safe they believe
this plane is and that they have no fears whatsoever about their families flying
in this vehicle.
Senator Forrestall: If you believe that, you believe in the tooth
Senator Bryden: You will just have to fearmonger a little more.
Senator Forrestall: I keep being told, senator, that the savings to
the Canadian public will be somewhere in the $1.5-billion range.
Senator Bryden: Keep telling them they are unsafe and they will start
to believe you.
Senator Forrestall: Add on the in-service costs, and it could go as
high as $3.1 billion. It certainly would exceed $1.8 billion. Where does the
government get this $1.5 billion in savings? Where does that money come from?
Use a calculator. The numbers simply do not add up.
Senator Carstairs: Honourable senators, the numbers do add up. They
were presented to our committee. The final figure was $1.37 billion, and that is
why I said between $1 billion and $1.5 billion. Clearly, the honourable senator
does not agree with those figures. Quite frankly, those are the figures that
have been presented to us. They have been tallied and calculated. A calculator
has been used to add them all up. I see no reason for disputing those figures in
Hon. J. Michael Forrestall: Honourable senators, let me ask one final
question on this area. I asked some time ago whether or not Canada had
proclaimed itself to be at war with any other nation. We talk about a war on
pollution, a war on poverty, a war on many things, and now we have a war on
terrorism. How do you declare war on terrorism? Accepting that as a difficult
bridge to cross, but recognizing that Canadian Forces Personnel are now in what
could only be described as a war zone — and I do mean a "war zone" — why have we
not authorized or brought forward the required Order in Council that would give
to the Canadian Forces personnel involved those extended benefits that add a
little bit of protection and ascribe to them and to their families a degree of
faith and appreciation because of the added danger that we have placed them in?
Why have we not done that? Why are we denying these people that added
Senator Carstairs: Honourable senators, with the greatest respect —
and it is a most serious question and one that we must deal with in the
appropriate way — this is a very different war from any that Canada has ever
participated in before. It is not the traditional form of war for which we have
exercised certain extensions of benefits in the past. I will certainly seek
further information, but I do not believe that Canadians are at risk at present,
although they are certainly in an area that in broad terms could be described as
a war zone. However, they are primarily supporting the ships of the United
States that are, in fact, actively engaged in the war against the terrorists.
(Response to question raised by Hon. Noël A. Kinsella on October 31, 2001)
According to public statements made by the Director of CSIS, the Service's
Counter-Terrorism Branch is investigating over 50 organizations in Canada,
encompassing over 350 individuals, with links to terrorist activity.
In this regard, the CSIS web site lists the Provisional Irish Republican
Army (PIRA) as an example of a terrorist organization that is active in
That being said, it is important to highlight the difference between
individuals or groups under investigation by CSIS or the RCMP, and a proposed
"List of Terrorists", as per Bill C-36.
Under Bill C-36, the Government is contemplating the establishment of a
"List of Terrorists".
However, until the Bill becomes law and the list is established, I will not
speculate on which entities may be included on such a list.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I should like to introduce
some visiting pages to members of the Senate. We have, from the House of
Commons, Jennifer Blood of Victoria, British Columbia. She is enrolled in the
Faculty of Administration at Carleton University. She is majoring in
Suzie Léveillé is studying communications at the Faculty of Arts at the
University of Ottawa. She comes from Haileybury, Ontario.
Finally, we have Nichola Payne of London, Ontario, who is enrolled in the
University of Ottawa's Faculty of Social Sciences. She is majoring in Political
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, Senator LaPierre has a
point of order.
Hon. Laurier L. LaPierre: Honourable senators, I wish to speak in
regard to my statement yesterday on the crime of Ms Vandenelsen of Stratford,
Ontario, for which she was acquitted. It has been pointed out to me, and your
body language at the time certainly demonstrated it, that I may have placed
justice in disrepute and that I may have caused some harm to the reputation of
this honourable house. I did not want to do that, and I thought I had made that
quite clear. However, I see now that referring to Ms Vandenelsen as a criminal
two times, and adding that she ought to be in jail, may have served my sense of
hyperbole but may have caused something other than I wished. Consequently, I
should like to apologize to honourable senators and, if possible, I would ask
that the offending words be removed from the record.
What I wanted to achieve, however, I do not apologize for. I wanted to make
myself the spokesman of the plight, the pain and the fear of these children
involved — a pain, a fear and a plight that will be with them for a long time to
come, especially when they realize that it has been caused by their mother.
Furthermore, I want to affirm to myself, perhaps more than to anyone else, that
in the defence of children enormous risks must be taken, and I certainly intend
to continue to do so.
Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable
senators, I wish to know if His Honour is recognizing that statement as a point
of order, and, if so, what is the point of order?
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, Senator LaPierre has sought
an opportunity to rise in this chamber and request leave to strike words from a
statement that he made yesterday under Senators' Statements. I was rising at
this time to ask whether or not leave would be granted for him to do that.
Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable
senators, a point of order was raised.
Senator LaPierre: I do not wish to cause any trouble.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: You are.
Senator Kinsella: In my opinion, no prima facie case has been made
that this is a point of order. Therefore, I think the Speaker should find there
is no point of order. If the honourable senator wishes to make a statement or a
declaration, or has something to correct or to withdraw, that is another matter.
However, we must protect the integrity of the process of raising points of
order. As well, the rules are clear on the role of the Speaker. The first step
must be the determination by the Speaker of a prima facie case. There is none.
