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)

Debates of the Senate (Hansard)

1st Session, 36th Parliament,
Volume 137, Issue 96

Wednesday, November 25, 1998
The Honourable Gildas L. Molgat, Speaker

THE SENATE

Wednesday, November 25, 1998

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

Prayers.

SENATORS' STATEMENTS

The Late Michel Charles-Émile Trudeau

Tributes

Hon. Joyce Fairbairn: Honourable senators, last week Canadians from all parts of our country joined in sadness and affection for the family of Michel Trudeau, who lost his life in an avalanche while skiing with his friends in the beautiful mountain area of Kokanee Glacier Provincial Park, in British Columbia.

The fact that his parents, Pierre and Margaret, began their family while Mr. Trudeau was the prime minister of Canada drew special attention to this very private tragedy. The response was an outpouring of public empathy from grandparents and parents and brothers and sisters who shared a personal sense of grief at the loss of a beloved child - in this case, a young man who had lived his 23 years with vigour, happiness and freedom to explore the challenges and adventures of this incredible country.

It was a loving and supportive environment that was created and encouraged by his parents for Michel and his two brothers. Together, last Friday, they offered a strong and eloquent farewell to him during a moving memorial service in Montreal surrounded by old friends and a great group of young people, comrades of the three Trudeau boys.

As Canadians, we were reminded that in the end our leaders are truly part of our own life experience. In sorrow, we are all of the same family. As such, we send our heartfelt sympathy and good wishes to Pierre Trudeau, Margaret Kemper, their wonderful sons, Justin and Sacha, and all the members of their extended families for a loss which defies expression. May they find comfort in the knowledge that Micha will live on in the memories of us all.

[Translation]

Hon. Serge Joyal: Honourable senators, permit me for a moment to draw your attention to an event that shook all Canadians wherever they live: the tragic death on November 13 of Michel Trudeau, the youngest son of the Right Honourable Pierre Elliott Trudeau.

His death in such distressing circumstances calls into question our most intimate beliefs and the faith of all of us.

Why did fate snatch Michel Trudeau from his father, his mother, Margaret, his brothers Justin and Sacha, his half-brother and half-sisters, his family and his friends? We must look for the answer in whatever meaning we each give to our lives and to the importance of our immediate family.

Beyond filial and paternal love, Mr. Trudeau clearly remained committed to his personal values throughout his public life.

May I offer, by way of support, at such a difficult time, the words of French poet Charles Péguy:

...the essence lies not, the interest lies not, the question lies not in whether one or another policy succeeds, but rather whether in each order, system, belief, the belief transcends the policy it engenders.

Yes, honourable senators, "that the belief transcends the policy." Such is the challenge in public life, and as much or more so in our private lives. "That the belief transcends the tragic despair." At this particular time, Mr. Trudeau is having to face the greatest challenge there is in life: to know the true meaning of life.

Péguy's poem, Le Porche du mystère de la deuxième vertu, continues:

What I find astounding, God said, is hope. I find it totally astonishing. Hope looks so insignificant. Hope, so tiny, yet so immortal.

It is my hope, honourable senators, that Mr. Trudeau and his family may find hope, peace and tranquillity of heart and soul at this painful time.

[English]

(1340)

Hon. Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: Honourable senators, were the Greeks right? "Take heart" Aeschylus once wrote. "Suffering, when it climbs the highest, lasts but a little time." But, honourable senators, were the Greeks right?

A great teacher and rebbe, when he felt that he was about to die, wanted to make even his death a lesson. That night, the rebbe took a torch and set out through the forest with his prized student. When they reached the middle of the woods, the rebbe extinguished the torch without explanation. "What is the matter?" the student asked. "The torch has gone out," the rebbe answered, and walked on. "But," shouted the student fearfully, "will you leave me here in the dark?" "No, I will not leave you in the dark," called the rebbe from the surrounding blackness. "I will leave you searching for the light."

So say we about the premature passing of young Michel Trudeau that left us all searching for the light. This we know: Michel's own brief and brightly burning inner light will ever glow in the fond memories of those who watched him from birth and shared his company, if even for a moment.

Regretfully, senators, our words remain imperfect. Words are inexact. Words are ill-fitting. Words are of little consolation for the loss of a child. Yet, words are all we have to bridge the deep abyss of such a loss.

Spinoza wrote that the basis of wisdom lies not in a reflection on death but on a reflection of life. So we remember the curiosity and courage, the lure of the wild on land and sea that so possessed and occupied the young and active mind and body of Michel.

Albert Camus, suffering the tragic accidental loss of his children, ruminated on forgetting the pain. Later he wrote:

But sometimes in the middle of the night their wound would open afresh. And suddenly awake, they would finger its painful edges, they would recover their suffering anew and with it the stricken face of their love.

Can words, mere words, assuage the immutable grief of his family; his father, his mother, his brothers and his sisters? What of the loss of a son to whom the sceptre cannot be left? Is it enough to say, "He worked his work, I worked mine." No. "Tho' much is taken, much abides." No. "That which we are, we are." No.

With this passing can we learn more about the meaning of life or death? Perhaps. But we can hear. We can hear, from the vale, angels weeping.

Still, the Greeks haunt us. Sophocles wrote:

The long days store many things nearer to grief than joy....Death at least the deliverer.

Not to be born is, past all prizing, best...
Next best by far, when one has seen the light,
Is to go thither swiftly whence he came....

Mercifully, Aeschylus wrote:

God whose law it is that he who learns must suffer.
And even in our sleep, pain that cannot forget,
Falls drop by drop upon the heart,
And in our own despair, against our will,
Comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God.

