Previous Sittings
Order Paper and Notice Paper
Previous Sittings
Journals of the Senate
Previous Sittings
Debates of the Senate (Hansard)
 Previous
Next 

Debates of the Senate (Hansard)

Download as PDF Opens a new window

Debates of the Senate (Hansard)

2nd Session, 35th Parliament,
Volume 135, Issue 13

Wednesday, May 1, 1996
The Honourable Gildas L. Molgat, Speaker

THE SENAT)

Wednesday, May 1, 1996
The Senate met at 2:00 p.m., the Speaker in the Chair.

Prayers.

SENATORS' STATEMENTS

Raymond L. du Plessis, Q.C.

Tributes on Retirement as Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel

Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I should like to begin today's proceedings with a few words about our friend and colleague Raymond du Plessis -

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Senator Fairbairn: - the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the Senate, who is retiring after 20 years of service. Twenty years is an extraordinary period in the lifetime of any citizen.

Mr. du Plessis was a graduate of the first civil law class at the University of Ottawa back in 1956. He began his law career with Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. He moved on to the Department of Justice where he helped draft many government bills and helped to edit the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970.

Seconded to the Senate in 1975, his talents were recognized very quickly, and he succeeded Mr. Russell Hopkins, who was the departing Senate Law Clerk, one year later in 1976.

I know that all senators will join with me today in thanking Mr. du Plessis for all those hours he spent assisting senators with the preparation and the drafting of amendments to government legislation, and, in particular, his wise counsel on senators' private bills. From behind the scenes, Mr. du Plessis has played an extremely important role, not just in the life of this chamber but in Parliament as a whole.

In his memoirs entitled Life on the Fringe, our late colleague Eugene Forsey wrote:

Ray du Plessis rounded off, as far he could, my education in public life and added to my consciousness of how little I know.

This recognition of Mr. du Plessis' talent and skill from such a gentleman is a true tribute to his career as our Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel.

He once described himself as a one-man law firm with a captive clientele, and I am sure that today, all 104 of your clients, Mr. du Plessis, would like to offer our congratulations and our profound gratitude for what you have done for us.

Someone once asked what Mr. du Plessis' favourite day of the year was, and he responded, Boxing Day, because on that day he could put his feet up, sit back and reflect on all that has gone on in the past year. Now, Mr. du Plessis, you may put your feet up every day and reflect not only on one year but on 20 remarkable years of a distinguished career in the Senate of Canada.

We will miss not just your wisdom but your friendship and your wonderful sense of humour. We wish you well in all your future activities, be they badminton, tennis or dancing. We know that your family will be delighted as well to be able to claim more of your time, your attention and your very good spirits. Thank you very much.

Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, once upon a time, and a bit more than 100 years ago, in a place called Fall River in Massachusetts, a young lady named Lizzie Borden was accused of killing her father and stepmother, and, although she was never convicted of the crime, millions of people, including no doubt many of us in this chamber, to this day can recite this gruesome little poem:

Lizzie Borden took an axe
And gave her mother 40 whacks.
And when she saw what she had done,
She gave her father 41!

Years later, so the story goes, a little boy in an elegant neighbourhood in Fall River ran off to play in the yard by Lizzie's house. "Come back," cried his mother. "Why can't I play there?" the dear child asked, and the mother replied, "Because Miss Borden was not nice to her parents."

Far be it from me to suggest that Raymond du Plessis, our retiring Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel to the Senate, is a direct descendent of that well-tutored lad from Massachusetts. However, I know it to be true that after the GST wars had brought the Senate close to bloodshed and despair, Raymond du Plessis was pressured into allowing that there had been a difference of parliamentary opinion which merited considered contemplation.

(1410)

It is, as we all know, the very essence of legal counsel to governing processes that political adversaries - no matter how ugly their demeanour and foul their tongues - believe implicitly that the smallest or slightest concession from the bloodied party opposite will restore peace in our time and seats in the next Parliament.

A sensible lawyer comes to the Senate, knowing that more huffing and puffing from him or her may very well blow the house down. Who wants that?

Louis Nizer, the American trial lawyer, liked to call the law "truth in action." Summing up his life with the law, he wrote:

In order to give stability to law, our legislatures enact statutes to forewarn us, and our courts issue judicial opinions to guide us, but these become immense catalogues that can obstruct the view of simple justice...The journey through the forest, which was to give us shade and shelter, becomes a hazardous undertaking in itself, and so diverts us that we may forget our original destination.

Our "original destination" in the Senate, as our critics are quick to remind us, is to give the matters before us sober second thought. To achieve the goal Sir John A. Macdonald had in mind requires something more than these three parts. Sobriety and cerebral consciousness will yield very little without a serious application of caution, a measured ration of innovation and, almost always, a generous acceptance of compassion. The search for the proper mix is not easy for those who are not learned in the law, and sometimes it is even more difficult for those who are.

Raymond du Plessis, the wise solicitor, knew how to point without being seen, how to counsel without shouting, and how to resolve without twisting an arm or fracturing a conviction. Which one of us has not wondered, after a particularly fractious committee meeting, how we have escaped with our credibility intact? Then after reconstructing the process in our minds, how often have we suddenly realized: du Plessis did it!

Ray du Plessis came to us after a very proper seasoning: A graduate of the University of Ottawa's first civil law class in 1956; time spent building at Canada Mortgage and Housing, learning to pay the piper at the Federal Business Development Bank. Where better to acquire the skills of dissent than within the shelter of the Department of Justice, where he served as secretary of the Committee on the Consolidation of the Regulations of Canada?

Ray du Plessis was seconded to the Senate in 1975, and confirmed as Law Clerk one year later. Since then, he has been writing laws, advising committees, and convincing the rest of us that his idea of the wisest course could be adopted as our original thought.

