Skip to content

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)

1st Session, 36th Parliament,
Volume 137, Issue 9

Tuesday, October 21, 1997
The Honourable Gildas L. Molgat, Speaker

THE SENATE

Tuesday, October 21, 1997

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

Prayers.

The Senate

Introduction of New Pages

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, before I call for Senators' Statements, I should like to introduce to you the new pages who were sworn in this morning in a ceremony which a number of senators attended and which was very pleasing for the pages.

I should like to introduce them one by one. They are Issie Berish from Montreal, Quebec; Michelle Dust from Saskatoon, Saskatchewan; Mireille Khouri from Ottawa, Ontario; Mylène Ménard from Dartmouth, Nova Scotia; Denis Poirier of Burlington, Ontario; Aneel Kaur Rangi from Ottawa, Ontario; Andrew Turner from Newfoundland and Sarah Wells from South Shore, Nova Scotia.

Honourable senators, these are the new pages. A number of the former pages are still with us, of course. I wish all of them welcome on behalf of all honourable senators.

SENATORS' STATEMENTS

Status of Women

Congratulations to Recipients of 1997 Persons Awards

Hon. Joyce Fairbairn: Honourable senators, this week we are celebrating a very special event in Canadian history. Sixty-eight years ago, a lengthy political and legal battle involving five very strong women from the province of Alberta culminated in the decision, rendered by the British Privy Council on October 18, 1929, that Canadian women qualified legally and constitutionally as persons and were thus eligible for appointment to the Senate.

The "famous five" deserve our thanks. Their names and stories are permanently on display in the foyer of the Senate. They are Emily Murphy, a magistrate and social activist; Henrietta Muir Edwards, a journalist and women's organizer; and three successful politicians who became elected members of the Alberta Legislative Assembly - no small task in those days - Nellie McClung, Louise McKinney and Irene Parlby.

The "famous five" were already veterans of the campaign to secure the vote for women, and all were active in promoting women's rights. Emily Murphy became the leader of the "famous five" after having her judicial authority as a magistrate challenged on the ground that she was not a person based on English common law, which states that:

Women are persons in matters of pains and penalties, but are not persons in matters of rights and privileges.

Thankfully, the Supreme Court of Alberta overruled this attempt to exclude women from the bench on the ground of "reason and good sense," but in 1927, that experience led Ms Murphy to recruit allies for a broader attack on the issue.

After being defeated in the Supreme Court of Canada, these five Albertans turned to the Judicial Committee of the British Privy Council in London, England. That august body declared that "the word `persons' includes members of both the male and female sex." It was a great victory, but it is sad to note that not one of those five crusaders was ever appointed to the Senate of Canada.

A year later, this chamber did welcome its first female member, Senator Cairine Wilson of Ottawa. In 1979, then prime minister Joe Clark from High River, Alberta, appointed the first Alberta woman to the Senate, our former colleague Martha Bielish. That same year, with the encouragement of Mr. Clark, the governor general of the day established the Persons Award for women who, much like the "famous five," have made outstanding contributions toward the advancement of equality of opportunity for women in Canada.

Yesterday, at Government House, the five 1997 recipients of the Persons Award were honoured by the Governor General. I would simply like to tell honourable senators their names: Dr. Margaret E. Fulton of Salt Spring Island, British Columbia, a teacher and promoter of employment opportunities for women; Sheila D. Genaille of Edmonton, Alberta, a strong Métis leader as president of the Métis National Council of Women; Hedwidge Landry of Caraquet, New Brunswick, a community activist and advocate for Acadian women; Nancyruth of Toronto, Ontario, one of Canada's leading feminist philanthropists in the cause of women's equality; and Dr. Marguerite E. Ritchie, Q.C., of Ottawa, Ontario, a lawyer who for five decades has fought discrimination and pioneered efforts of aboriginal women to secure equal rights.

While the Persons Awards focus on the memory of Alberta crusaders, they also give us a chance today to congratulate not only women in politics, but women throughout our country who further the cause of equal rights and opportunities, and who work at every level of justice, tolerance, and a life for our children free of violence, fear and poverty.

Today, honourable senators, when I look around this chamber, I am proud and tremendously encouraged to see 27 women who bring their experience and advocacy to the work of this institution. Like my Alberta compatriots of 68 years ago, I believe women do make a difference in public life. I hope there will be many more in the Senate of Canada.

Justice

Sale of Airbus Aircraft to Air Canada-Settlement of Libel Action-Award of Costs to Former Prime Minister

Hon. Marjory LeBreton: Honourable senators, I hope that the final, sorry chapter of the so-called Airbus affair has ended with the decision of Mr. Justice Alan Gold to award to former prime minister Brian Mulroney the full costs of his legal fees and fees incurred to publicly defend himself through a media relations/public affairs expert.

I applaud Mr. Justice Gold's decision as a just and fair one. Had the government and the RCMP not pursued this blatant and reckless course of action, it would not have been necessary for the former prime minister to hire anyone, legal or otherwise. His expenses, whether legal or media relations, obviously cannot be separated. Expenses are expenses, and they were all incurred as a result of the actions of the Liberal government.

As I predicted at the time, the Mulroney-bashing industry was out in full force, decrying the fact that he would be reimbursed. This is a very sad commentary and speaks to a problem that the Canadian public should concern itself with. Canadians who turn a blind eye to travesties like this do so at great peril. The issue here is the basic rights of all citizens of Canada. Is it not a person's right to defend himself against an unwarranted attack? Mr. Mulroney was and is the innocent party in this affair.

It is revealing to read what Mr. Justice Gold has said, in part:

I begin with the firm conviction that the intent and purpose of the settlement was to right the grievous wrong that the claimant -

The claimant being Mr. Mulroney.

- had suffered through no fault of his own. Simple justice and fair dealing required no less.

Honourable senators, if the Canadian public is seeking to cast blame for this mess, they have only to look to the government, in particular the former solicitor general, the former minister of justice, both of whom have been conveniently moved out of their portfolios, and of course the Prime Minister, who is ultimately responsible for the actions of his government.

Equally appalling were the actions, or lack thereof, of the Reform Party. Not once between November 1995, when this sordid affair began, and its conclusion last January did their leader or members of his party, the self-proclaimed defenders of rights and all things righteous, ask a single question about this shabby, shameful act perpetrated against a citizen of Canada. Their questions and statements after the decision of Mr. Justice Gold only underscore their crass political agenda. They do not care about the rights of an individual Canadian citizen. Politically, it is not in their interest, and this is the gang who will bring their so-called "new style" of politics to Ottawa.

It is to be hoped that this is the end of this sad spectacle, especially for Mr. Mulroney and his family, and for those of us who believe in our institutions and of the right of every Canadian to fairness and justice.

The Late Fred Alward McCain

Tributes

Hon. Mabel M. DeWare: Honourable senators, if the Honourable Senator Robertson could be with us today, she would bring to the attention of the house that last week we New Brunswickers were required to say goodbye to one of our most respected and admired public figures, Fred McCain, a long-serving member of both the New Brunswick Legislative Assembly and the House of Commons. Fred devoted a large portion of his life to the betterment of his fellow citizens in the riding of Carleton-Charlotte. His hard work was reflected in his numerous electoral successes as a member of the Progressive Conservative Party.

Fred McCain was first elected to the New Brunswick legislature in 1952, going on to win his Carleton County seat in five consecutive provincial elections. Following his service in the legislature, Fred was elected to the House of Commons in 1972, serving as a member until 1988.

An extraordinary parliamentarian, Fred was known for his strong debating abilities when pressing issues dear to his constituents. Senator Robertson had the pleasure of working with him in both the New Brunswick and federal caucuses, where Fred demonstrated a remarkable ability to further his cause through his steadfast and eloquent delivery of speeches. His strong stands were always greeted with great admiration and respected by his fellow members and friends, despite the fact that he often pressed his colleagues into submission during the course of his caucus debate.

Prior to his public life, Fred McCain worked as a farmer, a teacher and a businessman. He represented his fellow farmers as New Brunswick's potato coordinator. He also served in the army as a lieutenant.

Honourable senators, this exceptional man will be greatly missed. The dedication he displayed throughout his 34 years of service to his province and to his country will be cherished always.

Human Rights

Visible Minorities and Disabled Youth-Affirmative Action Initiatives Instituted by Private Sector

Hon. Donald H. Oliver: Honourable senators, the private sector recognizes the need for programs to assist visible minorities, so why cannot the Canadian Armed Forces be as responsible?

Last week, I received a letter from a senior executive of the Bank of Montreal inviting me to a new initiative they have launched in Halifax, Montreal, Toronto and Winnipeg for visible minority, aboriginal and disabled high school students. This initiative, entitled "Possibilities - Youth Internship Scholarship Program," will provide students with experiences in business to facilitate personal, social and academic growth and employment opportunities. Upon successful completion of the program, they will obtain a $1,000-scholarship for university.

Day after day, we see the big banks portrayed in a negative light, yet here we see the Bank of Montreal taking a positive step, one that will have a positive impact on the greater community and a direct impact on the lives and futures of visible-minority and disabled students.

The Bank of Montreal, however, does not stand alone, as all six of the big banks have initiated activities that encourage full participation by members of disadvantaged groups. The Canadian Bankers Association recently reported that representation of visible minorities is improving steadily, up to 4 per cent at the upper management levels. At the middle management levels, representation exceeds the census benchmark of 6.6 per cent.

(1420)

As a country, we have a long way to go, not only in providing opportunities for our disadvantaged youths but in recognizing the significant contributions made by our many communities. Recently, at the twentieth anniversary celebration of the Black Cultural Centre in Nova Scotia, the Premier of Nova Scotia, the Honourable Russell MacLellan, described the contributions of Nova Scotia blacks as "one of the province's best kept secrets." It is my hope that the premier will live up to his praise and do something about letting this best kept secret out of the closet. Actions speak louder than words. He must do something about providing opportunities for equality to all.

Honourable senators, there is still so much more work to do. Canadians smugly suggest that the racial problems and discrimination found in the United States do not exist in this country. Unfortunately, I stand here today to say that they are wrong.

There are many examples that I could use, but today I shall focus on a recent report commissioned by the Canadian Armed Forces. This extensive study found that a large number of our military personnel believe that our forces would suffer if they became more diverse. Indeed, three out of ten members of the forces share this belief. This is a repugnant conclusion. Since when does the colour of your skin determine how brave you are or how well you can carry out your duties?

Must our officers and enlisted men be reminded of the proud military tradition and valour of the Gurkha regiments, the Indian Sikh regiments or, indeed, the black regiments that fought for the Union during the American Civil War? We also have Canadian examples, notably the black pioneers who came to Canada at the end of the American Revolution, and Captain Runchey's Company of Coloured Men which fought with distinction at Fort George, Niagara Town, Stoney Creek, Lundy's Lane and Queenston Heights - battles that helped decide the fate of this nation.

Indeed, this same study found that 29 per cent of our troops felt that morale and cohesion would suffer if an active program was undertaken to recruit new members from diverse groups. This is a shocking statistic. Yet these are the same men and women whom we send abroad to represent Canada; men and women whom we send to regions of the world where they will not only experience culture shock but must also deal face to face with people whom they would not want in their own ranks because of the colour of their skin. Is there any wonder that we had problems in Somalia?

In conclusion, as we move toward the millennium, we have a military suffering from the disease of racism and infected with the attitudes of the past. We must be vigilant to ensure that this disease does not spread. We must do everything in our power to fight it. We must encourage those individuals, both inside and outside our armed forces, who believe that change must come now, not later.