Honourable senators, why do we share their loss and pain so deeply? Could it be that a tender moment in our own youthful remembrance of things past has been stolen from us so swiftly and so brutally? Thus we are diminished and can only pray for comprehension, if solely to fortify our own feelings.

May we recall the life of St. Viator, who as a youth, we are told, on account of his many eminent virtues, was much beloved by his elders, especially his mentor, St. Just.

So, we pray for Pierre, Margaret, the brothers and sisters, that sweet peace conduct Michel's soul swiftly to the "bosom of Abraham," and let us say amen. Mors omnibus communis.

Crime and Punishment

Hon. Gerry St. Germain: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak on a subject on which I have spoken many times before in this as well as the other place, that being crime and punishment.

During the recent Senate break, I had the opportunity to meet with some of my friends in the law enforcement community in British Columbia. They expressed to me their continuing frustration with the lack of support they receive from the judicial system and the government. The increase in crime against personal property and the lack of action of our judicial system through harsher sentences for these crimes is only one example of the lack of support.

The incidence of crime against property, in particular breaking and entering, has been steadily increasing for the past two years. Unfortunately, leading the pack in breaking and entering is my home province of British Columbia. Breaking and entering is a serious crime. In addition to the loss of property, it is also the invasion of personal space. It leaves victims extremely angry and, of more concern, fearful. Anyone who has experienced such a crime knows the feeling of vulnerability which follows it.

Although it is not news to me, my fellow senators may be shocked to learn that four of 10 B&Es are committed by youth between the ages of 12 and 17. My friends in law enforcement believe that this percentage of youth committing B&Es is even greater than statistics show.

However, the most disturbing aspect is that only 39 per cent of those convicted youth are sentenced to formal custody. The rate of custody sentences for adults convicted of the same crimes is almost 80 per cent, which I believe is a closer reflection of the seriousness of these offences.

Police departments across the country criticize the Department of Justice, saying that it has adopted the policy of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans of catch and release. We catch the criminals and then they are released to be caught again. Honourable senators, police officers are not conservation officers. They are not supposed to tag criminals for future research purposes.

Some people say that putting criminals in jail does not redeem them, that it only ends up costing Canadian taxpayers millions of dollars. I have heard colleagues in this and the other place make that same statement. Honourable senators, property crime does lead to hikes in costs to Canadians; not only financial costs but the personal cost of citizens feeling unsafe in their homes, which I believe is a much greater cost.

Private home invasions and house-breaking and entering must be taken more seriously. It requires the government's immediate attention rather than only lip service. Let us protect the innocent and deal effectively with the guilty.

Human Rights

Anniversary of Incident at APEC Conference in Vancouver

Hon. Erminie J. Cohen: Honourable senators, before I make my statement, I wish to add my voice to those of my colleagues on the other side in extending deepest sympathy to the family of the late Michel Trudeau. May his soul rest in peace.

I rise today in remembrance of the breach of fundamental human rights which took place at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Summit in Vancouver one year ago today. As we know, leaders of the Asia-Pacific region were meeting to discuss ways to realize economic liberalization and mutual prosperity. Some of those in attendance were leaders of democratic governments that respect universal human rights. Other participants, such as General Suharto, were not.

As a condition of his attendance at APEC, Suharto extracted the promise from Prime Minister Chrétien that demonstrators would not be permitted to embarrass him. However, students at the University of British Columbia, the host site of the conference, wished to demonstrate against this brutal dictator for his role in the genocide in East Timor.

On November 25, 1997, the final day of the conference, as the leaders' motorcade drove through the UBC campus, there were many demonstrators. RCMP officers, allegedly acting under direct orders of the Prime Minister and his office, ensured that the demonstrators were neutralized. Dozens of students were arrested, pepper-sprayed and physically assaulted for acts as benign as holding signs which simply read, "Free Speech." Many were rounded up and held without ever being charged. Violence and intimidation tactics which violate the person, such as strip-searching, were used to silence those students who had an important message they wished to share.

It is sad and ironic to note that this suppression of basic human rights occurred shortly before the launch of the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is equally sad, honourable senators, to note that little has been learned about the orders given which prompted RCMP officers to crush the demonstrations. Sadder still is the Prime Minister's apparent lack of understanding of the enormity of what happened on that day one year ago.

As the APEC saga unfolds, it is clear that fundamental rights of Canadians were compromised in Vancouver last year. We must congratulate those who experienced the abuse on their courage for speaking out against this treatment. Instead of taking a leadership role in the area of human rights, a role that Canada has become accustomed to and internationally noted for, the government allowed armed thugs to enter our country and pose a threat to our citizens. This is clearly unacceptable.

(1350)

Instead of supporting the rights of freedom of speech, expression and assembly guaranteed to each of us in our Constitution, our government let human rights violators direct us in dealings with our own citizens. This supports the old saying, "Be careful of the company you keep," for, as we saw, the behaviour does rub off.

On this, the one-year anniversary of the human rights violations at that APEC conference, let us pause for a moment to think about how the rights of those innocent Canadians were breached, and to encourage the government to take the steps needed to ensure that it never happens again.

Banning of Nuclear Testing

Congratulations to Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on Airing Documentary

Hon. A. Raynell Andreychuk: Honourable senators, yesterday the Senate passed third reading of Bill C-52, to implement the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty. Speakers' comments, including my own, dealt with compliance issues, defence and security issues, and political strategies.