Hon. Anne C. Cools: Honourable senators, as I understood it, Senator
LaPierre was asking to withdraw his offending or distressing language, which is
quite a different matter from deleting or striking words from the record. It
seems to me that if Senator LaPierre expresses an apology and regret about using
some tough and harsh language, the chamber should accept that with grace and
magnanimity. However, it is a withdrawal, rather than a deletion or a purging of
the record. I do not think purging of the record is a desirable characteristic
for this Parliament or any other Parliament. I will be quite happy to agree to
what Senator LaPierre asked for, which was for withdrawal, but the record will
Senator LaPierre: Honourable senators, I am sorry to cause so much
trouble two days in a row. I am trying to do the best that I can. I have this
tendency that when I do something that seems to be wrong, I apologize.
Therefore, I did apologize. If it is acceptable, that is sufficient for me. As
for the rest of it, you can do whatever you like.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: That may be a very clever remark, but we are
not in a television studio here, we are in the Parliament of Canada. Some very
offensive remarks were made yesterday against the judicial system of this
country. We let it go then because we hoped that the next day would bring some
reflection and a complete withdrawal of those remarks.
Senator Taylor: What do you expect him to do, pound his head on the
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I want one senator standing
at a time. Senator Lynch-Staunton has the floor.
Senator Lynch-Staunton: All we got was a point of order. I am asking
what is the point of order?
Senator Cools: Honourable senators, I suggest that the matter go no
farther than it has. The fact of the matter is that Senator LaPierre rose and
expressed regret at the particular words that were used. I am of the opinion
that the chamber is quite prepared to accept that, which was the intention of
Senator LaPierre. With that, I think we should just let the matter drop.
Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators,
clearly, as a relatively new senator, Senator LaPierre is not familiar with all
of our rules. It seems to me that the appropriate time for him to have made his
statement this afternoon would have been during Senators' Statements. It was a
statement that he was making. Perhaps what we could do, if honourable senators
are agreeable, is to allow the statement that he made today to appear in
Senators' Statements. It is certainly not a point of order.
The Hon. the Speaker: Do any other senators wish to comment on this
Honourable senators, there is some anxiety as to my even listening to
comments on this matter. The rules provide that the Speaker shall decide whether
or not a point of order has been raised. It is entirely within the Speaker's
discretion to hear comment that a point of order has not been raised or that a
point of order has been raised and, having heard everyone, to make a decision.
That is the process we will go through now for those of you who may be wondering
why I am listening when there is at least some opinion that there is no point of
order. I will hear senators until I have heard enough to make a decision and
then I will give my decision to the best of my ability.
Hon. Marcel Prud'homme: Your Honour, you are a wise Speaker. I was
about to suggest what you have just said. Please rule and we will be more than
happy to abide by that ruling. What was said yesterday was said; what is said
today is said. It is on record. Let it stand, and I do not see why we should
prolong this discussion.
Senator Cools: I have already said that Senator LaPierre has been
magnanimous and generous. His language was overzealous and particularly strong,
but this is not a point of order and should not be dealt with as such. The fact
is that the honourable senator has already apologized. In the interests of
fairness and justice, we should let the matter rest.
Hon. Jim Tunney: Honourable senators, I was here yesterday and I heard
this relatively new senator's statement. I would not have made it. I was
somewhat uncomfortable hearing it. However, in another life I can remember when
the honourable senator made other statements in an equally public forum that I
did not always agree with, either. I heard the honourable senator's intervention
I hope we have more serious business to deal with in this chamber. I would
like us to accept the senator's explanation or expression of regret for what he
means it to be and to proceed with our business.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I have heard the comments
and I shall proceed to deal with this matter.
The issue raised by Senator LaPierre, which he is raising at the appropriate
time, has been questioned as to whether it is a valid point of order. If I heard
correctly, Senator LaPierre is now claiming that it is not a point of order.
Accordingly, I will agree with those who say that this is not a point of order.
Senator LaPierre has asked for leave to withdraw certain remarks that he made
under Senators' Statements yesterday. That cannot be done, Senator LaPierre,
without unanimous leave of this place. Your comments, rightly or wrongly as a
point of order, have been made and are a matter of record. Withdrawing them will
require the unanimous consent of this house.
Honourable senators, is unanimous consent granted?
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Austin, P.C.,
seconded by the Honourable Senator Ferretti Barth, for the second reading of
Bill C-32, to implement the Free Trade Agreement between the Government of
Canada and the Government of the Republic of Costa Rica.
Hon. James F. Kelleher: Honourable senators, it is with great pleasure
that I rise today to speak to the second reading of Bill C- 32, to implement the
Free Trade Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the
Republic of Costa Rica.
As the former Minister for International Trade at the time Canada was
negotiating its first trade agreement with the United States, I am delighted to
see that the bold vision so courageously adopted by the Progressive Conservative
government under the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney continues to be pursued by
this Liberal government.
Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!
Senator Kelleher: That has not always been the case. Prime Minister
Chrétien told us in 1988 that the Free Trade Agreement was not good for Canada
and that we paid too much for too little. Even the current finance minister was
opposed to the FTA. We were told that the FTA was a total win for the Americans
and a total loss for Canada and that they took us to the cleaners. According to
Chrétien, Martin and their colleagues, the sky was to fall under the FTA and its
successor agreement, the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA. We all
know that this did not happen.
What has happened is that our exports to the United States have tripled since
we signed the original agreement. In 1988, the value of Canadian exports to the
U.S. was approximately $100 billion annually. Today, we export over $300 billion
in goods and services to the United States each year.