Honourable senators, we have a duty to encourage the armed forces to address the concerns raised in this report. It cannot be ignored. It cannot be allowed to sit on the shelves gathering dust.

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

Banking, Trade and Commerce

First Report of Committee Tabled

Hon. Michael Kirby: Honourable senators, pursuant to rule 104 of the Rules of the Senate, I have the honour to table the first report of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, which deals with the expenses incurred by the committee during the Second Session of the Thirty-fifth Parliament.

[Translation]

International Assembly of French-Speaking Parliamentarians

Meeting held in Port-au-Prince, Haiti-Report of Canadian Branch Tabled

Hon. Pierre De Bané: Honourable senators, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian branch of the International Assembly of French-Speaking Parliamentarians on a symposium of exchange and information on parliamentary action in democracy, held at Port-au-Prince, Haiti, on April 25 and 26, 1997. This was an initiative of the Canadian branch of the IAFSP, spearheaded by our president, Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier.

[English]

Banking, Trade and Commerce

Notice of Motion to Authorize Committee to Study State of Financial System

Hon. Michael Kirby: Honourable senators, I give notice that on Wednesday next, October 22, 1997, I will move:

That the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce be authorized to examine and report upon the present state of the financial system in Canada;

That the committee have the power to permit coverage by electronic media of its public proceedings with the least possible disruption of its hearings; and

That the committee submit its final report no later than December 10, 1998.

Asia-Pacific Region

Interim Report of Foreign Affairs Committee- Notice of Inquiry

Hon. John B. Stewart: Honourable senators, I give notice that on Thursday, October 23, 1997, I shall call the attention of the Senate to the interim report of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs entitled: "The Importance of the Asia-Pacific Region for Canada."

QUESTION PERIOD

National Defence

Mobilization Base of Canadian Armed Forces-Minimum Strength as Established by White Paper-Government Position

Hon. J. Michael Forrestall: Honourable senators will recall that I rose recently to question the reduction in the present strength of the Canadian Armed Forces by something in excess of 3,000 personnel.

It is well recognized around the world that a nation must have a plan for national mobilization in times not only of national crisis but of international crisis. The key to that plan is a pool of well-trained manpower to generate a larger, more robust force.

Can the Leader of the Government now confirm that the minimum strength necessary for the Canadian Armed Forces to serve as a mobilization base is 60,000 permanent force members, as laid down in the 1994 white paper?

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I wish to thank Senator Forrestall for his continued interest in the armed forces and the manner in which he focuses our attention on not only the wonderful personnel we have in that force, but also on the equipment that they need.

With respect to the minimum strength being set at 60,000, I will attempt to confirm that figure for him formally as early as some time this week, rather than say today, "Yes, that is a minimum figure."

Senator Forrestall: Honourable senators, I am trying to demonstrate something to Canadians today because we get precious little information from the Canadian military itself, or from the government with respect to it. We have lost 250 pilots. It costs $4 million to $5 million to train each one of these men and women. We have lost them to Air Canada, Canadian Airlines International, American Airlines and United Airlines. They have gone to jobs which pay $150,000 instead of something in the order of $50,000.

Indeed, the 2nd Battalion of the Royal Canadian Regiment is so under strength that we cannot send it to Bosnia. Another unit will have to go in its place. Can the Leader of the Government find someone in government to define what action this government is taking to prevent the collapse of the Canadian military before our very eyes?

Senator Graham: As the honourable senator knows, there is, for lack of a better expression at the moment, a "new face" on the Canadian military. A new Chief of Defence Staff has been appointed; changes have been made at senior levels, and commitments have been made by the Minister of National Defence.

(1430)

In terms of a precise definition of what action is being taken, it would be difficult to provide the honourable senator with such a definition. Insofar as it is possible, I will obtain further information for my friend.

The Environment

Greenhouse Gas Emissions-Possibility of Undertaking on Reductions at Upcoming Meeting in Japan-Consultations with Provincial Ministers-Efficacy of Voluntary Compliance-Government Position

Hon. Ron Ghitter: Honourable senators, I rise today in the hope of obtaining some enlightenment and clarification from the Leader of the Government in the Senate with respect to the vital issue of global warming. I do so on the basis of great confusion that I believe is occurring in the country with respect to the government's position.

By way of background, in July, our Prime Minister wrote a letter to German Chancellor Helmut Kohl stating that Canada was willing to accept legally binding targets to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2010, and that he was willing to make a deal. In the other place, the Minister of the Environment stated that "...the Government of Canada is very concerned about meeting realistic, legally binding targets."

On the other hand, we have the Minister of Natural Resources arguing in the other place that voluntary action is working, and he even went so far as to say that "...the private sector should be applauded for the progress it has made." Of course, if voluntary measures are working so well, one might well wonder why Canada's emissions of carbon dioxide have grown by some 11 per cent above the target of 1990.

In December, meetings which are expected to set legally binding targets will be held in Kyoto, Japan, and it is anticipated that Canada will be one of the signatories. However, Canadians have no idea as to the position of the government with respect to these issues, nor have they been asked for their input, nor, as far as I know, have the provinces been asked for their views, let alone their attendance in Kyoto.

With this background, I ask the Leader of the Government to advise this chamber as to the position of the Government of Canada with respect to these matters leading to the conference in Kyoto.

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, perhaps I can take a moment to attempt to respond to Senator Ghitter's very proper question.

The Government of Canada has this particular problem very much under consideration. Specific ministers are focusing on the problem. As the honourable senator would know, there are meetings being held this very week in Bonn, Germany, in preparation for the Kyoto meetings.

In response to the honourable senator's question about whether the provinces have been consulted, I assure the honourable senator that that indeed is the case, and that discussions have been held with several ministers in various provinces. There will be ongoing consultations with both the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Natural Resources, particularly on the domestic front, but also with the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of International Trade.

I cannot promise this, but I would anticipate that a meeting will be held before Kyoto between the federal ministers and the provincial ministers, and that there will be provincial representation in Kyoto.

Senator Ghitter: Could the honourable leader then advise me whether it is the intention of the government to continue to work on voluntary compliance alone?

Senator Graham: Honourable senators, I do not know whether it will be voluntary, compulsory or legislated compliance, and I do not believe that this decision has yet been made. As the honourable senator knows from reading in the press, various targets have been suggested for the European Community, for Japan, and for various other countries, but nothing specific. I believe 2.3 per cent was suggested for Canada, 15 per cent for Japan, and another figure for European countries. However, no specific targets have yet been arrived at.

I shall attempt to keep my honourable friend advised as progress is made.

Reduction in Greenhouse Gas Emissions-Upcoming Meeting in Japan-Economic Impact of Binding Targets on Oil and Gas Industry-Request for Information

Hon. Ron Ghitter: Honourable senators, the Kyoto meetings are not that far away. This is mid-October, and the meeting is in December. These matters apparently are now being decided upon. Does the government have any economic studies at their disposal that show the economic impact of binding targets upon the oil and gas industry in Canada?

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I do not know of any specific studies, but I know that meetings have been held with the various stakeholders both in the private sector and at the government level.

Reduction in Greenhouse Gas Emissions-Upcoming Meeting in Japan-Influence of United States on Government Policy

Hon. Ron Ghitter: Honourable senators, could it be that what is really setting the mood for the government policy on this issue is not their own leadership but that they are waiting for Washington to make up its mind, so we can follow in the elephant's footsteps without a Canadian policy and without an understanding of the economic impact of the United States policy in Canada? Is that really what is happening today?

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, that is not what is happening at all. I assure Senator Ghitter that Canada and its representatives, very ably represented by Ministers Stewart, Goodale, Axworthy, and Marchi, have given this matter an enormous amount of attention. I have been privy to some of the discussions, and I assure the honourable senator that this issue is foremost in their minds and that Canada will not be waiting for the United States or any other country. As I indicated, discussions will be held this week in Bonn. There will be discussions with provincial ministers sometime in the month of November, as I understand it. Honourable senators can rest assured that Canada will set its own standards.

Reduction in Greenhouse Gas Emissions-Upcoming Meeting in Japan-Preparatory Discussions in Bonn-Preparedness of Canadian Negotiators

Hon. Ron Ghitter: With respect to the meetings in Bonn, I understand that Canadian negotiators are in Bonn having discussions relative to what the position will be in Kyoto. How can our negotiators have meaningful meetings as to the Canadian position without meeting with the provinces, without having an understanding of the economic risks to Canada, without having some form of material before them? How is that possible?

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I do not think I could give you, chapter and verse, a rundown of the meetings that have been held between the federal government and their provincial counterparts, or even whether these meetings have been of officials with officials, or of ministers with ministers. I assure my honourable friend that consultations have been held, and they are ongoing. The meetings in Bonn will not result in final decisions; they are a means of reporting on progress and exchanging views. The decisions will be made in Canada before going to Kyoto.

The Hon. the Speaker: I must remind honourable senators that there is a limited time for Question Period. If you extend your questions, you eliminate the right of others to ask questions. Is there a supplementary, Senator Andreychuk?

Greenhouse Gas Emissions-Preliminary Meetings in Bonn-Reassurance of Government Position

Hon. A. Raynell Andreychuk: Honourable senators, I will make my supplementary question brief. Will Canada play a leadership role at the Bonn meetings, as the Canadian government did in the late 1980s and early 1990s, in pressuring their colleagues to assign realistic goals that would both improve the environmental aspects of Canada and ensure its future?

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, climate change is truly a global challenge, and Canada has always been in the forefront of global challenges. Our country is fully engaged with the international community in preparing for the upcoming negotiations on climate change in Kyoto this December. I am aware of the references the honourable senator has made about the representations that were made and the consensus reached in the late 1980s. I assure her and all honourable senators that the Government of Canada is very much focused on this particular problem.

National Defence

Lack of Visible Minority Member on Special Panel Appointed to Monitor the Canadian Military-Government Position

Hon. Donald H. Oliver: Honourable senators, my question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Last week the Minister of Defence appointed a panel of eight individuals, headed by former chief judge Willard Estey, for a period of two years to monitor the Canadian military. As Minister Eggleton stated, the committee will monitor initiatives for change and the process of implementing these initiatives, and evaluate their effectiveness.

One of the key issues the committee is looking at is racism. Can the government explain why it was unable to find one member of a visible minority in this entire country to sit on this panel?

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I understand Senator Oliver's concern, and I would need to engage my colleagues to determine an appropriate answer, if indeed there is one.

Senator Oliver: The Somalia affair and the recent Canadian Forces report by Professor John Berry of Queen's University highlight the racist attitudes of the Canadian Forces. Will the Leader of the Government in the Senate agree with me that someone from the visible minority community should be on the committee?

(1440)

Senator Graham: Honourable senators, I will certainly bring Senator Oliver's representations on the first point to the attention of those responsible. I appreciate his concerns. I appreciate the fact that he continually brings this matter to our attention. I assure honourable senators that I will bring these concerns very forcefully, verbally and in writing - I hate to use the word "attention" so often - to the attention of those responsible.

Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission

Failure to Grant Licence for Last Remaining FM Frequency to Multicultural Station in Toronto-Request for Update

Hon. Donald H. Oliver: Could the leader give us an update on the negotiations in relation to the radio station in Toronto called "Milestone?"

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, regarding Senator Oliver's question with respect to the FM radio licence application in Toronto, that matter is still under consideration. As Senator Oliver knows, several petitions have been received by the government in this respect.