Honourable senators, in preparing these notes I was reminded of another Canadian lawyer who undertook a complex and demanding career serving the law as truth in action. Jack Sissons became the first justice of the Territorial Court of the Northwest Territories. His bailiwick covered one-third of Canada's large land mass. When Sissons retired, his colleagues gave him a silver rose bowl "as a tribute to his creed of stalwart independence." To use Kipling's words: "Leave to live by no man's leave, underneath the law."

Like Sissons, du Plessis ornaments the Kipling quotation. On behalf of all my colleagues, I thank him for all of his contributions in making this place what it is.

Hon. Raymond J. Perrault: Honourable senators, together with all other members in this chamber, I join in the very eloquent tributes paid to our good friend Ray du Plessis. He has served this chamber superbly well throughout a long and distinguished career. The nature of the remarks made today by the Leader of the Government in the Senate and by the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition in the Senate attest to the high esteem in which Mr. du Plessis is held by all of us.

[Translation]

[Later]

Hon. Marcel Prud'homme: Honourable senators, I would like to add my thanks and congratulations to Mr. Raymond du Plessis to those that have already been expressed by Senators Fairbairn and Lynch-Staunton.

In my somewhat difficult position as an independent senator, I have had the opportunity to see how well Mr. du Plessis had understood that he was there for all senators, regardless of their political affiliation.

I wish to thank him. I agree wholeheartedly with all that has been said, and will be said later today, in his honour.

[English]

World Red Cross Day

Hon. Raymond J. Perrault: Honourable senators, May 8 of this month will be World Red Cross Day. This year also marks the 100th anniversary of the Canadian Red Cross.

I rise today to recognize the Canadian Red Cross for its great works, with the unparalleled support of Canadians of all backgrounds, during the past century. I speak of its work during World War I and World War II, and the hundreds of millions of dollars worth of food, clothing and medicine that Canadians sent to sick, wounded and captured armed service personnel through the Red Cross.

I speak of the heroism of Canadian Red Cross volunteers who have helped their fellow citizens in the aftermath of flood, forest fire, and other natural and man-made disasters here in Canada.

I speak of the tens of millions of Canadians who have joined Red Cross water safety or first aid courses; of the millions of Canadians who called on Red Cross homemaker, veterans, sick room equipment and home assistance programs. Ask any of the veterans of our wars what they think of the Red Cross, and they have nothing but the highest praise.

I also speak of the many hundreds of thousands of people in nations torn by war or natural calamity for whom the Red Cross means clean water to drink, food for a child, shelter and medical attention - people for whom the Red Cross means the difference between life and death.

Next week there will be a Red Cross display on Parliament Hill that will publicize the Red Cross campaign against anti-personnel land mines. These devices are the very essence of evil. Red Cross and Red Crescent societies the world over have joined in their opposition to the use of anti-personnel lane mines. The Canadian Red Cross is taking part by setting up displays all across Canada this month, possibly, honourable senators, in the city or town in which you live.

Undoubtedly, you will be dismayed to learn that 2,000 people are killed or maimed by these land mines every month. It is good to note that the Government of Canada, with the support of other political parties in Canada, placed a moratorium on the production, export and use of land mines in January of this year.

The question of a safe blood supply for Canadians is a matter of current discussion, and there are many strong opinions being offered regarding the future of that system. Speaking of Canada's blood supply, by no means the least among the works of the Canadian Red Cross is in that area. It should be noted by all of us that 700,000 Canadians every year have volunteered to donate blood so that 600,000 of their fellow citizens can have access to a safe and dependable supply of Red Cross blood and blood products.

In conclusion, honourable senators, Canadians are modest people. However, we have no reason to be modest about the contributions to civil society, here and in other nations, of the Canadian Red Cross.

I invite all members of this chamber to salute the Canadian Red Cross next week on World Red Cross Day, in this Canadian Red Cross centennial year here in Canada.

The Senate

Conduct of Some Senators During Committee Hearings

Hon. Thérèse Lavoie-Roux: Honourable senators, yesterday, at a meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, I suggested that the committee take some time to reflect on the testimony of the five witness groups from whom we had just heard on Bill C-3.

One of our colleagues from the government side responded by moving that the bill be reported back to the Senate immediately, without amendment. The government side supported the motion, and it was passed.

(1420)

During this time, several witnesses, all of whom but one had spoken against the bill, were present in the room. This was an insult to, and most distressful for, our guests. These people, many of whom had come from Quebec City and Toronto, had arrived the night before for the early meeting on Tuesday. They witnessed no discussion or deliberation before Bill C-3 was passed without amendment. The exercise of having these witnesses prepare briefs, travel to Ottawa, make presentations and address questions became pointless.

Needless to say, I and some of my colleagues were embarrassed and frustrated by the lack of consideration and common courtesy demonstrated by the government side. If we want the public to take the Senate more seriously, it is important that we senators take our work more seriously and, more important, behave in a responsible manner towards our fellow citizens.

[Translation]

Such behaviour can only make our fellow citizens more cynical about our parliamentary institutions, and I find that regrettable.

I also want to express my regrets to the witnesses we heard and who were subjected to such casual - I would even say "unacceptable" - treatment on the part of parliamentarians.

I hope this is the last time we have to put up with such behaviour.

[English]

Human Rights

Report on Incident at Kingston Prison for Women

Hon. Erminie J. Cohen: Honourable senators, on February 22, 1995, I brought to the attention of this chamber the appalling and degrading treatment of women inmates at the Kingston Penitentiary. In response to the incident, the Solicitor General appointed Judge Louise Arbour of the Ontario Court of Appeal to conduct an independent investigation. Today, I take the opportunity to commend Judge Louise Arbour for her courageous investigation of the events surrounding the 1994 riots at the Kingston Prison for Women.

Several female prisoners were strip-searched by an all-male prison team, confined to segregated cells for eight months and denied access to legal counsel and other basic rights. Judge Arbour's report is a scathing indictment of Canada's prison system and its disregard for the law and human rights.

In the report, Arbour called the treatment "cruel, inhumane and degrading." She also said:

The facts of this inquiry have revealed a disturbing lack of commitment to the ideals of justice on the part of the correctional service....There is nothing to suggest that the service is either willing or able to reform without judicial guidance or control.