I commend the CBC and The Journal magazine for airing a documentary yesterday on the prime testing site of the former Soviet Union in Kazakhstan. This documentary brought to our attention the human devastation on the population living in the affected area due to nuclear testing. Life expectancy has been diminished; cancers have accelerated with a breakdown of the immune system, thereby not allowing cancer treatment - even if this struggling country were able to afford it. This excellent documentary pointed out in graphic detail that nuclear testing will not ultimately say who is right in war but what we will be left with.

I commend CBC for this excellent piece of journalism, which should serve as a reminder to us all.

Human Rights

Anniversary of Incident at APEC Conference in Vancouver

Hon. Terry Stratton: Honourable senators, one year after students were harassed, pepper-sprayed, beaten and arrested at the 1997 APEC conference in Vancouver, Canadians are no closer to learning the truth about the Prime Minister's role in guiding security arrangements. Interestingly enough, over the past few months agents of the "forces of darkness" have gone on the offensive against witnesses to PMO involvement and student complainants at the hearings. They have spared no effort to muzzle the free reporting capability of the press. I cite as an example the CBC.

Since the Public Complaints Commission began its work in October of this year, considerable attention has been paid to the hearing process. There is a danger to this, though. The danger, honourable senators, is that Canadians may lose sight of the real object of analysis: the role played by the Prime Minister.

There is irrevocable proof that the PMO was heavily involved in guiding security arrangements at the APEC conference in order to spare Indonesian dictator Suharto from embarrassment. When Foreign Minister Lloyd Axworthy went to Jakarta in July, 1997, he was told by the Indonesian Foreign Minister that Suharto would boycott the APEC summit if demonstrators could not be controlled and the dignity of the president was sullied. In response to Suharto's threat of non-attendance, the Prime Minister wrote back, stating:

I have directed my officials to spare no effort to ensure that appropriate security and other arrangements are made for your stay in Canada as our guest.

An RCMP memo confirmed PMO involvement in police measure by noting:

...security perimeter will have to be adjusted at UBC re: protesters. PM specific wish that this is a retreat and leaders will not be distracted by demos, etcetera.

Even the Privy Council Office communicated that the Prime Minister himself would want to be consulted regarding security measures.

If the RCMP were under orders from the Prime Minister or representatives from his office, the ramifications for democracy in Canada are far-reaching. Such an action would shatter the principle that political parties in Parliament do not use police forces for partisan purposes or as a mechanism to pursue political interests. Additionally, there is considerable concern that such actions compromise the constitutionally guaranteed rights of Canadians to assemble freely, to express themselves and to demonstrate.

Unless a federal inquiry into the APEC matter is called, there is little chance that Canadians will ever know the extent to which the PMO was involved at APEC. The RCMP Act does not cover the conduct of the Prime Minister or his office. Canadians from coast to coast should be concerned about this issue. What happened one year ago speaks to the very foundation upon which democracy, accountability and human rights in Canada were built.

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

Canada Small Business Financing Bill

First Reading

The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that a message had been received from the House of Commons with Bill C-53, to increase the availability of financing for the establishment, expansion, modernization and improvement of small business.

Bill read first time.

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

On motion of Senator Carstairs, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading on Tuesday next, December 1, 1998.

Family Violence

Notice of Inquiry

Hon. Sharon Carstairs (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, pursuant to rule 57(2), I give notice that on Tuesday next, December 1, 1998, I will call the attention of the Senate to the magnitude of family violence in our society and, in particular, the need for collaborative efforts to seek solutions to the various aspects of this form of violence.

QUESTION PERIOD

Veterans Affairs

Equitable Treatment of Merchant Navy Veterans-Progress of Senate Private Member's Bill-Government Position

Hon. J. Michael Forrestall: Honourable senators, I had a question for the deputy leader. However, I see that she has left her seat, so perhaps I might put the question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. After all, he has big shoulders. He has been at this business for a long time.

A week ago today, Senator Perrault spoke quite glowingly - and I appreciate his kind words - with respect to Bill S-19, the private bill dealing with Merchant Navy war service recognition. The deputy house leader took the adjournment of the debate, and I have a strange feeling that she has no intention of returning to the debate. I should therefore like to ask her one or two questions with respect to government policy and position, and hers in particular. The leader and the deputy leader can work out an answer between them. I do not care who answers, as long as someone does.

Does the government not approve of the principles embedded in Bill S-19? If so, why would you not let the bill proceed to second reading, so that it might be dealt with in committee? Had Senator Perrault been correct that there was some suggestion of retroactivity which might have caused a problem with respect to financing, I am sure the law clerks and drafters for the Crown, the Library of Parliament and the very large number of people who looked very carefully for several months at that particular wording, would have noticed it. On the final analysis, I suspect that it would not have arisen, but we could have dealt with it in committee.

(1400)

Why is the government reluctant to have appropriate amendments put in that way? When is the government planning to table a bill in the other place with respect to Merchant Navy veterans - that is, the one that we have heard the Minister of Veterans Affairs speaking about lately? With possibly only two weeks left before the Christmas break and, perhaps, a prorogation later in January or early in February, does it not make more sense to deal with the bill that is already drafted, amend it to suit the government and send it off to the House of Commons for approval before that chamber adjourns, probably on December 7, 1998?

Could it be that the government has no intention of helping Merchant Navy war veterans, and that this stalling tactic is their way of postponing this matter until senators and members are away from this place, and the government can, once again, ignore the contributions of veterans?

Hon. Roch Bolduc: Good question!

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I heard Senator Bolduc clearly say "Good question," but I would add an "S" to the word "question." Many interesting questions were asked.