As has been reported in the press, the CBC's offer to give up 93.5 on the FM band was made at last April's public hearing. Again, in a CBC news release of July 29, the offer was made in good faith and made available to all applicants. Due process is being followed in the awarding of this frequency, as it would be with any other frequency that may become available.

Here again, this matter is under active consideration. It is hoped that some decision at the cabinet level, which may or may not please everyone, will be made by the end of the month.

Canadian Heritage

Auction of Medals of First World War Hero-Government Position

Hon. Orville H. Phillips: Honourable senators, my question today for the Leader of the Government in the Senate relates to Canadian war heroes. As we near Remembrance Day, many Canadians will be touched and moved by the words of Lieutenant-Colonel John McCrae in his poem, "In Flanders Fields."

I am afraid that, this year, they will be mourning not just the loss of hundreds of thousands of Canadian war dead but the loss of an important piece of our heritage as well. On Saturday, in Toronto, Dr. John McCrae's war medals will be auctioned off to the highest bidder.

My question is: How can Ms. Copps provide $23 million for distribution of Canadian flags when she cannot find $20,000 for an important part of our Canadian heritage?

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I do not know that I would want to question the memory and the heroics of a great Canadian, John McCrae, nor would I want to diminish the Canadian flag. I admit some may not agree with spending several million dollars so that people could show the flag proudly in our country and elsewhere. However, I want to assure the honourable senator, who has a particular concern for veterans and who is himself a veteran, that the Canadian War Museum is very closely following the arrangements to put to public auction the medals of Dr. McCrae in Toronto this week.

If it appears that the medals might leave this country, an export permit would be required and, in my judgment, that permit would be refused. Provided that the question of authenticity can be confirmed - and there is some question - the government will do everything in its power to retain in Canada the medals of the great author of "In Flanders Fields."

Senator Phillips: Honourable senators, I appreciate the reply of the Leader of the Government in the Senate but I understand the curator of the Canadian War Museum notified the government some time ago that these medals were coming up for sale. I doubt very much if he would have expressed an interest in preserving these items for the war museum if he had not already checked their authenticity.

It is my understanding that each World War I medal was inscribed on its edge with the name of the recipient; that was not done with World War II medals. The authenticity can be readily checked by looking at the edge of the medal.

Senator Graham: I thank the Honourable Senator Phillips. As I recall, some time in the late 1960s, perhaps 1968, members of the McCrae family swore an affidavit that the medals had been lost. That is why I raised the question of authenticity. Senator Phillips, who is much more knowledgeable on these things than I am, has raised a very important point. Officials will be made cognizant of that fact.

Justice

Government Contracts in Quebec-Allegations of Influence Peddling-Briefing of Prime Minister by Police Forces on Matters Under Investigation-Government Position

Hon. David Tkachuk: Honourable senators, in The Toronto Star of October 17, Edison Stewart reported that Prime Minister Jean Chrétien says he knew police were investigating alleged influence peddling by a Liberal organizer but could not act for fear of harming the investigation. Mr. Chrétien was quoted in an interview by Pamela Wallin on CBC Newsworld as saying that he was informed that there was an inquiry, but that when the police are involved, the police are involved.

Is the Prime Minister of Canada normally briefed by the police or would it be by the Solicitor General or the Department of Justice on investigations undertaken by the RCMP?

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Only when it suits him.

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators will know that this matter is before the courts. I do not want to comment, nor did the honourable senator ask me to comment on this specific case.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: That is not the question.

Senator Graham: I understand that, Senator Lynch-Staunton. I qualified my answer.

With respect to how the Prime Minister is informed, if and when he is, I would have to make an inquiry in that respect.

Senator Tkachuk: Would the leader also inquire about the briefing that the Prime Minister received on the influence peddling incident? Who would have given that briefing? Is such a briefing also given, in the normal course of events, to the Solicitor General and to the Minister of Justice on sensitive matters that would concern political parties or leaders of political parties or other matters of this kind? Is it normal that the Prime Minister, the Solicitor General and the Justice Minister would receive such briefings?

Senator Graham: Honourable senators, one could give a variety of answers to that question, depending upon the nature of the incident. I will attempt to get accurate information for honourable senators and to bring it to the attention of the Senate as soon as possible. Incidentally, I must qualify that; I do not know whether the Prime Minister was indeed briefed on this particular incident.

Senator Tkachuk: Honourable senators, I have just one quick follow-up question.

It would seem strange that during the investigation involving a former prime minister of Canada, both the Justice Minister and the Prime Minister knew nothing - or claimed they knew nothing - of the events that were taking place all around them. Yet they were briefed on an investigation concerning a gentleman by the name of Pierre Corbeil, who is alleged to have been engaged in influence peddling in the province of Quebec.Why would the Prime Minister not be briefed on what was happening concerning a former prime minister, yet be briefed about the investigation of a citizen by the name of Pierre Corbeil in the province of Quebec?

Senator Graham: Honourable senators, I honestly do not know of any briefing that took place. If there is something that should be made public knowledge, I shall be happy to bring it to the attention of my honourable friend.

Natural Resources

Cuts to Research Funding-Reported Increased Spending on Technology-Government Position

Hon. Mira Spivak: Honourable senators, according to press reports, the Canadian geologist Alan Hildebrand, who gained international recognition for proving that a giant meteor struck Earth at the time the dinosaurs disappeared, is losing his job at the Geological Survey of Canada as a result of that body's spending on scientific research having been cut by 50 per cent over the past 10 years. Thus, its research on meteoric craters is being shut down. The Geological Survey is a branch of the Department of Natural Resources.

In addition, according to press reports, while scientific research has been cut, and therefore scientists and staff are affected, at the same time the agency is spending millions of dollars on computers.

Can the Leader of the Government indicate whether these press reports are accurate, and whether it is the policy of this government to place the value of tools or computers higher than that of the human brain power using the tools?

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, unfortunately I cannot confirm nor deny the authenticity of the reports, but I shall be happy to look into the matter and provide further information.

Senator Spivak: I shall be happy to forward the press reports to the Honourable Leader of the Government.

Honourable senators, I have a follow-up question. As a result of the whole budgetary process, the Government of Canada has severely cut basic research. In a recent article, Dr. Sylvia Ostry pointed out that, while this has happened in government circles, it is even more prevalent in private sector or business circles. In other words, basic research is losing ground in Canada.

In relation to this whole question, I ask the Leader of the Government if he can determine what steps the government is taking with respect to this very critical situation for Canada. I understand that Mr. Manley has some initiatives in hand, but to my understanding those are technological initiatives rather than basic research.

Senator Graham: I shall look into this matter and bring a more complete answer to the question of the honourable senator.

[Translation]

Foreign Affairs

Misuse of Canadian Passports by Israeli Agents-Letter of Apology from Israeli Foreign Minister-Request for Tabling of Copy

Hon. Marcel Prud'homme: Honourable senators, during last week's recess of the Senate and the House of Commons we learned that Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Honourable Lloyd Axworthy, had authorized the return to Israel of our ambassador, David Berger, the former Montreal Liberal MP. The minister informed us that he was satisfied with the response he had received, not from the Prime Minister of Israel, but from his Minister of Foreign Affairs, David Levy.

[English]

In all fairness to Canadians who believe in the value of holding a Canadian passport, we now hear that not just two individuals were involved in this situation, but eight.

The minister said, that although he is still skeptical, he was satisfied with a letter that was signed, not by the Israeli Prime Minister, but by the Israeli Foreign Minister, Mr. Levy. I take the minister's word.

However, being curious, as I have always been in any matter pertaining to Canada's reputation, I wish to ask the Leader of the Government if Minister Axworthy would table the letter that seems to satisfy him, to find out whether Canadians would also be satisfied as to the tenor of the letter so kindly written to him by the Israeli Foreign Minister, and not by the Prime Minister of Israel.

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): As honourable senators are aware, an apology was received from the Foreign Minister of Israel, according to Mr. Axworthy, and we take him at his word. Whether or not it would be appropriate to table such a letter, I would need to inquire of Minister Axworthy.

The minister has already indicated that tabling the letter or making it public would not be in order on this specific matter. However, I shall certainly ask Mr. Axworthy about the matter, and determine whether or not he is prepared to table that specific letter.

Senator Prud'homme: My father taught me a lesson a long time ago. He said, "If people insult you publicly, do not accept apologies in private." This has happened to me in the Liberal national caucus. I have had the experience where people insult you publicly, and apologize immediately thereafter in private. I have been skeptical ever since.

For public insults, I believe there should be public knowledge of what excuses were offered.

Delayed Answers to Oral Questions

Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I have three delayed answers to questions: One is in answer to a question that was asked by the Honourable Senator Noël Kinsella on October 2, 1997, regarding post-secondary education, growing debt loads of students; the second is in answer to a question that was asked on October 9, 1997, by the Honourable Senator John Lynch-Staunton regarding the treatment of former prime minister Brian Mulroney during the Airbus investigation; and the third is in answer to a question that was asked on October 9, 1997, by the Honourable Senator Tkachuk regarding the treatment of the former prime minister during the Airbus investigation.

Post-Secondary Education

Growing Debt Load of Students-Government Position

(Response to question raised by Hon. Noël A. Kinsella on October 2, 1997)

Article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights states:

Higher education shall be made equally accessible to all, on the basis of capacity, by every appropriate means, and in particular by the progressive introduction of free education.

The accessibility of post-secondary education for young Canadians is and always has been a priority of the Government of Canada. Recognition of the importance of post-secondary education to helping Canadians build their careers is demonstrated by the Government of Canada's investment in post-secondary education through the Canada Health and Social Transfer (CHST).

The CHST arrangements provide committed stable funding to provinces. This funding will increase by year 2000 to continue to assist provinces in carrying out their responsibilities for post-secondary education, health, and social assistance.

Provincial jurisdiction, together with the fact that federal transfers to provinces for post-secondary education through the CHST are provided as a block fund, means that there is no direct connection between federal transfers and provincially-set tuition: Provincial spending priorities will determine the level of funding to post-secondary education and other social programs.

While the Government of Canada does not directly influence the level of tuition fees, it does, however, play a major role in helping students cope with costs and in facilitating access to post-secondary education.

In fact, in 1995, the Government of Canada introduced Special Opportunity Grants for students with permanent disabilities, high-need part-time students, and female doctoral students in certain fields of study. In 1996, the Youth Employment Strategy is a 3-year, $315 million initiative which will provide support to post-secondary students through internships and career related summer placements.

In the 1997 Budget, this Government increased federal support for higher education and skills by improving interest relief and tax measures. The period of Interest Relief was extended from 18 to 30 months, allowing low-income borrowers to defer repayment. Further, the Government is working with interested provinces to explore the implementation of an income related repayment scheme to help reduce student indebtedness, and increase and expansion of coverage education tax measures are being considered.

In addition, Human Resources Development Canada provides over $600 million in support of post-secondary students through the Canada Student Loans Program. The 1997 Speech from the Throne announced the Government of Canada's commitment to help youth access education and reduce barriers to post-secondary education through further changes to the Canada Student Loans Program, and increased assistance for students with dependents.

Also announced in the Speech from the Throne, the Government of Canada is establishing the Canada Millennium Scholarship Endowment Fund to help young Canadians prepare for the knowledge based economy of the future. The Scholarship Fund addresses two priorities identified in the Speech from the Throne: the need to invest in knowledge and innovation, and the need to give young Canadians the opportunity to succeed in the new economy by providing improved access to post-secondary education. Income from the Fund will reward academic excellence and provide thousands of scholarships each year, beginning in the year 2000 for low and moderate income Canadians to help them attend university and colleges.