Of the inmates in our federal system, 14,500 are men and 320 are women. Judge Arbour rightly points out that the system is designed for men. There is a clear need to better focus the female prison system on rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

In the wake of the Arbour report, the head of the federal system has stepped down. That ought not to be the end but the beginning of a comprehensive review and overhaul of practices in our federal prisons.

[Translation]

Goods and Services Tax

Failure of Liberal Government to Abolish Tax-Invitation to Several Liberal Senators to Resign

Hon. Jean-Maurice Simard: Honourable senators, last week I read part of an editorial by Jean-Robert Sansfaçon of Le Devoir. This editorial and my comments were intended, among other things, to remind the people of Canada and the senators in this chamber that the federal Liberals had just confirmed what Canadians were never in any doubt about, which is that the much-hated GST is here to stay.

Since time is short, I will confine myself for now to calling on the most disruptive Liberal senators who were here in 1990, who overstepped the bounds, who were guilty of violent language, violent words, and even physical violence in some completely disgraceful performances - often denounced by the press in Canada - during this debate, to resign from their seats.

Since this is the week of excuses and resignations, I would like to invite two or three Liberal senators to resign from their seats in this chamber. They should bow to the verdict of their respective provinces' electorates on June 17, the date of the by-election that will be held following the resignation today of the Deputy Prime Minister, Sheila Copps. To her credit, she saw the light, although it took her a few days, of course. She did the only honourable thing. She kept her word.

I will not name all these Liberal senators in this chamber. It would take too long. I would like to name those who were perhaps the most disruptive, who were in this chamber a few minutes ago. Senator Hébert, Senator Gigantès and, since the government of Prince Edward Island did not see fit to join the other three provinces because of possible elections in the spring, I am going to invite Senator Bonnell to resign. He, too, took part in some disgraceful scenes, one of which found him playing the kazoo with Senator Gigantès. I would like to see Senator Bonnell join Senators Hébert and Gigantès to test the mood of the people you misled with your statements and contemptible actions in 1990, and since 1990, and especially in the 1993 election.

[English]

Human Rights

Alleged Remarks of Reform Member of Parliament

Hon. Donald H. Oliver: Honourable senators, racism contaminates the fabric of Canadian society. Discrimination, prejudice and hatred in all forms is inconsistent with what Canada stands for. As everyone knows, the United Nations has repeatedly said that Canada is the best country in the world in which to live. We have achieved this recognition because of our freedom from the very stigma that has recently been inflicted upon us by statements alleged to have been made by a member of the Reform Party, Mr. Ringma.

In an interview with The Vancouver Sun published yesterday, Mr. Ringma was asked what he would do if he were a shop owner and a black employee was driving away racist customers. Mr. Ringma's reply was reported to be that a boss should have the freedom to say, "Hey, I don't need you in my employ" or "I'm going to switch you to the back of the shop."

Some Hon. Senators: Shame, shame!

Senator Oliver: Does it not seem that he has it a bit wrong? Surely, in Canada, we would ask the racist customer to leave.

Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

(1430)

Senator Oliver: Last night, in Halifax, I had the honour to be guest speaker at a tribute to a well-known Canadian contralto, Portia White, who died in 1968. She made her debut at the Town Hall in New York in 1941, and was the first-ever black, first-ever woman, first-ever Canadian to be invited to appear at the Town Hall in New York. She did so under the auspices of the Metropolitan Opera Company of New York.

I was asked to comment on the times in which she had been a star, the 1940s and 1950s in North America. This gifted contralto sang and reached her prime at a time when, in Nova Scotia, we had separate graveyards for blacks and whites, separate schools, segregated theatre seating, and when no black woman was allowed to train as a nurse. However, we are no longer required to sit at the back of the bus. We are no longer required to work in the back of the shop in Canada.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

Senator Oliver: In this day and age, Mr. Ringma's statements are unbelievable and regrettable. I am aware that Mr. Ringma apologized this morning. However, in my opinion, that is not enough. The media will surely carry his racist statements around the world. Countries which look up to Canada for its openness, its humanity, and its protection and preservation of human rights will begin to question who we really are.

It is my hope that the Leader of the Government in the Senate will do what she can to ensure that this institution, at least, will continue to foster and maintain those principles of fairness, equality, and the protection of human rights that form such an integral part of the Canada that we know and love.

It is a bit frightening to imagine what Mr. Ringma and the Reform Party would do if they were to form the Government of Canada. Imagine how they would treat women, Jews, blacks, children and the underprivileged.

Mr. Ringma must now do the honourable thing and resign; get out of public life. His comments do not serve the institution of Parliament well.

[Later]

Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, because of the serious nature of the statement made by our colleague Senator Oliver, I wonder whether I might have your consent to complete my comments in response.

Senator Oliver said that everyone in this chamber could take pride in the fact that no one in this house would ever utter the words that have been uttered by a member of the House of Commons.

I think that the comments of Mr. Ringma were totally unacceptable, inexplicable-

Senator Kinsella: Reprehensible!

Senator Fairbairn: - and reprehensible. In 1996, in Canada, that a parliamentarian should hold those views of discrimination, whether they be based on race, colour or sexual orientation, is an untenable position.

All of us in this house can take pride in that we have already passed legislation, a private bill S-2, introduced by Senator Kinsella, amending the Human Rights Act with regard to sexual orientation. More than that, the tolerance and the understanding of true equality and opportunity in this chamber goes far beyond any statement that has been made over in the House of Commons.

I thank Senator Oliver for raising this issue today in the Senate.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, leave was granted for the Honourable Senator Fairbairn to make her comment, and there is a similar request for Senator Kinsella to make a statement.