The value of our annual exports to Costa Rica is only $86 million at present,
a relatively small amount. That figure will be much more attractive if we triple
it in 10 years, as we did with the United States. Imagine the possibilities if
we enter into a Free Trade Agreement with all 34 countries of the Americas.
Free trade is not good just for us. As Senator Austin so eloquently stated
yesterday, free trade can be one of the important tools used by developing
countries to rise out of their economic depths and take their rightful place in
In his speech yesterday, Senator Austin reviewed in some detail the different
aspects of this bill. I do not intend to repeat those today. I understand that
there is some concern by Canada's sugar industry about this agreement. We will
want to hear from that sector when this bill is referred to committee. We will
also want to know which industries are included or excluded, and why, and we
will want to learn about the pace of tariff reductions to ensure that it is fair
for Canadian industries. Finally, we will wish to ensure that there is an
adequate dispute resolution system in place.
Honourable senators, the Progressive Conservative Party supports the
principle of this bill. We should commend the Liberals for adopting now what
they so wholeheartedly rejected a few years ago. They have seen the error of
their ways and the wisdom of ours. We know that it is difficult to admit that
you were wrong and apologize for it. Imagine how painful it must have been for
poor Brian Tobin to grovel at the feet of former Prime Minister Mulroney earlier
this year in Europe, seeking Mr. Mulroney's forgiveness and admitting that the
vehement Liberal opposition to free trade had in the end been nothing more than
hot air. Honourable senators, we look forward to seeing this bill in committee.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, if Senator Austin speaks
now, his speech will close the debate on the motion for second reading of this
Hon. Jack Austin: Honourable senators, I thank Senator Kelleher for
his contribution today to the analysis and judgment of the merits of this
I was the sponsor of the North American Free Trade Agreement in this chamber
when Mr. Chrétien's government adopted the agreement in its final form. My party
has always been the party of free trade.
Some Hon. Senators: Oh, oh!
Senator Austin: I wish to remind Senator Kelleher that former Prime
Minister Mulroney, when he announced his objectives for his free trade
negotiation in 1985, said that it would remove the United States' use of duty
and countervail, something that did not happen. He said that the agreement would
remove the procurement priorities and preferences of the United States,
something that did not happen.
There were valid reasons to be concerned about the NAFTA agreement. The
Chrétien government was deprived, when it came into office, of the opportunity
and flexibility to make changes.
Once the Mulroney government had agreed with the United States on certain
questions and had provided negotiating opportunities on other questions, we were
stuck. We have to live with the bargain.
Honourable senators, I did not introduce yesterday any questions of politics
in Bill C-32. I feel that I am provoked by my friend Senator Kelleher to put the
record straight this afternoon.
Having said that, I look forward to a careful examination of Bill C-32.
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Carstairs, P.C.,
seconded by the Honourable Senator Milne:
WHEREAS section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides that an amendment
to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the
Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by
resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly
of each province to which the amendment applies;
NOW THEREFORE the Senate resolves that an amendment to the Constitution of
Canada be authorized to be made by proclamation issued by Her Excellency the
Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada in accordance with the
AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF CANADA
1. The Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada set out in the Schedule
to the Newfoundland Act are amended by striking out the words "Province of
Newfoundland" wherever they occur and substituting the words "Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador".
2. Paragraph (g) of Term 33 of the Schedule to the Act is amended by
striking out the word "Newfoundland" and substituting the words "the Province
of Newfoundland and Labrador".
3. Term 38 of the Schedule to the Act is amended by striking out the words
"Newfoundland veterans" wherever they occur and substituting the words
"Newfoundland and Labrador veterans".
4. Term 42 of the Schedule to the Act is amended by striking out the words
"Newfoundland merchant seamen" and "Newfoundland merchant seaman" wherever
they occur and substituting the words "Newfoundland and Labrador merchant
seamen" and "Newfoundland and Labrador merchant seaman", respectively.
5. Subsection (2) of Term 46 of the Schedule to the Act is amended by
adding immediately after the word "Newfoundland" where it first occurs the
words "and Labrador".
Citation 6. This Amendment may be cited as the Constitution Amendment,
[year of proclamation] (Newfoundland and Labrador).
Hon. Ethel Cochrane: Honourable senators, when the House of Commons
approved the constitutional amendment to change the name of Newfoundland to
Newfoundland and Labrador, it was simply recognizing the name the people of the
province had been using for many decades. In the minds of the province's
citizens, Premier Roger Grimes among them, the change is simply entrenching
within the Constitution the name Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have been
using in the province for the past 40 years.
In April 1999, the province's House of Assembly approved and unanimously
adopted the resolution to officially change the name to the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador. Then, as now, changing the name was considered an
important acknowledgement of Labrador's contribution to the larger province. It
is recognition of her distinct history, her geography, her culture and her
people. According to Provincial Opposition Leader Danny Williams, the name
change recognizes that the province is two large land masses, connected in a
historic partnership. He said, "The affirmation of Labrador in the province's
name is symbolic of our affirmation of Labrador as an integral part of our
The name change was designed to include and officially recognize Labrador as
an equal partner. Quite simply, it has been an issue of respect. It is about
respecting the role of Labrador and her people in our province. It is
highlighting her contributions through such resources as the north and south
coast fisheries, vast mineral extracts, the world renowned Churchill Falls
Hydroelectric Plant and, most recently, but just as important, the Voisey's Bay
Honourable senators, the new name also helps to raise Labrador's profile
outside the province. In fact, we have already witnessed evidence of this, at
least on some level. Last week, for example, we read headlines in newspapers
across the country that heralded the new name. There were headlines such as
"Labrador Earns Some Recognition," "Labrador Gets Equal Billing," "Name Change
Reflects Importance of Labrador" and "Labrador Recognized as Equal Partner." The
name change and the media coverage it has received also go a long way to help
teach Canadians about the province and, more specifically, about Labrador.