The matter remains on the Order Paper, and any honourable senator who wishes to speak to it is quite free to do so. Senator Forrestall introduced the private member's bill very eloquently, and was responded to in kind by my colleague Senator Perrault.

It is my understanding that the Minister of Veterans Affairs met directly with the Merchant Mariners today. I understand that they will meet with the appropriate committee in the other place tomorrow. Further, it is my understanding that the government has every intention of helping them. They are addressing the situation and not ignoring the plight of the Merchant Mariners. Omnibus legislation will be introduced by the government shortly - perhaps as early as next week. Obviously, I do not have my crystal ball in front of me, but I live in hope that legislation will be introduced shortly.

Status of Veterans Omnibus Bill-Government Position

Hon. J. Michael Forrestall: Honourable senators, God knows, we all live in hope. Hope, sometimes, is all that we have.

I wish to ask the Leader of the Government: What is the position of the government if this matter is not introduced in the House of Commons until one day next week? There is no possibility of it coming forward in the next day or two. Unless they really fast-track it through the House of Commons, the bill will not get to us before the house adjourns. In view of the possibility of prorogation, what happens then?

I hate dealing with hypothetical situations because it is difficult to do so, and we should avoid them in all cases, but would this be a matter where the government might ask for unanimous consent to have this bill restored to the Order Paper - that is, to exactly the same stage where it was at the time of prorogation?

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I have no information that prorogation is in the mind of the government. However, when you are considering options, you must consider everything that is out there. The legislation being proposed will contain substantive amendments that enhance certain benefits available to eligible veterans, including the Merchant Navy veterans. I would hope that we will not have to wait too long, Senator Forrestall, before we see the light of day and see, in crystal clear terms, just what the government proposes. I am hopeful that that will happen this week.

Senator Forrestall: It is very relevant and pertinent that we look closely at the amount of any award for back compensation that the government might put forward. We must be careful not to jeopardize certain rights that these veterans have now with respect to housing. I am trying to find a reasonable cause for the delay. If this is the dilemma, then you can tell us that this is the difficulty that is being faced, and as soon as we resolve that then we can deal with the substantive matter before us, which is growing very real. It is cold out there, and those gentlemen are beginning a strike that we thought had ended one month ago. That is to be regretted - and I hope it is by all of us.

Senator Graham: Honourable senators, I do not have the specifics of what will be proposed in the legislation. However, the omnibus bill will make changes to the existing veterans legislation for the benefit of all veterans, including Merchant Navy veterans. For example, some of the changes will involve increasing eligibility for what is known as the exceptional incapacity allowance, as well as an allowance to cover attendant costs for veterans who currently receive compensation for their time as prisoners of war. These changes will include the removal of a legal barrier that prevents survivors of certain pensioners on disability allowance from obtaining increased pension awards. I am not sure of all of the things that will be contained in the bill, but we may expect to find some of the substance of the things I have just mentioned.

An Hon. Senator: That would be a great bill!

Human Rights

Treatment of Demonstrators at APEC Conference in Vancouver-Absence of Apology from Prime Minister-Government Position

Hon. David Tkachuk: Honourable senators, the Prime Minister has had a long history of avoiding using the words "I am sorry." Like the Fonz on the show Happy Days, who could not said the word "wrong," the Prime Minister cannot say the words "I am sorry." Yet he had the Minister of Finance, Paul Martin, apologize over breaking the promise to eliminate the GST, and he had Sheila Copps apologize over the broken GST promise. However, the Prime Minister could never say that he had misled the Canadian people. The government's shameful performance over the Airbus affair also did not elicit an apology from the Prime Minister. The same trend is now seen regarding the APEC scandal. The Prime Minister will not use the phrase "I am sorry."

We are aware that a problem cannot be dealt with until a problem is admitted. Even in the face of a cabinet resignation, the Prime Minister has remained unapologetic. When will the Prime Minister issue an official apology for the suffering incurred by the demonstrators at last year's APEC conference?

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, if the Prime Minister were so inclined, he would do so himself. The Prime Minister is very concerned that the Public Complaints Commission be allowed to do its work. We thought that the next important juncture would come today when the Public Complaints Commission would be continuing its hearing, but that has been postponed until tomorrow. Several matters must still be considered by the Federal Court.

Senator Tkachuk: Honourable senators, we have here an interesting situation where the abuse of human rights is compounded by the abuse of parliamentary rights. The Public Complaints Commission has nothing to do with the behaviour of the Prime Minister and his staff as it relates to the APEC affair. It is the responsibility of the Prime Minister and his cabinet here in this Parliament to explain to us what happened.

(1410)

It is not the responsibility of the commission. They are responsible for investigating the RCMP. They are certainly not responsible for investigating the Prime Minister's Office. The Prime Minister has an obligation to come clean with the Canadian people and to address this issue before his colleagues in the Parliament of Canada.

Senator Graham: Honourable senators, the Public Complaints Commission was established -

Senator Berntson: To investigate complaints against the RCMP.

Senator Graham: - by an act of Parliament by the previous government. The Prime Minister's Chief of Staff, as I said yesterday, and his former director of operations have both volunteered, on their own, to appear before the Public Complaints Commission. I suggest that we allow the Public Complaints Commission to get on with its work. We will see what happens tomorrow. It is hoped that they can begin again to hear witnesses as quickly and expeditiously as possible.

Senator Tkachuk: Honourable senators, I do not understand. If no responsibility is taken before Parliament for the actions of the Prime Minister, then perhaps the former solicitor general's conversation in that plane was correct about having the RCMP take the fall. By not speaking up, I believe that the Prime Minister is telling the Canadian people that the RCMP is at fault and that he had nothing to do with it.