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Hon. Noël A. Kinsella: Honourable senators, I welcome the statement of the Leader of the Government in the Senate. It is important that we place clearly on the record that statements, particularly by a member of the Parliament of Canada, of the type that was made by Mr. Ringma not only have no place in the Parliament but also, in my judgment, have no place in our country. While I have the floor -

Senator Berntson: With leave, please.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: The Honourable Senator Fairbairn already asked to revert to "Senators' Statements."

Senator MacEachen: Did we agree on that?

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Yes. Your Speaker did.

Senator Kinsella: In lending my support to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, I can say that we on this side concur. That is the kind of leadership we like to see when it comes to speaking out against discrimination and promoting human rights. We hope that the Government of Canada will maintain, as a matter of policy, this kind of abject rejection of discrimination in any form.

We are a bit disappointed that the Prime Minister will not allow a free vote on the amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act in the matter of Bill C-33. That seems to contradict the excellent principle enunciated in the statement just made by the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

Senator Berntson: Yes, or on page 6 of the Red Book.

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

Financial Institutions Bill

Report of Committee

Hon. Michael Kirby, Chairman of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, presented the following report:

Wednesday, May 1, 1996

The Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce has the honour to present its

THIRD REPORT

Your Committee, to which was referred the Bill C-15, An Act to amend, enact and repeal certain laws relating to financial institutions, has examined the said Bill in obedience to its Order of Reference dated Tuesday, April 30, 1996, and now reports the same without amendment.

Respectfully submitted,

MICHAEL KIRBY
Chairman

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

On motion of Senator Kirby, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for third reading at the next sitting of the Senate.

Canada Labour Code

Bill to Amend-Report of Committee

Hon. Mabel M. DeWare, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, presented the following report:

Wednesday, May 1, 1996

The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology has the honour to present its

SECOND REPORT

Your Committee, to which was referred the Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (nuclear undertakings) and to make a related amendment to another Act, has, in obedience to the Order of Reference ofMarch 8, 1996, examined the said Bill and has agreed to report the same without amendment.

Respectfully submitted,

MABEL M. DEWARE
Chair

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

On motion of Senator Graham, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for third reading at the next sitting of the Senate.

Private Bill

Nipissing and James Bay Railway Company-Presentation of Petition

Hon. James F. Kelleher: Honourable senators, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of the Corporation of the City of North Bay, of the City of North Bay, in the Province of Ontario, praying for the passage of an Act to dissolve the Nipissing and James Bay Railway Company.

QUESTION PERIOD

National Revenue

Eligibility of Community Development Funds for Investment of RRSP Contributions-Government Position

Hon. Gerald J. Comeau: Honourable senators, my question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

In his recent budget, Nova Scotia Finance Minister Bernie Boudreau spoke highly of investments in community economic development corporations and cooperatives. In his budget address, he said that the province is seeking agreement with the federal government to recognize investments in community economic development activities as being eligible for the investment of RRSP contributions, and that when such an agreement is achieved, the pool of capital will expand significantly.

Is it the intent of the federal government to honour Nova Scotia's request that community development funds be eligible for RRSP investment? If the minister does not have the answer to my question today, would she undertake to provide the answer by next Tuesday?

Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, as the honourable senator will understand, I do not have an answer to his question today. If I cannot produce an answer for him by next Tuesday, I will provide it as quickly as I can.

Goods and Services Tax

Abolition of Tax-Government Position

Hon. David Tkachuk: Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. It will take a little time to ask because it is complicated and because we are back to the GST question, which is becoming more muddled every day.

Senator Rivest: Harmonize your question.

Senator Tkachuk: I should harmonize my question.

This situation resembles that of a soap opera, honourable senators. We have apologies, and the denial of apologies. We have, "I am not lying." "I am lying." We have heard, "I am going to resign" and "I will resign."

I should like to take a moment today to attempt to clarify this matter for members opposite. In so doing, I will refer to a few quotations. The first is from May 3, 1994, which states, in part:

Prime Minister Jean Chrétien emphatically told Canadians yesterday that his government will "kill" the federal goods and services tax. "We hate it and we will kill it," Chrétien told the House of Commons.

I translated that to mean that there will be no GST.

The next quotation is from November 18, 1994. It reads:

"But it will be gone in two years," Chrétien told 700 students at Eric Hamber High School.

That is not a good example for young high school students to follow.

The next quotation reads:

The Liberal government will keep its red book election promise to get rid of the goods and services tax, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien said yesterday in Vancouver.

To me, that means he will abolish the GST.

Honourable senators, Sheila Copps offered to resign if the GST was not abolished. What was more interesting, and this is where I need some help from Liberal senators, is what she said thereafter. On April 26, it was reported:

In fact, she said if she had to resign for every loose comment she's made, she'd be in a revolving door.

I translated that to mean, "I am a mis-speaker."

(1440)

Copps told reporters her promise to quit if a Liberal government did not scrap the tax was a "shoot from the lip comment" made "in the heat of the moment."

Translation: "I mis-speak when I get excited."

"In the Catholic vernacular I would call it venial, not mortal. I think I should go to purgatory not hell."

She is not going to purgatory today. Copps admitted it was "not too smart" to have vowed to resign, and said she had no intention of doing so.

Some Hon. Senators: Question! Question!

Senator Rivest: That is a preamble.

Senator Tkachuk: Patience. Now that Mr. Nunziata has been kicked out of caucus, Mr. Mills has resigned from caucus, Sheila Copps has resigned and Paul Martin has apologized, will the minister ask the Prime Minister to apologize to all of Canada for not telling the truth when he said he would abolish the GST?

Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, my friend has related news in this chamber of which all of us are now aware: The former Minister of Canadian Heritage and Deputy Prime Minister Sheila Copps has resigned and will run in a by-election on June 17 in Hamilton East.

Senator Rivest: For the Liberals?

Senator Fairbairn: Ms Copps made it clear this morning in her comments at a news conference in Hamilton that she was taking a very personal decision. She indicated that she had made a comment that went beyond the government's policy as stated in the Red Book, and, after consulting with her family and friends, she chose the honourable route: to resign her seat.