The Government of Canada recognizes the importance of post-secondary education to our economic and social development, and remains committed to supporting the national effort to help all Canadians acquire the knowledge and skills to compete in the world.

Justice

Denial of Presumption of Innocence to Former Prime Minister-Disparity of Treatment with Other Individuals-Government Position

(Response to question raised by Hon. John Lynch-Staunton on October 9, 1997)

The government regrets the inappropriate wording of the September 29,1995 Letter of Request to the Swiss. The government issued a formal apology to the former prime minister and to the other people named in the Letter. The former prime minister's expenses have been reimbursed by the government.

The government has taken action with respect to the Letter of Request. A second letter was sent to the Swiss emphasizing that the September 29 Letter contained allegations only and stressed the need for confidentiality.

As the then Minister of Justice indicated at the press conference to announce the settlement of the litigation, the problem was process not people. The way the Department of Justice handles Letters of Request has been changed. New measures, which have been put into effect, provide more assurance of confidentiality, the avoidance of any conclusions, and approval by senior officials. There will also be a review of the overall application of this policy every 6-12 months by the Deputy Minister.

Sale of Airbus Aircraft to Air Canada-Investigation by RCMP of Information Leak to Media-Government Position

(Response to question raised by Hon. David Tkachuk on October 9, 1997)

The RCMP is conducting a Code of Conduct hearing, pursuant to the RCMP Act, regarding an allegation that there was an unauthorized verbal disclosure of information during the Airbus investigation by a member of the RCMP. It is scheduled to begin on November 3, 1997.

The allegation currently under review has nothing to do with the leak of the federal government's letter of request to the Swiss government. There is no evidence to suggest that the RCMP has anything to do with the leak to the Financial Post.

There is no investigation going on into the RCMP or any other investigation.

ORDERS OF THE DAY)

Canada Shipping Act

Bill to Amend-Second Reading-Debate Adjourned

Hon. Wilfred P. Moore moved the second reading of Bill S-4, to amend the Canada Shipping Act (maritime liability).

He said: Honourable senators, I am pleased to rise on second reading to bring to your attention an important piece of legislation, Bill S-4, respecting shipowners' liability for maritime claims in general, and for pollution damage in particular.

The purpose of this bill is to modernize Canadian legislation concerned with the limitation of liability for maritime claims set out in Part IX of the Canada Shipping Act, and with liability and compensation for oil pollution damage set out in Part XVI of the same act.

The modernization of both parts is of extreme importance for the shipping industry in Canada. The intent of the regime of global limitation of liability set out in Part IX of the Canada Shipping Act is to allow shipowners to limit the amount of their financial responsibility for certain types of damages occurring in connection with the operation of their ships.

Historically, limitation of liability has accorded to shipowners as an incentive to invest their money in maritime ventures without the risk of losing all their assets in the event that the ship caused loss or damage. Today, the global limitation of liability remains an important economic instrument in the operation of a ship.

The limits of liability are calculated on the basis of a ship's size and apply to all claims arising from the same accident. This feature enables the shipowners to assess their potential liability, which is an essential condition for commercial insurability.

The current regime of global limitation of liability for maritime claims has become outdated, particularly with respect to the limits of liability which lost value through inflation over the years. The current regime largely reflects the provisions of an international convention adopted in 1957. It is therefore important to modernize this regime by implementing in the Canada Shipping Act the provisions of the 1976 Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims and its 1996 protocol.

Honourable senators, this regime of global limitation of liability contained in the proposed legislation will apply to all ships, including pleasure vessels. Recreational boating has by far the largest share of accidents involving serious injuries or loss of life. The current limit of liability for loss of life or personal injury for owners of vessels below 300 tonnes, which includes most of the pleasure vessels, is approximately $140,000. This limit is totally inadequate, and it has led claimants to take legal action to try to break the limitation of liability.

(1500)

It is therefore critical, honourable colleagues, that we address the issue of liability respecting victims of maritime accidents in general, and specifically those who are injured, sometimes fatally, in pleasure vessel accidents.

Honourable senators, Bill S-4 will increase the limits of liability of owners of pleasure vessels, and this will improve considerably the position of victims of such incidents in the future. When adopted, the new legislation will increase the limits of liability for loss of life or personal injury from approximately $140,000 to $1 million per incident. This new limit for pleasure vessels will be more in line with the liability levels long established in the automobile sector.

The new limits are not expected to have any dramatic impact on the insurance cost of pleasure vessels. As with other types of insurance, it will be the future claims experience of pleasure vessel owners that will determine the cost of their insurance under the new regime.

In short, honourable senators, the combination of low limits and consistent efforts to break the limitation to obtain adequate compensation has often resulted in long and protracted litigation with uncertain results. The inadequacy of the limitation amounts, eroded by inflation since the 1950s, is thus the principal problem in the present regime, and a revision of these amounts is long overdue.

The proposed legislation also amends Part XVI of the Canada Shipping Act, which deals with the regime of shipowners' liability for oil pollution damage. The existing regime of liability and compensation goes back to the Torrey Canyon incident off the coast of the United Kingdom in 1967. That incident demonstrated a number of the weaknesses in the then prevailing rules governing the liability of shipowners of oil tankers. Worldwide attention to the devastating consequences of that incident resulted in quick action by the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization, now called the International Maritime Organization. This organization produced a draft convention which, after its adoption at a diplomatic conference in Brussels in 1969, came to be known as the Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage. Two years later, a further diplomatic conference in Brussels adopted the 1971 International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage.

The 1969 convention establishes the liability of owners of laden tankers for oil pollution damage, defines who is entitled to receive compensation from the shipowner, and sets out rules and conditions that determine, on a uniform basis, the extent of shipowners' liability and compensation for pollution damage. The 1971 fund convention was established to provide supplementary compensation for pollution damage caused by oil tankers, to the extent that the protection under the 1969 convention is inadequate. Canada implemented and acceded to these two conventions in 1989.

In 1992, a number of improvements were made to the original conventions by protocols. Most important, the amount of compensation for pollution damage caused by oil tankers was increased from the then current level of about $120 million per incident to about $270 million per incident.

It should also be noted that under the 1992 protocols, shipowners are liable for the cost of reasonable measures of reinstatement where oil pollution from a ship results in damage to the environment.

The new legislation will implement the provisions of the 1992 protocols, thus increasing the amount of compensation available to Canadian claimants, private and public alike, for any pollution damage caused by oil tankers in the future. The proposed legislation will enable Canada to follow many other countries that moved rapidly to the 1992 regime and, as a result, terminated their membership in the old regime in May of 1997, with effect from May, 1998.

At that time, Canada will become one of the major contributors under the old regime. While not entitled to any improved compensation, we could be exposed to higher contributions to the international fund due to the reduced membership in the 1971 regime. It is, therefore, highly desirable that Bill S-4 be passed as quickly as possible to enable Canada to deposit its instrument of accession to the 1992 protocols and terminate its participation in the old regime.

Honourable senators, the amendments to the Canada Shipping Act contained in Bill S-4 will result in our maritime liability legislation being consistent with that of other maritime nations. Equally if not more important, the amendments will substantially increase the amount of compensation available to claimants for maritime claims in general, and oil pollution claims in particular.

Before I conclude, let me say that consultation with industry groups on the proposed amendments has been conducted by Transport Canada. The majority of these groups agree that revision of the current legislation in Part IX and Part XVI of the Canada Shipping Act is necessary. Further, this bill received the unanimous support of the Standing Committee on Transportation in the other place earlier this year, during the last Parliament.

In summary, honourable senators, the key features of the proposed legislation include the following: a substantial increase of shipowners' limits of liability for maritime claims in general; special provisions for liability claims for small ships; special provisions for the liability of shipowners to their passengers; increased limits of liability for owners of docks, canals and ports; and increased compensation for pollution damage, with special provision for damage to the environment.

Honourable senators, I believe this bill will modernize our legislation to ensure that it meets current Canadian requirements in the area of shipowners' liabilities, particularly oil pollution liability. I hope you will all join me in giving thorough and expeditious consideration to this important initiative.

Hon. W. David Angus: Honourable senators, I wish to add a few words on Bill S-4, which I was delighted to see introduced in this chamber earlier this month. I say "delighted" because I hope this important shipping legislation will be more efficiently managed and enjoy a better fate here than it did in the other place during the last Parliament in replacing what Senator Moore has just correctly referred to as outdated laws here in Canada.

For the record, as well as for your information, honourable senators, Bill S-4 is an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act. It deals principally with the issues of, one, limitation of liability for maritime claims, and, two, liability and compensation for oil pollution damage.

The legislation is designed to augment substantially the amount of compensation available to claimants, both private citizens and entities, and governmental and other public bodies for maritime claims in general and for oil pollution damage in particular.

As a very simple illustration, if this legislation had been in effect several years ago when a foreign-flagged vessel negligently ran into and seriously damaged a bridge near Beauharnois in the St. Lawrence Seaway, the government, on behalf of the taxpayers of Canada, would have been in a position to effect a much more substantial and just indemnity for the damages sustained than they were able to realize under the still current, archaic and long-outdated limitation of liability provisions of the Canada Shipping Act.

This bill is also designed to bring Canada's maritime liability legislation into harmony with that of our major trading partners and other major maritime nations of the world, many of whose flagged vessels carry import and export cargoes daily to and from our shores. It will also enable Canada to join or accede to very important international shipping conventions that have already been ratified and adopted by many of these same trading partners and shipping nations.

As far as I can determine, the principles of this legislation are not in any way controversial, nor in dispute amongst Canadians. On the contrary, the legislation is long overdue, long awaited and much needed by Canada's maritime industry. Its sustained delay has blemished Canada's otherwise excellent reputation in the major international shipping industry, marine insurance and trading circles. It has also caused much embarrassment to our loyal and diligent officials who represent Canada on the Legal Committee of IMO, the Intergovernmental Maritime Organization, where they have done such fine work through negotiation and diplomacy to ensure the conventions in question are properly incorporated and reflect the Canadian point of view.

(1510)

This is why I found it so shocking, even disgraceful, that the last Liberal government, both for political expediency, in light of the impending and very premature election call, and because of inept management of the legislative process in the other place, permitted or caused Bill C-58, the predecessor to Bill S-4 in the last Parliament, to die on the Order Paper last spring.

The same might be said, honourable senators, both about the previous Bill C-59, to implement Articles 1 to 22 of the Athens Convention relating to the carriage of passengers and their luggage by sea, and the previous Bill C-73, which contained urgent and important proposed amendments to the Canada Shipping Act. Therefore, I hope and suggest that this and other key forthcoming Canada Shipping Act amendments might also be introduced here in this chamber, where I trust they will be afforded the appropriate first sober thought and careful study to be followed by expeditious passage.

Honourable senators, I have devoted the vast majority of my 35-year legal career to the specialty of maritime law, both as a practising barrister and solicitor and through active participation over many years in the deliberations of international and other organizations concerned with the development of Canadian and international maritime law. Thus, it is a particular pleasure and a special privilege for me to be able to associate myself with and support the principles and objectives of Bill S-4.

In the world of commerce, few things remain constant. However, we should bear in mind that the field of maritime transportation has always been and will remain essentially international by its very nature. It follows therefore that domestic maritime law which serves a nation's shipping community must also be international in nature and scope. For generations, nations in both public and private arenas have come together to unify often diverse legal systems so as to harmonize the legislative infrastructure and so as to provide a stable and predictable legal basis for worldwide maritime commerce.