I do not buy it. Nobody buys it. Ignoring the issue and delaying dealing with the Solicitor General on this issue previous to the APEC conference shows a neglect of duty. If the Prime Minister did interfere directly and bypassed the Solicitor General, then he definitely abused his power and authority as Prime Minister. He must come clean and tell parliamentarians exactly what was going on. He must not hide under the cover of the police commission in British Columbia.

Senator Graham: The honourable senator did not ask a question, but I will make a comment. This Prime Minister does not hide from anyone. This is an honourable Prime Minister who leads this country both in Canada and around the world with great success, with dignity, with grace and with a forcefulness that we have not seen in a long time.

Solicitor General

Commission of Inquiry into Treatment of Protestors at APEC Conference by RCMP-Status of Employees in Prime Minister's Office Under Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act-Government Position

Hon. Noël A. Kinsella (Acting Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, is it now the position of the Leader of the Government in the Senate that Mr. Jean Carle, formerly employed in the Prime Minister's Office, is employed pursuant to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act; for it would require one to be employed under that act in order for one's conduct to be the subject of an inquiry by the RCMP Public Complaints Commission.

That is the provision that we were happy to support in the bill. Section 45.35(1) refers to any member or other person appointed or employed under the authority of the RCMP Act.

Honourable senators, is the leader telling us that Jean Carle was appointed pursuant to the RCMP Act, or is he telling us, in fact, that his conduct cannot be investigated by the commission?

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, it is to the contrary. Mr. Carle does not come under the RCMP Act, but he has voluntarily come forward and said that he is prepared to testify as to what took place with respect to any of the APEC proceedings in Vancouver in which he was involved. He has come forward on his own and volunteered to be a part of the process. I believe Mr. Carle and Mr. Pelletier should be commended for their actions in this respect.

Senator Kinsella: Honourable senators, how does the Honourable Leader of the Government explain that the law of Parliament, on which the government is relying in this matter, provides that only conduct in the performance of any duty or function under this act can be the subject matter of inquiry by the RCMP Public Complaints Commission? The conduct of people who are not employed pursuant to this act may not be the subject of inquiry by that commission. What is the leader telling us here? Is the government making up new rules as they go along or are they complying with this act? Clearly, they cannot have it both ways.

Senator Graham: The Public Complaints Commission was set up through an act of Parliament. The Public Complaints Commission is free to call any witnesses it wishes.

Senator Kinsella: Into whose conduct are they inquiring?

Senator Graham: What is the problem? Are you afraid of the testimony that might be given by Mr. Pelletier and Mr. Carle?

Senator Kinsella: Honourable senators, it is Canadians who are afraid - afraid that they might be witnessing a big cover-up. It is assumed that Canadians are naive to the fact.

The RCMP Act, which honourable senators can read for themselves, addresses this point in section 45.35. The act provides that the conduct of people employed under the RCMP Act can be investigated by the RCMP Public Complaints Commission.

I am afraid that Mr. Carle's and Mr. Pelletier's conduct will not be investigated by any independent tribunal. The Public Complaints Commission certainly cannot do it.

Senator Graham: I have the greatest respect for the intelligence and the research that is carried on daily by Senator Kinsella, but clearly he has it backwards. The Public Complaints Commission was established by an act of Parliament by the previous government. It is recognized in Canada and internationally as one of the most effective bodies of its kind.

This is a very serious matter. It has captured the attention of Canadians from coast to coast. Now we have a suggestion - I can only conclude from Senator Kinsella's questioning - that the Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister and the former director of operations should not appear to clarify the role or roles they might have played leading up to and during the APEC conference. I suggest hearing such testimony would be a positive move.

We should be grateful that two people in such important positions have come forward voluntarily to appear and give their evidence before the commission, to be questioned by commission counsel as to their role or any other roles that were played by people in the Prime Minister's Office.

Hon. David Tkachuk: Honourable senators, that is an interesting point, but if people from the Prime Minister's Office are to appear, will they appear on their own behalf or on behalf of the Prime Minister?

Senator Graham: Honourable senators, this is due process, as suggested by the Honourable Senator Grafstein. The Public Complaints Commission is free to invite any witnesses they wish. Because they have been mentioned so often, the Chief of Staff and the former director of operations have come forward voluntarily to offer their testimony. I believe they should be commended for that as Canadian citizens. Because they occupied such sensitive positions in the Prime Minister's Office, I believe they will bring more clarity to this whole situation. We should allow the commission to get on with its work so that we can all learn what happened during that period of time.

Commission of Inquiry into Treatment of Protestors at APEC Conference by RCMP-Responsibility for Filing of Government Affidavit Triggering Resignation of Minister-Government Position

Hon. Terry Stratton: Honourable senators, in The Globe and Mail today is a story which carries an ominous message for all of us who dare to challenge the will of the PMO. The article leads off with this assertion:

Officials in the Prime Minister's Office are scrambling to find out who torpedoed Andy Scott, furious that they lost a cabinet minister over an ill-advised affidavit filed by their own government lawyer.

The article refers to a Liberal working with the PMO who stated that Fred Toole's affidavit led to the resignation of Andy Scott.

Who authorized federal government lawyer Ivan Whitehall to deposit Toole's affidavit with the APEC inquiry? Once identified, will that person face disciplinary action from the government?

(1420)

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): It is another clear indication of the transparency in the Prime Minister's Office, and the manner in which that office works. The government's solicitor was permitted to proceed on his own to have Mr. Toole file an affidavit, and we all know the consequences of that action.

Senator Stratton: I have heard you reach before, but that was a spectacular reach.