An Hon. Senator: She was pushed.

Senator Fairbairn: Honourable senators, it has been made clear by the Prime Minister that Ms Copps made a very important personal decision to seek her constituents' views on her position as a member of Parliament. Therefore, she has resigned and will fight a by-election. Everyone on this side will be out there supporting what we hope will be a very fine victory for her and all of the good things that Sheila Copps has done for the people of Canada.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: What promises will she make this time?

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, we have always had a great deal of tolerance during Question Period in the Senate, and that is the way senators want it. However, I must remind you again of rule 24(4), which states:

A debate is out of order on an oral question, but brief explanatory remarks may be made by the Senator who asks the question and by the Senator who answers it.

The preference of honourable senators is that senators themselves enforce the rules, so I would ask you all to please do so.

Senator Tkachuk: Honourable senators, the government cannot have it both ways. They cannot say, "Well, we kept our promise. Meantime, Sheila Copps is resigning." Sheila Copps understood perfectly what the Liberal Party was saying before the election, that they would get rid of the GST. She took the Prime Minister at his word and said, "Well, he said it. If we do not do it, I will resign." Either you have kept the promise or you have not kept the promise. My view would be that the Liberal Party did not keep its promise.

The Red Book, which the Liberal government continuously holds up in the House of Commons, indicates that they will replace the GST with a system that generates equivalent revenue, is fairer to consumers, and reduces paper work. With what tax has the government replaced the GST?

Senator Fairbairn: Honourable senators, that is exactly what the Liberal government is doing today. It is replacing a particular tax with a harmonized -

Senator Lynch-Staunton: It is not.

Senator Fairbairn: - integrated, national tax. It has started in Atlantic Canada -

Senator Lynch-Staunton: At a cost of $1 billion.

Senator Fairbairn: - with three provinces which have had the good sense to represent the people who elected them by getting into an agreement with the federal government that will benefit the people of those provinces.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Like those who buy books.

Senator Fairbairn: The government continues to work on fulfilling its Red Book promise so that every province in Canada will be part of the national tax. My friend referred to a section of the Red Book, and we are doing precisely what we indicated we would do in that particular section. Granted, it is taking longer than we had hoped.

Senator Berntson: It is taking considerable licence with the English language, too.

Senator Fairbairn: We are working to extend that tax and make similar agreements throughout the country.

Senator Tkachuk: Honourable senators, is the leader asking us and the Canadian people to believe that, when you supposedly smart senators over there read this promise in the Red Book, you said, "Oh, what we are going to do is harmonize the tax, which is what the Tories are doing"? Did you believe on the campaign trail that that was your promise, or did you believe that you would get rid of the GST?

Senator Fairbairn: What we believed and are working towards is to replace the GST with a fairer, simpler, more efficient and productive tax which brings in an equivalent amount of revenue. That was our promise, and that is what we are trying to achieve.

[Translation]

Harmonization of Taxes-Resignation of Deputy Prime Minister-Government Position

Hon. Pierre Claude Nolin: Honourable senators, the explanation the Leader of the Government just gave us is, I guess, satisfactory.

Did you try to explain this to Ms Copps between the day you announced your new GST and this morning, when she resigned over having understood just the opposite?

What Ms Copps understood this to mean was as just described by Senator Tkachuk. She understood that you had mislead Canadians in the last general election. You should have explained to Ms Copps what you have just explained to us, or did you?

[English]

Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Ms Copps is very capable of explaining her position herself, as she did so capably this morning. She said that that was the promise and the program of the Liberal Party in the 1993 election and the Red Book, that she overstepped that promise, and that she will go to the people of Hamilton East and offer herself as a candidate in the by-election of June 17. That is the way the democratic process works.

[Translation]

Senator Nolin: What does "overstep" mean, exactly? Does it mean not to do what you had promised to do? This decision was not hers alone; her entire government made this decision. She has misled not only the people of her riding, but all Canadians. So, why did Ms Copps resign?

[English]

Senator Berntson: Sacrificial lamb.

Senator Fairbairn: Honourable senators, in its campaign program, the Liberal Party of Canada said that a Liberal government will replace the GST with a system which generates equivalent revenues, is fairer to consumers and small businesses, minimizes the disruption to small businesses, and promotes federal-provincial fiscal cooperation and harmonization, and that is acknowledged by Ms Copps. Ms Copps also acknowledges that she went beyond the promise in the Red Book, and for that reason she has taken the principled and courageous stance to resign from the cabinet, resign from the House of Commons, and be re-elected by the people of Hamilton East, whom she has served with absolute devotion for the last two Parliaments.

(1450)

Harmonization with Provincial Sales Taxes-Deviation from Liberal Campaign Promise-Government Position

Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I have a supplementary question based on the reference to page 22 of the Red Book, which I have in front of me and which I have read and reread:

The Liberal government will replace the GST with a system which generates equivalent revenues, is fairer to consumers and to small business, minimizes disruption to small business, and promotes federal-provincial fiscal cooperation and harmonization.

That is in the Red Book.

What do we have now?

Senator Berntson: A bribe!

Senator Lynch-Staunton: At a cost of nearly $1 billion - this is not in the Red Book that we will pay off the provinces and harmonize - three provinces have been cowered into abandoning their own sales taxes by reducing them from their current levels.

Senator Stanbury: Is this a question?

Senator Lynch-Staunton: This is a preamble to a question. I know you do not like to hear the Red Book cited to you. On one occasion, I said that I had thrown it into the blue box, where it belongs. Unfortunately, no one picked it up, so I was able to recover it. It will go back into the box when I am through with it. In the meantime, allow me to use the Red Book as a preamble to a question.

Honourable senators, my question is the following: At a cost of nearly $1 billion - which is not referred to in the Red Book - the heads of three Liberal governments in the Atlantic provinces, one of whom we will no doubt see in this house shortly, were convinced to dismantle their own sales taxes and integrate those taxes at a a reduced rate into the GST.