We are not a small province. Our land covers over 405,000 square kilometres.
That is more than three times the total area of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and
P.E.I. Our offshore area extends more than 1,825,000 square kilometres. Our
resident population is currently listed at almost 600,000.
Despite the progress signalled by the name change, that alone will not cancel
out the history of the inequity Labrador and Labradorians have suffered by all
levels of government. Randy Collins, the member of the House of Assembly for
Labrador West, said, "It is only when the services and opportunities
Labradorians have are brought to a level comparable to other regions that this
part of the province will be able to connect with the rest of the country and
triumph over alienation."
The name is a positive step but one that must be more than just symbolic.
While the name reinforces in people's minds that there are two distinct parts to
the province, the fact remains that the region needs a stronger commitment from
government. It needs a commitment to improve transportation, by establishing a
highway system on a par with other Canadian communities; a commitment to
education, by improving its ability to attract and retain teachers to local
communities; and a commitment to health care, by investing in the region's
Hon. Bill Rompkey: Honourable senators, names are important. They
describe us and define us both for ourselves and for others. So it is with
persons; so it is with countries; and so it is with provinces. Names signify
identity and a name is a symbol of who and what we are.
That is why this change in the name of our province is important, for the
province, as Senator Cochrane has rightly said, consists of not just two land
masses but of two separate identities. The Island of Newfoundland, after the
arrival of the Europeans, was described as a great ship moored in the middle of
the Atlantic to be used for British fishing interests.
On the other hand, while there was some fishing latterly on the Labrador
Coast, the interior was really part of the Hudson's Bay fur trading empire. In
the early years after the arrival of the Europeans then, it is fair to say that,
while Newfoundland was for fishing, Labrador was for furring. Labrador is really
subarctic — part of the near North.
The origin of the Aboriginals in the region, as well as those of European
descent, is different. The most southerly Inuit in Canada live in Labrador. The
origin of the Innu is not the same as that of the Beothuks or Mi'kmaq. The
European settlers who first came to Labrador with the fur traders came primarily
from Scotland and the Orkney Islands, not from the West Country of Britain or
Ireland; and not from Poole, Devon or Waterford. While latterly many from the
Island of Newfoundland moved to Labrador, so too did people from Quebec, from
other parts of Canada and from other parts of the world.
Once natural resources were discovered in Labrador in the late 19th century,
both Quebec and Labrador claimed patrimony. After a timber licence sent the
matter of jurisdiction to the Privy Council of Great Britain, that body ruled in
favour of Newfoundland, and the boundary between Labrador and Quebec was
established as the height of land. That boundary remained intact when the
province joined Canada with Labrador as part of its territory.
I remind honourable senators that we were not part of Canada before 1949. We
had a convention to decide what we would do, and we very magnanimously decided
to join Canada. Canada has been all the richer for that, as Senator Finnerty
That national convention and provincial election in 1949 was the first time
that Labradorians voted. The Island of Newfoundland had had the vote for almost
100 years. Labradorians were voting for the first time. Although people's names
were on the voter's list, the name of the territory where they lived, and had
been living for some time, was not reflected in the name of the province.
As they saw it, they were an afterthought because the name of the island and
the name of the province were one and the same. Therein, honourable senators,
lay the primary cause of what Labradorians saw as the rejection of their
identity. The island was Newfoundland. The name of the province, as recorded in
the Terms of Union, was Newfoundland.
The island and the province were one and the same. There was no room in the
province's name, as Senator Cochrane has adequately described, to reflect the
largest landmass not only in our province, but also in Eastern Canada.
Folksy references to "the Rock" only helped to reinforce the feelings of
Labradorians that they were not really part of the province. After all, they did
not live on the Rock; they lived on the Ungava Peninsula.
This feeling persisted. I remember going to a convention of the Liberal Party
where the president got up and, without malice, but thoughtlessly, welcomed
people from all across the island. We had to shout that we were from Labrador,
The situation was not helped by the fact that an island struggling to
survive, and with its own very strong identity, too often saw Labrador as the
great storehouse of natural resources to be exploited. Newfoundland had needs;
but Labradorians had needs, too, and rights. Just as in the 19th century they
had seen fish caught off their shores slip back to the island, Labradorians saw
their iron ore and waterpower extracted and sold for the benefit of someone
else. A political gap widened that was greater than the geographic one that
existed at the Strait of Belle Isle.
Honourable senators, changes came in the latter part of the 20th century, as
Senator Cochrane has again adequately documented. The government at that time
made changes to the name of the government. In 1969, Premier Smallwood changed
the name of the government to that of Newfoundland and Labrador. That name
appeared on letterheads and licence plates. The island began more and more to
acknowledge Labrador, to recognize it was an integral part of the province and
to respond to its needs. Indeed, during recent years, all across the country,
more and more, people have come to refer to us as Newfoundland and Labrador.
Premier Brian Tobin took the final step of recognizing that if there were not
two nations warring in the bosom of a single state, at least there were two
strong identities destined to survive. He ensured that they would survive, side
by side, by initiating the measure that we have before us today. We have before
us the change in the name of the province in the Constitution of Canada to
Newfoundland and Labrador.