If that person is protected by solicitor-client privilege, is it reasonable to assume that knowledge of who ordered Toole's affidavit deposited with the inquiry will forever remain a secret, or on that premise, is it logical to state that any act of retribution taken against a person believed to have made that order will be carried out by breaking that privilege?

Senator Graham: Here again, perhaps Senator Stratton can help us all, because he has the information. He was reading from some documents. Was it Mr. Whitehall who asked Mr. Toole to file an affidavit? Is that the answer to the question? If that is the answer to the question, then Mr. Whitehall acted on his own -

Senator Berntson: Then he should be dismissed.

Senator Graham: - as the solicitor, and he had the affidavit filed properly.

Commission of Inquiry into Treatment of Protestors at APEC Conference by RCMP-Authority of Commission to Examine Conduct of Other Individuals-Government Position

Hon. Marjory LeBreton: Honourable senators, the Public Complaints Commission and the External Review Committee were both formed under our government for two specific reasons: The Public Complaints Commission was to allow the public a forum in which to deal with issues concerning the RCMP, and the External Review Committee was a body set up to allow the RCMP to deal with matters within itself.

Even if the Prime Minister's director of operations and Chief of Staff testify, the commission is dealing with the acts of the RCMP, and there is no provision for them to deal with the actions of the Prime Minister's Office.

The Leader of the Government said that the Prime Minister does not hide from things. If that is the truth, why does he not allow a full-blown commission of inquiry to get to the truth of this matter, instead of hiding behind the Public Complaints Commission?

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): Why did you establish the Public Complaints Commission in the first place? You set up the Public Complaints Commission to examine exactly the problem that we have before us today.

Senator LeBreton is suggesting that the Public Complaints Commission and its members do not have the ability to conduct such an examination. I tell you, as I said earlier, that that commission enjoys a reputation second to none among commissions of its kind, both in Canada and abroad. I suggest again that we allow the commission to get on with its work.

Senator LeBreton: Thank you for the compliment. It is a good commission, but it is set up specifically to allow the public a forum in which to deal with matters regarding the RCMP. The fact of the matter is that there is no provision for this body to delve into the role of the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister's Office.

The disturbing thing about that article in The Globe and Mail today is that they were found out; they were caught. They are mad because they were caught with this affidavit.

Interestingly enough, today on Newsworld, questions were being asked during a call-in show. The public out there is starting to pay attention, and they want an independent judicial inquiry.

Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I would like some clarification to ensure that we all understand the authority of the Public Complaints Commission. Do I understand from the Leader of the Government's comments that that commission has the authority to examine the conduct of individuals other than members of the RCMP?

Senator Graham: Yes, as it may apply to events in which the RCMP was involved.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Senator Kinsella has quoted the act. By the way, there was no special legislation creating the complaints commission. The setting up of the complaints commission was done by way of an amendment to the RCMP Act, explaining exactly what the RCMP Public Complaints Commission is. It is supposedly - and hopefully - an arm's-length agency of the RCMP which, in turn, is an agency of the Ministry of the Solicitor General. The purpose of the complaints commission is to examine complaints against members of the RCMP, and no one else. How could a complaints commission of a police department have the authority to examine complaints against other than members of that police service? We have civilian review boards and police review commissions, all responsible for looking into the behaviour and perceived misconduct of members of a particular police authority. This is what the RCMP complaints commission is all about.

I do not understand how Senator Graham can see in the act the power of the complaints commission to pass judgment on the behaviour of other than members of the RCMP, and how Mr. Carle and Mr. Pelletier come under that umbrella is beyond me.

Senator Graham: I am sure that while Mr. Pelletier and Mr. Carle have volunteered to testify, it may very well be that the members of the commission, in their wisdom, will decide that they do not wish to hear from Mr. Carle or Mr. Pelletier. If that is the case, fine. That decision will be taken by the members of the commission. However, they will act, I am sure, because they are all respected individuals, and they are all knowledgeable about the act and about the law under which they will be operating. I respect their judgment. They will be able to determine whether or not Mr. Carle and Mr. Pelletier should appear, and whether those individuals can give testimony concerning actions relating to the performance of the RCMP on that particular occasion.

United Nations

Reasons for Abstention on Vote on New Agenda coalition Resolution to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons-Government Position

Hon. Douglas Roche: I direct my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Yesterday saw third reading of Bill C-52, but there is still some unfinished business. I refer to the New Agenda Coalition resolution, on which Canada recently abstained at the UN Disarmament Committee, and on which the full General Assembly will vote on December 3.

I previously requested, but have yet to receive, an explanation of precisely what was in the resolution that prevented Canada from supporting it. I have the resolution here, and I have studied it. It calls for the nuclear weapons states to make an unequivocal commitment to commencing negotiations to eliminate nuclear weapons.

As Senator Andreychuk indicated yesterday, there was widespread support in the Senate for this resolution. I cannot believe that Liberal senators would oppose a resolution which fits perfectly into the Liberal Red Book policy supporting nuclear disarmament.

Since 97 nations, a majority, have already voted for this resolution, will the Leader of the Government tell the Senate the precise words or passages in the resolution that prevented Canada from voting for it, and will the Leader take the question before the proper authorities in order to have Canada's vote changed to "yes" on December 3?

Hon. B. Alasdair Graham (Leader of the Government): I promised Senator Roche that I would try to fine-tune the answer I originally gave a few weeks ago. At that time, I said that I did not think, in Canada's view, that the resolution went far enough to meet Canada's desires.