One of the major catalysts in the harmonization of international maritime law has been the work of le Comité maritime international, CMI, which was founded in Belgium just 100 years ago this past June. CMI is a private sector international organization dedicated to the unification of international maritime law. Its members are the national maritime law associations of over 50 nations, including Canada, which, I am proud to say, has in recent years become an increasingly active and key player at the CMI and in its deliberations.

The CMI has been instrumental in developing a number of important treaties or conventions on various aspects of international maritime transportation, including the following four. First, there was the Hague/Visby rules on cargo liability which are part of Canada's Carriage of Goods by Water Act as amended in 1993. The original Hague Rules Convention was adopted in 1924 and was the basis for our own Canadian Carriage of Goods by Water Act as originally enacted in the early 1930s. Second, CMI was instrumental in developing the original, as well as the most recent, Convention on Maritime Salvage, adopted by Canada in 1994. Third, CMI was responsible for introducing a modern regime of liability for the maritime carriage of passengers which, as I mentioned earlier, was introduced as Bill C-59 in the last Parliament and which, I hope, the government will soon reintroduce in this chamber. Fourth, it was instrumental in developing the two issues now before Parliament, the most recent international conventions on the limitation of liability for maritime claims and on civil liability for oil pollution damage.

These treaties have been well received by the international maritime community, as well as by the governments, including Canada's own, which work together through the International Maritime Organization toward the adoption of these instruments to regulate matters of common interest, including environmental protection and issues on safety of life at sea. The International Maritime Organization is a United Nations agency based in London. The most recent achievement of IMO in this field, the adoption of the 1996 Convention on the Liability for the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea, was much helped by the preparatory work done by CMI.

I have had the distinct privilege to serve for some 30 years as an active member of CMI and am currently serving my second four-year term as a member of its executive council. I have been during the same period a member of our national organization, the Canadian Maritime Law Association, of which I was president from 1989 to 1992. I have a sense of the importance of the unification of maritime laws in the international picture. The common goal of these organizations has always been to promote uniformity of international, maritime, shipping and trade law in order to simplify trade by achieving the highest degree of international harmonization possible.

Honourable senators, the two most important features of Bill S-4 consist of, first, an amendment to the so-called global limitation of liability provisions, and, second, a major enhancement of the existing regime of liability for pollution damage in the Canada Shipping Act.

Turning first to the global limitation regime, on passage of Bill S-4 Canada will finally be, for the first time in more than 15 years, in a position to ratify an international treaty on the subject, namely, the 1976 Convention on the Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims, as amended by its 1996 protocol. Canada's ratification of that treaty will accelerate its implementation at the international level. I am hopeful that Canada will soon finally be in a position to bring this new convention into force without further delay. Canada will join other maritime nations in a harmonized regime of limitation of liability, which is a vital aspect of maritime law, and leave behind a very outdated piece of archaic domestic legislation.

As regards the second objective of Bill S-4, we should recall that Canada is already a member of two important international instruments on marine pollution liability, as mentioned by Senator Moore just a moment ago. They are the 1969 Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage and its companion treaty, the 1971 Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage. These conventions have served Canada very well in the past. As an example, I refer to the prompt and satisfactory settlement of claims under the 1971 fund convention arising out of the grounding of the ship Rio Orinoco off Anticosti Island in the Gulf of St. Lawrence in 1990.

It is now time to build on this solid foundation and modernize our legislation in step with other maritime nations by implementing the amendments to these conventions adopted by the international community in 1992. Because many of our trading partners joined the 1992 regime in a timely way, it is now imperative that we do likewise.

Honourable senators, as I suggested earlier, this legislation will produce greatly enhanced compensation for the benefit of Canadian claimants involved in maritime accidents in general and for maritime pollution claims in particular. At the same time, the harmonization of our law with that of other friendly nations also benefits all participants in the maritime trade, including shipowners, charterers, cargo owners and insurers, by providing internationally known and accepted rules that deal with the economic consequences of accidents at sea. Without such uniform rules, international shipping, on which Canada relies heavily on a daily basis, would become an expensive and unpredictable business that would have adverse consequences for Canadian industry at large.

It should not be overlooked that harmonization of international law in the maritime field not only benefits industry but also represents a significant advancement in the field of marine environmental law.

In closing, honourable senators, I would urge you to give your support to speedy passage of Bill S-4, so that Canada can adopt these important international conventions as soon as possible and lay the groundwork for meeting the challenges faced by the marine community as we enter the next century.

Hon. Marcel Prud'homme: Honourable senators, Senator Angus said that he was sad that the government called an election in June which caused the previous bill to die on the Order Paper. As a neophyte in this domain, I must rejoice because it gave us the great occasion to listen to Senator Angus today. He had ample time to prepare such an informative speech, so much so that after listening to his speech, and after listening to the call by Senator Moore to pass this bill early, I am speechless. Therefore, I certainly accept this bill.

On motion of Senator Oliver, debate adjourned.

(1520)

Canada Evidence Act
Criminal Code
Canadian Human Rights Act

Bill to Amend-Second Reading-Debate Adjourned

Hon. P. Derek Lewis moved the second reading of Bill S-5, to amend the Canada Evidence Act and the Criminal Code in respect of persons with disabilities, to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act in respect of persons with disabilities and other matters and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

He said: Honourable senators, I am pleased to speak to Bill S-5. The purpose of the bill is reduce barriers to access for persons with disabilities.

In the last days of the previous Parliament, an identical bill, Bill C-98, had been introduced in the other place. Bill C-98 died on the Order Paper at dissolution. In its Liberal policy plan, "Securing Our Future Together," the government indicated its commitment to Bill C-98 and promised to reintroduce the bill on a priority basis. This commitment has now been fulfilled.

The recent Speech from the Throne promises that:

The government will continue to work with provinces to ensure greater mobility for people with disabilities and to ensure their integration into the economic and social mainstream of Canadian life.

The bill before us today has developed over a number of years. Let me give you some historical content.

In May 1991, the government of the time adopted a five-year national strategy for the integration of persons with disabilities. Legislative amendments were the first step in the national strategy: for example, Bill C-78, to Amend Certain Acts with Respect to Persons with Disabilities. The 1991 bill amended six federal laws, including the Criminal Code, the National Transportation Act, the Canada Elections Act, the Citizenship Act, the Access to Information Act, and the Privacy Act. It came into force on June 30, 1992.

The Department of Justice has since been reviewing legislation within its mandate to identify and find ways to deal with barriers to access for persons with disabilities. During the past number of years, extensive consultations have taken place involving the disability community, equality-seeking groups, employer groups, the police, and the defence bar.

In June 1996, the Federal Task Force on Disability Issues was established jointly by four ministers: the Minister of Human Resources Development, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Revenue, and the Minister of Justice. This task force, chaired by the Honourable Andy Scott, released its report on October 28, 1996, calling for the government to introduce amendments to the criminal law and to human rights legislation. The Federal Task Force on Disability Issues also said that, for the last several years, Canadians with disabilities have quietly stated their case for action, and it recognizes and promotes their full and equal participation in the life of our country.

With this bill that we have before us today, we are treating the concerns of persons with disabilities seriously. We are reducing the gap between saying and doing. With this bill, we are taking positive and concrete steps to address some of the most pressing concerns that persons with disabilities have with the justice system.

Honourable senators, it is against this backdrop and with the input and support of many stakeholders that I introduce this disability package today. In particular, the proposals in Bill S-5 to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Canada Evidence Act, and the Criminal Code form an important part of the federal government's response to the task force. I would turn first to the amendments to the criminal law.

More than 4 million Canadians have a disability, representing almost 16 per cent of the Canadian population. Research into the incidence of physical and sexual abuse against persons with disabilities has consistently found that they are at a much higher risk of abuse than non-disabled persons. The criminal law amendments proposed in this bill will assist the disability community in gaining easier access to the criminal justice system to address these problems. This bill contains five disability areas that were found appropriate for criminal law reform.

First, a new provision in the Canada Evidence Act would provide that communication assistance will be made available to persons with disabilities who have special communication needs, irrespective of whether they are the accused or a witness. This would allow, for example, the use of a Bliss board by persons with cerebral palsy, the use of sign language interpretation by persons who are deaf, the use of assisting listening devices, and real-time captioning or oral interpretations by persons who are hard of hearing.

A second provision, also in the Canada Evidence Act, would provide for the admission in court of alternative methods of identification of the accused, for example, by auditory or tactile means. This would be in addition to the more traditional means of identification, that is to say, visual identification.

Third, in the Criminal Code, a new provision would make available to witnesses with disabilities that make communication difficult the possibility of testifying by means of videotaped evidence, whether or not such witness is a complainant. This would be possible in the case of offences related to situations of sexual abuse, pornography, prostitution and assault.

Fourth, a series of related amendments to the Criminal Code would encourage the participation of persons with disabilities on juries. For example, it would be provided that a physical disability is generally not cause for exclusion if the person is capable of jury service with proper technical assistance, support, or interpretation. The other amendments to the Criminal Code in respect to juries are intended to provide for the presence of attendants or interpreters who are providing support to a disabled juror. The obligation of non-disclosure of jury deliberations would be extended to these attendants or interpreters, and it would be an offence for an attendant or interpreter or other support person to interfere or unduly influence jury deliberations.

Fifth, an offence of sexual exploitation of vulnerable persons with disabilities who are in situations of dependency would be added to the Criminal Code. This amendment would, for example, protect vulnerable dependent adults with disabilities who are sexually exploited by their caregivers.

By and large, the criminal law amendments proposed in Bill S-5 have received widespread support, not only from the disability community but also from provincial and territorial jurisdictions, the defence bar, and law enforcement officials.

This bill also contains important amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act. The key element of these amendments is the addition of an express duty to accommodate. I believe that this amendment is essential to give meaning to the promise of equality which underlies the act and the equality provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is based on the equal participation and integration of individuals and groups, such as persons with disabilities and religious minorities in Canadian society and in the economic life of this country.

The duty to accommodate requires employers and service providers to accommodate the needs of persons protected under the act, up to the point of undue hardship, taking into consideration the factors of health, safety and cost. The amendment contains a clause that recognizes the universality of service principles for the Canadian Armed Forces. Under this principle, all members of the forces, whatever trade or occupation they are in, must be able to go into armed conflict.

(1530)

The concept of a duty to accommodate is not a new one. The Supreme Court of Canada already requires employers and service providers to accommodate persons protected by the act except where it would cause undue hardship. A comparable duty to accommodate also exists under the Ontario Human Rights Code.

What is proposed here builds upon the existing Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence. It is not intended to be a significant departure from the developed understanding of the duty to accommodate. National equality-seeking groups have advocated for a strong duty to accommodate on employers and providers of services and goods, unless the accommodation affects the viability of their business. Employers and providers of services and goods, on the other hand, have supported a duty of accommodation that would take into account factors in addition to health, safety and cost in assessing undue hardship.

I believe the standard of undue hardship included in the bill - health, safety and cost - is a balance between the needs of persons with disabilities and the obligation of employers and service providers. In the government's view, it is a reasonable balance. Generally, this balance enjoys the support of national equality-seeking groups and labour organizations. While some employers have expressed concerns about the impact of the amendment, the fact is that most, if not all, employers have already taken steps to accommodate consumers and employees, as they have been required to do under existing law.