It is fitting that Brian Tobin take some credit for this for he was the first
premier who had grown up in Labrador. Born on the island, he was a high school
student in Goose Bay when I was superintendent of education. He understood the
question of identity. He knew the facts of history. He realized the place of
Labrador in the province, and he did something about it. He is to be
congratulated, as is Roger Grimes for following through on this measure, and
Danny Williams, the Leader of the Opposition, for supporting it.
Honourable senators, before us today is simply, as Senator Cochrane has said,
the recognition of a reality. There are two parts to the province. They are
separated geographically with different historical developments, needs and
possibilities. They are both parts of one province, and we are recognizing that
reality in the name. It is an honour for me to support this measure with great
enthusiasm, and I urge all senators to do the same.
Hon. Leonard J. Gustafson: Honourable senators, I should like to ask a
question of the Honourable Senator Rompkey.
The Hon. the Speaker: Will the Honourable Senator Rompkey accept a
Senator Rompkey: I shall, honourable senators.
Senator Gustafson: Honourable senators, the fair province of Senator
Rompkey's home is the recipient of the Hibernia oil development. In the
honourable senator's opinion, what impact will that development have? How will
it relate to current equalization payments? What is the future of that
Senator Rompkey: Honourable senators, I see Senator Doody chuckling. I
am sure that he can answer the question as well as I can. Perhaps the answer
will be the same.
There will be oil revenues, but they will not come yet. The royalties will
not begin to flow for another three or four years. Even when they do, we will
not see the benefit of them as Alberta has, for example. The territory that
Senator Cochrane described in her speech was disputed and it was eventually
decided that it would be controlled by both the federal and the provincial
governments. The major part of the government revenues from the oil will flow to
the federal government, and a minor share of the government revenues from oil
will flow to our province. That is a fact of history and the politics that we
find ourselves in at the moment.
I might say that the same thing will be true, unfortunately, when we build,
hopefully, a nickel mine in Labrador. Again, most of the government revenues
from that mine will flow to the Government of Canada and not to the Government
Not only do we need to revisit the whole question of equalization, we also
need to revisit the whole question of how resource revenues are shared. I am
glad that the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance is presently
examining the whole question of equalization.
We need to examine other policies as well. We need to revisit the offshore
revenue accords of both Nova Scotia and Newfoundland to ensure that the policies
that were enunciated at the time that they were signed are being observed. At
the time of the signing of the accords, the policy enunciated was that most of
the revenues would flow to the provinces, but that is not the way it is working
at the moment. We need to revisit both equalization and the offshore accords to
ensure that the provinces in Atlantic Canada are getting maximum benefit.
Senator Gustafson: The royalties are one part of the scenario. How do
the oil companies fit into the picture? There are about 600,000 people in the
province. How do the oil companies recover their investment? It is on a
percentage basis, is it not?
Senator Rompkey: Honourable senators, there are two accords, one with
Nova Scotia and another with Newfoundland. Senator Doody was Minister of Finance
for Newfoundland at the time, and he could probably answer that question better
than I can.
The oil companies get their revenue in the same way as any other private
sector company. That is the general answer to the question. However, they had to
do it within the accord. There is an accord with Newfoundland and one with Nova
Scotia. They recoup their money in the same way as all other companies do except
that they have to operate within the limitations of the accord.
I should also say that without the help and support of the Government of
Canada at that time we would not have the oil developments. John Crosbie, who
was in cabinet at the time, played a major role in securing our offshore accord.
Senator Gustafson: The spinoff benefit in terms of jobs and so forth
must be quite significant. Is that fair to say?
Senator Rompkey: It is. We have been able to develop companies and
people who have skills in the offshore. That has happened from the time of the
Ocean Ranger. Most of the people who sank in that disaster back in the 1980s — I
believe it was in 1983 — were from our province. It was a terrible tragedy for
us at that time.
I think it is fair to say that from the 1980s onward, we have produced people
who work on those rigs and onshore as well. We have developed companies that
support both the onshore construction and the offshore effort and the aircraft —
The Hon. the Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt, but the 15- minute time
period has expired. Is the honourable senator requesting leave for additional
It would be for Senator Rompkey to request leave or not.
Senator Rompkey: Yes.
When I first rose, they would not let me speak, and now they do not want me
to sit down. I wish they would make up their minds.
The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Rompkey has requested leave to extend
his time. Is leave granted, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Hon. Gérald-A. Beaudoin: When we use the word "Labrador," is it the
whole territory of Labrador referred to in the decision of the Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council in 1927? In other words, if it is the whole
territory that was referred to in the decision of the Judicial Committee of the
Privy Council, there is nothing to worry about. It is a question of boundary.
The decision is accepted by the experts. There is no doubt in my mind about
that. A book has been written on this matter and the question, legally speaking,
When the word "Labrador" is referred to, does the word refer to the boundary
declared in 1927?
Senator Rompkey: The simple answer is yes. It is the territory that
was established in 1927. Labrador was really not defined before 1927. It was a
name on a map, but no one actually defined what that area included. It was only
defined in the decision of the Privy Council in 1927. The boundary established
at that time was at the height of land; in other words, where the rivers began
to flow to the Atlantic Ocean. That is what the Privy Council accepted as a
definition of "the coast." The coast was the area from the height of land where
the rivers began to flow, to the Atlantic Ocean. That was accepted by the Privy
Council and established in 1927. When we joined Canada in 1949, that was the
boundary with which we came to Canada.
Senator Beaudoin: If that is the case, I should like to move that the
debate be adjourned in my name because I wish to make a speech on this topic.