In all the explanatory notes and in all the many documents coming out of the Department of Finance, this tax is still called the GST. The reduced tax is being integrated into the GST, thereby allowing the Government of Canada to give the provinces a payoff of nearly $1 billion to increase the GST on services and even on goods which were previously exempted from the provincial sales taxes. Is this what the Government of Canada calls replacing the GST with a system that generates equivalent revenues?

What is happening in the maritime provinces, which were bought off for $960 million -

An Hon. Senator: What is the question?

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Honourable senators, my question is this: How can you reconcile the promise with the reality? The promise was "abolish"; the promise was "replace." The actuality is expanding the GST, keeping it as it was, but applying it at a higher rate to other elements where it was not applied before.

An Hon. Senator: You created this mess!

Senator Lynch-Staunton: We did not create the mess. We support the GST; we initiated the GST. The GST replaced the manufacturers' sales tax. It allowed our exports to become more competitive. The NAFTA, on which even Art Eggleton admits you did not keep your promises, resulted in higher exports.

Do not taunt me. Do not lead me into the obvious. You should all resign because you all misled us!

Senator Corbin: I will see you on the hustings! If you want to resign, I will run against you!

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Where? You go first. I did not break a promise!

Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, that was a very vigorous speech to which I will not respond in kind. My friend has read and reread the promise in the Red Book, and I will say to him that that is precisely what is being done.

Honourable senators, I find the suggestion perplexing and, I must say, offensive. Three Atlantic provinces have had the opportunity - they have not been cowed and they have not been forced - to negotiate with the federal government in an effort to bring to their provinces a tax system which will be of great benefit to the individuals and economies of their region.

The honourable senator talks about a $1 billion payoff.

Senator Berntson: A bribe!

Senator Fairbairn: The transitional adjustment formula, offered publicly by the federal government in its negotiations with all the provinces, will remain in place for four years to assist those provinces in the transition.

Senator Berntson: I thought you would have it all done in four years, and the promise was two years.

Senator Fairbairn: The transition allows the federal government to share with them over four years while they put in place this tax, which will grow through exports, jobs, economic growth and consumer confidence. Further more, it will begin to reduce the equalization payments to the rest of Canada. That reduction benefits all the citizens of this country and all the provinces of this country, including the three provinces which had the good sense to come on board at the beginning of what will become a national sales tax.

Harmonization with Provincial Sales Taxes-Possible Reduction in Rate-Responsibility for Collection of Tax-Government Position

Hon. Herbert O. Sparrow: Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. The newspapers today quote the Ontario government and the Alberta government requesting that the GST be dropped to 5.5 per cent in their provinces, which they claim is the effective rate in the three participating Atlantic provinces. Is that the net return to the federal government after the so-called payoff is made to the provinces? Is the effective rate 5.5 per cent? After four years, does the agreement stipulate that there will be no contributions by the federal government?

Who pays for the collection of the total tax raised? Is there an estimate of that cost and, if so, who made that estimate?

Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, as I understand it, Messieurs Dinning and Eves have perhaps misunderstood the change in the total tax level in Atlantic Canada and, as a result, have been suggesting a commensurate drop in the 7-per-cent federal tax. The 7-per-cent federal tax remains. It is not changed. What has been changed, and this is why there will be a transitional period of compensation, is the level of the provincial tax.

With regard to my honourable friend's other questions, there will be a single tax collection. As to the cost estimate, I will have to try and find those figures for him.

Harmonization with Provincial Sales Taxes-Change in Position of Government Leader

Hon. Michel Cogger: Honourable senators, I am trying to understand here. I just listened to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, who seems to have been reborn into a passionate defender of the GST.

Are we talking about the same person who -

Senator Berntson: Like Sid Buckwold. Where is your kazoo?

Senator Cogger: - at around three o'clock in the morning, in the company of some of her colleagues - such as Senator Cools, Senator Gigantès, Senator Hébert - would read endlessly to us the names of people who so abhorred, so hated the GST that they wanted -

Senator Berntson: We want letters of approval from all of those people.

(1500)

Senator Cogger: I am so amazed at the conversion that I am in the process of forgetting my question. I am sure I will be forgiven. I will limit my question to the following: I have known the Leader of the Government in the Senate as a passionate advocate against the GST. She was also known in those days as Chief Morningside. She reappears today with a third persona, namely the passionate defender of the now-harmonized GST. Am I correct?

Senator Bolduc: She has the record, also, of having stood for 21 hours whilst making a speech against the GST.

Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): It was 16 hours and 20 minutes.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: It only felt like 21 hours.

Senator Fairbairn: Honourable senators, as we exchange these reminiscences, I will always remember and treasure the support I received during those early morning hours, since we were on the same shift, from the senator and some of his colleagues.

On a technical note, the term is "Morningbird Woman." Yes, there was a great deal of passion in that debate, and there is a passion now to improve the taxation process in this country, to give people from every corner of this land a chance to grow in their economies, in their jobs, in their exports. This tax of which he speaks is being replaced by a different tax.

Last week there was an announcement which is getting absolutely no attention whatsoever. Accompanying the announcement of the agreement last week was the announcement of no fewer than 100 changes, substantial changes, that will streamline the taxation process for a great number of people in this country, and I enthusiastically support the government's position on bringing a replaced and revitalized tax to the Canadian people.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: On confirming the GST; not replacing it.

Senator Cogger: Honourable senators, I stand corrected. Indeed, the Honourable Leader of the Government in the Senate is not Morningstar, as I pointed out; she is Chief Morningbird. Secondly, I do apologize. I realize that the leader is not reborn, she is merely harmonized.

[Translation]

Equalization Payments Disguised as Harmonization Payments to Atlantic Provinces-Government Position

Hon. Jean-Maurice Simard: Honourable senators, the unfulfilled commitments of the federal Liberals are but another chapter in the GST saga. The Leader of the Government in the Senate likes to quote Mr. Paul Martin and her government to explain the benefits of this new hidden and costly GST for all Canadians.