A similar duty to accommodate has existed since 1986 in Ontario legislation. In Ontario, the duty to accommodate has not created unreasonable burdens on employers and service providers. We can therefore be confident that the proposed amendment would not add significantly to the financial liability that the government or other employee service providers already have under existing law and policies.

Apart from the duty to accommodate, the bill proposes to make other changes to the Canadian Human Rights Act. Many of these are codification of existing laws - for example, the recognition of multiple grounds of discrimination. Others are what may be perceived as housekeeping changes - for example, modernizing the language used in the current legislation. Others make modest changes in new directions - for instance, the existing ad hoc Human Rights Tribunal Panel will be restructured with the establishment of a permanent, smaller, more efficient and effective, expert Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

The tribunal would have 15 members, including a chairperson and a vice-chairperson, dedicated to tribunal matters. In addition, temporary members could be appointed to the tribunal whenever the work load of the tribunal so requires. Appointments to the tribunal would be made taking into account "experience, expertise and interest in, and sensitivity to, human rights," as well as to the needs of regional representation. Surely persons protected under the act would be better served by the increased expertise and efficiency of a small, dedicated, permanent tribunal.

After several years of review and consultations on these issues, it is time to take concrete steps to move with legislation that, while effecting modest changes, will bring federal human rights legislation in line with provincial human rights standards. The bill demonstrates the government's commitment to advance human rights protection in Canada.

The proposals are about justice, equality, fairness and tolerance. These are values that every Canadian cherishes and that the government is committed to maintaining. These are values that are associated with Canada and for which Canadians are recognized worldwide. For these qualities, many countries in the world look to Canada to set the pace for human rights advancement. The legislation, together with provincial initiatives, will ensure that Canada maintains its hard-earned but well-deserved leadership and respect in the area of human rights protection.

This bill is important for all Canadians. It is in keeping with the ideals of Canadian society, a society that does not tolerate the abuse of vulnerable persons with disabilities and a society that constantly seeks the inclusion of all its citizens, irrespective of disability.

Honourable senators, I trust that you will be able to support this bill.

Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Acting Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I want to thank our colleague Senator Lewis for that fine exposé of Bill S-5. This bill comprises legislation which the government has seen fit, along with some other business on our Order Paper now, to introduce in this chamber, a move for which I commend the government. Because there is some criticism in some other quarters of this process, I think all honourable senators in this chamber will want to do a first-class job in analyzing the bill and bringing to it any improvements that we may determine are necessary.

I concur with our colleague Senator Lewis that this initiative, to the extent that it speaks to the equality needs of persons with disabilities, is a good initiative, and much of it will be receiving my enthusiastic support.

However, honourable senators, Senator Lewis said, "I introduce this disability package today," thus telling us that this is the main focus. I agree that substantively, in terms of the content on equality rights, that is the most important part of this bill. I have little difficulty with the amendments proposed to the Evidence Act and the Criminal Code. I find them good. However, with reference to some of the amendments to the Human Rights Act, my concern is that under the cover of increasing protection for persons with disabilities, the officials in the ministry are slipping in some other things.

Let me draw to the attention of honourable senators an example on page 12 of the bill, at clause 48.1. I will address an issue of principle here because that is what we are debating: the principle of the bill. There is a principle underlying that clause with which I disagree. Honourable senators, that clause mentions the reformulation of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. It states that the tribunal will be appointed and that there will be a number of members who must have "experience, expertise and interest in, and sensitivity to, human rights." That is fine; in fact, that is good, in my judgment. However, in section 48.1(3), the government proposes that the chairperson, the vice-chairperson and at least two other members of the tribunal must be members of the bar of a province or the Chambre des notaires du Québec and that the chairperson and the vice-chairperson must have been members of the bar or Chambre des notaires du Québec for at least ten years. I think the limitation of membership on the tribunal to members of the bar needs to be examined. It seems to me someone is perhaps slipping that provision in under the cover of something else that I hope we will all support: equal opportunity and non-discrimination because of disability.

(1540)

For example, there are many other kinds of administrative tribunals, like labour relations boards and labour arbitration boards, where sometimes the arbitrator of the board is not a member of the bar. Many of our colleagues who have significant experience in the field of labour law could testify to the fact that some of the better arbitrators have been those who are not members of the bar.

I do not know whether the people who worked on the drafting of this bill happen to be members of the bar and want to continue a sort of closed shop, but I should hope that the committee will get to the bottom of that one.

I would point out again that these are not just housekeeping changes or modest changes. Pages 12 to 30 of the bill deal with changes that are functional or institutional at the commission and in the commission system. Only a few sections of the bill deal with a desire to improve the anti-discrimination law as it affects persons with disabilities. We want to ensure that something is not being slipped in here under the umbrella of the stated desired, a desire that is accepted by us all.

This bill has a preamble, honourable senators. As you are aware, a debate is under way about whether legislation ought to have a preamble and about the actual purpose of any preamble. It is a fact that all Canadian anti-discrimination statutes at the provincial, territorial and federal levels have preambles.

Senator Lewis drew to our attention that, as mentioned in the third preambular paragraph, for individuals and groups who are disadvantaged, identical treatment does not always lead to equality. I find that to be an excellent principle. Identical treatment does not always lead to equality. Many members in this Parliament, not in this chamber but in the other place, will have a great deal of difficulty with the proposition that identical treatment or equal treatment does not always lead to equality. It will be interesting to see how they respond to a principle that is enshrined in the preambular paragraphs to this bill.

That preambular paragraph also speaks to positive measures being necessary to remove discriminatory barriers to ensure equality. What we are talking about here is affirmative action. Honourable senators, we all know that section 15(2) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides for the possibility of the legislative assemblies and Parliament enacting legislation and providing for affirmative action programs. This is what is being postulated in that third preambular paragraph.

As a matter of principle, I support affirmative action in the employment sector as a result of the work of Judge Rosalie Abella. We often refer to it as employment equity but it is affirmative action and it means special measures.

The section dealing with the Canada Evidence Act presents a technical question that perhaps is best left to the committee to address. The question that arose in my mind as I looked at the bill was why section 16 refers to mental disability rather than mental and physical disability as found in proposed section 6.1.

Further along, the accommodation of needs to which Senator Lewis alluded is one of the key dynamics of the bill in terms of enforcing the reasonable accommodation of provision. This is new. My question here relates to clause 10 of the bill at the top of page 7. When might there be a bona fide justification for non-accommodation? When does the provider of accommodation - which is usually a building - have the opportunity to establish that he or she has a bona fide justification for not being able to accommodate the needs of a person with disabilities?

In the bill, it appears that the only opportunity to do so is after an allegation of a violation of the Human Rights Act has been made. In other words, the committee may receive a complaint alleging that a certain hotel that is federally regulated or a certain airline or a certain bank, all under federal jurisdiction, has refused to modify its property to remove barriers to accommodation. The proprietor of such property must be accused before he can bring forward as a defence the existence of some bona fide justification or bona fide reason for not making full accommodation. Why not allow the Human Rights Commission to receive an application from a proprietor at the front end? In other words, why not allow the person who owns such an enterprise to go to the Human Rights Commission and describe his difficulty in making reasonable accommodations and request that the Human Rights Commission recognize the existing limitation to accessibility in that enterprise. The proprietor would then know ahead of time whether the commission recognized the limitation and would know that he is not in violation of the act. He would not need to wait for someone to file a complaint before attempting to defend himself with a claim of a bona fide limitation.

This bill proposes to give the Governor in Council the power to make regulations prescribing standards for assessing undue hardship around this issue of reasonable accommodation. If that is so, the commission would be in a good position to decide upon such "predetermination applications." As a matter of principle, this model is already used in some provincial legislation on this very topic, but it is a different model than the one currently found in the Canadian Human Rights Act.

(1550)

It is very interesting, honourable senators, again as a matter of principle, that proposed section 15(8) reads as follows:

This section applies in respect of a practice regardless of whether it results in direct discrimination or adverse effect discrimination.

Discrimination must be examined in principle. Discrimination was a term used to describe issues of unequal treatment, beginning from the time of the Fair Accommodation Practices Act, down to when the Canadian Human Rights Act was enacted. However, by articulating that discriminatory practices may be practices that are in the nature of adverse effect discrimination, we are codifying systemic discrimination, and that is a matter of fundamental principle as well.

Honourable senators, there is another clause of the bill that I think is a welcome addition. Anti-retaliation has been absent from federal human rights legislation for a long time, but exists in many provincial statutes. Part 2 on page 8 of the bill, at clause 14.1, effectively adds an anti-retaliation clause. In other words, it would be a discriminatory practice for a person against whom a complaint has been filed to retaliate or threaten retaliation against that individual. This has been a weakness of the Canadian Human Rights Act, in my judgment, because the whole model is based upon a complaint process. By not having protection for a complainant from retaliation, a person would hesitate to file a complaint. That is a welcome addition, and I certainly support it in principle.

With regard to clause 16.1, the bill provides:

It is not a discriminatory practice to collect information related to a prohibited ground of discrimination if the information is intended to be used in adopting or carrying out a special program, plan or arrangement under subsection 16(1).

My question is: Will that apply to the prescribed ground of discrimination that was put in the Human Rights Act a couple of years ago, in part because of the work that was initiated in this chamber, where sexual orientation was added as a prohibited ground of discrimination? The question is: Will they be allowed to collect information for special programs or public education to combat discrimination, systemic and otherwise, by which Canadians are victimized because of sexual orientation?

We have questions with reference to the exception as it applies to pension plans, and as always with a bill that provides the Governor in Council with the power to make regulations, it would be nice to see what those regulations are, ahead of time. If we were able to have a copy of the briefing material, which I assume was prepared by the Ministry of Justice in presenting the bill, it would make analyzing the bill in detail easier, and would also aid in ensuring that I have not missed any of the principles. It would be helpful if we could receive a copy of that briefing material.

With reference to page 12, they begin the treatment that, in my judgment, is a major amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act, changing completely the model of the Canadian Human Rights tribunals. It is not simply a housekeeping change or a modest change. There are a number of errors there. For example, in clause 48.1, the English version provides:

There is hereby established a tribunal to be known as the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal...

And then the French version beside it says:

Est constitué le Tribunal canadien des droits de la personne composé...

I was trying to determine, first, whether a point was attempting to be made in the English version to point out that there will be a tribunal, just to draw our attention to the fact that these tribunals are like many other administrative tribunals and, therefore, will be guided in some part by administrative law, or, second, whether they were trying to say something different. I am not too sure about that.

In that same clause, it is proposed to give appointments only to lawyers, and I have a great deal of difficulty with that proposition.

Since one needs to have a little more time to check out some of these things, at this point I will move the adjournment of the debate.

On motion of Senator Kinsella, debate adjourned.

Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act

Bill to Amend-Second Reading

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Rompkey, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Haidasz, P.C., for the second reading of Bill S-2, to amend the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act.

Hon. J. Michael Forrestall: Honourable senators, I rise to take part in the second reading debate on Bill S-2, which seeks to amend the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act.

Before I get into the discussion of the subject-matter of this bill, I want to take the opportunity to congratulate the government for introducing government legislation for first reading in the Senate. This is an enlightened approach to the legislative process, and one that could stand Parliament in great stead down through the years. To that end, we must be diligent and careful as to how we conduct ourselves. This is not, after all, a reference of the subject-matter of a bill, but rather the initiation, as I say, of the bill itself.