Hon. Roch Bolduc: I have a question for the honourable senator. I
wonder whether we are expecting another motion like this for Nova Scotia and
The Hon. the Speaker: The Honourable Senator Rompkey does not wish to
The Senate proceeded to consideration of the first report of the Special
Committee of the Senate on the Subject-Matter of Bill C- 36, to amend the
Criminal Code, the Official Secrets Act, the Canada Evidence Act, the Proceeds
of Crime (Money Laundering) Act and other Acts, and to enact measures respecting
the registration of charities in order to combat terrorism, tabled in the Senate
on November 1, 2001.
Hon. Joyce Fairbairn: Honourable senators, I rise today to begin
debate on the first report of the Special Senate Committee on the Subject-Matter
of Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism bill, which I tabled in the chamber last
This report is the result of a pre-study of the bill. The Senate was
requested to undertake this study by the government. We were asked to offer our
comments and our recommendations on an important piece of legislation that was
prepared in the aftermath of the horrific events of last September 11, when
thousands of innocent people were murdered as terrorists forced commercial air
flights to crash into the World Trade Center in New York, the Pentagon in
Washington, D.C, and a field in Pennsylvania.
There were no survivors among the passengers, and an estimated 5,000 or more
people died on the ground. So violent was the impact that few remains were
recovered, and even though brave rescue teams continue to search and families
retain a faint hope that something to remember will still be found, the fear and
the sadness is there.
Terrorism is certainly not a new phenomenon in our world. It is as old as
history itself. Nor is it new to Canadians. We will never forget the 1985
bombing of the Air India flight 182 and the death of its 329 passengers.
We remember the FLQ crisis of 1970 when British diplomat James Cross was held
hostage in Montreal, and Quebec Labour Minister Pierre Laporte was kidnapped and
brutally murdered right here in Canada.
However, what was new to us eight short weeks ago was that international
terrorism was targeted directly at the soil and symbols of North America. We
were stunned to see before our eyes not only Americans but Canadians and
citizens from some 80 lands simply disappear without a chance, without a hope.
In those moments we were helpless in the grip of an enemy we could neither see
nor comprehend, with a battlefield that had no boundaries in a world of high
September 11, 2001 has indeed changed our lives. It was not just an attack on
our neighbour; it was an attack on us and free people in democracies everywhere.
Terrorists exploited vulnerabilities that exist because of the freedoms that
define us as citizens and that we tend to take for granted.
We have maintained a level of security felt to be sufficient within our own
nation in peacetime, but with the reduction of the tensions of the Cold War, we
have not felt an urgent need to buttress ourselves against the unexpected
strikes from hidden sources whose strength is hatred and a fanaticism that
ultimately nullifies their own passion for survival.
Well, honourable senators, that time has come. There is urgency to respond.
The government has proposed Bill C-36 with the elements of that response.
As Minister of Justice Anne McLellan said when she last appeared before our
This bill is about what we need to do to protect our most basic human right
— the right to live our lives in peace and security. If we do not protect this
right, then the rights to freedom of expression, association and all the other
rights guaranteed by the Charter are at risk.
This is not a question of "either/or." It is a question of finding the right
balance. The government has worked hard on this bill. Care has been taken to
provide safeguards for Canadians. The government wants to get it right and has
asked for our views. Our report has been sent to the House of Commons and its
Committee on Justice and Human Rights, which is now studying this bill. The bill
will come back to us for study, debate and clause-by-clause consideration.
I will not stand here today and pretend that our proposed changes are the
only ones, or the best, or the magic wand to produce the right balance. During
an intense schedule of hearings, we listened carefully to a wide range of
excellent and expert witnesses. We discussed and argued about the very serious
issues before us. Together, we tried to come up with what we think are workable
improvements to the bill. One thing was clear: We understand the need for new
powers and procedures and we support the principles of Bill C-36. We do not
recommend eliminating any provisions of the bill.
Our recommendations focus on two issues: first, ensuring there are adequate
and appropriate safeguards throughout the bill, especially to ensure that
innocent people are not wrongfully caught in the net of terrorism and their
reputations damaged forever; and, second, ensuring there is accountability to
Parliament and therefore to Canadians for actions taken under this bill.
The bill contains a number of unusual powers that, if not unprecedented in
Canadian law, certainly have never been part of our usual criminal justice
process. At every stage, we wanted to ensure avenues for review of the exercise
of these powers by an independent body. In some cases, it was possible and
appropriate to recommend judicial review. For example, we suggest providing for
an automatic and rapid referral to a higher court when a person is committed to
prison for failure to enter into the requested recognizance under the preventive
We were concerned about the proposed new certificates that the Attorney
General could issue, barring disclosure of information under several Canadian
statutes, including the Privacy Act and the Access to Information Act. We
understand that there may be times when national security requires that
information not be disclosed. However, these acts represent important Canadian
values. In the end, we recommended that any such certificate should be
reviewable by the Federal Court, which would be directed to balance the
competing interests of disclosure on the one hand and international relations,
national defence and national security on the other.
As drafted, these certificates, once issued, would be valid in perpetuity.
The need to keep information secret can change with time and circumstances. We
propose making the certificates last for a five-year period, with renewal
subject to review by the Federal Court.
This bill for the first time legislates a mandate for the Communications
Security Establishment, enabling it, among other things, to intercept certain
communications involving Canadians in situations where the target of the
interception is not in Canada. Ministerial authorization under defined
conditions is required, but the committee added a recommendation that judicial
authorization should be obtained wherever appropriate and feasible.