(1430)

I promised that I would get back to the honourable senator on that matter, and I regret that I have not been able to provide a more appropriate response to Senator Roche's legitimate question. However, I note what he has said about an upcoming vote on December 3, and I shall certainly bring his representation, and the representations of other honourable senators, to the attention of those who will be responsible for Canada's vote on that particular day.

Senator Roche: Honourable senators, I thank the leader for that. I hope he does not mind my pressing him, but I do so on behalf of 92 per cent of Canadians who want the Canadian government to take a leading role on this issue.

Can the leader assure the Senate that the Canadian government assessed the New Agenda Coalition resolution on it own merits, and that Canada's decision was not the result of any pressure applied to Canada by a nuclear weapons state not to support that resolution?

Senator Graham: Honourable senators, the answer to the first question is very much in the affirmative, and obviously the answer to the second question would be in the negative.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

National Defence Act

Bill to Amend-Report of Committee Adopted

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the fifteenth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs (Bill C-25, to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, with an amendment and observations), presented in the Senate on November 24, 1998.

Hon. Lorna Milne moved the adoption of the report.

She said: Honourable senators, I rise today to discuss the fifteenth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on Bill C-25, to amend the National Defence Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Your committee is generally supportive of Bill C-25, as it embodies needed changes to the National Defence Act, a piece of legislation which has not been significantly amended since it was first enacted in 1950. We also recognize that the military justice system is unique and must operate separately from the civilian system. However, the committee still has concerns about some of the changes proposed to the military justice system by Bill C-25.

Military justice must operate, and be seen to operate, in an independent, effective and objective fashion. Having amended clause 96 of the bill to ensure that regular, independent reviews of the provisions and operations of the proposed legislation are conducted, the committee expects the Department of National Defence to have considered and addressed our concerns in the course of the first legislative review, if not before.

The committee's concerns include, first, clause 42 of the bill. We appreciate the steps taken to strengthen the institutional independence of military judges, specifically making military judges Governor-in-Council appointees like other federally appointed judges; lengthening appointments to a fixed term of five years; and establishing special advisory committees on the appointment, reappointment and remuneration process for military judges. However, we are still troubled by the fact that terms for military judges are renewable. Moreover, it appears that clause 42 could leave entirely to the regulations the membership of the proposed renewal committee and the criteria to be followed for reappointment. The committee feels very strongly that such important matters should be spelled out clearly to avoid any real or perceived executive interference in the reappointment process.

Indeed, the committee is generally concerned about the matters pertaining to the military justice system which will still be implemented by means of regulations - the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Armed Forces. As I am sure honourable senators know, these regulations are exempt from the usual process of publication in the Canada Gazette and parliamentary scrutiny under the Statutory Instruments Act.

The committee's second concern relates to clauses 42 and 82 of the bill. The proposed positions of Director of Military Prosecutions and Director of Defence Counsel Services appear to have different tenure security. Specifically, your committee questions the fact that a recommendation from a special inquiry committee would be required for the removal of the Director of Military Prosecutions, but there is no such safeguard for the Director of Defence Counsel Services. This is particularly concerning in light of the fact that the Director of Defence Counsel Services is responsible for the representation of accused people who would, by the very nature of the possible offence, be in an adversarial relation with the chain of command; a chain of command which includes the Minister of National Defence, the person responsible for the director's appointment, reappointment and possible removal from office.

Third, the committee supports the recommendation of the Special Advisory Group on Military Justice and Military Police Investigation Services, headed by the late Brian Dickson, that the Code of Service Discipline be re-enacted as a separate statute outside of the National Defence Act. While the committee appreciates the difficulty of incorporating such a change into the extensive set of amendments proposed in Bill C-25, we urge the Department of National Defence to proceed with the implementation of this recommendation.

Honourable senators, the concerns of your committee need to be addressed by the Department of National Defence in order to ensure that the Canadian Forces as an institution not only meet the special needs of its personnel but also reflect our traditional Canadian legal values. This amendment will ensure that Parliament has the opportunity to study these issues at least every five years. Independent reviews of the system may also assist the Department of National Defence in its own policy-making process by forcing Parliament to acknowledge the department's concerns every five years.

Honourable senators, once again, by introducing this amendment, we have improved legislation from the other place and demonstrated our value to the Canadian legislative process. Once more we can be proud of the service that we have performed for the Canadian public and, in this case, the Canadian military.

Hon. Gérald-A. Beaudoin: Honourable senators, members of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs have had the good fortune to hear many experts on military courts. We have in our country a judicial system that is strong and independent. The main part of the system is composed of civil and criminal courts and, at the very top, the Supreme Court of Canada. The court of last resort has referred to the military courts as being a parallel system.

In the Généreux case of 1992, the top court stated that the courts martial, as they were at that time, were not as independent as they should be; their structures did not respond adequately to the criteria established by the Supreme Court in the Valente case. Following the Généreux case, the court martial system was reformed.

Cases on the independence of the judiciary, such as the P.E.I. case, the Lauzon case and some other cases, have defined what is the principle of the independence of the judiciary.

(1440)

In my view, Bill C-25 is a good effort to comply with the principle as defined. Obviously, the bill is also an attempt to implement the report of Mr. Justice Brian Dickson, who chaired a special committee established to improve the court martial system in Canada.

The report is most interesting. Unfortunately, the Right Honourable Brian Dickson died before our hearings began. However, General Belzile and some others appeared before us and they were very useful.

Generally, I agree with Bill C-25 and the proposed amendment. No doubt, much work has been done by the Department of National Defence. I wish to congratulate them; but the situation is not yet perfect. The proposed amendment provides that the Department of National Defence will need to make a regular report, an amendment with which I could not agree more.