This practice, should it continue, and I hope it does, should help address those problems that are often encountered in the legislative process. Presumably, there will be fewer government bills awaiting Senate approval as we near periods of recess or the end of a parliamentary session. As well, government bills can be studied in depth by the Senate, as is normally the case, and amendments made prior to the bill going to the House of Commons. This process will allow the Commons to focus primarily on the general principles of the bill. This should enhance, if nothing else, the legislative process.

Third, senators will have a chance to illustrate to detractors of the Senate - and some do exist - that the Senate can be an effective legislative chamber, either giving sober second thought to legislation coming from the other place or, as we are doing here today, dealing with legislation at the first instance, in the initial stages.

Honourable senators, transportation safety in Canada is a matter that was discussed in great detail by the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications in the last Parliament. As many senators will recall, on October 2, 1996, the Senate agreed to the establishment of a subcommittee of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications on the very subject of transportation safety. It had a very broad mandate, as it was to make "recommendations upon the state of safety and security in the transportation industries in Canada." It was to look at both the immediate safety concerns of Canadians and innovations in safety required to meet the needs of Canadians into the next century.

(1600)

I was privileged to chair that subcommittee, which consisted of Senator Adams as deputy chair and Senators Bacon, Mercier and Roberge. In the short period between the time we were officially constituted a subcommittee and the call of the April 1997 general election, we did a remarkable amount of work. We travelled from coast to coast listening to safety concerns of all those involved in the various aspects of the transportation industry - rail, air, marine, interprovincial truck transport.

During those hearings, honourable senators, which we felt were in reality the first phase of our work, we set out to identify safety issues. The second phase of our work, which we hope to continue in this Parliament, will concentrate on issue resolution.

One matter that received a significant amount of attention in the issue identification phase was the Transportation Safety Board. If there is any benefit to surviving Parliament for as long as I have, it is to see endeavours one was partly responsible for putting in place reach maturity and eventually become the subject of suggestions for change. I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport and then a member of the House of Commons Transportation Committee when the Transportation Safety Board was put in place. At that time, I believe we accomplished a great deal in establishing a safety board independent of the regulator, Transport Canada, which was the subject-matter of a private members bill that I maintained on the Order Paper in the other place for a number of years.

In an appearance before the Subcommittee on Transportation Safety of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, Mr. Ken Johnson, the Executive Director of the Transportation Safety Board, explained that one of the major strengths of the board was the fact that accidents occurring in modes of transportation under its jurisdiction would be investigated independently and objectively. Also, the board focuses on finding safety deficiencies, not fault, identifying systemic problems in safety and how they might best be addressed.

Given this approach, the board does not investigate all accidents, but restricts itself to those that look like they might result in some significant payoff, presumably in terms of transportation safety. It was explained to us that the board has exclusive jurisdiction when it does investigate, and its needs during the investigating period are paramount. While in some instances the board's proceedings may not be public, it makes its report public if in fact it decides to carry out an investigation.

Mr. Johnson also explained the board's relationship with Transport Canada. Mr. Johnson stated, "Transport Canada is the enforcer." The board must convince Transport Canada to implement the board's recommendations. This, I came to realize during the balance of our hearings last year, is a major flaw in the legislative mandate given to the board.

A number of deficiencies in the mandate and operation of the Transportation Safety Board were pointed out by witnesses appearing before the Senate subcommittee. It was criticized by the Maritime Division of the Company of Master Mariners of Canada as having no maritime or marine experience, which "results in glacially slow report production."

The witness went on to add that the board also produces reports which miss or underestimate vital issues, and it has resulted in the field investigators being badly demoralized and sometimes disowning their own report, feeling that it has been rewritten so heavily that it no longer accurately reflects their investigation.

Honourable senators, we were also told by the Halifax Marine Pilots Committee that the board refused to implement many of the changes recommended by the review commission - changes that did not need legislation to be implemented; changes that, in the opinion of the witness, would reduce the time it takes for a report to be made public and improve the overall efficiency of the board itself.

Another witness, Robert Ballantyne, the President of the Railway Association of Canada, suggested that the mandate of the board be expanded to include interprovincial commercial transport - interprovincial buses and trucks. This suggestion was made because, in fact, more people are killed and injured in motor vehicle accidents in Canada than all the other modes combined. This is an interesting suggestion that I hope we can explore further in the committee's study of Bill S-2.

The main criticism we heard, and we heard it from a number of sources, was that the board does not have the power to implement its decisions. The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers refer to it as a "toothless tiger." Another witness referred to the relationship with Transport Canada as being that of a "lap dog."

Honourable senators, this brings me to the bill at hand. The bill does, in fact, little more than tinker with the Transportation Safety Board. If my reading of clause 3 of the bill is correct, it may even turn a full-time board into a part-time board. While I believe its provisions on the protection of witness statements are good, it is my feeling that the bill only scratches the surface of the problems that are now besetting the board.

We need only to look to the United States National Transportation Safety Board to see how some of the problems relating to the Canadian board can be addressed. Our Subcommittee on Transportation Safety held extensive meetings with representatives of the NTSB in Washington, D.C. in April of this year. I believe what we learned there could well be applied here in Canada. I was particularly interested in the role played by the members of that board in investigations and the fact that virtually all recommendations of the American board have been implemented.

Honourable senators, I look forward to hearing from witnesses in committee on this bill, and I am sure that my Senate colleagues on the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications will give it a thorough study.

My concern about the board is that it will become a part-time board. This is rather important, and I want to draw the attention of honourable senators to it. It illustrates our concern. I would not want to abuse the act itself or the actions of the government, but clause 3(1) of the bill states that:

Section 4(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:

4(1) There is hereby established a board to be known as the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board, consisting of not more than five members appointed by the Governor in Council.

Let me read to you what that replaces. The current act reads as follows:

4(1) There is hereby established a board to be known as the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board, consisting of not more than five full-time members appointed by the Governor in Council.

We have gone from five full-time members to five members. There is provision in the act, as you go on, for compensation of full-time members and part-time members. This is just an indication of the concern we have.

Honourable senators, this is a glorious opportunity to look at one of the principal instruments we have with respect to transportation safety in Canada. It is a great opportunity to make changes to this act that will strengthen it.

Accident investigation and the safety of the travelling public in Canada is not a part-time concern. It cannot be a part-time concern. It must be a full-time concern. It must be the concern of that board and indeed all of us to foster and encourage a culture of safety in our thinking and our outlook. To that end, this instrument must be strengthened to its fullest. I hope that we can do a good job with it in committee. I hope we can get the cooperation of witnesses. I would like to see the committee travel to Washington and meet extensively with the U.S. board to explore the ways in which the United States have come as far as they have.

(1610)

Finally, some senators may recall that President Clinton threw out a challenge with respect to safety. He wants to hold safety in the place where it is now; it is very good up in the air. However, within 10 years a hulk will lie beside every runway in the world, at least once a year. The growth in the numbers of aircraft and where they are operating is so phenomenal that accidents will occur. We will not be able to contain the death rate from flying - it will skyrocket. President Clinton has offered $90 million to turn that around.

A major player in this activity is the National Transportation Safety Board in the United States. I think we should have a similar body here in Canada to govern the safety of Canadians travelling in trucks, buses, planes or in their own automobiles.

Safety is no longer a Canadian concern alone. If we want to protect our people, we will need to look to aviation practices elsewhere in the world. We will need to examine air traffic control practices elsewhere in the world. There is something else we must do; we must encourage and help pilots to give up their singular control over the plane. So important and so complex is the issue of safety that decisions regarding the safety of any airplane and its passengers must be taken by people on the ground, all members of the flight deck crew and, indeed, the crew in the back of the plane.

This is a vitally important piece of legislation. We want to examine it closely. We will do so knowing, as I have suggested, that this will be the first piece of government legislation to go through. Therefore, we will do our best with it.

The Hon. the Speaker: If no other honourable senator wishes to speak, it was moved by the Honourable Senator Rompkey, seconded by the Honourable Senator Haidasz, that this bill be read the second time.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Motion agreed to and bill read second time.

Referred to Committee

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

On motion of Senator Carstairs, bill referred to Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications.

Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 
Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act

Bill to Amend-Second Reading

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Hervieux-Payette, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Milne, for the second reading of Bill S-3, to amend the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 and the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act.

Hon. James F. Kelleher: Honourable senators, unlike my colleague Senator Angus who spoke earlier on a bill, I cannot profess or suggest to you that I am an expert in this particular area whatsoever. Therefore, I ask you to bear with me. I would advise you, however, honourable senators, that the bill before us proposes to update the Pension Benefits Standards Act, the law through which the federal government supervises private pension plans.

Before speaking to the substance of this bill, I want to mention, as have other senators, that I welcome the government's decision to initiate legislation in this chamber. Indeed, Bill S-3 is the type of bill that is well suited for the Senate. It is not controversial but it does require proper scrutiny. It is to be hoped that the government will bring forward more bills in the Senate for pre-study.

Bill S-3 is certainly unlikely to become as controversial as the proposed changes to the Canada Pension Plan that the other place is now dealing with, or the proposed Seniors Benefit. In addition to the Canada and Quebec Pension Plans, Old Age Security and RRSPs, many Canadians rely on pension plans through their place of work to provide them with an income in their retirement years. Most employer pension plans are governed by provincial laws. However, 500,000 Canadians in some 1,000 plans depend upon the plans that fall under federal laws.

A decade ago, the Progressive Conservative government made substantive changes to the Pension Benefits Standards Act. Significant changes were made to the minimum standards that plans must meet in areas ranging from survivor benefits to information disclosure. We are told that this bill represents an update to the act, and not a substantive overhaul. We are also told that this bill will enhance planned governance, improve the federal government's ability to step in when plan administrators do not appear to be following sound financial practices, and set rules for the withdrawal of pension surpluses. Bill S-3 will also allow the federal government to enter into a supervisory agreement with provincial regulators through the Canadian Association of Pension Supervisory Authorities. These are all worthy objectives.

At the same time, we have also been told that pension fund managers find the surplus and wind-up provisions of this bill to be heavily weighted against employers. The government may want to explain to us how it arrived at the surplus withdrawal rule that it has placed in this bill.

Honourable senators, I look forward to a closer examination of this bill in committee.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, it was moved by the Honourable Senator Hervieux-Payette, seconded by the Honourable Senator Milne, that this bill be read the second time.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Motion agreed to and bill read second time.

Referred to Committee

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

On motion of Senator Carstairs, bill referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce.

(1620)

Inter-Parliamentary Union

Specialized Conference, New Delhi, India-Inquiry

Hon. Donald H. Oliver rose pursuant to notice of October 9, 1997:

That he will call the attention of the Senate to the Specialized Inter-Parliamentary Conference on "Towards Partnership Between Men and Women in Politics", held at New Delhi, India, from February 14 to 18, 1997.

He said: Honourable senators, I should like to take this opportunity to address some of the issues that were raised in the report of the New Delhi Inter-Parliamentary Conference entitled "Towards Partnership Between Men and Women in Politics."

This conference was organized following the completion of a survey that focused on three key issues: first, women in political parties; second, women's participation in the electoral process; and third, women in national parliaments. This survey showed that there is still a long way to go before parity - a 50-50 division between men and women - is reached. As of January, 1997, the world average for women in national Parliaments was 11.7 per cent, and 9.8 per cent for an upper house or Senate. It is interesting to note that in Canada we still have a long way to go, with women making up 23.1 per cent of our Senate, giving us second place behind Australia which has 30.3 per cent. Our House of Commons, however, does not do so well, placing twenty-first in the world, with women making up only 18 per cent of the members.