In some cases, judicial review was not feasible. In order to ensure
independent review, we propose the appointment of a new officer of Parliament to
monitor, as appropriate, the exercise of powers provided in the bill. For
example, we were concerned about the bill's proposed "List of Terrorists." We
recognize the need for this list, particularly for the purpose of freezing
assets. However, history has taught us to approach such lists with great care.
Mistakes can be made. The consequences for the individual wrongly identified as
a terrorist can be life shattering. Indeed, we would prefer a different title
and suggest a look at those in other countries such as Britain, where they refer
to it as a prescribed list.
As drafted, the list would be established by cabinet on the recommendation of
the Solicitor General. There is provision for appeal to a judge by someone who
considers their name was wrongfully included, but that only takes place after
the list has been published. To protect innocent reputations, then, we propose
having the new officer of Parliament review the list before it is made public.
We understand there may be times when this will not be possible. However, we
limited those exceptions to cases of demonstrable urgency. We also recommended
that no one be placed on the list unless they knowingly facilitated a terrorist
activity, and that is not in the bill.
Other recommendations need attention, honourable senators. We want to add a
non-discrimination clause to the bill to address the deep concerns of various
ethnic and cultural communities that they will be targeted. We suggest a change
in wording, which would make a clear distinction between activities that may be
illegal, for example, under labour legislation, and those that would be
considered as terrorist activities. We want to be sure that due process is
afforded to organizations denied charitable status on the basis of information
that they are making resources available to terrorist entities. We recommend a
right of appeal of a judicial decision that a certificate is reasonable.
Under the new Security of Information Act, which replaces the Official
Secrets Act, we suggest the proposed designation of "persons permanently bound
by secrecy" be subject to appeal or review as well as reconsideration after a
certain passage of time or change of circumstances. The term "security" is used
a number of times throughout the bill. For clarity, we recommend this be changed
to "national security" and that that term be defined.
We also suggested that the words "terrorist activity" rather than "terrorism"
be used consistently throughout the bill and that the new offence of mischief
relating to religious property be changed to add the word "sex" to the list of
motivating factors which now includes religion, race, colour, nationality or
I have left to the end the issues that received the most public attention
and, indeed, debate among committee members. What kind of review should
Parliament have that would most effectively reflect the public interest? How can
we best ensure that the Canadian public is able to see clearly how the powers
under Bill C-36 are being exercised and whether in fact they are the right tools
to help prevent terrorist activities?
We recommend that the proposed officer of Parliament table a report in
Parliament at least once a year, or as he or she sees fit. If there are abuses
of the powers provided, then that person can let us know at once. We ask that
the Minister of Justice table an annual report in Parliament setting out the
actions that have been taken that year under Bill C-36.
We are not seeking information that may compromise national security. Rather
we are looking for facts, such as the number of times particular powers have
been exercised, how many preventive arrests were made and with what results so
Canadians can see how this is working.
The bill contains a major provision for a comprehensive parliamentary review
of the operation of the act within three years after it comes into force. The
Senate will be keen to participate and we recommend changing the language of the
bill to clarify that both Houses of Parliament conduct separate reviews.
Reviews, honourable senators, can advise, but they cannot instruct or order
or compel. The committee concluded that the legislation should include a broad
sunset clause. We propose that within five years the government must return to
Parliament to justify to Canadians why it believes that the powers granted under
the bill should be continued. Clearly, it has the capacity to legislate changes
to the new law at any time. This provision would set down a marker to assure
Canadians that these powers, if continued, are sufficient without being
exorbitant and that they continue to be justifiable and necessary in the battle
We also recognized that the ratification of international conventions on
financing terrorism and terrorist bombings contained in the bill must not be
subject to the forced expiration of a sunset clause.
Honourable senators, none of us on the committee expect that the war on
terrorism will be won in three years or five years or into the horizon. We are,
indeed, in uncharted territory here.
In summary, the government believes that the powers granted under this bill
are the right ones for a tough job and that they can be exercised with standards
of fairness and justice which Canadians expect. We share this goal but wish to
revisit the matter after sufficient time has passed for us to have experience
with the operation and implementation of these critical measures.
Honourable senators, this has been a challenging exercise because of the
tremendous importance of what is at stake for all of us who are truly concerned
with the freedom and protection of this country and all its citizens. I thank
each of my colleagues on the committee and all those who joined in when they had
the time. It was a great team. The only major concern occurred at the end of our
process when, to the regret of many members, parts of the report were leaked to
the media before the final version had been approved and tabled in this chamber.
Hon. Senators: Shame!
Senator Fairbairn: Throughout all these discussions, honourable
senators, I have been grateful for the wisdom and the good nature of the deputy
chairman of the committee, Senator Kelleher. All of us have benefited enormously
from the experience and the patience of our clerk, Heather Lank, and the
researchers from the Parliamentary Library, Ben Dolin and John Wright, all of
whom will be with us the second time around.
We believe that we have offered reasonable ideas for changes to Bill C-36
which will help assure all Canadians that the government is well positioned to
protect us from terrorist activities and will continue to exercise its powers
and its authority in ways consistent with the values and the principles that all
of us cherish in a country we love.
On motion of Senator Kinsella, for Senator Kelleher, debate adjourned.
Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Poy, seconded by
the Honourable Senator Carney, P.C.:
That May be recognized as Asian Heritage Month, given the important
contributions of Asian Canadians to the settlement, growth and development of
Canada, the diversity of the Asian community, and its present significance to
Hon. Laurier L. LaPierre: Honourable senators, it is with great
pleasure that I support the motion of the Honourable Senator Poy, seconded by
the Honourable Senator Carney, that May be recognized as Asian Heritage Month.