The report of the committee explains that some parts of the bill have to be given further consideration. Those considerations may lead to amendments. Should we do that now or wait for the first report which will be made after five years of the coming into force of Bill C-25? That is the question.

[Translation]

Among the questions that arise, I wonder why the regulations are not being studied by the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. To remedy this situation, the Statutory Instruments Act would have to be amended. But that is not before us at the present time. Our committee is not mandated to amend the Statutory Instruments Act at the present time. The bill can, however, be amended in certain areas that have been identified in our report.

I understand that our colleague Senator Pierre-Claude Nolin is currently examining the matter for third reading.

[English]

In conclusion, I should like to remind honourable senators of the beautiful phrase of Lord Ewart in the Sussex case of 1925 who said that not only should justice be done, it should also be seen to be done.

Hon. Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: Honourable senators, the profession of arms in defence of one's country is the ultimate act of citizenry. Is not the onus higher on Parliament to guarantee that those who so serve are subject to a military justice system that is a model of fairness and balance? This is the organizing principle behind Bill C-25, a fulsome renovation of the National Defence Act. The task is made complex because of the imperative to maintain the command structure that lies at the core of our defence establishment - indeed, any military establishment.

Through this almost impenetrable thicket we were guided by the final commission handed to the late Mr. Justice Brian Dickson, who was retained to examine and make recommendations to reform our military justice system. This massive reform had to satisfy conflicting appetites. It is hard to sustain the delicate balance between military effectiveness and justice to the members of the military establishment and the citizens it serves.

The Code of Service Discipline; the independence of the judiciary and the appropriate prosecutorial and investigatory roles; the rights of the accused and the citizens; and the role of the command structure itself all required carefully sculptured legislative principles to attain the appropriate equilibrium and effectiveness, all consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms under the Constitution as interpreted by recent judical precedent, including the Supreme Court of Canada, and as outlined by our colleague opposite.

Thus, honourable senators, this report articulates our concerns, in particular the need to establish a Code of Service Discipline as a separate statute, as recommended by Mr. Justice Dickson. We recognize, however, that Rome was not built in a day. The military justice system incorporated in the National Defence Act has not been examined or reformed in over 50 years. Meanwhile, the defence mandate and missions have changed dramatically.

Therefore, honourable senators, we detailed our concerns in the concise report which I commend to all students of law. After enumerating and describing these concerns, we on the committee decided the best way to dissolve our concerns was to allow the newly renovated system to start its work and then to mandate an independent review in five years, and every five years thereafter. Hence, our one unanimous recommendation to amend this act. We believe that this will ensure that the military justice system will not be left to languish in the future, crowded out, as it has been in the past, by the always too busy parliamentary agenda. Our report will serve as a calculus for future reform.

May I commend the officers and the military establishment who laboured long and hard to present Canada with the modern progressive system of justice that we believe will be a source of pride and fairness to all Canadians? This is what the military wants. This is what the service deserves. This is what Canadians demand.

On closing, I would like to commend my Senate colleagues on the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, its chairman and staff, for the long and assiduous work that we completed in a spirit of expertise and nonpartisanship to ensure that our military, which has been neglected, would now have a transparent and equitable justice system that can only enhance their pride and their place, to which they are so rightly entitled.

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, if no other honourable senator wishes to speak, I will proceed with the motion.

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

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Motion agreed to and report adopted.

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

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

Royal Assent Bill

Consideration of Report of Committee-Motion in Amendment-Debate Continued

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Milne, seconded by the Honourable Senator Bryden, for the adoption of the twelfth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs (Bill S-15, respecting the declaration of royal assent by the Governor General in the Queen's name to bills passed by the Houses of Parliament, with amendments) presented in the Senate on June 18, 1998,

And on the motion in amendment of the Honourable Senator Grafstein, seconded by the Honourable Senator Pépin, that the report be not now adopted, but that it be referred back to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for further consideration. -(Honourable Senator Cools).

Hon. Anne C. Cools: Honourable senators, this motion stands adjourned in my name. I simply have not had the time to give it my attention, though the subject matter is of great interest to me.

In addition, Senator Grafstein has informed me that it is his intention to proceed early next week with his interventions on this motion.

Honourable senators, might this matter be adjourned in the name of the Honourable Senator Grafstein?

The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I regret to inform the Senate that this presents a problem. The motion can only stand in the name of the Honourable Senator Grafstein with leave of the Senate, unless some other honourable senator wishes to speak to it.

(1450)

Hon. Noël Kinsella (Acting Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I am not convinced that this matter needs to be sent back to the committee for review. However, since the mover of the amendment has an opportunity to speak last on his amendment, I will listen with an open mind to what he has to say. Nevertheless, I think the committee dealt with the issue and surveyed the matter clearly. I will await Senator Grafstein's comments before making a final determination on the amendment.

I move the adjournment of the debate.

Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I have more than a passing interest in this bill, since I am the sponsor of it. Senator Grafstein has already spoken. I do not know whether he is entitled to speak again at this stage. With regard to the number of days that this item is allowed to stand on the Order Paper, will tomorrow be day one or day 15? I hope there is a general will to keep this matter alive.

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Kinsella has spoken on this matter today, as has Senator Cools. Therefore, it is my understanding that its status will revert to day one, and therefore will not die.

However, there will be a problem with Senator Grafstein's speaking again because he has already spoken to the amendment, and there is no right to close debate on an amendment. However, he will be allowed to speak again if the Senate gives leave.

On motion of Senator Kinsella, debate adjourned.

The Senate adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.

Back to top