The Canadian delegation included Ms Sheila Finestone, MP, former Secretary of State for the Status of Women, and Mr. Sarkis Assadourian, MP.

There were some 250 parliamentarians from 80 countries, with almost equal representation of men and women. It is significant to note that this was the first international meeting of parliamentarians and other experts aimed at correcting the gender bias in global governance since the UN Fourth World Conference on Women in 1995.

There were four key themes. The first centred on the underrepresentation of women in political processes. Some conclusions were as follows. First, there is a serious democratic deficit, highlighted by the fact that today only 11.7 per cent of the seats are held by women, compared with 14.8 per cent in 1988. It was felt that the trend to global democratization will not be complete without redressing this serious gender imbalance in decision-making bodies around the world.

Second, it was felt that there was a need to achieve what is called a "critical mass." There was general consensus that the democratic deficit would only be alleviated when the number of women in Parliament reached a critical mass, evaluated at 30 per cent, which was based on the experience of the Nordic countries.

The third issue was one of the more hotly debated subjects and centred on the pros and cons of quotas. I was particularly impressed by the African parliamentarians, especially the delegates from Uganda and South Africa. Ms Jamwa spoke about their 1995 constitution and the fact that it is gender sensitive and includes affirmative action measures, and spoke of the benefits of such measures. Ms Voz also spoke about the value of quotas, which have resulted in a large of number of rural women being in their Parliament. Their arguments were countered by some who, like Ms Luo of Zambia, felt that reserving positions for women was retrogressive. One can see immediately how there were two very distinct positions in this debate.

The fourth area discussed was that of electoral systems. This is one in which I participated quite extensively because of my former position as a member of the Canadian Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing. We had a special section on things that could be done to encourage more women in the political process.

There was a general consensus that, of the various forms of political structures, proportional representation systems or mixed electoral systems give women the best chance of being elected. The first-past-the-post Canadian system was deemed to work against women's electoral success.

A background study report entitled "Democracy in the Making" pointed out some interesting insights on the impact of the electoral system. In the South African Parliament, there is indirect voting for the Senate and a proportional representation system with closed lists for the national assembly. The study noted that proportional representation made the ANC's 30-per-cent quota possible. The change in South Africa from minority to universal franchise in 1994 resulted in a significant increase in the number of women members in Parliament. The increase can largely be attributed to the aggressive demands by the ANC Women's League to ensure women's participation in politics during and after the negotiations for the 1993 constitution.

The six regional groups within the IPU met separately to discuss how best to promote a partnership between men and women in politics. As a result of these meetings, the African regional workshop brought forward a recommendation supporting quotas. Sir Ramesh Jeewoolall, Speaker of the National Assembly of Mauritius, reported on three main points in their discussions.

First was the necessity for quotas at all levels, and particularly at the party level, at Parliament, governmental and administrative levels where the decisions are in fact taken. Thirty per cent was to be the minimum but one should aim for 50 per cent.

Second was the absolute need for education, training and capacity building. Education for women is all the more important because in most African countries there is high illiteracy among women. Women also needed specific training since the great majority of them considered politics an exclusively male domain. Another consideration was that basic education for girls and women was critical. Other concerns were raised by the President of Namibia, who pointed out that the exclusion of girls from education has been instrumental in preventing equal partnerships between men and women. Later in the debate, the delegate from Burkina Faso said that partnership will be real only if a large number of women have access to education. Another South African delegate described efforts to provide basic education as well as electoral laws that stipulate how women will be educated in their preparation for the voters' roll. A representative from Togo was forceful in stating that training is of greatest importance. It is the sine qua non condition for the political success of women.

A third priority raised by the African delegation was finances. They felt that governments, Parliaments, NGOs, and international organizations should allocate money for the purpose of women's training. Political parties should also make money available for training women. The delegate from Senegal described how difficult it was for women to obtain financing for campaigns, especially as in a number of African countries the law must be changed so that women can have access to private property and land. Otherwise, they have no guarantee that the necessary loans and credits needed for an election campaign can be obtained by them.

Prime Minister Gowda of India called the conference a "historic session that was going to open a new chapter of democracy." The declaration included recommendations on how to achieve parity and more partnerships between men and women in politics through quotas for women political party candidates, dedicated campaign funds for women candidates, and media training for women politicians.

Shir P.A. Sangma, Speaker of Lok Sabha, noted at the closing session:

A major shift in the mind-set of both men and women is needed to correct the huge gap between law - nearly all of the world's constitutions provide for equality between men and women in all fields of life - and practice. What is basically at stake is democracy itself.

The Hon. the Speaker: If no other honourable senator wishes to speak, this inquiry is considered debated.

[Translation]

Ninety-Seventh Conference, Seoul, Korea-Inquiry-Debate adjourned

Hon. Gerald J. Comeau rose pursuant to notice of October 9, 1997:

That he will call the attention of the Senate to the 97th Inter-Parliamentary Conference, held at Seoul, Republic of Korea, from April 9 to 15, 1997.

Honourable senators, I have the honour to present the report of the Ninety-seventh Inter-Parliamentary Conference held in Seoul, Republic of Korea, from April 9 to 15, 1997, which was attended by our eminent colleagues, Senator Bosa, Senator Prud'homme and three members of the House of Commons.

Before speaking about the work of the conference, I should like to say a few words about the country where the meeting was held. Canada and Korea have long had beneficial relations. Canada's presence on the Korean peninsula goes back to the end of the 19th century, when Canadian missionaries began to play an important role in education and health. Official relations were established in 1947, however, with Canada's participation in the UN commission supervising the free election. The formal recognition of South Korea followed in 1949.

During the Korean War, which took place between 1950 and 1953, Canada provided a contingent of almost 27,000 soldiers, the third largest in the United Nations Command, and 516 died in combat. Wishing to pay tribute to the memory of these Canadian soldiers, one of our colleagues visited their final resting place to lay a wreath.

Canada supports wholeheartedly South Korea's efforts to improve relations with North Korea, and to reduce tensions on the divided peninsula, one of the last scenes of confrontation in the world left over from the cold war.

Bilateral relations have been noticeably improved through Canada's special partnership with Korea, which was the idea of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and of Premier Kim Yong-sam at the APEC summit in 1993.

The aim of this partnership was to allow both countries to be heard as middle powers in Asia-Pacific and to establish closer cooperation in the areas of trade, investment and political dialogue.

As evidence of solidarity and support for a special and closer partnership, Prime Minister Chrétien headed Team Canada, a delegation comprising 519 members, on a six-day visit to Seoul in January 1997.

The Prime Minister was accompanied by nine premiers and the head of the Yukon Territory, a number of mayors, the Minister for International Trade, the Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific, and a delegation of 350 people from the business community including representatives of areas such as science, technology, universities and other industrial sectors.

A number of agreements were signed during the visit, including agreements on international cooperation, agriculture, social security, immigration and telecommunications. Bilateral trade totalled $6 billion at the end of 1995. South Korea is the third largest importer of Canadian goods in Asia-Pacific and the sixth in the world. Canada's principal exports to South Korea include coal, mineral fuels, pulp and paper, organic chemical products, grain, aluminum products, iron or steel, fertilizers, energy products, tools, telecommunications equipment and aerospace products. Canada's two main exports, coal and iron or steel, represent 30 per cent of its exports to Korea.

Given the size of the Korean market for Canadian products and changes in relations with Asia-Pacific countries, the Canadian delegation felt that the conference represented an excellent opportunity not only to discuss the issues under consideration but to come to know this part of the world better.

[English]

In discussing the work carried out in Seoul, I would underline some of the strengths of this parliamentary association as a tool to promote Canadian interests and, in particular, various Canadian foreign policy initiatives. Far too frequently there is a tendency to view these conferences as merely an opportunity to see a new and different place. In reality, these conferences can be used to show what policies Canada would like to promote on the international stage.

At this point, we are all rightly proud of the work carried out by our foreign minister in achieving an international convention on the elimination of anti-personnel mines. It has been a struggle to get over 90 countries to sign on to the process, and it has involved work at various levels - ministerial contacts, meetings of officials, lobbying by NGOs, and promotion by legislators around the world.

The IPU has played its part in pushing, over the past three years, for a ban on land mines. You will be pleased to note that the Canadian group in particular has championed this cause at several IPU conferences and is viewed by its IPU colleagues as one of the strongest and most persistent promoters of this ban.

Against this background I should like to speak about some of the work at the Seoul conference. It will come as no surprise to many of you that I spoke at this international meeting on the devastation of coastal eco-systems, the depletion of many marine species and on the need for fisheries management and conservation. The importance of the conservation of fish stocks is a theme that the Canadian IPU group has advanced at several conferences following the incident off the coast of Newfoundland involving Spanish fishing vessels.

At the initiation of the Canadian and Spanish IPU groups, the April 1996 IPU conference held a full debate on this topic and concluded with a strongly worded statement on the need for international action to preserve fish stocks. At a time when our two governments were not talking, legislators from the two Parliaments were able to come together in a spirit of cooperation to continue a dialogue on the need to find reasonable solutions.

I want to mention the work of Senator Bosa at the Seoul conference. You will recall the difficulties that some Canadians have encountered because of the Helms-Burton law passed by the U.S. Congress to penalize officials and the families of officials associated with companies that conduct legitimate business with Cuba. It has been a worrisome issue that has strained relationships with our neighbours to the south. This issue has had significant implications for international trade and investment.

In Seoul, during a debate on cooperation for world and regional security and stability, as well as for all forms of sovereignty of independent states, Senator Bosa pointed out how the Helms-Burton act violated obligations under international agreements and is inconsistent with principles of international law. Many of our international colleagues were unaware of the dangerous precedents that could arise from this legislation.

Another example of parliamentary diplomacy that took place during the Seoul conference relates to our ongoing relations with the Asia-Pacific. Since 1979, more new immigrants to Canada have arrived from Asia than from Europe, a trend that is continuing. To date, over 2 million Canadians are of Asian origin, nearly 7 per cent of the Canadian population, and this percentage is increasing. The family ties, business connections and cultural exchanges have helped to forge and strengthen Canada's political and trade relationships with countries in this region of the world. It is only natural, therefore, that at the parliamentary level we should pursue links with the countries of the Asia-Pacific, including membership in the regional caucus known as the Asia-Pacific Group. Thus the leader of the Canadian delegation, the Honourable Sheila Finestone, met with Mr. Jemoon Chung Moon, Chairperson of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the National Assembly, and with Mr. Chung-Soo Park, leader of the Korean IPU representatives and current Chair of the IPU Asia-Pacific Group, to discuss Canadian involvement in this regional group.

Happily, I can report good support for this initiative and our group expects to participate in these meetings at the next conference. This is yet another way in which parliamentary associations can reinforce and support major foreign policy initiatives.

As the focal point for worldwide parliamentary dialogue since 1889, the Interparliamentary Union plays a valuable role in providing a forum where legislators from 135 countries can come together and discuss issues of international importance. At the same time, it fosters contacts and the exchange of experience among parliamentarians from many diverse backgrounds. Equally important is the opportunity for parliamentary diplomacy whereby parliamentarians can raise and promote issues of particular importance to their countries, their citizens and their governments.

I am proud of the work we accomplished in Seoul, which paved the way for extended negotiations and meetings held during the recent IPU conference in Cairo. I shall be speaking about that conference in a couple of weeks.

On motion of Senator Bosa, debate adjourned.

The Senate adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.

Back to top