For a week now, she has been making the same comment, namely that it will greatly promote economic recovery in the Atlantic region. She is also on the defensive when told that, following this agreement, it will cost $961 million, over a four-year period, to reduce the burden of taxpayers in the Atlantic region. This is one way of complying with the spirit of the Constitution regarding equalization payments. On three or four occasions, the Leader of the Government reminded us of the acknowledged principle whereby certain provinces benefit from this equalization program.

Why do we need this agreement to offer disguised equalization payments, given that this same government has been threatening for two years to reduce the growth rate of equalization payments, and has in fact done so?

[English]

Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, my honourable friend talks about reducing the progression of equalization payments. I would like to remind him, and others, of something else that has been reduced - and reduced substantially - in this country within the last two and-a-half years; something that had not taken place for a very long time, and that is a reduction to the national deficit. It is through that reduction as well that the country will be strengthened and stabilized, as this government fulfils its objectives and promises, in terms of deficit reduction, which its predecessor government was unable to do during its mandate.

My honourable friend mentioned a hidden tax. This tax will be acknowledged at the cash register, and recognizable on your sales slip. The price that you see on whatever it is you are buying is the total amount of what you will pay, but the tax will be clearly indicated in the summary of your purchase. It will not be hidden. In other words, what consumers across this country will know as they are shopping is that when they see a price, that will be the price that they are required to pay. That is just a point I wanted to make to my honourable friend.

On the question of subsidization and equalization, this payment is not a subsidy to the people of those three particular provinces of Atlantic Canada. It is a transitional payment of assistance, enabling them to make a structural change in their tax systems which will bring greater prosperity to your province, senator - in fact, to all three provinces: New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland.

When there is greater prosperity and growth in those provinces, then obviously the rest of Canada will not need to share in equalization payments to such a large extent, and that is good for every province in Canada, including those in Atlantic Canada. It is good for Alberta, for British Columbia, and for all the other provinces.

Harmonization with Provincial Sales Taxes-Authorization of Provinces
to Levy Taxes-Government Position

Hon. Jean-Maurice Simard: Honourable senators, it will be obvious to anyone who reads the answer of the Leader of the Government in the Senate that she has not answered the question. She has skated around, and she has spoken about a hidden tax.

Speaking of hiding tax and information, I suggest to honourable senators that no more than three Liberal senators have read the memorandum of agreement that was entered into last week, dealing with the arrangement in Atlantic Canada.

Senator Bryden: Is this part of your newspaper column?

Senator Simard: It will come. It will come.

Senator Bryden: What he does is he practises on us, and then, if it works, he will print it.

Senator Simard: I am glad you read it. I love it. Speaking of hiding things -

Senator Bryden: Where did you put your integrity?

(1510)

Senator Simard: I will come to my question quickly.

An Hon. Senator: Too late!

Senator Simard: Do you remember, honourable senators, the treaty that was signed by three or four of the Liberal premiers of Atlantic Canada, Paul Martin and the government? There is a hidden paragraph that authorizes those provincial governments which are part of the agreement to levy or increase three taxes: flat income tax on income, payroll tax and corporation taxes on capital.

Senator Kinsella: That is contained in the small print!

Senator Simard: The Leader of the Government in the Senate, last week and again today, predicts that everything will be rosey for businesses in New Brunswick and in Atlantic Canada.

Senator Bryden: They have gone nowhere but up since 1987.

Senator Simard: The trend is there to put up obstacles and restrain economic progress.

Last week, the premier of New Brunswick, Mr. McKenna, did not wait for April 1997 to announce his true colours. He announced that in New Brunswick there will be a new tax on corporation capital to make up $170 million.

Some Hon. Senators: Question!

The Hon. the Speaker: A question, please.

Senator Simard: How can the Leader of the Government in the Senate reconcile her statement, forecasting a future booming economy for Atlantic Canada as a result of this arrangement, with Mr. McKenna's statement and the memorandum of agreement, which includes three threats of new taxes for Atlantic Canada and New Brunswick in particular?

Hon. Joyce Fairbairn (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, the only reason I raised the question of anything being hidden was that my honourable friend had raised it himself.

On the question of the tax, there is nothing hidden in the memorandum of understanding. It is quite clear that, during the transitional period, there will be a reduction of revenues in the three provinces. That is precisely why we are providing adjustment measures for those three provinces. We are not doing it on our own. The three provinces themselves are sharing the burden of that payment over a four-year period. That is open and clear. The choice of how they do so is the responsibility of those individual provinces.

Why have these provinces come on board? They have come on board because they see, in the future, the opportunities for their provinces and the people in them. Tomorrow I will have the privilege of visiting my honourable friend's beautiful province, in the city of Fredericton. I am looking forward to congratulating Premier McKenna on his leadership and wisdom in joining in on this national sales tax. I look forward to our conversation with great anticipation.

Delayed Answer to Oral Question

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I have a response to a question raised in the Senate on March 20, 1996, by Senator Andreychuk regarding the system of trading overseas.

Human Rights

Reconsideration of System of Selection Employed to Protect Canadian Businesses Trading Overseas-Government Position

(Response to question raised by Hon. A. Raynell Andreychuk on March 20, 1996)

The Asia Pacific region is an important market for Canadian companies and our commercial relations in the region continue to grow every year.

Last year Canadian exports to Taiwan grew 41% and two-way trade now exceeds $4.5 billion. Likewise, Canadian exports to China grew 47 per cent in 1995, and our bilateral trade with that country now exceeds $7.8 billion.

In view of Canada's important commercial interests in the Asia Pacific, the Government is clearly concerned about threats to security in the region. During the course of the recent cross-straits tensions, Canada acted, bilaterally and in concert with other interested parties in the region, to counsel restraint on both sides.

Now that Taiwan's presidential elections and the Mainland's military exercises have concluded, there has been a rapid de-escalation in the level of rhetoric. The Government welcomes this development. Canada will continue to advocate that political differences between Beijing and Taipei be resolved in a peaceful fashion by the two sides.