I do so not only because I lived for 15 years in this present incarnation in
the marvellous province of British Columbia, which I continue to call my home,
but also because I am convinced that the acceptance of this motion will go a
long way toward repairing the ravages of history too often perpetrated against
the Asian population of our country.
Like all the millions of people from all the lands of the planet, speaking
over 150 languages and worshipping the gods of their ancestors, those of Asian
origin came here to our beloved country to seek a better life, a home to be safe
in, a chance to earn a living, to be reunited with their loved ones, to escape
famine and torture and war and genocide. They came to find love, understanding
and respect, room in which to grow, and a good place in which to bring up
children in liberty and freedom.
Unfortunately, we did not treat these newcomers kindly, especially when they
were not White. We did not like the Chinese very much. For example, in September
1907, there was a vicious attack on the Chinese in Vancouver. It was organized,
if the word can be used, by the Asiatic Exclusion League made up of young White
professionals: Christian churchgoers, freedom- loving workers and their unions,
devoted matrons and what was called then the filthy rich. The day was well
advertised by the media of the time, and it began with speeches and more
speeches. Then the words turned into violence. The mob descended on Chinatown,
breaking and smashing everything it could on the way. Most of the Chinese
barricaded themselves in their houses; those who did not were severely beaten.
Not satisfied with the destruction of Chinatown, the White people proceeded
to the Japanese neighbourhoods, enriched that year with the addition of 8,000
new immigrants. The Japanese, armed with makeshift weapons, met their White
assailants and routed them.
We did not like the Japanese, either. They have been here since 1877. We
deemed them, along with the Chinese and other Asians, to be, and I quote, "unfit
for full citizenship, obnoxious as they are to a free community and dangerous to
the state." In 1907, we asked the Japanese government to limit the immigration
of their people to 400 a year, a quota that 21 years later was reduced to 150.
The white supremacists of British Columbia had their day.
They also had their day during the Second World War when, in an orgy of
racism, we incarcerated 20,000 Japanese, breaking up their families and more or
less confiscating their property. The rest of Canada, White Canada, applauded
and lauded those who had perpetrated this ignominy in our name.
I will tell honourable senators that there were some bright rays in the total
darkness of intolerance of those days. Here are two such rays.
In the old mining town of Britannia Beach, along the most beautiful sound in
the world, a sound where I lived for 10 years, on the day the RCMP arrived to
transport the Japanese workers and their families to the bullpens of the Pacific
National Exposition, some White children hid their little Japanese friends in
basements and abandoned warehouses, behind trees, and in secret places only
children know about. Eventually, of course, they were found, and the friends had
to be separated, but not without tears and much anger.
The second ray of hope came from the Japanese individual I interviewed in a
series of programs that I did in Vancouver with the descendants of those
incarcerated. That individual, about to be incarcerated, sold his house for $1
to his neighbour who was a Sikh, asking the neighbour to look after it and to
sell it back to him after the war for the true value it would have reached by
then. When the Japanese came back, the Sikh handed over the property for $1, the
same amount he had paid for it.
When peace returned in 1945, we gave the Japanese a choice: either get out of
Canada and return to Japan or move east to the Prairie provinces, Ontario and
Quebec. Again families were split. Some of us protested, but not loudly enough.
Only in 1948 did we stop this brutal persecution and give the Japanese the right
We did not like the Sikhs, either. The first Sikh arrived from the Punjab in
1904, and the immigration continued unabated thereafter. Then the persecution
began — a persecution led by the Mayor of Vancouver and ably assisted by the
Trades and Labour Council of British Columbia. To exclude the Sikhs from Canada
and to pacify the bigots of the West Coast, the Canadian government, with a
remarkable ingenuity, passed an Order in Council that prohibited the immigration
of any Asian who did not get here by a continuous passage. We then ordered the
steamship companies in India not to sell through-tickets to Canada. What lengths
we shall go to.
Indian immigration stopped after that until Saturday, May 23, 1914, when a
chartered ship, the Komagata Maru, with about 400 Indians on board, all
British subjects, anchored in front of Vancouver Harbour. The would-be
immigrants stayed there two months without food and water or medical attention,
victims of the most brutal bureaucratic harassment imaginable, subjected to
military force and police brutality, and intimidated by the local population,
who made a circus of them.
Finally, unable to sustain the siege any longer, the Komagata Maru
left for Calcutta with its human cargo. There the British troops and Indian
police opened fire on the passengers. Several were killed and others were
arrested and detained. The white man responsible for this atrocity was killed by
a Sikh on October 21, 1914, and to honour him he was given a civic funeral. As
for the passengers, Nehru, the Prime Minister of India, unveiled a monument to
them at the beginning of 1952.
Here we are today, honourable senators, at a time marked with anxiety and
fear, which is turned too often against those who would come to us to seek a
better life; to build a safe home; to have a chance to earn a living; to be
reunited with their loved ones; to escape famine, torture, war and genocide; to
find love, understanding and respect; to have room in which to grow, a good
place in which to bring up their children; and, above all, to have liberty and
freedom. Consequently, let us endorse this motion unanimously and with great
enthusiasm. We owe it to ourselves. Long live Canada!
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable
senators, on Wednesdays we try to conclude the business of the Senate as close
to 3:30 p.m. as possible, to allow committees to sit. I would ask that all items
on the Order Paper remain where they stand.
The Senate adjourned until Thursday, November 8, 2001, at 1:30 p.m.