Canadian firms are free to pursue their commercial interests in both Taiwan and the Mainland. No diminution in interest by Canadian companies in either market as a consequence of the recent cross-straits tensions has been observed, nor has there been any appraisal of notable delays in the transit of persons or products to and from Taiwan as a result of Beijing's military exercises. It is anticipated that Canada's commercial interests with both markets will continue to grow.

Answers to Order Paper Questions Tabled

Department of Human Resources Development-Status of Fleet with Regard to Alternative Fuel

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Deputy Leader of the Government) tabled the answer to Question No. 10 on the Order Paper-by Senator Kenny.

Department of Labour-Status of Fleet with Regard to Alternative Fuel

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Deputy Leader of the Government) tabled the answer to Question No. 19 on the Order Paper-by Senator Kenny.

Privilege

Speaker's Ruling

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, before I call "Orders of the Day," I wish to report on a question of privilege made on Tuesday, April 23, 1996, by the Honourable Senator Cools. She asked the Chair to determine whether a prima facie case could be found respecting the correspondence to several members of Parliament by Clifford R. Olson, a convicted murderer who has been in prison for the past 15 years.

In explaining the matter, Senator Cools cited a letter written by Mr. Olson and sent to Mr. John Nunziata, a member of the other place. Similar letters, according to Senator Cools, were sent to two other members of the House of Commons. These letters object to possible legislative action to repeal a specific section of the Criminal Code, section 45, relating to the judicial review of life terms once 15 years of a prison sentence has been served. An account of these letters was printed in the Toronto Sun on Friday, April 12. Senator Cools also placed on the record a letter that she herself had received from Mr. Olson on another matter last October.

[Translation]

In the opinion of Senator Cools, these letters contain offensive language and were sent to parliamentarians with the purpose of seeking to intimidate them. Citing the British parliamentary authority Erskine May, Senator Cools maintained that such letters constitute a contempt of Parliament.

(1520)

[English]

Characterizing Mr. Olson's vexatious letters as obscene, an offence to Parliament and an abuse of its members, Senator Cools claimed that "It is time that Parliament intervene by invoking its punitive powers to deal with his offensiveness, once and for all."

[Translation]

After Senator Cools had presented her arguments, Senator St. Germain made a brief statement about Mr. Olson.

[English]

I have reviewed the matter and consulted the authorities, including Erskine May and Beauchesne, and I must find that a prima facie case has not been made. Let me explain how I reached my conclusion. First of all, I note that the matter complained of relates to a letter written to members of the other house, and I am not quite certain how to deal with this aspect of the issue. Be that as it may, the contempt alleged by Senator Cools, as acknowledged in her reference to Erskine May, must involve publicly stated or printed reflections upon the proceedings of Parliament or its members. These publicly made reflections are treated as contempts because they tend to obstruct Parliament in the performance of its functions.

No persuasive argument, however, has been made to suggest how Parliament or its members have been obstructed by these private letters sent through the mail from Mr. Olson to individual parliamentarians. This is not to suggest that the letters of Mr. Olson are not offensive, but they do not appear to be intimidations that might properly constitute a contempt of Parliament.

In connection with this assessment, I refer honourable senators to citation 69 of Beauchesne, 6th edition, found at page 20, which quotes a recent decision of Mr. Speaker Fraser:

It is very important...to indicate that something can be inflammatory, can be disagreeable, can even be offensive, but it may not be a question of privilege unless the comment actually impinges upon the ability of Members of Parliament to do their job properly.

Reading the article that was printed in the Toronto Sun last April 12, I find that the journalist's description of the letter as a sneer or a boast written to taunt parliamentarians to be a fair characterization. While such correspondence is almost certainly unpleasant, insulting and aggravating, it is not clear to me how this language constitutes a possible contempt. Indeed, I share the same general view expressed in Odger's Australian Senate Practice, 6th edition, 1991, page 1014, which I think applies in this case, that:

The dignity of the House may be best served by ignoring those reflections on Parliament or its members which...do not really obstruct proceedings.

Accordingly, I find that no prima facie case of privilege for contempt has been made.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Criminal Code

Bill to Amend-Second Reading-Order Stands

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Cools, seconded by the Honourable Senator Sparrow, for the second reading of Bill S-3, to amend the Criminal Code (plea bargaining).-(Honourable Senator Cools).

Hon. Anne C. Cools: Honourable senators, the order stands in the name of Senator Berntson. I had planned to close debate but, as it is 3:30, perhaps I could do it tomorrow. I understand that committees are scheduled to sit at 3:30 p.m.

Senator Berntson: I am quite prepared to concede to the honourable senator.

Order stands.

Scrutiny of Regulations

First Report of Committee Adopted

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the first report of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, presented in the Senate on April 23, 1996.

Hon. P. Derek Lewis: Honourable senators, I move the adoption of this report.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Motion agreed to and report adopted.

[Translation]

Transport and Communications

Committee Authorized to Study Canada's International Competitive Position in communications

Hon. Lise Bacon, pursuant to notice of Tuesday, April 30, 1996, moved:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications be authorized to examine and report upon Canada's international competitive position in communications generally, including a review of the economic, social and cultural importance of communications for Canada;

That the papers and evidence received and taken on the subject by the committee during the First Session of the Thirty-fifth Parliament be referred to the committee;

That the committee be authorized to permit coverage by electronic media of its public hearings with the least possible disruption of its hearings; and

That the committee present its final report no later than December 31, 1997.

Motion agreed to.

[English]

Banking, Trade and Commerce

Committee Authorized to Engage Services

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Deputy Leader of the Government) for Senator Kirby, pursuant to notice of April 30, 1996, moved:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce have power to engage the services of such counsel and technical, clerical and other personnel as may be necessary for the purpose of its examination and consideration of such bills, subject-matters of bills and estimates as are referred to it.

Motion agreed to.

The Senate adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.